Right - it's no secret I've thought X Factor was lame this year. The talent was lacking in a lot of the finalists, and there were a lot of problems. Mentoring in particular needs an overhaul: The judges cannot give good, constructive criticism and advice if they invested in select groups of contestants as their mentor. We saw it this year with Simon, who wouldn't say a word against his contestants, even when they were awful. If Olly had been mentored by Louis, imagine the harsh comments he'd have made - tacky, like a bad wedding singer, etc. - a) They need to concentrate on the contestants as individuals. If Jamie's a rocker, find out what he's passionate about and give him the right songs. We need to see the contestants develop as artists so we know who they'll be when they emerge.
- b) They need a seperate team of mentors - Yvie Burnett is a must for vocal coaching, but they'll need advice on stage presence and stuff like that. I think Brian Friedman needs to go as creative director though.
- c) The theme weeks are a disaster - look at Jamie Afro, Rachel Adedeji who ended up singing songs that didn't suit them. Scrap the themes and give the contestants the right songs - it'll create a bit more variety on the night as well!
- d) The winner's song - it can't be a boring power ballad. That's unimaginative and bad for the winner. Give them a song that'll compete in the charts and stop with the schmaltzy key-change nonsense.
What do you guys think? |
|
|
|
« Last Edit: December 23, 2009, 02:41:11 AM by Gerard »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would agree with Danduriez that there are far better examples of nepotism than Simon and Olly - Cheryl was AWFUL this year as a judge and offered no constructive criticism to any of the acts, and particularly just went "I've really bonded with you" blah blah, which is helpful and valid only in the final. I'm all for supporting your acts, but Lloyd was shocking this year, so he needed to be told it and given constructive criticism.
I've said it elsewhere, the ONLY mentor to give any form of constructive criticism to other acts, and to LISTEN to criticism from other mentors and try to improve their acts' success was Dannii. She is, reportedly, the mentor who puts the most emotional investment into their acts, and she's a great example of how the mentor system DOES work...and yet she gets no credit, from the producers, from the judges and the majority of the X Factor fan base who are too busy saying she wants to be like Kylie.
I personally like the idea of KEEPING the mentor system, as it adds a fun twist to the show when it's done right, as it has been in the past.
But this year lacked a certain something overall, and I think it can be seen in the first week. Simon was giving standing ovations to his own acts in every single show, which really destroyed his integrity as Mr Nasty and as the judge with the best advice. I'll get in trouble for saying it, but Danyl Johnson didn't deserve a standing ovation at ANY point in the competition. In fact, i would say there were one or two performances, aside from Joe's that received standing ovations, that truly deserved them - Stacey's Somewhere and Who Wants To Live Forever. By giving so many standing ovations so early, there was a lack of journey and a lack of the real feeling that receiving one is very special. So the SERIOUS ego-boosting of their own acts is where the mentoring has failed this year.
I think Brian, as creative director, should be working with them on confidence building which is the key to stage presence and really performing to pop star standard. Some acts had this, but acts like Lucie and Stacey needed a bit more help in terms of opening up and really connecting with the audience. Stacey grew throughout the show, but in order to connect with an act, the audience needs to see gradual growth, which was seen with Joe and with Olly - from their auditions, they grew and grew into performers, which is what made them more popular.
I think "disaster" is a bit of an exaggeration in terms of theme weeks. I really look forward to theme weeks, and i know a lot of people do as well. Some acts will obviously find it harder to cope with theme weeks, but if you took theme weeks away, the acts would sing the same sort of songs over and over and over again. With the theme weeks, they're given the chance to sing songs they usually wouldn't and we as the audience get a chance to see how versatile they CAN be. It doesn't necessarily mean they WILL be this versatile in their career, but their strengths and weaknesses come out, and give the producers a chance to see how the winner will slot into the music scene. Through theme weeks, we heard Alexandra sing beautiful ballads like You Are So Beautiful, and we got to see her do tracks like Toxic, to show us the range of her talents.
The part of the blog i would 100% agree with is the winner's song. Power ballads have their place, but they're too cheesy pie now. Last year's wasn't bad, and I can still listen to Hallelujah, but I think that was something to do with the winner herself rather than her song. If you look at all the winners' songs in reality show history, i would say that there is ONE that has stood the absolute test of time - Sound of the Underground by Girls Aloud. It was an absolutely great pop song, a new song and something that laid the groundwork for what we know today about the Girls Aloud sound. I'm sure it just wouldn't be feasible for there to be a different winner's song for each finalist, but if they could employ a team of songwriters to write an ORIGINAL winner's song that was different to the expected track and also a valid pop song that could stand at least the test of 5 years, then people would be more inclined to go out and buy it and people MIGHT get off their Facebook high horse.
It's very difficult to pick a song that works for everyone. Olly stood NO chance with The Climb. Eoghan Quigg last year woulf have found it near impossible with Hallelujah. And the year before, even the WINNER found their Winner's Song difficult. I think even writing a new song that would easily accomodate the talents of ALL the last 4, and that also remained as an entertaining pop song would give the show a bit more credit and people would accept the song more. I mean That's My Goal wasn't exactly great, but at least it was original!!
Those are just my thoughts. I love the X Factor format as it is, but I also feel like one or two tweaks need to be made to make up for the lacklustre feeling of the live shows this year.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
i agree with half of this, The part about the themes is completly true...i found that really stupid. But i think that it is entertaining... i bet that at leats 20% of the people who aduitioned but did not get through were decent singers. I think that you can not be normal, to get through... they said yes to people who had history That guy who came 4 times i think they said yes even though he was not that good. I think that it is entertaining and i disagree with some of that... Love the x-factor.. and britains got talent. For these who agree with this and who watch Strictly Come Dancing... i could say the same for that.  i do not like the way the treated Arleane Philips. Thanks. |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
You know what would be really cool for the winner's song? If each finalist sat down with a musical mentor and wrote their own.
At the end of the day, I can stomach a lot from X Factor as long as it's a fairly serious attempt to find a star. That was the fundamental problem this year, I think.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
But it's easier to get Rage Against The Machine to be Christmas No 1, then to have Simon Cowell to overhaul his X-factor formula.
How to convince the production team of the X-factor to upgrade the rules of the show?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
I agree with a lot of what you have written Gerard. I honestly believe that theme weeks should be knocked on the head - they might be good for some but unfair on others. I don't agree with a judge (Cheryl in this instance) performing on stage just to propel her own career. The week she sang (or mimed terribly) she lost total concentration on her acts - in fact they had to mentor her. The final of the X-factor this year was a bit of a shambles. I always look forward to the finalists singing Christmas songs or carols but this year, nothing.
I also think that X-factor should take on board that there are a lot of bands (people who sing and play instruments) out there trying to get a start on a pop career. They haven't got a chance whilst the X-factor continues to have singing groups (minus instruments) and solo singers, it is a bit too repetitive.
I'm not keen on Brian as a creative director, I think he goes overboard sometimes. I also think the judges should not have the final say with regard to the bottom two. They should either announce the bottom two on the Saturday night and let the public decide on the Sunday night, or, alternatively, let the audience decide who out of the bottom two should leave.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
I would like to see theme weeks go they are a daft idea, acts will be suited to particular styles of music and I don't think people will get fed up with it as you would get better performances. Look at Westlife for example they have been going years but sing the same type of song but still sell huge amounts of records. Plus if they are going to have theme weeks The decision as to what they will be should be made before the start of the series, it is unfair that Simon decides that week because this year in particular he was choosing themes more suited to his favourite singer rather than what would suit everyone. I also agree that at the end of the Saturday show or beginning of the Sunday show they should say who is in the bottom two and the phone lines re-open for the public to decide on who they think should be saved or go home. Cheryl concentrated on her solo career too much and neglected her acts she was very lucky that Joe was mature enough to perform without her support. She was being paid 1.2 million pounds for doing the X-Factor and knew the schedule so should have waited until it finished before commencing on her solo career, but then off course where else would she have got such a massive audience for her debut   |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
i think they need to base it like strictly in terms of judges and have seperate mentors who are actual voice coaches.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Right - it's no secret I've thought X Factor was lame this year. The talent was lacking in a lot of the finalists, and there were a lot of problems. Mentoring in particular needs an overhaul: Gerard I've thought this for a long time.
We saw it this year with Simon, who wouldn't say a word against his contestants, even when they were awful. If Olly had been mentored by Louis, imagine the harsh comments he'd have made - tacky, like a bad wedding singer, etc. - a) They need to concentrate on the contestants as individuals. If Jamie's a rocker, find out what he's passionate about and give him the right songs. We need to see the contestants develop as artists so we know who they'll be when they emerge.
I would say what needs developing is that which makes them individually different. If you look at the past pop stars who were in the charts it was not because they sounded the same , they were anything but that, instead it was because they were distinctly different. They all had a sound that was unique to them. They also had an image to go with it.- b) They need a seperate team of mentors - Yvie Burnett is a must for vocal coaching, but they'll need advice on stage presence and stuff like that. I think Brian Friedman needs to go as creative director though.
I would say they need an entirely new team in. A team that is currently working in Music Education and also the arts bodies. Not a freelancing voice coach such as Yvie. - c) The theme weeks are a disaster - look at Jamie Afro, Rachel Adedeji who ended up singing songs that didn't suit them. Scrap the themes and give the contestants the right songs - it'll create a bit more variety on the night as well!
To do this you would need specific teachers of singing and specific mentors within the industry representing each type of wanabe singer. I agree the theme weeks are a waste of time and only serve to show those less able to cope with real variety. - d) The winner's song - it can't be a boring power ballad. That's unimaginative and bad for the winner. Give them a song that'll compete in the charts and stop with the schmaltzy key-change nonsense.
I don't agree with this one. A power ballad is a real voice tester, although it would be true to say that the best singers don't always make it into the charts.
I also think the programme should be run over a longer period of time and that the show should finish a good 4 weeks before christmas. This is to allow the last three contestants the chance to compete for a place in the charts around the festive time of year but not particularly spot on in the christmas week. This would be purely to kill off the comments that Simon Cowell has killed the christmas number one.
[/list] What do you guys think? I think there are some good ideas here Gerard. If only the producers would listen to the viewers they might end up with a better show. Here is another few changes I think which should take place, I don't agree with the idea that every week someone should go home. I actually feel the wanabes should be given a chance to understand what its like to compete a for few weeks. At this point in time the viewers vote should be public and an independent panel should express what was good and what was bad. I think that the first three weeks should run with all the contestants until the 3rd heat when the bottom two should go home having been given the chance to prove themselves. Another three weeks down the line the bottom two should go again and so on until you have three left. The three who are then left need to prepare a full 30 minute act in which to impress a number of audiences over three seperate weeks. Social club, Civic hall, a small theatre. At these venues friends and family should not be in the audience. Here comes the final stage of judging the show. A number of A and R men representing the top three companies should be asked to attend and remain anonymous. However, a report should come back to the studio heat detailing who the industry feels the most able to have a longer term professional career, plus recommended further mentoring and training routes for the contestants once the show is over. In the final heat there should one winner who gains a recording contract and one person who is then given a full year of training to build their stamina so that they can tour in the second year after the show. The winning act should be encouraged to perform live in small civic halls and theatres for 30- 45 mins each time for a full year. Eventually building up to do two 45 minute sets. This way the wanabe winner gets the chance to gain some real performing experience infront of paying audiences. An audience which does not have to pay for a ticket is generally a none appreciative audience. Maureen ageing tart |
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
I don't know Maureen, some of those suggestions might not work, or be confusing in a television format.
I'm surprised that you disagreed with the winner's song, having said about working towards a singer's strengths. Surely if the act is a rapper or urban act, making them sing a power ballad is totally against their target market?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Cor Blimey Maureen. Are we talking about the same show or have you created a whole new programme? Lol.
Some good suggestions but a bit long winded.
I agree with Gerard in that I don't think a ballad should be a winners song. 'Climb' is something that you are more likely to hear Daniel O'Donnell sing. Next time if Danni and Cheryl (both singers - debatable) get their acts in the final three they should sing with their acts instead of bringing on someone else.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Or we could petition the Beeb to bring back Fame Academy?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Hello Gerard,
Fame Academy was a better programme but it was also limiting to contestants all coming from a training in music background. You don't have that lets open the doors potential of finding someone raw.
Re- comment about rappers singing power ballads. I think the show needs to decide whether it wants to be a singing contest or whether its going to search for an enterainment artist of our time. In which case rappers would appear by the handful and not one would be distinctly different from each other.
Re - target market. Saturday night television aims to please people 35 plus in age plus a large number of people who are retired. So the target market is not children or teenagers?
However, this years X factor did attract a large teenage and under vote as a result of Jedward and Lloyd lasting so long in the show. So the voting here was not because they were supporting someone they thought was truly talented but people who appealed to their sense of fun, and attraction. If you view the comments on the bloggs you would see that the language used is of youth.
It must be difficult for television companies to design a programme suitable for a cross section of ages.
A power ballad is a test song for anyone who wants to have a career in music particularly singing. But it should not be tackled until several normal standard classic pop songs have been accomplished well.
Maureen
Ageing tart
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
I find this thread a little bit laughable really.You either support this programme or not.Perhaps you can tinker with the format a little,but there is not going to be any major shifts in what the programme outputs.ITV is a commercial channel & the X-factor is very much a commercialy led enterprize.1)You can support the programme monotory wise by phone voting, purchasing the musical output etc.2)You can watch the programme as a bystander (as I do) & only contribute in a small way by increasing viewing figures thus advertising revenue to ITV etc.3)You can refuse to have anything to do with the programme or any of it's output as many do.
The X-factor is a very successful commercial enterprize, the only way the format is going to be changed in a major way as many of you are suggesting is if people actually voted with their feet i.e. a combination of 2) & 3).
Personally I would prefer if popular music would develope more organically.I am not a supporter of 'speed success' at all, which this format supports.It can be good fun, but these artists will not generally stand up to the organically developed artists.I don't now why people put so much credence on these artists or even other pop stars foistured upon us by major labels.
The internet is here - use it.You might find some genuine talent out there which is more suited to your taste in music.Mass appeal does not equate to quality.Although if these overtly commercially backed artists have less support then genuine talent may have greater prominance.This is what happened during the late '60's & early '70's remember - fantastic period in music in a variety of different genres.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
|
