I remember sitting in Simon's office with him playing me the videos for the first auditions (Pop Idol then if I remember).

Yes the auditions can be funny but I thought we'd covered the ground with the Gong Show.

Perhaps I'm getting old.

I have the TV on and a laptop.

Will somebody please tell me why Simon and co(bless `em, no offence) look for the same voices every year?
I love the young people that are so pleased with their achievement and I am pleased for them.
But X Factor is just cloning "stars".

This is not right, inevitably music will bomb further and people (and singers) will cry , hopelessly.."where did we go wrong......?" in a faint and perfect warble.

Jeeez! Put Shane from the Pogues on there and tell me he has no X Factor. Music is about human feeling.

I agree with you both. My question is when is this rubbish going to stop. I am not watching as I cannot take the ridicule of the people who have been through several auditions before being put on tv to be mocked. With these are the ones put in by agents and they always have a sob story, together with a history that doesn't quite fit the sob story, when eventually all is revealed. Yawn ...

Yeeeeaaawwwnnn....

Here we go again. Boredom central all the way till December and another lame and bland Christmas number one.

you really don't get it , do you. Not a single major label has the balls to develop traditional pop acts, ie, those who do not write. They would rather give us Razorlight clones.

Yet Mr Cowell consitantly delivers artists you could find struggling with development and gigs , myspace and northern clubs and gives them HITS. And all you can do is...moan?

forget the sideshow of the mentally ill and deluded, record companies get demos from them every week. The fact that Will Young, Brookstein and Leona were drifting about for years in the wilderness is more pertinant. The plot is the TV show, the songs are adequate and sometimes amazing (Will Young 'leave right now') It is what it is, if you disagree find an alternative. Hijak Oskar , anyone?

Bring back New Faces!! More variety of talent required. The format is sooooo tired now.

De-caf you are spot on. At least X-Factor will give us something fresh and an alternative to the monotony of indie guitar bands and singer/songwriter types. For all those people who are fed up of X-Factor, well i'm fed up of all these 3rd rate Beatles clones and guitar bands who have delivered nothing original in the last 100 years (figure of speech). At least Leona, Leon and Leo don't pretend to be uber-talented songwriters.

De Caf you are NOT spot on. How can anyone in this climate afford to take an artist on who has so little interest in his/her work that they cannot write a song or even dreamed one up in the shower, that is total crap.
Stick the people back in karaoke contests where they belong, thus the " in the know" , know what this Xmas`s number one in the UK will be anyway as a result (including the title) of this awful TV show, the viewers await in wonderment.
You fail me my friend, on this occasion.

Mart wrote:
I have the TV on and a laptop.

Will somebody please tell me why Simon and co(bless `em, no offence) look for the same voices every year?
I love the young people that are so pleased with their achievement and I am pleased for them.
But X Factor is just cloning "stars".

This is not right, inevitably music will bomb further and people (and singers) will cry , hopelessly.."where did we go wrong......?" in a faint and perfect warble.

Jeeez! Put Shane from the Pogues on there and tell me he has no X Factor. Music is about human feeling.
Actually, what will happen is that they'll switch over to the 2 Ronnie re-runs on the other channel.

These are TV shows, not music shows.

I don't see the connection. Just becuase the beatles who could do both 40 years ago and Dylan , who can't sing a note, set a trend, we would all be worse off without Robbie, The Monkees,Madonna, almost everyone at Motown, SAW, Otis Redding, Elvis Presley,Dionne Warwick, etc, similarly Leiber and Stoller, Bernie Taupin, Guy Chambers, Don Black should never have been and were not judged on carrying a tune. Ad infenitum ad nauseum.

The two talents are just that, they do not have to be contingent. Spare me 98% of 'singer/songwriters'. Ugghhhhhh

Mart wrote:
De Caf you are NOT spot on. How can anyone in this climate afford to take an artist on who has so little interest in his/her work that they cannot write a song or even dreamed one up in the shower, that is total crap.
Stick the people back in karaoke contests where they belong, thus the " in the know" , know what this Xmas`s number one in the UK will be anyway as a result (including the title) of this awful TV show, the viewers await in wonderment.
You fail me my friend, on this occasion.
I don't think I can agree that the singers/performers should necessarily write their own songs to be considered "great".

The song writer being part of an act is fairly recent thing emerging in the late 1950s.

There are many stellar artistes who have only performed other people's work.

(Although having said that the whole X-Factor thing is pretty bad.)

I'd sooner hear less of singer/songwriter twats who feel that their credibility is ensured by writing their own stuff. Very unfair comment, Mart...I'd sooner hear a great singer sing someone else's song, than a mediocre singer/songwriter annihilate their own pioor material.

Fair comments and interesting to hear the views.

I still differ on this, I for one do not like the continued "schooling" of our artists to be, in any form.
The only form of this that Morrisey had for example, was on how to hold his voice up for a tour.
Johnny Cash had no training, Bowie only dance training, Leonard Cohen, zilch...I could make a long list but I won`t at this time.

Now , where my theory falls down is the way that Take That turned it all around from looking like puppets and showing real meaning in their works.

Interesting debate, no apologies from me on this one, I don`t believe I am the only one that feels this way.
If we all felt the same, life would be very boring.

I have nothing against any of it - there are great performers and interpreters who simply sing, others who write and don't perform, some who do both and all in equal measures.

I myself am an adequate singer with a weak voice but good interpretive skills and imagination. A very good lyric writer and an average melody writer.

None of us are ever perfect.

But very few in TV contests have great ability and my worry is that instant fame prevents vital nurture.

I always felt that music should not be a competition when I was growing up, this was of course very naive as we are all in a competition to sell against each other.

I was terrified about what would happen after I got my young band here their "huge break" and I still watch and coach, as they get over it.
Any manager has to understand how the ups and downs of the business create havoc on the particularly young peoples minds.

A televised and very public debacle of demeaning people who are trying to sound like "so and so" is simply degrading and will create a lifetime of self mockery.

I`m a crap singer, but I mean it!!

In the 60s Mart it wasn't a competition.

We all just tried to make great music.

As you'll see if you check out the 1965 chart in my Photos section.

www.kingofhits.co.uk/component/option,co...id,54/?g2_itemId=680

Mart wrote:
Fair comments and interesting to hear the views.

I still differ on this, I for one do not like the continued "schooling" of our artists to be, in any form.
The only form of this that Morrisey had for example, was on how to hold his voice up for a tour.
Johnny Cash had no training, Bowie only dance training, Leonard Cohen, zilch...I could make a long list but I won`t at this time.

Now , where my theory falls down is the way that Take That turned it all around from looking like puppets and showing real meaning in their works.

Interesting debate, no apologies from me on this one, I don`t believe I am the only one that feels this way.
If we all felt the same, life would be very boring.
Actually I think there are two points here occupying the same space.

1. There are excellent performers who's performance is a genuine talent in itself.

2. There are mediocre performers carried by huge exposure/publicity.

On paper they look the same but they certainly don't sound the same.

On the over-schooling - it seems sometimes the very thing that makes a performer/group interesting is the first casualty to the marketing department.

Both very good points Zoo, my friend, and you are of course.

I can`t disagree, but I will agree on the "casualty dept" over two times with you.

I do not like the abuse behind the music industry of the attitude of "when the kid dies , we will all make more money".
And that is what these TV shows smell of to me.

Mart wrote:
Both very good points Zoo, my friend, and you are of course.

I can`t disagree, but I will agree on the "casualty dept" over two times with you.

I do not like the abuse behind the music industry of the attitude of "when the kid dies , we will all make more money".
And that is what these TV shows smell of to me.
(Cheers )

The "when the kid dies" aspect of all this does trouble me a bit.

When X-factor et al show the "can't sing - can't dance" entries it's heading towards laughing at the lunatic's "antics" in Bedlam.

Obviously Cowell and Co are only present on some sort of recall stage so those there probably believe they're in with a chance... yeah sure, a chance to be ridiculed.

As I point the accusing finger there are indeed 3 fingers pointing back as for me it is the more entertaining part of the whole thing - by the time we reach the anodyne finalists stage I find it pretty boring.

As with Big Brother it seems the way to keep interest and refresh the format is to include the more dysfunctional people. Surely there comes a point when we a cross a line that reduces us to spectators at Bedlam

I can`t fault that quote Zoo and there stand I.