|
I agree. Most of the people don't have any talent at all and just want their 15 minutes of fame.
Even if it means 15 minutes of embarrassed fail. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
TRUE!!! Except in Britain. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
This is absolutely correct. Talent shows are not about talent, they are about appearing trendy in a
fleeting sort of way, popular, scandalous--and sometimes all three at the same time. Anyone who has
seen American Idol would probably agree that possessing singing or performing ability comprises only
a small part of the winning equation. You have to get the crowd to like you. If you're telegenic,
then people may be more receptive to your performance, even if you are a mediocre singer. If, on the
other hand, you can perform relatively well, but do not strike the viewers as physically appealing,
you're gone.
Televised talent shows breed mediocrity all around and while most of the participants can sing, so
can my 86 year old grandmother--but she never had an audience. The contestants are usually just
average when it comes to singing and most of them do not seem to have a creative streak in them.
They just re-hash old tunes from prominent, iconic singers. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Yes, but the kicker is that's partly because the producers and judges deliberately keep those
deluded into thinking they have talent in the mix so it can add controversy to their shows and get
more people to watch. If everyone sang like angels then half their viewers would get bored and
change the channel. In fact massive false confidence during the audition stage is exactly what
makes the highlight reels and carries the contestants through several levels of the competition.
It's almost like they coach people in advance to become egomaniacs. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
 |
|
I think there is a balance of talented and non-talented people. The ones who don't have talent
usually end up being put through to the semi-finals simply because they make the judges laugh.
Take Britain's Got Talent for example, there were several people who did ridiculous things and sung
horribly in their auditions but they managed to get through because the judges thought they were
different and the audience loved it.
Talent shows don't necessarily have to be about talent. People who enter can appeal to the public
simply because they are bad at what they do. In a strange way, they are talented because their act
is amusing.
Like Brock said, the ones with the talent usually fade away and aren't really heard of again whereas
the ones who aren't as talented usually end up famous. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Talent shows give both talented and non talented performers. The non talent is used for humor, while
the talent moves on. These are things I'm sure you could never do, like sing, dance, or write and
tell jokes. The winner of these shows rarely become famous, but the one's that come in second and so
on, become the new entertainment of America. Sad but true. What do you consider talent? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
04 Jul 2008 10:07
Sign In
For and Against Recent Activity
