Drawn to Drivel
I love music and I also watch X-Factor, an apparent contradiction, but it would be disingenuous
to overstate some superior disdain for the latter’s attachment to a notional
shared love. It is without question first and foremost a commercial vehicle for
Simon Cowell, and in this respect it is also unquestionably a massive success:
the current worldwide popularity of One Direction – a boy band I don’t mind at
all though I equally don’t really know their ‘work’ in any detail – a case in colossally
lucrative point. But there have been
musically sound discoveries/productions, for example two I have referenced in
this blog: Cher Lloyd [who has certainly found success in America], and more
assuredly, to my mind, Rebecca Ferguson who is releasing her second album Freedom tomorrow.
Like many, I enjoy watching the programme’s early auditions
for their absurdities – dangerously exploitative at times, I know – and the
genuine talent displayed, as fleeting as this so often appears to be: real
talent can be sustained and across a range, not just that singularly prepared
piece that coalesces transiently with the limitations of a karaoke perfection.
In the current series, and of those who now remain, Sam Bailey is clearly a consummately
talented singer. She exemplifies the potential for this programme to ‘find’
undiscovered excellence and then promote it for that essence, were in not for
the constant reference to recording and selling albums, a commercial rather
than artistic aspiration on behalf of the contestant. Sam Bailey is also
consummately the type of hidden talent who has been concealed precisely by the
media/social/fashion manipulation that now promotes her: she was not
stereotypically pretty nor personable, being rather ordinary in appearance and manner,
though her prison warder’s job provided just enough edge to prove interesting in
the persona-shaping stakes at the very start and since.
Most of the above is in fact a digression from what I wanted
to write about, but as I’ve started: the other interesting current survivor is Tamera
Foster. At only 16 years old and another natural singer, her stereotypical good
looks combined to make her the obvious commercial front-runner, and for those
of us hopelessly optimistic about these things, it was possible to imagine she
might mature into a singer of genuine credibility. However, this teenager whose
dabbling in smoking dope and shoplifting made her quite realistic [and I am not saying all teenagers take drugs and
thieve, I’m just saying she had a quite believable adolescent experience] has
now been sanitised and presented as the bland adult she so clearly isn’t. All she
now talks about is her church, her family, and her other safe options for the
future. I totally understand her playing the game in the hope – real and
orchestrated for her – for a successful future, but in her case it has struck
me more than with others before that this has totally stripped her of whatever
youthful identity she had managed to make for herself, either by design or
accident. And it has affected her singing. Not the forgetting of lyrics [and it
wouldn’t surprise me that this was by craft] but in the blandness that has
usurped an earlier edgy beauty.
The one gutsy singer who of course ought to have won the ‘competition’
outright was obviously Hannah Barrett, but her proclivity for acting and, more
importantly, speaking naturally and spontaneously meant she didn’t fit the
pre-ordained mould, and sadly not just that demanded by the programme-makers,
but also the public who have been themselves shaped by the expectations of the
whole phenomenal edifice.
But I still watch it. And I shout and complain and get
angry, especially at the manufactured back-stories and tears, but then I always
remind myself that this is precisely the lazy and guilty and addictive pleasure
of watching. However, I am nearly at ironic breaking point when it comes to the
conduct of the current ‘judges’, my initial reason for writing this posting.
They too have been a key part of the programme’s enduring stupidity and irrelevance
– and there’s little need to revisit historic examples – but the present panel
takes incredulity to an absolute absurdity. I initially quite liked Nicole
Scherzinger’s natural sass and exuberance, especially at the audition stages
where she seemed to exude an instinctive feel for and celebration of good
performances, but her descent into baby-talk [Hannah-banana], testicle-talk [balls
this and balls that] and the Sch surname-prefixing of adjectives [schbangtastic or whatever] is
mind-numbing as well as neologism-numbing. Sharon Osbourne cackles and guffaws
and then modulates her spoken drivel through the most annoyingly screeching and
squealing registers. Louie Walsh’s inane platitudes used to offer an element of
surprise in their relentless ability to be sustained, but my masochistic listener’s
pleasure has been squashed by their extraordinary weight of banality. And the
main point is that these three have managed to make the prosaic observations
from Gary Barlow seem insightful, his focus at least being on the actual
performance, though this has trawled the observational nadir of having ‘nailed
it’ or been ‘pitchy’.
I rest my case, and will no doubt watch next week.
I rest my case, and will no doubt watch next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment