First, as an update to my BGT audition - I received an email (Eventually) in early march stating I had not made it past the pre-audition rounds to the judges stages. I am not exactly surprised nor disappointed in this result for various reasons which I shall go into shortly.
As a result of my personal experience from my audition as well as the researching I have been finding over the course of this project on TV talent shows- my opinion of them in light of this research has changed perhaps a little bit and has shed some light on a particular genre of TV that intrigues me, as well as the millions of viewers it seems to attract. The fundamental opinion on what I perceive TV talent shows to be however, remains the same. Through research into the construction of this genre I have found particularly through Susan Boyle's story- that the narrative devices used and the way the shows are put-together in terms of editing, music and camera shots are actually incredibly simple and obvious- which I suppose is the appeal as it makes for easy watching. In the defence of the producers of the show they are trying to create drama, tension, personalities and conflict all from some very brief 5 minute (or sometimes shorter) auditions. It could be said that some of their portrayal of people because of this heavy-handed approach comes across from anywhere between over-dramatic and downright insulting. It is in my opinion however undeniably entertaining. I am sure there is another research project which wishes to delve into human nature to work out why we, as an audience, love to watch people fail and be completely humiliated on television. There is an almost gladiatorial aspect of people placed in front of a studio audience and judges and having to face the challenge and contend with the dreaded "buzzers" and audience reaction. It is somewhat akin to gladiators being thrown into a pit to fight the lions.
You could argue in some respects that the producers of the shows lacks morals to purposely go out of their way to place "weird" and frankly in some cases questionably borderline mentally-ill people in front of a big audience, because they expect them to be entertaining and be humiliated. The fact is as my own pre-audition experience has taught me- the producers don't ask any questions (in my case) they are wanting a very basic snippet of you in which to judge you. If this was truly a talent show in the traditional sense then there would be nothing but fantastic performers but this show's primary agenda is of course entertainment and that just happens to involve the questionable practice of letting go of many top singers and making way for the select awful people. In that sense the ultimate goal of entertainment and creating a story from contestants, and the "reality TV" aspect of it shines through more, undermining the talent show format it follows. In the truest sense I don't believe these are really talent shows for that reason. You don't go to your towns local talent show hoping "I REALLY hope there's rubbish people here so I can boo them!" in fact, talent shows are usually an inviting and friendly situation. The need for instant-fame and the prospect of appearing on TV makes the TV talent show a gateway for the overnight-celebrity and attracts people somewhat devoid of the talent part. I should say there are some occasions where there are exceptions and some worthy people finally get the recognition they deserve and couldn't achieve for years- this is a fantastic opportunity when presented to the right people.
Speaking of talent shows I wish to conclude this with an observation and opinion on a recent experience from my foray into "Callington's Got Talent" on Sat 17th March 2012. My home town. I had entered and sang Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" on guitar. There were sound issues with the balance that night because the tech guy wasn't quite on the ball, so my guitar was too loud. I had came second place to some 86-year old who sang a few johnny cash songs despite a sub-par voice to be frank, and even his performance suffered from a loose jack lead. We were not competing that night for a record contract nor incredible fame, but rather a "golden pasty" award. Our audience was not a packed out theatre with cameras whizzing over our heads, but rather a half-filled town hall with a sea of mildly-entertained pensioners and the odd annoying child. This experience however, was far more important than my audition in London. Where as in London I was competing for a spot on a reality TV show where fame and fortune was a possibility overnight, here I was doing what performers have been doing for decades -earning your spot in the spotlight. Playing music live to an audience, and craft and honing your skills as a musician and performer in small venues. I didn't get a spot on ITV during a prime Saturday night slot that night- but I did get experience. I got some small offers for local gigs, a couple of handshakes from people who enjoyed my performance, an invitation to an open mic night and an invitation to a choir. So there's a result. And with that I join the ranks of the millions of musicians around the world trying to make a name for themselves and enjoying what they do. We may not get overnight success or appear on television. We may never play to huge crowds of people or get the recognition we deserve or at least think we deserve. We keep true to ourselves and our craft and work our way up the ladder, because that's how the music industry works.
That said, I will watch Britain's Got Talent when it comes back on our screens this year, and I'll be intrigued to see those plumbers and gardeners with tragic stories who can sing opera surprisingly well, or little Jessica who is 5 years old and can do some impressive acrobatics. Or the man who dresses like a giraffe and plays the trumpet rather poorly, because that's entertaining, and that's how television works.
Monday, 19 March 2012
Friday, 16 March 2012
Biblography
The
TV Talent show story. (2012). London: ITV. 7
January 2012.
[television series].
Pop
Idol. (2001). London: ITV. 6
October 2001.
[television series]
The
X Factor UK. (2004). London: ITV. 4
September 2004
[television series]
(2010).
The
Mail Online[online]
London. The Daily Mail .. Available from:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1254549/X-Factor-winner-Steve-Brookstein-plays-pubs-Simon-Cowell-fall-out.html
Walker
, T., (2011). The
7 Story Archetypes, and How They Can Dramatically Improve Your
Marketing. [online]
October
31, 2011
.. Available from:
http://socialmediatoday.com/tommyismyname/383348/7-story-archetypes-and-how-they-can-dramatically-improve-your-marketing
Pateman,
T., (2005).
Structuralism
and Narrative
[online]
London:
Falmer Press 1991
..
Available from http://www.selectedworks.co.uk/structuralism.html
Diana
C. Mutz., (1998). THE
INFLUENCE OF PERCEPTIONS
OF
MEDIA INFLUENCE: THIRD PERSON EFFECTS AND THE
PUBLIC
EXPRESSION OF OPINIONS [Online] The
World Association for Public Opinion Research
.. Available from
http://ijpor.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/3.full.pdf+html
Starpulse
(2006) .. Available from
http://www.starpulse.com/news/index.php/2006/05/26/image_matters_much_more_these_days_lamen
YouTube [online] .. Available from http://www.youtube.com/
Jersley,
A., (2002).
Realism and "reality" in film and media [online] Copenhagen
: Museum Tusculanum Press, University of Copenhagen
.. Available
from:http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=7Phh6whmm4EC&oi=fnd&pg=PA159&dq=reality+tv&ots=YMUXaP1PYv&sig=cBvJqTlYoSXtEVbPLM9ItbO5i-c#v=onepage&q=reality%20tv&f=false
/
Andrejevic
,
M., (2003). Reality
TV: the work of being watched
[online]
.. Available from:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=AcKSJFjNN00C&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=how+real+is+reality+tv&ots=hSC6ChjrTt&sig=JzRxAQ1j7Dmyufx9CA5EVQAxADw#v=onepage&q=how%20real%20is%20reality%20tv&f=false
Brenton
,
S., Cohen , R., (2003). Shooting
people: adventures in reality TV
..
Available from:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?hl=en&lr=&id=k7Ckwy6OZKsC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=reality+tv&ots=dUKmb2AO1T&sig=xs_xuG8RSI-ZAGRKGjcp2YdEuuI#v=onepage&q=reality%20tv&f=false
Susan Boyle case study - In-depth clip analysis
To truly pick-apart why the Susan Boyle story was so successful . I wish to look at the carefully constructed segment of the show that had her audition, and how the editing, use of music and camera shots is used to construct a narrative that will appeal to the audience and ultimately have the desired effect that the producers want. For the purposes of this analysis I will be using the following clip from YouTube, that has the entirety of the segment that was broadcast on ITV in August of 2009.
"At the moment I live alone with my cat Pepples...never been married, never been kissed"
"At the moment I live alone with my cat Pepples...never been married, never been kissed"
These
are some of the opening lines that we hear from Susan Boyle during
her pre-audition segment. The shows producers wishes to establish
that she doesn't work, lives alone with her cat and has never kissed
a man. This early segment is also accompanied by a music track that
whilst hard to describe I can only summarise as "bumbling"
- as if out of some slapstick comedy from the early 50's that sets
the tone immediately (when coupled with her introduction) that she is
a bit of a strange character. The oddball lady that lives at home
with her cat is of course a classic stereotype that I think they are
trying to lean into here. When she is introducing herself there is a
shot that is used here-
She
is seen to be standing awkwardly and smiling to herself in the
backstage area. An important shot that is used I think to distance
herself from anyone else. Nobody there is supporting her. And she is
stood awkwardly seemingly smiling at nothing in the room, with nobody
near her. The reality of course is that she may have been smiling to
someone across the room, and most contestants look nervous/awkward
before an audition as I learnt first-hand.
She
then proceeds to walk on stage doing a somewhat quirky walk- the
sound of audience members laughing and wolf-whistling (in a rude and
sarcastic gesture) can be heard throughout the entire audition before
she starts to sing. It's interesting to note that these sounds didn't
have to be included to a point because the shows producers can decide
the audio levels on certain things. It's inevitable in that live open
space that sound is going to be picked up from the audience but there
will be multiple audio recording devices in and around the
environment. As the judges start to ask her questions she is asked
where she comes from - to which she replies West Lothian. and seems
to stumble upon finding the term to describe it.
"It's
a collection of...it's a collection of...villages. Had to think
there"
This
was obviously selected and used because it fits perfectly in the
producers motive to make her come across as odd, and in this case
forgetful, and arguably stupid. Or at least they are trying to imply
that. The reality of course is this doesn't reflect her intelligence
at all. Many contestants will find themselves stumbling over basic
questions and forgetting things because it is such a high-pressured
environment. Stood up on a stage with TV judges , surrounded by
cameras, and stood in front of an audience of a couple thousand and
it's obvious that the situation can make anyone nervous. The editor
could of and probably has cut out such stumbles from other
contestant's audition footage but this was perfect for that they
needed.
This
segment features numerous judge-reaction shots.
When
she is asked how old she is- she replies for 47. The crowd is heard
reacting to it and the judges facial expressions are used throughout
the following segment as a reaction to the answers she is giving.
This is further reinforcing to the viewers of the show that by this
point the TV judges and the studio audience is very much against her
and has already judged her. By that sentiment- the producers of the
show naturally want the viewer to either side against her and judge
her based on what has been showed, or side with her in a way that the
viewer will want her to succeed against them. The following shot is
absolutely crucial and seems to have gained the most response from my
research on observing YouTube comments on the clip. When Susan is
asked what she wants to do she responds with "I am trying to be
a professional singer" to which immediately after there is a
very brief cut-away to a group of girls in the audience laughing- one
of which makes a very obvious eye-roll to Susan's suggestion.
This
was obviously selected to be used at that moment as an obvious
indication that the audience is against her and her dreams of
becoming a singer are somehow a very far-fetched notion and
unattainable in the viewers eyes. I find it interesting that there
was a camera pointing at these group of girls at that very time -
when cameras are going to be limited in how they can capture the
audience. I think there is arguably a reason behind why they are
young teenage girls as well- The majority of the viewers at home will
largely be young teenage girls- so therefore it is establishing a
group of figures in the audience, that the viewers at home can relate
to. It's also setting up perhaps the perfect contrast- young teenage
girls are the ones likely to be more concerned with image and looks
than anyone else, and it has to be said that these girls could be
defined as the typical "pretty" young girls that are
judging this 47-year old. The wider context could be read into of
course- that it represents but a slice of that argument of "image
vs personality" - because here we have the standard definition
of young and attractive- who are seen pre-judging the "ugly"
but themselves coming across as having a negative portrayal of their
personalities. The YouTube comments would seem to reflect that upon
viewing this very brief portion of clip - the girls become almost the
villains and are rather ironically pre-judged by the internet and tv
viewers alike for being horrible in their reaction.
"The
girl that rolled
her
eyes at Susan when Susan said she wanted to be a professional singer.
She should die -.-"
[Youtube,
2012]
There
are many many strong opinions through comments on any given Susan
Boyle clip related to this moment. I honestly believe that part of it
is almost out of guilt that we ourselves would not like to believe we
are so pre-judgemental in society, when as it shows so far that the
clip is constructed in a way that hopes we have that reaction. The
reality is- it's a small clip of a girl rolling her eyes which
judging by the audio from the crowd was by far not the worst reaction
Susan got. It's important to note that editing can always make things
seem a certain way when that clip may have in fact not been from that
audition at all- but from another one. The girl's reaction may not
have even been at that particular point in time, or even related to
that situation. The reaction that the girl seems to be getting is
absolutely on par with, and an absolutely brilliant companion piece
to the pre-judging of Susan Boyle. The viewers now on Susan's side-
deems and judges the girl who rolls her eyes as a villain-like figure
whose actions are seen as a reflection of a judgemental society in
itself.
Before
Susan begins to sing and the backing track kicks in- we are shown a
short and quick montage of the judges reactions and some of the
audience as a way to raise the suspense even further that the room
are expecting the singing to be dreadful and have already assumed it
would be. The pay-off then occurs- She begins to sing and the room
almost immediately begins to clap and cheer. Another quick montage is
then seen in the exact same fashion yet this time revealing the
excitement and utter surprise that Susan has come out with this
singing voice.
Reaction
shots- judge Amanda Holden is seen dropping her jaw in sudden
surprise.
It's
at this point that the shots used is clearly trying to convey the
sudden shift in opinion. Whereas previously members of the
audience were seen to be against her- here they are cheering wildly,
clapping and there is an atmosphere of the room changing from hostile
to supportive. An important shot that is used here is a sweeping shot
showing the audience members eventually all rising and clapping, the
standing ovations is naturally a fairly powerful image in which to
convey this audience support.
At
one point during the performance it cuts to a low-angle shot that is
positioned directly behind Susan as he is singing to the audience.
This
is quite a powerful shot- the figure of Boyle, the now performer-
against the backdrop of the studio audience who are now in standing
ovation. The low-angle perspective and wide angle could symbolise the
fact that Susan has now won over the audience and judges and is in a
sense "owning" the theatre now with her performance and
stage presence. This shot really sets her up as a "superstar"
image with just seeing her figure and the way she is standing on the
stage- This shot very much reminds me of the traditional shots that
you would see of some (now) "old-fashioned" female singers
of the past, like Vera Lynn.
Another
very important show is seen towards the end of Susan's performance,
where Simon Cowell is seen with a massive grin on his face. What this
does is it establishes that Cowell- who is known for being the
"nasty" judge with harsh opinions and a miserable outlook -
is now completely surprised and clearly happy at Boyle's performance.
This shows that Susan has overcome one of the greatest obstacles that
she had to face in her challenge and dream to be successful at this
stage. This could potentially have an impact on the viewing audience
as well- knowing that she has achieved this and seeing Cowell smiling
for what has to be one of the few rare occasions he is seen doing so.
Simon
Cowell, the "nasty" judge raises a smile.
At
the very end of the performance we see Susan getting the verdict from
the judges and the reaction from the crowd cheering- and a shot of
one woman visibly crying with joy. Throughout this segment a slow
instrumental of "I dreamed a dream" plays, a contrast to
the otherwise bumbling music that introduced Boyle. The music builds
up and hits a crescendo when she receives the verdict and reacts with
joy, an effect which is hard as a viewer not be prone to some
emotional reaction knowing the reaction she previously got, and her
now triumph over the challenges and hostile reactions.
The
actual song she sang should be noted- "I Dreamed a Dream"
which is not only a hard song to sing, naturally, but an absolutely
perfect song choice that symbolises Susan's story and the story of
anyone who wishes to dream and try and achieve something. Part of the
emotional resonance and reaction from the audience is in large part
due to the song and what it stands for in the wider context of anyone
who wishes to overcome challenges and reach their goals, but also the
immediate situation of Susan having to go against the judgement and
hostile reactions from the studio audience and the judges. The song
carries the emotional strings that tugs at the audience and makes an
impact along with the previous setup and establishment of her having
to overcome great odds. This clip in my opinion would not be anywhere
near as successful if it were not for this song choice.
In
conclusion what I think is that the editors and producers at BGT
should have a pat on the back and a pay rise, because for me It's a
case of it's not so much an incredible story as much as a finely
edited piece of television, that with the aid of social networking
and the internet in general- propelled it above average heights and
become nearly a social revolution and movement in itself. If I were
to be cynical, I would say that the actual devices used and the
construction of it is actually painfully obvious to me , and it's not
exactly subtle. As a piece of entertainment - I think it's brilliant
and the potential for making such an emotional connection to a TV
audience is really impressive. Brilliant singers that are
undiscovered and in their late 40's who don't have model-like looks
are to be found everywhere , but the message behind this one through
the power of a short piece of video is astounding and powerful.
Tuesday, 13 March 2012
Susan Boyle case study - Popularity and Success
Susan
Boyle case study - Popularity and Success
The
Susan Boyle story
On
April 11th 2009 an episode of BGT aired that had a contestant called
Susan Boyle. The 47 year-old looked a little strange and some
might say had questionable fashion tastes and appeared to be in very
basic language "a bit weird". Her behaviour was unusual and
the audience wondered why this slightly overweight Scottish spinster
was proclaiming she could sing and wanted to be famous. And then she
sang- and has since gone on to become the very definition of an
overnight superstar and attracted millions of fans worldwide. Her
first album went straight to number 1 and she is now a global
superstar and sensation. Not bad for a 3 minute audition on TV. There
is something about this story that has obviously reached out and
transcended beyond the talent show genre and catapulted this into one
of the most impressive success stories in recent years and a champion
of the "internet age". I think there are various factors to
this that added to the rise and popularity of this story and most of
it stems from the story arc that the producers of the show was
obviously aware of and helped construct.
The
internet age and social media
One
of the defining factors of the actual staggering rise of popularity
comes from the fact that we are currently living in a society and
"internet age" where a video of your mum singing
badly to Cher can be posted on Facebook and go viral to millions of
people. Had this Susan Boyle story 10 years ago it probably would
have aired on TV and been fascinating viewing, but nowhere near
reached the popularity it has now. Shortly after the episode aired on
April 11th- a video (of which there are now loads) of the audition
was posted on YouTube and quickly got over 2.3 million views within
the first 72 hours. As of writing, the highest video count for Susan
Boyle's audition has reached over 82 million. There is no
doubt that YouTube was an integral part of the success of this story-
but social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook were also key in
people spreading and sharing the YouTube clip.
Diana.C.Mutz
writes about this in her research journal titled "The Influence
of Perceptions of Media Influence : Third Person Effects and the
Public Expressions of Opinion" (1989)
Here
she describes a "Third Person Effect"
"The
third person effect hypothesis predicts that people exposed to a
potentially persuasive communication will expect the message to have
a greater effect
on
others than on themselves"
(Diana.C.Mutz,
1989)
In
relation to social media and this story- I believe that the natural
story arc to the Susan Boyle story was constructed on the basis of it
being a "Feel-good" story that featured universal themes
that would be perceived as something that would make others happy.
This "feel good" factor to the story made it something that
people upon viewing it would be interested in sharing to other people
knowing it would have the same if not greater effect on them. It
could also be argued that the sentimental message of "Don't
judge a book by it;s cover" was a driving force and idea behind
the success that also influenced many people to share the story and
maybe vote in the show.
"The
effect that the communication achieves is not due to any direct
persuasive
influence
of the message itself, but rather to the behaviour of those persons
who
anticipate,
or think they perceive, some reaction on the part of others, and
behave
differently as a result"
(Diana.C.Mutz,
1989)
I
think this relates because I think there is a certain "guilt
factor" present in the audition clip and the way it was
constructed for the audience to perceive it. It's constructed in a
way that would almost assume that we as a TV audience have already
judged Susan Boyle by her looks, and that her sudden success and
talent was a surprise to us. As a result- we feel guilty for judging
her and may feel the need to share and spread the story almost out of
guilt. I distinctly remember at the time of the audition clips
success that there were several "Susan Boyle reaction videos"
on YouTube featuring people commenting and showing genuine surprise
and reacting to the audition clip at their computers- some even ended
up crying. This suggests that the message behind it was one that
people felt the need to spread to others and even share their own
(sometimes rude and arguably genuine) reactions to , as an expression
of the human nature of judging people.
As
judge Amanda Holden says in the clip regarding the studio audience
and herself "I'm thrilled because I know that everybody was
against you. I honestly believe that we were all being very cynical
and I think that's the biggest wakeup call ever"
[Britains
Got Talent 2009]
Image
is everything, and the rise of the "everyday"
As
I have discussed in a previous post- the music industry and
television media in general has often worked on the notion that you
have to look attractive to sell albums and be in Hollywood films. I
think that part of the success of this story was the notion that this
clip was very much an uplifting message that people could relate too
and a message that people could get behind almost as a
wider-movement. Much has been said of the appearance of Susan Boyle -
with British tabloids latching on and calling her the "hairy
angel" and nicknaming her "SuBo". Television
chat-shows and stand-up comedians use her appearance as an almost
textbook definition of "ugly" to seemingly ridicule her for
the way she presented herself. In a lot of ways - that is a
reflection of television and the perception of image in the media,
and arguably a reflection of society. The fact is that producers at
BGT were obviously aware that her appearance didn't match the
usual criteria of near-anorexic young attractive teenage girls
and were likewise surprised by her talent at singing that she held.
It's a slightly odd notion to assume that you can pre-judge
somebodies natural singing voice, tone, vocal range and techniques
purely based on what kind of dress they are wearing and whether they
brushed their hair that day. Perhaps it is a reflection of peoples
expectations brought on by the heavy image-centric music industry and
entertainment industry. The popularity of this story relies upon the
fact that millions of people did not agree with this idea of image
and that Susan Boyle comes across as very much the "everyday"
and unassuming, something that the everyday person who feels they may
have a talent in life and missed out -could relate to. Entertainment
Weekly described the story as "a
victory for talent and artistry in a culture obsessed with physical
attractiveness and presentation." This
message of being pre-judged and overcoming the expectations of the
studio audience and judges, coupled with a moving performance of a
relevant song "I dreamed a dream" - was I think the
defining factor of the success. It's a message that can translate to
any country and to any language which would explain the worldwide
success it gained. It is a modern take on the ugly duckling story. In
terms of narrative it fits very neatly into one described by
Christopher Booker , author of "the 7 basic plots" as the
"rags to riches" story. Susan Boyle was undiscovered in a
tiny Scottish village and now he's a rich global superstar who
overcame all the odds.
The
one of being judged on image has been described as a possible
feminist movement by some. Letti Cottin Pogrebin of the Huffington
Post wrote " although
people may "weep for the years of wasted talent", Boyle's
performance was a triumph for "women of a certain age" over
a youth culture that often dismisses middle-aged women" Tanya
Gold also wrote in The
Guardian saying "the
difference between Boyle's hostile reception and the more neutral
response to Paull Potts in his first audition reflected
society's expectation that women be both good-looking and talented,
with no such expectation existing for men."
This
is a very interesting point to raise and is referring to a previous
year's winner - Paul Potts. Middle-aged, overweight, and with a poor
set of teeth- He never received any hostile reactions from the
audience or judges when he claimed he was going to sing opera. Why
was there not a similar reaction? perhaps it is true that in today's
medium and television there is much more emphasis on women looking
like models then perhaps there is of men. It is also interesting to
note that shortly after Susan Boyle became famous from her YouTube
clip and got the worlds attention - she had a Hollywood makeover.
Which some seemed to argue that she was fine the way she was and it
was part of her "everyday" appeal to people.
Wednesday, 29 February 2012
Narrative theory and structures in TV talent shows
I am going to be looking at how traditional narrative theory and structures apply to TV talent shows. My hypothesis is that TV talent shows include a lot of the narrative elements that are used to construct the majority of books, films, and fictional TV shows such as dramas. In a lot of ways I feel that the TV talent show very closely resembles the more fictional and script-driven shows that populate the soaps and dramas that airs alongside it, and that these elements are essential to have in a show that must grip viewers from week to week and keep them coming back.
Vladimir Propp was a Russian critic that was prevalent during the 1920's.He was most interested in an noted the similarities between film narrative and traditional folk-tales, and identified a set of characters that provided some form of function within the story context.
The Hero – a character that seeks something
The Villain – who opposes or actively blocks the hero’s quest
The Donor – who provides an object with magical properties
The Dispatcher – who sends the hero on his/her quest via a message
The False Hero – who disrupts the hero’s success by making false claims
The Helper – who aids the hero
The Princess – acts as the reward for the hero and the object of the villain’s plots
Her Father – who acts to reward the hero for his effort
( http://www.adamranson.plus.com/Propp.htm - Film Communication Media)
Although in some respects I think that this list is simplistic and now dated, you can potentially see where some of the character archetypes may fit into the TV talent show genre. Take for example the hero- the public vote each week in the millions because they want someone to stay in the show and ultimately win. The contestants most definitely are seeking something- in this case it's fame, money, and a recording contract though it differs from person to person arguably. In this case though it would be hard to label the contestants as "heroes" because that's a very basic definition that in a lot of cases would not be appropriate. On the one hand the fact that the public votes in the millions to keep contestants in the show because they must like them, and on some levels are wanting them to be the winner and "hero" by winning the competition- some of the contestants are portrayed as unlike-able with the audience turning against them. In this scenario the public and TV audience can be be "The Helper" but arguably they can have the very opposite effect.
"Those who become reality TV “stars” demonstrate similar failure to possess anything remotely resembling heroic character. Take Jon Gosselin, Octomom Nadya Suleman, disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blogojevich (on this season’s Celebrity Apprentice)"
(Samuel Ebersole, Professor at Colorado State University)
What Ebersole is referring to here is the fact that there are so many reality TV stars that become popular but don't necessarily have very admirable traits that would show them as being anything like a role model or hero. The same can be applied to TV talent shows with the frequent tabloid stories of the contestants.
"America’s obsession with reality TV programming has spawned a fascination with reality TV as a path to fame and fortune, at any cost. Problems arise when we, as a society, fail to differentiate between heroism and celebrity. We diminish the value of heroic acts and we place celebrity on a pedestal where it becomes the ultimate goal but has no correlation to achievement."
Again , here he is stating that the public become obsessed over TV stars because of their sudden rise in fame from the exposure of being on TV, despite the fact that they may not have any redeemable qualities or indeed in some cases talent.
TV talent show judges - The Villains?
One character type that almost always seems to be at least purposely constructed by TV producers is that of the "nasty judge" - the judge that maybe out of the three judges present always seems to have the harsh opinions. The most noteworthy and famous of all of course is Simon Cowell with his debut on Pop Idol (2001) which he has since continued his notorious reputation for being the "bad guy" and being somewhat blunt and sometimes offensive comments to the contestants. "The Talent Show Story" (ITV, 2012) looked at the history of TV talent show judges, and it's interesting to note that this trend of having a "bad" judge has existed in TV talent shows for some time, and has caused controversy. It's interesting to note that when Pop Idol began it was judge Pete Waterman that took the helm for dishing out very harsh comments to contestants, and Simon Cowell was being generally quite reserved in comparison. Cowell was interviewed on The Talent Show Story in which he stated that once he became comfortable in the role and began giving more harsh feedback- the producers sat down and told him they loved it and wanted more of that. You can see there is the foundations of a "villain" set up here- the "heroes" (the contestants) must face against the challenge of the judges who are in a position of great power. The judges power and control is even further emphasised since the inclusion of "buzzer rounds" where they can buzz a contestant if they don't like their act and stop the act whenever they want.
As audience members who side with the contestants (the "heroes") - Simon Cowell's feedback and decisions may make or break their careers. There is a real pantomime feel when the audience members in the studio all boo Cowell because he has said something they think was wrong. It's an angle that I think producers like to go with to cause some controversy and get people talking about the show - which most certainly has worked. Simon Cowell is now considered to be such an asset to the shows he forms and works on that there is perhaps a direct link between the viewing figures dropping on X-Factor and BGT following his absence from the show. [The Talent Show Story 2011]
Of course, to label an honest judge as a villains is a little bit simplistic and I think it's played-up for the show but in reality it's really an obvious construction over what is essentially a basic business attitude that has always existed in the world of music record labels. Simon Cowell and Pete Waterman have both had long careers with signing up artists for their record labels. They know what type of things sell and they realise the harsh realities of the industry they are a part of. Whilst it can be argued that Simon Cowell oversteps some lines and says some borderline offensive things- It is just an opinion though and being honest isn't an evil trait. To be truthful and honest to the thousands of people that apply for the show all trying to enter the super-competitive world of record labels could be a rather positive trait in most respects. Whilst the show may portray him as a almost Disney-style villain it's actually him who in almost all cases offers the recording contract to the winner and is thus in a position of helping the "heroes" wanting to reach their goals.
I think on a basic level Propp's character's that perform a function could apply to very traditional stories present in children's stories or typical fairytales, and is broad enough to apply to some elements of any narrative if you were to try and place it within a framework. But it does appear to now be rather outdated and arguably restrictive where stories are pushing against those very frameworks to try and be something different other than very traditional.
Vladimir Propp- Characters that perform a function
The Hero – a character that seeks something
The Villain – who opposes or actively blocks the hero’s quest
The Donor – who provides an object with magical properties
The Dispatcher – who sends the hero on his/her quest via a message
The False Hero – who disrupts the hero’s success by making false claims
The Helper – who aids the hero
The Princess – acts as the reward for the hero and the object of the villain’s plots
Her Father – who acts to reward the hero for his effort
( http://www.adamranson.plus.com/Propp.htm - Film Communication Media)
Although in some respects I think that this list is simplistic and now dated, you can potentially see where some of the character archetypes may fit into the TV talent show genre. Take for example the hero- the public vote each week in the millions because they want someone to stay in the show and ultimately win. The contestants most definitely are seeking something- in this case it's fame, money, and a recording contract though it differs from person to person arguably. In this case though it would be hard to label the contestants as "heroes" because that's a very basic definition that in a lot of cases would not be appropriate. On the one hand the fact that the public votes in the millions to keep contestants in the show because they must like them, and on some levels are wanting them to be the winner and "hero" by winning the competition- some of the contestants are portrayed as unlike-able with the audience turning against them. In this scenario the public and TV audience can be be "The Helper" but arguably they can have the very opposite effect.
"Those who become reality TV “stars” demonstrate similar failure to possess anything remotely resembling heroic character. Take Jon Gosselin, Octomom Nadya Suleman, disgraced former Illinois governor Rod Blogojevich (on this season’s Celebrity Apprentice)"
(Samuel Ebersole, Professor at Colorado State University)
What Ebersole is referring to here is the fact that there are so many reality TV stars that become popular but don't necessarily have very admirable traits that would show them as being anything like a role model or hero. The same can be applied to TV talent shows with the frequent tabloid stories of the contestants.
"America’s obsession with reality TV programming has spawned a fascination with reality TV as a path to fame and fortune, at any cost. Problems arise when we, as a society, fail to differentiate between heroism and celebrity. We diminish the value of heroic acts and we place celebrity on a pedestal where it becomes the ultimate goal but has no correlation to achievement."
Again , here he is stating that the public become obsessed over TV stars because of their sudden rise in fame from the exposure of being on TV, despite the fact that they may not have any redeemable qualities or indeed in some cases talent.
TV talent show judges - The Villains?
One character type that almost always seems to be at least purposely constructed by TV producers is that of the "nasty judge" - the judge that maybe out of the three judges present always seems to have the harsh opinions. The most noteworthy and famous of all of course is Simon Cowell with his debut on Pop Idol (2001) which he has since continued his notorious reputation for being the "bad guy" and being somewhat blunt and sometimes offensive comments to the contestants. "The Talent Show Story" (ITV, 2012) looked at the history of TV talent show judges, and it's interesting to note that this trend of having a "bad" judge has existed in TV talent shows for some time, and has caused controversy. It's interesting to note that when Pop Idol began it was judge Pete Waterman that took the helm for dishing out very harsh comments to contestants, and Simon Cowell was being generally quite reserved in comparison. Cowell was interviewed on The Talent Show Story in which he stated that once he became comfortable in the role and began giving more harsh feedback- the producers sat down and told him they loved it and wanted more of that. You can see there is the foundations of a "villain" set up here- the "heroes" (the contestants) must face against the challenge of the judges who are in a position of great power. The judges power and control is even further emphasised since the inclusion of "buzzer rounds" where they can buzz a contestant if they don't like their act and stop the act whenever they want.
As audience members who side with the contestants (the "heroes") - Simon Cowell's feedback and decisions may make or break their careers. There is a real pantomime feel when the audience members in the studio all boo Cowell because he has said something they think was wrong. It's an angle that I think producers like to go with to cause some controversy and get people talking about the show - which most certainly has worked. Simon Cowell is now considered to be such an asset to the shows he forms and works on that there is perhaps a direct link between the viewing figures dropping on X-Factor and BGT following his absence from the show. [The Talent Show Story 2011]
Of course, to label an honest judge as a villains is a little bit simplistic and I think it's played-up for the show but in reality it's really an obvious construction over what is essentially a basic business attitude that has always existed in the world of music record labels. Simon Cowell and Pete Waterman have both had long careers with signing up artists for their record labels. They know what type of things sell and they realise the harsh realities of the industry they are a part of. Whilst it can be argued that Simon Cowell oversteps some lines and says some borderline offensive things- It is just an opinion though and being honest isn't an evil trait. To be truthful and honest to the thousands of people that apply for the show all trying to enter the super-competitive world of record labels could be a rather positive trait in most respects. Whilst the show may portray him as a almost Disney-style villain it's actually him who in almost all cases offers the recording contract to the winner and is thus in a position of helping the "heroes" wanting to reach their goals.
I think on a basic level Propp's character's that perform a function could apply to very traditional stories present in children's stories or typical fairytales, and is broad enough to apply to some elements of any narrative if you were to try and place it within a framework. But it does appear to now be rather outdated and arguably restrictive where stories are pushing against those very frameworks to try and be something different other than very traditional.
Monday, 16 January 2012
How "losers" can become winners
At school if you were to win a talent show contest you would probably be rewarded by a brief moment of applause and perhaps if you were lucky, a milky way bar and a pat on the back from your mum. Indeed, if you were to win any of the TV talent shows of the bygone era such as Opportunity Knocks or New Faces you would at the very most be classified as the winner of the show and that was it. Now of course being the winner of a show back then wasn't such a bad thing- you would be on TV and be seen by millions of viewers and therefore the exposure you would get is a big reward in itself. Many winners or just contestants that appeared on shows such as New Faces made their careers in the 70's/80's from these shows. Les Dawson, Lenny Henry , Paul Daniels , Michael Barrymore, and Jim Davidson to new a few that made their careers after being contestants. The biggest reward therefore is appearing on television and getting the exposure you would want from appearing on national television.
The reward of exposure nowadays is of course much greater considering the internet age where clips on YouTube can bring in views in the millions. Where people from all over the world that isn't just in the country the program is broadcast, can view the talent (or lack of) on display from contestants. We do live in an age where record company producers and talent scouts will find clips of people on websites if they are popular enough and have the exposure where a record deal is not completely out of the question. To use the admittedly worrying example of Justin Bieber - here was a kid that had a YouTube channel and got some attention and as a result he was snapped up by a record company. When looking at contemporary TV talent shows like BGT- The prize for winning is not only massive exposure but also the prize of being able to perform at the Royal Variety. Oh, and £100,000. Not bad. Not bad at all. The thing is though is that unlike most competitions where you lose- losing isn't necessarily going to be the end of things. If you lose at sports day (which for the record I did quite consistently ) you kind of ...well...you lose. You didn't win so by that very definition you kinda lose. But the exposure on TV talent shows often mean that just appearing on it can have the potential to change your life, and sometimes being a runner-up means that you can go on to have more success than the actual winner. [The Talent Show Story, 2011]
Let's take an example from the hit talent show Pop Idol (2001) where in the 2nd series a woman called Michelle McManus was the competition. Who? you know! Michelle! Large lady...no. Well let's take a look at the winners of The X Factor during the early series. Steve Brookstein? Shayne Ward? I suppose the point I am getting to is that being a winner isn't necessarily a link to success. I think the majority of winners are prone to winning Christmas number 1 and then eventually being dropped by their record label when their first album doesn't sell by the bucket-load.
It could be argued and it will because I am about to- that this isn't much a reflection of TV talent shows as much as a reflection of the music industry. In quite simple terms if an artist does no sell many albums and the record company isn't making money from him/her they will drop the artist. It's really simple and naturally driven by money and success. Many artists of the past regardless of whether they appeared on a TV talent show are going to come across the unfortunate situation where at some point in their career they hit and all-time high and strike a number one song or album. but 3 years later they are working as a plumber or have given up music entirely. It's the very nature of the industry to welcome and invite a great musician with open arms when they get a number one single- and then pat them on their backs and show them the door out when their next album is great car boot sale material, and is strewn with cobwebs on a shelf in your local HMV. I think though that TV talent show stars potentially have a shorter stay in the limelight than most performers, because there is that shadow lingering over them which says that the whole thing is just a more extended "15 minutes of fame!" which is drawn out to be a slowly declining 15 weeks of fame. At most.
The best way I could describe it is that because the show is on TV and being watched by millions- people vote for the person they like the most and the whole thing is like some theatre production where people want the hero to triumph. A few weeks later they win and the audience goes wild and everyone sheds a tear as confetti falls on stage. Soon after that the theatre production ends, packs up and moves away. Nobody really cares any more. Somebody has won because people liked what they did and was entertained on a Sunday night when there was nothing else worth watching on TV, but it doesn't mean they will rush out the following day and buy their albums and list them amongst their favourite musicians. In a lot of ways it's like glorified big budget karaoke competition night down your local , where the winner walks away with a goofy grin on their face and a packet of pork scratchings, and mildly drunk people are telling them they are BRILLIANT and should apply for the X-Factor. But the week after they couldn't care less.
Let's take the winner of series one of the X-Factor as an example. The previously mentioned Steve Brookstein who won the show in 2004 and won the Christmas number 1 race with his cover of "Against All Odds" that December.
Remember this guy? Nope. Nobody does.
Roll on a few years and after a few failed albums and what's he up to now?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1254549/X-Factor-winner-Steve-Brookstein-plays-pubs-Simon-Cowell-fall-out.html
Well last year he played a gig at a Cornish pub. Which was a complete sell-out with tickets only costing £2.50 each which all of 50 people happily paid for. You even get a discount if you buy a pork pie from the pub, how could you refuse. When Brookstein isn't directly contributing to the Cornish pork pie market, he's busy writing his book lovingly titled "X-Factor Nightmares: The Manipulations. The Greed. The Deceptions" which details his outspoken thoughts on the X-Factor and his career and his falling out with Simon Cowell.
[The Daily Mail Online, March 2011]
Another person to fallout with Simon Cowell aganist his policies of churning out cover albums and being generally discarding of talent was Pop Idol winner Will Young, who is currently enjoying much greater success then Brookstein did very much not courtesy of Simon Cowell. Indeed, not everyone who has appeared on or won a TV Talent show has suffered the same fate. Will Young, Alexendra Burke, and Leona Lewis is certainly in a position where they can claim they may have sold a few million albums.
So there we are. It doesn't matter if you're a winner or a loser. You have to face up to what the music industry is and it's clearly a tough joint. You have to face the fact that you may have to enter that spotlight and leave and pack your bags the moment the show ends. It's like your granddad showing up to your primary school nativity play and tell you that you played the part of the one of the three wise men really well, when you know that you wore your mums tea towel on your head and made a bit of an arse of yourself, and tomorrow morning you have to get up early for double maths in the morning. Nobody is going to take you as a serious actor in that maths lesson tomorrow. And your granddad is going to forget your performance by the time Coronation Street is on the next day. In summary then- TV Talent shows appear to be a great potential gateway to fame, but once you're past the gate there's no guarantee of what's going to happen.
The reward of exposure nowadays is of course much greater considering the internet age where clips on YouTube can bring in views in the millions. Where people from all over the world that isn't just in the country the program is broadcast, can view the talent (or lack of) on display from contestants. We do live in an age where record company producers and talent scouts will find clips of people on websites if they are popular enough and have the exposure where a record deal is not completely out of the question. To use the admittedly worrying example of Justin Bieber - here was a kid that had a YouTube channel and got some attention and as a result he was snapped up by a record company. When looking at contemporary TV talent shows like BGT- The prize for winning is not only massive exposure but also the prize of being able to perform at the Royal Variety. Oh, and £100,000. Not bad. Not bad at all. The thing is though is that unlike most competitions where you lose- losing isn't necessarily going to be the end of things. If you lose at sports day (which for the record I did quite consistently ) you kind of ...well...you lose. You didn't win so by that very definition you kinda lose. But the exposure on TV talent shows often mean that just appearing on it can have the potential to change your life, and sometimes being a runner-up means that you can go on to have more success than the actual winner. [The Talent Show Story, 2011]
Let's take an example from the hit talent show Pop Idol (2001) where in the 2nd series a woman called Michelle McManus was the competition. Who? you know! Michelle! Large lady...no. Well let's take a look at the winners of The X Factor during the early series. Steve Brookstein? Shayne Ward? I suppose the point I am getting to is that being a winner isn't necessarily a link to success. I think the majority of winners are prone to winning Christmas number 1 and then eventually being dropped by their record label when their first album doesn't sell by the bucket-load.
It could be argued and it will because I am about to- that this isn't much a reflection of TV talent shows as much as a reflection of the music industry. In quite simple terms if an artist does no sell many albums and the record company isn't making money from him/her they will drop the artist. It's really simple and naturally driven by money and success. Many artists of the past regardless of whether they appeared on a TV talent show are going to come across the unfortunate situation where at some point in their career they hit and all-time high and strike a number one song or album. but 3 years later they are working as a plumber or have given up music entirely. It's the very nature of the industry to welcome and invite a great musician with open arms when they get a number one single- and then pat them on their backs and show them the door out when their next album is great car boot sale material, and is strewn with cobwebs on a shelf in your local HMV. I think though that TV talent show stars potentially have a shorter stay in the limelight than most performers, because there is that shadow lingering over them which says that the whole thing is just a more extended "15 minutes of fame!" which is drawn out to be a slowly declining 15 weeks of fame. At most.
The best way I could describe it is that because the show is on TV and being watched by millions- people vote for the person they like the most and the whole thing is like some theatre production where people want the hero to triumph. A few weeks later they win and the audience goes wild and everyone sheds a tear as confetti falls on stage. Soon after that the theatre production ends, packs up and moves away. Nobody really cares any more. Somebody has won because people liked what they did and was entertained on a Sunday night when there was nothing else worth watching on TV, but it doesn't mean they will rush out the following day and buy their albums and list them amongst their favourite musicians. In a lot of ways it's like glorified big budget karaoke competition night down your local , where the winner walks away with a goofy grin on their face and a packet of pork scratchings, and mildly drunk people are telling them they are BRILLIANT and should apply for the X-Factor. But the week after they couldn't care less.
Let's take the winner of series one of the X-Factor as an example. The previously mentioned Steve Brookstein who won the show in 2004 and won the Christmas number 1 race with his cover of "Against All Odds" that December.
Roll on a few years and after a few failed albums and what's he up to now?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-1254549/X-Factor-winner-Steve-Brookstein-plays-pubs-Simon-Cowell-fall-out.html
Well last year he played a gig at a Cornish pub. Which was a complete sell-out with tickets only costing £2.50 each which all of 50 people happily paid for. You even get a discount if you buy a pork pie from the pub, how could you refuse. When Brookstein isn't directly contributing to the Cornish pork pie market, he's busy writing his book lovingly titled "X-Factor Nightmares: The Manipulations. The Greed. The Deceptions" which details his outspoken thoughts on the X-Factor and his career and his falling out with Simon Cowell.
[The Daily Mail Online, March 2011]
Another person to fallout with Simon Cowell aganist his policies of churning out cover albums and being generally discarding of talent was Pop Idol winner Will Young, who is currently enjoying much greater success then Brookstein did very much not courtesy of Simon Cowell. Indeed, not everyone who has appeared on or won a TV Talent show has suffered the same fate. Will Young, Alexendra Burke, and Leona Lewis is certainly in a position where they can claim they may have sold a few million albums.
So there we are. It doesn't matter if you're a winner or a loser. You have to face up to what the music industry is and it's clearly a tough joint. You have to face the fact that you may have to enter that spotlight and leave and pack your bags the moment the show ends. It's like your granddad showing up to your primary school nativity play and tell you that you played the part of the one of the three wise men really well, when you know that you wore your mums tea towel on your head and made a bit of an arse of yourself, and tomorrow morning you have to get up early for double maths in the morning. Nobody is going to take you as a serious actor in that maths lesson tomorrow. And your granddad is going to forget your performance by the time Coronation Street is on the next day. In summary then- TV Talent shows appear to be a great potential gateway to fame, but once you're past the gate there's no guarantee of what's going to happen.
Thursday, 5 January 2012
My BGT pre-audition experience
The BGT pre-audition is the audition stage where contestants must audition in front of a single producer of the show and a camera man.The act is filmed for the purpose of producers too look through the footage to help determine who is getting through to the TV stage. There was over 75,000 that applied this year i was told on the day. I know that only 500 get through to the televised judges stage. I applied for the London audition which took place in the Excel convention centre.
So there I was on December the 8th travelling up to London (with the support of my dad) for my BGT audition. I would first like to point out how easy it is to sign up and apply for BGT. The auditions are open to anyone and you apply via their website that has a very simplistic 1-page application form that only asks your name, age and a short description of your act. It was that easy. Easier than signing up to amazon or any other site.
One of the most fundamental questions I asked myself prior to leaving the house and beginning the long journey up to London was "Should I wear my cowboy hat?" to which my answer was no. This might seem like a stupid question to ask but think about how producers of these shows portray things and how important image is as I previously discussed. Although these auditions are not televised it would sure have impact in terms of how I dressed. I decided no for the simple fact that despite the fact people told me the hat suits me and It's really stage attire that fits in with the country artist image- if they thought I looked a bit silly they would use that against me. I didn't want to give them that ammunition. No hat!
Another thing about applying that is interesting to note is when you sign the TV release form and essentially sign the contract for the show - you are given the full rights of your performance and well...you as a performer to the company Syco. Which if you couldn't tell from the company name is a joint little entertainment company owned by Simon Cowell and Sony Music .What this means is (especially as an artist) you are signing an exclusivity contract in which Simon's record label essentially owns you as an artist and your material when you sign up for the show. This means that if you were lucky enough to get far in the process and have success in the competition then you would have signed something to say you will take part in the BGT live tour that happens after the show and if Simon Cowell wishes he could sign you up to his record label. Proof if ever there was that the show can indeed take you places if you get far, and that Simon Cowell may have an agenda beyond making good TV.
After a long 6 hour journey we entered the Excel centre and navigated our way through to the main lobby area. This is the main seating area where all the contestants and their families had to sit around and witness some people practising their talents. There was a mirror set up for dancers , in which one fell over. Hmm, embarrassing. There was one sight that I saw in the lobby area though that really got me thinking. There was a several young children that were I guess barely 6 years old that were in the lobby area. One of them I remember had a single hula hoop around his waist he was spinning around. And I couldn't help feel that his parents is putting him in a really weird position and the whole thing felt kinda wrong. They have applied for him to walk into a room with a scary producer, a feat for most adults, to swing a hoop round his waist. And I have to ask what's the point and why you would do that from a parents point of view. To clarifying here- I am all for encouraging talent amongst young children. Some of them are incredible singers and in the competition stand a good chance. Their parent's I am sure would want to push their kids into it and support their talents but lets be honest....a hula hoop swing around a waist isn't going to be anything that's going to stand a chance in the competition. And at such a young age I wonder how much that kid even realised what was going on and how much pressure that kind of environment would have. BGT is open to all age groups but I think there is a point where they are just too young for a competition like this. It's enough to rattle the nerves out of most adults....
From the lobby area we were told to follow somebody to an audition room and wait outside in groups of 10.We were then individually told the scary words "okay ready, go on through" to the audition room for our individual auditions.One of the first things to note is that the room is absolutely gigantic. When the application form amusingly mentioned giving them a heads-up if you were to bring live animals such as "elephants" to the audition- I guess they weren't kidding. A bull African Elephant would happily fit in that room with ample space to manoeuvre . If you watch other talent shows or been to an audition you would of course know that this is the norm to have a gaping vacuum of space between the person conducting the audition and the contestant. It's like no-mans land in WW1 where I wish I could dig a trench and hide away. It certainly piles on the nerves to know I have to sing in such a large space with such a gap between us without a microphone and having to project my voice over a backing instrumental. Oddly enough I wasn't nervous because I pulled that confidence switch that enabled my performing/musical persona to come out. It's more nervous singing in front of your own family then in that audition because the producer/cameraman has never seen you before so they wouldn't know I'm quite an introvert usually.So I walked into the room with a bit of a swagger and tried to pull of the confidence which I think worked. Or I looked ridiculous.I went in expecting questions to try and gather the sort of personality I have but surprisingly there was no questions other than what my name is and what song I was singing. I suppose at the pre-audition stages they are literally more focused on looks and talent than anything else. No chance for a good sob story at this stage!
As I was singing I saw the young producer make notes behind the desk. I'm really curious to see what those notes were! It's really interesting to think that those 1-2 minutes I was in that room I had to make SOME impression to stand out from the thousands upon thousands that applied. How do you stand out from 75,000? I assume at this stage the quick note-taking is enough to have a verdict as to who is definitely not even worth a look or not. To get down to 500 is a monumental task so they must have a really quick criteria in which to judge.
They aren't really true judges at this stage so half a song and the song was stopped and that was it. I'm not sure if they give feedback to everyone because they don't really have to. She did say my voice suited country music though and it was unusual for someone my age to be singing it. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. This game isn't about how is the best singer or who has more talent....it's about them finding things that are a bit unique/interesting and would appeal to the audience. If they want a young country singer (an angle I chose to go in with specifically to try and stand out) then there could theoretically be a tiny slither of hope of me getting through. When you have 75,000 apply though- the word "chance" comes with a mandatory "no" on the front of it. I was really happy that I went in with confidence and got some good feedback and that's really all I could have wished for.
They gave me a piece of paper and sent me on my way. Through Jan/Feb they call people to tell them if they are through to the next round or not. Or they send you a letter by the end of March to say you haven't gotten through. My boss at work told me "Ohhh I bet you are just waiting by the phone everyday hoping it will ring" - No. The exact opposite! When you are in a competition that had 75,000 apply you don't wait by the phone hoping for anything. You go on with your life expecting a letter by the end of March. Anything else is a massive surprise.
So there I was on December the 8th travelling up to London (with the support of my dad) for my BGT audition. I would first like to point out how easy it is to sign up and apply for BGT. The auditions are open to anyone and you apply via their website that has a very simplistic 1-page application form that only asks your name, age and a short description of your act. It was that easy. Easier than signing up to amazon or any other site.
One of the most fundamental questions I asked myself prior to leaving the house and beginning the long journey up to London was "Should I wear my cowboy hat?" to which my answer was no. This might seem like a stupid question to ask but think about how producers of these shows portray things and how important image is as I previously discussed. Although these auditions are not televised it would sure have impact in terms of how I dressed. I decided no for the simple fact that despite the fact people told me the hat suits me and It's really stage attire that fits in with the country artist image- if they thought I looked a bit silly they would use that against me. I didn't want to give them that ammunition. No hat!
Another thing about applying that is interesting to note is when you sign the TV release form and essentially sign the contract for the show - you are given the full rights of your performance and well...you as a performer to the company Syco. Which if you couldn't tell from the company name is a joint little entertainment company owned by Simon Cowell and Sony Music .What this means is (especially as an artist) you are signing an exclusivity contract in which Simon's record label essentially owns you as an artist and your material when you sign up for the show. This means that if you were lucky enough to get far in the process and have success in the competition then you would have signed something to say you will take part in the BGT live tour that happens after the show and if Simon Cowell wishes he could sign you up to his record label. Proof if ever there was that the show can indeed take you places if you get far, and that Simon Cowell may have an agenda beyond making good TV.
After a long 6 hour journey we entered the Excel centre and navigated our way through to the main lobby area. This is the main seating area where all the contestants and their families had to sit around and witness some people practising their talents. There was a mirror set up for dancers , in which one fell over. Hmm, embarrassing. There was one sight that I saw in the lobby area though that really got me thinking. There was a several young children that were I guess barely 6 years old that were in the lobby area. One of them I remember had a single hula hoop around his waist he was spinning around. And I couldn't help feel that his parents is putting him in a really weird position and the whole thing felt kinda wrong. They have applied for him to walk into a room with a scary producer, a feat for most adults, to swing a hoop round his waist. And I have to ask what's the point and why you would do that from a parents point of view. To clarifying here- I am all for encouraging talent amongst young children. Some of them are incredible singers and in the competition stand a good chance. Their parent's I am sure would want to push their kids into it and support their talents but lets be honest....a hula hoop swing around a waist isn't going to be anything that's going to stand a chance in the competition. And at such a young age I wonder how much that kid even realised what was going on and how much pressure that kind of environment would have. BGT is open to all age groups but I think there is a point where they are just too young for a competition like this. It's enough to rattle the nerves out of most adults....
From the lobby area we were told to follow somebody to an audition room and wait outside in groups of 10.We were then individually told the scary words "okay ready, go on through" to the audition room for our individual auditions.One of the first things to note is that the room is absolutely gigantic. When the application form amusingly mentioned giving them a heads-up if you were to bring live animals such as "elephants" to the audition- I guess they weren't kidding. A bull African Elephant would happily fit in that room with ample space to manoeuvre . If you watch other talent shows or been to an audition you would of course know that this is the norm to have a gaping vacuum of space between the person conducting the audition and the contestant. It's like no-mans land in WW1 where I wish I could dig a trench and hide away. It certainly piles on the nerves to know I have to sing in such a large space with such a gap between us without a microphone and having to project my voice over a backing instrumental. Oddly enough I wasn't nervous because I pulled that confidence switch that enabled my performing/musical persona to come out. It's more nervous singing in front of your own family then in that audition because the producer/cameraman has never seen you before so they wouldn't know I'm quite an introvert usually.So I walked into the room with a bit of a swagger and tried to pull of the confidence which I think worked. Or I looked ridiculous.I went in expecting questions to try and gather the sort of personality I have but surprisingly there was no questions other than what my name is and what song I was singing. I suppose at the pre-audition stages they are literally more focused on looks and talent than anything else. No chance for a good sob story at this stage!
As I was singing I saw the young producer make notes behind the desk. I'm really curious to see what those notes were! It's really interesting to think that those 1-2 minutes I was in that room I had to make SOME impression to stand out from the thousands upon thousands that applied. How do you stand out from 75,000? I assume at this stage the quick note-taking is enough to have a verdict as to who is definitely not even worth a look or not. To get down to 500 is a monumental task so they must have a really quick criteria in which to judge.
They aren't really true judges at this stage so half a song and the song was stopped and that was it. I'm not sure if they give feedback to everyone because they don't really have to. She did say my voice suited country music though and it was unusual for someone my age to be singing it. That's exactly what I wanted to hear. This game isn't about how is the best singer or who has more talent....it's about them finding things that are a bit unique/interesting and would appeal to the audience. If they want a young country singer (an angle I chose to go in with specifically to try and stand out) then there could theoretically be a tiny slither of hope of me getting through. When you have 75,000 apply though- the word "chance" comes with a mandatory "no" on the front of it. I was really happy that I went in with confidence and got some good feedback and that's really all I could have wished for.
They gave me a piece of paper and sent me on my way. Through Jan/Feb they call people to tell them if they are through to the next round or not. Or they send you a letter by the end of March to say you haven't gotten through. My boss at work told me "Ohhh I bet you are just waiting by the phone everyday hoping it will ring" - No. The exact opposite! When you are in a competition that had 75,000 apply you don't wait by the phone hoping for anything. You go on with your life expecting a letter by the end of March. Anything else is a massive surprise.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)