The X Factor

It's very unlikely that I'm going to write something completely new and revolutionary about a TV show that's been going for 12 years now, but luckily no one is forced to read it, and I find it a fascinating subject.

Just to make it clear: however frequently it is referred to as a "talent show", The X Factor (just like every other similar programme) is primarily a reality TV show, talent comes second (or possibly third). You have a much better chance of making it into the broadcast by being "interesting" rather than just singing well. Reality shows are all about the casting: if the format isn't completely ridiculous, you only have to fill it with the right characters, and lots of people are going to watch it.

THE SELECTION PROCESS

The first round of casting happens off-screen, producers not only pre-select the contestants who are good or bad enough to appear in front of the judges, they also actively look for people and invite them on the show. The second round is what we see first, and after this audition process we can easily identify roughly 2/3 of the finalists. There are 2 reasons for that: on one hand, we have to get to know the contestants in order to care enough to vote, and on the other hand, there has to be an element of uncertainty to keep us watching. In order to find out who the finalists are, we can watch lots of crying (and some singing) in a so-called bootcamp, followed by the aspirational round, a kind of "this is where you can get if you succeed" presentation called judges' houses, with some additional guest stars thrown on top.

THE LIVE SHOWS

The live shows should be about who's actually good and who isn't, and the public vote is not an entirely wrong idea to decide that: if you're willing to spend some money to see (and hear) someone the following week, there's a chance you'll be willing to pay for their record/concert ticket/merchandise/whatever after the show. You won't, but we'll get to that later. The bigger problem is, people vote for all sorts of reasons, but mostly for sympathy, not talent. Singers who got it really wrong usually survive, because viewers feel sorry for them (see Scott Bruton in Series 5 or Lloyd Daniels in Series 6 scoring their personal best with their worst performances as obvious examples).

THE SING-OFF

To correct some of the wrongs of the voting, this show introduced a sing-off, which is not only helpful for the judges, who can save someone (hopefully worthy) from elimination, but this one-against-one scenario also heightens the drama even more, and that always comes across well on TV. However, Simon Cowell's voting sometimes reflects the show's overall preference for publicity over talent. The most memorable occasion happened in 2009, when he suddenly voted in favour of the novelty act (Irish twin brothers mentored by Louis Walsh, and consistently criticized by Cowell up to that point) when they were up against a proper singer (mentored by Dannii Minogue). As luck would have it (or if you think it's all fixed, then "as it was planned"), it only took 2 weeks for the tables to turn: it was one of Simon's acts in the bottom 2 against the twins, and Dannii had the final say this time. If you look up the voting figures (published only after the series final), you'll find that it was Simon's act with fewer votes that week, so Dannii could have taken revenge, but – after making a bit of a fuss and asking what they were actually voting on – she did the decent thing, saving the more talented act, who went on to finish second, became one of the very few acts who managed to succeed afterwards, and who is now a co-presenter of the show.

THE STARS OF THE SHOW

On paper, it should be all about the contestants, but the real stars are the judges. They're the ones who are there (apart from a few exceptions) in every episode from start to finish, and who take the biggest part of on-screen time.

Given the fact their two main jobs are judging the contestants potential and guiding them through the process, it's no wonder that when the show started, they were all music industry background people, not performers: Simon Cowell used to be an A&R executive (basically doing the exact same thing, signing new artists, only without the TV cameras), and the others, Sharon Osborne and Louis Walsh were managers. It's quite funny to look up the first few series now, seeing a panel of average-looking middle aged people in a not very spectacular studio listening to mostly teenagers and twenty-somethings singing some fairly old-fashioned songs. After the first 3 series, things needed to change: people got used to the format of the show, it had to be shaken up, and it didn't only mean switching presenters (Dermot O'Leary replaced Kate Thornton). Looking at the current panel, it's really funny to think back what an outrage followed Dannii Minogue's introduction to the panel, who at that point – despite her young age – had almost 3 decades worth of show business experience. Apart from filling up the eye-candy quota, she was also able to empathize with the contestants (having been to auditions herself), she added a performer's perspective and – through her love of fashion – an extra element of glamour to the show. Louis Walsh was also replaced, but he was brought back after a few days of auditions, and stayed on as the longest serving judge until 2014.

After Sharon Osborne's departure the following year, the show entered its golden period: with Cheryl from Girls Aloud joining the panel, they took another leap towards the younger viewers. Holly Willoughby presenting the spinoff show Xtra Factor was another good move: she somehow completed the main line-up, adding a lot of fun to the process and making the programme quite entertaining even for people like me (i.e. someone who doesn't like the kind of pop music the show sells and reality shows in general). Other than their expertise, good looks and fashion sense, the two ladies on the judging panel added another dimension to the show: although they were both well known beforehand, their popularity increased massively, creating a new career path for performers.

After the show peaked (at least in popularity) with Series 7 in 2010, it was nowhere to go but down. Obviously, launching the American version of the show and losing 3/4 of a very popular judging panel didn't help, but the main damage was done simply by time: the old gimmicks became too familiar, and the ultimate failure of the programme became apparent, they very rarely found people whose fame lasted more than 15 minutes. When you see winners failing over and over again, you don't only lose interest in who wins, but the whole show as a stepping stone towards a lasting career becomes ridiculous. And no amount of added drama (see the chairs at bootcamp) or returning judges can fix that (as its clear from viewing figures). At this point, it's embarrassing how desperately they try to stay afloat, with some especially questionable choices this year. Without criticizing the actual individuals, on the judging panel we have a radio presenter (while we have a pop star co-presenting the show and another one co-presenting the spinoff show), plus a performer who has released a grand total of 1 album so far, giving advice to newcomers. In judges' houses, 2 of the 4 guest stars offering expert opinion were artists not many of us had even heard of before 2014.

THE PROBLEMS

The show was heavily criticized for having a stranglehold over the whole music scene (and putting too much power into Simon Cowell's hands, which isn't a good thing to say the least), but I blame the public for that particular one: no one forces them to watch the show and buy those records. It's often said that there's no real talent on the show, and that contestants get too much publicity before even learning their craft, but some of them can really sing, and people who do well are usually those who have been gigging or at least practicing for years. I have different complaints.

First of all, they're implying that they know what it takes to make it in the music business, and that there's a particular formula to follow in order to become successful. Funnily enough, they prove themselves wrong by presenting some really good singers who have clearly no chance of making it even with their help, while ignoring the success of a very long line of unusual performers from Bob Dylan through Lou Reed to Bernard Sumner and who knows how many more, who wouldn't stand a chance in the show but have been doing quite well for decades.

The overly competitive mentality (one wins, everyone else fails) is also strange to me. I understand the need for competition to make the show more interesting, but in real life, music is not a sport, you don't have to beat your rivals to succeed, and although it can be fun to look at charts (um, not anymore really), they really don't matter if you have enough fans who come to your shows and buy your records.

Another problem is pretty much built in the show from the start (and what I hinted at earlier): it's a TV show of newcomers every year. This means that they're not too interested in what happens to contestants after the show (the winners are usually forced to make a completely bland album aimed at the widest possible audience but actually appealing to a very limited one, then they get the blame, get dropped from their contract and are labelled as a failure), and also the following year's competition takes the public's attention away from whatever they do. At this point, I have to mention that these problems aren't exclusive to this particular format, I strongly dislike The Voice, which claims to be some sort of proper entertainment all about the skills and without the laughable fools, pretending that looks don't matter (shouldn't it be on the radio then?), using the same amount of gimmicks, artificial drama and hysterically enthusiastic relatives without producing any genuine stars.

Problem #4: the show's musical range is very strictly limited. They pretty much ignore everything that's even slightly left of centre, and they keep returning to the same artists, songs and themes over and over again. As a TV programme aimed at everyone between 9-99 (or at an even wider demographic), they shy away from the more characteristic stuff, for fear that viewers might not take those (the same way as most radio stations do). They seem to target a bit younger audience recently, but that's all the risk they are prepared to take.

THE VERDICT

Although I don't think it's worse than any other similar show, The X Factor has clearly overstayed its welcome by now, and didn't really fulfil its purpose of finding a lot of genuine stars. It was amusing for a while, maybe it's time to let it go, but I won't lose sleep if they keep it on air.