|
Singing is an art form and and art form cannot be judged.
Who is to say whenther Tim McGraw is better than Faith Hill.
It just doesn't make any sense, unless faith on any given day forgets one word, looks at the monitor for a second and Tim doesn't?? Then Tim wins. Or Tim's tie is crooked and loses two points on the scoresheet and puts him in second. Again, makes no sense.
Also, there are many amateurs that have sung previously in local bands who have all the other points on the sheet racked up because they've been there and done that and can look more natural doing it, but may NOT sing as good as the real amateur.
I think you would have to have categories and levels of categories to the point where you would have more categories than singers to be totally fair, again, makes no sense.
You simply cannot judge a form of art like that.
Most KJ's already can tell when they see a great singer.
Then you would add "If this guy ever competed, he would always win".
On that premise, he would win mostly all local contests in that area. But that would make no sense either.
And most non-professional judges are "exactly" that.
Again, this makes no sense to run a conest attempting to judge an art form.
"Is Elton John better than Barbra Streisand, think about it!
This thought process makes no sense.
I see a rubric in a past voice, it compares:
Voice....what the heck does that mean, there are 8,000 ways to determine the quality of a voice and that is very personal and is decided genetically(judging the sound of a voice and its appeal is genetic).
Appearance: Geesh, if you are singing rap it would be typical to appear like a rap singer, but how does a rap singer appear like a rap singer more than a country singer appears like a country singer...makes no sense.
Don't use monitor: The best hosts of all time "Johnny Carson and Dave Letterman use them all the time.
Also, it is memory that determines a peak at a monitor, nothing to do with the virtue of a singer.
Interact with crowd: Statistically, any small sample used as a reference is considered to have no statistical meaning whatsoever. Most crowds are small and chosen by the singers and are biased and "tied" to singers, and become part of the already "nonprofessional" judges.
That is why only recently music awards have started to be chosen by the public.."because of the internet "hopefully" reaching a much larger crowd of people that may be considered normalized over a great range". They had thought of doing this earlier(before internet)..but those responding would be the small percentage that would take the time to write in several hundred letters a piece, indicating a skewed sample.
Anybody agree with my analysis after giving it much thought?
|