Contests ... Good or Bad?

[bryant]

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?

[alanross]

Every KJ I know, hates doing contests because they are exactly what Karaoke is not. Karaoke is an opportunity for people to get up and sing some of their favorite songs. Period.

Now Karaoke can be used as a tool for people to develop their talents and it can even be used as a platform from which great talent can be discovered, but it was never designed to be a tool for measuring who is "better" than the others.

I have often used the same argument about who is better - Tim McGraw or Garth Brooks. It is an extremely subjective thing. Music is all about the emotions it evokes in you and every person has different emotions about every song and singer.

There is no fair way to judge who is a better singer, but life is not fair and contests will continue because people who compete have a pyschological need to get a gauge of where the fit in in society and bar owners love the revenues.

- Alan

[SteveWalker]

Originally Posted by bryant

Singing is an art form and and art form cannot be judged...........Anybody agree with my analysis after giving it much thought?

No analysis required. Singing is judged thousands of times a day all over the world. Every kind of art you can think of has been judged since the beginning of time.

[bryant]

I see you haven't given the rest of the analysis much thought, however. very few art forms are judged, and when they are, they are simply based on how much they sold, and to whom, and even then there are many, many categories that they are whittled down in.

[swany]

Appearence, go up there with dirty work clothes on and you'll be judged on your appearence. Face it a country singer with well worn jeans and straw hat is acceptable their clothes are clean, as is a rapper with a hat on backwards. Dress like a slob that won't get you any points anywhere and you will be judged by your appearence everywhere.

Interact with the crowd, we use wireless mics in all our shows hence points for not using a monitor also can garner you points for interacting. Everyone knows the rules, bring your friends to cheer you on.

The contest we hosted went like this, 1st young man had 4 friends at his table did he sing to them only. No way. 2nd place gentleman, at his table was his wife did he sing to her only, yes his last song, his first to the whole bar. 3rd place gentleman had 5 at his table, he wandered all through the bar. Kinda shoots down the theory that the friends won it for them don't it. When you have 100 people cheering you, something was done to make them happy.

Singing is an art form, and cannot be judged? Tell that to an american idol winner with a million dollar contract. Which one? Classic art, country art, rap art. Calling singing an art is a far left coast idea, singing is a TALENT, some have a lot some just have fun with it, some sell their talent to the highest bidder. Some enter karaoke contests and win. They are called artists, and their singing venue is their art form wearing a cowboy hat and singing country makes you a country artist, pick an area that is country and your appearence will sell samo samo with rock, rap, hip hop ect, without talent they would not be called for anything.

Still having fun.

[bryant]

I'm glad to see someome disagrees, however, every point you brought up still involves comparing apples with oranges.

having just as much fun!