Fix The Voice: Problems & Solutions

[Kromm]

The show rolls on several times per year now, but has some consistent problems.  Talk about them--and suggested solutions--here.

[hincandenza]

I'll bite. My initial thoughts:

- Less sob story, more singing. I'd rather singers get 2 minutes plus, with less intro package, than 90 seconds of frantic singing and extended Adam hijinks

- Give Adam, Blake, or both a one season break, at least. Some fresh blood would liven the show, as well as those two.

- Don't montage picked singers if you can help it. It's one thing to montage a bunch of singers who didn't get picked, or even bomb out in the battles, but anyone who gets out of the initial battle rounds ought to have had their audition aired.

- Encourage uniqueness. Instead of yet another goddamn Smokey Robinson song by someone whose parents weren't even born when that song came out, encourage the songwriting singers to perform their own songs whenever they're comfortable. Even if you end up occasionally paying them the $20,000 or whatever scale is for airing a cover of their own published song, it's still comparably cheap and potentially interesting.

- Change your unwieldy contractual terms and shitty prizes. We all know the show isn't even attracting the talent it did in the first few seasons, when it seemed like a more mature AI. Now it's become the same show, with the same tired songs, and the winner is never even a big deal. I believe this is in part because these shows have awful contracts that few self-respecting artists would sign.

Since the show must admit to itself they aren't really looking to make $$$ by signing the next Kelly Clarkson to a shitty contract, they should strive to focus on the TV product, and get the kind of talent that will give amazing ratings, and might even produce a star by chance.

Next time, go all out: make the contracts as artist friendly as can be, establish a real prize pool: 1st place should be huge, like $1-2M in combined cash and tour/recording support, and going down from there. What is it today, the winner gets a likely awful "record deal" ( which will probably cost them money when all is said and done), and no actual cash? Or maybe a pittance like $100K or $250k?

- Lastly, having taken the above steps, go recruit the best undiscovered talent. No more warmed over cruise ship singers or blues-rock karaoke gods or precocious teen divas; go find promising singer/song-writers that are experienced and have some fans, but just haven't taken that big leap.

I was no huge fan of Christina Grimmie last year, but she is kind of who all contestants should be: developing a fanbase without a label (YouTube stars are actually pretty huge these days) and potentially using The Voice to make the jump. Become the show that every great unknown artist would give their eyeteeth to be on, without hesitation.

I mean, can you imagine how good the show would be if you had the live shows showcasing 16 of the best indie musicians in the entire country, people who without the voice might well have still broken out anyway, but spending the equivalent of 1/4 to 1/3 of Adam's salary on a real prize pool and recruiting drive could make this one of the best music shows TV has ever seen. And I think the ratings boost would justify the relatively little extra cash.

[FormerMod-a1]

It's odd.  I love this show even when I disagree with the coaches choices at every step.   I love it more than any other singing competition, in  fact it's the only one I currently watched (I did like the failed Duets).  That said I do have a couple of things I'd like to see changed.

 

• As much as I love this show, go back to one season a year.  It'll give the coaches more time to recuperate, tour, record, etc.  It will give the finalists more time to reap the benefits of being on this show (exposure etc) before everyone is thinking of the new/current season.
• Apply the iTunes multiplier to all songs, not just those that break the top 10 (or whatever the current restriction is)
• Do the blinds like they did the first season.  I really liked seeing something closer to the actual sequence, and knowing when a coach had already filled their docket.
• I also agree about shorter intro (sob) stories.  I don't think you can remove them totally, I know many people who actually like them, but they don't need to drag them on and repeat them before and after commercial break.

[Noreaster]

I don't think the show is fixable.  Way too many singing competitions on TV right now.

 

Talent pool is largely depleted.  The Voice used to be about showcasing more experienced professionals who had some degree of success. Contestants who had a good idea of who they were as artists, who know how to perform and entertain.  Now it's mostly contestants with limited experience who need some work.  

 

As for the coaches, I've tired of Adam and Blake.  We've lost the newness factor when the coaches were still figuring out how to play the game.  Their strategies are more refined and their schticks are getting old.  But they're still the core.  I probably wouldn't watch without them.  Not particularly impressed with Pharrell like many seem to be.  We haven't even seen any coaching from the new guys yet.  

 

Agreed that NBC accelerated the demise of the show by putting it on two seasons a year.  But I understand the network needing to milk the show for what it's worth.  

 

Just have to enjoy the show for what it's become.  Still better than the competition.  I recently caught an episode of the UK version of the X Factor.  What a weird format.  Not fun at all.  The coaches were cutting their teams down to six each, but they did it in such a way where a contestant would get a spot in the final six, but then could be booted in favor of other contestants yet to sing.  So stressful for everyone involved.  I still like The Voice for its mostly positive treatment of the contestants.  

[Kromm]

- Give Adam, Blake, or both a one season break, at least. Some fresh blood would liven the show, as well as those two.

For several seasons I've been saying this same thing.  I've recently (like TODAY) come to a major change in my position.

 

The "or" before the word "both" should be removed from the suggestion now.  

 

BOTH need to go for at least a season, if not permanently, and here's why: EITHER of them being around has now created an inevitable self-fulfilling prophecy in terms of how the very tip-top contestants pick coaches.  It was bad enough when it seemed like almost every truly good choice went to Blake, simply because it seemed to multiply their chances to win the show.  But relieving that a little with Adam winning again actually made things worse, not better.  It means the other two coaches, regardless of who they are or how big in the industry, never get a good team--because the tiny percentage of people who just made a weird decision to not go with Blake now have another choice who can argue a dynasty.  Self-fulfilling prophecy--if nobody good goes to those teams, the coach dominance of those main two never gets broken. Ever. So the show has to create a scenario for a season or two where it's not the Blake and Adam show to steer future contestants in more possible directions.

 

Another issue is even if Blake IS replaced, if it's another country artist, you still have a problem.  Why do country artists ALWAYS go with Blake? No, it's not because he's from Texas, or is in Nashville always, or any of that--at least not explicitly those reasons.  It's that the Country music listening community attaches ZERO stigma to being a reality show winner (or even a lower ranked contestant who makes "regular network TV"), and markets the HELL of out any contestant from Network TV dragged in front of them.  All you need is a medium level or better "mentor" doing the dragging--one who tours and bingo, it works.  Because another area of difference with country is that their fans still flood concert venues (and incidentally still watch their music TV channels/shows, like CMT, GAC channel--which shows the Grand Ole Opry, the Austin City Limits show, etc.). So it's the media infrastructure which helps these folks out, and Blake is just the gateway--one which the likes of Gwen, Pharell, Usher, Christina, Shakira, and even Adam can't be.  Pharrell & Usher and Christina & Shakira in theory actually have their own "specialty" types of media outlets ("Urban music stations" for the first two and the Spanish language stations for the second two), but those communities don't seem as plugged into The Voice or as able to drive a winner of their kind through, and then accept them into their fold where they can be dragged onto tours by their mentor and create an inevitable success that way.  But pop Tim McGraw or Luke Bryan or Jason Aldean down in Blake's place and (sorry, Blake) it's gonna work just as well.  It might even work fairly well with a female country mentor like Martina McBride, or Faith Hill, or best of all --for the show's ability to market it--Carrie Underwood. Of course the flip side of that is that while it helps the Country contestants do well and draws a huge loyal country viewership, there will NEVER be any real contention over those contestants.  Not that country artists are the only ones to flock to Blake now--by no means is that true.  The mere impression that he's got a big chance of winning is enough, so they clump on his team--those who don't now go to Adam automatically I mean (Adam winning that second time HAS forced Blake's team to veer more towards the country box though, even if not completely). 

 

Anyway, you can't NOT have a "country coach", so you're stuck with that piece of the problem.  But Blake AND Adam being gone for a bit will allow another name to fall into the winning coach column and pry open the audition process a bit for when they DO inevitably return.  A few people who matter might actually jump to some other coach, I mean.  You might wind up with two "country coaches"  at some point if Blake returns and your country placeholder for him was that winner and also was obliged to return to give him some competition--and that might sideline the program in other ways with the non-country viewing public--but it's a risk worth taking.  So ditch BOTH Blake and Adam for one season, drag on Carrie Underwood for a bit if you can bribe her with enough money, have Blake return triumphantly (maybe keeping Adam off one more season) and battle Carrie, and perhaps mix in someone like Pat Monahan (lead for Train) as Adam's proxy while he's gone.  I'd also seriously consider bringing Usher back in a season where contestants aren't tempted by Blake and Adam's success records--he might do a hell of a lot better in that circumstance.

Edited October 2, 2014 by Kromm

[KFC]

I don't think the show is fixable.  Way too many singing competitions on TV right now.

 

Talent pool is largely depleted.  The Voice used to be about showcasing more experienced professionals who had some degree of success. Contestants who had a good idea of who they were as artists, who know how to perform and entertain.  Now it's mostly contestants with limited experience who need some work.  

 

If anything, the market is actually more ripe now for The Voice to find a talented, potential star than it was when it first premiered. X Factor US is canceled, Idol is slowly but surely dying in the ratings, and ABC's two attempts at singing shows have failed to take off. I know this show has always been more about the judges' banter than launching a new singing star, but I do think some of the judge fatigue (ie Blake and Adam) would be offset if the show could do more to launch the careers of some of these contestants.

 

I'm actually kind of surprised this show hasn't made more of a concerted effort to give the winners better coronation material. I think of when Phil Phillips was given the Mumford and Sons-sounding "Home" on American Idol (as opposed to the usual generic A/C ballads they tend to saddle the winners with), and I'd venture to guess a song like that or something with pop radio appeal would inject some fresh excitement into the show itself. Having Ryan Tedder produce the winner's single last season seemed like a step in the right direction, but then Tessanne got a schlocky (IMO) inspirational slow song that is so not what you hear on the radio these days. Would it really cost the show THAT much more to create more individualized, radio-ready singles for say the top two or three contestants? It's not nearly the investment of a full album but you could still generate the buzz off a hit single.

 

Personally, I don't think the show is all THAT much different or worse than when it first aired. Although I do agree it's becoming increasingly hard to get excited about the contestants, be that due to a shrinking talent pool or a shift in what the judges are looking for. In any event, I do wish the producers would realize your contestants can and should be just as much of an investment as the banter and star power of the judges are, just for very different reasons. I think they're starting to rely too heavily on the appeal of the judges to the point that the contestants are becoming an afterthought. Ideally, there'd be a happy union of both: wacky celeb musician hijinks (or whatever you want to call it) AND the Cinderella stories of undiscovered talent getting their big break.

Edited October 2, 2014 by KFC

[Kromm]

The show DID do one really important thing.  It removed the stigma for currently successful artists to judge on reality shows.  Idol netting more relevant judges, and ABC's Rising Star thing, both followed The Voice changing that.  

 

So I was just contemplating in another topic how much money (and because she TOURS so damn much, planning) it would take for them to finally land Pink as a coach. However I DO recall Pink making disparaging comments about music reality shows at some point in the past.  Her opinion may not have changed.

 

Also, in my big ass post above I suggested Carrie Underwood.  I meant that.  But again, her touring schedule has to be murder. How do you land her?  Pre-planning so you get her the year AFTER she's done a big tour.  Them doing a show like this while recording an album seems to be acceptable to many of the bigger stars I think.  It's mixing it with tours that's murder.

[Cramps]

For what it's worth, I watched Every season of Nashville Star and they never had any breakout stars. (Miranda didn't become famous until years after it was off the air). So the country thing on TV isn't always a guarantee of success.

Speaking of potential other coaches, Katy Perry might be interesting. She's certainly smart and funny. Not sure how good an actual coach she'd be on the music side.

[Kromm]

For what it's worth, I watched Every season of Nashville Star and they never had any breakout stars. (Miranda didn't become famous until years after it was off the air). So the country thing on TV isn't always a guarantee of success.

Speaking of potential other coaches, Katy Perry might be interesting. She's certainly smart and funny. Not sure how good an actual coach she'd be on the music side.

Yes, but that's because even when it was on NBC, Nashville Star was a.) early on in the reality show wars when on a network--but then later constrained to cable with less influence b.) didn't allow the country folk to look special and high profile, because they were ALL country people next to each other at the same time. c.) didn't have the mentor/touring mechanism worked out, where you've got the senior person in country dragging the protege to innumerable packed appearances, having every local country radio station cue up their music, drag them onstage at the Opry and consequently on GAC and eventually CMT, etc.

 

As for Katy Perry I have to think there's some reason Idol and The Voice and Rising Star haven't nabbed her yet.  Either she's asking too much (I doubt she'd say NO overall) or she's making SO much touring it's a losing proposition for her even if they DID roll the money truck up.

[Cramps]

Good point on Nashville Star. There were at least a couple stars to come from it--albeit years later (I think Kasey Musgraves too-although I don't remember her.)

I'm guessing Katy Perry is one of the few artists who doesn't need a reality show for her career these days. She's actually making money still as a recording artist. But she'd be entertaining!

Edited October 2, 2014 by Cramps

[BogoGog24]

It depends what NBC wants the show to be. Is it just a ratings game or do they actually want to make stars? If the answer is just a popular show with good ratings, then they're pretty much doing that. But if they actually want even better ratings or to make a few stars, they need to stop making it all about the coaches and their bromances/promances and put the focus back on the contestants. Once the audience realizes the show doesn't care about actually making a star and it's all about judge shenanigans, they tune out and ratings go down. The reason people enjoyed it to begin with was seeing the talent and seeing somebody make it big. Adam and Blake's bromance has grown tired and old by the 7th season. 

 

I do think they should switch out Adam and Blake every other season, just as they do with the other 2. They should have 2 different sets of panels that take turns every other season. That way, it will feel fresh each season. We won't be seeing the same faces each season but the faces will still be familiar. I think switching the coaches TOO much can be a bad thing because the audience and contestants have no familiarity with them. Contestants won't be as likely to choose those teams if they don't know what kind of coaching style to expect. Two sets of panels that stay consistent would be a good option. And it would also allow the coaches to record, tour, etc. when they are not on the show and they can come back well rested and fresh for the new season.

 

The sob stories are becoming too much. I feel like it is only necessary if the person has some obvious issue that needs to be explained to the audience, like Blessing Offor very obviously being blind, or that girl whose mom died, some people might have been wondering why her mom wasn't there. Or the guy who dedicated his song to his autistic sister, if he was dedicating it to someone special, they had to explain some of the backstory. The rest are unnecessary, like the girl who accidentally burned half her face. Her face returned to normal, you would have never known it happened just by looking at her. I could understand if her face was permanently damaged they'd have to explain, but it wasn't. She looked perfectly normal so why even bring it up?

 

They should montage the contestants who don't make it through, not the other way around. Why should we waste 10 minutes on people who don't make it, and in some cases, are really bad? (Girl who sang Celebrity Skin?) The ones who did make it who got montaged worked just as hard to be there and they were good enough to be selected for a team. Why do they get montaged but we have to sit through 10 minutes of someone who isn't even on the show? Makes no sense and it's unfair to the contestants who make it. They spend too much time on backstory in general. A cute quirky story is fine, like Cracker Barrel guy. But I don't want to hear sob stories or really much of anything about a person before I hear them sing. I just want to hear them sing. I also think it would be neat if they were able to make the auditions blind for the studio and home audience and not just the coaches. Maybe they could take a page from Rising Star and have them sing behind a wall. That is sort of the whole point of the blind auditions yet only the coaches can't see them.

 

I disagree that the iTunes multiplier should be applied to all songs that chart. That defeats the whole purpose. 

 

I've heard what the prize is is a contract with Republic Records and $100,000. I'm not sure how much the contract is worth. I think it just depends what the label decides to do with the contestant. Cassadee Pope and Danielle Bradbery have both lucked out with Republic Nashville (Taylor's label) and being country artists also helps. Jermaine Paul never even released an album and Tessanne was seen as an outdated sounding artist. Her coronation single was nothing special. She herself even called her album "a quiet release." The label probably didn't care to push her that hard like with Cassadee and Danielle because Tessanne does not appeal to the all important teen market and her music is not current sounding. I think what they give the winner is a perfectly fine deal, especially for someone who is struggling for recognition in the business, or someone like Danielle who had no experience prior to the show and was just a normal 16 year old high school student. The show is meant to be a launching pad for aspiring singers, there are no guarantees that they're going to be the next Kelly or Carrie. That mainly depends on luck. Cassadee's album and first single did really well, even though people knew her before from Hey Monday, but I'm sure it has opened many more doors for her. And while Danielle's album didn't sell a lot, she's gotten a lot of opportunities to open for other singers, has performed at the Grand Ole Opry, and has an endorsement deal with Sketchers sneakers. And she is working on her next album already, so it's helped create a launching pad for her and exposed her to fans that she didn't have before. Josh Kaufman won the lead role on Broadway's Pippin. And there have been many non-winners who have released singles or albums and most importantly, gained fans. Anyone can release music independently these days but it's the exposure that counts the most and being able to tour. When someone can say they've been on The Voice, it gives them some credibility and more people are willing to check them out. It's definitely worth doing if you are talented enough to make it on the show and do well. It is a lot better than not doing it at all. The exposure is more important than anything.

[Noreaster]

I don't really watch the show in hopes that it will launch a star.  I just want to be entertained by quality performances.  Seeing lower quality contestants who are not as TV-ready is my problem.  I think season 6 was really weak in this regard, and season 7 is looking equally underwhelming.

 

Contestants who adapt well to the reality TV environment tend to be more experienced.  They know who they are as artists. They have already identified their own strengths and limitations and can push back on the producers/coaches suggestions.  They already know how to give effective performances.  

 

I like the ideas in hincandenza's post a lot.  But that calls for a completely different type of show.  One that would appeal to a niche market.  Unlikely to get the same type of ratings that the current Voice format gets.  

[hincandenza]

I don't really watch the show in hopes that it will launch a star.  I just want to be entertained by quality performances.  Seeing lower quality contestants who are not as TV-ready is my problem.  I think season 6 was really weak in this regard, and season 7 is looking equally underwhelming.

 

Contestants who adapt well to the reality TV environment tend to be more experienced.  They know who they are as artists. They have already identified their own strengths and limitations and can push back on the producers/coaches suggestions.  They already know how to give effective performances.  

 

I like the ideas in hincandenza's post a lot.  But that calls for a completely different type of show.  One that would appeal to a niche market.  Unlikely to get the same type of ratings that the current Voice format gets.  

 

Thanks!  However, while we agree the talent level continues to be underwhelming, I disagree that my suggestions would radically change the nature of the show.  Most of what I suggested was cosmetic tweaks such as the level of editing and sob story content, and occasionally allowing- but not forcing- a singer to perform their own song(s) when they think the time is right for them.  In fact, didn't the first season require them to write and perform their own original song, or am I confusing that with "Rockstar: INXS"?

 

BogoGog24 has the right of it a couple of posts above; 7 seasons in, the pull of "The Voice" can no longer be about the laughable claim of finding the next big star. The stagnation of a parade of forgettable mediocrity will lead to declining ratings, especially as the talent level continues to thin out as it did with AI and others, unless they can re-discover a "raison d'etre".  And I think the biggest reason would be some artist becoming meaningful enough outside of the show to matter, the way Kelly and Carrie once did.

 

The key part I did mention was bringing back the idea that a "star" may actually be found by accident, simply by focusing on upping the talent level, which also would make the show overall more enjoyable like a weekly live concert televised.  Ben Folds, the flawless judge of "The Sing-Off", said his goal in that show was to bring great a cappella music to the viewing audience, and oh incidentally, there's also a competition.  Not that TSO had great ratings, but The Voice has far more star power on their panel, so I think The Voice would benefit proportionally from a similar philosophy.

 

However, they're not going to get the best untapped talent out there with a joke of a $100,000 contract and nothing else.  Adding a prize pool, making the contract/recording a no-strings benefit and not some "19 Recording" scammy exploitative contract, and generally pushing harder to get people already on the cusp who just haven't clicked yet for some reason would result in this show being stocked with honest-to-god superb talent- and then you have literally the best singing show on television.  One that I believe viewers would be more invested when it's not "Two decent singers and a bunch of never-gonnas", but top to bottom talented, skilled, interesting independent artists, with unique voices and styles and original compositions (at times, if not every week).  The kind of show where arguments will break out at the water cooler the next morning over who really won the night or deserved to go home, like happened in those first few seasons of AI or Survivor or other past reality show giants that don't have the same luster.  That's how you get epic ratings; make people talk about it so much, everyone who overhears them feels compelled to see what all the fuss is about.

[Cramps]

The songwriting component was on Rock Star INXS: it's a big part of what won JD his contract (Pretty Vegas).

[KFC]

I'll be curious to see how much Pharrell invests in any of his contestants post-show. To this point, I quite enjoy him as a personality in the judges chair, plus I like the idea that his role as a producer means he could also be using this show to scout for potential artists to nurture and promote. I'd like to think he has more of a stake in finding someone he could help turn into a successful recording artist, more so than the other judges who are for all and intents and purposes known first as a singer not a producer (with the exception of maybe Ceelo).

 

I bring this up also because I wonder if the show has tried to recruit Calvin Harris.

 

1.) Like Pharrell, he's been a recording artist with some face recognition, but his credentials are more as a songwriter/hitmaker and would have a vested interest (theoretically) in finding undiscovered recording artists with whom he could collaborate with.

 

2.) Plus, I'm guessing a show like The Voice would be more enticing to him than say a Katy Perry or a Pink, because he'd probably benefit more from that general audience exposure than they would. 

 

3.) With a lot of general Adam discontent (I'm certainly on that boat), you'd have a feasible replacement for producers: A tall, photogenic white dude who could charm the ladies with his accent. (I would've said Ed Sheerhan falls into the same singer/producer 1-2 punch as well, but he's already been on the show, and I don't think he'd have quite the same prettyboy appeal that Adam seems to enjoy and that I think Calvin Harris could.)

[BogoGog24]

 

However, they're not going to get the best untapped talent out there with a joke of a $100,000 contract and nothing else. 

 

The contract itself is not worth $100,000. It was never disclosed how much the contract is worth. The winner gets a contract in addition to $100,000 cash.

[Noreaster]

Thanks!  However, while we agree the talent level continues to be underwhelming, I disagree that my suggestions would radically change the nature of the show.  Most of what I suggested was cosmetic tweaks such as the level of editing and sob story content, and occasionally allowing- but not forcing- a singer to perform their own song(s) when they think the time is right for them. 

Maybe I misunderstood your post but it sounded like more than just cosmetic changes.  I thought you were calling for a more indie-focused show with greater emphasis on original material. Moving away from covers to unproven original songs. Not focusing so much on many different genres but instead concentrating on singer-songwriters.  

 

Problem is there is risk of much lower ratings with this type of concept change.  How many people are drawn to this type of show?  Some viewers don't care to hear unfamiliar material, they prefer covers.  Some people actually like the back stories (which also serves as a low-cost way to fill up time). Some viewers may stop watching if certain genres like country or pop are ignored.  

 

Meanwhile, costs are huge.  Coach salaries (which must be significantly higher than when the show premiered), celebrity mentors, production, etc.  Can't really cut any of these as the celebrity coaches are a major appeal.  And you're suggesting increasing costs by bumping up the prize money and paying royalties to show the contestants' original material, while giving up some of the potential profit-sharing on any post-show success?  I don't know.  Seems like a risky business model.  

[hincandenza]

Yeah, maybe I'm not making myself clear? I'm not advocating the all-flannel Indie Hipster Funtime Hour, nor suggesting it be only and solely original songs of dubious quality (but would it really be that dubious? Some amazing music is being made outside of the tired and dated industry system).

I'm saying, with the show we got, why don't we ever get the next big thing? Even season 1 seemed to be older, touring/active musicians. Lately, it's been skewing younger and less experienced, and the show quality is suffering. Where are the people who will be huge one day? We might laugh at an oldie like Star Search, but have you ever noticed how many big stars were on that show?!?  I can think of several reasons we don't get the best, from anecdotes about AI and other similar shows over the years:

1) "Contracts on these shows are jokingly restrictive; no self-respecting artist like myself will shackle themselves to these one-sided terms."

Solution:  Change the contracts to be artist friendly. Good rule of thumb: if your own judges would never in a million years agree to appear on the show as a contestant, then your rules are way too restrictive, and you're scaring away the best talent.
 

Cost:  Some upfront legal fees to revise the contracts. No visible change in format to the show, except better contestants.

 

2) "There's little reward. $100K + record deal is nice, but it's only if you win, and isn't life changing anyway (as we've seen) when I'm focused on trying to build my own solo career."
Solution:  Set up a modern prize pool- say $1.5M for 1st, $250K/2nd, $100K/3rd, $50K/4th, and descending from there, you wouldn't even break $2M.
 

Cost:  In this hypothetical, an extra $2M; it could be less of course. But if the better singers boosted ratings even half a point, it'd be worth every penny. FOX's trainwreck "Utopia" would pay twice that in a heartbeat to get a half point in the ratings right now.

A common complaint is that the singers don't even matter, it's a scripted sitcom about 4 pop stars cracking wise at this point. Exactly: when you pay the judges $40M and reserve a whopping 1/400th of that for prize money ($100K), it's clear the show simply doesn't care about the music. You can't improve the show and/or attract better contestants without improving on that. Plus, as often as the resurgent NBC airs this show, $2M for prizes is likely a pittance.


3) "I'm a serious artist, not some glorified karaoke star!".
Solution:  Always a fair point, which is why, if the artist chooses to do so, they can pull from their own songbook. Or not; it's a risk, either you get kudos and great fan response for showcasing a great new song, or you crash and burn because well... your song sucks compares to actual classics.

But I hear songs I've never heard before on this show, and I hear songs I know well sung badly. And yet I still keep tuning in, because mostly the performances are at least "okay", and a good song is a good song no matter who wrote it, or the number of zeros in their bank account when they did. Plus, the most successful artists will have their own voice to share, not simply re-recording covers their whole life.

Cost: Possible performance fees to the contestant due to publishing rights, unanswered question as to how the TV audience will react to a few, several, or many original songs mixed in among the usual fare.


My overall point is that other than the cost of the prize pool- a rounding error compared to the costs of this show and its celebrity judges- these changes don't really cost anything, nor do they affect the format or look/feel of the show much at all... but I believe would make a dramatic difference.  I think it would lead to top-flight talent auditioning, who would otherwise ignore this and similar shows- all of them practically clamoring for a chance to work with established artists and get exposure, and possibly win money- and as a result make the show both far more enjoyable to watch week to week, and more likely to churn out the occasional star and justify itself.

Edited October 3, 2014 by hincandenza

[FormerMod-a1]

Season 1 of the Voice, the finalists did write their own songs.  They were also the most downloaded songs of the first season.  So I don't know why they got rid of that.  Wiki used to list the total downloads, but I can't find that anymore, just the iTunes rankings, here.  I had copied/pasted the original table into Excel and screencapped it below.

 

ETA: Well, that's a lot tinier than anticipated.  Here's a link.

[Cramps]

"All flannel indie-hipster Funtime Hour" is hilarious!

Sign me up and find me a boy with a beard to watch it with me!

(Seriously, some band should dub their tour this. It's genius!)

Edited October 3, 2014 by Cramps

[Kromm]

The contract itself is not worth $100,000. It was never disclosed how much the contract is worth. The winner gets a contract in addition to $100,000 cash.

If so, that's unusual.  Often these shows talk up the salary payouts for contracts as if they were the same thing as winning cash on the barrelhead.  Go watch any episode of America's Got Talent, for example, where they constantly go on about the winner "winning a million dollars", when in actuality that's just an estimated eventual salary from a (insanely long) contract.

[Noreaster]

I think maybe we don't agree on what the problems are for the show.  I think the earlier seasons were just fine.  Good quality contestants for the most part.  I don't think the contracts have changed considerably since then.  So if they're onerous now, they were onerous then.  If the prize isn't attractive enough now, it wasn't then.  Yet the show was still able to recruit good talent.  

 

Having finalists perform original material is not an issue.  But moving any more away from covers probably wouldn't work for the general public.  There is a strong appetite for cover songs + back stories, or else the show (and other singing competitions) wouldn't get the ratings that it does.  Again, this part of the format hasn't changed from the earlier seasons.  The show has always been about performing covers.  It still got good talent early on.  

 

I think the major problem is the talent pool has largely been depleted.  That is, the group of people willing to go on reality TV and that is made up of either 1) working musicians with success but only on a local/regional level or 2) professionals who had experienced some success before (like being signed to a record label) and is now looking for a second or third chance.  The show in earlier seasons was primarily made up of these folks (plus some outstanding less experienced folks that the show somehow scouted).  Season 3 was my favorite. Now it seems to be more youngsters, people coming from performing arts schools, and other working musicians who have had less experience and success (and probably for good reason).  

 

How else to explain all this besides the talent pool has been drained?  I guess it's possible the show has scaled back its recruiting efforts. Or maybe the show is just trying to adapt to the changing viewership.  The word "ringer" was used a ton starting season 4 to describe contestants like Judith Hill and Tessanne Chin, both of whom would have fit in just fine in earlier seasons.  Maybe viewers don't want the professional anymore, but rather the newbie with the growth arc. Another possible reason is the proliferation of singing shows.  For those who don't consider it taboo to go on reality TV, there have been a lot of options. Some contestants on The Voice have even talked about trying out for other shows before.  

 

Finally, it could be that The Voice isn't as artist-friendly as it perhaps initially set out to be.  Maybe artists had more control of the process early on, but that was taken away as the show learned what worked in terms of ratings and what didn't.  I don't know.  I'm just throwing ideas out there.  But with the appeal of celebrity coaches, the costs to maintain this panel, and the relatively good ratings that the show continues to get, I don't think there's any turning back.

 

Now reading through the other parts of your post, it seems that maybe you think one problem with the show or one reason for the weak talent pool is the show hasn't produced a star? If so, then we disagree.  I think most viewers don't care.  I certainly don't.  I just want to watch an entertaining TV show with good quality performances. The fix for me is getting better contestants, similar to what we saw in earlier seasons.  I only half-watched season 6 because of the lackluster cast.  We'll see what happens in season 7.  

 

(Sorry I realized I got a bit long-winded.)

Edited October 3, 2014 by Noreaster

[Cramps]

Is it the talent pool or the show's choices? Each year I feel like we get more generic young performers doing bland pop or ballads. Where have all the rock performers gone ? And alternative artists? I thought that with Gwen as a judge we'd get more of them, but it seems like we've actually gotten less.

[Noreaster]

That's a good question.  Is it that the show can't get talent or they don't want that type of talent?  I think there's at least some of the former.  The working musicians in season 6, in my opinion, were not as strong as those in earlier seasons.  People like Josh Kaufman, Kristen Merlin, and Kat Perkins.  They were either boring or inconsistent.  But there could also be a deliberate effort by producers to mix in more of the youngsters or those that fit the pop/ballad formula.  I kind of alluded to this in the midst of my long post before.  

 

Another possible problem might be the coaches.  I liked the coaching styles of Christina and Cee Lo a lot.  I thought they tried to bring out the uniqueness of their artists. Usher and Shakira might have had more appealing personalities for the show, but I found their results ineffective or boring.  It'll be interesting to see what Pharrell and Gwen do.  I know a lot of people like what they've seen from Pharrell so far, but if he continues his trend of non-specific advice and doling out platitudes, I'm not going to be happy.

[DownTheShore]

I am tired of the 15-17 year old wunderkind category; that's become overpopulated lately.  I want to see singers from all age categories and all ranges of experience.  It sort of reminds me of how in Olympic women's gymnastics for a while all we were seeing were 12 and 13 year old girls and anyone who was say 17 was considered "old".  It made the competitions less fun to watch because all of they gymnasts were virtually interchangeable in look, voice, and body type.

 

I liked that older guy who had tried out, the one who had wanted to be a singer when he was young and had to give it up and take over the family business when his father had a heart attack.  Their criticisms of him weren't much different than the ones they've given to the nervous young singers, yet the young ones are more likely to be chosen, with their problems recognized as "potential" while it is a detriment to the singers with more mature voices.

[Kcat1971]

On the live elimination thread from 12/2/14 there has been some discussion of this new twitter save to determine the 4th person in the Finals.

 

I think its not going to end up being that big of a deal because I think it will be one of the two contestants eliminated from the top 5.

 

If they really wanted it to be a big twist that could make any of this seasons contestants eligible.  Then if someone (like Taylor Phelan) were really popular but eliminated before it was a free for all it would give them a second chance.  It might remedy a good contestant being eliminated just because he or she were on a strong team.  i.e. In my opinion 4 of Adam's contestants had the potential to go far but America could only choose 2 and Adam could only choose one.  If Taylor had survived that elimination I think he would have had the potential to make at least the top 8 if not the top 5.  (Just my opinion)

 

Another possible twist for future seasons (if you are reading Voice Producers please note this one!)  When America picks 2 and the coaches can save 1- let them steal anyone left standing for their team.  That would really shake things up.  If more than one coach wants a contestant to be the third spot on their team going into the live rounds then the contestant gets to pick.

[Noreaster]

Another possible twist for future seasons (if you are reading Voice Producers please note this one!)  When America picks 2 and the coaches can save 1- let them steal anyone left standing for their team.  That would really shake things up.  If more than one coach wants a contestant to be the third spot on their team going into the live rounds then the contestant gets to pick.

I don't think this will work. If I understand correctly, your suggestion is for the coach to either save 1 of his/her 3 remaining team members OR screw all of them and pick someone else. That won't match up with the show's positive vibe.  

 

I do agree with you that the show usually loses 1 or 2 good people each season at this stage. (For me, it was Taylor Phelan this season, Preston Pohl another season, a Cee Lo contestant in another one.) A simpler fix would be to just save the next top vote-getter regardless of team. Actually that has problems too...one coach would likely dominate even more this way (Adam's team this season would be even stronger). Scratch that, I don't have a fix suggestion.  

[glitterpants]

I keep saying the same thing every season but I wish they would reformat to in order to stop cutting 2/3/more people per week once the live shows start and eliminate only one singer at a time.

Edited December 4, 2014 by glitterpants

[Noreaster]

I have a crazy idea.  With Pharrell and Gwen struggling with their teams this season, I was thinking how the show should just swap the coaches around.  I know a lot of people don't like Adam, but 7 seasons in, he's actually a pretty good coach. He knows how to play the game, did a good job with song selection, has gotten better on the marketing side.  A couple of weeks ago, I noticed how he was very focused on strategy in his contestant feedback.  Basically offering advice to the other contestants (and coaches) on how to play the game.

 

I don't like playing the "what if" game, but I was seriously thinking what if Adam was coaching Luke?  Or DaNica?  Or Anita or Reagan or Jessie? Not that he would have necessarily brought them to the live shows so I'm not saying these contestants should have chosen Adam in the blinds.  But Adam really does offer good advice to his team. I don't think Adam's contestants are really any more talented than the others, but they were "coached" better on how to do well on this show.  

 

So how about midway through, they just do a "coach swap"?  This completely goes against the idea of coaches building these irreplaceable coach/contestant bonds.  And it takes away some of the competitive aspect. And I have no idea how they would execute this. But the newbie coaches need help from the veterans!  What to do?

 

ETA: Okay, another thought.  Adam and Blake need to go as full-time coaches.  They need to just become advisors. The panel is too imbalanced at this point. I guess next season is going to be a little better with Christina back and Pharrell should be much better in his 2nd season (hopefully, although Usher/Shakira weren't that impressive to me in their second go-around).  But I really think if Adam is still there full-time, he's going to dominate.  And Blake will too when he has country contestants. I don't think they can go entirely because a lot of viewers like them.  But there needs to be changes!

Edited December 4, 2014 by Noreaster

[Kcat1971]

I don't think this will work. If I understand correctly, your suggestion is for the coach to either save 1 of his/her 3 remaining team members OR screw all of them and pick someone else. That won't match up with the show's positive vibe.  

 

I do agree with you that the show usually loses 1 or 2 good people each season at this stage. (For me, it was Taylor Phelan this season, Preston Pohl another season, a Cee Lo contestant in another one.) A simpler fix would be to just save the next top vote-getter regardless of team. Actually that has problems too...one coach would likely dominate even more this way (Adam's team this season would be even stronger). Scratch that, I don't have a fix suggestion.  

 

I do see your point.  Its not quite as positive as the steal is earlier because the steal usually saves someone that would otherwise be going home.  And in my suggestion it would possibly send someone home that otherwise would get to stay--- for example- If Gwen had chosen Taylor Phelan at that point instead of Ricky he'd be gone when otherwise he got to stay.  Actually I'm not sure it would work just because I don't know if the coaches would really choose from someone else's team rather than their own if they had a choice.  Using the Taylor/Ricky example again- I think its unlikely that she would have picked him over Ricky even if she could have.  Same for Pharell, he probably would have picked Sugar over Taylor.  Blake didn't even really want to steal Taylor during the Battles-- Adam just sort of "made" him push his button.

 

Maybe the "fix" is to not have America ever have to vote within the team structure.  So at the point America starts voting, its the top vote getters period. No set number of contestants from each team, no coach saves left.  I think that might be what you are suggesting as well.  

 

Or maybe the lives starts with top vote getter from each team then the rest are in order of America's votes regardless of team.  That woud make sure each coach has 1 contestant in the lives but would make it less likely that really good contestants get eliminated before lives just because they are on the strongest team.

 

I have a crazy idea.  With Pharrell and Gwen struggling with their teams this season, I was thinking how the show should just swap the coaches around.  I know a lot of people don't like Adam, but 7 seasons in, he's actually a pretty good coach. He knows how to play the game, did a good job with song selection, has gotten better on the marketing side.  A couple of weeks ago, I noticed how he was very focused on strategy in his contestant feedback.  Basically offering advice to the other contestants (and coaches) on how to play the game.

 

I don't like playing the "what if" game, but I was seriously thinking what if Adam was coaching Luke?  Or DaNica?  Or Anita or Reagan or Jessie? Not that he would have necessarily brought them to the live shows so I'm not saying these contestants should have chosen Adam in the blinds.  But Adam really does offer good advice to his team. I don't think Adam's contestants are really any more talented than the others, but they were "coached" better on how to do well on this show.  

 

So how about midway through, they just do a "coach swap"?  This completely goes against the idea of coaches building these irreplaceable coach/contestant bonds.  And it takes away some of the competitive aspect. And I have no idea how they would execute this. But the newbie coaches need help from the veterans!  What to do?

 

 

Or maybe the lives starts with top vote getter from each team then the rest are in order of America's votes regardless of team.  That woud make sure each coach has 1 contestant in the lives but would make it less likely that really good contestants get eliminated before lives just because they are on the strongest team.

 

Maybe we could combine my idea with yours! Each coach gets 1 save or the top vote getter from their original team.  Then its by America's vote the top vote getters but the teams get re-organized.  (Like the tribe swap from survivor)  So they each get one from their original team. Then everyone else draws out of a "hat" to see what team they are on.  That way all the coaches still start the lives with an equal number of contestants.

[ppl]

• Get rid of the video packages and sob stories! One 10 minute contestant segment could serve 2, even 3 contestants at a time. There's no excuse for what happened to Rebekah Samarin this season or any of the other montaged contestants in previous seasons.

 

• If one coach's team is full in the blinds, have that coach be able to see the remaining performances like in season 1.

 

• No more coach's save in playoffs or any of the live rounds. The coach is there to coach not to judge.

 

• Montage the unsuccessful contestants.

 

• No more putting steals in the last performance of the battle/knockout rounds. There needs to be some suspense otherwise there are no stakes involved since the audience knows that both will move on to the next round.

 

• Get rid of coaches performances before top 12.

 

• Get rid of Adam! He takes down my enjoyment of the show by several notches with his narcissism, arrogance and smarmy car salesman pitches.

 

• Increase the winner's cheque to $500k. That will bring in some great talent.

 

• Get Carson to cut the coach off when they're talking too much. Maximum 15 seconds.

 

• Only allow two opposing coaches to comment on a performance. The contestant's own coach is not allowed to speak. This will increase strategy and there will be actual constructive criticism than fawning.

 

• Allow America to select a wildcard contestant from the top 20. The brought back contestant can then choose their own coach for the remainder of the show.

[Noreaster]

Maybe we could combine my idea with yours! Each coach gets 1 save or the top vote getter from their original team.  Then its by America's vote the top vote getters but the teams get re-organized.  (Like the tribe swap from survivor)  So they each get one from their original team. Then everyone else draws out of a "hat" to see what team they are on.  That way all the coaches still start the lives with an equal number of contestants.

Haha, yes!  We're turning The Voice into an extremely gimmicky show but they have got to do something before ratings bleed further!

 

More realistically, it's probably just time for Adam and Blake to leave. I like my idea of reducing their roles to advisors. The show will need to find strong full-time replacements.  

 

And I maintain my view that they need to bump up the talent level somehow. Season 7 is really not much better than season 6. Pharrell and Gwen are the main reasons why I'm still watching. 

[jhlipton]

Shakira may not have been a good coach, but from a "banter" point-of-view, she was sharp, extremely smart, sexy without being Xtina vulgar and without Xtina's or Gwen's ego.  

 

We stopped watching at the start of lives last season -- there wasn't anyone we really liked, and anyone halfway good would be Judith Hill-ed by the screech-bunnies. (Still bitter? You bet!)

 

Judith Hill may well represent what's wrong with this show.  When the best performer over several seasons can't make to the top 8 of her season, the live shows are obviously terribly run. 

 

I have an idea that would totally not work -- the coaches never see the contestants until the live show.  All mentoring is done over Skype or whatever, so the team that comes out at the end would be the best at singing, not the best-looking.
 

[MaryPatShelby]

Many of mine will be in agreement with those already posted but here goes:

1) Yes, get RID of the sob stories.  Especially the ones that are a stretch, like a parent that died 20 years ago, or *horrors* braces in high school! And stop making every song selection somehow relate to the sob.

 

2) I'd like to go back to equal eliminations per team during the lives, so the coaches stay engaged throughout the entire season.  I realize that this means that good singers might go home, but on the other hand, if they were that good they would have been voted in or saved by the coach.

 

3) During the lives, cut WAY back on making the coaches comment after each singer.  It is challenging for them to come up with new things to say (seriously, how many of these singers can really be "not like anybody else"?) and I think boring for the viewer to listen to the coaches say the same thing to every singer week after week.

 

4)  Along with that, have the coaches comment on actual performance details, not just "you're so great, you know I love you". I still can't believe no one called Danica out on her pitchy runs and cracking at the end of the Heart song.  They don't have to do it meanly, they can be kind and even helpful (kind of like they did when Luke came in early in one of his performances).  As a viewer, I hate listening to the rave reviews over a performance that even shower-singer me knows wasn't great.

 

5)  Eliminate the Twitter save, and whatever the social networking thing in which Carson is reading tweets - I think that's what he's doing; I FF through it. 

[blueray]

So I'm new this season, at least this the first time I watched past the blinds. I would say:

 

1. Get rite of the twitter thing and have the person that came in last go home during the live shows (after there is a final 12). This will increase the length of a season and drag out people being in the show.

 

2. get rite of un-ralevent sob stories. It's okay if it's matters to what is going on now. Like "my parent is seriously ill that is why they aren't at my audition" is okay, but I started singing after I almost died in a car accident 10 years ago isn't.

[mercfan3]

1. We need one more week of live shows. I know they want to limit them because that's when shows take a nose dive, but we can't have tripple eliminations. And actually, if they absolutely must have them...then do it top 12 week. Just send the B3 home instead of having them sing another week. 

 

2. Twitter save...realistically, it's not going anywhere..but I'd like to get rid of it. Still..maybe the person with the lowest number of votes is eliminated and the second and third one sing for their lives? 

 

3. No wild card. This is just stupid, unorganized, and unfair. We don't even know when they'll be announcing the winner...

 

4. Coach's comments..either be constructive or be adorable/funny. The Blake/Usher/Shakira/Adam panel had chemistry and could be funny..so their comments were at least entertaining. And Gwen and Christina..as well as Adam occasionally..can be constructive. But it can't be all "OMG YOU ARE THE BEST EVER." 

[MangoFed]

I think part of the reason they do double eliminations is that whole 'positive ethos' they try and hammer home. They always frame it as one person staying as opposed to two people leaving.

[Kromm]

Here's a crazy idea.

 

The "magic" the show was constructed on originally was the uniqueness of the Blind auditions.  I think there could be a way to capture a version of that magic in a second round.

 

How?

 

By using the adviser guest stars more creatively.

 

Now it wouldn't be right to simply make the contestants go through a second set of automatic eliminations with different people to go through.  But maybe what they could do is simply have the adviser reactions initially blind, and show that.

 

The Aussie show I believe tried something like this informally in one of their seasons, where they had the contestants sing in a studio with the glass divider blocked out, and the coach would march the adviser into the producer's room and have them listen without seeing the contestant.  The problem was that since it was just a practice session, there was no dramatic hook for the viewers.

 

I'd say reuse the big red chair set, just with the coach and their adviser (only the adviser turned around of course), but tell the adviser that they should only turn for acts that they REALLY would have picked themselves if they were the coach.  Don't make it an automatic elimination, but at the end of all of the acts performing like this, then at that point only the people who didn't get turned around for by the adviser are eligible to be booted, although not ALL of them--just whatever number is needed to get the numbers right for the next stage.  In the unlikely event they get a doofus of an adviser who turns around for too many people (and one assumes being told to be strict it really would take one), then and only then use some backup plan to pick who gets booted--perhaps the adviser also delivers a numerical score and only the people in the bottom range of those scores are eligible for the coach to pick boots from.

 

Or maybe there's some crazy way to have a round where the live audience can't see the performer.  Do it akin to how that Rising Star show worked, but instead of a stupid ass Wall that changed nothing (because the audience still saw the performer on a big video screen), have the performer on a stage with lights down until the crowd gets behind them. The big concern is if someone singing in the dark would hold the interest of a home audience.  Who knows?

[Kromm]

I'm guessing Katy Perry is one of the few artists who doesn't need a reality show for her career these days. She's actually making money still as a recording artist. But she'd be entertaining!

Yeah, I don't know if there's a truckload of money big enough to nail Katy Perry down to a studio for several months.  I doubt she'd have any problem with the idea of being a talent show judge, but she just plain doesn't NEED it.

 

I know I spitballed the idea of throwing as MUCH money as needed at Carrie Underwood (probably the best way to ease Blake's ass out of their for at least one season and "rest" him, but also draw a slightly different demographic), and from the "needs it or not" perspective, she probably needs it even less than Perry.  But NBC had an "in" to her with The Sound of Music, and I always wondered if they couldn't have pushed on her a bit based on that association having been forged already.  You know when she'd be most "vulnerable" to a pitch to take several months of her life and put it into a TV show?  When she was planning to stay in one place for a while anyway--albeit she'd have to make that L.A. instead of Oklahoma, or wherever her main house is.  So when she's pregnant would have worked out well, but of course it's not like they'd know ahead of time (unless she told them).  She's due next Spring, so this Fall would have worked out perfectly... but alas it wasn't meant to be.  Then again, one might argue she'd also be vulnerable to a "stay in one place" pitch for the first few months after birth--but since The Voice doesn't film late Spring into Summer that again just doesn't work out.

 

• Increase the winner's cheque to $500k. That will bring in some great talent.

 

 

Yeah, of everything... the comparatively shitty prize money has to be changed.

[Noreaster]

I think part of the reason they do double eliminations is that whole 'positive ethos' they try and hammer home. They always frame it as one person staying as opposed to two people leaving.

Though that's only been true with the introduction of the twitter save in season 5.  The show has been doing double eliminations since season 3. Personally I like the pace as I start getting bored towards the final. My main issue is the drastic cut from Top 8 to Top 5, but my guess is the live shows had to be shortened by one week due to TV scheduling and coach availability.

 

I have liked some of the show's other format changes. In particular, the battle and knockout steals which help to redistribute the talent and keep the better contestants in the game. I don't care about the instant-save so much but it probably helps the results show ratings. We'll see how the wildcard plays out.  

 

The format has been:

Season 3: Top 12 ---> Top 10 ---> Top 8 ---> Top 6 ---> Top 4 ---> Top 3

Season 4: Top 12 ---> Top 10 ---> Top 8 ---> Top 6 ---> Top 5 ---> Top 3

Season 5: Top 12 ---> Top 10 ---> Top 8 ---> Top 6 ---> Top 5 ---> Top 3

Season 6: Top 12 ---> Top 10 ---> Top 8 ---> Top 5 ---> Top 3

Season 7: Top 12 ---> Top 10 ---> Top 8 ---> Top 5 ---> Top 3 + wildcard

 

Season 3: battle round (w/steals) + knockout round (no steals)

Season 4: battle round (w/steals) + knockout round (no steals)

Season 5: battle round (w/steals) + knockout round (w/steals) + twitter-save (no sing-off)

Season 6: battle round (w/steals) + battle #2 round (w/steals) + twitter-save (w/sing-off)

Season 7: battle round (w/steals) + knockout round (w/steals) + twitter-save (w/sing-off) + wildcard

Edited December 7, 2014 by Noreaster

[MaryPatShelby]

Here's why I think I'm not going to like the wildcard.  Tonight, we have the top 5; the five who have gotten the most votes throughout the run of the show.  Tomorrow night,  two of them will be eliminated...yet someone who was eliminated weeks ago, because they couldn't generate enough votes, could be back in the competition.  Somehow, that just doesn't seem fair to me.  The top three should be, well, the top three, with no additions.

[rollerblade]

Tomorrow night,  two of them will be eliminated...yet someone who was eliminated weeks ago, because they couldn't generate enough votes, could be back in the competition.  Somehow, that just doesn't seem fair to me.  The top three should be, well, the top three, with no additions.

 

I think the WC winner will be one of the Top 5. The only caveat will be whether or not they want Pharrell to have someone in the finals.

[pivot]

What I am most curious about is if they are going to follow the same pattern they have for the twitter saves - that the contestants sing in order from Blake to Adam. That would leave Damien to sing last and I don't think they are going to let that happen.

[redbudrose]

My biggest annoyance with the show is the constant rule changes every season. The amount of finalists, how they're saved, adding the knockouts after the battle rounds, etc. It shouldn't change from season to season.

[EyewatchTV211]

If anything, the market is actually more ripe now for The Voice to find a talented, potential star than it was when it first premiered. X Factor US is canceled, Idol is slowly but surely dying in the ratings, and ABC's two attempts at singing shows have failed to take off. I know this show has always been more about the judges' banter than launching a new singing star, but I do think some of the judge fatigue (ie Blake and Adam) would be offset if the show could do more to launch the careers of some of these contestants.

 

I'm actually kind of surprised this show hasn't made more of a concerted effort to give the winners better coronation material. I think of when Phil Phillips was given the Mumford and Sons-sounding "Home" on American Idol (as opposed to the usual generic A/C ballads they tend to saddle the winners with), and I'd venture to guess a song like that or something with pop radio appeal would inject some fresh excitement into the show itself. Having Ryan Tedder produce the winner's single last season seemed like a step in the right direction, but then Tessanne got a schlocky (IMO) inspirational slow song that is so not what you hear on the radio these days. Would it really cost the show THAT much more to create more individualized, radio-ready singles for say the top two or three contestants? It's not nearly the investment of a full album but you could still generate the buzz off a hit single.

 

 

This is more of me questioning behind-the-scenes connections versus changing on-air show stuff. I don't know much about the radio industry besides reading a little about the whole "payola" issue years ago. Having said that:

 

I think the reason AI was initially successful with their acts was because of the radio play. And they DEFINITELY didn't have better songs early on. Those songs were the cheesiest, silliest things. Yet as soon as the show ended and someone won the show, that song would be on the radio the next day. I think the radio play is a huge factor in their success. Even now when I don't hear songs right away from AI acts, I think their previous success helps along more recent acts. I don't think their initial songs have really been any better. Maybe the Ryan Seacrest connection explains this. 

 

So what is blocking Voice contestants from REALLY having their songs played on radio (not counting country acts)? I read about their songs supposedly making radio charts far down, but I've never actually heard the songs like I used to with AI acts. Does the Voice lack the real radio connections that convince people to play the music? I really think radio is an important step in making these people successes versus just forgotten TV acts. 

[gunderda]

 

• If one coach's team is full in the blinds, have that coach be able to see the remaining performances like in season 1.

 

 

I hated when they changed this too but I think they did it for editing purposes.  I think they edit the performers out of order to make the episode more interesting and it makes it harder to do that if you have 1-3 judges who have their chair turned around the entire time. 

I really love the banter between adam and blake but I agree it might be better all around for the other two judges if they can get some fresh meat in there so everyone has an equal chance. 

 

And yes to the montages of those who do get a chair turned.... that is biggest spoiler alert EVER!

 

There was a guy from my city on last season and he got a montage and on the radio they're all like "well it's a bummer we didn't get to see him... but maybe that means he makes it really far!!!"  and I wanted to be like "ummm no, that means he's out before the live show"  lol  

In fact he got montaged TWICE!

[redbudrose]

So what is blocking Voice contestants from REALLY having their songs played on radio (not counting country acts)? I read about their songs supposedly making radio charts far down, but I've never actually heard the songs like I used to with AI acts. Does the Voice lack the real radio connections that convince people to play the music? I really think radio is an important step in making these people successes versus just forgotten TV acts.

 

 

I think one of the reasons is because there is a lack of legitimacy and also an amount of cheesiness that goes hand in hand with reality TV. I think it's easier for those in country to break into than other genres. Reality TV contestants just don't get the same amount of respect as artists who come up on their own whether they deserve it or not.

 

I don't watch this as a music competition, I watch it as a reality show about a music competition if that makes sense.The TV show and judge interaction between each other and the contestants is what I like.

Edited February 25, 2015 by redbudrose

[EyewatchTV211]

So then was AI only able to do it because of Ryan Seacrest? Because that should have the same lack of legitimacy and cheesiness. Especially those early terrible songs they were releasing! Yet the radio still played them. 

 

I actually like the same aspects of the show as you do. Yet in some ways I feel a little bad that no one has really "made it" from the show.

[Kromm]

So then was AI only able to do it because of Ryan Seacrest? Because that should have the same lack of legitimacy and cheesiness. Especially those early terrible songs they were releasing! Yet the radio still played them. 

 

I actually like the same aspects of the show as you do. Yet in some ways I feel a little bad that no one has really "made it" from the show.

AI got lucky with Kelly Clarkson, and also in that her handlers on the record label end pulled away a bit from the show after the disaster the show created by the idiotic Justin to Kelly movie (good lord, the winner's name didn't even come first!). I think the movie was in a way a massive lucky break for her in a backhanded way, precisely because it was like an early scare that caused her handlers to loosen the reigns a bit.

 

Also, whatever you say about Idol, they DID put a lot of effort into promoting the winner.  The Voice (and their backing record company) barely seem to try.

[dizzyizzy01]

So then was AI only able to do it because of Ryan Seacrest? Because that should have the same lack of legitimacy and cheesiness. Especially those early terrible songs they were releasing! Yet the radio still played them. 

 

I actually like the same aspects of the show as you do. Yet in some ways I feel a little bad that no one has really "made it" from the show.

The music industry is a completely difference place now, and there's actually a lot less label money that is being thrown around.  The Voice winner deals are pretty pitiful in what they guarantee, and honestly, the show doesn't try very hard to market the winners.  Despite AI's faults, they were clearly trying to find a star.  They lagged seasons enough so that the tours were pretty successful and the winner had a chance to get their music out there before the next cycle.  There was a management deal tied to the winner on as well as a recording contract.  The Voice doesn't do that stuff.  Also, I honestly don't think they've had a very marketable winner so far.  Nothing that comes even close to like Kelly, Carrie or even some of the slightly less successful ones like McPhee or Daughtry.

 

Granted, I don't think AI can launch a Kelly or Carrie in today's market either.