X-Factor: singing in the name of quality?

When Rage Against the Machine beat the X-Factor winner to the Christmas No.1 slot at the end of last year, it was heralded as a victory for “people power” against the behemoth of the music industry machine. That brief moment of euphoria for self-proclaimed fans of “real music” will have evaporated much quicker than a Boxing Day hangover, however, by the media frenzy which has accompanied the series’ return over the past few weeks. Whether the truth behind Gamu Nhengu’s rejection from the singing competition last Sunday lies in bad judging from Cheryl Cole or the intricacies of UK immigration rules, few can deny that X-Factor continues to set the agenda for popular music.

Whatever Gamu’s fate, the latest controversy over the X-Factor choices is actually most revealing about how closely the show’s producers are responding to last year’s Rage Against the Machine mini-revolt. Character, rather than voice, is the deciding factor this year. While Gamu is a technically gifted singer, the two choices who controversially won out certainly have personality: Cher Lloyd, who has an urban-themed vocal inflection that has won her the dispiriting "chav" epithet from Gamu supporters, and Katie Waissel, whose quirky persona and wacky dress sense is clearly intended to tap into the success of more unorthodox recent pop successes such as Lily Allen or Pixie Lott.

But are Cole, Cowell & co overlooking the public appetite for great singing rather than novelty? This will be the subject of debate at the Battle of Ideas session on 14th October at the Royal College of Music, London.

That ITV's hottest show is dominated by the interests of commerce and entertainment rather than pure musical talent will hardly provoke gasps of controversy outside of the most hardcore circles of X-Factor fandom. However, the judges’ selection this year overlooks the observation by acclaimed chansonnier Barb Jungr that, in a pop scene dominated by digitised vocals and electronic beats, the main driver of many huge hits have been the samples of great singers of the past.

Although Jungr had serious reservations about the talent show formula, her point, that the apparently sheep-like public know great singing when they hear it, is still a striking one. One need only look at the success of Amy Winehouse’s Back To Black album—which channelled the spirit of the great blues/jazz singers as effectively as any of the authentically tragic blues icons such as Billie Holiday and Ella Fitzgerald—to confirm that. That Winehouse emerged from the same Brit-school hothouse as former X-Factor winner Leona Lewis does not get anywhere near as much attention as the drink’n’drug addiction. But her soulful singing is not merely the product of her turbulent lifestyle. More important is the technique she learned at her performing arts school.

Marketing executives love to present themselves as the new masters of the universe, with endless power over the dumb and impressionable masses. The mistake their critics make, especially those of the anti-consumerist variety, is that they believe both the ad-men’s self-hype....and their dim view of the public. As the hit US series Mad Men brilliantly implies, the truth is that the ad-men have no better insight into the mysterious tastes of the market and the forces of history than the rest of us: they’re just slightly better at reading it, and even better at selling themselves.

With the internet and the current revival in popularity in live music offering more opportunities than ever to expose ourselves to great singing and music, the challenge for those who believe in the value of art for art’s sake is not to rage against the masses for enjoying the latest offering from X-Factor, but instead ask ourselves the more difficult, and therefore more interesting, question: what is genuinely good quality singing, and how do we sing its praises?