Happy Sunday, and I hope it's going well for all of you. Today I'm going to discuss last night's Britain's Got Talent and ponder the burning - okay, not burning, question - has Britain got talent?
Last night's final seemed very traditional in the sense that it had the usual singers - boy groups, acoustic, classical and the kiddies. Does this make the show a tad vanilla? Yes, just a tad. Can that be avoided? Not really. As the world becomes more focused on the Internet and YouTube has millions of videos online, eventually the 'spark' of finding an amazing singer/s on these kind of shows are somewhat boring as a star is blossoming every day online; therefore we needn't look very far. I'm not knocking last night's singers, far from it, I found Jack Pack the complete standouts last night and I would gladly listen to them again. The thing is, with this kind of show and the prize at stake, vanilla is the safest option. Looking back on it, and maybe I'm overly cynical, but it seemed like the winner had been decided given on the comments received, and the kind of act they are. The show is designed to show the best of what Britain can offer, and that would mean showing British pride. I personally believe that's why Attraction were a perfect win for the show last year - they might not be British, but they show the same, possibly more, pride in the country than some Brits do, and accept the diversity that the country has to offer. Essentially, singers on this show will always be vanilla, and yes, we buy from them, but there's no great risk being taken.
The question of variety acts is always thrown around with this show as not many make it through the cracks. Last night we had the wonderful Lettice Rowbotham, a very talented violinist; Darcy Oake, the outstanding illusionist and Jon Clegg, a funny impressionist. None of these made it into the top end, the highest being Darcy at 5th position. Previously, we've had Spellbound and Attraction, win the show, the closest to variety the show has produced. But does the British public really like that? Is it wrong to generalise the British public since only a majority watch the show? Yes. The fact of the matter is the viewers of this show seem to like a story, and as much as a thrill is enjoyed (I mean, come on, who didn't sit on the edge of their seat for Darcy Oake!), deep down we're just a tea and biscuit kind of majority. As the hit sensation Gogglebox highlighted, we're all pretty similar when it comes down to our television habits. Ultimately, however, we seem to enjoy things that bring us to tears than something that entices us; excites us and even amuses us; making the show very one dimensional it eliminates a good chunk of people on that show.
Of course, this isn't knocking the talent produced on that show. We obviously enjoy it since we're back year after year. Yet now, it just feels a bit vanilla because we've moved away from television onto YouTube, where arguably more people choose to showcase their talents. So to answer my question at the start - Britain does have talent. It's just moved onto a different platform as our society continues to change and the world becomes more Internet-orientated. Gone are the days where we find talent on these kind of shows as from a simple click of a button, we're directed to talent that best suits us and the talent begins to shine.