Susan Boyle Placed Rather Than Won: Hollie Steel Cried Her Way into the Finals
It was a surprise, though not completely shocking, that Susan Boyle didn't win Britain's Got Talent. Her performance in the finals held today in London surpassed her original rendition of the same song she sang in her introduction to the world, I Dreamed a Dream from Les Miserables and was a marked improvement over her semi-final selection of Memory from Cats.
But the intervening week since last Sunday's semi-final performance win via telephone call-in votes -- ironically over the contestants which beat her in the finals, the dance hip-hop team, Diversity -- may well have played a part in her second place finish. Taking nothing away from Diversity, who displayed terrific moves as did their dancing counterpart Flawless, which was the opening act, it seems to me Susan's negative press in the tabloids, plus tweets on Twitter may have worked against her. Hard to say and difficult to prove, but, having suggested in my last column that she was a bit too overconfident and cheeky, I must commend her for her subdued patter after her brilliant number, and, in particular for how she behaved when Diversity was declared the winner.
"The best people won," she said of Diversity. "They're very entertaining, and lads, I wish you all the best." She put a beautiful cap on her talent show stint and, no doubt, vanquished the doubters with her remarks and, more importantly, the stirring and different style with which she sang the Les Miserables hit.
Of course, though we may be disappointed for Susan, it's unlikely too many tears will flow from either our eyes or her own, because she is destined to live the dream she sang about and we'll be hearing a lot from her in the years to come. It's hard to believe with all the hoopla of mega million You Tube hits, not to mention zillions of searches on Google and Yahoo! and TV appearances on NBC's Today Show, CBS and ABC News, CNN's Larry King and Anderson Cooper, not to mention Oprah, that the Queen won't summon her for a command performance.
To me, although he didn't make the top three, the other bet to achieve some level of stardom is the handsome and very talented Shaun Smith, the 17-year-old high school rugby player who wowed us with Ain't No Sunshine. For a teenager with no previous exposure or professional experience, his singing was enormously infectious and his baritone vibrato and up-tempo transitions were sheer excitement.
Because of his age and looks there's little doubt a contract will soon be forthcoming, probably from American Idol's Simon Cowell, who was practically salivating during every performance -- even more than Amanda Holden!
The other young singers, 12-year-old Shaheen Jafargholi and 10-year-old Hollie Steel, were quite good, but as adolescents will have to develop a bit before we see whether they rise to everyone's expectations of their talents.
A word about Hollie, though, and her complete breakdown on Friday's semi-final performance. Lest you think I'm cruel, so be it, but it tells me that shows like this should not allow children to compete against the adults. It is simply not fair.
Not because they might be considered cute and cuddly nor even that the flaws in their performances contrasted with adults might be forgiven. But Hollie's mistakes and fumbles, leading to a hysterical meltdown, should have ended it there for the girl. Indeed, hosts Ant and Dec, as they tried to calm her down, informed her there would be no more time for a do over. But amidst her continued tears, running into the arms of her waiting mother, the ordinarily cold Simon Cowell, playing against type, assured her they would find the time and permitted her to come back later.
Her second try was much better, and so, though she didn't win the audience vote, she was voted into the finals by the judges. They insisted it was because of her talent, and against the other choice, the falsetto-voiced Greg Pritchard, I would have to agree. However, I have to respond to Simon's comment in the finals, after Hollie performed extremely well, that others had discussed the fairness of whether children should appear with grownups. He admitted that he'd wrestled with it as well, but came to the conclusion that if their talents matched the adults, why not? He further suggested that votes for Hollie should be based on talent and not pity.
But wasn't it pity that rescued Hollie in the semis? There were several other children near the same age, who all performed in the semis without subjecting us to their neuroses. Indeed, Natalie Okri, also ten years old and one of the top three in the group that included Susan Boyle, didn't cry until after she was voted out. Shaheen, Aiden Davis, Callum Francis, Kieran Gaffney and 2 Grand's Sallie Lax are all in the age twelve range and didn't need support from the judges.
However, having said that, Simon did help Shaheen in the initial audition when he stopped him mid-performance and suggested that he do another number, which then wowed the judges and the audience.
These two instances demonstrate that, talent aside, the children have been given favored treatment over the adults. No one stopped Susan Boyle and gave her a chance to start again after a faulty beginning when she squeaked out the first few bars of Memory in the semi-finals. Likewise, no one allowed Welsh tenor Jamie Pugh to have a second try when, with an admitted bundle of nerves, he fell short as he performed Impossible Dream. Amanda Holden even buzzed in during the middle of the song, later chided by Simon for doing so, which no doubt even unnerved him more.
So, why the double standard? On the one hand they say that talent is talent, no matter the age, and in a sense that's true. But if they make exceptions for kids who don't quite make it at first or cry uncontrollably,is that fair? In a track meet, if you fall they don't make everyone redo the race just because you've won all the previous ones. In my opinion, they should have a separate talent contest, Britain's Kids Got Talent, with a cutoff at least at 14.
That's my solution, though I doubt they'll take it.
Michael Russnow's website is www.ramproductionsinternational.com
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The judges should NOT have let Hollie re-sing her song.
It cut down the time the remaining contestants had, made them nervous, and affected their acts.
There was a rule that said one try per evening and even the producers said so.
Then the next day before the finale the producers issued a statement before the show began
that there would be no do overs and that everyone would have only one shot at their act.
Bottom line Greg Pritchard, the countertenor male soprano, should have been in the finale.
Um... NO. Greg's act was amusing, but not winning material. Even comparing Hollie's first attempt to Greg's performance, Hollie's was still better. She has the purest, most highly developed, most accurate voice I have ever heard in a child. Her intonation is as close to perfect as you can get. And there is nothing wrong with second chances for the kids. They are young, their minds are still growing. It is harder for them to shoulder the stress. Adults, on the other hand, are expected to handle it. Everyone could tell how badly Hollie wanted that second chance, and Simon granted it, because he knew that the breakdown was due to nerves, NOT lack of talent. Hollie didn't get into the finale because she cried, she progressed because SHE WAS BETTER. BGT is a TALENT competition, and the judges determined that Hollie had more talent than Greg, which is true. Not to mention, considering that the winner is performing for the queen, it would be in the best interest of the show to choose someone whose talent is a bit more sophisticated. Talents like those of Stavros Flatley and Greg Pritchard are fun and unique and make for good entertainment, but they are not good for representing the country with.
As for Susan Boyle, she may be the proverberial bridesmaid, but the best years of her life are yet to come. And come they will.
Something that annoys me in reading the media and commentary around Britain's Got Talent here is that people seem to misunderstand what this program is all about. It is NOT American Idol and not intended to be. The sole purpose of the show is to find a (1) talented act from the non-professional British public to represent Britain before the Queen and the Royal Family at the Royal Variety Performance at the end of the year.
Britain's Got Talent and the Royal Variety are more about national pride than anything else and its also for charity. The main prize, along with a cash award of 100,000 pounds, is the honor of performing before the Queen. It is NOT a contest to find the next pop idol, although, if good enough, with all the recent international publicity, it is possible an act could generate a show biz future from it now. Still, that isn't the purpose.
As far as Diversity winning over Susan Boyle, they deserved the win. Not that they were better or worse. It was apples and oranges. They got the vote because they are more about what BGT is all about as a VARIETY show and what the British public feels best represents the "everyman" of English culture, particularly during the current harsh economic times and when British youth have been under heavy criticism. People abroad were surprised Susan lost to a "dance troupe". Anyone who has watched the entire season understands perfectly well why Diversity won.
Really disagree with you and everyone else who has taken such a harsh position on Hollie Steele. The poor girl was crushed, terrified and gutted that she'd blown the performance of her life. She is, afterall, an inexperienced, untrained, little 10 year old child.
Simon, who understands these things very, very well, did not extend her a second chance with an eye to her perhaps winning the competion. He already knew she could sing extremely well and he also knew she would not win, even before the breakdown. He allowed her that chance because, as fragile as she was at that moment, he would not - COULD NOT - allow her to fail that way so publicly to the point it would be beyond repair. The poor girl would have been years on before she could have ever thought of getting back on another stage. I was delighted she got that chance and thank god for Simon's wisdom in handling that little girl.
I disagree. Them are the knocks in life. She just seems like a precocious little brat use to getting her way. It's not a show about taking care of other peoples kids. The parents are to blame for being delusional enough to think she could have handled it. She blew it and she got the pity vote. I agree with the author 100% on this point. It is not fair to pin a child against an adult. Every time a kid cries, the parent comes out in many people... need to take care of her boo boo--make it all better. I think this was a disservice to this kid. Now she's going to think... all I have to do is whine and I'll get my way. I found it really disgusting. There should be a 15 year old age minimum when not accompanied by an adult.
Obviously you have no clue about children. I agree with MiraMcB. Simon did the right thing. That child was not just a brat throwing a tantrum. That was a child with a dream who was also under an inconceivable amount of stress. Her worst fear came true. It is our job as adults to protect children against the "knocks in life" until they are old enough to handle it. Hollie is only 10, for Pete's sake. She will be able to handle herself better when she is older. In the meantime, there is no reason why children of all ages should not be allowed to compete. Just because they are kids doesn't mean their talents have less worth. Talent is talent, and Hollie Steel has a whole lot of it.
hmmmmm..... yes, Susan's performance was the best of her three, but I just think this is so not about her. Diversity's performance was better in my mind, and I had no prejudice against Susan because of her awkward handling of her new found fame, or the fact that she is just an quirky bird. Not only was Diversity's performance better in the final, their body of work over the course of the competition was more impressive. In fact, in terms of sheer appeal factor, both Shaheen and Shaun won over Susan from my perspective. Not because they were more talented (I'd say Shaheen's talent rivals hers, but Shaun's doesn't come close), but much like this years American Idol, both Shaheen and Shaun gave performances that would appeal more to the younger voters both in their style and in their song choices. So, while I am a voice of one, and I see Susan's obvious talent, again I submit she didn't lose, Diversity won.
I agree. Diversity won and I'm glad. I was pleased to see a cutting edge, raw, relevant and up to the minute performance by these guys. They were refreshing, the choreography amazing, and they were inspiring.
I loved the fun they were having, I loved their attitude, I loved the creativity. It was a nice change from the same ole same ole which I think boyle does represent. She was good, but I've seen it before.
Children should compete with adults & occasionally there should be a do-over. It is not an unfair advantage. Many professionals have had meltdowns, but most know how to recover. A solo singer is at a great disadvantage. He or she is in the spot light, center stage. An amateur is unused to the lights, cameras, audience, & the knowledge that millions might be watching.
If Diversity had minor errors in their performance, we'd be hard pressed to tell unless someone was obviously out of place or got dropped. Dancers, even solo dancers, carry on with the movement, hoping nobody will notice.
Singers don't have that option. Everybody recognizes a tremble or a nervous off-key note. A mature professional knows to step back, regain composure, even ask for water, & begin again... even in a live TV performance.
Making an allowance for a voice, which is a musical instrument, is the right thing to do... whether it is child or adult. I doubt that Susan's weak beginning hurt her. It probably helped her. She was human after all.
Hollie's meltdown was that of an excellent singer who happened to be an untrained 10 year old in panic. There is a difference between a good performer with a stage-fright meltdown vs a mediocre or bad performer who doesn't realize that they are not all that good. It doesn't take a Simon Cowell to know the difference.
One other thing:
I've worked behind the scenes in the TV industry for 33 years in an job that brings me into very close contact with performers just before & sometimes during performance. I've seen a noted opera singer upchuck due to nerves in the middle of a performance. I've seen a performer at the Oscars freak at the thought of a billion people watching. The orchestra vamped & she was pushed on.
However, those who have meltdowns before & during performance are often at the top of their field. They are perfectionists & often cannot tolerate anything less than perfection from themselves & those around them.
Those who have the fewest meltdowns seem to be the lesser quality. They are not perfectionists & often fail to recognize that their own talent is not all that great. These are the ones who sometimes blame someone or something else if it is recognized that their performance lacks.
See Michael Russnow's Profile
Scholastica8, while I appreciate your sentiments I believe they miss my point.
Britain's Got Talent and a host of other TV contests are high stakes games. A lot of money and the potential for a major career are in place.
There's no reason why adults should be treated in one manner and children in another. Likewise, if we don't want to see Simon Cowell criticize a child in the manner he would a grownup then the kid should be on a show where he/she is judged on talent alone with his peers or conversely if children are blended with older folks the adults shouldn't suffer the judges' scorn either.
Your premise that those who are truly talented are somehow entitled to a breakdown and given a do over begs the question in regard to my comparisons. Specifically referring to singers, since you feel they are most vulnerable to noticeable errors in these situations:
1) The other children, some of them equally as talented as Hollie, did not require aid and, with the exception of Shaheen, were not told to sing something else. Moreover, the other kids bravely continued their act (including Shaheen) whatever their difficulties or state of nerves, as did the adults.
2) Adults who have such problems are not given second chances and are rudely buzzed in during their performance -- and in semi-finals, as opposed to the initial audition. They've already been deemed to have talent by the time they make it to the semis, so I think the buzzing should stop after the preliminary auditions.
As to your assertion that a good performer should be given the benefit of the doubt vs. a mediocre one who doesn't know they're not so good, I'm not sure if this was a reaction to my comment about the unequal treatment afforded Jamie Pugh. If you saw Jamie Pugh's audition when he sang a number from Les Miserables -- and did so beautifully -- you might not dismiss him in such derogatory terms as you appeared to do in comparison with Hollie.
It was in the semi-finals that Jamie had a case of nerves singing "Impossible Dream," and he continued to press on in spite of Amanda Holden's rude buzzing. His voice was no less adequate, yet his state of mind made the performance suffer.
Finally, we have to remember that this is a big, big deal for all of these people, especially those in middle-age who are stuck in dead-end jobs and use the show as perhaps the one shot they will ever have. To make it more difficult for them, or alternatively to apply different -- read that to mean easier -- standards for children -- yet allow them to vie for the same opportunity and cash prize is patently unfair.
Our natural sentiments might appreciate Simon coming to the rescue for Hollie when he did so, but she proved to me she wasn't ready for the big time. Thankfully, the audience agreed and she wasn't even in the top three.
Susan grew up and lives in a hard up working class town and is one of nine. Her language was colorful at times before she came on BGT. I have heard she is very quirky as she has soon as well as kind and generous. This whole thing was a lot more than she ever asked for and once she got away from home and had to deal with it I can't imagine! Fortunately there are people who can teach her how do deal with the tabloids etc. There were a lot of family, friends and fans of the other contestants in the audience. You could hear it when the bigger acts came on. Understandably they got mad when Piers admitted to favoring Susan but it was very bad manners to boo. She does have an incredible voice and who does not relate to not being one of the perfect beautiful people. The beautiful people can't stay that way forever with out a lot of wasted time that could be spent on more worthwhile endeavers.
Full article at www.p0pvulture.blogspot.com
As much as I loved Susan's performances, and watching her go from spinster to superstar, I can think of no more fitting ending to a talent show than for the most talented act to win. And although there's an anti-climactic sense of 'is that it?' about being denied the denouement we all expected, we should be happy with how it turned out. Unfortunately, the media now have to cover their backs for making the SuBo story run and run, which is why half the headlines about the result seem to be about who came second, rather than who actually won.
The reason Susan caught the imagination of the world wasn't because she had the most remarkable voice we'd ever heard. It was because she reminded us to look beneath the surface. She told us to never give up on our dreams, no matter how old we are. And she proved that eyebrows demand regular management.
More importantly, she showed us that winning wasn't as important as proving to the world that we have something to offer. Think back to her first audition, when she finished her song and walked straight offstage - she wasn't there for the judges, she just wanted her chance to show what she could do. She dreamed a dream, and for a few weeks, it was one we all shared.
Great post. I agree. I really think the best act won. Boyle really did achieve what she set out to do and that was to be given a chance. She did and we all learned a lesson, to look beneath the surface. yay!
And as for Holly, I really didn't think she should have been given a do over. I was pleased to see her perform well in the final for her sake as I think it will hel;p her psychologically. But, I really don't think children her age should be up there performing. Too much pressure and too much potential for them to become screwed up for the rest of their lives.
In the Xfactor, the minimum age is 14, so I think the same should apply to BGT.
Connie Talbot was only six when she was on BGT and she never broke down on stage. All kids are different. You can't deny them the opportunity to compete based on the unfounded assumption that kids can't handle it. Stress affects everyone differently, including kids. If children were not allowed on BGT, Connie Talbot may never have been discovered.
what do you mean HALF the headlines?...the MAJORITY of ALL headlines were about Susan...what timing to have it all come crashing down as soon as it was DIVERSITY's turn to enjoy the limelight!...
Mr. Russnow, I agree with you completely regarding Hollie Steel's do over. Susan didn't get one and neither did Jamie Pugh. I don't think the little girl was done any favors by that because it's a hard fact that life in the entertainment industry is not always kind and life, in general, does not have do overs.
I think Susan was still feeling unwell from her cold and stressed so maybe she chose to sing the same song to finish her commitment to the contest. with less pressure.. Gone was the joyful exuberance and innocence from the original performance but there was a profound level of professionalism and emotion in the second singing of her song. I do not view the woman as cocky or anything other than a simple woman following a dream who has a dry, cheeky sense of humor. In this day and age, someone using the infamous "F" word is really not all that uncommon and to hold that against her is really rather silly.
IShe will put out a CD soon under Simon's management and those of us who actually enjoy her will buy her CDs and see her in concert should we be so lucky.
She may not have won first place, but she proved she has tenacity and a beaufitul voice. I'm quite sure she has other songs to sing, I wouldn't worry about that.
The oddest thing about American Idol is that the usual "winner" isn't so much so as those exposing their talent to the world during the contest. Jen Hudson for one did not "win" but did she? Susan Boyle will do what happens next with a cd and appearances then go on for a while as she is the usual young thing. The other act which did win, won because they are quite good at what they do. While the American Idol does more cookie cutter with everyone singing the same song or from the same group etc, the Brits appear to run a real contest of multiple different types. Wish American would learn from this as I am too tired to even watch the American Idol now days.
Ms. Boyle was never overconfident, and the only reason you say so, Michael, is because middle-aged women aren't supposed to act that way. Had she been a man, you'd be singing a different song. No one referred to Paul Potts as "that ugly guy with bad teeth," but everyone felt that "dowdy hairy angel" was somehow sort of... oh I don't know... appreciative?? And then she was hounded into desperation by the tabloids. Naturally she was a bundle of nerves. As for Shaun Smith, didn't anyone notice he can't sing on key? Diversity was truly great in that performance--no fault on their part--but it seems to me that Ms. Boyle was set up for the kill.
i'm so glad this show if finally over so people can stop talking about susan boyle. what's the big deal? i've written about this more here:
www.whatsablog.com
I agree AbyGail - that's why 2nd place could be a blessing in disguise. She will enjoy success and recognition - but with a little less pressure and hopefully a lot more pleasure.
Michael is on to something - two competitions: one under 16 and the other over 16 year olds. That would balance things out - at least a little.
For Susan, (who was gracious) I think it was a mistake to do the same song - while brilliantly performed - because it could only remind people of the past and wonder if there really was more there under the surface...
It could be a blessing in disguise for Susan: despite her disappointment - because this sweet yet overwhelmed lady will have a level of fame and fortune that she can handle as #2.
Susan Boyle A Loser? Pish Posh! This Is The Prime Of Miss Susan Boyle. The world is full of late bloomers whose personal suns only start to shine in the second half of their lives. Susan reminds us once again that our lives do not end when youth fades. And soon, her dream of singing music will be realized. CrabbyGolightly.com!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
