Wouldn't surprise me one bit.
Television The X Factor 2011
- Thread starter Mickey
- Start date
The 1 that really stood out for me this year was the black lad who's mum had never heard him sing before or some such rubbish.
I thought he was very good and seemed to tick all the boxes. He could sign, was "cool", good looking and had the back story.
From what I've heard though he hasn't made it to Judges Homes. Wierd...
Doesn't surprise me. They do the same thing on BGT as well. They spent 3 years persuading a "burping champion" to go on the show even though he knew burping wasn't a talent and it was just a jokey competition at a local village show, finally persuaded him to go on, they made him look stupid for 20 seconds and that was it
Tulisa time
So hang on, they have picked a load of people that they said yes to and now will send them home before boot camp? Wtf was the point saying yes in the first place then. That's a disgrace tbh, talk about building up false hope for the sake of making TV
The missus is watching this and I've not dragged myself off the couch to go and play GT5 yet, Gary Barlow seems like he's good at this; basically saying 'this lot can feck off' 
what about his comment
If we have a record with that face on , it will have a reduced price sticker on it
If we have a record with that face on , it will have a reduced price sticker on it
I didn't hear that, brilliantShould be interesting to see what the reaction is like when they tell these 40 people to go get fecked
Should be interesting to see what the reaction is like when they tell these 40 people to go get fecked
they got a free piss up out of it
This is going to be hilarious
Tulisa 
"welcome to boot camp"
Translation - 40 of you are about to be kicked out
"welcome to boot camp"
Translation - 40 of you are about to be kicked out
Tulisa doesn't look as good with her hair dyed.. when I first heard of her on xfactor I looked her up on google images her hoping for the best and strangely enough she looked average with blonde hair. Looked great with black hair though..
So the group who are sent home, "we don't believe in you, go home"
lulz
lulz
This is so blatantly put on for the cameras its cringe worthy
That was harsh
fecking ridiculous to say yes to them and then not give them a chance, fecking joke of a judge panel tbh
there is always one
but makes good TV thats why it was done
As if they'd get 4 judges to talk to one angry loony.. staged shit
They do it every year.
They don't do that specifically every year do they?? Put them through and then kick them out before bootcamp begins?
first year I have seen it happen
They keep giving camera shots to that long haired knob with girls on his arse.. they're clearly gonna push him onto the live shows
why am I even watching this , I have shit loads of other stuff to watch
It started 30 mins ago, but yet they haven't shown any auditions or anybody singing yet.
Joke of a show.
Joke of a show.
I thought they did say yes to loads of people and then send some home at boot camp before they even get to perform again. Maybe I'm getting confused with BGT.
Aye, you can tell he is on there already and he'll annoy the feck out of my until he gets booted off.
THE sociological theory that the loss of the support of objectively established religion, the dissolution of the last remnants of pre-capitalism, together with technological and social differentiation or specialisation, have led to cultural chaos is disproved every day; for culture now impresses the same stamp on everything.
Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities) was already hastening. Even now the older houses just outside the concrete city centres look like slums, and the new bungalows on the outskirts are at one with the flimsy structures of world fairs in their praise of technical progress and their built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.
Yet the city housing projects designed to perpetuate the individual as a supposedly independent unit in a small hygienic dwelling make him all the more subservient to his adversary – the absolute power of capitalism. Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallise into well-organised complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.
Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. The technical contrast between the few production centers and the large number of widely dispersed consumption points is said to demand organisation and planning by management. Furthermore, it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger. No mention is made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered. It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardisation and mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.
This is the result not of a law of movement in technology as such but of its function in today’s economy. The need which might resist central control has already been suppressed by the control of the individual consciousness. The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal field of the “amateur,” and also have to accept organisation from above.
But any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals. Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in. The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it. If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience – real jazz or a cheap imitation; or if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled in a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.
Films, radio and magazines make up a system which is uniform as a whole and in every part. Even the aesthetic activities of political opposites are one in their enthusiastic obedience to the rhythm of the iron system. The decorative industrial management buildings and exhibition centers in authoritarian countries are much the same as anywhere else. The huge gleaming towers that shoot up everywhere are outward signs of the ingenious planning of international concerns, toward which the unleashed entrepreneurial system (whose monuments are a mass of gloomy houses and business premises in grimy, spiritless cities) was already hastening. Even now the older houses just outside the concrete city centres look like slums, and the new bungalows on the outskirts are at one with the flimsy structures of world fairs in their praise of technical progress and their built-in demand to be discarded after a short while like empty food cans.
Yet the city housing projects designed to perpetuate the individual as a supposedly independent unit in a small hygienic dwelling make him all the more subservient to his adversary – the absolute power of capitalism. Because the inhabitants, as producers and as consumers, are drawn into the center in search of work and pleasure, all the living units crystallise into well-organised complexes. The striking unity of microcosm and macrocosm presents men with a model of their culture: the false identity of the general and the particular. Under monopoly all mass culture is identical, and the lines of its artificial framework begin to show through. The people at the top are no longer so interested in concealing monopoly: as its violence becomes more open, so its power grows. Movies and radio need no longer pretend to be art. The truth that they are just business is made into an ideology in order to justify the rubbish they deliberately produce. They call themselves industries; and when their directors’ incomes are published, any doubt about the social utility of the finished products is removed.
Interested parties explain the culture industry in technological terms. It is alleged that because millions participate in it, certain reproduction processes are necessary that inevitably require identical needs in innumerable places to be satisfied with identical goods. The technical contrast between the few production centers and the large number of widely dispersed consumption points is said to demand organisation and planning by management. Furthermore, it is claimed that standards were based in the first place on consumers’ needs, and for that reason were accepted with so little resistance. The result is the circle of manipulation and retroactive need in which the unity of the system grows ever stronger. No mention is made of the fact that the basis on which technology acquires power over society is the power of those whose economic hold over society is greatest. A technological rationale is the rationale of domination itself. It is the coercive nature of society alienated from itself. Automobiles, bombs, and movies keep the whole thing together until their leveling element shows its strength in the very wrong which it furthered. It has made the technology of the culture industry no more than the achievement of standardisation and mass production, sacrificing whatever involved a distinction between the logic of the work and that of the social system.
This is the result not of a law of movement in technology as such but of its function in today’s economy. The need which might resist central control has already been suppressed by the control of the individual consciousness. The step from the telephone to the radio has clearly distinguished the roles. The former still allowed the subscriber to play the role of subject, and was liberal. The latter is democratic: it turns all participants into listeners and authoritatively subjects them to broadcast programs which are all exactly the same. No machinery of rejoinder has been devised, and private broadcasters are denied any freedom. They are confined to the apocryphal field of the “amateur,” and also have to accept organisation from above.
But any trace of spontaneity from the public in official broadcasting is controlled and absorbed by talent scouts, studio competitions and official programs of every kind selected by professionals. Talented performers belong to the industry long before it displays them; otherwise they would not be so eager to fit in. The attitude of the public, which ostensibly and actually favours the system of the culture industry, is a part of the system and not an excuse for it. If one branch of art follows the same formula as one with a very different medium and content; if the dramatic intrigue of broadcast soap operas becomes no more than useful material for showing how to master technical problems at both ends of the scale of musical experience – real jazz or a cheap imitation; or if a movement from a Beethoven symphony is crudely “adapted” for a film sound-track in the same way as a Tolstoy novel is garbled in a film script: then the claim that this is done to satisfy the spontaneous wishes of the public is no more than hot air.
no, not more crap made up for x factor groups
Dunno how the camp scouse chav is (still) in after forgetting the words when the short blonde girl who did the same thing is out when she is clearly much better.
Not enough over 30s maybe?
Can I just say I loathe Kitty?
My other half seriously detests her. I think she's a bell end but my other half genuinely has hateful feelings towards her.What makes it worse is that she's a dead cert to make the live shows because she's in the overs.
Her first audition where she sang a Lady Gaga song entirely through her nose was quite infuriating.
What makes it worse is that she's a dead cert to make the live shows because she's in the overs.
Tell your other half she is in good company
I rarely experience such feelings of revulsion towards another person ( apart from the usual suspects ) but she is hateful, your wife is right . What a hideous creature she is.