I am not in favor of forced competitions that arbitrarily pick "winners" and "losers". Such processes invariably are subjective and focus on the wrong things. Time would be better spent identifying (and promoting the development of) the inherent talent in everyone.
So, I don't waste my time with such banalities as American Idol, etc.
A short while ago, I learned the story of Paul Potts, winner of the most recent Britain's Got Talent TV show (created by the same Simon Cowell known to US audiences for his boorish behavior).
Potts is a modest man who had limited professional training - but he does have a great singing voice and a talent for opera singing. We "wowed" viewers and judges, was rewarded with a record contract and is now on tour performing.
While I'm not an educated opera fan, I do enjoy talented singers of almost all stripes. As reflected by my iPod song library. I've enjoyed listening to Potts and purchased his debut CD.
All the best to Mr. Potts, who can now celebrate, hone and share his talent.
But, what about the "losers"? Would the competition have been cheapened if all the finalists had been declared "winners" and celebrated for their talents? Seems to me there would have been more reasons to celebrate.
No comments:
Post a Comment