She rocked the X Factor stage on Sunday night's results show and put most of the contestants in her vocal shadow – and Kelly Clarkson believes it is because the show is more about entertainment than singing ability. The US popstar, who of course found fame after winning American Idol in 2002 (jeeeesus, was it really that long ago? *grips Zimmer Frame*), admitted during The Xtra Factor that she probably wouldn't have won the UK talent show.
"I think Idol is based more maybe on vocals, so I shined more there," she explained. "I’m not really concerned with the huge production thing, because I don’t want any of it to distract me. Most people who come to see me, come to hear me sing. It’s not like they’re coming to see what I’m wearing or to see the big entertainment, variety thing."
When she was asked what sort of skills an X Factor winner needed, Kelly said, "You think of someone like a Beyonce, that can sing, act and dance. It’s more of an entertainer as well as a singer."
We concede that Kel has a point here. After all, nobody can really claim that Frankie Cocozza is the greatest singer since Pavarotti, or that we're fascinated by Kitty Brucknell simply because she can hold a note. The judges are forever pointing out that they're looking for "the whole package" and we all know that The X Factor is as much a popularity contest than anything. But should the show be just about the vocal ability? Is being a good singer enough, or do you think personality and style are equally as important?
Let's have a debate, shall we? Rant away below, dear heatworlders...