Distractions and diversions on TV
When “Tawag ng Tanghalan” on “It’s Showtime” brought the giant gong back to TV singing tilts as a judging mechanism, we registered our opposition to the move early on.
We’re all for setting quality standards and separating the musically deficient contestants from the better singers, but we found the old “gong standard” too antediluvian and harsh.
In some instances, we saw how “gonged” singers were psychologically hurt by the intended or unintended public shaming.
There are better and more judicious ways to achieve the same objective of keeping performing standards high, by instructing audition masters to strictly separate the “sweet” from the “sour” singers—out of camera range.
Despite our and other opiners’ input, however, the “Tawag” tilt has opted to continue with the perhaps well-intended but harsh practice, and we’ve kept our peace.
Last week, however, during the tilt’s semifinal round, the competition brought back its winners for the quarter—but announced that they too were still not exempt from getting “gonged” out of contention, so they had to bring their “A” game to the tilt. Now, isn’t that carrying things too far?
After all, the talents competing in the semifinals are already winners and thus deemed good or even standout singers by the tilt’s judges. So, why were they being warned that they could get ingloriously gonged out? Have a heart.
Another distraction on the boob tube is the proliferation of awards for “quality” TV shows and performances. At last count, there were some 20 separate, largely school-based awards groups handing out citations and encomium to “the best of the best,” or their estimations thereof.
The proliferation of diverse views and verdicts has become confusing and has thus had a contrary effect—not setting clear, objective standards of quality, but muddling the picture even more.
Can’t schools combine their efforts and come up with a group award, which would thus be more prized and influential?
The cynical view is that it won’t happen, because it would deprive each educational institution the thrill and fun of hobnobbing with all of those beautiful and handsome stellar awardees.
Also generally unproductive is the rash of talent discovery tilts on TV, with most of the “stars of tomorrow” quickly becoming “yesterday’s has-beens.”
We need fresh blood and vitality in the performing biz, but talent tilts have to make sure that their winners are given enough follow-up projects to make their stellar bids successful—for the long term.
If so-called winners can’t savor the perks of real success, they end up foiled and frustrated, and that’s never a good thing for artists to feel.
So, there should be fewer but better-planned talent tilts that don’t end with winning, but decisively go on to make sure that stellar careers are launched and supported, for years on end.
For their part, young hopefuls should join tilts that have a good record of actually producing stars who are given opportunities to continue developing their talents. All else is wishful thinking—and more wilting wallflowers at the dance.
