Is it better to be a loser on X Factor? – Some of the more successful acts didn’t even win, so is it all you need is to get on the show and get out there rather than have the pressure of being the winner.
‘The winner of X Factor 2013 is…’ these words will change someone’s life, but will they last long in the music industry being the winner of the show? Or are you better off being a runner up & you will have a much more successful career & be relevant longer? I take a little look back in the history books.
X Factor started as a signing contest where winning will make your dreams come true and become an International Recording artist. However, the losers have become just as famous, admired & successful the winners. Some acts even out shine the winner and eventually outsell them, so are you better off not winning outright?
The first winner was Steve Brookstein, Who? You may say, I thought that too. Other winners were Shane Ward, Leon Jackson and Joe Mc Elderry each have not lived long in the memory. My argument is this; the likes of Olly Murs & Cher Lloyd have had more long lasting careers then some winners. JLS were arguable the most successful boy band to come off the programme, their first two singles went to number 1 and won 5 MOBO’S and 2 ‘Brit Awards’. They’ve also racked up 4 studio albums, but they actually lost out to Alexandra Burke. Who has had a better career, popularity, number 1s & awards out of these two? Alexandra has been quite successful with 2 albums & 3 numbers 1s in the UK. In 2008 she had the best selling song with ‘Hallelujah’ shifting over 800,00 copies in the UK, Similarly Leona Lewis another winner has had worldwide success off the back of her win, ‘Bleeding Love’ was number 1 in over 30 countries & the best selling UK single of 2007.
I say JLS were the most successful boy band until an act called One Direction were created. A snippet of their success, their first album ‘Up All Night’ was top of the charts in 16 countries but crucially they were the first British group to have a debut album go to the top of the US Billboard chart. So far they have 2 ‘Brit Awards’, numerous MTV awards, their first song was one of the best selling singles of all time and they made a film. So not much for a group that came third behind Matt Cardle the winner in their year (2010) & Rebecca Ferguson. (Matt Cardle’s winning single went straight to number 1 but he hasn’t had one since)
They have become miles bigger than anyone in the history of the whole show and I think not winning worked out much better in the long run. The shows losers have more time to put together a great first single rather than the X Factor winners single. Some more ‘losers’ if you can really call them that were Misha B, Jahmene Douglas & Union J who are all now doing their own very different music which they may not have been able to as the winner.
These examples tell me that you just need to get on the show, well at least to the live parts and you can be triumphant. So back to my argument is it better to lose? Yes maybe it is because you won’t be forgotten about as fast, you’re not labelled either. The winner gets fast tracked to the top but don’t stay there for long. You also get more time to work on your own projects that work for you and not the programme. So if you’re a viewer of X Factor the act that finishes 2nd or 3rd will almost certainly have more longevity in the industry then the winner. So remember if you’re going to audition be good, but not too good as the loser wins in the end.
Written by Sean Simara