Posted:
A lot of forum readers and JJWS watchers would have noticed that the conclusions they reach are very different from the conclusions reached by the judges. So many times, we think someone sang brilliantly but they get poor scores from the judges. Other times, it is the reverse.
What is the reason behind this? Is it that the judges are biased? Or maybe the audience is biased? Or maybe both? Or maybe the judges/audience/both are unmusical and cannot accurately appreciate good/bad singing?
I reject all these explanations. I don't think the judges are biased against or in favour of anyone. Of course, they like certain candidates more than others but I have noticed that they do not let this affect their scores most of the time.
I certainly do not think the judges are unmusical. They have more musical experience than most people who read this forum or watch the show. Shaan and Shantanu especially are gifted musicians. Their credentials are not simply from sitting in a sofa and commenting at the idiot box.
My feeling is that the judges (and audience too) end up being swayed by a herd mentality.
The judges are 'experiencing' the performances in a unique environment. They are surrounded by a studio, a set, a live audience, other singers, other judges, lights, cameras and of course a whole lot of drama. They get to see everyone's reaction to the performance. They have one chance to listen to the song and come up with a score. And all the contestants are very good singers, so the decision is based on very delicate points.
Now in a 'mixed' performance, which has good points and bad points, it can be difficult to decide how much weightage to give to the pros and cons. And this where the herd mentality kicks in. There is a spontaneous spurt of support for one aspect (positive or negative) of the performance and the other aspects (positive or negative) get undermined.
For example, in yesterday's episode I thought Akanksha and Sanchita both gave 'mixed' performances with good and bad points. But the judges all swayed in one direction: "Sanchita was bad because she messed up without the sur/taal. Aakanksha was good because she maintained her sur and taal." Everyone just seemed to go in that direction and went along with it. Other aspects like emotion, dynamics etc were underplayed.
I guess this goes to show that being a good judge is not just about being a good singer. Even actual judges (those who decide the law), who are trained in argumentation and evaluation, cannot reach a conclusion as soon as they hear the evidence.
comment:
p_commentcount