Why Hasn’t “The Voice” Produced a Bona fide Star?

By Paulo Camacho

• 

Reality singing competitions have long been a staple for national audiences to consume on a seasonal basis. From “American Idol” to “The X Factor”, their aim has always been to find the best vocal talents, that could potentially make the next big thing in the world of popular music.

NBC’s “The Voice” — a competition spawned from a little-known Danish reality series, that has expanded to over 100 different versions in 62 countries worldwide — was first advertised, back in 2011, to buck the trend of finding “the whole package”, and focusing on one thing: an artist’s potential star-making voice.

From its inaugural season, back in 2011, that made names out of winner Javier Colon and runner-up Dia Frampton, to its 11th season, which started on September 19th, the appeal of the hit reality competition series had always been the amazing voices: ones that either blew people away, or fascinated them to the point where they wanted to hear more. While the carousel of celebrity coaches were considered the real stars of the show by most, the talent that came out of the show — and the investment that the audience put into their favorites — is what drove the vehicle.

However, no matter how popular the contestants seemed to be while competing for the grand prize of $100,000 and a contract with Universal Music Group, that popularity never materialized after the winner was crowned. It’s actually become a bit of a running joke on the internets: Google ends up finishing a search for the show as “why hasn’t the voice produced a star”.

The question began its prominence back in 2014, when it was clear that many of the show’s winners had yet to achieve major mainstream success — and it never really let up. For example, many entertainment news outlets in 2015 were quick to point out that, at that time, “The Voice” had only produced six Top 40 hits in its eight seasons.

Now, admittedly, while I was a massive fan of “The Voice” back in its first couple seasons — and even considered auditioning for the show once upon a time — the question regarding the winners’ lack of commercial success simply can’t be ignored. After all, the show’s most popular predecessor — American Idol — has produced stars like Kelly Clarkson, Carrie Underwood and Jennifer Hudson. Why is it that “The Voice” — driven by such star power and just as much talent — not been able to reach that kind of plateau?

Many pundits have their theories. From the fact that the show is driven just as much by the superstar coaches as their pupils; to the overall format of the show placing contestants in “teams” that end up winning for their specific coach (“Team Blake” has won the competition a number of times; but can anyone name all of the individual winners?); to the lack of real backing by the label that signs the winners — there are a number of theories.

While there is substance in the latter explanation — at least, according to longtime coach Adam Levine in an interview from last year — there does seem to be more to it than that. In that respect, “The Voice” is a unique reality singing competition — and it is that uniqueness that plays a large part in the relative success of the show’s winners. Because the problem lies not in the lack of a hit-maker for the uber-popular reality competition series. The problem, interestingly enough, lies in the idea that the question has to be asked in the first place.

The Voice, while on its surface, seems to be just another run-of-the-mill singing competition. However, it’s actually a much more realistic approach to teaching prospective artists the business of popular music production. While shows like American Idol and X-Factor are interested in finding the most marketable stars, The Voice is more of a stepping-off point for budding recording artists. Said Pharrell Williams about the subject:

The show is not a record company. It’s a training camp. It’s an academy. And you only advance forward when you have what it takes to move forward. And there’s nothing wrong with working for something. There’s nothing wrong with having your eye on the prize and not winning. But there’s always a winner, and there’s eleven other people that ultimately end up going home. But they go home different people, because they’ve had tutors that they would never ever in a million years probably have met.

Furthermore, the show’s overall premise was, is, and always has been, finding “The Best Voice in America”, with an emphasis on being able to identify the best talent “without seeing their face”. It’s the whole reason the judges/coaches have their backs turned to the audition stage in the first place — they don’t want to be influenced by what the artist looks like and, in turn, how visually “marketable” they can be. All that matters is vocal talent.

The inherent problem in finding a star in that “unconventional” manner is that the two philosophies of creating a bonafide star — finding the “best voice in America” and finding “America’s next singing star” — kind of clash with each other. When it comes down to it, artists can have the best voices in the world; but if they can’t be marketed to the general public in a conventional way, no amount of talent can produce the mega-success conventional artists have achieved.

It’s one of the inconvenient truths of popular media — talent can only take some people so far. If they can’t jump on the “marketable” train — or, just as bad, get with the program of what popular artists are expected of them — they are simply out of luck. Just ask Frampton, who saw limited success (and a lot of dark times) following her run with the show. (NSFW Warning)

In any case, finding a bonafide music star isn’t as “easy” as winning a reality competition. Just like Donald Trump’s “Apprentices” or the winners of “The Bachelor”, nothing — especially success — is guaranteed. Maybe Pharrell is right: “The Voice” has always been a stepping-off point.

Now, if only its critics could stop focusing on little details like “commercial success”.