The last contestant leaves the freshest impression on the judges, and may have the benefit of knowing how all the previous contestants performed. He/she may also get judged in proper context of everyone else. Of course, though, waiting a long time to perform can be nerve-wracking.
Conversely, the first contestant’s impression may be largely forgotten by the judges, and has no benefit of knowing how all the previous contestants performed, and he/she may not get judged in proper context of everyone else’s performance. He/she may also have extra stage fright or awkwardness due to being the first to perform.
Thoughts?
Last contestant at what?
You know, at a contest thingy.
I have never taken part in a TV talent contest (which I assume is what you are primarily asking about - you may want to ask a mod to edit the thread title), but I have sung in competition with others. So the below may or may not be useful.
Yes, but if they are doing their job properly (and quite possibly they are not in many of the TV versions, or they are even scripted, in which case of course it doesn’t matter) they will take notes as each performance is happening, so this isn’t so much of a factor. I doubt it would have much, if any, effect on the result.
IME this is typically the case (again, may be different on TV but I suspect not). However, I’m not convinced it confers any advantage. Speaking for myself, whether singing first, last, or in between I am always trying to give my best performance. It’s not like tennis or something where your performance is heavily dependent on the other person. Having said that, if going last and everyone else has been middling to poor, you might relax on the basis you know you should have them beat provided you don’t mess up (e.g. forget the words, crack on a high note, or whatever). It could also mean you decide to just sing the song without anything fancy (e.g. in many songs you can embellish notes, or sing some notes optionally higher or lower than the basic version, both of which you might decide to do if you want to have a chance of being the best but could otherwise miss out if they increase the risk of failure). On the other hand, this could cause you to lose a bit of focus, which is exactly when you are more likely to mess up. If the converse happens and you go last having heard one or more really good performances, it could increase the pressure. Overall I think it’s a wash.
See first answer. Performances should be judged on their own merits rather than comparing with everyone else.
It’s pretty nerve-wracking anyway but this could be a minor factor - likely not significant.
In conclusion - there may be a very small advantage or disadvantage to going last (or first) but you likely won’t know which it is to be until it is too late. As such, I wouldn’t be worried about it. Having said that, a random draw for each show is preferable, all else being equal - especially if there is a public vote, as the public may be more influenced by the factors you mention than the judges.
Depends on the event, although I would say, “Usually, yes,” mainly because of the “having seen how all of the competitors did” advantage, so you know if you have to take risks that you wouldn’t take if you knew that you could “play it safe” and still win.
Knowing the target that you are chasing is usually an advantage.
Thanks, exactly the type of answers I needed.
I agree, should, but perhaps are not.
Yes, because in certain situations they can just bid a single dollar and have a very good chance of getting the prize. You don’t want to try that crap if you’re the third contestant. Fool me once, etc.