DBSTalk Forum banner

Who are your favorites?

  • Adam Lambert

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Allison Iraheta

    Votes: 44 69.8%
  • Anoop Desai

    Votes: 33 52.4%
  • Danny Gokey

    Votes: 7 11.1%
  • Kris Allen

    Votes: 19 30.2%
  • Lil Rounds

    Votes: 37 58.7%
  • Matt Giraud

    Votes: 0 0.0%

American Idol (Top 7 - redux)

6K views 152 replies 25 participants last post by  peak_reception 
#1 ·
Well we get to do it all over again .. with Disco no less :)

Don't forget to pad those recordings. We went over last week with only 2 Judges per contestant and I'm not sure they are going to do that again. It's currently scheduled for 61 minutes and I wouldn't be shocked to see 65 or more minutes.
 
#127 ·
I suspect that Danny, Adam, and Allison will be the final 3.

As for David A's performance....solid....if you went by what the audience reaction was. He still seems to have a strong following. I was told by my "insider" contact that his music sells quite well, in fact, better than some previous "winners" from years past.
 
#131 ·
QuickDrop said:
Now, honestly, what would you rather read here: arguments concerning Katharine McPhee's cleavage and David Archuleta's subversiveness or arguments concerning the merits of universal health care and same sex marriage?
Can't we just limit it to Katharine McPhee's cleavage ? :eek2:
 
#132 ·
I was wondering when the other shoe was going to QuickDrop ;)
QuickDrop said:
I meant I didn't think she was very good and used her looks to overcome it. That's a matter of taste. At least one other person here has agreed with me. You yourself said she had strengths and weaknesses, which you didn't think needed to be explained either.
No one asked me what I thought were K. McP.'s strengths and/or weaknesses. I asked you because I was genuinely interested. It's no insult to be asked why you hold a positive or negative opinion about something, esp. when it's directly related to the topic at hand, i.e. American Idol and its contestants.

As I said in my original post, I couldn't quite remember the original performance and admittedly I purposely used some hyperbole. You are right about my misuse of the word prone in it's most correct usage. I should have said something like "supine." Nothing you said though really contradicts why I personally disliked the performance and thought it was overrated.
That's true. The only thing that jumped out as potentially negative is that you didn't like her cleavage and sexuality. But then you added that it didn't really bother you and could even be viewed as a positive. So I was left wondering what you didn't like musically, that's all.

She sang a song most people know from childhood from what could be described as a sexually submissive position. And as I said, good for her for playing the audience like that. (In case you missed it, I'm actually giving McPhee some credit for her intellect.)
Not sure about the "submissive" part. Womens' sexuality can be as powerful (or dominant) as mens' in many cases. Having said that, I agree that it was sensually delivered.

Um, I'm not even sure why you're arguing this point. So it would have been okay if I had wrote that Archuleta had morally or politically neutered the song, but all heck breaks loose because I wrote "intellectually neutered."
Ok, truth be told, your post looked intellectually pretentious and vague to me when I read it so I decided to press you on a couple of points to see if you were for real or perhaps more of a poser. The only part you failed ;) (because you bailed) was when asked what you disliked musically about K. McPhee's performances.
Several times each year, I hear singers sing songs that express their religious faith/worldview . A lot of people can feel that qualifies as getting "beat over the head" too, especially since it's almost always a "Christian" worldview. Personally, I have no problem with that. I believe the contestants should express themselves however they wish. (And as Simon once pointed out, sometimes they do it rather cleverly too.) Along these lines, my only problem was once during the "Give Back Show" last year the producers had the contestants do a group medley which was explicitly Christian in nature, which since it represented the show itself and not individual contestants I thought was very offensive to people of other religions/points of view.
I must've missed that group song. Do you remember what it was? Not sure why a Christian song would necessarily offend people of other religions or no religion though? But you make a valid point about the show endorsing any particular faith. I tend to pay less attention to lyrics than most people so it's kind of a non-issue for me. For me the music is paramount.
I was asked why I didn't like Archuleta's performance and I gave the reason for my opinion. That's All. The Archuleta subversiveness comment was obviously a joke (Is there a person who comes across as less subversive than David Archuleta?), of which you apparently completely missed the point.
No, I got the joke. In fact, thought it fun enough to pile on with my last "Ah ha..." By that time I had stopped giving you a hard time.
Since you didn't bring it up, I guess you also missed the joke I made about the hypocrisy of Lennon's leftist politics.
Nope, got that one too, the irony.

My counter-post probably came across as more aggressive than I was feeling. I figured you could take it so I didn't cushion my questioning with the usual bulletin board niceties. You can give me a hard time about some post of mine some time and then we'll be even :) Just don't come back asking me what I think are K. McPhee's musical strengths and weaknesses without giving your opinion first. ;)
 
#135 ·
peak_reception:

I'm gonna keep this quick because I think we've both now expressed our point of views to the point where we understand the other sufficiently.

First, I want you to know I didn't find, or thought you intended, your responses to me to be aggressive. I gave an opinion and you had every right to argue with it. In fact, I'm happy that you did. I'm not someone who thinks that just because a topic can be described as "subjective" it means I can completely hide behind a "Well, that just my opinion so you can't argue with it" approach. At some point, it does boil down to personal taste but we should at least try to make someone else see our point of view. That's what open forums should be all about. And otherwise, we would end up content in our insularity and never learn anything.

Also, if I somehow seemed aggressive in my most recent response to you, I apologize. You pretty much gave a line by line response to my post and, our of respect, I thought you deserved the same. I also do attempt to throw in the jokes to show that I'm not taking this more seriously than I should.

As for McPhee, I just didn't think over all she was up to snuff, vocally or as a performer. Some on this board seemed to already agree with me on this, so I assumed people just accepted the negative criticisms of her as common (as would be the case with any contestant on the show who has received any notoriety from the program.) I also believe it's widely accepted that Daughtry getting voted off in lieu of McPhee was one of the more shocking moments in the show's history. Even she seemed stunned by it.

The one thing I do want to make clear is that like you I agree that a woman's sexuality can be as strong as a man's. I could be completely wrong, but McPhee seemed to be the first female contestant who successfully used sex appeal to make her mark on the show in a real way. As for the Over the Rainbow performance, if you don't like the words passive or submissive, let's just say I felt she expressed her sexuality in a "nurturing" manner. (I originally used the word "Freudian" for a reason.) If you want to go further into the idea that passive sexually in women is actually a strength, there are numerous articles and books by "pro sex feminists," headed that ever annoying contrarian Camille Paglia, who will tell you that strippers and porn stars are the true feminist icons of the day. I personally believe that topic is about as complicated and nuanced as discussing the merits of universal health care and would be better left as it is.

If there is anything you really believe I need to say further on this specific topic, let me know and I'll try my best to be clearer. Otherwise, I'll save my breath for another argument I'll surely get myself involved in. (How about Adam Lambert: too gay or not gay enough?)
 
#136 ·
peak_reception said:
I must've missed that group song. Do you remember what it was? Not sure why a Christian song would necessarily offend people of other religions or no religion though? But you make a valid point about the show endorsing any particular faith. I tend to pay less attention to lyrics than most people so it's kind of a non-issue for me. For me the music is paramount.
Just a quick addition, under most conceivable conditions, I don't believe a contestant on the show singing a song of their faith/beliefs (whatever they may be) should be particularly offensive to people of other faiths or beliefs. The only time it usually comes across as offensive is when it's obviously and crassly being used to garner votes (See the "God Bless the USA" incident) and then it should be more offensive to those who hold those values than not.

It was only the program itself giving special credence to Christianity on the Give Back show, which should have been about total inclusiveness, that bothered me.
 
#138 ·
peak_reception said:
If you've got something more entertaining, post it! :grin:
Nah, you and Quick are doing fine. I'll just wait till Tueday and discuss the boring stuff on Wednesday morning (Taylor Hicks is performing :nono2:).

In the mean time, y'all keep it coming. See ya then! :D
 
#139 ·
QuickDrop said:
It's not quite the same thing (though eras and what is considered "sexually suggestive" have certainly changed in 40 years), but go back and listen to The Box Tops's The Letter from the mid 60s and realize, with that voice, Alex Chilton was also only 16 when he sang that song. I think that's why you have more critics/journalists crazy for Allison than she seems to have among the general public. Her voice has "rock n' roll" written all over it. If she was a bit taller, blond, and wore a push-up bra, she would be giving Adam a real run for his money.
Kellie Pickler springs immediately to mind! Taller, blond, push-up bra, and thinner too. Not to beat a dead horse :beatdeadhorse: but Kellie Pickler was so bad on A.I. a couple of weeks ago that i was embarrassed for her. Live performance can expose a lot of musical shortcomings.
 
#141 ·
QuickDrop said:
peak_reception:
I'm gonna keep this quick because I think we've both now expressed our point of views to the point where we understand the other sufficiently.
I agree.

First, I want you to know I didn't find, or thought you intended, your responses to me to be aggressive. I gave an opinion and you had every right to argue with it. In fact, I'm happy that you did. I'm not someone who thinks that just because a topic can be described as "subjective" it means I can completely hide behind a "Well, that just my opinion so you can't argue with it" approach. At some point, it does boil down to personal taste but we should at least try to make someone else see our point of view. That's what open forums should be all about. And otherwise, we would end up content in our insularity and never learn anything.
Agreed again except that even in art there are limits to subjectivity. For example, the Kellie Pickler performance on A.I. I recently mentioned. Anyone with a keyboard and access to dbstalk could wander in here and proclaim her to be an immensely talented musician on the basis of that show (thank goodness nobody did). Would that opinion be just as valid as any other? Even if he (most likely a he) just limited his praise to saying how much he personally enjoyed it I would think the same as you wrote before; Tall, blond, push-up bra, plus thin and likeable; nothing musical involved.

Of course the hypothetical poster I'm talking about is entitled to his opinion but it would have no musical merit. I got into trouble here before saying something like this and probably will again :sure: because it sounds arrogant. Not where I'm coming from. I agree that musical taste is subjective, yes, but that evaluation of musical performance is surprisingly objective. Notes are hit or they are missed. Voices are bull-bodied or they are thin. Phrasing is fluid or clumsy. Interpretation is forced or natural. The list goes on and on. Not a cut and dry checklist for sure but consisting of objective standards in music which are met or not met. There is a lot which is subjective too, thank goodness. I'm not arguing that music and art is equivalent to mathematics and engineering in objective nature.
Also, if I somehow seemed aggressive in my most recent response to you, I apologize. You pretty much gave a line by line response to my post and, our of respect, I thought you deserved the same.
No problem at all. I enjoy a good give and take.
As for McPhee, I just didn't think over all she was up to snuff, vocally or as a performer. Some on this board seemed to already agree with me on this, so I assumed people just accepted the negative criticisms of her as common (as would be the case with any contestant on the show who has received any notoriety from the program.) I also believe it's widely accepted that Daughtry getting voted off in lieu of McPhee was one of the more shocking moments in the show's history. Even she seemed stunned by it.
We get into a bit of apples and oranges here. Daughtry is a rocker, McPhee is classically trained. More A.I. viewers are probably attuned to rock than classical so in that sense it probably was quite a surprise. In the context of American Idol (broadly based popular music) she probably should've gone home before Daughtry since she was somewhat out of her element in a lot of the musical "themes" (thank goodness there was no "Rap" night for her sake :lol:). But I won't take too much criticism of her lying down (ha ha, pun intended ;) ).

The one thing I do want to make clear is that like you I agree that a woman's sexuality can be as strong as a man's. I could be completely wrong, but McPhee seemed to be the first female contestant who successfully used sex appeal to make her mark on the show in a real way. As for the Over the Rainbow performance, if you don't like the words passive or submissive, let's just say I felt she expressed her sexuality in a "nurturing" manner. (I originally used the word "Freudian" for a reason.) If you want to go further into the idea that passive sexually in women is actually a strength, there are numerous articles and books by "pro sex feminists," headed that ever annoying contrarian Camille Paglia, who will tell you that strippers and porn stars are the true feminist icons of the day. I personally believe that topic is about as complicated and nuanced as discussing the merits of universal health care and would be better left as it is.
I think the moderators will lock the thread if we start talking about Camille Paglia ;)

If there is anything you really believe I need to say further on this specific topic, let me know and I'll try my best to be clearer. Otherwise, I'll save my breath for another argument I'll surely get myself involved in. (How about Adam Lambert: too gay or not gay enough?)
Nah, I think we pretty well covered things. I appreciate the exchange. I respect where you're coming from though initially I did have reservations about your academic jargon. My b.s. detector alerted while reading your post #82, particularly on words such as "subtextual" which to me reflect either pretention or academia. The reason I didn't give you a hard time on that one is because on closer inspection I couldn't find fault with the way you were using it to analyze the point you were making. So the B.S. alert turned out to be a false alarm :) and I held off. But then later on you started in on Katharine McPhee, including some disparaging descriptions, and that my friend was going too far :D so I decided to push back a bit and see where it led to. And now we're friends so I'm glad I did. :icon_hug: You must be in academia though, right?
 
#142 ·
peak_reception said:
We get into a bit of apples and oranges here. Daughtry is a rocker, McPhee is classically trained. More A.I. viewers are probably attuned to rock than classical so in that sense it probably was quite a surprise. In the context of American Idol (broadly based popular music) she probably should've gone home before Daughtry since she was somewhat out of her element in a lot of the musical "themes" (thank goodness there was no "Rap" night for her sake :lol:). But I won't take too much criticism of her lying down (ha ha, pun intended ;) ).
What's funny is I don't particularly like Daughtry either. (I wonder whether there is anyone from that year's cast I did like.) When it comes to rock n' roll, I'm a traditionalist. I prefer a decent rhythm section over third rate Pearl Jam imitators wailing over an electric guitar. I might be different from others here in that I do view the competition more as a game show. My own taste in music doesn't necessarily matter as long as the contestant can convincingly "sell" what s/he is doing.

peak_reception said:
I respect where you're coming from though initially I did have reservations about your academic jargon. My b.s. detector alerted while reading your post #82, particularly on words such as "subtextual" which to me reflect either pretention or academia. The reason I didn't give you a hard time on that one is because on closer inspection I couldn't find fault with the way you were using it to analyze the point you were making. So the B.S. alert turned out to be a false alarm :) and I held off. But then later on you started in on Katharine McPhee, including some disparaging descriptions, and that my friend was going too far :D so I decided to push back a bit and see where it led to. And now we're friends so I'm glad I did. :icon_hug: You must be in academia though, right?
We part company somewhat here. I don't consider "subtext" to raise to the level of academic jargon. It's like metaphor and allegory, basic High School English stuff that I assume most people have a handle on. I do agree that it's a mistake to judge an artist solely on "subtext," but when anyone covers a song the way they personally interpret it matters a lot. With Black or White, Adam gave a passionate twist to what I always considered a rather limp pop song and it's hard not to think it was because of how he personally related to the song. At the same time, Paula Abdul tears during If I Can't Have You was certainly due to the "subtext" that the song was being performed by a gay man whose relationships don't have the same legal protections as a straight man's would. Clearly, the context is different and that changes/deepens the meaning of the song without changing the actual text of the lyrics. With that said, I personally didn't find Lambert's performance as good because, to me, the expression of emotion came across as too actorly.

And on a side note, the fact that I brought up Camille Paglia at all sort of makes me wish I could lock this thread.
 
#144 ·
#147 ·
QuickDrop said:
We part company somewhat here. I don't consider "subtext" to raise to the level of academic jargon. It's like metaphor and allegory, basic High School English stuff that I assume most people have a handle on.
A fairly basic construct, yes, but one that non-academics seldom use. I just plugged in a search for "subtextually" (without the quotes) in the dbstalk archives. Exactly one post came up; Your's. "Deconstructionism" and "postmodern" would be two more examples of jargon rarely used by people outside of academia. You obviously put educated thought into what you write and it shows. Nothing wrong with that. :)
I do agree that it's a mistake to judge an artist solely on "subtext," but when anyone covers a song the way they personally interpret it matters a lot. With Black or White, Adam gave a passionate twist to what I always considered a rather limp pop song and it's hard not to think it was because of how he personally related to the song. At the same time, Paula Abdul tears during If I Can't Have You was certainly due to the "subtext" that the song was being performed by a gay man whose relationships don't have the same legal protections as a straight man's would.
Hmmm, that hadn't even occurred to me. She could've just been touched by the universal theme of unrequited love, and Adam's convincing (to her) emotional projection of that theme. Or maybe it was just as you say....
With that said, I personally didn't find Lambert's performance as good because, to me, the expression of emotion came across as too actorly.
But consistent with his other performances which are rich in drama (some would say melodrama). Adam is never boring (at least to me).
 
#149 ·
machavez00 said:
Strange, the first time I clicked on the link it showed the studio version. 2nd time it showed the CMT live performance.

Follow-up: I'm happy to say that watching that video did raise my estimation of Kellie's music-making somewhat. She obviously put so much of herself into that song and felt every note/word of it to the core of her being. When someone does that it lets the audience feel every ounce of it too. Very heart-touching. I'm also glad for her that she's making a success for herself in the business. She seems like a genuinely nice, down-to-earth, beautiful person.

I do stand by what I said about her idol performance being just dreadful though. Throwing in the push-up bra etc. put-downs was unnecessary. Maybe she just had a bad night or wasn't feeling well or what have you. A more likely explanation though is that the Idol song she attempted is a lot more difficult to sing than the one she did at the CMT awards ceremony and that her musical limitations were painfully exposed. :(
 
#150 ·
peak_reception said:
A fairly basic construct, yes, but one that non-academics seldom use. I just plugged in a search for "subtextually" (without the quotes) in the dbstalk archives. Exactly one post came up; Your's. "Deconstructionism" and "postmodern" would be two more examples of jargon rarely used by people outside of academia. You obviously put educated thought into what you write and it shows. Nothing wrong with that. :)

Hmmm, that hadn't even occurred to me. She could've just been touched by the universal theme of unrequited love, and Adam's convincing (to her) emotional projection of that theme. Or maybe it was just as you say.... But consistent with his other performances which are rich in drama (some would say melodrama). Adam is never boring (at least to me).
If you plug in "subtext" into the DBSTalk search, you get 12 posts, only two of which belong to me or you. Plug "subtext," "deconstruction," or "postmodernism," into Google and you get million upon million of hits. All three words have entered the popular lexicon. These days more people use "deconstructing," than have heard of Derrida. It's nice that you think it makes me sound educated, but objectively I don't think it shows me to be any smarter than anyone else on this board.

I'll try to get to some of the Adam stuff later. It did strike me that my criticism of his most recent performance is somewhat similar to my criticism of McPhee's Over the Rainbow. The machinery of both was too obvious for me for them to have an emotional effect.

As I've said elsewhere, whatever possible career he might or might not have outside the show, Adam has been by far the best contestant on A.I. this year. I don't think it's close. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll buy his album or he'll sell the most records among this years contestants, but no one has hit it out of the ballpark as often as him. I do wish he hadn't started so early with the crooning to middle age women ballads. I want to see one more I Can't Get No Satisfaction/Black or White performance before he goes. Alas, this week's topic doesn't give me much hope. Of course, they're plenty of Jazz standards that have loads of sexual subtext (There's that word again.) I would love to see Adam turn something by Cole Porter into a New York Dolls song.
 
#151 ·
QuickDrop said:
If you plug in "subtext" into the DBSTalk search, you get 12 posts, only two of which belong to me or you.
Your word form was subtextually, not subtext. i noted that your use of words and language suggested (at least to me) an academic background.
Plug "subtext," "deconstruction," or "postmodernism," into Google and you get million upon million of hits.
Plug just about any word into Google and you'll get a ton of hits.
It's nice that you think it makes me sound educated, but objectively I don't think it shows me to be any smarter than anyone else on this board.
I didn't say it made you sound smarter, I said (originally) it made you sound pretentious or academic. Then I settled on academic. Saying that you put "educated thought" into your posts was an even nicer way of saying that you sound academic occasionally. ;)
As I've said elsewhere, whatever possible career he might or might not have outside the show, Adam has been by far the best contestant on A.I. this year. I don't think it's close.
To me that depends on what you mean by "best." He's been the most consistent, in my view, and that's a good thing. He's also very experienced on stage and can do amazing things with his voice. Allison is also experienced on stage but not in age. She can also do amazing things with her voice. She's not as consistent as Adam week in and week out but her raw musical talent is, for me, best in show. :)
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top