Since everyone wants to make his American Idol loss a gay/straight thing, I suppose it is time to comment on why my wife and I both voted against him (repeatedly).

It wasn't his sexuality. After all, we are both pretty gay-friendly -- indeed, I've spoken with only two non-family members on the phone this weekend, and neither of the two is straight. Indeed, one of them certainly qualifies as my best friend. So personal feelings about sexuality didn't do it.

Neither did religion. Both of us are seminary trained, and my wife was, for a time, pastor of a church in a liberal, gay-friendly denomination.

And we both voted for Clay Aiken, assuming he was gay long before he came out of the closet, because we liked his style and were put off by the constant shilling of the judges for other contestants during that season.

So why not vote for Adam, and instead pick Kris Allen?

Easy. We didn't like the "hard sell" tactics of certain of the judges on the show. They were declaring Adam to be the winner weeks ago, even though it was not at all clear to us that he deserved the crown. I was fond of Danny & Allison -- indeed, I thought the final three should have been Adam, Allison, and Danny, with Kris disappearing when they reduced the crew to three. And of the final three, my pick would have been Danny because I liked his voice and his style. I thought Kris had the same sort of stuff going for him.

Which brings me back to Adam. Aside from the shameless shilling by the judges, there was one other problem -- Adam was too theatrical in his style. No, that isn't a code for "gay" -- it is a recognition that Adam has a long history as a stage performer, and that he sings and presents himself like a stage performer.. Indeed, his phrasing often reminded me of this.

Well, maybe not quite that bad, but Adam Lambert was just a little bit too precise in his delivery -- great for Broadway, not so much for pop or rock music. Even when he rocked out (and I'll concede, Adam gave some great rock performances) it all seemed a bit . . . artificial, sort of like the example above.

That doesn't mean that I wouldn't pay to see Adam Lambert -- I would, but probably not as a concert performer. If, however, he were to be the lead in just about any musical, I'd buy a ticket and go -- and be thoroughly pleased by his performance.

But who knows -- Adam may yet have a fantastic career as a solo artist. And I may yet become a serious fan. But my faith and his sexuality won't be factors in that change, either.

So when I see an analysis like this one, I simply have to laugh at how misguided those who put forth this thesis really are.

UPDATE: Lots of traffic on this one -- I'll open the comments for you. Play nice.

Posted by: Greg at 01:23 AM | Comments (1) | Add Comment
Post contains 523 words, total size 3 kb.