This question of why people prefer the untrained to the expert is really interesting and has come up many times regarding Adam. I googled around a little to find out if any studies had been done as to
why people might prefer the sound of an untrained voice. Interestingly enough, one of the articles even mentioned Adam, along with Celine Dion, as rare examples of trained voices in today's music business.
The most articulate article I found on this was from the blog of a choirmaster: The Pleasures of the Untrained Voice.
blog.chrisrowbury.com/2010/10/pleasures-of-untrained-voice.htmlThis author writes:
Personally, give me an ‘untrained’ voice any time! There’s something about those old villagers sitting around late one evening bursting into spontaneous song that sends shivers up my spine (in a good way!) whereas a highly-trained singer can leave me stone cold.And I think that pretty well sums it up. I don't agree -- at all -- but there is a sizable contingent out there who feels left out and unduly challenged by a good voice.
The comments are interesting too.
Just for a brief personal rant -- The book industry is in something of the same boat. Just to take one example, people love the idea that JK Rowling plotted her novels on a napkin. Well, guess what? It shows. And, she's a billionaire, while brilliant and imaginative novelists in the same genre -- like NK Jemisin, say -- toil in her shadow. :-/
***
mszue, I keep coming back to your invitation to think about censorship/self-censorship and some of our Atop rules of engagement. As you wrote:
1. don't be repetitious [in depth discussion absolutely requires repetition if and when (which is the norm) everyone is not on the same page.
and
2. always be cheerful and positive [now there is a silencing tool]When I first found Atop, I was looking for a discussion forum to replace one that died on ALFC. There was a pretty cool forum there for a while called The Adam Lambert Debate Club. It started towards the end of the Glam Nation tour, and the gal who started it moderated it as well. There was no "dark side" at that time, and about a dozen people found a great deal of pleasure in talking about all things Adam. It was so great to find like-minded souls for the first time!
Inevitably (in retrospect) things became contentious. Discussions there began to evolve into sessions in which most of the members moved to the sidelines while two people attempted to bludgeon each other into agreeing on some esoteric point.
Example: Our moderator would seed topics for us to discuss. Once, the topic was "possible duets." One member touted a duet with Eminem because he is such a "genius." I stated that I did not think Adam should work with an unrepentant homophobe. The discussion became very heated and rather ugly, with videos and other evidence posted to prove our respective points. Ultimately it became personal.
Ironically, later, after the discussion ran its course, the other lady confessed that she knew almost nothing of Eminem before she posted. But she felt compelled to defend her position with increasing passion -- as did I. What was wrong with me? As if I gave a damn about something that was never going to happen anyway!
Within months, the sole moderator burned out and left the fandom altogether :(, and the discussion became guarded by a couple of trolls under the bridge who wouldn't let anything controversial be talked about. The Debate Club faded out and died.
I was pleased when I found Adamtopia not least because it
did have good moderation with a variety of styles. I lurked for a while and I thought the rules worked pretty well so I joined in.
The rules of engagement you mentioned both come from Atop rule #3:
3. Strive to be funny, entertaining or informative when you post. Avoid posting something that has already been posted.Coming off my Debate Club experience, I still think Rule #3 is pretty good as worded. All it asks is that a poster remember that this is a discussion, and one that is supposed to be fun, inclusive, and a pleasure. To me it's a warning sign when all but a couple of "combatants" move to the sidelines and start trading posts back and forth that essentially restate the same points.
To me that indicates that at root there is a larger topic -- and one that is likely to come up again in a fresh guise. It seems to me that the rule simply asks that we agree to disagree
for today. There will almost certainly be another chance to engage later.
But -- to speak to your point -- the way that you reworded #3 reflects how it has subtly evolved, particularly the last part. Posts that are "funny, entertaining, or informative" are quite different from "those that are always cheerful and positive." Black humor or gallows humor are taken off the table. Armchair criticism of vocals or fashion or acting or stage or video production is off the table, even though it might be very funny, entertaining, or informative.
Industry talk is off the table. Satire is off the table. And philosophizing on the deep end is essentially off the table, since it is reflective and often wistful ... rather than "cheerful."