# 12 An Evening With His Royal Highness Fantasy Fodder

[KAndre]

KAndre does the casual, shoulder flicking thing...

I kept TELLING people he said he wasn't a songwriter! HE kept TELLING people he wasn't a songwriter! Neener, neener, neener!

Ahem.

See, this is what I FLOVE about Clay Aiken concert and why I'm doing the double digit thing - when you think he can't top the last one - he kicks ass and takes names! I knew I had a good reason for buying a terabyte worth of external HDs!

Ahem...bottle...wanna finish all my recaps for me?

[playbiller]

Suddenly I feel like breaking into a Streisand song, I dont know why. Guess it is for the same reason people eat those darn Krispie Cremes.

[institches]

Top 3 reasons to be verclempt this morning:

ONE:

TWO:

I still can't find words to express my feelings on last night's show. I can't. Maybe I will later. Maybe you had to be there....don't know. It was like magic. I am a bit overwhelmed.

{{{laughn}}}

THREE:

Bottle's entire recap. {{{Bottle}}}

And bonus happy pills from lickiest's recap...

and then he was really, really enthusiastic with his talk about how much they all love doing this, how they've loved the last 4 years, and how even though he was crabby today in the meet and greet (and he said Jesse is always crabby) that once they got up on stage they had such a great time. He thanked us profusely for everything, and then started Because You Loved Me.

After he left the stage we all just stood around in amazement at what we'd just witnessed.

{{{lickiest}}}

Oh, and this???

Clay started looking around for her, wondering if she'd gone to the bathroom, and made a comment to Quiana that sounded like "maybe she J dealed us". Quiana cracked up so hard she was bent over laughing, and Clay said that it was an inside joke that she would be howling about for 4 weeks.

Hmmm....Could the J mean Jacob?

[bottlecap]

Top 3 reasons to be verclempt this morning:

And bonus happy pills from lickiest's recap...

and then he was really, really enthusiastic with his talk about how much they all love doing this, how they've loved the last 4 years, and how even though he was crabby today in the meet and greet (and he said Jesse is always crabby) that once they got up on stage they had such a great time. He thanked us profusely for everything, and then started Because You Loved Me.

After he left the stage we all just stood around in amazement at what we'd just witnessed.

Yes, that was fantastically gracious of Clay and it warmed my heart to hear him acknowledge that he really does love touring and performing so much.

Oh, and this???

Clay started looking around for her, wondering if she'd gone to the bathroom, and made a comment to Quiana that sounded like "maybe she J dealed us". Quiana cracked up so hard she was bent over laughing, and Clay said that it was an inside joke that she would be howling about for 4 weeks.

Hmmm....Could the J mean Jacob?

That was certainly my guess, given the context of the remarks and Clay's quip that it was an "inside joke."

I'm glad luckiest1 could remember the "It's the opposite of puberty" banter, because it was crystal clear what Quiana was refering to, without her actually saying the words. I think Clay also said during that whole shtick that it was another reason for all the men in the audience to be mad at him... Hee. Dude, you've lived with women all your life, including in college, so I'm pretty sure you've heard some blunt talk on the subject from time to time. Snort...

Man, how do y'all go back to work after doing Clay multiple times? I'm glad I took the whole week off for vacation since I'll need the time to recover.

[bottlecap]

I knew I saw a little WDC-esque action...

No Clay, your ass didn't fall off. :lmaosmiley-1: I'm sure certain members of the audience were keeping an eye on the situation and would have informed you if it did.

Super-cool violin dude (from my recap), visible just past Clay's right shoulder. I loved watching VD last night, not just because he was fine to look at, but because he was obviously having such a great time.

[Couch Tomato]

Don't think that is Jacob..can't quite remember the context but wasn' tthere a guy name Jay Deal that mysteriously left the tour. Don't think this is about Jacob.

To add more context through my feeble brain..someone asked him in the meet and greet about what Diane Buble said... basically he said she was confused...those were songs he liked...probably liked ot sing, and she just communicated that on Oprah. I can see that Diane didn't even really know the distinction of what she was saying would be sent to Clay lore/urban myths forever... probably wasn't even a big deal..the important part is that she heard him singing and thought he should go on Idol.

[jmh123]

Anyways, at some point during the banter afterwards, not clear when, Angela disappeared off the stage. Clay started looking around for her, wondering if she'd gone to the bathroom, and made a comment to Quiana that sounded like "maybe she J dealed us".

Thanks for solving that mystery, luckiest lickiest. Jae Deal is the bassist who walked off stage during a NAT performance (and apparently kept playing from off-stage), and although he returned after a couple of numbers, that was his last show. He claimed he was fired unfairly for reasons having nothing to do with the show. So you actually solved two mysteries.

Edited July 24, 2007 by jmh123

[playbiller]

Couchie is right, there was that guy that just walked off stage in the middle of the show and then came back a few songs later. Apparently he did not like being part of the show like most people and just wanted to play his guitar, but instead of talking about it, he just left without warning.

ETA - there is video somewhere, but I am not a good cataloguer

Edited July 24, 2007 by playbiller

[rcknrllmom]

Don't think that is Jacob..can't quite remember the context but wasn' tthere a guy name Jay Deal that mysteriously left the tour. Don't think this is about Jacob.

To add more context through my feeble brain..someone asked him in the meet and greet about what Diane Buble said... basically he said she was confused...those were songs he liked...probably liked ot sing, and she just communicated that on Oprah. I can see that Diane didn't even really know the distinction of what she was saying would be sent to Clay lore/urban myths forever... probably wasn't even a big deal..the important part is that she heard him singing and thought he should go on Idol.

oh that is right! I remember..and Jae said he was neither fired nor quit,that is was a mutual decision since it wasnt working out....everyone is so sure he said JDL'd them...as in Jacob Luttrell

Edited July 24, 2007 by rcknrllmom

[ldyjocelyn]

Couchie is right, there was that guy that just walked off stage in the middle of the show and then came back a few songs later. Apparently he did not like being part of the show like most people and just wanted to play his guitar, but instead of talking about it, he just left without warning.

ETA - there is video somewhere, but I am not a good cataloguer

Heh. I must have a short memory, because I'd forgotten about that. But I remember it now!

Anyway, I can limit the shows down to probably Albany, NY; Columbus, OH; or Jackson, MI -- during the NAT. My reason for limiting is that I went to the show immediately after these three, the Illinois State Fair. They had no bass player that night for that show. I remember very well Clay making mention that S'Von had a lot to do that evening. Anyway, if anyone has a better memory for the clack from those shows...

[artquest]

But my worst ngihtmare sports moment that gets repeating over and over --well I have two... one is Kirk Gibson of the Dogers hitting that homerun off Eckersley then limping and fistpumping his way around the bases to win the game...UGH I think I have seen that clip a million times...

I know I'm really behind 'coss I was in Laguna Beach with hubby on Sunday and doing the celcert on Monday, but this? This was one of the most awesomest moments in baseball. First Kirk was in the dugout in street clothes. Then he disappeared. Then he reappeared in uniform. Then he limped to the plate. Could the big man do it? Yesssss!

Hee. Is being a Dodger fan worse than being a pod person? On second thought, don't answer that.

But, just like some fans latched onto the word "mandate" even though he only used it once, they see and hear what they want to see and hear.

We all do it, not just "some fans." (Note: long-assed, scholarly, probably boring post ahead on the subject of filters. Scroll at will)

It all comes down to how we process information. When people get ambiguous evidence, we believe that the evidence supports our theories or we simply disregard it. We have the latitude to do that because the evidence is, well, ambiguous. That's the " see and hear what we want to see and hear" part.

There are lots of examples in the endless discussion of Clive Davis and what really went on in the creation of Clay's sophomore CD. My favorite examples come from the world of parapsychology. The true believers see floating white particles as "spheres" caused by paranormal energies. The skeptics see dust motes.

When people get unambiguous evidence, we deal with it differently. If the evidence supports our beliefs, then we say, "Well, yes, of course." When the evidence challenges our beliefs, we don't usually disregard it, plus we can't fit it into our belief system because it's unambiguous, after all. Instead, we challenge it. We nitpick the details or the methodology (in science) or the reasoning or even the reporting skills or credibility of the source. My favorite example of this comes from a textbook in social cognition where the author, after explaining ambiguous and unambiguous evidence in Chapters 1 and 2, spends all of Chapter 10 nitpicking the evidence supporting psychic phenomena. He's a perfect example of his own thesis.

With a little effort, one can look past one's own preconceptions and evaluate the evidence by the uses other people make of it.. If you find that both sides of an argument are using the same evidence as support, it's probably ambiguous. If one side accepts the evidence and the other nitpicks, then the evidence is likely to be unambiguous. Ultimately, this is why science works the way it does, trying to get past the logjam that can be caused by ambiguity. We don't need to do that on the message boards, we only need to cheerfully and enthusiastically continue our debates. And by the way, did you see those smokin' hot jeans from last night?

Edited July 24, 2007 by artquest

[luckiest1]

OK. I just read through the Sterling Heights thread from last night. Are you seriously telling me that last night was the farewell performance of ATD? ::insert twenty billion crying emoticons:: I saw it's debut in Cary, so I guess it was fitting that I saw it's final outing as well. But it still makes me v.v. sad becoss I love it so.

That said, I wonder what he'll replace it with? Oooh, the possibilities.

[atinal]

Bottle, I just watched canfly's partial video of Listen, and I see your Violin Dude, I see what you mean. He can't help but grin.

[laughn]

OK. I just read through the Sterling Heights thread from last night. Are you seriously telling me that last night was the farewell performance of ATD? ::insert twenty billion crying emoticons:: I saw it's debut in Cary, so I guess it was fitting that I saw it's final outing as well. But it still makes me v.v. sad becoss I love it so.

That said, I wonder what he'll replace it with? Oooh, the possibilities.

Remember when he finished last night he turned to compliment the band and said that the JT Orchestra might just have saved that song and he hadn't heard it sound that good in a long time. (or I'm just delusional because I feel like my head is still in the clouds) I didn't know what he was talking about then because I didn't know what had been said in the M&G at that time.

My point being, who knows. lol Maybe he got so pumped by the sound last night that he'll give it another go.

[YSRN]

I'm butting in, not caught up at all, to be totally self-indulgent (forgive me!) and say... I'm almost packed.

I leave in a couple hours, so I wanted to say....

BYE!

Off to NH to see my boyfriend.

:F_05BL17blowkiss:

See you all soooooon!!

[playbiller]

YSRN - must be packed!

[luckiest1]

Remember when he finished last night he turned to compliment the band and said that the JT Orchestra might just have saved that song and he hadn't heard it sound that good in a long time. (or I'm just delusional because I feel like my head is still in the clouds) I didn't know what he was talking about then because I didn't know what had been said in the M&G at that time.

My point being, who knows. lol Maybe he got so pumped by the sound last night that he'll give it another go.

Oh yeah, you are right! I had forgotten that bit of banter! Because it was a seriously awesome version last night. I will be listening with bated breath tomorrow. Safe travels, YSRN!

[Couch Tomato]

When people get unambiguous evidence, we deal with it differently. If the evidence supports our beliefs, then we say, "Well, yes, of course." When the evidence challenges our beliefs, we don't usually disregard it, plus we can't fit it into our belief system because it's unambiguous, after all. Instead, we challenge it.

Ok so to me, unambiguous evidence is Clay saying he thinks BFM is cheesy and he did not like it. So to challenge it would be to come up with emotional and psychological reasons why he would lie about it.

for any Homefront fans, he made a mental reservation

If you find that both sides of an argument are using the same evidence as support, it's probably ambiguous. If one side accepts the evidence and the other nitpicks, then the evidence is likely to be unambiguous. Ultimately, this is why science works the way it does, trying to get past the logjam that can be caused by ambiguity. We don't need to do that on the message boards, we only need to cheerfully and enthusiastically continue our debates. And by the way, did you see those smokin' hot jeans from last night?

And if you can figure out a way to do that, you'll have found the perfect message board. I remember early in my fandom I read this general thing on evolution of an online community. I would seriously like to see that again. I tried to google to find it but gave up after 5 minutes. If anybody knows what I'm talking about, HELP. I would seriously like to see what stage I'm on... I think maybe some new stages have been invented.

But more seriously, you've just reminded me how much I want to go back to school and get my Masters but every time I think about sitting in class after work I get a headache. Hee. I used to use all my little hobbies in my papers for undergrad..wonder how many times and ways I could have fit Clay into any topic or subject. Do you get many pop culture references in your classes?

OK biology, abnormal psychology, music are easy

But what about oceanography, statistics and spanish III.

YSRN..have a great trip! :F_05BL17blowkiss:

[jmh123]

But, just like some fans latched onto the word "mandate" even though he only used it once, they see and hear what they want to see and hear.

We all do it, not just "some fans." (Note: long-assed, scholarly, probably boring post ahead on the subject of filters. Scroll at will)

It all comes down to how we process information. When people get ambiguous evidence, we believe that the evidence supports our theories or we simply disregard it. We have the latitude to do that because the evidence is, well, ambiguous. That's the " see and hear what we want to see and hear" part.

There are lots of examples in the endless discussion of Clive Davis and what really went on in the creation of Clay's sophomore CD. My favorite examples come from the world of parapsychology. The true believers see floating white particles as "spheres" caused by paranormal energies. The skeptics see dust motes.

When people get unambiguous evidence, we deal with it differently. If the evidence supports our beliefs, then we say, "Well, yes, of course." When the evidence challenges our beliefs, we don't usually disregard it, plus we can't fit it into our belief system because it's unambiguous, after all. Instead, we challenge it. We nitpick the details or the methodology (in science) or the reasoning or even the reporting skills or credibility of the source. My favorite example of this comes from a textbook in social cognition where the author, after explaining ambiguous and unambiguous evidence in Chapters 1 and 2, spends all of Chapter 10 nitpicking the evidence supporting psychic phenomena. He's a perfect example of his own thesis.

With a little effort, one can look past one's own preconceptions and evaluate the evidence by the uses other people make of it.. If you find that both sides of an argument are using the same evidence as support, it's probably ambiguous. If one side accepts the evidence and the other nitpicks, then the evidence is likely to be unambiguous. Ultimately, this is why science works the way it does, trying to get past the logjam that can be caused by ambiguity. We don't need to do that on the message boards, we only need to cheerfully and enthusiastically continue our debates. And by the way, did you see those smokin' hot jeans from last night?

Most people are not comfortable with ambiguity. They want a one-sided answer. I think you'll agree that in the case of human psychology, totally unambiguous feelings about things are not the norm, although people will often claim to have them because they feel more comfortable thinking that way. Truth is, much of life is ambiguous (now we're getting into my field of study). The Chinese say that all of this material world is created by the energy of forces alternating between one extreme (yin) and the other (yang).

I think that Clay has ambiguous feelings about this album, thus at some point he may say "the album was mandated by Clive," and at another he may say, “This album is very different than my first, MEASURE OF A MAN, in that I had a lot more say in how I wanted things to be....For the first album, they just gave us the songs, and I sang them. This time, Clive Davis, Jaymes Foster [the album’s executive producer] and I came up with the songs together. I also felt more confident in the studio while we were recording. Before, it was all just a bunch of knobs and controls. Now, I’m comfortable offering my opinion on how the arrangements and mixes should sound.” (He has said similar things in recorded interviews, but it's easier to find and quote from the print. I guess claiming that he didn't say this, a PR person did, or that he said it because he was forced to would represent nit-picking?)

Thus, when Clay said Clive mandated the album, he said just that; he wasn't presenting evidence for the fact that he hates the album or that Clive treated him cruelly, etc. etc., but some will take that statement to validate a whole set of related notions because they're more comfortable with an unambiguous perception of the situation. When some say, "fans latched onto the word 'mandate'," I think that's what they're saying--that the word 'mandate' was used to validate a much larger set of fan assumptions than the simple, unambiguous statement that the concept of a love song covers album was Clive's.

People are also influenced by other's opinions; thus, it is possible, as I said yesterday, that some fans might've liked the album more if critics had like it more, or if it had sold more. The real rancor about the album only broke out on the boards after the album dropped, even though fans had heard it before then. Some people didn't care for MOAM at first, but later decided that they loved it. Some people didn't care for the new songs tested on the JBT, but later decided that they were fantastic because they hated the alternative of an album of covers. Whereas it's clear to me that if it had been an album of 50's covers, it would've sold 10 million copies and we wouldn't even be having this conversation - LOL.

Clay himself might be less compelled to explain repeatedly that the concept wasn't his if ATDW had been better received, and might have continued to express more pride in it had it been more unambiguously successful. I think there is precious little unambiguous information about this situation. I'm not sure what one could even consider to be unambiguous evidence when it comes to ATDW, as there seems to be plenty to counter any one particular bit of one-sided information.

So, basically, I'm agreeing with you about the nit-picking, which I would call attempts to force the evidence into an unambiguous interpretation, but pointing out that IMO there's little about the situation that's unambiguous.

[jmh123]

I'm butting in, not caught up at all, to be totally self-indulgent (forgive me!) and say... I'm almost packed.

I leave in a couple hours, so I wanted to say....

BYE!

Off to NH to see my boyfriend.

:F_05BL17blowkiss:

See you all soooooon!!

Have a blast, and say "hi" to all the Claywhores for me!! :F_05BL17blowkiss:

[playbiller]

Ah, but Artquest, the RCA debates are more than evidence, a lot of it is attitidue and some of it is business experience and that varies by how close you get to a board of directors and stockholders. Some of it is personal belief of fandom and what is respectful of the idols personal space.

When it comes to evidence - I prefer to use Clay as the first source (kidder that he is), after that something that has been said in my presence or filmed so I can view the nuance. Obviously very little of this exists - so I root my opinion in my experience in working for a large corporation and working in similar companies (i.e. they like to make money, they do not like to lose money). I try to apply logic based on fact rather than assuption and leave the rest as undecided.

The basis of my opinion is "we don't know a lot" and I stand by that today. The other major belief of mine is that it is "none of my business" - this is based on personal space definitions.

For the other idols, it is all opinion, I don't care enough about them to get facts (joking, joking, sort of)

[KAndre]

wonders briefly if she can convince artquest to write her thesis for her...perhaps extra-special minionhood?...

Art, ya left out the "volume" method of dealing with evidence not matching beliefs so beloved by my family - the loudest person wins!

[artquest]

But more seriously, you've just reminded me how much I want to go back to school and get my Masters but every time I think about sitting in class after work I get a headache. Hee. I used to use all my little hobbies in my papers for undergrad..wonder how many times and ways I could have fit Clay into any topic or subject. Do you get many pop culture references in your classes?

Thinking that anything I might have said would make you want to go back to school? That's the nicest compliment anyone anywhere has ever given me. Thank you so much!

All my students know about Clay! In my Abnomal Psych class, he's the example of panic attacks and how they're tied to hypermobility of the joints. In Statistics, I use American Idol and especially Dial Idol to talk about probability. I also have them rate Clay songs to provide data for some elementary analysis. In the senior seminar class I use the trash entertainment blogs and how rumors start to demonstrate principles of cognitive psychology. Everywhere you go, there's Clay!

jmh123, you speak wisdom in your entire post. Let me dwell on just one of your points: most of the time we don't like ambiguity. I mean we REALLY don't like ambiguity. The discomfort from that makes us do all kinds of odd manipulations so that we can appear consistent to ourselves and others.

Classic example:

Knock, knock. Door opens:

"M'am, would you put this honkin' big ugly sign for I.M.Politician in your front yard?"

"No, you young whippersnapper. Get outta my face."

"OK, would you put this tiny, tasteful sign in your yard?"

The lady at the door sees herself as a kind person. She realizes she's just been unkind to the stranger, which is out of sync with her self image. So given the option of removing the ambiguity and reasserting herself as a kind person, she says:

"Well, yes. You can put that tiny sign in my yard. That's OK."

And the young whippersnapper gets exactly what he wanted in the first place.

It's called the "Door in the Face" technique. Useful when planning budgets that someone else has to approve . . .

wonders briefly if she can convince artquest to write her thesis for her...perhaps extra-special minionhood?...

Does it come with a tiara?

ETA: My example is a way better example of cognitive dissonance than ambiguity. A topic for another time.

Edited July 24, 2007 by artquest

[Couch Tomato]

Forgot to respond to Artquest's first question - Of COURSE Dodger Fan (as Jim Rome would say) is worst than Poddie.

[JennaZ]

Thanks for your thoughts on ambiguous evidence, artquest. I think we can all agree that there has been a lot of ambiguous evidence floating around the fanboards. I think if we all just concurred that no one really knows what went on, that it's all pure speculation, there would be a lot fewer battles on the boards.

I understand why some people believe Clay was screwed by RCA. I get the frustration, the worry, the anger. I see the need to blame the label for Clay's less than spectacular sales. Personally, I don't believe RCA completely comprehends Clay's talent and potential, and that ATDW was not handled as well as it could have been.

I just can't bring myself to buy the more extreme theories, i.e., that RCA is trying to ruin Clay, that Clay despises ATDW and is being forced to support the album.

Now, if people need to believe otherwise, fine. However, during the height of the discussions, I could not help but feel that taking a less hostile position was viewed as, well, almost disloyal. This may be purely my own sensitivities, but it seemed that if you weren't mad as hell, you were somehow, not on Clay's side. It's the only way I can explain the anger directed toward those who were not angry. And it's why I came here, where it was OK not to be angry all the time.

Speculation is part of all fandoms, and I don't expect that to change. I enjoy speculation, myself, and view it as a fun and harmless activity as long as it is recognized for what it is. I'd would just love to see more acknowledgement that evidence is often ambiguous, that it is open to interpretation, and that we rarely have definitive answers.