For me, I didn't find her singing to be all that remarkable, and she certainly comes presented as an unremarkable person, therefore any voice issuing forth is bound to raise an eyebrow and some interest. The thing I think is most interesting has nothing to do with the fact that she is unattractive and people are so surprised, etc. It's the fact that if she were interested in pursuing a musical career, and she is talented, then how on earth did she remain 'undiscovered' into her forties? That is the point I find amazing in this whole story.

I think what's unique is that she had no nerves or reservations because she is unassuming looking. You can go on and on about how nobody "should" have that awareness, but given our level of media exposure, people do. It's not that she can sing, it's that she managed to not let her looks stop her (in her own mind) from singing on national television.

The other thing is that she seemed downright goofy (to this American) before she started to sing, so it was her affect that changed expectations in addition to her appearance.

Does that make any sense, Miko?

No, I think she seems goofy too, but I know a lot of successful goofy musicians. She's definitely a bit of a character, but nothing in her appearance would make me think "Oh, she can't handle this." You really never know with people.

if she were interested in pursuing a musical career, and she is talented, then how on earth did she remain 'undiscovered' into her forties?

I don't know, and I would like to know what she has been doing with her music. It's not unusual for people to be 'undiscovered' if they haven't pursued media fame, but often they have been active in local theatre or church music or the folk scene for ages. I haven't read about her background, but it would be surprising if she hadn't done anything at all other than sing in her living room, and then get a wild hair to go on this show.

This video was so built up in my mind - people were describing her voice as "angelic" and "remarkeable", that I was honestly shocked to hear a pretty typical singer who perhaps likes to perform in church or community choirs. I don't mean any disrespect because I have the same type of untrained voice. But I guess I agree with Miko in that I grew up around women and men like Susan Boyle, in one way or another.

I also didn't like the obvious set-up of the situation. The producers obviously knew that she had a nice voice (they do pre-stage "weeding out" interviews), and really played up the "OMG WHAT A BEAST" angle.

Also, I don't like to think about the fact that people assume that I'm worthless simply because they can't imagine having sex with me.

Yeah, it looks like she's known for music in her town.

Back in her tiny home village of Blackburn, near Edinburgh, locals were not so shocked.
We weren't surprised," Happy Vale Hotel manager Jackie Russell said yesterday.

"When we saw all the faces in the audience mocking her, we were quite hurt by that.

"We were all just saying just 'wait until she opens her mouth and belts it out', and she did.

..."We were just moved because she'd eventually done something for herself. Susan would do anything for you, and now we feel it's Susan's turn."

The 5000-strong village welcomed her back last weekend with a standing ovation in church.

But, while locals expected her voice to shine, the worldwide reaction was another matter altogether.

It's just ridiculous, though, seeing stuff like this. What, exactly, are the dewy-eyed, slow-clapping, standing-0, shaking-heads-in-wonderment people finding so moving and touching?

Formatting fail. Everything but the first and last paragraphs were quoted from the linked news story.

Here's a 1999 recording she did of "Cry Me a River". I wasn't sure how good of a singer she was just based on the Les Mis performance (possibly because I sort of hate "I Dreamed a Dream"), but man does she NAIL this one.

Meh. Another small town church choir singer sells out and goes pop trying to crossover to the mainstream. I heard she won't even do her jesus songs anymore.

A few articles I read seemed to imply she had some sort of developmental disability- I think one person described it as "born with water on the brain." Lots of stuff about her being not quite right, and getting teased by the local kids pretty relentlessly, so managing to overcome that and deal with the stress of a tv show and all that is pretty impressive.

My whole take was that she is, in fact, not ugly at all. She's got a brilliant smile and a very nice hourglass figure, particularly given her age. She looks like a normal woman nearing 50 who hasn't spent money and time on making herself stay artificially young. Most likely someone without a lot of vanity, since I think even a change in haircut and getting her brows done would have cut the comments about her appearance in half. It's really sad that our society sees "aging normally" and views it as this horror show, since we're so used to the Demi Moores and Madonnas of the world using millions of dollars to keep themselves in some kind of bizarre artificial youth. The public figures of her age range are all botoxed, facelifted, lipo'd, and so on- we never really see a normal person of her age in the media.

Personally, I'm more surprised when a pretty face, styled with all the right bits for the box she's filling, displays any talent at all. I'd rather be at a show, listening to a singer, out of breath from dancing around the stage, raspy-voiced from touring, and working around the difficulties of performance, than watch a production number where everyone is lipsynching cause the voice is unrecognizable or no good without the post-production.

And what muddgirl said:

Also, I don't like to think about the fact that people assume that I'm worthless simply because they can't imagine having sex with me.

She has a nice voice and bad taste in music, no surprise there, many people seem to like that musical comedy shit. The whole looks thing is demeaning, adulation of beautiful people just for their looks is why we have shitty cars and a fucked-up economy, real merit, whatever the field, seems to be distributed pretty evenly throughout humanity. When I say this is why I don't watch TV I'm not being smug but I am being superior.

And yeah, there's gonna be a real drop-off for the artificially youthful, they won't age gracefully but the machine will still put them before the public eye. What's sick is that the machine will no doubt convince the public that old women are supposed to look like Mickey Rourke, and that the Betty Whites are the ugly ones. Fuck this sick culture, I'd like to burn it down.

There's an interesting conversation going on about this --- the halo effect, the narrative of reality TV programs, the condescending astonishment of the judges --- in the comment here, at Kate Harding's Shapely Prose.

Aside from the stuff you said, Hugh, about appearance in media, I'm also aware of what this says about music in mass culture.

Since I'm involved with local music and folk music, I often think about how the idea of 'community musicians' has changed so much in the past century. By the time most people hear most music, it's been passed through a bunch of filters and processed within an inch of its life. We make music by pressing buttons on boxes, and generally kind of accept what's pushed in our direction. But there's another, parallel world of music that was actaully the only world of music until mass electronic broadcast and digital media were developed - that of people, regular people, developing musical skill and sharing it with the people around them. It happens all over, in church and at camp and in schools and in local and regional theatre and at clubs and in living rooms - yet it seems to me that a lot of people just never ever hear real live music, or know any regular people who make music.

This weird explosiion of attention for a community musician reminds me of how true that is - the only way you could presume someone who looks so unprepossessing might _not_ have musical talent is that you have just become completely accumstomed to only accepting music in your life as a consumer purchasing a manufactured musical product, with all the polishing and tweaking that production implies.

Does the majority culture really believe that people who don't fit the prevailing concept of 'cute' really cannot possess talent?

In the context of reality shows, yes.

The context here matters, a lot. It's not like we all went into a local music recital, saw Susan Boyle, mocked her, and then were so amazed at her talent we made her an international sensation; in that context, it would be weird to expect physical perfection from the star performers.

When watching a high-budget reality show, we know that we're watching something completely manipulated by producers who tend to fall back on (and therefore encourage) broad stereotypes. It *is* amazing, in that context, to see huge talent coming from someone not conventionally 'cute' -- because mainstream media tends to weed those people out or make them over or starve them into acceptability.

It's not that no one understands that cute doesn't automatically equal talented. It's that everyone understands that on television, cute automatically equals talented.

It's not that Susan Boyle defied our expectations, it's that the show did.

It's not that Susan Boyle defied our expectations, it's that the show did.

This is an excellent point. That clip is almost like watching a magic trick being performed- expectations are created, there's misdirection, and then POOF! A big surprise at the end.

I see what you mean, there.

And taken that way, it explains a bit more about celebrity tears. The celebs are the ones who have spent their lives meeting the requirements of that system. I wonder if they felt they were looking in some sort of alternate, bizarro-world mirror, thinking about whether this system can really control or purvey talent or whether their success has rested on something else or in addition.

This whole Susan Boyle nonsense is really not about her at all - it's about the Idol/Talent franchise. It's about generating buzz and Simon Cowell and feigned surprise and ratings.

It's not that Susan Boyle defied our expectations, it's that the show did.

It's sad when we even have expectations around slop like this. I even got links from my sisters, all mooned-out over Susan Boyle Amazing-ness.

This whole trip has the saccharine tinge of an after-school special to it. Can't Idol/Talent just fucking die already?

It's not that Susan Boyle defied our expectations, it's that the show did.

Although they did exactly the same thing the previous year with Paul Potts.

After encountering some drooling j-pop afficianados last weekend, I can report with some confidence that at least the Japanese pop world deals with talent with refreshing honesty. From what I gather, over there, the performers are in many cases selected for, and idolized almost entirely for visual aesthetics. It is barely incidental that they make noises with microphones and sometimes instruments. A whole musical movement, "Visual Kei" was dedicated to a form of fashion show in which the models sang some songs.

It seems that the commentary here focuses on our dismay that what should be is not what is. I'm a bit taken aback by what can only be feigned shock that the pop industry (yeah, it's a commercial business selling widgets) is driven by the superficial appeal of the widgets it purveys.

Occhi has a good point here:

It's not that Susan Boyle defied our expectations, it's that the show did.

Or perhaps I misread this thread. Miko, are you saying that all the people gushing about this are just "me too"ing and piggybacking on the phenomenon? That they'd have been the first ones to have laughed their asses off if she'd got up there and made a fool of herself? In other words, much of the reaction you're hearing is hypocritical, and their respect for her humanity and dignity is facile and trite because it is a posteriori, not that there's nothing on the line?

ahem, "now that there's nothing on the line"

This might not mean much, but speaking as a prize winning competition singer, to hear that vocal control from a basically untrained voice IS amazing. Her choice of song was lyrically spot on, as this is her dream. It doesn't matter if it happened before on the same show. It doesn't matter if Susan is homely or not. What matters is that she sang REALLY WELL.

I am really turned off by the amount of cynaciam emminating from my fellow Metachatters. Something very beautiful and wonderful occurs in an unexpected place, and all you can do it tear is apart, disect the little bits, and revel in your cynacism and disconnected-ness. This is too much like dislikeing pop music because the "in" crowd likes it, or shunning a band you once liked because they now have a mainstream fanbase. Please, stop being so "high-school". Susan deserves this moment.

My husband and I were talking about this last night over supper, and there is one thing that I'm surprised I haven't seen mentioned much: In part, she's inspiring because its so easy to project yourself onto her.

Who among us has not stood in our bathroom singing; or maybe sung Karaoke or in church, and pretended that they were "the next Elaine Page" (or whomever)? So many people secretly harbor that fantasy that there will be a single, defining moment where their "great talent" will be recognized and their mundane life will change forever. That is the magic of Ms. Boyle (and, too a lesser degree, Paul Potts). Seeing her on the stage makes you believe that these sorts of things really do happen.

Also, frankly, its the sheer joy she shows when her performance is received favorably. I honestly think she doesn't think - or doesn't dare to believe - that she's really all that good. I know its fashionable to suddenly say that she's not technically great, but I think that's hogwash: she has a beautiful voice and, maybe more importantly, she really understands how to perform the song.

I can so clearly see her in my mind's eye, standing in her front parlor practicing her song, dreaming of blowing kisses to the assembled crowd, but believing in her secret heart that it won't happen - that the crowd will clap politely and the buzzer will go off and Simon will say something snarky and her moment in the sun will be over. How often do you get to see wish fulfillment on this scale be realized?

Her life -- thus far devoted to others -- is going to take a big turn here, and it moves me to think that things like that can still happen. It moves me, in part, because it means that my own dreams are not in vain. It means that its possible that some day, I too could get my "big break" and see my life go from mundane to amazing.

I suspect that for many of those 11 Million YouTube viewers, it means that too.

OK wow, I did not expect that. I don't think it's cynical to point out that American Idol/Britain's Got Talent is, above all else, a television show, and one that is apparantly very effective at drumming up attention. I'm glad that Ms. Boyle is getting her moment in the sun, and I hope she goes on to do great things. But at the same time, it sucks that she has to subject herself to the typical media commentary about every last aspect of her life and appearance to do so. Like I said above, it makes me sad to think that I would be treated the way she's was treated if I ever went on that show.

sakura, it sounds to me as if the overwhelming feeling here is not, as you suggests, that Susan Boyle is getting undeserved attention, but rather that the scorn heaped upon her appearance is undeserved.

The surprise the judges and audience exhibit upon hearing her voice shows a deep and tacit assumption that, because Susan Boyle does not fit into a culturally dictated (and very narrow) range of physical appearance, they expect her to be incompetent and laughable.

The more subtle implication here is that, if her singing had not been remarkable, it would have been okay to continue laughing at her appearance. It's a nasty, small-minded, and (in your words) "high school" worldview, and one that appears to be the mainstay of reality TV.

I will certainly continue to dissect moments like this, because I think they say a great deal about our cultural values, and how they limit our appreciation of artists.

I quite liked this op-ed in the Guardian. Her story is only interesting if you concur with the "everybody was against you" opinion of the judges, which is an entirely manufactured part of the narrative, and rather crudely emphasised by the choice of audience/judge reaction shots (which I'd bet good money didn't happen at the points they've been edited against). If anything we (and they) were on her side and it's kind of insulting that they think we'll accept the being-against-her-because-she's-ugly as what it's somehow normal to have thought.

On preview: What Elsa said.

Elsa said it one thousand times better than I - and I completely agree with everything she said.

cillit bang, that op-ed is perfect.

To clarify:

The more subtle implication here is that, if her singing had not been remarkable, it would have been okay to continue laughing at her appearance.

By "the more subtle implication here," I mean that it's a tacit message existing within the circulating video, not that it's a view espoused in this thread.

Further, I don't understand why anyone would believe that analyzing the cultural underpinnings of the video negates simple enjoyment of it. I'm very happy for Susan Boyle that she's getting recognition for her talents. (Though I'm in no way competent to judge the extent of her talent, it's a pleasure to hear her sing, which is enough for me.)

To acknowledge that she is getting this recognition in the face of a strong and vicious undercurrent of prejudice against her physical appearance only enhances the power of the moment.

Oh, that op-ed does have some strong points.

You will say that Paul Potts, the fat opera singer with the equally squashed face who won Britain's Got Talent in 2007, had just as hard a time at his first audition. I looked it up on YouTube. He did not. "I wasn't expecting that," said Simon to Paul. "Neither was I," said Amanda. "You have an incredible voice," said Piers. And that was it. No laughter, or invitations to paranoia, or mocking wolf-whistles, or smirking, or derision.

...This lust for homogeneity in female beauty means that when someone who doesn't resemble a diagram in a plastic surgeon's office steps up to the microphone, people fall about and treat us to despicable sub-John Gielgud gestures of amazement.

Susan will probably win Britain's Got Talent. She will be the little munter that could sing, served up for the British public every Saturday night. Look! It's "ugly"! It sings! And I know that we think that this will make us better people. But Susan Boyle will be the freakish exception that makes the rule. By raising this Susan up, we will forgive ourselves for grinding every other Susan into the dust.

She mentions Edith Piaf, too. Another in a long, long list of fantastic singers to whom you could assign ungenerous names related to appearance and goofiness.

Honestly, the disingenuous degree of apparent surprise at Boyle's talent is repellent.

Amazing we can deny reality so deeply, even as we tell ourselves we're seeing it, on shows named after it.

Her story is only interesting if you concur with the "everybody was against you" opinion of the judges, which is an entirely manufactured part of the narrative,

Hm, yeah, I'd actually be totally interested in hearing the production discussion involved in turning this performance into a narrative - because that is definitely what we're seeing: not just the performance, but the manufactured tale surrounding the performance, done almost entirely with scripted conversation and a specific choice of video shots selected to create and reinforce an impression.

I wonder if they simply arrived at a conscious decision that playing this up as a huge against-all-odds Cinderella story would be much more rewarding for the public than the direct and simple presentation of a plain looking person who performed very well, but who didn't offer the virtues or pleasing camera flirting they might otherwise use to promote viewership. I mean, what would they have done with that without staging an overstated reaction? "Middle-aged, non-TV-looking lady who is undoubtedy fantastic singer wins audition" is way less Overnight Internet Sensation-able than "ugly lady played for laughs expected to fail -- shows 'em all up and triumphs over snooty pretty people! And maybe you can too, so be inspired!"

Told this way, the story gains a narrative traction that it would simply lack without the idea that she had to overcome opposition.

Thanks so much for pointing out that op-ed, cillit bang.

The very idea that this woman can be dismissed by some as "ugly" says a great deal about our beauty standards. We're so used to seeing entertainers (especially women) buffed and sleeked and tweezed and shaped to fit into the mold, that anyone who hasn't submitted to those rigors stands out immediately.

Of course, there's the separate (and much larger) issue: that the physical attractiveness of women in the public eye is always a matter for discussion, an inescapable part of their public selves.

So, to sort out any confusion here, this is not, and never was, a thread about Susan Boyle or her performance. Rather, this is a thread about the response to Susan Boyle. Many of us rightly decry the disingenuous of the support for her, since, as stated in the op-ed, "By raising this Susan up, we will forgive ourselves for grinding every other Susan into the dust."

In short, celebrating Ms. Boyle, allows us to feel good about ourselves, while we continue with 'business as usual.'

Let's follow this a step further though, shall we? In here, we have a chance to publicly register, for the record, in writing, our disgust and dismay at a shallow society which makes superficial judgments about the worth of a person. It's somewhat disingenuous to imply that anyone here doesn't recognize the shallow bias of a commercial celebrity culture, therefore, railing against it may come off as posturing, or as an attempt to distance one's self publicly from the wayward values society in which we live.

/sorry I had to get all post modern on you there ;)

I agree whole-heartedly that societal bias toward the attractive is wrong. That part doesn't offend me.

The implication that Susan Boyle is NOT as good as people are saying, but somehow made INTO good by virtue of her homliness, just so we can feel good about our selves, is assanine. Not to mention exactly what is being railed against in this thread. One should not say she's bad because she's homely. But it's exactly what is being implied in this conversation.

I think you're seriously mis-reading this thread, sakura.

And in the interests of further clarification, unless I misread anybody's comments, I assume nobody here (I hope) is stating that Ms. Boyle doesn't genuinely have talent. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The real question for all of us is what would our reactions be, without the filter of the media? Without the artificial narrative context? How would WE judge Ms. Boyle. The media circus is almost beside the point...

Actually, I'm no saint either. While I have often thought it improbable, to say the least, that all the female musical talent just happens to look like tv starletts, I probably would have been surprised to hear that voice come out of that person, had I encountered her one-on-one.

...and all of these layers of discourse further remove us from the direct experience of the voice and the event. Judging is bad, but judging judgement can also be counterproductive. Just experience what you experience, since you can't change what others do. Your real genuine response to the experience is all that counts. It's all you can really know.

I may have mis-read your comment, sakura. By "this conversation" I thought you meant MetaChat, but now I suspect you meant this conversation society has as a whole.

Your real genuine response to the experience is all that counts.

But I think the point Miko and others are trying to make is that it's impossible to separate our own reaction to the experience from the reaction the producers were intentionally trying to invoke. THAT'S what I have a problem with - not Ms. Boyle herself, whose voice I find to be pleasing.

You are misreading it, sakura. No one's ever said she's not a really, really good singer. She is.

It's somewhat disingenuous to imply that anyone here doesn't recognize the shallow bias of a commercial celebrity culture, therefore, railing against it may come off as posturing, or as an attempt to distance one's self publicly from the wayward values society in which we live.

Setting aside that it's not postmodern,(a) I don't care if you think it's posturing; it's actually interesting to me think about and note culture, particularly as it changes, and this phenomenon is evidence of some recent changes in the culture. I'm interested in history and social criticism. I don't see any reason not to engage in it; I'm certainly not doing it to impress you, or anybody. And I can see that others here are also doing it, and I can hear it being discussed on public radio, so I don't think it's exactly "disingenuous" to be aware of and discuss the values communicated because of this public event. It's participating in the culture. That's what being a human responding to social events looks like, unless you'd rather we just accept whatever's fed us and digest it like so much lovely cud.

And (b) "an attempt to distance one's self publicly from the wayward values society in which we live"? Do you actually have a problem with doing that? Do you instead accept all the values of the wayward society in which we live? Are we not allowed to be social critics, in your view? Do we not have the power to comment on and therefore help to shape the direction of the majority culture? Whatever the herd is doing is to be applauded, might makes right? And if you don't like it, whatever you do, don't bring it up - because someone might sustpect you of drawing attention to yourself?

That's a message I reject, no matter where it comes from.

And I have trouble believing you actually think that way.

So, to sort out any confusion here, this is not, and never was, a thread about Susan Boyle or her performance. Rather, this is a thread about the response to Susan Boyle.

It's entirely possible to have a thread that is both "about Susan Boyle" (discussing the merit of her performance, the pleasure she evinces in her triumph) and "about the response" to Susan Boyle (the judges' emphasis on their astonishment, the public embrace of her narrative as constructed by the video clip).

I believe there is value in identifying prejudice, especially where it's silently shaping our entertainment and other seemingly innocuous pastimes. For my part, I'm identifying the assumptions present in a clip that several friends have sent me, and analyzing why the clip makes me feel both happy for the performer and uncomfortable with the larger message.

Dismissing this kind of critical thought as "posturing" and "disingenuous" seems to miss the point: only by identifying this very quiet, deeply pervasive assumption can we begin to address it.

This thread is really interesting to me. I'm interested to hear sakura's assessment that Boyle's talent really is remarkable --- as I said above, I'm not competent to judge that, so it's good to hear an informed opinion. I also think that anastasiav hits it on the head with this:

In part, she's inspiring because its so easy to project yourself onto her.

So many of us are legitimately angry on behalf of all the other Susans out there who never give voice to their talents, because they are too ashamed of themselves for not fitting a mold created by the music industry. That critique of that industry is anything but novel.

Pop is not just about musical ability; pop stars are performers. Visual showmanship is important to that product. Meanwhile, in the realms of folk and classical, the visual aspect of performance is not significant to the audience. When you attend the simphony, the performers are dressed like supreme court justices and they are not broadcast on the jumbotron. You go to listen to their performance. Pop audiences want sights and sounds. As a person who appreciates good music, I find that sad, but I don't have any expectation that it will change.

But I think the point Miko and others are trying to make is that it's impossible to separate our own reaction to the experience from the reaction the producers were intentionally trying to invoke.

The cultural conversation surrounding the event is also an experience, and that experience counts too.

We were not given the direct experience of this woman's music. We were given a narrative, and we brought our own different and varied expectations, and then were also given a set of expectations along with the narrative, through the use of visual language and through direct speech. Then we went through another layer of experience whereby the already manufactured and massaged narrative was delivered through social channels, in which each of us encountered it attached to messages from friends, family, or additional media outlets. That is a bunch of layers, and the direct experience of the layered narrative is also a real direct experience.

(I am sure if you heard this woman singing in a park or on a stage you would find it very good but not astoundingly remarkable. Context makes a difference).

My actual point in this thread was that the Cinderella/Ugly Ducking narrative itself is disingenuous, and also false and old-hat. I don't believe that most people did not realize that women of all kinds, shapes, and sizes can sing well. I would consider that a very ridiculous thing to believe. So I am pretty sure that people falling all over themselves to be part of the "she showed 'em!" ritual are not actually surprised that someone like her could sing - instead, they are participating in the denouement of the story, becoming part of the cultural ritual of telling a story we all know and love well because of our own need for wish fulfillment -- the fitting of the glass slipper and the winning of the Prince/swan/golden apple...or Simon Cowell's approval.

It's modern myth-making, and it depended upon making sure we all start with a set of assumptions that form the background of the story.

the Cinderella/Ugly Ducking narrative itself is disingenuous, and also false and old-hat. I don't believe that most people did not realize that women of all kinds, shapes, and sizes can sing well.

Sure, I totally agree with that. I just feel that anybody who's not a total idiot ought to realize that.

I'm also trying to mediate what I hear from sakura via chat, which is "No, preaching to the choir is neither interesting, nor effective."

So, our 'anaysis' doesn't address or fight social bias - we all know it's there. All it does is interfere with our genuine appreciation of this woman's performance.

er, analysis

When I said that Ms. Boyle had a "pretty typical" church choir voice, I meant that as a compliment to all the fine singers I grew up with, by the way. I was trying to point out that Ms. Boyle is by no means atypical. I grew up in the church choir tradition, and Susan reminded me so much of the lead tenor in my church, a middle-aged woman who had always loved to sing and gravitated towards the choir after her husband died. She got such a kick out of the recording my mother made of the year we performed Hallelujah Chorus for the Christmas service. If American Idol had been a show back when I was a first alto, I bet the whole choir would have taken a bus down to the Bay Area to try out.

Hey mudd, if you want to hear real vocal talent, spend a Sunday morning at my friend George's house - his next door neighbor (like 20' away) is a Pentacostal church. Those folks can really deliver a performance!

Ah, "total idiot," the hallmark of open discussion!

Clearly, several of us believe that the subject of this particular constructed narrative is worth discussing. Clearly, you do not. I don't see the problem here.

As I said above, this analysis does not interfere with my "genuine appreciation of this woman's performance"; it enhances it.

This conversation shouldn't even exist. It should have been a link, a couple of "Oh, how lovely" posts, and silently migrated off the page, another blip in history.

I will certainly continue to dissect moments like this, because I think they say a great deal about our cultural values, and how they limit our appreciation of artists.

This thread and its topic are doing exactly that - limiting our appreciation of this artist.

No one is just saying "Wow, what a lovely voice!". No, it's all, blah blah society's ills, she wouldn't get attention if she wasn't ugly, she's "no better than a choir singer" why are they paying her any mind, oh CAUSE SHE'S HOMELY.

You're not fixing the problem here. You're adding to it. The worst part of this whole arguement (besided that fact it on the internet) is that we agree on the underlying issue.

elsa, I'm not calling anybody here an idiot, certainly not you. How bout only a shallow sexist jerk would be surprised that Ms. Boyle has talent?

Pop is not just about musical ability; pop stars are performers. Visual showmanship is important to that product...I don't have any expectation that it will change.

Buy why shouldn't you, when it has changed, drastically, over all the time in which pop music has existed? AS someone else pointed out, Aretha Franklin wouldn't make it past the image handlers today. Janis Joplin wouldn't. Mama Cass? Carole King? Janis Ian? Lesley Gore? Patsy Cline?

The thing is that what "pop music" is is always changing, performance aesthetics are always changing, and the way we experience performances is always changing. Television pop-contest shows favor one very specific type of performer, and we've come to the point where we're conflating the ability to display and deliver that type of performance with actual musical talent, which rarely co-exist in the same person.

It should be obvious that in critiquing the show's approach I'm critiquing this trend in contemporary pop, as well. But we shouldn't assume that the smooth, generic good looks of today's manufactured "pop stars" are how it's always been and always will be in pop music. Trends change, aesthetics change, and what people want to see as part of their pop music changes, too.

Also, I don't know this show (not being British), but knowing that they gave the win to an opera singer last year, and that Boyle is winning with "I Dreamed a Dream" and "Cry me a River" this time around, tells me they're not dealing in pop music, but (ostensibly) in vocal talent. On that basis, she's definitely got what it takes.

It should be obvious that in critiquing the show's approach I'm critiquing this trend in contemporary pop, as well. But we shouldn't assume that the smooth, generic good looks of today's manufactured "pop stars" are how it's always been and always will be in pop music. Trends change, aesthetics change, and what people want to see as part of their pop music changes, too.

Yeah, sure it is, I agree with you.

sakura, I feel like you are putting words into people's mouth (or onto my keyboard, if you will).

I appreciate the commentary given by Miko, elsa, pi, and everyone else. I'm glad this thread wasn't just a few admiring comments before it slipped off the page.

So, our 'anaysis' doesn't address or fight social bias - we all know it's there.

Bah, that's crazy talk. It takes courage to object, and that makes a difference. Sorry I don't agree that "shut up, be quiet, move along" is the way to change society.

No one is just saying "Wow, what a lovely voice!". No, it's all, blah blah society's ills, she wouldn't get attention if she wasn't ugly, she's "no better than a choir singer" why are they paying her any mind, oh CAUSE SHE'S HOMELY.

You really should go back and reread. First of all, she has a lovely voice. I've said so, many have. Second, I agree with muddgirl completely that it's not an insanely lovely voice. I know many people who sing this well. And I, too, am a singer. It doesn't take
anything away from her performance to recognize that skilled singing is not unheard-of or terribly unusual anywhere in the world, and that music talent is distributed to many different kinds of people. She is a good singer, and there are a lot of good singers in this world. Props to good singers.
blah blah society's ills, she wouldn't get attention if she wasn't ugly, she's "no better than a choir singer" why are they paying her any mind, oh CAUSE SHE'S HOMELY.

Actually, I've been consistently saying the opposite - she's getting the attention she's getting because we are being shown a narrative that tells us we're supposed to be surprised. But you might have to go back and reread in order to get that.

So in summary, we get all hot and bothered that the music industry distorts people's views of the world.

It's like Capt. Renault in Casablanca: "I am shocked! Shocked! to find gambling in this establishment!"

So in summary, we get all hot and bothered that the music industry distorts people's views of the world.

I think a better summary would be "Discussion about this thing that happened on TV is happening on TV, on radio, and on the internet. Discussion is interesting for XYZ reasons, which people here felt like, um, discussing. Sakura believes it shouldn't be discussed at all, and discusses that fact. Discussion gets weird."

This conversation shouldn't even exist. It should have been a link, a couple of "Oh, how lovely" posts, and silently migrated off the page, another blip in history.

Respectfully, sakura, while I hear your point, I think we disagree on several points.

The largest point of disagreement: I do not think this is lovely. I think Susan Boyle is lovely. I think her voice is lovely. I think the recognition she is getting is lovely. I think her pleasure at her accomplishment is lovely. I think the whole glom of cultural vocabulary that couches this as an against-all-odds ugly duckling story is anything but lovely, and well worth discussing.

And I am doing so.

This thread and its topic are doing exactly that - limiting our appreciation of this artist.

As I have said again and again in this very thread, my appreciation of this artist is enhanced, not diminished, by observing that her recognition comes in the face of the many assumptions based on her outward appearance.

If the discussion of this phenomenon diminishes your pleasure in the performance, I am earnestly sorry, and I don't know what to recommend except perhaps to avoid such discussion. (See, that sounds like I'm inviting you to kiss off, but I'm not. But I don't think it's necessary to curtail an interesting and productive conversation between several willing participants because someone else would prefer not to hear it.)

Perhaps. I think she feels hurt on Ms. Boyle's behalf.

I've been reading and composing and deleting all day here. First we couldn't talk about boobs correctly whatever that means. Now we can't talk about a wonderful, if smarmily handled, archetypal story correctly, whatever that means. Y'all be taking away my voice, yo.

Rainbaby, is anyone saying that this story cannot be celebrated with simple unalloyed joy at Susan Boyle's triumph?

For my part, I'm observing that there is also more to the story, and that those who are interested in it should feel free to converse about that deeper message. It should go without saying that those who aren't interested in it don't have an obligation to discuss it, or can refute it. (I empathize with your feeling that you're being silenced, though. I object to being told within this thread that I am wrong to want to discuss the greater import present in the video, that it is disingenuous posturing, that it should have been a throw-away link.)

Further, I'm interested in the reactions of people who do embrace the video as it is intended. I thought anastasiav's observation, that viewers can identify with Susan Boyle, was particularly astute and, I think, heartfelt. Interaction between people who want to enjoy the video as it stands and those of us who want to tinker around under the surface gets really fascinating really fast!

No one saying that it's wrong to enjoy the video as it is, just that there are more possible levels upon which to view it. If anything, the attempt to quash and police the conversation has gone the other way.

How bout only a shallow sexist jerk would be surprised that Ms. Boyle has talent?

Agreed. That leads me (but need not lead you) to ask: why is this shallow sexist jerk perspective the one being tacitly presented as a community's shared viewpoint?

I appreciated Susan Boyle's singing as much as I could. I think she has a nice voice but I don't care for the song or the format. The discussion here about the roles of television and beauty in society has been quite interesting and has certainly added much more to my appreciation of Sarah Boyle's singing than the singing itself did.

The entire gee-whillikers reaction is completely driven by reality-TV narrative conventions and is therefore exactly what they wanted. It's generated tons of free publicity for Cowell and AI/BGT, and everybody's just going along with the pre-driven concept, where the panel is a proxy for the audience. First they thought she was ridiculous! Then they thought she was sublime! Etc.

I really would think by now we'd be smarter about this.

The entire gee-whillikers reaction is completely driven by reality-TV narrative conventions and is therefore exactly what they wanted.

That's definitely the decision I've come to. We were suckered by the confluence of reality TV and age-old Western myth - but it drew us into a degree of communal acceptance of prejudice and denial of visible reality that I was uncomfortable with and wanted to talk about.

First we couldn't talk about boobs correctly whatever that means. Now we can't talk about a wonderful, if smarmily handled, archetypal story

Just to be clear: Speaking only for myself, it's not that "we couldn't talk about boobs." I think we could talk about boobs, and in fact we have talked about boobs a bunch of times, and I happily participated. It's just that the particular set of circumstances leading up to that most recent boobs post rubbed me (and, I know, others) the wrong way, and I didn't want to indulge. Tone's important - more than topic.

And I don't think anybody here failed in discussing the Boyle video. We discussed it, we are discussing it (if it continues). No failure here. Just jump in and say what you want. We don't want to take away your voice, we want your voice. Just speak your piece.

The conversations go better if people stay appropriate and have some basic respect for others when they disagree, and reign in the desire to turn up the histrionics - that's all.

What Miko said.

You want to know about my boobs? I don't mind talking about them. I have an awesome rack, and am not ashamed of it. However, that thread really offended and angered me for the reasons that Miko mentioned above. So I kept far far away from it.

There is a huge difference between accepting something for its surface value, and analysing something to find deeper meanings. There is nothing wrong with either approach - but dissent and disagreement surrounding the media manipulations and the contempt that they actually showed Susan while purportedly praising her does NOT take away from her individual performance. Admitting that maybe the performance wouldn't have been so strikingly surprising if the media contortions around it hadn't been so obscenely hyperbolic also doesn't take away from her performance.

Discussing the larger issues of gendered perceptions, prejudices, the exploitative nature of media and the shaming of people who don't fit into our preconceived molds of 'womanhood' doesn't take away from her performance.

In fact - I believe it is of vital importance to discuss these things. I don't think that people take it for granted that an ugly person can have talent too. These biases aren't there when you look directly at them. Obviously, we think, that can happen - but the evident suprise that we have when someone actually DOES manage to do something unexpected shows us that in fact the biases are there - we just try to rationalise them away. Talking about it allows us to examine our responses and try to discover what we are actually thinking, and work out ways to prevent those thought patterns from continuing.

If we all just shut up and enjoyed the link without analysing it, how can anything change? and you know what? I don't want things to stay the same. I can't enjoy the status quo because 'the status is NOT quo'.

Wonder if a thoughtful comment here makes up for drunken rambling last night?

I think, here and in the boobs thread, that there's a difference between not wanting to indulge and wanting to shame others for indulging (and yes, I think the ostentation of telling others that you aren't indulging, and why, is an attempt at shaming, or at least comes across that way to those who indulge). And that's a matter of tone, too. Maybe we all go to great lengths to try on others' shoes, and maybe we don't. Maybe we do try on others' shoes, and they don't fit -- I've often seen people coming up with, say, three reasons their interlocutor could possibly have for saying what they just said, and really that person is giving a benefit of the doubt with those reasons, but they actually haven't come close, because for whatever reason they are unable to imagine what goes on in their interlocutor's brain -- maybe we support and feel supported only inasmuch as our shoes match with others'.

I think it's obnoxious to muzzle people. I think it's obnoxious to shame people. I also think I'm obnoxious sometimes, and that I'm intentionally obnoxious other times. Sometimes I make jokes, sometimes they're deadpan. Sometimes I'm extremely cut-and-dry, logical, and thoughtful. Others have different personalities and different thought processes and though I really think I'm okay with that, my history shows me to be a liar -- sometimes I do tell people what to think, and I do think I've thought of all the possibilities and they're being idiots. I'm not really wrong, nor am I really right. We aren't made to always understand each other, much as we aren't always right or wrong. Sometimes I really like telling others what or how to think. Sometimes others clearly really like doing this, too. Most of the time in my heart of hearts I think all this telling and that telling is wrongheaded. But I do it anyway, and so do all of you. It's part of conversation, and frankly it what makes us interesting. Sometimes people find a group that really agrees on a lot of things, and that makes them feel safer in expressing how they feel about what others seem to think. Safety in numbers? I can't presume to know. I can't presume anything. But I will, because I'm human, and so will you all, because you're human, too. And you'll be wrong, too, because you're making presumptions about what others think, based only on what you think and on what they say, which isn't necessarily what you think they're saying. I mostly mean we should be careful of how we interpret others' words, and how we couch our responses to our own interpretations of others' words. But just a little bit, and this is pure hypocrisy speaking, I'm saying "Big deal, back off a little bit, give them room and you might actually get a sense of what others mean."

I don't mean don't respond at all, I just mean keep in mind that you might be the one who is dead wrong.

Sorry if that makes little sense, it's hard to make sense when I'm trying essentially to say that our sense of the sense others are trying to make isn't always sensible.

Plus I'm making up for any prior thoughtful comments with some drunken rambling of my own.

I think it's obnoxious to muzzle people. I think it's obnoxious to shame people.

You know, I agree, but I think you'd have trouble getting a concensus on who was shaming or muzzling whom here. (I have no remark to make about the boobs thread here.)

I felt that there was a effort made to muzzle or shout down an enjoyable and instructive conversation about a cultural phenomenon as evidenced in this particular media moment, and I spoke out against the perceived effort while continuing my conversation.

Conversely, others seem to be saying that the very conversation I so enjoyed felt to them like an attempt to muzzle or dilute their experience. Notable here is rainbaby's remark that others, whom I presume to include me, were "taking away [her] voice." Though I don't understand why mere disagreement should silence her, I take her at her word, and I regret that she felt that way.

It's worth pointing out how the thread originated. It's not as if a roving gang of media critics found a nest of people cheerily enjoying the clip and pounced upon them. Quite the opposite, in fact: a peaceful if lively discussion about the greater meaning of the media clip was met with accusations of disingenuous posturing and an assertion that the thread should not exist at all, because it was an improper way to view this media moment.

In point of fact, we were being instructed on the proper way to view it. I resent that most vigorously, particularly when I have made an earnest effort not to dictate to others their interaction with it, only to explore my own.

And with that, I am off to make waffles and drink cava. Hugh, if you lived next door, I'd invite you over for a waffle. Since you do not, I'll say good night, sir!

Yum, waffles. And a good night to you, too, Elsa.

I think there's a difference between muzzling/silencing and offering feedback for how one's statements come across. It's too late and I'm too tired to pick out examples of either, but I do think that we (editorial "we") often tend to conflate the two, and I think that's counter-productive to conversation. Feedback can be valuable, even if it's uncomfortable, and just because someone's comment feels uncomfortable doesn't mean it's silencing -- it may just be triggering one's own discomfort with engaging more deeply.

I saw a huge amount of links to her before I clicked on one. Once I realised it was haz talent it was quite evident she was going to be utterly brilliant or utterlky crap. I think it was clear she was gonna be another Paul Potts.

Here's an article that I feel is worth having a look at
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/16/britains-got-talent-susan-boyle

The editting of her segment was all for the shock of what she looked like vs what she sounded like. As the article linked above mentions, they kind of rolled their eyes at Potts, but where no where as offensive as they were with Boyle.

When I watched it, I was imagining her after a make over, cos I know its gonna happen, someone will take her in hanf & drop her in the hands of a team who will dye, cut& style her hair, pluck her brows, put her in some flattering outfits - from there diet &/or surgery eill be suggested.

There are lots of ugly ppl in the world, susan boyle isnt one of them.

She may not be the best singer ever. She has a voice that is worthy enough to impress the halfwitted dopes that watch these "Got Talent" shows which brings in the ratings and means WIN for the show.
She impresses talentless cloth eared vocally retarded spaz's like me. Bless her. I wish her all the best. If this is her voice with no professional training, I hope she continues to grow and is soon playing headlines shows to thousands. She got out there and expressed herself. Bless her, I wish I has her talent & gumption.

If this is her voice with no professional training, I hope she continues to grow and is soon playing headlines shows to thousands

Well said. And if that's the way she goes, now that the initial flap is over, I think she could very well go on to have a good career in musical theatre, touring performance, or even cabaret-style music. One of the things that I liked about her performance, apart from just her voice, was the way she interpreted the song very comfortably with her whole body. There are a lot of great singers who find that the toughest part, and she's already got it. I think she could be an engaging performer for people who enjoy that sort of vocal pop, maybe jazz standards and the like.