It would be pointless to try and pretend that I am not ridiculously impressed by this album cover art.

Where to begin? Perhaps first and foremost, this cover art strikes me – just like Something ‘Bout Love – as a smart, professional take on David’s own preferences. In other words, I believe we are seeing more of David in this photograph – in all the choices that add up to such a critical “brand” decision – than in any previous release of an official image.

The cover art for the self-titled debut album was a smart strategic choice for that moment in David’s career (one of the only smart strategic choices in that period) because it showed that David could pull off a pop, youth appeal for which many thought him unsuitable. The edgy, rock-and-roll red tee-shirt shot against a crumbling brick wall in the hippest neighborhood on the planet was the right concept, but, let’s face it: it wasn’t really David. David has about as much in common with the trend-setters in Williamsburg, Brooklyn as he does with, well, any homogeneous grouping of people with common values and attributes. David is a one-off. Completely unique. We all know that. It’s one of the main reasons he has such a devoted fan base. What is obvious from just the first glimpses of his sophomore effort is that David has finally had enough of letting others define him. We are clearly getting more of David in every aspect of his work, now, and that’s about as smart a strategic choice as could possibly be made.

Footwear. Oh, but the boy doth loveth him some footwear. There is something undeniably sexy about anything strappy around the ankles, for either gender, and the short boot has always been a dashing choice for men. And don’t even try to suggest that these were some stylist’s selection. No, sir. If I am dead certain about any item of attire in this picture having come from David’s own closet it’s them what’s on his feets. And while we’re starting at the bottom, let’s not ignore the fact that this set-up is a rather clever way to get a full-body shot that is more casual than contrived. Why a full-body shot of the Archeletor? Let’s just acknowledge that he has been workin’ that bod and deserves to show it off, shall we?

The ripped jeans and the dark, fitted sport jacket are a staple for young guys wanting to appear both classy and blithe. We might even go so far as to say that the combination symbolizes the demographic extremes of his fan base, unique for an artist not yet twenty. Was that a conscious juxtaposition? Doesn’t matter. It works as one. It’s the tee-shirt, though, that comes as a welcome surprise, and which is the one choice I might acquiesce to the stylist. David tends to favor graphic tees (or, at least, once did), and the use of a simple gray one here makes all the difference in keeping the entirety of the image and its graphical context modern and sophisticated. Indeed, it’s the overall sophistication of this image that is marvelously appealing – and completely David.

Songs could be written about David’s smile, and this one would certainly serve as premier fodder for such an effort, but the aspect of this image that stands out to me, the one element that strikes me as something of a genius choice, is the chair. Why, you ask, the chair? Out of all the chairs that could have been chosen for such a purpose, this one offers a rather specific cultural reference to anyone with more than a passing interest in entertainment. I can’t say whether this was a conscious choice or not, it is perhaps impossible to know, but this is the style of chair that is most closely associated with theater and cabaret. Maybe the fact that it’s such an iconic design for entertainment purposes makes it a staple in most photography studios and, as such, suggests it was less of strategic choice than a practical one, but it really doesn’t matter how it got there. It suggests the deeply-embedded theatrical legacy of the performer and, even more specifically, the singer. And amidst all the modern, minimalist elements composing this enormously appealing image, the bentwood cabaret chair is a vivid yet subtle reminder of what is truly unique and special about David Archuleta. It is rather a wonder of a choice, intentional or not. The precarious aspect of the chair, tilted onto two legs, is also easily apropos: David is putting himself on the line more than he ever has before; he is set to take some risks; to gamble on the success of his own, more personal decisions.

Those of us in the devoted category know full well that the more David is David in his work, the more successful he will be. It’s fun to think of it as a risk, but as David himself so often likes to suggest: being true to yourself is its own reward, and the only way to authentically connect with others. I would suggest that those of us lucky enough to have felt that connection can see quite plainly that this image may well become one of the most iconic in the Archuleta legacy. Congrats, David, it’s brilliant.

–Rascal

P.S. And as to how well the color palette of the new album cover matches that of TDC… Coincidence?

Join us in watching the countdown to #1!  Last night around midnight Something ‘Bout Love was released on iTunes and at 1:30 AM was tracking at #117 on the iTunes Pop Chart.  15 minutes later, it was tracking at #75. Overnight the song continued to rise and at this writing sitting at #44 on the Pop chart, and broke the #100 level on the Overall Music chart to place #99 at 8:30 AM.

Keep watching and post results below – when David reaches #1, let’s party!

…from pop prince to soul diva to Texas two-step, all wrapped up neatly and smart in one summery bubble that should bounce awfully easily out of cars and convenience stores all summer long.

Read the entire Rascal review here.

Click to listen (but go buy!):

Something ‘Bout Love

Sometimes I think David knows what we know. He knows how much we see in him. He knows that his sophistication makes us forget that he is a teenager and expect too much from him. And he lets us know he knows by giving us that look, but only every once in a while, and thereby, of course, proving that all of our outsized expectations of him are entirely justified and absolutely true. I sound like Orly when I say that David is nothing but a tease. Alas, I am resigned to the fact that it will be years before I hear him sing “Isn’t It a Pity” and “So Easy to Love,” and the Jimmy Webb catalog, and Elton John. But in the meantime, I’ll take this pic, and interpret it to mean, “patience; there’s a lot more to come.”

– Rascal

The only adviser David will ever need is his own ear.

I don’t know whether this song will hit or not, no one does; it doesn’t matter. It very well could, and it should, but it doesn’t matter. With this frothy, jumpy, deceptively edgy single, David proves his seriousness as a pop craftsman, in range of best-of-breed targets from Abba to Michael Jackson. And I’m not even talking about the performance. David has gone meta.

Despite the overly glossy producer polish, inevitably aggravating those of us who hunger for The Voice (autotune? really?), this feels like more of a David Archuleta production than we’ve had so far in this category. It is interesting that a faction of the fan base are claiming that it “doesn’t sound like a David song,” because I would argue that it actually sounds more like how a pure-pop David Archuleta song should probably sound than any previous production has. No, this is not Salt Lake City soul, or boy balladeer, but it is more successful on its own terms than anything he has previously offered in this genre. David is letting us see just how clever he can be in this game, and he’s not even using his most obvious talents to do it. Oh David, you phenom, you.

Certainly the skills of co-producers Sam Hollander and Dave Katz, with their slick interpretations of emo declarations, offer a uniquely appropriate fit with David’s own sensibilities, and David himself may have capitulated to his more commercial inclinations (nothing wrong with that), but I detect more of David in the mix this time, and not just from the standpoint of singer. You can feel a deeper comfort level, a stronger confidence in the material. Indeed, careful observation of David’s notoriously inscrutable tweets suggest important advances in his role as leader, not just collaborator. This is terribly exciting, especially when the results are so on-the-mark without being completely on-the-nose.

And therein lies the Archuleta genius that is beginning to emerge in his pure-pop confections.  There is that strange but unmistakable coolness, something not quite sunny, even in the midst of all the celebration. David knows that emphasizing the brightwork requires shadows. This underlying sense of gravity is becoming an Archuleta trademark; that hint of pathos that David has always had in his favor, and which keeps him from becoming too diaphanous. For as fey as his style may sometimes seem (and for which which many of us treasure him), he is no lightweight. Even in the creamiest of commercial fare David never loses touch with the ground, with the source of the soul. I think that’s where the jumping thing comes from; the Zero Gravity experience is clearly baked into this piece.

The difference here, the evolution of The Archuletor in this instance, is that he is now experimenting with this rich juxtaposition in aspects of music-making other than his voice. The dimensions of David’s own musical intelligence are quite evident in Something ‘Bout Love, from pop prince to soul diva to Texas two-step, all wrapped up neatly and smart in one summery bubble that should bounce awfully easily out of cars and convenience stores all summer long. This is one impressive piece of commercial cargo, and I strongly suspect it is so not because David has succumbed to the likes of Sam and Sluggo, but because he has expanded his role as helmsman of his own work.

– Rascal

Click to listen:

Something ‘Bout Love

This fan community is nothing if not passionate. But the hate that has been hurled at the dedicated people of this publication recently has surprised even me (and as the Svengali Arch Villain of Archuworld, I’m used to it). We tried to make light of it with a humorous take on the accusations of our “agenda,” but the hateful emails continue. There have been times in the past when we may have deserved some animosity for immature or unsophisticated choices, but this was not one of those times. Something else is going on here.

Of all the ugly things posted about us, the one accusation that got under my skin was that we intentionally, in some conspiratorial way, sought to perpetuate controversy and major media attention. In comment after comment across the fan boards, even in correspondence from well-respected über-fans, we have been accorded a range of slick skills and cunning capabilities that I sometimes wish we actually had. These people give us too much credit.

It needs to be stated outright and yet again that the story picked up by the major media was not that David Archuleta had been seen at a club, or even a gay club. The major media could have cared less about that. Despite the fact that our original article was referenced by some large publications as basic background, it was not the story. The story was David’s backpedaling tweets, which were in response to Sunday’s twitter storm, which had nothing to do with the article at TDC. We did not break the news. We did not promote it. Everything was already on Twitter (and had been for some time) before we posted it.

Here is where the fork in the road seems to lie. Regardless of the fact that there were hundreds of tweets already – and hundreds, perhaps thousands, more to come over the course of that day – somehow or other TDC is accused of “fanning the flames.” Why, because we treated it as a minor news item? (If we had been so hell-bent on sensationalizing this then why didn’t we make it a feature article?) Was it because our headline was automatically posted to Twitter amid a torrent of other tweets about the same thing? Or because we included a description and photographs of the venue? Just because certain people find something scandalous does not mean that that was its purpose. Interpretation does not mean intention. How can we be accused of trying to perpetuate scandal with content we found to be completely innocuous? I’ll tell you how: because plenty of people consider anything to do with the gay as being inherently scandalous.

The very notion of “fanning the flames” implies not only the existence of flames in the first place, but an intent to encourage bigger flames. But if we examine what those flames actually mean, what the nature of those flames really are, we can easily see that a gay-friendly publication like TDC not only has no vested interest in those flames, but in fact is much more aligned with efforts to normalize gay news and information so that no such flames need ever exist. It is quite preposterous to accuse the very people who would seek to normalize gay issues with an intent to sensationalize them.

Common to a large portion of this fan base is an underlying assumption that any association between “David” and “gay” is cause for alarm. It is therefore inconceivable to them that such an association may in fact be a good thing, and that those who view it as a good thing may be seeking to foster not scandal but detente by drawing focus to it. This mental barrier is either homophobia or heterosexism and can be extremely dense; I well understand that there are fans who will never comprehend the idea that David being associated with anything gay could be positive. Even within our own admin team there were apologists for the selection of the original headline because it contained the word, “gay.” Perhaps we might have chosen a less scandalous headline, so the argument went. Oh, really? So, the word which describes millions of highly respectable, loving, good-natured people who pay their taxes, raise their children, attend PTA meetings, and buy David Archuleta records is scandalous? There is nothing inherently scandalous or controversial about anything gay; only entrenched homophobia and heterosexism make it so.

Anyone who wishes to ignore this issue because it is “uncomfortable” is by proxy voting for the status quo. Which, as we have seen all-too clearly, is marked by perfectly innocuous circumstances being treated as scandalous simply because they happen to involve gay issues or gay people. If fans think I have an agenda because I refuse to let stand a status quo that favors discrimination, then so be it. If fans think TDC has an agenda because we fail to tow the stay-mum-about-that-topic line, they might consider that exactly the reverse is true: This topic holds no more weight for TDC than any other topic because we do not see it as inflammatory; it is those who seek to avoid this topic who have the agenda.

“Well,” some might exclaim, “even if you don’t agree that such issues or information should be scandalous, you undoubtedly know that they are, so why add to it?” The answer is this: Anyone who continues to allow bigotry and heterosexism to define what makes something scandalous is responsible for helping to perpetuate discrimination. Even if we know that the narrow-minded still consider such references as scandalous, choosing not publish them for that reason would, by omission, support and perpetuate that connotation. TDC will not be complicit in casting gay issues and gay people as the subjects of whispers and raised eyebrows. It is wrong, and anyone with any sense of morality or conscience knows it. The real scandal here is not that TDC posted a news item about David having been to gay club. The real scandal is that none of the other fan sites posted it also.

As Ronald observed in his wonderfully magnanimous and inclusive article, David’s artistry has the ability to create kinship between people who would otherwise have little in common.  I would like to think that the efforts we undertake to explore and dissect our differences are done in a spirit that David would recognize and appreciate. Bringing a wide variety of news, views, information, and discussion to light may carry with it the risk of confrontation with people who would prefer to keep certain things quiet, but that’s a risk we are willing to take in order to build bridges of understanding over moats of isolation.

–Rascal

To be perfectly honest, we never realized we had an agenda. But after so many sensible, rational fans pointed out with such convincing evidence how obvious our agenda really is, we had to be honest with ourselves and say, “Hey! You know what, guys? We really do have an agenda — a gay agenda!”

Self awareness can be so cleansing. So, now that we have figured out who we truly are, we thought it was time to share with the world just exactly what the TDC Gay Agenda actually is. We hope this will clear up any remaining questions or misconceptions about us, and help put things into perspective.

The TDC Gay Agenda

Let it be known that

• Henceforth and for all time in all regions, all gay fans of David Archuleta shall be afforded priority seating at all concert venues, and preferred access to tickets and special events shall be supplied on a gay first-come gay first-serve basis.

• Henceforth and for all time in all regions, all stylists, costume designers and hairdressers will be required to evolve the David Archuleta stage persona into that which resembles a glam-rock, guyliner wearing, Adam Lambert clone (because, as so many have so often observed, we don’t really like David Archuleta the way he already is, anyway).

• Henceforth and for all time in all regions, all lyrics in all David Archuleta songs shall be gender-neutral, implying neither specifically heterosexual or homosexual relationships. When he sings in French, David shall use neither “le” or “la” to describe inanimate objects, so as not suggest a gender preference for things like flowers or food processors.

• Henceforth and for all time in all regions, all female reveries about David Archuleta shall be confined to fantasies involving David not as a boyfriend or a husband, but as the proverbial gay best friend. TDC will supply links to reruns of the television sitcom “Will & Grace” for any females who are unfamiliar with the territory. Furthermore, any late-night online chats held in private for the purposes of salacious fantasizing about David’s physical attributes will be required to include an equal number of young, single gay men as there are mature, married women.

• Finally, and most importantly, let it be known and understood throughout the land that we hereby acknowledge as accurate the oft-proposed observation that we desperately, passionately want David to be gay. We know that wanting him to be gay will have a significant influence on his being gay, and, really: Why shouldn’t we want David to be discriminated against? To never be able to get married? To lose the support of his family and his church? Yes, those are the things we wish for David, beyond everything else.

– davidfanLiz, jackryan4da, ronaldsf, Marlie7, and Ras–oh, ha ha, there we go again, failing to acknowledge what the arbiters of the fan community have already observed: that none of the TDC team members have any real independence or voice of their own. They’re all hypnotized by Rascal! Why bother listing their names at all? Relax and look deeply… deeply into my agenda…

Enjoy the new gallery!

[flickr-gallery]

Let me start off by saying that it has been a real challenge for me to view this situation objectively. David’s staunchest defenders are always counseling to “take David at his word.” Except, of course, when his word so plainly and unequivocally implies prejudice. Then, we are supposed to somehow accept the dubious interpretation that, “oh, he only meant the eroticized nature of the event, not the fact that it was a gay event.” This might be a reasonable spin, except for one critical fact: None of the fuss and drama on the twitters and blog boards — the self-stated reason why David decided to break his Sunday communication rule and address the ruckus in the first place — was about the fact that David was at a club where the performances included scantily-clad dancers.

It was all about the gay.

I find this turn of events troubling on a number of fronts. As evidenced by an accidental public tweet that was later removed, David was obviously in consultation with someone regarding how to respond to the hullabaloo. As RonaldSF reported in the previous thread:

…at 10:09PM Eastern (20 minutes before his “clarifying” tweets) he sent out a public tweet that said: “Should I tweet that or put it in a blog? Twitter is honestly more public. Only fans really read the blogs.”

If the words he tweeted were supplied to him, or of they were vetted by someone advising him on his public relations, it was extremely shoddy work indeed, and only served to make the situation worse with more polarization.

Somehow or other, David is going to have to contend with the fact that, perhaps more than any other artist, he is straddling two very different worlds. On the one hand, he hails from, represents, and appeals to a highly conservative, deeply religious community with canonical discrimination against homosexuals (and please spare me, beloved commentators, your hair-splitting equivocations about “the person” versus “the behavior,” it doesn’t wash). On the other hand, he is championed and loved by an inclusive collection of people who embrace diversity as a virtue.

Any suggestion that David is choosing sides in this culture war has dire consequences. I feel for him, I really do. As someone stated in the previous thread, it is a no-win situation. Perhaps he simply got some very bad advice. But what seems awfully clear to me is that he was leaning far more heavily on justifications demanded by his conservative constituents than on an inclination to defend inclusiveness and diversity.

The forces of darkness are not in that club, David, they are in people’s hearts.

Update 11:30 a.m. EDT

David has evidently responded to the firestorm of reaction to his thinly-veiled anti-gay sentiments with a couple of tweets including comments like, “I have friends who are gay, and they’re great people,” and “I have nothing against anyone, I’m sorry if that’s how it came across. I’m just not into the partying scene lol.”

Don’t even tell me he just said, “some of my best friends are gay.” Oh, David. And what about, “I’m just not into the partying scene”…? That’s what you’re hanging this on? Really?  Exactly what did you expect from a 1:30 a.m performance? Carnagie freaking Hall?

A word of advice, David: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.

David was spotted last night at Club 57 in Manhattan, located at a venue called Providence, currently the city’s hottest, wildest Saturday night party for the men-who-love-men crowd (pics from a recent night there above). According to Time Out New York, where the opening of the club night was reviewed late last year:

All sorts of boys were streaming into Brandon Voss and Tony Fornabaio’s newish midtown adventure on Saturday night—twinkie, trendy, trannie, circuity, Sam Champion—to sample the different levels of clubby fun at Providence. DJ Mike Cruz worked it for the main floor with joyful, energetic beats from his chandelier-level perch, while DJ Lina (sexy in a royal-blue dress) got the nearby lounge moving with a soulful set. And a towering, space-age-clad Epiphany popped onstage down in the Triumph Room to break up a jammin’ DJ Xavier set that had the floor jam-packed from midnight on. Oh, and did we mention how hot the boys were?

So, was David bumping and grinding with some steamy Dominican muscle man? Hardly. David was there with his friend Charice, who performed a dance remix of her current hit single, “Pyramid” at the coveted 1:30 a.m. spot. Reportedly, however, Charice and her entourage, which included David and his old band mate Eli, did do something terribly scandalous after the performance: They went to a local Pinkberry for ice cream.

The ground is certainly shifting under Archuworld, what with David displaying some real independence, and making choices that, while hardly questionable (it would be far more questionable for a pop performer who is serious about their career to not become familiar with the gay club scene), are nevertheless choices that would have been virtually unthinkable a year ago. And although I expect all kinds of hand-wringing from certain factions of the fan community at this news, I think it all ultimately amounts to a big “so what,” other than the fact that it is yet another indication of David’s new-found liberation and maturity. And that can only be good.

Here’s the Charice performance (introduced by a platinum blond drag queen).

www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0LwEYjj9xM

I began writing this article before I knew that David was scheduled to appear on this week’s Idol results show. The premise of the article was that perhaps the recent relative quiet in Archuland was a time for reflection, and may have been serving as such even for David himself. I speculated the possibility that, in the two-year period since David found himself winning the largest television audience in the world and courting some of the most devoted fans on the planet, he may not yet have had a real opportunity to unpack what had actually happened to him. One learns (perhaps most) in the doing, but taking stock is vital, too. Maybe in this relatively quiet time, I thought, he may have finally had that opportunity.

I think it’s safe to say there has been some serious reflection indeed.

Some find fortune. Others have fortune thrust upon them. I’ve often wondered to what degree David was complicit in the creation of his own fate. I think the general consensus has been that if it weren’t for others egging him on, encouraging (among other things) him to put his talent on display, the voice of David Archuleta might still be confined to the room at the top of the stairs after a long workday at the local audio-video store. The television show “Glee” has tried to profile the unwitting talent, the one who has “the calling” thrust upon them, but somehow I can imagine even the most reticent Gleester belting out tunes in their bedroom with a firm vision of the audience just beyond in the dark, and vivid fantasies of fame and fortune. Whether David was unwitting or complicit, he has never betrayed a hunger for an audience nor an explicit desire for fame and fortune. On the contrary, in fact, he seems to have wanted nothing so much as protection, not exposure.

In the midst of this enormous trajectory of professional and personal growth, David has also sought shelter and comfort in a dimension of his life that offers a constancy and structure absent elsewhere. That dimension is, of course, his faith. It isn’t hard to understand how someone with David’s sensitivity would seek asylum from a world of weakness, vipers and vulgarity. Who could blame him? The desire to be tethered to something sacred, to be in the world but not of it, is understandable and admirable. But religion itself can sometimes serve as a substitute for objective inquiry and self reflection, substituting a host of apocryphal fables and arbitrary regulations for true spiritual development. I am not suggesting that David has fallen victim to this risk (we are sure to know more on this subject when his book drops), but there has always been a question for me regarding the degree to which David might be seeking retreat from himself. In particular, from his own power.

The discovery of one’s own power can be one of the most surprising aspects of accomplishment. And power can be frightening, even — and especially — when it’s your own. Anyone of any insight who has followed David closely realizes that his experience with the adjudication of power in his world has been, at best, a very mixed bag, and, at worst, a series of tragic disasters. It should come as no surprise, then, that David’s own formidable power — as evidenced by everything from the sporadic instances of truly unbridled performance moments to a reported stubborn streak a mile long — may well be the source of real apprehension for him. How does one adjudicate the power to hire and fire people, never mind the power to make people weep and scream and faint?

The one form of personal power with which David is obviously most comfortable is his voice. And yet, it is the remarkable control he exerts over this power, his instrument, that produces some of its most tantalizing effects. Indeed, it is often not the expression of power but the implication of it that creates excitement for an audience. This is something many contemporary performers don’t seem to realize. Of course, the power has to really be there, it can’t be a ruse or else it won’t play as a genuine threat. From where I sit, David implies far more power than he has ever actually expressed, and I have no doubt whatsoever that it is all really there. Every bit of it. The tension between implication and expression, between control and release, is what great music (among other things) is made of.

In the short span of a week, many of these persistent questions about David’s relationship to his own power have begun to be answered. If David wasn’t entirely complicit in the formation of his role as a performer, he is clearly taking the reins now. As always, David is nothing if not methodical. Those of us with a good deal more impetuosity in our nature can become awfully frustrated watching someone abide when action might be taken. But David is on David Time, not Rascal Time or Jive Time or even Earth Time. The upside is that when decisions are made in David Time, they are definitive, uncompromising, and sure. They are powerful.

The new adjudication of power is evident in David’s latest performance of “Imagine.” Relaxed, expressive and genuine, this performance is deceptive in its simplicity and extremely subtle in its new evocation of strength. David will always be the kind of singer whose charms and wonders appear to those who accept his invitation to connect. David doesn’t grab you by the scruff of the neck and drag you into his world, but merely shows you a door. It’s up to you to come in. In the earlier versions of “Imagine,” I think perhaps David hadn’t quite realized what his role was inside that world. I suspect he thought he was the entertainment. Now, I think he realizes that he is the host.

I’ve seen as much real power emanating out of David Archuleta this week as in the past two years combined. As with everything Archuleta, it is subtle but unmistakable. There is a new confidence, an assertiveness, that feels entirely genuine. David isn’t trying on some new attitude for size. This new expression of strength is deeply grounded, obviously the result of long and careful consideration and fertilization. And it’s not going unnoticed, either. Observe Simon Cowell’s expression as David is talking with Ryan onstage after the performance. Note that Kara DioGuardi, also in the frame, has that typical “aw, isn’t he adorable” look on her face, but Simon is plainly intrigued with the new Archuleta. He’s got that “well now, what have we here…?” expression.

I’ll tell you what we have here: New management. A new album. A new haircut. And a new and very exciting supervisor of the David Archuleta phenomenon: David himself.

– Rascal