There was a time when Keith Urban and his music brought people together. Many a friendship was solidified at Monkeyville gatherings, concerts, meet and greets.
And then something happened.
What was once a big, happy family erupted into a civil war of sorts among Keith Urban’s fans. Over the past year and half, there have been two very distinct groups of Keith Urban fans...we’ll call them “true fans” and “skeptics”.
How did this happen?
Many will have you believe it was caused by an actress named Nicole Kidman.
And while I cannot deny that the correlation between him hooking up with her and the changes in him (seen by the “skeptics”) may have been the catalyst for this split, I believe it is more than that.
I believe it has become an eye opener and speaks volumes about the kind of fans some are and some are not, and it is this awareness of the difference in these two groups of fans that is the real cause for this split.
There is a vast distinction between the “true fans” and the “skeptics”.
Again, some would say the difference is that the “true fans” support the relationship with Kidman while the “skeptics” do not.
Not the case, in my opinion.
I believe when Keith’s private life became public knowledge and tabloid fodder, much came to light about who Keith Urban really is. Some were able to accept that, some were not.
‘The “skeptics” are jealous’ claim the “true fans”. It’s as simple as that. They cannot accept the fact the Keith has found true love because they wanted him all to themselves. Really? So how do you explain the fact that the “skeptics” were not vocal about his relationships with Laura or Niki? Where were the “skeptics” then? Why were there no cries of “he’s not the same, she’s changing him, he looks miserable”, etc? Why now? Why only with Nicole?
This is evidenced on the many message boards that many of these fans frequent. The split was so drastic, that many of the “skeptics” had to go off and create their own message boards. Message boards to which the links cannot be found anywhere - google as ferociously as you wish, you won’t find them. These boards are heavily guarded at the gates to protect against infiltrations of the “true fans”.
So, what is the distinction? What makes one a “true fan” versus a “skeptic”?
In all my time as a Keith Urban fan and poster on many message boards, I have found there is one major difference. In my opinion, it is the difference between a fan and a fanatic.
I am probably going to offend the “true fans” here but this is the way I see it.
The “true fans” can be found on Monkeyville, KeithUrbanFans, KeithUrbanForums, and CMT, to name a few.
Go to these boards and read some threads.
These are the people who love everything Keith does (I dare say if Keith were to put out a heavy metal album, they would rave about it); thinks he always looks great; buy 4-5 copies of every one of his CD’s; spend their days sitting by their phones requesting his songs be played on their local radio stations over & over & over again; will vote repeatedly (when allowed) on any poll about him or his music; create projects such as scrapbooks, etc.; and want to know what kind of a cookie he would be if he were one.
You cannot post anything that even implies the smallest bit of negativity without inciting angry posts back at you. If you don’t believe me, go to one of these boards and post on a thread about how you hate his hair or that his latest single is not “all that” and see what kinds of responses you get. Go ahead, I dare you.
The “skeptics” do not think everything Keith does is wonderful. They may vote on polls (once); they may gush over a pic or two; they may buy one copy of a CD; travel to see him more than once a year...but they seem to be a bit more discriminatory when it comes to the music and the artist.
Keith can do no wrong in a “true fan’s” eyes. He can, however, screw up in the eyes of a “skeptic”.
When the Keith & Nicole fairytale was sold to the public, the “true fans’ gushed over the love the The Aussie Power Couple (trademarked by the way in July of 2005) had found. The “skeptics” however, saw it differently. I will not re-hash it all here but suffice it to say that in the eyes of the “skeptics”, Keith was far from a happy, head-over-heels in love guy in mid-2006. Actions and pics from that time told a much different story. They posted about it over and over again. How miserable he started looking, how his behavior had changed, how he looked like he was drunk or high at events. “Not himself” claimed the “skeptics”. “Not true!” screamed the “true fans” right back at them. He’s fine, nothing is wrong.
And then he ended up in rehab. Less than 4 months after his wedding of the century. A man who, up until that point, claimed he was the happiest he had ever been, had finally found that balance he had been trying to find, and was more content and at peace than ever before in his life.
And then there is the now infamous Amanda Wyatt story. A prime example of the distinction between these two groups.
I was on a message board, reading posts about this story and what struck me was the absolute denial that Keith could have possibly done this. I have yet to meet a single fan who would dispute Keith’s difficulties with fidelity in regard to his prior long-term relationships...but try to suggest he would do that to the goddess who is Nicole Kidman...no way!
The “skeptics” who had been privy to the tales of Keith’s womanizing ways, were not a bit surprised. In fact, they warned that when he hooked up with the Hollywood actress, his skeletons would no longer be protected in Nashville. The “true fans” however, would not stand for it. Surely, this must be a lie, surely this is fabricated by the tabs. They demanded denials from Camp Urban, denials that never came...not even a single retraction printed. And if Amanda Wyatt was lying, then why not sue her? Why not shut her up, make her go away? This kind of story is the worst because it is what we call defamation of character. And when a denial finally came it was a non-denial of sorts. A tiny blurb about it being “fictitious”. And yet, still no retraction or legal action taken against his accuser. And when Keith himself finally spoke of it, instead of hearing “no, it is not true”, we got an “only me and God knows what is in my heart”. Uh-huh...no doubt.
One poster (“true fan”) went on a diatribe about Amanda. “Amanda was using Keith, Amanda did drugs with Keith, Amanda didn’t really love Keith, Amanda, Amanda, Amanda!”
But what about Keith? Was it all Amanda’s doing? Did Keith not use her, did Keith not sleep with her? Did Keith not do drugs with her? Did Keith really love her?
Keith is a 39 year old adult. Keith knew what he was doing. These were Keith’s choices. Bad choices, yes, but HIS choices nonetheless. So, shouldn’t Keith be to blame here as well? Why is it all Amanda’s fault?
Which brings me to the tattoos: It was pretty obvious Amanda was telling the truth, the only way to discredit her was to try to make her look bad. Hence, the articles concerning her “partying, bar-brawling ways” with court dates to boot. And then, the “evidence” that the pics supplied were old. And so, a tabloid printed a story about Keith’s tattoos being evidence of a time frame. This story claimed Keith changed the tattoo on his wrist shortly after he began dating Nicole and because the old tat was in the pics supplied by Amanda, then, obviously, she could not have possibly been with him while he was with Nicole. And the “true fans” ate it up. “See, she’s a liar” they claimed.
We all now know, there are pics out there confirming the new tattoo was in fact, NOT changed shortly after he began dating Nicole (late 2005) - the pics of the old tattoo can be found up through March of 2006. The new tattoo was discovered in April of 2006.
How could the “true fans” not know this? These are the same fans who watch Keith’s every move like hawks scouting for prey in the desert. These are the fans who posted numerous threads all over Keith boards with the title “Keith’s new tattoo” in April of 2006. But all of a sudden, they seemed to have a lapse in memory as to when this new tattoo showed up on his wrist. Why?
Because these “true fans” fell in love with an image of a man that was not at all realistic. An image that they are desperate to cling to. An image that they must protect at all costs.
Because these “true fans” have become the type of fans that worship their artist like a God. And this worship is blind. To admit Keith is a man who would sell his soul for fame & fortune (many have done it - do NOT underestimate the desire to attain this or keep it); to admit he is a man who would cheat on a girlfriend, fiancé, or wife; to admit he is man who would continue to live a life that has made him so unhappy, he drank himself into rehab. Well, that would mean you would have to admit that he is not perfect; he is not the barefoot poet singer-songwriter; he is not the Keith Urban you bought into long ago. You have been duped.
It would also mean you would have to admit that the “skeptics” were right all along. The “skeptics” who, by the way, not only predicted the very things which have come to pass, but in the exact order they have come to pass.
Argue all you want. The “skeptics” saw it all along. The unhappiness, the weight gain, the lackluster performances, the cheating, the drinking. All of it. While the “true fans” claimed it was all bullsh*t, their barefoot poet was becoming less and less the man, the artist, the performer that they had come to love.
How does that happen? How can some people see something so clearly while others seem to ignore what is right in front of them?
Because some people have an infatuation that is beyond comprehension.
For some, it really is all about the music. Keith is talented, he is gifted, he is a true musician. And yes, he is adorable and attractive. His smile could light up a room; those twinkles in his eyes could put you in a state of hypnosis; the hugs could set you on fire; and that accent...well, ‘nough said.
But some have a startling inability to see past the infatuation and others do not.
And this, my friends, in my opinion, is the distinction between the “true fans” vs. the “skeptics”.