Printable View
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_370332.html
What do you guys think? Is Adam Lambert hiding behind his sexuality as an excuse for his actions? Was his behavior really inappropriate for the particular venue he was performing at? Is the media making a big deal over nothing? Was the entire thing just a stunt to sell more records?
Discuss!
Lewd behavior at the AMA? What is the world coming to when we can't count on pop stars to behave themselves?
Of course he did kiss a boy, and that means the end of civilization as we know it right? :cocktail:
The gayer the better.
But he's right, it's a total bullshit double standard. Madonna and Britney Spears were doing those exact same things, to name someone just right off the top of my head.
I mean sure, Ok, we can talk about how Gay Culture polarizes individuals, and we can talk about media sexploitation... but I think it's pretty clear about where the criticism is coming from against Lambert and why.
And kudos for him for calling it out and refusing to submit to it.
Pfft. That's not inappropriate. It's barely even edgy, and only scores that high because of the exceptional stiffness of his audience.
He's probably at least thee quarters right, though. I imagine doing those things heterosexually would earn you a few frowns, but not nearly as much as doing it 'gay must have. Of course, since the people he riled up are using the exact same arguments they would have otherwise, only with greater fervency because it was gay, nobody not already on his side is going to believe that.
My actual opinion of this is somewhat complicated. I strongly would have appreciated it if he had simply continued to evade the badgering questions about his sexuality. It really wasn't anybody's business and only served as a marginalizing distraction. He allowed them to make the Adam Lambert story about being Gay instead of being glamorous and talented.
Adam was certainly not the first homosexual to appear on American Idol, but he wore eyeliner and nail polish and trendy cluby clothes, so it was ok to bully him about his 'questionable' sexuality like school kids would relentlessly call someone a 'gaywad' on the schoolyard for being different.
As a man that does sometimes like to rock some eyeliner, black nail polish, hair dye, etc. I feel like his admission and subsequent persecution lit the green light for all the sorts of people who have accused me and my friends of being Gay based simply on style. After all, they were going after him based on his style. They got an affirmation of their accusation, so now they think they are right. Eyeliner and nail polish on a decent looking guy now means cocksucker. Thanks a lot Adam.
That said, I do think the debate over the clear hypocrisy exposed by TV shows blurring out male stage kisses while showing female stage kisses is healthy and worth having. I might not like the way we got to it, but it is worth making people give the issue some thought. Hopefully some good will finally come from some staged 'shocking' music awards show water cooler controversy.
Yeah...how dare he not wear jeans and a polo shirt.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
On that note, in retort to your mentioned "lolcocksucker" buddy, point out a cocksocker that wears what he does.
*Wait....what straight man with a desire to over-prove their masculinity watches American Idol? TBH, the only person I know IRL who still watches it is a gay guy and his mom. I wouldn't even know who the fuck this guy is if BB didn't mention him.
:confused: He made the point himself in Rolling Stone.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lady Alias
Lambert said that gays could wear typical male clothing?
Or are you saying that Lambert believed his style would become labeled faggotry?
if they want edgy they should get Rammstien to perform for the awards
Musicians shouldn't be making music for awards anyway. I wish bands would just make music for the fun of making music and displaying talent. Not to get rich and be in the spotlight. Some awesome band needs to just do a full on free internet album release. Now that would be shocking.
Radiohead?
A lot of bands make music just because they want to make music, but if you want to make music full time, and are not independently wealthy, you need to think about money. Even if making music is your primary concern, getting rich does make it easier.Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanmbailey
Paying for instruments, places to practice, and studio time add up quick and money buys one of any artists' greatest resource, time.
Besides, when you get the guys who are just displaying talent, you get the technically proficient but boring coffee house jazz bands. I would take Lambert over that any day. :thumb:
So don't make music full time; living a such a singleminded lifestyle isn't fun on the long run anyway. Learn to operate the technology you use and provide for yourself, instead of purchasing 'studio time' as a commercial service. One-time investments of a couple thousand bucks are managable with only a little time wasted on work, especially if you can live cheap and share them with a band or other similarly minded artists.
These days, you get loads of good noncommercial music. It's just mostly electronic, because that's so much cheaper to record for sharing.Quote:
Besides, when you get the guys who are just displaying talent, you get the technically proficient but boring coffee house jazz bands. I would take Lambert over that any day.
There's a sort of heirarchy that should be adhered to:
- American Idol is too gay for TV (or for anything for that matter)
- TV is too gay for gay
- Kelly Clarkson rules
Hehe, I really regret the title I gave this thread. I was just really curious to see other peoples opinion of this non-story. I do think musicians should go back to other means of showcasing their talent. I want to go back to the age of radio stars. Where your talent stands out and not your image. Having to be an image instead of an artist is a serious disadvantage to a lot of talented people. I'm not a fan of Adam Lambert but I do feel he is a talented individual and the attention payed to how he dresses or how he acts takes away from that. Having said that I do appreciate when artists/musicians dress up or add little theatrics for their live shows but I've been rocked harder by bands rolling up in jeans and t-shirts than anyone rolling up and trying to put on a mini burlesque show while they sing. I don't know. I don't really feel I need to be shocked or awed into liking the person/bands music but if they want to throw in stuff like that it should be done just for the ambience of the whole experience.
Oye I can't even focus my thoughts on one subject at the moment - rant off
Hmm, I rather like it when a band performance comes with a good show. I get bored watching them play when it's just normal people walking around the stage and operating their instruments; this lacks extra value over playing them from a recording. In fact, I'd rather watch a good show with little to no musical qualities than watch a boring looking band play good music.
Now agreed, I was just thinking the other day how silly it is that a woman can barely be famous as a singer unless she's pretty too, but the fact is that incorporating both visual and auditory elements in a performance makes it a more intensive experience. It's typical of the narrowness of mainstream culture that this - and even then only certain ways to do this - is the only format its public will accept, though. Let people with great singing voices sing and people that look or move nice take the spotlights, and don't elevate one art over the others beyond the range of your personal appreciation 's'what I'd suggest.
One word: Slipknot
i dunno, i thought he was well suited for that Twilight movie
I don't think it's cool to advocate anyone staying in the closet. When you're famous, everyone is looking at you all of the time, scrutinizing your actions and asking you questions. Hiding things is an enormous pressure when you aren't famous, it must be all the more so when you are. Everyone should have the right to privacy if they want it, but no one should be expected to hide the truth for anyone else's convenience.Quote:
Originally Posted by ForrestBlack
Anything that moves us, as a culture, to a place where there's no fear of just being honest about who you are is to be praised. Fuck hiding, lying, evading, pretending. Fuck the closet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by batzilla
He aggressively evaded the question for a long time and stated strongly over and over that he preferred to be ambiguous. I think that was a good call. The more famous someone is, the more they need to make an effort not to have the planet all up in their personal business, checking the gender of every person they kiss and passing constant small judgments. Then Rolling Stone offered him a cover if he would tell them he is gay. Who, in his position, wouldn't agree to confess any form of sexuality to be on the cover of Rolling Stone? It sold copies of Rolling Stone, but now there are annoying people pontificating on queerness every time the guy puts his eyeliner on. Details got buckets of hate mail because Adam Lambert did a provocative photo shoot with a woman.
I think labels suck and they suck worse when someone is forced to accept one in the interests of explaining their gorgeous flamboyant mode of dress.