|
|
Post by SusieFierce on Aug 21, 2011 11:19:15 GMT -5
This is a wonderful article! I read Adam in every point the author makes. Two quotes stood out to me: "Let’s assume for a moment that charisma is the real stuff, less a means than an end in itself. What we generally consider the “content” of the arts — the notes, the libretto, the bowings, the plot — is actually just the structure that makes possible the crucial thing: watching a performer who is able to connect with fundamental realities. It is not that a singer’s charisma makes a colorful aria sound even better but that the aria provides a platform, a vessel, for us to experience the charisma." This is part of the reason we say that Adam transcends the material he performs. It is not just the technique, not just the natural voice he has, but also the charisma that we experience when we see/hear him perform. "The question is whether people want to be swept up. Charisma can be exhilarating but also frightening. Our surrender to it demands a trust that is not easily conceded. If our desire from performance is only for comfort and reassurance, charisma will repel us. It is about revealing scope, and it raises the stakes dangerously high" The second quote is probably the best explanation of why Adam did not win American Idol, and why Kris did. I was thinking of you when I read it, Cassie!  I find the bolded part fascinating and probably why Adam is polarizing. He DOES scare some people (which is baffling to me), but also why I have always believed he has all the goods to be a relevant artist. |
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Aug 21, 2011 11:20:17 GMT -5
I have an interesting question for a Sunday morning. I remember the OUTgate and I was furious at Hicklin as were most of us at the time. I agree with both your posts Q3 and Noangel. And what you wrote, Susiefierce, is really interesting. So....how does this fit with all the fuss re Piers Morgan's interview of Christine McDonnel? I have been 'siding' in my mind with Piers but when I read your post I am rethinking a little....did Piers 'blindside' McDonnel? She sees it that way, of course, but is this situation analogous to what happened to Adam? A big difference, of course, is that Adam was not present to defend himself.....so that is not the point...but could Piers have caused himself any issues by veering 'off point'? I was thinking about this before, but it's a TV interview of a politician a completely different thing. Her behavior was embarrassing and stunningly immature. Any politician needs to be prepared to answer questions on the current issues. ESPECIALLY on TV. And his line of questioning was consistent with the points of her book, which she was there to promote!! If you are promoting something you wrote, you better be prepared to talk about it and stomping off like an impudent child is unbelievable. This is typical of people who are in over their head (ala Sarah Palin and the "gotcha" interviews) and they try to blame the interviewer, who is a journalist who obviously did their homework. It's the job of a political journalist to do a hard-hitting, informed interview and I would imagine in those cases, they make no promises. All issues are on the table. Yeah, I think this is a totally different situation. He asked her questions about something in her own damned book, for god's sake. She's gotta be able to address things she herself brought up! And I think it would be fine for someone to do a hard-hitting interview of Adam. I wish someone would--he's smart enough to handle it and I'd love to read it (though it's not the standard operating procedure of pop culture mags). In fact, the OUT interview was pretty damn hard-hitting and personal--she asked good questions which weren't easy--and he handled them thoughtfully and well. Hard hitting doesn't mean asking someone questions which they are ill-placed to answer (for example, asking technically political questions of Adam, or asking Christine O'Donnell about physics). Hard-hitting means asking someone questions which they are well-placed to answer, but perhaps reluctant to or find challenging in some other way. That's okay. And that's what the OUT interviewer did, in due moderation, asking Adam about his personal life, his feelings about Idol and it's sketchy record on gay-friendliness, about his feelings about the gay community, about his fans and his lack of a strong following among gay men. All these were pretty tough questions and he answered all of them honestly and openly and didn't complain at all. That's not what Hicklin's blindside was. Hicklin blindsided Adam with something totally off the record with no warning and no relevance to who Adam is as a public figure. |
|
|
|
Post by gelly14 on Aug 21, 2011 11:23:39 GMT -5
This is cute gelly. Anyone no how to follow tumblr and see what magazine or newspaper the article was originally cut out from? on the top right of the tumblr page there is a "follow" button, and there is a square where you can ask them what you want to ask. I don't really know how it works though, since I never followed any tumblr. |
|
|
|
Post by midwifespal on Aug 21, 2011 11:24:38 GMT -5
Q3, NoAngel - good stuff ladies. I kind of think that Hicklin is a bit of a control freak, horrified by what he sees as the non-mainstream GLBT community and unsure of what to do with someone who doesn't follow the unwritten rules of how to be properly gay. So who fits into that non-manstream group? Gay men who confess that woman are beautiful and have soft lips that are kissable. Lesbian women who occasionally find men cute enough to kiss or cuddle with. Anyone GLBT who plays around with leather and whips and flirts with or is involved with S&M play. Adam fits into a couple of those groups. As well, he openly professes his affection for marijauna, in a magazine (RS) and live onstage. So he is comfortable doing illegal things as well. All of this is a bit threatening to a group striving for acceptance in a non-accepting society. However, it is because of those things that Adam is a fabulous unofficial spokesperson for the edgy, weird fuckin' fags (and lesbians too - cuz I fit into a couple of those groups as well....). We need someone to be open, unashamed of their freak flag and willing to fly the rainbow flag accessorized with some studded leather and a marijauna leaf high. So let's hope Hicklin can broaden in tiny little narrowly focused mind this time. Adam does not fit into any of his neat categories and he doesn't wear khaki pants. And it's unlikely he ever will. And he is still wildly successful with a broad appeal to gay and straight, young and old national and international. This alone should give Hicklin and all those who are like him in the old guard movement for gay rights something to think about as they move into the next level in the fight for equality.  |
|
|
|
Post by gelly14 on Aug 21, 2011 11:26:06 GMT -5
|
|
NoAngel
Member
Take a bow, Adam Lambert, you fucking legend.
Posts: 2,575
Location:
|
Post by NoAngel on Aug 21, 2011 11:30:43 GMT -5
The magazine also seemed to me to completely miss the point of what is so new and groundbreaking (and cause-advancing) about Adam (and, for example, about the Details photoshoot), which is that he is mainstream, that he does appeal to straight women (and straight men, for that matter), that he isn't just a movement hero but a legit pop star as well, and that he has achieved this "mainstream" success without in anyway toning down his sexuality (both in the sense of his "gayness" and in the sense of his aggressive sexiness) or his queerness (again, both in the sense of his "gayness" and his more general happiness to be bizarre and off-center). And he's not just a mainstream success--he's a mainstream sex-symbol--at once (to borrow from both Adam and Kathy Griffin at the EQ awards) "a weird fucking fag" and "a dreamboat." That's pretty groundbreaking progress if you ask me--entirely unprecedented. (But perhaps it is not progress of the kind that someone whose feelings about women are as transparent as "six-foot-Barbie" Hicklin's are has it in him to appreciate :  >:( [/size][/quote] Yes to all you wrote, MWP, and I especially love this part. I had edited out of my already too-long essay something similar but not as well-articulated. I do think that it is a complete mindfuck to many men that women find Adam sexually attractive. Not only do they not understand, but many seem to find it somehow personally threatening. I really, truly do NOT get it, and would honestly love someone to figure this out. This isn't just about Adam, because the way that straight men feel about gay men explains a lot of things, from why straight PDs have sometimes been reluctant to embrace Adam's music to why hate crimes against gay men happen. I think the answer is rooted in the most basic of human drives/biology. We talk so much about societal attittudes and moving toward acceptance, but I also think something much more basic is involved here. |
|
amw
Member
Posts: 756
Location:
|
Post by amw on Aug 21, 2011 11:34:59 GMT -5
MWP - I love you too!
I do believe in Adam's attitude and have been living it since before I ever saw the man. This is part of why he resonated so deeply with me. I recognized him as one of a large tribe of fringe freaks of which I am a proud member. It's important to me that anyone live their truth as they see it, as long as they are causing no one else harm. Adam's lifestyle causes no harm and brings a whole lot of pleasure to a whole lot of people and publically validates that it is possible to be a freak and be very nice at the same time.
|
|
|
|
Post by SusieFierce on Aug 21, 2011 11:37:39 GMT -5
I was thinking about this before, but it's a TV interview of a politician a completely different thing. Her behavior was embarrassing and stunningly immature. Any politician needs to be prepared to answer questions on the current issues. ESPECIALLY on TV. And his line of questioning was consistent with the points of her book, which she was there to promote!! If you are promoting something you wrote, you better be prepared to talk about it and stomping off like an impudent child is unbelievable. This is typical of people who are in over their head (ala Sarah Palin and the "gotcha" interviews) and they try to blame the interviewer, who is a journalist who obviously did their homework. It's the job of a political journalist to do a hard-hitting, informed interview and I would imagine in those cases, they make no promises. All issues are on the table. Yeah, I think this is a totally different situation. He asked her questions about something in her own damned book, for god's sake. She's gotta be able to address things she herself brought up! And I think it would be fine for someone to do a hard-hitting interview of Adam. I wish someone would--he's smart enough to handle it and I'd love to read it (though it's not the standard operating procedure of pop culture mags). In fact, the OUT interview was pretty damn hard-hitting and personal--she asked good questions which weren't easy--and he handled them thoughtfully and well. Hard hitting doesn't mean asking someone questions which they are ill-placed to answer (for example, asking technically political questions of Adam, or asking Christine O'Donnell about physics). Hard-hitting means asking someone questions which they are well-placed to answer, but perhaps reluctant to or find challenging in some other way. That's okay. And that's what the OUT interviewer did, in due moderation, asking Adam about his personal life, his feelings about Idol and it's sketchy record on gay-friendliness, about his feelings about the gay community, about his fans and his lack of a strong following among gay men. All these were pretty tough questions and he answered all of them honestly and openly and didn't complain at all. That's not what Hicklin's blindside was. Hicklin blindsided Adam with something totally off the record with no warning and no relevance to who Adam is as a public figure. I watching "Religulous" for the second time since yesterday (from On Demand) and would LOVE Bill Maher to interview him. Maher often does extended interviews with pop culture figures that he pre-tapes before he goes on vacation. He interviewed Billy Joe Armstrong last year (or was it the year before?) and Billy wasn't the most fluid conversationalist, if you know what I mean. I think a serious conversation that gets into the double standards and the arbitrary BS that Adam has faced (Westboro, Parents Television Council, etc.) and Adam's "political awakening" and calling-out of Bachmann would all be great stuff. Also, they're kindred spirits in that Maher was thrown under the bus by ABC for "doing what he does," but he crossed an invisible, unforgivable line and there was no negotiation, he was fired and is still not particularly happy about it. |
|
|
|
Post by 4Ms on Aug 21, 2011 11:39:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by lynneville on Aug 21, 2011 11:40:24 GMT -5
I am hoping that the new Out interview will be a long (enough) one, and not some two sentence soundbite they choose to print next to a photo. I stupidly read some comments on the Advocate and Queerty coverage of the EQCA and, of course, got a little riled. There were several comments to the tune of "why is Adam Lambert getting an award, what has he ever done for us?". I am hoping a good interview in a gay publication will educate these uninformed people. Don't they understand that he has done sooooo much just by being who he is?
|
|
>:(
