Adam Lambert: Out, But Not THAT Out
“I don’t think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear I’m gay… I’ve been living in Los Angeles for eight years as a gay man. I’ve been at clubs drunk making out with somebody in the corner. I’m proud of my sexuality. I embrace it. It’s just another part of me.”
That from Adam Lambert in a Rolling Stone cover story interview shortly after he was named the American Idol runner-up last June. Lambert, a singer said to know “his own inner David Bowie, his Lou Reed, his Elton John and his Better Midler,” is set to release his solo debut album, For Your Entertainment, next week. He’s also on the cover of Out magazine’s annual Out 100 issue. But it turns out Adam’s in a semi-closet:
Adam’s people were reluctant to let him appear on the cover. They only let it happen if it was a group shot, preferably including someone straight. (This even though Out was first in line, ages ago, in asking for a Lambert cover. Somehow Details was granted a crack at him first, presenting the singer caressing a barely clad woman and talking about kissing girls, though he did also manage to get in the fact that he’s gay).
And when Shana Naomi Krochmal arrived at 19 Entertainment’s chic office on Sunset Boulevard offices to conduct the interview:
I briefly met Adam, and then the publicist and I walked out to the balcony, at which point I was cautioned against making the interview “too gay,” or, “you know, gay-gay.” Specifically I was discouraged from asking about the March on Washington that upcoming weekend or other political topics… It was pretty awkward, as if we were discussing two totally different people — an Adam who doesn’t seem to have any real filter when talking about his life or his opinions, and an Adam who could somehow be contained, made safe for mainstream America.
It’s true that the Rolling Stone interview was the kind of free-for-all that’s a publicist’s nightmare. But, says Krochmal, “Out is a magazine whose primary audience is gay men. Is anyone confused about that?”
Krochmal was angry. Madder still, Out editor Aaron Hicklin, who gives Lambert a piece of his mind in his editor’s letter for the issue:
We’re curious whether you know that we made cover offers for you before American Idol was even halfway through its run. Apparently, Out was too gay, even for you. There was the issue of what it would do to your record sales, we were told. Imagine! A gay musician on the cover of a gay magazine. What might the parents think! It’s only because this cover is a group shot that includes a straight woman that your team would allow you to be photographed at all — albeit with the caveat that we must avoid making you look “too gay.” (Is that a medical term? Just curious.) Luckily, you seemed unaware that a similar caution was issued to our interviewer.
Perhaps we should have had you and Cyndi in a tongue lock. That would be radical. It’s odd, because this magazine has done covers with Pete Wentz and Lady Gaga — getting straight men and women to do Out is easy these days. It gives them cred. Getting gay stars like yourself is another matter. Much easier to stick you in Details, where your homosexuality can be neutralized by having you awkwardly grabbing a woman’s breast and saying, “Women are pretty.” So are kittens, Adam, but it doesn’t mean you have to make out with them.
Lambert’s tweeted retort:
Dear Aaron, it’s def not that deep. Chill! Guess ya gotta get attention for the magazine. U too are at the mercy of the marketing machine. Until we have a meaningful conversation, perhaps you should refrain from projecting your publications’ agenda onto my career.
Yes it does get attention for the magazine. Still it’s pretty ham-handed handling. Daily Intel:
It’s a bold move by Hicklin, who has pulled up clever publicity stunts in tandem with his big issues before — remember when he put “Anderson Cooper and Jodie Foster” on the cover of their “Power 50″ issue? On the one hand, picking a fight with a major celebrity is great for getting attention. On the other hand, severing a relationship with one of America’s most mainstream openly gay performers may come around to haunt the magazine in the future. Either way, he’s on pretty firm footing with his complaint. And a word to Adam: A publicist that sloppy can hurt a star’s career far worse than one bad magazine cover can.
EW’s review is here. You can hear For Your Entertainment now here.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
14 Responses to “Adam Lambert: Out, But Not THAT Out”
[...] the whole story here: JOE WINDISH, Technology Editor aggregated by [...]
[...] “I don’t think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear I’m gay… I’ve been living in Los Angeles for eight years as a gay man. I’ve been at clubs drunk making out with somebody in the corner. I’m proud of my sexuality. I embrace it. …Read Original Story: Adam Lambert: Out, But Not THAT Out – The Moderate Voice [...]
What Aaron misses, what he sees is only someone's sexual preference, he dosen't see the whole person. Adam Lambert is a well adjusted whole person, not just his sexual preference. What makes a man sexy to a woman, Adam has in abundance; Adam is self-motivated, enthusiastic, poised, confident,articulate, intellient,innovative, creative, pleasant, personable, outgoing,friendly,interesting, courageous, honest, honors his own emotions, respects himself and others,takes responsibilty for his life, and oh yea! he is a smokin hot sexy guy no matter what his personal preference. There are straight handsome men who will never be as sexy as Adam since they are not his whole personality that is soooo attractive to us.Adam is a fascinating individualistic gutsy guy, with tremendous enlightened perspectives. We need ,Joe Windish, to start seeing the WHOLE PERSON:-not just is he straight, bisexual or gay -the separative positiion taken by many, esp in media articles and although Adam is intergrated into society,and has changed minds and hearts without preaching, just by simply being himself. He need do no more,ever, he has done more to help the gay cause than Aaron and Out. Integration is better than separation.There is only one race, by the way, the human race and we are either loving or hating, kind or cruel, smart or stupid, happy or sad, hetero, bi,or gay,tall or short, you get the picture. And the studies shown by Margaret Mead on human sexuality in it's most basic categories are:
1.Heterosexual
2.Heterosexual with incidental attraction to same sex
3.Bisexual
4.Homosexual with incidental attraction to opposite sex
5.Homosexual
And all this basic , add to that- a hugh percentage of males are bisexual till approximately age 36 and
and sexuality for many is very fluid and a person's major preferences may change after years.So lets's stop. look at whole person and live and let live. And we all have a right to live our own lives and make our own choices without Aaron or anyone else trying to control us.
2.Heteros
An awful lot of people seem to expect him to be gay first and a singer second, but from the get-go, I got the distinct impression that Adam Lambert doesn't want to be anybody's Poster Child. That impression was reinforced by his tweeted response.
I hope he's able to extract himself from the campy gay culture's apparent desire to lock him down.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Adam Lambert News, The Librarian. The Librarian said: The Moderate Voice: Adam Lambert: Out, But Not THAT Out. http://bit.ly/1SyKZW [...]
[...] “I don’t think it should be a surprise for anyone to hear I’m gay… I’ve been living in Los Angeles for eight years as a gay man. I’ve been at clubs drunk making out with somebody in the corner. I’m proud of my sexuality. I embrace it. …Read Original Story: Adam Lambert: Out, But Not THAT Out – The Moderate Voice [...]
Sexual “preference?” Do you “prefer” to be attracted to men? Or does it just happen on its own?
You know, Polimom, contrarian that I am, I wanted to the write the post from your '[they] expect him to be gay first and a singer second' perspective, but then I spent way too much time on this frothy story reading completely everything linked in the story and more. At the end of all that I found your perspective to be wrong. I urge you to read up. I suggest you start with that entire 5,000 word Rolling Stone piece. He can't go around saying he “will own” “sucking my boy’s face” and describing how he lost his virginity on his 21st birthday, “I was drunk, and it was awkward” not to mention the, “I’m proud of my sexuality. I embrace it. It’s just another part of me.” You can't paint yourself (literally) as an out gay bad-boy performer and then have your publicist warn the gay interviewer not to make him look “too gay,” or, “you know, gay-gay.” Or, well, of course you can</>. But then expect to be called on it. The gay press doesn't have the clout to make the criticism hurt. But to me, after reading up, it's legit.
Totally interesting post. I have a very soft spot for this guy as he was a good friend of my best friend (they went to prom together!). He was just a pudgey little high school musical geek with a voice of gold back then!
Anyway, I'd agree with both Joe's and Polimom's take on this. My feeling is that Adam himself is probably torn or somewhat kept in the dark by his “handlers” at this point. It seems like he wants to be out and proud and the, as Joe puts it, “out gay bad-boy”, and he probably just wants to sing and make great music (which his album most certainly is NOT). And of course, I'm sure he wants to be seen as more than his sexuality. But the handlers and managers are too worried about the image and the homophobia and “mainstream America”. I wish he would just join a band, do his own thing, start making some decent music, and let his persona and image develop as it will.
Joe, I read the Rolling Stone piece. Telling me to “read up” is a bit of a miss with that arrow. I'm a huge Adam Lambert fan. I gather, then, that you've seen the Details images and interview? This bit kinda gets at what I'm saying:
He may decide one day to take up the banner and fly it as a poster child — but until he does, Joe, he belongs to both sexes. And he seems to be okay with this, even if some folks are not.
“There's a part of me that's a businessperson and part of me that's an artist, and the artist wants to push buttons and break boundaries, but the businessperson goes, 'Well, that doesn't really sell albums.'”
So… he's willing to sell his values and who he wants to be for a few bucks?
Honestly I think he's young and trying to find his way. He's attempting to balance competing interests for which there is no guidebook. Lambert needs life's experience and hopefully he'll learn from this. It's amazing that so many people expect every public figure, no matter how young and inexperienced, to have all the answers, know the right thing to do and act like wise men (or women).
I think Lambert's heart is in the right place, wanting to be “out” but there's nothing wrong with wanting to be successful and make a few bucks. He just needs to find the right balance, as we all try to do in our lives. I would have thought that part of this balancing act would be to let Lambert be Lambert, meaning loud and out, in a “safe” venue such as a gay magazine. It's not like a straight jock is going to be reading Out and if he did then he shouldn't be surprised to see gay people in it, some of whom may be doing publicity stunts. I mean if a straight woman can be pregnant and half naked on the cover of national magazines why can't a gay guy do something silly or outrageous or whatever, on the cover of a gay magazine?
I'm happy to give kudos for Lambert trying to find the right balance, but I think the decision around the magazine cover was a missed opportunity for Lambert to appeal to one very important group of his fans. Not a huge deal, this is how he'll learn and now let's move to the next topic!
Poli, If you read my post and my comment, and I get that you did, nowhere do I or did I see anyone else ask that Lambert “take up the banner or be a poster child.”
You and I clearly disagree and are not likely to find common ground on this one. But to reiterate, what I said was that it's ham-handed for a handler to say what his did. And he, Lambert, should expect to be called on it. You can't have it both ways: out, proud (his words), bad-boy (my take, along with the fan press, including Details) but still ask not to be portrayed as “gay-gay” (whatever the hell that is) when you're on the cover of a gay magazine.
I agree with roro and stockboy that the young Lambert is building a career. The Rolling Stone article said that he had only then (June) gotten his publicist, a day-to-day manager, and a bodyguard. As he rises to the heights of stardom, I have no doubt that he will be sure to hire a better publicist than the one that caused this ruckus.
I don't get it, Joe. I don't think it's Out magazine's place to define what “out” means for everyone.
And although I don't know much about publicists, it seems to me the eternal challenge is crafting an image for the star that's both close enough to accepted pigeonholes to be relate-able yet fresh and unique. That probably requires publicists to sacrifice their dignity to perform back-bends like asking the gay magazine to be less…you know…gay.
“…he probably just wants to sing and make great music (which his album most certainly is NOT)”
I haven't heard all the tracks yet, but I think I'm probably going to end up agreeing with you here roro. So far, what I've heard is WAYyyyy too techno for me. (Though I like “Whataya Want From Me” a great deal.)