At the risk of stating the obvious, let me say that Adam Lambert is going to be just fine.
I'll say it anyway because, barely minutes after Kris Allen was announced as the "upset" winner of American Idol, my Facebook feed was loaded with status updates declaring Adam's loss a "hate crime," with people vowing to take the streets to protest (on the eve of the anniversary of the White Night riots, no less).
I trust that their histrionics were limited to message boards, and that the streets are safe from drama. There will soon enough be events worth marching about.
None of which is to diminish the importance of Lambert's nearly winning America's blockbuster musical talent competition as a more-or-less openly gay performer. Sure, it's not DOMA, or DADT, or ENDA. But if greater issues always displaced lesser ones, there would be no justification for watching American Idol in the first place-or for art of any sort.
As for those who think that a contestant's sexuality is nobody's business, I'll buy that the moment we apply the same standard to straight performers. Kris Allen's wife, explicitly identified, was a regular presence. Third-placer Danny Gokey, as we heard repeatedly, is a widower. Family backstory is standard Idol fare. But Lambert, as Entertainment Weekly's Mark Harris aptly put it, "was apparently made by the hand of God and left in a basket backstage at Wicked."
Should Lambert have beat Allen? Lambert is clearly the more talented singer and performer, though Allen is not without his charms.
Lambert is also queer-in the broad sense of that term. Put aside the internet pictures of him in drag making out with other guys. Many Idol voters were unaware of such pictures, despite their being aired, for example, by Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. (O'Reilly did so under the guise of "Will America have a problem with this?" but it's hard to believe he wasn't trying precisely to provoke such a problem.)
Many Idol voters surely also missed Lambert's skillful non-answers to media questions about his sexuality. ''I know who I am," he told Entertainment Weekly when asked the gay question. "I'm an honest guy, and I'm just going to keep singing.''
But no viewer could miss Lambert's flamboyant costumes, his outrageous high notes, or his eyeliner. Whatever his romantic interests, Adam Lambert reads queer. And that's new territory for Idol. While Clay Aiken, the last gay near-winner, projected "wholesome," Lambert screams "edgy." (It's a pitch-perfect scream, held impossibly long, which pierces the audience.)
And that's why, despite Lambert's superior vocal skills, Allen's victory was unsurprising. American Idol contestants win by getting the most votes, and the average American doesn't typically vote for queer. That's part of what makes it queer, after all.
Nonetheless, Lambert seems no less a victor, and I hope he's basking in his glory right now, eyeliner and all.
He made it to the final round while unabashedly being himself (in his appearance and performance, if not in direct response to interview questions). He has solidified his reputation as a consummate entertainer. He will no doubt go on to have a great career, far more successful than Allen's, and probably even more successful than the career he would have had were he constrained by the packaging that comes with the "Idol" title.
Meanwhile, he has taught America something, if not about gays, then at least about "queers." He has "mad skills," yes-but he was also unfailingly polite, consistently expressing gratitude for the behind-the-scenes folks who developed his arrangements. He graciously expressed admiration for his competitors, including Allen. He was edgy, but not off-putting-all of which made it easier for people to see the main thing: his tremendous talent.
Besides injecting new life into Idol, Lambert also appears to have changed its culture. Idol has always struck me as a homophobic show, not just because of the noticeable absence of openly gay performers, but also because of the juvenile gay innuendo that regularly takes place between judge Simon Cowell and host Ryan Seacrest. That innuendo seems to have dramatically decreased this season-no doubt partly due to Lambert.
It will be interesting to see, now that Lambert must shift his attention from votes to sales, whether he chooses to talk more explicitly about his sexuality. I look forward to what he has to say. But I look forward even more to what he's going to sing.
16 Comments for “Adam Lambert’s ‘Loss’”
posted by Bobby on
Brilliant column, Corvino. Except for this part:
“Put aside the internet pictures of him in drag making out with other guys. Many Idol voters were unaware of such pictures, despite their being aired, for example, by Bill O’Reilly on Fox News. (O’Reilly did so under the guise of “Will America have a problem with this?” but it’s hard to believe he wasn’t trying precisely to provoke such a problem.)”
—Why didn’t you mention that O’reilly said people should vote for the best singer and not use anything else as a factor? Why must you insult O’reilly for covering a gay story that the rest of the media was ignoring? I saw that segment, it was a great segment, there was praise for Lambert from his 2 guests, O’reilly merely asked questions since he doesn’t watch Idol.
Can’t O’reilly ever win? If he doesn’t cover a gay story, he’s a homophobe. If he covers a gay story, he’s a homophobe.
Here’s the segment, see it yourself and tell me it wasn’t fair and balanced.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/music/archives/2009/04/bill_oreilly_ju.php
posted by Alex on
I don’t watch AI, so don’t have any opinion on the quality of the contestants. But it does seem that runner’s up seem to have better post-Idol success than the actual winners. So, even by being a loser he’s a winner.
There was also chatter from some quarters that people should vote for Kris to keep the “gay guy” from winning. Hysteria comes from all quarters, I guess.
posted by 923julia on
Right?
http://www.gobrandmall.com
posted by Rob on
—Why didn’t you mention that O’reilly said people should vote for the best singer and not use anything else as a factor? Why must you insult O’reilly for covering a gay story that the rest of the media was ignoring? I saw that segment, it was a great segment, there was praise for Lambert from his 2 guests, O’reilly merely asked questions since he doesn’t watch Idol.
Can’t O’reilly ever win? If he doesn’t cover a gay story, he’s a homophobe. If he covers a gay story, he’s a homophobe.
Oh please Bobby. All of his stories covering gay issues have a negative outlook towards gays. What’s “embarassing” about Lambert’s photos? Why even bother partially covering them? The worst story was the gay baseball night where O’Reilly whined about not being appropriate for children, as if no gay folks have children of their own and shouldn’t be around them.
posted by JayP on
I’m actually in agreement with Bobby, which I think he just proved me wrong from a previous post (about hating heteros, sorry Bobby). Whether or not O’reilly almost always spins a negative connotation or not, in this case he makes the right statements, which can’t hurt us giving the fact he is on FOX news.
Lambert’s assertion that he knows what his sexuality is conjunction with pictures of him kissing guys actually makes me more satisfied with his answer. He’s saying that he knows who he is and you shouldn’t have any issue with it one way or the other. That’s my interpretation anyway.
posted by Bobby on
Thanks JP.
Hey Rob,
“Oh please Bobby. All of his stories covering gay issues have a negative outlook towards gays.”
—No, he has had positive and negative stories. If gays do bad stuff, you can’t spin it in a positive way. If the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence invade a Catholic Church and take communion, that’s an outrage and it deserves coverage. If the Folsom Street Fair features men walking naked, that deserves coverage. O’reilly also covers stories about gays adopting children, and he supports gay adoption.
“What’s “embarassing” about Lambert’s photos?”
—If you’re hiding in the closet, they’re embarrassing. The widow contestant wasn’t afraid of being a widow, the married christian contestant didn’t hide that either, but our gay contestant let people assume he was straight. Well, those pictures broke that assumption, and caused Lambert to give weird statements.
“Why even bother partially covering them?”
—O’reilly does the same with lesbian kisses, naked boobs, ass cracks, and plenty of other stuff. There are millions of viewers that don’t want to see two men kissing, so O’reilly covers the pictures out of respect for them. Not that it matters, you can still see plenty in those pictures. Besides, The O’reilly Factor isn’t Inside Edition or those shock shows from True TV.
“The worst story was the gay baseball night where O’Reilly whined about not being appropriate for children, as if no gay folks have children of their own and shouldn’t be around them.”
—Again, straight families were not informed it was going to be a gay baseball night, they weren’t given a choice, this creates tension and conflict. O’reilly did his job, he interviewed a gay person and a parent.
What is funny is that leftwing websites are accusing O’reilly of being homophobic for discussing Lambert’s sexual orientation. If Lambert’s secret had to do with having an affair with a married woman, having a love child, or having done straight porn, it would be all over the news. So explain to me, who’s the homophobe here? O’Reilly for covering the story no one else covers or the liberal media for hiding obvious gays? O’reilly did a great segment, his two guests where gay friendly, and his closing argument was inclusive. What more can you ask?
posted by Carl Hendrickson on
Memo to John Corvino: Bull?s-eye!
Memo to Bobby: “Can’t O’reilly [sic] ever win?” I hope not. As for your kudos to O’Rielly “for covering a gay story that the rest of the media was ignoring” –what gay story are you referring to? Two people kissing each other? That’s not news worthy, it happens all the time everywhere!
posted by Bobby on
Carl, you know very well that gay sexuality is rarely covered in the media. Do you hate Bill O so much you can’t even give him credit when he does something right? Would you rather have him boycott gay stories all together? If that’s the case, go watch PAX TV.
posted by Rob on
—No, he has had positive and negative stories. If gays do bad stuff, you can’t spin it in a positive way. If the Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence invade a Catholic Church and take communion, that’s an outrage and it deserves coverage. If the Folsom Street Fair features men walking naked, that deserves coverage. O’reilly also covers stories about gays adopting children, and he supports gay adoption.
Ok, so most of his stories on gay issues are negative. I’ll give him credit for gay adoption.
—If you’re hiding in the closet, they’re embarrassing. The widow contestant wasn’t afraid of being a widow, the married christian contestant didn’t hide that either, but our gay contestant let people assume he was straight. Well, those pictures broke that assumption, and caused Lambert to give weird statements.
Don’t watch American Idol, but how exactly does Lambert let people assume that he’s straight given his mannerisms and choice of songs?
—O’reilly does the same with lesbian kisses, naked boobs, ass cracks, and plenty of other stuff. There are millions of viewers that don’t want to see two men kissing, so O’reilly covers the pictures out of respect for them. Not that it matters, you can still see plenty in those pictures. Besides, The O’reilly Factor isn’t Inside Edition or those shock shows from True TV.
What utter trite. Out of respect? So why did Ingraham attacked O’Reilly for running scantily clad women videos when her female listeners were annoyed by such stuff?
—Again, straight families were not informed it was going to be a gay baseball night, they weren’t given a choice, this creates tension and conflict. O’reilly did his job, he interviewed a gay person and a parent.
So what if they weren’t informed? As if the stadium was encouraging a gay orgy in front of children.
What more can you ask?
Stop the nonsense that gay folks are automatically anti-family. If you want to moderate a debate between two sides, ask more sensible questions.
posted by Bobby on
“Ok, so most of his stories on gay issues are negative. I’ll give him credit for gay adoption.”
—Rob, having worked in a gay newspaper I can tell you that one of the things I hated was the mandatory bias. The editor told me that our job was to make the gay community look good. Sorry, but that’s not journalism to me. I would rather have more negative stories with the appropriate commentary and debate than the the crap that gets published in our gay rags.
“Don’t watch American Idol, but how exactly does Lambert let people assume that he’s straight given his mannerisms and choice of songs?”
—-Please, Clay Aiken was more effeminate than him. And what about his choice of songs? Queen? Breeders sing Queen in basketball and football events. “We will rock you” and “we are the champions” are loved by the hetros.
“What utter trite. Out of respect? So why did Ingraham attacked O’Reilly for running scantily clad women videos when her female listeners were annoyed by such stuff?”
—Simple, Ingraham is a born-again Christian who dislikes open display of sexuality while O’Reilly is an Irish Catholic that doesn’t let his religion affect the way he does his job. O’reilly’s job is to report the news, he shows drunken women and men partying in Cancun and getting in trouble to let parents know what’s going on. He’s doing a public service.
“So what if they weren’t informed? As if the stadium was encouraging a gay orgy in front of children.”
—Most parents don’t want to answer questions such as “Daddy, what is gay day? Daddy, what are gays?” Think about this, I have 2 friends, one from a religious jewish orthodox family and one from a secular family, and they where never told about the birds and the bees.
“Stop the nonsense that gay folks are automatically anti-family. If you want to moderate a debate between two sides, ask more sensible questions.”
—It’s a heterosexist culture, parents don’t want to go to a baseball game and see gay couples kissing and holding hands. At least have the decency of advertise the event so the breeders that don’t like it can stay away.
Besides, I’m sick of gay days, black days, hispanic days, and this excessive nazi-like obsession with race and sexuality. It has to stop, Obama just nominated a racist hispanic woman for SCOTUS, people need to know she discriminated against white firefighters that where denied a promotion after taking a test because blacks got lower scores.
posted by Jon on
Adam would be a great spokesperson for the Unison Media Group, which owns DowntownDudes.com and DowntownDykes.com
posted by Bobby on
Nice way to advertise a website, but seriously, do you think he’s attractive? I find his face real ugly, and that hair? Eeeek!
posted by Claire on
Excellent column–I also think that Adam will be very successful.
“O’reilly does the same with lesbian kisses, naked boobs, ass cracks, and plenty of other stuff. There are millions of viewers that don’t want to see two men kissing, so O’reilly covers the pictures out of respect for them. ”
Wow–maybe O’Reilly should always cover up photos of interracial couples kissing so as to show respect for the sensibilities of racists. That would really make him a stand up guy.
Putting a man kissing another man in the category of showing “naked boobs” and “ass cracks”–in other words, saying that a same-sex kiss is as “adults-only” as nudity–is homophobic. How shocking coming from O’Reilly–this is, after all, the same morally upright fellow who, while speaking about a boy who had been kidnapped at the age of 11 and raped and tortured for 4 years, said that he was sure that the boy could have escaped if he had really wanted to, but he was probably happy not to be in school.
posted by Claire on
And saying that straight parents should be warned that gay parents will be present–as though homosexuality is something nasty that children should not be exposed to until they are old enough to not be corrupted by the information–is homophobic. We don’t inform white people that black people will be present at an event–if they don’t like it, they can deal. We don’t inform Christians that Muslims will be present at an event in case they have a problem with that and don’t want to explain other religions to their children. As a society, we should be accepting of all people–not making allowances for the prejudiced among us.
As a straight Christian, I find the attitude that gay people are somehow inferior or less moral to be illogical, appallingly prejudiced, and deeply tragic and unchristian.
posted by Claire on
And while supporting gay adoption makes O’Reilly better on that issue than most of his compatriots, applauding a guy for not believing that children are better off in foster homes than with same sex parents is a really low bar.
posted by barry youngerman on
Bobby writes:
“Besides, I’m sick of gay days, black days, hispanic days, and this excessive nazi-like obsession with race and sexuality.”
I sympathize in a way. But really, this is just marketing–getting paying customers to the ball park who may not have come otherwise. Even in the good old days, there was “Ladies Day” “old-timers’ day” and a few other specialized promotions.
As for the traditional religious people who feel uncomfortable at Gay Day: a ball park is a public place; the meaning of “public” is that you can’t control who you’re going to bump into. If you can’t stand the heat, go back into the kitchen.
Such people had in easier in the old days, perhaps, but now that the majority of people don’t share their views on this matter, they’ll have to adjust. There is an emotional cost to being in the minority. I know that as a Orthodox Jew as well as an out gay man. But there are also benefits– it toughens your soul, and forces you to clarify your own values. I believe it will get harder and harder for such people to insulate their kids from “pro-gay” experiences. They may as well plan for that now.
By the same token, I don’t feel I have a right to limit religious expression in public places– i.e., let Christians put up their creches on Christmas in certain public places. I can take it.
As for Idol: it’s hardly new that the mass market (all over the world) adores cute cuddly singers singing pleasant little songs. So what? Lambert got his big chance, and no doubt he’ll use it. The gay stuff works in his favor– as they say in the industry, as long as you spell my name right. I don’t watch Idol, yet now I know all about Lambert and have heard him on YouTube.