3 things about Adam Lambert, Part 2: Oh, he released an album, too!

CLARIFICATION: This is the post from which the other “3 things about Adam Lambert” posts originated. I split them up. For the post of the Out kerfuffle, go here. For the post about the AMAs performance, go here. This post is now just a review of the album.

By the way, Adam Lambert’s album is $15.70 on iTunes and $3.99 at Amazon.com.

And then there’s the album. I listened to it streaming on iLike several times, and now I’ve got the whole thing on my iPod. It’s a good pop album, but it is not a Great Album that transcends Top 40. There are some great songs, some great vocals — some really great vocals — and some great fun. It’s at its best when it’s Bowie-meets-Gaga-after-drinks-with-Madonna, and at its worst when it’s Chris Daughtry songs with Adam Lambert’s voice. There are some tracks that were clearly focus-grouped and/or forced on the album by executives, and the whole thing is wildly over-produced. I mean, did they really need that many instruments, that many vocal loops, and that much sound? Still, it’s one of the better 19-controlled post-“Idol” albums. Here’s my track-by-track reviewlet:

  1. “Music Again.” Written by Justin Hawkins of The Darkness. It sounds like slightly watered-down Darkness song, complete with the dog-whistle high notes in the refrain. It’s thematically apt, and it’s hooky. Good.
  2. “For Your Entertainment.” Written by Lukasz Gottwald (Dr. Luke) and Claude Kelly. Despite the hard-to-hear and weirdly over-sung version on the AMAs, this is a great dance pop song. It’s aggressive and thuddy, and I want to dance when I hear it. Granted, since it was released a few weeks ago, I’ve listened to it at least a few dozen times, so it’s a Pavlovian response at this point.
  3. “Whataya Want From Me.” Written by P!nk, Max Martin, and Shellback. This is the best song and best track on the album. Adams sounds fantastic when he’s controlled, and the song, as written, is clear and emotionally resonant. And oddly, considering Max Martin’s presence, it’s subtle. But it’s crazy catchy, too, so that’s got the Swedish Svengali written all over it.
  4. “Strut.” Written by Adam, Kara DioGuardi, and Greg Wells. This track doesn’t do anything for me. It sounds like the less interesting baby brother of “For Your Entertainment” or “Fever.” Also, Adam sounds like he’s sneering. Which makes sense if you think strutting is obnoxious, instead of confident.
  5. “Soaked.” Written by Matthew Bellamy of Muse. Oh, thank God for Muse. This isn’t quite as great as anything on Muse’s last couple albums, but Bellamy knows how to take the theatrics of 70s arena rock and retrofit it for the 21st century. I can’t imagine it as a single, unless of course 94.9 in San Diego realized that Adam doing Muse is about as “alternative” as you can get. However, I can also imagine Liza Minnelli doing this song well, too. Hmm.
  6. “Sure Fire Winners.” Written by David Gamson, Alexander James, and Oliver Lieber. This is “We Are The Champions” channeled by some studio jockeys who enjoy sampling whatever beats are on the Top 40 right now. (One of these guys is responsible for “Forever Your Girl,” another was in Blur, and the third is an industry stand-by.) Not good. Though I adore the line “my baby clothes made of leather and lace.” Snicker.
  7. “A Loaded Smile.” Written by Linda Perry. As pretty as this song is, and as retro cool as the production is, I keep listening to it over and over so that I can say something about it, but I get so bored that I wander off to something else and forget that I was supposed to be paying attention, so then I listen to it again and the same thing happens, again.
  8. “If I Had You.” Written Max Martin, Shellback, and Savan Kotecha. This is a Kelly Clarkson song (that she would probably find annoying) with Adamized lyrics. It’s catchy but cynical.
  9. “Pick U Up.” Written by Rivers Cuomo, Greg Wells, and Adam. This sounds like a cast-off from a Weezer album. It should have been cast-off from this one, too. Adam sounds good, especially in the refrain, but it’s boring. This would have been a good place for some brilliant re-envisioned cover.
  10. “Fever.” Written by Lady Gaga and Jeff Bhasker. This is the only song where Adam explicitly addresses a man as a love-interest (and I’m not the only one who noticed this). This is sad, but I guess it was a cynical decision based on the naked homophobia of American radio. But damn: This song is hot and sexy and “ménage à trois” is repeated a lot. The beat is dirty and so very Gaga, and it’s the bomb. The bomb, I tell you.
  11. “Sleepwalker.” Written by Ryan Tedder, Aimee Mayo, and Chris Lindsey. This track has gotten some bad reviews, but even though it is embedded in a wall of sound, which I don’t always like, its bombast makes me think of a delightfully dramatic love child of “Boulevard of Broken Dreams” and “Sowing the Seeds of Love.”
  12. “Aftermath.” Written by Adam, Alisan Porter, Ferras, and Ely Rise. This is a Chris Daughtry song. And I’m sick of Chris Daughtry.
  13. “Broken Open.” Written by Greg Wells, Adam, and Evan Bogart. This sounds like a Matt Alber song. Gorgeous.
  14. “Time For Miracles.” Written by Alain Johannes and Natasha Shneider. As much as this song is 90s Diane Warren retread — and since it’s the theme from 2012, it’s practically a clone of her “I Don’t Wanna Miss A Thing” from Armageddon — I just love it. I feel dirty for loving it, but it’s such a great tune. It’s produced right, and it’s sung brilliantly.
  15. “Master Plan.” Bonus Track. Written by Ryan Tedder. Awful, if catchy. “Bonus” is clearly a misnomer. Though I must say I like the fact that it could be interpreted as a sung manifesto for the Gay Agenda.
  16. “Down the Rabbit Hole.” Bonus Track. Written by Adam, Greg Wells, and Evan Bogart. Since it is trapped on the overpriced iTunes-only album, I haven’t heard it yet. This would be one of the best songs on the album. I can’t fathom why it’s a “Bonus” not in the place of, say, “Sure Fire Winners.” It’s raucous electro-rock with a Darkness, Franz Ferdinand edge. Awesome.

I give it 3 1/2 stars out of five.

|           

3 things about Adam Lambert, Part 1: That Out kerfuffle

Oh, Adam.

Wait: No. I will not write an open letter. That would be too obvious, both because of Out editor Aaron Hicklin’s letter to Adam that caused this past week’s kerfuffle and Joe Vogel’s tone-deaf parody of Hicklin’s letter that Adam thought was “hilarious.” Instead, I’ll do this straight, as it were.

Since I was deeply concerned about whether radio would ever get behind Adam Lambert, because of The Gay, I was rather interested in, and rather appalled by, Adam’s Out brouhaha. A lot has been said, though none of it particularly smart, and I may not do any better. (Yes, this is loony fan bait for the comments.)

Here’s a recap for my readers who are not as obsessive about reading the minutiae of gay pop culture:

Out put Adam Lambert on their yearly Out 100 list, and they named him “Breakout Star of the Year.” However, according to Hicklin, Lambert and his image were aggressively handled by his handlers, who were seemed terrified that Out was going to make Lambert appear too gay:

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.

Hicklin’s open letter is aggressive and it’s snarky, but it was also completely justified. The writer of the Q&A wrote that Adam’s publicist “cautioned against making the interview ‘too gay,’ or, ‘you know, gay-gay.'” As a former writer for both Out and The Advocate, I know how hideous publicists are, especially when it comes to the tinge of The Gay. Lambert is a new challenge to these control-obsessed monsters; he’s actually out, not coy like Ricky Martin and Queen Latifah or dishonest like Kevin Spacey and Wentworth Miller. For these folks, publicists have to work overtime to keep them from being described as or revealed to be gay. For Lambert, his publicists have to make sure his gayness doesn’t get too problematic: Let him be flamboyant in his clothes and makeup and theoretically gay, but don’t show him touching another man or talking about politics or expressing any allegiance to the gay community.

In other words, let him be a fag hag’s dream.

They must have been giving each other high-fives over the reprehensible Details cover story. And nervous as hell about what might happen with Out. So they tried to handle Out. Not smart. Imagine what would happen in Will Smith’s publicist told Essence not to make him seem too “black.” It would have been a lot worse than Hicklin’s letter.

But it turns out it’s more complicated than a few publicists. More on that later.

Lambert’s response to Hicklin’s letter was certainly not handled. No publicist would have allowed Lambert to do what he did or what he’s done. He went on Twitter and had what I perceived as a temper tantrum. He really should have had one of his flacks release a statement to the effect of, “I respect Out, but I disagree with the letter.” Or something like that. Instead, he typed some snark and opened himself up a great deal of criticism from people who actually care about the way that gay artists are marketed and controlled and how those images perpetuate homophobia in American culture. Yeah, he pissed me off. A lot.

So, I’m going to fisk his tweets.

it’s definitely not that deep.

It’s not? Having the publicists for the first-ever out-from-the-sorta-beginning pop singer make attempts to under-gay him in the most important gay publication in the country is very deep — in its cynical, homophobic shallowness. Refusing to do a solo cover, refusing to let him go to the Out 100 party, and telling the magazine what questions not to ask — and the questions were all about teh gay — is cowardly and meaningful to those of us out there who care about the cultural and political importance of a gay pop star. It is deep.

Chill!

This is what convinced me that Lambert simply doesn’t understand what is going on and why all of this — his historical importance for the gay community — matters. Chill? Hicklin shouldn’t care?

Guess ya gotta get attention for the magazine. U too are at the mercy of the marketing machine.

This is rich. He’s trying to spin Hicklin’s letter — an angry, detailed letter about something that, yes, matters — as a simply a publicity stunt, one done because Hicklin is being controlled by the “marketing machine.” Since the letter doesn’t make the magazine look good (or bad, at least to those of us who normally read it — I’d hope) and the magazine already had something easily promotable in the form of the interview with Lambert, the letter-as-stunt idea doesn’t even pass the bullshit test.

(Unless, of course, you’re a loony Lambert fan, many of whom have been leaving comments and tweets about how Hicklin wrote the letter out of jealousy and a desire to sell magazines. Without realizing that the letter was online, for free. And the jealousy argument is as old and dry as these them hills. Entertainment journalists are not all jealous of the people they cover. Really. They’re not. Many of these fans have no ability to see shades of gray, let alone reality.)

Until we have a meaningful conversation, perhaps you should refrain from projecting your publications’ agenda onto my career.

I’m sure there’s some loony fan who read that and said, “Oh, snap!” I said, “Oh, no. Oh, no.” First, the publicists try to prevent a meaningful conversation about these issues from taking place. Second, the publication’s agenda is to cover gay pop culture and maybe, to a secondary degree, to promote gay civil rights. So, Lambert doesn’t agree with that agenda? He doesn’t want to be part of gay pop culture or promote gay civil rights? A number of the loony fans have been whining about how he just wants to be a singer. He’s not a politician! To them I say: If you are an out celebrity, you are automatically a politician. That interview with Rolling Stone was a political act, and so was that hideous Details story. So was the decision to have only one clearly gay lyric on his whole album. So was his decision to make a stink about Hicklin’s letter and then spend all of last week whining about it, spend all of last week distancing himself from the gay community and the gay press that has been working tirelessly for the last 40 years to allow someone like him to exist. So was that performance at the AMAs, which was meant to make people notice — or drive them crazy. It’s all political. Lambert is an out gay man who seems to be rather bright; he knows that his existence is political. He may not want to focus on politics, but he needs to understand that he is politics. Also, on a more banal level, when you do an interview with a gay publication, you’re going to talk about gay stuff. Get over it. Chill.

Then there were two follow-up tweets. Actually, the first one arrived before the two I just fisked.

Planet Fierce responds to A. Hicklin’s “Open Letter to Adam” http://bit.ly/1yTFLP : thank you to the writer! YOU get it.

The link (eventually) led to a loony fan’s attempt to defend Lambert and attack Hicklin. The essay is a based on the central assumption that Hicklin is a lying, bitter bully and that Lambert is an infallible innocent:

You’ve effectively alienated a portion of Adam Lambert’s fan base. You may have lost sales. And you put undo [sic] pressure on a young man that [sic] has said time and again that all he wants to do is make music. All this under the guise of “sacrificing the one for the many.”

This mentality (punish those that don’t conform to a hypothetical “ideal”) is part of why the LGBT struggle is not taken seriously by mainstream America . [sic] You do not need to eat your young nor throw your most visible proponents under the proverbial bus. I hope that your tasteless diatribe serves only to bring your hypocrisy to the forefront – garnering more compassion and support for Adam Lambert than your precious mantle of Gay Rights ever would.

Lordy. The LGBT struggle isn’t taken seriously because some of us punish people who heterosexualize themselves in order to make money? THAT is the reason? The “precious mantle of Gay Rights”? REALLY? Promoting “Gay Rights” is some horrible thing that Hicklin should be embarrassed by? Out should be upset that it alienated Lambert fans? That it put undue (not “undo,” honey) pressure on someone who just wants to sing? Please: He wants to be a superstar. If he just wanted to make music, he wouldn’t have auditioned for American Idol. And this is the guy Lambert thinks “gets it.” Lordy.

Then there was this tweet:

hilarious: http://www.huffingtonpost.c…

Okay, this guy is not as much of an offensive tool as the loony fan. But Joe Vogel seemed to have read Hicklin’s letter as some fascistic demand that Adam be gay in some robotic Out-approved way. I hate to echo the wingnut flame-war mantra of “Read for comprehension!” but: Vogel should read for comprehension. Here is the final paragraph of his “satire” written by “The Gay Thought, Fashion, and Culture Police“:

And finally, as a “gay pioneer,” remember that we are “all counting on you not to mess this up.” No pressure. Gay salvation depends on your career path. As the gay pop culture prophet Perez Hilton warns, you can either be a cog for the mainstream music machine or the gay community. There are no other options. You cannot be complex, you cannot be both masculine and feminine, you cannot resist labels or boxes, you cannot experiment, you cannot form your own identity, you cannot just be. You must always match stereotypes, meet expectations. Of course, if you do slip up and need to come out again as a gay man, Out Magazine would be happy to provide the platform.

Nothing Hicklin said, except for these out-of-context quotes, even remotely states these things. Yeah, he’s putting pressure on Adam to succeed. And why not? As I said above, Adam matters. Hicklin clearly wants Adam to be whoever he wants to be, but does not want him to be forced into a manufactured image created by the record companies, which are much more interested in making money than in doing anything authentic, let alone politically or culturally controversial. Hicklin’s letter was a criticism of the constraints that 19, RCA, and Adam himself were placing on his image in the gay press. If Adam just wants to “be,” then he should just “be.” He shouldn’t be involved in cynical calculations of how gay he can appear to be to still sell a million albums.

But wait: It gets worse!

EW ran Michael Slezak’s contemptible tirade bashing Out for all of the reasons Adam’s favorite loony fan did, though Slezak makes less gramatical mistakes. You know, how dare Out even mention that there are publicists? I mean, how dare Out point out the industry is homophobic and that publicists (even and often especially gay ones) are a party to the homophobia? How dare Out point out that this is all political? How dare Out admit that gay celebrities matter, that they are needed, that they do have a responsibility to their community, especially if they trade on their gayness, as Adam has by using his sexuality in such a marketable and incendiary way? Slezak is so cocooned in his EW office, into which nothing but publicists’ screams can penetrate, that he can’t hear, or see, that gay rights trump publicists and the whines of demi-celebrities. Every. Single. Time.

(Ya know, I bet Mark Harris would have written something very, very different.)

Perhaps because of Slezak’s tone-deaf, faux-outraged whining, Adam agreed to do a Q&A about Hicklin’s letter, in which he said that Hicklin “really crossed a line.” (Has anyone else noticed that Adam and EW are responsible for the vast majority of the publicity Out got for the letter?) Here’s the money quote:

What people don’t realize is, I am managing my image, more than maybe the editor of OUT magazine likes to give anybody credit for. My team is a team. And I really feel fortunate that 19 Management and Simon Fuller said to me, from the get-go, “We want to do what you want to do. You need to tell us how you want to do things, what interests you have,” and they’ve been incredibly supportive of me. I really mean it. I’m not being puppeted around. I didn’t want to jump onto a gay magazine as my first thing, because I feel like that’s putting myself in a box and limiting myself. It was my desire to stay away from talking about certain political and civil rights issues because I’m not a politician. I’m an entertainer. That is not my area of expertise. I can talk about relationships and personal experiences because as an artist those things involve writing lyrics and that part of my process. But I didn’t feel comfortable talking about the March on Washington. I didn’t feel comfortable, so I asked my publicist to ask the interviewer to stay away from the political questions. I take full responsibility for that. I think that the editor has his agenda and has his opinions, which I respect, but they’re not necessarily my opinions. And I wish there was a little respect for that. Not every gay man is the same gay man.

So, he was responsible for the publicist telling Out not to ask about politics. Lovely. And weird. Couldn’t he have just answered the questions, if they were political, by saying, “I don’t know anything about politics”? I guess that it’s more fun to have a flack make you look like a tool. Again: Weird. Also weird that no one has picked up on this: That he didn’t want to be “putting myself in a box and limiting myself” by doing an Out cover, which is the same thing as saying “I don’t want to be seen as really gay by the public because then they won’t buy my albums.” Because it is the same thing.

This not a 19-year-old queer kid who doesn’t like labels or identity politics because they’re scary. This is a seasoned professional who doesn’t want to be lumped into the categories inhabited by Sam Sparrow, Matt Alber, Rufus Wainwright, and latter-career George Michael. Because they’re not selling millions of albums. This is not about Adam’s hurt feelings; it’s about business. It seems Hicklin crossed a line by pointing that out. Sure, Hicklin has an agenda — gay rights and gay visibility. But Adam has an agenda — to be a superstar. Only one of those agendas is laudable.

|            

Can Adam Lambert succeed? Notes on the ontological homophobia in popular culture

Welcome Lambert fans. Based on some of what I’ve been reading in your comments, I’ve made a few corrections.

Those of you who are interested in Adam Lambert have probably heard his new single, if not seen the video, which is not from his upcoming album, to be called For Your Entertainment, but rather from the soundtrack to 2012, Roland Emmerich’s latest worldwide snuff film.

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEcUq0tmg9Y[/embedyt]

The song is getting a lot of attention, not just from the usual suspects, like gay blogs and crazed American Idol fans.. Ann Powers, the highly respected Los Angeles Times music critic raved about the single:

Listen to “Time for Miracles,” the single that begins this fall’s triumphant ascent of “American Idol” finalist and hard rock liberator Adam Lambert with a swoosh and bang that does Freddie and Steven (and Ann and Jon and Axl) proud.

Of course, as with anything Adam Lambert does, there are naysayers. A bunch of folks are just revolted by the song, since it is a rather low-rent Dianne Warren-ish power ballad. It sounds separated at birth from Aerosmith’s Oscar-nominated Dianne Warren power ballad “Don’t Wanna Miss a Thing” from Michael Bay’s worldwide snuff film Armageddon. This is not an unfair criticism. But I’m a sucker for songs like that, as long as they are sung by someone like Steven Tyler or Adam Lambert, whose voice, for the record, I love. It makes the hair on my arms (and back) stand on end. But some people simply loathe the sound of his voice, and I can see this, since it can go from intense to screechy rather quickly. But it works for me. Because the boy can control it as well as any recording artist working today. When he screeches, he’s doing it deliberately. He’s simply an amazingly gifted vocalist.

However, Adam could sing “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” without a screech or a flourish, and some people would say it sucks. This guy cannot stand Adam. Since they think he sucks, in more ways than one. Some people just can’t stand they way he moves, or his eyeliner, or his hair, or that he wasn’t spit out by the cloning technology that churned out “masculine” performers like the lead singers of Matchbox 20, Nickelback, The Fray, Coldplay, Kings of Leon, or whatever act you want to list that happens to be led by a straight man. Or supposedly straight. Want to read some hate? Here’s some. Adam Lambert is no less masculine — or more feminine — than David Bowie or Steven Tyler or Axel Rose were at the heights of their popularity, but Adam is actually and openly gay, as opposed to being just ambiguous or faux bisexual like Bowie was back in the day.

And that changes everything. Unlike the guy I linked at the beginning of the previous paragraph, many of the anonymous Lambert haters are not concerned about his supposed pitchiness, but rather that he’s a faggot. A typical string of comments from idol-mania.com:

Coolman // May 24, 2009 at 7:22 pm

Adam is a FAGGOT!!!! He is a “male” Cher. He is the worst contestant EVER. I would rather listen to Sanjia for 10 hours than the FAGGOT adam. He will never be anything
#

156 Anti-Kara // May 24, 2009 at 7:25 pm

Adam is a pillow biter. Isn’t there anyone left in the USA with MORALS???
#

157 AdamsGay // May 24, 2009 at 7:26 pm

Maybe adam should get into gay porn. He’ll never make it as a singer. Just goes to show how many queers there are voting. He sure didn’t make it on his singing!! LOL. HE SUCKS—-Literally!!

Want more? Try this.

(By the way, I love how google searches for “fag,” too, when you search for “faggot.”)

(Also, by the way, a lot of the internet hate concerning Adam Lambert is virtually identical, discourse-wise, to the faggot-bashing-shitstorm-tsunami-flamewar that Perez Hilton experienced after his altercation with the Black Eyed Peas’ entourage. Read the comments. If you don’t act like a “man,” you are always already guilty.)

There has never been an openly gay pop star. The closest we’ve ever had are Elton John, George Michael, KD Lang, and Melissa Etheridge, and all were big stars before they came out. And aside from Elton John — with his Disney work and his Princess-Diana-is-dead song — none of them have had a radio hit in the United States since they came out. In case you haven’t noticed, American radio stations are more homophobic than any other popular media format.

Rob pointed out that there was one exception to this: RuPaul. He was out — way out — when he had a hit with “Supermodel (You Better Work).”
[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9LOrHU8JI[/embedyt]
This is the exception that proved the rule. He didn’t have a hit as a gay man; he had a hit as a drag queen. He was not a man with a slightly ambiguous gender performance, which is threatening to many straight men. RuPaul’s gender was never ambiguous — this was a man pretending, mocking, satirizing, loving the female and feminine. There’s a reason why female impersonation is safe for straight men to watch, love, and participate in: It reestablishes and reifies gender more often than it disrupts and confuses it. (Check out Gender Trouble and Vested Interests for more.) Out gay men who shirk masculinist stereotypes — guys like Adam Lambert — do not do confirm gender; they fuck with it. Which is one the reasons why I love Lambert so much. Also, I fucking love RuPaul. This song led off the dance-party playlist at our wedding. And the video? One of the greatest ever made. Yeah, Kanye. Really. However, it’s also important to note that “Supermodel” wasn’t a major hit, outside of the clubs and MTV. It peaked at 45 on the pop charts. It wasn’t even a Top 40 hit.

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfrhCvDLlCg[/embedyt]

While radio only allows gay people to be drag queens or forces them to first pay their dues by pretending to be straight (or both, a la Boy George in the 80s), gay people and gay stories are hugely successful on TV, on Broadway, in bestselling books, and even in Hollywood films. Sure, we complain about homophobia in American films. And we should. Brokeback Mountain lost the Oscar because of homophobia, both the overt “Ugh, fags” stuff from older voters and subtle “Ha, gays are funny! Here’s my Brokeback parody!” stuff from younger voters. Mincing and/or creepy queers are still used for comic relief and/or as easy villains, even after The Celluloid Closet pointed out that it’s damn offensive to do that. The “Gay Steppin’ Fetchits” in He’s Just Not That Into You. Charlie Prince (Ben Foster) in 3:10 to Yuma. Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro) in 300. Ruby Rhod (Chris Tucker) in The Fifth Element. Albert (Nathan Lane) in The Birdcage. Prince Edward (Peter Hanly) in Braveheart. Scar (Jeremy Irons) in The Lion King. Ra (Jae Davidson) in Stargate. Ted Levine (Jame Gumb) in Silence of the Lambs. Also, everything about Boat Trip and Chuck and Larry.

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZtfhD70eaS4[/embedyt]

And then there’s Brüno, which was ostensibly a movie mocking gay stereotypes and homophobia, but was so badly conceptualized, marketed, and made that it simply furthered gay stereotypes and homophobia — except in the people who were already aware of the evils of gay stereotypes and homophobia. It was at times hysterically funny, diamond-sharp satire, and at times so offensive-and-not-in-a-good-way that I was aghast. As in, my jaw dropped during some of the scenes focusing on Brüno’s adoption of an African baby. GLAAD rightfully attacked the film, which caused some gays to attack GLAAD. My response to the criticism of GLAAD (written as a comment to a Facebook update) was (with some editing), “I haven’t seen it, though if I had any money I probably would. But I don’t think I need to see it to think that GLAAD’s press release makes sense. Barrios says clearly that he knows the point of the satire and knows that a lot of gay people will find it funny. But he also points out that the movie will do no good in areas of the country where most people aren’t able to find humor in homophobia. Like Arkansas. I think GLAAD actually has perspective here. And honestly, I wouldn’t want GLAAD to have much of a sense of humor. If they found very un-PC humor funny, they’d be rather useless as an anti-defamation group. It’s their job to complain about representation and to question stuff like Brüno. Even if I found Brüno funny, and I bet I would find a lot of it funny (though A.O. Scott, who I agree with 95% of time, wasn’t thrilled with it, so I may react with a “Meh,” like JoeMyGod), I’m sure I would still think GLAAD’s response is appropriate.” Then I saw it, and I really agreed with GLAAD.

Clearly, we’re having growing pains as a movement. In parts of the country, we’re so accepted and embedded in the landscape that the sort of satire found in Brüno is fine, maybe even needed. Many of us have been lulled into a content, fuzzy happiness because our local leaders are so pro-us. So, we’re flummoxed that Obama hasn’t made good on every single one of his promises to us, even though some of those promises are rather radical positions in much of the country. In many parts of the United States, where anti-gay marriage proposals pass with the 90% of the vote, Brüno was going to play like I’m Gonna Git You Sucka in 1950s Alabama: Badly. These are the parts of the country — and I’m not talking about fly-over country only, but also Orange County and eastern Washington State and north Florida and Staten Island — where people actually believe the lies of Frank Schubert or Tony Perkins or Glenn Beck. They nod along with So You Think You Can Dance judge and executive producer Nigel Lythgoe when he says he doesn’t like it when men don’t dance like men — on a show full of gay contestants who seem not allowed to say or even imply that they’re gay — if they watch the show at all. They voted for Kris Allen over Adam Lambert on American Idol because Kris is so very straight and manly (in a sweet, farm boy way), and Adam is so very not (in a glam rock, showtune, Lady Gaga back-up dancer way).

It also seems that these are the same people in charge of radio playlists. Notoriously conservative Clear Channel dominates radio in the United States, and aside from their back-of-bus, mostly online Pride channel (which has played just two gay acts among their last 200 songs, when I checked), none of their mainstream rock or Top 40 stations play anything by gay acts, so it doesn’t seem terribly crazy to believe that they are either preventing gay acts from succeeding on the radio or tacitly allowing their failure. As someone pointed out, Clear Channel is nice to its gay employees. Awesome. But that has nothing to do with whether or not they will promote out gay artists on the radio. For example, Fox News gives its gay employees domestic partner benefits, but their shows spew homophobic garbage. Yeah, blaming Clear Channel makes me sound like a conspiracy theorist, for sure. But it’s not one that is particularly far-fetched (unlike, say, the theory that HIV doesn’t cause AIDS or that 9/11 was “an inside job”). Worse, however, is that even independently owned stations don’t have the balls to play any gay artists.

[embedyt] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WPMBlXfpSNA[/embedyt]

In San Diego, where Clear Channel owns seven of the radio stations and more or less controls the radio waves, we have two independently owned alt rock stations. One basically plays the Top 40 hits on the Modern Rock list — it’s pretty corporate. But the other, 94.9, brags incessantly about being “100% Clear Channel-free,” playing only great music, playing music that you haven’t heard of, recommending cool news acts, and having a slogan that claims “It’s all about this music.” It is the best non-satellite radio station I’ve ever listened to, which isn’t saying much but it’s still saying something. They have an irritating habit of playing Alt Rock’s Greatest Hits© over and over and over again. I hear songs from Nirvana and Sublime and the Red Hot Chili Peppers albums from the 90s so often that I actually change the station when I hear songs like “Smells Like Teen Spirit.” Not in that rotation? REM and Hüsker Dü. Yep. The two major alt rock groups with out front men. (Yes, REM gets played, but much less than Nirvana or Pearl Jam. Hüsker Dü, never.) But the station introduced me to LCD Soundsystem and MGMT and Metric and Muse and TV on the Radio and Black Joe Lewis and the Honey Bears. And they’ve done such cool things as put Neil Diamond’s excellent last album in heavy rotation. But for a station that plays David Bowie and Queen and Depeche Mode and The Smiths and The Decemberists never to play — not even once — a Scissor Sisters song is bizarre. One of Rufus Wainwright’s rockers? Never. Hercules and Love Affair? Of course not. I wouldn’t expect international-except-for-the-United-States superstar Mika on 94.9, but he’s certainly never going to be played on our local Top 40 station, 93.3, where he belongs. Since it’s owned by Clear Channel. If 94.9 was actually “about the music,” they would have introduced San Diego to Mika’s “Grace Kelly” and Rufus’s “Foolish Love” or the Scissor Sisters’ “Take Your Mama” or Hercules and Love Affair’s “Blind.”

When even the rebel radio station is too weak-kneed to play anything remotely threatening to heterosexism’s domination of radio, it’s hard to imagine that Clear Channel will suddenly embrace something as gay as Adam Lambert. Obviously, Adam Lambert is different. He’s already a star. He lost American Idol, but he got the cover of Rolling Stone. And he’s on the cover Details right now. But Details decided the best way to deal with having a gay guy on their cover is make the entire feature about him be about how women want to sleep with him. The photos of him are gorgeous, but they also look like outtakes from the video for Chris Isaak’s “Wicked Game.” They heterosexed Adam Lambert. Because gay people are scary! Michael Jensen at AfterElton.com is much less negative than me about this. (They had a lot of fun mocking the spread though.) I’m partial to the view of this blogger:

I don’t have any problem with him being gay, but I still think that Details made the editorial decision to wrap him up in this more hetero-sexualized image of a boob-lovin’ mysterious… bisexual, maybe? And it’s pretty clear he’s just straight-up gay. That I take issue with that, because it’s as if Details thinks their readership won’t respond if they made Adam pose with nude men, you know? Or maybe it was just a way of getting us to talk about their magazine. I don’t know. In Page Six this morning, Details editor-in-chief Dan Peres said: “Women obviously know he’s gay, but they are still crazy about him. He’s no Liberace. To put him with a beautiful female model felt absolutely right.” Uh… no.

Of course, Details has issues with the gays. They have a huge gay readership but they pretend like they don’t. It’s very odd.

I think many people expect Adam Lambert’s album to be a huge hit. It has amazing Amazon pre-sales and lots of buzz. I hope it is a huge. I hope he becomes a massive star. But Amazon pre-sales do not a multi-platinum album make. It’s much more complex than that. To become the hit people expect, singles from For Your Entertainment need radio play, and a lot of it. But I don’t think radio — either Clear Channel or un-Clear Top 40 radio or indy stations or the crass morning DJs — is going to help that happen. I think they’ll chase after the bandwagon when it’s already down the street, but they won’t help grease the wheels.

Oh, and “Time for Miracles” is out and available for purchase and download. Anyone hear it on the radio yet? I haven’t. It’s a serious question — I want to know. It’s only at #28 on the iTunes chart, though it’s at #16 on Amazon.com (as of 12:03pm PST on Saturday, October 24). Hmm. If there’s a god, it will be #1. But I’m worried.

UPDATE:

And this is the cover of the album. Zounds! As Andy Towle wrote, it’s “unabashedly gay.”

|                

The curse of freelance

In which I write a nasty letter to San Diego’s Office of Small Business after they absurdly demanded back taxes and fees for my tiny amount of freelance writing income…

Dear Meredith Dibden Brown:

Yesterday, I received a letter from you (at the Office of Small Business) informing me that I had to register my “business” with the City of San Diego, pay a $34 yearly fee to be registered with the City, pay an unexplained $17 fee for “zoning,” and pay $250.84 in late fees for not having registered for the three years previously. I am writing to complain about the City’s unethical behavior and to demand that all late fees be removed from my bill.

As ridiculous as it is that I have to pay $34 so that I may be allowed to earn a couple thousand dollars a year as a freelance writer and editor – yes, I’m taxed before I even earn a dime — I understand that the City’s coffers are empty after decades of incompetence and mismanagement, and someone has to pay! Why not force the victims of said incompetence and mismanagement?

That said, never informing self-employed residents that they had to register with the City and then using that lack of knowledge as way to force them to accrue late fees for three years is a gross abuse of taxation power. It is unethical and unconscionable.

I have lived in San Diego for nearly four years. I have paid my California taxes every year. I have declared myself as self-employed each year. When I called your office and asked why I was only informed now that I was supposed to register in 2006, I was told it was because the City only bothered to look for the information now. So, I am paying $250.84 because the City could not be bothered to ask the State who was declaring themselves self-employed and then to cross-reference those names with the City’s registry and then to inform those un-registered persons in a timely fashion that they owed registration fees. I am paying late fees because the City is incompetent in its collection of taxes.

Speaking of incompetence, the letter that you sent to me claims that San Diego Municipal Code §31.0110 “requires all business within its City limits to obtain a Business Tax Certificate.” This is not true. §31.0110 defines the terms of the code concerning Business Taxes. §31.0121 is the section of the code that “requires all business within its City limits to obtain a Business Tax Certificate.”

I would appreciate your swift response.

Sincerely,

Theodore K. Gideonse

Cc:
Councilmember Sherri Lightner
Mayor Jerry Sanders
City Attorney Jan Goldsmith

UPDATE: This blog post was twittered by none other than the local government editor of The San Diego Union-Tribune. He referenced Carl DeMaio’s opposition to the way the City is dealing with the tax, so I forwarded my letter to DeMaio. DeMaio wrote back within a couple days to say that he was hoping to create an amnesty program or make really small businesses, like mine, exempt. And: “You shouldn’t be fined for not knowing you need to register.” Lightner’s assistant wrote back to say they were looking into it.

I finally received an email back from the Office of Small Business last week. It was, to say the least, defensive. Here it is in its entirety:

Dear Mr. Gideonse:

Thank you for contacting the Office of the City Treasurer.

Section 31.0135 of the San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) states:

The City Treasurer is not required to send a notice or bill to any person subject to the provisions of this Article, and the failure to send such notice or bill shall not affect the validity of any fee or penalty due hereunder, or the duty of such person to pay required taxes.

Hence, it is the business owner’s/independent contractor’s responsibility to register with the Office of the City Treasurer prior to commencing business. Since the Business Tax assessment is a self-reporting tax, the City is not required to send notification to new businesses stating the tax is due. However, the City does provide business owners helpful information pertaining to the Business Tax application process. This information is available at the Office of the City Treasurer downtown, the six Community Service Centers located throughout the City, and the Office of Small Business which offers business start-up seminars, including information regarding the Business Tax certification process. In addition, IRS instructions to the Schedule C inform taxpayers of the potential tax liability. The fourth paragraph of the Schedule C instructions (see attachment) state: You may be subject to state and local taxes and other requirements such as business licenses and fees. Check with your state and local governments for more information.

Section 31.0131 of the SDMC also states the City can bill retroactively for up to three years with penalties for each year that the business was in operation. In addition to the penalties for delinquent payment, all small businesses (12 employees or less) that do not register or pay their taxes pay a non-compliance surcharge of $68.00, while large businesses (13 or more employees) pay $250.00. Note: Your account was not assessed the $68.00 surcharge.

All that considered, in order to more accurately assess whether you have a tax liability with the City, please address the following questions.

1. For how long have you been filing Form Schedule C – Profit or Loss From Business? Please specify year.

2. How often do you perform these freelance writing services within the City of San Diego on an annual basis? Please specify the average number of hours accrued annually?

3. Will you be filing Form Schedule C for the 2008 & 2009 tax years to report similar activities performed within the city limits of San Diego?

I look forward to your reply so I may assist you further.

Regards,

John R. Zurita
Business Tax Compliance Supervisor
Office of the City Treasurer
The City of San Diego
(619) 615-1516 (Phone)
(619) 533-3274 (Fax)

There are so many problems with Zurita’s letter, most glaring being its “you don’t know what you’re talking about, you stupid taxpayer” tone. This is how I responded:

Dear Mr. Zurita,

Thank you for your email.

As my email clearly shows, I have read the municipal code. I am well aware that your office did not break the law. But your reliance on the vague fine print of the Schedule C form is a rather disingenuous way of claiming that we were told of the law when we were clearly not. I have also read Lambert v. California, 355 U.S. 225 (1957), and your office should, too, since it states that punishing someone for the lack of knowledge of a municipal law for which knowledge of cannot reasonably be expected is a violation of the 14th Amendment. [Thanks, Jeff! –Ed.]

If your office actually wanted taxpayers to know about the law, it would have made sure that California tax forms clearly stated the law and it would have made sure that tax preparation software programs all collected the tax. But it did not. And the most popular, TurboTax, which I use, is made by a San Diego company, Intuit!

The law is written in such a way, and it is enforced in such a way, as to create the nonpayment of taxes in order for late fees to be accrued. So, I stand by my assertion that the tax collection behavior of your office is unethical and an abuse of taxation power.

That said, here are my answers to your questions:

1. For how long have you been filing Form Schedule C – Profit or Loss From Business? Please specify year.

I have been filing a Schedule C since 1997.

2. How often do you perform these freelance writing services within the City of San Diego on an annual basis? Please specify the average number of hours accrued annually?

Since I moved to San Diego, I have never spent more than 20 to 30 hours a year writing, editing, or teaching writing on a freelance basis. I am a full-time graduate student, and rarely make more than $20,000 a year. The only year that I made a profit from my 1099s was 2006, when I received $xxx in royalties for work done in previous years. For that year, my net profit was $xxx. In 2007, my net loss was $xxx. In 2008, my net loss was $xxx.

3. Will you be filing Form Schedule C for the 2008 & 2009 tax years to report similar activities performed within the city limits of San Diego?

Yes.

Sincerely,

Ted Gideonse

I do not expect the City to voluntarily do the right thing. I can only hope that DeMaio is able to change the policy.

UPDATE #2: I win! I win!

Dear Mr. Gideonse:

Based on the information you have provided, you do not have a tax liability with the City. Since you have stated that you have never spent more than 20-30 hours per year providing these services, you qualified for an exemption under SDMC § 31.0202 (Exceptions — Limited Duration Activities). Therefore, we have canceled Notice Number – B2009006659.

In an effort to increase Business Tax Compliance, the City of San Diego recently began utilizing data from the State Franchise Tax Board (FTB). The City presumes that a taxpayer is conducting business within its jurisdiction if the taxpayer filed a business return/form with the Franchise Tax Board and or Internal Revenue Service using a City of San Diego address. This data is an effective means for tax enforcement and is used by a majority of California municipalities. However, there are situations that arise where an income tax filer does not qualify as a business.

We apologize for any inconvenience caused by the receipt of the Notice of Tax Liability billing statement.

Should you have further questions, please feel free to contact me.

Regards,

John R. Zurita

And by the way, he cc-ed the email to Lightner’s assistant. Ha.

|          

I’m sure you were wondering how Donnie Davies and Luce Irigaray could be synthesized. Well, wonder no more!

In case you don’t obsessively read all of the professional gay blogs (they’re all listed in my blog roll in the middle of the page as “gay blogs”) then you may not be up on the controversy du jour among the fags online: Donnie Davies and his band Evening Service’s video “The Bible Says” and their ex-gay ministry Love God’s Way. Here’s the Technorati search.

[embedyt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MRWqlf_8M8[/embedyt]

Before I saw the video, I read a bunch of posts on how horrible and shocking and evil the song was. The refrain: “God hates a fag…” And how it proves how horrible and evil the Christian Right is. Then I saw the video. And the websites. It is so, so, so clearly satire. And brilliant satire at that. The night that I was Donnie Davies-obsessed was also the night that I was reading feminist theorizing on the body for my phenomenological anthropology class. It was sort like that old Reese’s advertisement when the chocolate bar and the peanut jar crash into each other. You got an ex-gay in my phenomenology! And so, I ended up writing my weekly 4 to 5 page paper (ugh) on the phenomenology of gaydar and the use of parody in feminist activist theory. Of course, I have posted the paper after the jump. I’m probably going to some sort of academic hell for writing it. (FYI: I did it very quickly.)

“So if you’re a fag, He hates you, too”:

Donnie Davies, the phenomenology of gaydar, and the feminist call for parody

Over the last several days, various gay bloggers have been linking to a music video of Donnie Davies and his band Evening Service performing their song “The Bible Says.” Filmed like a cross between a video of a run-of-the-mill country artist and a 1980s arena rock band like Night Ranger, it was full of images of Donnie praying, raising his arms like Jesus, and singing with a little too much gusto to appear to be “cool.” It looks like a Christian rock video. What most bloggers and their readers objected was the song’s refrain: “God hates a fag / God hates fags / God hates fags / So if you’re a fag, He hates you, too.” Before I saw the video, I read a number of posts about how deeply offensive the song and the Donnie were, how this proves how hateful the Religious Right could be. But then someone noticed that it was a little too over-the-top; it seemed like parody. Last night, there were nearly 200 comments on the popular gay blog JoeMyGod debating whether or not it was satire. Joe himself wrote, “I mean, COME ON, take a swishy bear [“bear” is gay slang for a husky, often hairy, gay man] in a PINK shirt and have him sing about fighting homo temptation? It’s GOLD, Jerry! And the line ‘To enter heaven, there’s no backdoor’? Priceless” (2007). For some the hints of satire were in the double entendre of the lyrics, but for others it was the way that Donnie moved, his gestures, his way-of-being that made him seem, well, gay. (Though this latter observance would not necessarily mean that he was joking, considering that he states on his website that he is a “reformed” homosexual.) Because I have been reading feminist theorizing on the body all week, I thought, well, yes, Donnie moves gay-ly; our interpretation, my interpretation that he is gay, that he cannot be anything but gay, arises out of culturally, historically embedded notions of the male and female body, notions that have only somewhat changed (even if they have been complicated) by the feminist intervention.

First, let’s look at a possible reason for why so many self-identified gay viewers—gay bloggers and their gay readers—would so readily identify “gay” behavior. If we take for granted Sheets-Johnstone’s belief that “movement forms the I that moves before the I that moves forms movement” (1999:138, italics in the original) as well as Foucault’s that “Discipline produces subjected and practiced bodies, ‘docile bodies'” (1975:138), then we can theorize that certain behaviors, certain ways-of-being can be unconsciously learned or appropriated before a conscious understanding of the cultural connotations of that behavior. Boys who grow up to self-identify as gay often over-identify with their mothers. (Freud thought that an overbearing mother and a distant father caused a child to become gay, but most psychologists now believe that it is a child’s inherent gayness, whatever that might be, that scares the father into withdrawal; the mother smothers as overcompensation.) Effeminacy, the “feminine” behavior of men, can then be taken as behavior that is appropriated by the child by copying the behavior of his mother. The mother is not deliberately disciplining him to behave as she does, but her constant presence is nevertheless de facto discipline. Sheets-Johnstone says that we move before we think we can move. Effeminacy, then, except when done deliberately as camp, as it often is in Western gay culture, is an unconscious habitus-like movement, mimicry of “feminine” behavior. Once they reach adulthood, most gay men are keenly aware of how their behavior is interpreted. In order to pass, we will consciously sublimate whatever seems to be feminine in our movement and our speech; we become “the I that moves forms movement.” This constant policing of our behavior makes us particularly observant of effeminacy in others. Hence “gaydar.”

One of the projects of the original gay rights movement (not the current, mainstreaming assimilationist movement) was the de-tabooing of effeminacy and the deconstruction of the hostility to the effeminacy of gay men. Effeminacy is upsetting and taboo because it is a merging of female behavior with the male body. As Mary Douglas theorized 40 years ago in Purity and Danger (1966), “uncleanness is matter out of place” (40). Thus: Homosexuality (re: effeminacy) is disgusting. This attitude is based on a highly essentialist view of the innateness of the male and female, a Cartesian dualism embedded in modern philosophy and belief. As Grosz writes, “Dichotomous thinking necessarily hierarchizes and ranks the two polarized terms so that one becomes the privileged term and the other its suppressed, subordinated, negative counterpart” (1994:4). Male behavior is considered rational, while female behavior is emotional. Mixing the male body with female behavior is disconcerting. (And as Irigary says in “Any Theory of the ‘Subject,’ it is this disconcerting-ness that can be revolutionary. It is “better to speak only in riddles…” she writes. And she does. (143)) These attitudes are not only used against homosexuals and homosexual behavior but also against men who show themselves as “feminine.” Men who are nurturing (like women), who cry (like women), who react emotionally (like women) are seen a weak, unfit, unmanly. Grosz explains,

Relying on essentialism, naturalism and biologism, misogynist thought confines women to the biological requirements of reproduction…women are somehow more biological, more corporeal, and more natural than men. The coding of femininity with corporeality in effect leaves men free to inhabit what they (falsely) believe is a purely conceptual order while at the same time enabling them to satisfy their (sometimes disavowed) need for corporeal contact through their access to women’s bodies and services. (14)

And from where do our notions of femininity come? Kristeva shows that at least some (if not most) come from the Christian idolatry of Mary, of the belief that women must be Mary, the virgin mother. Maternal behavior is what is correct for women.

Irigaray’s call for an ethics of sexual difference, for a renewed sense of “wonder” of the other sex (“Sexual Difference,” 13), would not solve the problem. It keeps the binary that, as Grosz writes, “hierarchizes and ranks.” As Weiss explains, “What Grosz is calling for… is more of an ethics of sexual differences rather than an Irigarayan ethics of sexual difference. The former suggest that there are an infinite number of ways for sexual difference to be establish and express, the latter invokes (however unintentionally) a more monolithic, binary conception of sexual difference” (1999:84). Weiss later contends that we need “new morphological fantasies in order to combat self-imposed as well as socially imposed limitations on our own body images” (86). This is reminiscent of Judith Butler’s call for making gender trouble (in Gender Trouble), for disrupting notions of gender performance (and therefore gendered being), through drag (1990). It is the disconcerting-ness that causes people to question, to become “the I that moves forms movement.” She advocates parody of gender performance as activism. Donnie Davies is, probably unknowingly, taking up Weiss and Butler’s call. Just this morning, the busy bloggers found a picture of someone who looks exactly like Davies on the website of a talent agency. “Davies” is a professional comedic actor. His parody of a “reformed homosexual” and Christian bigot, possibly unknowingly, does exactly what Weiss and Butler desire: subversion, disruption of performance, a “[recognition and affirmation of] the power of individual agency in the construction of, deconstruction, and reconstruction of the very terms of corporeality” (ibid).

Works cited:

  • Butler, Judith. 1990. Gender Trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
  • Davies, Donnie and Evening Standard. 2007. “The Bible Says.” Music video. www.eveningservice.com.
  • Douglas, Mary. 1966. Purity and Danger: An analysis of the concepts of pollution and taboo. New York: Routledge.
  • Grosz, Elizabeth. 1994. Volatile Bodies: Toward a corporeal feminism. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
  • Irigaray, Luce. 1985 (1974). ”Any Theory of the ’Subject’ Has Always Been Appropriated by the ’Masculine.’” In Speculum: Of the other woman, trans. Gilllian C. Gill, 133-146. Cornell, NY: Cornell University.
  • Irigaray, Luce. 1991 (1984). ”Sexual Difference.” In The Irigaray Reader, ed. M. Whitford, 165-177. Oxford: Blackwell.
  • Jervis, Joe. 2007. “God Hates Fags: The Musical.” Joe. My. God. January 23. http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2007/01/god-hates-fags-musical_23.html.
  • Sheets-Johnstone, Maxine. 1990. The Primacy of Movement. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
  • Weiss, Gail. 1998. Body Images: Embodiment as intercorporeality. New York: Routledge.
|