Adam Lambert stands tall

[Flashy]

What an interesting read.

I saw someone mention the number of openly gay musicians who suffered no ill within their careers through them being gay, and it made me think just how open they were when they were starting out.

I picked a few names from the list:

Lou Reed - Went through electroconvulsive therapy as a teen to cure him of his homosexuality - open about sexuality
David Bowie - first release in 1967, admitted his sexuality 7 years later (after a further 6-7 releases)
Michael Stipe - first release (R.E.M) in 1983, didn't officially make his sexuality known until 1997, 14 years later.
George O'Dowd - first release in 1987, and while calling himself bi-sexual in several interviews in his early career, hid his on-going relationship with Jon Moss, and didn't come out as gay until 2008.
Elton John - First release in 1969, and 7 years later announced his bi-sexuality, only to renounce it later in 1984 and announce himself as gay.
George Michael - First release in 1983, and though his sexuality was known to some within the business during the days of Wham! it was kept secret from the public, it wasn't until the incident of 1998 in LA where he was caught with another man that the questions were finally answered, and not by any choice of his own.

So if we're being completely accurate, the previous posts aren't exactly factual, since several listed had very fruitful careers before coming out and being "openly gay"

actually, i said openly gay or "bi"...so this post is not completely factual, kotch :smile:

and Bowie admitted it in 1972 inMelody Maker, not in 1974...[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]“Yes, of course I'm gay, and always have been.” (he was married at the time)
(he later modified that in 1976)

Bowie, even though his first release was 1967, did not begin to gain notoriety til 69 with Space Oddity...even then, his rise to major fame, coincided with his adoption of Glam and then the Ziggy Stardust persona, in 1970-1972 which was right around the time be made his admissions about sexuality...so, in fact the major portion of his career, and the most important part of it, were as an openly Bi and gay male.

Stipe never felt the need to be official, though he admitted he was BI way before 1997:

[/FONT] "I was being made to be a coward about it, rather than someone who felt like it really was a very private thing,"

In previous interviews Stipe had said he did not think of himself as straight, gay or bisexual and had been in relationships with both men and women, saying: "I'm an equal-opportunity lech."



-George Michael, while he never admitted it, was know throughout the industry to be gay all the way back to Wham....and everyone assumed it anyway.




as for Elton John, though he announced it in 76 in the RS interview, he intimated in that famous Rolling Stone interview that he would have said it earlier had someone had the balls to ask him:

(after his admission 5 questions before in the magazine, of bisexuality etc.)
RS - A lot of readers will go, Wow.
"Well, I don't think so, there shouldn't be too much reaction but you probably know those things better than me. Nobody's had the balls to ask me about it before. I would have said something all along if someone had asked me, but I'm not going to come out and say something just to be -- I do think my personal life should be personal. I don't want to shove it over the front pages like some people I could mention. To be on the front of newspapers with my tongue down somebody's throat. That's really appalling.

Cover Story: Elton John: It's Lonely at the Top: Elton John : Rolling Stone

 

[Flashy]

Mr. Snakey. I don't know if you're gay or not but if you're not you cannot possibly have the perspective or spin on this thing a gay man has. It's real and it's there. It's that kiss that sealed the level of "offense" taken by so many. Nothing else.
But I'm awfully glad Lambert did it. I repeat; he's an activist. And he knows just how to get his point across and promote his career. It's genius.

If you are a gay man and don't see the reality behind this controversy I'd say your head's buried nicely in the sand.

Flashy ?

You're tireless. I've not read your endless efforts to attack and contradict every last opinion I have since it accomplishes nothing but more of same. It's your style that's offensive. You appear mannerless to me and that, for this writer, is intolerable.

Stronzo?

LOL.

"he's an activist. And he knows just how to get his point across and promote his career. It's genius."

LOL.

oh yeah, he's a real activist....and it is about as "genius" as releasing a sex tape, or an actress wanting publicity who wears a sheer blouse to a premier, knowing it will be transparent when the flashbulbs go off, and Lo! she is not wearing a bra beneath and her breasts are exposed! Oh! Shock! how avant garde.

it is nothing more than a cheap stunt, par for the course in these days of disposable fame.

it is a par for the course, cheap, pathetic and obvious stunt to get publicity...not genius.

he got what he wanted...publicity...and it is still cheap and lame.

you can chalk up your "genius" as just another in a long line of cheap stunt artists...after all, he came from a Reality TV type show...and that is the nature of it. cheap, obvious, mediocre and common.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Once again Flashy since you appear to have a compulsion. Try, please, this time to understand what I'm writing:

I'm intentionally not reading your posts. I haven't for easily your last six or seven. I only see that you've posted and respond to say (one more time with feeling ) you lack manners and rather than get into a personal back and forth with you I choose not to read what you write since it will be more of same. If it makes you feel better to blather on incessantly do so by all means. But you're only entertaining yourself.

Here's a suggestion. I'd be interested in receiving a pm from you (rather than subject the board to this) outlining why you've decided to land so angrily on me personally. I don't recall you from prior to my reinstatement. We have no history. Is this your manner of address with all posters with whom you disagree? I've heard from another poster that your style is often bombastic but this is nuts man. You just seem out of control.

I'd prefer not to be at odds with you. That's why I've stopped reading your posts. You seem bright enough but the name calling and personal stuff is unwarranted and reduces your posts to illegitimacy for that alone.

I guess you're a "last word" kinda guy huh?

Shoot me a pm. I'd be interested in civilily ironing out our differences so we can post (when even we disagree) respectfully toward one another. Are you equal to it? I'm earnestly trying to offer you an olive branch here my man.

Please take me up on it.

What an interesting read.

I saw someone mention the number of openly gay musicians who suffered no ill within their careers through them being gay, and it made me think just how open they were when they were starting out.

I picked a few names from the list:

Lou Reed - Went through electroconvulsive therapy as a teen to cure him of his homosexuality - open about sexuality
David Bowie - first release in 1967, admitted his sexuality 7 years later (after a further 6-7 releases)
Michael Stipe - first release (R.E.M) in 1983, didn't officially make his sexuality known until 1997, 14 years later.
George O'Dowd - first release in 1987, and while calling himself bi-sexual in several interviews in his early career, hid his on-going relationship with Jon Moss, and didn't come out as gay until 2008.
Elton John - First release in 1969, and 7 years later announced his bi-sexuality, only to renounce it later in 1984 and announce himself as gay.
George Michael - First release in 1983, and though his sexuality was known to some within the business during the days of Wham! it was kept secret from the public, it wasn't until the incident of 1998 in LA where he was caught with another man that the questions were finally answered, and not by any choice of his own.

So if we're being completely accurate, the previous posts aren't exactly factual, since several listed had very fruitful careers before coming out and being "openly gay"

You never fail to amaze me. Spot on target.

I simply grow tired of battling heterosexual male denial especially when same refuse to admit they could possibly be the culprits in all this. You'll note Kotch that not one woman has commented in the negative toward Lambert. It's the heterosexual male who most vehemently comments to state "offense" at Adam's Lambert's AMA performance. This is no accident. It only reinforces the male hetero fear of losing control. Boys? You lost it ages ago. You just haven't realized that by-in-large the female intellect is brighter and more evolved than the male.

**tellingly I'll inform you that here on American television even the morning show which did feature him showed Madonna kissing Britney Spears open-mouthed during that performance from several years ago without censor of any sort. However the same network within thirty seconds showed the clip of Lambert's same sex kiss but blurred the two men's faces. WTF?

How much more transparent can this imbalance be?

Glad you weighed in Kotchanski.

 

[thadjock]

damn,

why can't gay kids get a role model instead of a freak show?

 

[ZOS23xy]

Adam Lambert. Uninteresting, as most American Idol material is. There's plenty of room for the soon to be has beens.

 

[thadjock]

Adam Lambert. Uninteresting, as most American Idol material is. There's plenty of room for the soon to be has beens.

speakin of has-beens, where the hell is that chris allen dude? he's been AWOL since the show ended.

didnt' he win the fukin thing?

AI is only good at producing one thing,

billions for simon and his lackeys.

finding real talent?.....not so much.

 

[ZOS23xy]

speakin of has-beens, where the hell is that chris allen dude? he's been AWOL since the show ended.

didnt' he win the fukin thing?

AI is only good at producing one thing,

billions for simon and his lackeys.

finding real talent?.....not so much.

...and William Hung.

 

[B_Stronzo]

damn,

why can't gay kids get a role model instead of a freak show?

one reason and one reason only;

Only trailblazers like Adam Lambert have the balls to live their truths honestly and openly.

 

[thadjock]

one reason and one reason only;

Only trailblazers like Adam Lambert have the balls to live their truths honestly and openly.

uhh...ya,... i was referring to AL as said freak show.

 

[Flashy]

one reason and one reason only;

Only trailblazers like Adam Lambert have the balls to live their truths honestly and openly.

LOL


a "trailblazer", in case you did not know, Stronzo, is defined as:

"An innovative leader in a field; a pioneer"


David Bowie already blazed this trail 37 years ago...but nice try...again.

 

[Flashy]

Once again Flashy since you appear to have a compulsion. Try, please, this time to understand what I'm writing:

I'm intentionally not reading your posts. I haven't for easily your last six or seven. I only see that you've posted and respond to say (one more time with feeling ) you lack manners and rather than get into a personal back and forth with you I choose not to read what you write since it will be more of same. If it makes you feel better to blather on incessantly do so by all means. But you're only entertaining yourself.

Here's a suggestion. I'd be interested in receiving a pm from you (rather than subject the board to this) outlining why you've decided to land so angrily on me personally. I don't recall you from prior to my reinstatement. We have no history. Is this your manner of address with all posters with whom you disagree? I've heard from another poster that your style is often bombastic but this is nuts man. You just seem out of control.

I'd prefer not to be at odds with you. That's why I've stopped reading your posts. You seem bright enough but the name calling and personal stuff is unwarranted and reduces your posts to illegitimacy for that alone.

I guess you're a "last word" kinda guy huh?

Shoot me a pm. I'd be interested in civilily ironing out our differences so we can post (when even we disagree) respectfully toward one another. Are you equal to it? I'm earnestly trying to offer you an olive branch here my man.

Please take me up on it.


.

actually stronzo, i think you are full of shit, which is why i confront you openly in public.

i will be at odds with you, as long as you are out here *PUBLICLY* posting your bullshit. if you do not expect to be confronted when you blather on in public, maybe *YOU* should not do it publicly, and should state your opinion only via PM.

as long as you are blathering in public, you will be confronted in public.

the name calling towards you, is warranted, and i have seen you do it in the past....not to mention, your incessant whining and myopia warrants you being called what you are when you behave like that.

this is not, in fact my manner of address with all posters with whom i disagree...just you...and others of your ilk. I have plenty of disagreements, sometimes vehemently, but i can always find a common ground. I point to VinylBoy, someone i have had numerous disagreements with in the past, to a massive degree, and there are still, things that we can agree on, and have a "wink wink" moment.

you however, are a completely different sort. You only like people when they agree with you, and the second they don't, no matter what degree, you go nuts.

you say you have received a PM that this is my "bombastic style" and you think i "just seem out of control."

that is rather amusing...because i have received *DOZENS* of PM's about you in the past couple of months, about what a lunatic you are, and not to even bother debating you because of your absurdity...the list is endless, and reads like a novel of people you have pissed off, pissed on, annoyed, lambasted and whined about, not to mention, frustrated and infuriated to no end.

i suspect you know some of their names but certainly not all...and i suspect that the you do not know the many many others here who have such a low opinion of you, despite the high one you hold of yourself.

from mods, to newbies, to veterans to the departed, you are one of the most reviled posters on here, so spare me the hurt, babe-in-the-woods routine.

let me end this post to you, with a brief song, from a wonderful movie, called "Forgetting Sarah Marshall"...i shall improvise your name, in place of the name "peter" from the movie.

it goes like this:

Everybody hates you...everybody wishes that you were dead
Cause Stronzo you suck, Stronzo you suck,
Stronzo, you don't do anything of value


that is my response to you...and i am fully in control of it.

 

[Pecker]

Okay, Flashy and Stronzo - take your argument off the board, please, to PM or e-mail or IM.

Just not here.

 

[B_Stronzo]

Okay, Flashy and Stronzo - take your argument off the board, please, to PM or e-mail or IM.

I quote from my previous post:

Shoot me a pm. I'd be interested in civilily ironing out our differences so we can post (when even we disagree) respectfully toward one another. Are you equal to it? I'm earnestly trying to offer you an olive branch here my man.

Please take me up on it.

Ain't my argument. And in spite of all I'm trying to assuage him Pecker. I have no argument/quarrel with him. But I don't particularly like being chased around the board. It's disconcerting. I've purposely NOT read the last (at least) six of his posts as not to respond.

If you scroll back (see my quote above) you'll see I've extended an olive branch when I've no clue why he pursues me around the board. To date I have not heard a word in private from the fellow. I have no desire to be in a back and forth with anyone at LPSG. But I think it only reasonable one expect another poster to be civil.

Last I knew this

actually stronzo, i think you are full of shit, which is why i confront you openly in public.

was against ToS.

...i was referring to AL as said freak show.

Yes. I understood that. I have a rather sound grasp of what I read.

 

[ZOS23xy]

Anyway, Adam Lambert is lame. There are many many people out there with talent who can't get beyond a certain point, work hard as hell and still get nowhere. Then this twink from a "talent" show gets all the glory. He's just a vocalist. Doesn't write songs and doesn't play an instrument. He does know how to co-ordinate his eye liner....

 

[catman]

If Dr. Frank-n-furter (aka Tim Curry) had a grandson....might he look like Adam Lambert?

Discuss...

 

[B_Stronzo]

no more or less than he'd look like the late not-so-great Elvis Presley Catman...

He does know how to co-ordinate his eye liner....

Not so subtly homophobic...

Those we can not deal with we must annihilate eh ZOS?

He's just a vocalist.

So's Streisand, Mick Jagger, the late Shirley Horn and Astrud Gilberto... yet for some odd reason it's unacceptable with Lambert.

He's working his celebrity and his showmanship for all it's worth. Frank Sinatra couldn't "play an instrument" either yet millions appeared not to give a shit...

Next?

 

[ZOS23xy]

no more or less than he'd look like the late not-so-great Elvis Presley Catman...



Not so subtly homophobic...

Those we can not deal with we must annihilate eh ZOS?



So's Streisand, Mick Jagger, the late Shirley Horn and Astrud Gilberto... yet for some odd reason it's unacceptable with Lambert.

He's working his celebrity and his showmanship for all it's worth. Frank Sinatra couldn't "play an instrument" either yet millions appeared not to give a shit...

Next?

I'll deal with this line of thought after his CD bombs and he can't get work.

Mick Jagger writes songs. Streisand has done this too. Sinatra was a talented actor. These folks worked hard for many many years. They didn't take off after a few weeks of AI exposure.

My view has been tempered by a few folks I know who have gotten record deals and can't record what they would like to public to hear.

Meantime, I'll settle back and listen to the Kinks, Super Furry Animals, The Fugs, Sheila Chandra, Billy C . Wirtz, Asylum Street Spankers...people who wouldn't get a toehold on AI...

What I cannot deal with I give my reasons for. Maybe you should check out and review that AI movie, FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY sometime...

 

[deleted15807]

There are many many people out there with talent who can't get beyond a certain point, work hard as hell and still get nowhere.

And why year after year we need to churn out yet another 'Idol' is beyond me.

 

[B_Stronzo]

I'll deal with this line of thought after his CD bombs and he can't get work.

Mick Jagger writes songs. Streisand has done this too. Sinatra was a talented actor. These folks worked hard for many many years. They didn't take off after a few weeks of AI exposure.

My view has been tempered by a few folks I know who have gotten record deals and can't record what they would like to public to hear.

Meantime, I'll settle back and listen to the Kinks, Super Furry Animals, The Fugs, Sheila Chandra, Billy C . Wirtz, Asylum Street Spankers...people who wouldn't get a toehold on AI...

What I cannot deal with I give my reasons for. Maybe you should check out and review that AI movie, FROM JUSTIN TO KELLY sometime...

Let's give the Idol folks time. I feel the same way about the "... 's Got Talent series. Susan Boyle and the Welsh tenor Paul Potts would not have been discovered if not for the format.

You and I obviously have different taste in music. The Kinks are the only musicians I recongnize in your list. And in truth I don't find them listenable.

American Idol serves as a venue for individuals who easily would not have any other opportunity to showcase their talent. Must we dismiss them all out of hand?

That, in my view, is scathingly unfair.

 

[ZOS23xy]

No it isn't. It s my viewpoint. I suggest you go find a Sheila Chandra video on Youtube and watch and listen.