Adam Lambert’s OUT MAGAZINE Controversy

Soooo … by now I assume you all have heard and read the OUT MAGAZINE interviews (read Part 1, and Part 2) and been entertained by the Letter to Adam, by Out Magazine’s Aaron Hicklin, complaining about Interview Guidelines. If you have not – read in full below. If you have, scroll to the end of this letter to read more from me.

From Aaron Hicklin, Editor in Chief of Out Magazine — who had Adam on their cover and which Adam did a two-part interview for the *Honor* of being Out 100 Breakout Honoree of the Year.

Dear Adam,

I like you, I really do. Although I’d never watched American Idol, I became a fan this year thanks to your unapologetic flamboyance and sexual swagger. It was refreshing to see someone playing by his own rules among so many cookie-cutters. And although you narrowly lost to Kris Allen, you were the real winner for those of us who saw your success as a test of America’s growing tolerance. That’s why we’re proud to have you in this year’s Out 100, along with all the other men and women who don’t believe their sexuality should be a barrier to success. It’s unfortunate, therefore, that your record label and management don’t share the same view.

We’re curious whether you know that we made cover offers for you before American Idol was even halfway through its run. Apparently, Out was too gay, even for you. There was the issue of what it would do to your record sales, we were told. Imagine! A gay musician on the cover of a gay magazine. What might the parents think! It’s only because this cover is a group shot that includes a straight woman that your team would allow you to be photographed at all — albeit with the caveat that we must avoid making you look “too gay.” (Is that a medical term? Just curious). Luckily, you seemed unaware that a similar caution was issued to our interviewer.

Perhaps we should have had you and Cyndi in a tongue lock. That would be radical. It’s odd, because this magazine has done covers with Pete Wentz and Lady Gaga — getting straight men and women to do Out is easy these days. It gives them cred. Getting gay stars like yourself is another matter. Much easier to stick you in Details, where your homosexuality can be neutralized by having you awkwardly grabbing a woman’s breast and saying, “Women are pretty.” So are kittens, Adam, but it doesn’t mean you have to make out with them. Imagine how much more radical it would have been to go down on a guy instead of that six-foot Barbie. We don’t think you would have a problem with that — why should you? — but your record label would, and letting them dictate the terms is the very opposite of rock ’n’ roll. And did you read the article? You would think your entire fan base was made up of women and heterosexual men, or “straight dudes” as the writer describes them, just so we can all be clear. No mention of your gay fans, which is kind of disappointing, don’t you think, given what your success represents?

We don’t want to sound ungrateful — you agreed to do our cover, and your interview is gracious and frank — but if the Out 100 has a purpose it’s to challenge the kind of apartheid that lays down one rule for gay mags and one for all others. We think you probably feel the same way — you even say as much — so we don’t mean to diminish your achievements this year. That’s why you’re in this issue. You’re a pioneer, an out gay pop idol at the start of his career. Someone has to be first, and we’re all counting on you not to mess this up. You have to find your own path and then others can follow. We just hope it’s a path that’s honest and true and that you choose to surround yourself with people who celebrate your individuality. The irony is that right now it would be easier to get Kris Allen to do a solo cover shoot for us. But only because he’s straight.

Aaron Hicklin, Editor in Chief

**********************************************************************

So I hear there’s a lot of controversy regarding this Letter.

Let me now post the response by the author of the Out article, Shana Naomi Krochmal, to all the comments in Adam’s defense.

[Editor's note: Already, in less than 24 hours, the incredible response to our interview with Adam Lambert -- and our Editor in Chief Aaron Hicklin's open letter to Adam -- has made a few things clear: 1) His fan base is awesomely, ferociously dedicated to the singer and 2) perhaps there is some confusion surrounding the intention and/or overall point of Hicklin's letter.

In an effort to shine a bit of a brighter light on the subject, the author of the interview with Lambert (Part One can be read here and Part Two can be read here), Shana Naomi Krochmal, penned the following to address some of the literally thousands of comments that have been already left all over the Internet regarding this story.]

Let’s get the most obvious thing out of the way first: Yes, it is totally absurd to imagine that anyone thinks they can somehow control or manage how gay Adam Lambert seems on any given day. You’ve seen him, right? Maybe read an interview with him? That’s exactly what I love about Adam, that in addition to being able to sing his face off (his words), he is defiantly, outrageously campy and queer — and that he seems to have such a sense of humor about it, and a willingness to shake things up.

That said: Despite plenty of back and forth between the magazine and the label about the cover and the photo shoot, I still wasn’t prepared for what happened when I showed up at the 19 Entertainment offices for the interview. I briefly met Adam, and then the publicist and I walked out to the balcony, at which point I was cautioned against making the interview “too gay,” or, “you know, gay-gay.” Specifically I was discouraged from asking about the March on Washington that upcoming weekend or other political topics. I pointed out the difference between the Advocate, Out’s sister newsmagazine, and Out, which is more broadly a men’s fashion and lifestyle book, but obviously made no promises one way or the other. It was pretty awkward, as if we were discussing two totally different people — an Adam who doesn’t seem to have any real filter when talking about his life or his opinions, and an Adam who could somehow be contained, made safe for mainstream America.

When Adam joined us, the publicist left, and Adam and I sat down for a little over an hour on our own. You can read a transcript of Part One here and Part Two here. (It was very lightly edited, mostly to remove blathering set-up for questions on my part or redundant or vague discussion of an album that, in early October, didn’t even contain a track listing.) He clearly has no trouble expressing himself on any issue, be it political, cultural, sexual or musical.

I still wish I’d been more surprised when I was met with such a ludicrous and offensive request. I am a journalist. I ask questions. Out is a magazine whose primary audience is gay men. Is anyone confused about that? I’ve been doing this for a long time and though I’ve been generically warned in a similar fashion before — “let’s make it upbeat and fun!” reps often say, or “just talk about the album/movie/TV show!” — it’s never been quite so egregious or with such an obvious expectation that I would comply.

When I filed my piece I included in the email what happened that day, and like Aaron’s letter from the editor, it was full of anger. (Aaron at least has the excuse of being British, and in my experience when he’s pissed off, everything he writes sounds more formal.) This is our profession, as much as Adam’s is singing and entertaining. A decision to celebrate and respect that talent is why none of the circumstances surrounding the interview were mentioned in my piece within the actual portfolio.

I think Aaron’s very right to point out that this scenario — a pop star at this level out from the get-go — is basically unprecedented. I’ve seen such striking change in even the last two or three years of how comfortable industry gatekeepers and their clients are in handling such new territory. We’re witnessing a changing of the guard, and it’s bound to overlap a bit in the middle, creating these strange moments where we work with both proudly out stars and their reluctant handlers, sometimes at odd with each other even when they have the same ultimate goals. I’m sorry it happened like this, too. But I’m looking forward to Adam Lambert having a long career, and to him proving every single one of us wrong in one way or another.

Right now I’m going to go back to what every other Adam fan is also doing today: listening to his album streaming on his MySpace page.

– SHANA NAOMI KROCHMAL

**********************************************************************

Okay –

Dear Aaron and Shana,

I really don’t see what all the big stink is.

Adam doesn’t owe you a damn thing. He doesn’t owe us a damn thing. Be thankful he, and his label, and his *people* agreed to do the interview and be on your cover in the first place so your magazine could make sales in this struggling economy. Don’t tell me your magazine doesn’t need Adam’s help, either … every business could use a boost. I’m sure he was your golden ticket this issue.

Adam, his label, and his *people* are allowed to put constraints on the interview and your presentation of Adam’s reputation. He is, afterall, their investment and – essentially – their golden egg. And that’s okay because he signed with them. They are beneficial to each other. Sure, he may be an open book, but that doesn’t mean you should disrespect, or exploit, him for the sake of magazine sales and journalistic ladder-climbing. You may think you should be able to ask him absolutely anything at all – but – uummm ….. no. Sorry. You can ask him professional questions. You can ask him boundary-respecting personal questions. Gay rag, or not, you really shouldn’t be prying into his sexploitations. Unless you wanna bang him yourself. In that case … hit on him after the interview. See if he responds. If not – fuck off.

Two points in question:   “… albeit with the caveat that we must avoid making you look “too gay.” (Is that a medical term? Just curious)” and “I was cautioned against making the interview “too gay,” or, “you know, gay-gay.” Specifically I was discouraged from asking about the March on Washington that upcoming weekend or other political topics.” Hhmmmm …. I do think it’s possible for you to make someone look “too gay” or “gay-gay.” As you said yourself, Adam is “defiantly, outrageously campy and queer — and that he seems to have such a sense of humor about it, and a willingness to shake things up” … but hyping on that, exploiting that, focusing on that – may make him appear in a way he, himself, doesn’t wish to be portrayed. It’s his decision how to navigate his life and career. He’s obviously comfortable being who he is … however gay that may be – we all love him just the same. Your reference to an Adam/GaGa tour, “Would it be the gayest tour ever?” WTF was THAT question about?? Yea – that’s what his team meant by the interview being “too gay.” No one asks two male hetero bands touring together if its gonna be the High Testosterone Tour. Dumb question – Dumbass. Adam has said numerous times that he doesn’t want to be the Face of Gays. He’s also too smart to market himself to one population by making himself unavailable to other populations. There is a way to stay true, while appealing to many. This is his career. A business. Not a platform to promote gayness. Adam wants to make music. Adam wants to entertain. Why would you then be planning on asking him about a gay march, or his political views and opinions about gay topics? Just because you’re a gay rag doesn’t give you the right to focus on his sexual identity. It doesn’t. Obviously his business team’s caution was necessary as your magazine had a gay agenda.

You say you respect Adam, and then you write this degrading, insinuating piece of crap:

Perhaps we should have had you and Cyndi in a tongue lock. That would be radical. It’s odd, because this magazine has done covers with Pete Wentz and Lady Gaga — getting straight men and women to do Out is easy these days. It gives them cred. Getting gay stars like yourself is another matter. Much easier to stick you in Details, where your homosexuality can be neutralized by having you awkwardly grabbing a woman’s breast and saying, “Women are pretty.” So are kittens, Adam, but it doesn’t mean you have to make out with them. Imagine how much more radical it would have been to go down on a guy instead of that six-foot Barbie. We don’t think you would have a problem with that — why should you? — but your record label would, and letting them dictate the terms is the very opposite of rock ’n’ roll.

Fuck you for dictating how gay, or not gay, Adam chooses to be. I’m sorry – but what gives you the authority, or the right – to question his actions? So Adam can’t think women are pretty? He can’t *not mind* kissing them? Why – cuz you don’t, or won’t? Perhaps he enjoys it. Your interview tells us Adam likes “pretty,” whether that pretty be on a man, or a woman – what difference does it make (“talks about his taste in men (hint: “pretty” is pretty important)“)? But you’re the authority on Adam’s all-telling sexual preference – sorry, I forgot. There are gay rules he must follow to be a part of the Club. Yea, okay. So respectful of you to tell him he should have gone down on a man for shock value instead of a tasteful photo spread with a beautiful woman. Personally, I’d be hot on either — as long as Adam was in it, too. And so would many in his legion of fans. Quite honestly, now it just sounds like you’re trying to create controversy to sell more magazines – at Adam’s expense. You can’t really have been that insulted by the professional – oh, excuse me, let me rephrase that to your words – ludicrous and offensive - requests made of you! Wow!

So your attempt to position Adam as the new, openly gay, and in-your-face spokesperson for homosexuals backfired. Go back to the drawing board, lamo’s.

P.S. Please tell me why Out Magazine, vying to be the front for all gay’s and ragging on Adam for – what you say – allowing his label to dictate his terms – needs to put straight people on their cover?? Is that an effort to mainstream amongst the controversy you cause? In an attempt to appease, and appeal to a wider audience …. to sell magazines? Sounds like it to me. Two-faced fuckers.

Adam’s final words: “My whole point is, I’m not trying to lead the fucking way for the civil rights movement that we’re in right now. … I think the whole magic of this moment is that I’m not alienating anybody. … One of the things that I don’t like about the gay community is that people define themselves by their sexuality — and that’s bullshit. …You don’t have to be any one thing. You can kinda just be. Just live your life — and play. “

Bite me, and bite Adam, too. He doesn’t need your rag … move along now. Your spotlights been shot down. Our boys gonna be jusss fiiiine!

P.P.S. Adam gave your writer a kickass interview. I think you own him a HUGE apology.

Genuinely,

~ AdamLambertSite

And this from ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY:

Entertainment Weekly: Let’s talk about the OUT magazine kerfuffle.
Adam Lambert: Isn’t that fun? [laughs]

We now know the behind-the-scenes dialogue between the magazine and your management team. The thing I’m curious about is, from your perspective, how does it feel to have your image managed by someone other than you?

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.

They’re gonna take away your laminated membership card.

Apparently. It’s just sexuality. We’re all very very different, just like all straight people are different.

Who told you that?

You know? That’s the thing. But the funny thing is, in order for us to progress, we need to stop segregating ourselves. And a letter like that, that viewpoint — the letter that Aaron wrote is holding us back. Because it’s recognizing the big difference as opposed to letting us all ignore preference and just be people. So I think in attempt to champion a cause he’s actually taking a big step backwards.

With things like the phrase “gay-gay”?

That was taken out of context. It was all taken out of context. And also, the other thing that I feel about it? If there are things going on behind the scenes with my management, it has nothing to do with my interview with them. He really crossed a line.

So now go check out Michael Slezak’s article regarding this whole bullshit controversy. Leave your thoughts below …

Rock-On Sexy!