What's with all the Lady GOGA?

It's always been my contention that female sexuality is far more fluid that male sexuality.  We've graduated from the days where lesbians were portrayed as psycho killers and have moved on to an era where the idea of lesbianism is primarily presented for the titillation of heterosexual men.  So, is it any wonder that we are bombarded with images of faux lesbianism in media?  From Chaka Khan and Patti LaBelle on the BET Awards to Miley Cyrus, female celebrities seem to be embracing their inner Lady G.O.G.A. (that's "girl on girl action" for the uninitiated.)

What Are the Rules for Celebrity Forgiveness?

A conversation I saw on Facebook caused me to think: what are the rules for celebrity transgression (and subsequent forgiveness)?  Last night's BET Awards featured performances by both Kanye West and Chris Brown.  For those who have been living under a pop culture rock, Kanye West famously interrupted Taylor Swift's acceptance speech at the MTV Music Awards and ended up looking like an asshole to just about everyone.

Fame Monster

Before I even start this post, I have to go on record saying that I am not a fan of Lady Gaga (or Lady Caca as many in the media call her).  I don't find her music particularly interesting or innovative.  What is innovative and interesting in many ways is the way in which she has creating the Gaga brand.  Let's not forget that before she created Lady Gaga, she was just a singer/songwriter toiling away trying to make it big (like thousands of people before and since her rise to fame). 



With a few crazy costumes and a danceable beat, she has become a worldwide phenomenon sparking college courses and treatises on her persona and female empowerment.  Now she's has even been banned from the Yankees' clubhouse and was accused of upstaging her sister's graduation while "attempting" to not upstage her.

On one hand, one could argue that Lady Gaga is in some ways eschewing the idea of a culture industry, developed by Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer which says that pop culture is an industry that produces standardized good for mass consumption, but that would only be true if she really pushed music forward and I don't believe she does that.  Perhaps she is pushing boundaries with her elaborate costumes, but one could argue that Sarah Jessica Parker's Carrie Bradshaw from Sex in the City accomplishes that as well with her often ridiculous outfits. What I think is really at work is that, to borrow her own words and use them against her, she's become a fame monster.

It seems that she just can't stay out of the spotlight. It seems the antics she tries to pull off as "just being Gaga" feel calculated for maximum publicity value.  What makes it grating for her and somewhat endearing for someone like Kathy Griffin is that at least Griffin will admit what she's doing.  Certainly, we (collectively speaking) are not without fault.  If we cease to buy magazines that print stories about Lady Gaga (and other celebrities) or watch the endless parade of newsertainment programs that report every detail of a celebrity's life, maybe it'd all just go away.           

Quote of the Day

"Oh, the gays are getting miffed! Don't tell us we're too gay or not or whatever. Oh lord, what is gay, anyway? Find me the line -- find me the defining line between gay and straight. Find me the defining line between male and female. There is no line. You cannot draw this line in the sand. Yes, there are plenty of people way over there who will never partake in anything straight and there are people way over there who will never partake in anything gay, but there's a whole lot of gray in the middle. Where's the line? Behind all of it is sexual insecurity. It's sexphobia."

-- Melissa Etheridge on the Newsweek "controversy" over Sean Hayes being "too gay" to play straight.

From "The Voice" to "Punchline"

How in the hell did Whitney Houston go from "The Voice" to (inter)national punchline?  While Maya Rudolph pales in comparison to Debra Wilson's Whitney Houston, the out of breath "Whitney" is Hi-Larious particularly given her (reportedly) horrible concert performances as of late.

WWW: The White Women's Workout; or So Funny, It's Kinda Sad

I saw this video and was torn -- it's actually laugh out loud funny, but also incredibly sad, particularly as I inhabit my black male skin daily.  Certainly media, including music, movies, television (both the news and television shows) and even art to a certain degree (and the Reagan administration) has helped to perpetuate the idea of the menacing black man.  But at the same time, this manages to skewer the sheer absurdity of a monolithic idea of black male menace (as well as monolithic ideas about any group of people).

Framing Homosexuality via Archie

The comic strip Archie announcing that it would introduce a gay character to Riverdale was met by me with a yawn. But then I saw this video and this video



and then I realized the damage that media can do and that homosexuality is (and will always be) othered in our allegedly unbiased media culture.

Why is the Prophet Mohammed Sacred in Media?

The question about the sacredness of the Prophet Muhammad in media is a fascinating one.  That is in no way a slam to Muhammad, but rather, it is interesting given the lack of scrutiny that has been given to other things on South Park including God and the Devil.  I don't know the answer, but this New York Times editorial is certainly worth reading.  It questions why the Prophet Muhammad is off limits (and many would argue that he should be) but God or the Devil or even Barbara Streisand and Tom Cruise, are/have been skewered by South Park.

The Thrill is Gone: The American Idol and Dancing with the Stars Backlash

Since the Industrial Revolution, our culture has been driven by consumerism and consumption.  VHS became passé so we culturally moved on to the "superior" DVD.  The same argument can  be made for American Idol and Dancing with the Stars this year.  For American Idol, my belief is that the argument holds true as early as Season 5, but I won't get into that.  I don't think American Idol's problem this year is a true lack of talent (there are certainly contestants on the show who have vocal talent) rather the problem is that culturally, we're simply over it.  The newness has worn off and American Idol has become just another reality show. 

It's All in the Context: Erykah Badu and Nudity

Erykah Badu has never been one to suppress her artistic side.  And she is making news for being "artistic" in her new music video for the lead single from her new CD The New Amerykah Pt. 2: Return of the Ankh.  In the video for Window Seat, Badu strips naked while walking through downtown Dallas to the site where JFK was assassinated before herself being assassinated and bleeding the word "group think"  then in a voiceover says:

"They who play it safe, are quick to assassinate what they don't understand.  They move in packs, ingesting more and more fear with every act of hate on one another. They feel more comfortable in groups, less guilt to swallow. They are us. This is what we have become, afraid to respect the individual."

Whose Side Are You On? Celebrity and the Culture of Binaries

We live in a world that is often black and white with no shades of gray. You're either for health care reform or against it. You either support war or you're unpatriotic. We are constantly asked to choose sides in our culture. But never is choosing sides more absurd than when it comes to celebrities. I was reminded of this penchant for the news media to choose sides and then in their reporting make us chose a side as well when I (begrudgingly) watched CNN last week. The "impartial, just delivering the news" anchor Kyra Phillips decided to call Jesse James, Sandra Bullock's husband, a jerk in the course of delivering the news that Sandra Bullock had moved out of the family home in Los Angeles. Kyra Phillips was definitely on Team Sandy.

It's not just limited to coverage of marital/relationship discord (although there are many examples like Team Jen or Team Angie) but also reared its head when we were to chose between Team Coco (Conan O'Brien) or Team Jay (Leno). What's puzzling is that we make these decisions in a knowledge vacuum. As Chris Rojek says in his brilliant book Celebrity "one peculiar tension in celebrity culture is that the arousal of strong emotion [for celebrities] is attained despite the absence of direct personal reciprocity." In other words, we refer to celebrities by first name or by nicknames yet we have so little knowledge about them that would offer us the license to refer to them on friendly terms. For example, Mariah Carey is Mimi, Jennifer Aniston is Jen and Sandra Bullock is Sandy (maybe it's a female thing?). In addition, we have unimonikered people in our culture who go by their first name only: Beyonce, Madonna and for some (or most) gay men when you hear Liza, Bette, Diana, Tina, or Barbara, there can be no doubt about the person being discussed.

There have been some pretty nasty things written about Tiger Woods in light of his extramarital affairs (as well as Jesse James and many other celebrities who have admitted to having sexual relationships with people with whom they are not attached). But the fact remains that we know nothing about them. Perhaps Tiger Woods and his wife had an agreement that sexual monogamy is not an important aspect of their marriage (like Mo'Nique and her husband) and the media's focus on the relationship is really about Elin being embarrassed that the sexual dalliances of her husband have come to light. Maybe Sandra Bullock isn't really America's Sweetheart and is a bear to live with who refused to have sex with her husband. I doubt this is the case with either Tiger Woods or Sandra Bullock, but it illuminates that we just don't have enough information to be able to make the call about who wins when Team Sandy is going head to head with Team Jesse, or Team Tiger vs. Team Elin.

This binary also speaks to the way in which our culture has socially constructed marriage and monogamy. Culturally, we give Mo'Nique the collective "side eye" when she says that one of the partner's "infidelity" is not necessarily a reason to dissolve the relationship -- particularly if we believe that about 50 percent of marriages in the US end in divorce. Who said marriage (or serious relationships for that matter) had to be based on monogamy? We have culturally tied something carnal (sex) to something emotional (love) when the two are not really related. Maybe it is for the best that we live in monogamous relationships, but it's our modern creation and it hasn't been around "forever." And even in the Mo'Nique monogamy situation, we're asked to be on Team Monogamy or Team Open Marriage. Stories on the Internet urge us to make a choice with titles like Are Open Relationships Better?, Is Mo'Nique's Open Relationship Sexist? and Do Open Relationships Equal Insecurity? As Matt Bianco asks us, whose side are you on?

American Caterwauling

"This... is American Caterwauling" should be the way Ryan Seacrest introduces American Idol.

What's become clear to me is that I watch American Idol for vastly different reasons than the producers of the show intend (in a nod to Stuart Hall's encoding/decoding). I like the show and watch, but it's not because I am looking for the next great artist, but because it is so ingrained in our pop culture sensibility that to not watch is to cut yourself off from the "water cooler sessions" the following morning. With the exception of Kelly Clarkson, Fantasia Barrino (which I bought and promptly sold at a used music store), Jennifer Hudson and Allison Iraheta, I've not purchased music from any other American Idol winner/finalist. The singers I like (and whose CDs I have purchased) all have one thing in common: they are belters.

I'll tackle the last point first. I like a good belter as much as the next gay, but American Idol has suffered from the desire to applaud singers who employ what I call vocal pyrotechnics. (I know, the argument could be made that Jennifer Hudson was given the boot relatively early, but Fantasia, another belter, went on to win the competition in one of the most mismatched American Idol finals in history). When a singer can hit a "glory note" that is reason for us to applaud him or her -- foregoing any sense of nuance related to singing. When someone sits and sings a slow song, it's deemed "sleepy" by the judges. But when someone like Season 9 contestant Siobhan Magnus hits notes, we stand up, cheer and take notice.

siobhan 12 @ Yahoo! Video

I admit, Siobhan delivered a WTF moment for me last night and we collectively forgot about most of the contestants who came before (or after) her because we have been trained to focus on things like, "wow, did you hear that note?" "he has a great falsetto," etc. rather than that was a really solid vocal. It seems that we want/expect "good singing" to be loud and long. In other words, can you hit a note and then make it last until we think you are within seconds of passing out from air deprivation? The thing most of us remember from Mariah Carey's early career is her ability to hit the "dog whistle" note, not that she is really a great singer and interpreter of music.

Sex and the Singing: American Idol and Gender

The real competition portion of American Idol starts tonight. As such, there has (for whatever reason) been a blitz of American Idol judges giving interviews about the show. One such interview was Randy Jackson appearing on the Ellen Degeneres Show. And while the interview was fairly inane one comment he made struck me: he said that they (the judges) wanted a girl to win this year. (Skip ahead to 1:50 in the video below)

And when you think about him favoring a girl to win and why he might say that, one only has to look at American Idol's track record. As Jon Caramanica points out in his New York Times piece, Idol's track record as a bonafide star-making machine has been spotty at best with Kelly Clarkson and Carrie Underwood the only winners who have emerged as real music stars. Other Idol successes include Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson (although her singing success has been eclipsed by her success as an actress). So, it's really no wonder that Randy Jackson wants a girl to win (and my guess is that he'd like a white girl to win since Idol's success with girls of color has not been stellar either; see Fantasia and Jordin Sparks).

Arguably, American Idol has become less of a singing contest and more of a vehicle for exposure, thanks in large part to contestants who haven't even cracked the top 24 (or 36) like William Hung and General Larry Platt, but most damaging have been Chris Daughtry and Jennifer Hudson who finished seventh and fourth respectively -- who proved that you don't have to be named the next American Idol in order to achieve success. Jennifer Hudson went on to win almost every acting award imaginable for her role in Dreamgirls and Chris Daughtry, as front man of the band Daughtry, was one of the most successful artists of 2007.

With those two glaring exceptions to the rule and other Idol winners (and runner-ups) being dropped from their labels and heading to Broadway (Fantasia in The Color Purple, Ruben Studdard in Ain't Misbehavin', Diana DiGarmo in a host of Broadway productions, and Taylor Hicks in Grease) it makes sense that Idol would want to try to capture any remaining music industry cred by having a bonafide star emerge from the show. The problem isn't talent -- the person who emerges victorious on American Idol can always sing (despite the efforts of websites like Vote For the Worst) but that most bonafide musicians aren't auditioning for the show. When those who are voted off the show (or any reality show for that matter) claim that we'll hear from them again, in most cases we won't. And for those who thank their fans when they are voted off, you don't really have any fans. You have spectators and as we've seen with American Idol winners, just because millions of people voted for you to win the competition, those same millions are not going to go out and buy your record.

Pop Culture and the Familiar: Take 2

Another example, courtesy of Entertainment Weekly, of Hollywood's constant recycling of ideas. Not only was The Last Dragon a terrible (if black cult classic) movie, and the argument can be made that Vanity couldn't act, so why not throw Rhianna at the film, but can we please get something new at the cineplex? Please?!?!?!?!?!?

Pop Culture and the Familiar

As consumers of pop culture and media we often decry that we want something new and unique -- something we haven't seen before. But our consumption practices often tell us differently. When I looked at the grosses for Broadway shows in New York for the past week, I was struck at how few shows are original. In fact, of the top 10 grossing shows, only one, In the Heights, is an original show. The top 5? Wicked (based on a book), The Lion King and Billy Elliot (based on a movies), West Side Story (revival and a retelling of Romeo and Juliet) and Jersey Boys (based on songs made famous by The Four Seasons). One could certainly argue that Broadway theater is hardly the barometer of taste and class, so let's look at movies.

Avatar was such a worldwide hit that we are going to get a second cup of Avatar. Despite being essentially called a cinematic crap fest by most critics, Valentine's Day beat expectations to be the number one film at the box office last week largely because we "know" the boldface stars whose names appear on the marquee. We are constantly subjected to movies based on books, stage musicals (mostly with little success) and remakes of old movies (see Eat, Pay, Love; Iron Man 2, and Alice in Wonderland, just to name a few).

We even see this replication of the old in music. We Are The World was remade to show support for Haiti, Alicia Keys "remade" Empire State of Mind without the rap from Jay-Z. And it extends outside of rap or R&B. Even Feist remade Nina Simone's See Line Woman as Sea Lion Woman (all in the pronunciation, I guess).





We often reject things that are new (contrary to the lip service we pay to wanting new things). With very few exceptions, television repeats the same formula. How many shows have we seen that employ the hot wife/sloppy husband construct? How many four female friends (the smart/witty one, the slutty one, the dumb one and the bitchy one) have we seen? Even one of my current favorite shows, Glee is a bit of a rehash in the sense that it is pretty close in premise to High School Musical.

All this is not to say that a rehash or cover or remake is inherently bad, but it does beg the question: where's all the new stuff that we are supposed to consume. Or maybe dissonance theory has it right because it asserts that new information causes people mental discomfort.

New Blog: American Idol and Celebrity Familiarity

First and foremost, the word "celebrity" is being used very loosely when talking about American Idol -- it is more appropriate to call them celetoids because their fame is most often compressed and concentrated. More brilliantly put (thanks to Chris Rojek), "celetoids are the accessories of cultures organized around mass communications and staged authenticity." But that is not the purpose of this blog post. It's to talk about the idea of celebrity and familiarity as it relates to American Idol. As I sat watching American Idol last night I realized that the show is not necessarily about singing talent. Presumably as the judges whittle the contestants down to the 24 finalists, they all have some degree of talent. But as I watched last night's two-hour episode (thank god for the DVR!) I realized how little singing there was and how much "back story" there was or humanizing the contestants. So we hear more about the girl who has brothers with Down Syndrome or the guy whose wife delivered a baby while hew as away at his audition for American Idol. Which begs the question: Why do we care?

The answer is that in our culture we have a desire to "know" celebrities -- which is why there is no shortage of entertainment media that look at the minutiae of a celebrity's life so we can see how they are "just like us" -- except more talented and wealthier, but they're just like us! But what we never (or rarely) consider is that these people (through the producers of American Idol) are framing their celebrity for us. The theory is that we are more apt to buy music from (or at least vote for) this person if we know that they overcame some adversity or if they are a "good guy or gal." But as we have seen on several occasions when dealing with the celetoids of American Idol, long lasting fame is often fleeting. Anyone remember Tamyra Gray from Season 1 or Latoya London from Season 3? How about John Stevens, also from Season 3? All have released records and none have achieved anything that could be called success as singers. (Tamyra Gray is allegedly writing and producing and Latoya London was in The Color Purple -- it seems theatre/Broadway seem to be the refuge of Idol contestants -- see Diana DiGarmo, Ace Young, Taylor Hicks, Fantasia, Ruben Studdard, Frenchie Davis, Clay Aiken and probably a ton more that I can't remember.

The Marketing of Music

I just finished reading a great article sent to me by a friend about the whole Taylor Swift sucks as a live artist thing from the Grammys and then the brouhaha continued when her manager foolishly tried to come to her defense by saying she is an artist and one who connects with her audience and has millions of record sales to prove it. One of the problems I "generally" have with that statement is that something being popular doesn't mean it's good.

While Taylor Swift caterwauled her way through her song, other, less popular acts (like the underrated P!nk) delivered performances that were worthy of being on the Grammys. And while it's OK to, as a singer, get better with time (Even someone like Jennifer Hudson, would probably agree if you told her that some of her earlier live performances left something to be desired) that's still no excuse for crap performances. After all, Taylor Swift, like it or not, is still considered a professional musician.

In music, I don't think people are always expected to be great singers (see Sheryl Crow, PJ Harvey and even Beyonce) but they are expected, to borrow a term from the British TV show of the same name, to have that X factor. In fact, lesser singers, who may also be talented songwriters and musicians, tend to have more (monetarily) successful careers than "artists." Take the case of Alice Smith, who I believe can sing Beyonce under the table any day, but she has such a minuscule following even though her voice is fantastic (in my opinion). Or even, going a little closer to Beyonce's home, her sister Solange has an equally good voice as her big sister, but her career has largely stalled while Beyonce's has flourished.

What it boils down to is that music is not really about the voice, it's about how it's marketed to the masses. And as humans, we tend to have a group think mentality. If the almighty Oprah tells us that something "changed her life" we'll go out and buy it en masse. (See Leona Lewis' first week sales for her first CD vs. first week sales for her follow-up; also see sales for Kelly Clarkson's Breakaway vs. its follow-up My December). Taylor Swift isn't a great live singer, and that's OK. That won't diminish her success among those who already worship at the Church of Taylor Swift, but it's disingenuous to defend her crappy live singing by saying she had an off night or there were issues with her earpiece. Many artists have issues with earpieces in live performances (see Jennifer Hudson at the Grammys in 2009) but if they have the talent to sing, the can sing regardless of earpiece issues.

American Idol and The Carnival

I have reluctantly been watching American Idol this season. If I'm truly honest with myself, I watch it more out of habit than actually deriving any sense of enjoyment at seeing the "next great pop star" born before my eyes. Now, don't get me wrong, I am fully willing to get into the TV gutter by watching shows like America's Next Top Model (although the winner never becomes a "top model"). But each year, there seems to be more of an emphasis on the bad, grotesque or belligerent rather than necessarily the talented.

Watching American Idol this year I have been struck by Mikhail Bakhtin's thoughts on the Carnavalesque. "Bakhtin likens the carnivalesque in literature to the type of activity that often takes place in the carnivals of popular culture. In the carnival, as we have seen, social hierarchies of everyday life—their solemnities and pieties and etiquettes, as well as all ready-made truths—are profaned and overturned by normally suppressed voices and energies. Thus, fools become wise, kings become beggars; opposites are mingled (fact and fantasy, heaven and hell)."

What's happened is that people like William Hung and most recently Larry Platt have become the "stars" of American Idol rather than the ones who have "real talent." And while William Hung's (and undoubtedly Larry Platt's) star will fade, so too has Ruben Studdard's and Clay Aiken's (the winner and runner-up, respectively, of Season 2 of American Idol).

Bakhtin's idea that we focus on the grotesque, the sensual, the embodied and the excessive, really speak to our celebrity-obsessed culture where novelty often outweighs any discernible level of talent.

What is Blackness?

A while ago, I watched this video on youtube of Audra McDonald singing a song written and originally performed by the talented and under-appreciated Laura Nyro. One of the commentators remarked that Laura Nyro, a Jewish singer, sang "blacker" than Audra McDonald. In other words, the commentator implies that there is something inherently "black" about the way someone sings and that Audra McDonald, with her opera-trained voice delivers songs in a way that is "less black" than Laura Nyro.

Which begs the question, what is blackness? And more importantly, how is it objectively identified? And why does degree (or lack) of blackness even matter among black people? Is recent Kennedy Center honoree Grace Bumbry less black than, say Mary J. Blige because of the kind of music she sings?Is Terrence Howard "more black" than Will Smith because of the types of movies in which he stars? Or is Tiger Woods "less black" (I know he's bi-racial...) than Michael Jorndan because he excels at golf rather than basketball? Or is Lauren Anderson, former prima ballerina and THE ONLY black woman to be a prima ballerina in an American ballet company, less black than Judith Jamison?

Identifying things as black, with black referring to a state of being rather than a race or ethnicity is a very slippery slope. It limits what the realms of possibilities for black people.

Perhaps it's a defense mechanism to reject those things that have historically been off-limits or difficult-to-achieve for blacks like opera, golf and ballet. Whatever the root cause, if we want to truly achieve post-racialism (like the media want us to believe we have), we have to stop pigeonholing and stereotyping groups of people. It starts, I believe, with the representations we have of people on television. We still have very limited portrayals of people of color on television. It takes more than to just count the numbers of people of color on television but to look at what occupations they perform, what is their socio-economic status level, and their relationship status. When we truly have a sustained group of representations on television shows, movies and most importantly on the news (I won't even start in on the racialized way in which news is presented), we may begin to see a change in what we describe as "blackness."