A funny thing can happen on your way to success: people start paying attention to your other projects!

One happy consequence of Issa Rae’s incredible success with Awkward Black Girl has been greater attention on her “other” web series — her first — Fly Guys Present The “F” Word. Premiering in late 2009, The “F” Word follows three hip hop MCs as they satirize the production and promotion of independent hip hop. The series works splendidly as a loving critique of the ambiguous, passionate and bombastic ways all artists, no matter skilled, talk about their music and careers. That sense of humor is built into the fabric of the show. Says the website: “Lyrical prowess and comedic genius collide together as Fly Guys invite you into their brains.”

Now in its sixth season, which premiered two weeks ago, The “F” Word‘s viewership has grown significantly, but its new audience is well-earned. Rae’s directorial wit and style has grown along with the series, and she’s clearly become quite skilled at narrative web comedy.

“It was actually from that series that I learned a lot of my mistakes from ABG,” Rae said in my previous interview with the director. “Working on the Fly Guys web series just helped me to understand more about branding, marketing, and publicizing web series, and just the power of social networks in general.”

The “F” Word experience dutifully adheres to the first law of the web: produce what audiences won’t see elsewhere. It presents an innovative spin on the plethora of TV comedies about undisciplined packs of men — Workaholics, Always Sunny, Wilfred – and young guys trying to make it — How to Make It in America, Entourage. It adds a splash of color and a unique sense of irony, not to mention the underutilized indie music motif .

To watch all the episodes of The “F” Word in order, go to their website here.

]]> http://blog.ajchristian.org/2011/08/30/web-series-spotlight-the-f-word-brilliantly-satirizes-indie-music-production/feed/ 0 http://blog.ajchristian.org/2010/07/03/big-marketing-may-be-down-is-it-dead/ http://blog.ajchristian.org/2010/07/03/big-marketing-may-be-down-is-it-dead/#comments Sat, 03 Jul 2010 07:28:27 +0000 Aymar Jean Christian http://blog.ajchristian.org/?p=3275 Tweet

It’s become a cliche over the past 10 years to claim mainstream media is losing its marketing power. Whether you work within the industry or well outside of it, everyone’s made the point at some time or another.

The truth is, though, marketing still matters, and big marketing still works — after the web 2.0 boom of the early-mid-2000s, most astute observers realize this.

So the question is: what’s up with all of traditional media’s recent, huge failures?

LOST POWER

You don’t have to search far for stories of traditional media’s demise, or its failure to adequately retain large audiences anymore. Flops, of course, are a perennial reality in the business, but there’s ample evidence the odds of delivering a flop are atypically high.

Lady Gaga's consistent popularity is a rare asset

Music is among the hardest hit. Of course, this isn’t the first time in the industry’s history when star-making has been challenging. At a recent presentation at ICA, Matt Stahl (Univ. of Western Ontario) delivered a fantastic paper on the recording industry in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Discussing the “Olivia Newton-John” problem, Stahl focused on the industry’s push to get more flexibility in contract term lengths. California short contract rules (7 years) meant stars could sit out their deals until the contract expired, making money from touring and not delivering albums if they saw fit.

Stahl’s point was “star power” was a labor commodity in short supply: there are plenty of singers, but very few singers that can sell the millions of albums consistently. The larger point: making a star is hard, but once they’re made, they’re very valuable.

Cut to today: albums going platinum are at historic lows, dropping more than 60% in the last four years. Why does this matter? The numbers clearly suggest that making the next Lady Gaga is becoming increasingly difficult. Gaga and Beyonce might be masters at pushing records and getting videos watched, but few other stars are. Even much-touted and solid-selling new stars like Drake — and the American Idols — can be outsold by old names (Eminem!).

In broadcast television, we’re obviously seeing consistent declines in the 18-49 audience; it’s why Oprah is leaving (and those carriage fees). Perhaps more tellingly, new series are starting big but falling fast. Even shows renewed early for second seasons are starting to look suspect in retrospect. Of course, cable is doing better. USA seems infallible. AMC is carefully building a solid brand, as is TNT. On cable, HBO’s back with True Blood, whose ratings make it one of the  very, very few television shows whose ratings have risen substantially since its series premiere. All in all though, television executives are just as anxious as they’ve always been.

Consistently bankable stars are getting older

Of course, the fall of stars like Tom Cruise and Cameron Diaz in Knight and Day also begs the questions of whether Hollywood can manufacture a hit. They’re doing better than music and television. Banking on franchises in the 2000s, Hollywood did a decent job of generating cash, and 3-D seems to be working, thanks in no small part to Avatar.

As the industry searches for more original scripts, their marketing muscle will be tested, and audiences aren’t getting any less fickle. Bankable stars are either aging – Will Smith, Brad Pitt, George Clooney — or fallen — Cruise, Mel Gibson. The most bankable female stars average out at about 40, with 60-something Meryl Streep (at the top of her career) and nearly-50 Sandra Bullock, topping the list. The search for the next Spiderman is just one example of the need to mine new talent; for women, only Katherine Heigl is young and bankable, and few are betting her career will last long.

But the industry is adapting, most notably by paying less upfront — production costs, chiefly star salaries — and giving incentives after release. Cruise may get paid less for MI4, but he gets more after studios make their money.

RENEWED OPTIMISM – BIG BUCKS IN A CROWDED MARKET

Yet let’s not overdo it. Industry matters. For every Knight and Day, there’s a Grown Ups, whose success I can only attribute to marketing (certainly not reviews).

In fact, in our so-called era of niches, infinite possibilities and an oversupply of content, some industry watchers are sensing a shift: a return to quality, gatekeepers (and paywalls) and big budget spectacle. Certainly, once again, Avatar, with its emphasis on cinematic mastery, is just one example. Christopher Nolan’s Inception, an auteur’s blockbuster (Batman was an auteurist franchise, Inception is original and, unlike the Matrix, not fanboy-oriented), is another example of the confidence in quality and talent amidst a large field of independent and small-scale production (from YouTubers to cable television).

The recent success of pay-cable, the coming of subscription service Hulu, along with a few newspapers (now The Times of London joining New York, FT, Variety), suggests industries are no longer fearful of the masses, those unruly people who refuse to conform to advertisements. In fact, they are increasingly confident they can dictate what’s important to read, see and hear.

Or perhaps they are acting out of fear, fear that online ad rates will never rise to match the quality of content (a fear I think is unwarranted) and that failing to “go big” will send them home. Such fears, borne of a so-so decade for some and horrendous for other markets, are leading them to bank on their scale and, essentially, crowd out the noise. There’s ample evidence to suggest they’re right. Sure, everyone’s seen a YouTube meme, but most people, myself included, love big media, well-marketed content.

Reasserting their power and size may just work for the industry, at least for some. Broadcast television may have little hope, but there’s also good reason to believe those who hold the cards will continue to hold them. Online, any hope of a mass, un-marketed, viral and citizen0driven media market (not just media, but one producers can live off of) seems to be slipping away.

For producers of online video, the ever more sophisticated entrees of the mainstream into producing digital content (now a trend 3 or 4 years old), especially on Hulu with If I Can Dream and LXD (Paramount Digital), means powerful marketing might well outdo — but obviously not erase — the more grassroots memes, even on their home turf on the web.

We’re not there yet, but we may be there soon.

Thanks to Racialicious for reposting!

In Brooklyn one night in May I was treated to my very first performance from Monstah Black, an artist who defies categorization, but whose show I would characterize as part-rock concert, part-live art theatre, with a black queer bent. Despite my awe I managed to divert my eyes long enough to dwell on the audience, mostly avant-hip black Brooklyners, but with two notable exceptions: indie filmmaker and artist Hanifah Walidah and, looking a touch out of place, internationally renowned artist Chuck Close.

I started thinking that something rather trendy was going on. Monstah Black seemed to be just one of a several black artists, performers and personalities working today trafficking in what he calls “genderfuckery.” (Though maybe I was just flush from an unusually art-glamorous day at internationally renowned artist David Salle‘s salon with such art world luminaries as Dana Schutz, Amy Sillman and Eva Respini in attendance!).

Has black queer (and, in many cases, black androgyny) come back in style?

Monstah Black

Well, first, there are probably three immediate responses to that question, depending on who’s reading this: 1) What do you mean by “back,” it never left!, 2) What do you mean by “back,” it’s never in!, 3) What do you mean by “black androgyny” or “queerness”?

I won’t respond to 2) because the charge lacks merit. I’ll respond to 1) in a bit. Identifying the starting/stopping points of cultural trends is futile. My question is more of a provocation. It seems to me, for those who are aware, it has become easier than ever to access images of black artists playing with the Holy Trinity of cultural studies: race, gender and sexuality, my rather expansive definition for “androgyny.” (A better word might be “queer.” Ah, language.)

WHO IS HOT TODAY**

Andre J

The list is small but mighty. We have Kalup Linzy, pictured above with James Franco, who has over the past several years become the toast of the art and fashion worlds, headlining lush events, booking major museum shows, getting major fellowships, collaborating with major designers and, well, James Franco. Monstah Black appears to have amassed a loyal following in New York and rising visibility by the press. We should all remember personality Andre J, who a few years ago made the cover of Paris Vogue and continues to produce. Though decidedly less queer, out artist Kehinde Wiley had made a name for himself deconstructing masculinity…and selling sneakers. Andre Leon Talley‘s celebrity is blossoming, becoming an obsession of the gossipy press, most notably Gawker; his America’s Next Top Model colleague, Miss J, isn’t doing too bad either.

Along with Kalup Linzy, a number of these personalities maintain a strong presence online. Much has been written on B. Scott, who is remaking celebrity online and has been working hard by blogging, hosting his own radio show, vlogging on YouTube, and appearing on various television shows. My students keyed me into KingsleyBitch, the 19-year old who has amassed over 100,000 subscribers on YouTube in less than a year by kvetching, vlog-style whenever he feels like it. It’s the kid of transgression endemic to YouTube, the kind that Mr. Pregnant, who is a kind of queer figure, takes to the next level. New York-based performer Britney Houston moved from online to offline, making a name for herself doing music video remakes on YouTube then making music and performing live in NYC, much like Monstah Black and Kalup Linzy have, but with more pop. Online, black gay narratives are another small but mighty bunch, including Christopher Street, Drama Queenz, Lovers and Friends, Anacostia and Buppies.*

(UPDATE: Reader suggestions (of people I missed): Jonte’; Jean Paul Paula)

WE HAVE BEEN HERE BEFORE

Peter Sewally

We have been here before. Some would say we have never left, and they might be right. (Warning: really sketchy and incomplete history to follow).

But Ru is still here! The diva’s show, RuPaul’s Drag Race, is giving Logo is best ratings ever and has given the star, who turns 50 this year, a second (or third or fourth) revival.

So the pivotal question is “why now?” If there’s something special about this moment, there has to be a reason to explain it all.

It’s become a pat answer, but certainly the rise of new media — I know, I’m sorry for bringing it up! — has contributed to the heightened visibility of these narratives, at least for those, like myself, who are looking. The proliferation of blogs, vlogs, Facebooks, Twitters, websites, film festivals, cable channels, etc. has given performers an increasing number of venues for publicity and distribution.

Culturally speaking, I think it’s certainly possible the desire to consume in niches, a process beginning in earnest in the 1990s, has led people to marginal corners of cultural production, the same impulse driving TV watching to cable.

At the same time, I think a small group of people are now becoming dissatisfied with the relatively cookie-cutter predominately white gay representations we see on television and film (and even on television, we are somewhat far away from the mid-2000s of Noah’s Arc, Will & Grace, The L Word, and Queer as Folk). Black queer might just be fresh, especially in the the NY-LA epicenters.

WHAT DOES BLACK QUEERNESS LOOK LIKE TODAY

Is there anything that differentiates black queer performances today from those of yesteryear? I’m not an expert. However there are a few interesting cultural threads I see running through the examples I’ve been noticing.

I’d have to do more reading on this, but it seems there is a consistent pull (and always has been) among minority-produced media between resistance and integration. The desire to integrate oneself into mainstream society and the need to push against it. This perhaps most clear in Paris is Burning, focusing as it does on how performers articulate desire for fame, fortune and the American dream while still residing on its outskirts.

Today, this means black queerness can sometimes conjure the neoliberal (individualism, self-determination, self-help) and the spiritual alongside the anarchic and the transgressive. It can be as soft as it is sharp; it goes down easy, at times, and fights its way down at other times. To be popular is to compromise, to be marketable and trendy is to integrate oneself into easily understandable ideas.

Yet with markets and niches, someone can sustain their art and still hold true to some artistic ideals. It depends on one’s aspirations and industry. Artists like Linzy and Wiley have a relative degree of autonomy. Burgeoning celebrities like B. Scott have more constraints.

It takes more than one to map out a cultural moment. I’d love to here your thoughts on a) any big names working right now that I missed (because I know I missed a whole lot), b) any perspective on what it means to be black and queer today, c) any thoughts on the importance/limitations on being “hip,” d) anything else. In the meantime, here’s Kalup Linzy hanging with James Franco!

*That all these performers are men is a discussion that needs to be had.

**It’s important to note that many of these artists may not identify as “queer” or even “gay”. The point of this article is not to call anyone’s sexuality — as in sex — but rather cultural performance. So someone like Eddie Izzard, who is straight, can be read as queer, same goes for someone like Dennis Rodman or John Leguizamo, you get the idea.

Thanks to In Media Res for linking!

Lady Gaga’s “Telephone” is an attempt to bring back the music video, or, to make music videos “big” again, after years of seclusion from TV but tremendous popularity on YouTube. It’s not a genius idea, of course: making music videos big, that is. Talk to any production company in Los Angeles making music videos, and you’ll hear numerous filmmakers lamenting their hard work languishing with 50,000 hits, lagging behind kittens, babies, dancing amateurs, etc.

Still, “Telephone,” like everything else from Gaga, is big (click here for Madison Moore‘s “best of ‘Telephone’” list). But, as other blogs have pointed out, big costs money!

Lady Gaga raised music video product placement to a grotesque degree, solidifying her role as our camp consumerist icon in the same way MJ and Madonna served as postmodern icons in their early years. Gaga gets the money and icon-status; brands get, well, I’m not sure.

“Telephone” is heavy on the product placement, as my colleagues Brooke Duffy and Elizabeth Roodhouse pointed out to me the day the video came out. Duffy and Roodhouse counted ten brands. I added in a few suggestions from Crushable and a kind of joke from myself (the security camera!). Only some of the brands actually paid to get in; nonetheless the 9-minute video is brand/reference-heavy. Let us count!

*Virgin Mobile - Really gratuitous, but the song is called “telephone,” so some mobile carrier had to get in.
*Pelco – The security camera! Okay, not product placement. Still a brand!
*Hewlett Packard – Envy, the security guard’s laptop!
*Coors – Not sure about this one either. See the photo below.
*Polaroid – Seriously? Polaroid? Oh wait, that’s why.
*Diet Coke – Gaga’s gotta watch that figure!
*Chevrolet (Silverago SS 502, Pussy Galore) – Thanks, Tarantino and Kill Bill! Can you actually buy this car?
*Wonder Bread – Classic white, just like Mama made…in 1957.
*Miracle Whip – On a sandwich.
*PlentyOfFish.com – I don’t know anyone on this site. Do you?
*Monster Heartbeats by Lady Gaga headphones – Nice catch, Crushable.
*Honey Bun- Ya, I don’t think they’d pay for this; more the “Honey B.” joke.

Unlike the early music videos of 1980s — Madonna’s “Like a Prayer” and Michael Jackson’s “Thriller” — known more for their classic irreverence, Telephone” is the opposite: a hedonistic and pandering ode to pop culture and consumerism wrapped in a rebellious veneer. Not that I’m complaining! On the contrary, while it feels a little Gen X to me (Tarantino-esque), “Telephone” represents exactly what’s going on in: media, i.e. the doubt about traditional advertising among brands, hence product placement; culture, i.e. celebrity (cameos), couture and hyper-fast visual pleasure; and the music video, i.e. large dance sequences, common motifs like the prison, leather jackets (“Papa don’t preach!”), sexual transgression, loose plotting, etc.

“Telephone” is about the anxiety over the music video itself. Despite Gaga’s past success (“Bad Romance” is a YouTube megahit), the production company felt compelled to offset costs by running to brands, looking to recoup the costs in case it couldn’t through its TV deals and online ad revenue alone. The music video is advertising, of course, but it’s very expensive advertising. As fans demand more, and the pressure to deliver is high (and the possibility of failure is higher).

So the desperation is happening on multiple fronts. The brands most prominently featured in the video are the ones who have to work the hardest to stay hip: it’s HP not Apple, Virigin Mobile not AT&T. It’s the brands people my age either don’t use, have become skeptical of, or find too old-sounding: Wonder Bread, Polaroid, Miracle Whip, Chevy.

“Telephone” and Lady Gaga might be the perfect vehicles for these brands in a YouTube, post-MTV world. First, Gaga is proving to have some mass, and viral, appeal. Second, Gaga has fully embraced her role as symbol of all that’s “too much” with America and global consumer culture. Of course she’d welcome advertisers into her all-loving embrace! It’s about money and, if it makes money, she’ll take it. In some ways, Gaga’s ironic/sincere embrace of celebrity, glamor and everything else excessive about American culture is a perfect fit for the anxiety-ridden brands populating “Telephone.” Gaga is about excess; product placement is almost always excessive. (Except when artfully and self-consciously executed, as some web series are doing today).

But we are hip to Gaga’s game. She is so consumerist it borders on camp. Her embrace of it all is grotesque. It criticizes that which it loves. Gaga is showing us our demons, and it is a bit unflattering, as demons often are. The very distracting air of desperation in “Telephone” could work against the brands and to Gaga’s benefit. It’s “too much,” classic camp.

In the end, though, I tend to think everyone emerges a winner, especially with 15 million hits and counting. Everything about “Telephone” is very strange, but it’s Gaga-strange, which is the best, most marketable kind of strange around.

Passing Strange is Good For Your Soul. (click: Original Article)

(Grade: A-)

All media is marketing. It’s easy to forget that sometimes, and media saavy people can be easiest people to fool. Sophisticates think they watch Mad Men only because it’s subtle and rich, or District 9 because it’s a commentary on the brutality of man. Sure, I say those things. But I also try to remember Mad Men boasts a cast of really hot people, and the District 9 trailer has lots of things blowing up.

I was not enthused, then, when I first saw the first poster for Passing Strange, the now-cancelled Broadway musical written and created by musician Stew (and his creative partner, Heidi Rhodewald) about his journey as a teenager from South Central to Europe and back again as a man. The poster image is of Stew, with his guitar, amid the lights of the city, looking kind of sad, or, more generously, introspective. But let’s be real, he looks sad. If you’ve seen the musical, this makes sense. It’s very much about Stew and his existential crises.

I hate poor marketing. Why hide the fact that it also boasts a cast of really hot young people? Or that it looks — in terms of set design — bright and fresh? Why so serious? Not expecting these amusements, by the end of the first act, I was flabbergasted. It was the best thing I’d seen on Broadway since Rent. In fact, it was the new Rent. It would be a hit, I was sure (I saw one of the earliest shows).

Cut to now. It’s cancelled. But! Luckily there are at least a few rich black people willing to lend their names to good art about other black people that need to find larger audiences — think Oprah for The Color Purple, Oprah and Tyler Perry for Precious, and now Tyler Perry for For Colored Girls (okay it’s a short list). Spike Lee swooped in to shoot the musical and preserve it on film. Sundance picked it up and it is now showing at the IFC Center in New York and available for purchase OnDemand. Luckily, the movie version corrects my issues with the poster. The new marketing image rightly puts the focus back on youth and exuberance. Hopefully, it should do a bit better with audiences outside the city and its tourists.

Spike Lee’s version is well-filmed. He must have used at least a dozen cameras, or at least it looks that way, because he manages to get some great shots from interesting angles. It manages at times to look filmic, while still feeling like the musical I saw live. Of course, stage productions are always better live. Key moments, like when the set’s muted background is shed halfway and a calvacade of lights befalls the the audience, simply cannot be replicated. For this reason, I’d suggest seeing Lee’s version in theaters if you can. But I saw it OnDemand in my apartment and it was fine.

The beauty of Passing Strange is its music and story, a story we don’t hear that often but is more common than you’d think. A young Stew finds himself a black sheep in 1970s Los Angeles, a black boy with a proclivity for punk rock and a disdain for the church. He leaves for Amsterdam, then Berlin, seeking new experiences and “the real.” He also leaves his mother behind, and rarely speaks to her, a decision with dire consequences. The musical explores the youth’s effort to secure his identity in something, and sets up a tension between art, race and culture: is he really a Dutch hedonist, a German postmodern revolutionary, a soulful pop artist, or a ghetto black man? This is not an uncommon story, the 19th and 20th centuries have a number of expat stories of black artists and writers, from Josephine Baker to James Baldwin. Rarely do stories like this get the Broadway treatment.

But Passing Strange does not take itself too seriously. The show is peppered with jokes and slapstick, some of it pretty erudite (one punch line: “but we can make fun of avant-garde European cinema”) with references to Hegel, and some of it smart but accessible (in Amsterdam, a young Stew meets a “philosophy professor and part-time sex worker”). And the music, most of it all rock and roll, is fun and occasionally stirring.

Why did it fail? I blame the marketing first. Of course, getting any dedicated audience on Broadway is difficult, especially for non-deriative work (not everyone can have Julie Taymour direct their crap). But the focus on Stew, who is difficult to relate to with his raspy voice and questionable looks, was also a problem. The story of black man in Europe, as I said before, is indeed strange. These quirks, for me, made the musical all the better, but isn’t exactly catnip for your average tourist from Ohio.

Nevertheless, Passing Strange is worth it, an important musical and a fine film. See it. It’s good for your soul.

UPDATE (3/8/10): It’s raining closet-fleeing celebrities! Sean Hayes has come out, awkwardly. He claims the gay community, through the gay media, put too much pressure on him. I disagree, of course. Regardless his reticence probably cost him a few jobs, though who knows; he’s a character actor. Is Matt Bomer next?

UPDATE (1/13/10): Michael Urie is now all the way out! Well, sort of. “…I’m not saying I’m gay now” and “I basically didn’t want to be labeled.” Might sound like another cop-out, but Advocate makes it clear: “When asked what letter in LGBTQ he identifies himself, Urie says Q, for queer.” Another one! Seems like my thesis on this is true. “Gay” is indeed dying.

UPDATE: Surprise! Mika has come out … as bisexual! This changes my thesis a bit — that his reluctance to be called “gay” was based solely on an ideological aversion to labels. Still, Mika’s “coming out” sounds a little defeatist: “call me bisexual.” He still doesn’t like labels. Oh well, bi he is!

Separated at birth? The difference between Mika (left) and Michael Urie's responses to questions about their sexuality. Original at Splice.

ORIGINAL: Before writing this article I surprised myself with having to Google something: the last name of Oprah Winfrey’s partner, Stedman. You see, I only know of him as “Stedman.” I had no idea if that was his last name or his first. He is so shrouded in mystery I’d never cared to get the facts. (His name is Stedman Graham).

Oprah’s story is instructive because in all of show business, it’s one of the most persistent mysteries. Oprah talks about Stedman, though very rarely. For such a public person, Oprah has a tight hold on this part of her life, and she has every right to her privacy. Yet however private Oprah wants to be, we at least know that Stedman exists, and both Oprah and he have talked publicly about why they are not married.

My point: it’s possible for a celebrity to be honest and talk about their lives while still remaining ambiguous and private enough to do their jobs and be famous.

This conundrum of how to negotiate being a public persona and private person is at the heart of the debate over whether actors should or should not come out. Over 10 years since Ellen shocked the world, out actors have a mixed record. Rupert Everett is sad and hardly working, only getting headlines for saying crazy things about Michael Jackson and gaybies. Wanda Sykes is at the top of her game, as is Neil Patrick Harris, but TR Knight has been fired and Clay Aiken, well, let’s forget about that. Lance Bass post-N’Sync had no career to speak of, so all in all he’s fine; Wilson Cruz and other character actors get work as well.

Given this mixed history, it’s not surprising rising gay actors are hedging. The most shocking was Michael Urie‘s recent interview with New York magazine, in which he would not say he was gay. It reminded me of the ongoing debate around the singer Mika and his refusal to do the same, and the career of Sean Hayes. The waters for actors and entertainers today are troubling and hard to navigate, and I have sympathy for them. But still their answers are not satisfying, often unnerving, and I think it’s important to break down what’s really going on and talk about this issue in more nuanced ways than “they must come out for visibility!” or “they have a right to their privacy” and “gay actors don’t get jobs.” All these are pretty insufficient responses to a very important issue in media representation.

First: Are Mika and Michael lying? Well, no, not really. For his part, Urie looks like he’s trying to carve a middle road on the issue. He describes himself as a “member of the LGBT community.” He twitters things like “In the pride parade!!!! So much fun”—coincidentally on the same day the New York piece came out. Mika, on the other hand, isn’t saying much except he doesn’t like labels, which is basically a non-admission admission.

The details are important here. Gone are the days, we hope, when obviously gay actors simply say they are straight—it’s part of the reason I’m starting to believe Seacrest. Instead, the typical response today involves obfuscation or word play. Either celebrities refused to be asked or simply will not say. There are different ways of “not saying,” though. Sean Hayes appears to not want anyone to know, and his reluctance to just admit it comes to close to shame, or at least that’s how it sounds. Fans can smell someone uncomfortable in their own skin. Take this thought by AfterElton: “But at some point, I hear their nonsensical responses to the question, ‘Are you gay?’ and I start to roll my eyes. Sean Hayes may or may not be gay, but after a decade of his refusing to give a, uh, straight answer to a simple question, I’m not sure how much a fan I am of that particular actor anymore.” Staying in the closet now may actually be bad for your career, especially in an age where “personality” is such an important part of fame. Whether they like it or not, “stigma” is still an issue. Regular people deal with it every day. They will expect you to respond to it and declare who you are; otherwise they will do it for you.

Mika is not Sean Hayes. He comes off as someone who likely has relationships with men and has thought seriously about whether he wants to call that “gay”: “I will not talk about labels, and I will not talk about over-categorizing things, because labels are the one thing that I’ve never agreed with—simply because I just don’t fit into them in my own personal life.” In case you’re unaware, there’s a lot of confusion from older gays about the refusal of young people today to use the word “gay,” preferring “queer,” “SGL” (“same gender loving,” most common among blacks) or no label at all. I understand it. Today, “me” is the only label that matters, and it isn’t always narcissism. Often it’s about allowing for greater diversity and new kinds of relationships to form outside the labels of the Boomer generation. I sense that this is where Mika’s coming from. The sophistication he brings to the question tells me he’s not just in the closet — plus the fact he is generally strange and his music and aesthetic are beyond nonconformist.

Michael is different. Urie was pretty brazen in saying he doesn’t want to call himself gay because, basically, he wants to get roles. Sure, he said it’s because he’s an “artist.” I suppose. So was Jackson Pollock, but everyone knew at least he was married to Lee Krasner, an accomplished artist herself. I imagine Urie‘s phrasing will not pass muster with a lot of gays. Still, he too is not Sean Hayes. After all, in the streets of New York he’s much more out than someone like—allegedly!—Anderson Cooper. Of course, Urie, as an actor, is at a disadvantage. Mika has an entire history of singers before him who played with sexuality without being explicit—Elvis, Little Richard, David Bowie, Kiss, Pete Wentz, and on and on. Actors, because they have to inhabit many different personalities, do not get the same allowances.

Perhaps part of my frustration with Urie and Hayes comes from being black and seeing so many black people, men in particular, not identify with a label out of cowardice. I can tell the difference. When interviewing black YouTubers for a project, I was shocked by how none would identify with a sexuality other than straight. Half my sample refused to answer the question. Some, I know, had ideological reasons (similar to Mika‘s), but some were just hiding, hoping one day they would be Will Smith and not wanting to be haunted by a pre-fame interview.

Fear of losing jobs is not an excuse. Being an actor, gay or straight, is hard. Sure Rupert Everett has a right to be pissed. If he’d been straight, he might have been Hugh Grant (whereas Sean Hayes would never have been Brad Pitt). But history shows most celebrities, regardless of orientation, have short careers. The list of performers with viable careers longer than a decade is pretty short. Being cagey about sexuality won’t help; only talent and personality will. That’s why Ellen is still around. It’s why Madonna is Madonna.

Meanwhile, whether they like or not, becoming famous does require that entertainers abdicate some privacy and answer simple questions. Every celebrity has to deal with it, from Sean Penn to Meryl Streep. No one says you have to be Britney or Lindsay, the smallest detail of one’s life revealed on a weekly basis. But there is a base level of honesty. After all, people don’t listen to music only based on the music. If that were the case we wouldn’t have the music video. Will Smith’s fame is based on more than his movies. We consume media because we are consuming people. All public personae deal with this. Yes, Barack Obama had the right policy proposals and better speaking skills, but look at his favorable/unfavorable ratings versus McCain from last year and you realize a lot of people voted for him because they liked him as person; how many people really knew the details of his healthcare proposal on November 4?

Can the public handle a gay entertainer? Yes! Before Rosie mysteriously left The View, ratings were way up. Ellen is a hit show. How I Met Your Mother is one of the few successful comedies on network television. Is the list of gay successes short? Absolutely. But without more brave entertainers, it will continue to be.

I am not, however, an either/or kind of guy. I don’t believe in someone being only “gay” or “straight.” If, like Mika, you prefer the in-between spaces, that’s fine.

But I do have a standard, and it is a pretty low one. I would like to hear some ambiguous celebs say they would be called gay—indeed, wouldn’t mind—but don’t like the label. Already, a number of actors, most notably Jared Leto, have said as much (i.e., I don’t mind if you call me gay, it’s just not true). See the subtle difference? This response acknowledges and honors that many people do have trouble coming out, that stigma still exists, that being gay is still an issue and also acknowledges a celebrity’s right to try to shape their personal life and its perception. It acknowledges that with great power and at least a footnote in history comes great responsibility. After all, if it were easy to be famous, we would all be.