I've been following this thread and trying to keep a lid on my temper,
since I know that Richard was addressing career strategy and didn't
mean his comments to sound the way they did - personally, when I hear
someone say "flaunting it" and "shoving it in people's faces," the
subtext that comes across is that gays should be shamed, thus
discreet. And of course rock stars flaunt their heterosexuality all
the time, so the double standard is annoying. But I know Richard was
talking about a homophobic social context and talking about what RW
should do to "make it." Ok, let's look at it that way.
First of all, as Richard said, it takes (at most) five minutes to know
that Rufus is gay - both in person and on record. So people who aren't
open to a gay artist aren't going to like him, no matter what he says
or doesn't say. This is important: Rufus really is bringing gay
culture to the straight music world in the most blatant way, with the
most label support and acclaim, that one can imagine. So the outcome
will be telling. (New Wave etc. was full of queer music and subtexts,
but that was tied to its Underground status, whereas Rufus is
positioned as a mainstream, though left-of-centre, artist. And people
like the Pet Shop Boys are very Britishly ambiguous and coy in their
way of presenting sexuality, anyway.)
But, more relevantly, Rufus's music is very dense, complex, with many
non-rock influences (cabaret, show tunes, opera -- all very
gay-identified too). I gather that both he and the record company are
happy with sales so far, and that sales have been gradually picking up
speed. The optimistic thing about Rufus's position from an industry
point of view is that Dreamworks consciously signed him as a "career
artist," accepting that it might take a few albums before he builds up
a solid audience, and that he might never be a real hit-parade
quantity. And this is ok with them, apparently, entrusting to Rufus's
charm, looks, etc. that he'll get and hold a strong cult following.
This is where his sexuality comes back in - Rufus can't afford to be
more discreet and shy. A lot of the reason that his inaccessible music
can be embraced by a pop audience, potentially, is that he is a very
distinctive and attractive personality and performer. To downplay that
personality - which would certainly be necessary if he wanted to tone
down his gayness - would be to toss one of his main assets away.
And considering the screaming young girls I saw at his show Tues.
night here, I don't see the evidence that he's alienating "straight
audiences." Might I gently suggest that to a large proportion of the
younger audience, straight and not-so-straight, his sexuality is
simply not that big a deal (or even a bit titillating)? Consider that
experimentation with bisexuality etc. is fairly accepted, even
fashionable, in liberal-arts schools in the late 90s - there might be
a slight generation gap showing in Richard's analysis.
Ultimately, I think opera is much more alienating to a pop audience
than homosexuality is to college students. But if Rufus keeps
expanding his status as an idol of that younger crowd, then he can
afford to wait out the word-of-mouth process and let the mainstream
pop world catch up later. Without having to compromise or dissemble
about who and what he is.
Carl W.
