You don't think they lose something when their sexuality's 'explained'? Maybe it is just me, then...
I guess the idea of 'mystique' is more important for me in a pop star than their being politically admirable, 'important' or having a 'message'. I admire Jimmy Somerville but find Morrissey, Bowie, Marc Almond, even Holly Johnson much more intriguing - because they blurred the lines, I guess, because there was a sense of the hidden, the forbidden; seedy glamour, pansexual indiscretions in darkened corners...
Queer rather than 'gay', I guess.
Of artists who came (or were dragged) out publicly, George Michael is interesting because, as you say, he's approaching things more confidently - and what interests me particularly is the way he's now venturing into at least slightly wilder realms, with the sex-in-public vibe of 'Outside' and the fetishiness of 'Freeek'.
Elton John went on producing the same MOR as before, really.
Pet Shop Boys have probably been less successful - but more poignant - since Neil Tennant outed himself in 'Attitude' way back. I do miss their little in-jokes, the lack of gender-specific pronouns and so on. There's little mystique around them now, but they continue to produce beautiful bittersweet music.
The more I talk about this, the more I wonder whether this is all a matter of personal preference. I like my pop stars to be, in some way, indefinable; you prefer their sexuality, at least, to be laid bare.
Food for thought. I think I'll start a separate thread on this...
[ 16-03-2002: Message edited by: Ganesh v4.2 ] |
