hey, toosad I'm glad you made that post because I agree that gay artists choosing not to sing about gay topics is a form of artistic compromoise, not choice. I suppose this is one way that you can sell-out. Although I don't think there is a clear line where you can sepearate the gay artists that are selling out from those that are not. Most gay musicians I've heard often do both.

But, I think you always have to make artistic compromises if your aim is to be popular. I think its not just related to sexual orientation, there are other issues like race and politics that often get self-censored by the artists. Our culture is mostly to blame, but at some point the artist has to take it upon their shoulders to change the status quo. And I think we, as enlightened music listners, has to be there to listen.

yeah, i don't think it's true what you said about every artist needing to make compromises.

nirvana wrote a song called rape me.

marilyn manson had a successful album called anti-christ superstar.

i just think what you are saying is one of those things you say so that you can actually sweep it under the rug.

("Oh, well, everyone has to make compromises.")

It's like how in China, when there were protests in Tieneman Square, the government said:

"Well, we just needed to protect against counter-revolutionary activity."

Even if that's true, you don't have to crush people with tanks. I guess I'm just saying that you are creating this black and white dichotomy, where things are less fucked up because "everyone has to compromise." I don't buy it.

Well I think marylin manson IS an artistic compromise, but there are certainly exceptions in popular music, even with GLBT topics. Though admittedly, they are fewer in numbers and more subtle. Boy George is a good one, and my favorite is a one hit wonder in the 90's called "your women" by White Town.

I agree that this issue is certainly "fucked up", but my point was simply to illustrate that sexual orientation is not the only "taboo" in pop music. I think pop music is generally conservative in nature, and it is difficult to go up on stage and sing about anything that people are not expecting. The Dixie Chicks got a lot of flack for bashing bush, Sinead Oconnor got bashed for flacking the pope, etc. etc.

Well, one thing to consider in regards to gay artists selling out when they remain sexually ambiguous is that homophobia is America's "last acceptable prejuidice."

In American society homosexuality is still, ultimately, a taboo topic for probably most of Americans, and even if this isn't true, homophobia is still being passively accepted (though not condemned) by most people in this nation. Yes, these are huge generalizations, but from what I've learned about the topic and from my actual first-hand experience, I think this is simply the way it is and the way it's going to be for some time. A lot of people don't have a problem with gay people, but they won't go out of the way to speak out for them and they don't want to actually be directly involved with it in any way (this would explain why at least five people walked out of the three showings of Brokeback Mountain I saw when it was in theaters).

In fear of digressing too much from the topic at hand....
As a member of the GLBT community, it's frustrating (and it sometimes sucks) when GLBT artists write songs from a sexually ambiguous perspective.

Case in point: Morrissey. Ever since "Hand In Glove" in 1984 (or 1983, whatever), Mr. Morrissey has written songs with gay themes from the last two decades but has kept his sexual orientation cloaked with claims of celibacy and sometimes using "she" and "her" as his love interests in songs. Even today, even with lines such as "I am spreading your legs // with mine in between," you can still make the argument that he's speaking of hetero lovin', not the love that shall never speak its name. But it sort of feels obvious that Morrissey is gay. ....but then you really can't say that, because he's never confirmed it. And there's always his heterosexual fans who make claims that he "just likes to experiment sexually" or "he isn't gay, just because he sings about gays doesn't mean he's a fag." I want to feel like Morrissey is a shining icon for the GLBT community, but I can't, really.

And then I'm reminded of a Broken Social Scene forum I once went to where there was a topic about the true meaning of the song "Lover's Spit." It was pretty much decided in the thread that the song was a depiction of man-on-man love, and this one guy wrote in a post that he felt sickened by this connotation. He said he can never listen to the song again because he used to listen to the song while <euphanism>recieving special oral attention<end/euphanism> from his girlfriend and he can't imagine doing that again now that he knows the song is about two guys. He then ended his post saying he hated Broken Social Scene for shoving their gay agenda down his throat, and he said it much more colorful and much less articulate language than that.

All that I wanted to say to that poster was perhaps it's gay people who are tired with straight people shoving their heterosexuality down their throats?

quote:

Not saying anything about being gay is making a big fucking deal. Do straight girls fucking EVER write albums that only have ambiguously sexual lyrics? Has Jack White ever had an album that didn't say "she"?

Name one fucking popular straight guy musician that hasn't used "she" or "her" on an album.

This voices one of my biggest frustrations about the topic of GLBT artists, toosadtobegoth. There's such a double-standard. Lindsey Lohan, Fall Out Boy and Kelly Clarkson would never be forced to sing sexually ambiguous lyrics. Why is it that heterosexual artists can sing about loving people of the opposite gender all they want, but if a gay artist wanted to, marketing and album sales be damned?

quote:

Unless you want to start some crappy gay punk band where everything is out of tune and no one can play their instruments and there's no melody (think Pansy Division). Or unless you want to start some weird indie band where you're the only member and you use a drum machine.

I'm guessing there was a subtle attack on Xiu Xiu there? I agree, there needs to be more traditional bands that happen to be gay. I'm reminded of Extra Fancy's story. They were an alt-rock/grunge band in the early 90s when grunge was huge. Their album didn't sound much different than the popular stuff at the time, but it was about gay themes, so thus no radio-play and barely any marketing. Could the same situation be applied to Kitchens of Distinction? A critically acclaimed openly gay shoegazer band that didn't get a whole lot of marketing? And what about the Butchies?

quote:

In American society homosexuality is still, ultimately, a taboo topic for probably most of Americans, and even if this isn't true, homophobia is still being passively accepted (though not condemned) by most people in this nation. Yes, these are huge generalizations, but from what I've learned about the topic and from my actual first-hand experience, I think this is simply the way it is and the way it's going to be for some time.

Homophobia is definitely real and pervasive, but you talk like it's getting worse. Everything indicates to me that things are getting better. Do you think a movie like "Brokeback Mountain" could've possibly been so successful or met with critical acclaim 30 years ago? I really feel like tolerance of gays is one of the few areas where there is real progress being made today in our society, especially among the younger generation. I really think it's just a matter of waiting for all the old people to die and more young people to be born for homophobia to decrease.

Also, it's gotten to the point where if a prominent person makes a homophobic statement, he gets reviled by the media and "official" opinion. When White Sox Manager Ozzie Guillen called reporter Jay Mariottia "fucking fag," he was crucified. And this in the homophopia bastion that is the sports world.

Understand I'm not saying there's not a problem. I'm just saying it seems to me like things are getting better, just like the civil rights movement made things better for blacks, though it obviously didn't eliminate racism.

I don't think it will be all that long before an openly gay musician with gay lyrics is embraced by the mainstream.

quote:

I don't think it will be all that long before an openly gay musician with gay lyrics is embraced by the mainstream.

I think the biggest problem with a openly gay artist who sings about love or sex with someone of the same gender is not that the pubic won't accept their sexuality, I think it's that the population who listens to that type of music may have their certain type of reputation more in mind than those who would listen to Xiu Xiu, for instance (obviously those who listen to xiu xiu have a reputation in mind also, but maybe not the same one. The big ages for pop music are people under twenty, and I think peop;e of that age who listen strictly to that kind of music wouldn't neccessarily want to drive down the street bumping a song about how Usher just loves when his man's ass jiggles like that. I mean, could you honestly picture the main consumer's of pop o mainstream music not being threatened in a way by that

I could be completely off, but I know from personal experience, and from the recent hoopla around Brokeback Mountain, that a lot of people feel that listening to music or watching movies with blatant homosexual themes can "threaten" their sexuality, not in the sense that it would make them question their own, but rather that other people would question. Maybe I'm wrong, but all the straight couples i saw going into Brokeback Mountain were holding hands pretty damn tight.

quote:

Originally posted by Television:
Maybe I'm wrong, but all the straight couples i saw going into Brokeback Mountain were holding hands pretty damn tight.

I think that's a really good point. When people are young, music is sort of this currency of cool. I'm not sure why. Maybe because it's easily identifiable, like clothes, but anyone can change their music tastes easily or say they like something, so it's not as difficult as getting a new wardrobe. Hmm.

I have a new theory about why older people don't like newer trendy music. It's because the older you get, the more your hearing gets fucked up, and so when you hear new songs, they don't have that same sparkle of high frequencies anymore. With old songs, you already love them...

Most new music is purchased by young people. It could be the hearing thing... Maybe older people die on the inside as they get older... something goes away. At least for many of them.

What you are saying makes sense though, just beause, let's say you are some straight 17 year old guy. If you like pansy division, for instance, but if people found out you liked them you would get a whole bunch of shit from everyone, you aren't going to go around telling all your friends "go buy pansy division." it wouldn't fucking be worth the annoying results. makes sense. (i don't like pansy division, personally... but i respect them... on a political level.)

I wish I shared your optimism, RL, but I believe TV's point is well taken.

I'm glad this thread has maintained such a positive tone. I had my doubts given that we have a small cadre of nitwits who think nothing of using "gay" as a pejorative. In all, though, this has been an interesting discussion and toosadtobegoth has brought some interesting points to the table.

Not about Pansy Division, though. Pansy Division's pretty damn great.

Now Playing: The Yankees leading the White Sox on WGN

Here's another current GLBT artist I just discovered:
Final Fantasy

On a side note, I finally get my dream of my favorite videogame series (Final Fantasy) and favorite musical style (indie) and my favorite sexual orientation (gayness, of course) coming together.

Isn't Brian Molko (from Placebo) gay? He's GOT to be gay...

To focus back on Halford for a second... I think he's a totally one-of-a-kind case that entire books could be written about.

Here's a subgenre of music that drives heterosexual masculinity home SO hard it becomes hypermasculine and hyperhetero, beyond masculine and hetero so much it drifts toward the opposite.

Can you imagine some big Judad Priest fan whose clueless (either one that's really dense today or one before the late '90s), dressing up like Halford at a show, saying to himself:

"Judas Priest are so fucking heavy! Rob Halford is my idol! He's a REAL MAN! I'm a man like Rob, too! I wear leather with metal studs all over my body and my pants are tight fitting to show off my package! I carry a whip and chains to punish any who dare defy me!"

Second later...

"Hey, what are you, hitting on me, faggot?"

You know? Like, what the hell? What do you expect? The brutal irony of the whole situation just kills me, especially being a devoted metalhead as a teenager and 'till this day (though I guess you'd never know it now, looking me over).

To address what a poster said some posts back, Halford never once (to my knowledge) even mention the words "she" or "her" when he addressed someone in a song's lyrics, even when it was explicity sexual (most famously, the whole "I'm gonna force you at gun point/To eat me alive" lyrical fiasco from "Eat Me Alive" in the '80s, as publicized by the PMRC).

While Halford didn't come right out and say it at the time (it took him some time to either have it be accepted or work up the courage, but he came out to many people's shock in the late '90s following the lead of more established pop culture icons like, y'know, Rock Hudson), he didn't deny it either. That means something. I think its more good than bad. I think its good that he, especially in hindsight, gave MASSIVE HINTS by acting out vaguely homoerotic gestures on stage, even if it was to soften the inevitable shock or to tell all the people he felt needed to know or had the intellegence, "deserved" if you will, to get the subtext.

I guarantee there were more than a couple of picked on, music/metal-loving gay person back in Priest's peak (that probably got their asses kicked at metal shows because they were "wusses" or "looked like fags") who interpreted Halford "that way," the "right way," if you will. The way that no one else knew was Halford's personal, true meaning behind his lyrics. Halford, its been shows, pushed for more sexual content in Priest's lyrics as opposed to the well-worn lurid/purient/sin/Satan themes.

However, Priest had its highest exposure when Halford was still in the closet for most people, and therefore the public consciousness. But you know what? Ever since they reunited post-coming out, Judas Priest can still sell in upwards of hundreds of thousands of records their first week (see: some "Greatest Hits" comps, 2005's "Angel of Retribution") and their new and loyal fans go to see them live, still, and they sell out big, big venues.


Elton John is a queen (no pun intended... ok pun intended) of the touring/music industry and it was always assumed, especially since the '70s, he was gay or bisexual. I don't know when he actually came out, and I don't think he ever needed to, but he's openly married to another man now and no one can tell HIM what to do. He's Elton friggin' John.

Even Maynard James Keenan, whose true sexuality is very murky at its clearest, singing about fisting and whose bands have all kinds of homoerotic visual and performance overtones still draws tons of homophobic metalheads and stoners to the stores and concerts.

Halford is as out as can be, he had a decent solo outing which did ok when he came out, and is still making records with Priest to this day. There might be a model for your band right there... somewhere in there. You know what Priest is doing for their next record? A METAL MUSICAL. I'm not joking. Look it up. It's about Nostradamus. I'm dead serious. No label or mainstream audience would accept anyone doing that except for Halford or Elton John.

It isn't what you or I want, certainly, but all that's a great start.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Yay!,

quote:

However, Priest had its highest exposure when Halford was still in the closet for most people, and therefore the public consciousness. But you know what? Ever since they reunited post-coming out, Judas Priest can still sell in upwards of hundreds of thousands of records their first week (see: some "Greatest Hits" comps, 2005's "Angel of Retribution") and their new and loyal fans go to see them live, still, and they sell out big, big venues.

Halford is as out as can be, he had a decent solo outing which did ok when he came out, and is still making records with Priest to this day. There might be a model for your band right there... somewhere in there. You know what Priest is doing for their next record? A METAL MUSICAL. I'm not joking. Look it up. It's about Nostradamus. I'm dead serious. No label or mainstream audience would accept anyone doing that except for Halford or Elton John.

Wow. There may have been a needle somewhere in that post, but I'm not sifting through all the bullshit to find it.

Here's the thing: Halford is "out" -- but he isn't going to sing for one damn second about sucking cock. He's never going to have a song with Judas Priest where he sings "He's my rocketship, and he can ride it into my black hole." But if he were straight and the pronouns were changed, no one would even give it a second thought. Sure, he's out -- but it's one big fucking lie.

It's like the Ramones pretending to be Italian and rebellious, when really they were Jews who conformed to people's racial expectation -- thus making them liars and hypocrites. The Ramones may have been "out" as Jews, but who fucking cares? It was still just a big fucking lie.

The whole heavy metal vibe is based on a rage towards the world, a defiance of covention, and a raw primitive agression. Metal is about not having illusions about the power to change things -- that things are just fucked and so you don't hide it. Halford isn't defying convention by toning down his lyrics. Sure, maybe some homo getting his ass kicked wondered if Halford is gay -- but does that make him a trail-blazer? No, it makes him a gutless conformist. Also, metal is about not hiding how fucked up the world is -- and Halford totally hides it by playing up the alpha male illusion, because he knows that he wouldn't be allowed into the boys club if the boys knew he liked boys.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with hypocracy. Maybe Halford just really liked metal music and he didn't give a fuck about the ideals of metal -- he was just a que sera sera whatever will be will be sort of guy that typified much of the grunge movement.

The fact that Halford isn't writing explicitly gay lyrics, at this point, just proves how un-metal he is. Drag Queens are more metal (except for the fact that they like house music). He's as out as out can be? He is allowed to perform because he compromises.

You can be a member of the country club, as long as you use the seperate water fountain.

Rob Halford pretended to be straight (by omission), and then came out when it became more acceptable by society and he had way less to lose. He's not a musician who happens to be gay, he's a closeted gay musician who happened to come out of the closet.

People would never buy albums from a gay metal band. But if someone ownes a Judas Priest album and then finds out the singer is gay, they aren't goingg to stop liking the band -- because then: 1) they've been duped, and no one likes to feel like a fool; 2) it's totally un-metal to hate things that don't conform with society; 3) they feel liberal guilt and don't want to do something homophobic; or 4) if they stop liking Judas Priest, maybe it means they are uncomfortable with their own sexuality ("a real man wouldn't give a fuck").

Halford is a coincidence, not a case study.

I know what you're thinking at this point:

"WHAT?! THE RAMONES ARE JEWISH??!"

"Oh, well, that's okay. I liked them anyway... not that I wouldn't have liked them if I had known... I mean... well, it doesn't matter. I don't care at all. WAIT... Are you SURE they're Jewish?"

Just because he doesn't prance around with Elton John's wardrobe doesn't mean he's hiding his homosexuality. You sing about what you sing about - sometimes it is nice to have some kind of border between one's private and public lives. You make it sound like he has some kind of duty to be out there singing about sucking cock. I don't think he has such a duty.

In a recent interview of David Byrne, he mentioned how a Muslim group requested that a certain track from byrne's album with brian eno be with held. Byrne did it out of respect for the group's wishes. This is self censorship, but Byrne was willing to do it - he didn't have a problem with it. Everybody censors his or her self to some degree. Restrained cursing around the parents/kids. It helps everybody to get along. Now I'm not saying this analogy is bullet proof, because when the public requests that homosexuality be censored I don't think that's right either. But it is the musician's call and noone else's as to what people can or cannot sing about. And that includes omissions.

quote:

Originally posted by vitunkrapula:
Just because he doesn't prance around with Elton John's wardrobe doesn't mean he's hiding his homosexuality. You sing about what you sing about - sometimes it is nice to have some kind of border between one's private and public lives. You make it sound like he has some kind of duty to be out there singing about sucking cock. I don't think he has such a duty.

Exactly. I don't really get the argument that gay artists have some duty to be explicit in their sexuality. It's not as if straight artists are bound by lyrical content about their sex lives. They're free to sing about all sorts of subjects.

In the case of Judas Priest, very little of their lyrical content had to do with love or sex. It just wasn't their style.

quote:

Originally posted by ericg75:

quote:

Originally posted by vitunkrapula:
Just because he doesn't prance around with Elton John's wardrobe doesn't mean he's hiding his homosexuality. You sing about what you sing about - sometimes it is nice to have some kind of border between one's private and public lives. You make it sound like he has some kind of duty to be out there singing about sucking cock. I don't think he has such a duty.

Exactly. I don't really get the argument that gay artists have some duty to be explicit in their sexuality. It's not as if straight artists are bound by lyrical content about their sex lives. They're free to sing about all sorts of subjects.

In the case of Judas Priest, very little of their lyrical content had to do with love or sex. It just wasn't their style.

You are both such idiots. It boggles my mind.

No one is saying gay musicians are under a duty to talk about sucking cock.

But please don't fucking tell me that omitting all mentions of gender in a song is somehow "having a border between private life and personal life." If you actually think that's true, you are a mindless retard zombie.

EVERY FUCKING NON GAY MUSICIAN MENTIONS GENDER. It's not because it's an artistic choice. It's beause you can't have normal fucking lyrics without referencing gender. Unless you intend on screaming out lyrics in a Gertrude Stein fashion (just random syllables with no meaning), then you are fucking writing lyrics about stuff.

AND IF YOU LEAVE OUT GENDER COMPLETELY, that's not a fucking artistic choice. THAT'S A COWARDLY POLITICAL CHOICE.

No one is under a duty to talk about being gay. But not talking about it is going out of your fucking way to not offend people. It's not simply a matter of a border between personal life and private.

I can believe both of you are actually this stupid, just because there are lots of stupid people in the world.

Hopefully, one day, natural selection will take care of your kind.

Hey, you forgot to include something like , or . We need to keep this friendly. Go ahead and slam the argument, but leave personal attacks on gene pools out of it.

quote:

I'm glad this thread has maintained such a positive tone.

perhaps you spoke to soon LT. Oh well, it was nice while it lasted.

quote:

Originally posted by toosadtobegoth:
I can believe both of you are actually this stupid, just because there are lots of stupid people in the world.

Hopefully, one day, natural selection will take care of your kind.

Ditto...and before you attack me for being homophobic, when I say 'your kind', I'm talking about ill-informed jackasses.

I can name about a zillion love songs by straight artists that are non-specific when it comes to gender. If a gay artist wants to be gender specific in a song, I don't really have a problem with it, I'm just saying (and I think Vit was saying) that because a gay artist doesn't sing about gay sex or gay love, it doesn't make them a sellout. You make it seem like every gay artist is somehow indebted to to the gay community to sing about gay themes. I say that's BS.

P.S.: And you say that gay artists don't have a duty to talk about being gay, yet when they don't talk about it, they're making a cowardly political choice. So which is it? And I'd actually like to hear an intelligent response instead of another round of third grade name calling.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: EricG75,

quote:

EVERY FUCKING NON GAY MUSICIAN MENTIONS GENDER. It's not because it's an artistic choice. It's beause you can't have normal fucking lyrics without referencing gender. Unless you intend on screaming out lyrics in a Gertrude Stein fashion (just random syllables with no meaning), then you are fucking writing lyrics about stuff.

First off, you can explore gender thematically in a song without these ultra-raunchy fellatio statements. Gender is related to sex - but they are not the same thing!!!

If everyone absolutely HAD to write about gender in every song, we would be pretty bad off. Not all songs out there are love songs! Many of my favorite songs have nothing to do with sex.

And I'm confused what you mean about that last sentence with gertrude stein. The sentence says that if I'm not yelling random syllables ala G.S. then I am just "fucking writing lyrics about stuff." What are you talking about? I like meaninglessness, sure - but what is so bad about writing lyrics about stuff? But