PDA

View Full Version : Whats the point?



Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 13:12
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4605756.stm

So, Sony are setting up a 'Gay' record label.

Whats the point in that? Positive discrimination is still discrimination. Straight, Gay or Bi, if your musics good, your musics good.

Why should sexuality matter at all? This smacks of a company desperately seeking the Pink pound.

violenceha
12-01-2006, 13:16
i guess it's aimed at the "i'm the only gay in the village" crowd, all the gay men i know listen to divas and they aren't releasing anything new

Festus
12-01-2006, 13:17
Hi (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4605756.stm)

Positive discrimination is still discrimination.
And what about *affirmative action*?

Greetings
festus

violenceha
12-01-2006, 13:20
affirmative action = i will do as they tell me?

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 13:21
They claim it's the same as a Hip hop or Urban label, and hope it will help them break into the mainstream.

Well, what the hell do you call the Sissor Sisters if they aren't mainstream? They get played on Radio 2. RADIO 2 FOR GODS SAKE! You can't get much more mainstream than that really!

I can see how the colour of someones skin can affect their record buying public. Take Kanye West. I'm not into Hip Hop or Urban at all, but I like his stuff, as he has something to say. His work is from a very black perspective, and as we know, racism is still despressingly rife in the US.

But a gay man? I'm sorry, but the culture they claim is pretty much self imposed. I'm not saying it's wrong, but they tend to be 'different' because they choose to be. At the end of the day, the only difference between myself and a gay man is our sexual preferences.

This is just pandering to the gay equivalents of Black Panthers, KKK and Extreme Womens Lib. Equal rights, but not for straight white men!

Sorry, just read this over and it looks a little right wing.

Essentially, what I am saying is that this is just a cynical marketing ploy by Sony. Homosexuals have been accepted in the entertainment industry for decades, if not centuries. Why should their sexual orientation have any baring on whether or not they get signed?

Jedi152
12-01-2006, 13:50
Mmmmm hypocritical.

If you tried to release a 'straight' label, you'd be hailed as homophobic.

It's almost as hypocritical as 1Extra, the BBC's self proclaimed 'black' radio station. If i was to make a music station solely for music by white artists, aimed at white people, i'd be sued by everyone and his dog, like, 3 times. and probably murdered.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 13:56
Thats not really the point I was making. 1xtra, although not to my tastes, is necessary, as 'Black' Music has a large market. However that market is definitely an acquired taste. As such, rather than share the mainstream stations, it's spread into it's own. Like 6Music, which is predominantly upcoming Indy and Rock music.

I just don't see that it's necessary for a 'Gay' label. Gay artists don't exactly make 'Gay' music, do they? They do 'normal' stuff.

Minister
12-01-2006, 14:00
Looking at it logically, if there is a radio station from the BBC which is designed solely for black people, either there must also be one for whites, one for orientals and one for muslims (which allways struck me as odd, muslims are grouped seperatley on religion, yet Indians (sub-continent rather than country) come under "black"?).

Either that, or the main station excludes black persons, as there is a seperate lablel.

Equally, a gay radio station should, logically, require either a seperate straight-specific station, or the exclusion of gays from the primary one.

Fortunatley, the BBC, and most the rest of the world, do not try to apply logic to an illogical situation.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 14:09
But it;s not designed solely for Black People.

It's a station for those who like Urban music. By saying only Black people like Urban music (when the majority of is bought by skinny white boy chav whiggers) your being naiive!

Jedi152
12-01-2006, 14:18
But it;s not designed solely for Black People
I wasn't saying that it was, i was just saying that the BBC itself calls 1 extra a 'black' radio station.

Well anyway. A gay music label is silly. It indicates that 'gay' music is somehow different to 'straight' music, which is simply not true. A persons sexuality has no bearing on they type of music they like, or perform. It also seems to indicate that gay performers have trouble breaking into the mainstream, which seems to imply that 'normal' labels are biased against gay people.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 14:21
Which is exactly what I was trying to say, but for some reason made overly complex! Thankyou Jedi152!

George Michael. Elton John. Will Young. KD Lang. Sissor Sisters. All gay. All mainstream. All very successful.

Granted, the first three initially hid there sexuality, but coming out did them no harm whatsoever. Thus, the modern day benchmark is set. Being gay does not restrict your ability or success!

Wisdom
12-01-2006, 14:37
It seems like a good idea to me. You go into a gay club and you'll find it has a completely different atmosphere with different music. Since gay culture is coming to the fore a lot more it makes sense to cater for a large market who want something different. Also by creating a seperate part of the company for a gay audience it means that artists who might have not got the attention they deserved because they don't appeal to a broad cross section of music buyers can still get signed up and promoted where they'll have success, ie at gay club and gay events.

We've got seperate divisons of music labels for other sectors of the market why not for gay people?

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 14:39
Because 'gay' music is already mainstream, widely available, and well catered for.

As I said, this label is just a cynical marketing ploy by Sony.

Wisdom
12-01-2006, 14:52
Then I don't get what your on about mate.

You're topic was saying what's the point? Then you answer it yourself in the first post to say they're trying to make money from the gay market. Case closed.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
12-01-2006, 14:53
Well, being a forum of discussion, I wanted to discuss it. Funny that. Perhaps my own point of view is missing a fact or three (very likely) and people might have some food for thought.

Jedi152
12-01-2006, 14:56
We've got seperate divisons of music labels for other sectors of the market why not for gay people?
Because 'gay' isn't a type of music. It's an attribute of the artist that has no bearing on their musical ability.

You might as well have a music label for vegetarians, or for blonde artists, or for artists who like chess.

Wisdom
12-01-2006, 15:07
Because 'gay' isn't a type of music. It's an attribute of the artist that has no bearing on their musical ability.

You might as well have a music label for vegetarians, or for blonde artists, or for artists who like chess.


Vegetarianism and being blonde are just one part of a persons. However being gay is almost its own seperate culture (self caused as someone mentioned above or otherwise) with its own clubs, magazines, style of dress, attitudes, festivals, TV channel etc. I think all of these things together make it clear that gays can be considered as a seperate group that deserves its own music labels just like everyone else.

edit: just to add fair play to you Grotsnik, you're right about the discussion bit. Sorry for jumpin down your throat if it seemed like that

Kohhna
12-01-2006, 16:17
Mmmmm hypocritical.

If you tried to release a 'straight' label, you'd be hailed as homophobic.

It's almost as hypocritical as 1Extra, the BBC's self proclaimed 'black' radio station. If i was to make a music station solely for music by white artists, aimed at white people, i'd be sued by everyone and his dog, like, 3 times. and probably murdered.
Like Radio 3? Or Keearang Radio?

The Reason 1Extra exists is because there is (or was) a substantial section of the music listening community that wasn't being serviced by national or commercial stations (and largely only being catered for by local Pirate stations with limited resources, and are illegaly operated anyway).

Saying that though, the idea of what davyfd from little britain would probably refer to as "a Gay record company for Gays", seems a little silly, the music industry seems to be one of the few places where being gay isn't such a hinderance. Now if only Def Jam would sign a few Gay Rappers, or even if a few rappers would come out...

Rik Valdis
12-01-2006, 16:30
Like Radio 3? Or Keearang Radio?
The clear difference is that Radio 3 and Kerang are aimed at genres, if 1extra just called itself an urban music station and happened to play mostly black artists then fair enough, but it doesnt, it often calls itself a black music station, radio 3 and Kerang never call themselves white music stations.

Minister
12-01-2006, 20:02
I have a connung plan for sony: release a label for the most under-represented group within the music industry:

People who can sing well.

Cheesejoff
12-01-2006, 20:22
I read something in that article about "Nation Gay Pride Month"? Could someone explain what that is, as I've never heard of it.

As for the record label...

Basically the only reason anyone would create a record label for gays is that they feel gays are being excluded from the majority of record labels. However, if someone was to create a label for straight people they would be labelled homophobic. THis means that straight people are actually being discriminated against! The heterophobes!

So, gays are a minority who are being excluded, so they then seek to exclude the majority- does that make it any better? No. This does not stop discrimination, it merely adds to it. If they truely wanted to be anti-discriminators (if that's a word :P) they would create a label for gays AND straight people.

By making this label they are as bad as the discriminating straight people themselves. Same goes for any black radio station, or any "Minorities only" group.

Yog Sogoth
12-01-2006, 21:06
It's stupid for sure, really no reason for it. However:

If the label signs only gay PEOPLE it's dumb.

If it signs gay MUSIC (uhhh diva's and dance stuff?) thene you know whatever.

Smoking Frog
13-01-2006, 00:27
I hate **** like this.

If one wishes to be truly "open minded", one wouldn't categorise themselves and others, and try to co-exist, but people want to be different, and berate the majority. Sony is merely trying to make money from another "pseudo-culture", and by discriminating one group of people they will do it well.

At least it'll allow me to burn more at the stake...

What?

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-01-2006, 07:23
Well, it;s quite something when I find the vast majority of posters in one of my threads actually agreeing with me!

I wonder what will come next though? I mean, which minority are the execs going to target next, in a cynical 'we do care honest' marketing ploy.

I wonder if there are an Gay people who are offended by this. I mean, it is suggesting, to a certain degree, that they cannot be label mates with straight artists, isn't it?

C'tan
13-01-2006, 19:13
I think this will not get sued, as people will think " oh look, a gay radio station, isn't that good for them." But if they made a radio station purely for the straight it would get sued, because it would be "discriminate" against gays and Bis.

Mad Doc Grotsnik
13-01-2006, 19:16
Well, I guess the argument is that as the Majority, we're served well enough with our general stuff, whereas Black, Gay, Muslim or whatever, as minorities, deserve certain specific broadcasting, to ensure they are also catered for.

I mean, the BBC Asian Network. Thank god for it! It keeps that god awful Bangra off the usual Radio channels! And, as in most cities you tend to get Asian sub-communities, it's important that these are represented.

All I'm saying is that I'm not convinced that the Gay community is so radically different from the 'straight' community.

Wez
13-01-2006, 20:29
Sony is a business.

Businesses want to make money.

If launching a gay label gets Sony money, more power to them. They've found a niche and deserve to reap the rewards.


I just don't see that it's necessary for a 'Gay' label. Gay artists don't exactly make 'Gay' music, do they? They do 'normal' stuff.
That's because no-one would give them a label if they did music about gay relationships. There are lots of exceptions (TATU for example), but there is afaik certainly a disproportionately small number of 'gay songs' played on the radio. I'd agree that a label for gay music rather than gay artists would be more sensible though.


Well, I guess the argument is that as the Majority, we're served well enough with our general stuff, whereas Black, Gay, Muslim or whatever, as minorities, deserve certain specific broadcasting, to ensure they are also catered for.
I don't think there is a 'majority' or 'general stuff'. 'General stuff' ranges from classical, to pop, to dance, to rock etc. I don't see how 'Asian' music is different from, say, classical. Both are aimed at a specific ethnic group but artists from different ethnic groups can play on them.

-Wez

Hlokk
14-01-2006, 10:32
Good for sony setting up a gay label, but I wonder how well recieved a straight label would be, one that only sold music to straight people. I imagine the PC brigade (You should know about that Wez, with your Jeremy Clarkson coursework) would be out in full force, screaming for blood like they normally do when their not protesting about oil and other hippy issues.

The same with the BBC's asian network, Radio1 Extra, etc, its nothing more than inverted descrimination. (people may claim that radio 1 extra is for chavs, whatever, but why does it promote itself as a black station if thats the case) Can you imagine the uproar if Sky launched a white-only network or white only radio station? The people who did that would be hung by their balls.

Strictly Commercial
14-01-2006, 12:50
I'm sure a sociologist could explain the reason why the difference in labels for "mainstream" and "subculture" would have different responses from the public at large. Notwithstanding my general lack of faith in sociology I'd still be willing to listen (I'm sure sociologists who are true scientists probably exist, they are just a rare breed where I live).

Something kind of strange caught my attention. The slang word "gay" meaning homosexual - it seems odd because I haven't heard it used that way in a long time. Now it appears to be a generally disparaging term to describe something that one dislikes (ex. "That new rule is gay."). Homosexuals around here prefer the term "queer" it seems, at least that's what is used in organizational jargon (at the campus where I attend). But then the Pacific Northwest has always been a little off the mark.

Yodhrin
14-01-2006, 14:40
I'm actually starting to get quite annoyed at all this hyper-PC, positive discriminatory ********. It's the same with Feminism now, it's like these "movements"(I cant think of a better word to describe them) have accomplished most of their goals, and now they cant bear the thought that their usefulness is almost at an end, so they need to create artificial problems so they can remain in existance.

"Seperate but Equal" is no longer the domain of the oppresser but the "victims". Dare to suggest women are anything but the equals of men in every area and you will likely be castrated, but if a woman smacks a bloke and he retaliates, it's domestic abuse. Of course nobody thinks its domestic abuse if a woman constantly beats her male partner, because women are allowed to hit men.

This is the same sort of thing, it's perfectly fine for any minority group to create radio stations and TV channels and clubs dedicated to their "subculture", but if anyone even implies that they are seperate from the rest of society even slightly then there's a huge uproar. Some minority groups claim they want to completely integrate into "normal" society, and that it's predjudice that prevents them from doing so, but it seems that more and more, it's their own actions that are causing any segregation.

Hlokk
14-01-2006, 14:51
"Seperate but Equal" is no longer the domain of the oppresser but the "victims". Dare to suggest women are anything but the equals of men in every area and you will likely be castrated, but if a woman smacks a bloke and he retaliates, it's domestic abuse. Of course nobody thinks its domestic abuse if a woman constantly beats her male partner, because women are allowed to hit men.
THANK YOU

The samaritans did a Survey in 1997, 13% of women are subject to domestic abuse. The same statistics show that 18% of men are subject to the same level of abuse in the home.

There are so many issues with this, it makes my head spin. I think it is safe to say though, the only people you CAN discriminate against in this country are white, middle class males :rolleyes:

Wez
14-01-2006, 15:09
A lot of the time it's just the 'group's' leaders stirring up **** though. The actual members of the 'group' don't care for much and their attention-whoring representatives tar the followers.

A prime example would be the small Christian group that objected to the Jerry Springer Show. I doubt most Christians cared, but that tiny minority tarred the group as a whole.

-Wez

Cheesejoff
14-01-2006, 17:00
A lot of the time it's just the 'group's' leaders stirring up **** though. The actual members of the 'group' don't care for much and their attention-whoring representatives tar the followers.

A prime example would be the small Christian group that objected to the Jerry Springer Show. I doubt most Christians cared, but that tiny minority tarred the group as a whole.

-Wez

That's true for a lot of things, and it's a fact many people don't realise when it comes to, say, Muslim terrorists.


Oh, on a related note: AOL has a "White Supremicist" chatroom, but this is obviously rascist because there is no "Black Supremacist" chatroom!