A gay man in the music industry is a great idea, as long as he loves himself and doesn't feel embarassed.He needs to have a thick skin because he is going to get a lot of personal attacks and maybe some networks won't even want him to appear on their shows.However, if he makes it into the mainstream media, then he will have truly pushed the boundaries.And he won't just be a gay icon, but a proper hero!A lot of people will be infuenced by someone who was willing to fight so much and made it.
A gay man in the music industry is a great idea, as long as he loves himself and doesn't feel embarassed.He needs to have a thick skin because he is going to get a lot of personal attacks and maybe some networks won't even want him to appear on their shows.However, if he makes it into the mainstream media, then he will have truly pushed the boundaries.And he won't just be a gay icon, but a proper hero!A lot of people will be infuenced by someone who was willing to fight so much and made it.
Exactly! People love icons that push the boundaries.
And he will set the standard! By really breaking down what is right and wrong etc. We properly need him to do that!
And yes a strong mental state and backbone to take it on.
a load of female performers are gay icons for moving forward a lot for the lgbt movement! as well as legendary figures in their own right! and to have a male figure to push it forward would be very interesting as well as powerful!
Sexism, also known as gender discrimination or sex discrimination, is the application of the belief or attitude that there are characteristics implicit to one's gender that indirectly affect one's abilities in unrelated areas. It is a form of discrimination or devaluation based on a person's sex, with such attitudes being based on beliefs in traditional stereotypes of gender roles. The term sexism is most often used in relation with discrimination against women, within the context of patriarchy.
Sexism involves hatred of, or prejudice towards a gender as a whole or the blind application of gender stereotypes. Sexism is often associated with gender-supremacy arguments
Sounds about right to me, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
Well, if commercial music wasn't so musically retarded and actually had some variety and imagination, Patrick Wolf might have a higher profile and we wouldn't be having this discussion.
It's not a question of simply being gay. Obviously we've had countless gay popstars, and countless more sexually ambiguous ones in the 70's/80's...it's more, being out from the start with absolutely no shame, gaining major popularity and sustaining it like the girls do. Ideally he would be a champion for gay rights, a hero and icon, yet it would simultaneously be completely irrelevant to the music. Adam Lambert, for instance, was the closest we've come recently...but he was adamant that he didn't want to be some sort of activist/poster boy for gay rights.
As camp as Elton, Boy George, George Michael, Freddie Mercury etc. were, they were still not completely 'out', being so eccentric and flamboyant was en vogue and not necessarily homosexual. There was still a degree of shame and inequality there with the lack of openness, almost an unsaid thing. Obviously it was a sign of the times, but now we can progress further.
I suppose it's the same way that Madonna wasn't the first popular female artist, nor did she introduce feminism...but she did popularise the sentiments, making it so mainstream and unavoidable. It's more a sign of the times than anything specifically 'Madonna'. Much like, a huge gay popstar now would be far more about social progression, something much bigger than he himself, but it takes that person to take the lead.
It's a more a case of someone who is fantastically talented being given the chance by a record label to have sexual freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if such a chance was only given on a label owned by someone like Madonna or Gaga. People who don't give a shit about that and will support them as much as they can, more-so than a money greedy label would.
Just thought I'd throw this out there as I now have it on the mind, does anyone think a guy doing something akin to what Gaga is doing now would actually be accepted? To the extent that they could sit at the top of mainstream music? Of course David Bowie had Ziggy Stardust and Freddie Mercury was always flamboyant, but part of me thinks it just wouldn't resonate with people anymore. Going even further than that, could a gay male singer hit these similar heights if they were open from the very start of their career? That would certainly buck the trend...
You're likely correct. I think of one more...modern recording artist called Patrick Wolf I think. He's more so a singer songwriter than trying to be a popstar but he has those tacky flamboyant leather coats and sequins/feathers to make him stand out all shocking and odd.
He hasn't really resonated anywhere except at NME and even there it's just a teensy tiny bit. lol
Adam Lambert kinda counts; with his leather and lace looks and campish lyrics here and there on his debut. Which even he's a bit embarrassed about now too. (I think he said he's going to be a bit less camp on his next one)
It's not a question of simply being gay. Obviously we've had countless gay popstars, and countless more sexually ambiguous ones in the 70's/80's...it's more, being out from the start with absolutely no shame, gaining major popularity and sustaining it like the girls do. Ideally he would be a champion for gay rights, a hero and icon, yet it would simultaneously be completely irrelevant to the music. Adam Lambert, for instance, was the closest we've come recently...but he was adamant that he didn't want to be some sort of activist/poster boy for gay rights.
As camp as Elton, Boy George, George Michael, Freddie Mercury etc. were, they were still not completely 'out', being so eccentric and flamboyant was en vogue and not necessarily homosexual. There was still a degree of shame and inequality there with the lack of openness, almost an unsaid thing. Obviously it was a sign of the times, but now we can progress further.
I suppose it's the same way that Madonna wasn't the first popular female artist, nor did she introduce feminism...but she did popularise the sentiments, making it so mainstream and unavoidable. It's more a sign of the times than anything specifically 'Madonna'. Much like, a huge gay popstar now would be far more about social progression, something much bigger than he himself, but it takes that person to take the lead.
It's a more a case of someone who is fantastically talented being given the chance by a record label to have sexual freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if such a chance was only given on a label owned by someone like Madonna or Gaga. People who don't give a shit about that and will support them as much as they can, more-so than a money greedy label would.
Pretty much my thoughts as well on the subject. It would be a brilliant thing to see, as I said earlier for someone unashamedly out from the start to make it big. I certainly think it's something that can happen this decade, given how tolerant society has become. It's just whether or not someone is willing to take the risk, which I'm a tad skeptical about.
The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you were talking about a man being derogatory to another man because he was gay.
Fair enough, it's 'homophobe' then.In my country we use both 'racist' and 'sexist' quite loosely, so I didn't realize that the statement was incorrect.Thank you anyway.
There is one aspect of the gay popstar that I need to focus on now; the image.He will definetely wear some wacky clothes, but he needs to show that he doesn't just seek attention or TRYING to impress.I think he needs to have a really raw and real approach, but at the same time he needs to be a proper pop artist and that could be a little difficult to achieve.Maybe he could actually be a little tongue and cheek sometimes too, a bit goofy while trying to convey such a huge message.It makes the perfect combination.
And he doesn't have to launch himself as a singed, sealed, delivered role model.He just needs to be himself, but most labels would just take him and promote him as 'the hero', which is not what people want to see.
Back in 2006-2007 I really thought that Justin Timberlake was promising and would eventually impact the pop culture in some extent, but then he just vanished.If he tries to come back, let's say next year, will he match his 2006 popularity, buzz and acclaim???Can he just pick up from where he left off???
Back in 2006-2007 I really thought that Justin Timberlake was promising and would eventually impact the pop culture in some extent, but then he just vanished.If he tries to come back, let's say next year, will he match his 2006 popularity, buzz and acclaim???Can he just pick up from where he left off???
It would be unrealistic for him to! I mean he has been away for over 5 years! But been in collabs and films since then.
But i think that if he is marketed right he may have some success like Usher, or if not and appears "too old" for the current market (Radio 1) he may do a "Bionic" and really underachieve!
As for image it is very important he (the male popstar) will have iconic clothing and whacky sense of appeal. Like a cartoon but present something believable.....i still dont and never will understand "gaga" as a concept it seems very forced in places, but when she is at her piano is SEE her! A male that stands for and believes what he says like Madonna or P!nk i feel will be the best bet! And he can then pave the way for more male pop artists....a Boy Britney, Man Cyndi, guy Kylie, Cher dude! etc.etc.etc
It would be unrealistic for him to! I mean he has been away for over 5 years! But been in collabs and films since then.
But i think that if he is marketed right he may have some success like Usher, or if not and appears "too old" for the current market (Radio 1) he may do a "Bionic" and really underachieve!
Well, with Christina it was different.It's like everyone wanted her to flop, even her label.But look at what 'Bionic' did for Christina.As a huge Christina fan, I still have to admit that from 2008 to 2009 she was considered a bit irrelevant, but with 'Bionic' she was all over the press and now she has momentum and buzz again.SHE IS READY! :D
As for image it is very important he (the male popstar) will have iconic clothing and whacky sense of appeal. Like a cartoon but present something believable.....i still dont and never will understand "gaga" as a concept it seems very forced in places, but when she is at her piano is SEE her! A male that stands for and believes what he says like Madonna or P!nk i feel will be the best bet! And he can then pave the way for more male pop artists....a Boy Britney, Man Cyndi, guy Kylie, Cher dude! etc.etc.etc
Agreed.And as I said before, he doesn't have to be a manufactured hero (with sob stories and all), just a genuine person with a true vision in every aspect.Maybe a bit of a tongue and cheek approach too.He doesn't have to take himself TOO seriously.That's how a great message can be truly spread and conveyed.
And I also agree about GaGa.I only find her appealing when she plays the piano, but when she's trying to dance Just no!It seems like she is trying to conform to what a show woman needs to be and it doesn't always work.And her ideas about performing have clearly stalled, if the performances for 'Judas', 'BTW' and 'TEOG' are anything to go by.
Fair enough, it's 'homophobe' then.In my country we use both 'racist' and 'sexist' quite loosely, so I didn't realize that the statement was incorrect.Thank you anyway.
Loose enough that you say "sexism" as in discrimintation based on gender instead of homophobia which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Thats not using the terms loosely, thats using a word when you are describing an entirely different concept. Much like when people use "racist" to describe discrimination against someone because they come from a certain country, when they should be saying xenophobia, its two totally different terms. You can't just chuck words like that around without actually understanding what they mean, thats where problems start.
Well, with Christina it was different.It's like everyone wanted her to flop, even her label.But look at what 'Bionic' did for Christina.As a huge Christina fan, I still have to admit that from 2008 to 2009 she was considered a bit irrelevant, but with 'Bionic' she was all over the press and now she has momentum and buzz again.SHE IS READY! :D
Agreed.And as I said before, he doesn't have to be a manufactured hero (with sob stories and all), just a genuine person with a true vision in every aspect.Maybe a bit of a tongue and cheek approach too.He doesn't have to take himself TOO seriously.That's how a great message can be truly spread and conveyed.
And I also agree about GaGa.I only find her appealing when she plays the piano, but when she's trying to dance Just no!It seems like she is trying to conform to what a show woman needs to be and it doesn't always work.And her ideas about performing have clearly stalled, if the performances for 'Judas', 'BTW' and 'TEOG' are anything to go by.
True Bionic did essentially relaunch her in the media! And i like it but it underperformed. I think JT will never achieve the sales of his last two albums! Both sold around 10 million each i think!
And yeah i think Beyonce is more kinda accessible on the eprsonal front, but everytime i see a gaga interview....i absolutely cringe because i get a sence it is not HER as such. Her music is where she communicates but when asked a normal question it is all "empowerment this, revolution that, politics this, anthem that....gay,gay,gay,gay,gay,gay" it is vom inducing what she states sometimes....no wonder some people got sick of her!
I mean Born This Way when i listen to it it doesnt sound like the same person in thos interviews. Like we both agree when she performs she is this whole OTHER person!
Loose enough that you say "sexism" as in discrimintation based on gender instead of homophobia which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Thats not using the terms loosely, thats using a word when you are describing an entirely different concept. Much like when people use "racist" to describe discrimination against someone because they come from a certain country, when they should be saying xenophobia, its two totally different terms. You can't just chuck words like that around without actually understanding what they mean, thats where problems start.
That's exactly what I meant when I said that in my country these terms are used loosely.We use 'racist' for EVERYTHING that has to do with unfair discrimination and we use 'sexist' very rarely to imply that someone criticizes another person because of his overall sexual orientation.I definetely understand the difference between the terms but I use the terms 'racist' and 'sexist' quite spontaneously.
So, back on topic, Usher, (who has also been a very successful male) has stated that his next album is going to be all about a "new genre" that he has discovered, called "revolutionary pop".Of course he is the same man who thinks he's the natural heir of MJ's throne, so I'd take his statements with a pinch of salt.However, now that Justin Timberlake has vanished (and isn't even in the studio currently) is there any chance that Usher could do something relatively exciting???
Well, the devils child himself Justin Bieber, has had quite a big influence on pop culture, along with similar teeny boys, i.e. Jonas Brothers. They have all set up a new sub-culture from pop...
Well, the devils child himself Justin Bieber, has had quite a big influence on pop culture, along with similar teeny boys, i.e. Jonas Brothers. They have all set up a new sub-culture from pop...
It's actually sad, yet true that JB had SOME impact but not on pop culture, because kids don't really form pop culture.And JB, The Jonas Brothers and the rest of the 'how to destroy music' gang appeal to kids and GIRLS in teenage, not boys.So nobody immitates their style and they are therefore FAR from being icons, let alone impact the pop culture.
Adam Lambert "Outlaws of Love" New Song
Lambert said the track is inspired by personal experience
“All of the things I’ve been talking about over the past year, all of it boils down to acceptance and this is a song that I wrote about how it feels, that no matter where you go or where you turn, sometimes it feels like you’re just running from the law,” he explained.
So, back on topic, Usher, (who has also been a very successful male) has stated that his next album is going to be all about a "new genre" that he has discovered, called "revolutionary pop".Of course he is the same man who thinks he's the natural heir of MJ's throne, so I'd take his statements with a pinch of salt.However, now that Justin Timberlake has vanished (and isn't even in the studio currently) is there any chance that Usher could do something relatively exciting???
Do you prefer Justin Timberlake to Usher? I don't see what JT could do that is a lot more exciting than what Usher could do?
Do you prefer Justin Timberlake to Usher? I don't see what JT could do that is a lot more exciting than what Usher could do?
Where do I begin?
1)Usher has an obsession about being the heir of MJ's throne.We all know he's never going to achieve this, even his mother/ex-manager knew that so she tried to hold him back a bit, but he's making so many daft statements and doing so many failed immitations that it makes him look like a fool (and takes away from his credibility)
2)Usher sold out completely.He released 'Here I Stand' which was a solid album and it still sold well, but his buzz had died down so he felt the need to release a pop song to re-launch his profile.The outcome was an album that sold even less than 'Here I Stand' in the US and that made him look desperate.And the Urban format was hoping that he was going to bring Urban back, but he released a song like 'DJ Got Us Falling In Love' as a lead single to his EP and then instead of releasing and promoting one of the 6 r'n'b tracks from his EP, he chose to release a pop song off of his album ('More') and remix it to sound even more pop.
3)Musically, he was never innovative to me.He did change the way that r'n'b arists look (and he is the one to blame about the fact that every successful r n'b artist has to have abs and talk about sex), but musically he never did anything that was even slightly different to what was out there.Justin did that.He didn't cause a revolution, but both his albums introduced elements and sounds that the mainstream audience wasn't familiar with.
Another thought.Is there a possibility that a male from another genre could impact the pop culture too???For example, hip hop and rock are still dominated by males.If any of those genres finds its way back to the mainstream media, could a really poweful and successful male from these genres become a pop icon without being a pop artist???
Comments
Still wrong, I think you mean Homophobic.
Exactly! People love icons that push the boundaries.
And he will set the standard! By really breaking down what is right and wrong etc. We properly need him to do that!
And yes a strong mental state and backbone to take it on.
a load of female performers are gay icons for moving forward a lot for the lgbt movement! as well as legendary figures in their own right! and to have a male figure to push it forward would be very interesting as well as powerful!
Sounds about right to me, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
so basically a group who will discriminate and say " a man cannot do that....a gay man shouldnt do that etc,etc,etc" all of which will be kick ass!
gosh we are making up our own Male Pop Icon here lads and lasses :cool:
As camp as Elton, Boy George, George Michael, Freddie Mercury etc. were, they were still not completely 'out', being so eccentric and flamboyant was en vogue and not necessarily homosexual. There was still a degree of shame and inequality there with the lack of openness, almost an unsaid thing. Obviously it was a sign of the times, but now we can progress further.
I suppose it's the same way that Madonna wasn't the first popular female artist, nor did she introduce feminism...but she did popularise the sentiments, making it so mainstream and unavoidable. It's more a sign of the times than anything specifically 'Madonna'. Much like, a huge gay popstar now would be far more about social progression, something much bigger than he himself, but it takes that person to take the lead.
It's a more a case of someone who is fantastically talented being given the chance by a record label to have sexual freedom. I wouldn't be surprised if such a chance was only given on a label owned by someone like Madonna or Gaga. People who don't give a shit about that and will support them as much as they can, more-so than a money greedy label would.
You're likely correct. I think of one more...modern recording artist called Patrick Wolf I think. He's more so a singer songwriter than trying to be a popstar but he has those tacky flamboyant leather coats and sequins/feathers to make him stand out all shocking and odd.
He hasn't really resonated anywhere except at NME and even there it's just a teensy tiny bit. lol
Adam Lambert kinda counts; with his leather and lace looks and campish lyrics here and there on his debut. Which even he's a bit embarrassed about now too. (I think he said he's going to be a bit less camp on his next one)
The way you phrased your comment, it sounded like you were talking about a man being derogatory to another man because he was gay.
Pretty much my thoughts as well on the subject. It would be a brilliant thing to see, as I said earlier for someone unashamedly out from the start to make it big. I certainly think it's something that can happen this decade, given how tolerant society has become. It's just whether or not someone is willing to take the risk, which I'm a tad skeptical about.
Fair enough, it's 'homophobe' then.In my country we use both 'racist' and 'sexist' quite loosely, so I didn't realize that the statement was incorrect.Thank you anyway.
And he doesn't have to launch himself as a singed, sealed, delivered role model.He just needs to be himself, but most labels would just take him and promote him as 'the hero', which is not what people want to see.
It would be unrealistic for him to! I mean he has been away for over 5 years! But been in collabs and films since then.
But i think that if he is marketed right he may have some success like Usher, or if not and appears "too old" for the current market (Radio 1) he may do a "Bionic" and really underachieve!
As for image it is very important he (the male popstar) will have iconic clothing and whacky sense of appeal. Like a cartoon but present something believable.....i still dont and never will understand "gaga" as a concept it seems very forced in places, but when she is at her piano is SEE her! A male that stands for and believes what he says like Madonna or P!nk i feel will be the best bet! And he can then pave the way for more male pop artists....a Boy Britney, Man Cyndi, guy Kylie, Cher dude! etc.etc.etc
Well, with Christina it was different.It's like everyone wanted her to flop, even her label.But look at what 'Bionic' did for Christina.As a huge Christina fan, I still have to admit that from 2008 to 2009 she was considered a bit irrelevant, but with 'Bionic' she was all over the press and now she has momentum and buzz again.SHE IS READY!
Agreed.And as I said before, he doesn't have to be a manufactured hero (with sob stories and all), just a genuine person with a true vision in every aspect.Maybe a bit of a tongue and cheek approach too.He doesn't have to take himself TOO seriously.That's how a great message can be truly spread and conveyed.
And I also agree about GaGa.I only find her appealing when she plays the piano, but when she's trying to dance
Loose enough that you say "sexism" as in discrimintation based on gender instead of homophobia which is discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Thats not using the terms loosely, thats using a word when you are describing an entirely different concept. Much like when people use "racist" to describe discrimination against someone because they come from a certain country, when they should be saying xenophobia, its two totally different terms. You can't just chuck words like that around without actually understanding what they mean, thats where problems start.
True Bionic did essentially relaunch her in the media! And i like it but it underperformed. I think JT will never achieve the sales of his last two albums! Both sold around 10 million each i think!
And yeah i think Beyonce is more kinda accessible on the eprsonal front, but everytime i see a gaga interview....i absolutely cringe because i get a sence it is not HER as such. Her music is where she communicates but when asked a normal question it is all "empowerment this, revolution that, politics this, anthem that....gay,gay,gay,gay,gay,gay" it is vom inducing what she states sometimes....no wonder some people got sick of her!
I mean Born This Way when i listen to it it doesnt sound like the same person in thos interviews. Like we both agree when she performs she is this whole OTHER person!
genuinity is everything!
That's exactly what I meant when I said that in my country these terms are used loosely.We use 'racist' for EVERYTHING that has to do with unfair discrimination and we use 'sexist' very rarely to imply that someone criticizes another person because of his overall sexual orientation.I definetely understand the difference between the terms but I use the terms 'racist' and 'sexist' quite spontaneously.
It's actually sad, yet true that JB had SOME impact but not on pop culture, because kids don't really form pop culture.And JB, The Jonas Brothers and the rest of the 'how to destroy music' gang appeal to kids and GIRLS in teenage, not boys.So nobody immitates their style and they are therefore FAR from being icons, let alone impact the pop culture.
Lambert said the track is inspired by personal experience
“All of the things I’ve been talking about over the past year, all of it boils down to acceptance and this is a song that I wrote about how it feels, that no matter where you go or where you turn, sometimes it feels like you’re just running from the law,” he explained.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHlS422JS_I&feature=youtu.be&a
not only is he the most gifted vocalist of this generation, he is a truley gifted songwriter as well
Do you prefer Justin Timberlake to Usher? I don't see what JT could do that is a lot more exciting than what Usher could do?
Where do I begin?
1)Usher has an obsession about being the heir of MJ's throne.We all know he's never going to achieve this, even his mother/ex-manager knew that so she tried to hold him back a bit, but he's making so many daft statements and doing so many failed immitations that it makes him look like a fool (and takes away from his credibility)
2)Usher sold out completely.He released 'Here I Stand' which was a solid album and it still sold well, but his buzz had died down so he felt the need to release a pop song to re-launch his profile.The outcome was an album that sold even less than 'Here I Stand' in the US and that made him look desperate.And the Urban format was hoping that he was going to bring Urban back, but he released a song like 'DJ Got Us Falling In Love' as a lead single to his EP and then instead of releasing and promoting one of the 6 r'n'b tracks from his EP, he chose to release a pop song off of his album ('More') and remix it to sound even more pop.
3)Musically, he was never innovative to me.He did change the way that r'n'b arists look (and he is the one to blame about the fact that every successful r n'b artist has to have abs and talk about sex), but musically he never did anything that was even slightly different to what was out there.Justin did that.He didn't cause a revolution, but both his albums introduced elements and sounds that the mainstream audience wasn't familiar with.