Hey guys, do u think that Groups aimed at a gay audience or have opely gay members fare less well on American charts than in the UK and Europe. This is an argument I started in the Grace Jones thread

Reply #9 posted 08/31/10 12:07am

So what ddo you think, because I think a lot of US Music buyers are put off by gay themed acts.

Culture Club were an exception, but even Boy George said they were a token. After 1986 when BG came out and his solo songs were all colossal flops in the States, but still had hits in the UK into the 90s.

Really?

What about Cher, Madonna, Lady Gaga...

Actually Elton John, while he did suffer a bit from sales after coming out initially as bisexual (he didn't come out as gay until 1991), I would count why he had limited success due to him getting older.

The Scissor Sisters' music is very adventurous and is not likely to cross over (though I commend them for not selling out to the charts).

George has had a lot of controversy that led to him coming out. Plus George himself felt disillusioned from the business and I think a lot with why he didn't succeed as much was because he didn't put a lot of product out after coming out. I think his greatest hits sets have done well for him here and Patience went gold in the U.S. I don't even think he promoted much of Patience here except for the occasional Oprah appearance and some late night appearances but that's it. Plus the music in that album wasn't made for the charts either. And like Elton, he had gotten older so people weren't really putting their mindset on a 41-year-old George Michael, which was kind of a shame to me because I do think he had some good stuff on it.

Abba had a huge following in the '70s and are now Rock & Roll Hall of Famers but I think it was more due to them being disco, same with Boney M, and Kylie Minogue. The kind of music Kylie is doing now compared to what's played on the radio, I'm not shocked commercial radio isn't touching it. I rather it not to.

Grace Jones has always been eclectic. I'm sure she wished she sold more but that doesn't stop her from putting out the great music she does. She never really caught on in the mainstream.

The way I look at it their music is freeing, liberating and fun. Sure their music don't hit the charts but I could care less. These days I rather just listen to their music than wonder why they didn't sell. Unfortunately the way this industry is I can't be surprised they were more limited in the U.S. We have a separate policy here in the states that Europeans, Australians and Asians and that like don't have when it come to charts.

Shit Madonna's last hit "Celebration" wasn't even popular on the Hot 100 but it was a smash in Europe. Her audience has almost been predominantly gay since Ray of Light but that's a good thing because she had a lot of great dance material.

With Lady Gaga, I think it's her image and radio playing the songs that is why she's at the top compared to someone like Roisin Murphy for instance. I think it's more complex than saying it's just because their audiences are predominantly gay.

I think you have to think of the labels who signed them. Was their motive to sign them to bring them to mainstream audiences or to let these artists do their music.

I commend those who kept their music the way they have. I rather them do music that only cater to one community than try to cross over and therefore losing their souls in the process.

Coincidence, but I got a theory about why the gay hi nrg dance stuff of the 80's never really got to America like it did in some parts of europe....

First of all, I think alot of that hi nrg stuff in the 80's was considered "gay" because of its care free feel and macho production (all atmosphere, care free feel and often nonsensical lyrics and hunky blokes like Den Harrow "singing" the songs), but alot of that stuff did not crossover to the US mainly because the US in general likes its lyrics to make sense LOL. Alot of that high nrg euro stuff of the 80's was all about atmosphere and vocals very high in the mix with lyrics that made little to no sense. America doesn't seem to like that. It never has. Out of all the countries, America takes it pop music the most seriously. Then maybe UK. BAre in mind the UK is quite different to its european neighbours

Now Iam not saying gay audiences don't take their dance music seriously, but in the hi nrg genre case, I just think America does not dig lyrics that make little sense and vocals very high in the mix, amongst over things. So I don't think there was an anti gay thing in that case.

As for today, well we all know America's obsession with hiphop and how it still seems to dominate their top 40. It's quite obvious how anti gay and ultramacho some of it is. How many gay rappers are there? Exactly. They all got to act hard and talk harder. Once a gay rapper becomes popular, you will see many others LOL. Supply and demand.

Adam Lambert seems to be doing pretty well.

ana matroik is a straight woman not a transgender.

BklynBabe said:

Adam Lambert seems to be doing pretty well.

That's because his music is shitty and he benefitted (a little) from being on "Idol". I wouldn't call him a success either. Other than one song that hit the top ten (because it was a ballad), none of his other songs took off, and he only has had success in three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia).

[Edited 8/31/10 19:44pm]

Don't forget that Culture Club was quite popular in the early 80's...

Dead or Alive

Sylvester

RuPaul

KD Lang

FormerlyKnownAs said:

Don't forget that Culture Club was quite popular in the early 80's...

Dead or Alive

Sylvester

RuPaul

KD Lang

Yeah... I think the Pet Shop Boys should be included as far as '80s acts. Melissa Etheridge was almost quite open with her sexuality. In fact after she came out her next album ("Yes I Am") sold more than her other albums lol

Huggiebear said:

Hey guys, do u think that Groups aimed at a gay audience or have opely gay members fare less well on American charts than in the UK and Europe?

Yup.

For a while, folks said Prince was specifically targeting gay (or gay-friendly) markets with provocative material. I just think he was lucky to come out during the late 70s - a time when people were more open about music and going out and having fun together. Many people loved Sylvester regardless of their sexual orientation.

Musicians are now more interested in appealing to different markets than making great music, and it shows. Even dance music - music that's supposed to magically appeal to legions of gay fans - is tired just because of that shortsightedness. As much as I love Deborah Cox, I don't want to hear 25 different remixes of Stranger In My House just because I'm gay. (Unless they're all FIERCE!)

It also works the other way; every 'gay' artist isn't necessarily going to be a dance music artist. Meshell Ndegeocello is probably the best example of somebody I see as a musician first. I care more about hearing her collabs with Wendy & Lisa and Chaka Khan and Deantoni Parks than I care about knowing who she's up on - even in her songs.

We're living in an interesting, volatile time right now. The music industry is bloated and our economy is in shambles. The Internet was supposed to give artists more direct connections to their fans, but it's not that simple. More people have more access to more techonology to make more music faster - and much of it sounds just as bland and crappy as that.

Ultimately, I don't think gayness will matter that much. People buy Gaga's music because she's fun and crazy and she makes great music - not because they happen to know she's bisexual. I know I didn't run to buy music from either Clay Aiken or Adam Lambert just because they came out. People either like music or they don't. I'm sure they're PLENTY of closeted GOP queens that still get their LIFE as soon as they hear "At first I was afraid/I was petrified ..."

Timmy84 said:

BklynBabe said:

Adam Lambert seems to be doing pretty well.

That's because his music is shitty and he benefitted (a little) from being on "Idol". I wouldn't call him a success either. Other than one song that hit the top ten (because it was a ballad), none of his other songs took off, and he only has had success in three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia).

[Edited 8/31/10 19:44pm]

Wrong.

His latest single "If I Had You" is a radio and iTunes hit (currently #33 and still climbing).

And his album is still selling.

He's doing very well.

[Edited 8/31/10 22:17pm]

TheBoyfromtheBand said:

Really?

What about Cher, Madonna, Lady Gaga...

All go back to my original point about acts that appeal to teeny boppers and straight women too. Also the last two named acts are or were quite attractive females that would appeal to straight men.

And Madonna and Cher's sales of late have been better in the UK and Europe markets than the American one.

amit1234 said:

Timmy84 said:

That's because his music is shitty and he benefitted (a little) from being on "Idol". I wouldn't call him a success either. Other than one song that hit the top ten (because it was a ballad), none of his other songs took off, and he only has had success in three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia).

[Edited 8/31/10 19:44pm]

Wrong.

His latest single "If I Had You" is a radio and iTunes hit (currently #33 and still climbing).

And his album is still selling.

He's doing very well.

[Edited 8/31/10 22:17pm]

I guess if that's "very well" lol dude ain't even mainstream.

[Edited 8/31/10 23:51pm]

Timmy84 said:

amit1234 said:

Wrong.

His latest single "If I Had You" is a radio and iTunes hit (currently #33 and still climbing).

And his album is still selling.

He's doing very well.

[Edited 8/31/10 22:17pm]

I guess if that's "very well" lol dude ain't even mainstream.

[Edited 8/31/10 23:51pm]

Who?

On a more mainstream front, I would throw Queen into this as well, although several factors led to their decline in the 1980s (Freddie's new image, sound, I Want to Break Free video) have been cited as driving the nail into their coffin as it relates to U.S. sales.

David Bowie, who is one of my all time faves, was never a huge seller in the U.S. prior to Lets Dance in 1983. His image was always deemed as a cross between artsy and glam. Some folks couldn't get past the androgynous Ziggy era and even after doing a video like "Boys Keep Swinging" did not endear him to the American general public. He was forever kind of tagged as a "gay" artist by some.

COMPUTERBLUE1984 said:

On a more mainstream front, I would throw Queen into this as well, although several factors led to their decline in the 1980s (Freddie's new image, sound, I Want to Break Free video) have been cited as driving the nail into their coffin as it relates to U.S. sales.

David Bowie, who is one of my all time faves, was never a huge seller in the U.S. prior to Lets Dance in 1983. His image was always deemed as a cross between artsy and glam. Some folks couldn't get past the androgynous Ziggy era and even after doing a video like "Boys Keep Swinging" did not endear him to the American general public. He was forever kind of tagged as a "gay" artist by some.

Technically I think when they did all of that, people who weren't used to it thought they were "threatening". The original video of "Relax" by Frankie Goes to Hollywood was homoerotic but the group was immediately forced to replace the original for a more MTV-friendly version for this country which is why we got the concert video instead. And even then people didn't quickly realize that what they meant was fucking ("when you're gonna cum?"). David Bowie was considered avant-garde/glam/artsy until "Let's Dance" as you said. When it comes to that, it's quite a shame they weren't bigger than they were.

Timmy84 said:

BklynBabe said:

Adam Lambert seems to be doing pretty well.

That's because his music is shitty and he benefitted (a little) from being on "Idol". I wouldn't call him a success either. Other than one song that hit the top ten (because it was a ballad), none of his other songs took off, and he only has had success in three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia).

[Edited 8/31/10 19:44pm]

Two things:

1: Adam Lambert's music is far from shit. His album is probably the best thing released last year, a wide variety of styles but all cohesive, and that voice is just fantastic.

2: only 1 song hasn't taken off (For Your Entertainment) the second and third singles have done just fine. Esp. on the airplay charts, where "If I Had You" is in the top 20. Not huge, earthshattering success, but the singles are doing well and the tour is doing well.

=0P

Well, from what I remember about the 1980s, if you weren't gay, then you had damn well better look gay if you wanted to be successful. All that progress made and then shit hop comes along and just tears it all down with that rediculous plain thug look. The 1990s just turned things assbackwards. If you don't look like a star, get your ass off the stage and make room for someone who does.

vainandy said:

Well, from what I remember about the 1980s, if you weren't gay, then you had damn well better look gay if you wanted to be successful. All that progress made and then shit hop comes along and just tears it all down with that rediculous plain thug look. The 1990s just turned things assbackwards. If you don't look like a star, get your ass off the stage and make room for someone who does.

Oh yeah. There's a WHOLE LOT of bands that definitely fit what you're talking about lol

Hero0101 said:

Timmy84 said:

That's because his music is shitty and he benefitted (a little) from being on "Idol". I wouldn't call him a success either. Other than one song that hit the top ten (because it was a ballad), none of his other songs took off, and he only has had success in three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia).

[Edited 8/31/10 19:44pm]

Two things:

1: Adam Lambert's music is far from shit. His album is probably the best thing released last year, a wide variety of styles but all cohesive, and that voice is just fantastic.

2: only 1 song hasn't taken off (For Your Entertainment) the second and third singles have done just fine. Esp. on the airplay charts, where "If I Had You" is in the top 20. Not huge, earthshattering success, but the singles are doing well and the tour is doing well.

=0P

1.) Well to me it is. I tried to get into the album but it was like whatever he was aiming at, it just didn't hit me like, say, MGMT did. It's all over the place, as is his own voice on some of the songs.

2.) Well considering the slow push in promotion, I think it's mainly due to fans buying digital copies which is why it's "doing well".

He did go gold but it took months and the tour is only doing good because he's doing it at places where he would sell out. Otherwise he wouldn't have tried it. It's easy to compare him to other artists and say well he's doing well and I give you that but not to the point where it's like it's any indication he'll find bigger success by the time his next album come out.

In comparison, his fellow label mate Kesha is outselling him here and in the U.S. and he hasn't reached the level of fame Gaga is doing but that would be unfair comparisons, wouldn't it? But we'll see how far his career goes after this...

Timmy84 said:

BklynBabe said:

Adam Lambert seems to be doing pretty well.

That's because his music is shitty and he benefitted (a little) from being on "Idol". I wouldn't call him a success either. Other than one song that hit the top ten (because it was a ballad), none of his other songs took off, and he only has had success in three countries (Canada, New Zealand and Australia).

[Edited 8/31/10 19:44pm]

His Music is not shitty , it's not bad I think he is talented actually one of the last things I like on American Idol. Adam and Gaga are the main gay artists out right now. I'm straight and I could care less if they are gay or not I enjoy their music.

The interesting thing is that you can trace back gay themed performances even further back than Marc Bolan and David Bowie. Back in the mid-1950s, Little Richard, while never openly admitting it, was one of the first gay-themed performers to find success. I don't know if gay meant anything but "happy" in those days. But seeing the likes of him in the mainstream was unusual though to be fair. He was the first gender-bender and he did it at a time where him being both gay and black he could've not gotten as far. Even with him wearing makeup (to fend off racists who would've probably beat him up for looking at white women), he was still a threat. Esquerita, who influenced a part of Richard's dress style and piano playing, was more of a threat and, I believe, was one of the first openly gay recording artists of any race. His openness prevented him from being accepted in either pop or R&B circles and he was in obscurity until his death in the 1980s.

Then we had Marc Bolan and David Bowie who brought a gay themed element to their shows though it was to shock people (well mainly from Bowie). Then Lou Reed, who is openly bisexual, also ventured to the same genre (glam rock) and wore his nails black (like Lambert). Since David became the bigger of the stars, he was giving the position to give people a double check with the stuff he was doing. Elton John was flamboyant in the beginning of his career and at a time when glam rock was the craze he rode to the top much like Little Richard.

I don't think his career, as I said, suffered because he opened up about his bisexuality in the mid-1970s, but due to it being an overload of Elton material (and folks tiring of glam rock and going to disco). I believe Jobriath and Sylvester were the first openly gay artists to be signed to major labels I believe. Jobriath's career suffered because the label didn't know what to do with him (he was quite unpredictable) while Sylvester's suffered a bit after disco's mainstream ride began to descend in the early '80s. Then we had Boy George and Marilyn and metal bands that wore makeup openly starting the "glam metal" scene (Motley Crue, Poison, Warrant, etc.). I think a lot of factors, besides from sexuality, that led to so many gay/gay themed performers to not get over the hump. Like I said, the main reason why someone like Adam got through was, of course, it's becoming more socially acceptable to be gay in the pop music world, and also because he was on American Idol but after his first wave end, if nothing comes to fruition of his career, he may end up suffering the same fate of some of his contemporaries.

It took a while but some people have basically showed their respect to the likes of Little Richard, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury and Elton John. Some others either choose not to go to the mainstream and stay indie or go overseas or fall into obscurity. Despite some changes, it's still rough for gay artists to get through though a good number of them have found some success but even that's limiting. Like I said, we'll see what happens.

The new scissor sisters is a great cd, and its all bout man on man fucking, it wont make a blip in the usa charts but its high on my fav list.

lazycrockett said:

The new scissor sisters is a great cd, and its all bout man on man fucking, it wont make a blip in the usa charts but its high on my fav list.

I plan on getting that...some way lol

Timmy84 said:

The interesting thing is that you can trace back gay themed performances even further back than Marc Bolan and David Bowie. Back in the mid-1950s, Little Richard, while never openly admitting it, was one of the first gay-themed performers to find success. I don't know if gay meant anything but "happy" in those days. But seeing the likes of him in the mainstream was unusual though to be fair. He was the first gender-bender and he did it at a time where him being both gay and black he could've not gotten as far. Even with him wearing makeup (to fend off racists who would've probably beat him up for looking at white women), he was still a threat. Esquerita, who influenced a part of Richard's dress style and piano playing, was more of a threat and, I believe, was one of the first openly gay recording artists of any race. His openness prevented him from being accepted in either pop or R&B circles and he was in obscurity until his death in the 1980s.

Then we had Marc Bolan and David Bowie who brought a gay themed element to their shows though it was to shock people (well mainly from Bowie). Then Lou Reed, who is openly bisexual, also ventured to the same genre (glam rock) and wore his nails black (like Lambert). Since David became the bigger of the stars, he was giving the position to give people a double check with the stuff he was doing. Elton John was flamboyant in the beginning of his career and at a time when glam rock was the craze he rode to the top much like Little Richard.

I don't think his career, as I said, suffered because he opened up about his bisexuality in the mid-1970s, but due to it being an overload of Elton material (and folks tiring of glam rock and going to disco). I believe Jobriath and Sylvester were the first openly gay artists to be signed to major labels I believe. Jobriath's career suffered because the label didn't know what to do with him (he was quite unpredictable) while Sylvester's suffered a bit after disco's mainstream ride began to descend in the early '80s. Then we had Boy George and Marilyn and metal bands that wore makeup openly starting the "glam metal" scene (Motley Crue, Poison, Warrant, etc.). I think a lot of factors, besides from sexuality, that led to so many gay/gay themed performers to not get over the hump. Like I said, the main reason why someone like Adam got through was, of course, it's becoming more socially acceptable to be gay in the pop music world, and also because he was on American Idol but after his first wave end, if nothing comes to fruition of his career, he may end up suffering the same fate of some of his contemporaries.

It took a while but some people have basically showed their respect to the likes of Little Richard, David Bowie, Freddie Mercury and Elton John. Some others either choose not to go to the mainstream and stay indie or go overseas or fall into obscurity. Despite some changes, it's still rough for gay artists to get through though a good number of them have found some success but even that's limiting. Like I said, we'll see what happens.

Excellent answer, its great to know other people have heard of Esquerita (Sy Reeter) and Jobriath, as they were both gay and proud and did have musical talent, yet no one cared much about them, Esquerita was a great piano player and virtually invented the Pompadour hairstyle. Little Richard to me was iconic for his music, but not as a gay role model, as he kept reverting to the church and rejecting his sexuality, even though he acts flamboyant with his shut ups and woohs!! he has never said "I am gay and I am proud". Also Bowie as he was really only gay/bi during the 70s as a gimmick, Bowie later said in the early 80s that the gay thing was an act and has acted militantly straight ever since. Thats why not many gay people like Bowie (I do as his music was iconic).

I don't blame all these early people though, because it would have been hard for them to be proud in those days (Especially for Esquerita back in the 50s) More interestingly it seems a lot of the early blues and jazz singers like Ma Rainey, Lucille Bogan and Bessie Smith were Lesbian or bi as well, but probably could not parade it in every day life.

The glam metal makeup glitter thing was flamboyant in a way but strictly heterosexual as these guys sang about shagging groupies by the boatload in their songs and it was possibly a metal version of the campy new romantic/ 80s pretty boy pop like Duran Duran.

lazycrockett said:

The new scissor sisters is a great cd, and its all bout man on man fucking, it wont make a blip in the usa charts but its high on my fav list.

Saw them a few years ago on the back of their (fucking excellent and breath of fresh air) debut album. They know how to put on a great show.

The trouble with having such an outstanding debut is trying to top it. Which they haven't unfortunately. I still really like them and have no issue with their sexuality. Why should I care where or how they want to stick their wangers (or hoo-ha-dillies)?

So am I right in thinking that the stereotypical yank is one of those seen in countless media from Starship Troopers to Modern Warfare 2? Boy, you lot have got some work to do if that's the case

[Edited 9/3/10 6:13am]

iloveannie said:

lazycrockett said:

The new scissor sisters is a great cd, and its all bout man on man fucking, it wont make a blip in the usa charts but its high on my fav list.

Saw them a few years ago on the back of their (fucking excellent and breath of fresh air) debut album. They know how to put on a great show.

The trouble with having such an outstanding debut is trying to top it. Which they haven't unfortunately. I still really like them and have no issue with their sexuality. Why should I care where or how they want to stick their wangers (or hoo-ha-dillies)?

So am I right in thinking that the stereotypical yank is one of those seen in countless media from Starship Troopers to Modern Warfare 2? Boy, you lot have got some work to do if that's the case

[Edited 9/3/10 6:13am]

No to me, the average yank goes out and buys a Miley Cyrus or Jonas Brothers CD thats full up with neo rightist Christian rhetoric and very little/ if no musical talent.

I honestly thgink one reason Americans avoid gay themed acts is because they are scared of them or feel threatened by these people becoming famous, yet its okay for some overchained gold teeth wearing thug who swears at a drum machine beat and talks about raping women, shooting people and zonking themselves out with liquor and drugs a massive star.

Adam Lambert's success has not been that great, he's hit the charts but hardly had the smash success of Kelly Clarkson or Carrie Underwood (Two more blonde WASP friends of Jesus). But in this case I agree with the Yanks, Lambert's talent is quite marginal and he uses his sexuality as a cliche and there I feel its not wise to ram your sexuality down other peoples throats all the time.

TheBoyfromtheBand said:

Really?

What about Cher, Madonna, Lady Gaga...

No, they're just directed at people with no taste.

To actually answer the thread, yes. I think it's pretty obvious queer or queer-friendly performers' mainstream success is limited. Those that are big are usually, for lack of a better term, publicly sexless. Take Elton John, for example. While he does have a HUGE amount of mainstream success and it is generally known he has a boyfriend/husband -can anyone think of any EJ songs that are clearly read as same-sex oriented? The man has some fantastic love songs but they're all safe and gender neutral. Same too for many other LGBT/friendly acts.

FormerlyKnownAs said:

Don't forget that Culture Club was quite popular in the early 80's...

Dead or Alive

Sylvester

RuPaul

KD Lang

The only one of those with serious mainstream success and credibility is kd lang, bless her.

But, and I sincerely hope I'm not the only one to have noticed this, it seems like a lot of out LGBT performers aren't, well, all that talented.

For all the queer community has a reputation for excelling in the performing arts, a lot of known acts really kind of suck. For every Rufus there are ten Pansy Divisions.