Huh?

[doronjosama]

Sony to start gay & lesbian record label.

Um, maybe I am missing the point here, but why can't gay & lesbian musicians continue to be on the same record labels as everyone else? This seems like a bad idea to me. On the one hand, it would be a clear label gay people could look for when shopping for CDs, but on the other hand, it could also be a clear label that could prevent other people from buying the CDs. "Hey, don't buy that, that's from that queer record company!" "Shoot, yer right Virgil, I don't wanna support no faggots!"

I don't see why gay or lesbian artists would need to be segregated onto their own label. It seems like it would marginalize their work. But maybe that's just me.

Comments

[okojosan.livejournal.com]

That is sort of weird...

I'd rather see then start a label for "up and coming" musicians. Not the ones who have the big names or contracts yet, but are talented and just need some exposure.

[gregmce.livejournal.com]

Just to clarify (I'm not sure which of two angles your comment is going towards) but the new label is for up and coming, non-contracted musicians. They're looking to sign new artists, not transfer existing ones over. (The picture of George Michael in the article is a bit misleading.) Essentially it's saying, "We're going to look for up and coming musicians, but on a business level this particular imprint is going to focus on GLBT artists."

[doronjosama.livejournal.com]

See, the picture of George Michael with the article kinda made me go "huh? are they putting the gay musicians in a gay ghetto?"

[missmonstermel.livejournal.com]

that does seem strange....

[janscottfrazier.livejournal.com]

I wouldn't want any art/music I did catalogued as GLBT. The customers who would buy it because of that are focused on division more than the art itself and while their money would be nice it's not worth putting oneself in a box for it.

[gregmce.livejournal.com]

The only people who will see it being catalogued as GLBT are the people who want to see it that way. Labels themselves mean virtually nothing these days. You don't, for instance, see Kimberley Locke's pop album listed as being under country music even though it was released under Curb Records. All it really comes down to is someone at Sony being given a lot of power to manage their own little subempire of music and they're planning on signing GLBT artists.

Seriously... labels mean virtually nothing these days other than who's behind it. Nothing more, nothing less.

[gregmce.livejournal.com]

Generally speaking, in the music industry the way an individual label works is not a way to segregate music into certain areas, but rather it's the people in charge of the label who find the sort of things they want.

The point of the new label is that there's someone who's been given the power to have their own imprint and they're going to use it to find new GLBT artists and give them a chance.

Or to use a comic book analogy, it's the difference between Vertigo and DC Comics and books that end up at one but not the other. I remember people continually asking why STARMAN wasn't at Vertigo, and the answer was "because Archie Goodwin is the editor." (Or vice versa, why CODENAME: KNOCKOUT was a Vertigo book and not a DC Comics book.) The label is ultimately about the mastermind behind it and what they want to do with it.

Really, most people don't even notice labels these days when it comes to music. Even the bigger labels like Interscope or Death Row aren't the rallying cries that they used to be. All just business, all just who's producing whom.

[cluegirl.livejournal.com]

0.0

You know, between the rootkit bios, the other spyware and now this, I'm thinking that Sony must have held a 'give us your worst idea' raffle in their Concepts division. Hell, maybe they WANT to be put out of business by outraged fans who won't buy anything they sell.

Idiots, they are. Asshats.
They should sit down and shut up.
A lot.

[spotweld.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of a common issue with comics that advertise themselves as being a specific genre (or medium, but that's another argument).
Someone who wished to be critical could state that since there is a customer base that could be construed to be motivated to purchase simply becuase the content falls under a certain "heading" it removes the possibility of consumer responce due to quality of content. Specifically, "You're only buying it because it's (insert genre here) ". (Insert derivse comparison to Hot Topic Here).

It's a rather viscious cycle becuase any well deserved prominance will be only urge other to copy at a bargan rate. (While this label may truely be interested in finding the best of thier listed community, there are certainly other out there for the quick dollar.)

Such is the state of the free market I guess.

[dork-grrl.livejournal.com]

I'm gonna start calling you Abe Simpson.

"Dear Mr. President, There are too many states nowadays. Please eliminate three. P.S. I am not a crack-pot."

"I am disgusted with the way old people are depicted on television. We are not all vibrant, fun-loving sex maniacs. Many of us are bitter, resentful individuals, who remember the gold old days when entertainment was bland and inoffensive."

hee hee!

[doronjosama.livejournal.com]

Shoot, get in line! I get a daily dose of that from suarez every day, when he isn't calling me Marge...

[the-mouthpiece.livejournal.com]

It gives Wall*Mart a whole list of music they can refuse to carry. Wall*Mart isn't happy unless they can refuse to carry something for whatever moral reasons. Cuz, you know.. Gay music ruins the sanctity of crappy pop music. Or something.

I think it's a stupid idea and my brain hurts at the thought of music being categorised by sexual orientation. Niche Market??? Huh.

[xianjaguar.livejournal.com]

I dunno, the Christian industry has it's own record labels that are sometimes owned by larger, 'secular' companies. It is kinda silly, but I think it enables special-interest groups to portion off money for themselves and concentrate on projects that are dear to their own hearts without getting lost in a larger label. And there's some tax reasons as well.

[beelzebozo.livejournal.com]

If they start putting stuff in a GLBT catagory, it's going to be rather lopsided, isn't it ;P

[beelzebozo.livejournal.com]

Maybe I should clarify the joke with something Steve Martin said while hostin the Emmy's.

"Right now, millions of Americans are tuned in watching us right now. And they are all thinking the same thing: We're all gay."

[willworks.livejournal.com]

If it had been 10 years ago, I might have seen it as a ghettoization move. But brand names mean more than ever due to the sheer waves of media being thrown at people these days.

It's a real problem these days for any entertainment company to get people to notice their products even once. So if their products might appeal to a certain powerful demographic group, why not position themselves in a way that group might notice them?

Of course, quality will always out. Death Row was the hottest label in the 90's because it had a strong talent roster. That roster left (or died), now Death Row's a pathetic joke. If Sony attempts to stock the label with sound-alike bands like "The Gay Nirvana" or "The Gay Dave Matthews" or "The Gay(er) Eminem", then they'll flame-out spectacularly. If they offer something new to the culture, they'll be successful.