Category talk:LGBT musical groups

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LGBT Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject LGBT studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBT related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
Category This page is a category and does not require a rating on the quality scale.

What does it mean for a group to be in this category? Do one, more than one or all of its members have to be LGBT? Do the themes in the band's music and image have to represent LGBT society? It just occurred to me that Hüsker Dü, a band that was made up of two gay men and one straight man, is not included here. They certainly pass having the LGBT members thing, although the themes of their music barely touch on LGBT themes at all (except, notably, the song She's A Woman (And Now He Is A Man)). Worth adding the band to this category?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 18:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a very good question, and I don't have a good answer. A band with one gay member? That's like calling Bloc Party an African-American musical group! If David Bowie and Mick Jagger have a drunken orgy, do they both get in the category? Do the Kinks qualify for "Lola"? --Dhartung | Talk 01:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah. This is not a clearly defined category at the moment, and until someone can define it, I don't really see much reason for its existence.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 14:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and it wouldn't be like calling Bloc Party an African-American musical group because their singer may have an African background but that isn't an American one to the best of my knowledge.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 19:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I just added Queen and came here for guidance on whether or not I should add Judas Priest as well. Perhaps we could rename the category "Musical groups with at least one LGBT member"? Hoof Hearted 17:11, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Another gray area is the group t.A.T.u. who were infamously portrayed as lesbians but were actually straight. Hoof Hearted 14:32, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Proposed inclusion guidelines

I propose that this category should only include groups that...

  • have at least one LGBT member OR at least half of the members must be LGBT (one or the other, I'm leaning towards the former with a renamed category)
  • have openly gay member(s) during the peak of their popularity
  • have produced several LGBT themed works
  • were clearly portrayed as LGBT, regardless of the group's or member's sexual orientation (such as t.A.T.u.)

Feel free to discuss or add more criteria. I'm guessing that this category was started for all the gay choruses but got expanded to include pop groups. Should there be a seperate category for the choruses? Once we get a concensus the category should be renamed and criteria moved to the Category page. Hoof Hearted 15:04, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Fairly good criteria, but Husker Du would not pass the final criterion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 06:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC).
So do you think Husker Du should be included? I thought based on your Bloc Party analogy you felt they shouldn't be included. We can alter the criteria. Maybe make them "OR" bullets instead of "AND" bullets. Hoof Hearted 21:24, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
IMO, if the group isn't made up of LGBT persons (Lady (group), for instance, or Pet Shop Boys), then they don't belong in the group. Otherwise it's more like LGBT supportive musical groups which would be a much bigger (and not as useful) cat. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:41, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but I thought that groups like The B-52's, Judas Priest, and Hüsker Dü did a lot to expand visibility in mainstream American (if not World) culture. For this reason, I thought they "deserved" to be considered LGBT groups. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the purpose of categories, but I thought the broader definition would still be useful. Also, (and I could be completely wrong on this) I wondered if some of the Gay Choruses listed aren't 100% LGBT. But even if they had a few straight members, they certainly should be deemed an LGBT group. I'll go with your narrower criteria if you still think it would be better. Hoof Hearted 19:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
It's a tough call. If you break it up into separate categories, it has a potential to have a variety of combinations on how it could be broken down with a web of connections. Just because a member of the group IS gay, it wouldn't automatically make them an activist for gay rights, as opposed to a straight performer/artist being a gay rights activist.
I think the gay chorus' or better LGBT chorus/choirs should have their own category or subsection, they are a distinct part of the LGBT culture. As being queer or gay, lesbian, trans*, bisexual and intersex or accused or rumored to be is controversial or taboo I think the category should remain somewhat broad with each article having to reference why they are included and then as the category builds subcategories as appropriate. Benjiboi 02:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Ever since I originally initiated this discussion, there has been doubt as to what this category actually means. This still hasn't been resolved, four months later.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 15:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the category will mean different things to different people. Some will look to it to identify LGBT members of groups including artists thought to be LGBT; some may be looking for groups that have done music about LGBT culture, some may be looking for groups that are icons for LGBT folks. I would be surprised if there was quick and easy solutions. Benjiboi 16:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

HSR - I think we're trying to come up with a solid definition to resolve the ambiguity. Benjiboi's suggestion of subcats is a good idea. How about this:

Hoof Hearted 17:49, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I would make the top category simply "LGBT musical groups" and modify
    • Category:LGBT musical groups has members that are openly LGBT (I would not endorse a percentage or two or more, The Cliks, for instance and Queen both have a single person but are significant in LGBT music history). Benjiboi 19:50, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Support. That works for me, but is it OK with SatyrTN? The point was made earlier that if a four-piece band had one black member, could you label them a "black group"? Incidentally, The Cliks article says all members are LGBT (next to last paragraph in History). Hoof Hearted 20:09, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
lol. Fair enough about the Cliks. I'm not sure using black musicians is a fair comparison, LGBT folks can sometimes go an entire career before they are outed or come out, I doubt the same is true for many black artists. Benjiboi 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I would support an expanded (in my opinion) definition if it were clearly stated. I'd also rather go with "two or more of" the above requirements. So if a group (Queen, for instance) only had one LGBT member, but produced LGBT-themed music, they could be included. Just having an LGBT member wouldn't be enough, though. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 20:31, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gray areas

I'd like a consensus on the following "gray area" groups:

  • t.A.T.u. - Both portrayed as lesbians despite being straight, which actually led to their success
  • Judas Priest - Rob Halford was closeted at their peak, but he (and the group) is creditted with bringing the butch, studded leather fashion to the heavy metal community.
  • Hüsker Dü - 2/3 gay and few, if any, gay themed works, but highly popular in the hardcore punk community.
    • Don't include Hoof Hearted
    • Include referencing omission of gay-themes perhaps due to social climate or label's advice. Benjiboi 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak include SatyrTN
  • Wham! - George Michael was still in the closet at their peak, but he still holds a pretty high status as an LGBT icon
    • Don't include Hoof Hearted
    • Include - they were gay icons even before Michael came out officially. Benjiboi 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak include SatyrTN
    • Include Nullasalus
  • R.E.M. - Michael Stipe came out slightly past their prime (stating he was a "queer artist" but not identifying as gay, straight, or bisexual), but remains a well-known gay figure.
    • Don't include Hoof Hearted
    • Include. High-profile gay icon under then over the radar. Benjiboi 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • (reluctantly) Don't SatyrTN
    • Weak include Nullasalus
  • Right Said Fred - also 1/2 gay (AFAIK), already in this category
    • Don't include Hoof Hearted
    • Include. Live appearances and interviews were hardly ambiguous as to his bi-tendencies. Benjiboi 06:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Weak include SatyrTN

[edit] Possible inclusions

  • The Murmurs - I went ahead and added The Murmurs because they were very vocal about being queer, but let me know if anyone has any objections. -Stephanie B
  • Sleater-Kinney - Corin Tucker and Carrie Brownstein, both bisexuals who dated for a while, founded the group, making two of the three members queer. But their music is not what I would call LGBT-themed -- it's more feminist. -Stephanie B
definitely include Sleater-Kinney, they have contributed to highly visable LGBT-themed soundtracks and events. Benjiboi 03:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Erasure

Erasure should DEFINITELY be included in this category!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.142.195.101 (talk) 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)