# Women Conductors & Composers



## David C Coleman (Nov 23, 2007)

Has anybody wondered why there are few females in both composing and conducting. But plentyful in singing and instumental soloists...

Maybe any women on this forum would like to comment??.....


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Wasn't part of this subject looked at fairly recently HERE.

In fact, there's been a lot of regurgitating old ground recently, eg favourite conductors etc.

The search facility here is good, and worth using. I quickly found the link above by typing in "women conductors".


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

It's pretty obvious why. It's a little word called sexism that most people think has been abolished (they are naive). Composers and Conductors are more in a place of power (They both control the performers), performers are not in power. Women singers are much easier than deknackering (sp?) a boy.


----------



## JBI (Apr 30, 2008)

It is because women weren't really able to compose back when our favorites were composing. Mozart was definitely better than his sister, regardless of her gender, so it seems only fair that we listen to his music. There probably were geniuses in Mozart's level who were female, but none had the opportunity he did. Today, most conductors seem to be male for several reasons. a) a lot of the ones we know are older, and therefore, in their time, had the gender biases at their advantage. and b) women generally, especially after 2nd wave feminism seem to be inclined to other professions, such as medicine.

A composer, and a good performer, be it singing, or playing, requires, usually, an early start. Unless someone is brought up to become a virtuoso, they will not be one. The same with conductors. The same with composers. That being said, there are some excellent female musicians, and female singers are just, if not more, popular than male ones. The problem really is that orchestras play canonical works, which were written in pre-feminist times, and therefore, are less inclusive, than modern music.


----------



## altiste (Jun 11, 2008)

*Elizabeth Askren - conductor*

My Serenade for Strings was most recently performed with Elizabeth Askren conducting. Elizabeth is an up and coming conductor based in Paris, and will be Cover Conductor for John Nelson (Ensemble Orchestral de Paris) later this year.


----------



## Ciel_Rouge (May 16, 2008)

I recently listened to The Best of Andreas Scholl and apart from Vivaldi's Nisi Dominus that I was after, it also contained a piece by Jocelyn Pook that I like a lot, called How Sweet the Moonlight. I especially liked the moment when the kind of melismatic singing turned into the same melody played on the strings.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Well, Simone Young became the first woman conductor to conduct the Vienna phil a few months back - probably first Australian also. We had a lecture in Perth with her once - gotta love her Mahler interpretations.


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

Women can interpret and conduct very well - I like Marin Alsop's interp of Brahms very much. I can't explain why women don't compose as much - maybe they don't have as much emotional strength in them! (Only kidding!)


----------



## Kezza (May 13, 2008)

Best conductor I've ever had/still have is female. They way she interprets the music and brings what she wants out of people. And she is actually good at keeping time. I've had a few that are terrible lol


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> Best conductor I've ever had/still have is female. They way she interprets the music and brings what she wants out of people. And she is actually good at keeping time. I've had a few that are terrible lol


With the exception of physical activities female are just as adept at anything as a male. Men are only 'stupider' because of hormones, but those don't really get in the way in modern society.

The only reason men are stronger is purely through evolution.


----------



## motoboy (May 19, 2008)

Sarah Ioannides is a wonderful conductor with the Spartanburg Philharmonic and the El paso Symphony.

http://www.spartanburgphilharmonic.org/AboutUs/index.htm

http://www.sarahioannides.net/


----------



## Guest (Jun 26, 2008)

Edward Elgar said:


> I can't explain why women don't compose as much...


One reason might be that you don't get out enough. As has been documented in several threads of this sort on several forums, there are many composers who are also female. Some of them also conduct, their own works as well as those of others. Many, perhaps most, of them are electroacoustic composers and so the conducting business doesn't enter into it.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

But there are still considerable more men...
...


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

There's an intriguing 'glass ceiling' effect in classical music. Many women lead orchestras, and have done so for years, with supreme competence, but few make the jump to conductor. It would make a good project for a MPhil or PHD student from a Womens' Studies Department. They'd need to survey the women themselves - why they don't make the jump, what's holding them back, what specific prejudice have they encountered (I bet there are horror stories) would they even want the job, etc - and, more importantly, those who do the appointing: the musical directors, committees of great and good, the government ministers: the people who control the cash and the interview panel.

The big appointments are highly political. National orchestras represent national patriotic pride, and the conductor embodies the whole thing. Hence the question of who exactly waves their arms about in front of a top orchestra is a highly sensitive one. S/he represents national pride as expressed through high culture. No wonder the boys want to keep control!


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

The Male Brain is very different to the Female Brain [FACT], I am not knocking Women, but whereas they can easily equal Men and indeed exceed Men in a lot of tasks, there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites, I feel that composition may be one of them.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

But "very different" are not the words of factuality. "Very different" are the words of value judgement. Value judgements may indeed be "true," but they're not facts. Saying something like "Beethoven is a great composer," which is a value judgement (and doubtless true as well), and then tacking on [FACT] to it does not make it a fact.

And "feeling" that composing "may" be something that males are "plain better at doing" flies in the face of the evidence (and of common sense).

Indeed, the conclusion many people have drawn about women composers in a still largely male-dominated world is that their music is better, not intrinsically but simply because to get a hearing, to get recorded, women must put forward their very best efforts, whereas males (about whom there is no prejudice to overcome, you see) can get hearings and recordings of second and third rate stuff.

That's obviously an oversimplification--I merely note a general situation. The reality is of course much messier and contradictory. And it is equally obviously, I hope it's equally!!, only true for the more adventurous composers. That is, second and third rate composers of either gender can get air time on recordings if their music is nice and pretty and non-threatening (so that timid executives--probably all male--can feel that their investment will sell to equally timid--though not necessarily all male--music buyers).

And that, need I say it?, is also an over-simplification....

In any case, since women have been able to make careers of composing only recently (within the last hundred years or so), the odds are that they're going to be writing the kinds of musics that most listeners will either not be aware of or only aware enough of to have rejected as "atonal" or "noisy" or "experimental" or some such designation of fear and loathing. Hence the female composers of note (oh, nice pun, eh?) are going to be writing the same "difficult" and "displeasing" music that their male counterparts are writing, males who also come in for vociferous thumpings about the heads and shoulders for being so ugly and awful.

Heigh ho.

In my experience, the best composers working today are male some of them and female some of them. Long may that continue to be true.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> The Male Brain is very different to the Female Brain [FACT], I am not knocking Women, but whereas they can easily equal Men and indeed exceed Men in a lot of tasks, there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites, I feel that composition may be one of them.


I'd LOVE to be in the room when you said that to Joni Mitchell's face! And Carole King, Dolly Parton, Bonnie Raitt, Joan Baez, Loretta Lynn, Peggy Lee, Suzanne Vega, Carly Simon and Debbie Gibson!

They'd have your guts for garters. Dolly Parton would hold you down, Carol King whip off your trousers and Peggy Lee daub the Andante genitalia with glue, to which Loretta Lynn would attach a copy of 'Spare Rib'.   

Unless you claim different rules apply when women compose popular music? If so, what's present, or absent, in the female human brain which allows her to compete with men successfully in bluegrass composition, yet causes her to go to pieces when scoring a symphony?


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers (May 30, 2006)

> he Male Brain is very different to the Female Brain [FACT], I am not knocking Women, but whereas they can easily equal Men and indeed exceed Men in a lot of tasks, there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites, I feel that composition may be one of them.


Why?? I really am interested in why such an unfounded sexist statement based on essentially no evidence just popped out of your mouth. That is absolutely ridiculous. Women have the ability to be just as intelligent as man (FACT), and just as emotional (FACT). And for that matter, just as musical - I'm at musi college and there are MORE women than men. So what exactly is it that makes us unable to compose??


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

Drowning_by_numbers said:


> Why?? I really am interested in why such an unfounded sexist statement based on essentially no evidence just popped out of your mouth. That is absolutely ridiculous. Women have the ability to be just as intelligent as man (FACT), and just as emotional (FACT). And for that matter, just as musical - I'm at musi college and there are MORE women than men. So what exactly is it that makes us unable to compose??


The *BRAIN* is the answer, We are programmed differently, this is not sexist it is a biological fact, as *you gain experience of life *you will realise this, ask any normal married couple and you will find that we think entirely differently, and that is how nature intended it to be. I did not say one was more intelligent than the other, we compliment each other, and have our own areas of expertise. *so*, *in the last 60 yrs, now that we have equality of the sexes how many Female Composers have made the grade??* I have been forced to listen to a lot of rubbish at concerts from both male and female composers because the promoters are told to include works by so and so , I have heard perhaps half a dozen works in the last 10-15 yrs that made the grade and were repeated.
Please look at it objectively.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

purple99 said:


> I'd LOVE to be in the room when you said that to Joni Mitchell's face! And Carole King, Dolly Parton, Bonnie Raitt, Joan Baez, Loretta Lynn, Peggy Lee, Suzanne Vega, Carly Simon and Debbie Gibson!
> 
> They'd have your guts for garters. Dolly Parton would hold you down, Carol King whip off your trousers and Peggy Lee daub the Andante genitalia with glue, to which Loretta Lynn would attach a copy of 'Spare Rib'.
> 
> Unless you claim different rules apply when women compose popular music? If so, what's present, or absent, in the female human brain which allows her to compete with men successfully in bluegrass composition, yet causes her to go to pieces when scoring a symphony?


Classical is a bit more complicated than the music written and performed by the Artists you mention above. You ask what is present/absent from the female brain, I would suggest that you study Biology just a tad more, or go to some of the online forums that go into this with much more knowledge than I am prepaired to venture.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

I think this is basically a wind-up. Of course women can compose as well as men.

There will always be differences between male and female that may stem from their biological differences and the cultural issues that surround them. Men can't bear children; women can't make people pregnant (but they are in a position to control fertility) and much tradition, segregation (of tasks) and ritual surround that. I've heard recent arguments about why only a small % of women are represented at the very top of corporations. Inequality! some cried. But it was enlightening to hear a woman voice the view that possibily most women don't want to fritter their lives in such positions when there is so much else more worthwhile for them to do. In the workplace, men are far more about posturing whereas women are about getting a job done. (Which is probably why women can organise themselves far faster in co-operatives than men - they collaborate rather than compete (as a general observation)).

The unfortunate issue is that until recently, the professional administration of music has fallen mostly to males hidebound to their one-time dominance in the arts. Female creators have been allowed in more as a token, a concession, almost, to their existence. That's why female composers are so poorly represented at the proms, in my view. I don't think there's a single female on the list this year - not even the big names: Ruth Gipps; Thea Musgrave; Elizabeth Lutyens; Maconchy and I could add a few more.

Yet, look through the composers represented on contemporary music programmes: there are plenty of females. I attended a few of the Soundwaves Festival concerts this year and met some. So hopefully the breakthrough in attitude is upon us.

One of my composition teachers was a female.

"
_Last edited by Frasier : Today at 13:13." (Ohmygod that'll bring bad luck 13- 13? I'll need to edit it again)_


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Frasier said:


> I think this is basically a wind-up. Of course women can compose as well as men.


Apparently not. Andante's claiming that women are biologically determined to be less able composers compared to men. The evidence to back the claim has not been produced but, it seems, exists elsewhere on the internet.



Andante said:


> You ask what is present/absent from the female brain, I would suggest that you study Biology just a tad more, or go to some of the online forums that go into this with much more knowledge than I am prepaired to venture.


Andante: do you extend your theory of music genetics to other areas? Are black people, for example, genetically determined to have rhythm?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

some guy said:


> But "very different" are not the words of factuality. "Very different" are the words of value judgement. Value judgements may indeed be "true," but they're not facts. Saying something like "Beethoven is a great composer," which is a value judgement (and doubtless true as well), and then tacking on [FACT] to it does not make it a fact.


Interesting distinction re: word-usage, here. Does this mean that if Andante had said "The Male Brain is very different from the Female Brain. [_Really. It's true!]_," would you have then been more receptive to the statement? Are we making something other than a semantical distinction... or is it the _text_ of the statement that's at issue?

I have no problem with the statement that currently, there is less obvious discrepency in the quantity *and* quality of female composers vis-a-vis male composers than there ever has been. Note that I hedged by bet by saying "less obvious." There may have times where this was equally true, it's just that they're not as widely known.

*And yet*... which female Art-music composer has had her works most widely circulated in the past couple of decades or so? Why, that would be ol' Hildegard von Bingen, who was born at about the time Godfrey of Boullion was saddling up his Percheron and departing on the First Crusade. Now, are there hidden gems among the distaff in every era, just awaiting to be discovered in spite our formerly prejudicial ears, or was dear Hildegard a "once-in-a-millennium" occurrence?


----------



## R-F (Feb 12, 2008)

purple99 said:


> Apparently not. Andante's claiming that women are biologically determined to be less able composers compared to men. The evidence to back the claim has not been produced but, it seems, exists elsewhere on the internet.
> 
> Andante: do you extend your theory of music genetics to other areas? Are black people, for example, genetically determined to have rhythm?


Isn't that being a tad unfair- Andante *never* said women are biologically less able to compose than men, all he said was that women, biologically, have a different brain to men. Can someone explain to me why that is sexist?


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

R-F said:


> Isn't that being a tad unfair- Andante *never* said women are biologically less able to compose than men, all he said was that women, biologically, have a different brain to men. Can someone explain to me why that is sexist?


Now you're wriggling, on Andante's behalf.  You're also paraphrasing him inaccurately. Note the second bit, highlighted in red:



> The Male Brain is very different to the Female Brain [FACT], I am not knocking Women, but whereas they can easily equal Men and indeed exceed Men in a lot of tasks, *there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites, I feel that composition may be one of them*.


So Andante claims:

1. Male and female human brains are very different from each other;
2. Owing to these differences, men do some things better than women, and visa versa; and
3. Classical music composition is one such activity which men do better than women.

So Andante has made a clear, unequivocal, claim: that women are biologically determined to be less able composers than men. So I'm not being unfair to Andante. I've faithfully reproduced what he wrote.



R-F said:


> Can someone explain to me why that is sexist?


Sure. It's sexist because it condemns women, on grounds of biology and genetics, never to equal men in the field of classical music composition. No evidence is produced to support the claim, beyond an invitation to look on the internet. So it's a claim backed by bigotry. It's analogous to the apartheid 'scientist' claim (without evidence) that black people have smaller brains than whites, or Josef Mengele seeking to prove, in Auswitch, that Jewish people are venal, untrustworthy and overly-libidinous.

In other words, it's the worst sort of sexism, backed by bigotry - believing something to be true without evidence - which a man is capable of producing. If such beliefs are widespread in the classical music hierarchy it explains, at a stroke, why female composers have a hard time.


----------



## R-F (Feb 12, 2008)

Fair point. However, he did just say 
"there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites, I feel that composition *may* be one of them. " 
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying this statement is correct, I just don't think he was saying "Men *are* better at composing than women.". From here it sounded like a suggestion, not a belief. 
I'm totally against discrimination, but for the people who do find this sexist I don't believe Andante was trying to be sexist when he said it.

Anyway, thanks for a very calm and intelligent answer purple. I appreciate that.


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Interesting distinction re: word-usage, here.


Au contraire, mon vieux. The distinction between fact and value judgement (or opinion) is a fairly common, ordinary one. A fact is a particular kind of statement that uses certain kinds of words. It can be either false (a horse is a plant) or true (I typed this on an HP laptop).

A value judgment uses different kinds of words, evaluative ones. It is a conclusion which is (or should be!) based on facts, but is not itself one. My house is a mess, for instance, is a value judgment, a conclusion based on such facts as the dirty dishes in the sink, the miscellaneous papers strewn about every flat surface, the clothes both clean and dirty scattered about the bedroom (and kitchen, too, I just noticed!), the dust balls rolling gently about the floor.

So it's not a matter of my receptivity but of a fundamental distinction between types. Andante made one type of statement (value judgment) and labeled it as another type of statement (fact), that's all.

Comprendez-vous?


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

*Purple99 Re your post #25*

You are misquoting i.e.,

*You said * "3. Classical music composition is one such activity which men do better than women".
*Now what I said is *,
' I feel that composition *may *be one of them.'

*You said* 'Sure. It's sexist because it condemns women, on grounds of biology and genetics, never to equal men in the field of classical music composition. No evidence is produced to support the claim'

You are twisting things again, So, Re evidence, again over the past 60 yrs how many Woman have made the grade as Composers and who are they?

*You say* 'In other words, it's the worst sort of sexism, backed by bigotry - believing something to be true without evidence - _which a man is capable of producing.'_

Now that comment could be classed as sexist!

This is a discussion in answer to a question by David C Coleman go back and read post #1, I have given my reply and reasons, you do not agree but offer no proof to the contrary, quite honestly if you do not accept that men and women are different, you are going to be in for a few surprises,


----------



## Guest (Jun 28, 2008)

Andante said:


> *Purple99 Re your post #25*[O]ver the past 60 yrs how many Woman have made the grade as Composers and who are they?


I apologize to Purple99 for butting in with an answer to this, but the first time it was asked, it was asked of any of us. Besides, it's also been answered many times before, as Andante is probably aware of.

But let's pretend he really doesn't know:

Eliane Radigue
Pauline Oliveros
Beatriz Ferreyra
Elsa Justel
Alice Shields
Zeena Parkins
Annette Vande Gorne
Michele Bokanowski
Natasha Barrett
Elainie Lillios
Anna Clyne
Joan Tower
Chaya Czernowin
Ana-Maria Avram
Roxanne Turcotte
Christine Groult
Meredith Monk
Christina Kubisch
Karin Rehnqvist
Iris ter Schiphorst
Sofia Gubaidulina
Rebecca Saunders
Isabel Mundry
Olga Neuwirth
Sabine Schaefer
Brigitte Robindore
Lissa Meridan
Margaret Brouwer
Unsuk Chin
Hilda Paredes
Frances-Marie Uitti
Francoise Barriere
Suzanne Dycus-Gendreau
Annette Schluenz
Elena Katz-Chernin
Else Marie Pade

I have confined myself to people I know and/or whose CDs I own, people who are still alive (so far as I know), and who are established composers. (I know a lot of up and comers, too (like Diane Simpson), and there are all those people who have worked within the past 60 years but who have died (like Galina Ustvolskaya).


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2008)

*Hi some guy*, Sure there are thousands of composers but are these the best composers that you can come up with that made the grade? Because quite honestly until I googled them they were all unknown to me and I have not heard any of their works, on CD, Radio or at a concert, so as far as I am concerned they have not made it, compare them to Part, Cage, Tavener. Etc. 
Also you missed out Gillian Whitehead and could have given Lili Boulanger a plug.


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2008)

Hey Andante,

Hard to respond to this without seeming/being rude, but the question your post raises, of course, is "who are you?" That is, in what way does your experience (or, in this case, lack of it) constitute an adequate measure of these people's success?

They are all quite well known, by people who listen to new music (the past sixty years time frame was yours, recall), they all have successful careers, they all have CDs that you can buy, online if not in stores.

I have CDs by all of them.

As for Lili, why would I mention someone who's been dead for _ninety_ years in a response to a question about activities in the past sixty?

In any event, you probably should try to get out more. You know, to where all the really good, really well-known female composers are.

Oh, it'll be fun!

Michael


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2008)

Some guy, in response.

Hard to respond to this without seeming/being rude, but the question your post raises, of course, is "who are you?" That is, in what way does your experience (or, in this case, lack of it) constitute an adequate measure of these people's success?

*I am the Punter that travels 280k+ to attend a Concert, stays overnight in a Motel @ $180+ and pays from $60 for a mid price seat I do this many times in the year, there are many of us, I am also an Ex musician if that means anything?*

They are all quite well known, by people who listen to new music (the past sixty years time frame was yours, recall), they all have successful careers, they all have CDs that you can buy, online if not in stores.

*I don't know how many concerts you go to but the vast majority of concert goers would not have heard of these people and would not attend a concert if this comprised the whole program*

I have CDs by all of them. I* have made a quick local check and can find no CD for sale from the regular music stores, it may well be different in the speciality stores.*

As for Lili, why would I mention someone who's been dead for ninety years in a response to a question about activities in the past sixty

*She was some one that came to mind that would IMHO have made it, perhaps with G Whitehead, I can think of no others particularly in the past 60yrs*

In any event, you probably should try to get out more. You know, to where all the really good, really well-known female composers are.

*And where would that be??
This is the point they are not well known, except to those of like ilk, and it would be a brave promoter to risk putting on a full concert tour by these composers.*

Oh, it'll be fun! *Are you one of these Composers?? And do you consider any of your list approaches the likes of the 3 Composers that I mentioned?*


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Don't know if this has bee said but:


> The *BRAIN* is the answer, We are programmed differently, this is not sexist it is a biological fact, as *you gain experience of life *you will realise this, ask any normal married couple and you will find that we think entirely differently, and that is how nature intended it to be. I did not say one was more intelligent than the other, we compliment each other, and have our own areas of expertise. *so*, *in the last 60 yrs, now that we have equality of the sexes how many Female Composers have made the grade??* I have been forced to listen to a lot of rubbish at concerts from both male and female composers because the promoters are told to include works by so and so , I have heard perhaps half a dozen works in the last 10-15 yrs that made the grade and were repeated.
> Please look at it objectively.


There are two reasons that they will think differently:
Men have hormones that *can* make them think more aggressively at times, this can effect their discussion of hobbies or profession, this choice also effects what they know. The other is society.



> Now that comment could be classed as sexist!


I oh love that unthoughtful defence! Women who defend themselves are being sexist!



> I have given my reply and reasons, you do not agree but offer no proof to the contrary, quite honestly if you do not accept that men and women are different, you are going to be in for a few surprises,


You do realise that *you* _never_ supplied any evidence?



> Part, Cage, Tavener. Etc.


And sexism has nothing to do with it.

I've never heard such sexist and completely unfounded, comments.

It is comments and bias sexist opinions like yours that stop women from being 'prolific' or 'great'.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> *Purple99 Re your post #25*
> 
> You are misquoting...


You're wriggling. You claimed the relative absence of good female composers compared to men 'may' have a genetic explanation; that womens' brains 'may' be ill-equipped, for biological reasons, to compose great classical music. When asked for evidence you referred to unnamed sources on 'the internet.'

You're now trying a secondary 'proof' by pointing to a list of female composers, claiming they're second-rate, and implying this 'proves' there's something inferior, compared to men, about their brains.

This is an enlightening discussion for anyone, male or female, interested in finding a solution to the problem posed by David C. If those who share Andante's attitudes have authority in the big international orchestras in the appointment of women players, composers and conductors, or are present in government culture ministries handing out funds and giving political weight to classical music initiatives, it explains brilliantly why women have such trouble gaining equality of opportunity with men in classical music.

Andante is, in fact, highly representative so it's useful to be able to read his comments on this thread. Andante and friends *are* the problem. You just have to look at racism and sexism scandals involving the Vienna Philharmonic to see that.

http://www.osborne-conant.org/excuse.htm

What's to be done about it?

1. Argue forcefully with Andante and friends whenever they rear their heads and start bleating about alleged inferior brain chemistry in women musicians. Without exception they can be shown to be talking pernicious rubbish, insulting to women, and damaging to high art. They're a type of bigotted right-wing musical vandal, keeping 50% of the population from reaching their full potential and enriching the world with their artistic contribution. In other words, they're sexist barbarians and anyone interested in classical music has a duty to point at them, laugh, and expose their 'arguments.'

2. Create a public scandal and, ideally, sue their arses, whenever the likes of Werner Resel, the then Chairman of the Vienna Philharmonic, says things like:



> [We] only take white men to play white music by white composers for a white audience.
> 
> Source


3. Analyse why some men feel so threatened by women penetrating to the top of high music culture they go to extreme lengths, often involving wildly expensive litigation, to keep them out.

NB I'm not attacking Andante but his arguments. I'm sure he's a lovely bloke who's kind to children etc, but he shouldn't be allowed to get away with attacking women musicians in this way. This is 2008 not 1808.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

I'm sure you will admit that most women composers and their works are inferior to men _in general_ (taking in the worlds history and keeping it 'classical'), but the reason for this is Andante's arguments, not what they say, but what they represent.

But I will also say that combating this blatant sexism should not go so far as to unnecessarily promoting women composers just because they are women.

One problem is course material, they include a woman just to shut up people advocating fair rights, and there is a problem. Obviously the fact that they include a women not for fair rights but just because it's easier, the other problem is (partly the fault of _some_ fair rights actovists taking it too far) they push for a woman to be there when there is no reason to. What I mean is that in terms of music history of (lets say) Baroque to Romantic, there has been little or no notable and important work done by women, and while this is a gross problem with the eras, stuffing any old woman composer there for 'balance' doesn't fix the problem.

I have a lecturer who alwas includes women mucisians unneciserily when they did not contribute much to music just for the point of balance. This is the wrong way to do things and just avoids the issue.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

There seems little use in presenting an argument that shows, culturally, that women haven't been allowed to do much for themselves across a span of time. There was a time here in the UK when they were not allowed the vote; there was a time when their only "professions" were nursing and teaching. As with composers there were few female artists or novelists. 

Then during the 20th C things changed, really taking off during the post-war years, since when they have shown themselves perfectly as capable as men in the creative and performing arts. That's how it is, no matter whether their brains are pink or blue. Whenever a cultural liberation appears, the oppressed 'parties' succumb to an outburst of creativity and revaluation. That's why they're more evident from the middle of the 20th C.

So now, at this point in time, in contemporary music whatever the sub-genre, females have an equal chance and seem to be taking advantage of it. I could produce a different list of today's female composers from Some Guy - their names may not be known but I'll bet they are no less known than most males working in the genre. But they're there - composing and making music.

Admittedly a staunch resistance remains in the 'old school' - the supporters of the bow-ties, black jackets and Vaughan Williams; but their brigade is being sidelined, as is their music and not before time. The formal, former, male-dominated classical bunch are now a quaint ritual pursued by a diminishing public that, these days, gets most of its music out of a can. The new lot are out there making music, connecting with the public and issuing a few CDs for their fans here and there, and include many females - at least, here in the UK and Europe generally.

So whatever the differences between male and female might be, apart from the obvious, females are showing themselves as equals in all fields of art. Can't be denied.

Years bygone it wasn't a question of being inferior to men at anything in particular, it was the suppression largely because males have this peculiar trait of insisting on pursuing power - for whatever reason - and because women were (rightly) recognised as the better equipped to nurture their children - that's in the days before nestles powdered milk came along.


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

Nestles' powdered milk is a very touchy subject if you take into account Africa. 

And also, man a naturally more equipped at physical activities. But that isn't an excuse for women tennis players to be as crap and pathetic as they are. They are so slow, can't hit hard, are inconsistent and aren't flexable.

Anyway, seem to have lost track of things...


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

I'm not too concerned about female composers. As Frasier points out, they're now out there doing it, graduating from music colleges, writing the stuff, getting published, performed and recorded. It's a crying shame that sexism prevented so many talented women from publishing in the past - the world has been denied a huge opus - but that's water under the bridge. It's still hard of course but no harder (?) than for young male composers. I'm willing to be put right on this but that's my impression, especially in counties such as Finland where there are wall-to-wall women composers atm (which is great).

It's in the field of conducting that the 'bow-ties, black jackets and Vaughan Williams... brigade'  still have power. The horror stories, particularly from German, Austrian and Czech orchestras have to be read to be believed. Many are documented, led to massive internet campaigns, women and their supporters waving banners on the street, extensive litigation and much heart-ache. The VPO is the worst offender and is still playing tricks to exclude women.

People sometimes forget the central political role occupied by national orchestras - patriotism, cultural identity, national pride, expressing in music who a people feel themselves to be - all associated with what's arguably the most important of the arts - music. The political right has fought long and hard to stop women occupying the pivotal and symbolic role of conductor. The reasons for this are profoundly interesting and say a lot about the sort of society we - in the West - still live in.

Can you recognise who's speaking?



> Art is an exalted mission requiring fanaticism. He who is chosen by providence, to reveal the soul of a People around him, to let it sound in tones or speak in stone, suffers under the power of the All Mighty, as a force ruling him, and will speak his language, even if the people do not understand or do not want to understand, and he would prefer to take every affliction upon himself, than even once be untrue to the star, that guides him internally.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

@ *some*: Thanks for your post. I want to be sure that we're not misunderstanding each other. [Also, as an aside, I think that it's possible that something can be common, ordinary, and yet still really interesting, but moving right along...] So, if I'm reading you correctly, you have not taken a position on the _text_ of *Andante*'s "Men's and Women's brains are very different" statement (yet), but simply quibbled with the way the statement was framed.

Also (by inference), it seems that you may _agree_ with me on the following statement (don't say it too loud while standing close to an American public school) that there _is_ such a thing as (GASP, EEK!) *true* _opinion_.

I noticed that, since I started typing this, I have discovered that Boulanger was excluded from the roll on account of chronology. And _I_ originally thought that it was because she was not sufficiently recondite. My fellow former Chicagoans should recognize one-time composer-in-residence Shulamit Ran, too. Perhaps some non-Chicagoans are clued into her work too. (maybe?)


----------



## Guest (Jun 29, 2008)

Ran is indeed well known outside of Chicago. I don't have any of her works, and I was only making a list of people whose CDs I own (taking "commercially produced CDs" as one measure of "making the grade," you see).

Otherwise, I did indeed start out with the observation about language, but I did build on that to form a critique of the assertion itself.

Since one forms assertions and statements and arguments and poems and novels and computer software user guides and posts to classical music threads with _words,_ it seems only prudent to make sure that the _words_ are doing their little jobs each of them, eh?

(And no italics, either. That is SUCH a cheap trick...)

As for "true opinions," the most interesting point in your post for me, I would say that there are _valid_ opinions (and invalid ones, natch). And the quickest, easiest way to tell the difference is whether there's any support for the opinion. A valid opinion is one that can be supported. An invalid opinion can only be stated, and restated, and....

Now, stop encouraging me to relive the English teaching years of my misspent youth.


----------



## shsherm (Jan 24, 2008)

I have only seen three women conductors that I can think of. The first was Gisele
Ben-dor, the next was Joann Falletta, and last night I attended the last performance of the season by the Los Angeles Opera (La Rondine by Puccini) and that opera was conducted by Keri-Lynn Wilson. All of these ladies did good work and are no less able than the majority of male conductors I have seen.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2008)

*purple99 *
Where did I mention : 
Internet, I suggested along the lines that online forums would provide more knowledgeable debate than I could give. I still stand by that.

You accuse me of saying that "the list of women composers were 2nd rate"
I did not say this.

I have never claimed that the female brain was inferior,

I am not talking about woman players or conductors,

you see me as part of the problem, really! Why??

You say 'Bleating about alleged inferior brain chemistry' again I did not use the word inferior!

You say 'Keeping 50% of the population from reaching their full potential'?? Oh come on, you cant be serious if you need to blame some one ……,

You also say "but he shouldn't be allowed to get away with attacking women musicians in this way. This is 2008 not 1808"

So because I give an opinion to the original question that you and others disagree with I should be silenced, that is political correctness gone mad again, Robert Magabe would love you.

I have had two careers [music and engineering] in both cases I have worked with Women and have the utmost respect for their ability, however I will state again that we are different in many ways and "Viva la difference"

It is a pity that the message gets lost in emotion.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

@ Andante, I see you've done this before:



> Of course woman are as good at conducting as they are at composing, very good at multi tasking but lack the ability to focus (in general)
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/18716-post12.html


and again:



> Male and Female brains are different in this respect [at least in the articles that I have read] most men just can not do two things at the same time, if they try it's a hundred to one that they will make a mess of one of them, they eventually learn to accept this . Woman on the other hand are experts at this but find it much harder and sometimes impossible to FOCUS.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/19095-post19.html


If you state or imply, repeatedly, on a classical music forum, that female musicians are disadvantaged compared to men owing to their brain structure or chemistry, but don't produce any evidence, you're going to be challenged. Will you now produce the evidence?



Andante said:


> So because I give an opinion to the original question that you and others disagree with I should be silenced


No, you should not be silenced. Far from it. It's great such attitudes have been flushed. Attitudes such as the ones you've displayed on this thread are not uncommon, are present within the classical music hierarchy and help explain why women, historically, have been treated so badly. If there are people buzzing about who control classical music appointments and funding who consider women to be genetically incapable of performing certain musical roles as efficiently as men, that will have a severe effect on how women are treated. So your presence on this thread is most useful. I look forward to reading the evidence you're about to produce.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2008)

*purple99*

I repeat my original post: I will underlined the point that I put up for a possible answer to the original question. Please try to understand it.

The Male Brain is very different to the Female Brain [FACT], I am not knocking Women, but whereas they can easily equal Men and indeed exceed Men in a lot of tasks, there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites,
*I feel that composition may be one of them.*

I do not consider that it is sexist or denigrating of woman in any way, It may be completely wrong and that is what you should be concentrating upon, and giving your own explanation, If we are afraid to face or question things that are now too delicate for certain sections of the population, then why bother to discuss anything?

You ask for evidence, What evidence would you suggest, I am giving an idea (IMO) not a theory. *Now I suggest that you give proof to the reason that you support.*

BTW You also bring up some of my earlier post on simular themes, my ideas have not changed, I believe that genius and expertise will eventually find its own level [there are always exceptions] and no one has posted a plausible alternative.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> You ask for evidence, What evidence would you suggest


The evidence which twice you have mentioned but are shy about producing:



Andante said:


> Classical is a bit more complicated than the music written and performed by the Artists you mention above. You ask what is present/absent from the female brain, *I would suggest that you study Biology just a tad more, or go to some of the online forums that go into this with much more knowledge than I am prepaired to venture.*


and



> Male and Female brains are different in this respect *[at least in the articles that I have read] *most men just can not do two things at the same time, if they try it's a hundred to one that they will make a mess of one of them, they eventually learn to accept this . Woman on the other hand are experts at this but find it much harder and sometimes impossible to FOCUS.
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/19095-post19.html





Andante said:


> I am giving an idea (IMO) not a theory.


So you have no evidence? But you claimed you did. Twice. Which is true? But it now appears what was a theory, supported by evidence, has been demoted to an idea. Fair enough. What evidence do you base your idea upon? A feeling? A prejudice?



Andante said:


> *Now I suggest that you give proof to the reason that you support.*


I'm very happy to do that. I believe that women composers and conductors can do just as well as men _because there is no evidence to the contrary_. Conversely, there is a mountain of evidence, some quoted and linked to on this thread, which shows that historic male prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, stupidity, fear and control of resources have denied women equality of opportunity in the field of composition and conducting. That's now changing, some people don't like it, and are fighting a rear-guard action.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2008)

Andante said:


> ...no one has posted a plausible alternative.


Hahahahaha!

No, really. This was a knee-slapper!!

Of course this will be true if you're the one who gets to decide what's plausible and what's not! That your transparency is something anyone will be able to see through doesn't seem to have occurred to you, eh?

Well, I guess _I'm_ done trying to provide you any more alternatives, then. After I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes, I'm going to go do something truly difficult. Shooting fish in barrels is quite a challenge, I understand.


----------



## Mark Harwood (Mar 5, 2007)

In the purely Classical (and non-guitar) field, my favourite composer is Luigi Boccherini. He was known as the "Wife of Haydn". Don't suppose that counts.
These discussions apply to other fields of achievement too, such as chess, mathematics and art. 
People tend to stick to an explanation that suits their view of the world. In academia, during the 1970s and '80s, it became generally unacceptable to suggest that there were at least statistically significant differences between male and female brains; only social models could be worked on. There was always a proto-PC element to this, and rational debate was stifled. 
Genetic research has moved on apace since then, and so has the imaging of brain activity. Male and female brains are not the same. I don't suggest that the male brain is generally more competent in musical composition than the female; I only urge that the possibility be considered seriously rather than being dismissed as a silly or old-fashioned idea. Let's keep an open mind.


----------



## Guest (Jun 30, 2008)

Mark, let's say that this statement is true: "Male and female brains are not the same."

What have we said? Not much, I think, as "the same" is too general to be useful--that is, too general to give any information about the situation that could lead to valid conclusions.

And, more importantly, what have we NOT said. Well, one thing we have not said is that my (male) brain is not the same as your (male) brain. (Some researchers have found larger differences between one male brain and another than between one male brain and one female brain.) We have not said that brains change as people age (and social and environmental forces act upon that wrinkled mass lodged in the skull). We have not said that human brains are more like each other than they are like any other animal's brain. And we have not said that however interesting brains are to brain scientists, humans are more than their brains.

(I did all the thinking for this post with my _mind,_ by the way. )


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Mark Harwood said:


> In the purely Classical (and non-guitar) field, my favourite composer is Luigi Boccherini. He was known as the "Wife of Haydn". Don't suppose that counts.
> These discussions apply to other fields of achievement too, such as chess, mathematics and art.
> People tend to stick to an explanation that suits their view of the world. In academia, during the 1970s and '80s, it became generally unacceptable to suggest that there were at least statistically significant differences between male and female brains; only social models could be worked on. There was always a proto-PC element to this, and rational debate was stifled.
> Genetic research has moved on apace since then, and so has the imaging of brain activity. Male and female brains are not the same. I don't suggest that the male brain is generally more competent in musical composition than the female; I only urge that the possibility be considered seriously rather than being dismissed as a silly or old-fashioned idea. Let's keep an open mind.


I agree.* It's because I try to be open-minded that I asked Andante for the evidence. He referred, twice, to its existence. I'd like to inspect it. I'd open a folder on my hard drive called 'Andante's Evidence' and make it part of my backup schedule.

If the science showed a link between women being inferior composers and conductors compared to men owing to their brain structure or chemistry, so be it. The conclusion would cause wailing in leftist circles, audible explosions in feminist circles, and a full Guardian letters page, but I can live with that. That's the price you pay for learning the truth.

Women, in the light of such evidence, would be equipped to make informed choices on whether to pursue a career in composing or conducting, in the knowledge that they are - according to the evidence - genetically incapable of competing with men on a level playing field. Again, that would be unfortunate but it's better in the long run to know the truth.

But Andante wouldn't, or couldn't, produce the evidence. It's therefore reasonable to dismiss what he said as prejudice, akin to a religious belief: a truth-claim grounded on faith or wishful thinking. But the danger for religious thinkers - or believers in UFOs - comes when they claim to have _evidence_ that God or green men exist. They run the risk of someone asking them to produce it. If they then wriggle, and set hares running, and obfuscate, and attack the person requesting the evidence, in an effort to disguise the fact that they have no evidence, they're liable to get a roasting.

* Excluding Boccherini


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

*Pyrple99'*
You are not addressing the issue by continually back quoting what I have said, You obviously do not agree me yet your only contribution to an alternative reason [which is what this thread is about] is to say "I can not prove my reason", and you are correct, however I can prove the results just have a look at any CD/Record collection, it is a subject that is discussed often in musical circles I have put forward one suggestion which is not new, *it deserves a more reasoned response*.

Would you care to give your reason to the question?? [I will bet a pound to a penny that you will say women have been suppressed by men]

Now surprise surprise, I do not go along with that reason entirely, over the years Women have reached the very peak of excellence along side their male counterparts as instrumentalists, Your use of cliché words such as male prejudice, bigotry, ignorance, stupidity only diverts unbiased thought and shows your own bigotry etc. 
*Be a free thinker!*
*
Some guy*, you ridicule my suggestion so I guess it would be a waste of time asking you for a reasoned alternative as opposed to a list of female composers, so enjoy your fishing/shooting. 
Your comments regarding differences in various brains in your last post shows that you are aware that there are differences, just try to expand it a little.

Just as an aside, My Brain!! I have never been able to come up with a good original melody/tune a lot of present day composers seem to have the same problem "male and female" lol but I can easily write or improvise variations around some one else's, but I am going off topic. Regards A


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

It seems as though the question concerning female composers is answered depending one one's viewpoint on the ol' "nature vs. nurture" chestnut. At one extreme, there's the belief that we'd be awash in women composers whose accomplishments would be on the same plane as Bach, Beethoven and Wagner if only there has been a more fertile enivronment for their development. At the other extreme, there is the view that there's something intrinsic about being female that militates against reaching the compositional achievement plane of a Beethoven. Hopefully, there's a lot of room between these two poles-- but if forced to choose between the two, I would tend towards the latter.

*Now*... before someone throws out the "sexist" label, I also assert that there's something about being female that makes it less likely that a woman ends up with a résumé like Hitler, Jack the Ripper, or Seung-Hui Cho (perpetrator of the Virginia Tech massacre). Oh, now and then there will be a black-hearted villainess whose crimes become the stuff of made-for-cable movies, but that really is the exception.


Yagan Kiely said:


> ... I will also say that combatting this blatant sexism should not go so far as to [involve] unnecessarily promoting women composers just because they are women.


Thanks, YK! You know, that kind of sound reasoning could be applied to sensible effect _contra_ "affirmative action," quotas, and set asides. So I say: welcome to the dark side.










@*Mark*: you brought up Chess. Oh, you tease! I could say something _really_ provocative about that-- but I think that I should make an effort to relate it to music instead of making an intentionally controversial (but eminently defensible) statement on _that_ front.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

Hey Andante, that fish shooting thing just wasn't as challenging as I'd been led to believe.

But that's as may be. I was ridiculing something in your post, but it wasn't a suggestion. I was ridiculing your facile rejection of my plausible list. Anyway, to move on, I'm not sure what you mean by "reasoned alternative"? Alternative to what? To "I feel that composition may be one of [the things women are not as good at as men]?" Well, I don't have any alternatives to your feelings. I don't think that particular feeling has any basis in fact, which I illustrated with a list of extraordinarily talented composers who happen also to be of the female gender.

That list was in direct response to your question "how many Female Composers have made the grade?" I made a rather short list, confining myself to people who are still alive and whose music I am familiar with. Your response to the list was dismissive. Was that the best I could do? (Hah! That is the best _anyone_ could do. Most of the people on that list are first rate. Some of them have been first rate for many more years than you've been alive, old chap. That you had heard of none of them reveals something about you, but nothing about them.* These are the top people. Maybe not in the same league as Cage (but no one else is, either), but certainly as good or better than either Part or Taverner.)

Yet you concluded on the basis of your _lack_ of experience that none of these people had "made the grade."

They would be very amused to hear you say so, I'm sure. (I would not have the temerity to mention this exchange to any of them, though. So we'll just have to imagine their reactions.)

So there it is, females are every bit as good at composing as men are, and the very small list of a few of the best was my evidence for that conclusion. As to why or even whether there are more men composing than women or why the men seem to be better known or any of those other issues, I have really nothing to say. If you look at _my_ CD/record collection, you will find many composers who are also women (many more than I mentioned--I do have other things to do, you know).

*I could also make a list of first rate male composers consisting entirely of people you've never heard of. And what would that prove? The same thing the female list proves, that I keep more current, for whatever reason, with music being written today than you do. It would not prove that those guys haven't "made the grade," that's for sure!


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

*some guy* you have added nothing new so I cant comment without repeating myself.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

*Chi town/Philly,* At last a posting that addresses the point of the thread. perhaps we can now cut through all the feminist/PC hype and debate. lol


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

Andante said:


> *some guy* you have added nothing new so I cant comment without repeating myself.


Really?

So you're a careless reader, too. Well, somebody point to Andante the new thing in my last post. (The one big new thing, not all those little new things.) Anybody?

Anyway, when did you become so coy about repeating yourself? Suddenly now, after all that repeating you've been doing?

Anyway, not to steal thunder from any of those anybodies who were going to point out et cetera, but here's the list I said I could make. Andante doesn't care, but there may be some anybody out there who is interested in exploring some new music, so I devote THIS list to anybody:

Gilles Gobeil
Ludger Bruemmer
Zbigniew Karkowski
Francisco Lopez
Francis Dhomont
Dieter Kaufmann
Lionel Marchetti
Walter Marchetti
Ross Bolleter
Thomas Dimuzio
Tim Hodgkinson
Heiner Goebbels
Christian Calon
Robert Normandeau
Nicola Sani
Ivan Fedele
Paul Koonce
John Christopher Nelson
Gerald Eckert
Dirk Reith
Vladimir Tarnopolski
Horatio Radelescu
James Tenney
Todd Dockstader
Gordon Mumma
David Behrman
Elio Martusciello
Christian Marclay
eRikm
Klaus Huber
Barry Truax
Daniel Menche
Michel Chion
Rolf Enstroem
Brandon LaBelle
Jim Fox


----------



## PostMinimalist (May 14, 2008)

you know Wendy Carlos used to be Walter Carlos. Well there's no difference in the stuff she writes now from the stuff he used to write then! Q.E.D.
AHA!


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

post-minimalist said:


> you know Wendy Carlos used to be Walter Carlos. Well there's no difference in the stuff she writes now from the stuff he used to write then! Q.E.D.
> AHA!


lozl I was about to ask about the brains of the post op transgendered. But I have no knowledge of the precise status of Ms Carlos's dangly bits.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> *Be a free thinker!*


I'm trying guvner, honest I am. But wivout the evidence what can a cove do? I _want _to 'think freely' about the alleged science which shows female brains produce inferior music and conducting compared to men, but you're sitting on it, you rotter!



Chi_town/Philly said:


> It seems as though the question concerning female composers is answered depending one one's viewpoint on the ol' "nature vs. nurture" chestnut.


I agree. Discussions like this are a good way to take the political temperature of an online community. There seems to be a good mix here - which is great.


----------



## Guest (Jul 1, 2008)

*Some guy*
You are bordering on ad hom _old chap_ but never mind this happens when one gets desperate. 
Also, not coy just bored at the repetition . You make assumptions that are not based on knowledge. And your interpretation of "made the grade" is more generous that mine


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

purple99 said:


> ... the alleged science which shows female brains produce inferior music and conducting compared to men ...


One has only to Google something like "Differences between men and womens brains" to see that there is a lot of material on this broad subject. I confess that I haven't bothered studying any of it but I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that men and women (in general) do have comparative advantages in certain activities.

However, I hasten to add that I have no idea whether such differences include the production and conducting of classical music. I haven't spotted any such evidence, but I haven't looked very far. I must say though that I rather doubt that physiological or psychological differences between men and women are so great as to explain all the observed historical variation in these skills and achievements.

Andante seems to be suggesting that there is such evidence but he hasn't identified it, despite repeated requests to do so. He seems content to rely on mere assertion rather than offer any specific evidence based on scientific research he may have seen somewhere. This suggests that Andante is aware of research which has identified differences between mens' and womens' capabilities in certain areas, but that he is merely adding his personal opinion that some aspects of classical music is one example, even though there is no specific research to support that view.

This doesn't surprise me in the slightest, as I've seen various previous threads where similar problems have emerged. See for example the second post in this thread referring to an earlier thread on this subject which also finished up in a highly confusing and inconclusive manner. I therefore fear that you (and someguy) are flogging a dead horse in that you won't get any more information than what little you have now.


----------



## Frasier (Mar 10, 2007)

Yup. Like some of us have asked - does it matter?

Males and females are currently composing music and doing just about everything else in the creative arts. Whether one is "better" than the other can only be an opinion. There are enough male composers whom convention and orthodoxy claim are "better" than other male composers, but that's all it is: convention, fashion; and only partially concerns competence. So what use claiming that, because tradition hasn't favoured creative females at all well, that they make inferior composers compared with men?

Pointless.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2008)

*Artemis *

You say:
One has only to Google something like "Differences between men and womens brains" to see that there is a lot of material on this broad subject. I confess that I haven't bothered studying any of it but I don't think it's ridiculous to suggest that men and women (in general) do have comparative advantages in certain activities. 

Reply:
I agree entirely and my original post said just that.
I had hoped this would lead to open discussion but instead it drew vitriolic attacks. Proof that the Brains are different exists but not all scientists agree on what this leads to, it is still being researched, As far as I know investigation that, music composition may be one of these differences has not been made so I can not give proof,

You say:
Andante seems to be suggesting that there is such evidence but he hasn't identified it, despite repeated requests to do so. 
Reply:
Again, I have not made this claim, I have suggested (that composition *may be *one of them)

You say:
This suggests that Andante is aware of research which has identified differences between mens' and womens' capabilities in certain areas, but that he is merely adding his personal opinion that some aspects of classical music is one example, even though there is no specific research to support that view.
Reply:
*Exactly, at last,* why is it so difficult for others to grasp the meaning
So: there are some things that either sex is just plain better at doing compared to their opposites, I feel that composition *may be *one of them.

*I am happy to discuss this rationally but I am not prepared to get any further into a personal slanging exchange with any one.*


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2008)

purple99 said:


> I'm trying guvner, honest I am. But wivout the evidence what can a cove do? I _want _to 'think freely' about the alleged science which shows female brains produce inferior music and conducting compared to men, but you're sitting on it, you rotter!


*Well done 99, Now, a nice cuppa, two sugars, chop chop. *
  Regards A.......


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Andante said:


> Artemis said:
> 
> 
> > This suggests that Andante is aware of research which has identified differences between mens' and womens' capabilities in certain areas, but that he is merely adding his personal opinion that some aspects of classical music is one example, even though there is no specific research to support that view.
> ...


I merely tried to clarify your original comments which made sense to me, and I have watched with amazement the comments from one or two others who seem to want to turn this issue into a confrontation involving an indepth bio-medical review of all pertinent issues, when clearly this Forum is not suitable for that purpose.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> I had hoped this would lead to open discussion but instead it drew vitriolic attacks.


Andante, you sensitive flower, it's not a 'vitriolic attack' to ask someone to source the evidence behind a controversial truth-claim. It's the meat and drink of rational debate. Stop being such a drama queen. 



Andante said:


> Proof that the Brains are different exists but not all scientists agree on what this leads to, it is still being researched, As far as I know investigation that, music composition may be one of these differences has not been made so I can not give proof,


I'm having trouble with your sentence construction, but are you now saying there's been _no _scientific investigation into alleged male-female brain difference leading to composing and conducting incompetence in women? If so, that explains why you can't produce any evidence: it doesn't exist.

Moving swiftly on.... one area where women have moved into the conducting field is in the role of concertmaster - directing from the violin. An exponent is Rachel Podger, interviewed here. I've heard Simon Standage, Jaap Schroder and Sigiswald Kuijken fulfill the same role and La Podger does it just as well as them, if not better.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2008)

So, whatever brain scientists may or may not eventually come up with, it seems pretty clear already that female type humans can be just as good at both conducting and composing as male type humans. That is, there are already talented, successful women working in both fields, people who are respected and admired and enjoyed as much as any of their male colleagues.

Whether or not the playing field is level is a sociological question, and whether brain science ever has anything to say about that is an open question. (As it were!)


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Artemis said:


> I have watched with amazement the comments from one or two others who seem to want to turn this issue into a confrontation involving an indepth bio-medical review of all pertinent issues, when clearly this Forum is not suitable for that purpose.


I sought one, tiny, solitary, itsy-bitsy url to a source - which Andante claimed exists - showing a possible link between alleged female musical incompetence, compared to men, traceable to the constitution of the female brain. Dear old Andante wriggled like ferret in a sack, moaned about 'vitriolic attacks', back-pedaled, erupted into blue ink and size 5 font, and laid down a smokescreen like the Battleship Potemkin; all because he didn't possess such a link, only prejudice, and was too stubborn to admit it.

That's not my fault, and I'm surprised you're amazed.  What could be more normal than asking someone to source a controversial claim, made on a bulletin board devoted to online discussion? It would be 'amazing' if no one had done so.


----------



## Guest (Jul 2, 2008)

Artemis said:


> I merely tried to clarify your original comments which made sense to me, and I have watched with amazement the comments from one or two others who seem to want to turn this issue into a confrontation involving an indepth bio-medical review of all pertinent issues, when clearly this Forum is not suitable for that purpose.


Yes I realise this and was merely trying to show my appreciation, thank you.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

*The giants in our living room*



some guy said:


> So, whatever brain scientists may or may not eventually come up with, it seems pretty clear already that female type humans can be just as good at... composing as male type humans.


In order to accept this statement, we have to avert our eyes from the giants in the collective living room of Classical Music. These giants have names, too- e.g.: *Bach*, *Handel*, *Haydn*, *Mozart*, *Beethoven*, *Schubert*, *Wagner*, *Brahms*... etc. The reality that no woman of parallel esteem has emerged is something we ought not ignore. Now, the original poster asked: "Has anybody wondered why there are few females in composing and conducting?" At this point, we form our decision tree. We can:

1) Reject the premise of the question- (saying something like "nonsense, boo-boo! There are _all kinds_ of successful women who have emerged in both fields!")

2) Accept the premise of the question (I'd rather not tip-toe around those giants, myself). From this point, we have (roughly speaking) 4 options...
a) say that it's strictly sociological grounds that account* for the discrepency, 
b) say that sociology and biology are both in play, but that sociological phenomema predominate.
c) acknowledge the role that sociology and biology play, but conclude that biology plays the greater role. (My position.)
d) assert that it's strictly biological grounds that are responsible for the state of affairs.

Now at this juncture in the narrative, someone should be howling for me to produce evidence for my conclusion. Again, I (like *Andante*) am not engaging in (to borrow one of Glenn Gould's felicitous turns-of-phrase) in "anything so grand as a THEORY, more like a speculative premise." Still, I'll offer my viewpoint, which is-- based on _observation_ and _sense experience_-- the numerical disparities between men and women in the Art-music creation field are too great to be accounted for exclusively or even primarily on sociological grounds (e.g.: sexism, infertile environments for development, _et al_.)

Before I step away, I want to pre-emptively dispense with a "straw man." (Ol' *Andante* has had to deal with the "straw topiary." I guess by now, he knows what the authors of _The Bell Curve_ must have felt like.)

I am not saying that women are incapable of composing good or even great music, and I'm not saying that women should be discouraged from pursuing composition. (I also believe that Judit Polgar should "keep on keeping on" in Chess, too.).

*Did I mention I love "Preview Post?" I discovered that, when I typed this word the first time, I used one too many "o"s. Well, I thought, better one too many than one too few. That would have been _really bad_.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

This is a perfect thread. Each main political viewpoint is now represented:

Left-wing >>> Society is to blame!

Fence-sitting liberal >>> It's a mix of nature and nurture.

Right-wing >>> Bundle the laydeez back in the kitchen: it's their natural role!


----------



## Artemis (Dec 8, 2007)

Further to Chitown's interesting reaction 2 posts above, I think that "someguy" is saying that, after the removal of social constraints against female composers and conductors in recent times, women have shown that they can perform on a par with men in these activities. Hence, by inference, if these constraints had been removed centuries earlier, the classical music world may not have been dominated by male personnel in the manner referred to by Chitown.

I would say that undoubtedly there were strong social constraints conspiring against women composers and conductors in times gone by, despite the odd exception like Clara Schumann and Fanny Mendelssohn. Undoubtedly, too, there are probably many successful females active in these roles in present day. But this doesn’t necessarily mean that there would have been female challengers to match the mega-huge talent of the likes of Beethoven, Mozart, Bach and several others, were it not for the social constraints of the time preventing the rise of women in the composing activity. In the absence of these constraints, maybe there would be have more good female composers, but whether they might have matched the greatness of the afore-mentioned composers is unclear. 

I have no strong opinion on the relative importance of social or biological factors, and I would not wish to speculate either way. All I would say, however, is that even if it were true that there is some general biological advantage in favour of men in terms of classical music composition, it doesn’t rule out the possible emergence of a few rare cases of female supreme genius such as to match the quality of Beethoven et al, had there been no concurrent social constraints against this activity at the time. One will never know.


----------



## Guest (Jul 3, 2008)

It is very reassuring that we are now getting some sensible posts.

For any one that is genuinely interested in the Male/Female Brain research this is a light hearted, simple, non technical article (6-8-06) based on the work of Louann Brizendine, A specialist in the neurobiology of male and female brains.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/06/MNG3HKAMVO1.DTL

There are many such articles and whereas Scientists do all agree 100% in the fact that there are many differences, the implications of these differences are still the subject of research.

*Just for example a bit of Thursday night humour:* _ A husband looking through the paper came upon a study that said women use more words than men.
Excited to prove to his wife that he had been right all along when he accused her of talking too much, he showed her the study results. It read "Men use about 15,000 words per day, but women use 30,000".
The wife thought for a while, then finally she said to her husband "It's because we have to repeat everything we say."
The husband said "What?"_


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

What about male homosexuals? Tchaikovsky Bernstein etc. they pretty much had female brains...

What about female homosexuals?


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> For any one that is genuinely interested in the Male/Female Brain research this is a light hearted, simple, non technical article (6-8-06) based on the work of Louann Brizendine, A specialist in the neurobiology of male and female brains.
> 
> http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/08/06/MNG3HKAMVO1.DTL


Ahem.



> Scientists have soundly criticized pop science book The Female Brain and its author, Louann Brizendine, Director of the Women's Mood & Hormone Clinic at UCSF, for her errors and scientific misrepresentations.
> 
> _Nature_, said it "disappointingly fails to meet even the most basic standards of scientific accuracy and balance. The book is riddled with scientific errors and is misleading about the processes of brain development, the neuroendocrine system, and the nature of sex differences in general."
> 
> Source


One of the claims in the book which got the Brizendine much publicity - the old chesnut that women talk more than men - turned out:

(a) to be stolen from a self-help guru who

(b) had plucked the figure from the air and

(c) was provably wrong and

(d) Brizendine, with bright red face, was forced to withdraw the claim from subsequent editions of her book.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

*Hi , Chi_town/Philly *
very interesting post (69), things have not changed much in that any one that dares put an opinion that goes slightly against the status quo or, today the PC brigade, faces the same reaction as poor old Galileo and heliocentrism.

Re The Bell Curve, I must admit I have not read it, perhaps the time has come. It is probably less acceptable now than it was in 1994?

The 20th centaury has produced quite a few composers that are well known and liked by the majority of music lovers here is a short list that comes to mind it is not complete by any means and I apologise for any that I have missed: 
Arvo Pärt B 1935
John Taverner B 1944. 
John Cage 1912-1992 
Richard Strauss 1864-1949 
Jean Sibelius 1865-1957 
Maurice Ravel 1875-1937 
Bela Bartok 1881-1945 
Igor Stravinsky 1882-1971 
Alban Berg 1883-1945 
Aaron Copland 1900-1990 
Dmitri Shostakovich 1906-1975 
Benjamin Britten 1913-1976 
Olivier Messiaen 1908-1992

The Female composers that I am aware of [but have no recordings of] that could be added but are not as well known or as popular are:

Alma Mahler (1879-1964) 
Nadia Boulanger (1887-1979) 
Avril Coleridge-Taylor (born 1903) 
Gillian Whitehead (born 1941) 
The fact that Female composers are not similarly represented is not in question, however the question remains, *Why*.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> any one that dares put an opinion that goes slightly against the status quo or, today the PC brigade, faces the same reaction as poor old Galileo and heliocentrism.


Galileo was convicted of heresy in 1633 and placed under house arrest. Your ideas have taken a pounding on this thread - your ideas not you personally - but do you _really_ compare yourself to Galileo? If so, you're wrong:

1. Galileo was one of the West's first experimental scientists, relying on quantitative experiments to test a theory. He represents the _precise opposite _of the technique you first applied on this thread: the production of a theory with no supporting evidence. Galileo backed up his theories. That's why the Church was so frightened of him.

2. After some prodding you did, finally, produce evidence, in the form of Louann Brizendine's pop science book 'The Female Brain'. But she turned out to be so discredited she was forced to amend future editions of her book.










* Andante-Galileo - Martyr to the PC Brigade *


----------



## Yagan Kiely (Feb 6, 2008)

> *Why*.


Obviously the fact that women were oppressed as nothing to do with anything. And the fact that women still are oppressed today has nothing to do with it.

The problem with what you are saying is that you have no evidence what so ever that it is what happens, only that there is a chance. But considering there has been no study into it and it is a fact that women are and have been oppressed there is no reason to believe your un-backed-up beliefs.

Women are much better off than they are now, but society has a way of backhandedly oppressing women, even if it is cool for girls to be dumb, that situation oppresses women.

That said, western countries are considerably better than Japan for example.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

purple99 said:


> [Andante]'s ideas have taken a pounding on this thread


Have they??

I think *Artemis*' distillation of *some*'s point is the most persuasive contrary argument to date. To review, the point appears to be: now that there are fewer sociological barriers to female composers, the gap has narrowed to the point where we can consider their accomplishments co-equal, and, by extension, they would likely have been close to level terms all along, if only equality of opportunity was present.

*Andante*'s latest post made a valid riposte, which was: even at this stage in history, are the contributions of female composers (_generally_ speaking) valued anywhere near to those of the most well-known male composers? Based on our observations, I (we?) have preliminarily answered "no."

This would be a fruitful field for further inquiry. Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), *purple*'s most recent post made no attempt whatsoever to address that point.

Re: the "we have no evidence" straw-man-- To repeat myself, I've made my conclusions based on _OBSERVATION_ and _SENSE-EXPERIENCE_. (Merely italicizing this point the last time I made it was clearly insufficient, so I'll capitalize it too, this time.) Now, I'm a humble dilettente, and am willing to acknowledge that my observations can be flawed. (Relating back to Galileo, observation is (in)famously how the ancient Greeks concluded that the Sun revolved around the Earth!) However, the normal course of inquiry is for those who make claims contrary to observation to bear the burden-of-proof why we should distrust our observations.


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> Unfortunately (but not surprisingly), *purple*'s most recent post made no attempt whatsoever to address that point.


I humbly apologise for addressing the point which I wanted to make rather than the one which you wanted me to make.  But I did say earlier I'm more interested in the conducting side of the question:



> I'm not too concerned about female composers. As Frasier points out, they're now out there doing it, graduating from music colleges, writing the stuff, getting published, performed and recorded. It's a crying shame that sexism prevented so many talented women from publishing in the past - the world has been denied a huge opus - but that's water under the bridge. It's still hard of course but no harder (?) than for young male composers. I'm willing to be put right on this but that's my impression, especially in counties such as Finland where there are wall-to-wall women composers atm (which is great).
> 
> http://www.talkclassical.com/26864-post38.html


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> *Andante*'s latest post made a valid riposte, which was: even at this stage in history, are the contributions of female composers (_generally_ speaking) valued anywhere near to those of the most well-known male composers? Based on our observations, I (we?) have preliminarily answered "no."
> 
> ...
> 
> ...


Chi, you have put your finger on the one crucial point, your observations. How valid are they? Well, in spite of your protestations of humility, I'm going to guess that you really do believe that your observations (which you have not favored us with, note--you've just put the word "observation" in all caps) are valid. But let me ask, anyway: how much music do you listen to? How much of it has been composed since 1900? Since 1950? How well do you understand the musics that have been written since 1950? How receptive are you to the kinds of things that composers of today are doing?

You and Andante seem to be arguing from very limited experience. Seem, indeed, to be arguing that not only is your limited experience perfectly capable of providing you with valid conclusions but that ONLY your limited experience is valid, that more experience is less valid. (I don't really need, do I?, to point out that "generally speaking" classical listeners are woefully ignorant about twentieth and twenty-first century classical music. That they don't know all that many male composers, either.)

So it's not your observations you should distrust, but your conclusions. And not even so much your conclusions as your willingness to make conclusions on such scanty evidence. That was the point of my second list, to suggest that there were also fine, well-known, well respected, successful men who were unknown to you all.

People who listen to new music, who understand it, who enjoy it, who read about it, who keep current with it, will know many of the composers on both those lists. Not all, certainly. But they will not think "I've never heard of X. Must be worthless." They are much more likely to think "I've never heard of X. I must get a hold of some of her music."

Isn't that just a better attitude, generally?


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

purple99 said:


> ...I did say earlier I'm more interested in the conducting side of the question:


This may prove surprising to some people (no pun intended), but- if you review my contributions on the "What's in Men conductors..." thread, you'll find that I'm actually inclined to _agree_ with you on the conducting front.


some guy said:


> I'm going to guess that you really believe that your observations (which you have not favored us with, note)...are valid.


Wouldn't be the first time I've made myself insufficiently clear. No women composers have reached parallel esteem to composers like Bach, Beethoven... or even Shostakovich (I'll throw a new name into the mix... WTH) is a previous observation. I did cite *Andante*'s list and asserted that even at the present time, no women have come into similar renown- that's another observation. You may question the validity of those observations- but they were made, all the same.

Yes, I will cop to the "limited experience" charge. It is up to the individual readers to conclude whether that is a more critical flaw than more comprehensive but more agenda-driven experience.


some guy said:


> (I don't rally need, do I?, to point out that "generally speaking" classical listeners are woefully ignorant of twentieth and twenty-first century classical music.)


Yes. Most of us pups would benefit from the unquestioned auditory nutrition of it all. BUT... (to complete the metaphor) in order for us dogs to reap the dietary benefits it contains, we need to get it past our noses, first.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2008)

Two interesting remarks.



Chi_town/Philly said:


> No women composers have reached parallel esteem to composers like Bach, Beethoven... or even Shostakovich


and



Chi_town/Philly said:


> more comprehensive but more agenda-driven experience.


To take the last one first, could you explain what an agenda-driven experience is?

As for the first one, could one also say that no _men_ composers have reached parallel esteem to composers like Bach and Beethoven? That is one message of my second list. If you're going to talk about equal esteem, then we should make other elements of the situation equal, too. Are there living women composers of equal value to living men composers? And the answer to _that_ is "yes."

Otherwise, I think perhaps that it's time and past time to make something explicit: that the notion of "esteem" is probably a red herring. The real issue is, or should be, are female type humans as capable of male type humans of composing good music? And that requires a definition of "good" that we can all agree on. Hah! That's not too likely, is it? So we're left with this: if you don't think Pauline Oliveros is an important, significant composer, fine. But you probably don't think LaMonte Young is, either. And so it could go; for each valuable female composer you could dismiss, I could come up with a similarly talented male composer you would also dismiss, and probably for the same reasons.

It is not, since we're talking about compositional activities in the past 60 or 70 years, so much a matter of male and female as it is a matter of how one views the compositional activities of the past 60 or 70 years. That fact has hamstrung this discussion. If the "females may not be as good" camp were to give its opinion of living male composers, that opinion would be something along these lines, I'm sure, "no living composer is as good as the dead ones." That's my take on this discussion. Until we are all equally conversant with the music that's been written since 1950, we cannot reasonably discuss the relative merits of the music written since 1950 by females.

And, in spite of Chi's doggy nose, I venture to guess that becoming familiar with the music of the past 60 years will be neither as frightening nor as disgusting as many people seem to think. Any more than broccoli or cooked carrots are nearly as unappetizing as I used to think when I was a kid. (Brussel sprouts, yes. Broccoli, no!)


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> This may prove surprising to some people (no pun intended), but- if you review my contributions on the "What's in Men conductors..." thread, you'll find that I'm actually inclined to _agree_ with you on the conducting front.


I've not fully read that thread - why passively read dusty old debates when there's a brand spanking new one to engage in? - but you're right, thank you: I should and I will. 



some guy said:


> So it's not your observations you should distrust, but your conclusions. And not even so much your conclusions as your willingness to make conclusions on such scanty evidence.


If male v female achievements in, say, literature are judged with a cut off point of 1900, those doing the judging will arrive at a skewed picture of female writers. There'd be no analysis of Virginia Woolf, Iris Murdoch, Sylvia Plath, Edith Wharton, Gertrude Stein or Rebecca West.

The same argument applies across Western society: female lawyers, doctors, judges, painters, actors, business executives, politicians. Each time the sexists are given a good kick, usually by a war when women must run the factories and till the land while the men are away fighting (and aren't too happy about being shoved back in the kitchen when the men return) it's the same story: a blossoming of female talent once they achieve a degree of equality of opportunity with men, once the sexists are given a bloody nose.

There's no reason to believe conducting and composing are any different. But if judgments are made on the achievements of women which occurred while the sexists were still abusing them, you may find women lacking. It's analogous to giving a child a good beating, then complaining he cries more than other children, and _then _blaming him for crying and claiming he may have a brain inadequacy which makes him more liable to cry.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2008)

*Chi_town/Philly *

This thread is never going to produce an attempt at addressing the OPs question, too many agendas and Red Herrings, I could add more but that would get some Knickers in a twist!


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Andante said:


> This thread is never going to produce an attempt at addressing the OPs question, too many agendas and Red Herrings, I could add more but that would get some Knickers in a twist!


Yeah... I guess we have a couple of warehouses full of dry powder...

Lots of thanks to *some* (we're lucky he's favored TC with some of his energies lately)... but then, it's been fun to read *purple* when this person has shown humor that's not a matter of personal targeting. Whom should I answer first-- well, since *some* directly addressed me, I'll answer him first.


some guy said:


> Are the living women composers of equal value to the living men composers? And the answer to _that_ is "yes."


I think I've isolated part of the problem, which is that it's possible that I (we?) have been cursed by benighted reference texts. You see, more than half-a-week ago, when you made that list of female composers, I actually went to my three most comprehensive references (a 'listeners encyclopedia' and a couple of fat CD review tomes) and searched for _each and every one_ of the female composers you mentioned. Nearly three dozen names, there were, and I found an entry for all of ONE (Gubaydulina, for those keeping score at home). Now, there are three possible explanations for this:
1) They were omitted, on account of the lingering effects of sexism in this male-dominated Art-music paradigm.
2) They were omitted, not on account of any pernicious campaign, but by mere ignorance and oversight. (This explanation has the merit of interfacing well with the 'Hanlon's Razor' tenet "avoid attributing to malice that which can be fully explained through stupidity.") 
3) [Possibility posited timorously by a complete non-expert:] perhaps the lack of entries is not entirely out-of-phase with current views re: their relative accomplishments.

Now, I know that 'consensus view of accomplishment' is the talk of squishy relativism, and has little to do with artistic merit. (During Bach's lifetime, the post that hired him viewed him as a 'second-nuts' choice, and originally sought Telemann.)

At the least, you can see a little of the kind of exposure that has informed (or mis-informed) my view.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Oh, TalkClassical members, forgive me for "doubling up" here. But this point by *purple* is far too fascinating for me to delay my response.


purple99 said:


> If male v female achievements in, say, literature are judged with a cut off point of 1900, those doing the judging will arrive at a skewed picture of female writers. There'd be no analysis of Virginia Woolf, Iris Murdoch, Sylvia Plath, Edith Wharton, Gertrude Stein or Rebecca West.


Yes... but we _would_ have Jane Austen, the Brontë sisters, the 'Georges' [Eliot and Sand], the esteemed author of the _Sonnets from the Portuguese_, "The Belle of Amherst" _et al_. Not taking anything away from the inarguable accomplishment of all of the writers you cited... but it's not really a parallel situation to composing, is it?

You know, now that I think about it, if sexism was a bar to the acceptance of women's music pre-20th century, what was to stop a woman from trying Mary Ann's trick and releasing material under a male pseudonym?!


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Chi_town/Philly said:


> it's been fun to read *purple* when this person has shown humor that's not a matter of personal targeting.


Thank you. When Andante compared me to Robert Mugabe (and himself to Galileo) _and_ claimed he was being silenced _and_ complained of 'vitriol' _and_ bemoaned 'political correctness gone mad' - repeatedly - I tried my best to stick to 'ball not man' principles. I remained courteous even when Andante's 'evidence' - extracted with much effort - turned out to be demonstrable bilge published by a discredited 'pop' scientist.

Here's the original question:



David C Coleman said:


> Has anybody wondered why there are few females in both composing and conducting. But plentyful in singing and instumental soloists...
> 
> Maybe any women on this forum would like to comment??.....


Despite Andante's excitability, this thread's gone some way to answering it. Sorry to hear of your reference book problem. The same happens in other fields, e.g. history. Endless stories of Kings and Queens and other top people, little about the great unwashed mass of the population. Authors and publishers tend to be more careful nowadays - an effect of 'political correctness gone mad'? - so perhaps your library needs updating. I'm sure some guy could recommend some good solid texts.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

purple99 said:


> ... perhaps your library needs updating. I'm sure some guy could recommend some good solid texts.


Maybe. The current book _du jour_ on modern music is "The Rest is Noise." I haven't sampled it yet (I'm spending too much time enjoying Cooke and Simpson to start it just now), but I am wondering: how much treatment of modern women composers will I find in that volume? [I ask sincerely, in all naïvete...]


----------



## R-F (Feb 12, 2008)

I've been following this debate from the start, and I think it's produced some very interesting points. I was open minded when I started reading the points made, and I have to say that for me it's the ideas of Andante / Chi_town/Filly that I am agreeing with. 

Just one more thing, I looked up all the women composers mentioned on this topic in the book I recently bought- The Rough Guide to Classical Music. This book is "an A to Z survey of over 200 of the most significant composers in the history of western music", quoted in the introduction. Anyway, the only one of these women mentioned in the book was Sofia Gubaidulina (and a few others not on the list- Fanny Mendelssohn and Clara Schumann for example). I'll also mention that it was published in June 2005, and includes all their considered 'significant' composers up until then.


----------



## Guest (Jul 6, 2008)

Chi, agreed about the books, but don't be too hard on them. Just think for a bit about what kind of thing a book is. First of all, it will be published months if not years after it was written. Second, some parts will have been written years before other parts. If it were updated continuously, it would never get to the printers! (One advantage, at least, of the Internet.) Third, book publishers, having invested a lot of effort and money into making an object which will then have to take a lot of effort and money to be distributed to the places where people will buy it, not to mention the advertising to get them interested in the first place, well, how many risks would YOU be willing to take regards the content? So reference books will play it safe, more often than not. As for R-F's "Rough" guide, well, what else could one expect? Books on "classical" music do pretty well up until 1890, start to fall apart until they reach 1920 or so, and then just collapse. The better ones parrot each other, especially if they include a small section on electroacoustic music, which no one seems to know what to do with. If you've read one entry on e.m., you've read them all, in a quite literal way. (R-F's rough guide probably leaves out thousands of fine composers from all centuries, for that matter.)

There are books that focus on the twentieth century. Some of those are quite good. But even the best one of the lot, David Cope's _New Directions in Music,_ has never mentioned Luc Ferrari, not in seven editions. I don't think Ferrari is mentioned in Peyser's book or in Nyman's. I do not keep up with the books, though. There may be much finer books than any of these three that I simply don't know about.

Otherwise, your comment about nineteenth century writers misses one salient difference between writing a book and writing a piece of music. The book doesn't have to be performed to come alive. (Add to that the fact that to get a book published, you only have to convince one person that it's good, and you see how different those situations are. A composer has to convince sometimes hundreds of people that her (or his) work is worth playing. A lot more work goes into a performance of a piece of music, or the production of a play or ballet or opera, than goes into hanging a painting in a gallery or publishing a book. A lot more people have to be involved.


----------



## Drowning_by_numbers (May 30, 2006)

With the best intentions in the world I find that books written about any living composers are never really all that excellent - including major composers like Boulez, and he is 80 odd. Writers seem reluctant to write about people who may yet have more significant things to say... Just a thought.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

purple99 said:


> Thank you. When Andante compared me to Robert Mugabe (and himself to Galileo) _and_ claimed he was being silenced _and_ complained of 'vitriol' _and_ bemoaned 'political correctness gone mad' - repeatedly - I tried my best to stick to 'ball not man' principles. I remained courteous even when Andante's 'evidence' - extracted with much effort - turned out to be demonstrable bilge published by a discredited 'pop' scientist.


*
99 * I said I would not take part in a slanging match but as you still have trouble quoting me accurately I will make an exception. 
You don't seem able to grasp the basics but surly you realise by now that the object of my post was not to argue about whether the Male brain is superior to the female brain but to admit that there are differences and explore the significance of the differences that are being discovered. 
A couple of further links:
Marian C. Diamond, Ph.D.

Larry Cahill University of California,.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=his-brain-her-brain

There are many more that await you unbiased opinion .


----------



## purple99 (Apr 8, 2008)

Andante said:


> *
> 99 * I said I would not take part in a slanging match but as you still have trouble quoting me accurately I will make an exception.
> You don't seem able to grasp the basics but surly you realise by now that the object of my post was not to argue about whether the Male brain is superior to the female brain but to admit that there are differences and explore the significance of the differences that are being discovered.
> A couple of further links:
> ...


Thank you. But did you post the wrong links? I searched those for 'conducting' and 'composing' without a hit.


----------



## Guest (Jul 7, 2008)

*99*. True to form, Am I using the wrong language, Martian perhaps?


----------



## Edward Elgar (Mar 22, 2006)

some guy said:


> Many, perhaps most, of them are electroacoustic composers and so the conducting business doesn't enter into it.


Ah, electroacoustic composers, that's why I havn't heard of them! That isn't the technique of letting the computer do the composing for them is it? I was talking about composers like Clara Schumann and Ethel Smyth (proper composers).


----------

