# Does classical music (as such) have gender?



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

The thread on men and women conductors/concertmasters got me thinking hard about something I've been idling with for some time...

As we know, like it or not, for good or for ill, classical music has always been a male-dominated field. Of course, it shouldn't be, but I'm not interested in debating that point here.

I'm wondering about the music itself. To use an example from the other thread, I can see how one might perceive Debussy's _Afternoon of a Fawn_ as a good example of, well, a _feminine_ sensibility (if not, indeed, _sensuality_), whereas something such as Bruckner's 4th could be perceived as embodying a certain "male" Romanticism (and yes, I'm aware of what Romanticism means - just sayin').

I suppose my question is mostly directed to the ladies present - does most classical music, since written mostly by males - sound "masculine" to you - or is it simply _human_? Have any of you gotten any insights into the "male psyche" through classical listening? Gentleman may also chime in, of course - it's only fair!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I just mentioned something about that in the Schnittke vs Scarlatti thread yesterday. I felt Schnittke was more for men. How many women prefer Varese over Rachmaninov?


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

A couple of years ago, Jorma Pannula, the teacher of many current, well-respected conductors, got himself into deeeep ***** by saying that there was masculine and feminine music and that women conductors needed to only conduct so-called feminine music. Needless to say, he said nothing about male conductors staying away from feminine music. He caught a lot of flak over that and deservedly so. The entire concept of genderizing music is nonsense as its appeal is far more complex than is describable by any one categorization. 

Incidentally, it was only very recently that it was discovered that a lesser known work by F. Mendelssohn was actually written by Fannie and not Felix. What makes that relevant is that there was much insisting that it had to be by Felix as it "was very masculine" and "very violent". Personally I would challenge anyone, given a number of unidentified scores, to correctly determine the gender of the composer.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

*Does classical music (as such) have gender?*

No.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Becca said:


> A couple of years ago, Jorma Pannula, the teacher of many current, well-respected conductors, got himself into deeeep ***** by saying that there was masculine and feminine music and that women conductors needed to only conduct so-called feminine music. Needless to say, he said nothing about male conductors staying away from feminine music. He caught a lot of flak over that and deservedly so. The entire concept of genderizing music is nonsense as its appeal is far more complex than is describable by any one categorization.
> 
> Incidentally, it was only very recently that it was discovered that a lesser known work by F. Mendelssohn was actually written by Fannie and not Felix. What makes that relevant is that there was much insisting that it had to be by Felix as it "was very masculine" and "very violent". Personally I would challenge anyone, given a number of unidentified scores, to correctly determine the gender of the composer.


I fully agree with you, there should be no gender boundaries in music. But I find it probably true that males and females, in general, would prefer certain types of music over the other based on their inherent sensibilities.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> But I find it probably true that males and females, in general, would prefer certain types of music over the other based on their inherent sensibilities.


Caution: that is a really unpleasant swamp that you are wading into! Just as there are 'no gender boundaries in music', neither are there predictable gender preferences.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Becca said:


> Caution: that is a really unpleasant swamp that you are wading into! Just as there are 'no gender boundaries in music', neither are there predictable gender preferences.


I think similar to movies, just as there are chick flicks, there may be chick music, especially in non-classical, and the recording industry takes advantage of certain demographics in choosing what to release. I have no doubt in the Classical world there are many objective females that appreciate all kinds of music including the cerebral kind, but there are still certain general tendencies, I believe.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Totenfeier said:


> one might perceive Debussy's _Afternoon of a Fawn_ as a good example of, well, a _feminine_ sensibility (if not, indeed, _sensuality_), whereas something such as Bruckner's 4th could be perceived as embodying a certain "male" Romanticism


I think all that is in your head and says more about you (and your prejudices) than any general statement of inherent qualities of gender in either piece.



> does most classical music, since written mostly by males - sound "masculine" to you


No, it doesn't.



> Have any of you gotten any insights into the "male psyche" through classical listening?


No, but I regularly get insights into the male psyche through questions such as yours.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I fully agree with you, there should be no gender boundaries in music. But I find it probably true that males and females, in general, would prefer certain types of music over the other based on their inherent sensibilities.


Utter nonsense.

"Inherent sensibilities" - What would those be?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

I can´t hear any difference between music written by men or women.


----------



## Tristan (Jan 5, 2013)

Well, _musica classica_, or _música clásica_, the Italian and Spanish terms for it, are both feminine


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

Phil loves classical said:


> How many women prefer Varese over Rachmaninov?


I can't figure out what women want. It seems like in The Seven Year Itch, Marilyn Monroe preferred Chopsticks to Rachmaninov.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

LesCyclopes said:


> Utter nonsense.
> 
> "Inherent sensibilities" - What would those be?


I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

LesCyclopes said:


> I think all that is in your head and says more about you (and your prejudices) than any general statement of inherent qualities of gender in either piece.
> 
> No, it doesn't.
> 
> No, but I regularly get insights into the male psyche through questions such as yours.


O.K., I feel that. Now, if you please, twist the knife in the OTHER direction for a bit...

(I thought I might get in _some_ trouble, but sheesh! Now I'm a male chauvinist pig for life on this board!? Aren't "might" and "could be perceived" sufficiently hypothetical cushions?)


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance.


Do you have any research to back up that assertion? Have a statistically significant number of women been tested for musical preference with a sufficiently large repertoire?



> The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


I am more of a Bach fan. I don't care to listen to either of those gay musicians you cited, and frankly they were nowhere near as gifted as Bach (and we all know he wasn't gay).


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

LesCyclopes said:


> Do you have any research to back up that assertion? Have a statistically significant number of women been tested for musical preference with a sufficiently large repertoire?


I haven't even had much luck in finding one that likes classical music at all . . .


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Totenfeier said:


> Aren't "might" and "could be perceived" sufficiently hypothetical cushions?)


No. We all know what you are saying here.

Music that's all fuzzy, sweetness-and-light is supposed to be "female". As soon as it builds up speed and the melody ascends to a crescendo, it is "male". Not really.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

JAS said:


> I haven't even had much luck in finding one that likes classical music at all . . .


Are you saying that you have never found a woman who likes classical music? Do you think TC is entirely populated by men?

Your earlier claim "I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance" is based on... what exactly?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

LesCyclopes said:


> Are you saying that you have never found a woman who likes classical music? Do you think TC is entirely populated by men?


I was thinking in more personal (and humorous) terms. (I am sure that there are _plenty_ of reasons for my plight that have little or nothing to do with my interest in classical music.)



> Your earlier claim "I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance" is based on... what exactly?


My earlier claim? (Perhaps in some very different context.)


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

I suspect that some of the ideas on this and similar threads have more to do with wishful thinking than any reality.


----------



## Gordontrek (Jun 22, 2012)

Music is not masculine or feminine. I also reject the notion that male and female conductors are better at conducting certain music because it may require a so-called "feminine touch" or "a man's passion." At the root of it, music-making is a purely _human_ need, and if any composition reflects the composer, it reflects his or her humanity and has nothing to do with gender.
I might ask the OP what he thinks "masculine" music would sound like compared to "feminine" music. If you were unfamiliar with anything written by Robert or Clara Schumann and heard a random work written by either of them, would you be able to tell which one wrote it?
Of course, you can use instrumental effects to create musical pictures of certain people. To describe a dainty 19th-century belle, for instance, you might use a flute motif, and for a fat, lumbering man, a bassoon. But this is only _character_ description, and gives you no information about the composer. Anyone could have written it. As such, it is still not masculine or feminine.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

LesCyclopes, I sincerely apologize for the offense I've obviously given you. Such was not my intent, which was to, yes, perhaps, get my own prejudices out there where they could be cleansed by intelligent discussion. I hope you will accept this apology in the spirit in which it is given.

However, I'm afraid that I must now in my turn protest your response in post #17 as a misrepresentation of my thinking. It is a simplified caricature of what I am trying to explore. I deplore the male domination of the classical music field, as I do in all arts, sciences, politics and other such whatnot in the Western Tradition. What I am trying to explore is how women feel about that, how men feel about that, and what we all think about emotional content and expression in the classical canon as it now stands. I am aiming at nuance, not broad, slashing sexism.

I really hope we can meet as friends, here.:tiphat:

Now, I'll have to slip out of the discussion for a while, as I have to go grocery shopping.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Men really love Strauss's Alpine Symphony because it's all outdoors-y and rugged, while women love his Symphonia Domestica because it's all about babies and staying in the home.


----------



## laurie (Jan 12, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. *The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.*




......


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


If a gift for melody is a sign of homosexuality, then apparently most Italian opera composers were gay. Probably Chopin, too. (Well, his lover WAS called George Sand! )


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

No need to apologise, Totenfeier. Just like we don't all go for simple melodies, we don't get terribly hurt & go cry into our pillows when faced with opposition in a debate, either.



Totenfeier said:


> male domination of the classical music field... What I am trying to explore is how women feel about that


I have no feelings about it at all. At least in the musical era I am interested in, women did not have jobs or any other sort of regular profession outside the home. It would have been unthinkable for a woman to be an Organmeister or a court musician - not only because of their mores and traditions, but also because women of childbearing age were either pregnant, nursing, or looking after small children until the pill was invented.

I am grateful that the music I appreciate was written. It makes no difference that it was written by a man and not a woman.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


My primary deduction from this post is that you aren't gay or female


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

It's some joke when a man who has no experience being a woman, decides to speak up as if he is one, like he has been designated a "woman's representative"!! :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


I ask the people around me for their tastes in classical music and other types, and I show them certain samples. From their answers and explanations from some prodding, I've come to that belief. Not a huge sample, and no studies that I know of to prove this, or else I would say I know it as fact.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I ask the people around me for their tastes in classical music and other types, and I show them certain samples. From their answers and explanations from some prodding, I've come to that belief.


All you can tell from that sort of thing is that *the women around you* prefer a certain type of music. Maybe. Or maybe they like something else entirely but are telling you what you want to hear.

The plural of anecdote is not data, and all that.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

LesCyclopes said:


> All you can tell from that sort of thing is that *the women around you* prefer a certain type of music. Maybe. Or maybe they like something else entirely but are telling you what you want to hear.
> 
> The plural of anecdote is not data, and all that.


Maybe we need a poll so that we can gather more data about gender and classical music preferences! :lol: (Just kidding...I would actually rather not see a poll on this topic... )


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

LesCyclopes said:


> All you can tell from that sort of thing is that *the women around you* prefer a certain type of music. Maybe. Or maybe they like something else entirely but are telling you what you want to hear.
> 
> The plural of anecdote is not data, and all that.


I will rest on my statement unless there is proof otherwise


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I will rest on my statement unless there is proof otherwise


Well, I'm glad I didn't say it after all.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


There's too much nonsense to unpack in here, so I'll just say that Ravel being gay is not known for a fact.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

LesCyclopes said:


> I am more of a Bach fan. I don't care to listen to either of those gay musicians you cited, and frankly they were nowhere near as gifted as Bach (and we all know he wasn't gay).


They did write better melodies.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Taggart & I like the same kind of music. He's male and I'm female. Does that mean baroque music is unisex?


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Sounds like Geico should come out with some gender bender insurance policies.

Maybe it's already part of TrumpCare.


----------



## Bettina (Sep 29, 2016)

Ingélou said:


> Taggart & I like the same kind of music. He's male and I'm female. Does that mean baroque music is unisex?


Ah, but do you listen to it in the same _way_? Maybe you're paying attention to the melodies, and he listens more to the bass line! :tiphat: (Just kidding...I actually don't believe in this stuff about classical music and gender.)


----------



## Gradeaundera (Jun 30, 2016)

Yes classical music has no gender, all the composers and performers are all asexual robots with no genitals :devil:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Found a study that arrived at these conclusions by the listeners (table 3 on page 32):
More dramatic music is seen as masculine while more calm/reflective is feminine 
More assertive music is seen as masculine while more mild is feminine 
More controlled/objective is masculine while more emotional is feminine

The implications aren't clear to me though which traits are preferred by gender.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4815278/#!po=52.5862


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Totenfeier said:


> The thread on men and women conductors/concertmasters got me thinking hard about something I've been idling with for some time...
> 
> As we know, like it or not, for good or for ill, classical music has always been a male-dominated field. Of course, it shouldn't be, but I'm not interested in debating that point here.
> 
> ...


You get the prize man! (Or is it woman?). Your theory is proven correct. :cheers:


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

From a review of Beethoven's Op. 10 sonatas in a 1799 number of the _Allgemeinen Musikalischen Zeitung_ (_Leipzig_): "There is good invention and a serious, manly style."

As opposed to a flighty womanish style, I suppose.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> You get the prize man! (Or is it woman?). Your theory is proven correct. :cheers:


Hardly proven at all!! There is so much fudging and hand-waving that I hardly know where to begin ... so we might as well start at the end...

_The interrelationship of gendering and self-concept was not examined in this study. It is possible that degree of gendering imposed by a listener may be conditioned by sex-self type or sexual orientation of the listener. This would be a relevant avenue of investigation._

_Any gendered impressions experienced by a listener are imposed onto the incoming musical stimuli subjectively by that listener, contributed from a network of previously established gender schemata, operating at subliminal level, which rely on universal socially acquired stereotypical perceptions of relative characteristics of men and women. Masculinity and femininity are mapped onto the music by the listener._

_Gender schemata operate equally in perceptual processes of male and female listeners: we have found no differences in response behaviors attributable to listener sex for any of the variables tested, and no evidence of own-sex insights. Although gendering of music is certainly a reality, it is not a property of music, but of its listener: "Masculinity and femininity exist only in the mind of the perceiver" and in the social structures that shape that mind._

Basically they are saying that it is whatever you think it is based on your own perception of yourself. That hardly constitutes proof of anything.

P.S. The idea of _universal socially acquired stereotypical perceptions of relative characteristics of men and women_ is probably the daftest thing in this. You can certainly average anything but that doesn't give it meaning. As someone with degrees in the sciences, please save me from psychologists who have only a vague idea of what proof really means.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Gradeaundera said:


> Yes classical music has no gender, all the composers and performers are all asexual robots with no genitals :devil:


Not very funny, more insulting.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The study proves the perceived masculinity and femininity of certain musical qualities on the part of the listener. Nothing more or less. This is actually in direct response to the original post.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> The study proves the perceived masculinity and femininity of certain musical qualities on the part of the listener. Nothing more or less. This is actually in direct response to the original post.


Well, where else would it be? Music is a totally subjective thing. If people in general find certain music masculine in nature and other music feminine, it seems to me that that's as close as we will get to the "truth".

Meanwhile, please spare me talk of "social structures" as if dismissing judgements. Our prohibition against murder is a social structure, certainly nothing more. And yet we find it a useful thing.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Classical music is beyond gender, you cannot use gender to set a boundary to categorize the music. Classical music is far beyond gender. Many of us believe that classical music is about humanity, emotions and state of mind. It is always interesting to hear a female performer could interpretation a piece so differently from her male counterparts - this makes classical music so interesting.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

I remember having late-night discussions of male/female differences in college (this was aeons ago). Interestingly, the strongest proponent of the idea that there are differing masculine and feminine psychological qualities was the one woman in our little group. She was one of the most independent, tough-minded, creative, driven people I've known, while at the same time a person who craved marriage with a man strong enough to dominate her and make her feel "feminine." As a man who couldn't identify with the usual "masculine" stereotypes, I found the whole idea of essentially "masculine" and "feminine" traits fascinating but unconvincing, and as I matured over the years, I came more and more to the conclusion that we are all "masculine" and "feminine" in various ways, and that attempts at broadly classifying people and things in terms of sexual dimorphism are at the very least unhelpful.

If there is any statistical tendency for the aesthetic tastes of men and women to differ in particular ways, it is merely that: a statistical tendency. People differ far more in their individuality than in the terms of imputed classifications, and it's always dangerous to try to make reality conform to those classifications. To assert that classical music of any sort is masculine or feminine is to say practically nothing, and certainly nothing useful, about any person or any music.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I think Freud would have something to say on this matter. I sense there is a lot of resistance in accepting there may be some general tendencies, of even character in a piece, as if it poses limitations, when I believe it would broaden our understanding. In films and even non-Classical music there are clear preferences by gender: action movies, alternative rock for males; romance movies, girl groups like Spice Girls in music for females. In even lighting design (which is my profession) there is a concept of male and female lighting. I know I'm lumping 2 ideas together in this thread: male/female qualities in a work, and the audience preference. I even noticed certain trends in the comments on preferences of composers in other threads by our female members compared to male. I am not trying to pigeon-hole anybody. I think I have a stronger feminine side than most males that likes a certain style or composer that I can identify with, as in other art (says nothing of my sexual orientation). Woodduck pointed out we can have both sides, which I agree. Maybe we should embrace rather than shutting ourselves out?


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Phil loves classical said:


> I think Freud would have something to say on this matter.


No doubt he would, and it would probably be something that we could mostly ignore, or laugh about. Sometimes a concerto is just a concerto.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

pcnog11 said:


> Classical music is beyond gender, you cannot use gender to set a boundary to categorize the music. Classical music is far beyond gender. Many of us believe that classical music is about humanity, emotions and state of mind. It is always interesting to hear a female performer could interpretation a piece so differently from her male counterparts - this makes classical music so interesting.


That is almost exactly what I was trying to get at in my OP. Since the _music_ is human, and both types of _performers_ are human, why would we hear the "different" interpretation you speak of? Now, of course, "a" given male performer would interpret the music differently than "a" given female performer would, or even another given male, or vice versa. Otherwise, we'd have nothing to say about different conductors, or orchestras, or performers, and TC would have to close up shop. But _is_ there such an "interesting" difference as what you describe, and if so, how would we talk about that?


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

I literally LOL many times during this thread. The idea that there are no inherent characteristic differences between men and women is so absurd (yet our colleges and universities are hell bent on driving this absurdity down students throats) I don't know where to begin. I also have to laugh when someone says something based on common sense or life experience and someone responds with, "Where are the studies?" As if, there can be no wisdom or anything learned by life experience and observation alone. Whenever I hear someone ask me, "Where are the studies?" my first question back at them is, "So where did you go to college?" Only college could indoctrinate someone to believe that without studies, there can be no valid knowledge (BTW, I have no studies to prove this, this is just pure observation on my part).

But I digress. When it comes to classical music, I find ZERO "gender" styles, inherent in any composer's music. I don't find anything masculine nor feminine when it comes to a sonata to a concerto to a symphony to an opera to orchestral to solo to chamber etc., etc.. or any movements within those structures. I hear music. Some good, some bad, some magnificent, some awful. 

However, I did learn something in this thread: I never knew Tchaikovsky and Ravel were gay. Funny thing is, I never cared. Still don't.

V


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Found a study that arrived at these conclusions by the listeners (table 3 on page 32):
> More dramatic music is seen as masculine while more calm/reflective is feminine
> More assertive music is seen as masculine while more mild is feminine
> More controlled/objective is masculine while more emotional is feminine
> ...


My favorite part of the entire study was a graph with the following label: _Increase of perceived masculinity with increasing size of ensemble_!

The punchlines swarm, but since every single one of them would result in my instant death...


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

It's really not that hard to tell the difference. Feminine music has a bow in its hair.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

amfortas said:


> It's really not that hard to tell the difference. Feminine music has a bow in its hair.


"Right then! Stop that - stop it! It started out as an humorous sketch...but now it's just got silly!"


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> *I think Freud would have something to say on this matter.* I sense there is a lot of resistance in accepting there may be some general tendencies, of even character in a piece, as if it poses limitations, when I believe it would broaden our understanding. *In films and even non-Classical music there are clear preferences by gender:* action movies, alternative rock for males; romance movies, girl groups like Spice Girls in music for females. In even lighting design (which is my profession) there is a concept of male and female lighting. I know I'm lumping 2 ideas together in this thread: male/female qualities in a work, and the audience preference. I even noticed certain trends in the comments on preferences of composers in other threads by our female members compared to male. I am not trying to pigeon-hole anybody. *I think I have a stronger feminine side than most males that likes a certain style or composer that I can identify with, as in other art *(says nothing of my sexual orientation). Woodduck pointed out we can have both sides, which I agree. Maybe we should embrace rather than shutting ourselves out?


Freud had a lot to say about sex, but I'm not at all sure how he would have translated his ideas to the realm of art. Freud emerged from a culture which viewed men and women in ways we now see to be unhealthily rigid, repressive, and male-dominated, and lived in a time and place in which the psychology and sexuality of women - the mere fact that women _had_ a psychology and sexuality to be reckoned with - was coming to prominence as a thing which men found challenging and even frightening (see Berg's _Lulu_). I wouldn't expect Freud's views on sex and gender in art to be free of cultural bias.

Cultural bias has not gone away since Freud, and to me it looks like the major problem we have to confront in this discussion. We can use the terms "masculine" and "feminine" to mean various things, but they are always to some degree context-bound, culture-bound, statistical, and stereotyping. Masculinity and femininity are abstractions, not things; they are ideas we impose on things. Ideas have enormous power, but when we mistake them for reality their power turns back upon us, with unfortunate consequences.

Is it useful to think of any particular music as masculine or feminine? Or does it merely reinforce dubious notions of who we are? I guess there's little harm in noting that, in a given society at a given time, a certain percentage of women of a certain age and social position like, or produce, music of certain kinds. Such information is no doubt useful to marketers in the popular music industry. Whether it's useful to anyone else is questionable. Since it tells me nothing about myself or anyone I know, I have to say it's of no use to me. In all my 67 years, it has never occurred to me to ask, while listening to Bach or Wagner, whether what I was hearing was a manifestation of the sex or gender identity of its composer, or whether my own sex or gender identity was reflected in my musical tastes. Am I unreflective or incurious? I don't think so. What I'd like to think I am is fairly unbound by reified notions of gender, such that those categories of thought don't arise when they are not needed to explain anything.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja (Apr 6, 2010)

The ballet _Raymonda _is the epitome of the female spirit. It's my favorite Disney movie.  But it was written by a man! How can a man possibly understand the female spirit so well?? (see? that's actually sexist to say, because I believe men and women _can _relate to the opposite gender and say something truthful about the other without making stereotype necessarily. It just takes sensitivity on the part of the one making the effort, and Glazunov was very sensitive to women, though imperfect. In the same sense, a woman could write a story about Bluebeard, and probably be imperfect too!)

It's not necessarily the music itself that is feminine, but its context that makes it so. The story-telling of Raymonda unequivocally associates a certain tone of voice of the orchestra with female sensibilities._ But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That._ I don't mind music being associated with male or female from outside perspectives or influences. Get over feeling "locked in" by other people's ideas of gender. Your ideas aren't always the best either. Take the music, or leave it.

All hail (even stereotypical!!) femininity!!! Cuz even if it doesn't represent all females, just like _any _art form, it represents _some_, namely _meeee!_ 






Different music excerpt only (for those who dislike watching ballet):


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Huilunsoittaja said:


> The ballet _Raymonda _is the epitome of the female spirit. It's my favorite Disney movie.  But it was written by a man! How can a man possibly understand the female spirit so well?? (see? that's actually sexist to say, because I believe men and women _can _relate to the opposite gender and say something truthful about the other without making stereotype necessarily. It just takes sensitivity on the part of the one making the effort, and Glazunov was very sensitive to women, though imperfect. In the same sense, a woman could write a story about Bluebeard, and probably be imperfect too!)
> 
> It's not necessarily the music itself that is feminine, but its context that makes it so. The story-telling of Raymonda unequivocally associates a certain tone of voice of the orchestra with female sensibilities._ But. There. Is. Nothing. Wrong. With. That._ I don't mind music being associated with male or female from outside perspectives or influences. Get over feeling "locked in" by other people's ideas of gender. Your ideas aren't always the best either. Take the music, or leave it.
> 
> ...


Hey, there you go. Exactly my thoughts. Basically I have to turn on certain receptors to appreciate certain types of music. I bashed Chopin considerably in another thread, but at the same time I can be moved by his music, if I turn on and off certain receptors, which are different setting than, say Stravinsky. As long I can identify which receptors to switch, I can appreciate the music. Maybe I attribute these as masculine/feminine stereotypes, while others may call something different. But it helps in enlarging my appreciation of very different styles.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Basically I have to turn on certain receptors to appreciate certain types of music. I bashed Chopin considerably in another thread, but at the same time I can be moved by his music, if I turn on and off certain receptors, which are different setting than, say Stravinsky. *As long I can identify which receptors to switch, I can appreciate the music. Maybe I attribute these as masculine/feminine stereotypes, while others may call something different.* But it helps in enlarging my appreciation of very different styles.


Why call these "receptors" masculine and feminine? Why call them anything? That's the question, isn't it? I find that I can take each kind of music on its own terms without consciously "switching on receptors" or giving them spurious names.

Categorize our own responses and the things we're responding to becomes, if we're not conscious of what we're doing, just a way of making reality "safe" to consume, shoring up our own self-limited identities, and forestalling the growth of our perceptions.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> Why call these "receptors" masculine and feminine? Why call them anything? That's the question, isn't it? I find that I can take each kind of music on its own terms without consciously "switching on receptors" or giving them spurious names.
> 
> Categorize our own responses and the things we're responding to becomes, if we're not conscious of what we're doing, just a way of making reality "safe" to consume, shoring up our own self-limited identities, and forestalling the growth of our perceptions.


I call them masculine / feminine as they are the traditional stereotypes, and it translates the same way to and from my appreciation of other arts. I find it the opposite of stalling the growth for me, and makes me more conscious of what I'm actually doing.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> I call them masculine / feminine as they are the traditional stereotypes, and it translates the same way to and from my appreciation of other arts. I find it the opposite of stalling the growth for me, and makes me more conscious of what I'm actually doing.


What do you mean by "more conscious of what you're actually doing?" How does thinking in terms of gender stereotypes make you more conscious of anything that's actually in music or in the process of experiencing it? Do you think you can identify something in music that people without need of these stereotypes can't?


----------



## Barbebleu (May 17, 2015)

LesCyclopes said:


> we don't get terribly hurt & go cry into our pillows when faced with opposition in a debate, either.


Speak for yourself. I'm now wringing out my pillowcase as we speak!:lol:


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> What do you mean by "more conscious of what you're actually doing?" How does thinking in terms of gender stereotypes make you more conscious of anything that's actually in music or in the process of experiencing it? Do you think you can identify something in music that people without need of these stereotypes can't?


Actually in the music, we don't know, at least not me. In process of experiencing, it really makes it more fascinating and meaningful, to me. No, is the answer to your last question. We are getting into a priori knowledge. That is how it all translates to me.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> In films and even non-Classical music there are clear preferences by gender: action movies, alternative rock for males; romance movies, girl groups like Spice Girls in music for females.


Romance movies and Spice Girls? Seriously?

Please just stop.


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

LesCyclopes said:


> Romance movies and Spice Girls? Seriously?
> 
> Please just stop.


Tell me what you want. What you really, really want.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

Phil loves classical said:


> Found a study that arrived at these conclusions by the listeners (table 3 on page 32):
> More dramatic music is seen as masculine while more calm/reflective is feminine
> More assertive music is seen as masculine while more mild is feminine
> More controlled/objective is masculine while more emotional is feminine
> ...


You seem to have overlooked the two most critical findings of that study, here expressed in a single sentence:

*"Listeners therefore showed no competence in identifying the sex of composers of the extracts they heard, and their attributions to them of gendered masculine and feminine properties can therefore be seen to have been prescriptive."*

In other words, gender isn't in the music. It's in your head.

The only thing I get from your posts is that you, personally, _prefer_ projecting gender stereotypes onto music, that this somehow makes experiencing music more meaningful _for you._ But you have no answer for those who ask for evidence that these stereotypes are _objectively_ meaningful in describing music. So we must conclude that this is just about your own feelings.

Well, you're entited to your feelings. Can we just leave it at that?


----------



## Marinera (May 13, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


and what about Britten then?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> In other words, gender isn't in the music. It's in your head.
> 
> The only thing I get from your posts is that you, personally, _prefer_ projecting gender stereotypes onto music, that this somehow makes experiencing music more meaningful _for you._ But you have no answer for those who ask for evidence that these stereotypes are _objectively_ meaningful in describing music. So we must conclude that this is just about your own feelings.


Similarly, there's nothing _objectively _in music that determines whether it's great or just so-so. But we still come to a consensus, however imperfect or transitory.

I'd like to see a survey of specific musical works that asks whether respondents hear them as largely masculine or feminine. I'd guess that there might be a consensus there as well, though probably not a strong one.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Similarly, there's nothing _objectively _in music that determines whether it's great or just so-so. But we still come to a consensus, however imperfect or transitory.
> 
> I'd like to see a survey of specific musical works that asks whether respondents hear them as largely masculine or feminine. I'd guess that there might be a consensus there as well, though probably not a strong one.


I really don't think the two cases are all that similar.

Difficult as they are to articulate, criteria of excellence in art are not entirely subjective. We become aware of artistic greatness as we develop sensitivity to aesthetic qualities, and we understand that its existence doesn't depend on our individual biases, or even on the norms of our culture; it's possible, and common, to appreciate quality in the arts of cultures alien to our own.

The notion of gender differences in art is much more limited, specific, and relative, and is a matter of content, not of abstract qualities. Any consensus about "masculine" or "feminine" music would correspond, not to some actual things called "masculinity"and "femininity," but to some cultural consensus about what males and females are "supposed" to be like. So yes, a survey would be interesting, but mainly for what it might tell us about our culture. And given the growing acceptance and understanding of the diversity and fluidity of gender, I'd bet that such a survey taken now would show much less consensus than one taken fifty years ago.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Woodduck said:


> You seem to have overlooked the two most critical findings of that study, here expressed in a single sentence:
> 
> *"Listeners therefore showed no competence in identifying the sex of composers of the extracts they heard, and their attributions to them of gendered masculine and feminine properties can therefore be seen to have been prescriptive."*
> 
> ...


As Huilunsoittaja mentioned, which I also believe, some composers can be very capable of writing music showing a good understanding of the opposite gender to their own. I would add it doesn't matter the composer is gay or not. I also never said or believed you can tell a composer's gender by their music. So far so good? As I suggested Ravel and Tchaikovsky may have had an advantage in writing music for women (and men with feminine sensibities). I know some here take issue when I say there are some musical characteristics which are masculine and feminine. The study shows it's not just my perception but of both sexes taking the survey.

I am not projecting my gender stereotypes into music, but it's more like those impressions are projected onto me whether I like it or not. Did you see the clip posted by Huilunsoittaja? I can't watch or listen to it without feeling it is feminine. Doesn't mean every piece of music have attributable gender qualities to me. Most don't.

On the Spice Girls, Romance, action movies. These are targeted towards a particular gender audience. I'm sure most females here don't like the Spice Girls. But you can't deny they were more popular with females rather than males. You may have deduced I'm male by now, but Do I like action movies? No. Do I want to be stereotyped as a brute who likes watching onscreen violence? No, but a lot of guys do like it, which is why they are still being made. I think an individual can transcend the stereotypes, even if they do apply to some or most. I gonna leave it at that.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> I really don't think the two cases are all that similar.
> 
> Difficult as they are to articulate, criteria of excellence in art are not entirely subjective. We become aware of artistic greatness as we develop sensitivity to aesthetic qualities, and we understand that its existence doesn't depend on our individual biases, or even on the norms of our culture...


Disagree. Our notions of "greatness" are totally dependent on our current culture. Certainly we rate Haydn, even Mozart and probably Bach, more highly today than in the 19th century. Did Haydn, Mozart, or Bach change? No, our culture changed. I wouldn't even say we're more "right" today than were the people in those days. Values can change and can change back. Even Beethoven isn't secure!

It's all subjective, has been and will be. Ditto notions of "masculinity" and "femininity" in music, notions that most people have whether that offends our ideologies or not. And people will continue to entertain such notions until current ideologies reduce us all to sexless neutered drones, which may yet happen.


----------



## Lenny (Jul 19, 2016)

I was in belief that quite a lot of people outside the CM scene this *all* CM is music for gays or sissies, or something like that. I've always found that idea ridiculous. Even the most fierce death metal is utter gay compared to something like raw power of, for example of Brucker. No offence to gays.

To the OP question... it's a bit like asking is there feminine/masculine mathematics or science. No.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Lenny said:


> I was in belief that quite a lot of people outside the CM scene this *all* CM is music for gays or sissies, or something like that. I've always found that idea ridiculous. Even the most fierce death metal is utter gay compared to something like raw power of, for example of Brucker. No offence to gays.
> 
> To the OP question... it's a bit like asking is there feminine/masculine mathematics or science. No.


That's an interesting way to support your point.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Disagree. Our notions of "greatness" are totally dependent on our current culture. Certainly we rate Haydn, even Mozart and probably Bach, more highly today than in the 19th century. Did Haydn, Mozart, or Bach change? No, our culture changed. I wouldn't even say we're more "right" today than were the people in those days. Values can change and can change back. Even Beethoven isn't secure!
> 
> It's all subjective, has been and will be. Ditto notions of "masculinity" and "femininity" in music, notions that most people have whether that offends our ideologies or not. And people will continue to entertain such notions until current ideologies reduce us all to sexless neutered drones, which may yet happen.


"It's all subjective" is usually offered as an objective judgment !

Variability of valuation, across space and time, is not evidence of the "subjectivity" of values. There is nothing that someone will not dispute or fail to appreciate. That implies no more than what it is: a failure of appreciation. Evidence? We find objective excellence in art which we don't even like, but only if we have learned to perceive what's there and thus what makes it good. Often it doesn't take long to learn; some people get it immediately. How did I know, at 15 or 16, when I first heard Beethoven's late quartets - beginning with the one in a-minor, op. 132, and proceeding to the rest - that this was the greatest music I had ever heard, inhabiting a realm of compositional and spiritual depth beyond that of the Tchaikovsky and Strauss and other Romantic stuff I was then immersed in? A little research, and I found that my youthful impression was also the judgment of musical minds far more cultivated than mine. Or, similarly, how did I so quickly come to realize the creative brilliance and expressive power of North Indian Ragas, coming from a culture so utterly different? Was it merely a matter of "taste": "I love this, so it must be great?" I didn't love it at first; I didn't know what to make of it. But I knew there was something magnificent there. A little more exposure, and I knew I had found another manifestation of artistic greatness. _Found_ - not invented or imagined.

The fact that not everyone can perceive quality in art is no evidence at all that there is no such thing as quality. And BTW: Beethoven has nothing to fear.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Woodduck said:


> Often it doesn't take long to learn; some people get it immediately. How did I know, at 15 or 16, when I first heard Beethoven's late quartets - beginning with the one in a-minor, op. 132, and proceeding to the rest - that this was the greatest music I had ever heard, inhabiting a realm of compositional and spiritual depth beyond that of the Tchaikovsky and Strauss and other Romantic stuff I was then immersed in?


Of course, to the end of the 19th century and even beyond, some of the greatest musical tastemakers argued that the late quartets could only be appreciated read from the page, certainly not played, due to Beethoven's deafrness! Earlier, they were often attacked by the best and the brightest as "uncorrected horrors" or worse... Good thing we're so smart today, eh?


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

KenOC said:


> Similarly, there's nothing _objectively _in music that determines whether it's great or just so-so. But we still come to a consensus, however imperfect or transitory.


Do we? Check out the modern classical music thread where quite a few of us questioned if many of some people's favorites can even be called "music".



> I'd like to see a survey of specific musical works that asks whether respondents hear them as largely masculine or feminine. I'd guess that there might be a consensus there as well


Again: That will merely be a reflection of the gender roles and prejudices those people have learned, and not an intrinsic maleness or femaleness in the music itself - you think women are pretty, fragile, sweet creatures so simple & soft melodies feel feminine to you, for example.

As long as you leave it there, that's all well and good - an exercise in how gender stereotyping shapes our perceptions.

The problem arises when people start saying women must love that sort of music (because so many agreed that it's the feminine kind of music), and not the more cerebral, mathematically constructed kind, like women are apparently supposed to love romance movies and Spice Girls (Ffs )


----------



## amfortas (Jun 15, 2011)

Phil loves classical said:


> I'm sure most females here don't like the Spice Girls. But you can't deny they were more popular with females rather than males.


Except for Posh Spice.


----------



## Woodduck (Mar 17, 2014)

KenOC said:


> Of course, to the end of the 19th century and even beyond, some of the greatest musical tastemakers argued that the late quartets could only be appreciated read from the page, certainly not played, due to Beethoven's deafrness! Earlier, they were often attacked by the best and the brightest as "uncorrected horrors" or worse... Good thing we're so smart today, eh?


Who are these "greatest musical tastemakers"? (What is a "tastemaker," anyway?) Who are the best and brightest? And what makes tastemakers great (besides your admittedly subjective judgment)?

There are always those who can perceive excellence, and those who can't. That implies nothing about the existence of excellence. Add to that the common lag in general appreciation of the new and unusual - and of excellence itself, for that matter. Yes, it is a good thing that we're so "smart" today. The passage of time helps in that respect. But really it's a matter of experience, not smartness. As for my own insight into Beethoven's genius at a tender age - well, I guess _that's_ smart.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

LesCyclopes said:


> The problem arises when people start saying women must love that sort of music (because so many agreed that it's the feminine kind of music), and not the more cerebral, mathematically constructed kind, like women are apparently supposed to love romance movies and Spice Girls (Ffs )


Well you don't have that problem here  nobody said women must love romance movie and Spice Girls unless you misunderstood.


----------



## Pat Fairlea (Dec 9, 2015)

Phil loves classical said:


> I believe women generally prefer more melodious music over dissonance. The fact Ravel and Tchaikovsky were gay also gave them an incredible gift for melody.


Ravel was gay? Do we actually _know_ that, rather than infer it from his apparent asexuality throughout his life? 
And, for the record, I just don't buy the 'gay = melodious' thing.


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

Love to listen to the delicate feminine music of Galina Ustvolskaya


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> nobody said women must love romance movie and Spice Girls unless you misunderstood.


Did I?

You said: "there are clear preferences by gender: action movies, alternative rock for males; romance movies, girl groups like Spice Girls in music for females."

If you did not mean to say that you expect women to like romance movies and Spice girls, maybe you should not have said the above.

You were and still are wrong, by the way. There is no such generalisation as "Women prefer romance movies and Spice Girls". Some women might. Many women won't.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pat Fairlea said:


> Ravel was gay? Do we actually _know_ that, rather than infer it from his apparent asexuality throughout his life?
> And, for the record, I just don't buy the 'gay = melodious' thing.


Lots of people think no or few women in their life = gay
Think of the speculations about Beethoven and his nephew.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

LesCyclopes said:


> Did I?
> 
> You said: "there are clear preferences by gender: action movies, alternative rock for males; romance movies, girl groups like Spice Girls in music for females."
> 
> ...


When I went to see Escape Plan at the cinema the whole audience was male.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

It seems strange to see people living in our society, awash in advertising much of which is based on carefully researched differences in gender preferences, claim that there are no gender-specific preferences! Few women seem interested in "Ram-tough trucks" or "Dodge Chargers," but plenty secretly covet Range Rovers. Watch the ads!

I won't even get into Hugh Grant... :lol:


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Sloe said:


> When I went to see Escape Plan at the cinema the whole audience was male.


So?

Do we have to talk about the difference between anecdote and data again?


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

No great work was ever written by a woman.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

Francis Poulenc said:


> No great work was ever written by a woman.


That wouldn't be true even if you only liked music up until Poulenc (Hildegard).


----------



## Francis Poulenc (Nov 6, 2016)

Chronochromie said:


> That wouldn't be true even if you only liked music up until Poulenc (Hildegard).


Hildegard sucks. Find me a female Bach or Mozart.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Francis Poulenc said:


> Find me a female Bach or Mozart.


Nobody can find you a female doctor, engineer, or soldier from either Bach's or Mozart's era, either.

Do you understand why that is? (Hint: It's not because women have no intellectual capacity or musical talent).


----------



## znapschatz (Feb 28, 2016)

LesCyclopes said:


> Do you have any research to back up that assertion? Have a statistically significant number of women been tested for musical preference with a sufficiently large repertoire?
> 
> I am more of a Bach fan. I don't care to listen to either of those gay musicians you cited, and frankly they were nowhere near as gifted as Bach (and we all know he wasn't gay).


Well, this is awkward. I enjoy the music of all three composers for what each provides, and cannot differentiate between gay and straight in their compositions. For all I know, Bach may have been a closeted gay, overcompensating out of suppressed guilt. My wife, a devoted Brahmsian, fancies a composer who musically was very butch, and yet she seems quite feminine to me. This could mean I am subliminally bi-sexual, if not hermaphroditic, or at least my ears are. How weird, if oddly titillating  .


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

If we put this in terms of "yin and yang," yin being the receptive, and yang the active, then yes, Debussy is 'yin' and Wagner is 'yang.'

Everybody wants to be 'yang' in our aggressive, outgoing society. "Yin" is much more unpopular, since it doesn't "do" anything.

Lesbians are much better tolerated in our society than gay males; the idea of a man being 'receptive' and 'passive' (yin) is abhorrent to most people, unless it concerns the music or art they have produced.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Francis Poulenc said:


> No great work was ever written by a woman.


Mozart's mother produced Mozart. Does that count? (I would like to see how far he would have gotten without her.)


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

We have unapproved several posts that started with inappropriate sexist comments. We also unapproved responses as they quote the original comments. Please refrain from derogatory comments about large classes of people.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Sloe said:


> When I went to see Escape Plan at the cinema the whole audience was male.


Yeah, basically you just have to look around to see many examples, and to suggest there is nothing beyond, or just pure coincidence is stretching it. I admire Huilunjoittaja for her strength in embracing who she is. Both females and males have certain advantages. There is no better. As millionrainbows suggested i believe there is a Yin/Yang factor. A specific balance different in all of us. Our perceptions determine which things are more important that we try to achieve. No doubt music composition in classical have been male dominated by culture and Society. If there are more women composing and conducting, that is great. They can even go against the grain and get into more aggressive music, which is seen as more masculine. All I presented before are obvious generalizations that suggest some inner sensibilities with a good proportion (example with Spice Girls was more with the younger crowd, couldn't think of one for older females), which don't infer any limitations, and don't suggest anything being more inferior.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

LesCyclopes said:


> So?
> 
> Do we have to talk about the difference between anecdote and data again?


Because all women you know would rather see an action film with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone than a romantic comedy?


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Romantic comedy? Oh-oh, Hugh Grant again! The magic, unthreatening male.

Imagine Hugh Grant, with steroidal muscles and six-pack abs, taking on those dastardly foreign villains with a huge blazing weapon in each hand. Can't imagine that? Neither can I. But if I could, it would definitely be a guy thing.

Of course, he'd have to be singing a song or something, so that this post would be music-related and not arouse the wrath of our tough, cigar-chomping, no-nonsense mods. Definitely the Curtis Lemays of classical music, they!


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Sloe said:


> Because all women you know would rather see an action film with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Sylvester Stallone than a romantic comedy?


I would not presume to lump "all women" together (a practice you might like to emulate) but I can say that *most* women I know, myself included, would rather sit at home and stick pins in our eyes rather than go watch a romantic comedy.

Yes, I would much rather see an action movie. Not really one featuring Stallone & Schwarzenegger together, though, because the last one I saw of theirs was a bit too dumb for my liking.

I have enjoyed many Schwarzenegger films in the past, and having read his autobiography Total Recall, I can say that is probably because he has not been relying on movies to earn his living and was therefore able to choose his roles carefully. That seems to have gone out the window with Stallone collaborations, which might be because of their friendship.


----------



## Klassik (Mar 14, 2017)

To answer the OP's question, no. In fact, I don't even understand the gendered nouns that many languages use. Gendered pronouns don't make a ton of sense either, but at least they add some specificity to a statement.

As for the Ravel discussion, hasn't it been said that he was fond of brothels? Of course, who knows who or what he was doing in them. Perhaps he used the atmosphere to inspire his compositions. It might explain Bolero.



KenOC said:


> It seems strange to see people living in our society, awash in advertising much of which is based on carefully researched differences in gender preferences, claim that there are no gender-specific preferences! *Few women seem interested in "Ram-tough trucks"* or "Dodge Chargers," but plenty secretly covet Range Rovers. Watch the ads!


The ads certainly drive home this point, but there are plenty of women who covet pick-up trucks here in Texas. Maybe it's the macho image that attracts them. Does anyone remember this ad from a couple years ago where Dodge claimed that listening to chamber music is something you don't do in a Dodge?

I think there's some implied gender norms in that commercial. I guess they're saying that macho men should not listen to chamber music or drive Passats, but maybe I'm reading too much into it. Anyway, I guess Dodge is saying that I should not buy one of their cars since I do indeed listen to chamber music, but it's not like they needed to give me another reason to stay away from them. In fact, I used to drive a B5.5 Passat (a station wagon no less!) like the one they're making fun of in that commercial. I digress, but that Passat was a real wonder. The wonder is that it was almost as unreliable as a Dodge, but chamber music sounded real good on it's factory Monsoon CD/Cassette sound system (well, that is after I had to get the head unit replaced when it died under warranty).


----------



## Barelytenor (Nov 19, 2011)

Absurd question. Music has no gender. Neither do rocks, paintings, or buildings.

:tiphat:

Kind regards,

George


----------



## Jacred (Jan 14, 2017)

There shouldn't be gender in music and this thread is pointless since there's no way to prove any assertions about it anyway.


----------



## Totenfeier (Mar 11, 2016)

Jacred said:


> There shouldn't be gender in music and this thread is pointless since there's no way to prove any assertions about it anyway.


Well, I would like to think that a lively exchange of personal views - including those that some may see as ill-informed - always has _some_ merit, even if the merit is in entertainment or diversion. Not all things need to be scientifically "proved", and regarded as settled.

What I have learned from this thread - well, I knew it anyway, but have had my view expanded by the many who have responded - is that there are large-scale social forces of long standing that still exert pressure on us all, and that that pressure is magnified in our age by widespread mass media. I have also been very sympathetic to those individuals who have reminded us that human beings are _individuals_ and not simply "focus groups" or faceless members of someone's idea of an "identity." I will say that what was mostly on my mind when I first posted was not necessarily whether a given piece of music sounded "masculine" or "feminine," but - and this will sound even more ridiculous - whether a given classical piece, _most likely composed by a male,"_ revealed either a "ruggedness" or "sensitivity" that could be detected in that male composer. Was there a "testosterone test" in music, and could women detect it - or men, for that matter? I agree that the question has not been resolved to everyone's satisfaction, and can't be. But it's interesting.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Totenfeier said:


> whether a given classical piece, _most likely composed by a male,"_ revealed either a "ruggedness" or "sensitivity" that could be detected in that male composer. Was there a "testosterone test" in music, and could women detect it - or men, for that matter?


"Testosterone test" sounds like you are talking about sex (male/female), and "ruggedness or sensitivity" sounds like you might be talking about whether a male composer is straight or gay.

Re male vs female: I don't think so.

Re straight vs gay male composer: I don't think this is detectable in a composer's music, either.

For example, compare keyboard music by Bach, Rameau, and Handel. I would say that Handel's music is closer to Bach's mathematical precision and Rameau's was the one with achingly beautiful melodies like Les Tendres Plaintes and l'Entretien des Muses, but Handel was apparently the gay one and Rameau was the one with the happy marriage and four kids.


----------



## Guest (Mar 15, 2017)

Totenfeier said:


> The thread on men and women conductors/concertmasters got me thinking hard about something I've been idling with for some time...
> 
> As we know, like it or not, for good or for ill, classical music has always been a male-dominated field. Of course, it shouldn't be, but I'm not interested in debating that point here.
> 
> ...


The faun is half goat half man.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

KenOC said:


> Romantic comedy? Oh-oh, Hugh Grant again! The magic, unthreatening male.
> 
> Imagine Hugh Grant, with steroidal muscles and six-pack abs, taking on those dastardly foreign villains with a huge blazing weapon in each hand. Can't imagine that? Neither can I. But if I could, it would definitely be a guy thing.
> 
> Of course, he'd have to be singing a song or something, so that this post would be music-related and not arouse the wrath of our tough, cigar-chomping, no-nonsense mods. Definitely the Curtis Lemays of classical music, they!


Still hung up on Hugh Grant, with six pack abs? You're dreaming, Ken! Just watched La La Land yesterday. Ryan Gosling is the new Grant. That movie had those nameless sensibilities running on overdrive.


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Just watched La La Land yesterday... That movie had those nameless sensibilities running on overdrive.


Were you not able to find an action movie, then? 

You see, I would not watch a film like La La Land for love or money while you clearly do. What does that mean for the theory that women have "sensibilities" that make us partial to fluff like romantic comedies, would you say?


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

LesCyclopes said:


> Were you not able to find an action movie, then?
> 
> You see, I would not watch a film like La La Land for love or money while you clearly do. What does that mean for the theory that women have "sensibilities" that make us partial to fluff like romantic comedies, would you say?


Romantic comedies are not Fluff!  Actually i watched it on a plane, and only because I already watched the action movies. I can't explain the answer to your question in words, except...they are girly!


----------



## LesCyclopes (Sep 16, 2016)

Phil loves classical said:


> Romantic comedies are not Fluff!


I wonder how you define 'fluff', because dictionaries disagree with you:

Fluff: Entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial.
... like romantic comedies.



> I can't explain the answer to your question in words, except...they are girly!


Why on Earth can't you explain the answer if you know it? The most vocal proponents of the theory that women have "inherent sensibilities" that supposedly set us apart from men (who are oh-so-intellectual) need to try harder to live up to their own expectations, IMHO.

If they are girly, why do *you* watch them and why do many girls *not* watch them?

What you mean is that they are fluff, and you equate fluff with women.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

LesCyclopes said:


> I wonder how you define 'fluff', because dictionaries disagree with you:
> 
> Fluff: Entertainment or writing perceived as trivial or superficial.
> ... like romantic comedies.
> ...


Ok, was joking. I do think most Romantic comedies are fluff personally. La La Land if you watched it, is more than a Romantic comedy, being nominated for 14 Oscars. It has some interesting cinematography. But if you look at the audience percentage wise, the romantic comedies attract more females than males. I was dragged into watching them by women more than once, Runaway Bride and My Best Friend's Wedding. not all women like Romantic comedies. There is a big distinction between the audience makeup percentage by gender (say 75% women) and the percentage of that gender going out to watch it (say 40%). If you didn't watch Romantic comedies in theatres, then you couldn't notice that audience makeup. Maybe they are made for more naive women (not that there aren't naive men who watch action movies for hero worship), and you are not naive and don't associate with those more naive. As I said there is nothing wrong with liking Romantic comedies or action movies.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

I was looking for an example of a great women conductor I remember buying a CD, and I found Barber's Symphonies No. 1 and 2, conducted by Marian Alsop. You cannot tell the conductor's gender by listening.


----------

