# Lady Composers? How Odd!



## michael walsh

Today I was privileged to hear a young lady friend's piano compositions; very much of the nocturne genre. Quite frankly each piece was delightful. Had she told me they were little known compositions of established composers I wouldn't have argued. 

This led me to wonder why there are so few lady composers? I seem to recall that of the 250 compositions voted for by Classic FM listeners this year not one was composed by a woman? How odd. Any reflective comment?


----------



## Weston

I think it is because the most popular pieces are still from the common practice era, the baroque, classical, and romantic periods. These time periods did not encourage ladies to become composers or artists. I think there are more now, but modern music styles are generally not as popular. 

At the risk of sounding politically incorrect, it could also be that ladies traditionally have been more pragmatic than men in western culture. Perhaps they are simply not as interested in pursuing music composition as a career. Based on what few pieces I have heard, it is certainly not from lack of ability! I would be interested in seeing statistics on gender ratio in music schools.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

There are a few women film composers (i.e. compsoers that reach real people ). But Weston is exactly right (the first part, I mean!). But let's not forget one of my favourites, Saint Hildegard.


----------



## Polednice

@Weston: What do you mean by saying that women are traditionally more 'pragmatic'? If we're talking about traditional gender roles, I would have thought 'pragmatic' is equally applicable - if not more so - to men. In our own era, however, I don't believe that gender plays any general role in drawing people to the arts. Yet, I do feel that the world of classical music somewhat lags behind the other arts in terms of representing gender/(ir)religious equality _etc._

Perhaps part of the problem is that people still easily give in to labelling female occupants of certain jobs by prefixing the job title with 'lady'


----------



## Aramis

Dear Michael Walsh,

When someone created thread about old violinists, you asked him about young female ones and attached photos. When someone talks about performers you always mention female instrumentalists/singers and talk about how they look. Etc, etc. Always. It makes almost 100% of your posts.


And now - this!

Excuse me, are you thirsty sexual pervert?


----------



## michael walsh

Aramis: I have no idea what on earth you are talking about. I have no recollection of having composed any such posts. Please identify them.


----------



## michael walsh

Further to that, Aramis, I find your post most offensive. Might I remind you of Abraham Lincoln's maxim: 'Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.' You really are opening yourself up to being labelled an offensive half-wit. 

Kindly identify the posts you claim are mine and which led to your offensive remarks.


----------



## Aramis

Argh! Damn, damn, damn.

I'm really sorry - I've found few posts that I mentioned and realised that I mistaked you with someone. You probably wrote something like that just for once and by mistake I connected you with other guy. 

I hope you can forget this minsunderstanding :<


----------



## dmg

Gender equality really hadn't begun to develop until the last century (with the last 50 or so years being the era of real progress) - this genre goes back much further than that.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

michael walsh said:


> Further to that, Aramis, I find your post most offensive. Might I remind you of Abraham Lincoln's maxim: 'Better to keep one's mouth shut and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.' You really are opening yourself up to being labelled an offensive half-wit.
> 
> Kindly identify the posts you claim are mine and which led to your offensive remarks.


It was a joke!


----------



## Aramis

Btw, similiar thread already exists: http://www.talkclassical.com/6431-who-greatest-female-composers.html?highlight=female


----------



## Weston

Polednice said:


> @Weston: What do you mean by saying that women are traditionally more 'pragmatic'? If we're talking about traditional gender roles, I would have thought 'pragmatic' is equally applicable - if not more so - to men.


My observation may be based only on my own experiences with women and my place in the scheme of things. I have found some women to be intrigued by roguish dangerous artistic males, but they ultimately want to settle down to more practical matters - like keeping the bills paid. Although I do fine these days thanks to being gainfully employed and the miracle of automatic payments, I am often singularly lacking in pragmatism compared to the women around me. I agree that's not a universal trait.


----------



## World Violist

Rebecca Clarke is one of the most amazing viola composers. Her sonata (viola/piano) is particularly amazing. Just thought I'd throw that out there.


----------



## Guest

Women are the equal of Men in the actual playing of an instrument but they do not compose nearly as well, this subject has been raised before but no harm will come of discussing it again, one thing to bear in mind is that the female brain is quite a bit different than the male brain and this may have something to do with it?? please note I am not being sexist or anti women but it can't just be the excuse that they have not had the opportunity.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

Women are the equal of Men in the actual playing of an instrument but they do not compose nearly as well, this subject has been raised before but no harm will come of discussing it again, one thing to bear in mind is that the female brain is quite a bit different than the male brain and this may have something to do with it?? please note I am not being sexist or anti women but it can't just be the excuse that they have not had the opportunity.

I know that the literary/cultural critic Camille Paglia has challenged the notions that everything can be blamed upon culture/civilization (the fact that women have been denied admission to the proper schooling, etc...) and suggests that nature... biology also has a role to play... that there are biological differences between male and female artists. She connects the creative act with sexuality and suggests that the single focus and obsessive nature of the male sexual experience vs that of the female male account for the fact that there is no female Michelangelo, Beethoven, or Dante. On the other hand... she points out that women who refuse to be tied down by traditional gender roles to the position of mother and homemaker are far more successful as artists. Among these she counts Hildegard of Bingen, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, etc...

I know that within the visual arts there are any number of women among the strongest practitioners: Magdalena Abakanowicz, Louise Borgeois, Helen Frankenthaler, Barbara Hepworth, Eva Hesse, Gabrielle Münter, Lee Bontecou, etc... Interestingly, the last artist named is almost a textbook example of the impact of family upon an artistic career. Bontecou was one of the most powerful artists of the mid-1960s... potentially stronger than even Jasper John and Robert Rauschenberg. She all but abandoned her career, however, to raise her children and only recently has reappeared upon the art scene. I don't know the reason for the limited success of female composers. I doubt the answer is so simple as to be limited to biology or society. I also wonder what is the ratio of women majoring in musical composition to men? What is the ratio of women to men who are still seriously employed as composers 10 years down the road after their formal (or informal) studies? It is certainly intriguing... and perhaps troubling... that such a small percentage of the recognized composers... even over the last 100 years... seem to be women... a number that is seemingly far less than that represented by women in the visual arts and literature.


----------



## Guest

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I doubt the answer is so simple as to be limited to biology or society. .


On the contrary I think the biological content is far from simple (scientists are finding out more day by day) but granted other influences are undoubtedly in the running


----------



## michael walsh

Okay, Aramis; apologies gracefully accepted. If there's hypersensitivity - going off subject for a moment - it is a very sad age we live in. A bloke has only to photograph his toddler son on a swing, or pass a school playing field, to be labelled a sexual freak. Express a self-evident fact to be labelled a misogynist. 

Society is often the most freaky; it judges non-whites as potential muggers, scousers as thieves, Scots as mean; the Irish as thick; women as non-achievers. No wonder some react badly. Intellectually we haven't moved on much since we burned coiners and 'witches' for public entertainment. Have a good day!


----------



## Praine

Looks like you're quite familiar with "hypersensitivity", eh?


----------



## TresPicos

Andante said:


> *Women are the equal of Men in the actual playing of an instrument but they do not compose nearly as well*, this subject has been raised before but no harm will come of discussing it again, one thing to bear in mind is that the female brain is quite a bit different than the male brain and this may have something to do with it?? please note I am not being sexist or anti women but it can't just be the excuse that they have not had the opportunity.


Maybe that's why Nadia Boulanger had so many students, then. 

They probably only stayed for a couple of weeks until they realized that she couldn't really teach them anything, and then they left and studied for a man. And then she took on another batch of promising but gullible young male composers. And then another...

In fact, the opportunity argument has been valid throughout most of music history. Equal opportunity hasn't been around that long.

And who says that women do not compose nearly as well? I can't find anything wrong with the music of, say, Grazyna Bacewicz.


----------



## emiellucifuge

Nadia Boulanger had many students, mostly male and many of them went on to greatness. What remains of Nadia herself is the legacy of a mere Pedagogue.

I find it ridiculous that in the interests of racial and gender equality - or political correctness it is necessary to blindly rule out any biological differences that may exist.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I doubt the answer is so simple as to be limited to biology or society.


(Just curious) what is there in terms of causal factors beyong biology and society. To my mind they are roughly equivalent to 'nature' and 'nuture' and I can't think of anything else.


----------



## Polednice

To avoid the potential for this gap between men and women to be caused by cognitive differences would indeed be conceding to political correctness, but not so if you just deny it - whatever role such cognitive differences may play, I do _not_ believe that the differences in the functioning of the brain of each sex leads to the _complete inability_ of a woman to compose as well as a man. What such cognitive differences demonstrate are that the different sexes may approach tasks in different ways, and they may solve problems in different manners, and think entirely separately, but these differences do _not_ render them incapable of certain tasks, and they certainly do not necessitate the alleged inability of any woman to achieve the same greatness as Beethoven. And, of all the possible professions in the world that we might say a woman cannot access or achieve more than her male equivalent due to the functioning of her brain, I think 'artist' - of any type - should well be near the bottom of the list!


----------



## Artemis

Aramis said:


> Btw, similiar thread already exists: http://www.talkclassical.com/6431-who-greatest-female-composers.html?highlight=female


This thread is also relevant.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Polednice said:


> I do _not_ believe that the differences in the functioning of the brain of each sex leads to the _complete inability_ of a woman to compose as well as a man.


Indeed, but no one would claim that (and be taken seriously)



> And, of all the possible professions in the world that we might say a woman cannot access or achieve more than her male equivalent due to the functioning of her brain, I think 'artist' - of any type - should well be near the bottom of the list!


I totally agree with this, largely because the skills required to be a great composer have changed so much through musical history.


----------



## Yoshi

The reason why there was very few female composers has nothing to do with the ability to compose, it has to do with the oportunity to. It's obvious that women didn't have the same oportunity as men, as gender equality has just started to develop in our society.
I actualy can't see what the gender itself has to do with being able to compose well.


----------



## Artemis

Jan said:


> The reason why there was *very few female composers* ...


Is this statement correct? According to Wikipedia there have been 100's of them. See Here and Here for a chronological and alphabetical listing respectively, going back many centuries. The main problem would seem to be that only very few of them gained a high reputation, apart from several from the more modern generation.


----------



## Artemis

Two further references below:

http://www.kapralova.org/DATABASE.htm

http://www.kapralova.org/INTPROJECT.htm


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Artemis said:


> Is this statement correct? According to Wikipedia there have been 100's of them. See Here and Here for a chronological and alphabetical listing respectively, going back many centuries. The main problem would seem to be that only very few of them gained a high reputation, apart from several from the more modern generation.


I think here, the word 'composer' is often used to mean 'good composer' or 'well-known composer'.


----------



## Artemis

Ignis Fatuus said:


> I think here, the word 'composer' is often used to mean 'good composer' or 'well-known composer'.


I wasn't suggesting that many of these composers were "good" or "well-known", but merely questioning the assertion that there weren't many of them due supposedly to lack of opportunity.


----------



## Argus

Casual sexism rules.

I don't think it is because women lack the ability to compose as well as men that there are no great female composers. Any explanation I offer will be a total shot in the dark but it's probably due to inherent cultural differences between the genders ingrained in our psyche during mental development at an early age.

Time for some sweeping generalisations. On average men have more of a drive or kind of autistic like obsession to acheive their goals. A man would say it's my destiny to become a great composer whereas a woman might say I'll try my best to become a great composer. Replace composer with whatever occupation/goal. Obviously, there are exceptions.

I agree in a way that women are more practical than men but they are often more illogical also. Just look at a Derek Acorah audience or who's more likely to read astrology articles in newspapers. I don't think it really applies to individual cases but more a reductionist view of the reasons for the general deficiency female composers.

But what does it matter whether the music was composed by a man or a woman. Or Lady Gaga.


----------



## Weston

I am curious what historical memes allowed women to excel and even innovate in literature, the novel and poetry for instance, and not in music and the visual arts.


----------



## Weston

Argus said:


> Time for some sweeping generalisations. On average men have more of a drive or kind of autistic like obsession to acheive their goals. . .


Yes!

It all goes back to the campfire in prehistoric times. If you're not the most handsome male, or the strongest, or bravest, or swiftest, perhaps you can attract a female by how cleverly you can bang on a drum. Women generally do not have these issues as much. They have a biological incentive to be pickier about who they mate with than men. It's a lot bigger investment for them. Hence men need to work harder to attract a mate.

Hence the drive toward art and music.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Weston said:


> I am curious what historical memes allowed women to excel and even innovate in literature, the novel and poetry for instance, and not in music and the visual arts.


First under anonymity, and as those secrets were revealed, it became more acceptible. And of course there were women writers and poets of ancient times (such as Sappho) who survived into the Renaissance and modern times - whereas musicans (men and women) and musical works of ancient times have almost all been lost to time.


----------



## Yoshi

Artemis said:


> Is this statement correct? According to Wikipedia there have been 100's of them. See Here and Here for a chronological and alphabetical listing respectively, going back many centuries. The main problem would seem to be that only* very few of them gained a high reputation*, apart from several from the more modern generation.


Yes I'm sorry I didn't specify in my post but that's what I meant.


----------



## Artemis

If anyone is interested in reading a more serious discussion of this topic, they might take a look at one of the articles HERE: see the article "_The woman composer question: Philosophical and historical perspectives_" Vol IV Issue 2. I hasten to add that I don't necessarily agree with anything written in this article, but at a first glance it does seem to offer a rather more intelligent discussion of the issues than has so far typified this thread.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I don't think it is because women lack the ability to compose as well as men that there are no great female composers. Any explanation I offer will be a total shot in the dark but it's probably due to inherent cultural differences between the genders ingrained in our psyche during mental development at an early age.

Time for some sweeping generalisations. On average men have more of a drive or kind of autistic like obsession to acheive their goals. A man would say it's my destiny to become a great composer whereas a woman might say I'll try my best to become a great composer. Replace composer with whatever occupation/goal. Obviously, there are exceptions.

I agree in a way that women are more practical than men but they are often more illogical also. Just look at a Derek Acorah audience or who's more likely to read astrology articles in newspapers. I don't think it really applies to individual cases but more a reductionist view of the reasons for the general deficiency female composers.

The problem with this theory... as well as with the argument that the difference lies solely with the fact that women were denied opportunity... and I don't believe anyone denies this fact... is the realization that the achievement of women in music... at least as composers... seems to lag far behind their achievements as writers, poets, or visual artists. There are few writers of either gender who can surpass the achievements of Sappho, Emily Dickinson, Jane Austen, Virginia Woolf, the Bronte sisters... and the numbers increase exponentially through the 20th century: Anna Akhmatova, Marina Tsvetaeva, Flanner O'Connor, Elizabeth Bishop, Marguerite Duras, Collette, Marguerite Yourcenar, Nathalie Sarraute, Iris Murdoch, Jeanette Winterson, Ingeborg Bachmann, Sigrid Undset, Wislawa Szymborska, Edith Wharton, Anne Carson, etc... The same can be found true of the visual arts: Judith Leyster, Adélaïde Labille-Guiard, Élisabeth-Louise Vigée-Le Brun, Mary Cassatt, Sofonisba Anguissola, Berthe Morisot, Julia Margaret Cameron, Lee Bontecou, Louise Bourgeois, Leonora Carrington, Camille Claudel, Sonia Delaunay, Helen Frankenthaler, Barbara Hepworth, Eva Hesse, Käthe Kollwitz, Lee Krasner, Frida Kahlo, Agnes Martin, Paula Modersohn-Becker, Gabriele Münter, Alice Neel, Louise Nevelson, Georgia O'Keeffe, Bridget Riley, and many more are all well-known and well respected. Yet when asked to come up with a list of the greatest female composers even those with a solid knowledge of classical music come up short.

I also find myself wondering about what sort of advantages a great many artists/writers/composers such as Schubert, William Blake, Vincent van Gogh and others who struggled continually with poverty and rejection or neglect had in contrast to Mary Cassatt, Mary Sidney Herbert, Countess of Pembroke; Jane Austen, and any number of other wealthy women who were certainly exposed to the leading thinkers and artists and had the freedom to engage in creative outlets. Again... I don't think the answer is as simple as to be laid upon a single aspect of nature or culture (either/or).


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

It all goes back to the campfire in prehistoric times. If you're not the most handsome male, or the strongest, or bravest, or swiftest, perhaps you can attract a female by how cleverly you can bang on a drum. Women generally do not have these issues as much. They have a biological incentive to be pickier about who they mate with than men. It's a lot bigger investment for them. Hence men need to work harder to attract a mate.

This notion... as absurd as it sounds... is actually supported by recent studies in anthropology and evolutionary psychology which suggests that a primal purpose behind the development of the arts was the desire on the part of the male to impress the opposite sex through some sort of achievement that would make him stand out and appear more desirable. Considering the central role of sex 9and death) in the arts... and in nearly all that we do, I can't discount the theory.


----------



## Guest

TresPicos said:


> Maybe that's why Nadia Boulanger had so many students, then.


The exception you mention does not alter the historical facts, there has to be a reason,



> In fact, the opportunity argument has been valid throughout most of music history. Equal opportunity hasn't been around that long.


I have made one suggestion as I do not go along with the cry "We were not given the chance" 


> And who says that women do not compose nearly as well? .


I do, and so do the majority


----------



## Polednice

Weston said:


> Yes!
> 
> It all goes back to the campfire in prehistoric times. If you're not the most handsome male, or the strongest, or bravest, or swiftest, perhaps you can attract a female by how cleverly you can bang on a drum. Women generally do not have these issues as much. They have a biological incentive to be pickier about who they mate with than men. It's a lot bigger investment for them. Hence men need to work harder to attract a mate.
> 
> Hence the drive toward art and music.


While I could accept this idea as an answer for the _genesis_ of art, I don't think it's adequate to explain the divide between men and women in the modern era. Music - specifically art music - has moved so far beyond such social functions that I don't think it's appropriate. While one might _tentatively_ argue that men have a greater subconscious impetus to create art, everyone would agree that it is no longer done (only) for the sake of attracting a mate. In the 21st century, people are attracted to experiencing and creating art because it explores central human preoccupations and attempts to give us a place in an incomprehensible universe - women are just as open to the beauty of such ideas as men and, as such, should be just as likely to be drawn into the artistic profession.

Again, as has been mentioned, we should consider what it is specifically about _classical music_ - rather than all art - that has stopped women from achieving as much as men, as women _have_ excelled in the other arts. Thus, an all-encompassing notion that suggests 'art was created by men' doesn't quite cover the true nature of our question. It also rather flies in the face of a woman's ability to do anything, as, on its most simple level, it suggests that women are meant to breed and care for young, while men do _everything else conceivable_ in order to impress them!


----------



## TresPicos

Andante said:


> The exception you mention does not alter the historical facts, there has to be a reason,


Nadia Boulanger could, of course, have something wrong with her brain, making it more manly and, therefore, talented. 



> I have made one suggestion as I do not go along with the cry "We were not given the chance"


The opinion you mention does not alter the historical facts. The non-equal opportunity for women and women composers was the harsh reality for centuries and something one cannot overlook. Of course it's not the whole explanation, probably just 90% of it.



> I do, and so do the majority


The majority of biggots, or what?


----------



## Yoshi

Andante said:


> I do, and so do the majority


Hahahahahahaha...


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Think about the brain areas that were required to write a renaissance era fugal motet. Now think of the brain areas required to write a flowing romantic era violin solo. 

I fully beleive that men and women are born with different brains, and grow different brains due to different environments (including gender roles). But unless you can biologically define for me what a good composer is, I will never believe women are necessarily worse composers, from a biological standpoint.
(and hopefully my first paragraph shows that the skills required by good composing can be so vary that such a biological definition of a good composer is impossible).

People believe they are being scientific by saying men and women have different brains, but unless you can say: "this section of the brain must be well-developed to be a composer, and this same section of brain is missing in women", then it's not at all a scientific approach.


----------



## dmg

Weston said:


> I am curious what historical memes allowed women to excel and even innovate in literature, the novel and poetry for instance, and not in music and the visual arts.


I'm just throwing out some thoughts here, but:

1. Aren't men's brains better able to handle mathematics (on average)? Music is very mathematical...
2. Don't women have less drive (on average) than men - men being conquerors and etc.?

That doesn't mean women can't be good at math or have strong urges to produce the next hit composition, but still...


----------



## Polednice

dmg said:


> I'm just throwing out some thoughts here, but:
> 
> 1. Aren't men's brains better able to handle mathematics (on average)? Music is very mathematical...
> 2. Don't women have less drive (on average) than men - men being conquerors and etc.?
> 
> That doesn't mean women can't be good at math or have strong urges to produce the next hit composition, but still...


The main point I would make against arguments like these is that, not only are they wild generalisations, but they are discussions about the _average human being_. Maybe these things are true of the majority of people, but artists who stand the test of time are _rarely average_. Men may become geniuses in certain arts because their brains function with a mixture of typically male and female traits, and the same can easily be true of women. The fact is that people whose creative output remains in our consciousness after many centuries transcend such binary standards, and do not conform.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

dmg said:


> 1. Aren't men's brains better able to handle mathematics (on average)? Music is very mathematical...


This is no way of measuring that. And even if you could, I doubt it's true. I did my degree in maths and the gender split was about 50/50.

Secondly, what has maths got to do with music?



> 2. Don't women have less drive (on average) than men - men being conquerors and etc.?


Again, how on earth would you go about measuring 'drive'? Remember women had to fight for their vote, I would call that drive.

But seriously, you can't compare unmeasurable characteristics.


----------



## Argus

People here seem to be forgetting the greatest musical genius of our time is a woman (apparently).










I know she's technically not a composer but she transcends such labels. A true titan of music, an artistic colossus.

But seriously now, in response to Ignis Fatuus, math binds everything in the universe. The frequency/pitch of a length of string, brass tube etc can be worked out via maths. The many tuning systems used to organise tones must be based on some mathematics. That is if we consider maths and science intrinsically linked. Not that being good at maths makes one a better or worse composer, mind.

Another point to make is that men tend to like music that is more complex or technically demanding. This is more down to the fact that men are more impressed by people performing things that are difficult to do. Prog rock, 'Shred', technical death metal etc are all populated by a majority of male fans who are as much intereseted in the 'sport' of instrumental ability as the music. Yet in 'simpler' styles there are many famous women writers. Joni Mitchell, Bjork, Kate Bush, Annie Lennox, Joan Baez just to name a few. However, to argue against this point one can look at a modern orchestra or classical audience and the gender mix is roughly 50% each way.


----------



## Guest

TresPicos said:


> Nadia Boulanger could, of course, have something wrong with her brain, making it more manly and, therefore, talented.
> 
> The opinion you mention does not alter the historical facts. The non-equal opportunity for women and women composers was the harsh reality for centuries and something one cannot overlook. Of course it's not the whole explanation, probably just 90% of it.
> 
> The majority of biggots, or what?


You are missing the point and getting emotional involved, try to take an objective view.

So, do you consider that there is not any difference between the male and female brain? That our priorities are the same and that the male and female brain are not programmed differently? *If this is what you believe then it is pointless going any further.*

If you have the passion you will find a way!


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Andante said:


> You are missing the point and getting emotional involved, try to take an objective view.
> 
> So, do you consider that there is not any difference between the male and female brain? That our priorities are the same and that the male and female brain are not programmed differently? *If this is what you believe then it is pointless going any further.*
> 
> If you have the passion you will find a way!


Everyone accepts that there are brain differences based on gender. But no neuroscientist would ever dare to say these differences make better or worse composers. It's pure speculation.


----------



## Guest

Ignis Fatuus said:


> But no neuroscientist would ever dare to say these differences make better or worse composers. It's pure speculation.


Your comment is also pure speculation, show me proof that this is a fact.
And I refer you to my comment *[I have made one suggestion as I do not go along with the cry "We were not given the chance"]*
The truth is that we just do not know at the moment what the differences in the Brain mean. I threw this up as one possible explanation knowing that it would ruffle a few feathers.


----------



## Polednice

Andante said:


> Your comment is also pure speculation, show me proof that this is a fact.
> And I refer you to my comment *[I have made one suggestion as I do not go along with the cry "We were not given the chance"]*
> The truth is that we just do not know at the moment what the differences in the Brain mean. I threw this up as one possible explanation knowing that it would ruffle a few feathers.


The problem with your comments is not that they have 'ruffled a few feathers' (I hope your sole intention wasn't to cause petty controversy), but they are utterly pointless suggestions. You admit that the truth is that we _do not know_ what the differences in the Brain mean; I could throw up some irrelevant difference between men and women that has absolutely nothing to do with music - though we might not be able to prove it! - and that suggestion would be just as meaningless as yours. It is (almost) impossible to prove a negative; the onus of proof is on you. If you can't support your facts, then by all means offer them as wild speculation, but don't continue to beat people about with it, accusing others of being conservative.


----------



## Artemis

Argus said:


> People here seem to be forgetting the greatest musical genius of our time is a woman (apparently).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know she's technically not a composer but she transcends such labels. A true titan of music, an artistic colossus.


Yes, well you perhaps might take a glance at this thread.

http://www.talkclassical.com/5089-susan-boyle.html

See if you can spot the main person who wasn't all that impressed by Susan Boyle. It gives me a headache merely thinking back to those days.


----------



## Artemis

Andante said:


> You are missing the point and getting emotional involved, try to take an objective view.
> 
> So, do you consider that there is not any difference between the male and female brain? That our priorities are the same and that the male and female brain are not programmed differently? *If this is what you believe then it is pointless going any further.*
> 
> If you have the passion you will find a way!


You have been making the claim for some time now in this and previous threads that women are somehow innately incapable of creating major (classical) musical works. It would be interesting if you could enlighten us on the medical evidence you think exists to support your theory. So far all you have is throw out wild assertions which appear to be based on nothing more than prejudice.

To assist you answer this matter, perhaps you could elaborate upon your proposition by explaining more fully:i. Which part(s) of the brain you think is relevant to the matter of music composition competence?

ii. Is this part of the brain relevant to any other competence, or is it unique to music composition?

iii. Is this particular difference (whatever it is) in function as between male/female brains always present in all humans, or does it exist as a predominant tendency as between the two sexes?

iv. If you reckon the difference is always present, is it an absolute quantity or a relative quantity, i.e. relative to ones's overall intelligence or creative abilty? Given that it is unlikely to be absolute, then if it is relative, why can't a female who is overall more intelligent than a corresponding male overcome this alleged "weakness" and still compose far more proficiently than the latter?

v. Why do you reject the notion that lack of opportunity was a major factor inhibiting the emergence of a strong field of really great women composers until modern times? Do you believe that this is not true, or do you think it is a matter of only minor importance? Please explain.​


----------



## dmg

dmg said:


> I'm just throwing out some thoughts here, but:
> 
> 1. Aren't men's brains better able to handle mathematics (on average)? Music is very mathematical...
> 2. Don't women have less drive (on average) than men - men being conquerors and etc.?
> 
> That doesn't mean women can't be good at math or have strong urges to produce the next hit composition, but still...


For the record, I don't necessarily BELIEVE these things, hence the question format. 

Just trying to stir up debate.


----------



## michael walsh

I am just enjoying Karajan conducting the BPO (Death and Transfiguration . Metamorphoses) - yes, I am in that mood. A paradox here because he was anything but a misogynist but other than the harpist, rarely if ever a woman member of his BPO. It would seem to an outsider to be a man only sport.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

I love Death and Transfig 

I thought that performing was much more open (than composing) to women these days.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> The problem with your comments is not that they have 'ruffled a few feathers' (I hope your sole intention wasn't to cause petty controversy), but they are utterly pointless suggestions. You admit that the truth is that we _do not know_ what the differences in the Brain mean; I could throw up some irrelevant difference between men and women that has absolutely nothing to do with music -


- so what does that prove? There are differences which are obvious, and as we learn more these will be revealed, there are many differences within the male only brains which is why men are pigeon holed, the same applies within the female brain, some of these are inherited some are acquired. 


> though we might not be able to prove it! - and that suggestion would be just as meaningless as yours. It is (almost) impossible to prove a negative;


That is wrong many negatives can be proved 


> the onus of proof is on you. If you can't support your facts, then by all means offer them as wild speculation, but don't continue to beat people about with it, accusing others of being conservative.


I repeat that I threw this in as a possibility I would suggest that any suggestions that are offered would be in the same category and I have not accused any one of being conservative also it is not up to you to tell me what I can or can not say in a post 
Now what is your explanation?


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Andante said:


> That is wrong many negatives can be proved


Very true! I can't beleive people still use this phrase.

1 is not equal to 2
o_0


----------



## Polednice

Andante said:


> - so what does that prove? There are differences which are obvious, and as we learn more these will be revealed, there are many differences within the male only brains which is why men are pigeon holed, the same applies within the female brain, some of these are inherited some are acquired.


I attempted to prove nothing; I demonstrated only that your suggestions were vacuous.



Andante said:


> That is wrong many negatives can be proved.


Hence why I put 'almost' in parentheses. In fact, negatives _are_ incredibly difficult to prove. It is simple enough to throw out an infinite number of theoretical, mathematical nonsense equations, stating that they are obviously false, but I am talking about real-world, tangible events. The suggestions you raised are in the latter category and, therefore, you require substantial evidence.



Andante said:


> I repeat that I threw this in as a possibility I would suggest that any suggestions that are offered would be in the same category and I have not accused any one of being conservative also it is not up to you to tell me what I can or can not say in a post
> Now what is your explanation?


We all no doubt appreciate your suggestion, and a number of people have expanded upon it. However, you _do_ accuse people of being conservative by suggesting that your ideas 'ruffle a few feathers'. Indeed it is no one's place to tell you what you can or cannot say in a post, but when you use such a self-righteous, smug, indefensible tone against people who rightly point out that you're spewing hollow statements, apparently for no reason other than the desire to achieve self-aggrandisement by causing a ludicrous controversy (and a poor one at that), then I think it's only right for your manner to be commented upon.

_Speculation_ without evidence is essentially pointless; _discussions_ without evidence are frustrating, and empty arguments should not be thrown around lightly.

I have not been forthcoming with a suggestion about why there is such a distinction to be made between men and women precisely because I am not sufficiently educated in the matter and am in no place to make even an educated guess. I have accepted that cognitive differences, pending further investigation, may affect the issue _somewhat_, but I have voiced my doubt about this, highlighting the fact that the geniuses of the Arts never display 'average' cognitive function, and therefore cannot be compared with the generalised traits of male and female brains.


----------



## Scott Good

Hi,

I've enjoyed following this thread. I'd like to add my 327 cents.

I feel strongest that the reason for the discrepancy between women's involvement in composition vs. other art forms lies more in the differences between the art forms, and the systems which govern them, than the differences between male and female brains. 
I think that the division is not so wide these days, though. It has been slow to change, but with composer's like Sofia Guibuidalina and Kaija Saariaho and, well there are too many to name (it would be silly to try and list all of the great female composers). There's is art that captures our time with great skill and beauty. Pinnacles of the art form.

But historically, it becomes much more scant. I would like to put forth possible reasons:

Composition is not a complete art form. It is, in essence, a set of instructions for someone to create the sound with. When to start, when to stop etc. But in and of itself, is rather bland, black and off-white sheets using geometry to shape the sound - ovals, lines - vertical, horizontal (so yes, mathematical). But we all know music is much more than that.

What a strange dance between composer and performer. A trust.

It is that trust a composer must receive in order to blossom. A book can be finished, read, and then the author can move on from a complete experience. A painting can be viewed in completion without any outside involvement. But to have an orchestra perform your music requires the involvement of many people. It means going into the system and tradition of the players. The reality is, there are very few people who can look at an orchestral score and "hear" it. Also to a varying degrees, the composer.

To develop, you need access to the performers. Otherwise, it just remains in your head.

As far as the discrimination in classical orchestra goes, one particular example that resonated with me is the story of Abbie Conant. If you have some time, read her story, from 1980! - http://www.osborne-conant.org/ladies.htm. Although this is only one example, it is indicative of the history, and not too distant history. Gender and racial bias are deep in the roots of the classical tradition (remember that classical composition was developed within the church).

Ultimately, I believe it is that classical music exists in this very integrated system of composer and performer that make it slow to respond to changes. We now can easily see that women are able to be performers alongside men. But this took there to be screened auditions (this also had a staggering impact on international players - the "shock" when the screen comes down and an Asian person is there was also quite transformational - does a non-european have the "soul" to be able to play this music?). So, as soon as screened auditions came up, the balance shifted quite quickly, and this balance was easily conceived by the masses - it was the people playing the music to them. This is because performances is the real "now" of classical music. Living composers make up a small portion of the overall view of classical music composition, as it is dominated with old dead dudes.

There are other more subtle differences between classical music composition and other art disciplines. For instance, it is built upon an esoteric language, who's only commonality is mathematics (time and speed of frequency). And the grammar of this language was guarded. It's secrets of counterpoint , harmony, and form were shared with only those deserving of it - many composers started as high level performers, and were invited into the inner circle - another avenue of discrimination (although not so particular to composition).

There is also the impracticality of composition - it isn't necessary, nor is it useful outside of itself. Visual arts can decorate, books can relate ideas. But music composition...not the same.

I'll leave it at that. But, I think it dangerous to analyze this subject in terms of man vs woman brain. We know so little about the brain, but what seems to be true is that the brain is shaped by experience. To compose does require certain kinds of facilities, but who is to say that with the right stimulus and opportunity, a female brain cannot do this kind of activity as well as a male brain? To prove this would require not only an intensive understanding of how the brain works (which we don't have), and some kind of census as to what exactly classical music composition requires of the brain (another unknown).

I'm not sure this kind of analysis will ever be possible. Certainly not now.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> You have been making the claim for some time now in this and previous threads that women are somehow innately incapable of creating major (classical) musical works. It would be interesting if you could enlighten us on the medical evidence you think exists to support your theory. So far all you have is throw out wild assertions which appear to be based on nothing more than prejudice.
> ? Please explain.
> [/INDENT]





Polednice said:


> _Speculation_ without evidence is essentially pointless; _discussions_ without evidence are frustrating, and empty arguments should not be thrown around lightly.
> .


I have had a PC crash, only just got email going again so I will make a brief reply and get back to repairing the B thing.
The OP asked for any reflective comments

You criticize my suggestion yet offer no alternative, I have not claimed that I am correct I just offer it as a possibility, there are many practical examples of the differences, this is not saying one sex is superior to the other just different, proving it in the lab is another matter although dissected Brains do show physical differences determining what these translate into is still (as far as I can determine) in the early stages, *now where does my suggestion fail as a possibility?* Now if you will excuse me I need to get back to my PC.


----------



## michael walsh

For the life of me I cannot see why pleasant discourse should be degraded by opinionated posturing. Surely enjoying the diverse opinions of fellow posters, and respecting those opinions, is preferable to trying to prove them wrong? 

They are not necessarily right or wrong; they are opinions and that is all. Respect them. State your own. Allow other posters the opportunity to dwell on them and nourish their own thoughts. Intellectual pugilism ruins the forum.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

I feel strongest that the reason for the discrepancy between women's involvement in composition vs. other art forms lies more in the differences between the art forms, and the systems which govern them, than the differences between male and female brains.

Perhaps... but I doubt that this comes near to explaining the whole of the discrepancy.

I think that the division is not so wide these days, though. It has been slow to change, but with composer's like Sofia Guibuidalina and Kaija Saariaho and, well there are too many to name (it would be silly to try and list all of the great female composers). There's is art that captures our time with great skill and beauty. Pinnacles of the art form.

Scott, let's get real, here. Without using Google or some such search engine how many major female composers can the average classical music lover name? How many can even be named by those who follow modern and contemporary music? How many times, I wonder, have we seen someone start a thread about a modern/contemporary female composer vs a male? Of course it might be just as impossible to fully explain the discrepancy as it is to explain why the Austrian/Germans produced so many composers of genius vs the British or the French... cultures of far more wealth, and stability.

Composition is not a complete art form. It is, in essence, a set of instructions for someone to create the sound with... But we all know music is much more than that.

What a strange dance between composer and performer. A trust.

A book can be finished, read, and then the author can move on from a complete experience. A painting can be viewed in completion without any outside involvement. But to have an orchestra perform your music requires the involvement of many people. It means going into the system and tradition of the players. The reality is, there are very few people who can look at an orchestral score and "hear" it. Also to a varying degrees, the composer.

Yes... I had considered this. But it doesn't explain the achievements of composers such as Schubert who were largely ignored... whose orchestral work may indeed have never been heard performed by the composer. Neither does it explain the artists such as Van Gogh or writers such as William Blake who created art of the highest caliber without any real audience. I don't buy the notion that creating music without an audience is inherently any different from creating a painting or a novel without an audience. What, for example, is to keep any composer... male or female... from creating art of a more intimate scale... that can be performed my the creator? Is this not what Schubert's or Wolf's lieder, Schumann's, and Liszt's and Chopin's works for solo piano amounted to? There are any number of artists who never had access to the materials and funding needed to produce paintings on the scale of Michelangelo or Rubens... but this did not prevent them from creating great works of art with the materials they had access to.

To develop, you need access to the performers. Otherwise, it just remains in your head.

Is not the first and foremost "performer" the composer him or herself?

Gender and racial bias are deep in the roots of the classical tradition (remember that classical composition was developed within the church).

I do not deny this... not do I deny that women especially were denied access to the training, and education etc... that was available to their male counterparts. Still... we are continually confronted with the examples of male artists, writers, poets, and composers who were themselves never afforded access to the training and education etc... and still created artistic works of the highest level. One suspects that it is not as simple as suggesting that women were denied access to this education etc... which they desired... rather, it is questionable how many women even thought of the possibility of wanting to be a composer. We can assume that the gender roles of past cultures were biased and prejudicial and denied equal rights to all... but we are basing this notion upon our own values and beliefs... which certainly are just as proscribed by culture and accepted by most without question.

Ultimately, I believe it is that classical music exists in this very integrated system of composer and performer that make it slow to respond to changes.

Perhaps... but then where are the great female composers within those genres which broke away from the traditional institutionalized concepts of "classical music"? We have been gifted with this wealth a great black composers and performers within jazz... indeed, one might (tongue-in cheek) actually ask where are the great white (non-Jewish) jazz composers and performers. Why have we not found this wealth of female composers in genre breaking away from the mainstream as we found it in literature with women among the first great novelists, great American poets, quilt-makers, fiber artists, etc...?

There are other more subtle differences between classical music composition and other art disciplines. For instance, it is built upon an esoteric language, who's only commonality is mathematics (time and speed of frequency). And the grammar of this language was guarded. It's secrets of counterpoint , harmony, and form were shared with only those deserving of it - many composers started as high level performers, and were invited into the inner circle - another avenue of discrimination

And yet again we have the achievements in art and literature by women. Do you honestly believe that the grammar or the language of poetry or prose or the mechanics and secrets of painting are any less difficult... any less guarded? How many women were permitted... even expected to be able to play a musical instrument passingly well? How many actually achieved a degree of mastery not unlike that achieved by Clara Wieck Schumann or Fanny Mendelssohn?

There is also the impracticality of composition - it isn't necessary, nor is it useful outside of itself. Visual arts can decorate, books can relate ideas. But music composition...not the same.

Come one. That's really stretching, there. Painting is certainly no more practical than music. Very few parents are thrilled when their son or daughter announces that they wish to major in art. Painting can decorate? Yeah, and music can entertain... provide something to dance to. Literature may relate ideas, but how practical are most ideas? If there is any field less practical than art it must be philosophy... and poetry.


I'll leave it at that. But, I think it dangerous to analyze this subject in terms of man vs woman brain. We know so little about the brain, but what seems to be true is that the brain is shaped by experience. To compose does require certain kinds of facilities, but who is to say that with the right stimulus and opportunity, a female brain cannot do this kind of activity as well as a male brain? To prove this would require not only an intensive understanding of how the brain works (which we don't have), and some kind of census as to what exactly classical music composition requires of the brain (another unknown).

I'm not sure this kind of analysis will ever be possible. Certainly not now.

Again... I offer no answers. Certainly there may be differences in the human brain between men and women... perhaps even based upon heredity... but I don't suggest that these can explain away everything... or that we are even close to understanding enough about the brain to make such claims. I understand that as we value democratic and even egalitarian beliefs we wish to see all people as created equal... but this is not bore out by the facts... either on an individual to individual basis... or in terms of various groupings, whether by sex, gender preference, race, nationality, etc... I'll admit that there are external (cultural/social-economic/political) reasons for the discrepancies... but I doubt that we can lay the blame solely there either.


----------



## JSK

There were many women composers, even before the 20th century. One problem with researching them is that historically as soon as a woman composer dies there is a tendency to completely stop talking about her or including her in books about music. Clara Schumann and especially Fanny Mendelssohn are by no means the greatest woman composers, even of the 19th century. They just fortunately have not been forgotten simply because of their close relationships with two "great" male composers.

There is not exactly a lack of good woman composers. Sure, there were fewer woman composers than men. Woman composers just tend to be forgotten more easily than male ones.

StlukesguildOhio: You said "How many actually achieved a degree of mastery not unlike that achieved by Clara Wieck Schumann or Fanny Mendelssohn?"

Clara Schumann wrote some good songs and piano works and a pretty good piano trio. Fanny had a couple decent works late in life, but I would not say that she had nearly as "high a degree of mastery" as many other woman composers. Before her last couple years, a high number of her works suffered from poor modulations and especially over-sequencing. I do not think that anybody should make such general judgments upon woman composers, assuming that Clara and Fanny were the only "good" romantic ones without seriously exploring the works of others.

I know many of you explore outside the "canon" of music repertoire and find gems of works which are rarely performed. Would you agree then that Louise Farrenc's three symphonies and two piano quintets are as worthy of a place in the repertoire as many of the works of her contemporaries Schubert and Schumann?


----------



## Cortision

Argus said:


> But what does it matter whether the music was composed by a man or a woman. Or Lady Gaga.


 I assume from this post that you do not classify Lady Gaga as either a man or a woman... So in answer to your question, I don't care whether music is composed by a man or woman - either is acceptable. Just please keep Lady Gaga and (her?) poker face away from music.

This raises an interesting anomaly, however. There seems to be no shortage of female pop stars, some of whom are also songwriters. Classical music has a much greater gender divide. The only reason I can think of is that pop culture is generally more about the looks and figures of its stars more than any artistic substance, sadly. But this has absolutely no connection with the question as to why there is a shortage of female composers.

Another thing that I have always wondered is why are the vast majority of well-known concert pianists male? There are some stunning female pianists - Martha Argerich and Alicia de Larrocha, for example (And they are as good as anyone) - but not many compared with men. No-one (I think) would argue that women are biologically unsuited to performing on the piano, so why the gender divide? And it doesn't seem to apply to other instruments like the violin. Perhaps it is to do with the size of the hand-span - although I can't see how this can fully account for the difference. Is there still an opportunity/prejudice problem?


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

There were many women composers, even before the 20th century. One problem with researching them is that historically as soon as a woman composer dies there is a tendency to completely stop talking about her or including her in books about music. 

Ah... the conspiracy theory. There were many brilliant female composers but their achievements have been covered up. We've heard the same in the visual arts with critics desperately attempting to convince us that Judith Leyster ranked with Rembrandt and Vermeer and Artimissia Gentileschi ranked with Carravaggio when the reality is quite the reverse... had they not been women they would be largely forgotten along with the endless male painters of equal abilities.

Clara Schumann and especially Fanny Mendelssohn are by no means the greatest woman composers, even of the 19th century. They just fortunately have not been forgotten simply because of their close relationships with two "great" male composers.

I make no claims for them as brilliant composers, but rather as performers who certainly had the advantage of being privy to all the secrets of harmony, counterpoint, etc... necessary to the composer.

There is not exactly a lack of good woman composers. Sure, there were fewer woman composers than men. Woman composers just tend to be forgotten more easily than male ones.

"Good" is not the same as great. In nearly any small college setting there are "good" artists, poets, and composers. "Great" assumes something far more. Who are the great women composers that I have been missing?

I know many of you explore outside the "canon" of music repertoire and find gems of works which are rarely performed. Would you agree then that Louise Farrenc's three symphonies and two piano quintets are as worthy of a place in the repertoire as many of the works of her contemporaries Schubert and Schumann?

Certainly I look outside the the standard canon of essential composers. Yes, I have come upon a few interesting women composers: Ilse Weber, Cécile Chaminade, Amy Beach, Sofia Gubaidulina, Clara Schumann, and Hildegard of Bingen. Only the last named is clearly a "great" composer... although Gubaidulina may approach the same... and if Sappho's music was only a quarter as good as the few fragments of poetry she has left to us, she must have been brilliant. I'll reserve judgment upon Farrenc, although I will say that I highly doubt that her work rivals Schumann... let alone Schubert. But then I would suspect an exaggeration in any similar claims being made about a rather unknown male composer.


----------



## Argus

Cortision said:


> I assume from this post that you do not classify Lady Gaga as either a man or a woman... So in answer to your question, I don't care whether music is composed by a man or woman - either is acceptable. Just please keep Lady Gaga and (her?) poker face away from music.
> 
> This raises an interesting anomaly, however. There seems to be no shortage of female pop stars, some of whom are also songwriters. Classical music has a much greater gender divide. The only reason I can think of is that pop culture is generally more about the looks and figures of its stars more than any artistic substance, sadly. But this has absolutely no connection with the question as to why there is a shortage of female composers.


That Lady Gaga reference was just down to the fact that there is an internet rumour going round that she may be a man in drag or a hermaphrodite after some pictures apparently show a bulge in her knicker department. I think it's ******** perpetrated by her record company or someone with a stake in her to increase publicity (successfully based on the amount of coverage she get's in the media over here). I am not a fan of her current dance music but I have seen a video of her from a few years ago with dark hair playing a grand piano and singing some generic ballad she wrote. She obviously has some talent but chooses to make money rather than gain artistic kudos.

In regards to why there are so many female pop stars, it could be the fact that the pop industry is funded by kids and teenagers who generally have no musical knowledge and are more superficial than older people. If a girl's good looking, wears the right style of clothes, speaks the right way and has either a rich and infleuntial father or record label backing then they will more than likely succeed. Auto-tune takes care of the rest. How the record labels A&R men choose which pretty young singer to back I don't know. It probably doesn't even matter. The more neutral and personality deficient probably as they can be moulded into whatever image.

Or possibly the pop industry is less sexist than the classical side of music?
Nah, you don't see Katherine Jenkins wearing the same skimpy outfits as Christina Aguilera. (Yes,I know KJ isn't strictly classical but I don't know any classical singers off the top of my head and can't be bothered to look them up.)


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Argus said:


> some pictures apparently show a bulge in her knicker department. I think it's ********


....................................


----------



## Argus

Ignis Fatuus said:


> ....................................


 Well spotted. I'm confused about my feelings toward the subject now. Must be my subconcious giving it's opinion on the matter.


----------



## jhar26

StlukesguildOhio said:


> I'll reserve judgment upon Farrenc, although I will say that I highly doubt that her work rivals Schumann... let alone Schubert.


Probably not, but there aren't many male composers that rival Schubert either. Farrenc is very good though. Better than Fanny Mendelssohn, Clara Schumann or Amy Beach.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio

...there aren't many male composers that rival Schubert either...

Indeed! And I admitted as much. Certainly as I am always on the lookout for good composers unknown to myself I will keep Farrenc in mind.

What about Eleni Karaindrou?


----------



## Argus

Wendy Carlos.

What if some male child prodigy composer comes along and then has gender reassignment surgery when they are say 20. They then go on to compose some great works after they have _technically_ become a female. Like that kid who was really keen on antiques and was on the Antique Roadshow a lot then became a woman. How is this anomaly judged?

Can of worms consider thy self open.


----------



## dmg

Gabriela Lena Frank!!


----------



## Guest

michael walsh said:


> For the life of me I cannot see why pleasant discourse should be degraded by opinionated posturing. Surely enjoying the diverse opinions of fellow posters, and respecting those opinions, is preferable to trying to prove them wrong?
> 
> They are not necessarily right or wrong; they are opinions and that is all. Respect them. State your own. Allow other posters the opportunity to dwell on them and nourish their own thoughts. Intellectual pugilism ruins the forum.


Well said Sir, I quite agree After a hectic and expensive few hours I finally have my PC up and running, I have had a very quick read of the posts that followed your (quoted) post and it seems things are percolating along nicely, one thing that seems beyond question is the fact that Women have not performed as well as Men as composers, or as concert pianists but are very well represented in Orchestras and small ensembles such as St Qts, but this matter is very grey.


----------



## Artemis

Andante said:


> ... one thing that seems beyond question is the fact that Women have not performed as well as Men as composers, or as concert pianists but are very well represented in Orchestras and small ensembles such as St Qts, but this matter is very grey.


Yes, we know this already. The question is why this has been the case. Your one and only suggestion is that male and female brains are "different", and somehow this is supposed to explain why there has been a dearth of top class female composers, at least until modern times. You have been asked repeatedly by several people to clarify your thought process but you have failed to do so. You have done the same sort of think on previous threads where the subject of male/female brain disparities exist, and have generally left people feeling exasperated at your inability to answer any follow-up questions. Can you therefore please clarify what these male/female brain differences are, and why you consider they should necessarily produce the results we are presently discussing in respect of music compositional skills at the highest level.


----------



## Polednice

Artemis said:


> Yes, we know this already. The question is why this has been the case. Your one and only suggestion is that male and female brains are "different", and somehow this is supposed to explain why there has been a dearth of top class female composers, at least until modern times. You have been asked repeatedly by several people to clarify your thought process but you have failed to do so. You have done the same sort of think on previous threads where the subject of male/female brain disparities exist, and have generally left people feeling exasperated at your inability to answer any follow-up questions. Can you therefore please clarify what these male/female brain differences are, and why you consider they should necessarily produce the results we are presently discussing in respect of music compositional skills at the highest level.


I wouldn't provoke Andante if I were you :/ There's a reason why I've been silent and haven't continued my 'discussion' with him on this thread! It's pointless...

Anyway, I was just desperately trying to think of why women might not have historically excelled in composition, and I was drawn to the idea of media image. Consider, for example, female (literary) writers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Though there are notable exceptions (such as Jane Austen), many female writers cloaked their output with the use of male pseudonyms, for fear of the unacceptability of writing as a female profession. Of course, there was no great problem in doing so, because the correspondence between author/publisher/audience is always in print - never face-to-face.

With composition, however, it has always been the custom (I believe) to witness one's own premieres in person and to show oneself to the audience at the end of the performance. Naturally, a woman could not utilise a pseudonym to mask this, and it would perhaps be going a bit too far to request a male friend to go on the stage and lie! This is clearly just a small facet of the problem, but it's the only thing I've thought of so far. Having dismal knowledge of the world of visual art, I'm not sure how this might fit into that arena.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Polednice said:


> With composition, however, it has always been the custom (I believe) to witness one's own premieres in person and to show oneself to the audience at the end of the performance. Naturally, a woman could not utilise a pseudonym to mask this, and it would perhaps be going a bit too far to request a male friend to go on the stage and lie! This is clearly just a small facet of the problem, but it's the only thing I've thought of so far. Having dismal knowledge of the world of visual art, I'm not sure how this might fit into that arena.


Thats kind of what I said on page, I don't know what page. I don't think this thead can go any futher. Well not forward anyway.


----------



## Polednice

Ignis Fatuus said:


> Thats kind of what I said on page, I don't know what page. I don't think this thead can go any futher. Well not forward anyway.


Ah sorry, I didn't realise. I though I'd read everything, but I obviously haven't been paying attention :/ It does feel like this topic is about to stagnate very rapidly!


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> Yes, we know this already. The question is why this has been the case. Your one and only suggestion is that male and female brains are "different", and somehow this is supposed to explain why there has been a dearth of top class female composers, at least until modern times. You have been asked repeatedly by several people to clarify your thought process but you have failed to do so. You have done the same sort of think on previous threads where the subject of male/female brain disparities exist, and have generally left people feeling exasperated at your inability to answer any follow-up questions. Can you therefore please clarify what these male/female brain differences are, and why you consider they should necessarily produce the results we are presently discussing in respect of music compositional skills at the highest level.


You still don't get it do you!
Women in general are better than men in some things and not as good in others [this is confirmed to me by quite a few years of close associations with the Fair Sex] it is also a view held by many others male and female this *could be* the explanation, you obviously hold a different view but do not let us know what it is?, you ask me to clarify my thought process, now If you can not follow the concept then that is your problem, if, as seems likely you do not agree, say why and offer your contribution if you have one, 
As you point out, On another simular post I made the same suggestion this was to my very good friend "purple99" and that was because I thought it may have something to do with it, that there are other things that come into play is not disputed.
You ask me to clarify what these male/female brain differences are do you mean the actual Brain mass or the resulting behaviour?
The following is a small segment from an article by Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD this explains it far better than I can.

*That men and women are different, everyone knows that. 
But, aside from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc. 
One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones. 
On the other hand, women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation, verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks. For example, women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men *


----------



## Artemis

Andante said:


> You still don't get it do you!
> Women in general are better than men in some things and not as good in others [this is confirmed to me by quite a few years of close associations with the Fair Sex] it is also a view held by many others male and female this *could be* the explanation, you obviously hold a different view but do not let us know what it is?, you ask me to clarify my thought process, now If you can not follow the concept then that is your problem, if, as seems likely you do not agree, say why and offer your contribution if you have one,
> As you point out, On another simular post I made the same suggestion this was to my very good friend "purple99" and that was because I thought it may have something to do with it, that there are other things that come into play is not disputed.
> You ask me to clarify what these male/female brain differences are do you mean the actual Brain mass or the resulting behaviour?
> The following is a small segment from an article by Renato M.E. Sabbatini, PhD this explains it far better than I can.
> 
> *That men and women are different, everyone knows that.
> But, aside from external anatomical and primary and secondary sexual differences, scientists know also that there are many other subtle differences in the way the brains from men and women process language, information, emotion, cognition, etc.
> One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different, as they are too in the way their brains process language. This may account, scientists say, for the fact that there are many more male mathematicians, airplane pilots, bush guides, mechanical engineers, architects and race car drivers than female ones.
> On the other hand, women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation, verbal language and carrying out detailed and pre-planned tasks. For example, women generally can recall lists of words or paragraphs of text better than men *


I am sorry to disagree but I think it is you who "don't get it".

Just taking the one "scientific" quote above which you have provided in support of your theory, you have quite clearly misunderstood it if you believe that this supports the idea that women are precluded from being great composers of music by virtue of their allegedly different brain physiology from that of men.

For a start, the quotation actually states that "... _women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation ....". _One would have thought that this of itself - especially the _emotional and artistic expressiveness_ bit - directly contradicts your assertion that women face are ill-suited to musical composition relative to men.

But the real killer of your thesis is that this researcher is talking about average tendencies and propensities among men and women. But we are not not talking about average abilities of anyone. Instead we are discussing the extremely rare skills that turn a good composer into a really great composer. In view of this, there is nothing in this researcher's findings or assertions which suggests there is significantly less chance of finding the requisite skills among women to be an exceptionally talented composer, as great as that of any of the men. This is where your thinking is going all wrong and you are drawing completely fallacious conclusions about the male/female skill balance at the highest levels.


----------



## Elgarian

Artemis said:


> we are discussing the extremely rare skills that turn a good composer into a really great composer. In view of this, there is nothing in this researcher's findings or assertions which suggests there is significantly less chance of finding the requisite skills among women to be an exceptionally talented composer, as great as that of any of the men. This is where your thinking is going all wrong and you are drawing completely fallacious conclusions about the male/female skill balance at the highest levels.


You're right, Artemis, and I'm surprised that anyone is disagreeing with you. One of the things we ought to be pretty good at, today, in view of the degree to which gender studies have developed, is seeing issues like this clearly; but I fancy a lot of current work in those areas hasn't yet filtered down into general consciousness, and indeed I'm not very knowledgable about it myself. What we do know, surely, is that until quite recently (and indeed, even now), the playing field hasn't been level; social conditioning (and conditions) have made it many times more difficult for women to make substantial contributions in a wide range of areas traditionally dominated by men. (The story of Amy Beach comes to mind, off the top of my head. Perhaps not terribly relevant, but who knows how she'd have developed as a composer if her performing career hadn't been cut off on her marriage, at her husband's request?)

In the visual arts it's absolutely clear that women can become and are great artists when the social conditions permit it. In Britain alone we've had painters like Wilhelmina Barns-Graham, Barbara Hepworth, Sandra Blow, Gillian Ayres - unanswerable artists with dazzling insight and ability. I simply don't know whether any parallel development is going on in music, because I'm not familiar with contemporary composers, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if it were.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> I am sorry to disagree but I think it is you who "don't get it".
> 
> For a start, the quotation actually states that "... _women are better than men in human relations, recognizing emotional overtones in others and in language, emotional and artistic expressiveness, esthetic appreciation ....". _One would have thought that this of itself - especially the _emotional and artistic expressiveness_ bit - directly contradicts your assertion that women face are ill-suited to musical composition relative to men.
> 
> .


I was taking expressiveness to mean the ability to interpret music in your playing as opposed to creative ability, perhaps I have that wrong

If you go back in the text you will see that he says : _One of the most interesting differences appear in the way men and women estimate time, judge speed of things, carry out mental mathematical calculations, orient in space and visualize objects in three dimensions, etc. In all these tasks, women and men are strikingly different_
This could effect the way people compose! do female composers sound better to females than they do to males?

Now there are many differing points of view on the male/female difference all I have ever done is to suggest that this could be one of the contributing factors.


----------



## Guest

Polednice said:


> I wouldn't provoke Andante if I were you :/ There's a reason why I've been silent and haven't continued my 'discussion' with him on this thread! It's pointless...


Oh come on, thats a feeble excuse


> Anyway, I was just desperately trying to think of why women might not have historically excelled in composition, and I was drawn to the idea of media image. Consider, for example, female (literary) writers in the 18th and 19th centuries. Though there are notable exceptions (such as Jane Austen), many female writers cloaked their output with the use of male pseudonyms, for fear of the unacceptability of writing as a female profession. Of course, there was no great problem in doing so, because the correspondence between author/publisher/audience is always in print - never face-to-face.
> 
> With composition, however, it has always been the custom (I believe) to witness one's own premieres in person and to show oneself to the audience at the end of the performance. Naturally, a woman could not utilise a pseudonym to mask this, and it would perhaps be going a bit too far to request a male friend to go on the stage and lie! This is clearly just a small facet of the problem, but it's the only thing I've thought of so far. Having dismal knowledge of the world of visual art, I'm not sure how this might fit into that arena.


Well at least you have made a contribution, and of course they all come into the equation, I would gladly do the premieres honours for you, any thing to help a Lady out


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

OIMÈ!!!

Can't we stop this?

Here are some amusing pictures of cats to unite us all:


----------



## Aramis

Ignis Fatuus said:


> OIMÈ!!!
> 
> Can't we stop this?
> 
> Here are some amusing pictures of cats to unite us all:


Great idea


----------



## Guest

Aramis said:


> Great idea


A great idea for you Aramis. 
The only contributions that you have made on this thread is to rubbish any post that you disagree with and to offer links to other peoples ideas not once have you made your ideas known to us. Argus, Polednice, Ignis Fatuus Scott Good,StlukesguildOhio and most of the other posters regardless of where they stand have all made an effort to give their views, but not you?


----------



## jhar26

I'm not knowledgable enough about modern music to make any such statement, but if (as some have said in this thread) it is true that today there are quite a few female composers that are just as good as the best of their male colleagues, doesn't that at the very least suggest that the reasons why there were far fewer of note in the past is indeed opportunity related? Or has the female brain during the last fifty years or so changed to such a degree that it's all of a sudden capable of doing what wasn't possible in the past?


----------



## Artemis

jhar26 said:


> I'm not knowledgable enough about modern music to make any such statement, but if (as some have said in this thread) it is true that today there are quite a few female composers that are just as good as the best of their male colleagues, doesn't that at the very least suggest that the reasons why there were far fewer of note in the past is indeed opportunity related? Or has the female brain during the last fifty years or so changed to such a degree that it's all of a sudden capable of doing what wasn't possible in the past?


I don't know much about modern music either, but I agree with your general point.

In my earlier posts I flagged up some external references discussing reasons why social attitudes (as well as facilities, eg access to academies) were generally adverse to the acceptance of women composers until at least the early part of the 20th C. The evidence in those sources was quite powerful that lack of social acceptance was, in all likelihood, the most important factor retarding the development of women composers.

Despite this, there were many more women composers than is normally given credit for. In the context of pre 20th C composers, while none of them appeared to reach the heights of musical genius achieved by their male counterparts it shouldn't be overlooked that some musical composition, even the very best of it, has probably never seen the light of day. For example, Brahms probably destroyed more of his own work than survives. He and Clara Schumann were reputedly responsible for deleting some late Schumann works. It was only by good fortune and the personal efforts of composers like Schumann and Brahms that a lot of the works of Schubert ever came into formal existence many years later, and this only because Schubert had already established a reasonable reputation based on what relatively little he had managed to get published in his own lifetime.

In view of this, who knows what potentially magnificent musical pieces lay unnoticed under piles of sewing, knitting or whatever other pastimes/endeavours were considered acceptable at the time, now of course lost all lost forever.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly

jhar26 said:


> I'm not knowledgable enough about modern music...


Neither am I- but here at the edges of my dabbling, I know enough to have an understanding of who "gets-the-ink." As *Andante* mentioned in a previous thread, and as *StlukesguildOhio* articulated here, the issue isn't merely that there are no women composers with the reputation of Beethoven and Mozart, it's also that there don't seem to be any _modern_ women composers held in the same general esteem as Penderecki and Adams.

The "more nurture than nature" argument has two persuasive points. First, one can point to obvious examples of past sexism far more easily than one can point to anything in the nature of the male mind that accounts for variances. Secondly, one can make the point that sexist/prejudicial barriers are not necessarily completely down. 
As opposed to that, there is the argument that in spite of whatever obstacles are dropped, female composers of renown remain stubbornly and comprehensively outnumbered by male composers of similar and for the most part greater repute.

Before leaving this post, I want to pick up on the example of Hildegard von Bingen, who has changed my thinking (a little) on this issue. Is it possible that Hildegard was the foremost creative musician of her era- yea, possibly the most significant composer within a hundred years in either direction?? Not being an Early Music aficionado either, I don't really know- but I *do* know that if I show up in the downtown Barnes & Noble and go looking for 12th century music, Hildegard is gonna be my best shot. Therefore, I have to _consider the possibility_ that she was supreme in that era.

And if we consider that such a thing may have happened before, is it then possible that it could happen again?! Well, of course!

_This does not change the fact that shooting stars from that hemisphere of the firmament remain an infrequent occurrence._


----------



## Scott Good

Artemis said:


> I don't know much about modern music either, but I agree with your general point.
> 
> In my earlier posts I flagged up some external references discussing reasons why social attitudes (as well as facilities, eg access to academies) were generally adverse to the acceptance of women composers until at least the early part of the 20th C. The evidence in those sources was quite powerful that lack of social acceptance was, in all likelihood, the most important factor retarding the development of women composers.


For sure. One should remember that this tradition was developed in the church - a place that would castrate boys so their larynx wouldn't mature, and they could sing high notes without falsetto (anything but have a woman sing!). This went on into the 19th century, and was also used in secular music such as opera! Anything to keep women out. (and this is an institution that still differentiates hugely between men and women, and their acceptable roles) Meanwhile, there were women being encouraged by international success as painters and writers. Women were accepted into certain major art schools in the 19th century - not so with classical music.

I hope you had a chance to read the story about Abbie Conant - trombonist - who after winning *2 times* principal trombone of the Munich Phil, was demoted as soon as the screen went down - and this was 1980! http://www.osborne-conant.org/ladies.htm (sorry for re-post, but none responded from my first - it's a great kick @$$ story with a happy ending). That's what it seems many don't realize - if there is anonymity, women start to do very well.

There are stories of Anne-Sophie Mutter having to deal with European conductors who tell her how to play! Can you imagine!! What disrespect.

(btw, do all know that auditions for orchestras are behind screens?It is very strict in North America (I'm not aware of the practice in other places). It seems that the screen is the best thing to enhance woman's presence - as soon as sociological bias is removed, and only sound and music is considered.

Luckily, we are evolving past this paradigm. In the past 20 years, many major achievements have been made by woman composers. Just about every major composition award has been been awarded to a woman at some point. In the US, both Joan Tower and Jennifer Higdon have been at times, the most performed living composers in orchestras. In Canada, we have Alexina Louie, Linda Bouchard, Linda Smith, Hope Lee, Alice Ho, Jocelyn Morlock, Abbie Richardson, Anna Sokalovic, and a host of others (sorry for the ones not listed) that are being performed, commissioned, and receiving awards.

These are the facts.

Here is some proof (IMHO):


----------



## Guest

Scott Good said:


> There are stories of Anne-Sophie Mutter having to deal with European conductors who tell her how to play! Can you imagine!! What disrespect.


Anne Sophie Mutter also said "England has many good Violinist but no great ones"
Tit for Tat


----------



## jhar26

Andante said:


> Anne Sophie Mutter also said "England has many good Violinist but no great ones"
> Tit for Tat


Yeah, but Thomas Beecham also said, "I many not be the best conductor of England, but I'm better than any damn foreigner!"


----------



## Guest

jhar26 said:


> Yeah, but Thomas Beecham also said, "I many not be the best conductor of England, but I'm better than any damn foreigner!"


Ha Ha, reminds me of a comment by Schoenberg "One day Paper Boys will be whistling my music" Just how wrong can people be


----------



## emiellucifuge

Andante said:


> Ha Ha, reminds me of a comment by Schoenberg "One day Paper Boys will be whistling my music" Just how wrong can people be


We shall see..


----------



## Artemis

emiellucifuge said:


> We shall see..


There's more chance of spotting Beethoven on a Harley Davidson.


----------



## Ignis Fatuus

Artemis said:


> There's more chance of spotting Beethoven on a Harley Davidson.


We shall see..


----------



## Guest

Ignis Fatuus said:


> We shall see..


Are you immortal?


----------



## Artemis

Oops, I spoke too soon.

















The photos are coming out of the woodwork now.


----------



## Guest

Artemis said:


> Oops, I spoke too soon.


Wrong bike he would need a left hand drive


----------



## remo123

keep it up lol


----------

