# Diversity and the Concert Hall



## Guest

An interesting article from "Quillette":

http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/diversity-concert-hall/


----------



## hpowders

Classical music attendance is way down and dying, compared to mid 20th century attendance in the US. Giving preference to today's composers by gender, skin color or ethnicity won't help revive it.

Today's classical orchestras are quite diverse. Yet folks, don't attend their concerts.

The large contributors to keeping today's orchestras alive and functioning are usually rich, conservative people who enjoy their Beethoven and Brahms. They don't care about any music post late 19th century.

Any classical composer writing music these days, regardless of ethnicity, gender or skin color, is doomed to failure, IMO.

Classical music will always be considered as stuffy museum music by the general population. Being sensitive to diversity of today's classical composers won't fix things. They will all starve.


----------



## ClassicalListener

'Diversity' is a concern of sick, disintegrating societies that have lost contact with their heritage and identity. Classical music was the creation of white, aristocratic Europe. It should not be forced into something it isn't.


----------



## Boston Charlie

The foundation of classical music was created by White, European, males of a Christian background (classical music began in the church). Without taking a thing away from some very talented and creative African, Asian and female composers, the music simply didn't include Africa and Asia (or America, for that matter) as part of it's origins. It would be as if one were to insist that any forum that highlights the many forms of American music that was started by Black people (Gospel, Ragtime, Jazz, Blues, Rock, Hip-Hop, Rap), should have to include a fair sampling of non-Blacks that contributed. 

As for the dying of classical music, it is not dead or even on life support, as this forum demonstrates. It has moved, though, from the church to the concert hall to electronic media. As far back as the 1960s, the pianist, Glenn Gould stopped touring and began recording exclusively in the studio. His final recording from the 1980s included his conducting debut (Wagner's "Siegfried Idyll"), and if not for his untimely death, his next step was to record piano concertos with himself as both conductor and soloist; able to use technology for the purpose of editing and dubbing every aspect to his own specifications. 

While people will continue to attend concerts and will want to hear live music from time to time, technology has made it so much easier to enjoy what ever music you like without being economically and geographically inconvenienced.


----------



## mbhaub

hpowders said:


> Giving preference to today's composers by gender, skin color or ethnicity won't help revive it.


That's the truth. So many orchestras are pandering to minority cultures and for what? One orchestra I play with did a concert of all Black composers last year: William Dawson's beautiful Negro Folk Symphony received star billing - and who showed up? The usual crowd: white, educated, older. The Black community couldn't have cared less. Later, in May we did a concert of composers from South of the Border to appeal to that demographic. Same result. They seemed to have learned the lesson and this year it was back to dead, white, European composers. Now 2020 is looming - the 100th anniversary of women in the US getting to vote. Watch as everyone bends over backwards to play the Amy Beach symphony, music by Jennifer Higdon and Ethyl Smith. Won't make a difference.


----------



## chill782002

While I disagree with ClassicalListener and strongly believe that classical music is for everyone, regardless of ethnicity or gender, I have to agree with hpowders that the popularity of classical music in general seems to be in decline as reflected by sales of the genre. This is regrettable but I'm not sure how it can be reversed. Nonetheless, I take comfort in the fact that, although it may not be relevant to the majority, there will always be a minority that continues to appreciate it, however small. Talkclassical is itself evidence of this fact.


----------



## Tristan

I understand some of these "last ditch" efforts to increase the popularity of something that will probably never see a reversal in popularity trends and I don't have a problem with trying to include music by lesser-known composers. But I don't believe in including works just because of their composers' race or sex. Diversity can be used to at least take a look at works by composers you might not have otherwise considered, but once that's happened, don't include works that are mediocre but happen to be by composers who are non-white non-male. If there's good stuff in there, use it, but there shouldn't be "quotas". I feel the same way about diversity in the workplace: you can use diversity to look at a wider pool of applicants, but in hiring those applicants, only the best should be chosen, regardless of their race. Diversity often seems to be employed for diversity's sake.

But yeah, classical music is unlikely to increase in popularity no matter what is done. Sorry to be pessimistic, but that just seems to be the reality. I wish it were another way, but I listen to classical music mostly alone in my room, so how popular it is with the general public doesn't have much affect on my ability to enjoy it.


----------



## Boston Charlie

chill782002 said:


> While I disagree with ClassicalListener and strongly believe that classical music is for everyone, regardless of ethnicity or gender...


Just to make a distinction; I don't think that anyone here (including me) is of the belief that classical music can't be enjoyed and played by anyone. Just look at how Black opera divas Leontyne Price and Jessye Norman have dominated the vocal arts, as well as, the huge influx of Asian musicians since Yo-Yo Ma burst upon the classical music scene.

For me, anyway, it's the European heritage of classical music that always remains, just as Whites such as Benny Goodman, David Brubeck and Elvis Presley have excelled at swing, jazz and rock respectively, the roots and culture of those genres remain essentially African-American; and, of course, anyone, regardless of race, gender and social status can enjoy whatever music they seem to like.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> An interesting article from "Quillette":
> 
> http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/diversity-concert-hall/


Thanks, that was an interesting read. It seems to be an attempt to redress the balance in these supposedly more enlightened times. It _was_ a musical culture that was born and existed exclusively in a white, wealthy, male world. But now , on the "supply" (composers and promoters) side this patriarchy has subsided to an extent, it is a more open and diverse environment. But the "demand" (consumer) side is still very conservative (just four male dead composers accounting for nearly a quarter of major US orchestra performances). Hence the big mis-match of the two sides. I think this will change over time; there is the whole world of music available at our finger tips now, as never before. It's no longer just about concert attendances, thankfully. Also the newer generation of listeners are far less conservative in their tastes than their predecessors it seems to me.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Tristan said:


> I feel the same way about diversity in the workplace: you can use diversity to look at a wider pool of applicants, but in hiring those applicants, only the best should be chosen, regardless of their race. Diversity often seems to be employed for diversity's sake...


That would be a nice ideal if it had ever existed, but the fact is, at least here in the United States, that people have always been chosen for jobs based upon their background; and that has always favored: rich, White, Christian, males. You can complain that someone got a job because their name happened to be Jose Rodriguez or Derrick Washington or Ming Wong or Mary, Jane or Alice; but the fact is that the majority of American history people have always been given preference because of their name or who they knew or who they were related to. Here in the Boston area, there has always been a system that favored blatant favoritism and nepotism in regards to city jobs that favored Whites. I know that quotas and programs such as affirmative action are flawed and not fair to everyone, but if you can think of another way to break that system of people "letting in their own" without some kind of mandated diversity program in the hiring process, I'd be glad to hear it.


----------



## Kieran

Christabel said:


> An interesting article from "Quillette":
> 
> http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/diversity-concert-hall/


I read this earlier and found it to be fairly interesting and balanced. Had read an article on the same topic elsewhere (I'll try source it for you) which was more concerned with aggressively pushing modish gender thinking into the musical sphere, with the effect that it would penalise talent and greatness, while patting itself on the back for raising mediocrities to a place they don't belong, based solely on their chromosomes. I'm not a fan of affirmative action, generally, though I can see that there may often be sincere motives to some of it, nor do I think that expecting the paying punter to sit through a programme that's engineered more towards ticking trend-boxes is fair.



> just four composers-Beethoven, Brahms, Mozart, and Tchaikovsky-make up a nearly a quarter of all music performed by major American orchestras. Thus, if some young white male composer is unlucky enough to have his work premiered alongside one of those masters-a decision often entirely out of his hands-then he can expect complete silence from a website ostensibly dedicated to the advocacy of contemporary classical music. His offense? The original sin of being born a white man.




More or less sums it up. And of course, it's only a matter of time before the trans-activists get wind of this and then there'll be all hell to pay...


----------



## hpowders

chill782002 said:


> While I disagree with ClassicalListener and strongly believe that classical music is for everyone, regardless of ethnicity or gender, I have to agree with hpowders that the popularity of classical music in general seems to be in decline as reflected by sales of the genre. This is regrettable but I'm not sure how it can be reversed. Nonetheless, I take comfort in the fact that, although it may not be relevant to the majority, there will always be a minority that continues to appreciate it, however small. Talkclassical is itself evidence of this fact.


I've seen promising cycles by young, excellent classical artists halted, due to lack of CD sales. Just not worth the measly returns on investment and time. Another alarming, depressing sign of classical music's decline.

Turning the classical arena into a PC cause isn't going to fix anything.


----------



## Mood Drifter

I admit that the "stuffy" factor has been a hurdle even for me. I like my classical music a bit more approachable than overwrought. Maybe we can call it "open-collar classical music." :lol:

But I suspect that attendance of a classical symphony in 1950 compared to today, and the stark contrast, cannot all be attributed to a linear decline of public taste. Sure, there has been that, but there is also the anti-elitism that has become the norm in our mentality. Back then, someone would have automatically associated classical with "the good/great music" deemed so by an untouchable elite, versus the crop of little radio hits that take no effort to enjoy, but did they actually understand and enjoy the classical performance going home the way they would want you to think? Was it putting on airs, keeping up with the Jones, and feigning affinity with success in a society where the range of culture and the road of success was far thinner? For many, I think so.

Diversity isn't the real issue, it's the music. Can we find a stillness within ourselves to sit for an hour and discern what music without either beat or lyrics is _saying_?


----------



## Boston Charlie

Mood Drifter said:


> ...But I suspect that attendance of a classical symphony in 1950 compared to today, and the stark contrast, cannot all be attributed to a linear decline of public taste. Sure, there has been that, but there is also the anti-elitism that has become the norm in our mentality. Back then, someone would have automatically associated classical with "the good/great music" deemed so by an untouchable elite...
> 
> Diversity isn't the real issue, it's the music. Can we find a stillness within ourselves to sit for an hour and discern what music without either beat or lyrics is _saying_?


When I listen to recordings made in 1950, I can see why classical music lovers went to the concert hall as recordings from those days lack a sound quality that was later refined and perfected to the point where by the year 2000 recordings became preferable to the concert hall.

Diversity, of course, isn't the issue; never has been, in music or in the other arts or in education; except when it comes to providing jobs for people which I seem to be lone voice here (so far) trying to bring forth reasons to that point of view.

That aside, the fact is that classical music has always been a favorite genre of only a fraction of consumers. I read in a book (I think it was by Norman Lebretch) that classical records always, as a matter of course, lost money; and were only marketed by RCA, CBS, EMI and so forth as a courtesy for the sake of culture. Along this line, the top demographic for music marketed had always been teenage girls who swooned over Frank Sinatra in the 1940s, screamed over Elvis Presley in the 1950s, fainted over the Beatles in the 1960s and danced to Michael Jackson in the 1980s. Those teenage girls whose spending power fueled the music industry, allowed we middle aged men to enjoy our Beethoven and Tchaikovsky. The fact that composers such as Schonberg, Varese or Berio, who garnished even less of fraction of a fraction of an audience, were recorded at all, is incredible.

As long as we have musicians who love the music, live performance classical music will always be with us. It may not fill concert halls, but will still be available at smaller venues. Technology, as in all, things, is the blessing and curse of classical music. While RCA and Columbia budget lines of reissues, gave a kid from the streets like me more classical music to enjoy than any king who lived during the times of Mozart or Beethoven; it has also made the concert hall as we once knew it obsolete.


----------



## Nereffid

dogen said:


> Thanks, that was an interesting read. It seems to be an attempt to redress the balance in these supposedly more enlightened times. It _was_ a musical culture that was born and existed exclusively in a white, wealthy, male world. But now , on the "supply" (composers and promoters) side this patriarchy has subsided to an extent, it is a more open and diverse environment. But the "demand" (consumer) side is still very conservative (just four male dead composers accounting for nearly a quarter of major US orchestra performances). Hence the big mis-match of the two sides. I think this will change over time; there is the whole world of music available at our finger tips now, as never before. It's no longer just about concert attendances, thankfully. Also the newer generation of listeners are far less conservative in their tastes than their predecessors it seems to me.


There appears to be a fairly clear choice: either classical music is a dead art form, in which case the purpose of a concert is to present historical artefacts, and therefore the music will be almost entirely by white males and there's no point in arguing it; or classical music is a living thing, in which case a concert should be focusing more on the music of the present, and diversity "quotas" are in some shape or form inevitable until such time as the apparent institutional biases have been dealt with.

I suspect that the people most opposed to such quotas are those most wedded to the idea of the concert as a musical museum.


----------



## Nereffid

Also, that article's lamentation of "the original sin of being born a white man" is such a f**king cliché at this stage.


----------



## KenOC

Boston Charlie said:


> ...While people will continue to attend concerts and will want to hear live music from time to time, technology has made it so much easier to enjoy what ever music you like without being economically and geographically inconvenienced.


Yes. The live concert is simply a music delivery system. Back in the '50s its only competition was the AM radio and that living room (mono) record player. Things are a LOT different today.

Later this month one of my wife's favorite pianists is coming to town. His program includes music we both like. Asked my wife if she wanted to go, she said, "No, we've got all that right here."

Also, you can't very well stand up in the middle of the Brahms piece and shout, "Excuse me Mr. Ohlsson, could you hold it right there, please? I gotta go take a leak."


----------



## Nate Miller

I absolutely refuse to feel guilty about being white. That is ridiculous. Also, I'd like to point out to my PC friends that are driving this assault on white men that I am Irish. My ancestors came to America and my great granddad pulled barges down the canals with a rope over his shoulder because, as my grandmother told me, they used "oxen and Irishmen" for that sort of work.

my granddad pumped gas at a gas station until he was 74 years old, his wife, my grandma worked at a steel mill when she was a 12 year old girl

I started working at age 12 unloading trucks in a warehouse after school so I could buy my own instruments

explain this idea of "white privilege" to me again because I can use a good laugh

Here in America, not all white people are white. You got me confused with the anglo saxon protestants. I'm Irish Catholic. Its not the same thing, unless you are a racist and all you see is my skin color.


----------



## Guest

I might suggest that the situation is rather similar in popular musics. The biggest concerts with the most bums on seats are centred around a relatively small number of artists. The great majority of artists could NOT fill these venues, but no-one is saying that popular musics have had their day. Most artists struggle, play small venues, maybe only semi-professional, twas ever thus.

The near universal availability of so much music via the tinterweb has certainly changed attitudes across the board I think. A live concert is no longer so _de rigueur._


----------



## Boston Charlie

Nate Miller said:


> I absolutely refuse to feel guilty about being white. That is ridiculous. Also, I'd like to point out to my PC friends that are driving this assault on white men that I am Irish. My ancestors came to America and my great granddad pulled barges down the canals with a rope over his shoulder because, as my grandmother told me, they used "oxen and Irishmen" for that sort of work.
> 
> my granddad pumped gas at a gas station until he was 74 years old, his wife, my grandma worked at a steel mill when she was a 12 year old girl
> 
> I started working at age 12 unloading trucks in a warehouse after school so I could buy my own instruments
> 
> explain this idea of "white privilege" to me again because I can use a good laugh
> 
> Here in America, not all white people are white. You got me confused with the anglo saxon protestants. I'm Irish Catholic. Its not the same thing, unless you are a racist and all you see is my skin color.


I don't know who you're talking to but since I'm the only one here who seems to be in favor of some kind of mandated policy that ensures that ethnic minorities and women are guaranteed a more even chance at acquiring jobs; I'll say that I don't know where I ever disparaged anyone's heritage or asked that anyone should feel guilty.

You're Irish-American and I'm Italian-American. I could tell you a story too about _my_ people who came to America with nothing, and how _my_ grandfather worked construction, and was discriminated against and how _I_ started working at age 14 washing dishes and so and so forth; but that's not what this is about.

Truth be told, there's a good deal of mythology around the story of American immigration. While the so-called "Anglo-Saxon Protestants" were sometimes bad to the Irish and Italians, the Irish and Italians were also pretty bad to each other and treated Blacks even worse, because they were all competing over the same jobs; and I grew up in a world of ethnic enclaves where such was still quite apparent even into the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Along this line, I remember a world where when the Irish and Italians weren't calling each other "****" or "mick", they were saying some pretty mean things about the Blacks and Puerto Ricans.

In my world view, we should all count ourselves as Americans, and some of our fellow Americans need our help.

I'm not even going to address our long history of slavery and segregation in order to support my point. Our president, Trump, stated that in a Neo-Nazi/KKK rally that there "were good people on both sides", he's called Mexicans "murderers, drug dealers and rapists" and is still allowing pockets of Puerto Rico to go without power months after the hurricane hit the island.

I'm not even going to soil this forum by repeating what the president has to say about women.

I'm not asking that you feel guilty or saying that your family didn't do what they were supposed to do in order to provide a better future for subsequent generations. All I'm saying is that we should afford people jobs as a means towards upward mobility.

All through my youth I heard Irish and Italian Americans complain about Blacks and Puerto Ricans being lazy welfare bums; well for God's sake man, make up your mind, either give them welfare or give them jobs!


----------



## Boston Charlie

Nereffid said:


> Also, that article's lamentation of "the original sin of being born a white man" is such a f**king cliché at this stage.


The article doesn't seem to say that, in fact it quite clearly states both sides of the argument as to whether or not make a conscious effort to program works of ethnic minorities and women composers. The fact that there is such a defensive reaction going on here to any argument regarding equal representation in the arts or in job appointments tells a story all it's own.

My own remarks on equal opportunities in hiring is in response to a comment made later in the thread, not the article.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie, would you be in favour of concert programmes being selected according to a quota system, which allocates slots on the stage according to race, colour and gender, ahead of talent? Or how do we achieve a workable criteria?

I'm not being argumentative, by the way, just want to tease out the logic of this proposal, which is a goal of the BBC Proms, by 2022, according to the article...


----------



## chill782002

hpowders said:


> I've seen promising cycles by young, excellent classical artists halted, due to lack of CD sales. Just not worth the measly returns on investment and time. Another alarming, depressing sign of classical music's decline.


A great shame and one that begs a question. If a composer of "classical" music equal to Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms or Tchaikovsky were to appear on the scene today, how many people would even notice? That person certainly wouldn't get much Top 40 radio play, that's for sure.


----------



## Mood Drifter

Living composer of "continuous piano music" Lubomyr Melnyk -- highly do I recommend, btw -- is of the opinion that there are no _bona fide_ classical composers on that level today. Or probably not. He identifies Prokofiev as the last of the breed. He says his technique is certainly, thoroughly based in classical music, but nobody is truly capable of composing the same way today. Also fascinating, he claims to enjoy listening to that classical, but that it is not enjoyable to play (it's like necessary toil for a result) whereas his own continuous technique, is as enjoyable to play as hear.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Boston Charlie, would you be in favour of concert programmes being selected according to a quota system, which allocates slots on the stage according to race, colour and gender, ahead of talent? Or how do we achieve a workable criteria?
> 
> I'm not being argumentative, by the way, just want to tease out the logic of this proposal, which is a goal of the BBC Proms, by 2022, according to the article...


My answer to your question is that I don't know; although I think that some effort should always be made to be fair to everyone; to take into consideration one's own personal bias in a field that has been dominated by white men.

One of my first books on classical music is "Lives of the Great Composers" by Harold Schonberg. It was given to me by my mother one Christmas while I was still a teenager, not that my mother even liked classical music, but I guess she encouraged my interest in classical music because she thought there were worse things a teenage boy could do with his time. Anyway, Schonberg's book was almost like my classical music Bible. I read it so much that I unwittingly committed some of it to memory and eventually the book fell apart.

When I purchased a new copy of Schonberg's book, it was a newer edition (the 3rd edition), an edition where Schonberg integrated several women composers into his narrative. I think that Schonberg made a fair judgment that we all should make; not that we must feel guilty or feel as though there's something defective about white and male, but that since the power has tilted one way for so long, that we ought to take some time to reexamine our own biases.

I made clear in my initial posting on this thread that the foundation of classical music is with dead White European men of a Christian background. This can't be changed anymore than the foundations of gospel, jazz, blues, rock, hip-hop and rap can be regarded as essentially coming out of the experiences of African Americans.

Even so, concert programming and providing people with jobs are two different things.

I don't take your comments as argumentative. Honest disagreement helps us all to learn.


----------



## Beet131

Classical music appreciation may certainly be in decline today. I am rarely at a classical music concert that is sold out. But, I do think that like all things, it is cyclical. I can see a regeneration of keen interest perhaps fifty years down the road, possibly sooner. I consider myself enormously fortunate to still be able to go to the concert hall and hear masterful performances of the greatest works. I really don't care if the classical music I love was written by white European men, just as I don't care if some of the greatest jazz I love was created by African American giants like Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, etc. Good music, regardless of the genre, transcends the bounds of race, age and gender. With ever-increasing new music, future cultures will sift out the treasures of human ingenuity and the masterpieces will again rise to the surface. Great music will never be forgotten, just temporarily set aside.


----------



## Beet131

Kieran said:


> Boston Charlie, would you be in favour of concert programmes being selected according to a quota system, which allocates slots on the stage according to race, colour and gender, ahead of talent? Or how do we achieve a workable criteria?
> 
> I'm not being argumentative, by the way, just want to tease out the logic of this proposal, which is a goal of the BBC Proms, by 2022, according to the article...


That's a good question, Kieran. If I saw a concert program featuring chamber music by Clara Schumann, Louise Farrenc and Amy Beach, I would jump at the chance to go. If I could hear Ali Akbar Khan or Ravi Shankar (both now gone) play their amazingly complex ragas, I would jump at the opportunity. Just so, there are many many fine composers that we rarely get to hear because they are overlooked and out of favor.


----------



## Guest

Excellent comments so far to this article which, I think, was balanced and reasonable. I think this is key to much of the current debate over diversity:

_It is truly one of the saddest ironies of our time that those most vocal about diversity cannot see the merits of such individuals beyond their Y chromosomes or the melanin in their skin._

"Diversity" is essentially an arid argument, in my opinion, wrapped up in ideological and doctrinaire clothing. The best method of creating 'fairness' in the workplace/creative world (an emotive word anyway, which I'd expect to hear a child use in a playground) is within the supply and demand chain. If you read about James Damore and his experience with Google (he was sacked) you'll see that there isn't a scintilla of 'fairness' or 'diversity' at Google, just a repressive regime of conformity to the corporate ideology of - ironically - 'diversity'. Whenever you start the 'diversity' argument, or one based on identity politics, you're certain to lose. It has a self-defeating circularity about it which can be used by your opponents. In short, everybody can play THAT game. And it *IS* a game.

As to 'diversity' in the concert hall; I don't know if anybody has noticed the fact that 20 million Chinese children are learning the piano, that a South Korean won the last Chopin Competition, that orchestras are filled with people from many nations and that the El Sistema program in Venezuela spectacularly drew international attention to the love of serious music by ordinary, impoverished youth. And they play magnificently.

As to whether we ought to pay a lot of money to go to a live performance and hear a program based on affirmative action; I wouldn't go myself for that reason. I attend a lot of high-quality live concerts - in fact, they are of such a high quality that I'm less inclined to attend anything which doesn't feature the world's very best artists. Most of the time I attend because of the artist or orchestra - the program is secondary. I've heard 'contemporary' pieces sandwiched into programs of more traditional fare and I can tell you that's more exposure than Beethoven or Schubert or Bach ever got outside their small coteries.

Western European classical music is as per the descriptor; an art form which arose because of the Catholic Church, the Enlightenment and wealthy patronage. You simply need to be wealthy to be able to afford the "infrastructure" which facilitates such an art form - from venues, to instruments, to music schools. Western European classical music has been a proxy for rising wealth, intellectual and artistic movements and independence of thought. I'm on my knees much of the time thanking god for it!!

Tamper with that at your peril.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Christabel said:


> ...Whenever you start the 'diversity' argument, or one based on identity politics, you're certain to lose. It has a self-defeating circularity about it which can be used by your opponents. In short, everybody can play THAT game. And it *IS* a game...


Agreed, except that the "game" has always existed, at least in the work place. People have always been hired and fired based upon favoritism and nepotism, who they were, where they were from and whether or not they were one of "us" or one of "them". I'm not saying that the whole movement towards diversity hasn't gone to some ridiculous extremes which should, of course, be duly noted and avoided. What I'm saying, and what nobody here can seem to answer, is how else do you ensure that people are provided jobs most fairly, without some kind of system being in place?

For the record, most of what I see of "diversity" is a crock; PC nonsense concerned with taking down Confederate flags and statues of Robert E Lee, as if that helps to solve anything; and having us all walk on eggshells lest we offend someone.

If you really want to help women, give them equal pay.

If you really want to help ethnic minorities, give them jobs.


----------



## KenOC

Alas, nobody’s talking about the elephant in the room – discrimination in the concert hall against the talent-challenged. Like any other form of disability, lack of talent is hardly the composer’s fault. So why should the composer suffer for it?

For more visible disabilities, society provides by law for offsetting advantages – wheelchair ramps, beeping crossing signals, and so forth. All these cost money, but it’s a price a just society is willing to pay. Similarly, low-talent composers should have their moments – and more than just moments – on the concert dais. This should not be left to the narrow commercial interests governing concert music in our society, but should be rather a legal requirement, with minimum percentages to be met.

Some thought will be required to establish these standards. For example, if we determine that 85 percent of music is written by the talent-challenged, then a “level playing field” would demand that 85 percent of concert time be devoted to their works.

I hope I have your support in this. If so, my organization SPAM (Society Promoting Access for Mediocrities) welcomes contributions. Pay Pal accepted.


----------



## hpowders

chill782002 said:


> A great shame and one that begs a question. If a composer of "classical" music equal to Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms or Tchaikovsky were to appear on the scene today, how many people would even notice? That person certainly wouldn't get much Top 40 radio play, that's for sure.


In those days, classical music was "big". No nightime cable TV, chatrooms, or CD players to relieve boredom. Folks attended concerts to kill time, if nothing else. Nothing much doing at home.

These days, too many ways to occupy one's time. Another Mozart indeed would probably go unnoticed.


----------



## Boston Charlie

hpowders said:


> In those days, classical music was "big". No nightime cable TV, chatrooms, or CD players to relieve boredom. Folks attended concerts to kill time, if nothing else. Nothing much doing at home.
> 
> These days, too many ways to occupy one's time. Another Mozart indeed would probably go unnoticed.


My grandfather, who was Italian-American, nominally Catholic but actually pretty much agnostic, once told me how he used to visit a neighborhood Protestant church that was real old fashioned New England. He said that he used to go for the _music_; to enjoy the old New England/Yankee Protestant hymns that Charles Ives and Aaron Copland incorporated into their classical numbers. I guess with no stereo, record players, CDs, I-pods, YouTube, and very few radios and very few radio stations, music was something that people would make a conscious effort to hear.


----------



## superhorn

In fact, classical music today is vastly different from what it was 50, 60 or 70 years ago . The repertoire is vastly different despite the lasting popularity of the so-called "canon " of classical repertoire , and it is much more diverse in many ways .
For example, if you look at pictures of Leonard Bernstein and the New York Philharmonic back in the 60s when he was its music director , you will notice a see of white males with at most, one female member . Today , there are numerous women in the orchestra and many are either Asian American or from Japan, China and South Korea . There is only one black member today , the principal clarinetist .
Since Bernstein's stint with the orchestra back then, numerous young Asian or Asian American musicians have joined the orchestra , as numerous people of Asian origin have aimed at careers in orchestras all over America and even Europe . 
There are still only a small number of blacks in orchestras, but this is not the fault of the orchestras . Thus far, very few young blacks have taken up orchestral instruments . The practice of blind auditions has also enabled orchestra personnel to become more diverse . 
The repertoire is also vastly different . Fifty or so years ago, leading composers of the present day were either children or teenagers or had not even come into the world . John Adams, Philip Glass, John Corigliano, Jennifer Higdon, Nico Muhly, Kaaia Saariaho, Tan Dun, Unsuk Chin, Christopher Rouse ,
Thomas Ades , Arvo Part . Tobias Picker, Osvaldo Golijov , Sofia Gubaidullina , for example, to name only a limited number . 
This list includes women, Asians, Latin Americans , not only white males, European or American . 
If someone who lived in New York ,loved classical music and regularly attended concerts, opera, recitals, chamber music etc and died 50 years ago and also died 50 years ago could miraculously come back, he or she would find a vastly changed New York city classical music scene and would not be able to recognize the names of so many composers , conductors , opera singers and solo musicians . 
The repertoire at the Metropolitan opera and New York city opera would scarcely be recognizable except for certain lastingly popular operas . 
The classical music scene in New York, the capital of classical music in America is still extremely lively and more diverse than ever before . And this is only New York . Other US cities such as Los Angeles, San Francisco , Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago have a similarly changed musical life .


----------



## Woodduck

ClassicalListener said:


> 'Diversity' is a concern of sick, disintegrating societies that have lost contact with their heritage and identity. Classical music was the creation of white, aristocratic Europe. It should not be forced into something it isn't.


Diversity is created by, and welcome in, free and open societies whose "identity" is not limited by racism, sexism, tribalism and religious bigotry, and which don't view their "heritage" as something finished and immutable.

America was also a product of white, male, aristocratic Europeans, but what they produced was an idea that had the potential of transcending that identity. If programming a few works by female or black composers is a threat to any American's identity or heritage in 2018, that American needs to take a year off from Fox and Breitbart and read some history to discover who we all are, how we got here, and what we've gone through to learn to live together even as well as we have done.

That process of learning is, quite obviously, not finished. The thing that's really sick and disintegrating is the faction that's trying desperately to stop it and turn back the clock to a society that never really existed except as a fond, chauvinist fantasy.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Diversity is created by, and welcome in, free and open societies whose "identity" is not limited by racism, sexism, tribalism and religious bigotry, and which don't view their "heritage" as something finished and immutable.
> 
> America was also a product of white, male, aristocratic Europeans, but what they produced was an idea that had the potential of transcending that identity. If programming a few works by female or black composers is a threat to any American's identity or heritage in 2018, that American needs to take a year off from Fox and Breitbart and read some history to discover who we all are, how we got here, and what we've gone through to learn to live together even as well as we have done.
> 
> That process of learning is, quite obviously, not finished. The thing that's really sick and disintegrating is the faction that's trying desperately to stop it and turn back the clock to a society that never really existed except as a fond, chauvinist fantasy.


There's much more diversity of opinion in the USA than Fox or Breitbart; most cable news and major newspapers are 'progressive' by orientation. They're allowed to be, of course, but pointing the finger at just two reveals an ideological assumption. Read what Steven Pinker, Jonathon Haight, Camille Paglia and others have said about the modern so-called 'progressive' left.


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> That process of learning is, quite obviously, not finished. The thing that's really sick and disintegrating is the faction that's trying desperately to stop it and turn back the clock to a society that never really existed except as a fond, chauvinist fantasy.


I like you and your posts so I don't mean to antagonize, but America was very different just 40 years ago. Not to mention in the days of our Founders, who (as our progressive media these days likes to remind us frequently) were all unequivocally guilty of the great sin of 'racism.' So I'm not sure if trying to gaslight your audience into believing America was always supposed to be as it is today is the right tact here.


----------



## ClassicalListener

Woodduck said:


> Diversity is created by, and welcome in, free and open societies whose "identity" is not limited by racism, sexism, tribalism and religious bigotry, and which don't view their "heritage" as something finished and immutable.


Diversity is the virtue of a people that no longer recognizes itself in the mirror, that does not possess anymore the qualities of civilization. Along with the rest of liberalism, it is a funeral oration.

No society other than the decadent, dying West practices diversity. In a hundred years Japan will be perhaps half its present population, but it will still be Japanese. It will be purposeful and happy. Western Europe on the other hand will become an African colony and a wasteland. The U.S., greater Mexico.


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> There's much more diversity of opinion in the USA than Fox or Breitbart; most cable news and major newspapers are 'progressive' by orientation. They're allowed to be, of course, but pointing the finger at just two reveals an ideological assumption. Read what Steven Pinker, Jonathon Haight, Camille Paglia and others have said about the modern so-called 'progressive' left.


Note that my remarks were specifically targeted. Most of us don't regard paying a little overdue attention to the artistic achievements of minorities as a threat to our "heritage and identity." I was speaking of those who do, and as I observe the culture, Fox and Breitbart are not bad representatives of their mentality in America. There are ideologues in all political factions, but complacent conservatism, institutionalized exclusivity, and ignorance of history can't be excused by pointing to extremists on the other side. That is a way of keeping the "inferior" in his place while pretending to take his side against the "real" enemy, and it's precisely the fraud that keeps the Foxes and Breitbarts of the world in business and gets their worst representatives into the seats of power. Political correctness is annoying as hell, but the deep-rooted incorrectness to which it's a reaction is something much worse.


----------



## Boston Charlie

ClassicalListener said:


> Diversity is the virtue of a people that no longer recognizes itself in the mirror, that does not possess anymore the qualities of civilization. Along with the rest of liberalism, it is a funeral oration.
> 
> No society other than the decadent, dying West practices diversity. In a hundred years Japan will be perhaps half its present population, but it will still be Japanese. It will be purposeful and happy. Western Europe on the other hand will become an African colony and a wasteland. The U.S., greater Mexico.


You made a similar comment on another thread; railing against liberalism. Are these your actual views or is the above some kind of satire piece?


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> I like you and your posts so I don't mean to antagonize, but America was very different just 40 years ago. Not to mention in the days of our Founders, who (as our progressive media these days likes to remind us frequently) were all unequivocally guilty of the great sin of 'racism.' So I'm not sure if trying to gaslight your audience into believing America was always supposed to be as it is today is the right tact here.


Excuse me, but I do not "gaslight" people. I never said what you think I said. What you may be referring to is my statement that the idea of the founders had the "potential of transcending" the vision of its originators. That's quite different.


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> Excuse me, but I do not "gaslight" people. I never said what you think I said. What you may be referring to is my statement that the idea of the founders had the "potential of transcending" the vision of its originators. That's quite different.


Whatever you want to call it where you believe American society of 200 years ago was racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. while also believing that America as it stands today grew out of some desire of those same people to become multicultural, diverse, progressive - in other words, utterly democratic. I tend to think James Madison would have a violent fit if he found himself on the streets of Philadelphia today but maybe I'm wrong.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Whatever you want to call it where you believe American society of 200 years ago was racist, sexist, xenophobic, homophobic, etc. while also believing that America as it stands today grew out of some desire of those same people to become multicultural, diverse, progressive - in other words, utterly democratic. I tend to think James Madison would have a violent fit if he found himself on the streets of Philadelphia today but maybe I'm wrong.


I can't speak to the "desire" of those who lived centuries ago, or tell you what James Madison would think of Phiadelphia, but if you think you can, have at it. You're still misrepresenting what said.

America "as it stands today" grew out of America as it stood yesterday, for better and for worse. How does that get us anywhere closer to deciding whether to program Amy Beach's piano concerto instead of Grieg's this season?


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> I can't speak to the "desire" of those who lived centuries ago, or tell you what James Madison would think of Phiadelphia, but if you think you can, have at it. You're still misrepresenting what said.
> 
> America "as it stands today" grew out of America as it stood yesterday, for better and for worse. How does that get us anywhere closer to deciding whether to program Amy Beach's piano concerto instead of Grieg's this season?


It probably doesn't, but then neither does it justify racist policies such as affirmative action. It's a powerful notion though, that whatever policy one is pushing is rooted in tradition. Even people who want to radically change the societies they live in use it.


----------



## Woodduck

I simply don't understand why a little compensatory action on behalf of marginalized people or an effort to acknowledge their forgotten achievements has to be seen as "racism,"or any other sort of "ism." Is deciding to include a program devoted to female composers during a concert season "sexist"? The application of such terms seems at least defensive, possibly an act of projection, and at worst an attempt to "blame the victim" as justification for maintaining the status quo.


----------



## mountmccabe

superhorn said:


> The repertoire at the Metropolitan opera and New York city opera would scarcely be recognizable except for certain lastingly popular operas .


The Met's 2018-19 season, by performances at the Met (approx) 1960-1968:

Aida (Verdi)	104
La bohème (Puccini)	84
La traviata (Verdi)	79
Tosca (Puccini)	70
Don Giovanni (Mozart)	59
Rigoletto (Verdi)	59
Carmen (Bizet)	39
The Magic Flute (Mozart)	37
Falstaff (Verdi)	36
Otello (Verdi)	33
Die Walküre (Wagner)	27
La fanciulla del West (Puccini)	23
Adriana Lecouvreur (Cilea)	19
Samson et Dalila (Saint-Saëns)	17
Götterdämmerung (Wagner)	10
Pelléas et Mélisande (Debussy)	8
Das Rheingold (Wagner)	6
Siegfried (Wagner)	3

Operas not seen at the Met over those 9 years, but seen in 2018/19:

Marnie (Muhly)
Les Pêcheurs de perles (Bizet)
Mefistofele (Boito)
Suor Angelica (Puccini)
Gianni Schicchi (Puccini)
Il tabarro (Puccini)
Iolanta (Tchaikovsky,P)
Duke Bluebeard's Castle (Bartók)
La Fille du régiment (Donizetti)
La clemenza di Tito (Mozart)
Dialogues des Carmélites (Poulenc)

_Marnie_ is from 2017, and _Dialogues des Carmélites_ the next oldest, from 1957, and was presented by NYCO in 1966. Poulenc was a world-famous composer even if his operas were not famous; this would not blow any minds.

The others on this list are lesser known works from famous composers they'd know well: Puccini, Mozart, and we could maybe count in there Tchaikovsky (_Eugene Onegin_ was done in 1964, and _The Queen of Spades_ was seen 21 times in the period), Bizet (see Carmen above), and Donizetti (though to be fair 1968 is a little early for the revivals of his operas. Sutherland sang Marie in 1966, but at Covent Garden. Sills would not bring it back to NYC until 1970.

The Boito and Bartók still throw people today, and are rarely seen (_Mefistofele_ was last done in 1999-2000, Bluebeard didn't premiere until 1974, and other than the 7 performances in 2015 hadn't been seen since 1989).

I'm not going to do the same analysis of other seasons, but I do believe they'd look much the same. Your time traveler from 1968 would be very comfortable with what one could see at the Metropolitan Opera. They have remarkably conservative programming.


----------



## mountmccabe

If you had said, say, the Opéra-Comique in Paris, then sure, the time traveler from 1968 would have their mind blown. But their season befuddles me, too! I wish I lived closer to Paris!

Et in arcadia ego (Rameau)
Le mystère de l'écureuil bleu (Dupin)
La Princesse légère (Cruz)
Le domino noir (Auber)
Marouf savetier du Caire (Rabaud)
La Nonne sanglante (Gounod)
Bohème, notre jeunesse [reduction] (Puccini)
Orphée et Eurydice (Gluck)
Pelléas et Mélisande (concert) (Debussy)
Donnerstag aus Licht (Stockhausen)
Hamlet (Thomas,A)


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> I simply don't understand why a little compensatory action on behalf of marginalized people or an effort to acknowledge their forgotten achievements has to be seen as "racism,"or any other sort of "ism." Is deciding to include a program devoted to female composers during a concert season "sexist"? The application of such terms seems at least defensive, possibly an act of projection, and at worst an attempt to "blame the victim" as justification for maintaining the status quo.


I'm not projecting or blaming anyone - giving preferential treatment to someone based on the color of their skin is nakedly racist. You just seem to think your racism is justified because of crimes committed by prior generations. And that is perhaps why such policies will always be met with resistance - not only do they limit a person's freedom of association by law but they also are a flagrant violation of equality under the law as guaranteed to the people in the 14th Amendment.

As for who programs a female composer: I suppose they can program whatever or whomever they want. I would only object if there were government policies allowing discrimination in only one direction and for the benefit of only one or a handful of arbitrary groups.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Note that my remarks were specifically targeted. Most of us don't regard paying a little overdue attention to the artistic achievements of minorities as a threat to our "heritage and identity." I was speaking of those who do, and as I observe the culture, Fox and Breitbart are not bad representatives of their mentality in America. There are ideologues in all political factions, but complacent conservatism, institutionalized exclusivity, and ignorance of history can't be excused by pointing to extremists on the other side. That is a way of keeping the "inferior" in his place while pretending to take his side against the "real" enemy, and it's precisely the fraud that keeps the Foxes and Breitbarts of the world in business and gets their worst representatives into the seats of power. Political correctness is annoying as hell, but the deep-rooted incorrectness to which it's a reaction is something much worse.


Well, I disagree with your comments. The new social justice/affirmative action policies are really resentment masking as compassion and not at all in the interests of the minorities you champion. They are all about the arrogation of power into another section of society - not an inherent good, as is so often used to justify these policies. I agree with Jordan Peterson and others who say, "these people are not your friends" - he understands, as I do, that minorities are used as political pawns for a much bigger game.

I reiterate what I said early about the existence of 'diversity' in orchestras and music already; it's a far cry from the 19th century and constant whining about composers not getting a chance does not accord with the reality of Beethoven - who had 1 piano sonata publicly performed in his lifetime - and Schubert, who had nothing performed before the public in his lifetime. Bach's Brandenburg Concerti ended up in a drawer for over 100 years. A lot of perspective is needed and a victim culture breeds the things you are talking about. When you use 'inferiors' and having them kept in their 'place' - it would be well to remember that attempting to redress this has caused more bloodshed in the history of the world than anything else. What we have today is a good system - not perfect, of course - but better than anything that has gone in centuries before. More people OUT of poverty and into work, more 'diversity' right across the board. Be a bit grateful that you live in a fabulous first world country which rewards and still appreciates creativity. The glass is half full, not half empty.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> I'm not projecting or blaming anyone - *giving preferential treatment to someone based on the color of their skin is nakedly racist. * You just seem to think your racism is justified because of crimes committed by prior generations. And that is perhaps why such policies will always be met with resistance - not only do they limit a person's freedom of association by law but they also are a flagrant violation of equality under the law as guaranteed to the people in the 14th Amendment.
> 
> As for who programs a female composer: I suppose they can program whatever or whomever they want. I would only object if there were government policies allowing discrimination in only one direction and for the benefit of only one or a handful of arbitrary groups.


I don't think you know what racism really is, either in its motivation or in its expression. Preferential treatment of a person based on some trait or circumstance ("the color of his skin" is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation) may be racist or it may not, depending on one's purposes and motives. In the context of this thread, waving the term like a red flag is unhelpful.

Can we stay away from political debate here? It started early in the thread, and it walks a too-fine line, but we have to try.


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> Well, I disagree with your comments. * The new social justice/affirmative action policies* are really resentment masking as compassion and not at all in the interests of the minorities you champion. They are all about the arrogation of power into another section of society - not an inherent good, as is so often used to justify these policies. I agree with Jordan Peterson and others who say, "these people are not your friends" - he understands, as I do, that minorities are used as political pawns for a much bigger game.


Which "policies"? Implemented by whom, for whom, and in what way? Those questions need to be answered specifically, not by means of ideological screeds.

If you take the absolutist view that no effort to open up opportunities for any disadvantaged person, or to recognize any neglected person's abilities or achievements, is legitimate because that person hasn't "earned" it and is just being helped at the expense of someone who has, and that all those advocating such efforts are only pretending to be compassionate as a means of gaining power, then you're expounding an extreme ideology on which no discussion is possible. You're also presuming a great deal about people you disagree with (including, probably, me).

I feel as if this thread is being hijacked for political purposes. There's another place on the forum for that.


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> I don't think you know what racism really is, either in its motivation or in its expression. Preferential treatment of a person based on some trait or circumstance ("the color of his skin" is a gross oversimplification and misrepresentation) may be racist or it may not, depending on one's purposes and motives. In the context of this thread, waving the term like a red flag is simply ridiculous.


I plainly don't care what racism is, even less so if government-sanctioned benefits on the basis of one's skin or ethnicity does not constitute racism for <reasons>. I care about equality under the law and pointing out this progressive hypocrisy we've all been forced to live under as a result of a handful of people believing in this 'America's original sin of racism.'


----------



## BachIsBest

Woodduck said:


> Which "policies"? Implemented by whom, for whom, and in what way? Those questions need to be answered specifically, not by means of ideological screeds.
> 
> If you take the absolutist view that no effort to open up opportunities for any disadvantaged person, or to recognize any neglected person's abilities or achievements, is legitimate because that person hasn't "earned" it and is just being helped at the expense of someone who has, and that all those advocating such efforts are only pretending to be compassionate as a means of gaining power, then you're expounding an extreme ideology on which no discussion is possible. You're also presuming a great deal about people you disagree with (including, probably, me).
> 
> I feel as if this thread is being hijacked for political purposes. There's another place on the forum for that.


This thread is inatley political. It's literally about the politics of classical music.

From the Oxford Dictionary:
The principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status.
'the politics of gender'

On the actual issue of diversity I find the notion of affirmative action a bit absurd. The basic idea (at least with respect to gender which is the main point of this discussion) is that any deviation from a 50-50 gender split is inherently the result of sexism and thus should be corrected with a heavy-handed strict quota to create a 50-50 gender split. The unstated assumption is that in a perfectly non-sexist society men and women would organize themselves so that, within statistical error, every occupation would have a exact split of men and women working in them (gender non-conforming people are rare enough as to be ignored in a broad statistical sense). This theory has (a) never been even remotley tested and (b) is not what we'd excpect to happen given current knowledge. It is a well accpted fact that men and women have differing interests and, to some extent, abilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology. The extent of these differences and there actual effect on men and women's carear choices is, to a certain extent, unknowable. However, it would be reasonable to assume that these differences would have some effect on the choice of careers. Whether this means that more men than women would be interested in musical compisition is a question that I don't think anyone could defintivley answer (although, as the original article points out, 77% of musical compisition and theory students are male). It just seems quite hasty to implement what is literally the most extreme solution to try and fix a problem that may or may not exist.

This is not to say that any policy to try and reduce discrimanation should be avoided. I would think blind auditions for ochestras would be a good idea. It doesn't really matter what one looks like when one plays an instrument only how one sounds. I'm not sure exactly how ochestras choose pieces but perhaps when selecting some moderen composers to play they could just look at the scores and not who wrote the piece.


----------



## Guest

Seems to me that 'diversity' was already a feature of classical music (see my earliest comments) long before political activists became involved. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that in perpetuity our musical legacy will largely be carried by Asian nations as they have an incredible interest in it. What's not to love?

So, affirmative action and identity politics are just a trojan horse for other power games. The creative arts will sort themselves out without the need for these ideologues - and they always will. May the best man or woman win!!


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Which "policies"? Implemented by whom, for whom, and in what way? Those questions need to be answered specifically, not by means of ideological screeds.
> 
> If you take the absolutist view that no effort to open up opportunities for any disadvantaged person, or to recognize any neglected person's abilities or achievements, is legitimate because that person hasn't "earned" it and is just being helped at the expense of someone who has, and that all those advocating such efforts are only pretending to be compassionate as a means of gaining power, then you're expounding an extreme ideology on which no discussion is possible. You're also presuming a great deal about people you disagree with (including, probably, me).
> 
> I feel as if this thread is being hijacked for political purposes. There's another place on the forum for that.


One man's extreme ideology is another man's (or woman's, if you like) common sense. You can't fix each and every problem; social engineers see diversity as a nail and they are the hammer. What we've got is massive overkill.

If you feel the thread has become 'hijacked' then why did you contribute further with your own inflammatory remarks?


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> One man's extreme ideology is another man's (or woman's, if you like) common sense. You can't fix each and every problem; social engineers see diversity as a nail and they are the hammer. What we've got is massive overkill.
> 
> If you feel the thread has become 'hijacked' then why did you contribute further with your own inflammatory remarks?


Inflammatory? I guess that depends on how easily one is inflamed. If you'll look back, you'll see that I didn't initiate the political discussion. There had already been a number of unnecessarily ideological posts. My first post, #34, was an answer to a heavy-handed and illogical statement which I took strong exception to. In retrospect I suppose it would have been better to let it lie there.


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Boston Charlie, would you be in favour of concert programmes being selected according to a quota system, which allocates slots on the stage according to race, colour and gender, ahead of talent? Or how do we achieve a workable criteria?
> 
> I'm not being argumentative, by the way, just want to tease out the logic of this proposal, which is a goal of the BBC Proms, by 2022, according to the article...


I missed these comments first time around! To advocate a 'quota system' on the terms you suggest and to unpack its, er, logic is to misunderstand western classical music altogether. Western classical music isn't a contest between different tribes; that's what the olympic games are for. It's the highest possible musical art form, IMO, and it will draw into itself the very very best people who, if they have any chance at all of surviving its competitiveness, uncertainty and rigor, won't ever need to be part of quota system. That's because many other qualities, apart from race and gender, will be needed to endure its demands. A multi-varied analysis of those skills will show that merely superimposing race or gender onto them is self-limiting. To imagine that superb artists with the very highest skills are going to be turned away because of race and gender is sheer delusion.


----------



## Kieran

BachIsBest said:


> This thread is inatley political. It's literally about the politics of classical music.
> 
> From the Oxford Dictionary:
> The principles relating to or inherent in a sphere or activity, especially when concerned with power and status.
> 'the politics of gender'
> 
> On the actual issue of diversity I find the notion of affirmative action a bit absurd. The basic idea (at least with respect to gender which is the main point of this discussion) is that any deviation from a 50-50 gender split is inherently the result of sexism and thus should be corrected with a heavy-handed strict quota to create a 50-50 gender split. The unstated assumption is that in a perfectly non-sexist society men and women would organize themselves so that, within statistical error, every occupation would have a exact split of men and women working in them (gender non-conforming people are rare enough as to be ignored in a broad statistical sense). This theory has (a) never been even remotley tested and (b) is not what we'd excpect to happen given current knowledge. It is a well accpted fact that men and women have differing interests and, to some extent, abilities https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex_differences_in_psychology. The extent of these differences and there actual effect on men and women's carear choices is, to a certain extent, unknowable. However, it would be reasonable to assume that these differences would have some effect on the choice of careers. Whether this means that more men than women would be interested in musical compisition is a question that I don't think anyone could defintivley answer (although, as the original article points out, 77% of musical compisition and theory students are male). It just seems quite hasty to implement what is literally the most extreme solution to try and fix a problem that may or may not exist.
> 
> This is not to say that any policy to try and reduce discrimanation should be avoided. I would think blind auditions for ochestras would be a good idea. It doesn't really matter what one looks like when one plays an instrument only how one sounds. I'm not sure exactly how ochestras choose pieces but perhaps when selecting some moderen composers to play they could just look at the scores and not who wrote the piece.


I agree with this, and your suggestion at the end is a good one. Equality is a loaded term which nowadays creates inequality, it seems. I remember after the #grammyssomale (small) furore thinking that men are just so much more obsessive and completist in their musical habits. Generally. So when you say that 77% of compositional students are make, it doesn't surprise me at all.

All this, and yet Kendrick Lamar won the Pulitzer Prize yesterday, and fair play to him, I say. It's a shot in the arm, and good strong dose, and it'll encourage so many people, and he did this on his own merits. It's an acknowledgment of his own abilities and it sends a strong message to everyone. And he did this without anyone apparently having to disqualify others based upon their race.


----------



## Kieran

Christabel said:


> I missed these comments first time around! To advocate a 'quota system' on the terms you suggest and to unpack its, er, logic is to misunderstand western classical music altogether. Western classical music isn't a contest between different tribes; that's what the olympic games are for. It's the highest possible musical art form, IMO, and it will draw into itself the very very best people who, if they have any chance at all of surviving its competitiveness, uncertainty and rigor, won't ever need to be part of quota system. That's because many other qualities, apart from race and gender, will be needed to endure its demands. A multi-varied analysis of those skills will show that merely superimposing race or gender onto them is self-limiting. To imagine that superb artists with the very highest skills are going to be turned away because of race and gender is sheer delusion.


Well now, to be clear, I'm not advocating a quota system at all, I asked the question to tease out further a suggestion made in the article. I don't see how it could work, either. In fact, if we say, let's leave aside a little corner of the programme to encourage women composers, doesn't this sound a little patronising? I think it's a very shakey proposition, at best. As you wrote earlier (I'm just slowly rising to face the day, and reading through this) there are 20 million young pianists in Asia, hammering away and becoming virtuoso. That's diversity in action, right there. And guess what? There's gonna be some great talent among them and they'll take the music world by force. That's the way it should happen...


----------



## St Matthew

Diversity and concert hall (as in, classical concert halls) simply don't go together - it's an oxymoron


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Well now, to be clear, I'm not advocating a quota system at all, I asked the question to tease out further a suggestion made in the article. I don't see how it could work, either. In fact, if we say, let's leave aside a little corner of the programme to encourage women composers, doesn't this sound a little patronising? I think it's a very shakey proposition, at best. As you wrote earlier (I'm just slowly rising to face the day, and reading through this) there are 20 million young pianists in Asia, hammering away and becoming virtuoso. That's diversity in action, right there. And guess what? There's gonna be some great talent among them and they'll take the music world by force. That's the way it should happen...


My bad for wording my reply incorrectly. I know you didn't mean 'quota'. And when I said advocating a 'quota system' I meant as per the terms of the article and its implications. Absolutely agree 100% with your other comments. A huge number of people would agree with both of us.


----------



## Enthusiast

bz3 said:


> I'm not projecting or blaming anyone - giving preferential treatment to someone based on the color of their skin is nakedly racist. You just seem to think your racism is justified because of crimes committed by prior generations. And that is perhaps why such policies will always be met with resistance - not only do they limit a person's freedom of association by law but they also are a flagrant violation of equality under the law as guaranteed to the people in the 14th Amendment.
> 
> As for who programs a female composer: I suppose they can program whatever or whomever they want. I would only object if there were government policies allowing discrimination in only one direction and for the benefit of only one or a handful of arbitrary groups.


If the terms racism and sexism had any important meaning - and I think they do - then surely it is because they are applied in reference to a level playing field? When female and non-white composers are being treated in the same way as those from more privileged backgrounds the terms will lose meaning in classical music. So surely the question is "are we missing music of equivalent merit?" when we insist on commissioning and programming music by male composers of a privileged background. If we are then positive discrimination can reverse this racism.

The other side of this matter, though, is the equality of educational chances for different groups. Further, as many from poor or disadvantaged backgrounds will not grow up in environments enriched with classical music, they already have less chance of nurturing whatever talent they have in this field.


----------



## Enthusiast

Thinking of the audience at a classical music event, one part of the problem is the high cost of going to a concert, especially when you do not live in a major city. Yes, I know that attending sporting events can often be even more expensive but watching sport is a vigorously strong cultural activity. So is listening to the aging Rolling Stones. Classical music is a minority interest but many members of that minority cannot afford to go often or, as others have said, feel the value over what they can get from recorded and broadcast music makes pay to attend regular concerts a huge luxury. But, our heritage - including music still being composed as "classical music" - belongs to us all. So I think hearing it is,, or should be a right rather than an elite activity. The Soviets didn't get many things right but they did make classical music much more accessible and thereby created a vibrant scene. I am talking about subsidies and the wisdom, for a government, of investing in classical music so as to ensure a more satisfied and happy community. This obviously goes to encouraging a diversity of interest.


----------



## Kieran

Enthusiast said:


> Thinking of the audience at a classical music event, one part of the problem is the high cost of going to a concert, especially when you do not live in a major city. Yes, I know that attending sporting events can often be even more expensive but watching sport is a vigorously strong cultural activity. So is listening to the aging Rolling Stones. Classical music is a minority interest but many members of that minority cannot afford to go often or, as others have said, feel the value over what they can get from recorded and broadcast music makes pay to attend regular concerts a huge luxury. But, our heritage - including music still being composed as "classical music" - belongs to us all. So I think hearing it is,, or should be a right rather than an elite activity. The Soviets didn't get many things right but they did make classical music much more accessible and thereby created a vibrant scene. I am talking about subsidies and the wisdom, for a government, of investing in classical music so as to ensure a more satisfied and happy community. This obviously goes to encouraging a diversity of interest.


That's an interesting take, Enthusiast, but what are we talking about here? Let's look at cost. Rightly, you mention the Rolling Stones, and to this I would say that even smalltime rock bands without a huge international following would generally charge us more to go listen, than it would cost to get tickets to the opera. In the Vienna opera house, they have cheapy standing areas which are very popular, cost about a tenner. It's a glorious venue and I remember being there watching a Mozart opera and being surrounded by people of all races and colours, genders, and no doubt, creeds. I once the Marriage of Figaro in an elite production in Dublin for about €20. Don Giovanni, too. Twice. Still in Dublin, I sat in the cheap seats and saw Alfred Brendel play. There are free concerts too, in the Hugh lane Gallery. Classical music isn't generally expensive to get to. Back to Vienna, below St Peter's Church off Graben, there's a hall, and I paid €10 to see a great concert of Schubert and Beethoven music. I thought, I hope they subsidise the performer, because they'll never get money this way.

In the National gallery, London, paid a tenner to watch Sir John Tomlinson perform music by Britten, Shostakovitch and Hugo Wolf - lyrics by Michaelangelo. On and on, I never paid a huge amount of money to attend classical concerts, and certainly it was more often cheaper than rock concerts - and often cheaper than some local ballad sessions in Dublin

I bought the complete Beethoven piano sonatas in Tower Records for less than it cost to buy Robbie Williams latest (at the time) tripe. The elitist prices are almost all in popular music. €135 to see Tom waits in the park, €130 to buy a Bruce Springsteen boxset (I actually heard it - and he was right not to release the stuff in the 70's, it was largely substandard, but hey, we pay for the privilege). Paul Simon's 30th anniversary of Graceland? Similar tale. The market has spoke. And we, the classical fans, benefit, it seems to me.

As for the Soviet Union, I'd rather they'd have charged full price and set their people free, than to throw them sweets to shut them up with....


----------



## chill782002

Enthusiast said:


> Thinking of the audience at a classical music event, one part of the problem is the high cost of going to a concert, especially when you do not live in a major city. Yes, I know that attending sporting events can often be even more expensive but watching sport is a vigorously strong cultural activity. So is listening to the aging Rolling Stones. Classical music is a minority interest but many members of that minority cannot afford to go often or, as others have said, feel the value over what they can get from recorded and broadcast music makes pay to attend regular concerts a huge luxury.


This is definitely a big part of it, the skyrocketing cost of attending any kind of musical event. I remember when £20 was considered a high price for a concert ticket but that would be pretty reasonable now. The prices are a big deterrent, even for people who are interested in hearing the music performed live and having the whole concert experience.

I ascribe this to a combination of factors. Partly falling sales of recorded music so artists have to charge more for live performances to make up the difference and partly the fact that both the British Pound and US dollar have lost something like 99% of their purchasing power in real terms in the last 50 or so years due to greatly increased printing of fiat currency.

Those who aren't interested won't go anyway and those who are interested can't afford it.


----------



## Enthusiast

This (one from one of Britain's more conservative papers) is about "Europe's first" black orchestra

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/c...oung-classical-musicians-colour-have-no-role/

https://www.ft.com/content/2438f220-8f04-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d

Having seen relatively diverse faces in most top flight orchestras these days I did wonder if such an endeavour was needed. But they are a good orchestra, presenting interesting programmes, so there seems to have been a need. Presumably, many of its members were not getting the work they deserved without this initiative?


----------



## Guest

Enthusiast said:


> This (one from one of Britain's more conservative papers) is about "Europe's first" black orchestra
> 
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/music/c...oung-classical-musicians-colour-have-no-role/
> 
> https://www.ft.com/content/2438f220-8f04-11e7-a352-e46f43c5825d
> 
> Having seen relatively diverse faces in most top flight orchestras these days I did wonder if such an endeavour was needed. But they are a good orchestra, presenting interesting programmes, so there seems to have been a need. Presumably, many of its members were not getting the work they deserved without this initiative?


My answer would be "whatever floats yer boat". (The work they 'deserved'? I 'deserve' a Pulitzer Prize but I don't think I'll be getting one!!


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> That's an interesting take, Enthusiast, but what are we talking about here? Let's look at cost. Rightly, you mention the Rolling Stones, and to this I would say that even smalltime rock bands without a huge international following would generally charge us more to go listen, than it would cost to get tickets to the opera. In the Vienna opera house, they have cheapy standing areas which are very popular, cost about a tenner. It's a glorious venue and I remember being there watching a Mozart opera and being surrounded by people of all races and colours, genders, and no doubt, creeds. I once the Marriage of Figaro in an elite production in Dublin for about €20. Don Giovanni, too. Twice. Still in Dublin, I sat in the cheap seats and saw Alfred Brendel play. There are free concerts too, in the Hugh lane Gallery. Classical music isn't generally expensive to get to. Back to Vienna, below St Peter's Church off Graben, there's a hall, and I paid €10 to see a great concert of Schubert and Beethoven music. I thought, I hope they subsidise the performer, because they'll never get money this way.
> 
> In the National gallery, London, paid a tenner to watch Sir John Tomlinson perform music by Britten, Shostakovitch and Hugo Wolf - lyrics by Michaelangelo. On and on, I never paid a huge amount of money to attend classical concerts, and certainly it was more often cheaper than rock concerts - and often cheaper than some local ballad sessions in Dublin
> 
> I bought the complete Beethoven piano sonatas in Tower Records for less than it cost to buy Robbie Williams latest (at the time) tripe. The elitist prices are almost all in popular music. €135 to see Tom waits in the park, €130 to buy a Bruce Springsteen boxset (I actually heard it - and he was right not to release the stuff in the 70's, it was largely substandard, but hey, we pay for the privilege). Paul Simon's 30th anniversary of Graceland? Similar tale. The market has spoke. And we, the classical fans, benefit, it seems to me.
> 
> As for the Soviet Union, I'd rather they'd have charged full price and set their people free, than to throw them sweets to shut them up with....


As you say, it can be inexpensive to attend concerts - which, by the way, are almost universally preferable to listening to CDs at home. You can't rip the seats if you don't like the performance if you're at home!!!!


----------



## Boston Charlie

bz3 said:


> ...giving preferential treatment to someone based on the color of their skin is nakedly racist. You just seem to think your racism is justified because of crimes committed by prior generations...


Since when is giving someone a job, racism, "preferential treatment"?

Isn't that what all the complaining has been about, that Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are all living the high life on welfare and not working? That's the way I always heard it on the street, and according to the so-called "conservative" radio loudmouths, that White people pay so Blacks and Latinos can take it easy.

The American nation is really good at catch-22; we complain that people who happen to have darker skin are not working, not "pulling themselves up by their boot-straps", living off the self-righteous who work for a living; but then we oppose every effort to provide for them educational opportunities and job opportunities, calling it "preferential treatment" and "nakedly racist."

You want Blacks and Latinos to go to work, but you want them to work under _your_ rules, under _your_ conditions, and in a power structure and de-facto system of nepotism and favoritism that _you_ get to control.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> Since when is giving someone a job, racism, "preferential treatment"?
> 
> Isn't that what all the complaining has been about, that Blacks, Puerto Ricans and Mexicans are all living the high life on welfare and not working? That's the way I always heard it on the street, and according to the so-called "conservative" radio loudmouths, that White people pay so Blacks and Latinos can take it easy.
> 
> The American nation is really good at catch-22; we complain that people who happen to have darker skin are not working, not "pulling themselves up by their boot-straps", living off the self-righteous who work for a living; but then we oppose every effort to provide for them educational opportunities and job opportunities, calling it "preferential treatment" and "nakedly racist."
> 
> You want Blacks and Latinos to go to work, but you want them to work under _your_ rules, under _your_ conditions, and in a power structure and de-facto system of nepotism and favoritism that _you_ get to control.


That's broad strokes, Charlie, though the article/thread doesn't only refer to America. And even if it did, there are many opposing views about the things you mentioned. I understand as best I can the racist angle, and I'd bet my bottom euro that nobody here is would argue that anybody should be held down based upon their race, colour, gender. The argument, as I understand it, is about whether the solution is to create quota spaces in order to move minorities further up the queue, or is such a move racist, or sexist, in itself (explicitly so), and unfair to people who may have more talent?

For instance, why not leave the market to decide? Surely the market creates space for all appetites, eventually?


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> That's broad strokes, Charlie, though the article/thread doesn't only refer to America. And even if it did, there are many opposing views about the things you mentioned. I understand as best I can the racist angle, and I'd bet my bottom euro that nobody here is would argue that anybody should be held down based upon their race, colour, gender. The argument, as I understand it, is about whether the solution is to create quota spaces in order to move minorities further up the queue, or is such a move racist, or sexist, in itself (explicitly so), and unfair to people who may have more talent?
> 
> For instance, why not leave the market to decide? Surely the market creates space for all appetites, eventually?


...Because the "market" isn't the only thing that decides; it's also politics. Jobs in education, law enforcement, city jobs and so forth, have always been within the domain of political connections (that's the other "PC" that doesn't seem to bother anyone around here); of being part of the power structure; of knowing someone.

Of course, there is no doubt quotas and affirmative active are flawed and can never be fair to everyone. My point is that the word "fair", F-A-I-R, _doesn't exist_, unless we're talking about a "fair" that involves a kind of celebration, a country fair, or "fare", F-A-R-E, which is money you use to ride the city bus.

Life isn't "fair". It's human nature that people in power will protect their friends and go after their enemies and demand loyalty all the time. People who have power will always want to keep it for themselves and their friends.

We seem to want to ensure every measure being "fair" when it comes to Blacks, Latinos and women being afforded a better station in life; but we are not so concerned with how things should suddenly, miraculously, become "fair" once the power falls back into the hands of those that will control it.


----------



## Guest

There is a lot of negativity about the state of classical music on this thread. It seems to me that it is booming like never before, both in popularity, accessibility and diversity. There are numerous global composers producing a great range of high quality innovative music, and, obviously, as time goes on, there is a legacy of more and more music with revivals of long forgotten works and new interpretations of more popular ones.

In terms of diversity, equality of opportunity is desirable, in so far as it can reasonably achieved, but equality of outcome is not. Quotas should therefore be based on whether or not they help to increase the opportunity and exposure that the less privileged masses have to the music.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> We seem to want to ensure every measure being "fair" when it comes to Blacks, Latinos and women being afforded a better station in life; but we are not so concerned with how things should suddenly, miraculously, become "fair" once the power falls back into the hands of those that will control it.


Well, this is again broad strokes, referring to America, and again, I've heard many views that agree with you, and others that see things differently. But if we look at the principle of moving somebody onto the concert programme based upon their gender or race, we need to be clear about that in advance. The market will still decide, as it does when the article mentions that only 4 composers make up most of the programmes. And even if they do, we still would discover music by other composers in most even medium sized cities. We then choose do we want to hear it. Sometimes we do. But if we attend a substandard show as a form of patronage based on factors other than talent, then we decide based on that too.

If I earn a low wage (currently I do) and want a night at a classical music show, must I sit through somebody's agenda that I don't agree with, to hear music that's only being performed based upon the composers gender? No, I get to decide, and I might decide that spending the money on a few pints in town might please me more. This, funny enough, is why the 4 composers are considered safe for programmers - they pay for everything. And that's based upon the market.

After this, opportunity is made to filter down towards contemporary composers, hoping to have their work heard. I've attended and enjoyed some of these shows too, but again, it's based upon the hype surrounding the music, and not political motives, which I would tend to be very suspicious of...


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Well, this is again broad strokes, referring to America, and again, I've heard many views that agree with you, and others that see things differently. But if we look at the principle of moving somebody onto the concert programme based upon their gender or race, we need to be clear about that in advance. The market will still decide, as it does when the article mentions that only 4 composers make up most of the programmes. And even if they do, we still would discover music by other composers in most even medium sized cities. We then choose do we want to hear it. Sometimes we do. But if we attend a substandard show as a form of patronage based on factors other than talent, then we decide based on that too.
> 
> If I earn a low wage (currently I do) and want a night at a classical music show, must I sit through somebody's agenda that I don't agree with, to hear music that's only being performed based upon the composers gender? No, I get to decide, and I might decide that spending the money on a few pints in town might please me more. This, funny enough, is why the 4 composers are considered safe for programmers - they pay for everything. And that's based upon the market.
> 
> After this, opportunity is made to filter down towards contemporary composers, hoping to have their work heard. I've attended and enjoyed some of these shows too, but again, it's based upon the hype surrounding the music, and not political motives, which I would tend to be very suspicious of...


I think we're talking about two different things, or at least focusing upon two different things. I'm talking about fair hiring in the workplace as it was addressed by more than one poster here as an extension of the article in question. I've made my points in that regard clearly and don't think I need to expand upon it further.

As for concert programming, I guess if a music enterprise feels that the only way to sell tickets is to play Beethoven's 5th Symphony and Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto over and over again, then why not?

On the other hand, if a music company so chooses to include works by African, Asian or female composers, it's your right not to go; to leave early or arrive late. It's not as if they don't reveal the program in advance.

While I contend that the foundation of classical music has been created by dead, White European men of a Christian background, I've also discovered some wonderful music by Black composers (William Grant Still, Adolphus Hailstork), Asian composers (Turo Takemitsu, Vivian Fung, Huang Ruo) and female composers (Amy Beach, Ellen Zwilich and, again, Vivian Fung) thanks to NAXOS which, evidently, has made a concerted effort to do so.

Up until NAXOS, I was barely aware that such music existed; but it was my choice to take advantage of the NAXOS offerings, their "agenda"; and it's your right to leave it alone.

As much as I love Beethoven and Tchaikovsky; life, in my view, is too short, to limit oneself to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky every time out.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> I think we're talking about two different things, or at least focusing upon two different things. I'm talking about fair hiring in the workplace as it was addressed by more than one poster here as an extension of the article in question. I've my point s in that regard clearly and don't think I need to expand upon it further.
> 
> As for concert programming, I guess if a music enterprise feels that the only way to sell tickets is to play Beethoven's 5th Symphony and Tchaikovsky's 1st Piano Concerto over and over again, then why not?
> 
> On the other hand, if a music company so chooses to include works by African, Asian or female composers, it's your right not to go; to leave early or arrive late. It's not as if they don't reveal the program in advance.
> 
> While I contend that the foundation of classical music has been created by dead, White European man of a Christian background, I've also discovered some wonderful music by Black composers (William Grant Still, Adolphus Hailstork), Asian composers (Turo Takemitsu, Vivian Fung, Huang Ruo) and female composers (Amy Beach, Ellen Zwilich and, again, Vivian Fung) thanks to NAXOS which, evidently, has made a concerted effort to do so.
> 
> Up until NAXOS, I was barely aware that such music existed; but it was my choice to take advantage of the NAXOS offerings, their "agenda"; and it's your right to leave it alone.
> 
> As much as I love Beethoven and Tchaikovsky; life, in my view, is too short, to limit oneself to Beethoven and Tchaikovsky every time out.


We're probably talking a little at cross purposes, no doubt about it, but sure that's grand too! 

The point I'm making is, the old staples fund the rest of a company's activities. We then get an opportunity to listen to lesser known composers (such as Bach :lol: ), but I would have this based upon quality of music and talent as the only criteria. I'm not opposed to occasional experiments, but as future binding policies? No. That's a dangerous political line I wouldn't cross. It would also have a long term detrimental effect on quality and we would lose the great pearl we currently have, and should nurture.

As for employment opportunities for people working in theatres etc, there are employment laws and of course, things have greatly improved with regards to equality of opportunity. If somebody is evil enough to exclude based on race or gender, then they may unfortunately do this, anyway...


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Well, this is again broad strokes, referring to America, and again, I've heard many views that agree with you, and others that see things differently. But if we look at the principle of moving somebody onto the concert programme based upon their gender or race, we need to be clear about that in advance. The market will still decide, as it does when the article mentions that only 4 composers make up most of the programmes. And even if they do, we still would discover music by other composers in most even medium sized cities. We then choose do we want to hear it. Sometimes we do. But if we attend a substandard show as a form of patronage based on factors other than talent, then we decide based on that too.
> 
> If I earn a low wage (currently I do) and want a night at a classical music show, must I sit through somebody's agenda that I don't agree with, to hear music that's only being performed based upon the composers gender? No, I get to decide, and I might decide that spending the money on a few pints in town might please me more. This, funny enough, is why the 4 composers are considered safe for programmers - they pay for everything. And that's based upon the market.
> 
> After this, opportunity is made to filter down towards contemporary composers, hoping to have their work heard. I've attended and enjoyed some of these shows too, but again, it's based upon the hype surrounding the music, and not political motives, which I would tend to be very suspicious of...


Those 'four composers' you mention are the musical equivalent of 'business class'; at the pointy end they pay for everything.


----------



## Boston Charlie

It's my understanding that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s, Ultra-Modern, very academic, composers such as Babbitt, Berio, Boulez, Xanakis, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese and others were programmed and recorded for the sake of culture, even though they garnished very little or no enthusiasm from the vast majority of classical music listeners. The "market" didn't support it, but the concession was made by musical companies and even major record labels for art's sake.

That was an "agenda" made for the sake of art and culture.

It is, after all, _art_ that we're talking about.

If we leave it up to "market" and forget art and culture, then it becomes about money , what sells; and then we may as well face it that even our beloved Beethoven and Tchaikovsky are not selling that well either, these days.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> That was an "agenda" made for the sake of art and culture.


Exactly. For the sake of art and culture, not for the sake of a dangerous political ideology. The market then looked after the rest of it...


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Exactly. For the sake of art and culture, not for the sake of a dangerous political ideology. The market then looked after the rest of it...


REALLY? It's "dangerous" to make a concerted effort to program classical music by African, Asian and female composers? I thought that terrorism, the threat of nuclear war, and the threat of global warming, not buckling my seat belt, were things I should consider to be "dangerous"; but I guess I have a lot more to fear than that, according to you.

I'm not at all a sports fan; could care less about baseball, football, basketball, hockey, the world cup; and I get frustrated when I see people who act as if their whole life hinges upon the outcome of a game; fathers telling their children, weekend after weekend, that they better be quiet while the game is on, instead of spending time playing with them.

In that regard, I always took some refuge in classical music, that the arts were somewhat more open and inclusive and somewhat less inclined to the fanaticism that dominates professional sports; but now I see there are those classical music enthusiasts who feel as if their whole life, the whole of human culture and civilization, hinges upon a concert program.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> REALLY? It's "dangerous" to make a concerted effort to program classical music by African, Asian and female composers?


We're definitely at cross purposes here, since neither of us suggested this. We both agreed, in fact, that choosing composers "for the sake of art and culture" was a good idea, and to me that means, "not based upon gender or race or colour of skin." Young unknown composers like the ones you mentioned above got an opportunity because their talent was apparent to those who'd heard them.

That's how new composers get their breaks...


----------



## superhorn

The Met's repertoire is somewhat conservative, yes , but still more varied and adventurous than most American opera companies .
Within the past 15 to 20 seasons or so they have done , listing at random , the following operas , either new or recent , or rarely performed in the US and elsewhere .:
Borodin : Prince Igor. Thomas Ades : The Tempest and Exterminating Angel . Kaaia Saariaho : L'Amour De Loin . Nico Muhly : Two Boys . Bizet : The Pearl Fishers . Ambrose Thomas : Hamlet .
Tchaikovsky : Mazepa and Iolanta . Shostakovich : The Nose . Richard Strauss : The Egyptian Helen .
Busoni : Doktor Faust . Verdi : Attila . Adams : The Death of Klinghoffer . Doctor Atomic . Nixon in China. Glass : Satyagraha . Berlioz : Benvenuto Cellini . Zandonai : Francesca Da Rimini . 
Janacek : From the House of the Dead . William Bolcom : A View From The Bridge .
Tan Dun : The First Emperor . Massenet : Cendrillon . Tobias Picker : An American Tragedy . 
Franco Alfano : Cyrano De Bergerac . Wolf - Ferrari : Sly . Prokofiev : War and peace and The Gambler . Donizetti : Anna Bolena . Roberto Devereaux . Maria Stuarda . Rossini : Guillaume Tell. La Donna Del Lago . Armida . Le Comte Ory . Gluck : Iphiogenie En Tauride . 
Not too shabby !


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> We're definitely at cross purposes here, since neither of us suggested this. We both agreed, in fact, that choosing composers "for the sake of art and culture" was a good idea, and to me that means, "not based upon gender or race or colour of skin." Young unknown composers like the ones you mentioned above got an opportunity because their talent was apparent to those who'd heard them.
> 
> That's how new composers get their breaks...


Who are "those that heard them"? By what rubric, do we judge good music from bad music? Certainly not by public appeal. Otherwise, the vest majority of Schoenberg, Berg, Weber, Varese, Berio and Boulez would never have been programmed or recorded at all. Could it be that because Schoenberg was European, and from Vienna, that we just assumed that his music _had_ to be great, just because of his Viennese background and his rootedness in German music. To date, Schoenberg's music (let alone Berg, Webern, Varese, Berio, Boulez and Xanakis) has yet to garnish much of a following even among the most fanatical of classical music enthusiast.

In this regard, could it possibly be that a bias towards European males does exist in regard to we associate as "talented"?

This is not meant to be a reflection on Schoenberg. I happen to enjoy Ultra-Modern music, Schoenberg included, from time to time, even though I remain somewhat mystified by it.

My point is that as artists or art-lovers, we should always be willing to expand our view, even when the "market" seems to dictate otherwise.


----------



## Nereffid

"I mean, I know we enslaved them for centuries, and that was a terrible thing and all, but my dear, if they're going to insist that I occasionally forego my Brahms in favour of a Florence Price symphony, well, that's just a reparation _too far_..."


----------



## larold

_<<It's my understanding that during the 1950s, 1960s and 1980s, Ultra-Modern, very academic, composers such as Babbitt, Berio, Boulez, Xanakis, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese and others were programmed and recorded for the sake of culture, even though they garnished very little or no enthusiasm from the vast majority of classical music listeners. The "market" didn't support it, but the concession was made by musical companies and even major record labels for art's sake. That was an "agenda" made for the sake of art and culture.>>_

I don't think that's true -- that there was any agenda to popularize unpopular composers during that or any other time.

The back half of the 20th century was a very adventurous time for classical music, which changed monumentally from the 1930s when composers such as Sibelius, Richard Strauss and Edward Elgar were still alive. What happened later was composers quit composing for audiences and started composing for themselves, their place in the musical establishment, and for recordings which were the way most people heard music after World War II.

There is an old saying in professional sports about the "1 percent" -- it is estimated 1 percent of fans see the games live and the rest on TV. That became true for classical music after the inventions of radio, the gramophone and, most importantly, the long playing record. There wasn't any "agenda" or form of affirmative action that made offbeat composers popular; recordings were the more likely cause. And no recording company was going to sponsor an LP, cassette or CD they knew wouldn't sell so the market still controlled things.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> Who are "those that heard them"? By what rubric, do we judge good music from bad music? Certainly not by public appeal. Otherwise, the vest majority of Schoenberg, Berg, Weber, Varese, Berio and Boulez would never have been programmed or recorded at all. Could it be that because Schoenberg was European, and from Vienna, that we just assumed that his music _had_ to be great, just because of his Viennese background and his rootedness in German music. To date, Schoenberg's music (let alone Berg, Webern, Varese, Berio, Boulez and Xanakis) has yet to garnish much of a following even among the most fanatical of classical music enthusiast.
> 
> In this regard, could it possibly be that a bias towards European males does exist in regard to we associate as "talented"?
> 
> This is not meant to be a reflection on Schoenberg. I happen to enjoy Ultra-Modern music, Schoenberg included, from time to time, even though I remain somewhat mystified by it.
> 
> My point is that as artists or art-lovers, we should always be willing to expand our view, even when the "market" seems to dictate otherwise.


Now at least you're beginning to argue the value of music, as opposed to saying that because European white males had their shot, we now need to shove them aside a little, and reward people based solely upon their chromosomes, or the colour of their skin. It's identity politics, and has little regard for music. It's faddish, and unfair. Now, to this you may say, ah but the supremacy of dead white European male composers is unfair, to which I'd reply, it doesn't seem unfair. Not when I'm listening.

I would dread the day when I attend a concert of mediocre music, and am expected to applaud some game chap because he's a token of his race. Oh well done me, for being so kind. But isn't this form of patronising wastefulness racist also? Why don't we both agree where we agreed - when you said that "composers such as Babbitt, Berio, Boulez, Xanakis, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese and others were programmed and recorded...for the sake of art and culture," and accept that this is how youngsters get their leg up? They may already be pupils to somebody who put in a word, and they were listened to, and the market (us wee humble punters) decide?

How many others have been similarly given an opportunity - and forgotten? C'est la vie - but the risk was taken for the sake of art, not dangerous political ideologies.

When you mentioned an "effort to program classical music by African, Asian and female composers", I thought, why not? I'd gladly go, if I could afford the price of a ticket. But this was because I thought it might be based actually upon their talents and art alone, and not some terrible idea that they should be put on stage simply because they tick some group identity boxes...


----------



## Sloe

I found this quote to be odd.



> The same goes for works by minority composers like Kaikhosru Shapurji Sorabji, James Reese Europe, William Grant Still, Tōru Takemitsu, T.J. Anderson, and Wynton Marsalis.


Toru Takemitsu was not a minority composer he lived in Japan were Japanase make up the overwhelming majority for most of his life.


----------



## Boston Charlie

larold said:


> ..And no recording company was going to sponsor an LP, cassette or CD they knew wouldn't sell so the market still controlled things.


According to Norman Lebrecht's book, "Who Killed Classical Music?", classical records, nearly _all_ classical records (let alone the likes of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese, Berio and company), as a matter of course, _lost_ money on a regular basis, but were none-the-less produced by major record labels for the sake of "culture". In this regard, classical music recordings rode on the back of the profits made by way of the pop and rock music that was consumed mostly by teenage girls.

Had it not been for certain musicians of some stature, such as Pierre Boulez, who lent his name and reputation to recording the music of composers such as Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese and Berio; those composer might not have been recorded at all; and DG, likewise, didn't make any money on Karajan's recordings of Schoenberg, Berg and Webern, either.

On the flip side, I remember reading an interview with Claudio Arrau who then expressed an interest in the music of Boulez and Berio, but stated that he never plays them in concert or on records because his "public wouldn't stand for it."

My point here is to propose a thought exercise; to get people thinking a bit outside the box. Here we have this very difficult music (however interesting it may be to a select few), that was disliked by almost everyone else, but was still given it's chance, and then some by the powers that were. Can we consider, that maybe, just maybe, we assumed that the music _had_ to be great, because of _who_ composed it? They were European, had connections and training that was tied to Vienna, Paris or Rome. Could it be that a natural bias towards European males of a certain background allowed us to give them more of a chance, a "preferential treatment" that we now might refuse modern-day Black, Asian or female composers because of who _they_ may be?

If so; then why not also give them the same chance?

Here we are talking about how bringing Black, Asian and women composers to the fore will lead to less qualified concert experience, and we haven't even heard the music yet.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> My point here is to propose a thought exercise; to get people thinking a bit outside the box. Here we have this very difficult music (however interesting it may be to a select few), that was disliked by almost everyone else, but was still given it's chance, and then some by the powers that were. Can we consider, that maybe, just maybe, we assumed that the music _had_ to be great, because of _who_ composed it? They were European, had connections and training that was tied to Vienna, Paris or Rome. Could it be that a natural bias towards European males of a certain background allowed us to give them more of a chance, a "preferential treatment" that we now might refuse modern-day Black, Asian or female composers because of who _they_ may be?
> 
> If so; then why not also give them the same chance?
> 
> Here we are talking about how bringing Black, Asian and women composers to the fore will lead to less qualified concert experience, and we haven't even heard the music yet.


Well, you're making some assumptions here, but without any basis. The first, that Schoenberg et al may have been promoted simply because of their race, and connections, though their talent might be negligible. I think we'd have rumbled them by now, don't you? It's not music to my taste, but a lot of posters here are in favour, and even gush about Schoenberg as a genius, which evidently he was. In which case, good for us he was well-connected, if that's the case. Schubert, the classic dead white European male, wasn't so lucky, apparently. This is how it sometimes happens, unfortunately - even to white folks.

But also, you still insist on giving nameless composers from broad minorities a spot on the podium based upon nothing at all to do with music! And again, I insist that this is based upon a dangerous political ideology, and to plan things this way will end up destroying music, not enriching it. And this has nothing to do with people of colour, women, or race - it's to do with the source of identity politics. I've attended concerts with diverse performers - and they were on the stage because they'd earned their spot through their talent.

I attended concerts by Africans performing their version of The Magic Flute and loved it. A female composer had a huge show in Dublin some years back where her PC was premiered. It wasn't to my taste, but I went because the pianist invited me and had hyped her, and I hoped to enjoy something different. I enjoyed the show and performance, but as I say, the music wasn't to my taste. Far as I know, she wasn't there because of her gender, but because she'd earned her spurs as a composer.

You say - "we are talking about how bringing Black, Asian and women composers to the fore will lead to less qualified concert experience, and we haven't even heard the music yet" - and I say, we haven't even heard their names yet, because you're coy about telling us. It seems their race is more important to you, than it is to me. It's laudable to want to promote new talent, but this sounds more like you're promoting an ideology, instead.

Apologies in advance if I'm misrepresenting you...


----------



## KJ von NNJ

All classical musicians are formally trained. They go through the lessons, go to schools to study music, get their degrees in music, go to auditions hoping to get hired to play in an orchestra or ensemble. If they are good and disciplined enough they just might be able to earn a living doing what they set out to do. There are many excellent orchestra's in the world. Many of which we will never even hear and the competition to land a steady gig is brutal. You have to really know your stuff and have the ability to play any piece of music that is put in front of you. Is there, or has there ever been, one 'rock star ' out there that can do this? I don't think so. 
Like it or not, classical music takes elite talent. It's not too hard to impress people when you are playing or singing something that does not require knowledge of formal practice. Rock stars usually learn everything halfway and wing it the rest of the way, thereby establishing a 'musical style'. There are many with plenty of talent and even more with very little. Some of my favorite rock players are musical hacks who rely on electronics and loud amplification to sound impressive. And those are the good ones!
As for rappers and such, don't even get me started. They make tons of money on virtually no more than street level shuck and jive. And image is everything because if they don't have it, they have nothing. Most turn gimmick to 'art'. They call themselves 'musical artists' without knowing how to play an instrument. 
What am I going on about? Diversity does not create a master musician. Hard work, discipline and personal sacrifice are not even enough. You either have it or you don't. If one has it, they must cultivate it, the right way. Otherwise all the talent in the world will not be enough. 
I am thankful that I can appreciate listening to great music. I truly love it. I play guitar fairly well and can hold a tune but so can millions of other people. 
I think classical music will do fine in the future. Ever since I remember, people have been speaking of it's 'demise'. The people who appreciate it will continue to do so. Crossover experiments will come and go. I find most of them horribly bad anyway.
Classical music is the pinnacle of music as an artform. It is the measuring stick for true musical genius. If people from 'diverse' groups care, they will listen and attend an occasional concert. If they do not come, well....that's okay too.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> "I mean, I know we enslaved them for centuries, and that was a terrible thing and all, but my dear, if they're going to insist that I occasionally forego my Brahms in favour of a Florence Price symphony, well, that's just a reparation _too far_..."


By George, I think he's got it!!


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Now at least you're beginning to argue the value of music, as opposed to saying that because European white males had their shot, we now need to shove them aside a little, and reward people based solely upon their chromosomes, or the colour of their skin. It's identity politics, and has little regard for music. It's faddish, and unfair. Now, to this you may say, ah but the supremacy of dead white European male composers is unfair, to which I'd reply, it doesn't seem unfair. Not when I'm listening.
> 
> I would dread the day when I attend a concert of mediocre music, and am expected to applaud some game chap because he's a token of his race. Oh well done me, for being so kind. But isn't this form of patronising wastefulness racist also? Why don't we both agree where we agreed - when you said that "composers such as Babbitt, Berio, Boulez, Xanakis, Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese and others were programmed and recorded...for the sake of art and culture," and accept that this is how youngsters get their leg up? They may already be pupils to somebody who put in a word, and they were listened to, and the market (us wee humble punters) decide?
> 
> How many others have been similarly given an opportunity - and forgotten? C'est la vie - but the risk was taken for the sake of art, not dangerous political ideologies.
> 
> When you mentioned an "effort to program classical music by African, Asian and female composers", I thought, why not? I'd gladly go, if I could afford the price of a ticket. But this was because I thought it might be based actually upon their talents and art alone, and not some terrible idea that they should be put on stage simply because they tick some group identity boxes...


Bravo. Yesterday I was watching an interview with Thomas Sowell on "*The Rubin Report*" (highly recommended U-Tube program, btw). Sowell was born into poverty in 1930. He told Dave Rubin he'd started academic life 'as a marxist'. When Dave asked him what changed all that Sowell answered, "facts". I think that comment resonates in this discussion. Don't let facts ever get in the way of emotion-charged opinion and resentment!!

Fact 1: life isn't 'fair' (schoolyard term)
Fact 2: art has thrived because of excellence, not affirmative action
Fact 3: the people eventually decide - aka 'the market' - and are not divorced from the 'market'. It is not some conspiratorial, freewheeling entity divorced from reality.


----------



## Woodduck

I'm trying to keep my distance here, but this discussion is starting to fly over the cuckoo's nest.

Has anyone here advocated that society institute a massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music? Did I miss that when it was proposed? Has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system drawn up in some sociology professor's ivory tower? Did I miss that too?

This notion that an occasional modest attempt to bring minority composers to the attention of the public represents a "dangerous political ideology" looks to me to be rooted in, um..._political ideology._ If it isn't, what is it rooted in? I cannot fathom the mindset of anyone who is actually bent out of shape by the suggestion that it might be a good thing to bring to our attention some of the artistic achievements of people who might otherwise be overlooked, and in the process possibly weaken unexamined biases and assumptions affecting who gets attention and who doesn't.

This isn't either-or, people. It isn't "let an omniscient marketplace and a deceptive 'merit system' decide all our artistic and social policies" or "cram mediocre art down people's throats for the sake of arbitrary social engineering." Isn't it time to stop thinking in such drastically binary terms?

People will always listen to, and pay for, the music they want to listen to. That fact will always dominate the propagation of music in society. We aren't going to "endanger" anyone or anything by bringing to music lovers' attention potentially interesting choices they didn't even suspect were available.


----------



## Guest

Except that this type of social engineering rarely occurs in small, incremental steps. We're seeing plenty of examples; take C16 in Canada. A law instantiating speech which must be used for TINY minority of 'trans' people. Think about that; the government mandating how you should speak. Now, if this can apply with regard to .0005 of the population - I don't know the equation but it's about 1 in more than 10,000 people - I think we get the general idea about other forms of mandatory social engineering.


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> Bravo. Yesterday I was watching an interview with Thomas Sowell on "*The Rubin Report*" (highly recommended U-Tube program, btw). Sowell was born into poverty in 1930. He told Dave Rubin he'd started academic life 'as a marxist'. When Dave asked him what changed all that Sowell answered, "facts". I think that comment resonates in this discussion. Don't let facts ever get in the way of emotion-charged opinion and resentment!!
> 
> Fact 1: life isn't 'fair' (schoolyard term)
> Fact 2: art has thrived because of excellence, not affirmative action
> Fact 3: the people eventually decide - aka 'the market' - and are not divorced from the 'market'. It is not some conspiratorial, freewheeling entity divorced from reality.


How did Marxism get in here? Has anyone here called himself/herself a Marxist? Are _you_ calling anyone here a Marxist?

I understand that some people are so bound by ideologies that they need to affix an ideological label to every opinion, especially when it's a convenient way of disposing of the opposition. I would hope you're not doing that.

May I also suggest that "facts" are not arguments, and that we all have to decide which facts are relevant to our own arguments.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> How did Marxism get in here? Has anyone here called himself/herself a Marxist? Are _you_ calling anyone here a Marxist?
> 
> I understand that some people are so bound by ideologies that they need to affix an ideological label to every opinion, especially when it's a convenient way of disposing of the opposition. I would hope you're not doing that.
> 
> May I also suggest that "facts" are not arguments, and that we all have to decide which facts are relevant to our own arguments.


Facts are not arguments!!!?? No, they're FACTS which need to be *used for arguments*. As opposed to emotion. Marxism is the doctrine which gave rise to identity politics. But you know that already, don't you!!!


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> Except that this type of social engineering rarely occurs in small, incremental steps. We're seeing plenty of examples; take C16 in Canada. A law instantiating speech which must be used for TINY minority of 'trans' people. Think about that; the government mandating how you should speak. Now, if this can apply with regard to .0005 of the population I think we get the general idea about other forms of mandatory social engineering.


I'm sorry to be insistent, but who is talking about "mandatory social engineering"? _What_ "small, incremental steps"? Will programming an occasional piano concerto by a black composer put us on the dreaded "slippery slope" - a favorite bugaboo of the paranoid - to "reverse slavery"?


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> Facts are not arguments!!!?? No, they're FACTS which need to be *used for arguments*. As opposed to emotion. Marxism is the doctrine which gave rise to identity politics. But you know that already, don't you!!!


What I know about political theory is not at issue here. And what _you_ know about it is not the subject of this thread. So how about knocking off the political lectures? Or are you trying to get the thread closed down?


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> I'm sorry to be insistent, but who is talking about "mandatory social engineering"? What "small, incremental steps"? Will programming an occasional piano concerto by a black composer put us on the dreaded "slippery slope" - a favorite bugaboo of the paranoid - to "reverse slavery"?


You're putting me on, right? You don't think affirmative action and telling orchestras whom they should or shouldn't employ isn't 'social engineering'? I begin to understand the mindset behind all this; it's, er, but no, but we wouldn't do that because we mean well. We don't want anybody to 'mean well' - we saw enough of that in the 20th century. Just leave the game to those with the most extraordinary talent. They will float to the top of their own accord without some apparatchik telling them how it needs to be.

Apropos your previous comment; OK when you make a political opinion ("I'm sorry to be insistent" but you need to be quiet) but when you feel it isn't going your way you imply it needs to be shut down. (finger to temple)..mmm, where have I heard that before?

The arguments are that forcing quotas on orchestras isn't desirable. It's social engineering. It stems from a belief that equality of outcome is possible. It's marxism. It's tried and tested and got a big FAIL. Facts are such a nuisance, after all.


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> You're putting me on, right? You don't think affirmative action and telling orchestras whom they should or shouldn't employ isn't 'social engineering'? I begin to understand the mindset behind all this; it's, er, but no, but we wouldn't do that because we mean well. We don't want anybody to 'mean well' - we saw enough of that in the 20th century. Just leave the game to those with the most extraordinary talent. They will float to the top of their own accord without some apparatchik telling them how it needs to be.
> 
> Apropos your previous comment; OK when you make a political opinion ("I'm sorry to be insistent" but you need to be quiet) but when you feel it isn't going your way you imply it needs to be shut down. (finger to temple)..mmm, where have I heard that before?


Who's "telling orchestras whom they should or shouldn't employ"? Is there a Commissar of Orchestras? Has anyone here recommended appointing one? I certainly haven't - and wouldn't. Why are you battling a straw man?

You mistake my purpose. I'm not trying to advance a political ideology. You are. I am objecting to that, and you're raising the spectre of Marxism!


----------



## Boston Charlie

Woodduck said:


> Who's "telling orchestras whom they should or shouldn't employ"? Is there a Commissar of Orchestras? Has anyone here recommended appointing one? I certainly haven't - and wouldn't. Why are you battling a straw man?
> 
> You mistake my purpose. I'm not trying to advance a political ideology. You are. I am objecting to that, and you're raising the spectre of Marxism!


You may as well step outside and go tell it to the air.

The commies are taking over the world, one classical music concert at a time.


----------



## Guest

Woodduck said:


> Who's "telling orchestras whom they should or shouldn't employ"? Is there a Commissar of Orchestras? Has anyone here recommended appointing one? I certainly haven't - and wouldn't. Why are you battling a straw man?
> 
> You mistake my purpose. I'm not trying to advance a political ideology. You are. I am objecting to that, and you're raising the spectre of Marxism!


When you start mandating, through social pressure, activism or anything else, this is what you can expect. And your comment about facts having nothing to do with argument; that's worthy of a headstone. Absolutely priceless.


----------



## Woodduck

Christabel said:


> When you start mandating, through social pressure, activism or anything else, this is what you can expect. And your comment about facts having nothing to do with argument; that's worthy of a headstone. Absolutely priceless.


Your own headstone, maybe, since it's your own invention.

What _I_ said was that _facts are not arguments_ - meaning that just bringing up "facts" (or what you think are the relevant facts) will not prove your point. If you want to argue that "social pressure" and "activism" are inherently Marxist or lead to some sort of of collectivist totalitarian state - or whatever it is you mean by "this is what you can expect" - then you've got to do more than state it over and over as if it were a fact. You need to show how and why the progression you fear must inevitably happen.

You seem not to have noticed that I haven't suggested that government mandate the repertoire of orchestras. It's up to orchestras to choose their programming, and in a free society people may legitimately apply social pressure and may engage in activism on behalf of any legal, nonviolent cause. If an orchestra tries programming more works by women, blacks, living composers, American composers, or any other group in response to social pressure, activism, or any sort of persuasion, and subscription audiences then exert their own form of persuasion by complaining or simply staying home, the situation will adjust itself and society will not have moved one inch in the direction of "Marxism." But if social activism is effectively suppressed in the name of the survival of the self-annointed "fittest" (i.e. whoever holds the reigns of power), society will surely move in the direction of dictatorship, Marxist or otherwise. It's a truism that power rarely yields without a challenge - so hooray for social pressure and activism.


----------



## Nereffid

I read a great phrase just this morning: "When you are accustomed to privilege, equality can feel like oppression."


----------



## Kieran

There comes a tipping point in every debate or thread where it probably becomes s good idea to go back to the start and read again the article we’re discussing. Because without understanding the basis of the discussion, it becomes easy to pat ourselves on the back for not being bigoted, “not like that privileged white mob over there”. But the premise of the article isn’t, “should we hold these pesky women and blacks back, cos this is a white mans game, dammit!” It’s, do we reward somebody a place on the podium based on their gender, race, or colour. Do we manipulate programmes so that every tribe gets in, regardless of quality, and especially at the expense of them spoilt whiteys.

Now, you may say that quality and talent are a given in this scenario, but in fact they’re not. The basis for choosing composers st the 2022 BBC Proms is that “fully half of all commissions will be granted to women composers.” Whether they like it or not, presumably. And of course, the inference is that no matter if the better compositions are all by men, to hell with that - and screw the audience - we have boxes to tick so the screeching ninnies don’t hashtag us.

This has nothing to do with privilege. It has even less to do with “equality”, which increasingly has become a redundant term, through misuse. It has everything to do with bad politics, and bad faith. The article is fair and reasoned. It’s even worth reading, for anyone who hasn’t, yet...


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> You seem not to have noticed that I haven't suggested that government mandate the repertoire of orchestras. It's up to orchestras to choose their programming, and in a free society people may legitimately apply social pressure and may engage in activism on behalf of any legal, nonviolent cause. If an orchestra tries programming more works by women, blacks, living composers, American composers, or any other group in response to social pressure, activism, or any sort of persuasion, and subscription audiences then exert their own form of persuasion by complaining or simply staying home, the situation will adjust itself and society will not have moved one inch in the direction of "Marxism." But if social activism is effectively suppressed in the name of the survival of the self-annointed "fittest" (i.e. whoever holds the reigns of power), society will surely move in the direction of dictatorship, Marxist or otherwise. It's a truism that power rarely yields without a challenge - so hooray for social pressure and activism.


"Social activism" is a broad space, and not necessarily a bad thing. But wouldn't it be wise to look at any suggestions closely, and wonder where they're coming from? For example, if social activists have evidence of racism or sexism in music programming, wouldn't we all be better off if it was rooted out?

But if the goal of hashtag warriors is simply to try and force orchestras to perform music solely on the basis of race, colour or gender, then this is no longer about music, and more about politics, in which case people might have a duty to inspect it closely and see what these activists _really_ want. I doubt anyone here is opposed to any female or black composers having their music heard. But this isn't about their music, it's about something else completely. And if you think it's only going to be a small occasional thing, I would suggest that recent history tells us it ain't...


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> "Social activism" is a broad space, and not necessarily a bad thing. But wouldn't it be wise to look at any suggestions closely, and wonder where they're coming from? For example, if social activists have evidence of racism or sexism in music programming, wouldn't we all be better off if it was rooted out?
> 
> But if *the goal of hashtag warriors is simply to try and force orchestras to perform music solely on the basis of race, colour or gender,* then this is no longer about music, and more about politics, in which case people might have a duty to inspect it closely and see what these activists _really_ want. I doubt anyone here is opposed to any female or black composers having their music heard. But this isn't about their music, it's about something else completely. And if you think it's only going to be a small occasional thing, I would suggest that recent history tells us it ain't...


Nothing short of a government decree can "force" an orchestra to program music its customers don't want to hear. I haven't heard that there's much call for such a decree. If musical ensembles find that their efforts to feature more works by women, racial minorities, forgotten composers, etc., result in audience complaints and empty seats, they'll get the message. The bulk of concert programming will always be done with the market in mind, both for better and for worse.

It seems to me that your real concern here should not be about a certain predictable (and not entirely regrettable) overreaction to centuries of white male domination of the culture, but about government encroachment on the prerogatives of individuals and cultural institutions. It isn't the call for equality (even an unrealistic equality) that should bother us - in a free society that will work itself out - but the forced public subsidization of certain people's ideas of "culture " - subsidization which enables, for example, art museums to devote massive and expensive spaces to exhibiting "installations" of stuff that people recognize as art only because the museum tells them that that's what it is. The "social experiment" of giving more time to the music of women may or may not prove viable, but as long as I'm not taxed to support arbitrary standards forced on my local symphony orchestra by the National Commission on Musical Correctness I will not worry that the bust of Beethoven in the Symphony Hall foyer will soon be replaced by one of Ellen Taaffe Zwilich.

This horror at the thought that women may get more commissions for new music than they "deserve" is hilariously ironic considering how much of the music that's been filling seats for centuries was created under the patronage of white men by other white men. Evidently what was good for the gander is not good for the goose.


----------



## Kieran

As William Munny once said, “deserve’s got nothing to do with it.” The BBC Proms aren’t reacting out of concerns for what musicians and composers “deserve” - it has nothing to do with music. The concept of giving equal time - despite the fact that white males may have composed greater music for the proms in 2022 - is a decision based on politics alone. And what if all the great compositions are by females? Would the Beeb still feel bound by its commitment? It would be inherently unfair, if they did.

Your faith in the market is encouraging. Dead white males have a headstart, and given the music we have, we ought to be grateful. Yes, even to their patrons who facilitated this...


----------



## Boston Charlie

All this talk about letting the "market" decide is quite ironic to me, as I've pointed out over and over again that there has _never_ really been a market for classical market, and it's now less of a market than ever; not for Black composers, Asian composers, women composers, or even for our beloved dead White men such as Beethoven or Tchaikovsky.

If you don't believe me, then tell me why it is, at least here in America, that classical music is largely promoted and made available to classical music lovers via _public_ television and radio?

Why doesn't ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, HBO, Showtime broadcast anything as basic to the repertoire as a marathon of Bach's Cantatas, Beethoven Symphonies, Tchaikovsky ballets or Wagner's Ring?

What the market gives us is usually a bunch of formulaic trash TV and silly movies where an explosion, an f-bomb or a woman taking her clothes off has to happen every 45 seconds, lest the audience lose interest.

I just "upgraded" my cable from 15 to 65 channels, and still can't find much to watch. Even the History Channel, the Learning Channel, Animal Planet and the National Geographic Channel (channels I once had some respect for) have devolved into cheap reality shows.

That's what your precious, all-knowing market gives you; and I'd suppose, by what many of you have said, that you'd deem it wonderful because it's what the people have chosen.

I'm going to say this for the last time, though I doubt I'll get much of a response from this crowd:

There has never been a market for classical music. Classical recordings were published by major record labels as a courtesy for the sake of culture. This was done on the back of profits made by major record labels who marketed pop and rock music mostly to teenage girls who purchased Elvis, the Beatles and Michael Jackson records in the millions (can 50 million Elvis fans be wrong?). It has always been dependent upon benefactors, donations, corporate hand-outs, and yes, government sponsorship.

So let's get off our high horses, shall we?

I can't stand it when people complain and whine over others they think are getting a hand-out when they'll gladly take it for themselves.


----------



## Kieran

Yeah, I don't think we're talking bout the market for porn, or daytime soaps. There _is_ a market for classical music. You can see them queue to collect tickets to go hear a classical music performance...


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> As William Munny once said, "deserve's got nothing to do with it." The BBC Proms aren't reacting out of concerns for what musicians and composers "deserve" - it has nothing to do with music. The concept of giving equal time - despite the fact that white males may have composed greater music for the proms in 2022 - is a decision based on politics alone. And what if all the great compositions are by females? Would the Beeb still feel bound by its commitment? It would be inherently unfair, if they did.
> 
> Your faith in the market is encouraging. Dead white males have a headstart, and given the music we have, we ought to be grateful. Yes, even to their patrons who facilitated this...


If "deserving" has nothing to do with it, then why the concern about "penalizing talent and greatness," i. e., about passing over the "more talented" in favor of the "less talented"? Who is deciding who is more or less talented? In the commissioning of new works, who is judging the "greatness" or appeal of works not yet written, or not yet exposed to public hearing? Comparisons with "the music we have," music tested by time, are unhelpful. This isn't a horse race. Art is always a leap in semi-darkness.

I agree that setting precise quotas in these matters is simplistic and unrealistic. And yes, there's a faddishness about it. We'll get over it. Things will, we must hope, settle down and balance out, but I'm afraid the road to that is still long and rough. I live in a country where nearly one third of the populace has put in power an embodiment of white male dominance so crude and retrograde as many would not have believed possible, and done so precisely at the expense of a woman infinitely more qualified. It's the cultural significance and deplorable consequences of this outrage that ought to concern us, not the momentary frustration of some male music school graduate who loses a commission he thinks, by his own measure of "greatness," that he deserves more than the woman who got it.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Yeah, I don't think we're talking bout the market for porn, or daytime soaps. There _is_ a market for classical music. You can see them queue to collect tickets to go hear a classical music performance...


You're not listening to what I've said.

Does the porn industry, the trash TV industry, the Hollywood movie industry; do they have to go out begging for money in order to sustain themselves? Do they rely upon public TV and radio, in order to gain exposure?


----------



## Kieran

Well, let's not try untangle the knot that suggests that Hillary may have lost for many reasons, and not simply because of sexism. We can easy agree that sexism exists. We may even accept that it played a part in that election. But I think we would stay closer to the topic if we mused aloud as to whether she should have been elected based solely on her gender.

The issue of whose music deserves what is more interesting, and what a pity the Beeb and others haven't based their criteria on composers talents and abilities, instead.



Woodduck said:


> I agree that setting precise quotas in these matters is simplistic and unrealistic. And yes, there's a faddishness about it. We'll get over it. Things will, we must hope, settle down and balance out, but I'm afraid the road to that is still long and rough.


Your lips to God's ears, with regards to getting over it. The road will indeed be rough and the fear is that someday this faddishness will grow to become a fiercely protected species, or a horrible default setting of some sort...


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> You're not listening to what I've said.
> 
> Does the porn industry, the trash TV industry, the Hollywood movie industry; do they have to go out begging for money in order to sustain themselves? Do they rely upon public TV and radio, in order to gain exposure?


This maybe true, but again we're at cross purposes: when you say there's no market for classical music, I'm telling you there is, and it purchased its ticket at the door to get in..


----------



## Enthusiast

This discussion is getting messy and complicated. So please excuse me attempting to clarify the questions that seem to me to be crucial here. 

Some of us may not believe that it is right for the state to get involved in promoting art and that subsidies and the like should only be provided by private patrons (including companies and corporations). Those who fall into this camp or edge close to it are presumably happy for what music gets played and by who to be sorted out by the market. I am sure that some classical music would survive but what does survive would depend on fashion and the foibles of private sponsors. Either way, our only role is as punters. You could argue, though, that much of our greatest classical music originated in such an environment.

The trouble starts among people who accept that the state does have a role in promoting music. I am one such person. State support might be direct (through expert panels, for example) or less direct (for example, when an orchestra is supported by the state and then makes decisions as to what to programme). But it is here that the problem comes. Many say that we the public should get to decide (as it were, democratically) what the state’s resources are used for. But to the extent that this is possible it would seem to lead to a return to the market as the deciding entity. 

So, to some extent, if we support state involvement we need to accept that experts and managers get to decide what to promote (albeit through interpreting government aims – which might be about artistic merit or something more commercial). Sometimes they will get it right – much music we love today got its initial airing through a conductor or orchestra manager deciding to take a punt on a composer. Would we know and love Sibelius now if a few conductors had not gone against audience wishes by programming his works? Sometimes, though, the decision will not lead to anything taking root – although, often, such music may still meet the needs of a smaller group within the audience – but to argue for safety and caution is likely to kill much of the value to be found in promoting music. 

With all this out of the way, what we have left is the feeling of some that women and black composers and conductors may have been neglected or, at least, that they face big obstacles to getting in front of the public. This feeling is presumably accompanied by an inkling that we are missing something good because of this neglect. 

And against this is the feeling of others that the desire to promote marginalised minorities in classical music is mere political correctness. This view sees that there are no obstacles for women and black composers and performers and that we already enjoy the worthwhile ones. 

I’m in the former camp and welcome the promotion of talented individuals from communities that have not normally provided worthwhile composers and conductors. I recognise that people faced with the responsibility of deciding where public funds go will not often leave their own comfort zones and familiar territories and that this tendency can lead to them failing to see talent when it comes from outside of these territories.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Woodduck said:


> ...I live in a country where nearly one third of the populace has put in power an embodiment of white male dominance so crude and retrograde as many would not have believed possible, and done so precisely at the expense of a woman infinitely more qualified. It's the cultural significance and deplorable consequences of this outrage that ought to concern us, not the momentary frustration of some male music school graduate who loses a commission he thinks, by his own measure of "greatness," that he deserves more than the woman who got it.


The "market" chose Donald Trump just as it chose Hitler who was elected by a majority.

America chose the joke candidate, the reality/trash TV candidate; the foul-mouthed, racist, woman-objectifying, compulsively-lying candidate because he speaks like the average jerk hanging out at the bar, and it was found to be "refreshing".

America, the "market", wants to be entertained, amused, aroused, caught up in some kind of constant state of drama, as if the government were a reality show. They think it's hilarious when Trump tweets and makes a fool of himself and our country.

At the risk of being labeled a "Marxist", capitalism has it's limitations, as we are now seeing in the USA where people have chosen entertainment over leadership; and one thing that Marx was right about was when he said that "religion is the opiate of the masses", except it's not religion, it's TV and the internet, all these forms of technology and mass media, that are keeping us in a constant state of mindless titillation and intellectual atrophy.

I'm not saying that free market economy is a bad thing because I'm for it; but it's like anything else, it does have limitations.


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> Now, you may say that quality and talent are a given in this scenario, but in fact they're not. The basis for choosing composers st the 2022 BBC Proms is that "fully half of all commissions will be granted to women composers." Whether they like it or not, presumably. And of course, the inference is that no matter if the better compositions are all by men, to hell with that - and screw the audience - we have boxes to tick so the screeching ninnies don't hashtag us.


But Kieran, in order for this to be an _actual_ problem, you seem to be assuming that _all a female composer has to do is simply be a woman_ in order to get a commission, or a reasonable chance of one. 
But how many composers, male and female, are there who could potentially get a commission? There are only about 15 Proms commissions per year, so if I'm a male composer the odds of my getting a commission are pretty slim to begin with. Sure, reducing that number to 7 or 8 does make it harder for me, but it was hard already! And for a female composer, it may be statistically easier to get a commission, but it's still hard too.

And as for the chances of the better compositions all being by men (whatever "better" means, of course...), well, yes, it's statistically possible, but how likely is it? My own experience from listening to new music is that it's improbable.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Enthusiast said:


> ...The trouble starts among people who accept that the state does have a role in promoting music. I am one such person...
> 
> ...So, to some extent, if we support state involvement we need to accept that experts and managers get to decide what to promote (albeit through interpreting government aims - which might be about artistic merit or something more commercial). Sometimes they will get it right - much music we love today got its initial airing through a conductor or orchestra manager deciding to take a punt on a composer. Would we know and love Sibelius now if a few conductors had not gone against audience wishes by programming his works?...


Here in the USA, _state-sponsored _public radio and public TV, is the only media outlet that supports the exposure of classical music at all.

Who here is against that?

Sibelius lived off a government pension starting around 1897, and he retired early and lived to be a very old man dying in 1957. He spent 60 years living off the government of Finland.

Shouldn't the _market_ have supported the composer's expensive tastes; his cigars and whisky?


----------



## chill782002

Boston Charlie said:


> Here in the USA, _state-sponsored _public radio and public TV, is the only media outlet that supports the exposure of classical music at all.
> 
> Who here is against that?
> 
> Sibelius lived off a government pension starting around 1897, and he retired early and lived to be a very old man dying in 1957. He spent 60 years living off the government of Finland.
> 
> Shouldn't the _market_ have supported the composer's expensive tastes; his cigars and whisky?


Given the quality of Sibelius' output for the first 30 years of that period I think the Finnish taxpayer got an excellent deal.


----------



## Nate Miller

Boston Charlie said:


> The "market" chose Donald Trump just as it chose Hitler who was elected by a majority.
> 
> America chose the joke candidate, the reality/trash TV candidate; the foul-mouthed, racist, woman-objectifying, compulsively-lying candidate because he speaks like the average jerk hanging out at the bar, and it was found to be "refreshing".
> 
> America, the "market", wants to be entertained, amused, aroused, caught up in some kind of constant state of drama, as if the government were a reality show. They think it's hilarious when Trump tweets and makes a fool of himself and our country.
> 
> At the risk of being labeled a "Marxist", capitalism has it's limitations, as we are now seeing in the USA where people have chosen entertainment over leadership; and one thing that Marx was right about was when he said that "religion is the opiate of the masses", except it's not religion, it's TV and the internet, all these forms of technology and mass media, that are keeping us in a constant state of mindless titillation and intellectual atrophy.
> 
> I'm not saying that free market economy is a bad thing because I'm for it; but it's like anything else, it does have limitations.


I voted for Trump so that we would be able to hear Bach and Beethoven and Brahms and all the other white men that compose music


----------



## Boston Charlie

chill782002 said:


> Given the quality of Sibelius' output for the first 30 years of that period I think the Finnish taxpayer got an excellent deal.


Exactly my point; and I don't know about anyone else, but apart from providing excellent non-violent educational programming for my children (I used to watch Sesame Street and Mr. Rogers with the my older kids, and then Curious George with my youngest and my grandson); PBS TV and radio brought me lots of classical music that a kid like me, from the streets of the Boston would not have otherwise known. Even now I enjoy watching classical music concerts on public television (although even that's getting fewer and farther between even on PBS. While classical public radio (WCRB Boston Classical) these days seems to lean heavily towards Baroque fare and pops music, pleasant but not especially interesting to me; it's at least hitting the public airwaves are so that some people might have the chance to hear it.

The original PBS series, "Cosmos", with Carl Sagan, from the 1980s, not only brought me to the exciting universe of stars, planets, galaxies, quasars and black holes; but the classical music soundtrack (and soundtrack album) also served as a guide to purchasing some of my first classical music LPs; among them, Beethoven's Symphony #6 and Violin Concerto, Vivaldi's Mandolin Concerto, Rimsky-Korsakov's "Russian Easter Overture", Stravinsky's "Rite of Spring", Shostakovich's 11th Symphony, Hovhaness' "Prayer of St. Gregory" and Symphony #19 "Vishnu".

With all the complaining and whining going on around here concerning how the market should decide everything and the government should not, not one person has addressed the fact that the sole media outlet for classical music, at least in the USA, is public broadcasting.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Nate Miller said:


> I voted for Trump so that we would be able to hear Bach and Beethoven and Brahms and all the other white men that compose music


I don't know how much Trump cares about white composers, but he certainly seems to favor whites in general:

As a real estate businessman in the 1970s he was sued for unfair housing practices regarding Blacks, lost his case, but still insists that he won it.

In the 1980s he spent $80,000+ on ads calling for the execution of the Central Park 5 (4 were Black and 1 was Puerto Rican), and after they were convicted, but later found not guilty by DNA evidence, Trump still insists that they were guilty and has not apologized.

During the presidency of the Barack Obama, he pursued the first black president on charges that he was not born in this country; when the birth certificate was produced, Trump failed to apologize or admit wrong-doing.

He called "Mexicans, murderers, rapists and drug dealers."

After a Nazi/KKK rally where people protested, he said there were good people "on both sides".

He characterized Africa and Latin America as s-hole countries, and said we need more immigrants from countries like Norway.

Last summer hurricanes hit Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico. Texas got help; Florida got help; but there are _still_ pockets of Puerto Rico that are languishing without power and clean water.

This is no joking matter.

President Trump has demonstrated over and over again, by his words, as well as, his actions, who he favors.


----------



## chill782002

Boston Charlie said:


> With all the complaining and whining going on around here concerning how the market should decide everything and the government should not, not one person has addressed the fact that the sole media outlet for classical music, at least in the USA, is public broadcasting.


Here in the UK, the relatively rare classical concert broadcasts shown on TV are almost always courtesy of the BBC which is state owned. However, the major classical radio station is Classic FM which is privately owned. Both state and market have catered for that particular demand.


----------



## Enthusiast

Boston Charlie said:


> Here in the USA, _state-sponsored _public radio and public TV, is the only media outlet that supports the exposure of classical music at all.
> 
> Who here is against that?
> 
> Sibelius lived off a government pension starting around 1897, and he retired early and lived to be a very old man dying in 1957. He spent 60 years living off the government of Finland.
> 
> Shouldn't the _market_ have supported the composer's expensive tastes; his cigars and whisky?


Ah. So where is the controversy? The originally posted article must be about policies being followed by private institutions that are not owned for or beholden to us ("the people")? Unless they have tax free status - a sort of subsidy - they can do what they like. If they get it right they thrive. Getting it right, I guess, depends as much as anything on building their reputations. Producing endless popularist programmes would surely lead to sterility and tiredness fairly quickly. But where does this passionate argument we are having come from if it is not about how "our money" or "our orchestras" are used?


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> But Kieran, in order for this to be an _actual_ problem, you seem to be assuming that _all a female composer has to do is simply be a woman_ in order to get a commission, or a reasonable chance of one.


No, I'll assume also that she's a composer, too! :lol:



Nereffid said:


> But how many composers, male and female, are there who could potentially get a commission? There are only about 15 Proms commissions per year, so if I'm a male composer the odds of my getting a commission are pretty slim to begin with. Sure, reducing that number to 7 or 8 does make it harder for me, but it was hard already! And for a female composer, it may be statistically easier to get a commission, but it's still hard too.


But it's made harder for members of one demographic, for reasons that have nothing to do with music. Why not, as somebody mentioned earlier, blind read the scores, without knowing the composers background, and select what you believe are the compositions which will best serve the poor sod who forked out to get in? Why is this such a bad thing?

And have we reached the stage where the poor put-upon planners of music are such insufficient characters from a moral perspective, that they can't be trusted to choose the music they feel is best, despite knowing the background?



Nereffid said:


> And as for the chances of the better compositions all being by men (whatever "better" means, of course...), well, yes, it's statistically possible, but how likely is it? My own experience from listening to new music is that it's improbable.


Actually, I agree here. I used that merely as an example to show the bind they'd place us all in, if the best work was rejected so that gender quota boxes would get ticked. How unfair it would be. And of course, I used the opposite example too, that if all the best compositions were by females, how unjust it would be if they too were restricted by this policy.

This quota thingy is about politics, not music, and it's intrinsically unfair. Somebody quoted above a college where 77% of composition students are male. We need to tell them, good luck mate, through no fault of your own, your gender is a hindrance...


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> But it's made harder for members of one demographic, for reasons that have nothing to do with music. Why not, as somebody mentioned earlier, blind read the scores, without knowing the composers background, and select what you believe are the compositions which will best serve the poor sod who forked out to get in? Why is this such a bad thing?


But that's not how commissions work? You have to pick the composer first, don't you?


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> But that's not how commissions work? You have to pick the composer first, don't you?


Maybe we should draw the names out of a hat. That would be a fairer method than profiling innocent composers for the sinister purposes of modish identity politics...


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> Why is this such a bad thing?


Actually, I don't think it's a _bad_ thing to judge purely on merit. I just think a conscious effort toward a little positive discrimination is, under the current circumstances, actually a much better thing.

I think the basic difference between the two sides of this argument is that conservatives believe that, after a lot of discrimination in one direction, all discrimination should stop, whereas progressives believe that a little discrimination in the other direction is necessary. I guess conservatives believe that the "market" or its societal equivalent will soon bring the system to its appropriate balance, while progressives believe that there's been so much discrimination for so long that it's created systematic problems that won't be resolved without a hard nudge in the right direction.

(I have no doubt there are also differences between the 2 sides as to what the natural balance should be, but that's an inflammatory topic best left untouched...)


----------



## Kieran

Maybe if we want to be in a world that has no discrimination, we should just stop discriminating? Because if we don’t, it just goes back and forth like a lousy tennis ball, in an unending fiendish rally, causing more damage than anything...


----------



## Nereffid

It's like if you have twins, a boy and a girl. At first you decide that only the boy will go to college, so you set aside some money for him every month. Then after 12 years you realise this was just foolish discrimination and they both should go to college. So you set aside the same amount every month for the girl too. They finish school and... oops, only one of them can afford to go to college.


----------



## larold

_According to Norman Lebrecht's book, "Who Killed Classical Music?", classical records, nearly all classical records (let alone the likes of Schoenberg, Berg, Webern, Varese, Berio and company), as a matter of course, lost money on a regular basis, but were none-the-less produced by major record labels for the sake of "culture"._

I read Lebrecht's book and I don't recall him saying that. I don't have the book anymore so I can't quote it but I can recite this quote from the book I found elsewhere:

"..."It could cost a hundred thousand dollars to record a Mahler symphony in Berlin, half a million to cast a Strauss opera in Vienna. Most records sold two or three thousand copies on first release. It would take a lifetime to earn back the outlay on a Berlin production. Any rational analyst would have told the industry to quit recording and repackage the back catalogue." (Pg. 318).

Then he adds, "the reality was that major labels had become overwhelmingly dependent on freak hits---Nigel Kennedy one year, Spanish monks the next---and on compilation discs designed to be played while driving a car, making love or weeding the garden. These peripheral products accounted for the vast majority of classical sales."

The repackaging of the back catalog has been a profitable business for classical music for as long as I have collected recordings which goes back to about 1970. When I first started Columbia (since became Sony), RCA, London/Decca, DG and Angel (EMI) -- all full priced labels -- had subsidiary labels where they sold back catalog recordings for about half what the new recordings on the big label cost. Many of these recordings, such as the Richmond line from London, redid recordings made in the 1950s including full operas. So, while it may be true that the average new recording wasn't profitable, the whole line was profitable.

As to the "culture" argument, I would agree that the same label that made millions from Michael Jackson or Madonna may have felt it was in their interest to broaden the market and sell some classical or jazz recordings that may have lost money. But no company kept an entire line that was a loser. That's why almost none of the major labels any longer records much new classical music. It is in the main left to niche labels without popular big names to support them. It is about the market more than culture.


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> Maybe if we want to be in a world that has no discrimination, we should just stop discriminating? Because if we don't, it just goes back and forth like a lousy tennis ball, in an unending fiendish rally, causing more damage than anything...


Unfortunately, the "we" that might idealistically refuse to discriminate is not the "we" that, left to the "free" marketplace, has no motivation to stop discriminating unless the other "we" opposes it.

There's no such thing as a "free market" even in the sphere of economics, much less in the whole range of human interaction. There is always an imbalance of power. We have to accept this much of the time as a normal part of the dynamics of society, knowing that the centers of power shift, grow and recede. But when power holds on tenaciously generation after generation and enshrines itself in ideologies and institutions, we may choose purposefully to try to break its hold. The latter course tends to be messy and to make many people unhappy. Life is messy. The "free market" provides no refuge, only a palliative illusion and a rationalization for those who prefer the status quo.

The people - generally white males - who complain that they're victims of "reverse discrimination" are not generally - perhaps not ever - people who've spent five minutes objecting to the widespread, systemic discrimination against people who don't belong to their own social group. They were perfectly content with the fact that life is unfair, so long as it was "those people" that life was unfair to, and they were probably content to believe that "those people" deserved no better than what they got.

Their tears don't arouse my sympathy.


----------



## Boston Charlie

larold said:


> _
> 
> ...I read Lebrecht's book and I don't recall him saying that. I don't have the book anymore so I can't quote it but I can recite this quote from the book I found elsewhere:
> 
> "..."It could cost a hundred thousand dollars to record a Mahler symphony in Berlin, half a million to cast a Strauss opera in Vienna. Most records sold two or three thousand copies on first release. It would take a lifetime to earn back the outlay on a Berlin production. Any rational analyst would have told the industry to quit recording and repackage the back catalogue." (Pg. 318).
> 
> Then he adds, "the reality was that major labels had become overwhelmingly dependent on freak hits---Nigel Kennedy one year, Spanish monks the next---and on compilation discs designed to be played while driving a car, making love or weeding the garden. These peripheral products accounted for the vast majority of classical sales."
> 
> The repackaging of the back catalog has been a profitable business for classical music for as long as I have collected recordings which goes back to about 1970... When I first started Columbia (since became Sony), RCA, London/Decca, DG and Angel (EMI) -- all full priced labels -- had subsidiary labels where they sold back catalog recordings for about half what the new recordings on the big label cost. Many of these recordings, such as the Richmond line from London, redid recordings made in the 1950s including full operas. So, while it may be true that the average new recording wasn't profitable, the whole line was profitable.
> 
> As to the "culture" argument, I would agree that the same label that made millions from Michael Jackson or Madonna may have felt it was in their interest to broaden the market and sell some classical or jazz recordings that may have lost money. But no company kept an entire line that was a loser. That's why almost none of the major labels any longer records much new classical music. It is in the main left to niche labels without popular big names to support them. It is about the market more than culture._


_

Lebretch made these statements back in the 1990s in reference to classical music falling back on sex and religion; he cites the Spanish monks and Vanessa-Mae playing the violin in her underwear as examples of how desperate the classical music industry was, even back then, to get people interested in their product. As for reissues, he goes on to cite the by then late Leonard Bernstein and the by then late Herbert Von Karajan as the two highest grossing conductors in record sales. All of which support my point that there is no virtual market for classical music; so much so that major record labels would rather resurrect the dead than support fresh young talent.

In this regard, I'll ask the question yet again for about the third or fourth time:

If classical music is so darn "marketable", then how come it's exposure relies almost entirely on public (a.k.a. "government-supported") broadcasting?

An afterthought:

It just speaks to the elitist nature of classical music fandom, that they would presume that not only is their music better than the majority of what others listen to; but that they would also contend in the face of pure logic, that somehow this small bunch of musical elites; somehow, simultaneously, has gained hold upon the free market which is the controlled by the very masses they might deem as unenlightened._


----------



## Kieran

You’re just arbitrarily dismissing the punter who forks out at the door to go to a concert, and at the till to purchase a record. These are its market, and you are surely a member of that market too.

Now with regards to classical musics reliance on subsidies, aren’t we all very fortunate to benefit from that? But how long would such subsidies endure if there was absolutely no market for the music?


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> .
> The people - generally white males - who complain that they're victims of "reverse discrimination" are not generally - perhaps not ever - people who've spent five minutes objecting to the widespread, systemic discrimination against people who don't belong to their own social group. They were perfectly content with the fact that life is unfair, so long as it was "those people" that life was unfair to, and they were probably content to believe that "those people" deserved no better than what they got..


This is a broad generalisation based on what, exactly?

If we disapprove of systemic discrimination, then we should always disapprove of it. And that's regardless of who it's against. Another piece of the pie that naturally occurs when people are selected based not on merit, but political shenanigans such as unfair quotas, is that the public gets wind of it, and can be prone to sniff at the music, treating it with justifiable suspicion that what they're being served isn't the best they could have.

This is would only pile bitterness onto an already unfair situation...


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> This is a broad generalisation based on what, exactly?
> 
> If we disapprove of systemic discrimination, then we should always disapprove of it. And that's regardless of who it's against. Another piece of the pie that naturally occurs when people are selected based not on merit, but political shenanigans such as unfair quotas, is that the public gets wind of it, and can be prone to sniff at the music, treating it with justifiable suspicion that what they're being served isn't the best they could have.
> 
> This is would only pile bitterness onto an already unfair situation...


Based on living for 68 years in a society with a deep-rooted, persistent heritage of discrimination.

I really doubt that most concert-goers are going to be speculating bitterly about the superior fare they could have been treated to had the new music on the program been by some male who was unfairly neglected, and I'd be suspicious of their premises and motives if they did. If anything, they'd be more likely to be disgruntled at having to listen to new music at all, when so much old music is more to their liking. But that's a different issue...


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> Based on living for 68 years in a society with a deep-rooted, persistent heritage of discrimination.


You're far too young to be so cynical, especially when this heritage of discrimination has suddenly now rubbed off on you. 



Woodduck said:


> I really doubt that most concert-goers are going to be speculating bitterly about the superior fare they could have been treated to had the new music on the program been by some male who was unfairly neglected, and I'd be suspicious of their premises and motives if they did.


You're far too old to be so naive...


----------



## Nate Miller

Woodduck said:


> The people - generally white males - who complain that they're victims of "reverse discrimination" are not generally - perhaps not ever - people who've spent five minutes objecting to the widespread, systemic discrimination against people who don't belong to their own social group. They were perfectly content with the fact that life is unfair, so long as it was "those people" that life was unfair to, and they were probably content to believe that "those people" deserved no better than what they got.
> 
> Their tears don't arouse my sympathy.


yes, that is clear.

you expect me to embrace your view, yet you don't care at all about anything I believe

listen pal, my high school had race riots and I grew up getting my head kicked in over what color my skin was

I also was a long haired guitar picker in Texas back in the day, so I've personally been beaten to a pulp by 5 different police jurisdictions in the State of Texas. Yes, I have experienced oppression first hand, too.

so to me, you are the racist, really. You see my white skin and project all your nonsense onto me for being white. that is what being a racist means.


----------



## Nate Miller

Woodduck said:


> Based on living for 68 years in a society with a deep-rooted, persistent heritage of discrimination.
> 
> ...


I agree, Boston is a racist hell-hole


----------



## Woodduck

Kieran said:


> You're far too young to be so cynical, especially when this heritage of discrimination has suddenly now rubbed off on you.
> 
> You're far too old to be so naive...


Insults are neither disguised or excused by sticking emojis after them. They're the resort of people who are losing an argument.


----------



## Woodduck

Nate Miller said:


> I agree, Boston is a racist hell-hole


I know. I lived there from 1967 to 1980. Sorry to hear that the heritage endures.

Maybe Boston Charlie could offer some reassuring words.


----------



## Woodduck

Nate Miller said:


> yes, that is clear.
> 
> you expect me to embrace your view, yet you don't care at all about anything I believe
> 
> listen pal, my high school had race riots and I grew up getting my head kicked in over what color my skin was
> 
> I also was a long haired guitar picker in Texas back in the day, so I've personally been beaten to a pulp by 5 different police jurisdictions in the State of Texas. Yes, I have experienced oppression first hand, too.
> 
> so to me, you are the racist, really. You see my white skin and project all your nonsense onto me for being white. that is what being a racist means.


I'm not your "pal," and I could tell you a few things about discrimination myself. So what? Many of us have been mistreated by life. I don't expect you to embrace any view, and I've not accused you of anything, but if you want to see yourself depicted in anything I said, you would know best.

Try not to personalize this discussion, eh? Just agree or disagree, and keep it civil.


----------



## Larkenfield

Why no orchestra in the world makes money:
http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-04/why-no-symphony-orchestra-in-the-world-makes-money/8413746

It's live performances that are a problem; listeners can get all the diversity they want free online. It's the age of instant gratification and an economic downturn. Some of the CM uploads on YouTube have millions of views, and some of the most challenging in contemporary and modern music are generally reviewed favorably. People like the music, including the young, often for study purposes, but people are now feeding off the backlog of 100 years of recordings, and they don't have to dress up in a tux to hear them.

Unfortunately, I feel very badly for the professional musicians who have a gift for the music but can't find the work. In the digital age, the music and the performers have become devalued because so few in its audience want to pay for it when it can be so easily downloaded or pirated. I see copyright laws being broken everywhere and that takes money out of the pockets of live musicians and minimizes choices in the concert halls with fewer opportunities for diversity.

But still, I feel that some attempts should still be made to reach the young and make the ticket prices more affordable for everyone. Live performances are still the best for that extra thrill of being in the presence of the musicians, and the thousand year history of the music represents 1000 years of human accomplishments that should not be forgotten and considered dead to the passing fancies of contemporary society obsessed with gadgets.

Excerpt from orchestra article:

"Orchestras, like all cultural institutions, do create economic value ... but that's not their primary reason for existence," says Macquarie University's Professor Throsby.

"Their primary reason for existence, obviously, is to make music.

"That means it's a different sort of value they're creating, which we can call cultural value or artistic value. It's separate from the hard numbers of the economic value, from the dollars and cents."


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> You're just arbitrarily dismissing the punter who forks out at the door to go to a concert, and at the till to purchase a record. These are its market, and you are surely a member of that market too.
> 
> Now with regards to classical musics reliance on subsidies, aren't we all very fortunate to benefit from that? But how long would such subsidies endure if there was absolutely no market for the music?


If we are fortunate to benefit from "subsidies"; or should I say "_government-sponsored _subsidies"; then you can thank the libs for that; the welfare-loving, affirmative action-loving, diversity-loving libs who started and supported public broadcasting in the late 1960s.


----------



## Kieran

Woodduck said:


> Insults are neither disguised or excused by sticking emojis after them. They're the resort of people who are losing an argument.


It's humour. Seems that either you or I should try it some time... (emoji alert)


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> If we are fortunate to benefit from "subsidies"; or should I say "_government-sponsored _subsidies"; then you can thank the libs for that; the welfare-loving, affirmative action-loving, diversity-loving libs who started and supported public broadcasting in the late 1960s.


Not all grants to the arts come from the government. Rich conservative people have been known to subsidise artists since time immemorial. Since before the USA existed, in fact...


----------



## Kieran

Larkenfield said:


> Why no orchestra in the world makes money:
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-04-04/why-no-symphony-orchestra-in-the-world-makes-money/8413746
> 
> It's live performances that are a problem; listeners can get all the diversity they want free online. It's the age of instant gratification and an economic downturn. Some of the CM uploads on YouTube have millions of views, and some of the most challenging in contemporary and modern music are generally reviewed favorably. People like the music, including the young, often for study purposes, but people are now feeding off the backlog of 100 years of recordings, and they don't have to dress up in a tux to hear them.
> 
> Unfortunately, I feel very badly for the professional musicians who have a gift for the music but can't find the work. In the digital age, the music and the performers have become devalued because so few in its audience want to pay for it when it can be so easily downloaded or pirated. I see copyright laws being broken everywhere and that takes money out of the pockets of live musicians and minimizes choices in the concert halls with fewer opportunities for diversity.
> 
> But still, I feel that some attempts should still be made to reach the young and make the ticket prices more affordable for everyone. Live performances are still the best for that extra thrill of being in the presence of the musicians, and the thousand year history of the music represents 1000 years of human accomplishments that should not be forgotten and considered dead to the passing fancies of contemporary society obsessed with gadgets.


This is true, and in fact, throughout its history, this form of music has been subsidised, mainly by the Catholic Church, and the aristocracy. And I believe it's a pearl of great price, one of the great gems (among many) that white European males have given us.

And when I say "us", I mean mankind in general...

EDIT: as for the parasites who illegally download music, I wish I had an answer. I wish there was a counter-gadget that sent a pulse to their machine, along with the swag, and destroyed it. I see little hope in the immediate future that these thieves will be stopped, and they are literally killing the thing they say they love. But these acts of theft devalue music, even to the sort of people who casually steal it.

Or maybe, _especially_ to that sort of person...


----------



## KenOC

Kieran said:


> Not all grants to the arts come from the government. Rich conservative people have been known to subsidise artists since time immemorial. Since before the USA existed, in fact...


In fact, I think most grants (so-called "commissions") for new works today, in the US at least, come from orchestras. These are not parts of government but are duly chartered private corporations, usually operating as charitable institutions and earning their donors the right to deduct donations from their taxable income. The bulk of revenues of most orchestras come from such donations, not from ticket revenue.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Not all grants to the arts come from the government. Rich conservative people have been known to subsidise artists since time immemorial. Since before the USA existed, in fact...


But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about right now; the only media outlets that I know of, at least here in the Boston area, which is supposed to be a hub of classical music culture here in the USA, is public broadcasting, PBS TV (Channel 2 and 44) and Classical radio (WCRB Boston).

Nobody here wants to address that.

Am I to believe that the cons here would forgo their favorite music, the favorite performers, if it were brought to them via public TV and/or radio?

If so, isn't there a hypocrisy there, that people who complain about preferential treatment would take advantage of a government program that serves them?

The fact that I've asked this question before in several different ways, and have received no answer, provides the answer. That answer is that classical music lovers, of course, take advantage of public TV and radio; they have to as the television and radio market will not support classical music programming at all; and, yet, they would complain that the "government" had no business getting involved in serving the wants and needs of others.

Please, someone tell me where I'm wrong here.


----------



## Boston Charlie

KenOC said:


> In fact, I think most grants (so-called "commissions") for new works today, in the US at least, come from orchestras. These are not parts of government but are duly chartered private corporations, usually operating as charitable institutions and earning their donors the right to deduct donations from their taxable income. The bulk of revenues of most orchestras come from such donations, not from ticket revenue.


So even in the above scheme of things, classical music concert life is dependent upon charity, tax-deductible donations. How dare we chastise others for taking advantage of "preferential treatment" when our musical passion in life is supported on the hard work of others.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> But that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about right now; the only media outlets that I know of, at least here in the Boston area, which is supposed to be a hub of classical music culture here in the USA, is public broadcasting, PBS TV (Channel 2 and 44) and Classical radio (WCRB Boston).
> 
> Nobody here wants to address that.
> 
> Am I to believe that the cons here would forgo their favorite music, the favorite performers, if it were brought to them via public TV and/or radio?
> 
> If so, isn't there a hypocrisy there, that people who complain about preferential treatment would take advantage of a government program that serves them?
> 
> The fact that I've asked this question before in several different ways, and have received no answer, provides the answer. That answer is that classical music lovers, of course, take advantage of public TV and radio; they have to as the television and radio market will not support classical music programming at all; and, yet, they would complain that the "government" had no business getting involved in serving the wants and needs of others.
> 
> Please, someone tell me where I'm wrong here.


Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong by simply believing that America is the centre of the world when it comes to music, but I would securely say you're mixing things up when you say that, "isn't there a hypocrisy there, that people who complain about preferential treatment would take advantage of a government program that serves them?"

If there's a government programme that serves niche music, then we'd be unwise not to utilise it. But should we then have to taint it with dangerous politics too, and encourage discrimination and (potentially) promote mediocrities, at the expense of the music that's supposedly being served? Why can't artists take money that's offered by rich people for the creation of art - and be unconstrained in their artistic endeavours afterwards?


----------



## Boston Charlie

Nate Miller said:


> I agree, Boston is a racist hell-hole





Woodduck said:


> I know. I lived there from 1967 to 1980. Sorry to hear that the heritage endures.
> 
> Maybe Boston Charlie could offer some reassuring words.


The racial tensions that characterized the Boston area during the 1970s and 1980s, are in large part, dying out. It's not that you still don't see it, because you do, and even though we are a "blue state", we still have our fair share of Trumpsters.

But there are reasons to be hopeful. A good many home, businesses and churches sport rainbow flags in support of the rights and the acceptance of gays and lesbians; and signs that read "Black Lives Matter" and "You Are Welcome Here" printed in English, Spanish and Arabic.

I think the hope is with the younger generation. They are so much more open-minded and accepting of others than we older ones are. Having grown up with technology, they are so much smarter than us because they can access information and organize information so much faster than we who bounded by the card catalog, paper, pen and type-writer. Most of them don't have the experience that we had of growing up in ethnic enclaves where the world is divided into "us" and "them". Again, technology has allowed them to grow up in a culture of globalism.

Even in terms of music, technology has made it so the younger generation are not bound to just a few corporate media outlets and record companies telling them what music they should like; hence no more musical generation gap. Instead of listening with peers, they all listen to their own personal play-lists, almost like their own personal radio stations; so nobody is "square" for liking a certain genre.

All of this, I think, has changed the flavor of Boston, the Boston area and the state of Massachusetts; and personally speaking, I love it here. I love the culture, the people, and even the weather.

I was talking about retirement with someone yesterday who asked me if I'd move to Florida like a lot of retirees do, and I said that I'd be content to stay here. I like it here, and I'm a big believer that hope and happiness are where you find it; that wherever you go, there will always be problems to face.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Well, I wouldn't say you're wrong by simply believing that America is the centre of the world when it comes to music, but I would securely say you're mixing things up when you say that, "isn't there a hypocrisy there, that people who complain about preferential treatment would take advantage of a government program that serves them?"
> 
> If there's a government programme that serves niche music, then we'd be unwise not to utilise it. But should we then have to taint it with dangerous politics too, and encourage discrimination and (potentially) promote mediocrities, at the expense of the music that's supposedly being served? Why can't artists take money that's offered by rich people for the creation of art - and be unconstrained in their artistic endeavours afterwards?


I said that Boston is _a_ hub not _the_ hub of classical music.

If we're using a government program (public broadcasting) to enjoy out "niche music" than wouldn't that, according to you and some others here, be _already_ tainted with the "dangerous politics" of liberalism and big government?

By the way, public broadcasting, classical radio and public TV, pretty much sticks to the dead White men when it comes to the classical music they program.

Again, you are quick to assume that because the music is composed by Africans, Asians, Latinos or women, that it must be mediocre compared to the music of White men. What makes you so sure of that?

This is so typical of people who oppose affirmative action or any other mode of fairness in hiring. They start with the premise that Blacks, Latinos and women are unqualified.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> If we're using a government program (public broadcasting) to enjoy out "niche music" than wouldn't that, according to you and some others here, be _already_ tainted with the "dangerous politics" of liberalism and big government?


Funding of the arts is an essential part of preserving a nation's cultural life. Banks also fund it too, and huge capitalist corporations. Artists are generally grateful to be funded. The starving artist is a terrible myth, that dying emaciated in a garret in Paris is good for art. Terrible. Freeing them from the constraints of worry about money is a great thing. Princes and kings and bishops and Popes and wealthy people have long facilitated the arts. It only becomes tainted when the artists are then restrained and saddled with bogey politics and dangerous agendas. But let's all agree that we're all happy to benefit from the music rich philanthropists make accessible.



Boston Charlie said:


> By the way, public broadcasting, classical radio and public TV, pretty much sticks to the dead White men when it comes to the classical music they program.


Yes, classical music is just one of the many great pearls that dead white European males have bequeathed to mankind. And by "mankind", I don't mean "peoplekind", or any other illiterate and grotty ignorance vacuous folk would have us utter.



Boston Charlie said:


> Again, you are quick to assume that because the music is composed by Africans, Asians, Latinos or women, that it must be mediocre compared to the music of White men. What makes you so sure of that?
> 
> This is so typical of people who oppose affirmative action or any other mode of fairness in hiring. They start with the premise that Blacks, Latinos and women are unqualified.


I never said anywhere that music composed by "Africans, Asians, Latinos or women...must be mediocre compered to the music of White men."

Not once. Not ever.

Remember, in this discussion, _*you're *_the one who's aligning with the forces of prejudice and discrimination - not I...


----------



## larold

_As for reissues, (Lebrecht) goes on to cite the by then late Leonard Bernstein and the by then late Herbert Von Karajan as the two highest grossing conductors in record sales. All of which support my point that there is no virtual market for classical music; so much so that major record labels would rather resurrect the dead than support fresh young talent. If classical music is so darn "marketable", then how come it's exposure relies almost entirely on public (a.k.a. "government-supported") broadcasting?_

No governmental entity supports the sale of recordings, especially reruns, and the greatest seller of new and rerun recordings is neither Karajan nor Bernstein -- it is Tosccanini, in part because it took 9 78s for a symphony. If you continue to follow Lebrecht you'll find he is full of errors of fact such as these quite regularly. He often shoots from the hip and says things to make effect.

Governmental support for orchestras, as well as corporate support, has dried up. Yet orchestras survive, especially local orchestras. I think you could ask all the same questions about universities: the "market" doesn't support them yet there they are.

A better thought for the "market" of classical music is to compare music companies like Sony to hardware stores. No hardware store can be profitable selling only nails, screws and bolts -- they need the profit that comes from selling paint, rakes, hammers, plumbing supplies and higher price items.

Yet when people go to a hardware store they expect to find nuts, bolts and screws. Similarly, music companies -- at least at one time in world history -- had expectations that they would record in all areas of consumer demand and not just where demand was greatest and profit likely the most easily obtainable.


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> I never said anywhere that music composed by "Africans, Asians, Latinos or women...must be mediocre compered to the music of White men."
> 
> Not once. Not ever.


No, you didn't. But you've several times insisted that those who want to promote the music of women and ethnic minorities wish to do so regardless of these composers' talents. In fact those arguing in favour of promoting women/minorities don't bring the talent issue into it because they think the fact that the promoted composers would be talented _goes without saying_. So I can see why someone might misinterpret your attack on (your apparent misinterpretation of) the idea of promoting women/minorities as an attack on the composers themselves.


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> No, you didn't. But you've several times insisted that those who want to promote the music of women and ethnic minorities wish to do so regardless of these composers' talents. In fact those arguing in favour of promoting women/minorities don't bring the talent issue into it because they think the fact that the promoted composers would be talented _goes without saying_. So I can see why someone might misinterpret your attack on (your apparent misinterpretation of) the idea of promoting women/minorities as an attack on the composers themselves.


Thank you for your stout defence, sir! :tiphat:

But....I don't see where I'm misinterpreting a plan to limit the opportunities for one demographic in favour of another. I think I understood the implications of that fairly well. I've repeated it enough times over the previous 67 pages... :lol:

EDIT: and by the way, I've actually defended composers who would be expected to benefit from this crude form of discrimination, by pointing out how it could adversely affect them too...


----------



## Enthusiast

I am sure if I were wise I would stay away from this discussion but I have a bit of a hangover and can at least say why this humble Brit can't really understand what the discussion is about. 

Nearly all classical music from the past was composed by men. The same was true of literature for quite a while but, perhaps because writing books and poems can be done individually and without access to much in the way of resources (including performers), women started to break through and were even able to use their own names and still to sell books. In the modern era a good number of noted women composers emerged and enjoyed an audience. Great. The same is probably not true for black composers yet and I am not sure how much of this has been a lack of educational and nurturing opportunities or of cultural identity and how much was discrimination on the part of commissioning managers. Even black jazz and blues musicians had a hard time getting a mainstream audience, though, and the huge success of rock'n'roll - essentially rhythm and blues played by white boys - demonstrates this.

So there have been and still are avenues of creative endeavour that are closed to some people because of their race or gender. I don't think that can be disputed although there is in general a trend towards things getting better. What may be more contentious is the value of positive discrimination in tackling this. While I find the suggestion that such initiatives are evil to be bizarre, I do think there are good arguments for suggesting that such policies can have poor results and can lead to counter-productive processes coming out of the woodwork. Perhaps much of this thread is an example of this? Perhaps, then, this thread also demonstrates how critical the need may still be?

I think it is fairly well demonstrated that people with the power to make decisions will, even with the best will in the world, tend to opt for people they trust and that they will tend to trust those who are similar to themselves. This is a powerful reason for groups who are excluded to remain excluded. Maybe a part of the answer is to ensure diversity among decision makers (commissioning managers etc.), perhaps through deploying diverse but expert unpaid advisory panels. 

In my own life, as a manager working in numerous countries and cultures, I often found it relatively easy to appoint people from widely excluded communities without using positive discrimination and without targets. This was mostly because the cream of the neglected groups had not been as recognised as they should have been and so were there for the picking. I was able to bring together some pretty amazing teams in this way. As I say, this didn't take positive discrimination but it did involve overruling other members of the panel. My "advantage" in this (aside from my seniority) was that I had come from a culture that had already fought the most basic of these battles. Although I am a liberal and also tend towards independent thought, I am sure that in other and more subtle ways I am still as blinkered as the next white man. For example, it is only very recently - under force of numerous recent examples - that I have come to accept that women can be as good at conducting as men. I feel shame admitting that, so please be gentle with me!


----------



## Kieran

Enthusiast, that's a fair and reasoned analysis of what is obviously a thorny issue, one which has many shades, and which I think not too many of us can be confident contains only one solution. I respect how you handled the same issue in real practical terms, with regards to your work. I faced similar in a previous job, and watched women face discrimination in the workplace, and defended them, and saw how horribly it affected them.

I know that some posters here want to paint me as being opposed to minority composers getting an opportunity because I think they're inferior, or simply because they're the wrong colour or gender, but a straightforward reading of my posts would correct this assumption. I'm opposed to discrimination, period. No matter who it's for, or against. Because it can't be discrimination "for" somebody, without also at the same time being "against" somebody else. It's soul destroying, career-destroying, and it ruins lives - regardless of whether or not it wears a fancy name like "positive discrimination", or even dares to call itself "progressiveness."

Let people have equal opportunities, and scrap it out from there. I thoroughly agree with you that things are getting better, and gladly they are. 

As for your admission that you once believed women couldn't conduct as well as men, we'll overlook that, while suspecting that maybe you still get a hoot watching them trying to park a car!

It's a joke, people, a joke!


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> Thank you for your stout defence, sir! :tiphat:
> 
> But....I don't see where I'm misinterpreting a plan to limit the opportunities for one demographic in favour of another. I think I understood the implications of that fairly well. I've repeated it enough times over the previous 67 pages... :lol:
> 
> EDIT: and by the way, I've actually defended composers who would be expected to benefit from this crude form of discrimination, by pointing out how it could adversely affect them too...


The misinterpretation I see is:


Kieran said:


> When you mentioned an "effort to program classical music by African, Asian and female composers", I thought, why not? I'd gladly go, if I could afford the price of a ticket. But this was because *I thought it might be based actually upon their talents and art alone, and not some terrible idea that they should be put on stage simply because they tick some group identity boxes*





Kieran said:


> But also, *you still insist on giving nameless composers from broad minorities a spot on the podium based upon nothing at all to do with music!*





Kieran said:


> But the premise of the article isn't, "should we hold these pesky women and blacks back, cos this is a white mans game, dammit!" It's, do we reward somebody a place on the podium based on their gender, race, or colour. Do we manipulate programmes so that every tribe gets in, regardless of quality, and especially at the expense of them spoilt whiteys.
> 
> *Now, you may say that quality and talent are a given in this scenario, but in fact they're not.* The basis for choosing composers st the 2022 BBC Proms is that "fully half of all commissions will be granted to women composers." Whether they like it or not, presumably. And of course, the inference is that no matter if the better compositions are all by men, to hell with that - and screw the audience - we have boxes to tick so the screeching ninnies don't hashtag us.





Kieran said:


> "Social activism" is a broad space, and not necessarily a bad thing. But wouldn't it be wise to look at any suggestions closely, and wonder where they're coming from? For example, if social activists have evidence of racism or sexism in music programming, wouldn't we all be better off if it was rooted out?
> 
> But *if the goal of hashtag warriors is simply to try and force orchestras to perform music solely on the basis of race, colour or gender, then this is no longer about music*, and more about politics, in which case people might have a duty to inspect it closely and see what these activists _really_ want. I doubt anyone here is opposed to any female or black composers having their music heard. But *this isn't about their music, it's about something else completely*. And if you think it's only going to be a small occasional thing, I would suggest that recent history tells us it ain't...


The only person talking about choosing composers purely on non-musical grounds is _you_. Everyone else, even the "hashtag warriors", is operating on the assumption that any composer being promoted, woman or man, white or not, deserves to be promoted on musical grounds. As I said, the fact that you don't accept this makes it easier for someone to incorrectly think you don't believe women or ethnic minorities _can_ be promoted on musical grounds alone.


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> The only person talking about choosing composers purely on non-musical grounds is _you_. Everyone else, even the "hashtag warriors", is operating on the assumption that any composer being promoted, woman or man, white or not, deserves to be promoted on musical grounds. As I said the fact, that you don't accept that makes it easier for someone to incorrectly think you don't believe women or ethnic minorities _can_ be promoted on musical grounds alone.


I think you might have missed the part where the BBC Proms is giving 50% of their commissions in 2022 _*based on gender.*_

That's not, "based on talent" - it's "based on gender." This is explicitly "choosing composers on non-musical grounds..."


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> I think you might have missed the part where the BBC Proms is giving 50% of their commissions in 2022 _*based on gender.*_
> 
> That's not, "based on talent" - it's "based on gender." This is explicitly "choosing composers on non-musical grounds..."


True, and I did respond to that a while back, but you were denying that talent was _ever_ a factor: "you may say that quality and talent are a given in this scenario, but in fact they're not". This has been a main thrust of your argument: that people want to promote women/minorities even if they lack talent. And this just isn't true.


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> True, and I did respond to that a while back, but you were denying that talent was _ever_ a factor: "you may say that quality and talent are a given in this scenario, but in fact they're not". This has been a main thrust of your argument: that people want to promote women/minorities even if they lack talent. And this just isn't true.


But you quoted me in full above, and I didn't say "that people want to promote women/minorities even if they lacked talent."

Literally, it's quoted above:

"Now, you may say that quality and talent are a given in this scenario, but in fact they're not.The basis for choosing composers st the 2022 BBC Proms is that "fully half of all commissions will be granted to women composers." Whether they like it or not, presumably. *And of course, the inference is that no matter if the better compositions are all by men, to hell with that - and screw the audience - we have boxes to tick so the screeching ninnies don't hashtag us*.*"

*So if the better quality and talent is shown by male composers, this is irrelevant - they'll be penalised and disqualified because they're male. That's not a consideration based on music or talent - it's based exclusively on gender.

And in reply to you yesterday, I said:



Kieran said:


> Actually, I agree here. I used that merely as an example to show the bind they'd place us all in, if the best work was rejected so that gender quota boxes would get ticked. How unfair it would be. And of course, I used the opposite example too, that _*if all the best compositions were by females, how unjust it would be if they too were restricted by this policy.*_


3 posts later, what did you say?



Nereffid said:


> Actually, I don't think it's a _bad_ thing to judge purely on merit. I just think a conscious effort toward a little positive discrimination is, under the current circumstances, actually a much better thing.


I'm saying choose according to merit, while you're saying that's not a bad idea, but discrimination is actually a better idea.

I know you feel that your idea of discrimination is a benevolent thing, and under you it surely would be, but my conviction is that we should leave politics out of this, and base it on the music...


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> I think you might have missed the part where the BBC Proms is giving 50% of their commissions in 2022 _*based on gender.*_
> 
> That's not, "based on talent" - it's "based on gender." This is explicitly "choosing composers on non-musical grounds..."


Do you think that there is such a thing as bias?

In psychology, there are certain laws of perception; laws of proximity, laws of similarity. As a matter of course, the brain, quite naturally strives to place everything we perceive into categories. It's even apparent in very small children when they play with toys as they group and arrange their toys symmetrically. When some children eat their meals, they get bothered if the food on the plate, the meat, veggies and potatoes are touching. The brain strives for some sort of order.

By the law of proximity, we quite naturally place the world's greatest composers in the realm of Europe; Vienna, Berlin, Paris. By the law of similarity, our brain tends to think "White", "dead" and "male" when we imagine what a great composer is supposed to look like.

I say that maybe we ought to challenge that view; accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, we're _all_ a bit prejudiced, not out of meanness or hatred, but just because our brains work that way.

For years, I gave Arnold Schoenberg's serial music an even chance, even though most of it mystified me, and even though most serial music in general has been rejected by a good portion of classical music lovers. I thought that Schoenberg's music had to be good because he was from Vienna, looked to Brahms and Wagner and the German tradition in music as his foundation, and he looked the part of a great composer.

Why not give African, Asian and female composers the same even chance?


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> Do you think that there is such a thing as bias?


Yes, there is bias, it's wrong, and _you don't do away with bias by making it institutional._



Boston Charlie said:


> By the law of proximity, we quite naturally place the world's greatest composers in the realm of Europe; Vienna, Berlin, Paris. By the law of similarity, our brain tends to think "White", "dead" and "male" when we imagine what a great composer is supposed to look like.


Not, "*supposed* to look like" - if you show me a picture of great European composers, I'll tell you that that's what these great composers look like. We ought not be prejudiced against our great heritage. It's important, and foundational, and glorious, and we should celebrate it, not feel even in the slightest amount ashamed of these musical titans.



Boston Charlie said:


> I say that maybe we ought to challenge that view; accept the idea that maybe, just maybe, we're _all_ a bit prejudiced, not out of meanness or hatred, but just because our brains work that way.


You do sound a little bit prejudiced, alright, but I hope you'll work on that.



Boston Charlie said:


> For years, I gave Arnold Schoenberg's serial music an even chance, even though most of it mystified me, and even though most serial music in general has been rejected by a good portion of classical music lovers. I thought that Schoenberg's music had to be good because he was from Vienna, looked to Brahms and Wagner and the German tradition in music as his foundation, and he looked the part of a great composer.


See, this is up to you, and your own conceptions of things. Seriously. If you thought Shoenberg was a great composer _*simply because you racially profiled him*_, well, I'd hate to be your neighbour..



Boston Charlie said:


> Why not give African, Asian and female composers the same even chance?


Agreed. "The same even chance." Not preferential, just the same even chance. I've been stating this all along...


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> I know you feel that your idea of discrimination is a benevolent thing, and under you it surely would be, but my conviction is that we should leave politics out of this, and base it on the music...


Unfortunately I don't agree with the implication that _refusing_ to take gender or ethnicity into account _isn't_ a political act.


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> Unfortunately I don't agree with the implication that _refusing_ to take gender or ethnicity into account _isn't_ a political act.


If you blind read a score, what are you taking into consideration?


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> If you blind read a score, what are you taking into consideration?


But you're blind-reading a score in the knowledge that there has for centuries been systemic discrimination against women and ethnic minorities and that the effects of such discrimination don't vanish overnight just because there's now a general but certainly not universal consensus that discrimination is wrong. Your decision to _not _take that into consideration *in the wider scheme of things*, outside of judging the quality of an individual piece of music, is a political act.

This is starting to remind me of the king of Swamp Castle: "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..."


----------



## Kieran

Nereffid said:


> But you're blind-reading a score in the knowledge that there has for centuries been systemic discrimination against women and ethnic minorities and that the effects of such discrimination don't vanish overnight just because there's now a general but certainly not universal consensus that discrimination is wrong. Your decision to _not _take that into consideration *in the wider scheme of things*, outside of judging the quality of an individual piece of music, is a political act.
> 
> This is starting to remind me of the king of Swamp Castle: "Let's not bicker and argue about who killed who..."


Absolutely, I'm saying that to replace one set of discrimination with another is manifestly wrong, no matter how ideologically "progressive" some people may think this is. It isn't progressive - it's actually repeating the thing you abhorred in the first place. And if you think the sins of the past need to be paid for by people who had nothing to do with that, that's bringing an injustice on innocent people, based upon the fact that they happen to be white males.

If this is political thinking, so be it. But my political thinking is telling us to let talent win through, regardless of gender or race - and yours is telling us that it should be based on group identities. This is how the old bad ways still linger...


----------



## Nereffid

Kieran said:


> I'm saying that to replace one set of discrimination with another is manifestly wrong, no matter how ideologically "progressive" some people may think this is. It isn't progressive - it's actually repeating the thing you abhorred in the first place. And if you think the sins of the past need to be paid for by people who had nothing to do with that, that's bringing an injustice on innocent people, based upon the fact that they happen to be white males.


But historically, when you look at the bigger picture beyond the world of classical music, the _effects_ of one set of discrimination have been in no way similar to the effects of the other. Of course you don't believe for a second that the world's white male composers finding it harder to make a living is as great an injustice on the innocent as, say, slavery or marital rape. Therefore as far as I'm concerned the moralities of the two types of discrimination aren't equivalent either, on the broad scale or when specifically applied to a small area like classical music.



Kieran said:


> If this is political thinking, so be it. But my political thinking is telling us to let talent win through, regardless of gender or race - and yours is telling us that it should be based on group identities.


A more accurate depiction of my thinking is that talent should win through but that there are deep-seated systemic barriers relating to gender and race that can prevent it from doing so.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> But historically, when you look at the bigger picture beyond the world of classical music, the _effects_ of one set of discrimination have been in no way similar to the effects of the other. Of course you don't believe for a second that the world's white male composers finding it harder to make a living is as great an injustice on the innocent as, say, slavery or marital rape. Therefore as far as I'm concerned the moralities of the two types of discrimination aren't equivalent either, on the broad scale or when specifically applied to a small area like classical music.
> 
> A more accurate depiction of my thinking is that talent should win through but that there are deep-seated systemic barriers relating to gender and race that can prevent it from doing so.


Good god; life is 'unfair'. Somebody could complain that short people do worse than tall. On and on it goes. Much of this discussion has at its heart the notion of victim hood, which has been inculcated into the population for reasons of political expediency. We could return to the soviet model of 'equality' - yeah, everybody's got a job and nobody's doing anything! Or China where the state listens in to everything and the peoples' every utterance and action is controlled. Under such a system classical music THRIVES. I'm sure the Chinese don't see themselves as victims.

I'm sorry I started this thread.


----------



## superhorn

While I'm opposed to the idea of "quotas" for programming by orchestras or for scheduling operatic repertoire , I do think it's a really good idea to give more composers, living or dead , who are not white males a chance to be heard . 
Like it nor not, "dead white European males " created classical music and are the basis of the repertoire as a whole . But there is absolutely no reason why more music by women composers, ones who are black, Hispanic, Asian or whatever should not be performed more often . And this has definitely been happening in recent years . The world of classical music is big enough to accommodate a wide variety of people and ideas . There is no conflict between old and new, familiar and unfamiliar in classical music . They are not mutually exclusive .


----------



## Flamme

Oh, no one can escape lashes of a Whip of political correctness...


----------



## Kieran

superhorn said:


> While I'm opposed to the idea of "quotas" for programming by orchestras or for scheduling operatic repertoire , I do think it's a really good idea to give more composers, living or dead , who are not white males a chance to be heard .
> Like it nor not, "dead white European males " created classical music and are the basis of the repertoire as a whole . But there is absolutely no reason why more music by women composers, ones who are black, Hispanic, Asian or whatever should not be performed more often . And this has definitely been happening in recent years . The world of classical music is big enough to accommodate a wide variety of people and ideas . There is no conflict between old and new, familiar and unfamiliar in classical music . They are not mutually exclusive .


But this will happen as a natural matter of course. As you say, in recent years people are trying out different composers. Looking for different things. Some people are tired of the old white male default setting - and they're searching for newness, even in the neglected past. This is how the market works. You can't force people to like anything. But when you force them to listen to music because it's the PC thing to do, you set music in chains, and stifle creativity...


----------



## Selby

I read this whole thread. I would like to take a moment to express gratitude for Woodduck's even tempered and thoughtful responses.


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> If you thought Shoenberg was a great composer _*simply because you racially profiled him*_, well, I'd hate to be your neighbour..


I'm open to the idea that I may have given Schonberg more of a chance because he was from Vienna, because he was a teacher, a painter, a "Renaissance man"; an uncompromising artist who challenged everyone's notion of what music should be. I also have had always had, as part of my personal make-up, a certain empathy for the underdog, and in a way I saw Schonberg as a man against the world.

I gave his music a chance because I wanted to like his music even though most of it made no sense to me for years. If that disqualifies me from being your neighbor, then I admit I'm not a perfect person.

Did you ever want to like or dislike someone based upon a first impression?

If not, then you're my hero, and I can longer debate your level of human, nay, God-like, perfection.


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> I'm open to the idea that I may have given Schonberg more of a chance because he was from Vienna, because he was a teacher, a painter, a "Renaissance man"; an uncompromising artist who challenged everyone's notion of what music should be. I also have had always had, as part of my personal make-up, a certain empathy for the underdog, and in a way I saw Schonberg as a man against the world.
> 
> I gave his music a chance because I wanted to like his music even though most of it made no sense to me for years. If that disqualifies me from being your neighbor, then I admit I'm not a perfect person.
> 
> Did you ever want to like or dislike someone based upon a first impression?
> 
> If not, then you're my hero, and I can longer debate your level of human, nay, God-like, perfection.


You're confusing me now, regarding Schoenberg: you say you considered him to be a great composer because he fit the stereotype of privileged white Viennese male musician. He was from that caste. He looked every inch the insider.

Now you're saying you really had a soft spot for him because he was a bit of an underdog?

I've often made mistakes of judgment too, I'm nobody's hero, but aren't your posts regarding Schoenberg proof that maybe letting talent prove itself is better than making huge career-shaking decisions based upon extra factors which have nothing to do with music, and which maybe similarly erroneous?


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> You're confusing me now, regarding Schoenberg: you say you considered him to be a great composer because he fit the stereotype of privileged white Viennese male musician. He was from that caste. He looked every inch the insider.
> 
> Now you're saying you really had a soft spot for him because he was a bit of an underdog?


Could it have been a bit of both, is or is that not allowed in your world view?



Kieran said:


> I've often made mistakes of judgment too, I'm nobody's hero, but aren't your posts regarding Schoenberg proof that maybe letting talent prove itself is better than making huge career-shaking decisions based upon extra factors which have nothing to do with music, and which maybe similarly erroneous?


My point is that it's human nature to prejudge. We prejudge all the time based upon gender, race, mannerisms, religion, clothing, looks and so-forth. Isn't it better that we realize it, understand it, and try to do something to expand our view?


----------



## Kieran

Boston Charlie said:


> We prejudge all the time based upon gender, race, mannerisms, religion, clothing, looks and so-forth. Isn't it better that we realize it, understand it, and try to do something to expand our view?


Totally agree. Prejudging based on gender, race, etc, is bad. We should always try to do better. Now tell that to the BBC Proms before they set a terrible precedence in 2022...


----------



## Boston Charlie

Kieran said:


> Totally agree. Prejudging based on gender, race, etc, is bad. We should always try to do better. Now tell that to the BBC Proms before they set a terrible precedence in 2022...


I feel as though I've expressed my point as clearly as was possible. Thanks to "Woodduck" and "Enthusiasm" for their balanced, and I think, enlightened points of view, on this matter. Life's to short to take another turn at this, I'm going to have to let Kieran have the last word.


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> Totally agree. Prejudging based on gender, race, etc, is bad. We should always try to do better. Now tell that to the BBC Proms before they set a terrible precedence in 2022...


The thing about these progressive ideologies is that the people promulgating them think everybody else feels the same as they do. They actually don't. The majority of people are quietly conservative and don't want victim-mongering as part of their lives. Far from its general acceptance, these kinds of initiatives are formulated by outliers who want to make a name for themselves.


----------



## Nereffid

Christabel said:


> I'm sorry I started this thread.


Don't worry. I and the other progressives will hold a rally in solidarity with your hurt feelings.


----------



## Selby

Christabel said:


> The thing about these progressive ideologies is that the people promulgating them think everybody else feels the same as they do. They actually don't. The majority of people are quietly conservative and don't want victim-mongering as part of their lives. Far from its general acceptance, these kinds of initiatives are formulated by outliers who want to make a name for themselves.


Honest question: Do you actually believe you know what the _majority of people_ are?


----------



## Flamme

Nereffid said:


> Don't worry. I and the other progressives will hold a rally in solidarity with your hurt feelings.


----------



## Guest

Selby said:


> Honest question: Do you actually believe you know what the _majority of people_ are?


Not progressive.


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Don't worry. I and the other progressives will hold a rally in solidarity with your hurt feelings.


All six of you; thanks so much. Be sure to sing from the song-sheet and don't say anything remotely individual. I'm into 'diversity of thought' myself.


----------



## Selby

Christabel said:


> Not progressive.


Seriously though: I'm curious if you think you are tapped-into what the "majority of people" _are_, or what they think/feel/believe. You obfuscated the question.


----------



## Rika

Christabel said:


> The thing about these progressive ideologies is that the people promulgating them think everybody else feels the same as they do. They actually don't. The majority of people are quietly conservative and don't want victim-mongering as part of their lives. Far from its general acceptance, these kinds of initiatives are formulated by outliers who want to make a name for themselves.


That's obvious ideological nonsense, considering you don't know what the majority of people are "quietly thinking." Secondly, victim-mongering may be a part of very far-left ideology, but it is not a part of the mainstream left, no matter how often right and far-right ideologues try to pretend otherwise.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> The thing about these progressive ideologies is that the people promulgating them think everybody else feels the same as they do.


...


Christabel said:


> The majority of people are quietly conservative and don't want victim-mongering as part of their lives.


Brilliant. Within the same post as well. You criticise people who apparently claim to know the minds of other people and then.... you claim to know the minds of other people.


----------



## KenOC

Rika said:


> That's obvious ideological nonsense, considering you don't know what the majority of people are "quietly thinking." Secondly, victim-mongering may be a part of very far-left ideology, but it is not a part of the mainstream left, no matter how often right and far-right ideologues try to pretend otherwise.


I was a bit peeved the other day when I read of a museum selling off a good part of its collection because white males were over-represented. The plan is to replace the lost items with art by women and minorities.

Then I read what they were getting rid of (starting with Warhol) and I nodded and thought, "Maybe a good idea after all."


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> I was a bit peeved the other day when I read of a museum selling off a good part of its collection because white males were over-represented. The plan is to replace the lost items with art by women and minorities.
> 
> Then I read what they were getting rid of (starting with Warhol) and I nodded and thought, "Maybe a good idea after all."


I find I'm often in agreement with much of what you write!! The other day I watched "The Battle of Britain" again on TV. When I contemplated those horrendous losses it occurred to me that all those pilots were simply exercising their white privilege. Same with the impoverished and jobless miners in the north of England after the Depression. They went to war to exercise the same privilege.

Wouldn't you think they would have at least acknowledged that they were on a good thing!!!??


----------



## science

When did this place become a safe space for the alt-right?

Classical music has always been cosmopolitan, from William of Aquitaine learning from Arabic songs to the adoption of the rebec and guitar right up to contemporary composers studying gamelan and Japanese opera and African drumming.

That's right! *African* drumming.

The elite are cosmopolitan, and so is our music, and we always will be, and so will our music.

To try to turn classical music into an expression of any kind of ethno-nationalism is not only a denial of the reality of its current demographics - if Asians aren't already the majority of classical music listeners, performers, and composers, they soon will be - but an unwelcome and repulsive betrayal of its tradition.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> The other day I watched "The Battle of Britain" again on TV. When I contemplated those horrendous losses it occurred to me that all those pilots were simply exercising their white privilege.


Is this sarcasm?


----------



## Guest

dogen said:


> Is this sarcasm?


What do you think?


----------



## Guest

science said:


> When did this place become a safe space for the alt-right?
> 
> Classical music has always been cosmopolitan, from William of Aquitaine learning from Arabic songs to the adoption of the rebec and guitar right up to contemporary composers studying gamelan and Japanese opera and African drumming.
> 
> That's right! *African* drumming.
> 
> The elite are cosmopolitan, and so is our music, and we always will be, and so will our music.
> 
> To try to turn classical music into an expression of any kind of ethno-nationalism is not only a denial of the reality of its current demographics - if Asians aren't already the majority of classical music listeners, performers, and composers, they soon will be - but an unwelcome and repulsive betrayal of its tradition.


Anybody who isn't extreme Left these days is 'alt right'. Pretty funny!!


----------



## Enthusiast

Christabel said:


> Anybody who isn't extreme Left these days is 'alt right'. Pretty funny!!


Or is it that from the far right everyone who disagrees with you seems to be extreme left? On a more serious note, perspectives change the way things look but we can normally get beyond that by midway through our childhoods. So I know you are not at the extreme edge of the right - even though your views seem far to the right of mine - and expect that you know I'm not a Marxist. We can all spot the defining features of these positions but there is a general trend - some say it is caused by the internet - for people to move further towards one pole or the other. It is something we should all, perhaps, be aware of and guard against.


----------



## Guest

Christabel said:


> What do you think?


Because of the content in previous posts I genuinely couldn't be sure one way or the other.


----------



## bz3

science said:


> When did this place become a safe space for the alt-right?
> 
> Classical music has always been cosmopolitan, from William of Aquitaine learning from Arabic songs to the adoption of the rebec and guitar right up to contemporary composers studying gamelan and Japanese opera and African drumming.
> 
> That's right! *African* drumming.
> 
> The elite are cosmopolitan, and so is our music, and we always will be, and so will our music.
> 
> To try to turn classical music into an expression of any kind of ethno-nationalism is not only a denial of the reality of its current demographics - if Asians aren't already the majority of classical music listeners, performers, and composers, they soon will be - but an unwelcome and repulsive betrayal of its tradition.


Classical music is an entirely European tradition. The fact that some composers drew inspiration from other cultures makes classical music no more Arabic or Chinese than the idea that Schopenhauer's Eastern philosophical influences makes continental European philosophy Chinese.

Put in reverse because I could see you agreeing with the latter ludicrous comparison, much of early Islamic thought is derived heavily from Hellenistic influence. Would you say that Islamic culture in the Golden Age of Islam is Greek? Only a fool incapable of categorical thought would think so. It is peculiar how this particular amendment to history works only in one direction, however...


----------



## Varick

*CHRISTABEL *Wrote: _"The thing about these progressive ideologies is that the people promulgating them think everybody else feels the same as they do. They actually don't. The majority of people are quietly conservative and don't want victim-mongering as part of their lives. Far from its general acceptance, these kinds of initiatives are formulated by outliers who want to make a name for themselves."_

*RIKA* wrote: _"That's obvious ideological nonsense, considering you don't know what the majority of people are "quietly thinking." Secondly, victim-mongering may be a part of very far-left ideology, but it is not a part of the mainstream left, no matter how often right and far-right ideologues try to pretend otherwise."_

You are both wrong for the same reasons. The victim culture has become main stream leftist mentality. It is being taught in elementary schools all the way through college. People are getting degrees on how to become victims and are being taught how to be offended. There are stories every day in the main stream media about how someone is a victim of S.I.X.H.I.R.B. (Sexism, Intolerance, Xenophobia, Homophobia, Islamophobia, Racism, and Bigotry).

V


----------



## Varick

Boston Charlie said:


> _That would be a nice ideal if it had ever existed, but the fact is, at least here in the United States, that people have always been chosen for jobs based upon their background; and that has always favored: rich, White, Christian, males. You can complain that someone got a job because their name happened to be Jose Rodriguez or Derrick Washington or Ming Wong or Mary, Jane or Alice; but the fact is that the majority of American history people have always been given preference because of their name or who they knew or who they were related to. Here in the Boston area, there has always been a system that favored blatant favoritism and nepotism in regards to city jobs that favored Whites. I know that quotas and programs such as affirmative action are flawed and not fair to everyone, but if you can think of another way to break that system of people "letting in their own" without some kind of mandated diversity program in the hiring process, I'd be glad to hear it._


There has always been an element of "who you know" when it comes to jobs or favors, but that is nothing exclusive to the USA, it has been common throughout world history. Less so in the US especially in the last 70 or so years. Has it existed? Absolutely. But businesses modeled on the free market is the greatest enemy against such things for the simple reason that in order for a company or person to be the best in their field, they want to hire the best. The best is the best. Sometimes the best is black, female, gay, Muslim, foreign, white, male, etc, etc. That is how you rise to the top and beat out your competition and gain a larger market share. Yes, it really is that simple.

And it when it comes to Boston, or any other Metropolis with government jobs, I agree, there has been favoritism towards nepotism or familiarity. One only has to look at the history of the vast majority of the ruling party in those metropolis' in the past 50-70 years to know why.

V


----------



## Varick

Christabel said:


> Excellent comments so far to this article which, I think, was balanced and reasonable. I think this is key to much of the current debate over diversity:
> 
> _It is truly one of the saddest ironies of our time that those most vocal about diversity cannot see the merits of such individuals beyond their Y chromosomes or the melanin in their skin._
> 
> "Diversity" is essentially an arid argument, in my opinion, wrapped up in ideological and doctrinaire clothing. The best method of creating 'fairness' in the workplace/creative world (an emotive word anyway, which I'd expect to hear a child use in a playground) is within the supply and demand chain. If you read about James Damore and his experience with Google (he was sacked) you'll see that there isn't a scintilla of 'fairness' or 'diversity' at Google, just a repressive regime of conformity to the corporate ideology of - ironically - 'diversity'. Whenever you start the 'diversity' argument, or one based on identity politics, you're certain to lose. It has a self-defeating circularity about it which can be used by your opponents. In short, everybody can play THAT game. And it *IS* a game.
> 
> As to 'diversity' in the concert hall; I don't know if anybody has noticed the fact that 20 million Chinese children are learning the piano, that a South Korean won the last Chopin Competition, that orchestras are filled with people from many nations and that the El Sistema program in Venezuela spectacularly drew international attention to the love of serious music by ordinary, impoverished youth. And they play magnificently.
> 
> As to whether we ought to pay a lot of money to go to a live performance and hear a program based on affirmative action; I wouldn't go myself for that reason. I attend a lot of high-quality live concerts - in fact, they are of such a high quality that I'm less inclined to attend anything which doesn't feature the world's very best artists. Most of the time I attend because of the artist or orchestra - the program is secondary. I've heard 'contemporary' pieces sandwiched into programs of more traditional fare and I can tell you that's more exposure than Beethoven or Schubert or Bach ever got outside their small coteries.
> 
> Western European classical music is as per the descriptor; an art form which arose because of the Catholic Church, the Enlightenment and wealthy patronage. You simply need to be wealthy to be able to afford the "infrastructure" which facilitates such an art form - from venues, to instruments, to music schools. Western European classical music has been a proxy for rising wealth, intellectual and artistic movements and independence of thought. I'm on my knees much of the time thanking god for it!!
> 
> Tamper with that at your peril.


Outstanding post!

V


----------



## mmsbls

This thread is about diversity in the _concert hall_. Political comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with classical music should not be posted. Please focus your comments on music and musicians.


----------



## Varick

WOODUCK, I have always enjoyed your posts here on TC. This thread is no exception. You have a calm and reasoned approach to debate/discussion. However, I do have to take issue when you ask, _"Has anyone here advocated that society institute a massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music? Did I miss that when it was proposed? Has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system drawn up in some sociology professor's ivory tower? Did I miss that too?"_

Actually Boston Charlie advocated it when he stated,_ "I don't know who you're talking to but since I'm the only one here who seems to be in favor of *some kind of mandated policy* that ensures that ethnic minorities and women are guaranteed a more even chance at acquiring jobs."_ And I don't mean to single him out. NEREFFID seems to be gung ho about the idea as well. The article that started this thread mentions it. It's not just in music, it's everywhere in every industry that it's being advocated.

You are far too intelligent and well informed to feign ignorance of the push for systems of racial and gender quotas in almost everything. Sports may be the only exception because the negative results of such policies are too glaringly obvious.

My biggest problem is the base philosophy of this entire subject: That race or gender matters. I am baffled when I hear people say things like We need a female or gay or hispanic or [enter group here] President or more women in science and mathematics or more [group] in [place, position, or occupation]... as if it matters.

How about wanting excellence, regardless of what it is? I want excellent medical scientists researching cures for cancer, and if the majority of the best happen to be female, black, lesbian Muslims, then so be it. But if the majority of the best happen to be white, male, heterosexual, Christians, then that's fine too. It's a joke when I hear people on the left saying things like, "we need/should have more women or blacks or hispanics in the Congress and Senate and in the judiciary." They leave out a vital word, "Leftist" These people don't want "Conservative" women, blacks, or hispanics in those positions, so it's intellectually dishonest. So they leave out the word and pat themselves on the back because they sound so righteous, lofty, and moral by stroking it with the broad category of a group.

We are all biased, and we are all biased to our values. Period. Nothing hit that home to me more than when I saw a conservative speaker ask an auditorium of conservatives (about 1,500) to raise their hand if they would rather have the Supreme Court filled with

A. Nine, white, male, heterosexual, Christian leftists or
B. Nine, black, female, gay, Athiest, conservatives.

Not one hand went up for group A and every hand went up for group B. The point is, we don't give a rat's @$5 what color your skin is, whether or not you squat or stand for #1, who you like to sleep with, or what God you pray to. We care about the value of excellence. Period!

That is what music and composers should be about too. Excellence.

V


----------



## Woodduck

Varick said:


> WOODUCK, I have always enjoyed your posts here on TC. This thread is no exception. You have a calm and reasoned approach to debate/discussion. However, I do have to take issue when you ask, _"Has anyone here advocated that society institute a massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music? Did I miss that when it was proposed? Has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system drawn up in some sociology professor's ivory tower? Did I miss that too?"_
> 
> Actually Boston Charlie advocated it when he stated,_ "I don't know who you're talking to but since I'm the only one here who seems to be in favor of *some kind of mandated policy* that ensures that ethnic minorities and women are guaranteed a more even chance at acquiring jobs."_ And I don't mean to single him out. NEREFFID seems to be gung ho about the idea as well. The article that started this thread mentions it. It's not just in music, it's everywhere in every industry that it's being advocated.
> 
> You are far too intelligent and well informed to feign ignorance of the push for systems of racial and gender quotas in almost everything. Sports may be the only exception because the negative results of such policies are too glaringly obvious.
> 
> My biggest problem is the base philosophy of this entire subject: That race or gender matters. I am baffled when I hear people say things like We need a female or gay or hispanic or [enter group here] President or more women in science and mathematics or more [group] in [place, position, or occupation]... as if it matters.
> 
> How about wanting excellence, regardless of what it is? I want excellent medical scientists researching cures for cancer, and if the majority of the best happen to be female, black, lesbian Muslims, then so be it. But if the majority of the best happen to be white, male, heterosexual, Christians, then that's fine too. It's a joke when I hear people on the left saying things like, "we need/should have more women or blacks or hispanics in the Congress and Senate and in the judiciary." They leave out a vital word, "Leftist" These people don't want "Conservative" women, blacks, or hispanics in those positions, so it's intellectually dishonest. So they leave out the word and pat themselves on the back because they sound so righteous, lofty, and moral by stroking it with the broad category of a group.
> 
> We are all biased, and we are all biased to our values. Period. Nothing hit that home to me more than when I saw a conservative speaker ask an auditorium of conservatives (about 1,500) to raise their hand if they would rather have the Supreme Court filled with
> 
> A. Nine, white, male, heterosexual, Christian leftists or
> B. Nine, black, female, gay, Athiest, conservatives.
> 
> Not one hand went up for group A and every hand went up for group B. The point is, we don't give a rat's @$5 what color your skin is, whether or not you squat or stand for #1, who you like to sleep with, or what God you pray to. We care about the value of excellence. Period!
> 
> That is what music and composers should be about too. Excellence.
> 
> V


There are just too many generalizations and overstatements here, Varick. Boston Charlie's phrase "some kind of mandated policy" hardly answers to my "massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music," and my question, "has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system..." hasn't, so far as I can see, been answered in the affirmative by anyone here. I'm sure there are people (on what's called the "far left") who would institute such an extensive, rigid, unnatural regime, but that isn't what most people have in mind when they want some sort of intervention to bring otherwise neglected people a degree of notice and fairness they'd be unlikely to receive otherwise. I'm generally opposed to setting quotas in pursuit of this objective, but there are surely less drastic approaches to the matter being implemented every day.

We should all want excellence and reward it where we find it, but excellence often goes unrecognized when it comes in the "wrong" sort of package. This will be mysterious or surprising only to those who think that human choices are generally governed by reason, and that all choices are susceptible to being so governed. Life is not the meritocracy we'd like to think it is, and social interactions swim in a murky sea of mythology, tribalism, prejudice, nepotism, bribery, intimidation, and sheer accident. When people actually get what they deserve, it's something to cheer, but nothing to take for granted.

There's more than one good reason for wanting to see more minorities in prominent positions, depending on the field we're talking about. Uncovering ability and achievement otherwise likely to be overlooked is one reason applicable to just about any field. Having people able to understand, and sympathetic to, the circumstances and needs of associates and constituents is another reason, applicable to business and politics. Of course the presence of minority individuals doesn't guarantee any such result, and so it's natural that those seeking out those individuals hope they will have a consciousness and concern characteristic of a certain political orientation. They aren't "intellectually dishonest" for not stating the obvious.

The example you cite of the "auditorium of conservatives" putting ideology first in considering supreme court justices amuses me, since it doesn't say what you think it says. Everyone knows that the supreme court has become a political battleground; that show of hands was obviously not about "the value of excellence," but the value of _power_ - of "getting our way." And besides, who wants to admit publicly to being prejudiced against blacks, gays, women, atheists, etc., etc.? Thanks to political correctness, those prejudices are now expressed in more covert ways than they once were (although expressing them overtly is lately enjoying something of a revival).

Admirable as your advocacy of excellence may be, I sense here a fairly complete obliviousness to the very human forces, in the soul and in society, which make the road to excellence so much harder to travel for some than for others. I agree that "affirmative action" and "identity politics" are taken by some to extremes, but the "negative action" to which it's a reaction represents the original identity politics, the primal "us" versus "them."


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> There has always been an element of "who you know" when it comes to jobs or favors, but that is nothing exclusive to the USA, it has been common throughout world history. Less so in the US especially in the last 70 or so years. Has it existed? Absolutely. But businesses modeled on the free market is the greatest enemy against such things for the simple reason that in order for a company or person to be the best in their field, they want to hire the best. The best is the best. Sometimes the best is black, female, gay, Muslim, foreign, white, male, etc, etc. That is how you rise to the top and beat out your competition and gain a larger market share. Yes, it really is that simple.
> 
> And it when it comes to Boston, or any other Metropolis with government jobs, I agree, there has been favoritism towards nepotism or familiarity. One only has to look at the history of the vast majority of the ruling party in those metropolis' in the past 50-70 years to know why.
> 
> V


What you forget is the importance (primacy in some situations) of trust. People trust people who seem to be like them. It isn't corrupt. It is just human nature. But it slows things down, leads to the best not always getting the chances they deserve (whether from an employer, concert programmer, audience). We all lose from this. There _are _problems with "positive discrimination" but its purpose is not at root ideological.


----------



## Nereffid

Varick said:


> WOODUCK, I have always enjoyed your posts here on TC. This thread is no exception. You have a calm and reasoned approach to debate/discussion. However, I do have to take issue when you ask, _"Has anyone here advocated that society institute a massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music? Did I miss that when it was proposed? Has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system drawn up in some sociology professor's ivory tower? Did I miss that too?"_
> 
> Actually Boston Charlie advocated it when he stated,_ "I don't know who you're talking to but since I'm the only one here who seems to be in favor of *some kind of mandated policy* that ensures that ethnic minorities and women are guaranteed a more even chance at acquiring jobs."_ And I don't mean to single him out. NEREFFID seems to be gung ho about the idea as well. The article that started this thread mentions it. It's not just in music, it's everywhere in every industry that it's being advocated.


As my name was invoked, I'll step back in. I'm totally in favour, as a general principle, of individual organisations having policies that will help bring to roughly population-reflective levels the representation of groups that have in the past been deliberately excluded. I don't support, and I'm pretty sure I've never suggested, that there should be a society-wide or even industry-wide quota system. My basic suggestion is a general rule of thumb: when you have a bunch of candidates that are roughly equal in all other respects, make sure you get a reasonable balance of genders and ethnicities.



Varick said:


> My biggest problem is the base philosophy of this entire subject: That race or gender matters. I am baffled when I hear people say things like We need a female or gay or hispanic or [enter group here] President or more women in science and mathematics or more [group] in [place, position, or occupation]... as if it matters.


I'm sure you believe, like me, that race or gender _shouldn't_ matter. But can you please point to the date in history on which race or gender actually ceased to matter? Black people were enslaved or lynched because they were black, women were treated as chattel because they were women, gay people were jailed because they were gay. Those things may have ended, but it's hopelessly naive to think that the slate has been completely wiped clean and that there are no longlasting effects. We "need" a female president or more people of colour in orchestras, or whatever, because if race or gender don't matter, then we would have got them already. The longer we don't have them, the more it seems like race and gender do matter.


----------



## Enthusiast

Nereffid said:


> As my name was invoked, I'll step back in. I'm totally in favour, as a general principle, of individual organisations having policies that will help bring to roughly population-reflective levels the representation of groups that have in the past been deliberately excluded. I don't support, and I'm pretty sure I've never suggested, that there should be a society-wide or even industry-wide quota system. My basic suggestion is a general rule of thumb: when you have a bunch of candidates that are roughly equal in all other respects, make sure you get a reasonable balance of genders and ethnicities.
> 
> I'm sure you believe, like me, that race or gender _shouldn't_ matter. But can you please point to the date in history on which race or gender actually ceased to matter? Black people were enslaved or lynched because they were black, women were treated as chattel because they were women, gay people were jailed because they were gay. Those things may have ended, but it's hopelessly naive to think that the slate has been completely wiped clean and that there are no longlasting effects. We "need" a female president or more people of colour in orchestras, or whatever, because if race or gender don't matter, then we would have got them already. The longer we don't have them, the more it seems like race and gender do matter.


Amen. Surely all can agree to this?


----------



## science

bz3 said:


> Classical music is an entirely European tradition. The fact that some composers drew inspiration from other cultures makes classical music no more Arabic or Chinese than the idea that Schopenhauer's Eastern philosophical influences makes continental European philosophy Chinese.
> 
> Put in reverse because I could see you agreeing with the latter ludicrous comparison, much of early Islamic thought is derived heavily from Hellenistic influence. Would you say that Islamic culture in the Golden Age of Islam is Greek? Only a fool incapable of categorical thought would think so. *It is peculiar how this particular amendment to history works only in one direction, however...*


First, the straw man. I didn't write that classical music is "Arabic or Chinese." There is no need for me to defend something that I didn't claim; but it interesting to note the fact that you set that up to knock it down rather than attempting to deny the actual point I made.

Second, about the last line, bold added: this looks like a persecution complex. In reality, EVERYONE who knows anything about Islamic culture in its golden age knows that it was very cosmopolitan.

But of course you framed this within your straw man. No one would claim that the Islamic Golden Age was _merely_ Hellenistic, just as no one would claim that any other example of cosmopolitan influence reduced anything to merely one influence. Just as I didn't claim that in the post whose point you ignored as you built up that straw man.

Perhaps all golden ages are cosmopolitan.

But what if something were merely European. Would that mean it's not cosmopolitan?

The concept of "Europe" is itself cosmopolitan, encompassing a huge variety between Spain and Russia, Ireland and Romania, Italy and Sweden, Iceland and Portugal, Armenia and Albania, Ukraine and Andorra. It intentionally embraces ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient Celts, Vikings, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, _and Muslims_.

It is not something that, for example, the Nazis would embrace.

Which is why they could not have a full picture of the European traditions, including music.

Also, the concept of "Europe" has generally broadened over time. It did not always include Scandinavia, the Baltic, Russia, the Balkans, or for that matter, Ireland. "European" now often includes Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United States.

In our day, European culture has spread around the globe, been adopted with varying degrees of eagerness, and now the old empires are writing back. The novel has become a global genre. Science has become a global enterprise. Chess, soccer, cricket, basketball, and baseball are played around the world.

It's no less true of the European musical tradition. Again - embrace this as the truth - if Asians aren't already the majority of classical music listeners, performers, and composers, _they soon will be_. Over the past five centuries, many great contributions have also come from Latin America. African-American and Native American influences, via the United States but also various French and Spanish colonies and former colonies, have been significant for over a century.

Projecting any contemporary concept of "Europe" onto the Middle Ages, Renaissance, or any other period of history before about 1945, regardless of the political motivations for doing so, distorts everything about those times and places.


----------



## Nereffid

science said:


> Also, the concept of "Europe" has generally broadened over time. It did not always include Scandinavia, the Baltic, Russia, the Balkans, or for that matter, Ireland.


Ireland not considered part of Europe? Depending on who you asked, it's not that long ago that we weren't even part of the _human race_! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> Ireland not considered part of Europe? Depending on who you asked, it's not that long ago that we weren't even part of the _human race_! :lol:


In the political sense, soon Ireland will be part of Europe whilst the UK will not.


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> In the political sense, soon Ireland will be part of Europe whilst the UK will not.


No, the UK will still be part of Europe. The EU isn't Europe...


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> No, the UK will still be part of Europe. The EU isn't Europe...


I disagree. _Politically_ the EU _is _ Europe. I agree the UK will still be on the same tectonic plate though.


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> I disagree. _Politically_ the EU _is _ Europe. I agree the UK will still be on the same tectonic plate though.


Politically, the EU consists of its member states, only. Europe is a continent, a large geographical space that includes many nations that aren't members of the EU, including Switzerland and Russia. It's a massive misnomer to call the EU "Europe."


----------



## amfortas

Kieran said:


> Politically, the EU consists of its member states, only. Europe is a continent, a large geographical space that includes many nations that aren't members of the EU, including Switzerland and Russia. It's a massive misnomer to call the EU "Europe."


Maybe we could compromise, then, and call it something like . . . uh . . . the European *Union*?


----------



## Kieran

amfortas said:


> Maybe we could compromise, then, and call it something like . . . uh . . . the European *Union*?


:lol:

Then call it the European Union - which is what it is. The EU is not Europe, however. Europe is a continent: it's not a relatively recent political and economic union, and not all of the countries in Europe are members of the EU. The inference there would be that the many European countries which aren't in fact members of the EU are then also not in Europe, which is of course ridiculous.

I'm assuming, by the way, that both you and dogen are not from Europe, and so this can be an easy mistake to make, especially when the media so often mistakenly reported that Brexit was about the UK leaving "Europe..."


----------



## Guest

It does. It is a common mistake made by me and a lot of other Brits. The European Union is a political and economic union of 28 member states and is the largest economy in the world. The shorthand Brits use for that is "Europe."


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> It does. It is a common mistake made by me and a lot of other Brits. The European Union is a political and economic union of 28 member states and is the largest economy in the world. The shorthand Brits use for that is "Europe."


Which - as you say - is a commonly made mistake. Why you - as a Brit - would then argue that Europe is the EU is a matter for yourself. More interesting for me is why the media did this too...


----------



## Guest

Well...I think the media does it because that's what it's called by the British public, and always has been. In common parlance in the UK, Europe=the EU.


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> Well...I think the media does it because that's what it's generally called, and always has been.


By who?

The EU only came into existence about 25 years ago, so "always" is perhaps too generous a term.

Anyway, we helped our friend from Illinois to understand the difference between Europe and the EU, eh?


----------



## Guest

By who? I modified my post: the general British public. Because of this some Brexiteers have started trying to say "we're leaving the EU, not Europe"; precisely because the two are considered synonymous.

Always=since the UK joined the EU.


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> By who? I modified my post: the general British public. Because of this some Brexiteers have started trying to say "we're leaving the EU, not Europe"; precisely because the two are considered synonymous.
> 
> Always=since the UK joined the EU.


Sorry, I missed the modification but it didn't really change the substance of what you're saying. We both agree that when people refer to the EU as "Europe", that this is a mistake. The fact that it's a "common mistake" doesn't make it less of a mistake, however...


----------



## Guest

Sorry, but we don't agree. My reference to "common mistake" was tongue in cheek. In the UK, politically (as I said at the beginning) Europe _means_ the EU.


----------



## Kieran

dogen said:


> Sorry, but we don't agree. My reference to "common mistake" was tongue in cheek. In the UK, politically (as I said at the beginning) Europe _means_ the EU.


Then I'm sorry, but you're completely wrong. I suggest google. It'll locate Europe on a map. Then google Switzerland, and ask yourself where Switzerland is, if not in Europe. Of course, to you, "politically...Europe _means_ the EU", so perhaps Switzerland is in Asia, if only politically. 

I accept that when you use shorthand in this way, you don't actually believe that Europe and the EU are the same thing. I understand that much, but it's a lazy usage of a misleading term...


----------



## Guest

Suggest google and provide a map to explain it to the other 65 million Brits then :tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

Name identification will be tricky when the European Union falls apart.


----------



## bz3

science said:


> First, the straw man. I didn't write that classical music is "Arabic or Chinese." There is no need for me to defend something that I didn't claim; but it interesting to note the fact that you set that up to knock it down rather than attempting to deny the actual point I made.
> 
> Second, about the last line, bold added: this looks like a persecution complex. In reality, EVERYONE who knows anything about Islamic culture in its golden age knows that it was very cosmopolitan.
> 
> But of course you framed this within your straw man. No one would claim that the Islamic Golden Age was _merely_ Hellenistic, just as no one would claim that any other example of cosmopolitan influence reduced anything to merely one influence. Just as I didn't claim that in the post whose point you ignored as you built up that straw man.
> 
> Perhaps all golden ages are cosmopolitan.
> 
> But what if something were merely European. Would that mean it's not cosmopolitan?
> 
> The concept of "Europe" is itself cosmopolitan, encompassing a huge variety between Spain and Russia, Ireland and Romania, Italy and Sweden, Iceland and Portugal, Armenia and Albania, Ukraine and Andorra. It intentionally embraces ancient Greeks and Romans, ancient Celts, Vikings, Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox Christians, Jews, _and Muslims_.
> 
> It is not something that, for example, the Nazis would embrace.
> 
> Which is why they could not have a full picture of the European traditions, including music.
> 
> Also, the concept of "Europe" has generally broadened over time. It did not always include Scandinavia, the Baltic, Russia, the Balkans, or for that matter, Ireland. "European" now often includes Australia and New Zealand, Canada and the United States.
> 
> In our day, European culture has spread around the globe, been adopted with varying degrees of eagerness, and now the old empires are writing back. The novel has become a global genre. Science has become a global enterprise. Chess, soccer, cricket, basketball, and baseball are played around the world.
> 
> It's no less true of the European musical tradition. Again - embrace this as the truth - if Asians aren't already the majority of classical music listeners, performers, and composers, _they soon will be_. Over the past five centuries, many great contributions have also come from Latin America. African-American and Native American influences, via the United States but also various French and Spanish colonies and former colonies, have been significant for over a century.
> 
> Projecting any contemporary concept of "Europe" onto the Middle Ages, Renaissance, or any other period of history before about 1945, regardless of the political motivations for doing so, distorts everything about those times and places.


Nobody denies influences but you're arguing that every single product of culture is 'cosmopolitan.' I don't even know what you mean by that term, it sounds like something that a person who also says things like 'one race, the human race' would say. In any case that lack of nuance doesn't offer much to someone who wants to study the world's diverse cultures and peoples.


----------



## science

bz3 said:


> Nobody denies influences but you're arguing that every single product of culture is 'cosmopolitan.' I don't even know what you mean by that term, it sounds like something that a person who also says things like 'one race, the human race' would say. In any case that lack of nuance doesn't offer much to someone who wants to study the world's diverse cultures and peoples.


The truth is that nothing is pure.


----------



## KenOC

science said:


> The truth is that nothing is pure.


----------



## Kieran

Bulldog said:


> Name identification will be tricky when the European Union falls apart.


It shouldn't, really. For example, I'm Irish. If the EU collapsed, that wouldn't change, I'd still be Irish. If the EU endures, the same. I'm Irish, first and foremost. And as Nereffid said, now we're also included as members of the human race, there's that to deal with, too! :lol:


----------



## Guest

Bulldog said:


> Name identification will be tricky when the European Union falls apart.


One more amusement for Putin. It's easy here in the UK. Europe starts and finishes on the French coast. Of course the tricky name bit for us comes when the UK is no longer U.


----------



## Room2201974

(A "typical" exchange between members of the "thirty third county" and a "gentleman" from England):


Do you mind if we have it open? (Window)



Yes, I do.



Four of us want it open, if it's all the same to you.



It isn't. I travel on this train regularly twice a week......so I suppose I have some rights.



So have we.



(Turns blaring radio off) We'll have that thing off as well. Knowledge of the Railway Acts tell you I'm within my rights.



But we want to hear it. We're a community, majority vote, up the workers and all that stuff.



Then I suggest you take that damn thing into the corridor....or some other part of the train where you obviously belong.



Look, we paid for our seats too, you know.



I travel on this train regularly, twice a week.



Knock it off, Paul. You can't win with his sort. After all, it's his train. Isn't it, mister?



And don't take that tone with me, young man. I fought the war for your sort.



I bet you're sorry you won.



I shall call the guard.



Ah, but what? They don't take kindly to insults, you know. Let's go have some coffee and leave the kennel to Lassie. Hey, mister, can we have our ball back?


----------



## Haydn70

Varick said:


> WOODUCK, I have always enjoyed your posts here on TC. This thread is no exception. You have a calm and reasoned approach to debate/discussion. However, I do have to take issue when you ask, _"Has anyone here advocated that society institute a massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music? Did I miss that when it was proposed? Has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system drawn up in some sociology professor's ivory tower? Did I miss that too?"_
> 
> Actually Boston Charlie advocated it when he stated,_ "I don't know who you're talking to but since I'm the only one here who seems to be in favor of *some kind of mandated policy* that ensures that ethnic minorities and women are guaranteed a more even chance at acquiring jobs."_ And I don't mean to single him out. NEREFFID seems to be gung ho about the idea as well. The article that started this thread mentions it. It's not just in music, it's everywhere in every industry that it's being advocated.
> 
> You are far too intelligent and well informed to feign ignorance of the push for systems of racial and gender quotas in almost everything. Sports may be the only exception because the negative results of such policies are too glaringly obvious.
> 
> My biggest problem is the base philosophy of this entire subject: That race or gender matters. I am baffled when I hear people say things like We need a female or gay or hispanic or [enter group here] President or more women in science and mathematics or more [group] in [place, position, or occupation]... as if it matters.
> 
> How about wanting excellence, regardless of what it is? I want excellent medical scientists researching cures for cancer, and if the majority of the best happen to be female, black, lesbian Muslims, then so be it. But if the majority of the best happen to be white, male, heterosexual, Christians, then that's fine too. It's a joke when I hear people on the left saying things like, "we need/should have more women or blacks or hispanics in the Congress and Senate and in the judiciary." They leave out a vital word, "Leftist" These people don't want "Conservative" women, blacks, or hispanics in those positions, so it's intellectually dishonest. So they leave out the word and pat themselves on the back because they sound so righteous, lofty, and moral by stroking it with the broad category of a group.
> 
> We are all biased, and we are all biased to our values. Period. Nothing hit that home to me more than when I saw a conservative speaker ask an auditorium of conservatives (about 1,500) to raise their hand if they would rather have the Supreme Court filled with
> 
> A. Nine, white, male, heterosexual, Christian leftists or
> B. Nine, black, female, gay, Athiest, conservatives.
> 
> Not one hand went up for group A and every hand went up for group B. The point is, we don't give a rat's @$5 what color your skin is, whether or not you squat or stand for #1, who you like to sleep with, or what God you pray to. We care about the value of excellence. Period!
> 
> That is what music and composers should be about too. Excellence.
> 
> V


A superb series of posts, Varick...many thanks!


----------



## Haydn70

Christabel said:


> Excellent comments so far to this article which, I think, was balanced and reasonable. I think this is key to much of the current debate over diversity:
> 
> _It is truly one of the saddest ironies of our time that those most vocal about diversity cannot see the merits of such individuals beyond their Y chromosomes or the melanin in their skin._
> 
> "Diversity" is essentially an arid argument, in my opinion, wrapped up in ideological and doctrinaire clothing. The best method of creating 'fairness' in the workplace/creative world (an emotive word anyway, which I'd expect to hear a child use in a playground) is within the supply and demand chain. If you read about James Damore and his experience with Google (he was sacked) you'll see that there isn't a scintilla of 'fairness' or 'diversity' at Google, just a repressive regime of conformity to the corporate ideology of - ironically - 'diversity'. Whenever you start the 'diversity' argument, or one based on identity politics, you're certain to lose. It has a self-defeating circularity about it which can be used by your opponents. In short, everybody can play THAT game. And it *IS* a game.
> 
> As to 'diversity' in the concert hall; I don't know if anybody has noticed the fact that 20 million Chinese children are learning the piano, that a South Korean won the last Chopin Competition, that orchestras are filled with people from many nations and that the El Sistema program in Venezuela spectacularly drew international attention to the love of serious music by ordinary, impoverished youth. And they play magnificently.
> 
> As to whether we ought to pay a lot of money to go to a live performance and hear a program based on affirmative action; I wouldn't go myself for that reason. I attend a lot of high-quality live concerts - in fact, they are of such a high quality that I'm less inclined to attend anything which doesn't feature the world's very best artists. Most of the time I attend because of the artist or orchestra - the program is secondary. I've heard 'contemporary' pieces sandwiched into programs of more traditional fare and I can tell you that's more exposure than Beethoven or Schubert or Bach ever got outside their small coteries.
> 
> Western European classical music is as per the descriptor; an art form which arose because of the Catholic Church, the Enlightenment and wealthy patronage. You simply need to be wealthy to be able to afford the "infrastructure" which facilitates such an art form - from venues, to instruments, to music schools. Western European classical music has been a proxy for rising wealth, intellectual and artistic movements and independence of thought. I'm on my knees much of the time thanking god for it!!
> 
> Tamper with that at your peril.


Outstanding, Christabel...many thanks!


----------



## Nereffid

The _Composer Diversity Database_, a project created by Rob Deemer, is now up and running.

"The Composer Diversity Database was created to allow conductors, performers, presenters, educators, and researchers a tool with which to expand and broaden their scope of composers and repertoire."
With 3,679 composers and links to their websites, it's a fascinating resource for listeners, too.

Edit:
As dogen so subtly pointed out, I forgot to actually give the link!
https://composerdiversity.com/


----------



## Guest

For those of us who are incredibly lazy:

https://composerdiversity.com/


----------



## Kieran

I've been thinking a lot about this since we last discussed it, and these chaps have me convinced:


----------



## Guest

Kieran said:


> I've been thinking a lot about this since we last discussed it, and these chaps have me convinced:


"The right to promote the best man for the job, regardless of sex."

A brilliant comedy that has stood the test of time. I saw the Jay and Lynn play a year or two ago; well worth seeing.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

I have not read this entire thread, but I almost entirely agree with Woodduck's post on the matter. However, I would express my view in this way:

In terms of "diversity mandates" and similar forms of "affirmative action" I'm of two opposing mind-sets:

1. Ideally, all positions, awards, rewards, commissions, jobs, etc. would be based on merit. Skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality... nothing else would matter. I want a meritocracy where people earn whatever they get based on skill and talent.

2. I do not believe we live in in an ideal world. People see skin color, they see gender, they see orientation, and often ethnicity and nationality, and this knowledge inevitably influences their decisions of who to hire, award, reward, commission, etc. There are numerous studies that confirms that we don't have a "level playing field" in numerous real-world fields in the case of race, and I highly doubt that the arts are magically immune to this.

So the question is: how do we fix the problems created by NOT living in an ideal world where everyone is judged based on merit? Those that argue against affirmative action and quotas seem to believe that this is unfairly benefiting minorities, women, etc., as if the playing field was already level, as if they didn't face any kind of discrimination or disadvantages that might've lead to being overlooked to begin with. This is not a truthful assumption as the above article I linked to shows. The goal of any affirmative action shouldn't be to give anyone advantage, it should be to level an un-level playing field.

Now, even all that said, the idea of affirmative action itself might have numerous false assumptions. One such assumption is that there are an equal amount of minorities, women, etc. that are even competing in all fields, and this simply isn't true. It's very difficult to implement any system of affirmative action if you don't know what the "ideal" ratio should be, and the ideal ratio would greatly depend on the actual demographic competing for said jobs/positions (or in classical music, playtime at concert halls).

In my ideal world, it would be best if in every field would implement some kind of process by which people making judgments to hire or commission or award or reward simply didn't know the race, gender, ethnicities, etc. of those they were hiring. Without knowing those factors, one would ONLY be judging on merit alone. In science this is a well-known principle of blind testing, because when people know (or think they know) some facts about whatever thing they're judging, it's incredibly easy for them to intuitively infer false conclusions from those facts without ever even being aware they've done so (in medicine a famous example is the Placebo Effect; sometimes a patient just thinking they've been given a pill to help will alleviate symptoms). Unfortunately, this is impractical and perhaps impossible in many fields, so to me the only option IS some kind of affirmative action that tries to create a level playing field. Exactly what form that affirmative action can take is open for debate, but the response to the obvious existence of continued social unfairness can't be nothing, just continuing with the status quo.


----------



## Enthusiast

dogen said:


> One more amusement for Putin. It's easy here in the UK. Europe starts and finishes on the French coast. Of course the tricky name bit for us comes when the UK is no longer U.


Even England is far less U than it once seemed.


----------



## Enthusiast

Eva Yojimbo said:


> In terms of "diversity mandates" and similar forms of "affirmative action" I'm of two opposing mind-sets:
> 
> 1. Ideally, all positions, awards, rewards, commissions, jobs, etc. would be based on merit. Skin color, gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, nationality... nothing else would matter. I want a meritocracy where people earn whatever they get based on skill and talent.
> 
> 2. I do not believe we live in in an ideal world. People see skin color, they see gender, they see orientation, and often ethnicity and nationality, and this knowledge inevitably influences their decisions of who to hire, award, reward, commission, etc. There are numerous studies that confirms that we don't have a "level playing field" in numerous real-world fields in the case of race, and I highly doubt that the arts are magically immune to this.


And there is so much evidence on this site that two people will have two (at least) different views on where the merit lies. So, yes, people trust people like themselves. And even if they try not to they will not agree on which others are worthy. "Artificial" policies can perhaps help to overcome this. They are problematic but not as problematic as the results of leaving things to chance.


----------



## Varick

Enthusiast said:


> And there is so much evidence on this site that two people will have two (at least) different views on where the merit lies. So, yes, people trust people like themselves. And even if they try not to they will not agree on which others are worthy. "Artificial" policies can perhaps help to overcome this. They are problematic but not as problematic as the results of leaving things to chance.


Well, nothing is left to "chance" if a meritocracy is in place. Then things are left to merit.

I have noticed throughout life when meeting someone who professes that "everyone" is out to screw you ("you" as in anyone), get one over on you, or take advantage of you to benefit themselves, they are usually the ones who will be the first to screw you over. Much like the person who thinks most people are happy and easy going is usually because they are pretty happy and easy going themselves. People's view of the world is often a projection of their view of themselves.

I know we all, as humans, have built in biases. Umpteen experiments have shown this time and time again. Most of those experiments are done in a quick, split-second decision scenario, and it clearly shows our learned and/or built in biases. There have also been experiments that have shown that when placed in important decision making positions, 1. very few of these decisions require quick, split-decision scenarios and 2. Most people take time and think things through, often making a decision counter to what their quick-split decision biases have shown.

Another thing, I've noticed is that those on the left are the ones who are pro affirmative action, hiring quotas, and equality of outcome. They are teaching in public schools and colleges that there are two kinds if racist: Those who know it and those who don't. ie: Everyone (at least everyone who is white) is racist. They tout constantly about how sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.) society (especially the US) is. I can't think if a more vile, disgusting, and preposterous notion. They believe this nonsense because THEY are the ones who are SIXHIRB. So, they project this on everyone as to assuage their own guilt in order to pat themselves on the back so they can say, "see, at least I admit my own bigotry." It is projection and they do this constantly, and I categorically reject it.

We all have obstacles, shortcomings, barriers that other's do not have. If you truly want a barrier that will statistically hold you back many times more than any ghost remnants of the disgusting blatant bigotry of the past? Grow up in a single parent home. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. By every measure you have a much higher chance of mental and emotional instability, drug addiction, school drop out rate, criminal behavior, suicide, and the list goes on and on, than you do if you come from a two parent home. And no, I am not saying you can't be a pillar of virtue and success and mental/emotional/spiritual balance if you come from a one parent home. It's just that statistically, it's a much longer shot.

I just find it strange, that the ones who believe that we shouldn't have affirmative action/quotas are the same one's who, not only don't see race or gender or other categories as relevant, but are accused the most of seeing these categories as bigotedly relevant.

V


----------



## Guest

I don't know if this article has been posted here yet, but it's an interesting thing to consider.

https://van-us.atavist.com/white-noise

I guess there must be some kind of 'revisionist history' that ultra-conservatives have created in their mind. A kind of headcanon, I guess. More accurately, a fabricated reality used to push their own agenda. I am glad it isn't a position that affects mainstream, realist thought.


----------



## Chromatose

mmsbls said:


> This thread is about diversity in the _concert hall_. Political comments that have nothing whatsoever to do with classical music should not be posted. Please focus your comments on music and musicians.


I wish we had a downvote option for stuff like this.. The topic is diversity in the concert halls. If societal edicts on the acquiring orchestral musicians in concert halls is part of that topic than politics does have something to do with classical music in that case.

Perhaps you should move the thread to the appropriate section of the forum.


----------



## KenOC

shirime said:


> I don't know if this article has been posted here yet, but it's an interesting thing to consider.
> 
> https://van-us.atavist.com/white-noise
> 
> I guess there must be some kind of 'revisionist history' that ultra-conservatives have created in their mind. A kind of headcanon, I guess. More accurately, a fabricated reality used to push their own agenda. I am glad it isn't a position that affects mainstream, realist thought.


The article is about views of classical music as stated on a particular white supremacist neo-Nazi web site. Do you really think these views are commonly held by people identifying as conservatives in American politics? I am a bit astonished.


----------



## Chromatose

KenOC said:


> I was a bit peeved the other day when I read of a museum selling off a good part of its collection because white males were over-represented. The plan is to replace the lost items with art by women and minorities.
> 
> Then I read what they were getting rid of (starting with Warhol) and I nodded and thought, "Maybe a good idea after all."


Warhol wasn't white or male, that was some type of alien life form..


----------



## Guest

KenOC said:


> The article is about views of classical music as stated on a particular white supremacist neo-Nazi web site. Do you really think these views are commonly held by people identifying as conservatives in American politics? I am a bit astonished.


You have correctly identified the subject of the article I posted, but you have incorrectly read my post. Let's take a look at two parts of our posts together:



KenOC said:


> shirime said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am glad it isn't a position that affects mainstream, realist thought.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really think these views are *commonly held* by people identifying as conservatives in American politics?
Click to expand...

It's almost as if I could read your mind when I answered your question before you even posted it.

Anyhow, the whole concept of viewing western music history through a particular lens to purport one's own viewpoint is something that we all do, but in different ways. It can have rather insidious side effects when there are unconscious biases surrounding the hiring of musicians and composers. Creating equal opportunity for musicians is always a fantastic thing, and it leads to better quality orchestras, ensembles and opera companies. It also diminishes the chances of the alt-right creating some kind of fabricated music history when there is so much stuff out there we can celebrate in a positive way.

Btw, the US has such little knowing impact on my life that I am not really aware what is going on over there in terms of the music scene and audiences.


----------



## Woodduck

Well, nothing is left to "chance" if a meritocracy is in place. Then things are left to merit.

How incredibly naive. The world is not, never was, and never will be a meritocracy.

I have noticed throughout life when meeting someone who professes that "everyone" is out to screw you ("you" as in anyone), get one over on you, or take advantage of you to benefit themselves, they are usually the ones who will be the first to screw you over. Much like the person who thinks most people are happy and easy going is usually because they are pretty happy and easy going themselves. People's view of the world is often a projection of their view of themselves.

And often it is not.

Another thing, I've noticed is that those on the left are the ones who are pro affirmative action, hiring quotas, and equality of outcome. 

It is possible to advocate affirmative action without advocating equality of outcome.

They are teaching in public schools and colleges that there are two kinds of racist: Those who know it and those who don't.

Can you think of a third kind?

Everyone (at least everyone who is white) is racist. 

Most people don't believe that. But in Europe and America it's mainly white racism against nonwhites that's determinative of social behavior and outcomes.

They 

Who?

tout constantly about how sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.) society (especially the US) is. 

Most societies throughout history have been full of bigoted people.

I can't think if a more vile, disgusting, and preposterous notion. They believe this nonsense because THEY are the ones who are SIXHIRB. So, they project this on everyone as to assuage their own guilt in order to pat themselves on the back so they can say, "see, at least I admit my own bigotry." It is projection and they do this constantly, and I categorically reject it.

Your portrayal is itself a "vile, disgusting, and preposterous notion" which you must prove. But you will not be able to do it. For every person on your despised "left" who harbors such prejudices, you will easily find one - or more likely two or three or more - on the "right" who do. In parts of Europe and America, they are currently having a longed-for day in the sun. If you want vile and disgusting, take a good look.

We all have obstacles, shortcomings, barriers that other's do not have. If you truly want a barrier that will statistically hold you back many times more than any ghost remnants of the disgusting blatant bigotry of the past? Grow up in a single parent home.

What's your basis of comparison? Have you tried both being the comfortably middle class child of a single parent and growing up in poverty in a racially segregated neighborhood? How would getting shot to death in the street rank as a "barrier that will statistically hold you back"?

Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. By every measure you have a much higher chance of mental and emotional instability, drug addiction, school drop out rate, criminal behavior, suicide, and the list goes on and on, than you do if you come from a two parent home. 

I could tell you a few things about the so-called advantages of living with two parents in an abusive marriage.

And no, I am not saying you can't be a pillar of virtue and success and mental/emotional/spiritual balance if you come from a one parent home. It's just that statistically, it's a much longer shot.

So what? Not all of life's ills constitute systemic, structural, self-perpetuating social and political problems.

I just find it strange, that the ones who believe that we shouldn't have affirmative action/quotas are the same one's who, not only don't see race or gender or other categories as relevant, but are accused the most of seeing these categories as bigotedly relevant.

I can assure you that you'd have no trouble finding bigots of all sorts who oppose affirmative action.

In making these broad, sweeping claims about what kinds of people are and are not bigoted, you are ironically guilty of the very collectivist thinking you claim to be against.


----------



## Chromatose

Everything should be based on the individual, this whole diversity thing is built on a nasty Marxist lie and it's already starting to poison the well. 

The idea that 'if we don't enforce some diversity initiative, certain groups will be marginalized', is racist itself. It presupposes ethnic groups need special treatment. If the individual is conscientious and has talent, they will find work regardless of race, color or creed in any true free society, without the need for governmental overreach.


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> How incredibly naive. The world is not, never was, and never will be a meritocracy.


At a minimum, it's almost always impossible to clearly define "merit." What if the best flutist auditioning, both technically and musically, is a nasty divisive person threatening to bring much unhappiness to the orchestra? How does that factor into "merit"?


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> At a minimum, it's almost always impossible to clearly define "merit." What if the best flutist auditioning, both technically and musically, is a nasty divisive person threatening to bring much unhappiness to the orchestra? How does that factor into "merit"?


That makes my point. Any number of factors other than "who's the best flutist" can affect who gets hired, including the sorts of biases under discussion here.


----------



## KenOC

Chromatose said:


> Everything should be based on the individual, this whole diversity thing is built on a nasty Marxist lie and it's already starting to poison the well.
> 
> The idea that 'if we don't enforce some diversity initiative, certain groups will be marginalized', is racist itself. It presupposes ethnic groups need special treatment. If the individual is conscientious and has talent, they will find work regardless of race, color or creed in any true free society, without the need for governmental overreach.


Alas, not totally true. I have seen many times, up close and personal: "Frankly, we want to bring on board the sort of people our clients will feel comfortable with." And our clients are middle-aged prosperous white males, most comfortable sitting across the table from other white males. Truth!

That said, I doubt it applies much to American orchestras, at least any more.


----------



## Gallus

Chromatose said:


> Everything should be based on the individual, this whole diversity thing is built on a nasty Marxist lie and it's already starting to poison the well.
> 
> The idea that 'if we don't enforce some diversity initiative, certain groups will be marginalized', is racist itself. It presupposes ethnic groups need special treatment. If the individual is conscientious and has talent, they will find work regardless of race, color or creed in any true free society, without the need for governmental overreach.


Where to begin? Perhaps by pointing out that it's a verifiable fact that (in the US) equally well-qualified black people are discriminated against in job hirings compared to their white counterparts: 
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2017/09/11/1706255114.full

And I don't think anyone is calling for "governmental overreach" (whatever that is supposed to mean), just orchestras themselves choosing to put in place policies which encourage diversity.


----------



## Madiel

Gallus said:


> And I don't think anyone is calling for "governmental overreach" (whatever that is supposed to mean), just orchestras themselves choosing to put in place policies which encourage diversity.


why diversity should be encouraged?
nowadays you can find much more diversity in orchestras than twenty years ago but the reason for that has not much to do with a "moral" need: conservatories produce too many excellent female musicians and a PR necessity would be the first two possible reasons, a third one could be that in what is almost exclusively a form of entertainment for adult males including some feminine presence certainly doesn't hurt.
Now DG will publish recordings featuring the Shanghai SO: meritocracy? diversity? some survey saying that the Far East market - an important share of classical misic's business - would appreciate the move?
KenOC has brought up a couple of fitting examples about the problems with meritocracy, nonetheless I imagine that the white guys business men he is talking about when they root for their favorite soccer team they suddenly become color blind. Alas everyday life rarely proves the benefits coming from diversity in such an evident way, so I guess the ancestral fear/rejection of the stranger will never go away.


----------



## Chromatose

Woodduck said:


> I'm trying to keep my distance here, but this discussion is starting to fly over the cuckoo's nest.
> 
> Has anyone here advocated that society institute a massive system of racial or gender quotas for the programming of music? Did I miss that when it was proposed? Has anyone recommended that musical works be played and recorded even if no one thinks they're any good, just to fulfill some quota system drawn up in some sociology professor's ivory tower? Did I miss that too?
> 
> This notion that an occasional modest attempt to bring minority composers to the attention of the public represents a "dangerous political ideology" looks to me to be rooted in, um..._political ideology._ If it isn't, what is it rooted in? I cannot fathom the mindset of anyone who is actually bent out of shape by the suggestion that it might be a good thing to bring to our attention some of the artistic achievements of people who might otherwise be overlooked, and in the process possibly weaken unexamined biases and assumptions affecting who gets attention and who doesn't.
> 
> This isn't either-or, people. It isn't "let an omniscient marketplace and a deceptive 'merit system' decide all our artistic and social policies" or "cram mediocre art down people's throats for the sake of arbitrary social engineering." Isn't it time to stop thinking in such drastically binary terms?
> 
> People will always listen to, and pay for, the music they want to listen to. That fact will always dominate the propagation of music in society. We aren't going to "endanger" anyone or anything by bringing to music lovers' attention potentially interesting choices they didn't even suspect were available.


First of all let me point out the obvious, I am going through this thread all out of order.

The reason the political stuff entered the conversation in the first place is, it's not just happening in the orchestra pits. It would be one thing if it were confined to avenues that had empirically proven biases against marginalized groups but there is a broad push for many of these initiative that aren't just concerned with making sure everyone gets an opportunity. In fact many of these initiatives find there roots in _progressive_ idea of equality of outcome.

This is where words like "Marxist" get thrown about suddenly in a thread where the topic is diversity in the concert hall.. Now I think all even-tempered, rational, decent people can agree and get behind the idea of equality of opportunity. Yes make sure all people get the same fair chance no matter there race, gender or religion. But when equality of outcome is the underling goal you can be sure tyranny is sure to follow and this is where many protest (the seemingly good-hearted and empathetic, progressive policy that has it's roots in social Marxism)

Not all diversity policies are suspect but when specific percentages are required to fill quotas, the idea of diversity where each race is equally represented and accounted for when those percentages don't match the communities they come from. Some such as affirmative action, can have consequence for other minority groups such as we've seen just this last week at Harvard. There the admissions office has been found to have blackballed Asians in favor of Latinas and African Americans. This is an example of how some of these policies are ill thought out and hastily implemented.

Equality of outcome has been tried in several forms of socialist and communist governments, all with catastrophic results for the peoples of those societies.

I'm all for inclusion and diversity, but forcing the numbers to reflect equality across the board is wrong and will effect our society negatively.


----------



## Chromatose

KenOC said:


> Alas, not totally true. I have seen many times, up close and personal: "Frankly, we want to bring on board the sort of people our clients will feel comfortable with." And our clients are middle-aged prosperous white males, most comfortable sitting across the table from other white males. Truth!
> 
> That said, I doubt it applies much to American orchestras, at least any more.


Again I point to the Harvard Admissions Office where a minority group was marginalized by a policy set forth to prevent certain people from being marginalized.

I won't dispute there aren't still biases and racism in society but I think it's fair to say we are getting better at giving all people equal opportunities, more than fair to say I don't think anyone could argue that it hasn't. There are more opportunities for people of color than ever before and still getting better.

To constantly highlight some racial group has/is oppressed and needs polices to prevent this I still maintain is racist itself.


----------



## Chromatose

Madiel said:


> why diversity should be encouraged?
> nowadays you can find much more diversity in orchestras than twenty years ago but the reason for that has not much to do with a "moral" need: conservatories produce too many excellent female musicians and a PR necessity would be the first two possible reasons, a third one could be that in what is almost exclusively a form of entertainment for adult males including some feminine presence certainly doesn't hurt.
> Now DG will publish recordings featuring the Shanghai SO: meritocracy? diversity? some survey saying that the Far East market - an important share of classical misic's business - would appreciate the move?
> KenOC has brought up a couple of fitting examples about the problems with meritocracy, nonetheless I imagine that the white guys business men he is talking about when they root for their favorite soccer team they suddenly become color blind. Alas everyday life rarely proves the benefits coming from diversity in such an evident way, so I guess the ancestral fear/rejection of the stranger will never go away.


Wow. If you can't see what's wrong with this post you are part of the problem and shouldn't have a say when trying to discuss solutions.


----------



## Enthusiast

Varick said:


> Well, nothing is left to "chance" if a meritocracy is in place. Then things are left to merit.
> 
> I have noticed throughout life when meeting someone who professes that "everyone" is out to screw you ("you" as in anyone), get one over on you, or take advantage of you to benefit themselves, they are usually the ones who will be the first to screw you over. Much like the person who thinks most people are happy and easy going is usually because they are pretty happy and easy going themselves. People's view of the world is often a projection of their view of themselves.
> 
> I know we all, as humans, have built in biases. Umpteen experiments have shown this time and time again. Most of those experiments are done in a quick, split-second decision scenario, and it clearly shows our learned and/or built in biases. There have also been experiments that have shown that when placed in important decision making positions, 1. very few of these decisions require quick, split-decision scenarios and 2. Most people take time and think things through, often making a decision counter to what their quick-split decision biases have shown.
> 
> Another thing, I've noticed is that those on the left are the ones who are pro affirmative action, hiring quotas, and equality of outcome. They are teaching in public schools and colleges that there are two kinds if racist: Those who know it and those who don't. ie: Everyone (at least everyone who is white) is racist. They tout constantly about how sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.) society (especially the US) is. I can't think if a more vile, disgusting, and preposterous notion. They believe this nonsense because THEY are the ones who are SIXHIRB. So, they project this on everyone as to assuage their own guilt in order to pat themselves on the back so they can say, "see, at least I admit my own bigotry." It is projection and they do this constantly, and I categorically reject it.
> 
> We all have obstacles, shortcomings, barriers that other's do not have. If you truly want a barrier that will statistically hold you back many times more than any ghost remnants of the disgusting blatant bigotry of the past? Grow up in a single parent home. Regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. By every measure you have a much higher chance of mental and emotional instability, drug addiction, school drop out rate, criminal behavior, suicide, and the list goes on and on, than you do if you come from a two parent home. And no, I am not saying you can't be a pillar of virtue and success and mental/emotional/spiritual balance if you come from a one parent home. It's just that statistically, it's a much longer shot.
> 
> I just find it strange, that the ones who believe that we shouldn't have affirmative action/quotas are the same one's who, not only don't see race or gender or other categories as relevant, but are accused the most of seeing these categories as bigotedly relevant.
> 
> V


I am aghast at the belief systems people construct around themselves and within themselves to justify an inhumane or unjust position. This stuff smacks of desperation. I did start a more detailed response but found little to say about these philosophical musings and misunderstandings of psychology and political theory. I suppose the recurring theme is like the schoolboy (in Britain in the 60s, anyway) method of identifying the source of a bad smell ("whoever smelt it dealt it"). But if caring about justice and fairness is really just a sign of a bigoted inside and not caring is a sign of true enlightenment and angelic fairness then we are truly in wonderland.


----------



## Chromatose

I got to say KenOC and Woodduck, it's posts like this ^^^^(253) that give me pause but I still think I have a valid argument.


----------



## Madiel

Chromatose said:


> Wow. If you can't see what's wrong with this post you are part of the problem and shouldn't have a say when trying to discuss solutions.


no "wow" here, jumping on the barricades guys like you are quite predictable.
if you cannot realize that my post wasn't an exposure of my point of view but an attempt to highlight some snippets from the way the real world works, then your approach to whatever kind of problem is useless. In Italy we have a saying: a teenager who is not an idealist has no heart, a grown man who is still an idealist has no brains.
No solution can emerge if you decide to ignore how the world works.


----------



## Enthusiast

Chromatose said:


> Everything should be based on the individual, this whole diversity thing is built on a nasty Marxist lie and it's already starting to poison the well.
> 
> The idea that 'if we don't enforce some diversity initiative, certain groups will be marginalized', is racist itself. It presupposes ethnic groups need special treatment. If the individual is conscientious and has talent, they will find work regardless of race, color or creed in any true free society, without the need for governmental overreach.


The obvious responses have been made - you ignore the evidence that the meritocracy doesn't exist as certain groups are systematically discriminated against throughout our societies - but I didn't get the "Marxist lie" bit. What has Marx got to do with it?


----------



## Chromatose

Madiel said:


> no "wow" here, jumping on the barricades guys like you are quite predictable.
> if you cannot realize that my post wasn't an exposure of my point of view but an attempt to highlight some snippets from the way the real world works, then your approach to whatever kind of problem is useless. In Italy we have a saying: a teenager who is not an idealist has no heart, a grown man who is still an idealist has no brains.
> No solution can emerge if you decide to ignore how the world works.[/QUOTE
> 
> Oh, I get it. It was just a poor example compounded by the fact you spelled out a racial slur. Regardless of it being in quotes or the notion you were dimly trying to illustrate "snippets of the way the real world works", most people are aware of much of the ugliness that goes on in the world. It's unnecessary and quite frankly ignorant to do so even per example, paints your logic in a negative light.


----------



## Madiel

Chromatose said:


> Oh, I get it. It was just a poor example compounded by the fact you spelled out a racial slur.


what I wrote in commas (btw the use of commas should indicate a distance from the writer and his writing) is an epithet used by white guys toward white guys, it is racial and a slur.
what's more, if you read my phrase as a whole and not every single word by itself, it should be evident that my phrasing intended to ridicule the attitude it describes.


----------



## Chromatose

Enthusiast said:


> The obvious responses have been made - you ignore the evidence that the meritocracy doesn't exist as certain groups are systematically discriminated against throughout our societies - but I didn't get the "Marxist lie" bit. What has Marx got to do with it?


Certain groups will always be discriminated against, it is a sad fact of human nature. There is also evidence that enforcing diversity and equality initiative increase racial tensions and causes other minority groups to be discriminated against.

I also went into the idea of where the Marxism comes into play but I suppose you didn't see it. Many of these new equity/diversity policy pushes in many aspects of society take there basis from cultural marxism that as been seeping into society since the early sixties. These ideologies were first championed by the french post-modernist like Paul-Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, & Gilles Deleuze.

The stuff about Marx is these postmodernist got together and decided economic marxism wasn't working, it had failed in every incarnation it had been given form to (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) yet these postmodernist hold it as an absolute ideal for the outcome of utopia (which for some reason they still see as possible just not done correctly yet). Here is something worth looking at 
https://socialistworker.org/2008/07/11/marxism-and-identity-politics

And then there is the straight up Marxist take http://www.leftvoice.org/A-Few-Words-on-Marxism-and-Identity-Politics, who even takes the time to point out some of the systematic discrimination in our society, that still doesn't excuse the underling aim of Marxism itself.


----------



## Nereffid

Still, though, I'm not sure why this couldn't be better accomplished by writing it as "n***** lover". Self-censorship makes it clearer that you're not condoning the word or the sentiment associated with it.


----------



## Nereffid

Chromatose said:


> Certain groups will always be discriminated against, it is a sad fact of human nature. There is also evidence that enforcing diversity and equality initiative increase racial tensions and causes other minority groups to be discriminated against.


Yes, it does "increase racial tensions": the racists get angrier.


----------



## Chromatose

Madiel said:


> what I wrote in commas (btw the use of commas should indicate a distance from the writer and his writing) is an epithet used by white guys toward white guys, it is racial and a slur.
> what's more, if you read my phrase as a whole and not every single word by itself, it should be evident that my phrasing intended to ridicule the attitude it describes.


You must not understand me, I get everything you were trying to do, I'm not calling you a racist yourself, I'm saying your usage of the racial slur as an example was a) unnecessary as I said many if not all of us here know the horrors that have come from human nature, b) cheap effect in that you were looking to provoke by spelling it out, and c) is just bad form when discussing in good faith the problematic nature of racial discrimination and biases. There is also d) it makes you look ignorant, regardless of the fact you were using it to illustrate a point because it is base, vile and will provoke based on the historical usage of that word.

We get it there are still racists out there who claim not to be racist. Ironically in your "attempt" to show us an example you run high risk of being lumped in with the very people you make the example of there are better ways to paint a picture.


----------



## Chromatose

Nereffid said:


> Yes, it does "increase racial tensions": the racists get angrier.


You didn't read the link I provided it gives excellent examples of how increased racial tensions can have other meanings not as obvious as what you just pecked out.

Again I point out that to systematically insist certain groups of people are oppressed and need the help of other groups to help safeguard there identity is racist, it maintains that even today in free society these marginalized groups can't do anything themselves and need a handicap. It is exceptional racism being masqueraded as empathy and inclusiveness.


----------



## Enthusiast

Chromatose said:


> Certain groups will always be discriminated against, it is a sad fact of human nature. There is also evidence that enforcing diversity and equality initiative increase racial tensions and causes other minority groups to be discriminated against.


Many a "sad fact of human nature" has been consigned to its grave during times of social progress in our history. Many people accept them at the time and get angry about attempts to change them. But then, when the world has turned, most accept the new status quo with or without nostalgic regret. Some even claim to have been against the "sad facts" in the first place.

And, yes, well intentioned policies and reforms can often have unintended consequences. They need to be well planned and fine tuned. But, for those who just see the "sad facts" as inevitable, these problems can come as vindication. But do you really recommend giving up and just accepting your privileged position?



Chromatose said:


> I also went into the idea of where the Marxism comes into play but I suppose you didn't see it. Many of these new equity/diversity policy pushes in many aspects of society take there basis from cultural marxism that as been seeping into society since the early sixties. These ideologies were first championed by the french post-modernist like Paul-Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, & Gilles Deleuze.
> 
> The stuff about Marx is these postmodernist got together and decided economic marxism wasn't working, it had failed in every incarnation it had been given form to (Soviet Union, China, Cuba) yet these postmodernist hold it as an absolute ideal for the outcome of utopia (which for some reason they still see as possible just not done correctly yet). Here is something worth looking at
> https://socialistworker.org/2008/07/11/marxism-and-identity-politics
> 
> And then there is the straight up Marxist take http://www.leftvoice.org/A-Few-Words-on-Marxism-and-Identity-Politics, who even takes the time to point out some of the systematic discrimination in our society, that still doesn't excuse the underling aim of Marxism itself.


I guess Marxists might often care about racism and sexism but they don't have a monopoly in these concerns. Personally, I do often find Marxist analyses of what is happening to be interesting and perceptive. But, as we know, that is not the same thing as having the answers. Utopian dreams are often thus. But I still don't see the relevance of Marx to this debate nor why you thought to introduce it.


----------



## Woodduck

Neither "affirmative action" nor "laissez-faire" justifies itself. All well-intentioned policies are subject to abuse by those who are less well-intentioned. 

As a young person eager to find the "truth" I was scornful of Aristotle's notion of the "golden mean," thinking it was an evasion of the responsibility of finding the right answer to all questions. I've come to think that rightness lies as much in our motives as in the actions we choose, and that moderation is often the best defense against fanatical destructiveness.

If the only ports of call are Karl Marx and Ayn Rand, I'm not going to be on the boat.


----------



## Chromatose

Enthusiast said:


> I guess Marxists might often care about racism and sexism but they don't have a monopoly in these concerns. Personally, I do often find Marxist analyses of what is happening to be interesting and perceptive. But, as we know, that is not the same thing as having the answers. Utopian dreams are often thus. But I still don't see the relevance of Marx to this debate nor why you thought to introduce it.


I don't know if you saw my post #252 which was to address a much older post of Woodduck's asking why all the political stuff came out of this topic in the first place. In my post you quoted, I also stated: "Many of these new equity/diversity policy pushes in many aspects of society take there basis from cultural marxism that as been seeping into society since the early sixties".


----------



## KenOC

Woodduck said:


> Neither "affirmative action" nor "laissez-faire" justifies itself. All well-intentioned policies are subject to abuse by those who are less well-intentioned.


Laissez-faire is not a policy but the lack of policy. Adam Smith, at least, considered it impervious to gaming.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> Laissez-faire is not a policy but the lack of policy. Adam Smith, at least, considered it impervious to gaming.


Oh, but it _is_ a policy. It bestows approval and protection on whoever has power to benefit from it, just as refusing to vote for the lesser of two evils may (and did) amount to a vote for the greater evil.


----------



## Gordontrek

This whole thread only validates my plan, should my hoped-for conducting career happen, to use blind auditions if I am called on to audition musicians.


----------



## Guest

Gordontrek said:


> This whole thread only validates my plan, should my hoped-for conducting career happen, to use blind auditions if I am called on to audition musicians.


Blind auditions have only ever resulted in higher standards for orchestral playing.

However, when combined with a very toxic environment for those who were systematically pushed away from entering a job in an orchestra we end up with cases like Abbie Conant in the Münchner Philharmoniker.

Therefore, more needs to happen to address and prevent problems that arise in those situations.


----------



## Varick

Woodduck said:


> How incredibly naive. The world is not, never was, and never will be a meritocracy.


Of course it will not, but there are certain factions of the world, arenas, professions, etc, that have been and are (sports come to mind). So because not the ENTIRE world is like this, we shouldn't strive??? I never took you as a defeatist.



Woodduck said:


> I have noticed throughout life when meeting someone who professes that "everyone" is out to screw you ("you" as in anyone), get one over on you, or take advantage of you to benefit themselves, they are usually the ones who will be the first to screw you over. Much like the person who thinks most people are happy and easy going is usually because they are pretty happy and easy going themselves. People's view of the world is often a projection of their view of themselves.
> 
> And often it is not.


And often it is as well.



Woodduck said:


> It is possible to advocate affirmative action without advocating equality of outcome.


It's possible to advocate anything, but when put into practice, I have yet to see the result you allude to. The above Harvard admission example is but one. Just like Communism, it's possible to advocate that it has "never really been done right" (God, do I laugh when I hear that one), but when you see that EVERY SINGLE RESULT of it had been an unmitigated disaster in every aspect of the human condition , one has to severely question the wisdom of anyone who still advocates for it regardless of their intentions.



Woodduck said:


> They are teaching in public schools and colleges that there are two kinds of racist: Those who know it and those who don't.
> 
> Can you think of a third kind?


No I can not, but the subtext is that everyone (at least those who are white) is racist. Your retort, although witty, doesn't penetrate to the base issue. That which you are far too intelligent to have missed.



Woodduck said:


> Most people don't believe that. But in Europe and America it's mainly white racism against nonwhites that's determinative of social behavior and outcomes.


Are you sure about that? Perhaps you are correct. Perhaps "most" people don't believe that. But to deny it's a growing demographic, is naive, thanks to our media, public and collegiate education systems (I'm refering to _"most people don't believe that"_). Now to the second part of that sentence. I would have said that it's what WAS determinative of social behavior and outcomes. Less social behavior, but definitely more of outcomes. Today, however, I would completely disagree on both accounts. The vast majority bend over backwards to show they are not racist in any way, shape, or form. To be labeled a "racist" is now instant pariah status.



Woodduck said:


> They
> 
> Who?


The left.



Woodduck said:


> tout constantly about how sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, racist and bigoted (S.I.X.H.I.R.B.) society (especially the US) is.
> 
> Most societies throughout history have been full of bigoted people.


Oh yes, I certainly agree, but in the past 50 or so years, and certainly in the past 30 or so, it has changed drastically. And, to your point and mine, just because a society has some bigots and racists in it (every society on Earth) doesn't make it a "bigoted" and "racist"* society*. Especially in Western Culture. No more than if you get sick every now and then makes you a "sickly" person.



Woodduck said:


> Your portrayal is itself a "vile, disgusting, and preposterous notion" which you must prove. But you will not be able to do it. For every person on your despised "left" who harbors such prejudices, you will easily find one - or more likely two or three or more - on the "right" who do. In parts of Europe and America, they are currently having a longed-for day in the sun. If you want vile and disgusting, take a good look.


Oh, I have looked closely, and I see far more examples of prejudices, intolerance, and racism from the left than from the right (the "right," ie: consercatives, in western civilization). The difference is that the left "sells" it as non-racist, compassion, helping the unfortunates and downtrodden. You asked me to prove it (here's but one of many examples I could give, but this I have a finite time frame for being on this web site): Here in the USA, most on the left think that requesting voter ID at the voting booth is "racist." Why? Because many minorities can't acquire an ID because of their disadvantage. I can't think of a more disgusting notion to put a level of standard lower for a group of people based SOLELY ON RACE than other's of a different race. That is THE VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM!!! I don't know what kind of contempt one must have for a race as to lower standards for said race relative to the other races. I do not see any issue outside of a mental and/or physical disability that would prevent anyone from acquiring a state issued ID. Ami Horowitz proved as much. 



 But they sell it, and the mindless lemmings can't buy enough of it, as "compassion." I've always said one of the greatest differences between the left and right is that the left are fantastic salesmen and marketers of horrible ideas, and the conservatives are awful salesmen and marketers of good ideas. C'est la vie! But that is why I fight.



Woodduck said:


> What's your basis of comparison? Have you tried both being the comfortably middle class child of a single parent and growing up in poverty in a racially segregated neighborhood? How would getting shot to death in the street rank as a "barrier that will statistically hold you back"?


I grew up in a lower middle class household and town that was 40% black (the town, not my household ). I saw the effects first hand of many blacks and whites in different households. Regardless of race, most of those who grew up in stable two parent households with proper values faired far better than those that didn't. This is something I saw and knew as a child and learned that every stat as an adult confirmed.



Woodduck said:


> I could tell you a few things about the so-called advantages of living with two parents in an abusive marriage.


 I'm sorry you went through that as did my wife and her two children with her ex-husband. I'm not referring to "abusive" households. Abusive is not the norm. Those are the exceptions. I generalize, because without generalizations there are no patterns in life. If you can't find patterns in life, it is impossible to gain wisdom. Generalizations are exactly that. They are not meant to include every exception. And there are exceptions to every rule. But exceptions do not negate the rule.



Woodduck said:


> So what? Not all of life's ills constitute systemic, structural, self-perpetuating social and political problems.


 No, not all, but many do. I never insinuated or even hinted that all do. I'm not sure how you inferred that. There is almost never "all," "every," "never," "no one," in any scenario.



Woodduck said:


> In making these broad, sweeping claims about what kinds of people are and are not bigoted, you are ironically guilty of the very collectivist thinking you claim to be against.


I am not guilty of any kind of collectivist thinking. This is what I have been studying for decades. It is one of my passions in life. The etymology of ideology particularly political. How they manifest, how they have evolved, the effects, the psychology behind them, etc.

For the administrators who believe that this is gone too political, let me state this entire issue is based in politics. The foundations of such politics is what many of us are arguing. This thread has a lot of pages, but for the most part, I have found the vast majority of arguments, although impassioned, have been civil. I have not seen ad hominem attacks (I MAY have missed one or two, I'm not 100% sure), or anything degrading into base profanity or vulgarity.

THIS is the essence of civil debate. This post is directed specifically towards Woodduck whom I have great respect for having read him for years. I find absolutely nothing wrong with this thread. Just sayin'

V


----------



## Woodduck

^^^Of course it will not, but there are certain factions of the world, arenas, professions, etc, that have been and are (sports come to mind). So because not the ENTIRE world is like this, we shouldn't strive??? I never took you as a defeatist. 

You spoke of a "meritocracy" and "things being left to merit." I say there is no such thing and that factors other than merit will inevitably (though of course not always) enter into human relationships. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Moreover, "merit" isn't unidimensional. Few fields are as simple as sports, including sports.

And often it is as well. 

And often it isn't. Be careful who you paint with your big brush.

It's possible to advocate anything, but when put into practice, I have yet to see the result you allude to. The above Harvard admission example is but one. Just like Communism, it's possible to advocate that it has "never really been done right" (God, do I laugh when I hear that one), but when you see that EVERY SINGLE RESULT of it had been an unmitigated disaster in every aspect of the human condition , one has to severely question the wisdom of anyone who still advocates for it regardless of their intentions.

I doubt that you are familiar with "every single" effort to give a disadvantaged person an opportunity they would not otherwise have. It is possible to advocate doing this without having "equality of outcome" as a goal. Saying that it's "possible to advocate anything" is not an objection.

The vast majority bend over backwards to show they are not racist in any way, shape, or form. To be labeled a "racist" is now instant pariah status. 

Yes, the label is rather unpopular, although some are beginning to boast of their racism in all but name (in case you haven't noticed and are not alarmed). If only the attitudes, beliefs, and practices of racists were as unpopular as the name. If you don't think that racism and its related biases, xenophobia and nationalism, are still powerful forces affecting the shape of society and countless lives in this country and others, you're living under a rock. Enlightenment thought has not penetrated our culture as deeply as we might have imagined.

Oh, I have looked closely, and I see far more examples of prejudices, intolerance, and racism from the left than from the right (the "right," ie: conservatives, in western civilization).

The language of "left," "right," "liberal," and "conservative" often obfuscates, and enables people to cling to ideologies. It's simplistic and it tends toward intellectual tribalism. I try to avoid it.

The difference is that the left "sells" it as non-racist, compassion, helping the unfortunates and downtrodden. 

None of the so-called "leftists" I know personally fit your description. Some people calling themselves "leftists," of course, do. This doesn't prove or disprove the validity of any idea.

Here in the USA, most on the left think that requesting voter ID at the voting booth is "racist." Why? Because many minorities can't acquire an ID because of their disadvantage. I can't think of a more disgusting notion to put a level of standard lower for a group of people based SOLELY ON RACE than other's of a different race. That is THE VERY DEFINITION OF RACISM!!! 

Opposition to voter ID laws is not based fundamentally on race, so it's hardly the "very definition of racism" (and I don't accept your definition in any case). The issue is not as simple as you assume. But this is not the place to discuss it.

I grew up in a lower middle class household and town that was 40% black (the town, not my household ). I saw the effects first hand of many blacks and whites in different households. Regardless of race, most of those who grew up in stable two parent households with proper values faired far better than those that didn't. This is something I saw and knew as a child and learned that every stat as an adult confirmed. 

Well, really, so what?

No, not all, but many do. I never insinuated or even hinted that all do. I'm not sure how you inferred that. There is almost never "all," "every," "never," "no one," in any scenario.

I said, "Not all of life's ills constitute systemic, structural, self-perpetuating social and political problems." My point was that your mention of "growing up in a single family household" as a source of social ills is really not relevant, since that is not the source of a "systemic, structural, self-perpetuating social and political problem." Racism, however, is.

I am not guilty of any kind of collectivist thinking. This is what I have been studying for decades. It is one of my passions in life. 

Yes, I can believe that. But the sweeping way you've characterized people on the "left" is quite collectivist. Most of us are really quite nice once you get to know us, and do not have totalitarian ambitions.

Ideologues - left, right, or whatever - scare me.


----------



## DavidA

The nonsense of what 'diversity' has now become in the eyes of the politically correct is quite worrying. I'm just reading an article by an American black who says that diversity policies have become an unwitting form a racism in American universities and colleges. To employ racist or sexist policies by giving preferential treatment might be a way of assuaging societal guilt and satisfying the mooing herd of social network addicts, but will do little to improve standards on all sides. Interesting the writer makes a point that diversity advocates don't go to parts of the world where they are most needed but inhabit those societies in which they are the most powerful. To me true diversity is giving everyone an equal opportunity not the bogus world of what a pseudonymously called 'affirmative action'. So (eg) orchestral players should be chosen because they are the best fitted for the job, whether male, female, black, white. Of course, there will always be a certain type of discrimination. For example, in these days of HD would we employ a twenty stone singer for the role of Violetta? When Karajan made his film of Butterfly he dispensed with the services of the best singer of Pinkerton (the overweight Pavorotti) and brought in someone who credibly looked the part (Domingo). You can't get round these things. Martin Luther King spoke of a day when his children 'would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.' Amen! And a day when ability and suitability - not race, sex or something else - will be the deciding factor. That is true diversity


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> The nonsense of what 'diversity' has now become in the eyes of the politically correct is quite worrying. I'm just reading an article by an American black who says that diversity policies have become an unwitting form a racism in American universities and colleges. To employ racist or sexist policies by giving preferential treatment might be a way of assuaging societal guilt and satisfying the mooing herd of social network addicts, but will do little to improve standards on all sides. *Interesting the writer makes a point that diversity advocates don't go to parts of the world where they are most needed but inhabit those societies in which they are the most powerful. *To me true diversity is giving everyone an equal opportunity not the bogus world of what a pseudonymously called 'affirmative action'. So (eg) orchestral players should be chosen because they are the best fitted for the job, whether male, female, black, white. Of course, there will always be a certain type of discrimination. For example, in these days of HD would we employ a twenty stone singer for the role of Violetta? When Karajan made his film of Butterfly he dispensed with the services of the best singer of Pinkerton (the overweight Pavorotti) and brought in someone who credibly looked the part (Domingo). You can't get round these things. Martin Luther King spoke of a day when his children 'would not be judged by the colour of their skin but by the content of their character.' Amen! _And a day when ability and suitability - not race, sex or something else - will be the deciding factor. _That is true diversity


There is something "autistic" about the way the right argue that needed corrections to discrimination are discriminatory. Yes, they are. Discriminating is necessary in all areas of life. What matters is that you discriminate toward worthwhile ends.

Also, I have highlighted two sentences from you post. The one in *bold* I just don't understand: what is you point, here? The one in _italics_ is a statement that all agree with and there is no need to wear it on your shirtsleeve. The question is how? Those who understand how some groups are excluded recommend some form of affirmative action. Others don't.

The matter of "discrimination" against those who are overweight seems like a red herring.

As I write there is a lot of attention to positive discrimination in favour of women composers in Britain at the moment - something to do with the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote - with many commissioning bodies implicitly admitting that, _without intending to_, they have discriminated against women composers in the past. They see positive discrimination as a way of correcting this.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> There is something "autistic" about the way the right argue that needed corrections to discrimination are discriminatory. Yes, they are. Discriminating is necessary in all areas of life. What matters is that you discriminate toward worthwhile ends.
> 
> Also, I have highlighted two sentences from you post. The one in *bold* I just don't understand: what is you point, here? The one in _italics_ is a statement that all agree with and there is no need to wear it on your shirtsleeve. The question is how? Those who understand how some groups are excluded recommend some form of affirmative action. Others don't.
> 
> The matter of "discrimination" against those who are overweight seems like a red herring.
> 
> As I write there is a lot of attention to positive discrimination in favour of women composers in Britain at the moment - something to do with the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote - with many commissioning bodies implicitly admitting that, _without intending to_, they have discriminated against women composers in the past. They see positive discrimination as a way of correcting this.


I think using words like 'autistic' and 'the right' is ludicrous. Frankly name calling like this is typical of certain trends of a PC society and is indicative of a weak (or non-existent) argument.


----------



## Logos

When one goes to see a Noh performance in Japan, does one wish see it performed by white men? No, the ethnicity of the performers is part of the total cultural and aesthetic experience.


----------



## Enthusiast

DavidA said:


> I think using words like 'autistic' and 'the right' is ludicrous. Frankly name calling like this is typical of certain trends of a PC society and is indicative of a weak (or non-existent) argument.


Sorry you think so but I meant it quite precisely rather than as an insult. I was trying to refer to this reliance on a logic that is misapplied through neglect of context and social realities.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> When one goes to see a Noh performance in Japan, does one wish see it performed by white men? No, the ethnicity of the performers is part of the total cultural and aesthetic experience.


That is a shocking view, Logos! I keep thinking when I read your posts that you cannot really think what you have written and that you are just winding us up to prove that the opposite is true!

If I were to go to see a Noh in Japan (or anywhere else) I would want to see good performers rather than people of a "correct" nationality. I would appreciate it the more if I were assured that the performers had been chosen fairly.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> That is a shocking view, Logos! I keep thinking when I read your posts that you cannot really think what you have written and that you are just winding us up to prove that the opposite is true!


Shocking that Noh theater should be performed by Japanese? If one took a trip to Africa, would one wish to see tribal dances performed by white men who were "good performers"? To my thinking that seems absurd on its very face since it ruins the anthropological/historical enjoyment of the experience, which in turn shapes the aesthetic experience.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Shocking that Noh theater should be performed by Japanese? If one took a trip to Africa, would one wish to see tribal dances performed by white men who were "good performers"? To my thinking that seems absurd on its very face since it ruins the anthropological/historical enjoyment of the experience, which in turn shapes the aesthetic experience.


We generally tend to feel that for an outsider seeking an "authentic" presentation of a particular culture, it's better for it to come from people who were raised within that culture as they'd have it in their blood. But this discounts the possibility that someone could actually become an expert in a cultural form through training rather than heredity. And also that there's a difference between culture and ethnicity.
So yeah, one would _expect_ on statistical grounds that, in Japan, Noh theater would be performed by Japanese people. But should one _insist_ that they all be Japanese? Or that they "look" Japanese?

And how are we supposed to extrapolate this point to classical music, anyway? Are you saying that, because classical music has historically been written by white men to be performed by white men, this is how it should continue to be?


----------



## Nereffid

DavidA said:


> The nonsense of what 'diversity' has now become in the eyes of the politically correct is quite worrying. I'm just reading an article by an American black who says that diversity policies have become an unwitting form a racism in American universities and colleges.


Just out of curiosity, does this article writer have a name, or does he or she just introduce themselves with "Hello! I'm an American black"?


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> So yeah, one would _expect_ on statistical grounds that, in Japan, Noh theater would be performed by Japanese people. But should one _insist_ that they all be Japanese? Or that they "look" Japanese?


Theoretically a person of foreign race could become adept in Japanese customs or arts, but I'm making a different point. When I see a Japanese person, I am put in mind of Japanese history, and all the non-interchangeable specificity connected with their particular way of life and traditions. Their appearance itself is an important aesthetic component that has delicate psychological associations with culture. To see a white person put in their place in a Noh performance would destroy all these impressions since it would be a bathetic anachronism.


----------



## Madiel

Logos said:


> When I see a Japanese person,


can you tell a Japanese from a Korean?


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> Shocking that Noh theater should be performed by Japanese? If one took a trip to Africa, would one wish to see tribal dances performed by white men who were "good performers"? To my thinking that seems absurd on its very face since it ruins the anthropological/historical enjoyment of the experience, which in turn shapes the aesthetic experience.


Yes indeed. It may be the case (I just don't know) that there are no good non-Japanese Noh performers but if there were I would be as happy to see them perform as authentic Japanese. And where would this authenticity come from? Their genes or their upbringing? Suppose they were ethnically Japanese but were brought up elsewhere in a non-Japanese family and culture? Or suppose they were ethnic Koreans who were brought up in Japan (I believe there are many)?

In the same way, and as you may know, one of the very best series of recordings of Bach's cantatas is that under Masaaki Suzuki, often with Japanese singers. Is that to be ignored as unauthentic?

As for African dancing, it is hard to imagine "white men" having the depth of knowledge of phenomena that are essentially tribal (i.e. quite local) but I wouldn't rule it out. But, still, tribal dancing plays roles in tribal religion and coherence so there would probably be a need for the "white men" to have situated themselves within the tribe and its culture to properly participate in the dance. And, still, please note that this dancing is not really about _performing _to outsiders: it is a communal activity. Performances are given to tourists but these are not the authentic experience no matter how African the performers are. I hope I haven't spoiled a happy holiday memory for you. But, anyway, no: I do not agree with your point that their white faces (if that is what you were implying) would spoil the authenticity of the experience.

And why not take your examples off on a tangent? When we read we "interpret" the work we are reading. Does that mean that we cannot read works from earlier times and other cultures? Can we only read and perform work from our own time and culture? This seems to be the opposite of a position you have expressed previously.


----------



## Nereffid

Enthusiast said:


> As I write there is a lot of attention to positive discrimination in favour of women composers in Britain at the moment - something to do with the 100th anniversary of women getting the vote - with many commissioning bodies implicitly admitting that, _without intending to_, they have discriminated against women composers in the past. They see positive discrimination as a way of correcting this.


An interesting point was made in a recent article on women composers (originally posted by dogen in the female composers thread) https://www.theguardian.com/music/2018/jun/13/female-composers-largely-ignored-by-concert-line-ups


> The LSO's managing director, Kathryn McDowell, said the orchestra championed the work of women. "Of the 12 young composers on our programmes this season six are women, and while entry to them is based purely on merit, we have seen a 50/50 gender split emerge for the past two years, signalling that the best composers writing in Britain today are just as likely to be women as they are men, which is exactly as it should be."


Interesting because although she says the orchestra "championed the work of women", the selection of composers "is based purely on merit". So where does the actual championing come in? Opponents of positive discrimination often seem to imply that it's all about sinister social engineering but I think a lot of the effort in supporting diversity isn't so much about enforcing rigid and difficult quotas as about what one might call "course correction": making sure that the system is heading in what can now be called the natural direction of equality, rather than drifting towards the outmoded old status quo.


----------



## Logos

Madiel said:


> can you tell a Japanese from a Korean?


As long as they could be mistaken for Japanese and they perform in a manner indistinguishable from the best Japanese performers it wouldn't matter.


----------



## Guest

Noh! Whatever next? Sumo wrestling? Oh yes....sumo wrestling. Despite foreigners dominating the top level of the sport*, I'm sure they win by inauthentic means. I'd have to walk out of the event and demand a refund.

*By 2013, foreign born wrestlers made up just 7 percent of the 613 wrestlers active in professional sumo, yet occupied one third of the 42 spots in the top division.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_non-Japanese_sumo_wrestlers


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> When we read we "interpret" the work we are reading. Does that mean that we cannot read works from earlier times and other cultures? Can we only read and perform work from our own time and culture? This seems to be the opposite of a position you have expressed previously.


If we interpret with proper historical and contextual guidance then we can read foreign or ancient works. However, we can't change visual ethnicity for performance--at least not without blackface or yellowface, and I don't think you want that.

As for Japanese singing Bach, so long as they can't be seen and they sound like Germans, it wouldn't matter.

For your points in reference to tribal dances being communal and religious in nature, making them a special instance where white men shouldn't participate--Wagner's music dramas were intended to be communal (with a decidedly white community in mind) and are at least quasi-religious (the Ring and Parsifal still more so). Should non-whites avoid these out of respect?


----------



## Madiel

Logos said:


> As long as they could be mistaken for Japanese and they perform in a manner indistinguishable from the best Japanese performers it wouldn't matter.


so ethnicity doesn't matter as long as you are fooled in a subtle way.
and how would you tell the best from the worst performers?
A reliable tourist guide? the way you do with music?
You are a supporter of illusory realities, you are the living proof that advertising damages humankind.


----------



## Logos

Madiel said:


> so ethnicity doesn't matter as long as you are fooled in a subtle way.
> and how would you tell the best from the worst performers?
> A reliable tourist guide? the way you do with music?
> You are a supporter of illusory realities, you are the living proof that advertising damages humankind.


If they are illusory, then they aren't realities. And what could that possibly mean about advertising? And how is the method of evaluating the performers technique at all relevant to this discussion? The point is, if no one notices their non-Japanese ethnicity, then there is no anachronism to spoil the experience. _How_ or _why_ one does not notice is not germane to the question of the impact of anachronistic diversity on traditional art.


----------



## Madiel

Logos said:


> anachronism


the whole notion of "tradition" is an anachronism and it is a fake by definition, once what we call "tradition" becomes cultural heritage it belongs to all the members of that society regardless of their ethnicity.


----------



## Logos

Madiel said:


> the whole notion of "tradition" is an anachronism and it is a fake by definition, once what we call "tradition" becomes cultural heritage it belongs to all the members of that society regardless of their ethnicity.


And I'm saying that ethnicity is an inseparable part of that cultural heritage, especially if the whole multi-ethnic world is to appreciate it without jarring cultural solecisms that destroy an aesthetic experience.


----------



## Enthusiast

Nereffid said:


> Interesting because although she says the orchestra "championed the work of women", the selection of composers "is based purely on merit". So where does the actual championing come in?


My own experiences in recruitment (in a very different field) is that women have been so neglected for big posts that just relying on merit alone tends to lead to employing women for most posts. The problem in those situations is the perception of merit with a male dominated panel tending to be blind to what I feel is the self-evident strength of the female candidates. But I can be quite pushy when I feel strongly about something. Given this it seems to me that ensuring a balanced (or, even better, a "positively unbalanced") panel and setting them targets is a good way of tilting things against the bias.


----------



## Nate Miller

not for nothing, but in the music business its really all just who you know. 

if you don't have any friends in the business, you don't get a chance. That's how it works. 

doesn't matter what color you are. Unless you're blue or cyan or something we can use in a novelty act


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> If we interpret with proper historical and contextual guidance then we can read foreign or ancient works. However, we can't change visual ethnicity for performance--at least not without blackface or yellowface, and I don't think you want that.
> 
> As for Japanese singing Bach, so long as they can't be seen and they sound like Germans, it wouldn't matter.
> 
> For your points in reference to tribal dances being communal and religious in nature, making them a special instance where white men shouldn't participate--Wagner's music dramas were intended to be communal (with a decidedly white community in mind) and are at least quasi-religious (the Ring and Parsifal still more so). Should non-whites avoid these out of respect?


So we can master texts from times and cultures that are alien to us. And it is therefore OK for "us", the inheritors of a great tradition, to perform Greek tragedies? But we can't perform Japanese drama because it is not in "our" cultural heritage?

I'm understanding that it is appearances that matter to you and that with the "wrong appearance" the best Bach singer in the world would still be inadequate?

I don't think the Wagner example you provide works. It is not the same thing. African tribes assert their identity and bonds through dance. It is about participation rather than performance. Wagner was essentially a composer of the Romantic period and was ultimately concerned with performance, albeit with a desire to bring his _audience _ "together" in a quasi religious experience.

I am guess that by now you are coming to realise that the position you have presented to us is untenable?


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> But, anyway, no: I do not agree with your point that their white faces (if that is what you were implying) would spoil the authenticity of the experience.


And I would disagree for the same reasons I cited beforewhen discussing with someone else. Adapting what I said earlier: Theoretically a person of foreign race could become adept in _x_ customs or arts. When I see (insert ethnicity) person, I'm reminded of their history, and all the non-interchangeable specificity connected with their particular way of life and traditions. Their appearance itself is an important aesthetic component that has delicate psychological associations with culture. To see person of different ethnicity put in their place would destroy all these impressions since it would be a bathetic anachronism.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> And I would disagree for the same reasons I cited beforewhen discussing with someone else. Adapting what I said earlier: Theoretically a person of foreign race could become adept in _x_ customs or arts. When I see (insert ethnicity) person, I'm reminded of their history, and all the non-interchangeable specificity connected with their particular way of life and traditions. Their appearance itself is an important aesthetic component that has delicate psychological associations with culture. To see person of different ethnicity put in their place would destroy all these impressions since it would be a bathetic anachronism.


Which is the position that leads to our believing that we cannot perform the masterworks of the past - because they come from a very different and very alien culture. I don't think you mean that.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> If we interpret with proper historical and contextual guidance then we can read foreign or ancient works. However, we can't change visual ethnicity for performance--at least not without blackface or yellowface, and I don't think you want that.


We can't change visual ethnicity for performance, but we could always _not care_.



Logos said:


> As for Japanese singing Bach, so long as they can't be seen and they sound like Germans, it wouldn't matter.


I've never really agreed with the people who insist that the great classical composers are "universal", but this I think is taking things too far. In your view, how non-German-looking can a Bach singer be and still get away with it?


----------



## Madiel

Logos said:


> And I'm saying that ethnicity is an inseparable part of that cultural heritage, especially if the whole multi-ethnic world is to appreciate it without jarring cultural solecisms that destroy an aesthetic experience.


then you are racist
once the ethnic composition of a society has changed the desire to exclude in the representation of its cultural heritage members of that society in the name of ethnicity that's racism


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> So we can master texts from times and cultures that are alien to us. And it is therefore OK for "us", the inheritors of a great tradition, to perform Greek tragedies? But we can't perform Japanese drama because it is not in "our" cultural heritage?
> 
> I'm understanding that it is appearances that matter to you and that with the "wrong appearance" the best Bach singer in the world would still be inadequate?
> 
> I don't think the Wagner example you provide works. It is not the same thing. African tribes assert their identity and bonds through dance. It is about participation rather than performance. Wagner was essentially a composer of the Romantic period and was ultimately concerned with performance, albeit with a desire to bring his _audience _ "together" in a quasi religious experience.


Ideally, I'd like to see Greek tragedy performed by those persons capable of most closely replicating the visual and aural presentation that the Athenians saw and heard in 500 BC, which would of necessity include visual ethnicity as one of many elements. We could satisfactorily perform Japanese drama if we looked and sounded and performed in a Japanese manner.

All other things being equal I'd prefer to see a Bach singer's ethnicity reflect the cultural world in which Bach lived and in which the traditions he inspired have lived.

I think you're getting caught up in the nuances of the word "perform" which you take to have connotations of mere entertainment. When I wrote earlier of the dances being performed you objected that they weren't _performed_. But of course perform can mean simply execute or "do". Priests can "perform" a ritual without any connotation of entertainment. In any case the presence of an audience does not in itself make a _performance_ more or less ethnically exclusive. Wagner intended to bring an audience together but clearly his idea of an audience was rather exclusive.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> Which is the position that leads to our believing that we cannot perform the masterworks of the past - because they come from a very different and very alien culture. I don't think you mean that.


Obviously the best we can hope for in such cases is a historically informed imitation, using study to replicate as closely as possible the aural and visual atmosphere as history has recorded it.


----------



## Logos

Madiel said:


> then you are racist
> once the ethnic composition of a society has changed the desire to exclude in the representation of its cultural heritage members of that society in the name of ethnicity that's racism


If I wish to have a woman portray Harriet Tubman in a drama, is it racist to ask that she be portrayed by a black woman, and exclude from consideration white women?


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> I've never really agreed with the people who insist that the great classical composers are "universal", but this I think is taking things too far. In your view, how non-German-looking can a Bach singer be and still get away with it?


Obviously one can still derive enjoyment from performances that include anachronistic factors. The question is whether historico-ethnic harmony with the work being performed is part of the total aesthetic experience.


----------



## Madiel

Logos said:


> If I wish to have a woman portray Harriet Tubman in a drama, is it racist to ask that she be portrayed by a black woman, and exclude from consideration white women?


no, it is simply stupid or dishonest, the only two adjectives who explain how someone can use such a silly comparison between fictional characters and historical ones. How do you solve your quest for authenticity/imbecility with opera roles written for castrato singers? do we stop performing them or do we advocate castration?


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> If I wish to have a woman portray Harriet Tubman in a drama, is it racist to ask that she be portrayed by a black woman, and exclude from consideration white women?


Assuming your drama is intended as an accurate portrayal of Harriet Tubman (cf Todd Haynes's _I'm Not There_), then her blackness is essential to the drama and there would be too much of a disconnect between actor and role (quite aside from any issues relating to whether black actors are given their fair share of dramatic roles). But this is vastly different from a Japanese person singing Bach; the purpose of singing Bach is to perform the musical score that Bach produced, and there's no intended connection between the notes being sung and the physical appearance of the singer. If you perceive a disconnect, it's something personal to you.


----------



## Nereffid

Madiel said:


> no, it is simply stupid or dishonest, the only two adjectives who explain how someone can use such a silly comparison between fictional characters and historical ones. How do you solve your quest for authenticity/imbecility with opera roles written for castrato singers? do we stop performing them or do we advocate castration?


Logos is OK with Japanese singers of Bach as long as they can't be seen, so I presume that as long as the countertenor keeps his pants on there's no problem.


----------



## Logos

Madiel said:


> no, it is simply stupid or dishonest, the only two adjectives who explain how someone can use such a silly comparison between fictional characters and historical ones. How do you solve your quest for authenticity/imbecility with opera roles written for castrato singers? do we stop performing them or do we advocate castration?


Who are the fictional characters in question? As for castrati, whether we advocate castration or not, we find those men who sound most like castrati and place them in those roles. We don't let men with bass voices sing those roles in an effort to include everyone.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> But this is vastly different from a Japanese person singing Bach; the purpose of singing Bach is to perform the musical score that Bach produced, and there's no intended connection between the notes being sung and the physical appearance of the singer.


Then the appearance of the theater is not part of the experience? Is it an ugly, dirty venue? Is it grand and magnificent? How is the stage lit? What are the performers wearing? Is their dress uniform or parti-colored? Are the performers arranged in a manner that is visually orderly? All these things in addition to the notes are perceivable, and all things perceivable can influence the total effect of a performance. In order for the "purpose" of a performance to have its full effect it must take place in an atmosphere conducive to that end, which includes a proper visual setting.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> I think you're getting caught up in the nuances of the word "perform" which you take to have connotations of mere entertainment. When I wrote earlier of the dances being performed you objected that they weren't _performed_. But of course perform can mean simply execute or "do". Priests can "perform" a ritual without any connotation of entertainment. In any case the presence of an audience does not in itself make a _performance_ more or less ethnically exclusive. Wagner intended to bring an audience together but clearly his idea of an audience was rather exclusive.


I don't think either of us is confused about what I meant. Even if I did fail to express myself clearly, you got what I meant. But, aside from pointing out that I used a word that could mean different things, you have not responded to the point.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> I don't think either of us is confused about what I meant. Even if I did fail to express myself clearly, you got what I meant. But, aside from pointing out that I used a word that could mean different things, you have not responded to the point.


There has been a lot of points. What's the point you have in mind?


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Then the appearance of the theater is not part of the experience? Is it an ugly, dirty venue? Is it grand and magnificent? How is the stage lit? What are the performers wearing? Is their dress uniform or parti-colored? Are the performers arranged in a manner that is visually orderly? All these things in addition to the notes are perceivable, and all things perceivable can influence the total effect or a given performance. In order for the "purpose" of a performance to have its full effect it must take place in an atmosphere conducive to that end, which includes a proper visual setting.


Of course appearances count toward the experience. But your definition of "proper visual setting" is very - and I'd say _bizarrely_ - specific and rigid. Few people have such a desire for authenticity. To take it to its absurd conclusion, for you the ideal performance of Bach's _Easter Oratorio_ would be in a building that either is or closely resembles the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, performed at Easter at the appropriate time of day, by a historically accurate number of performers on authentic instruments and in period clothing, who are at least white and preferably Germanic in appearance. For most of us there's no need for such an ideal, and we can drop some of those factors and still have a wholly satisfactory experience. A concert hall at night, modern dress-casual, Japanese performers, it's still Bach's _Easter Oratorio_. I mean, if you're talking about _appearance_ being part of the _experience_, then I have to say that part of my _experience_ of your posts is that they _appear_ weirdly racist.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> Of course appearances count toward the experience. But your definition of "proper visual setting" is very - and I'd say _bizarrely_ - specific and rigid. Few people have such a desire for authenticity. To take it to its absurd conclusion, for you the ideal performance of Bach's _Easter Oratorio_ would be in a building that either is or closely resembles the St. Thomas Church in Leipzig, performed at Easter at the appropriate time of day, by a historically accurate number of performers on authentic instruments and in period clothing, who are at least white and preferably Germanic in appearance.


Then do you acknowledge that for experiencing Bach's Easter Oratorio this would be ideal? Do not these details contribute to the atmosphere for a fuller representation of Bach's world through which his music was distilled, and do they not aid in providing a suitable setting for the music? Logically, if all appearances are part of an experience, then visual ethnicity is part of the experience.


----------



## DavidA

Enthusiast said:


> Sorry you think so but I meant it quite precisely rather than as an insult. I was trying to refer to this reliance on a logic that is misapplied through neglect of context and social realities.


Misapplied logic? Neglect of context and social realists? Typical of a certain kind of PC language that is around today. A logical solution is to have the best candidates for available posts. That is true diversity.


----------



## Logos

DavidA said:


> Misapplied logic? Neglect of context and social realists? Typical of a certain kind of PC language that is around today. A logical solution is to have the best candidates for available posts. That is true diversity.


Isn't using autistic as an insult the very antithesis of PC? That could get some people fired nowadays.


----------



## Guest

* Culture secretary urges BBC to appoint female Question Time host *

Typical of those lefties! 
Oh wait, it's the Conservative Minister.

As you were.

https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2018/jun/21/culture-secretary-urges-bbc-appoint-female-question-time-host


----------



## DavidA

Logos said:


> Isn't using autistic as an insult the very antithesis of PC? That could get some people fired nowadays.


Maybe but the problem is people use words and labels and think by doing so they justify their argument.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Then do you acknowledge that for experiencing Bach's Easter Oratorio this would be ideal? Do not these details contribute to the atmosphere for a fuller representation of Bach's world through which his music was distilled, and do they not aid in providing a suitable setting for the music? Logically, if all appearances are part of an experience, then visual ethnicity is part of the experience.


I just happened upon this exchange and I must say I find it a little weird. What does "visual ethnicity" in the physical trappings of performance have to do with music? When I'm listening to a work by Bach I have no interest in a "fuller representation of Bach's world." In fact the very idea sounds positively repugnant. I would look ridiculous in a large wig.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> What does "visual ethnicity" in the physical trappings of performance have to do with music?


Aren't both music and physical trappings equally present in the total experience? Why not encourage the senses to complement each other with suitable objects for eye as well as ear?


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Then do you acknowledge that for experiencing Bach's Easter Oratorio this would be ideal? Do not these details contribute to the atmosphere for a fuller representation of Bach's world through which his music was distilled, and do they not aid in providing a suitable setting for the music? Logically, if all appearances are part of an experience, then visual ethnicity is part of the experience.


No. I disagree with the idea that historical accuracy is necessary for experiencing a work of art. I prefer historically informed performances myself, certainly, but Bach (especially in his keyboard music) is an excellent example of a composer who to my ears (and many others') can survive all manner of inauthenticity and still sound marvellous. And sure, context can add greatly to one's enjoyment or understanding of a work of art. But painstakingly recreating the historical circumstances under which a piece of music was first performed is to my mind an entirely separate thing from the basic goal of the piece of music, which is simply _to be performed_.

Seeing as no one in the audience will have been raised as a late-17th/early-18th-century German Lutheran, everyone's already at a massive disadvantage in the authenticity stakes anyway. Visual ethnicity of the performers is such a minor aspect of the experience and, as I said, caring about it smacks of racism too.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Aren't both music and physical trappings are both present in the total experience?


No. If I'm giving the music my full attention it will create its own world for my imagination. I don't want or need externalities impinging on that experience, or if I do I prefer to have power over what they will be. The great thing about art is that it transcends the circumstances of its creation. If a chorus of frogs could give a good performance of the B-minor Mass, I'd gladly hear it.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> Seeing as no one in the audience will have been raised as a late-17th/early-18th-century German Lutheran, everyone's already at a massive disadvantage in the authenticity stakes anyway.


Then why augment these inherent disadvantages by ignoring those aspects of performance which can easily be made to replicate the past? No one has said these measures are _necessary_. It's a question of what is ideal, not what is necessary. And you admit the importance of context as adding to one's understanding or enjoyment, which is the marrow of everything I've been saying.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> If a chorus of frogs could give a good performance of the B-minor Mass, I'd gladly hear it.


Oh, I would pay a lot to hear that.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Then why augment these inherent disadvantages by ignoring those aspects of performance which can easily be made to replicate the past? No one has said these measures are _necessary_. *It's a question of what is ideal*, not what is necessary. And you admit the importance of context as adding to one's understanding or enjoyment, which is the marrow of everything I've been saying.


Why is the replication of history an ideal? It may be an enjoyable, and in some cases an enlightening, experience, but an individual may very well find listening to Bach while looking at the stars, or sitting by the fire with a glass of sherry, more satisfying than squirming in the wooden pews of a drafty 18th-century church devoted to a religion in which he doesn't believe. Once a work of art is out of its creator's hands, it belongs to us to enjoy in whatever way is "ideal" for us.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> No. If I'm giving the music my full attention it will create its own world for my imagination. I don't want or need externalities impinging on that experience, or if I do I prefer to have power over what they will be.


What makes light waves entering your eyes any more external than sound waves entering your ears? If you wish to enjoy only one sense at a time, why not go further and enjoy only one tone at a time, letting no externality such as a suitable harmony interfere with your monolithic contemplation of it?


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> Why is the replication of history an ideal?


Then you would rather history be distorted? How could that possibly be ideal?


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> What makes light waves entering your eyes any more external than sound waves entering your ears? If you wish to enjoy only one sense at a time, why not go further and enjoy only one tone at a time, letting no externality such as a suitable harmony interfere with your monolithic contemplation of it?


If that's what I took a work of art to be about, then that's the way I would approach it. But that's really silly. In this case Bach composed a musical work, not a historical pageant. I'm pretty sure that he would be delighted to know that his work so transcends the original setting of its premiere that we can all - all of us, regardless of our culture or religion - delight in it while having breakfast or driving to work.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Then you would rather history be distorted? How could that possibly be ideal?


Oh please. We're performing music, not history. If you want a historical tableau accompanying everything you listen to, you're welcome to. But your notion that this is somehow an experience to which we should all aspire, and without which the "true" meaning and value of the music is diminished, is ludicrous.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> In this case Bach composed a musical work, not a historical pageant. I'm pretty that he would be delighted to know that his work so transcends the original setting of its premiere that we can all - all of us, regardless of our culture or religion - delight in it while having breakfast or driving to work.


Yes, a musical work, in a definite time and particular place with all other attendant specifying qualities. Not a musical work abstracted from all other reality. It wouldn't surprise me if Bach would be more concerned with modern European apostasy than anything connected with his art or the demographics of those who enjoy it.


----------



## laurie

So, I guess that Logos won't be enjoying a performance of the musical *Hamilton* any time soon?


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> If that's what I took a work of art to be about, then that's the way I would approach it. But that's really silly. In this case Bach composed a musical work, not a historical pageant.


The music itself is an historical artifact. Any performance is already an historical pageant in a manner of speaking, although an imperfect one. In a museum exhibiting artifacts, does one not wish to see those items in settings which at the very least don't jarr with them?


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Yes, a musical work, in a definite time and particular place with all other attendant specifying qualities. Not a musical work abstracted from all other reality.


Everything people produce is made "in a definite time and particular place with all other attendant specifying qualities." That doesn't mean that it's "ideal" to replicate the time, place, and attendant qualities of the origin of every human product whenever we make use of it.

Do you really imagine that the physical circumstances of a musical work's conception and first performance are "ideal" for experiencing it today? Would you want to listen to Beethoven's 5th surrounded by a clutter of paper, cobwebs, half-eaten plates of food and chamber pots, or sitting through that famous four-hour concert in a frigid auditorium in which the work was premiered? How much hardship are you willing to endure in pursuit of your "ideal"? And how do you know what conditions of creation or performance Bach or Beethoven might have considered "ideal"? Wagner never saw "ideal" productions of his operas, which are feats of the artistic imagination so extraordinary that we still struggle with how to present them today.

Your longing for "ethnic authenticity" sells art and its creators very, very short.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Then why augment these inherent disadvantages by ignoring those aspects of performance which can easily be made to replicate the past? No one has said these measures are _necessary_. It's a question of what is ideal, not what is necessary. And you admit the importance of context as adding to one's understanding or enjoyment, which is the marrow of everything I've been saying.


I personally wouldn't regard telling a non-Caucasian musician that their presence is detrimental to a Bach performance as something "easily" done. Even if you don't think it's _necessary_, you clearly think it's _preferable_. Whatever about period clothing and architecture, you brought up this whole notion of ideal performance in a thread about diversity, not performance practice, so I wish you could see how weirdly racist this part of your theory seems.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> Wagner never saw "ideal" productions of his operas, which are feats of the artistic imagination so extraordinary that we still struggle with how to present them today.


Of course there were no perfect 19th century performances, but there may be ideal ways to recreate the best features of those imperfect performances for the purpose of understanding them, without adding jarring anachronisms. During the Gothic revival, I don't think Victorian gentlemen insisted on putting heretics on trial or eliminating modern plumbing, yet they still managed to reproduce some of the atmosphere of the Middle Ages in architecture, painting, and poetry.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> I personally wouldn't regard telling a non-Caucasian musician that their presence is detrimental to a Bach performance as something "easily" done.


And yet a Japanese would feel no compunction in telling a Caucasian that his services are not required in Noh theater, because it simply isn't done.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Of course there were no perfect 19th century performances, but there may be ideal ways to recreate the best features of those imperfect performances for the purpose of understanding them, without adding jarring anachronisms. During the Gothic revival, I don't think Victorian gentlemen insisted on putting heretics on trial or eliminating modern plumbing, yet they still managed to reproduce some of the atmosphere of the Middle Ages in architecture, painting, and poetry.


Now you're hedging, and your "ideal" is being revealed as the subjective preference it is. What are the "best" features of those (which?) imperfect performances? What authority are we to consult? Wagner is dead, so we can't ask him what he would have wanted to see, or even what aspects of his contemporary productions led him to say, in exasperation, " Now that I've invented the invisible orchestra I should like to invent the invisible stage!" Yes, we can "reproduce some of the atmosphere" surrounding the initial performances, and in fact we can go to Bayreuth and have it already present. But did the composer imagine this particular "atmosphere" when he conceived the _Ring_ 20 years earlier? Or were the conditions under which he created, and the limitations of performance imposed by his time and place, miserable compromises and unworthy of his imagination and of the works he produced in spite of them?


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> And yet a Japanese would feel no compunction in telling a Caucasian that his services are not required in Noh theater, because it simply isn't done.


Having little knowledge of Noh theater and not being a part of Japanese society, there's not much I can do about that, however I feel about it. But you're OK with non-Caucasian people being deliberately kept out of classical music, on the grounds of their ethnicity?


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> Wagner is dead, so we can't ask him what he would have wanted to see, or even what aspects of his contemporary productions led him to say, in exasperation, " Now that I've invented the invisible orchestra I should like to invent the invisible stage!" Yes, we can "reproduce some of the atmosphere" surrounding the initial performances, and in fact we can go to Bayreuth and have it already present. But did the composer imagine this particular "atmosphere" when he conceived the _Ring_ 20 years earlier? Or were the conditions under which he created, and the limitations of performance imposed by his time and place, miserable compromises and unworthy of his imagination and of the works he produced in spite of them?


Wagner may be dead, but he wrote more words than most men speak in a lifetime. Where he didn't leave explicit instruction, he left more than enough hints upon which to operate without having recourse to bizarre anachronisms and innovations. Yes, he was disappointed in the inadequate stage machinery and his malfunctioning dragon, but we can make a better functioning, somewhat more impressive dragon while still adhering to a 19th century romantic sensibility in designing it.


----------



## Thomyum2

Goodness people, if you spend this much time arguing on the forum, how do you find enough time left to listen to classical music?


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> But you're OK with non-Caucasian people being deliberately kept out of classical music, on the grounds of their ethnicity?


I'm perfectly all right with being kept out of Peking opera on the grounds of my ethnicity.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> And yet a Japanese would feel no compunction in telling a Caucasian that his services are not required in Noh theater, because it simply isn't done.


Why would a Noh theater company not feel honored and delighted that a Frenchman would love their native art enough to master it and perform it superbly well? On what grounds would they object? And if they didn't object, on what grounds would you disagree with them? On grounds that the participation of a Frenchman would spoil your National Geographic slide show of a pristine exotic culture?


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> Why would a Noh theater company not feel honored and delighted that a Frenchman would love their native art enough to master it and perform it superbly well? On what grounds would they object? And if they didn't object, on what grounds would you disagree with them? On grounds that the participation of a Frenchman would spoil your National Geographic slide show of a pristine exotic culture?


Is their reason for refusing pertinent to the discussion? Westerners have a hard time getting into Japanese bathhouses, let alone participating in Noh theater. My reason would be that allowing such a person into the fold would spoil the historico-aesthetic effect of the work by adding a jarring visual element, unless of course they were one the few performers permitted to wear a mask, were of appropriate stature, and had perfectly mastered the art.


----------



## DavidA

Thomyum2 said:


> Goodness people, if you spend this much time arguing on the forum, how do you find enough time left to listen to classical music?


They perhaps argue with music in the background?


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Is their reason for refusing pertinent to the discussion? Westerners have a hard time getting into Japanese bathhouses, let alone participating in Noh theater. My reason would be that allowing such a person into the fold would spoil the historico-aesthetic effect of the work by adding jarring visual element, unless of course they were one the few performers permitted to wear a mask, were of appropriate stature, and had perfectly mastered the art.


As I suggested, it would spoil your National Geographic slide show of a pristine exotic culture. Me, I'm delighted to go and hear the Tokyo String Quartet spoiling the pristine Germanic essence of Beethoven.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Wagner may be dead, but he wrote more words than most men speak in a lifetime. Where he didn't leave explicit instruction, he left more than enough hints upon which to operate without having recourse to bizarre anachronisms and innovations. Yes, he was disappointed in the inadequate stage machinery and his malfunctioning dragon, but we can make a better functioning, somewhat more impressive dragon while still adhering to a 19th century romantic sensibility in designing it.


Which 19th-century Romantic sensibility shall we adhere to? The mere avoidance of "bizarre anachronisms" gives us little to go on. But why limit our comprehension of Wagner's vision to a 19th-century Romantic sensibility? Do you presume that when Wagner was composing his music his visual imagination was constrained by, say, memories of the paintings of Kaspar David Friedrich? Is such 19th-century visual art fully consistent with Wagner's imagined vistas, much less the best possible expression of them?

The notion that the presentation of art should ideally be stuffed into the mold forced upon it by the conditions of its own time and place denies both the imagination of its creators and the breadth and depth of meaning that gives art relevance to humanity at large. That notion may be your ideal, but fortunately it isn't everyone's.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> Which 19th-century Romantic sensibility shall we adhere to? The mere avoidance of "bizarre anachronisms" gives us little to go on. But why limit our comprehension of Wagner's vision to a 19th-century Romantic sensibility? Do you presume that when Wagner was composing his music his visual imagination was constrained by, say, memories of the paintings of Kaspar David Friedrich? Is such 19th-century visual art fully consistent with Wagner's imagined vistas, much less the best possible expression of them?


Wagner's taste in visual art isn't an unknown. We know what he liked because we know what designs he approved and we know the artists he sought out. For example, when designing Neuschwanstein castle, Ludwig II selected artists of whom Wagner explicitly approved--artists like Christian Jank. And what is the style of this artist whom he endorsed? Precisely the fairy-book, mid-19th century romantic idiom one would expect.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Wagner's taste in visual art isn't an unknown. We know what he liked because we know what designs he approved and we know the artists he sought out. For example, when designing the Neuschwanstein castle interiors, Ludwig II selected artists of whom Wagner explicitly approved to decorate it--artists like Christian Jank. And what is the style of this artist whom he endorsed? Precisely the fairy-book, mid-19th century romantic idiom one would expect.


But the question is not "What was Wagner's taste in the visual art of his time?" The question is "What is the expressive reach of his music, and does that sort of art do it justice?" Your answer is: "Yes, necessarily." Mine is: "Not even close!"

The arts and cultural expressions of a given locale and moment in time do not acquire the status of an organic whole merely by dint of existing concurrently. The fallacy of such thinking should be obvious. The ability to transcend its own time is probably the most conspicuous virtue that distinguishes the great in art from the ordinary.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> The question is "What is the expressive reach of his music, and does that sort of art do it justice?" Your answer is: "Yes, necessarily." Mine is: "Not even close!"


But wouldn't Wagner know what sort of visual art suited his aesthetics better than either of us? And in Wagner's opinion this was the proper visual idiom to express his aesthetic ideals. Why do you want to tell a man his own business? We are here presented not merely with concurrent "cultural expressions of a given locale and moment" but preferences existing in the same brain, and that brain being that of the artist himself. If that isn't an organic whole I don't know what is. The pseudo-medieval historicism of this style of art is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to appeal to Wagner. Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Can anyone see it as less than natural that this should be the tendency of his inclinations?


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> But *wouldn't Wagner know what sort of visual art suited his aesthetics better than either of us? * And in Wagner's opinion this was the proper visual idiom to express his aesthetic ideals. Why do you want to tell a man his own business? We are here presented not merely with concurrent "cultural expressions of a given locale and moment" but preferences existing in the same brain, and that brain being that of the artist himself. If that isn't an organic whole I don't know what is. The pseudo-medieval historicism of this style of art is exactly the sort of thing one would expect to appeal to Wagner. Is anyone honestly surprised by this? Can anyone see it as less than natural that this should be the tendency of his inclinations?


The answer to the first question is "no, not necessarily." Being a musical genius doesn't guarantee sensitivity or imagination in visual art. That Wagner was a visionary in music but quite conventional in his visual tastes is rather painfully obvious and has been noted by more than one commentator, as well as by perceptive contemporaries. The original Bayreuth stage sets look quaint, sentimental and earthbound to most people now, while the music transcends its era.

Wagner's music poses a perpetual challenge to stage designers and directors to find ways of giving its psychological penetration, atmospheric subtlety and grandeur of scale anything like adequate expression, and the supposition that he would have expected future generations to perpetuate the visual style of his own first productions is completely without foundation and actually counterintuitive, given his lifelong experience as a man of the theater. The best medium for his works is almost certainly film, but stage designers as far back as Adolphe Appia understood the problem and saw what might be possible with modern theatrical technology. Imaginative, innovative, timeless musical genius deserves all the visual excitement we can bring to it, not picture postcards that would serve for a church Christmas pageant.

I fear you're keeping us in the weeds here. Your argument for the inseparability of art from its contemporary circumstances is not advancing at all.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> The answer to the first question is "no, not necessarily." Being a musical genius doesn't guarantee sensitivity or imagination in visual art. That Wagner was a visionary in music but quite conventional in his visual tastes is rather painfully obvious and has been noted by more than one commentator, as well as by perceptive contemporaries.


The issue here is whether art should be presented in a proper historical context, not whether that context consisted of good or bad art. If an old novel originally contained the author's less than expert illustrations, I'd ideally like to experience the work with those less than perfect illustrations, rather than have them replaced with entirely anachronistic illustrations that would disgust the author. Wagner was the ultimate expert on Wagner. When I want to experience Wagner, I want to experience _all_ of Wagner, including the warts (that means Wagner's opinions in music but also visual art, literature, politics); and not a theater director's revised edition of Wagner with modern commentary consisting of excrescences from his own anachronistic notions that have nothing to do with Wagner's worldview. I'm interested in _Wagner_. I'm _not_ interested in the theater director.

Wagner composed mid 19th century romantic music and he liked mid 19th century romantic architecture and painting. There's no use pretending he liked something else and creating a monstrous chimera--one bit from the 19th century, one from the 20th, one from the 21st--and wind up with some disgusting farrago that represents nothing. When I wish to experience an historical artifact, I'd rather not have a modern person add his own notions or airbrush out certain details that he feels unimportant.

Why is it that in the avant-garde theater there are no directors creating flowery romantic stagings with fairy tale cottages? Yet in presentations of romantic or classical works, we find them infested with modernistic anachronisms? Why is the one allowed to infect the other but not the reverse? And underlying all these tendencies we find the colossal arrogance that has the gall to contradict Wagner as to what visual style best suits his own works, despite the years of thought that he put into such questions. Why not rewrite certain dull passages in his music while they're at it?


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> *The issue here is whether art should be presented in a proper historical context,* not whether that context consisted of good or bad art. If an old novel originally contained the author's less than expert illustrations, I'd ideally like to experience the work with those less than perfect illustrations, rather than have them replaced with entirely anachronistic illustrations that would disgust the author. Wagner was the ultimate expert on Wagner. *When I want to experience Wagner, I want to experience all of Wagner,* including the warts (that means Wagner's opinions in music but also visual art, literature, politics); and *not a theater director's revised edition of Wagner with modern commentary consisting of excrescences from his own anachronistic notions that have nothing to do with Wagner's worldview. * I'm interested in _Wagner_. I'm _not_ interested in the theater director.
> 
> Wagner composed mid 19th century romantic music and he liked mid 19th century romantic architecture and painting. There's no use pretending he liked something else and creating a *monstrous chimera*--one bit from the 19th century, one from the 20th, one from the 21st--and wind up with *some disgusting farrago that represents nothing.* When I wish to experience an historical artifact, I'd rather not have a modern person add his own notions or airbrush out certain details that he feels unimportant.
> 
> Why is it that in the avant-garde theater there are no directors creating flowery romantic stagings with fairy tale cottages? Yet in presentations of romantic or classical works, we find them infested with modernistic anachronisms? Why is the one allowed to infect the other but not the reverse? And underlying all these tendencies we find the colossal arrogance that has the gall to contradict Wagner as to what visual style best suits his own works, despite the years of thought that he put into such questions. Why not rewrite certain dull passages in his music while they're at it?


No, "the issue" is NOT whether art "should" be presented in a "proper" historical context. That assertion begs question after question; it doesn't support your position, but merely restates it. I don't acknowledge your "issue," or accept your "should" or your notion of what's "proper," so if you think you have some sort of rectitude here you're going to have to find some real arguments for it instead of just piling on rhetoric.

An experience of _Die Walkure_ is not an experience of "all of Wagner." It's an experience of _Die Walkure._ Your desire to experience all of Wagner will have to be satisfied some other way. Even the assumption that the way to experience "all of _Die Walkure"_ is to sit through a performance that replicates the sets, costumes and acting style of 1876 is ridiculous, for reasons I've already addressed but you haven't. The alternative to trite and sentimental stage productions from a dead era is hardly "excrescences from anachronistic notions that have nothing to do with Wagner's worldview," a "monstrous chimera," or a "digusting farrago that represents nothing." You really must be kidding with that stuff - but if you aren't, and if you insist on arguing with strawmen, then no discussion is possible.

But I think that's pretty obvious already. So you just enjoy your Caucasian Teutons in horned helmets - because they're "proper" and therefore you "should" - and I'll look for creative productions that dig beneath the fairy tale surface and actually take the richness of meaning inherent in the music into account.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> But I think that's pretty obvious already. So you just enjoy your Caucasian Teutons in horned helmets - because they're "proper" and therefore you "should" - and I'll look for creative productions that dig beneath the fairy tale surface and actually take the richness of meaning inherent in the music into account.


All right but what's beneath the fairy tale surface is largely a melange of proto-fascism, bloated bombast, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, nationalism, along with the same pseudo-archaic grotesquerie that one can find in a thousand other 19th century artists. Is any of that any less dead than its surface? If anything, its deader. If anything, the fairy tale surface is the least dated part about them since it has remained intelligible to modern audiences. Wagner's "deeper meanings" on the other hand are about as limpid as a page of Hegel that's been through a blender--and not entirely due to their profundity, sad to say. And as for the music itself, the Wagnerian style has been musical shorthand for pompous old-fashioned, long-winded, fustian, sentimental music for more than a century. It's as out tune with our world as the pyramids. By 1918, Wagner was grandpa's music. His orotund flourishes of brass are as dated as antimacassars. By modern standards, Wagner's entire approach to art, including his choice of subject matter (medieval and mythic), is ridiculously overblown and turgid, filled with embarrassing magniloquent musico-dramatic gestures that would provoke more laughter than awe if a contemporary artist attempted them. The whole thing being more or less dead, we might as well enjoy viewing the body as a whole--as it was c. 1876.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> All right but what's beneath the fairy tale surface is largely a melange of proto-fascism, bloated bombast, Schopenhauer, Feuerbach, nationalism, along with the same pseudo-archaic grotesquerie that one can find in a thousand other 19th century artists. Is any of that any less dead than its surface? If anything, its deader. And as for the music itself, the Wagnerian style has been musical shorthand for pompous old-fashioned, long-winded, fustian, sentimental music for more than a century. It's as out tune with our world as the pyramids. By 1918, Wagner was grandpa's music. His orotund flourishes of brass are as dated as antimacassars. By modern standards, Wagner's entire approach to art is ridiculously overblown and turgid, filled with embarrassingly magniloquent musico-dramatic gestures that would provoke more laughter than awe if a contemporary artist attempted them. *The whole thing being more or less dead, we might as well enjoy viewing the body as a whole, as it was c. 1876.*


:lol:

So when we can't understand, appreciate or enjoy an artist's achievement, we can always go for "ethnic authenticity" or "historical context."

Tnat certainly puts the rest this discussion into needed perspective, along with your credibility as a critic of art and culture.

Thanks.


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> So when we can't understand, appreciate or enjoy an artist's achievement, we can always go for "ethnic authenticity" or "historical context."


Yes, because otherwise one will simply distort it, which is precisely what happens every year at Bayreuth.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Yes, because otherwise one will simply distort it, which is precisely what happens every year at Bayreuth.


What happens at Bayreuth doesn't support a call for "historical accuracy."


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> What happens at Bayreuth doesn't support a call for "historical accuracy."


Yes, better that the whole place should be turned into a gift shop at this point. Totally beyond saving.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> Yes, better that the whole place should be turned into a gift shop at this point. Totally beyond saving.


What's totally beyond saving is my hope of having a rational discussion with someone who can't tolerate dissent and has to end by finding something I enjoy to heap contempt upon.

Why would you want to come onto a forum and tell people how they "should" enjoy music and how it "should" be "properly" presented, and when told that your way is not the only legitimate way, tell them that the music they love isn't worth enjoying anyway? How twisted is that?

It's a rhetorical question. Do me a favor and don't attempt an answer.


----------



## Guest

Bayreuth, I am quite sure, would quickly fade into obsolescence if it began to follow Beckmesser's values on art...............


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> What's totally beyond saving is my hope of having a rational discussion with someone who can't tolerate dissent and has to end by finding something I enjoy to heap contempt upon.


Can't tolerate dissent? I've been having this discussion with multiple people for dozens of lengthy posts, none of them agreeing with me in the slightest. More than tolerating it, I'm enjoying the conversation a great deal. You seem you be having much more distress over my dissent than I'm having over yours, and I'm sorry to see that. I don't recall telling anyone that the music they love isn't worth enjoying. Where did I write this?


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> Bayreuth, I am quite sure, would quickly fade into obsolescence if it began to follow Beckmesser's values on art...............


But of course Beckmesser failed as an original artist, not as one whose profession was to recreate preexisting works. He might have fit the latter role to perfection.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> But of course Beckmesser failed as an original artist, not as one whose profession was to recreate preexisting works. He might have fit the latter role to perfection.


'Recreating preexisting works' is not really what opera productions are about. Re-imagining, interpreting, creating new ways to celebrate old repertoire is, I am sure many would agree, actually more interesting than repeating the same thing over and over again.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> 'Recreating preexisting works' is not really what opera productions are about. Re-imagining, interpreting, creating new ways to celebrate old repertoire is, I am sure many would agree, actually more interesting than repeating the same thing over and over again.


Interpreting is one thing; but deciding to do something silly because one is bored, or feels a need to justify one's existence, or express oneself, is another. What's "interesting" to opera field-hands is of no interest to me. Many people are bored in their work--should restaurant employees cease to wash dishes because it's a monotonous, boring, repetitive task?


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Interpreting is one thing; but deciding to do something silly because one is bored, or feels a need to justify one's existence, or express oneself, is another. What's "interesting" to opera field-hands is of no interest to me. Many people are bored in their work--should restaurant employees cease to wash dishes because it's a monotonous, boring, repetitive task?


If you're not interested in it, then that's okay; opera isn't for everyone. It's art, not hygiene.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> If you're not interested in it, then that's okay; opera isn't for everyone. It's art, not hygiene.


Yet the former can make one as nauseated as the absence of the latter. I'm interested in opera, but I'm not interested in notions belonging to its modern practitioners.


----------



## Varick

Logos, post my debate, I am in total agreement here with Woodduck. Please tell me all the operas, where Leontyne Price, Kathleen Battle, and Jesse Norman performed in, that were diminished in performance because they were black? Who were all these composers that initially had black women in mind when they composed their operas?

Price, Battle, Norman, et al were outstanding singers. THAT'S ALL that matters.

Is Yo Yo Ma's performance of Bach's Cello Suites or Elgar's Cello Concerto reduced because he's Korean? Surely Bach and Elgar weren't thinking "korean" thoughts when they composed those were they?

There is a thing called taking an idea too far. You do however, seem to have a considerable amount of company in your thinking. One of the left's newest ridiculous hysterias is "Cultural Appropriation." They are VERY against such a thing, which brought to it's end logic by all measures, seems to be what you are advocating. According to the these people, a white person wearing a sombrero and a fake bushy mustache on Halloween is committing "cultural appropriation" and if you do it at college as a professor at a Halloween part, well then, you should be fired. If you are white and open up a taco stand, that is also "cultural appropriation" and you should be run out of business for being so "racist." After all, we only want Mexican people dressing "Mexican" and cooking/selling Mexican food right? 

I am not a HIPster. I find the "fuller" sound of a great many "modern" performance far more satisfying than the "pure" performances, which often sound thin and tin-y (imo). I find a great performance to be just that: Great. I couldn't care less who composed it, and who is performing it. If it's a great piece of music and it's performed well, then I say Bravo! Let's hear some more.

V


----------



## Guest

^^^^^^^ I think you have kinda misunderstood what 'cultural appropriation' is. It's more to do with the exploitation of culture and cultural relics for the profit of a colonial/dominant power (quite often it's an actual profit, money involved), not simply a _cultural exchange_ or even simply engaging with and embracing many different cultures.

Me learning Shakuhachi, despite not being Japanese, is not cultural appropriation. Me invading Japan, forming a new government in which I, and people like me (ethnically/culturally of Eastern European and modern Aussie heritage) systematically oppress Japanese people whilst representing their culture and heritage in a way which is comparable to _blackface........_ but for _profit_ off mass producing cultural relics, symbols etc as toys and gimmicks.......... then THAT is cultural appropriation.


----------



## Logos

Varick said:


> There is a thing called taking an idea too far. You do however, seem to have a considerable amount of company in your thinking. One of the left's newest ridiculous hysterias is "Cultural Appropriation."
> 
> I am not a HIPster. I find the "fuller" sound of a great many "modern" performance far more satisfying than the "pure" performances, which often sound thin and tin-y (imo). I find a great performance to be just that: Great. I couldn't care less who composed it, and who is performing it. If it's a great piece of music and it's performed well, then I say Bravo! Let's hear some more.


The sort of cultural appropriation to which you're referring is usually objected to on moral grounds. I'm objecting to a similar phenomenon on aesthetic grounds. That's the key difference.

I tend to prefer modern instruments as well.


----------



## Nereffid

Nereffid said:


> But you're OK with non-Caucasian people being deliberately kept out of classical music, on the grounds of their ethnicity?





Logos said:


> I'm perfectly all right with being kept out of Peking opera on the grounds of my ethnicity.


This is such a glaring non-answer that it becomes an answer in itself.


----------



## Art Rock

Varick said:


> Is Yo Yo Ma's performance of Bach's Cello Suites or Elgar's Cello Concerto reduced because he's Korean? Surely Bach and Elgar weren't thinking "korean" thoughts when they composed those were they?


Not important for the discussion, but I would like to correct this. Yo Yo Ma is an American born in Paris and has Chinese parents.


----------



## science

It's boring by now to people who've read a lot of my posts, but... 

One of the defining characteristics of the art of "our time" (post-circa-1968) is deliberate, flamboyant cross-cultural and genre-defying syncretism; this inclusivity has an explicitly political edge. 

At the moment the "polite elite" in the West (and in India and Japan) are enjoying somewhat less power than they've been accustomed to, but the impolite usurpers of that power have not yet had much if any influence on the high arts. 

But if the opponents of multiculturalism and proponents of ethnic/national purity remain long in power, we can probably expect to see Logos's hopes realized. Artists who produce "impure" works--opera productions or whatever--will lose favor compared to those whose work better fits the ideologies of the new rulers. 

So, even if lives and misery weren't at stake, merely on an aesthetic basis I personally would have every reason to hope for a return to what has become normalcy--a world of tango ballet, Tuvan throat signers accompanied by cello, jazz takes on bluegrass, American minimalism performed on Brazilian instruments, hip hop Broadway musicals, collaborations between superstars of Qawwali and grunge rock, Gnawa music with electric guitars, perhaps even American Indian chant over a synthesized beat!

Give me liberty, brothers and sisters.


----------



## Logos

science said:


> One of the defining characteristics of the art of "our time" (post-circa-1968) is deliberate, flamboyant cross-cultural and genre-defying syncretism; this inclusivity has an explicitly political edge.
> 
> At the moment the "polite elite" in the West (and in India and Japan) are enjoying somewhat less power than they've been accustomed to, but the impolite usurpers of that power have not yet had much if any influence on the high arts.


If anything the collapse of polite, traditional hierarchies during the First World War coincides with the rise of politicized syncretistic modernism. There's nothing polite about the men who have run the Western World since that time--the vast majority of them haven't even come from the aristocracy. Europe hardly has any polite elite to speak of at this late date in history.

What you really seem to be saying is, "Leftists have ruled Europe for some time now, and I like that. Now a lot of boorish, xenophobic populists (I can only presume you're referring to this group) are coming in and messing everything up." But of course neither of these groups is either polite or elite in a traditional sense. Surely "what has become normalcy" for less than a century has less claim to elite status than what was normalcy for ages, predating the predominance of either of these groups.

You speak of impolite usurpers, but taking a broad historical view, it's clear that the impolite usurpers are those who have taken power from the aristocracy since WW I; which is only the culmination of a slow process dating from the French Revolution. By casting leftists in the role of elites, I think you're confusing sansculottes and their political descendants with gentlemen. How fitting then that you should sign off with, "Give me liberty, brothers and sisters." Spoken like a true sansculotte, complete with phrygian cap no doubt.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> Spoken like a true sansculotte, complete with phrygian cap no doubt.


Proudly so. Try and take it from me.

The confusion about "leftists" isn't important here, but it is worth noting that those romantically oppressive ages weren't as ethnically or artistically homogenous as most people imagine. As has been said earlier in the thread, "nothing is pure."

Thank goodness.


----------



## Bluecrab

Varick said:


> Is Yo Yo Ma's performance of Bach's Cello Suites or Elgar's Cello Concerto reduced because he's Korean?


I bet Yo Yo Ma will be surprised to learn that he's Korean. Here he's gone his entire life thinking that he's Chinese.


----------



## Logos

science said:


> The confusion about "leftists" isn't important here, but it is worth noting that those romantically oppressive ages weren't as ethnically or artistically homogenous as most people imagine. As has been said earlier in the thread, "nothing is pure."


Then the sansculottes are the polite elites and the men they displaced are the boors? Astounding. Apparently the reputation of the House of Bourbon has never been lower.

You've defined our artistic age as a syncretistic, inclusive one. Logically, this must be in opposition to a prior age in which was less syncretistic and less inclusive--by definition more homogeneous. And this is according to your own characterization, not mine.


----------



## Guest

I don't have a problem with anything in the arts, as long as things are humane and respectful to the people currently living, working, creating..... then I'm good.

And I am all for politicians who want to put more funding towards the arts........... (typically, at least where I am from, these politicians like to align themselves at least a little to the _left_ of centre...........)


----------



## science

Logos said:


> Then the sansculottes are the polite elites and the men they replaced are the boors? Astounding. Apparently the reputation of the House of Bourbon has never been lower.
> 
> You've defined our artistic age as a syncretistic, inclusive one. Logically, this must be in opposition to a prior age in which was less syncretistic and less inclusive--by definition more homogeneous. And this is according to your own characterization, not mine.


I'm sure you're persuading someone.

But let's step back. What's the big picture here? What's in this for _you_, personally? What are you hoping to gain in an ethno-nationalist totalitarian state? Is there something more than viewing performances of Greek tragedies without seeing brown faces? Are you convinced that the online warriors of today will be the honored knights of tomorrow?

Or what?

Where are you hoping to go from here, and why?


----------



## Logos

science said:


> But let's step back. What's the big picture here? What's in this for _you_, personally? Where are you hoping to go from here, and why?


This is merely an informal little discussion on a message board of a few subjects related to art. Why must there be a "big picture"--should I now lay out some grand superfine teleological system of history and politics? You ask what "one has to gain" in such a state, but I should think that most who endorse that form of government believe in supremacy of the state itself rather than the individual. For that reason, a motivation of personal gain would be misapplied. And why the inquiry into personal motivations in the first place, side-tracking the discourse?

Being congenitally lazy, impoverished, clumsy, and allergic to work of any kind (including political labor), I'm afraid that I stand to gain little under any form of government the earth has hitherto known, making me entirely disinterested.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> This is merely an informal little discussion on a message board of a few subjects related to art. Why must there be a "big picture"--should I now lay out some grand superfine teleological system of history and politics? You ask what "one has to gain" in such a state, but I should think that most who endorse that form of government believe in supremacy of the state itself rather than the individual. For that reason, a motivation of personal gain would be misapplied. And why the inquiry into personal motivations in the first place, side-tracking the discourse?
> 
> Being congenitally lazy, impoverished, clumsy, and allergic to work of any kind (including political labor), I'm afraid that I stand to gain little under any form of government the earth has hitherto known, making me entirely disinterested.


Well, I hope you get used to the social dislocations and artistic playfulness of our time. It really is ok, once you get used to it. It's great actually. There has never been a better time for a lover of music to be alive.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> This is merely an informal discussion on a message board of a few subjects related to art. Why must there be a "big picture"--should I now lay out some grand superfine teleological system of history and politics? You ask what "one has to gain" in such a state, but I should think that most who endorse that form of government believe in supremacy of the state itself rather than the individual. For that reason, a motivation of personal gain would be misapplied. And why the inquiry into personal motivations in the first place, side-tracking the entire discourse?


Well, the original discourse in _this_ thread was "diversity in the concert hall". I don't need you to lay out any teleological systems, but seeing as you're the one who brought up the issue of "correct" ethnicity in performance, it would be useful if you came back to that particular point. You've made it clear you don't want to see non-Japanese people in Noh, or white people playing Harriet Tubman, or Japanese people singing Bach, but you haven't quite gotten round to actually stating what it seems like you're stating, which is: _non-white musicians should not perform non-modern classical music_. If that is indeed your position, and you're essentially opposed to the very notion of diversity in the concert hall, then it's no wonder that people might wonder what the bigger picture is, because as I've said it does seem weirdly racist, not the regular racist notion of one race being inferior to another but a sort of artistic anti-miscegenation. And you haven't hit back at the accusations of racism either, which is also a bit weird to be honest because usually both racists and non-racists will deny being racists.


----------



## Nereffid

Meanwhile, in the real world, here's what I think is a really interesting article by someone who I guess DavidA might refer to as "an American black" - Kira Thurman, a history professor at the University of Michigan, gives a personal perspective on the complexities of being an African-American who loves classical music.
https://thepointmag.com/2018/examin...-grain-playing-beethoven-blacklivesmatter-era


----------



## Logos

What exactly is your question with regard to the "big picture", Nereffid? Or maybe you were simply making a statement.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> What exactly is your question with regard to the "big picture", Nereffid? Or maybe you were simply making a statement.


Well, first of all, the small picture:
Is it your belief that non-white musicians should not perform non-modern classical music?

And the bigger picture:
If this is indeed your belief (and from what you've said so far, it seems to be), then do you think this belief can or should be extended to situations outside of the world of classical music and the arts generally? And, do you think that this belief, even if only confined to the arts, may be problematic on a societal level? Or, at least, do you see how this belief may be considered (by people who aren't you) to be problematic?


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> 1. Is it your belief that non-white musicians should not perform non-modern classical music?
> 
> 2. Do you think this belief can or should be extended to situations outside of the world of classical music and the arts generally?
> 
> 3. Do you think that this belief, even if only confined to the arts, may be problematic on a societal level? Or, at least, do you see how this belief may be considered (by people who aren't you) to be problematic?


1. I can't answer with a categorical yes or no for two reasons: Firstly, not all performances have a visual element, and not all performances having a visual element have an audience; In such cases appearance would not matter. Secondly, my preference only concerned what was _ideal_, which does not necessarily mean that any imperfect performance is not worth seeing or should not occur, since in reality the ideal is hard--if not impossible--to come by. In my view, one might reasonably reject a performer of suitable appearance but inferior voice and choose a performer of unsuitable appearance with a better voice; appearance being only one of many factors.

2. Since this particular view is of an intrinsically aesthetic nature, I can't see how it could have any clear application outside the arts.

3. Yes and yes.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> 1. I can't answer with a categorical yes or no for two reasons: Firstly, not all performances have a visual element, and not all performances having a visual element have an audience; In such cases appearance would not matter. Secondly, my preference only concerned what was _ideal_, which does not necessarily mean that any imperfect performance is not worth seeing or should not occur, since in reality the ideal is hard--if not impossible--to come by. In my view, one might reasonably reject a performer of suitable appearance but inferior voice and choose a performer of unsuitable appearance with a better voice; appearance being only one of many factors.
> 
> 2. Since this particular view is of an intrinsically aesthetic nature, I can't see how it could have any clear application outside the arts.
> 
> 3. Yes and yes.


You do seem to have a coherent view of these things. But I am not sure that your answer to the third question (_3. Do you think that this belief, even if only confined to the arts, may be problematic on a societal level? Or, at least, do you see how this belief may be considered (by people who aren't you) to be problematic?_) is entirely true. One thing that struck me in many of your posts was that you seemed blissfully unaware of how different your view is to the view of most people, of how surprising your ideas are these days. I am also struck by how important the visual element is to you for music that is not drama. I am not sure how to understand that. Many of us with an interest in the music of the past are interested in it for what it tells us now, rather than as a picture of a bygone age.

The other things that strikes me is your disdain for modern music (music that is less than 100 years old) - and yet it is that which you might get the most authentic experience from - and (if I am remembering correctly) your disdain for modern attempts to perform old music in historically informed ways (using instruments and performing practices which scholarship tells us are closer to what the composers might have expected). Even if you interest in largely visual, this historically informed practice leads to orchestras that are closer in size to those of the past, to instruments that look different and to conductors who do different things.

Maybe I am taking your points too far now?


----------



## science

Nereffid said:


> Meanwhile, in the real world, here's what I think is a really interesting article by someone who I guess DavidA might refer to as "an American black" - Kira Thurman, a history professor at the University of Michigan, gives a personal perspective on the complexities of being an African-American who loves classical music.
> https://thepointmag.com/2018/examin...-grain-playing-beethoven-blacklivesmatter-era


Thanks for sharing that article.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> 1. One thing that struck me in many of your posts was that you seemed blissfully unaware of how different your view is to the view of most people, of how surprising your ideas are these days.
> 
> 2. I am also struck by how important the visual element is to you for music that is not drama. I am not sure how to understand that. Many of us with an interest in the music of the past are interested in it for what it tells us now, rather than as a picture of a bygone age.
> 
> 3. The other things that strikes me is your disdain for modern music (music that is less than 100 years old) - and yet it is that which you might get the most authentic experience from...
> 
> 4. Even if your interest is largely visual, this historically informed practice leads to orchestras that are closer in size to those of the past, to instruments that look different and to conductors who do different things.


1. There must be something in my manner of writing that conveys that impression, but I can assure you that I'm aware my views are those of an exceedingly small minority.

2. This is because I place great weight on historical contextualization with other art forms as a means of better understanding a work. For example, the aesthetics of 18th century music were informed by extra-musical notions which also impacted dress, architecture, painting, political philosophy etc. None of these arts existed in a vacuum.

3. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you defining historically informed performances as modern music?

4. I don't recall expressing disdain for historically informed performances. I did agree with someone else's statement by remarking that rather than being purely or even mostly conservative, the historically informed movement as it stands seems to be rebellion against authority--namely against inheritances from the mid to late 19th century, a period which they associate with Wagnerian nationalism, militarism, racism, and romantic proto-fascism (and by association 20th century fascism); in favor of the more tolerant, civil, ecumenical 18th century. In other words, rather than being reactionary--as the movement might appear on its surface--I see it as as fundamentally a modernist movement. This excerpt from John Butt's book _Playing with History: The Historical Approach to Musical Performance_ discusses some of the underlying modernist currents within HIP in much more detail: http://assets.cambridge.org/97805218/13525/excerpt/9780521813525_excerpt.pdf


----------



## Nereffid

Enthusiast said:


> One thing that struck me in many of your posts was that you seemed blissfully unaware of how different your view is to the view of most people, of how surprising your ideas are these days.





Logos said:


> There must be something in my my manner of writing that conveys that impression, but I can assure you that I'm aware that my views are those of an exceedingly small minority.


FWIW, and this is the main reason I've been hammering at your view, what struck me wasn't so much that you're "blissfully unaware" as that you seem - not sure what the right word is - unembarrassed? unapologetic? unconcerned? that the view comes across as racist. Far be it for me to tell people how to post, but I don't know, it would have been reassuring early on if you'd made some sort of comment like "I know it sounds weirdly racist, but I promise you it isn't, it's just a thing I have about visual incongruity, and I know that in the real world it can't - and I guess shouldn't - be done in practice..."


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> FWIW, and this is the main reason I've been hammering at your view, what struck me wasn't so much that you're "blissfully unaware" as that you seem - not sure what the right word is - unembarrassed? unapologetic? unconcerned? that the view comes across as racist. Far be it for me to tell people how to post, but I don't know, it would have been reassuring early on if you'd made some sort of comment like "I know it sounds weirdly racist, but I promise you it isn't, it's just a thing I have about visual incongruity, and I know that in the real world it can't - and I guess shouldn't - be done in practice..."


If I were concerned, what would be the best thing to do? To calmly and precisely set forth my views so that all who wish to examine them may interpret their import with accuracy. This is in fact what I've attempted.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> If I were concerned, what would be the best thing to do? To calmly and precisely set forth my views so that all who wish to examine them may interpret their import with accuracy. This is in fact what I've attempted.


So... you don't think that saying "this isn't intended as racist" would improve the accuracy with which I might interpret your views?

I have to say, this is the most fun I've ever had from being exasperated!


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> So... you don't think that saying "this isn't intended as racist" would improve the accuracy with which I might interpret your views?


I think that making such a disavowal would only increase suspicion. When I hear someone vehemently deny being _x_ or make unsolicited disclaimers that they are not _x_, I suspect with greater apprehension that they are in fact _x_.

"There's definitely not a body under the floorboards, inspector!"

"Men, look under the floorboards."


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> 3. I'm not sure what you mean by this. Are you defining historically informed performances as modern music?


No, but didn't you post at some length about how modern music is not worth spending time on? So I wondered whether the greater ease with which you could experience authenticity with modern music doesn't act to tempt you. It was a minor question.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> I think that making such a disavowal would only increase suspicion. When I hear someone vehemently deny being _x_ or make unsolicited disclaimers that they are not _x_, I suspect with greater apprehension that they are in fact _x_.


Yeah but the thing is you haven't even _tepidly_ denied being X, and a disclaimer is in fact being solicited. So here's what I think. I think you have this thing about visual incongruity that extends to the ethnicity of musical performers, you bear no animosity to people of any given ethnicity, you're aware that other people would frown on your preference for ethnic "appropriateness", and you're quite sure in your own mind that it's not racism, it's just an aesthetic thing. But the way I see it now, your desire to be calmly logical about your preference and to steer clear of an obviously emotive topic has, in the face of rather unaggressive questioning from a few people, led to an appearance that you're deliberately deflecting away from having to give an uncomfortable answer.

I've said on another thread that the problem with trying to interpret online statements that seem racist is that people who are being unintentionally racist and people who are intentionally hiding their racism behave in such similar ways, so I sympathise with your position. But at this stage, from my perspective the deflecting is doing more harm than good, and if you put half as much effort into clarifying your rationale as you do in trying to avoid the whole issue, then your disavowal would *reduce* my suspicion.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> No, but didn't you post at some length about how modern music is not worth spending time on? So I wondered whether the greater ease with which you could experience authenticity with modern music doesn't act to tempt you. It was a minor question.


If one were interested in the music of the 2010s, naturally the most authentic performance is to be had in the 2010s. But authenticity itself can't make authentically bad art good; It can only make the authentic badness of the work in question more clearly perceivable.


----------



## Guest

I still don't quite understand how it's an _aesthetic_ thing to prefer the look of one ethnic group performing Bach to another......as a visual comparison.....

It's does strike me as an odd thing to say, and Logos is not even denying the racist undertones it may have. Or even explicitly confirming it, apart from the fact that they also understand it can be a problematic stance to take (which _seems_ like a confirmation?)

Actually, I'm confused. A normal person who expresses views and opinions that are rooted in racism (even if they aren't aware of it) would immediately deny they are racist. People who don't deny it, well, that seems like it could be even worse.


----------



## science

He's said what he means, and he's meant not to say what he hasn't said. It's pretty clearly a situation where at least some of us consider his views racist, and he's accepting that with a shrug.


----------



## bz3

Seems like a continuum. Are you racist if you don't like seeing a non-white perform as Batman? Maybe like 6/10 racist. What about seeing a non-white perform as Oedipus Rex? Maybe 4/10. What about performing as Mozart? Maybe 1/10 or less.

One would hope the answer is the same in the other direction. Would you be racist for not enjoying a white or Oriential person cast as Malcolm X in a biopic? Certainly not, even to the most ridiculous leftist. What about a white person being the Black Panther? Is his blackness that important to the role? (Legitimately don't know, I don't watch kid's movies.) What about casting Jonah Hill as Madea? Is that racist?

This line of inquiry sure does make your head spin. I'm glad I don't care about any of it.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> Actually, I'm confused. A normal person who expresses views and opinions that are rooted in racism (even if they aren't aware of it) would immediately deny they are racist.


Are the opinions actually rooted in racism, or do they merely resemble racist opinions at first glance?


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Are the opinions actually rooted in racism, or do they merely resemble racist opinions at first glance?


'Rooted in racism' is what I mean. People's views and values are undeniably influenced by our upbringing. If your posts are being read with racist subtext by others here, then perhaps it's time to reflect on why this might be the case. Maybe you can tell us a bit more about yourself and the experiences you have had in classical music to become an advocate for ethnic purity in the arts as an ideal to strive for. I don't know if you know that your _ideal_ as you have expressed it _is_ in fact uncomfortably sympathetic towards racism, to put it lightly, but that's just what a lot of us have noticed.

Hence why I say it would be wonderful for you tell us about your experiences that have led you to become an advocate for ethnic purity as an ideal in performance. We could better contextualise your posts that way, rather than be stuck in a state of bewilderment that you have led us to being in, by simply shrugging it off.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> 1. 'Rooted in racism' is what I mean.
> 
> 2. I don't know if you know that your _ideal_ as you have expressed it _is_ in fact uncomfortably sympathetic towards racism, to put it lightly, but that's just what a lot of us have noticed.


Based on these two statements, you're sure that my views are rooted in racism, but you're not sure that they are sympathetic towards racism. I don't understand that.

You ask me to reflect as to why some are reading my views as having a racist subtext. I don't need to reflect on that because I already know exactly why--the views do superficially resemble racist views at first glance, but are not in fact racist views.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Based on these two statements, you're sure that my views are rooted in racism, but you're not sure that they are sympathetic towards racism. I don't understand that.


To put it bluntly, I am wondering if you are being racist consciously or not.



> You ask me to reflect as to why some are reading my views as having a racist subtext. I don't need to reflect on that because I already know exactly why--the views do superficially resemble racist views at first glance, but are *not* in fact *racist* views.


And there we have it, folks.

I'm more interested in what has led you to value ethnic purity as an ideal to strive for, when this is not actually an ideal in the music industry itself.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> To put it bluntly, I am wondering if you are being racist consciously or not.


Then you're sure I'm being racist, only not sure if I'm conscious of it? What racist sentiment have I expressed?


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Then you're sure I'm being racist, only not sure if I'm conscious of it? What racist sentiment have I expressed?


Yes. You have repeatedly posted comments with racist undertones and you have taken a position in _opposition_ to the notion that diversity is an ideal for which the arts should strive.

Going back through the thread I've found quite a few, you can read them if you like, but I am not sure if I will really be telling you anything that others haven't told you already. Here is one example where you get really close to actually saying that the ideals you wish musicians strive for are inherently racist ideals:



Logos said:


> And I'm saying that ethnicity is an inseparable part of that cultural heritage, especially if the whole multi-ethnic world is to appreciate it without jarring cultural solecisms that destroy an aesthetic experience.


But this has been discussed already by a few other members along with you (you can read over the responses again).

Nereffid's summary of how we have come to understand your viewpoint puts it very clearly how you are presenting yourself.



Nereffid said:


> Well, the original discourse in _this_ thread was "diversity in the concert hall". I don't need you to lay out any teleological systems, but seeing as you're the one who brought up the issue of "correct" ethnicity in performance, it would be useful if you came back to that particular point. You've made it clear you don't want to see non-Japanese people in Noh, or white people playing Harriet Tubman, or Japanese people singing Bach, but you haven't quite gotten round to actually stating what it seems like you're stating, which is: _non-white musicians should not perform non-modern classical music_. If that is indeed your position, and you're essentially opposed to the very notion of diversity in the concert hall, then it's no wonder that people might wonder what the bigger picture is, because as I've said it does seem weirdly racist, not the regular racist notion of one race being inferior to another but a sort of artistic anti-miscegenation. And you haven't hit back at the accusations of racism either, which is also a bit weird to be honest because usually both racists and non-racists will deny being racists.


As with the member science, I also question _why_ it's such an ideal for you.

I also wish to know more about your own experience being in contact with the arts that you value this kind of ethnic purity so much, without being able to distinguish cultural exchange and cultural diversity from cultural appropriation.


----------



## bz3

What if you just think 'diversity' is stupid? Like, flatly inane. Are you racist then?

I'm not taking a position, just wondering about the limits of controversey here. I'm always fascinated by peoples' dogma.


----------



## Logos

Shirime, you quoted one post by Nereffid. Here's an excerpt from another, more recent post in which he interprets my views as follows:

"So here's what I think. I think you have this thing about visual incongruity that extends to the ethnicity of musical performers, *you bear no animosity to people of any given ethnicity*, you're aware that other people would frown on your preference for ethnic "appropriateness", and you're quite sure in your own mind that it's not racism, it's just an aesthetic thing."

He seems to have come to a conclusion contrary to your own with reference to my attitude towards people of other races.

Racism is the belief that one race is inherently (i. e. biologically) superior to others. When I stated that whites should ideally not participate in Noh theater, was I racist towards whites? When saying that I shouldn't object to exclusion from Peking Opera on the grounds of my ethnicity, was I being racist towards myself? If I say Indians shouldn't participate in Peking Opera and Chinese shouldn't participate in Marathi theater, am I being racist towards Chinese or Indians? Logically it can't be both, for then where would the claim of racial superiority lie?

This is really not all that different from the belief that ideally--generally speaking--actors should play their own race, all other things being equal.

Some have seen a resemblance with anti-miscegenation. Yet there are two key differences:

1. My aesthetic objection is obviously not to biological mixture through reproduction, but strictly the impact which the _visual aspect_ of ethnicity (_not_ race or ethnicity in itself) has on an historico-aesthetic experience.

2. Anti-miscegenation ideology had concern only for the preservation of one race. In other words, it was never meant to protect the black race from contamination with the white, but only the contrary. On the other hand, I have argued not for the preservation of only one people's art, but for the aesthetic preservation of traditional arts around the world--including preservation from white foreigners.


----------



## science

bz3 said:


> What if you just think 'diversity' is stupid? Like, flatly inane. Are you racist then?
> 
> I'm not taking a position, just wondering about the limits of controversey here. I'm always fascinated by peoples' dogma.


Indifference to diversity is not racist; hostility to it is. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of bigotry. "We don't want your kind here." It's the same if it's the opera or a church or a neighborhood or a country.

In the past, people were either unaware of diversity, aware and comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable with it, or very uncomfortable with it. Actually enjoying it or celebrating it is an almost completely new phenomenon, very rare before the mid-20th century. But now many of the leaders of various institutions - governments, corporations, opera companies, sports teams - realize that their institutions will work much better if people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs can cooperate, and they are doing their best to convince the rest of us that it's great.

And they're right. If we don't at a minimum get along well enough to live and work together, our lives will be much poorer.

Besides the fact that it's morally right. Bigotry is evil; it is a sin. The fact that it's so instinctive to us does not excuse it: it implicates us. At both a cultural/societal and individual level, we have to try to overcome our worst instincts.

The arts can and sometimes do help. Yes, seeing a Kenyan or a Norwegian performer excel in a Chinese opera - do it as well or better than the very best ethnic Chinese performers - would be an edifying - morally constructive, upbuilding - experience. Reading a novel based on Greek tragedy but set in an Igbo village can be an edifying experience. Setting Romeo and Juliet in New York City's ethnic communities can be an edifying experience. It's ok not to do these things - and there's no point in doing them unless you have world-class performers who can shine - but it's good to do them.

Edit: A final point about self-consciously ethnic/racial/religious/whatever productions: Not all people are in the same situation. Being a Muslim in Myanmar is not the same as being one in Malaysia; being a Buddhist in Malaysia is not the same as being one in Myanmar. Being Kurdish in Turkey is not the same as being Turkish in Turkey; being Turkish in Turkey is not the same as being Turkish in Germany.

Anyone who denies that - anyone who pretends, say, that being Turkish in Germany is the same as being German in Germany - certainly realizes that it is not the same and is using that denial as part of a strategy of preserving a hierarchy.

So, for example, forming an "all black" theater group in the United States is not the same as forming an "all white" one; anyone who claims otherwise is explicitly and only trying to perpetuate the advantages white actors and actresses have traditionally had. If there were a society where white people actually were an oppressed minority (I don't believe one exists at the moment, but maybe back in the day of the Barbary pirates or something), the situation would be reversed.


----------



## bz3

science said:


> Indifference to diversity is not racist; hostility to it is. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of bigotry. "We don't want your kind here." It's the same if it's the opera or a church or a neighborhood or a country.
> 
> In the past, people were either unaware of diversity, aware and comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable with it, or very uncomfortable with it. Actually enjoying it or celebrating it is an almost completely new phenomenon, very rare before the mid-20th century. But now many of the leaders of various institutions - governments, corporations, opera companies, sports teams - realize that their institutions will work much better if people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs can cooperate, and they are doing their best to convince the rest of us that it's great.
> 
> And they're right. If we don't at a minimum get along well enough to live and work together, our lives will be much poorer.
> 
> Besides the fact that it's morally right. Bigotry is evil; it is a sin. The fact that it's so instinctive to us does not excuse it: it implicates us. At both a cultural/societal and individual level, we have to try to overcome our worst instincts.
> 
> The arts can and sometimes do help. Yes, seeing a Kenyan or a Norwegian performer excel in a Chinese opera - do it as well or better than the very best ethnic Chinese performers - would be an edifying - morally constructive, upbuilding - experience. Reading a novel based on Greek tragedy but set in an Igbo village can be an edifying experience. Setting Romeo and Juliet in New York City's ethnic communities can be an edifying experience. It's ok not to do these things - and there's no point in doing them unless you have world-class performers who can shine - but it's good to do them.


I suppose I asked for dogma. I sure got it!


----------



## Logos

science said:


> Indifference to diversity is not racist; hostility to it is.


A person might care nothing about the subject of race and yet be passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry. One might object to diversity due to the belief (erroneous or not) that more minority workers will cause an economic downturn by depressing wages. A black community might be vehemently opposed to whites moving into their neighborhood because they fear gentrification that will cause their rents to skyrocket. Is their passionate opposition to this increased diversity racist? I think one should inquire a bit more deeply into another's motivations before dubbing him racist.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> I suppose I asked for dogma. I sure got it!


There is nothing dogmatic in science's post. It identifies realities sometimes overlooked or obfuscated in these discussions.


----------



## Woodduck

Logos said:


> A person might care nothing about the subject of race and yet be passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry. One might object to diversity due to the belief (erroneous or not) that more minority workers will cause an economic downturn by depressing wages. A black community might be vehemently opposed to whites moving into their neighborhood because they fear gentrification that will cause their rents to skyrocket. *Is their passionate opposition to this increased diversity racist?* I think one should inquire a bit more deeply into another's motivations before dubbing him racist.


Opposition to gentrification or the fear of depressed wages is not an opposition to diversity _as such,_ which is what I take science to be talking about. Such considerations do, of course, sometimes serve as rationalizations behind which racism, or at least tribalism, lurks. They're what are now frequently fingered as "dog whistles." Given that overtly racist positions and behavior have become less reputable and safe (though we're seeing backlash against moral and legal constraints), we need to be on the lookout for racism's disguises. People are diabolically resourceful in crafting them.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Based on these two statements, you're sure that my views are rooted in racism, but you're not sure that they are sympathetic towards racism. I don't understand that.
> 
> You ask me to reflect as to why some are reading my views as having a racist subtext. I don't need to reflect on that because I already know exactly why--the views do superficially resemble racist views at first glance, but are not in fact racist views.





Logos said:


> Shirime, you quoted one post by Nereffid. Here's an excerpt from another, more recent post in which he interprets my views as follows:
> 
> "So here's what I think. I think you have this thing about visual incongruity that extends to the ethnicity of musical performers, *you bear no animosity to people of any given ethnicity*, you're aware that other people would frown on your preference for ethnic "appropriateness", and you're quite sure in your own mind that it's not racism, it's just an aesthetic thing."
> 
> He seems to have come to a conclusion contrary to your own with reference to my attitude towards people of other races.


Your comments are enough to persuade me that you're not being deliberately racist. But I totally agree with science's remark:


science said:


> "forming an "all black" theater group in the United States is not the same as forming an "all white" one; anyone who claims otherwise is explicitly and only trying to perpetuate the advantages white actors and actresses have traditionally had."


and with Woodduck:


Woodduck said:


> Opposition to gentrification or the fear of depressed wages is not an opposition to diversity _as such,_ which is what I take science to be talking about. Such considerations do, of course, sometimes serve as rationalizations behind which racism, or at least tribalism, lurks. They're what are now frequently fingered as "dog whistles." Given that overtly racist positions and behavior have become less reputable and safe (though we're seeing backlash against moral and legal constraints), we need to be on the lookout for racism's disguises. People are diabolically resourceful in crafting them.


Even if your views don't come from any racist intent (and I don't think they do), the real-world implications of them are problematic.

_
Edited to add, after making and reading several more posts over the last few hours: I'm withdrawing my parenthetical "I don't think they do"._


----------



## Nereffid

shirime said:


> without being able to distinguish cultural exchange and cultural diversity from cultural appropriation.


I just want to say I think this is very neatly put.


----------



## DavidA

Logos said:


> A person might care nothing about the subject of race and yet be passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry. One might object to diversity due to the belief (erroneous or not) that more minority workers will cause an economic downturn by depressing wages. A black community might be vehemently opposed to whites moving into their neighborhood because they fear gentrification that will cause their rents to skyrocket. Is their passionate opposition to this increased diversity racist? I think one should inquire a bit more deeply into another's motivations before dubbing him racist.


Can I ask what this has to do with diversity in the Concert Hall?


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> A person might care nothing about the subject of race and yet be passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry. ... I think one should inquire a bit more deeply into another's motivations before dubbing him racist.


This one was a rather terrible example! If someone is "passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry" rather than on racial grounds, then they absolutely need to have their motivations questioned, the first question being why they equate an ethnicity with a religion. If that's not racism, it's sure as hell racism-adjacent.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> A person might care nothing about the subject of race and yet be passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry. One might object to diversity due to the belief (erroneous or not) that more minority workers will cause an economic downturn by depressing wages. A black community might be vehemently opposed to whites moving into their neighborhood because they fear gentrification that will cause their rents to skyrocket. Is their passionate opposition to this increased diversity racist? I think one should inquire a bit more deeply into another's motivations before dubbing him racist.


You know that there are many Christian Arabs, right?

"Racism" can go both ways, of course, but in general our (liberal) concern about it is when it marginalises the already alienated and disadvantaged.


----------



## Enthusiast

Nereffid said:


> This one was a rather terrible example! If someone is "passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry" rather than on racial grounds, then they absolutely need to have their motivations questioned, the first question being why they equate an ethnicity with a religion. If that's not racism, it's sure as hell racism-adjacent.


I agree. But I also think that religious intolerance per se is as repugnant as racism. I get tired of people demanding all sorts of draconian actions against Muslims while virtuously claiming to hate racism. And all because a very few Muslims are terrorists and while forgetting that the vast majority of terrorist victims are Muslims, too.


----------



## Enthusiast

bz3 said:


> I suppose I asked for dogma. I sure got it!


Why not explain why this carefully nuanced and reasoned post is dogma?

On second thoughts, though, don't bother.


----------



## Nereffid

Enthusiast said:


> I agree. But I also think that religious intolerance per se is as repugnant as racism. I get tired of people demanding all sorts of draconian actions against Muslims while virtuously claiming to hate racism. And all because a very few Muslims are terrorists and while forgetting that the vast majority of terrorist victims are Muslims, too.


Yes. Of course unlike ethnicity, it's theoretically possible for a particular religion in of itself to be a threat. But Islam isn't, nor any other real religion I can think of.


----------



## Guest

Logos said:


> Shirime, you quoted one post by Nereffid. Here's an excerpt from another, more recent post in which he interprets my views as follows:
> 
> "So here's what I think. I think you have this thing about visual incongruity that extends to the ethnicity of musical performers, *you bear no animosity to people of any given ethnicity*, you're aware that other people would frown on your preference for ethnic "appropriateness", and you're quite sure in your own mind that it's not racism, it's just an aesthetic thing."
> 
> He seems to have come to a conclusion contrary to your own with reference to my attitude towards people of other races.


It sounds like (and also based on you bringing up this point) that he has accurately described your viewpoint in a way where you agree that it is accurate. I don't find much value at all in describing your personal viewpoint, however; I am interested in working out where and how you came to conclude the views you have on ethnic appropriateness. The real question here is whether you are willing to embrace diversity in the arts, in the concert hall etc, or whether you oppose it. It seems to me like you would rather oppose diversity where you think it isn't appropriate, in spite of the fact that actually it can provide some very nuanced, interesting and . This is illustrated in the next part of your post:



> Racism is the belief that one race is inherently (i. e. biologically) superior to others. When I stated that whites should ideally not participate in Noh theater, was I racist towards whites? When saying that I shouldn't object to exclusion from Peking Opera on the grounds of my ethnicity, was I being racist towards myself? If I say Indians shouldn't participate in Peking Opera and Chinese shouldn't participate in Marathi theater, am I being racist towards Chinese or Indians? Logically it can't be both, for then where would the claim of racial superiority lie?
> 
> This is really not all that different from the belief that ideally--generally speaking--actors should play their own race, all other things being equal.


'Actors should play their own race' is simply one way of doing things. There are cases where it is certainly very appropriate, as alternatives can amount to things like Mickey Rooney in _Breakfast at Tiffany's,_ blackface minstrels and stuff like that...._or_ it can also amount to unconscious biases from casting directors giving preference to established actors of a dominant (usually white) ethnic background rather than allowing a platform for actors without that kind of privilege to take a role that they could very well be suited for.

This, however, is a slightly different issue from the broader 'should' that you are proposing. Your 'should' is more limiting in its intention in that it would limit the things that Science has listed above as 'edifying experiences,' and these 'edifying experiences' come from an appreciation and an embrace of wider cultural understanding and engagement, not limiting it.

By providing a platform for actors, musicians, dancers (etc) to have equal opportunity, the arts can only thrive. Setting limitations, even through unconscious bias, won't allow everyone to have an equal starting point for their careers. Your ideal also _won't_ result in more nuanced interpretations, productions and performances that actually draw and comment on issues such as race. Surely, the non-racist that you are, would only support such a thing, right?


----------



## Logos

Woodduck said:


> Opposition to gentrification or the fear of depressed wages is not an opposition to diversity _as such,_ which is what I take science to be talking about.


Nor am I opposed to racial diversity as such. One must know the exact circumstances in each case.


----------



## Logos

DavidA said:


> Can I ask what this has to do with diversity in the Concert Hall?


One might be opposed to such diversity for reasons which have nothing to do with race in itself.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> This one was a rather terrible example! If someone is "passionately against Arab immigration due to religious bigotry" rather than on racial grounds, then they absolutely need to have their motivations questioned, the first question being why they equate an ethnicity with a religion. If that's not racism, it's sure as hell racism-adjacent.


The only important thing in my hypothetical is that it's possible that one can be _incidentally_ opposed to racial diversity for reasons which have nothing to do with race.

1.The vast majority of Arabs are in fact Muslim. According to most of the data I find, it's over 90%. Some sources say over 95%.

2. Therefore if one were opposed to the immigration of Muslims, one would be opposed to the immigration of the _vast majority_ of Arabs by logical necessity. Race is merely a coincidental factor since in my hypothetical the objection is made on the grounds of religion. On the surface, this would appear racially motivated--till one should discover that the motivation for exclusion is religious in nature.

It's anachronistic to speak of racism in the middle ages or ancient world--or even the concept of race itself as we understand it--since those very notions of race and pseudo-scientific racism hadn't even formed; the latter dating from the late 18th century. And yet before that time different groups found plenty of reasons to oppose living in close proximity to each other. Take the crusades--Europeans didn't fight the Muslims because of they were of a different "race", in our sense of the word; They fought them because they weren't Christians, among other political and economic considerations.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> By providing a platform for actors, musicians, dancers (etc) to have equal opportunity, the arts can only thrive. Setting limitations, even through unconscious bias, won't allow everyone to have an equal starting point for their careers. Your ideal also _won't_ result in more nuanced interpretations, productions and performances that actually draw and comment on issues such as race. Surely, the non-racist that you are, would only support such a thing, right?


I'm all for everyone having an equal opportunity, in a sense. But do we give the untalented and the talented an equal chance of actually getting a role? Do we give Maggie Smith and an equally talented Indian actress and equal chance of playing Indira Ghandi?

I still don't see how my "should" is any more limiting than the notion that ideally--generally speaking--actors _should_ play their own race, all other things being equal. If we follow the latter notion, actors will lose out on a multitude of roles they would otherwise have been chosen to play, yet you don't seem to object to that. Why should my thinking cause any more objection than having equally talented non-white actors play Othello to the exclusion of white actors?


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> The only important thing in my hypothetical is that it's possible that one can be _incidentally_ opposed to racial diversity for reasons which have nothing to do with race.


Was this a slip? Did you mean to say "nothing to do with _racism_"? You're talking about the race-based appearance of performers, so by definition it's got nothing to do with anything except race.

But anyway, the issue then becomes whether you're OK with the collateral damage of a non-racism-based opposition to racial diversity - which is to say, putting one's non-racism-based opposition to racial diversity into practice has the exact same results as would a racism-based opposition to racial diversity.



Logos said:


> 1.The vast majority of Arabs are in fact Muslim. According to most of the data I find, it's over 90%. Some sources say over 95%.
> 
> 2. Therefore if one were opposed to the immigration of Muslims, one would be opposed to the immigration of the vast majority of Arabs by logical necessity. Race is merely a coincidental factor since in my hypothetical the objection is made on the grounds of religion. On the surface, this would appear racially motivated--till one should discover that the motivation for exclusion is religious in nature.


You know what, the fact that you take the time to go through the logic of a ban on Arab immigration as a means of preventing Muslim immigration, while simultaneously claiming that this isn't important, and the fact that you say things like this:


Logos said:


> Nor am I opposed to racial diversity as such. One must know the exact circumstances in each case.


- which implies you're _not_ in favour of racial diversity _in general_ -
makes me withdraw that benefit-of-the-doubt.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> 1. Did you mean to say "nothing to do with _racism_"? You're talking about the race-based appearance of performers, so by definition it's got nothing to do with anything except race.
> 
> 2. But anyway, the issue then becomes whether you're OK with the collateral damage of a non-racism-based opposition to racial diversity - which is to say, putting one's non-racism-based opposition to racial diversity into practice has the exact same results as would a racism-based opposition to racial diversity.
> 
> 3. You know what, the fact that you take the time to go through the logic of a ban on Arab immigration as a means of preventing Muslim immigration, while simultaneously claiming that this isn't important...


1. One can be incidentally opposed to racial diversity for reasons which have nothing to do with race in the same way one can be opposed to uncles (Muslims, not a race) while not being opposed to males as such (Arabs, a race of sorts). The fact that uncles are males is merely a coincidental corollary unrelated to the actual grounds of the objection. And there's no need to point out that not all Arabs are Muslims and not all Muslims are Arabs--the key part of the analogy still stands.

The aesthetic objection we previously discussed has to do with the _visual aspect_ of race only. A racist believes that even if a black person could somehow be made to _look_ exactly like a white person, he would still have inherently inferior qualities of mind and character which are essential to his actual race, regardless of his outer physiognomy. In his view, appearance and race are incidentally correlated but he doesn't consider appearance to be the actual _essence_ of race which would still persist even if that appearance were changed. I, on the other hand, don't believe in such inherent, biological differences. Not to mention that a racist elevates one ethnicity at the expense of all others, whereas I apply my principle fairly even when it would cause my own group to be excluded from certain arts.

2. It may or it may not have a similar effect depending on the case. Take my example about a black community opposing an influx of whites due to fear of gentrification raising their rent beyond what they can afford. That's an example of non-racism based opposition to an instance of diversification. For them, the diversification in question could destroy their lives economically. Due to _instances_ like these, I'm wary of _general_ approval or disapproval of unconditioned abstractions such as diversity.

3. But was there any error in the logic? I'm not actually in favor of such a ban. It's only an example.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> 1. I, on the other hand, don't believe in such inherent, biological differences. Not to mention that a racist elevates one ethnicity at the expense of all others, whereas I apply my principle fairly even when it would cause my own group to be excluded from certain arts.


But you regard biological differences such as physical appearance to be important and worth discriminating over. And applying a principle fairly doesn't mean the principle is itself fair, or that its consequences are acceptable.



Logos said:


> 2. Due to _instances_ like these, I'm wary of _general_ approval or disapproval of abstractions such as diversity.


So in your mind there's a sufficient proportion of situations in which diversity turns out to be a bad thing to rule out the possibility of it being generally regarded as a good thing. How have you come to that decision, and what proportion would it have to be to make you think diversity is generally a good idea that you should be in favour of?



Logos said:


> 3. But was there any error in the logic? I'm not actually in favor of such a ban. It's only an example.


The thing is, you almost never miss an opportunity to not sound like a non-racist. You calmly and rationally explain the logic behind why discriminating against Arabs based on their religion isn't racist, but you don't bother to point out that you're not in favour of such discrimination. And when you do get round to saying it, you phrase it - "I'm not in favour it" - in such a way as to leave open the possibility (as in point 2) that you might at some later point say "I'm not against it either". So much hedging!


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> 1. But you regard biological differences such as physical appearance to be important and worth discriminating over.
> 
> 2. So in your mind there's a sufficient proportion of situations in which diversity turns out to be a bad thing to rule out the possibility of it being generally regarded as a good thing. How have you come to that decision, and what proportion would it have to be to make you think diversity is generally a good idea that you should be in favour of?


1. Only in the same sense that a casting director seeking out a Japanese for the role of Nobunaga is discriminating based on biological characteristics.

2. Diversity, abstracted from any concrete example is merely a dry, characterless notion which may be either desirable or undesirable. Do I wish to diversify the composition of a large body of water by adding lead and mercury? Do I wish to diversify my healthy diet with unhealthy foods? I'd rather not. "Diversity" isn't like the words "wickedness" or "goodness" which denote by definition something good or bad. We have to know the circumstances. There may be instances of diversity saving the life of a nation through replenishing a population that would otherwise age too rapidly. On the other hand, when the Visigoths, Vandals and Ostrogoths diversified Rome with their presence the effects were somewhat more deleterious.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> 1. Only in the same sense that a casting director seeking out a Japanese for the role of Nobunaga is discriminating based on biological characteristics.


_Not_ in the same sense. The desire to have a historical figure portrayed by someone who shows a general physical resemblance to them is _not_ the same as the desire to have a piece of music played by someone who shows an ethnic resemblance to the sort of person who might have played that music when it was first performed.



Logos said:


> 2. Diversity, abstracted from any concrete example is merely a dry, characterless quality which may be either desirable or undesirable. Do I wish to diversify the composition of a large body of water by adding lead and mercury? Do I wish to diversify my healthy diet with unhealthy foods? I'd rather not. "Diversity" isn't like the words "wickedness" or "goodness" which denote by definition something good or bad. We have to know the circumstances. There may be instances of diversity that save the life of a nation through replenishing a population that would otherwise age too rapidly. On the other hand, when the Visigoths, Vandals and Ostrogoths diversified Rome with their presence the effects were somewhat more deleterious.


This has descended into hilarity, at last. We're talking about ethnic diversity, not some abstracted concept that can be applied to our diet, and you well know it. But it's very revealing that your negative examples of diversity invoke pollution, ill health, and societal collapse. That was a sudden escalation from the visual aesthetics of Bach performance, wasn't it?


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> 1. The desire to have a historical figure portrayed by someone who shows a general physical resemblance to them is _not_ the same as the desire to have a piece of music played by someone who shows an ethnic resemblance to the sort of person who might have played that music when it was first performed.
> 
> 2. We're talking about ethnic diversity, not some abstracted concept that can be applied to our diet, and you well know it.


1. There's a difference only if one arbitrarily decides that historical integrity is important in the one case and unimportant in the other.

2. Precisely, which is why my last two examples pertained to specific instances of ethnic diversification. Let me give two more; one positive, one negative:

Example A: _Was the lot of the Native American improved by the racial diversity that the arrival of the white man constituted?_

Example B: _Would not the demographic and economic situation of the aging Japanese population be improved by the immigration of persons from Southeast Asia who have a higher fertility rate? _

Obviously given such disparate local and historical circumstances it's impossible to say, _in the abstract_, if ethnic diversity is good or bad. We have to know the concrete situation to determine whether an instance of diversification is good, bad or neutral.


----------



## San Antone

If it is about the music and not political correctness, I'm all for it.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Example A: _Was the lot of the Native American improved by the racial diversity that the arrival of the white man constituted?_
> 
> Example B: _Would not the demographic and economic situation of the aging Japanese population be improved by the immigration of persons from Southeast Asia who have a higher fertility rate? _
> 
> Obviously given such disparate local and historical circumstances it's impossible to say, _in the abstract_, if ethnic diversity is good or bad. We have to know the concrete situation to determine whether an instance of diversification is good, bad or neutral.


The idea that the colonisation/invasion of the Americas by Europeans is a good example of the concept of "diversification" is just absurd. I mean, the whole conversation was absurd almost from the start, but it's futile to continue at this stage.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> The idea that the colonisation/invasion of the Americas by Europeans is a good example of the concept of "diversification" is just absurd.


It only seems absurd because it fails to align with moral neatness with the commonly conceived instances of ethnic diversification, but logically it fits under that heading as well as any other example. But since you find it absurd, let's look at one of those instances which "diversity" advocates probably have in mind. Paradoxically, the kind of ethnic diversity some are advocating actually tends to decrease genuine diversity over the long term. As an example, let's take the case of Chinese immigrants to the United States.

1st generation immigrants: _They speak Mandarin fluently, they bring with them unique traditions, culture and worldview. _

2nd generation immigrants: _They know a bit of Mandarin, but not fluently; and they intermix English words to form what some call Chinese immigrants call Chinglish. They know Chinese customs and traditions only imperfectly. They are becoming Americanized at the expense of their parents Chinese culture._

3rd generation immigrants: _They know almost nothing of Mandarin except a few words. Their understanding of Chinese culture is minimal and consists largely of confused anecdotes and memories supplied by their parents. They have become fully Americanized and therefore no longer constitute a genuine diversifying element._

Bringing two cultures into close proximity only diversifies the local environment temporarily, before one of the two cultures is inevitably subsumed by the other more dominant culture; so that ultimately the global environment is less diverse than it was before the two cultures came into close proximity.


----------



## Nereffid

San Antone said:


> If it is about the music and not political correctness, I'm all for it:
> 
> Debussy was a French composer, and it is usually considered a plus when _Pelleas et Melisande_ features French singers and conductor. However, Leonard Bernstein was not Puerto Rican, so why should the cast of _West Side Story_ include singers of that nationality?


Are you referring to the recent story about this year's Proms performance, where the woman who was to play Maria withdrew, saying "I've realised that if I were to do this concert, it would once again deny Latinas the opportunity to sing this score, as well as deny the importance of seeing themselves represented onstage".
_Aesthetically_ speaking I personally have no trouble with a non-Latina Maria. But her point about there being hardly any roles for Latinas does seem to describe the situation in theatre, so having a Latina Maria strikes me as a better idea than not having one. That said, an absence of such roles is ridiculous and clearly indicates that casual discrimination is the norm - surely in fact _most_ female roles could be played by Latinas, and casting directors are just unthinkingly going to the "default" casting, i.e. white.


----------



## San Antone

Nereffid said:


> Are you referring to the recent story about this year's Proms performance, where the woman who was to play Maria withdrew, saying "I've realised that if I were to do this concert, it would once again deny Latinas the opportunity to sing this score, as well as deny the importance of seeing themselves represented onstage".
> _Aesthetically_ speaking I personally have no trouble with a non-Latina Maria. But her point about there being hardly any roles for Latinas does seem to describe the situation in theatre, so having a Latina Maria strikes me as a better idea than not having one. That said, an absence of such roles is ridiculous and clearly indicates that casual discrimination is the norm - surely in fact _most_ female roles could be played by Latinas, and casting directors are just unthinkingly going to the "default" casting, i.e. white.


I had forgotten about that, but was thinking of a production in NYC where the singers/actors of the Puerto Rican characters spoke/sang their roles in Spanish. West Side Story is probably not the best example since it was written by a New Yorker about New Yorkers, even if they were Puerto Rican New Yorkers, they are still Americans, most often speaking English to non-Hispanics.

It might make sense for a Spanish singer to perform Carmen - but the opera is sung in French! And to deny all non-Spanish singers the opportunity to sing Carmen would be reverse racism, imo, as well to deny us a potentially wonderful performance of the role by any singer not Spanish.

Hence, for me the deciding factor is musical, not social.


----------



## Sloe

San Antone said:


> I had forgotten about that, but was thinking of a production in NYC where the singers/actors of the Puerto Rican characters spoke/sang their roles in Spanish. West Side Story is probably not the best example since it was written by a New Yorker about New Yorkers, even if they were Puerto Rican New Yorkers, they are still Americans, most often speaking English to non-Hispanics.
> 
> It might make sense for a Spanish singer to perform Carmen - but the opera is sung in French! And to deny all non-Spanish singers the opportunity to sing Carmen would be reverse racism, imo, as well to deny us a potentially wonderful performance of the role by any singer not Spanish.
> 
> Hence, for me the deciding factor is musical, not social.


Carmen is not Spanish but a Gypsy.
Back to the original topic. I see no problem with the lack of diversity there is lots of music by women and non European composers that is played. Of course there is a bias towards what is nearby and also the fact that there were fewer female composers in the old days and classical music is something new outside of Europe.


----------



## San Antone

Sloe said:


> Carmen is not Spanish but a Gypsy.


The opera takes place in Seville. But you're right she is described as a Gypsy. Gypsies make up a significant minority of Spanish society. Flamenco is one of their contributions.

I'm not sure what your point is? Is it that a Spanish Gypsy singer should be cast?


----------



## Sloe

San Antone said:


> The opera takes place in Seville. But you're right she is described as a Gypsy. Gypsies make up a significant minority of Spanish society. Flamenco is one of their contributions.
> 
> I'm not sure what your point is? Is it that a Spanish Gypsy singer should be cast?


No that is not my point. My point is that it would not make it better with a Spanish Carmen since Carmen is not Spanish anyway. I don´t think there are any Gypsy opera singers anyway there are some Indian opera singers so maybe one of those could be taken into consideration if that is important.


----------



## bz3

Enthusiast said:


> Why not explain why this carefully nuanced and reasoned post is dogma?
> 
> On second thoughts, though, don't bother.


In spite of your second thoughts, I'll clarify since there are some so entrenched in their own beliefs that they cannot separate dogma from objective reality.



science said:


> Indifference to diversity is not racist; hostility to it is. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of bigotry. "We don't want your kind here." It's the same if it's the opera or a church or a neighborhood or a country.


Racism has no real definition, being a 20th century concept itself. Logos clearly identified it as race hatred, which is the the most logical definition but which has been muddied in the current dogma in an effort to expand the definition of what is 'racist' - usually for political purposes because the term 'racist' is basically the modern version of the term 'heretic.'

Hostility to 'diversity' therefore is not racist in any meaningful sense of the word. Bigoted maybe, but one doesn't have to dislike people to not want to be around them. There is no iron law that says Chinese people must like Indian people, that sub-saharan African people must like Arabs, or that Europeans must like mestizos.

It is only because of a belief in this emotional dogma that one must believe diversity is good, great, a worthy goal, beneficial to society, etc. In point of fact, diverse societies have been found to have less cohesion, less social participation, give less to charities, etc. Squaring that circle is where this dogma comes into play.



science said:


> In the past, people were either unaware of diversity, aware and comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable with it, or very uncomfortable with it. Actually enjoying it or celebrating it is an almost completely new phenomenon, very rare before the mid-20th century.


And here is the mythologization of this dogma - we sudden learned something in the post-WW2 era that we never knew before. Now it is our moral duty to educate all other peoples who are still mired in non-diverse viewpoints. A modern day Christian missionary ideal.



science said:


> But now many of the leaders of various institutions - governments, corporations, opera companies, sports teams - realize that their institutions will work much better if people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs can cooperate, and they are doing their best to convince the rest of us that it's great.


Maybe, maybe not. Again there is data that shows the opposite, and there are certainly benefits to getting along with people. You're the only one asserting a dogmatic belief in the eternal goodness of diversity.



science said:


> Besides the fact that it's morally right. Bigotry is evil; it is a sin.


Pure, unadulterated dogma. _You_ believe it is a sin. Maybe I just believe it's distasteful. Now I'm a heretic, a blasphemer.



science said:


> The fact that it's so instinctive to us does not excuse it: it implicates us. At both a cultural/societal and individual level, we have to try to overcome our worst instincts.


Yes, 'correcting' the natural order seems to be the underlying motivation in all this PC nonsense - boys are actually born girls and all manner of other nonsense they try to convince all of us of on TV today.



science said:


> The arts can and sometimes do help. Yes, seeing a Kenyan or a Norwegian performer excel in a Chinese opera - do it as well or better than the very best ethnic Chinese performers - would be an edifying - morally constructive, upbuilding - experience. Reading a novel based on Greek tragedy but set in an Igbo village can be an edifying experience. Setting Romeo and Juliet in New York City's ethnic communities can be an edifying experience. It's ok not to do these things - and there's no point in doing them unless you have world-class performers who can shine - but it's good to do them.


Maybe, maybe not. Again you believe this to be true; that doesn't make it true. Pathologically demanding that all 'POC' or non-Europeans be inserted into European culture seems to me very arrogant and steeped in hubris. It couldn't possibly be that these people just don't like or care about a culture that isn't their own - no sir! They simply haven't been educated on its vast aesthetic superiority and so therefore, along with our cult of diversity, we must educate them. Poor dears, it isn't their fault they were born on a different patch of dirt.

Again this sort of proselytism of the politically correct™ that undergirds the whole dogmatic narrative is deeply offensive, seen from a more culturally relative point of view. But if one even expresses how distasteful this sort of Christian missionary-style work is then they are a heretic. I don't agree with Logos but look how everyone has treated him - as a knowing or unknowing _racist_. The absolute worst thing a (wo)man can be today. And as a thought criminal, someone who must be corrected or cast out, preferably the latter. I think his view is perfectly valid even if I don't agree with it, and not even close to bigoted.


----------



## Madiel

Jimmy Durmaz is a Swedish footballer, born and raised in Sweden by Aramaic parents, they are Syriac Orthodox Christians, last night the result of his presence in the Swedish football team at the ongoing World Cup has been the flooding of his Instagram account with death threats, and "funny" racist abuse the likes of terrorist, arab devil, taliban warrior.
Some forumers who have posted in this thread should realize that diversity is already here and that their so called "aesthetic preferences" are dangerous and - no matter their intentions - inherently racist, or call it apartheid, call it Jim Crow call it whatever you want but calling it differently will not make it less criminal.

PS: I have defined "funny" the insults since they were addressed to a Christian, I have used that adjective with a sadly ironic intent and - of course - if Durmaz had been of another religious faith (or an atheist) the danger revealed by an episode of this kind would have remained the same.


----------



## BachIsBest

I haven't posted on this thread since the beginning but thought that somebody should clarify that racism and racist actually has a dictionary definition and that many in this thread seem to be misusing it. From the online Oxford Dictionary:

NOUN
A person who shows or feels discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

ADJECTIVE
Showing or feeling discrimination or prejudice against people of other races, or believing that a particular race is superior to another.

So calling 'so-called "aesthetic preferences"', 'inherently racist' is wrong. Clearly, one does not need to believe a particular race is superior to another to have such preferences. This is also clearly not a case of prejudice as a prejudice is (almost) by definition false and an aesthetic preference cannot, by definition, be categorically false. This leaves us with the option of discrimination. The question here becomes whether or not such a preference is 'unjust' in any way. The poster wasn't advocating for the implementation of this policy so I don't see how merely the idea of him preferring, say, German-looking people performing Bach is inherently unjust.

This seems to be a movement nowadays to label many things racist without seriously understanding what racism actually is. If the poster was instead saying he preferred orchestras whose members were all the same height would anyone be accusing him of anything remotely as bad as racism? Of course not, and yet it is essentially the same thing.


----------



## Nereffid

BachIsBest said:


> If the poster was instead saying he preferred orchestras whose members were all the same height would anyone be accusing him of anything remotely as bad as racism? Of course not, and yet it is essentially the same thing.


Historically, people haven't been enslaved or denied civil rights because of their height, so I'm not sure it's _quite_ the same thing?


----------



## Dim7

Madiel said:


> Jimmy Durmaz is a Swedish footballer, born and raised in Sweden by Aramaic parents, they are Syriac Orthodox Christians, last night the result of his presence in the Swedish football team at the ongoing World Cup has been the flooding of his Instagram account with death threats, and "funny" racist abuse the likes of terrorist, arab devil, taliban warrior.
> Some forumers who have posted in this thread should realize that diversity is already here and that their so called "aesthetic preferences" are dangerous and - no matter their intentions - inherently racist, or call it apartheid, call it Jim Crow call it whatever you want but calling it differently will not make it less criminal.
> 
> PS: I have defined "funny" the insults since they were addressed to a Christian, I have used that adjective with a sadly ironic intent and - of course - if Durmaz had been of another religious faith (or an atheist) the danger revealed by an episode of this kind would have remained the same.


People totally unrelated to Logos have targeted somebody with death threats and hateful insults on ethnic grounds - therefore Logos' racial-aesthetic preferences (that FWIW I don't personally share) for musical performances are criminal? This is "public healthcare leads to gulags" tier argumentation I'm afraid.


----------



## Nereffid

Dim7 said:


> People totally unrelated to Logos have targeted somebody with death threats and hateful insults on ethnic grounds - therefore Logos' racial-aesthetic preferences (that FWIW I don't personally share) for musical performances are criminal? This is "public healthcare leads to gulags" tier argumentation I'm afraid.


I think a key phrase in Madiel's post is "no matter their intentions".
I don't agree with the reference to criminality in the aesthetic-preferences context, and I don't like slippery-slope arguments myself, but when you strip away the motivation (obviously it's preferable not to do that, but people don't always care about nuance, especially when they're bigots), "ideally people who look Arabic wouldn't sing Bach in public performances because it would have a negative effect on the visual aesthetics" really doesn't seem a million miles away from "Arabs shouldn't be allowed to sing Bach". The former may come from a 100% non-racist motivation, but it's the sort of sentiment a racist will happily applaud.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> Historically, people haven't been enslaved or denied civil rights because of their height, so I'm not sure it's _quite_ the same thing?


But of course I'm not motivated by the desire either to enslave or to deny a civil right based on the belief that one race is superior to others in intellect or moral character. Your historical observation helps to explain why some might confuse my view with a racist one, or to reinforce its social impracticability (which I have already acknowledged), but it doesn't demonstrate that the view itself is racist.

Speaking of height--_ideally_ I think it would be best if members of an orchestra were all of the same height. Is it the most important factor? By no means, of course not. But in my judgment it would be one factor among dozens of others when choosing between two performers who were otherwise identical in talent, appearance, etc. since it affects the presentation of the orchestra as a whole. Does this mean that I would exclude Heifetz from an orchestra in favor of a second rate violinist who matched the height of the other orchestra members? Of course not.


----------



## Dim7

Nereffid said:


> "ideally people who look Arabic wouldn't sing Bach in public performances because it would have a negative effect on the visual aesthetics" really doesn't seem a million miles away from "Arabs shouldn't be allowed to sing Bach".


"Shouldn't be allowed" implies some kind of enforcement which _would_ be miles away from a mere personal aesthetic preference. The former statement (and I don't know whether it's just you paraphrasing or a direct quote) is a bit ambiguous, aesthetic preference worded in a somewhat judgemental/prescriptive manner - but it's the kind of thing we all do here when we say something like "Mahler's symphonies are better than Bruckner's", yet at the end of the day all it amounts to is a statement of personal preference. I won't say for certain that I completely understand what Logos' views are but if it really stops at a personal preference I don't see what's there to object.

Really I'm a bit confused what kind of prescriptions people are throwing around here. What is Logos telling us to do or think, if anything, and what are those who find his views problematic telling him to do or think, if anything?


----------



## Logos

Dim7 said:


> What is Logos telling us to do or think, if anything, and what are those who find his views problematic telling him to do, if anything?


I wouldn't exactly say that I'm telling anyone what to think or do, but I can summarize the issue that I've been trying to get others to consider. Ethnic diversity is usually only thought of in terms of its moral, social, and economic effects. This being a forum dedicated to the discussion of an art form, I thought it fitting to consider ethnic diversity in terms of its _aesthetic_ effects, specifically on traditional art in performance. Does it have aesthetic effects, and are they good or bad or indifferent? I have expressed the view that its effects are bad for reasons which I've stated at length, and in various ways throughout the discussion; and that the actions associated with the implementation of my aesthetic principles are impracticable because of negative social effects.

As for what others are telling me--I'm being told that my view is objectionable and that I'm either consciously or unconsciously racist. A minority has found my view eccentric, but not racist. Beyond those bare facts, I'll let the other participants speak for themselves.


----------



## science

bz3 said:


> ... In point of fact, diverse societies have been found to have less cohesion, less social participation, give less to charities, etc. ...
> 
> Pathologically demanding that all 'POC' or non-Europeans be inserted into European culture seems to me very arrogant and steeped in hubris. It couldn't possibly be that these people just don't like or care about a culture that isn't their own - no sir! ...
> 
> ... I don't agree with Logos but look how everyone has treated him - as a knowing or unknowing racist. The absolute worst thing a (wo)man can be today. ...


Wait, what?

This is absurd. No one is demanding that "non-Europeans" be "inserted" into European culture against their will. Or anything like that. If you can disagree with someone for good reasons, that's fine; if you have to attribute nonsense to them in order to justify your disagreement....

The "giving to charity" argument is interesting. I'm not sure it really does amount to a justification for trying to homogenize a diverse society - which, when you come down to it, is ethnic cleansing - but it does illustrate the difficulties contemporary societies face in trying to get their members to overcome their fears of each other and cooperate with each other. I assume no one has said it's easy.

Yeah, there's a moral argument going on here, and yes, it is very similar to a religious argument from the old days. No one is getting burned at the stake, so we should probably not lose perspective in a rush to self-pity. The absolute worst thing a person can be today is not a white American or European accused of racism - there are much worse situations. But, sure, there is an element of shaming going on, and it has to be that way. The old paradox is that tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.

Celebrating or intentionally embracing diversity _is_ a relatively new thing; that doesn't invalidate it. The conditions that lead us to it are also relatively new. Things change. It really wasn't all that long ago that people took for granted that slavery was an ethical practice, ordained by God.

But the fundamental ideas underlying the challenge to slavery then and racism (and other sorts of bigotry) now are ancient and universal: right is on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressor. If that is dogma, may God and nature grant that more of us hold it with more conviction and overcome those who don't.

And even if, like me, you happen to enjoy most of the privileges one can have - white, male, American, no significant health problems or disabilities, Christian heritage, elite education, probably enough money saved to live on for the rest of my life, nearly free healthcare - we all still need to realize that there is an element of _wise_ self-defense here. The real threats to my life and liberty are not brown or black people, but oligarchs who aspire to gain ever more power by capitalizing on the bigotry of many naive people in my society: that's as true in Russia, China, Turkey, or Hungary as it is in the USA and France and the UK. It's the old story again: the oppressors on high say, "Don't blame us, blame Jews." For now it's not so much Jews as it is Arabs, Mexicans, African-Americans, and so on. But if we're wise, we won't fall for this, and we will try to defend our freedoms from the actual threats.

This is pretty far from a discussion about music. I hope that the "whites only" agenda does not have many successes in the world of classical music, and I assume that it won't, at least until Asians are reclassified as white (which I believe is slowly happening, especially for Asian-Americans). Hopefully we don't have to relive a WWII-like scenario to remember its lessons. But we'll see.


----------



## Logos

If we care about preserving cultural diversity, it would seem that "diversity" as it is commonly understood (the belief that it is good that culturally divergent groups directly interact, and live or work in close proximity) should be avoided. This kind of "diversity", while culturally diversifying a locality in the short term, in the long term leads to less cultural diversity because inevitably one of cultures in a given locality will prove more dominant and the smaller, or less dominant group will be assimilated. Look at linguistic diversity--the more globalized and closely connected our world has become, the more swiftly language death has accelerated: A select few languages (English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi) associated with more powerful nations and predominant ethnic groups have swallowed up hundreds, if not thousands of local languages; sometimes causing them to go entirely extinct. Bringing disparate cultures into close proximity has the same homogenizing effect on religion, literature, music, the visual arts, and traditions of all kinds.

The more closely a large culture interacts with small cultures for the purposes of "diversifying" itself the greater the chance that the smaller groups will eventually be entirely assimilated and go extinct, taking with them the real diversity that they once brought to the global community. If we wish to preserve actual cultural diversity, we may want to reconsider "diversity" as a policy.

If I take candles of a thousand different beautiful colors spanning the entire visible spectrum, and put them all in a pot and melt them for purposes of chromatic "diversity", how many different colors of candle will I be able to make with that hot wax? One--rather than making a rainbow, I've achieved the very opposite of my aim. From that world of color and variety and difference, I have created an undifferentiated, decidedly un-kaleidoscopic monochrome mass. My chandler's shop should be closed for a crime against the art of candle making; but the public's distaste for my monochrome tapers will, in all likelihood, put me out of business regardless.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> If we care about preserving cultural diversity, it would seem that "diversity" as it is commonly understood (the belief that it is good that culturally divergent groups directly interact, and live or work in close proximity) should be avoided. This kind of "diversity", while culturally diversifying a locality in the short term, in the long term leads to less cultural diversity because inevitably one of cultures in a given locality will prove more dominant and the smaller, or less dominant group will be assimilated. Look at linguistic diversity--the more globalized and closely connected our world has become, the more swiftly language death has accelerated: A select few languages (English, Spanish, Mandarin Chinese, Hindi) associated with more powerful nations and predominant ethnic groups have swallowed up hundreds, if not thousands of local languages; sometimes causing them to go entirely extinct. Bringing disparate cultures into close proximity has the same homogenizing effect on religion, literature, music, the visual arts, and traditions of all kinds.
> 
> The more closely a large culture interacts with small cultures for the purposes of "diversifying" itself the greater the chance that the smaller groups will eventually be entirely assimilated and go extinct, taking with them the real diversity that they once brought to the global community. If we wish to preserve actual cultural diversity, we may want to reconsider "diversity" as a policy.


Do you see _any_ difference between a state conquering territory and forcing its people to assimilate and allowing non-Germans to perform a Mozart opera?


----------



## Chromatose

science said:


> Indifference to diversity is not racist; hostility to it is. That's pretty much the defining characteristic of bigotry. "We don't want your kind here." It's the same if it's the opera or a church or a neighborhood or a country.
> 
> In the past, people were either unaware of diversity, aware and comfortable, somewhat uncomfortable with it, or very uncomfortable with it. Actually enjoying it or celebrating it is an almost completely new phenomenon, very rare before the mid-20th century. But now many of the leaders of various institutions - governments, corporations, opera companies, sports teams - realize that their institutions will work much better if people of diverse backgrounds and beliefs can cooperate, and they are doing their best to convince the rest of us that it's great.
> 
> And they're right. If we don't at a minimum get along well enough to live and work together, our lives will be much poorer.
> 
> Besides the fact that it's morally right. Bigotry is evil; it is a sin. The fact that it's so instinctive to us does not excuse it: it implicates us. At both a cultural/societal and individual level, we have to try to overcome our worst instincts.
> 
> The arts can and sometimes do help. Yes, seeing a Kenyan or a Norwegian performer excel in a Chinese opera - do it as well or better than the very best ethnic Chinese performers - would be an edifying - morally constructive, upbuilding - experience. Reading a novel based on Greek tragedy but set in an Igbo village can be an edifying experience. Setting Romeo and Juliet in New York City's ethnic communities can be an edifying experience. It's ok not to do these things - and there's no point in doing them unless you have world-class performers who can shine - but it's good to do them.
> 
> Edit: A final point about self-consciously ethnic/racial/religious/whatever productions: Not all people are in the same situation. Being a Muslim in Myanmar is not the same as being one in Malaysia; being a Buddhist in Malaysia is not the same as being one in Myanmar. Being Kurdish in Turkey is not the same as being Turkish in Turkey; being Turkish in Turkey is not the same as being Turkish in Germany.
> 
> Anyone who denies that - anyone who pretends, say, that being Turkish in Germany is the same as being German in Germany - certainly realizes that it is not the same and is using that denial as part of a strategy of preserving a hierarchy.
> 
> So, for example, forming an "all black" theater group in the United States is not the same as forming an "all white" one; anyone who claims otherwise is explicitly and only trying to perpetuate the advantages white actors and actresses have traditionally had. If there were a society where white people actually were an oppressed minority (I don't believe one exists at the moment, but maybe back in the day of the Barbary pirates or something), the situation would be reversed.


Bigotry is not evil, all people can be labeled bigoted. Bigotry simply means unwillingness to the view or beliefs of other people from your own. For instance say ones belief is that the drinking age should be lowered to 18, if you oppose this position immovably, you are bigoted just like the person who disagrees with you is in turn themselves bigoted against your position.

What would hostility toward diversity be in your terms?.. I believe one can be extremely skeptical of broad sweeping, diversity initiatives introduced by the government and corporate HR and still be in favor of diversity itself. In fact there have been some studies in the last few years that have shown some far reaching diversity programs, often backfire and do the opposite of what they set out to achieve. Here is a rather significant study on precisely that:

https://hbr.org/2016/07/why-diversity-programs-fail

Then to your point about all black theater groups and how whites wouldn't be allowed, I think there is a lot wrong with the idea this is fair. If we as a society were truly trying to blend together and diversify we should do away with all exclusionary groups. Ironic how in a time of such increasing insistence for diversity initiatives and social justice tribunals reign supreme, we've also seen an increase in identity politics and tribalism.


----------



## Dim7

Logos said:


> I have expressed the view that its effects are bad for reasons which I've stated at length, and in various ways throughout the discussion; and that the actions associated with the implementation of my aesthetic principles are impracticable because of negative social effects.


What would those actions be?


----------



## Logos

science said:


> Do you see _any_ difference between a state conquering territory and forcing its people to assimilate and allowing non-Germans to perform a Mozart opera?


Assimilation often happens without force, only more slowly. Immigrants to America are inevitably assimilated, thought it may take 3 or 4 generations for the process to complete itself. Yet I can assure you that no bayonets are used. It's possible that immigrants to Europe taking up classical music may be interpreted (depending on the case) as a sign of their assimilation, which, as I said, is the antithesis of cultural diversity.


----------



## Logos

Dim7 said:


> What would those actions be?


The action would be using visual ethnicity as one criterion of selection in the filling of positions. Because this might cause social unrest, it should not be put into practice; The negative social effect outweighs the positive aesthetic effect.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> Assimilation often happens without force, only more slowly. Immigrants to America are inevitably assimilated, thought it may take 3 or 4 generations for the process to complete itself. Yet I can assure you that no bayonets are used. It's possible that immigrants to Europe taking up classical music may be interpreted (depending on the case) as a sign of their assimilation, which, as I said, is the antithesis of cultural diversity.


To the extent that this looks like an answer to my question, it implies that you do _not_ see a difference between a state forcing conquered people to lose their culture and allowing non-Germans to perform Mozart. Is that really what you mean?


----------



## Logos

science said:


> To the extent that this looks like an answer to my question, it implies that you do _not_ see a difference between a state forcing conquered people to lose their culture and allowing non-Germans to perform Mozart. Is that really what you mean?


There may not be an _aesthetic_ difference (besides the obvious difference of the scale and scope of cultural change in the two situations), but there is a _moral_ and _political_ difference, assuming that the conquest is unjust and involves bloodshed; not to mention that you're speaking of _forced_ and presumably _total_ assimilation in the one case, and _allowed_ and presumably _partial_ assimilation in the other.

I can't help but think that by bringing up this militaristic example, you've misread my earlier post. If one reads it carefully, one will note that I nowhere speak of assimilation by violence. In fact, I had in mind peaceful, gradual assimilation following voluntary immigration (either international or local); or assimilation via economic or informational-cultural connections (examples: mass media, international trade).


----------



## Guest

science said:


> Wait, what?
> 
> This is absurd. No one is demanding that "non-Europeans" be "inserted" into European culture against their will. Or anything like that. If you can disagree with someone for good reasons, that's fine; if you have to attribute nonsense to them in order to justify your disagreement....
> 
> The "giving to charity" argument is interesting. I'm not sure it really does amount to a justification for trying to homogenize a diverse society - which, when you come down to it, is ethnic cleansing - but it does illustrate the difficulties contemporary societies face in trying to get their members to overcome their fears of each other and cooperate with each other. I assume no one has said it's easy.
> 
> Yeah, there's a moral argument going on here, and yes, it is very similar to a religious argument from the old days. No one is getting burned at the stake, so we should probably not lose perspective in a rush to self-pity. The absolute worst thing a person can be today is not a white American or European accused of racism - there are much worse situations. But, sure, there is an element of shaming going on, and it has to be that way. The old paradox is that tolerance cannot tolerate intolerance.
> 
> Celebrating or intentionally embracing diversity _is_ a relatively new thing; that doesn't invalidate it. The conditions that lead us to it are also relatively new. Things change. It really wasn't all that long ago that people took for granted that slavery was an ethical practice, ordained by God.
> 
> But the fundamental ideas underlying the challenge to slavery then and racism (and other sorts of bigotry) now are ancient and universal: right is on the side of the oppressed, not the oppressor. If that is dogma, may God and nature grant that more of us hold it with more conviction and overcome those who don't.
> 
> And even if, like me, you happen to enjoy most of the privileges one can have - white, male, American, no significant health problems or disabilities, Christian heritage, elite education, probably enough money saved to live on for the rest of my life, nearly free healthcare - we all still need to realize that there is an element of _wise_ self-defense here. The real threats to my life and liberty are not brown or black people, but oligarchs who aspire to gain ever more power by capitalizing on the bigotry of many naive people in my society: that's as true in Russia, China, Turkey, or Hungary as it is in the USA and France and the UK. It's the old story again: the oppressors on high say, "Don't blame us, blame Jews." For now it's not so much Jews as it is Arabs, Mexicans, African-Americans, and so on. But if we're wise, we won't fall for this, and we will try to defend our freedoms from the actual threats.
> 
> This is pretty far from a discussion about music. I hope that the "whites only" agenda does not have many successes in the world of classical music, and I assume that it won't, at least until Asians are reclassified as white (which I believe is slowly happening, especially for Asian-Americans). Hopefully we don't have to relive a WWII-like scenario to remember its lessons. But we'll see.


This is a fantastic post, science, but also: I call Godwin's law on the penultimate sentence even though you are spot on with it.


----------



## science

Chromatose said:


> Bigotry is not evil, all people can be labeled bigoted.


These two statements do not contradict each other in my mind. I'm old school; I believe in something very like "total depravity." All of us - me included - are born with minds that seek their own self-interest rather than disinterested truth. All of us are willing to inflict unbounded suffering on other people, although some of us don't want to have to witness it personally, for our own benefit. These facts are the essence of evil. The best you can say about the human species is that sometimes (albeit usually not for good reasons) we overcome our worst instincts.



Chromatose said:


> Ironic how in a time of such increasing insistence for diversity initiatives and social justice tribunals reign supreme, we've also seen an increase in identity politics and tribalism.


It's not ironic at all. Identity politics and tribalism are a response to people's fear of losing their privilege; as is pretending that we live in a time when "social justice tribunals reign supreme." Far from that being the case, society and its laws and their enforcers are far from indifferent to wealth, color, religion, or ethnicity, and the bias is not in favor of the oppressed. A half dozen mawkishly exaggerated (and often dishonestly portrayed) counterexamples don't outweigh the plain facts of widespread, systematic injustice affecting millions of people.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> I can't help but think that by bringing up this militaristic example, you've misread my earlier post. If one reads it carefully, one will note that I nowhere speak of assimilation by violence. In fact, I had in mind peaceful, gradual assimilation following voluntary immigration (either international or local); or assimilation via economic or informational-cultural connections (examples: mass media, international trade).


Of course that's not how the dominant languages you mentioned have usually spread. Language like English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese have not replaced the languages of aboriginal or minority peoples without bloodshed. Where mere trade or entertainment are involved, multilingualism is far more common; the amazing thing is that multilingualism sometimes even persists when states attempt to stomp it out.


----------



## Logos

science said:


> Of course that's not how the dominant languages you mentioned have usually spread. Language like English, Spanish, or Mandarin Chinese have not replaced the languages of aboriginal or minority peoples without bloodshed. Where mere trade or entertainment are involved, multilingualism is far more common; the amazing thing is that multilingualism sometimes even persists when states attempt to stomp it out.


Historically that has been the case, yet today language death persists at a faster rate than ever, and which language is the most blameable culprit? English. Give me an army of televisions, radios, computers, and movie screens and I'll kill more languages (and cultures; though not people) than any army of soldiers. Supplement this with immigration in the name of "diversity" and the process accelerates still more. One might argue that the British Empire created through violent means the historical _circumstances_ in which these peaceful means of homogenization could do their work; but that's different from arguing that the means employed _today_ are primarily violent or forceful in character. They act passively, slowly, and unconsciously; besides which, they're much more reliably lucrative than expensive wars that may or may not yield economic benefit.

Today, long after explicitly _colonial_ violence (I say nothing of violence of other kinds or the persisting effects of colonialism) has ended in Latin America, tribal languages continue to die off as younger generations are absorbed by the dominant Spanish-speaking (or Portuguese) culture. This happens through the _passive_ yet pervasive and constant influence of the dominant culture. Colonial violence set the stage for peaceful absorption of those elements it hadn't already eradicated or digested.


----------



## KenOC

I think that, with the advent of worldwide instant communication and social media, we can expect to see less-spoken languages disappear at an accelerating rate. We are facing the McDonaldization of world culture.


----------



## Logos

KenOC said:


> I think that, with the advent of worldwide instant communication and social media, we can expect to see less-spoken languages disappear at an accelerating rate. We are facing the McDonaldization of world culture.


My thoughts exactly. Were it not for the presence of a billion Han Chinese contending for their own, rapidly commercializing "monoculture", we would be rushing headlong towards an unopposed Anglo-American "monoculture" dominated by mass media and consumerism. At this point, it's a choice between Alibaba and Amazon.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

bz3 said:


> Yes, 'correcting' the natural order seems to be the underlying motivation in all this PC nonsense - boys are actually born girls and all manner of other nonsense they try to convince all of us of on TV today.


I don't know about "correcting," but "bettering" the natural order has been a common goal of human endeavors since the beginning. Agriculture, breeding, engineering, science, etc. are all about understanding and/or artificially manipulating nature for our benefit. The "natural order" is evolution, which is slow and dumb and takes a lazy "whatever works for survival/reproduction" approach, and is far less capable than the human mind (which, granted, is itself a product of evolution).

However, that mind comes pre-equipped with hundreds of irrational biases that distort our understanding and perception of reality. Things like racism are rooted in tribal fears of "the other," where outsiders are unknowns that present possible threats to "the tribe." Since race is one of the first things we see, it's one of the first ways in which our minds categorize "us" and "them." Scientists have studied this racial biasing in infants. Such things may be "the natural order" in that they happen in nature, but the notion that we can't do better than such blatant irrationality is absurd. Statistics alone tell us that those closest to us--which will usually be members of our own race--are a far greater threat to us.

Your attempt at bringing transgenderism into this discussion is telling since nobody is saying boys are born girls or vice versa, since the categorizing of "boy" and "girl" are based on sex (biological) not gender (social/mental). The latter is how people say they were born differently, so they change their biological sex to match their mental gender; and, yes, there's actual science that supports this position that you call "nonsense."


----------



## Logos

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Your attempt at bringing transgenderism into this discussion is telling since nobody is saying boys are born girls or vice versa, since the categorizing of "boy" and "girl" are based on sex (biological) not gender (social/mental).


That differentiation between these two words is a recent pop-culture innovation which has no basis either in their etymology or historical usage. Gender means _genus_. In other words, which kind/genus of sex are you? It's simply asking for the same thing--sexual genus--using a bare substantive where the adjective "sexual" is understood and therefore not explicitly stated.

This matters because those misusing the terms in this manner are pretending (or are under the misapprehension) that there is a preexisting conceptual distinction upon which they can authoritatively draw when trying to distinguish between biological sex and social roles. Rather than being an authentic preexisting example of such a distinction, it's been invented _ad hoc_, contrary to the laws of literate English usage, to a describe a phenomenon without historical (or etymological) precedent.


----------



## Nereffid

Dim7 said:


> Really I'm a bit confused what kind of prescriptions people are throwing around here. What is Logos telling us to do or think, if anything, and what are those who find his views problematic telling him to do or think, if anything?


I'm not so much telling Logos what to do or think, more trying to get to the heart of why he thinks the way he does. Logos keeps insisting on the non-racist nature of these aesthetic preferences, but a few of us are trying to point out that, were these preferences to be applied in the real world, the effects would be the same as if the preferences were truly racist. So I've been curious as to why Logos kept shying away from this. Getting to the bottom of the motivation, or getting someone to perhaps see a bit further into their own views, helps understanding of those views.

Also, I've noted to Logos: 


Nereffid said:


> The thing is, you almost never miss an opportunity to not sound like a non-racist.


And then there's:


Logos said:


> Because this might cause social unrest, it should not be put into practice; The negative social effect outweighs the positive aesthetic effect.


Again, carefully masking the motivation. The benefit-of-the-doubt interpretation of "this might cause social unrest" is "this is wrong". But, given the longstanding caginess of the poster in this thread, for all we know "this might cause social unrest" might very well mean "the [racist epithet]s will be getting uppity again".


----------



## KenOC

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ...Since race is one of the first things we see, it's one of the first ways in which our minds categorize "us" and "them." Scientists have studied this racial biasing in infants. Such things may be "the natural order" in that they happen in nature, but the notion that we can't do better than such blatant irrationality is absurd.


Nothing to do with rationality. Most hominid species are intensely subject to xenophobia and speciesism for solid Darwinian reasons. That situation remains unchanged today. It's only "blatant" with respect to your own ideas of morality.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> The benefit-of-the-doubt interpretation of "this might cause social unrest" is "this is wrong".


It's wrong _because_ it would cause social unrest; including emotional distress to the persons deprived of a position, and the degradation of race relations, both of which I find more important than an aesthetic ideal.


----------



## bz3

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know about "correcting," but "bettering" the natural order has been a common goal of human endeavors since the beginning. Agriculture, breeding, engineering, science, etc. are all about understanding and/or artificially manipulating nature for our benefit. The "natural order" is evolution, which is slow and dumb and takes a lazy "whatever works for survival/reproduction" approach, and is far less capable than the human mind (which, granted, is itself a product of evolution).


Well whatever evolution is, it's what we've got. We don't try to grow crops in a rock bed. It's one thing to try to get along and understand we live in a large world with many types of people. It's quite another to make a cult out of creating a cultural mashup and demanding everyone love it, lest they be accused of thought crimes.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Such things may be "the natural order" in that they happen in nature, but the notion that we can't do better than such blatant irrationality is absurd.


Yeah I don't believe that, and it doesn't mean I think we should revert to smashing each other with clubs.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> Your attempt at bringing transgenderism into this discussion is telling since nobody is saying boys are born girls or vice versa, since the categorizing of "boy" and "girl" are based on sex (biological) not gender (social/mental). The latter is how people say they were born differently, so they change their biological sex to match their mental gender; and, yes, there's actual science that supports this position that you call "nonsense."


Don't believe this either.



Madiel said:


> Jimmy Durmaz is a Swedish footballer, born and raised in Sweden by Aramaic parents, they are Syriac Orthodox Christians, last night the result of his presence in the Swedish football team at the ongoing World Cup has been the flooding of his Instagram account with death threats, and "funny" racist abuse the likes of terrorist, arab devil, taliban warrior.
> Some forumers who have posted in this thread should realize that diversity is already here and that their so called "aesthetic preferences" are dangerous and - no matter their intentions - inherently racist, or call it apartheid, call it Jim Crow call it whatever you want but calling it differently will not make it less criminal.
> 
> PS: I have defined "funny" the insults since they were addressed to a Christian, I have used that adjective with a sadly ironic intent and - of course - if Durmaz had been of another religious faith (or an atheist) the danger revealed by an episode of this kind would have remained the same.


Someone said mean things to a multimillionaire on the internet. Quick, fetch my anxiety dog. I don't mean to be overly flippant but so what? Jerks will always exist - that this is a fact is not a reason to adopt political correctness for all time. In fact it might be a reason specifically not to. Bottling up those emotions is never good (it gives you cancer).


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Someone said mean things to a multimillionaire on the internet. Quick, fetch my anxiety dog. I don't mean to be overly flippant but so what? Jerks will always exist - that this is a fact is not a reason to adopt political correctness for all time. In fact it might be a reason specifically not to. Bottling up those emotions is never good (it gives you cancer).


1. Death threats are not "mean things."
2. Yes, you do mean to be overly flippant.
3. Being against racism is not "politically correct." It is simply correct - for all time.
4. The fact that jerks will always exist is reason for always speaking out against them.
5. Some emotions are better bottled up. Cancer may be a sign that those emotions need examining.

One doesn't often encounter a paragraph in which every sentence is objectionable. Congratulations.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> ..The "natural order" is evolution, which is slow *and dumb* and takes a lazy "whatever works for survival/reproduction" approach, and is far less capable than the human mind (which, granted, is itself a product of evolution)...


Very strange comment. The inborn 'intelligence' of cells in the human body performing even the most basic functions -the product of evolution- is still amazing to me after years of seeing it at work up close and personal. How can it (the process of evolution) be far less capable, in the broad sense, than something -the human brain- it created?


----------



## Logos

Ironically, if you live in a society filled with self-criticism and introspective hand-wringing, that's probably a sign that you live one of the places on earth least in need of self-criticism.

China, Russia, the banana republics of Latin America, and the perpetually corrupt nations of sub-Saharan Africa could use a couple centuries worth of the kind of self-criticism with which Western Europe and the Anglo-sphere daily flagellates itself.


----------



## Logos

apologies, double post ............


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> 1. Death threats are not "mean things."
> 2. Yes, you do mean to be overly flippant.
> 3. Being against racism is not "politically correct." It is simply correct - for all time.
> 4. The fact that jerks will always exist is reason for always speaking out against them.
> 5. Some emotions are better bottled up. Cancer may be a sign that those emotions need examining.
> 
> One doesn't often encounter a paragraph in which every sentence is objectionable. Congratulations.


Thanks for explaining to me how I'm mean and defend racism. I have surely been educated.


----------



## bz3

Logos said:


> Ironically, if you live in a society filled with self-criticism and introspective hand-wringing, that's probably a sign that you live one of the places on earth least in need of self-criticism.
> 
> China, Russia, the banana republics of Latin America, and the perpetually corrupt nations of sub-Saharan Africa could use a couple centuries worth of the kind of self-criticism with which Western Europe and the Anglo-sphere daily flagellates itself.


Political correctness seems to be an entirely European phenomenon. One wonders what that means if the future is 'majority minority.'


----------



## Guest

As soon as people simply disrespect science itself (i.e. _the way the world works, objectively, according to our observations and descriptions_), by saying 'they don't believe it', then how am I supposed to even believe anything they say as being rooted in any kind of truth at all?


----------



## science

bz3 said:


> Political correctness seems to be an entirely European phenomenon. One wonders what that means if the future is 'majority minority.'


What other countries have you experienced? I've lived in Korea for 14 of the past 16 years, and I assure you they have something like "political correctness" here. In fact, I'd imagine that most cultures have some idea of how to be nice to relatively less powerful people.


----------



## science

shirime said:


> As soon as people simply disrespect science itself (i.e. _the way the world works, objectively, according to our observations and descriptions_), by saying 'they don't believe it', then how am I supposed to even believe anything they say as being rooted in any kind of truth at all?


It's a funny phenomenon of our time that the radical left invented this kind of thing, then the right defined themselves against it in terms of "common sense," and now the right, having found that common sense has a liberal bias, has adopted it.


----------



## Logos

bz3 said:


> Political correctness seems to be an entirely European phenomenon. One wonders what that means if the future is 'majority minority.'


It's rampant in America as well. It's definitely a Western phenomenon, though it's slowly spreading to other spheres. Political correctness is the art of constantly worrying about whether one is being polite, without ever stopping to consider that only a polite person would care about such a thing in the first place. If you care about political correctness at all, then you don't need it.


----------



## Guest

One exercise which I think is incredibly useful when thinking about 'political correctness' is simply by substituting it with the phrase 'treating people with respect' and seeing whether we are comfortable talking about it with this more literal wording.


----------



## bz3

science said:


> It's a funny phenomenon of our time that the radical left invented this kind of thing, then the right defined themselves against it in terms of "common sense," and now the right, having found that common sense has a liberal bias, has adopted it.


Amusing example, considering Koreans are by far the most ethnocentric people I've encountered from the Orient. It is true that South Korea is a sort of Orwellian state, but it's also true that North Korea (same people) are the only explicitly racialist state left in the world - Israel perhaps excepted for various reasons.



Logos said:


> It's rampant in America as well. It's definitely a Western phenomenon, though it's slowly spreading to other spheres. Political correctness is the art of constantly worrying about whether one is being polite, without ever stopping to consider that only a polite person would care about such a thing in the first place. If you care about political correctness at all, then you don't need it.


I meant European as in European people. I'm American and was reared in a very diverse setting (less than 25% white primary education). Believe me, nobody except Europeans (white) and a handful of wealthy minorities believe in this political correctness. China, Brazil, Israel, Turkey - these are only some of the extremely politically _incorrect_ societies I've visited.


----------



## bz3

shirime said:


> One exercise which I think is incredibly useful when thinking about 'political correctness' is simply by substituting it with the phrase 'treating people with respect' and seeing whether we are comfortable talking about it with this more literal wording.


Yeah I guess if you define your personal moral system as 'being nice' and pretend the more insidious forms of modern day witch-burning within it don't exist, it's great! Wahhabism is about being nice and Godly too, just don't think about the cultural destruction, stonings, and beheadings.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Thanks for explaining to me how I'm mean and defend racism. I have surely been educated.


I didn't say either of those things. But I might wonder about those bottled-up emotions.


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> One exercise which I think is incredibly useful when thinking about 'political correctness' is simply by substituting it with the phrase 'treating people with respect' and seeing whether we are comfortable talking about it with this more literal wording.


What's slightly absurd is that political correctness seems to be concerned only with the advanced nations which already treat people comparatively well. Imagine a neighborhood where everyone is constantly telling the most virtuous man among them how to behave while living completely dissolute lives themselves. That's political correctness.


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> I didn't say either of those things. But I might wonder about those bottled-up emotions.


Perhaps that's projection. My moral system is not centered around guilt, and I don't seek approval of my peers by prostrations. If 'POC's', or whatever term du jour for the victim du jour, don't want to play in classical orchestras or compose classical music then I don't care and I don't see it as an ill of society resulting directly from my 'privilege.'

My only quibble is with corporate-style political correctness being imposed on people. Of course many things we say on the internet we cannot say anymore to our peers because it threatens our employment and livelihoods. That, again, is a hateful state of affairs.


----------



## Guest

bz3 said:


> Perhaps that's projection. My moral system is not centered around guilt, and I don't seek approval of my peers by prostrations. If 'POC's', or whatever term du jour for the victim du jour, don't want to play in classical orchestras or compose classical music then I don't care and I don't see it as an ill of society resulting directly from my 'privilege.'
> 
> My only quibble is with corporate-style political correctness being imposed on people. Of course many things we say on the internet we cannot say anymore to our peers because it threatens our employment and livelihoods. That, again, is a hateful state of affairs.


Why would you assume anyone's moral system is centred around guilt? Do you feel as if some people are trying to make you feel guilty and derive a moral system around it?

And why would you have reason to feel guilty?


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> And why would you have reason to feel guilty?


Not that you're directing this question to me, but it's important to note that white male guilt replaced baseball as America's national pastime sometime around 10 years ago.


----------



## bz3

shirime said:


> Why would you assume anyone's moral system is centred around guilt? Do you feel as if some people are trying to make you feel guilty and derive a moral system around it?
> 
> And why would you have reason to feel guilty?


Are you kidding? Half the posts in the last few pages are prattling about 'privilege.' Nobody cares about such a vague concept unless they feel guilty about it, or more likely guilty about something else which is then sublimated onto this nebulous concept. Guilt is what political correctness is centered around.


----------



## Guest

Why is having privilege something to feel guilty about? It sounds like, bz3, you are beginning to feel a little guilty of it yourself if you think this is what 'political correctness' is all about. ut:


----------



## Logos

shirime said:


> Why is having privilege something to feel guilty about?


My thoughts precisely. Aristocrats throughout the ages jealously guarded their privilege without a hint of guilt in the possession of it. They were "at ease in Zion".

Edit: Who knew one sentence could have so many typographical errors at one time? Sorry folks.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> Are you kidding? Half the posts in the last few pages are prattling about *'privilege.'* Nobody cares about such *a vague concept* unless they feel guilty about it, or more likely guilty about something else which is then sublimated onto this nebulous concept. *Guilt is what political correctness is centered around.*


Privilege is a vague concept only to those who have it. To those who don't its meaning can be all too clear.

It's the apparently disturbing suggestion that those who take privilege for granted consider the situation of those who don't that often spurs said privileged to accusations of political correctness. Privilege is not guilt unless we refuse to acknowledge it, and imputing "political correctness" can be a way of refusing.


----------



## Logos

It used to be that privilege was held without guilt partially because it also came with many burdensome responsibilities: military, political and judicial duties, overseeing vast estates while caring for ones tenants, land management, etc.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Logos said:


> That differentiation between these two words is a recent pop-culture innovation which has no basis either in their etymology or historical usage. Gender means _genus_. In other words, which kind/genus of sex are you? It's simply asking for the same thing--sexual genus--using a bare substantive where the adjective "sexual" is understood and therefore not explicitly stated.
> 
> This matters because those misusing the terms in this manner are pretending (or are under the misapprehension) that there is a preexisting conceptual distinction upon which they can authoritatively draw when trying to distinguish between biological sex and social roles. Rather than being an authentic preexisting example of such a distinction, it's been invented _ad hoc_, contrary to the laws of literate English usage, to a describe a phenomenon without historical (or etymological) precedent.


First, you're committing the genetic fallacy. A word's origins doesn't determine its current meaning.

Second, the etymology of gender is a bit more complicated than you suggest. Its biggest historical usage was as a grammatical term. It only gained real currency in referring to the sex of people in the 20th century when the term "sex" took on erotic connotations, so "gender" became a kind of euphemism; before that, the usage was a metaphoric extension of the grammatical one. Around that time, Henry Watson Fowler noted: "Gender...is a grammatical term only. To talk of persons...of the male or female sex, is either a jocularity (permissible or not according to context) or a blunder." So even using the term gender to refer to the sex of people is a somewhat recent convention that wasn't an "etymological or historical use."

Third, unless the The American Journal of Psychology is a bastion of pop culture, and unless you consider 1945 "recent," then the usage of "gender" to denote male/female social roles and mental dispositions is neither recent, nor an innovation of pop culture; as that's the first attested usage.

Finally, it's rather absurd to set the standard for an "authentic distinction" as a "preexisting one" since all concepts were at one time non-existent and had to be invented. The only issue is whether the distinction is useful. Given that we already have both first-hand accounts of people saying they feel like a man or woman despite them being the opposite sex, and given that we have science saying that people can indeed have brains that are more like the brains of the opposite sex, and given that we already have a term for biological sex and don't really NEED the term gender for that, using the term gender to describe this real phenomenal distinction seems both useful and accurate. There is absolutely nothing "contrary to the laws of literate English usage" either. Words changing meanings, developing new ones, being appropriated from other fields, used figuratively until they become literal, etc. is how language works. Once we're beyond the very basics of grammatical prescription, the "laws of literate English usage" are determined by actual usage.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

KenOC said:


> Nothing to do with rationality. Most hominid species are intensely subject to xenophobia and speciesism for solid Darwinian reasons. That situation remains unchanged today. It's only "blatant" with respect to your own ideas of morality.


It's everything to do with rationality. If you're basing your beliefs on Darwinian reasoning rather than rationality, then you're almost certainly being irrational while doing it. The entire point of my post was that actual rationality can do better than the "whatever works for survival/reproduction" of "Darwinian reasoning," which is extremely sloppy and not very accurate. The situation is very much changed today than when we were small-ish tribes in Africa. Today, most outsiders aren't going to come into our territory to start a war, steal our resources, ravish our women, etc., yet xenophobia is fueled by such fears.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> Very strange comment. The inborn 'intelligence' of cells in the human body performing even the most basic functions -the product of evolution- is still amazing to me after years of seeing it at work up close and personal. How can it (the process of evolution) be far less capable, in the broad sense, than something -the human brain- it created?


To quote Yudkowsky, the wonder of evolution is not how well it works, but that it works at all. (His follow-up post is worth reading too). To quote the most relevant bit that answers your question:


> ...to praise evolution too highly destroys the real wonder, which is not how well evolution designs things, but that a naturally occurring process manages to design anything at all.
> 
> So let us dispose of the idea that evolution is a wonderful designer, or a wonderful conductor of species destinies, which we human beings ought to imitate. For human intelligence to imitate evolution as a designer, would be like a sophisticated modern bacterium trying to imitate the first replicator as a biochemist. As T. H. Huxley, "Darwin's Bulldog", put it:
> 
> "Let us understand, once and for all, that the ethical progress of society depends, not on imitating the cosmic process, still less in running away from it, but in combating it."
> 
> Huxley didn't say that because he disbelieved in evolution, but because he understood it all too well.


And, to take a bit from the second post:


> Human intelligence is so complicated that no one has any good way to calculate how efficient it is. Natural selection, though not simple, is simpler than a human brain; and correspondingly slower and less efficient, as befits the first optimization process ever to exist.


----------



## Logos

> A word's origins doesn't determine its current meaning.


The current meaning has no weight when that current meaning is an illiterate innovation. You yourself go on to explain this, using Fowler's perfect example.



> Third, unless the The American Journal of Psychology is a bastion of pop culture, and unless you consider 1945 "recent," then the usage of "gender" to denote male/female social roles and mental dispositions is neither recent, nor an innovation of pop culture; as that's the first attested usage.


American psychologists aren't exactly known for their mastery of Latin etymological distinctions. I'll stick with Fowler.



> Finally, it's rather absurd to set the standard for an "authentic distinction" as a "preexisting one" since all concepts were at one time non-existent and had to be invented.


I never used the term "authentic", so I can't imagine how this addresses what I wrote. EDIT: _Correction, I did use it, and I haven't the faintest idea what I meant with respect to that phrase. 2ND EDIT: I wasn't saying that a distinction must be preexisting to be authentic. I was saying that that distinction did not authentically preexist, i. e. predate the phenomenon of transgenderism.
_


> The only issue is whether the distinction is useful. Given that we already have both first-hand accounts of people saying they feel like a man or woman despite them being the opposite sex, and given that we have science saying that people can indeed have brains that are more like the brains of the opposite sex, and given that we already have a term for biological sex and don't really NEED the term gender for that, using the term gender to describe this real phenomenal distinction seems both useful and accurate.


The distinction is certainly useful, but O the rich irony that it should be used in trying to legitimize transgenderism! In many ways the conservative's view of sexual identity and the transgendered person's view are strikingly similar. The only difference between the latter's view and the reactionary one is that they reverse the order of the clauses in the proposition. The reactionary says, "You are a woman, therefore take this feminine role/self-image/cultural paraphernalia." The transgendered person says, "You have taken this feminine role/self-image/cultural paraphernalia, therefore you are a woman." If transgendered persons themselves could take that separation between sex role and sex to heart, their perplexity would dissolve on the instant since they would no longer feel a dire need for their sex label, sex role label, and bodily sex appearance to match. On the contrary, only because inside themselves these two, nay three concepts (including bodily sex appearance) are inseparably bound in psychic and emotional union do they find their transition--both terminological and physical--necessary.

Recently I've been reading some articles about feminists and transgender women finding themselves at cross purposes for this very reason. In order to legitimate their status as women, transgender women tend to regard a woman's role (rather than her biological sex) as the most fundamental part of female identity. On the other hand, feminists have spent the better part of a century fighting against the very notion of a "woman's role" in the first place--since historically that's lead to oppression--which consequently leads them to place the entirety of female identity in biological sex. But if that's the case, how can transgender women be women? Here we have two leftist causes in the midst of an exceedingly awkward negotiation.



> Once we're beyond the very basics of grammatical prescription, the "laws of literate English usage" are determined by actual usage.


Well, Fowler knew more about actual English usage than either of us, and being something of a rabid prescriptivist he would have disagreed with you entirely. Descriptivism is an egalitarian political statement masquerading as philological science. It would have us believe that the language of the masses has just as much right to be considered 'proper' as an Oxford don's. That's nothing but linguistic sansculottism, salivating and gleefully wringing its grimy hands at the opportunity of dethroning "dead white men" as literary authority figures.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

bz3 said:


> Well whatever evolution is, it's what we've got. We don't try to grow crops in a rock bed. It's one thing to try to get along and understand we live in a large world with many types of people. It's quite another to make a cult out of creating a cultural mashup and demanding everyone love it, lest they be accused of thought crimes.


Except evolution isn't all we got. As my links above explain, the human brain is far more capable and efficient at problem solving than evolution, which is slow, dumb, and blind; doing better than evolution doesn't mean growing crops in a rock bed, it means understanding that we can grow crops ourselves in soil without waiting for natural processes to do it.

That said, I do essentially agree that promoting or enforcing diversity for diversity's sake alone doesn't make much sense, but I don't think that's what's happening. Diversity is being promoted in large part because we (especially in America, but also other parts of the Western world) are finding ourselves in increasingly diverse societies. As long that's the reality then, as you say, it's certainly more beneficial to get along rather than live in states of irrational fears, hatreds, and deleterious biases. Unfortunately, those latter states are a reality too, and as long as they are we need something to try to curb the negative effects they have on certain groups within our societies.



bz3 said:


> Yeah I don't believe that, and it doesn't mean I think we should revert to smashing each other with clubs.


The only way not to believe that would be to ignore the entire history of human progress, which was not built on blindly following Darwinian programs. The very machine you're typing your replies on is a testament to what the human mind could accomplish that evolution never could.



bz3 said:


> Don't believe this either.


So you don't believe facts and science. Interesting.


----------



## KenOC

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Except evolution isn't all we got. As my links above explain, the human brain is far more capable and efficient at problem solving than evolution, which is slow, dumb, and blind...
> 
> The only way not to believe that would be to ignore the entire history of human progress, which was not built on blindly following Darwinian programs.


1 - The mills of Darwin grind slow but exceedingly fine.
2 - Actually, of course, it was.


----------



## science

I don't feel at all guilty about the privileges I enjoy. People who talk like that are people who assume they would feel guilty if they acknowledged the privileges they enjoy. But it's fine. Nothing to feel guilty about. The world is a lousy, horrible, brutal place - thank nature, luck, my ancestors, my culture, my government, and all the gods that I am closer to the top than the bottom! 

But it would be better if more people enjoyed the privileges I have - freedom from most forms of discrimination, freedom from material deprivation, a legit opportunity to get a world-class education, world-class healthcare, freedom to travel, freedom to express my ideas and feelings without punishment. 

The only reason anyone would possibly feel guilty about having things like that is if they are working - however subtly - to deny them to others.

And guess what? We can bring this thread back on topic now! Because if more people - a wider variety of people - come to enjoy these privileges, we can expect to find some of them in the concert halls. 

Which would be great.


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> It used to be that privilege was held without guilt partially because it also came with many burdensome responsibilities: military, political and judicial duties, overseeing vast estates while caring for ones tenants, land management, etc.


This isn't the sort of privilege being talked about when we say "white privilege" or "male privilege".

As was neatly put by someone on the Internet recently:
"White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It means that your skin color isn't one of the things making it harder."

There's a difference between feeling bad that other people don't have this privilege, and feeling guilty that you do.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> As was neatly put by someone on the Internet recently:
> "White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It means that your skin color isn't one of the things making it harder."


Then are people of Han Chinese ethnicity is "privileged" in China? This is obviously a misapplication of the word since 'privilege' refers to 'special rights' (i.e., artificial advantages beyond those naturally expected) that have been 'granted' (been artificially instituted where it would otherwise not have occurred). That Han Chinese should have an advantage over persons of different groups in their own nation is not a special right, it's simply what one would expect given the nature of the situation. Neither has it been artificially 'granted', but it's rather an inherent natural consequence of the circumstances in which Han Chinese numerically and culturally dominate. It's so natural that Chinese would have an advantage in their own country that to speak of it as a privilege is misleading at best.

All ethnic groups enjoy any number of natural advantages in the societies that they founded and in which they therefore culturally (and often numerically) predominate. For an ethnic Englishman to enjoy an ethnic advantage in England is no more a "privilege" than the advantage that fish posses in water. To correct it one would have to grant privileges (the word being properly applied) to disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, the advantage that an English Duke has over an English bus driver is a genuine privilege.

Not to mention that "privilege" is properly applied to either private or exceptional advantages such as those possessed by a comparatively small class. Here we're speaking of great masses of people having advantages over other great masses of people.


----------



## bz3

Woodduck said:


> Privilege is a vague concept only to those who have it. To those who don't its meaning can be all too clear.
> 
> It's the apparently disturbing suggestion that those who take privilege for granted consider the situation of those who don't that often spurs said privileged to accusations of political correctness. Privilege is not guilt unless we refuse to acknowledge it, and imputing "political correctness" can be a way of refusing.


And you think imposing your beliefs of this idea of 'original sin' on everyone _helps_ race relations? You have to know that you'll never convince very many people of this junk. It offers nothing - it's not even as good as Christianity and that has been well and dead in the West for close to 200 years.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> The only way not to believe that would be to ignore the entire history of human progress, which was not built on blindly following Darwinian programs. The very machine you're typing your replies on is a testament to what the human mind could accomplish that evolution never could.


If my computer could kick my *** it would.



Eva Yojimbo said:


> So you don't believe facts and science. Interesting.


Pseudoscience and emotional blackmail is more like it. If a 'social scientist' or 'gender psychologist' wants to write a paper about the 71 genders Facebook recognizes (bigoted IMO, there are at least 190 genders) that's fine but don't expect those of us immune to the blackmail narrative to believe any of it.



Nereffid said:


> This isn't the sort of privilege being talked about when we say "white privilege" or "male privilege".
> 
> As was neatly put by someone on the Internet recently:
> "White privilege doesn't mean your life hasn't been hard. It means that your skin color isn't one of the things making it harder."
> 
> There's a difference between feeling bad that other people don't have this privilege, and feeling guilty that you do.


I agree with the Chinese, who have developed their own term for this sort of backwards thinking. Turning non-Europeans on to this guilt-ridden victim worship is going to be a lot tougher sledding than you think. Again, I really don't care that people believe this just like I don't care what Muslims believe - just don't expect me to pay the jizyah forever (at least not without a lot of complaining and ridicule).


----------



## science

Fellas, you're clearly white and clearly from white-dominated societies. You're on top. You've won the lottery of history. Even if you aren't generous enough to sympathize with people who don't enjoy the advantages you have, just relax and enjoy your life. All this bitterness better becomes people at the bottom.


----------



## Woodduck

bz3 said:


> And you think imposing your beliefs of this idea of 'original sin' on everyone _helps_ race relations? You have to know that you'll never convince very many people of this junk. It offers nothing - it's not even as good as Christianity and that has been well and dead in the West for close to 200 years.


What _are_ you talking about? Original sin? Christianity?

This was addressed to a post of mine, but isn't a response to it.

Never mind then.


----------



## bz3

science said:


> Fellas, you're clearly white and clearly from white-dominated societies. You're on top. You've won the lottery of history. Even if you aren't generous enough to sympathize with people who don't enjoy the advantages you have, just relax and enjoy your life. All this bitterness better becomes people at the bottom.


Yes...world history is nothing but a lottery. That idea says a lot more about your outlook on life than my rejection of 'privilege' says about mine.



Woodduck said:


> What _are_ you talking about? Original sin? Christianity?
> 
> This was addressed to a post of mine, but isn't a response to it.
> 
> Never mind then.


Christianity? 200 years too late and irrelevant. The original sin of the West is racism, and its manifestation is privilege. You accused me of not understanding my privilege (sin) because I reject that I have it. The idea that I can't understand my privilege (sin) unless I don't have it is sort of an interesting deontological paradigm, even if it remains silent on any real world moral problems. Maybe a comparison to the early Roman Catholic church's strict hierarchy based upon obscure texts and persecution of non-believers is apt.


----------



## science

bz3 said:


> Yes...world history is nothing but a lottery. That idea says a lot more about your outlook on life than my rejection of 'privilege' says about mine.


No matter how subtle our views of the necessities and contingencies of history, birth is a lottery.


----------



## Logos

science said:


> No matter how subtle our views of the necessities and contingencies of history, birth is a lottery.


Tell that to a Hindu.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> Tell that to a Hindu.


Do you share their views?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

bz3 said:


> If my computer could kick my *** it would.


In a few years it might be able to. It's at least very feasible that within a few decades (if not sooner) computers will be much smarter than humans, which would be yet another case of the created being far more capable than what created it.



bz3 said:


> Pseudoscience and emotional blackmail is more like it.


Where was the pseudoscience and emotional blackmail in the Scientific American article I posted about how brain scans are showing that trans-people's brains are usually more like those of the opposite sex? In case you missed it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

KenOC said:


> 1 - The mills of Darwin grind slow but exceedingly fine.
> 2 - Actually, of course, it was.


1. The mills of Darwin would've never produced the machine you're typing on among thousands of other human inventions. 
2. Of course it wasn't, unless you're going to lump everything we do under "blindly following Darwinian programs" so that there's no distinction made between it and rationality. But of course that's not the sense in which I'm using it.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Logos said:


> The current meaning has no weight when that current meaning is an illiterate innovation. You yourself go on to explain this, using Fowler's perfect example.


The current meaning of thousands of words have little to nothing to do with their original etymological meaning. Here's a fun example: the etymology of "left" is "weak, foolish, worthless, lame." It came to mean "opposite of right" because the left hand was usually the weaker hand. How is this not an "illiterate innovation?" We even get a movement in the opposite direction: the Latin sinestra means "left side," and from that we eventually get "sinister" from the metaphoric association between "left side" and ill omens. Fowler was saying that gender shouldn't even be used to refer to the sex of people, yet you seem to have no problem using gender to mean that, and I dare say that's what MOST would take it to mean these days.



Logos said:


> American psychologists aren't exactly known for their mastery of Latin etymological distinctions.


Nor are they known as a bastion of pop culture, which was the point I was addressing. So your claim that it was a recent pop culture innovation was false.



Logos said:


> I never used the term "authentic", so I can't imagine how this addresses what I wrote.


Yes you did: "Rather than being an *authentic *preexisting example of such a distinction..."



Logos said:


> The distinction is certainly useful, but O the rich irony that it should be used in trying to legitimize transgenderism! In many ways the conservative's view of sexuality and the transgendered person's view are strikingly similar. The only difference between the latter's view and the reactionary one is that they reverse the order of the clauses in the proposition. The reactionary says, "You are a woman, therefore take this feminine role/self-image/cultural paraphernalia." The transgendered person says, "You have taken this feminine role/self-image/cultural paraphernalia, therefore you are a woman." If transgendered persons themselves could take that separation between sex role and sex to heart, their perplexity would dissolve on the instant since they would no longer feel a dire need for their sex label, sex role label, and bodily sex appearance to match. On the contrary, only because inside themselves these the two, nay three concepts (including bodily sex appearance) are inseparably bound in psychic and emotional union do they find their transition--both terminological and physical--necessary.
> 
> Recently I've been reading some articles about feminists and transgender women finding themselves at cross purposes for this very reason. In order to legitimate their status as women, transgender women tend to regard a woman's role (rather than her biological sex) as the most fundamental part of female identity. On the other hand, feminists have spent the better part of a century fighting against the very notion of a "woman's role" in the first place--since historically that's lead to oppression--which consequently leads them to place the entirety of female identity in biological sex. But if that's the case, how can transgender women be women? Here we have two leftist causes in the midst of an exceedingly awkward negotiation.


There's a lot of content here that could make for a half-dozen interesting discussions, but to address it all would require increasing post-lengths to ungainly proportions. So I suggest we either ignore this particular tangent or you select one or two things in it to discuss for the sake of keeping these posts manageably sized. In any case, it seems like you're now agreeing me that using "gender" to distinguish "social/mental male/female roles/identification" from male/female sexuality is a useful distinction.



Logos said:


> Well, Fowler knew more about actual English usage than either of us, and being something of a rabid prescriptivist he would have disagreed with you entirely.


Fowler may have been a prescriptivist, but even he admitted that prescriptivism wasn't how language actually functioned: "What grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the more modest of them realize; usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes & dislikes. And yet the temptation to show how better use might have been made of the material to hand is sometimes irresistible."

Prescriptivism is fine for very basic rules that make basic communication possible, but beyond that usage is what determines meaning while prescriptivists sit back and moan about what should/ought to be. In being a prescriptivist, Fowler was endorsing a meaning of gender that almost nobody today would recognize, and deriding a meaning that almost everyone today (including yourself it seems, given your first post) accepts.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Logos said:


> Then are people of Han Chinese ethnicity is "privileged" in China? This is obviously a misapplication of the word since 'privilege' refers to 'special rights' (i.e., artificial advantages beyond those naturally expected) that have been 'granted' (been artificially instituted where it would otherwise not have occurred). That Han Chinese should have an advantage over persons of different groups in their own nation is not a special right, it's simply what one would expect given the nature of the situation. Neither has it been artificially 'granted', but it's rather an inherent natural consequence of the circumstances in which Han Chinese numerically and culturally dominate. It's so natural that Chinese would have an advantage in their own country that to speak of it as a privilege is misleading at best.
> 
> All ethnic groups enjoy any number of natural advantages in the societies that they founded and in which they therefore culturally (and often numerically) predominate. For an ethnic Englishman to enjoy an ethnic advantage in England is no more a "privilege" than the advantage that fish posses in water. To correct it one would have to grant privileges (the word being properly applied) to disadvantaged groups. On the other hand, the advantage that an English Duke has over an English bus driver is a genuine privilege.
> 
> Not to mention that "privilege" is properly applied to either private or exceptional advantages such as those possessed by a comparatively small class. Here we're speaking of great masses of people having advantages over other great masses of people.


Your post here boils down to two different arguments:

1. The semantic argument. I might agree that "privilege" is not the perfect word to describe what the terms "white privilege" refers to, but I can't think of a better one. To me, the real issue is not what we call it, but what (if anything) should be done about it; and you seem to be agreeing that what the term refers to is a real phenomenon.

Which leads me to:

2. The moral argument. You also seem to be suggesting that what's referred to as privilege (what you call "ethnic advantages") is natural and are implying (if not outright stating) that it's morally acceptable. I, and I dare say the vast majority of non-racists, do not agree. Look over the studies referenced in this article: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/04/upshot/the-measuring-sticks-of-racial-bias-.html are you honestly OK with blacks getting worse medical treatment, paying more for cars, getting hired much less despite having the same qualifications, getting ignored by politicians, or non-criminals getting hired about the same as ex-criminals? If you are, then I can't do anything more than say I strongly disagree, and that I think such studies point to real ethical/moral problems that we should be trying to solve through legislature.


----------



## Nereffid

If I can say something like


Nereffid said:


> feeling bad that other people don't have this privilege


and it gets interpreted as


bz3 said:


> victim worship


then conversation is pointless.


----------



## Chromatose

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So you don't believe facts and science. Interesting.


It might be some scientific research but it's a stretch to call it empirical fact. The research is ongoing and as long as there are scientists that put out reports like this: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender

I don't think it's safe to say it's settled.

Now I understand this was a controversial report to say the least but you can't deny the two author's aren't scientist. No need posting any take downs of this study as I've read plenty of them including Michael Shermer's in Scientific American, Michael Shermer who is not a scientist and also cherry picks his information to paint the report in negative light. If you still maintain this study is biased or pseudo science I'd like to draw your attention to the two authors response to a negative Sun op-ed concerning their study:

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-mchugh-response-20161011-story.html


----------



## DeepR

I'm 37 and when I go to a classical concert I see almost nothing but grey and white hair. I'm most definitely a minority there. More diversity in the concert hall indeed! 

Then again, this one time there was an attractive woman of my own age nearby and she really, really distracted me from the concert. I was so fascinated, not just by her looks: who is she? what is she doing here? does she actually like classical music as well? Wow!!


----------



## Logos

> The current meaning of thousands of words have little to nothing to do with their original etymological meaning.


But the legitimacy of those meanings comes from their having being used by the best authorities, whose usage is in turn governed by a knowledge of prior authors' usage which was ultimately determined by etymology. There's a reason why Johnson's dictionary didn't cite bootblacks and fishmonger's wives (or American psychologists for that matter) as authorities on English usage. We agree that usage determines what is acceptable language. But whose usage? Does any one canonical English author use "gender" to indicate sex role or biological sex? There is no such person. Therefore that meaning is uncouth, unwashed, and can't come to the dinner table.



> In any case, it seems like you're now agreeing me that using "gender" to distinguish "social/mental male/female roles/identification" from male/female sexuality is a useful distinction.


I agree that that distinction may be useful, but not that gender should be used to make it.



> Fowler may have been a prescriptivist, but even he admitted that prescriptivism wasn't how language actually functioned: "What grammarians say should be has perhaps less influence on what shall be than even the more modest of them realize; usage evolves itself little disturbed by their likes & dislikes. And yet the temptation to show how better use might have been made of the material to hand is sometimes irresistible."


Fowler's lamenting acknowledgement of grammarians' ineffectiveness applies only to the English speaking world within a particular moment. Not all languages change at the same rate, nor is the change of language incapable of being slowed by authority figures. The Egyptian language changed so slowly under the protection of hieratic authority that sometimes archaeologists have trouble determining in what _millennium_ a given text was composed. The influence of the French Academy checked certain medievalizing romantic impulses in the early 19th Century and preserved (for a time) the pseudo-classical character that had been characteristic of the best French literature since the days of Boileau. Sadly, the English speaking world, much to the distress of men like Swift who urged the formation of an English Academy, has always proved intractable to the notion of central authority, preferring rather to keep things in a state of chaos. That's a cultural idiosyncrasy of an increasingly post-literate English speaking world that tends towards permissiveness and egalitarian leveling--not an inexorable law that all languages in all times must obey.


----------



## Nereffid

OTOM, as Cicero would have texted.


----------



## Thomyum2

Logos said:


> But the legitimacy of those meanings comes from their having being used by the best authors. There's a reason why Johnson's dictionary didn't cite bootblacks and fishmonger's wives (or American psychologists for that matter) as authorities on English usage. We both agree that usage determines what is acceptable language. But whose usage?


This conversation reminds me of the dialogue in _The Pirates of Penzance_:

_GEN. I ask you, have you ever known what it is to be an orphan?
KING. Often!
GEN. Yes, orphan. Have you ever known what it is to be one?
KING. I say, often.
GEN. I don't think we quite understand one another. I ask you, have you ever known what it is to be an orphan, and you say "orphan". As I understand you, you are merely repeating the word "orphan" to show that you understand me.
KING. I didn't repeat the word often.
GEN. Pardon me, you did indeed.
KING. I only repeated it once.
GEN. True, but you repeated it.
KING. But not often.
GEN. Stop! I think I see where we are getting confused. When you said "orphan", did you mean "orphan" - a person who has lost his parents, or "often", frequently?
KING. Ah! I beg pardon - I see what you mean - frequently.
GEN. Ah! you said "often", frequently.
KING. No, only once.
GEN. Exactly - you said "often", frequently, only once._


----------



## Logos

Eva Yojimbo said:


> The moral argument. You also seem to be suggesting that what's referred to as privilege (what you call "ethnic advantages") is natural and are implying (if not outright stating) that it's morally acceptable.


I'm saying that the moral lens itself is unsuited to the viewing of gigantic historical/political/cultural processes since there is no unified anthropomorphic will governing these processes to which a moral choice can be comfortably attributed. However, I may find some outcomes more desirable than others in the same way I can prefer a volcano to remain dormant without saying that it would be _immoral_ for a volcano to erupt.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> To quote Yudkowsky, the wonder of evolution is not how well it works, but that it works at all. (His follow-up post is worth reading too). To quote the most relevant bit that answers your question: And, to take a bit from the second post:


You are making statements of certainty based on quotes you've run across. The opinions of individuals such as those by Eliezer Yudkowsky (who may be an AI expert, but does not have a high school or college education or extensive formal education on evolution) do not equate to scientific fact or perspective.

The process or 'intelligence' behind natural selection in evolution is far more complex than it appears on the surface -and it is on the surface that Yudkowsky resides in those comments. For instance, research indicates that genes appear to be capable of a learning process similar to neural networks:
_
'Our work shows that the evolution of regulatory connections between genes, which govern how genes are expressed in our cells, has the same learning capabilities as neural networks'_


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> I'm saying that the moral lens itself is unsuited to the viewing of gigantic historical/political/cultural processes since there is no unified anthropomorphic will governing these processes to which a moral choice can be comfortably attributed. However, I may find some outcomes more desirable than others in the same way I can prefer a volcano to remain dormant without saying that it would be _immoral_ for a volcano to erupt.


No "unified anthropomorphic will" is necessary, unless you're trying to hide behind generalities. Privilege or "ethnic advantage" arises (or doesn't) because of decisions made by individuals. It has a collective effect, but the causes are down to individuals, to whom the moral lens is perfectly suited.


----------



## Logos

Nereffid said:


> Privilege or "ethnic advantage" arises (or doesn't) because of decisions made by individuals.


In my view, this would be misleading without further context since the form a society takes is conditioned by circumstances that affect both _passive behavior_ and constitute the fundamental and determinant basis for the positive choices individuals make. For example, 19th century American Southerners _en masse_ didn't _coincidentally_ make independent, _conscious_ choices to be racists--they were racially similar people conditioned by similar historical and political circumstances so they behaved in similar ways. To have moral responsibility one has to know what one is doing, why one is doing it (full consciousness of motive), and its effects. Attributing moral responsibility to collective cultural behavior of this kind is hard since:

1. The individuals genuinely believe themselves to be in the right.

2. The individuals are not fully conscious of the way in which their actions or beliefs have been historically and culturally conditioned, and therefore don't fully understand why they do the things they do.

3. The individuals seldom understand all the negative effects of their actions.

For these reasons, I think speaking of entire cultures (or of individuals insofar as they merely reflect that culture unconsciously) as if they were morally responsible agents is usually misguided.


----------



## science

Logos said:


> In my view, this would be misleading without further context since the form a society takes is conditioned by circumstances that affect both _passive behavior_ and constitute the fundamental and determinant basis for the positive choices individuals make. For example, 19th century American Southerners _en masse_ didn't _coincidentally_ make independent, _conscious_ choices to be racists--they were racially similar people conditioned by similar historical and political circumstances so they behaved in similar ways. To have moral responsibility one has to know what one is doing, why one is doing it (full consciousness of motive), and its effects. Attributing moral responsibility to collective cultural behavior of this kind is hard since:
> 
> 1. The individuals genuinely believe themselves to be in the right.
> 
> 2. The individuals are not fully conscious of the way in which their actions or beliefs have been historically and culturally conditioned, and therefore don't fully understand why they do the things they do.
> 
> 3. The individuals seldom understand all the negative effects of their actions.
> 
> For these reasons, I think speaking of entire cultures (or of individuals insofar as they merely reflect that culture unconsciously) as if they were morally responsible agents is usually misguided.


A lot of words to avoid saying that slavery and genocide were wrong.

Or that anything at all will ever be wrong since:

1. Almost everyone genuinely believes themselves to be in the right almost all the time.

2. No one is ever fully conscious of the way in which their actions or beliefs have been historically and culturally conditioned, and therefore no one ever fully understands why they do the things they do.

3. No one ever understands all the negative effects of their actions.


----------



## Logos

science said:


> Or that anything at all will ever be wrong since: _etc._


Oedipus was assigned moral responsibility for unintentional maternal incest and patricide. Is it not a good thing that Western societies slowly have recognized the importance of intention and full consciousness of consequences when attributing virtue or moral guilt, and that moral responsibility should therefore be less freely attributed? Spinoza went so far as to reject the notion of moral responsibility entirely, yet he has never been considered a diabolical figure in the history of philosophy. We can believe an action is a misdeed or that an occurrence precipitated by an action is undesirable while assigning only partial moral responsibility, or by assigning none at all.

One might deem ignorance itself a moral flaw, which would be interesting since it returns to the Socratic view that virtue is knowledge--to know right is necessarily to do right. How much can men reasonably be expected to know concerning what is morally right? If they seem to be ignorant _en masse_ of what is moral, is it still reasonable to expect them to act otherwise? Or is it more important to dignify man with the _expectation_ that he know and do what is right? Additionally, one might still be justified in acting _as if_ a person were responsible for an misdeed ignorantly committed if one thought that doing so would make a repetition of that misdeed less likely.

It would seem we've drifted far afield from the thread's subject so I had better conclude.


----------



## Nereffid

On the site I Care If You Listen, Rob Deemer talks about his Composer Diversity Database:
https://www.icareifyoulisten.com/2018/06/5-questions-rob-deemer-founder-composer-diversity-database/

He also mentions a database of women composers of wind band music, compiled by Christian Folk (who is a person, not a genre):
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1S1aL1m-gHsFLCJhUdaxU-xk9PC24oVjiMtNPIJ1cK0A/mobilebasic


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> You are making statements of certainty based on quotes you've run across. The opinions of individuals such as those by Eliezer Yudkowsky (who may be an AI expert, but does not have a high school or college education or extensive formal education on evolution) do not equate to scientific fact or perspective.
> 
> The process or 'intelligence' behind natural selection in evolution is far more complex than it appears on the surface -and it is on the surface that Yudkowsky resides in those comments. For instance, research indicates that genes appear to be capable of a learning process similar to neural networks:
> _
> 'Our work shows that the evolution of regulatory connections between genes, which govern how genes are expressed in our cells, has the same learning capabilities as neural networks'_


I'm making statements of my beliefs based on my knowledge of the subjects and posting quotes that happen to agree with my positions and express them more memorably and thoroughly than I could; and there's no philosopher (or scientist) whom I agree more with on more subjects than Yudkowsky. I'm really not sure how your statements rebuts anything he or I've said, though. So genes have a learning capability of neural networks; how does that capability compare to the human brain? How does it fit in with the randomness of mutations and the natural selection that passes those mutations on?

All I had in mind when I said what I did was the basic notions of evolution: it's dumb in that mutations are random, they don't occur by some intelligence attempting to solve a problem; and it's slow, because natural selection takes a good while for even helpful mutations to spread through an entire population (if it does at all). If we compare that to what humans are capable of, it seems like there's no contest. The human mind can identify problems and conceive of solutions, invent those solutions, and, if they're useful, spread those solutions throughout the population with incredible alacrity.

In terms of this discussion, it seems there are people arguing that because xenophobia is a "natural/innate" part of our humanity due to evolution, there's nothing to do be done about it. To me, this seems utterly ridiculous. We don't have to wait for hundreds or thousands of generations for evolution to decide whether xenophobia is still useful or not, we can actually understand the situation from which it arose in our ancestors, understand that its usefulness then no longer applies now, and do what we can to eliminate it, or at least its negative effects. In a more generalized sense I'd say that same thinking applies to any subjects or problems the human race faces; we don't have to wait for evolution to declare a winner in the future, we can use rationality and science to figure out the best solutions now.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Logos said:


> I'm saying that the moral lens itself is unsuited to the viewing of gigantic historical/political/cultural processes since there is no unified anthropomorphic will governing these processes to which a moral choice can be comfortably attributed. However, I may find some outcomes more desirable than others in the same way I can prefer a volcano to remain dormant without saying that it would be _immoral_ for a volcano to erupt.


Responding to this and your other recent posts on the subject, again this is turning into a semantic argument, over whether to call what we're describing--ethnic advantages/white privilege--a "moral" problem or not. I really don't care. When I say that I, and the vast majority of non-racists, would not be OK with the results seen in those studies about how blacks are disadvantaged in numerous ways in our society, I don't care whether you call that "not being OK with it" a moral reaction/judgment or not; the important point is that either we are or aren't OK with it, and we either advocate for policies to help correct the problem, or we advocate for the status quo.

I'm perfectly fine with saying there are degrees of moral responsibility based on knowledge and the consciousness of our actions. Indeed, the law itself recognizes this by, eg, having different degrees of murder, with harsher sentences on pre-meditated murders, and lesser sentences for heat-of-the-moment murders, and lesser still for accidental/negligent killings (though it would make one an odd duck to say that even killing by accident/negligence carried with it no judgment of immorality). To me, the biggest source of modern racism is not the conscious "I think blacks are an innately lesser race" racists, but the innate racial biases and xenophobia that exists in all of us to some extent. When most people act on such biases they are not doing so consciously and thus do not deserve the moral opprobrium of conscious racists. I find much more objectionable those that recognize the problem, and are thus conscious that it exists, and yet either see nothing wrong with it, or think that no action should be taken to help lessen its negative effects on an entire class of people that don't deserve to have their lives made harder because they were born with a different skin color than the majority of people in their society.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Logos said:


> But the legitimacy of those meanings comes from their having being used by the best authorities, whose usage is in turn governed by a knowledge of prior authors' usage which was ultimately determined by etymology. There's a reason why Johnson's dictionary didn't cite bootblacks and fishmonger's wives (or American psychologists for that matter) as authorities on English usage. We agree that usage determines what is acceptable language. But whose usage? Does any one canonical English author use "gender" to indicate sex role or biological sex? There is no such person. Therefore that meaning is uncouth, unwashed, and can't come to the dinner table.


Perhaps the legitimacy of meanings is determined by the "best authorities" in prescriptivist fantasy land, but in reality legitimacy is determined by any usage that gains enough currency so that people know what you mean when you use a term, which is usually followed by descriptivist dictionaries making notes of such usage. I can almost guarantee that of all the canonical English authors, at least one has used gender to refer to the sex of people. I'd be completely shocked if it weren't the case.

Speaking of dictionaries, everyone I can consult contains both "sex of people" and "male/female social roles/identification" as a definition:

Merrium-Webster (2a and 2b)
Oxford  (1)
Dictionary.com (1. and 2.)



Logos said:


> I agree that that distinction may be useful, but not that gender should be used to make it.


Why? We already have sex to refer to biological sex, and the word "gender" is used in English in its grammatical sense so rarely that it seems to me the perfect word to adopt to meaning sex in the psychological/social sense.



Logos said:


> Sadly, the English speaking world, much to the distress of men like Swift who urged the formation of an English Academy, has always proved intractable to the notion of central authority, preferring rather to keep things in a state of chaos. That's a cultural idiosyncrasy of an increasingly post-literate English speaking world that tends towards permissiveness and egalitarian leveling--not an inexorable law that all languages in all times must obey.


The only "sad" thing I see about English changing like it does is that it's possible within a few hundred years for Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, et al. to be very difficult to read. OTOH, I think having a malleable language leads to a great deal of creativity so that even average people (not to mention the great authors) can invent new words or find new usages for old worlds.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chromatose said:


> It might be some scientific research but it's a stretch to call it empirical fact. The research is ongoing and as long as there are scientists that put out reports like this: https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/executive-summary-sexuality-and-gender
> 
> I don't think it's safe to say it's settled.
> 
> Now I understand this was a controversial report to say the least but you can't deny the two author's aren't scientist. No need posting any take downs of this study as I've read plenty of them including Michael Shermer's in Scientific American, Michael Shermer who is not a scientist and also cherry picks his information to paint the report in negative light. If you still maintain this study is biased or pseudo science I'd like to draw your attention to the two authors response to a negative Sun op-ed concerning their study:
> 
> http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/oped/bs-ed-mchugh-response-20161011-story.html


It's an empirical fact that the brains of some transgenders are more like those of the opposite sex; it was observed directly by brain scans in that study. Is it possible this is not the case for all people claiming to be transgendered? Yes, because human psychology and sexuality/gender is complex that there may be other sources of such claims; but we know that, at least in some cases, it's possible for transgender brains to be different from the typical brains of the sex they were born as.

I see nothing really to address in your link. It's a non-study in a non-peer reviewed journal. It's basically an opinion piece with references that support their position. The journal is published by (copying Wiki): "The Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank and advocacy group. Founded in 1976, the group describes itself as 'dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy,' and advocacy of founding principles such as the rule of law." So you'll pardon me for suspecting that neither the article nor authors are unbiased. This could easily be similar to the anti-evolution sites that tout the handful of biologists and studies that don't support evolution.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> So genes have a learning capability of neural networks; how does that capability compare to the human brain? How does it fit in with the randomness of mutations and the natural selection that passes those mutations on?
> All I had in mind when I said what I did was the basic notions of evolution: it's dumb in that mutations are random, they don't occur by some intelligence attempting to solve a problem;


The point is that evolution is not a dumb process if genes themselves can learn (among other things that I won't go into).



> ..and it's slow, because natural selection takes a good while for even helpful mutations to spread through an entire population (if it does at all). If we compare that to what humans are capable of, it seems like there's no contest.


The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That is over 4000 millions. Homo Sapiens evolved around 250,000 years ago which means that HS brains took only a quarter of a million years to develop the intelligence of present day man/woman. Pretty fast in my book.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> The point is that evolution is not a dumb process if genes themselves can learn (among other things that I won't go into).
> 
> The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That is over 4000 millions. Homo Sapiens evolved around 250,000 years ago which means that HS brains took only a quarter of a million years to develop the intelligence of present day man/woman. Pretty fast in my book.


Dogs can learn, but nobody says we should imitate dogs in solving problems, nor would many call dogs "smart" compared to humans. I also still don't see how genes learning conflicts with the notion of "dumb" random mutations, which most any textbook will say is one of the two key forces in evolution (the other being natural selection).

That's incredibly slow compared to how quickly humans can solve problems and pass their solutions onto the rest of the species. It took less than a century to get from Turing's machines to home PCs. Even for a more complex advancement, it took about 5500 years to get from the wheel to the ubiquity of automobiles.


----------



## SixFootScowl

DaveM said:


> The earth is about 4.5 billion years old. That is over 4000 millions. Homo Sapiens evolved around 250,000 years ago which means that HS brains took only a quarter of a million years to develop the intelligence of present day man/woman. Pretty fast in my book.


A speculative statement based on many assumptions that cannot be tested and interpretations to fit preconceived notions.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Dogs can learn, but nobody says we should imitate dogs in solving problems, nor would many call dogs "smart" compared to humans.


What does that have to do with the fact that if even genes can learn, then evolution isn't dumb which was your original premise.



> I also still don't see how genes learning conflicts with the notion of "dumb" random mutations, which most any textbook will say is one of the two key forces in evolution (the other being natural selection).


Seems to me that one has to evaluate evolution as a whole rather than now isolating 'random selection' for special attention although I understand that you're doing so to salvage your original argument. Also, the textbooks on evolution you're reading must have a lot of dust on them. There are now known to be at least 4 key forces in evolution.


----------



## Logos

> Perhaps the legitimacy of meanings is determined by the "best authorities" in prescriptivist fantasy land...


Classic 'is-ought' conflation. It seems fantastical only if one ignores concrete historical examples like the ones I provided of prescriptive authority having a practical effect in slowing the rate of linguistic change and influencing literary taste.



> I can almost guarantee that of all the canonical English authors, at least one has used gender to refer to the sex of people. I'd be completely shocked if it weren't the case.


By all means submit such an example should you find it. Examples from Shakespeare: "...the love the general gender bear him." General gender meaning common sort or kind, i. e. the common people. "Supply it with one gender of herbs, or distract it with many." A single kind of herbs. One might find a few specimens before the First World War where an author is aware of the jocular distortion he is making of the legitimate meaning. Here's an example from 1846: "_She was symbolically represented by a throne, a half circle, and an egg, which last sign denoted her gender as feminine_." Here the author is speaking in a clever, roundabout way that clearly shows he is aware of the legitimate (grammatical) application and of the breadth of the term--which is why he has still used feminine to qualify his meaning despite having said "_her_ gender". To whittle down this broad oak tree of a word meaning 'kind' or 'genus' to a measly splinter meaning 'human sex role' seems to me mistaken, especially when so many have already begun to use gender and sex interchangeably without any distinction at all. Besides, in preferring 'gender' to 'sex role' one hasn't even saved a single syllable.



> Merrium-Webster (2a and 2b)
> Oxford  (1)
> Dictionary.com (1. and 2.)


Obviously contemporary dictionaries will be much more permissive in assigning legitimate status to colloquial speech because they emerge from a more permissive, demotic culture where everyone is equally above average. William Dwight Whitney's _Century Dictionary_ labels that meaning as 'colloquial or humorous'. The first edition of the OED labels it 'jocular'.


----------



## KenOC

DaveM said:


> What does that have to do with the fact that if even genes can learn, then evolution isn't dumb which was your original premise.


My understanding is that evolution is quite blind and is not a process that can be called "smart" or "dumb". Genes "learn" nothing. Genes that survive, survive and reproduce. Genes that don't, do not. There is no consciousness in this process, no intent, and it cannot be escaped.


----------



## DaveM

KenOC said:


> My understanding is that evolution is quite blind and is not a process that can be called "smart" or "dumb". Genes "learn" nothing. Genes that survive, survive and reproduce. Genes that don't, do not. There is no consciousness in this process, no intent, and it cannot be escaped.


A little light reading on the subject. I have quoted the important parts of an otherwise lengthy article and bolded and underlined the parts that refer to the point I was making. Btw, I didn't say anything about consciousness.

Edit: One of the more recent discoveries is that genes are not just simple separate bodies, but in fact can interact as a network.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/evo.12337

Bringing together these two observations with this new insight explains the memory behaviors we observe in an evolved network of recurrent nonlinear interactions. *That is, a gene network can evolve regulatory interactions that "internalize" a model of past selective environments in just the same way that a learning neural network can store, recall, recognize, and generalize a set of training patterns. Recognizing this equivalence between associative learning and evolution of phenotypic correlations thus provides access to an established theoretical framework that we can use to characterize organizational principles describing how regulatory interactions evolve; including the affordances and limitations of developmental memory, the minimal conditions for such behaviors and their potential impact on evolvability. It is a main aim of this article to explain the dynamical and functional equivalence of these evolved developmental behaviors to the capabilities that are already well defined and understood in learning cognitive models, and in the experiments that follow we will explain and illustrate each of these behaviors.*

Neural learning is usually conceived of as a mandated mechanism, applied with the intent of producing certain learning behaviors in neural networks; in contrast, the action of evolution by natural selection on relational traits is, of course, not mandated to follow these principles nor directed toward any predetermined function. However, the principle underlying the way that neural learning mechanisms adjust the strengths of neural connections is simply one of local incremental improvement, that is, change each connection a little bit in the direction that makes the output more similar to the target. Accordingly, whenever heritable variation affects correlations, the direction of evolutionary change under natural selection, acting to improve the fitness of the phenotype, necessarily agrees with the principles of these neural learning mechanisms, as shown above.
*
Note that under natural selection, changes to interactions are selected because they make the current phenotype fitter-they cannot be selected because they produce a memory or for any other future consequence (including evolvability). But changing a correlation so that a given pattern is expressed more strongly or completely has the side‐effect of making the [gene] network more likely to express that pattern again in future. In dynamical systems terms, these changes widen the basin of attraction for this pattern; that is, increase the number of initial conditions (here, embryonic phenotypes) that lead to that configuration (Watson et al. 2010c, d; Coolen 1991). This kind of learning thereby transforms correlations into causal interactions-that is, genes whose activation was originally coincident because of a correlated selection pressure come to have activations that are coincident because of internal regulatory interactions and from this principle all of the results we have shown follow.*

*CONSEQUENCES OF ASSOCIATIVE LEARNING IN THE EVOLUTION OF DEVELOPMENT
In this article, we have demonstrated a formal equivalence between the direction of selection on phenotypic correlations and associative learning mechanisms.* In the context of neural network research and connectionist models of memory and learning, simple associative learning with the ability to produce an associative memory, to store and recall multiple patterns, categorize patterns from partial or corrupted stimuli, and produce generalized patterns from a set of structurally similar training patterns has been well studied (e.g., Hopfield 1982; Rumelhart et al. 1986; O'Reilly and Munakata 2000). The insight that the selective pressures on developmental correlations are equivalent to associative learning thus provides the opportunity to utilize well‐established theoretical and conceptual frameworks from associative learning theory to identify organizational principles involved in the evolution of development; for example, to understand the minimal conditions for a developmental memory capable of the behaviors illustrated above. *From this it follows that evolved developmental processes can exhibit learning and memory with the same affordances and limitations as the manner in which associative learning mechanisms cause a neural network to form a memory of a set of training patterns. This provides a specific example of the more general formal connection between evolution and learning (Valiant 2009). Accordingly, the idea that gene networks can act in a manner analogous to connectionist models of cognitive behaviors is more than merely a metaphor, and helps us make sense of how biological networks evolve adaptive complexity* (Stewart 1997; Sansom 2011).


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Logos said:


> Classic 'is-ought' conflation. It seems fantastical only if one ignores concrete historical examples like the ones I provided of prescriptive authority having a practical effect in slowing the rate of linguistic change and influencing literary taste.


No 'is-ought' conflation. You're saying legitimacy IS determined by authorities, I'm saying legitimacy IS determined by any usage that gain currency so that meaning is understood. Perhaps you should be arguing that legitimacy OUGHT to be determined by experts, because I don't think your "is" argument holds any water. Your counter-examples aren't from the English language so I don't see how they're relevant in arguing about the usage of a word in English.



Logos said:


> By all means submit such an example should you find it. Examples from Shakespeare: "...the love the general gender bear him." General gender meaning common sort or kind, i. e. the common people. "Supply it with one gender of herbs, or distract it with many." A single kind of herbs. One might find a few specimens before the First World War where an author is aware of the jocular distortion he is making of the legitimate meaning. Here's an example from 1846: "_She was symbolically represented by a throne, a half circle, and an egg, which last sign denoted her gender as feminine_." Here the author is speaking in a clever, roundabout way that clearly shows he is aware of the legitimate (grammatical) application and of the breadth of the term--which is why he has still used feminine to qualify his meaning despite having said "_her_ gender". To whittle down this broad oak tree of a word meaning 'kind' or 'genus' to a measly splinter meaning 'human sex role' seems to me mistaken, especially when so many have already begun to use gender and sex interchangeably without any distinction at all. Besides, in preferring 'gender' to 'sex role' one hasn't even saved a single syllable.


Sorry, in all my years of reading the canon of English literature I didn't create a mental folder for coming across the word "gender." However, I already said in an earlier post that gender meaning biological or social/psychological sex roles was a 20th century invention, so I have no idea why you're consulting Shakespeare, or dictionaries from the 19th century. Lots of words that develop new meanings start out as "jocular (metaphoric) distortions" and become literal over time and usage.

I don't see any "whittling" being done either. Gender can still maintain its other meanings depending on context, as many words have multiple meanings depending on context. I would have no problem using "sex role" either, but that's not the word being used most frequently now.



Logos said:


> Obviously contemporary dictionaries will be much more permissive in assigning legitimate status to colloquial speech because they emerge from a more permissive, demotic culture where everyone is equally above average. William Dwight Whitney's _Century Dictionary_ labels that meaning as 'colloquial or humorous'. The first edition of the OED labels it 'jocular'.


Dictionaries are "permissive in assigning legitimate status to colloquial speech" because language is a medium for communication and everyone (not just linguists) communicate and mean different things by different words, and we need something that documents those meanings as a reference. Linguists, just like the rest of us, grow up learning what words "mean" by hearing how it's used in everyday speech. When they react negatively to usages it will almost always be new coinages in their own time rather than older ones that have already started circulating widely in the language. Just as no modern linguist will bat an eye at someone using "sinister" to mean "evil" (rather than "left side"), no modern linguist probably balks at someone using "gender" to mean "male or female sex." In 50 years, probably no linguist will balk when "gender" is used to mean "sex role."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> What does that have to do with the fact that if even genes can learn, then evolution isn't dumb which was your original premise.


Two things:

1. I already said by "evolution being dumb" I was thinking about random mutations. You may rightly say it was wrong to call evolution itself dumb on that basis alone, but that's what I meant.

2. I really don't see how "genes learning" makes them smart. Being smart isn't just the capacity to learn, and I was specifically using dumb/smart in comparison to the capabilities of the human brain in solving problems. So unless genes can learn as well as the human brain, or even remotely close to it, I don't see what sense it makes to call them smart.



DaveM said:


> Also, the textbooks on evolution you're reading must have a lot of dust on them. There are now known to be at least 4 key forces in evolution.


Well, it's certainly been a while since I was reading about it, but looking it up I'm seeing 4 or 5 depending on the source. Besides mutation and natural selection there's genetic drift (also random), and the others differ: gene flow, mating selection, and/or culture. Of these last three, they may not be "dumb" in that there could (potentially) be some sort of intelligence behind it, but I'm not sure I'd categorize any of them as smart either.


----------



## SixFootScowl

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. I already said by "evolution being dumb" I was thinking about random mutations. You may rightly say it was wrong to call evolution itself dumb on that basis alone, but that's what I meant.
> 
> 2. I really don't see how "genes learning" makes them smart. Being smart isn't just the capacity to learn, and I was specifically using dumb/smart in comparison to the capabilities of the human brain in solving problems. So unless genes can learn as well as the human brain, or even remotely close to it, I don't see what sense it makes to call them smart.
> 
> Well, it's certainly been a while since I was reading about it, but looking it up I'm seeing 4 or 5 depending on the source. Besides mutation and natural selection there's genetic drift (also random), and the others differ: gene flow, mating selection, and/or culture. Of these last three, they may not be "dumb" in* that there could *(potentially) *be some sort of intelligence behind it*, but I'm not sure I'd categorize any of them as smart either.


Now you are getting on the right track.


----------



## Bulldog

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Dogs can learn, but nobody says we should imitate dogs in solving problems, nor would many call dogs "smart" compared to humans.


You're not giving dogs sufficient credit. Unlike humans, you don't see dogs screwing each other over.


----------



## DaveM

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Two things:
> 
> 1. I already said by "evolution being dumb" I was thinking about random mutations. You may rightly say it was wrong to call evolution itself dumb on that basis alone, but that's what I meant.
> 
> 2. I really don't see how "genes learning" makes them smart. Being smart isn't just the capacity to learn, and I was specifically using dumb/smart in comparison to the capabilities of the human brain in solving problems. So unless genes can learn as well as the human brain, or even remotely close to it, I don't see what sense it makes to call them smart.
> 
> Well, it's certainly been a while since I was reading about it, but looking it up I'm seeing 4 or 5 depending on the source. Besides mutation and natural selection there's genetic drift (also random), and the others differ: gene flow, mating selection, and/or culture. Of these last three, they may not be "dumb" in that there could (potentially) be *some sort of intelligence* behind it, but I'm not sure I'd categorize any of them as smart either.


My issue was entirely with the 'evolution is dumb' comment. I never used the word 'smart' and wouldn't because it's overly broad, but 'some sort of intelligence' seems appropriate.


----------



## Chromatose

Eva Yojimbo said:


> It's an empirical fact that the brains of some transgenders are more like those of the opposite sex; it was observed directly by brain scans in that study. Is it possible this is not the case for all people claiming to be transgendered? Yes, because human psychology and sexuality/gender is complex that there may be other sources of such claims; but we know that, at least in some cases, it's possible for transgender brains to be different from the typical brains of the sex they were born as.
> 
> I see nothing really to address in your link. It's a non-study in a non-peer reviewed journal. It's basically an opinion piece with references that support their position. The journal is published by (copying Wiki): "The Ethics and Public Policy Center, a conservative Washington, D.C.-based think tank and advocacy group. Founded in 1976, the group describes itself as 'dedicated to applying the Judeo-Christian moral tradition to critical issues of public policy,' and advocacy of founding principles such as the rule of law." So you'll pardon me for suspecting that neither the article nor authors are unbiased. This could easily be similar to the anti-evolution sites that tout the handful of biologists and studies that don't support evolution.


You won't address it because you can't on any level of authority, seems you didn't take a look at their response I included a link for which addresses some of the very points you raise. All you can do is smear it because of it's association to the New Atlantis, as if all Christendom reject science or rather no scientists can be associated with Christianity and be taken seriously. Let's be honest you probably spent more time googling the origins the New Atlantis than you did turning an eye towards the links themselves.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

DaveM said:


> My issue was entirely with the 'evolution is dumb' comment. I never used the word 'smart' and wouldn't because it's overly broad, but 'some sort of intelligence' seems appropriate.


Well, "dumb" is a broad word too and I was clearly using it in the context where human intelligence was the standard for "smart." Perhaps I should've said "the capacity to learn doesn't make something not-dumb."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Chromatose said:


> You won't address it because you can't on any level of authority, seems you didn't take a look at their response I included a link for which addresses some of the very points you raise. All you can do is smear it because of it's association to the New Atlantis, as if all Christendom reject science or rather no scientists can be associated with Christianity and be taken seriously. Let's be honest you probably spent more time googling the origins the New Atlantis than you did turning an eye towards the links themselves.


It's a long report, and I have no interest in reading a long non-study in a non-peer-reviewed publication with a stated Christian bias/agenda. I did read their response, but it's only responding to one published criticism; you said yourself there were many such criticisms. Their response to the non-peer-reviewed criticism is, frankly, nonsense. "'Their sense' of the literature" is useless if it's biased cherry-picking (which peer-review guards against), and "the scrutiny of the editors and their checkers of fact and reference" is equally useless if those editors have no expertise in the field of the facts/references in question.

All Christendom may not reject science, but a significant amount of Christendom has been fighting against any number of scientific advancements since Galileo, and it's an obvious truth that the majority of people opposing LGBT issues are religious conservatives. Scientists who are Christians can be taken seriously when they publish peer-reviewed studies, otherwise they just have opinions, and too often religious thinking (start with an answer, look for facts that support it) is absolutely contradictory to scientific thinking (look at the facts, propose an answer, test the answer). You expect me to think it's coincidental that a "controversial" report suggesting that there's little/no scientific evidence that LGBT orientation is genetically innate just happened to be published in a journal with an overt Christian agenda?


----------



## Larkenfield

The original OP: Diversity and the Concert Hall


----------



## Nereffid

An article by composer Christina Rusnak on efforts by the International Alliance for Women in Music, which also includes some useful statistics on how women have fared among music award winners:

https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/widening-inclusion-visibility/


----------



## mathisdermaler

I've heard a few pieces by most of the major female composers and I don't particularly like any of them. Gubaidulina and Bingen are probably the best. I don't think its a very important cause to advocate for affirmative action for women in an economic/cultural niche so insignificant as contemporary classical music.

Additionally, there are many explanations for why there are less great women composers than men which are not just "sexism," though sexism is clearly involved historically and I'm sure it still is to a certain extent today. Of course the barriers-to-entry for writing are so much lower, but if the twentieth century produced multiple genius female writers (Woolf, Stein, etc.) why didn't it produced any genius female composers (because it hasn't, I hope everyone can agree on that point)? I'm asking this as an only semi-rhetorical question. Sincere question: Has the world of classical music generally and composition in particular remained particularly misogynistic while the rest of the arts have embraced individualism/liberalism and are now increasingly influenced by critical theory? I could see how the classical music world could remain an "old boys club" longer than the world of fine art for several reasons.

Although, as far as cut-and-dry sexism goes, I'm sure the discrimination has been reversed in recent years (not that that's necessarily a bad thing). If women composers are so rare every music school must be dying to enroll them.

The three points I would make are this:
1. Women being underrepresented by population in the world of classical music composition seems to me to be a very explicable "issue," despite some disconcerting anecdotes. FWIW, its also an _extremely_ bourgeois concern.

2. The hypothesis that men are more genetically-inclined on average to be great composers for several reasons does not deserved to be ridiculed, and should in fact be examined broadly and in depth.

3. The 20th century has produced no genius female composers of classical music that we know of. If it did we would hear about her all the time like we do about Hildegard von Bingen, who is a fascinating composer, but not deserving of 100x more attention than her male/anonymous contemporaries.

Now is the point where I confess that this post is actually just a manifestation of my deep hatred for Amy Beach, who no one actually likes.


----------



## KenOC

Mana-Zucca was a woman composer popular early in the last century. An album of her music is album of the week on KUSC right now. You can sample her piano music here...

https://www.kusc.org/culture/staff-blog/mana-zucca/


----------



## mathisdermaler

KenOC said:


> Mana-Zucca was a woman composer popular early in the last century. An album of her music is album of the week on KUSC right now. You can sample her piano music here...
> 
> https://www.kusc.org/culture/staff-blog/mana-zucca/


Like Chopin dipped in water. More evidence for my theory.


----------



## Madiel

mathisdermaler said:


> 3. The 20th century has produced no genius female composers of classical music that we know of.


"that I know of" would have been more precise...


----------



## mathisdermaler

Madiel said:


> "that I know of" would have been more precise...


 I say that "we" know of because unless this hypothetical woman's corpus is sitting in storage somewhere, I would know about it. I have read several articles about the greatest women composers and listened to the music of those individuals listed. These lists are generally 80% similar, and the composers which arent shared by multiple lists are the worst, as you would expect them to be. So I'm pretty confident that if the 20th century produced a genius female composer I would know about her. Because we all would. If you know about classical music you know the names of the geniuses of the 20th century and the contended-geniuses.

If, however, you know a woman composer I don't who you think is a genius I would definitely listen to them.


----------



## Madiel

mathisdermaler said:


> If, however, you know a woman composer I don't who you think is a genius I would definitely listen to them.


uninterested, useless.


----------



## Guest

mathisdermaler said:


> Of course the barriers-to-entry for writing are so much lower, but if the twentieth century produced multiple genius female writers (Woolf, Stein, etc.) why didn't it produced any genius female composers (because it hasn't, I hope everyone can agree on that point)?


No, you can only speak for yourself.



mathisdermaler said:


> If women composers are so rare every music school must be dying to enroll them.


Yes, that's exactly what is happening.



mathisdermaler said:


> The hypothesis that men are more genetically-inclined on average to be great composers for several reasons does not deserved to be ridiculed


_Au contraire_, the idea is _perfect_ for ridiculing but thankfully, I can't be bothered. Although, I have found some support in the scientific literature -

Handicapping Conditions (Genetic Chromosomal):

Down syndrome
Additional 21st chromosome

Cri du chat syndrome
Partial deletion of a chromosome in the B Group

Klinefelter syndrome
One or more extra sex chromosome(s)

Classical music syndrome
Rearrangement of one or both X chromosomes, deletion of part of the second X chromosome, presence of part of a Y chromosome



mathisdermaler said:


> The 20th century has produced no genius female composers of classical music


...in your opinion.



mathisdermaler said:


> Now is the point where I confess that this post is actually just a manifestation of my deep hatred for Amy Beach, who no one actually likes


Now you say. I thought you were serious!


----------



## KenOC

I run into Chaminade's Concertino for Flute every so often, but can't think of anything else by female composers commonly heard on the radio or at orchestral concerts. It certainly seems like the lack of popularity of these works must arise from reasons other than (or in addition to) the machinations of a male-dominated power structure.

Are there works that I'm missing? Yes, I know of the works by Tower, Gubaidulina, and so forth, but in fact they are rarely encountered in real life. Or so it seems.

(I checked.) In the 2015-2016 orchestral season, among the top 40 or so US orchestras, Joan Tower was programmed four times and Sofia Gubaidulina just once. This is from a database with 3,869 entries.


----------



## mathisdermaler

dogen said:


> No, you can only speak for yourself.
> 
> Yes, that's exactly what is happening.
> 
> _Au contraire_, the idea is _perfect_ for ridiculing but thankfully, I can't be bothered. Although, I have found some support in the scientific literature -
> 
> Handicapping Conditions (Genetic Chromosomal):
> 
> Down syndrome
> Additional 21st chromosome
> 
> Cri du chat syndrome
> Partial deletion of a chromosome in the B Group
> 
> Klinefelter syndrome
> One or more extra sex chromosome(s)
> 
> Classical music syndrome
> Rearrangement of one or both X chromosomes, deletion of part of the second X chromosome, presence of part of a Y chromosome
> 
> ...in your opinion.
> 
> Now you say. I thought you were serious!


-Regarding the points about there being no female genius composers in the 20th century being just my opinion, who would you offer up as one? And by genius I mean really exceptional, one of the 10 or so best of their century. And if your response is that you don't know one, but because music is subjective someone else might, then what's the point of discussing music in the first place?

-So we agree that music schools are giving women an unearned advantage when it comes to their chances of being admitted? Good. Again, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. I think that having some diversity is worth slightly compromising the value of meritocracy. Because men and women are different, there is plenty of interesting music by women that I'm confident could never be made by a man. Meredith Monk's music is a prime example of this. If anything gender differences should be celebrated as healthy and beautiful, not denigrated as "social constructs" and inevitably thus "forms of oppression" as they are in poststructuralism.

-Genetic explanations are no joke, dogen. Why can't you be bothered? If they are ridiculous then why?

-I'm confused, are you listing genetic conditions that could contribute to the difference between the perceived rates of male and female musical genius to support my theory? After you said it was ridiculous? Even if you are I don't think the difference is related to rare conditions, but is more related to IQ distribution (male/female averages are the same but the curves are different), personality traits, and other less extreme characteristics which vary significantly across the genders, along with sexist norms.


----------



## Guest

There's been plenty of discussion on this forum over time over words such as "genius" and "greatest." I suspect I'm not on the same page as you, but this is a dead horse being beaten.

No, we don't agree over music schools giving "unfair advantage." I'm sorry if my sarcasm was missed.

I am of the opinion that it is not true that the absence of female geniuses can be genetically explained. In fact yes, a joke. A rather patronising one.

I don't even want to ask what "sexist norm" means.


----------



## Enthusiast

Oh dear. I suspect I am being very generous in taking some of the bait offered - I hope you appreciate it.



mathisdermaler said:


> -Regarding the points about there being no female genius composers in the 20th century being just my opinion, who would you offer up as one? And by genius I mean really exceptional, one of the 10 or so best of their century. And if your response is that you don't know one, but because music is subjective someone else might, then what's the point of discussing music in the first place?


I'm not sure music is organised into centuries and the 20th Century especially was very varied and saw very rapid development. But ... Sophia Gubaidulina is _one _of those who stand out as being widely recognised as meeting this criterion (10 or so best of the century).



mathisdermaler said:


> -I'm confused, are you listing genetic conditions that could contribute to the difference between the perceived rates of male and female musical genius to support my theory? After you said it was ridiculous? Even if you are I don't think the difference is related to rare conditions, but is more related to IQ distribution (male/female averages are the same but the curves are different), personality traits, and other less extreme characteristics which vary significantly across the genders, along with sexist norms.


Unless you are an expert (and I think not) I would be _very_ careful in discussing either IQ or distribution curves in this way - very messy areas that appear in arguments advancing all sorts of dodgy theories. As for personality traits ... better not to go there especially if you are going to ascribe certain values (for a given purpose) to specific traits. And, even if this were not so, we are talking about genius, a subject for which it makes zero sense to use any data that goes into distribution curves, norms or anything like that _even if you are comparing the numbers of geniuses from one group or another_ (because genius is so rare). Genius presumably involves a very unusual combination of traits, cognitive styles, drives, exposures and opportunities - and aside from the fact that none of these things can be meaningfully _measured_, must have little to do distribution curves. It astonishes me that you even want to explore this subject in that way!


----------



## Dim7

Enthusiast said:


> And, even if this were not so, we are talking about genius, a subject for which it makes zero sense to use any data that goes into distribution curves, norms or anything like that _even if you are comparing the numbers of geniuses from one group or another_ (because genius is so rare). Genius presumably involves a very unusual combination of traits, cognitive styles, drives, exposures and opportunities - and aside from the fact that none of these things can be meaningfully _measured_, must have little to do distribution curves.


Someone more qualified can either confirm or deny this, but I was under the impression that slight average differences can, on the contrary, mean big differences in numbers when it comes to the extremes of a normal distribution.


----------



## Enthusiast

Dim7 said:


> Someone more qualified can either confirm or deny this, but I was under the impression that slight average differences can, on the contrary, mean big differences in numbers when it comes to the extremes of a normal distribution.


Firstly, even researchers who have (rashly) believed they were demonstrating that the distribution of performance measures was influenced by race or gender have sought to distance themselves from the ideas that the patterns they believe they see have anything to do with genes or simple measures. Some of them have allowed their work to be misrepresented (it sells their books, after all) but when challenged by their peers have generally sought to distance themselves from such ideas.

Secondly, and this is more relevant to your question, a curve that shows the distribution of something as rare _and complex_ as musical genius would not place this as an outlier of a normal distribution curve. This is because the only measure of genius (given the many variables that could be involved and the complexity of their interactions) is genius. Of course, it would probably be fruitless to even define musical genius for this purpose and it is very unclear how you would proceed from there. There are certainly more acknowledged great composers who were males than were females. But what does that mean?

What we don't know and could not study by means of distribution curves includes those who were ignored and those who were denied opportunity (for a wide variety of reasons or in a variety of ways). A more fruitful approach here might be to look at how the proportion of recognised female composers has increased as opportunities have increased and societal attitudes have developed. That line of argument takes us directly to the purpose of this thread.


----------



## Nereffid

The idea that men are simply better than women at certain things because of genetics or intellect or psychology has long been used as an explanation/excuse/argument for the male-dominated status quo. And it keeps getting proved wrong, whenever the social barriers maintaining this status quo are lifted. If one sees that women are underrepresented in some field, then the sensible first consideration is that there still are social barriers in place, rather than bringing up a dubious and unsupported claim such as "men are more genetically-inclined on average to be great composers".


----------



## DaveM

Nereffid said:


> The idea that men are simply better than women at certain things because of genetics or intellect or psychology has long been used as an explanation/excuse/argument for the male-dominated status quo. And it keeps getting proved wrong, whenever the social barriers maintaining this status quo are lifted. If one sees that women are underrepresented in some field, then the sensible first consideration is that there still are social barriers in place, rather than bringing up a dubious and unsupported claim such as "men are more genetically-inclined on average to be great composers".


There are far less social barriers to women composing music than there used to be, but male composers still appear to far outnumber women. Perhaps men are more drawn to it than women.


----------



## JAS

DaveM said:


> There are far less social barriers to women composing music than there used to be, but male composers still appear to far outnumber women. Perhaps men are more drawn to it than women.


It may be true that there are now fewer social barriers to women composing music, but it must be admitted that there _were_ social barriers for generations, and during the prime period for the creation, performance and appreciation of what we would broadly consider classical music (lower case). Now, the ability to make a living as a composer of such music appears to be almost impossible, and it is a wonder to me that anyone chooses it as a profession. (My understanding is that most composers today must make a living by performing or teaching, with composition on the side and as opportunities present themselves.)

And why limit the discussion to composers? There are many women performers and teachers.


----------



## DaveM

JAS said:


> It may be true that there are now fewer social barriers to women composing music, but it must be admitted that there _were_ social barriers for generations, and during the prime period for the creation, performance and appreciation of what we would broadly consider classical music (lower case). Now, the ability to make a living as a composer of such music appears to be almost impossible, and it is a wonder to me that anyone chooses it as a profession. (My understanding is that most composers today must make a living by performing or teaching, with composition on the side and as opportunities present themselves.)
> 
> And why limit the discussion to composers? There are many women performers and teachers.


All true. I'm much more guarded about assuming some male superiority over women after watching women frequently outdo men in stamina/concentration competitions in the (American) Survivor series!


----------



## KenOC

In my experience, most member of “outgroups” will happily list those things that mark their superiority while denying that there are any areas where others may outshine them.


----------



## JAS

KenOC said:


> In my experience, most member of "outgroups" will happily list those things that mark their superiority while denying that there are any areas where others may outshine them.


So totally unlike the "ingroups," and without the obvious trappings of actual power and recognition that should be the badges of true merit. How dare they?


----------



## KenOC

JAS said:


> So totally unlike the "ingroups," and without the obvious trappings of actual power and recognition that should be the badges of true merit. How dare they?


Ingroups are happier to acknowledge areas where other groups may be superior, so long as they see those areas as unimportant. Of course, they can afford to.


----------



## Logos

Testosterone increases aggression, competitiveness, psychological obsession/single mindedness, and risk-taking. I don't think its entirely irrational to suspect that these effects may result in males outperforming females in certain artistic and scientific endeavors, but they're also responsible for men being much more violent, dangerous and intolerant than women. Can anyone imagine a female Wagner, a female Michelangelo, or a female Beethoven? Their masculine stubbornness, cruel towering arrogance, their anti-social obsession with their craft, and their zealous monk-like devotion to artistic ideals are difficult to envision as part of a normal, healthy female personality. I'm not sure that's a bad thing--such a woman would be a Gorgon. Thank goodness that half of the population doesn't have these volatile qualities in the same degree.


----------



## KenOC

Logos said:


> ...Can anyone imagine a female Wagner, a female Michelangelo, or a female Beethoven? Their masculine stubbornness, cruel towering arrogance, their anti-social obsession with their craft, and their zealous monk-like devotion to artistic ideals are difficult to envision as part of a normal, healthy female personality. I'm not sure that's a bad thing--such a woman would be a Gorgon.


Gorgons often have Gorgon friends and find them quite nice. After all, a strong male is a take-charge guy, while a similar woman is a bossy *****. It's males that give Gorgons a bad name...


----------



## Logos

KenOC said:


> After all, a strong male is a take-charge guy, while a similar woman is a bossy *****.


I really don't care for either. If anything we should be trying to 'effeminize' men rather than encouraging women to adopt traditionally male forms of success, ambition, and achievement which are largely based on arrogantly defeating others to achieve dominance.


----------



## KenOC

Logos said:


> I really don't care for either. If anything we should be trying to 'effeminize' men rather than encouraging women to adopt traditionally male forms of success, ambition, and achievement which are largely based on arrogantly defeating others to achieve dominance.


"I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --A Deep Thought from Jack Handey


----------



## Logos

KenOC said:


> "I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it." --A Deep Thought from Jack Handey


Exactly, whereas a female attack would consist of a surprise redecorating at worst.


----------



## Enthusiast

But, seriously! Are we going to define great music as music with "masculine" characteristics? Even if there were such a thing, wouldn't that be circular? (I'm not even going to consider the suggestion that "feminine great music" would be superficial). It is worth remembering, though, that the music of the acknowledged uncontroversially great composers who were also women - from Hildegard von Bingen to Gubaidulina (if you want to allow the jury to be still out on many others working today) has not been noted for a tendency to lack sinew or drive.

All I'm getting from this discussion now is a demonstration of how males with a "certain mindset" seem to lack a capacity for logic and rationality or viewing the wood without ignoring the trees.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> It is worth remembering, though, that the music of the acknowledged uncontroversially great composers who were also women - from Hildegard von Bingen to Gubaidulina (if you want to allow the jury to be still out on many others working today) has not been noted for a tendency to lack sinew or drive.


I wasn't speaking of any masculine qualities in the music itself. Had anyone even heard of Hildegard von Bingen before the feminist movement? Her entire reputation is a product of pop mysticism and feminist critical theory. If she were a man, she would remain unknown along with the great mass of medieval composers. I'm not even sure Carl Maria von Weber is uncontroversially considered a great composer, although he's exactly 43x more important to the history of Western music than either of the figures you name.


----------



## science

The hell is going on here? 

First it was that only white people could be true classical music people, and now it's only men. Did 4chan buy out TC or something?


----------



## Logos

To say that there are no great female composers is no great insult. How many truly great male composers have there been, even being very generous in our criteria of greatness? No need for women to feel dejected--Think of the common sense advice that Ruskin offered to Anna Blunden: "_You will never be a great painter--but no woman has ever been a great painter yet, and I don't see why you should be vexed because you are not the first exception_."

It would seem that for some, greatness as a composer consists in nothing more than having composed something that is known to someone. These must be the same kindly persons that call every professor of philosophy a philosopher. No doubt they consider every parish priest a theologian and every English teacher a bard.


----------



## Enthusiast

Logos said:


> Think of the common sense advice that Ruskin offered to Anna Blunden: "_You will never be a great painter--but no woman has ever been a great painter yet, and I don't see why you should be vexed because you are not the first exception_."


And, of course, Ruskin knew about women!


----------



## Nereffid

Logos said:


> Think of the common sense advice that Ruskin offered to Anna Blunden: "_You will never be a great painter--but no woman has ever been a great painter yet, and I don't see why you should be vexed because you are not the first exception_."


I feel like at that point he must have patted her hand gently, and she then sobbed in gratitude for his kindness.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> The hell is going on here?
> 
> First it was that only white people could be true classical music people, and now it's only men. Did 4chan buy out TC or something?


Have you got a problem with racism and misogyny?


----------



## Guest

Nereffid said:


> I feel like at that point he must have patted her hand gently, and she then sobbed in gratitude for his kindness.


Or indeed given him a Glasgow kiss.


----------



## Logos

Enthusiast said:


> And, of course, Ruskin knew about women!


He knew the history of art, with which women (as artists) have little or nothing to do.


----------



## Fredx2098

Speaking of the concept of a "great" artist, I dislike that term. The only factors involved seem to be how famous they are and how "good" they are which is subjective. That makes me think that usually the "greatest" artists are simply the artists who best cater to the lowest common denominator. Personally, I would be a bit offended if I became a proficient composer and developed my own style and someone called me a great composer the likes of Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc. Perhaps sometimes another factor of "greatness" is how influential a composer is to music in general, but that seems to only really apply to people such as Bach, Haydn, Mozart, etc., and in my opinion I don't think that should factor into the enjoyment of music or art as a whole. Sure I agree that the pioneers of certain styles are geniuses, but I don't like the idea of forever considering that small number of composers to be the best and greatest simply because if their ingenuity.


----------



## Woodduck

Fredx2098 said:


> Speaking of the concept of a "great" artist, I dislike that term. The only factors involved seem to be how famous they are and how "good" they are which is subjective. That makes me think that usually the "greatest" artists are simply the artists who best cater to the lowest common denominator.


Yes, "lowest common denominator" certainly describes those who study, admire and enjoy the accomplishments of Dufay, Ockeghem, Josquin, Lassus, Tallis, Byrd, Monteverdi, Purcell, Rameau, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Dvorak, Janacek, Verdi, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Puccini, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Britten, Ives, Copland, Barber...

In case anyone belonging to the more uncommon denominators is curious about the lower classes, I can testify that belonging to the lowest common denominator and feeling free of the pressure to better myself through egalitarianism is quite relaxing. The only place where anyone objects to my trailer trash complacency is here on TC.


----------



## Logos

I think Fred wants all art criticism to stop. Right now.

"Nothing is better than anything else, okay? Got it? I don't want to have to tell you guys this again."


----------



## Fredx2098

Woodduck said:


> Yes, "lowest common denominator" certainly describes those who study, admire and enjoy the accomplishments of Dufay, Ockeghem, Josquin, Lassus, Tallis, Byrd, Monteverdi, Purcell, Rameau, Bach, Handel, Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert, Mendelssohn, Schumann, Chopin, Brahms, Bizet, Saint-Saens, Tchaikovsky, Mussorgsky, Dvorak, Janacek, Verdi, Wagner, Bruckner, Mahler, Strauss, Schoenberg, Berg, Puccini, Stravinsky, Shostakovich, Rachmaninoff, Sibelius, Elgar, Vaughan Williams, Britten, Ives, Copland, Barber...
> 
> In case anyone belonging to the more uncommon denominators is curious about the lower classes, I can testify that belonging to the lowest common denominator and feeling free of the pressure to better myself through egalitarianism is quite relaxing. The only place where anyone objects to my trailer trash complacency is here on TC.


I was simply referring to the popularity and laudation of composers. The thing about lowest common denominators is that they can be equivalent to higher denominators (or in this analogy, enjoyed by more intelligent/knowledgeable people). I'm just saying that how "great" a composer is considered seems to be related to how accessible their music is. I've said time and time again that I enjoy many of these "accessible" composers, some of them I don't enjoy, but neither is based on how famous that person is. Same with composers who are not "great".


----------



## Fredx2098

Logos said:


> I think Fred wants all art criticism to stop. Right now.
> 
> "Nothing is better than anything else, okay? Got it? I don't want to have to tell you guys this again."


That's categorically untrue. My point this whole time has been that all composers are equally able to be criticized. The point of people who disagree with me seems to be that some composers should be free from criticism. I'm not saying that all art is equally good; I'm saying that all art has the potential to be enjoyed and the potential to be favored over something more popular. I definitely don't think that nothing is better than anything else. I have strong opinions that I don't assert, and I respect the opinions of others very much. A problem arises when my opinions are not given the same respect.


----------



## science

dogen said:


> Have you got a problem with racism and misogyny?


As white men know, the bigotries of the past legitimize the bigotries of the present.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> As white men know, the bigotries of the past legitimize the bigotries of the present.


Careful! Some people here might actually subscribe to that notion........


----------



## science

shirime said:


> Careful! Some people here might actually subscribe to that notion........


It's a mere summary of the argument that because women and people of color were not respected as composers or artists in the past, we should not respect them as composers or artists today.


----------



## Logos

science said:


> It's a mere summary of the argument that because women and people of color were not respected as composers or artists in the past, we should not respect them as composers or artists today.


I don't exalt any contemporary artist, of any color or either sex. Great art and the 21st century go together like a dinner party and cholera.


----------



## mathisdermaler

science said:


> It's a mere summary of the argument that because women and people of color were not respected as composers or artists in the past, we should not respect them as composers or artists today.


yawwwwwwwnnnnnn. I said nothing like that. It's disappointing that someone named "science" is responding to a scientific argument - no, not a scientific argument, but actually just the _suggestion_ of a possible one - with empty rhetoric.


----------



## mathisdermaler

Enthusiast said:


> Oh dear. I suspect I am being very generous in taking some of the bait offered - I hope you appreciate it.
> 
> I'm not sure music is organised into centuries and the 20th Century especially was very varied and saw very rapid development. But ... Sophia Gubaidulina is _one _of those who stand out as being widely recognised as meeting this criterion (10 or so best of the century).
> 
> Unless you are an expert (and I think not) I would be _very_ careful in discussing either IQ or distribution curves in this way - very messy areas that appear in arguments advancing all sorts of dodgy theories. As for personality traits ... better not to go there especially if you are going to ascribe certain values (for a given purpose) to specific traits. And, even if this were not so, we are talking about genius, a subject for which it makes zero sense to use any data that goes into distribution curves, norms or anything like that _even if you are comparing the numbers of geniuses from one group or another_ (because genius is so rare). Genius presumably involves a very unusual combination of traits, cognitive styles, drives, exposures and opportunities - and aside from the fact that none of these things can be meaningfully _measured_, must have little to do distribution curves. It astonishes me that you even want to explore this subject in that way!


It's wasn't bait. I was being very sincere. But I took too much adderall when I wrote that.

My original post was very extreme. Looking at the broader picture I think we can identify some female musical geniuses, Gubaidulina being included in that list. Still, the list is shorter than the list of male geniuses, and I'm still unconfident that the difference in length can be attributed purely to the effects of misogyny.

My original argument about women being especially less-apt to be musical geniuses than men was half-baked. There are probably as many female musical geniuses as female literary geniuses.

I know I'm not going to convince anyone on this site to join my side (TC's politics is tilted _very_ strongly in a certain direction), but I want to at least ask one question: is it not possible that men and women have differently structured brains on average which affect to their musical ability, hell, any of their abilities, on average?

If the answer is yes (and it obviously is) then you can't just laugh off my arguments as the ravings of a right-wing lunatic. If comparative brain genetics by gender have any legitimacy, then you are just refusing to engage with science and being indignant.

I'm not an expert. The truth is that IQ science is not as messy as you would like it to be. Well, social science in general isn't as absolute as the physical sciences are, but as far as the field goes, IQ science is probably the most well-studied portion of it. IQ is considered to be the most useful pyschometric ever formulated.

Genius is absolutely not unrelated to "any data that goes into distribution curves, norms or anything like that even if you are comparing the numbers of geniuses from one group or another (because genius is so rare)." Look at the writings of Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, etc. Its fairly obvious they're all very high IQ individuals. Look at the pool of high IQ individuals and you will find more geniuses there than in any other pool.

Your argument at the end boils down to "it's too complicated and (implicitly) thus you must have sexist motivations for wanting to explore it in this way." My argument is "it's complicated but possible and thus worth exploring." That's all.


----------



## Enthusiast

mathisdermaler said:


> It's wasn't bait. I was being very sincere. But I took too much adderall when I wrote that.
> 
> My original post was very extreme. Looking at the broader picture I think we can identify some female musical geniuses, Gubaidulina being included in that list. Still, the list is shorter than the list of male geniuses, and I'm still unconfident that the difference in length can be attributed purely to the effects of misogyny.


OK. Firstly, sorry. I had to google adderall and see it is a medication for a condition that may be difficult for you. Or perhaps it also has uses for boosting concentration or retention for students? I'm glad you acknowledge that there are female musical geniuses.



mathisdermaler said:


> My original argument about women being especially less-apt to be musical geniuses than men was half-baked. There are probably as many female musical geniuses as female literary geniuses.


Which has actually been quite a large number - at least (in acknowledged cases) since the 19th Century - and in English literature close to the number of great male writers.



mathisdermaler said:


> . .... is it not possible that men and women have differently structured brains on average which affect to their musical ability, hell, any of their abilities, on average?
> 
> If the answer is yes (and it obviously is) then you can't just laugh off my arguments as the ravings of a right-wing lunatic. If comparative brain genetics by gender have any legitimacy, then you are just refusing to engage with science and being indignant.


That _might _be true if we believed that musical geniuses and their work are all alike. But clearly that is not so. Chopin and Brahms and Wagner are each so different in what they do (and what they try to do), for example.



mathisdermaler said:


> I'm not an expert. The truth is that IQ science is not as messy as you would like it to be. Well, social science in general isn't as absolute as the physical sciences are, but as far as the field goes, IQ science is probably the most well-studied portion of it. IQ is considered to be the most useful pyschometric ever formulated.


I do not think that is true. The only people who would claim it are psychometric testers. I think most psychologists accept that there are multiple intelligences, for example. And I think also that it is clear - look at the membership of Mensa - that high IQ does not correlated well with achievement or capability in the world. What do IQ tests measure? The capacity to perform well in IQ tests! Similarly, it is fairly clear (if disputed by some) that socio-economic background influences ability to perform well in these tests. And there is even evidence (I don't know, to be honest, how reliable) that people roll-playing someone who is intelligent can do better at them than they do when doing them as themselves!



mathisdermaler said:


> Genius is absolutely not unrelated to "any data that goes into distribution curves, norms or anything like that even if you are comparing the numbers of geniuses from one group or another (because genius is so rare)." Look at the writings of Beethoven, Wagner, Schoenberg, etc. Its fairly obvious they're all very high IQ individuals. Look at the pool of high IQ individuals and you will find more geniuses there than in any other pool.
> 
> Your argument at the end boils down to "it's too complicated and (implicitly) thus you must have sexist motivations for wanting to explore it in this way." My argument is "it's complicated but possible and thus worth exploring." That's all.


I continue to assert that genius is incredibly complex and cannot be boiled down to a few measurable predictors. Genius is the _un_expected! Predictions of which students will turn out to geniuses are more often wrong than right. Also, I'm not sure how obvious it is that the composers you mention had high IQs. They might have been articulate and, when it came to their own aesthetics (and perhaps music in general), knew what they were talking about. They were also rather "strange" socially - the correlation between being an outsider and a genius might well be stronger than correlations with measurable psychometrics. But, then, I suspect that geniuses would fall all over the shop if their measurable personality traits were plotted - so I am not arguing that it all comes down to personality either.

You are only half right about my argument. It is that genius is too complex to study via the likes of psychometrics (or any approach based on averages within a population) but I am not saying that people who do this have a political agenda. It is probably more that their work is often adopted and sometimes misrepresented by people with a political agenda. If the people who try to make these correlations are guilty of anything it is likely to be political naivety or a desire to cash in on a market (i.e. when challenged they usually clarify that they are not saying what they have been read as saying).

Unlike you, I do not think this line is worth exploring because ... well, just suppose you _could _demonstrate that all geniuses had a high IQ _and _that more men than women had a high IQ ... even if you could do this (and you can't!!) you would still not be able to put the two together to draw a conclusion that men are more likely to be musical geniuses than women. And, even if you could (and you can't!!), what would that mean for social policy? Again, it would be a huge leap to say that it would mean that the resources should go to the men. Averages do not tell us about individuals and policies that are _necessarily _based on averages (but I don't see why that would be necessary in the field we are talking of) still need to pay special attention to whether individuals who buck the trend are being discriminated against.

I am conscious (but uncomfortable) that I have taken your premises (when I should have rejected them all out of hand!) to try to show that they still don't work. Leaving aside the subject of this thread, there are so many more fruitful approaches to studying genius.


----------



## Martin D

Nereffid said:


> The idea that men are simply better than women at certain things because of genetics or intellect or psychology has long been used as an explanation/excuse/argument for the male-dominated status quo. And it keeps getting proved wrong, whenever the social barriers maintaining this status quo are lifted. If one sees that women are underrepresented in some field, *then the sensible first consideration is that there still are social barriers in place*, rather than bringing up a dubious and unsupported claim such as "men are more genetically-inclined on average to be great composers".


Does your argument extend to the fact because men are heavily underrepresented in the nursing profession (at least in the UK where the ratio has remained around 10-11% for many years) then the sensible first consideration is that there are social barriers in place preventing a more equal percentage?

Accepted that there may still be social barriers in some occupational areas that might explain part of the female underrepresentation, but there are other possibilities that could be more important than social barriers. In nursing, for example, it could be that because it has long been traditionally associated with the female gender, many patients may be able to relate to female nurses more than males, in which case there would be a demand side pull in favour of females. Whether this is a "social barrier" to more males applying to become nurses is debateable.

More generally, if one sees that women are underrepresented in some occupational field, then I cannot see why you think it is valid to assert that the sensible first consideration is that there still are social barriers in place. Social barriers are just one among several possibilities, and the importance of each is likely to vary from case to case.


----------



## Guest

science said:


> It's a mere summary of the argument that because women and people of color were not respected as composers or artists in the past, we should not respect them as composers or artists today.


Next you'll be saying that eugenics has been discredited.


----------



## Logos

Martin D said:


> More generally, if one sees that women are underrepresented in some occupational field, then I cannot see why you think it is valid to assert that the sensible first consideration is that there still are social barriers in place. Social barriers are just one among several possibilities, and the importance of each is likely to vary from case to case.


Not to mention that when women enter a job field, that field tends to lose social prestige and sees a decline in salary. Social prestige doesn't adhere to certain jobs themselves, but rather it adheres to the kinds of persons that tend to enter that "prestigious" job. When women become teachers, teaching is devalued as a profession. It isn't as if women actually absorb the cache and respectability that formerly belonged to the men that once held these jobs. On the contrary, the job becomes undesirable "women's work" in direct proportion to the percentage of women that fill its ranks. A New York Times article describing this phenomenon: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/...ver-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html


----------



## Martin D

Logos said:


> Not to mention that when women enter a job field, that field tends to lose social prestige and sees a decline in salary. Social prestige doesn't adhere to certain jobs themselves, but rather it adheres to the kinds of persons that tend to enter that "prestigious" job. When women become teachers, teaching is devalued as a profession. It isn't as if women actually absorb the cache and respectability that formerly belonged to the men that once held these jobs. On the contrary, the job becomes undesirable "women's work" in direct proportion to the percentage of women that fill its ranks. A New York Times article describing this phenomenon: https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/20/...ver-a-male-dominated-field-the-pay-drops.html


That's a separate matter from the one I raised. I have had a quick look at the NY Times article to which you refer but I haven't formed a view on it yet, as it is a summary of some research carried out elsewhere which I haven't yet located.

The main point I was making was simply that it cannot be valid to argue that any departure from a 50/50 gender split in an occupation is necessarily indicative that social barriers still exist in that occupation. To argue otherwise seems like a very peculiar point of view to adopt, and not one that would attract much, if any, support from people who know what they're talking about in this area, as there must be various reasons why the gender mix varies across occupations which have nothing to do with the persistence of old-fashioned social barriers.


----------



## Logos

Martin D said:


> The main point I was making was simply that it cannot be valid to argue that any departure from a 50/50 gender split in an occupation is necessarily indicative that social barriers still exist in that occupation.


I don't disagree with you. In womens' career choices, it's almost impossible to distinguish between self-segregation and segregation due to oppression. If women don't pursue careers in science at the same rate as men, is that due to discouraging oppression, or because it simply doesn't appeal to them; and if it doesn't appeal to them is that result of truly free choice or the result of oppressive indoctrination of stereotypical notions of the female role in society? Those who view women as totally oppressed deprive women of all agency to the point of infantilizing them--from their perspective, men are the only truly "free" human agents and only they have responsibility for the shape of society; whereas the apparent choices that women make--to not pursue a career in science for example--are always due to oppressive male influence because women couldn't possibly make that choice if they hadn't been brainwashed by the patriarchy. The conclusion is that if all persons were free, all persons would behave more or less like men and make "masculine" choices as to how to lead their lives.


----------



## mmsbls

It's true that we don't know enough to determine which factors produce unequal diversity in music or other fields. It's possible that innate differences between men and women or the various races (less likely) play a role. What we do know is that societal factors have played very large roles in the past. Women were poorly represented in symphony orchestras until blind auditions became the norm. Now women play a much, much larger tole. So maybe it's reasonable to look for societal effects first since we know they were pervasive and it's reasonable to assume we haven't eliminated them completely.

Another issue is early conditioning. When I was in particle physics, a study was done to understand how to increase minority participation. The result was that there was little particle physicists could directly do since very few minority students were physics majors in college (i.e. before particle physicists even got to choose students, the decisions were made). There has been much talk of the negative influences on women in math. Girls are subtly and not so subtly discouraged from pursuing math so they have less chance of pursuing math related fields when they are older. The Misogyny on the podium thread discusses a similar issue (e.g. see this post).

Overall biological effects _might_ play a role (the evidence is weak due to difficulty in isolating all the variables); whereas, societal effects have definitely played very large roles. I'd look to societal roles for any attempts to lessen undesirable differences.


----------



## Guest

mmsbls said:


> Another issue is early conditioning. When I was in particle physics, a study was done to understand how to increase minority participation. The result was that there was little particle physicists could directly do since very few minority students were physics majors in college (i.e. before particle physicists even got to choose students, the decisions were made). There has been much talk of the negative influences on women in math. Girls are subtly and not so subtly discouraged from pursuing math so they have less chance of pursuing math related fields when they are older. The Misogyny on the podium thread discusses a similar issue (e.g. see this post).


It is interesting that the level of participation of women in computer science was rather high and growing and suddenly reversed and started dropping precipitously around 1984. What happened? The Apple II. Before there were home computers there was little messaging about computers. But when the Apple II came out and became popular the message that "computers are for boys" became pervasive in pop culture. Girls internalized this message at an early age, and this suppressed participation in computer science.

It may very well be that there are some biological factors that affects the relative probability that male vs female will be attractive to a given field, but then societal pressures can kick in and reinforce this bias, transforming a subtle difference into a total exclusion. When females are absent in a given field it is naive to believe that this is because they are mysteriously not interested.

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2014/10/17/356944145/episode-576-when-women-stopped-coding


----------



## Sid James

Christabel said:


> An interesting article from "Quillette":
> 
> http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/diversity-concert-hall/


I'm unsure if it is useful to compare the plans of the BBC with the situation in America. As is widely known, financial management of orchestras in the USA hasn't been good, in terms of recent history. Whatever tactics beancounters there have used, it hasn't worked. If they can't take risks, it doesn't mean other countries can't. Perhaps the situation in the UK is better, so that a major organisation such as the BBC can take a bit of a financial risk with such a plan?

If we go by William Weber's view of three canons - scholarly, pedagogical and performance - then in terms of the first two, composers from diverse backgrounds are already there. Some, such as composers who where homosexual (eg. Britten, Copland, Barber) are established in all three canons. Their music is studied by academics and music students (and not only from a gay perspective) and also widely performed. Other composers like this have been studied, and recordings made of their music, but it is not so much performed.

I think that in terms of scholarship, its hard to think of some famous composers without mentioning the women in their lives. Think Fanny Mendelssohn or Clara Schumann. The latter supported her husband throughout his many periods of illness, and outlived him by decades continuing her career as a concert pianist.

In terms of what to do with composers who haven't traditionally fitted into music history for one reason or another, the question is how to include them back into it, given the reality that they have been excluded. One avenue is integration - which the BBC is taking - the other is segregation. By the latter I mean separate programs of women's, non-white or gay composers music. Its ultimately a matter of curatorship. I think integration is the best option, especially being able to set these composers' music in context. Why not have a program with a piano trio by Mendelssohn and his sister, for example?

The article supports the status quo, and fair enough. However I think the BBC is taking a courageous step. There have always been barriers to new music, especially from the point of view of funding which affects many things such as rehearsal time, and royalties. Today in most Western countries there is the problem of an ageing audience base. Some of these where covered in an interview with one of America's most prominent African American composers, Ulysses S. Kay in the 1980's. Many of the issues he discussed are still there and relevant to composers whether they are black or white, male or female: http://www.bruceduffie.com/kay.html

Personally I would not hesitate to go to a concert if they played Debbie Wiseman's score to Wolf Hall. The cd has sold very well, and this is a piece which would appeal to many types of existing listeners as well as attract new ones. Particularly if it was one of those special events that orchestras put on which tend to be lucrative compared to traditional concerts, with the orchestra playing while the film is projected overhead. Old music which inspired Wiseman could be played on the same bill. That's an example I can think of, but doubtless there would be others, there are many talented composers like this working today.


----------



## vmartell

ClassicalListener said:


> 'Diversity' is a concern of sick, disintegrating societies that have lost contact with their heritage and identity. Classical music was the creation of white, aristocratic Europe. It should not be forced into something it isn't.


I hate to come late to threads, because I end up answering to old posts. This is concerning. Even more because it has likes. The heritage and identity thing is the argument of supremacists. I am sorry if that is not your intention or it was just poorly phrased. Will continue reading the thread and hope for clarification. 
What about Manuel M Ponce, Carlos Chavez, Coleridge-Taylor, Silvestre Revueltas, and many more I forget...

v


----------



## Guest

vmartell said:


> I hate to come late to threads, because I end up answering to old posts. This is concerning. Even more because it has likes. The heritage and identity thing is the argument of supremacists. I am sorry if that is not your intention or it was just poorly phrased. Will continue reading the thread and hope for clarification.
> What about Manuel M Ponce, Carlos Chavez, Coleridge-Taylor, Silvestre Revueltas, and many more I forget...
> 
> v


You're new here! Extreme rightwing ideology is welcome here


----------



## elgar's ghost

Good to hear from you, Sid - it's been too long.


----------



## Haydn70

dogen said:


> You're new here! Extreme rightwing ideology is welcome here


It should be since extreme leftwing ideology is more than welcome here.


----------



## Enthusiast

^^^ I must have missed it. And you have missed Dogen who, sadly, seems not to be a member any more.


----------



## BachIsBest

Enthusiast said:


> I do not think that is true. The only people who would claim it are psychometric testers. I think most psychologists accept that there are multiple intelligences, for example. And I think also that it is clear - look at the membership of Mensa - that high IQ does not correlated well with achievement or capability in the world. What do IQ tests measure? The capacity to perform well in IQ tests! Similarly, it is fairly clear (if disputed by some) that socio-economic background influences ability to perform well in these tests. And there is even evidence (I don't know, to be honest, how reliable) that people roll-playing someone who is intelligent can do better at them than they do when doing them as themselves!


I do agree that saying IQ and genius are synonymous is a very large mistake but a lot of these arguments are just plain wrong. All any test measures, in an absolute sense, is your ability to do well on that test. Saying so is not clever but a mere statement of the totally obvious. Of course, tests are still useful because the ability to do well on certain tests can (and does) correlate very strongly with many things we would like to measure. Although it's hard to make definitive claims about relations between IQ and genius (largely due to the fact that Genius is difficult to define and any reasonable definition makes it incredibly rare) but it does correlate very strongly to 'success' as is usually defined by society.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligence_quotient#Social_correlations


----------



## Open Book

I get live Berlin Philharmonic concerts piped in to my TV and it's obvious that one of the best orchestras in the world is overwhelmingly male. I looked at the personnel listing online and did the calculations and it was 85% male to be exact. I'm waiting for the PC police to squawk about this and try to change it.

I have always presumed most modern orchestras audition new members behind a curtain so I don't expect deliberate discrimination. They probably go for a certain sound to integrate well with their current cultivated sound, so is it possible they get this more from male players than female? They were all male until the last few decades.

You don't see quite this proportion in other orchestras. My community orchestra, which is pretty good, is at least 50% female. Perhaps men are more likely to choose music as a field in which to make a living - after all, when you watch a late night talk show the musical guests on national TV are accompanied by bands that are about 85% male as well. Are there just more men at the high end of musical ability just as supposedly there are more men who score very high (and very low) on IQ tests - a broader variance among men than women?

I could not care less about the gender of musicians, and I hope no one messes with the Berlin Philharmonic just for the sake of achieving "better" proportions. We should let our ears do the listening and judging, not our eyes.


----------



## Haydn70

Open Book said:


> I get live Berlin Philharmonic concerts piped in to my TV and it's obvious that one of the best orchestras in the world is overwhelmingly male. I looked at the personnel listing online and did the calculations and it was 85% male to be exact. I'm waiting for the PC police to squawk about this and try to change it.
> 
> I have always presumed most modern orchestras audition new members behind a curtain so I don't expect deliberate discrimination. They probably go for a certain sound to integrate well with their current cultivated sound, so is it possible they get this more from male players than female? They were all male until the last few decades.
> 
> You don't see quite this proportion in other orchestras. My community orchestra, which is pretty good, is at least 50% female. Perhaps men are more likely to choose music as a field in which to make a living - after all, when you watch a late night talk show the musical guests on national TV are accompanied by bands that are about 85% male as well. Are there just more men at the high end of musical ability just as supposedly there are more men who score very high (and very low) on IQ tests - a broader variance among men than women?
> 
> I could not care less about the gender of musicians, and I hope no one messes with the Berlin Philharmonic just for the sake of achieving "better" proportions. We should let our ears do the listening and judging, not our eyes.


Well said, Open Book...very well said!


----------



## DeepR

Diversity as a goal in itself is something I find puzzling.
One should discriminate based on quality, talent, credentials, etc. and make a choice based on that; this choice shouldn't be influenced by either negative or positive discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc. 
To select composers or musicians specifically for their race, gender, sexual orientation etc. signals that something else is more important than the art itself. 
There's nothing against getting attention for obscure music and composers, and if among them are women or minority composers because they wrote great music that deserves attention, that's just fine, but to select their music or apply quotas _because_ it was made by women or minorities is something I wouldn't support. It just adds a political element to it while it shouldn't be about that.


----------



## Haydn70

DeepR said:


> Diversity as a goal on itself is something I find puzzling.
> One should discriminate based on quality, talent, credentials, etc. and make a choice based on that; this choice shouldn't be influenced by either negative or positive discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
> To select composers or musicians specifically for their race, gender, sexual orientation etc. signals that something else is more important than the art itself.
> There's nothing against getting attention for obscure music and composers, and if among them are women or minority composers because they wrote great music that deserves attention, that's just fine, but to select their music or apply quotas _because_ it was made by women or minorities is something I wouldn't support. It just adds a political element to it while it shouldn't be about that.


Well said DeepR, very well said!

Two excellent posts in a row; this one and Open Book's...this is heartening!


----------



## dgee

Open Book said:


> I get live Berlin Philharmonic concerts piped in to my TV and it's obvious that one of the best orchestras in the world is overwhelmingly male. I looked at the personnel listing online and did the calculations and it was 85% male to be exact. I'm waiting for the PC police to squawk about this and try to change it.
> 
> I have always presumed most modern orchestras audition new members behind a curtain so I don't expect deliberate discrimination. They probably go for a certain sound to integrate well with their current cultivated sound, so is it possible they get this more from male players than female? They were all male until the last few decades.


German orchestras don't generally do blind auditions, and Berlin definitely doesn't. In other places (US, UK etc), as blind auditions became the norm gender and ethnic diversity shot up. American orchestras are much more diverse than German orchestras.

In fact, blind orchestral auditions are regularly cited as evidence that old hiring practices resulted in less capable candidates getting the job because of their identity rather than their ability!


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> I have always presumed most modern orchestras audition new members behind a curtain so I don't expect deliberate discrimination. They probably go for a certain sound to integrate well with their current cultivated sound, so is it possible they get this more from male players than female? They were all male until the last few decades.
> 
> I could not care less about the gender of musicians, and I hope no one messes with the Berlin Philharmonic just for the sake of achieving "better" proportions. We should let our ears do the listening and judging, not our eyes.


Is it possible that orchestras can get their desired distinctive qualities more from male players than female? No, it is not possible. Male musicians don't have a gene that enables them to produce special sounds that female musicians can't.

An orchestra that believes that "we should let our ears do the listening and judging, not our eyes," will employ blind auditions. The Berlin Philharmonic does not do so. So much for ears versus eyes.


----------



## Open Book

I do realize that Berlin is an anomaly because other top orchestras have a much more even balance. The Boston Symphony is about 62% male, the difference being many more women among violins and violas, which are large sections, of course. The other sections look very similar to Berlin in makeup by gender.

I had no idea German orchestras did not do blind auditions. This could result in people being favored for all sorts of reasons, Berlin might end up looking like Andre Rieu's orchestra, favoring youth and good looks. But it doesn't look like that, it has a mixture of ages and looks. And it sounds great, so I doubt inferior people are being selected over better ones. I think "better" is subjective and that there are a lot of musicians who probably could play in Berlin even if they weren't chosen.

The predominance of male musicians among the string players in Berlin could be a cultural thing. Are there music schools in Europe for only boys that have been around a long time and that still produce a steady flow of male string players? Are males in America less likely than those in Europe to choose violin and viola as an instrument due to cultural influences?

Whatever the reason it isn't necessarily true that discrimination has occurred in the selection of musicians. Unless that can be proven, changes shouldn't be forced.

The BSO had an interesting pay discrimination case recently settled. Its principal flute player, a woman, was being paid significantly less than the principal oboist and clarinetist, who are men. The orchestra argued in vain that every instrument is different and subject to a different pay scale. I certainly don't see why a principal flutist shouldn't be paid as much as the other two. Very similar roles in the orchestra.


----------



## science

DeepR said:


> Diversity as a goal in itself is something I find puzzling.
> One should discriminate based on quality, talent, credentials, etc. and make a choice based on that; this choice shouldn't be influenced by either negative or positive discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation etc.
> To select composers or musicians specifically for their race, gender, sexual orientation etc. signals that something else is more important than the art itself.
> There's nothing against getting attention for obscure music and composers, and if among them are women or minority composers because they wrote great music that deserves attention, that's just fine, but to select their music or apply quotas _because_ it was made by women or minorities is something I wouldn't support. It just adds a political element to it while it shouldn't be about that.


You'll be happy to know that at no point in the past have women or minorities suffered discrimination in classical music or any other realm of culture.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

science said:


> You'll be happy to know that at no point in the past have women or minorities suffered discrimination in classical music or any other realm of culture.


I assume you're being ironic here, so I've gotta ask... what's your point? I don't think DeepR is in any way suggesting that the past was perfect; I think he is simply giving advice for how we as a society should conduct ourselves in the present.

That being said, I feel like the issue of promoting diversity in music is more complicated than it is in other fields (e.g. the sciences, where I would 100% agree with DeepR's proposed approach), and I'll have to think about it a little more myself.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Open Book said:


> I do realize that Berlin is an anomaly because other top orchestras have a much more even balance. The Boston Symphony is about 62% male, the difference being many more women among violins and violas, which are large sections, of course. The other sections look very similar to Berlin in makeup by gender.
> 
> I had no idea German orchestras did not do blind auditions. This could result in people being favored for all sorts of reasons, Berlin might end up looking like Andre Rieu's orchestra, favoring youth and good looks. But it doesn't look like that, it has a mixture of ages and looks. And it sounds great, so I doubt inferior people are being selected over better ones. I think "better" is subjective and that there are a lot of musicians who probably could play in Berlin even if they weren't chosen.
> 
> The predominance of male musicians among the string players in Berlin could be a cultural thing. Are there music schools in Europe for only boys that have been around a long time and that still produce a steady flow of male string players? Are males in America less likely than those in Europe to choose violin and viola as an instrument due to cultural influences?
> 
> Whatever the reason it isn't necessarily true that discrimination has occurred in the selection of musicians. Unless that can be proven, changes shouldn't be forced.
> 
> The BSO had an interesting pay discrimination case recently settled. Its principal flute player, a woman, was being paid significantly less than the principal oboist and clarinetist, who are men. The orchestra argued in vain that every instrument is different and subject to a different pay scale. I certainly don't see why a principal flutist shouldn't be paid as much as the other two. Very similar roles in the orchestra.


The Concertgebouw orchestra was voted world's best orchestra in 2008, it has a curtain audition and it makes no difference whatsoever in gender and musicians from all over the world come to Amsterdam to try to get an appointment, even if the salaries are relatively low. Last year the Italian Chief was fired over #metoo allegations, concerning his attitude towards women in the orchestra. So, in that sense the diversity seems OK and clearly has no correlation with quality (or it does and it made the orchestra the best in the world).


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> Is it possible that orchestras can get their desired distinctive qualities more from male players than female? No, it is not possible. Male musicians don't have a gene that enables them to produce special sounds that female musicians can't.
> 
> An orchestra that believes that "we should let our ears do the listening and judging, not our eyes," will employ blind auditions. The Berlin Philharmonic does not do so. So much for ears versus eyes.


There's almost never a single gene that produces complex characteristics in an organism.

I heartily agree with blind auditions. As long as they are truly blind, including from the time applications are accepted. No screening due to the gender or ethnicity of names.


----------



## science

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I assume you're being ironic here, so I've gotta ask... what's your point? I don't think DeepR is in any way suggesting that the past was perfect; I think he is simply giving advice for how we as a society should conduct ourselves in the present.
> 
> That being said, I feel like the issue of promoting diversity in music is more complicated than it is in other fields (e.g. the sciences, where I would 100% agree with DeepR's proposed approach), and I'll have to think about it a little more myself.


Well, maybe we could reluctantly admit that in the distant, distant past there had been some discrimination, but now it's all gone, right? And we don't have to do anything about it?

Because I'm near the top of this pyramid.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> Well, maybe we could reluctantly admit that in the distant, distant past there had been some discrimination, but now it's all gone, right? And we don't have to do anything about it?
> 
> Because I'm near the top of this pyramid.


I don't see how you can take the opinion that we shouldn't apply race and gender-based quotas and find that this implies the poster believes that discrimination was only a problem in the distant past and that we should do nothing to prevent discrimination. The second statement, that as far as I know very few people on this thread are arguing, may imply the first but it certainly doesn't follow from it.


----------



## Sid James

science said:


> You'll be happy to know that at no point in the past have women or minorities suffered discrimination in classical music or any other realm of culture.


As Sir Humphrey Appleby would say, "very droll, Minister, very droll." :lol:


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> I don't see how you can take the opinion that we shouldn't apply race and gender-based quotas and find that this implies the poster believes that discrimination was only a problem in the distant past and that we should do nothing to prevent discrimination. The second statement, that as far as I know very few people on this thread are arguing, may imply the first but it certainly doesn't follow from it.


(Discrimination exists) + (we shouldn't do anything about it) = (I support discrimination)


----------



## DeepR

I clearly said that we shouldn't discriminate (based on gender, race etc.) so I think I'll just leave it here and not participate in your game of mental gymnastics.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

science said:


> Well, maybe we could reluctantly admit that in the distant, distant past there had been some discrimination, but now it's all gone, right? And we don't have to do anything about it?
> 
> Because I'm near the top of this pyramid.


Discrimination certainly exists today, and moreover it certainly exists on an institutional level. The issue is how to go about fixing it. In my estimation trying to somehow "reverse" it with more discriminatory policies (e.g. affirmative action) generally does not help. In fact in many ways it makes things a lot worse. Initiatives to promote equal opportunity seem to be not only better in principle but much more effective, especially in the long term.

Don't fight fire with fire.


----------



## Enthusiast

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Discrimination certainly exists today, and moreover it certainly exists on an institutional level. The issue is how to go about fixing it. *In my estimation trying to somehow "reverse" it with more discriminatory policies (e.g. affirmative action) generally does not help.* In fact in many ways it makes things a lot worse. Initiatives to promote equal opportunity seem to be not only better in principle but much more effective, especially in the long term.
> 
> Don't fight fire with fire.


Interesting. What is your estimation based on? Do you have experience or evidence? It seems to me that race and sex discrimination is often largely about senior people wanting to recruit people like themselves. This may be unconscious. How to get rid of it? Having a period of time (a decade or two) of positive discrimination chages the balance including the balance of senior people making recuitment positions.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> (Discrimination exists) + (we shouldn't do anything about it) = (I support discrimination)


First of all your equation is certainly wrong. If discrimination exists, someone doesn't realise it exists and therefore does not support measures to address it, that person does not necessarily support discrimination. Even if the person did realise that discrimination existed, supported taking no specific measures against it, it simply does not follow they are pro-discrimination. As an example, I certainly do not support people insulting me, yet feel that any societal measures (e.g. banning personal insults) to prevent this are likely to be more harmful than helpful.

But more to the point arguing against a specific method of addressing discrimination, in this case, quotas, does not imply that the arguer is against all forms of addressing discrimination; there's simply no logical connection.


----------



## Open Book

Enthusiast said:


> Interesting. What is your estimation based on? Do you have experience or evidence? It seems to me that race and sex discrimination is often largely about senior people wanting to recruit people like themselves. This may be unconscious. How to get rid of it? Having a period of time (a decade or two) of positive discrimination chages the balance including the balance of senior people making recuitment positions.


"positive discrimination"

Is there such a thing? Can discrimination ever be positive?


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> "positive discrimination"
> 
> Is there such a thing? Can discrimination ever be positive?


The term "discrimination" is ethically neutral. Unfortunately it's come to mean mainly "discrimination for unethical purposes." One can discriminate for ethical purposes.


----------



## Enthusiast

Open Book said:


> "positive discrimination"
> 
> Is there such a thing? Can discrimination ever be positive?


I was merely using the term that is widely used. I didn't invent it and am surprised you haven't heard it before. For my part, I agree with you (??) that the word discrimination needs to apply to groups who are the less powerful one and, for example, that it is meaningless to refer to white males as discriminated against in relation to BAME or women. So, if institutions are wanting to redress previous discrimination through employing a greater number of BAME and women, it doesn't make sense to call that discrimination but I suppose the term positive discrimination is OK and even useful.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Enthusiast said:


> I was merely using the term that is widely used. I didn't invent it and am surprised you haven't heard it before. For my part, I agree with you (??) that the word discrimination needs to apply to groups who are the less powerful one and, for example, that it is meaningless to refer to white males as discriminated against in relation to BAME or women. So, if institutions are wanting to redress previous discrimination through employing a greater number of BAME and women, it doesn't make sense to call that discrimination but I suppose the term positive discrimination is OK and even useful.


There are some fundamental problems with this though. For starters, the concept of "power" is not always so easily defined, and I think we can both degree that there are more factors and often far more important factors than race and gender in determining who (unfairly) has power in a given situation or industry. Also, on a related note, "positive discrimination" oftentimes brings along with it "negative discrimination", as the groups discriminated against in order to make the "positive discrimination" possible are also often not the groups with the most power in a given situation but are instead also marginalized. I will (hopefully) edit this post later when I the time to be more specific and provide examples in regards to your earlier post.

Also, I'm not trying to claim that I'm definitively right and you're wrong; I'm simply trying to discuss and develop a more nuanced perspective on this issue (and how it applies to Cm).

Thanks.


----------



## Enthusiast

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> There are some fundamental problems with this though. For starters, the concept of "power" is not always so easily defined, and I think we can both degree that there are more factors and often far more important factors than race and gender in determining who (unfairly) has power in a given situation or industry. Also, on a related note, "positive discrimination" oftentimes brings along with it "negative discrimination", as the groups discriminated against in order to make the "positive discrimination" possible are also often not the groups with the most power in a given situation but are instead also marginalized. I will (hopefully) edit this post later when I the time to be more specific and provide examples in regards to your earlier post.
> 
> Also, I'm not trying to claim that I'm definitively right and you're wrong; I'm simply trying to discuss and develop a more nuanced perspective on this issue (and how it applies to Cm).
> 
> Thanks.


Oh come now! I think we all know what power means _in a given context_ but I do agree that when it comes to trying to use policies to correct an imbalance we are often obliged to deal with fairly broad categories which can both miss the most deserving and harm some who would ideally have been protected. I am not convinced that that problem is so large that it provides argument against "positive discrimination" (which is about addressing a huge and unfair imbalance). But perhaps you can illustrate what sort of circumstances you envisage with an example or two?


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Enthusiast said:


> Oh come now! I think we all know what power means _in a given context_ but I do agree that when it comes to trying to use policies to correct an imbalance we are often obliged to deal with fairly broad categories which can both miss the most deserving and harm some who would ideally have been protected. I am not convinced that that problem is so large that it provides argument against "positive discrimination" (which is about addressing a huge and unfair imbalance). But perhaps you can illustrate what sort of circumstances you envisage with an example or two?


1. I don't think we know what power means in a given context. It's almost always multifaceted, and the relative weights of each of the considerable factors are pretty much impossible to discern. If you could give an explanation of exactly what power might mean in any real world context, I'd be happen to listen.

2. Sure, I'll give an example. Let's look at one of the most famous examples: college admissions. It is, of course, well documented that many colleges (especially elite colleges) use affirmative action in their admissions formula. Applicants are given more or fewer points based on identity factors (race, socioeconomic status, in some fields gender). OK, fine. Even though I think these factors should be considered together rather than separately (Malia Obama is not discriminated against, come on), we'll go with it. I can see the point: even if the factors that are being considered didn't really play out in kids' lives, we should consider them since they will play out later in the professional world. So, naturally, this has to be (sort of) a zero sum game. There are only so many spots available. Ideally you'd want these spots to be taken from undeserving dumb, rich (I'll even say "white") private school double legacies whose parents rented out Carnegie hall for a day so they can put that on their resume even though they can't spell a C major scale, but does this happen? No. Instead you get spots taken from the middle class (who are honestly probably our best hope of fixing this corruption in the first place), and, wait for it... other BAME groups. Harvard gets sued for discriminating against Asian students... well, who could have seen that one coming? (it's NOT alone in doing that, btw). And then a few months later we learn about this whole stupid scandal where parents fake resumes and test scores for their kids to get them into elite colleges, we learn that some schools pretty much accept bribes if you're wealthy enough, blah blah blah, you get the point. Again, who could have seen that coming??? You can say that this is a "small problem", but it's certainly significant. In my personal experience, most of the least qualified people I know at my university are dumb rich white private school kids whose parents probably donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school (and there are A LOT of them here). I also see an obvious gap in representation of the middle class.

But I agree with you: arguing about this point, while definitely relevant, is still avoiding the main issue at hand. The biggest problem with "positive discrimination", especially when taken too far, is the group mentality it implies. First, I'm going to state the obvious "individualistic" (or "conservative") argument, that it is a bit morally wrong to give preferences to certain groups when you cannot tell exactly how much (and what type) of preference should be given to reverse the institutional discrimination that caused that group to be disadvantaged in the situation in question. While you may say (ironically) "boo-hoo, it really is unfortunate that you happen to be white" (or male, or hetero, or choose your "agent identity"), you can't totally deny the merits of this argument, and perhaps in the end it is the most important thing after all. But beyond that, "positive discrimination", especially when taken too far, creates a bad name for the exact people whom it is supposed to benefit. Let's return to colleges again, this time focusing on racial affirmative action. Inevitably, some black students will happen to be more deserving than others, but whom do you think people focus on? Yep, that's right; it's the group with the worst performance, for many reasons, not the least of which is actual racism and (often unjustified) anger at the system for not choosing them instead. And what you'll see is many people attributing the qualities of these few bad eggs to black people as a group (again, for similar reasons including actual racism), which creates only more "negative discrimination". How can we fix this? Hm, let's see, how about more affirmative action, this time on the level of business? OK, fine. But it doesn't fix the problem, and in my estimation doesn't even help it. You can't outrun the real problem by doing this. It may sound presumptuous to say this since I am not African American, but if I were I would not want to be awarded a position based off of (or even potentially based off of) the color of my skin.

I'm not going to take the position that we should never use positive discrimination. I think in theory it can be very helpful, for reasons which you and others have stated. But the way in which it is being implemented, IMO, has really only a superficial appeal, and in reality is doing more harm than good.

I'm looking forward to reading your response, and as always my mind is opened to being changed. Unless you're just going to say that I'm a naive annoying right-wing bigot (btw, if you couldn't already tell, I'm not at all right-wing). But I think you're reasonable, and will provide actual counter-arguments.

Note to self: edit the wording of the end of the third to final paragraph.


----------



## science

It looks to me like your logic there is something like, "Wealthy people are privileged compared to middle class people, so we should oppress the people lower on the scale."

We're all either punching down or punching up. The people below you aren't a threat, they're not able to take anything from you. If you're punching down, you're complicit in your own oppression.


----------



## science

BachIsBest said:


> First of all your equation is certainly wrong. If discrimination exists, someone doesn't realise it exists and therefore does not support measures to address it, that person does not necessarily support discrimination. Even if the person did realise that discrimination existed, supported taking no specific measures against it, it simply does not follow they are pro-discrimination. As an example, I certainly do not support people insulting me, yet feel that any societal measures (e.g. banning personal insults) to prevent this are likely to be more harmful than helpful.
> 
> But more to the point arguing against a specific method of addressing discrimination, in this case, quotas, does not imply that the arguer is against all forms of addressing discrimination; there's simply no logical connection.


It appears you want to suggest other ways of addressing discrimination. Great! Let's use all of them that work. What are your suggestions?

Specifically, what policies can help us be sure that all kinds of people have a real chance develop their interests and talents in music - chances about as good as the most privileged people?


----------



## Open Book

One more remark about the Berlin Philharmonic. Not only do women comprise a small minority of the orchestra, they alone are stuck with flower disposal duty.

At the end of a piece, flowers are presented to conductor and soloist, as is common. Male recipients often foist the flowers off onto a female member of the orchestra, sometimes immediately, then take their bows unencumbered. The woman recipient pretends to be delighted and struggles with both her instrument and the flowers.


----------



## BachIsBest

science said:


> It appears you want to suggest other ways of addressing discrimination. Great! Let's use all of them that work. What are your suggestions?
> 
> Specifically, what policies can help us be sure that all kinds of people have a real chance develop their interests and talents in music - chances about as good as the most privileged people?


You seem to be misinterpreting my posts. I wasn't arguing against quotas, I was merely pointing out how your logic simply didn't add up. I also can't really see where you got the idea that I was expressing a desire to suggest alternative solutions.

To try and answer your question (although the question seems a little vague as you don't even clarify who the 'privileged' and the 'discriminated against' are or why they fall into these categories) there are things one could do without implementing quotas. I believe you yourself once mentioned blind auditions on this very thread.


----------



## Larkenfield

Do men and women express emotions in the same way that motivates their behavior? Are they wired differently emotionally? I see a fundamental difference under most circumstances. Perhaps that's something to be harnessed that's positive artistically and it hasn't exactly been done yet, so there continues to be discrimination in one direction or another. It's a rather unusual paradox because women as soloists are highly esteemed and in demand. But as section players it's not exactly the same and that's where the discrimination can come in.

However, this is a difficult area to talk about because gender issues are such a touchy subject and no one wants to appear prejudiced. But I can understand the discrimination against women. Why? Because depending upon how they look and dress, sometimes they can be a distraction in an orchestra. Your eyes go right to them in the midst of a concert performance, and it's not because they're unattractive but just the reverse. In other words, it's their own sexual magnetism that can work against them and that's not as much of a factor with men.

The people who feel that they are beyond all prejudice will downplay that, or say that it's not important, or that it shouldn't be important. In an orchestra with a mixture of men and women, I prefer the women to be dressed very similarly to the men. No bare arms. Blend in more. Wear darker clothing similar to what the men are wearing and they can really blend in and sound great. Some of the European orchestras do this and I think there's a great advantage for the overall feel of unity within an orchestra. But any mention of this is going to upset some people because they see men and women as exactly the same, and I don't think they're the same but in a way that can be positive.

The problem in talking about it is that people don't want to look at fundamental differences between the sexes, starting with the fact that men are normally attracted to women, and men are typically attracted to women, especially if the women are attractive. That's the starting point in understanding why discrimination sometimes occurs. Those reactions on some level can sometimes end up causing problems or a sense of being uncomfortable with each other, and I think some orchestras are more sensitive to gender issues against women as distractions than others, such as the Vienna Philharmonic preferring the orchestra to be predominately male because they feel that it _does_ affect the sound in the unity of the orchestra. But it's really that magnetism between the sexes that no one wants to admit to that is often the basis for discrimination, but that it's not impossible to sort out. None of these remarks were intended to offend anybody.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> However, this is a difficult area to talk about because gender issues are such a touchy subject and no one wants to appear prejudiced. But I can understand the discrimination against women. Why? *Because depending upon how they look and dress, sometimes they can be a distraction in an orchestra. Your eyes go right to them in the midst of a concert performance, and it's not because they're unattractive but just the reverse. In other words, it's their own sexual magnetism that can work against them and that's not as much of a factor with men.*
> 
> The people who feel that they are beyond all prejudice will downplay that, or say that it's not important, or that it shouldn't be important. In an orchestra with a mixture of men and women, I prefer the women to be dressed very similarly to the men. No bare arms. Blend in more. Wear darker clothing similar to what the men are wearing and they can really blend in and sound great. Some of the European orchestras do this and I think there's a great advantage for the overall feel of unity within an orchestra. But any mention of this is going to upset some people because they see men and women as exactly the same, and I don't think they're the same but in a way that can be positive.
> 
> The problem in talking about it is that people don't want to look at fundamental differences between the sexes, starting with the fact that men are normally attracted to women, and men are typically attracted to women, especially if the women are attractive. That's the starting point in understanding why discrimination sometimes occurs. Those reactions on some level can sometimes end up causing problems or a sense of being uncomfortable with each other, and I think some orchestras are more sensitive to gender issues against women as distractions than others, such as the Vienna Philharmonic preferring the orchestra to be predominately male because they feel that it _does_ affect the sound in the unity of the orchestra. But it's really that magnetism between the sexes that no one wants to admit to this is often the basis for discrimination, but that it's not impossible to sort out. None of these remarks were intended to offend anybody.


This baffles me. Who, exactly, is "distracted" by the presence of both men and women in musical ensembles? The only answer I can come up with is: men or women who are so obsessed with sex that they can't keep their minds on their work. How the existence of these unfortunate individuals constitutes an excuse for discriminatory hiring practices I fail to see. Or are you not implying that it's an excuse?

As far as dress is concerned, I've never seen orchestral musicians dressed in a provocative way, or for that matter heard an orchestra's execution spoiled by the presence of Yuja Wang at the piano.


----------



## Bulldog

Larkenfield said:


> In an orchestra with a mixture of men and women, I prefer the women to be dressed very similarly to the men. No bare arms. Blend in more. Wear darker clothing similar to what the men are wearing and they can really blend in and sound great.


Any preferences on hair style or length? :lol:


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> the fact that men are normally attracted to women, and men are typically attracted to women, especially if the women are attractive.


Do you think that women are attracted to men, especially if the men are attractive?

If not then in order to test Larkie's viewpoint I invite forum women to let us know if they are attracted to men, especially if the men are attractive.

If you do, then are you saying that men are more easily distracted by an attractive woman than women are by an attractive man? In this case then should not the men who are becoming distracted be the ones who should be removed?

How about yourself, would you struggle to play your instrument if there was a bare-armed woman in the vicinity?


----------



## Janspe

Larkenfield said:


> The problem in talking about it is that people don't want to look at fundamental differences between the sexes, starting with the fact that men are normally attracted to women, and men are typically attracted to women, especially if the women are attractive. That's the starting point in understanding why discrimination sometimes occurs.


Oh my _god_. Yes, men are often attracted to women - but! Men are often attracted to men, and women to women, and women to men, not to speak of all the other varieties of sexual and gender plurality that can be and indeed are found everywhere. How is this so hard to understand?

It's neat that you did not intend to offend anyone, it's appreciated. But your whole premise is completely undermined by your attempt to reduce all sexual attraction to something experienced mainly by men - a fatal mistake. Who decided that sexual "magnetism [is] not as much of a factor with men" (your words)? I'm completely baffled by this logic. Why is it only an issue with women?

And I wholeheartedly agree with Woodduck on their words



> Who, exactly, is "distracted" by the presence of both men and women in musical ensembles? The only answer I can come up with is: men or women who are sufficiently obsessed with sex that they can't keep their minds on their work.


Anyone who is too distracted by anybody's sexual energies on the stage should either a) make their peace with it and continue working (as any normal person imo should be able to do), or b) maybe consider another career if it becomes too much of an issue.


----------



## Open Book

Woodduck said:


> As far as dress is concerned, I've never seen orchestral musicians dressed in a provocative way


What about soloists? Are Anne-Sophie Mutter's strapless gowns provocative or not?


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Quotas don't work because we have little way of knowing what the ratio of men/women or white/minorities are that are qualified and pursuing any given field. Without knowing that, you have no idea what the quota should be. You can't just assume that it follows the ratio in the population. The best solution, at least in this case, does seem to be blind auditions. It's easy to do and completely removes any opportunity for bias based on visual characteristics. The solution isn't as easy in other professions where you may have to interview someone face to face. In those situations, quotas may be the only solution to guard against discrimination.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Larkenfield said:


> However, this is a difficult area to talk about because gender issues are such a touchy subject and no one wants to appear prejudiced. But I can understand the discrimination against women. Why? Because depending upon how they look and dress, sometimes they can be a distraction in an orchestra. Your eyes go right to them in the midst of a concert performance, and it's not because they're unattractive but just the reverse. In other words, it's their own sexual magnetism that can work against them and that's not as much of a factor with men.
> 
> The people who feel that they are beyond all prejudice will downplay that, or say that it's not important, or that it shouldn't be important. In an orchestra with a mixture of men and women, I prefer the women to be dressed very similarly to the men. No bare arms. Blend in more. Wear darker clothing similar to what the men are wearing and they can really blend in and sound great. Some of the European orchestras do this and I think there's a great advantage for the overall feel of unity within an orchestra. But any mention of this is going to upset some people because they see men and women as exactly the same, and I don't think they're the same but in a way that can be positive.


It's thinking like this that leads religions like Islam to believe women should walk around completely covered, because us poor men can't control our sexual urges. It's nonsense. Men can and should control themselves, especially if not doing so means not being able to do their job. Once you get past adolescence you really have no excuse for allowing sexual urges to control your mind/life in such a way, and if you find you're so distracted that you can't do your job then you should probably be seeking therapy.


----------



## Open Book

Eva Yojimbo said:


> Quotas don't work because we have little way of knowing what the ratio of men/women or white/minorities are that are qualified and pursuing any given field. Without knowing that, you have no idea what the quota should be. You can't just assume that it follows the ratio in the population. The best solution, at least in this case, does seem to be blind auditions. It's easy to do and completely removes any opportunity for bias based on visual characteristics. The solution isn't as easy in other professions where you may have to interview someone face to face. In those situations, quotas may be the only solution to guard against discrimination.


The thing is, though, what does the musician have to do to get as far as that blind audition? Long before they sit in that audition there is a process that eliminates most of the candidates. There are those here who obviously feel that discrimination and unfairness can happen, does happen, along every step of that process.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Open Book said:


> The thing is, though, what does the musician have to do to get as far as that blind audition? Long before they sit in that audition there is a process that eliminates most of the candidates. There are those here who obviously feel that discrimination and unfairness can happen, does happen, along every step of that process.


I don't know about what goes into getting the audition, so I really can't speak to that. Maybe one way would be to start keeping track of how many men/women/minorities go through that process and don't make it VS those that do and see if there are any major discrepancies, and then, perhaps, implement quotas if indeed it seems some are being discriminated against.


----------



## Woodduck

Open Book said:


> What about soloists? Are Anne-Sophie Mutter's strapless gowns provocative or not?


I don't know. Do they provoke anything in you?


----------



## Enthusiast

Sorry but I missed this post. I'll try to respond now.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> 1. I don't think we know what power means in a given context. It's almost always multifaceted, and the relative weights of each of the considerable factors are pretty much impossible to discern. If you could give an explanation of exactly what power might mean in any real world context, I'd be happen to listen.


I don't want to define power but can't yet see what the difficulty is. Power is about _control_ - including over opportunities and outcomes - and it is clear what this means in the context if the discussion here, isn't it? And we also know which groups have suffered hugely from gender and racial discrimination and which groups have benefited from it. Given this it is pretty clear where the power is in this particular context.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> 2. Sure, I'll give an example. Let's look at one of the most famous examples: college admissions. It is, of course, well documented that many colleges (especially elite colleges) use affirmative action in their admissions formula. Applicants are given more or fewer points based on identity factors (race, socioeconomic status, in some fields gender). OK, fine. Even though I think these factors should be considered together rather than separately (Malia Obama is not discriminated against, come on), we'll go with it. I can see the point: even if the factors that are being considered didn't really play out in kids' lives, we should consider them since they will play out later in the professional world. So, naturally, this has to be (sort of) a zero sum game. There are only so many spots available. Ideally you'd want these spots to be taken from undeserving dumb, rich (I'll even say "white") private school double legacies whose parents rented out Carnegie hall for a day so they can put that on their resume even though they can't spell a C major scale, but does this happen? No. Instead you get spots taken from the middle class (who are honestly probably our best hope of fixing this corruption in the first place), and, wait for it... other BAME groups. Harvard gets sued for discriminating against Asian students... well, who could have seen that one coming? (it's NOT alone in doing that, btw). And then a few months later we learn about this whole stupid scandal where parents fake resumes and test scores for their kids to get them into elite colleges, we learn that some schools pretty much accept bribes if you're wealthy enough, blah blah blah, you get the point. Again, who could have seen that coming??? You can say that this is a "small problem", but it's certainly significant. In my personal experience, most of the least qualified people I know at my university are dumb rich white private school kids whose parents probably donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the school (and there are A LOT of them here). I also see an obvious gap in representation of the middle class.


This seems to add up to tweaking the affirmative action (/positive discrimination) policy so that it impacts on the dumb rich kids rather than hard working middle class kids. As, in your account, rich families are cheating it shouldn't be that hard to detect it.



BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> But I agree with you: arguing about this point, while definitely relevant, is still avoiding the main issue at hand. The biggest problem with "positive discrimination", especially when taken too far, is the group mentality it implies. First, I'm going to state the obvious "individualistic" (or "conservative") argument, that it is a bit morally wrong to give preferences to certain groups when you cannot tell exactly how much (and what type) of preference should be given to reverse the institutional discrimination that caused that group to be disadvantaged in the situation in question. While you may say (ironically) "boo-hoo, it really is unfortunate that you happen to be white" (or male, or hetero, or choose your "agent identity"), you can't totally deny the merits of this argument, and perhaps in the end it is the most important thing after all. But beyond that, "positive discrimination", especially when taken too far, creates a bad name for the exact people whom it is supposed to benefit. Let's return to colleges again, this time focusing on racial affirmative action. Inevitably, some black students will happen to be more deserving than others, but whom do you think people focus on? Yep, that's right; it's the group with the worst performance, for many reasons, not the least of which is actual racism and (often unjustified) anger at the system for not choosing them instead. And what you'll see is many people attributing the qualities of these few bad eggs to black people as a group (again, for similar reasons including actual racism), which creates only more "negative discrimination". How can we fix this? Hm, let's see, how about more affirmative action, this time on the level of business? OK, fine. But it doesn't fix the problem, and in my estimation doesn't even help it. You can't outrun the real problem by doing this. It may sound presumptuous to say this since I am not African American, but if I were I would not want to be awarded a position based off of (or even potentially based off of) the color of my skin.
> 
> I'm not going to take the position that we should never use positive discrimination. I think in theory it can be very helpful, for reasons which you and others have stated. But the way in which it is being implemented, IMO, has really only a superficial appeal, and in reality is doing more harm than good.
> 
> I'm looking forward to reading your response, and as always my mind is opened to being changed. Unless you're just going to say that I'm a naive annoying right-wing bigot (btw, if you couldn't already tell, I'm not at all right-wing). But I think you're reasonable, and will provide actual counter-arguments.
> 
> Note to self: edit the wording of the end of the third to final paragraph.


To be clear, the purpose of affirmative action policies and systems is not to get inferior BAME or female candidates into positions. *It is to level the playing field*.

I'm not sure about your use of the term "group mentality". Most social policies need to identify groups as accurately as possible so as to apply their measures. It helps if a new policy is monitored closely and adapted so it becomes better and better at targeting those who it intends to target and so that cheats are identified and blocked. This is often neglected but is a basic feature of good planning.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> Do men and women express emotions in the same way that motivates their behavior? Are they wired differently emotionally? I see a fundamental difference under most circumstances. Perhaps that's something to be harnessed that's positive artistically and it hasn't exactly been done yet, so there continues to be discrimination in one direction or another. It's a rather unusual paradox because women as soloists are highly esteemed and in demand. But as section players it's not exactly the same and that's where the discrimination can come in.
> 
> However, this is a difficult area to talk about because gender issues are such a touchy subject and no one wants to appear prejudiced. But I can understand the discrimination against women. Why? Because depending upon how they look and dress, sometimes they can be a distraction in an orchestra. Your eyes go right to them in the midst of a concert performance, and it's not because they're unattractive but just the reverse. In other words, it's their own sexual magnetism that can work against them and that's not as much of a factor with men.


This is a very extraordinary statement for a variety of reasons (many of which have already been noted). Presumably you also side with courts that find against sexually abused women on the grounds that they were "asking for it" by dressing provocatively or simply looking "pretty"? What was a red blooded man supposed to do? And maybe also you are OK with traditional cultures that blame and punish (sometimes to death) the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators? If it is true that orchestras are filled with heterosexual men who would be so distracted by the presence of a sexual magnet that they would miss their cue or forget to breath before blowing then these incontinent men should be the first to be retired out to make room for more women.

I'm afraid that the rest of your post leaves me so exasperated that I can't begin to respond so I have deleted it from the quotes I have taken from you. Your views on gender discrimination are some of the most surprising I have ever encountered. And, by the way, it makes no difference to this debate whether men and women are indeed different species (Mars and Venus, eh?) or whether individual differences between people regardless of gender are the bigger factor.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> This is a very extraordinary statement for a variety of reasons (many of which have already been noted). *Presumably* you also side with courts that find against sexually abused women on the grounds that they were "asking for it" by dressing provocatively or simply looking "pretty"? What was a red blooded man supposed to do? And maybe also you are OK with traditional cultures that blame and punish (sometimes to death) the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators? If it is true that orchestras are filled with heterosexual men who would be so distracted by the presence of a sexual magnet that they would miss their cue or forget to breath before blowing then these incontinent men should be the first to be retired out to make room for more women.
> 
> I'm afraid that the rest of your post leaves me so exasperated that I can't begin to respond so I have deleted it from the quotes I have taken from you. Your views on gender discrimination are some of the most surprising I have ever encountered. And, by the way, it makes no difference to this debate whether men and women are indeed different species (Mars and Venus, eh?) or whether individual differences between people regardless of gender are the bigger factor.


Presumably you presume too much and then build strawmen


----------



## Enthusiast

Jacck said:


> Presumably you presume too much and then build strawmen


Having yet another go at me, Jacck? And for what purpose? Do you have anything to add to the debate aside from trolling me? There are no straw men, there. I merely use a common rhetorical device. The position I was criticising was a few degrees less than the more extreme (but still widely held) positions postulated. I guess Larkenfield can come back and say where he draws the line and why if he wants to.


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> Having yet another go at me, Jacck? And for what purpose? Do you have anything to add to the debate aside from trolling me? There are no straw men, there. I merely use a common rhetorical device. The position I was criticising was a few degrees less than the more extreme (but still widely held) positions postulated. I guess Larkenfield can come back and say where he draws the line and why if he wants to.


I have to agree with Jaack, even though I disagree with Larkenfield's expressed views. Statements on the order of _"Presumably you also side with courts that find against sexually abused women on the grounds that they were 'asking for it' by dressing provocatively or simply looking 'pretty'? ... And maybe also you are OK with traditional cultures that blame and punish (sometimes to death) the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators?"_ are really unjustifiable. It shouldn't be on Larkenfield to "say where he draws the line" when you've just crossed one.

I seem to be irritable this morning. It must be that email I got from my Trump-supporting brother last night saying how now that Trump has been "exonerated" we need to go after Hillary...


----------



## Larkenfield

Bravo. Some orchestras are catching on and it should be obvious in this concert performance. Other orchestras could be cited. But it means paying attention to what's going on in the world and noticing how some orchestras are managing gender differences for a greater sense of equality but not at the expense of the unity of the orchestra. This is the 21st-century and it's never going to go back to a virtual all male orchestra, except perhaps one like the Vienna Phil. What's the problem with a greater unity of dress within an orchestra? Nothing. It's already being done. It highlights music as the centerpiece when no one individual is standing out from the rest of the whole, and this used to be the case with predominately all male orchestras. It will be of interest to see how orchestras eventually diversify their programs with more music written by women and minority composers-that is, if they make the effort. This is one heck of an outstanding performance:


----------



## Guest

Someone above suggested therapy. Don't you want to deal with the pushback?


----------



## Bulldog

Larkenfield said:


> What's the problem with a greater unity of dress within an orchestra? Nothing.


There you go again with your priority on clothing conformity. Clothing is a very superficial matter, don't you agree?


----------



## Jacck

Woodduck said:


> I seem to be irritable this morning. It must be that email I got from my Trump-supporting brother last night saying how now that Trump has been "exonerated" we need to go after Hillary...


I empathize with you. The only thing that the Muller probe did rule out is that Trump was not a consious russian agent, but that rather he was used as a unconscous asset. He is simply an immoral and completely dumb man with a narcissistic personality disorder whom the Russians chose to support to disrupt the country. Look how the Russians celebrate


----------



## KenOC

Jacck said:


> I empathize with you. The only thing that the Muller probe did rule out is that Trump was not a consious russian agent, but that rather he was used as a unconscous asset.


To be a little more exact, there was no evidence that anybody in Trump's circle participated in Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections. Period. As for Hilary, we can expect to see her run again in 2020, since all other potential Dem candidates either have a foot in the grave or are strictly from silly season.


----------



## science

KenOC said:


> To be a little more exact, there was no evidence that anybody in Trump's circle participated in Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections.


Well, then, everything's fine.

I hope I get to see the opera "Trump" someday. Maybe John Adams will compose it.


----------



## KenOC

Possibly. John Adams has his reliable political viewpoint.


----------



## science

Well, you may be comforted by whatever alternatives Ted Nugent and Kid Rock provide.


----------



## Woodduck

KenOC said:


> To be a little more exact, there was no evidence that anybody in Trump's circle participated in Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections. Period.


To be even more exact, no evidence was found of _conspiracy_ - not "participation" - that met the rigorous standards of the criminal law, which are the only relevant standards here. "Participation" is not a legal concept, and one can "participate" in something simply by failing to act properly when one has knowledge of mischief.


----------



## Jacck

KenOC said:


> To be a little more exact, there was no evidence that anybody in Trump's circle participated in Russian efforts to influence the 2016 elections. Period. As for Hilary, we can expect to see her run again in 2020, since all other potential Dem candidates either have a foot in the grave or are strictly from silly season.


Trump will probably be reelected
https://www.forbes.com/sites/lorent...at-it-means-for-global-security/#29eedef341cb
the only thing that would likely stop him is an economic crisis
Trump is merely a symptom of a deeper problem within the American society. The Russians use data from facebook and the internet to analyze these problems, and then tailor a specific influencing campaign to disrupt the nation even more. 
I personally don't care whom the Americans elect as a president. Unfortunately, these choices have also far reaching international consequences. The US will be weakened by Trump and its global dominance will diminish as a result. And China and Russia (two dictatorial regimes) will try to fill the vacuum. And that is bad for the world.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> I have to agree with Jaack, even though I disagree with Larkenfield's expressed views. Statements on the order of _"Presumably you also side with courts that find against sexually abused women on the grounds that they were 'asking for it' by dressing provocatively or simply looking 'pretty'? ... And maybe also you are OK with traditional cultures that blame and punish (sometimes to death) the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators?"_ are really unjustifiable. It shouldn't be on Larkenfield to "say where he draws the line" when you've just crossed one.
> 
> I seem to be irritable this morning. It must be that email I got from my Trump-supporting brother last night saying how now that Trump has been "exonerated" we need to go after Hillary...


We will have to disagree on that. Forgive me if I do not take your judgment on when I have crossed a line: I have seen you on more occasions than be counted use far more extreme (and less polite) methods and arguments to make points you want to make.

As I am sure you recognise, the examples I gave are more extreme but logically of the same type to the views I was objecting to. Sometimes a more extreme example gives a clearer explanation of what it is that is wrong with the view being disagreed with. _*If people really read me as accusing Larkenfield of those more extreme views rather than using a common rhetorical device then it seems I misjudged how widely that sort of device is used outside my own field and would be sorry for that.*_

At the same time I do confess to having found the view I was objecting to quite upsetting (not at all a view I expect to encounter on a forum of people living in the 21st Century) and to having been a bit irritated with the post I was responding to. Its author seems always to taking a dig at me these days and misrepresenting what I have said in other posts and I really hate that sort of thing.


----------



## NLAdriaan

Woodduck said:


> To be even more exact, no evidence was found of _conspiracy_ - not "participation" - that met the rigorous standards of the criminal law, which are the only relevant standards here. "Participation" is not a legal concept, and one can "participate" in something simply by failing to act properly when one has knowledge of mischief.


Music happily offers distraction and even guidance in dark times, especially when performed by a diversified group of musicians and a participating leader at the (right) helm.


----------



## Larkenfield

Christabel said:


> An interesting article from "Quillette":
> 
> http://quillette.com/2018/04/13/diversity-concert-hall/


Bump. The topic is what happens creatively in the concert halls and not in the streets or Wash. D.C.


----------



## Guest

Larkenfield said:


> The OP. Bump. The topic is what happens creatively in the concert halls, not on the streets.


My questions to you were about the concert hall. Larkie you cannot slip out of this. Would you, or would you not, be able to play your instrument if there was a bare armed woman nearby? Do you think that a handsome man in the orchestra would be similarly provocative?


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> We will have to disagree on that. Forgive me if I do not take your judgment on when I have crossed a line: I have seen you on more occasions than be counted use far more extreme (and less polite) methods and arguments to make points you want to make.


You've seen nothing of the sort. I would not _dream_ of suggesting that anyone here approves of putting victims of rape to death.

Your statement to Larkenfield was: "Maybe also you are OK with traditional cultures that blame and punish (sometimes to death) the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators?" Prefacing this ugly suggestion with "maybe" and ending it with a question mark does not excuse it.

Adding one unsubstantiated accusation to another, playing tit-for-tat and thus compounding the offense - saying about me "I have seen you on more occasions than be counted use far more extreme (and less polite) methods and arguments to make points you want to make" - is cowardly and only deepens the hole you're in.


----------



## Larkenfield

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


----------



## Larkenfield

Root said:


> My questions to you were about the concert hall. Larkie you cannot slip out of this. Would you, or would you not, be able to play your instrument if there was a bare-armed woman nearby? Do you think that a handsome man in the orchestra would be similarly provocative?


It's none of your business.  I'm not interested in hypotheticals. If you are unable to understand my comments within the context that I describe, then so be it... Also, the name is Larkenfield until I say so... My comments were based on what I've already observed with certain orchestras, and then in a follow up, I posted a Wagnerian video with the Radio Filharmonisch Orkest as an example. Did you look at it? Did you see their apparel, what the orchestra was wearing? There's your answer. This is what some of the more enlightened, progressive, and sophisticated orchestras are doing, and more examples could be cited. They're doing it because it creates a greater sense of unity within the orchestra when everyone looks essentially the same regardless of gender. It's already being done. You're welcome.


----------



## BachIsBest

Enthusiast said:


> We will have to disagree on that. Forgive me if I do not take your judgment on when I have crossed a line: I have seen you on more occasions than be counted use far more extreme (and less polite) methods and arguments to make points you want to make.
> 
> As I am sure you recognise, the examples I gave are more extreme but logically of the same type to the views I was objecting to. Sometimes a more extreme example gives a clearer explanation of what it is that is wrong with the view being disagreed with. _*If people really read me as accusing Larkenfield of those more extreme views rather than using a common rhetorical device then it seems I misjudged how widely that sort of device is used outside my own field and would be sorry for that.*_
> 
> At the same time I do confess to having found the view I was objecting to quite upsetting (not at all a view I expect to encounter on a forum of people living in the 21st Century) and to having been a bit irritated with the post I was responding to. Its author seems always to taking a dig at me these days and misrepresenting what I have said in other posts and I really hate that sort of thing.


But the rhetorical device does not work in this way. In no way is putting rape victims to death a "more extreme but logically of the same type to the view" that women should dress modestly in orchestras because men can't focus if an attractice non-modestly dressed women is near them.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> You've seen nothing of the sort. I would not _dream_ of suggesting that anyone here approves of putting victims of rape to death.
> 
> Your statement to Larkenfield was: "Maybe also you are OK with traditional cultures that blame and punish (sometimes to death) the victims of rape rather than the perpetrators?" Prefacing this ugly suggestion with "maybe" and ending it with a question mark does not excuse it.
> 
> Adding one unsubstantiated accusation to another, playing tit-for-tat and thus compounding the offense - saying about me "I have seen you on more occasions than be counted use far more extreme (and less polite) methods and arguments to make points you want to make" - is cowardly and only deepens the hole you're in.


This is a stupid discussion. It may be a cultural thing but in the culture I live and work the type of argument I used is fairly common and it is well understood that it is not meant literally. I still find it hard to believe you do not get it but the point is to say "if you take that way of thinking a bit further it leads to this" (with the obviously explicit understanding that I feel sure that the "you" will *not *approve of the more extreme version - i.e. the opposite of what you are trying to accuse me of).

On the other hand, I cannot count the number of times I have been shocked at the rudeness that you deploy in many of your posts, an apparent rudeness that presumably is common and accepted in whatever culture you identify with and live in. Frankly your language above is bullying in tone.

I am not playing tit for tat (and resent little the suggestion that I am). My response was sincere and, I felt, generous ... as is this one.


----------



## Enthusiast

BachIsBest said:


> But the rhetorical device does not work in this way. In no way is putting rape victims to death a "more extreme but logically of the same type to the view" that women should dress modestly in orchestras because men can't focus if an attractice non-modestly dressed women is near them.


I disagree. As have been observed by others, men generally do not lose possession of themselves at the sight of a woman even if she is attractive. At the other end, in societies where rape victims are blamed and punished this is justified that the man would only have done that if the woman had encouraged him by the wrong demeanor. My middle position - "she was asking for it" - is not so rare, at least in Britain, where many of us can remember judges using the argument regularly. The difference between the positions is one of degree, the purpose is to illustrate a point and perhaps to bring about a change of mind.


----------



## Jacck

Enthusiast said:


> This is a stupid discussion. It may be a cultural thing but in the culture I live and work the type of argument I used is fairly common and it is well understood that it is not meant literally. I still find it hard to believe you do not get it but the point is to say "if you take that way of thinking a bit further it leads to this" (with the obviously explicit understanding that I feel sure that the "you" will *not *approve of the more extreme version - i.e. the opposite of what you are trying to accuse me of).
> 
> On the other hand, I cannot count the number of times I have been shocked at the rudeness that you deploy in many of your posts, an apparent rudeness that presumably is common and accepted in whatever culture you identify with and live in. Frankly your language above is bullying in tone.
> 
> I am not playing tit for tat (and resent little the suggestion that I am). My response was sincere and, I felt, generous ... as is this one.


you simply used a logical fallacy and was called upon it
https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/
no need to take this discussion into some personal ad hominem levels


----------



## Haydn70

Enthusiast said:


> We will have to disagree on that. Forgive me if I do not take your judgment on when I have crossed a line: I have seen you on more occasions than be counted use far more extreme (and less polite) methods and arguments to make points you want to make.
> 
> As I am sure you recognise, the examples I gave are more extreme but logically of the same type to the views I was objecting to. Sometimes a more extreme example gives a clearer explanation of what it is that is wrong with the view being disagreed with. _*If people really read me as accusing Larkenfield of those more extreme views rather than using a common rhetorical device then it seems I misjudged how widely that sort of device is used outside my own field and would be sorry for that.*_
> 
> At the same time I do confess to having found the view I was objecting to quite upsetting (not at all a view I expect to encounter on a forum of people living in the 21st Century) and to having been a bit irritated with the post I was responding to. Its author seems always to taking a dig at me these days and misrepresenting what I have said in other posts and I really hate that sort of thing.


And what is your field...professional sophist?


----------



## Woodduck

Enthusiast said:


> This is a stupid discussion. It may be a cultural thing but in the culture I live and work the type of argument I used is fairly common and it is well understood that it is not meant literally. I still find it hard to believe you do not get it but the point is to say "if you take that way of thinking a bit further it leads to this" (with the obviously explicit understanding that I feel sure that the "you" will *not *approve of the more extreme version - i.e. the opposite of what you are trying to accuse me of).
> 
> On the other hand, I cannot count the number of times I have been shocked at the rudeness that you deploy in many of your posts, an apparent rudeness that presumably is common and accepted in whatever culture you identify with and live in. Frankly your language above is bullying in tone.
> 
> I am not playing tit for tat (and resent little the suggestion that I am). My response was sincere and, I felt, generous ... as is this one.


I pointed out that you made a single outrageous statement which insults another member. You've responded by making sweeping characterizations of my conduct on the forum and talking about the innumerable (but unspecified) times you've been "shocked" by it. That is not just tit-for-tat; it goes well beyond it. It's the sort of asymmetrical exchange that married couples learn to get over in couples therapy: he says "You're not being fair about this" and she replies, triumphantly, "Well how about the time when you...and that other time when you...You always...you never..."

The belief (mistaken, we agree) that men are by nature so discombobulated by female sexuality that they need to be protected from the sight of bare female arms does not "logically" imply a tolerance for rape and a willingness to punish rape victims. They are not "degrees of the same thing." Only one of them has grave moral implications, which I am willing to assume Larkenfield understands fully. I suspect you do as well.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> I pointed out that you made a single outrageous statement which insults another member. You've responded by making sweeping characterizations of my conduct on the forum and talking about the innumerable (but unspecified) times you've been "shocked" by it. That is not just tit-for-tat; it goes well beyond it. It's the sort of asymmetrical exchange that married couples learn to get over in couples therapy: *he says "You're not being fair about this" and she replies, triumphantly, "Well how about the time when you...and that other time when you...You always...you never...*"
> 
> The belief (mistaken, we agree) that men are by nature so discombobulated by female sexuality that they need to be protected from the sight of bare female arms does not "logically" imply a tolerance for rape and a willingness to punish rape victims. They are not "degrees of the same thing." Only one of them has grave moral implications, which I am willing to assume Larkenfield understands fully. I suspect you do as well.


Woodduck, have you placed bugging devices in my relationship counselor's offices???


----------



## Haydn70

Here are a few reactions/thoughts to some of the issues discussed in this thread:

Regarding the appearance/dress/comportment of the musicians:

For evening concerts, I love formal wear, i.e., white tie/tails for men, beautiful gowns for ladies.
For daytime concerts, suits and ties for men, gowns for the ladies.
I find the current trend toward casual (no ties on the men) abominable as I do the over-the-top sleazy look with women (low-cut and slit dresses, super high heels)

In regards to comportment, I hate the ever-increasing practice of excessive motion/movement which I am seeing in musicians. Sit still for God’s sake…you are not in a rock video.

And I couldn’t care less how many women or minorities are or are not in an orchestra.

And I find the idea that the enjoyment of a concert should be contingent on the diversity within an orchestra ridiculous.


----------



## Bulldog

Haydn70 said:


> I find the current trend toward casual (no ties on the men) abominable as I do the over-the-top sleazy look with women (low-cut and slit dresses, super high heels)


Low-cut dresses with slits and super high heels? Sign me up!!!


----------



## Larkenfield

For whoever said it, I never used the word "discombobulated". That's someone else's interpretation to inflate outrage. But I did suggest "distraction" that can sometimes work against women, and that's why some orchestras dress in black to downplay the issue of gender and facilitate more unity in the orchestra. If some individuals have a problem with that, then they need to take that up with the orchestras where the apparel of both sexes is now more uniform, conservative, and understated. It's obviously a definite advantage to everyone or they wouldn't be doing it. It's an anti-sexist action because it engenders greater equality between the sexes. Maybe some individuals would like to suggest that this shouldn't be done. In the meantime, here's Exhibit A of an orchestra playing with great focus and full attention on the music and an appreciative audience doing the same.


----------



## Woodduck

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


----------



## Larkenfield

Woodduck said:


> In case you missed it, Larkenfield, I just defended you, with some effort, against a nasty insult. But don't thank me.
> 
> (What do think "discombobulated" means, anyway? I just thought it sounded cool.)


Woodduck, please accept my apology if I was commenting on the wrong person. I can see now who it was and it starts with an E and ends in a T. I have re-edited my post to correct the mistake and perhaps you would be willing to do the same. Sometimes it happens that posts get wrongly attributed and someone's feelings get hurt. Best wishes.


----------



## fluteman

Open Book said:


> The BSO had an interesting pay discrimination case recently settled. Its principal flute player, a woman, was being paid significantly less than the principal oboist and clarinetist, who are men. The orchestra argued in vain that every instrument is different and subject to a different pay scale. I certainly don't see why a principal flutist shouldn't be paid as much as the other two. Very similar roles in the orchestra.


I do, and pointed it out in a flute discussion group that includes many well-known professionals, at least one of whom agreed. It's a matter of supply and demand.  There are simply more flutists than oboists, on both amateur and professional levels, especially in the US. The flute is a more popular instrument. While these trends ebb and flow, I doubt students will ever flock in large numbers to the oboe. It's an ill wind that nobody blows good.


----------



## Woodduck

Larkenfield said:


> Woodduck, please accept my apology if I was replying to the wrong person. I have re-edited my post to correct the mistake and perhaps you would be willing to do the same. Sometimes it happens that posts get wrongly interpreted and then people's feelings get hurt. Best wishes.


Apology gladly accepted. I deleted my post. But don't worry about "discombobulated." It isn't as bad - or as good? - as it sounds!


----------



## Woodduck

fluteman said:


> I do, and pointed it out in a flute discussion group that includes many well-known professionals, at least one of whom agreed. It's a matter of supply and demand. There are simply more flutists than oboists, on both amateur and professional levels, especially in the US. The flute is a more popular instrument. While these trends ebb and flow, I doubt students will ever flock in large numbers to the oboe. It's an ill wind that nobody blows good.


I went to college with an excellent oboist. He was a quiet, homely, modest, unassuming fellow. We all considered him a demigod just for being able to play the thing, and when he was drafted he was immediately snatched up for the army band. You don't waste an oboist in combat duty.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> I disagree. As have been observed by others, men generally do not lose possession of themselves at the sight of a woman even if she is attractive. At the other end, in societies where rape victims are blamed and punished this is justified that the man would only have done that if the woman had encouraged him by the wrong demeanor. My middle position - "she was asking for it" - is not so rare, at least in Britain, where many of us can remember judges using the argument regularly. The difference between the positions is one of degree, the purpose is to illustrate a point and perhaps to bring about a change of mind.


You're applying a street meaning, a street interpretation, a general societal meaning, to a concert hall situation related to gender differences and a creative performance. It does not apply, and greater uniformity of dress on a more conservative and enlightened basis can generate greater equality between the sexes, not to mention respect, because everyone is essentially treated the same. It's not that men are completely helpless or discombobulated by the presence of women, or vice versa, for that matter. But there is an obvious advantage or certain orchestras wouldn't be going for greater uniformity in apparel, and I posted an example of a Dutch orchestra playing Wagner where everyone is essentially dressed in black and _no one_ is a distraction on either side, including to the cameraman and the audience. I believe the greater focus and concentration on the music beyond contentious gender issues can have an obvious positive effect aesthetically and artistically on an orchestra. I see the greater formality of it as the wave of the future and I applaud it because it takes sexism out of the music and concert halls.


----------



## Haydn70

Woodduck said:


> I went to college with an excellent oboist. He was a quiet, homely, modest, unassuming fellow. We all considered him a demigod just for being able to play the thing, and when he was drafted he was immediately snatched up for the army band. You don't waste an oboist in combat duty.


He was very lucky! The army actually made the correct and logical decision.

Not the case with my dad.

He was born in the US but moved with his family to Italy at the age of 6 and moved back to the States when he was 13. He had to relearn English but maintained his fluency in Italian. When he was 23 (in 1943) he entered the Army. They were always looking for interpreters so my dad volunteered. He was tested by another soldier whose Italian was not as good as his. So, in its infinite wisdom, the Army made him a combat engineer and sent him to the Pacific theater. True story.

Sorry to go way off topic but I couldn't resist. I will delete this if requested.


----------



## Larkenfield

Woodduck said:


> Apology gladly accepted. I deleted my post. But don't worry about "discombobulated." It isn't as bad - or as good? - as it sounds!


 Thank you. I was deeply embarrassed. Greatly appreciated.:tiphat:


----------



## Bulldog

Haydn70 said:


> He was very lucky! The army actually made the correct and logical decision.
> 
> Not the case with my dad.
> 
> He was born in the US but moved with his family to Italy at the age of 6 and moved back to the States when he was 13. He had to relearn English but maintained his fluency in Italian. When he was 23 (in 1943) he entered the Army. They were always looking for interpreters so my dad volunteered. He was tested by another soldier whose Italian was not as good as his. So, in its infinite wisdom, the Army made him a combat engineer and sent him to the Pacific theater. True story.
> 
> Sorry to go way off topic but I couldn't resist. I will delete this if requested.


Don't delete. Your post was a nice diversion from the ridiculous talk of uniformity of dress.


----------



## fluteman

Woodduck said:


> I went to college with an excellent oboist. He was a quiet, homely, modest, unassuming fellow. We all considered him a demigod just for being able to play the thing, and when he was drafted he was immediately snatched up for the army band. You don't waste an oboist in combat duty.


I remember in my college orchestra a very petite female student was given english horn duty. No point in sexist stereotyping, she played it very well. Although her face turned purple and she looked like her head was going to explode. Another oboist I sat beside (who also played in a nearby professional orchestra) with each hurried breath between long legato phrases, would gasp / whisper, "Jesus!" I sympathize with his desire for divine intervention.


----------



## Open Book

Haydn70 said:


> Here are a few reactions/thoughts to some of the issues discussed in this thread:
> 
> Regarding the appearance/dress/comportment of the musicians:
> 
> For evening concerts, I love formal wear, i.e., white tie/tails for men, beautiful gowns for ladies.
> For daytime concerts, suits and ties for men, gowns for the ladies.
> I find the current trend toward casual (no ties on the men) abominable as I do the over-the-top sleazy look with women (low-cut and slit dresses, super high heels)
> 
> In regards to comportment, I hate the ever-increasing practice of excessive motion/movement which I am seeing in musicians. Sit still for God's sake…you are not in a rock video.
> 
> And I couldn't care less how many women or minorities are or are not in an orchestra.
> 
> And I find the idea that the enjoyment of a concert should be contingent on the diversity within an orchestra ridiculous.


I agree with the idea of uniformity and modesty in concert dress. If men have to be completely uniform in tuxes, women should have some restrictions, too. In the Boston Symphony at Tanglewood the men wear white jackets in the heat of summer and the women don't escape either, they wear white sweaters or coverups with at least a half sleeve.

It should be all about the music, not appearances - that's pop music where women seem to have to meet a certain standard of physical beauty to even have a career.

Shirts without ties on men are OK with me if they are those collarless black shirts.

As for excessively kinetic musicians, it's probably like tennis players who grunt loudly. It's distracting and seems self-indulgent. But if it's how they've been doing it all their lives and they have a certain status no one is going to make them change their style. The cellist in this video would never be able to play in an orchestra he needs so much space around him.


----------



## fluteman

Open Book said:


> I agree with the idea of uniformity and modesty in concert dress. If men have to be completely uniform in tuxes, women should have some restrictions, too. In the Boston Symphony at Tanglewood the men wear white jackets in the heat of summer and the women don't escape either, they wear white sweaters or coverups with at least a half sleeve.
> 
> It should be all about the music, not appearances - that's pop music where women seem to have to meet a certain standard of physical beauty to even have a career.
> 
> Shirts without ties on men are OK with me if they are those collarless black shirts.
> 
> As for excessively kinetic musicians, it's probably like tennis players who grunt loudly. It's distracting and seems self-indulgent. But if it's how they've been doing it all their lives and they have a certain status no one is going to make them change their style. The cellist in this video would never be able to play in an orchestra he needs so much space around him.


My goodness, you are right about that cellist. All I can say in his defense is in conductorless chamber ensembles, there is often more swaying and nodding than in the orchestra, where the conductor does all that. The great french hornist Barry Tuckwell was asked why he stayed so completely motionless while he played. He replied that he noticed that when other horn players who moved around more got to the difficult passages, they became very still too.

Edit: I typically stay out of discussions of how female classical musicians dress for performances. I do notice the pianist here opted for the sheer top and black bra look, while the two men wear ordinary dark business suits. How comical. Fortunately, they are giving a fine performance of one of the greatest chamber music pieces ever written. If the performance is worthwhile, I shrug off the odd appearance of the musicians. Goodness knows they can look more than a little strange in other genres of music.


----------



## BachIsBest

Enthusiast said:


> I disagree. As have been observed by others, men generally do not lose possession of themselves at the sight of a woman even if she is attractive. At the other end, in societies where rape victims are blamed and punished this is justified that the man would only have done that if the woman had encouraged him by the wrong demeanor. My middle position - "she was asking for it" - is not so rare, at least in Britain, where many of us can remember judges using the argument regularly. The difference between the positions is one of degree, the purpose is to illustrate a point and perhaps to bring about a change of mind.


I never stated that men generally do not lose possession of themselves at the sight of women and certainly don't believe this. I don't see how you move onto punishing rape victims from this with the words "at the other end" - at the other end of what?

The difference between the position of punishing rape victims and the belief that men are very distracted by women immodestly dressed is not one of degrees. In one scenario you have women being actively punished for doing nothing wrong (and actually having something wrong being done against them) in the other you are mistaken on how men may act in a social scenario.

To see that these are logically independent one just needs to observe that the truth (or falsity) of one has no logical implication on the truth (or falsity) of the other. In other words, one could come up with a (logically) non-contradictory viewpoint in which one was true, both were true, or neither were true. There is no logical interdependence of these statements.


----------



## science

This all reminds me of something funny. A few years ago South Korea legalized the miniskirt. There was some controversy of course, since we are supposed to believe that men are incapable of functioning intelligently if a woman's thigh can be seen. In response to which, my favorite comment, coming from one of the US soldiers stationed here: "Miniskirts illegal? I thought we fought to keep communism OUT of South Korea." 

But seriously, the arguments are related. Even if women start walking around naked, men -- and not women -- are responsible for men's actions. Ironically, people who argue so vehemently that "boys can't help being boys" also turn around and say that if a woman (especially a working-class woman) gets pregnant she ought to face the harshest consequences of her choices all by herself. That kind of thing reveals -- this is a very revealing conversation, right? -- that the real issue behind all this is, "Who's the boss?" Can men tell women what to do, or can't we? Are women as free and as respected as men, or aren't they? 

The attitudes revealed in this discussion have proven to me at least that clearly classical music is not yet a realm in which women are respected equally to men.


----------



## Open Book

fluteman said:


> My goodness, you are right about that cellist. All I can say in his defense is in conductorless chamber ensembles, there is often more swaying and nodding than in the orchestra, where the conductor does all that. The great french hornist Barry Tuckwell was asked why he stayed so completely motionless while he played. He replied that he noticed that when other horn players who moved around more got to the difficult passages, they became very still too.
> 
> Edit: I typically stay out of discussions of how female classical musicians dress for performances. I do notice the pianist here opted for the sheer top and black bra look, while the two men wear ordinary dark business suits. How comical. Fortunately, they are giving a fine performance of one of the greatest chamber music pieces ever written. If the performance is worthwhile, I shrug off the odd appearance of the musicians. Goodness knows they can look more than a little strange in other genres of music.


The point of the Tuckwell story being that musicians can be still when they want or need to be? Or that Tuckwell was always playing difficult music?

Glad someone agrees that this is an excellent performance of the Schubert. There are a lot of really good musicians out there, many of them hardly known.

I knew the woman's outfit would probably get a comment with the turn the discussion has taken.


----------



## Bulldog

Open Book said:


> Glad someone agrees that this is an excellent performance of the Schubert. I knew the woman's outfit would probably get a comment with the turn the discussion has taken.


I think she looked fine, and I noticed that none of the three men were staring at her bare back or black bra. They were doing their jobs.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

Bulldog said:


> I think she looked fine, and I noticed that none of the three men were staring at her bare back or black bra. They were doing their jobs.


SHOULD she have dressed like that in a concert? Perhaps not.

Does she have the right to dress like that in a concert? Of course.

What should we do about it? Enjoy the music. I agree with you; there's nothing so outrageous about this that it deserves comment or special attention. The male musicians in the room seem to think it's normal.


----------



## Larkenfield

She looked fine in the Schubert Trio. It’s chamber music where everyone is visible and an individual. She looked lovely. Nor would vocalists or instrumental soloists be expected to dress like a section player in an orchestra. The members of the Trio were being hired to be the center of attention rather than blending in more conservatively as part of a larger whole. She was quite lovely and appeared to be dressed appropriately to blend in as a member of this outstanding Trio and I believe she was aware of that by wearing a dark top that matched the suits of the men. But as a pianist in the percussion section of a European orchestras, probably not.


----------



## Enthusiast

Haydn70 said:


> And what is your field...professional sophist?


I am not going to respond to all the posts having a dig at me or to those who have chosen to ignore the substance of my earlier replies, replies. I acknowledge I should have kept to cool argument and was unwise to also respond to the put-downs in kind or even through escalating the tone. But your point is simple and focussed so you get my reply.

There is nothing false in my argument. We live in a world where all sorts of crimes against women have been (and in many places are being) justified on the grounds that it is women's responsibility to keep themselves safe from men - through staying indoors, through covering parts of their bodies that if seen might cause men to lose all control. At its extreme this is regularly leading to situations where extreme dangers for women are accepted and justified by society. These days, in the modern West/North, we recognise and are shocked by this pattern. But the closely related arguments that provocative dress invites molestation and unwelcome attention (from wolf whistles to violence) is still among us. It is not a huge leap to point out the links between this "thinking" and an argument that having attractive women in an orchestra is risky (the implication being that such women should not be employed for such work) and that at the very least such women should cover their bodies at work (including, presumably, rehearsals).

The ground has been a bit muddied by a subsequent focus on an argument for uniformly and conservatively dressed orchestras as if this had been the original point. But it was clear from context (including the subject of this thread) and content that it had been put forward as one argument against employing women in orchestras.

Many people commented on the same post I commented on saying that its argument was terrible, that adult men who can't control themselves should seek therapy and so on. My argument was picked up apparently because some members couldn't see the clear link described in my paragraph above, a link that has long been widely recognised (hence my amazement at having to justify it).

I believe my mistake here has been to respond in kind rather than with cool argument. But I also found the post I originally responded to be offensive. There have been quite a few other deeply offensive (to women) posts in this thread, some of which have gone unchallenged. I do not believe this could or would have happened on this forum a year ago. It seems the challenges were mostly from a few people who have chosen to move on. I'm not sure why.


----------



## Enthusiast

Woodduck said:


> This baffles me. Who, exactly, is "distracted" by the presence of both men and women in musical ensembles? The only answer I can come up with is: men or women who are so obsessed with sex that they can't keep their minds on their work. How the existence of these unfortunate individuals constitutes an excuse for discriminatory hiring practices I fail to see. Or are you not implying that it's an excuse?
> 
> As far as dress is concerned, I've never seen orchestral musicians dressed in a provocative way, or for that matter heard an orchestra's execution spoiled by the presence of Yuja Wang at the piano.


Aside from my strength of feeling about the issue and use of an argument that (amazingly) you were unfamiliar with, your position towards the post I objected to was once fairly similar to mine.


----------



## science

Enthusiast said:


> Aside from my strength of feeling about the issue and use of an argument that (amazingly) you were unfamiliar with, your position towards the post I objected to was once fairly similar to mine.


I think this is true, and I want to be clear that I am agreeing with you. The idea that sexy women provoke men and therefore they must be controlled is not a good one. I mean, outside of repressive patriarchal societies where women are property.


----------



## Larkenfield

Enthusiast said:


> I am not going to respond to all the posts having a dig at me or to those who have chosen to ignore the substance of my earlier replies, replies. I acknowledge I should have kept to cool argument and was unwise to also respond to the put-downs in kind or even through escalating the tone. But your point is simple and focussed so you get my reply.
> 
> There is nothing false in my argument. We live in a world where all sorts of crimes against women have been (and in many places are being) justified on the grounds that it is women's responsibility to keep themselves safe from men - through staying indoors, through covering parts of their bodies that if seen might cause men to lose all control. At its extreme this is regularly leading to situations where extreme dangers for women are accepted and justified by society. These days, in the modern West/North, we recognise and are shocked by this pattern. But the closely related arguments that provocative dress invites molestation and unwelcome attention (from wolf whistles to violence) is still among us. It is not a huge leap to point out the links between this "thinking" and an argument that having attractive women in an orchestra is risky (the implication being that such women should not be employed for such work) and that at the very least such women should cover their bodies at work (including, presumably, rehearsals).
> 
> The ground has been a bit muddied by a subsequent focus on an argument for uniformly and conservatively dressed orchestras as if this had been the original point. But it was clear from context (including the subject of this thread) and content that it had been put forward as one argument against employing women in orchestras.
> 
> Many people commented on the same post I commented on saying that its argument was terrible, that adult men who can't control themselves should seek therapy and so on. My argument was picked up apparently because some members couldn't see the clear link described in my paragraph above, a link that has long been widely recognised (hence my amazement at having to justify it).
> 
> I believe my mistake here has been to respond in kind rather than with cool argument. But I also found the post I originally responded to be offensive. There have been quite a few other deeply offensive (to women) posts in this thread, some of which have gone unchallenged. I do not believe this could or would have happened on this forum a year ago. It seems the challenges were mostly from a few people who have chosen to move on. I'm not sure why.


People are aware of these kinds of arguments and there's validity to them. I doubt if there's anyone here who is for violence against women no matter what they're wearing, and they've spoken out against it unless they've been grossly misunderstood. But discrimination and sexism will vary according to its specific context in the concert halls and within orchestras, and it's obvious that certain orchestras are taking notice of that and adopting a more unified approach to apparel which actually cuts down on discrimination and misunderstandings between the genders because both sexes are being treated more equally with mutual respect. Celebrate that. That's all that's being said here, and that's a different situation than what's going on in outer society generally where rape is an obvious problem... But I feel that critics should be careful about assuming that people are indifferent or encouraging the problem when actually they are talking about how discrimination and sexism can be reduced-_is_ being reduced-within the competitive and aesthetic environment of certain enlightened orchestras. It takes more than moral outrage to improve the situation and it might be worth seeing that and noticing the attempts at improvements that are actually working-the practical side of it that conductors and administrators are paying more attention to. But I'm sure everyone appreciates your general concern.


----------



## Jacck

science said:


> I think this is true, and I want to be clear that I am agreeing with you. The idea that sexy women provoke men and therefore they must be controlled is not a good one. I mean, outside of repressive patriarchal societies where women are property.


women use and abuse their sexuality as weapons. If you are a university teacher and are doing verbal examinations, some of them dress during these exams very provocatively with large cleavage showing their boobs etc and they do it more or less consciously to gain favors and receive benefits. Women deliberately provoke sexual reactions in men, but because the man is always expected to take the first step, they can deny everything and the man always gets the blame. And that is the other side of the story.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ce-sex-women-rule-men-drool-the-markets-cruel


----------



## science

Jacck said:


> women use and abuse their sexuality as weapons. If you are a university teacher and are doing verbal examinations, some of them dress during these exams very provocatively with large cleavage showing their boobs etc and they do it more or less consciously to gain favors and receive benefits. Women deliberately provoke sexual reactions in men, but because the man is always expected to take the first step, they can deny everything and the man always gets the blame. And that is the other side of the story.


Sure, a little bit of everything happens now and then.

We'll be ok.

Personally, I don't feel sorry for myself when a woman dresses beautifully. Currently I've returned to school to get another degree - I retired in 2015 but what does a retired workaholic do? Work 60+ hours a week and take two grad school classes of course - and a young woman has latched on to me as her in-class discussion partner. I'm twice her age and happily married; she's beautiful and likes to let us know. Clearly she's off-limits in every way, and maybe she feels freer to flirt with me a little for that. And maybe she has reason to believe that I am able to help her more effectively than other guys in the class. So she sits next to me in short skirts, shares snacks, blinks at me with her long false eyelashes, high-fives me when we do something well, and I'm supposed to just sit there next to her and be a good classmate. I mean, seriously, poor me!

Actually, of course, it's awesome. We all need to stop whining when these things happen and just behave like gentlemen. Being a dude gives me about a bafillion advantages that she doesn't have. I'll be fine, and I'm more than happy to be a gentleman.


----------



## Enthusiast

Larkenfield said:


> People are aware of these kinds of arguments and there's validity to them. I doubt if there's anyone here who is for violence against women no matter what they're wearing, and they've spoken out against it unless they've been grossly misunderstood. But discrimination and sexism will vary according to its specific context in the concert halls and within orchestras, and it's obvious that certain orchestras are taking notice of that and adopting a more unified approach to apparel which actually cuts down on discrimination and misunderstandings between the genders because both sexes are being treated more equally with mutual respect. Celebrate that. That's all that's being said here, and that's a different situation than what's going on in outer society generally where rape is an obvious problem... But I feel that critics should be careful about assuming that people are indifferent or encouraging the problem when actually they are talking about how discrimination and sexism can be reduced-_is_ being reduced-within the competitive and aesthetic environment of certain enlightened orchestras. It takes more than moral outrage to improve the situation and it might be worth seeing that and noticing the attempts at improvements that are actually working-the practical side of it that conductors and administrators are paying more attention to. But I'm sure everyone appreciates your general concern.


Fair enough and thank you for bringing the debate to a cooler level. For my part, if you were hurt or upset by my use of an extreme case to illustrate my point, then I am sorry. And I take your point about modest work clothes. Many workplaces require such arrangements - while some others insist that women _do _dress provocatively (which is hardly to be admired) - but it was not clear from your original post (which did draw many critical responses) that your concern was merely about dress. Nor am I happy with any approach to sexual abuse that blames the "victim". The first plank of any policy to remove such abuse from our workplaces (and this is part of equal opportunities) must be zero tolerance of it.

As a man, I was also a little put out by what seemed to be a suggestion that men cannot help being sexually incontinent. I think most men are quite skilled in relating to women in all sorts of ways that are not about sexuality. Many of us, I feel sure, find sexual incontinence in their fellow men - we all know some - both deplorable and revolting.


----------



## BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist

science said:


> Actually, of course, it's awesome. We all need to stop whining when these things happen and just behave like gentlemen. *Being a dude gives me about a bafillion advantages that she doesn't have.* I'll be fine, and I'm more than happy to be a gentleman.


I'd argue it goes both ways; each sex has plenty of societal advantages that the other does not. However, men being able to control the way women harmlessly choose to express themselves is not, or at least should not, be one of those advantages.


----------



## Jacck

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> I'd argue it goes both ways; each sex has plenty of societal advantages that the other does not. However, men being able to control the way women harmlessly choose to express themselves is not, or at least should not, be one of those advantages.


there is a dress code in many jobs and the employers can force both men and women to dress in a certain way. In your off job time, you can dress as you like


----------



## Red Terror

Jacck said:


> women use and abuse their sexuality as weapons. If you are a university teacher and are doing verbal examinations, some of them dress during these exams very provocatively with large cleavage showing their boobs etc and they do it more or less consciously to gain favors and receive benefits. Women deliberately provoke sexual reactions in men, but because the man is always expected to take the first step, they can deny everything and the man always gets the blame. And that is the other side of the story.
> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ce-sex-women-rule-men-drool-the-markets-cruel


Well, these women are only acting in accordance to corrupt human nature ... hardly surprising. Still, there are great women out there, but one will not usually find them in clubs, bars, etc.


----------



## Red Terror

Jacck said:


> there is a dress code in many jobs and the employers can force both men and women to dress in a certain way. In your off job time, you can dress as you like


I often telecommute, so I spend many hours in my underwear.


----------



## fluteman

Open Book said:


> The point of the Tuckwell story being that musicians can be still when they want or need to be? Or that Tuckwell was always playing difficult music?
> 
> Glad someone agrees that this is an excellent performance of the Schubert. There are a lot of really good musicians out there, many of them hardly known.
> 
> I knew the woman's outfit would probably get a comment with the turn the discussion has taken.


I think Tuckwell's point was that excessive motion while playing is an unnecessary affectation, although there are other musicians who would vehemently disagree.

I'm sorry about breaking my ordinary rule and commenting on the pianist's dress. But it does illustrate a point someone else here has touched on. Standing out like a sore thumb -- say, if one musician wears bright orange while all the others are dressed in black, or if all dress in orange, it can be distracting. Any staged performance has a theatrical element. The idea in everyone dressing in a conservative black "uniform" is to send the message that what the audience is hearing is what matters, not what the audience is seeing. It's as when a puppeteer who performs while visible to the audience (i.e., not behind a curtain) dresses in black in front of a black background to focus the attention of the audience on the puppets and create the illusion he or she isn't there. It can be quite effective.


----------



## BachIsBest

Enthusiast said:


> I am not going to respond to all the posts having a dig at me or to those who have chosen to ignore the substance of my earlier replies, replies. I acknowledge I should have kept to cool argument and was unwise to also respond to the put-downs in kind or even through escalating the tone. But your point is simple and focussed so you get my reply.
> 
> There is nothing false in my argument. We live in a world where all sorts of crimes against women have been (and in many places are being) justified on the grounds that it is women's responsibility to keep themselves safe from men - through staying indoors, through covering parts of their bodies that if seen might cause men to lose all control. At its extreme this is regularly leading to situations where extreme dangers for women are accepted and justified by society. These days, in the modern West/North, we recognise and are shocked by this pattern. But the closely related arguments that provocative dress invites molestation and unwelcome attention (from wolf whistles to violence) is still among us. It is not a huge leap to point out the links between this "thinking" and an argument that having attractive women in an orchestra is risky (the implication being that such women should not be employed for such work) and that at the very least such women should cover their bodies at work (including, presumably, rehearsals).
> 
> The ground has been a bit muddied by a subsequent focus on an argument for uniformly and conservatively dressed orchestras as if this had been the original point. But it was clear from context (including the subject of this thread) and content that it had been put forward as one argument against employing women in orchestras.
> 
> Many people commented on the same post I commented on saying that its argument was terrible, that adult men who can't control themselves should seek therapy and so on. My argument was picked up apparently because some members couldn't see the clear link described in my paragraph above, a link that has long been widely recognised (hence my amazement at having to justify it).
> 
> I believe my mistake here has been to respond in kind rather than with cool argument. But I also found the post I originally responded to be offensive. There have been quite a few other deeply offensive (to women) posts in this thread, some of which have gone unchallenged. I do not believe this could or would have happened on this forum a year ago. It seems the challenges were mostly from a few people who have chosen to move on. I'm not sure why.


Just to be clear, I have never denied there being any sort of connection between believing men can't control themselves around attractive women and more extreme views common in patriarchal societies. In your original posts, you seemed to be saying that there is some sort of logical connection between these two views and this invocation of logic is what I was objecting to.


----------



## Open Book

BrahmsWasAGreatMelodist said:


> Discrimination certainly exists today, and moreover it certainly exists on an institutional level. The issue is how to go about fixing it.
> 
> Don't fight fire with fire.


On an institutional level because it's wired into the rules of the institutions? Or because the institutions, despite good intentions, employ people in positions of power who influence things with their own biases?


----------



## Open Book

fluteman said:


> I do, and pointed it out in a flute discussion group that includes many well-known professionals, at least one of whom agreed. It's a matter of supply and demand. There are simply more flutists than oboists, on both amateur and professional levels, especially in the US. The flute is a more popular instrument. While these trends ebb and flow, I doubt students will ever flock in large numbers to the oboe. It's an ill wind that nobody blows good.


Are clarinetists as rare as oboists? I would think less so since the clarinet could be a jazz instrument as well, and the oboe is not, as far as I know. The principal clarinet also was paid more. Both male principals stood up for Ms. Rowe, the flutist.

Supply and demand _is_ an issue that affects pay. I wonder how the pay among the same instrumentalists on the same level in different orchestras compares. Do flutists always make a little less than oboe and clarinet players?

At the elite level I'd like to see every musician paid highly, even the triangle player (of course he's usually a percussionist with many skills). Now that everyone knows the salaries of the principal flute, oboe, and clarinet, I wonder if that has made anyone else in the orchestra dissatisfied.


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

Open Book said:


> On an institutional level because it's wired into the rules of the institutions? Or because the institutions, despite good intentions, employ people in positions of power who influence things with their own biases?


The latter. Institutions are run by people, people are innately and unconsciously biased, so these biases manifest themselves in statistics across various institutions. What's depressing is that this biasing starts in infancy: https://phys.org/news/2017-04-infants-racial-bias-members.html


----------



## KenOC

Eva Yojimbo said:


> What's depressing is that this biasing starts in infancy...


Bias is a basic determiner of human behavior, very much survival-oriented. Think about the exact definition of "discrimination."


----------



## Eva Yojimbo

KenOC said:


> Bias is a basic determiner of human behavior, very much survival-oriented. Think about the exact definition of "discrimination."


I don't know what point your making. Biasing is one thing (perhaps the major thing) that causes discrimination.


----------



## science

Eva Yojimbo said:


> I don't know what point your making. Biasing is one thing (perhaps the major thing) that causes discrimination.


Back when we believed in original sin, we didn't fall for the naturalistic fallacy. In fact, I bet we still don't when we don't want to!


----------



## Becca

Here is an interesting article about women conductors. While the author is Norman Lebrecht whose opinions are often ignorable, this is a reasonably balanced article:

http://standpointmag.co.uk/music-norman-lebrecht-women-conductors-seize-the-baton-april-2019


----------



## Duncan

Becca said:


> Here is an interesting article about women conductors. While the author is Norman Lebrecht whose opinions are often ignorable, this is a reasonably balanced article:
> 
> http://standpointmag.co.uk/music-norman-lebrecht-women-conductors-seize-the-baton-april-2019


I'll save everyone the time and just skip to the part that's worth reading -

"_There is also the exotic phenomenon of Barbara Hannigan, a *Canadian* soprano who is conducting major orchestras around the world..._" and doing a damned fine job of it I might add!


----------



## Larkenfield

Ms. Hannigan is spectacular on the podium. She’s like a force of nature, beautiful and passionate. Could I imagine her as a permanent director of a symphony orchestra? Probably not now. Perhaps later. I would always be waiting for her to perform herself. I hope she stays free and conducts as many orchestras as she can with her amazing presence, voice, and feel for contemporary works. I think she’s one of the best in music as a draw to bring people into the concert halls. She’s awesome.


----------



## Becca

Larkenfield said:


> Ms. Hannigan is spectacular on the podium. She's like a force of nature, beautiful and passionate. Could I imagine her as a permanent director of a symphony orchestra? Probably not now. Perhaps later. I would always be waiting for her to perform herself. I hope she stays free and conducts as many orchestras as she can with her amazing presence, voice, and feel for contemporary works. I think she's one of the best in music as a draw to bring people into the concert halls. She's awesome.


FYI ... She has been appointed as Principal Guest Conductor of the Gothenberg Symphony for 3 years starting this fall.

"Barbara is one of the great _musicians_ of our time." - Simon Rattle


----------



## Larkenfield

Here's another example of uniformity of dress in an orchestra as well as chorus... When an orchestra presents itself with this kind of formal equality, there's something about black and white apparel that seems to bestow the authority of everyone to be there as equals. It's perfect. Everyone's individuality is blended into the whole and I feel there's greater unity in the quality of the performance. This is one of Mendelssohn's fine if not spectacular religious works, and his style is still apparent. It's harmonious and pleasant. The female soloist is dressed to stand out more.


----------



## fluteman

Open Book said:


> Are clarinetists as rare as oboists? I would think less so since the clarinet could be a jazz instrument as well, and the oboe is not, as far as I know. The principal clarinet also was paid more. Both male principals stood up for Ms. Rowe, the flutist.
> 
> Supply and demand _is_ an issue that affects pay. I wonder how the pay among the same instrumentalists on the same level in different orchestras compares. Do flutists always make a little less than oboe and clarinet players?
> 
> At the elite level I'd like to see every musician paid highly, even the triangle player (of course he's usually a percussionist with many skills). Now that everyone knows the salaries of the principal flute, oboe, and clarinet, I wonder if that has made anyone else in the orchestra dissatisfied.


Gosh, I don't want to say anything mean spirited or catty here. When it comes to principal players in the world's most prestigious orchestras, you can bet that all are great players picked from many worthy candidates. But sometimes or for some instruments there are more worthy candidates than other times and other instruments, and some come to the position with a greater reputation or more prestigious resume than others, who may be just as good players but maybe aren't as big stars. If an orchestra committed to paying each of its principals exactly the same, other major orchestras could poach the best players by offering more.


----------

