# Why are there few women composers?



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

Not only in music, but also in Science.
I don't think it has something to do with discrimination or religion
Religion only _suggest_ that woman should stay with her children.
It has nothing to do with _strength_
you could compose in your house
so what do you think is the problem?


----------



## mamascarlatti (Sep 23, 2009)

Might have something to do with the historical position of women, perchance?


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

I'll add to my question, aren't males naturally more creative than females?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

Well, whether males are or aren't more creative than females is a question we can't answer until we have more evidence.

Historically women have been oppressed; one of the most important aspects of this is that they were denied the training which male composers received, meaning that often their efforts must be considered accordingly. Of course it wasn't limited to this.

I disagree with the attitude, which is sometimes aired, that it is ridiculous to say that women are less creative than men. This is just an appeal to an egalitarian ideal. The notion will only be ridiculous if it can be disproved. There is an evolutionary/psychological basis for the idea that women might be less 'creative' - but this is again only a generalisation, and speculation. What's more, I think it uses a definition of 'creative' which takes as its basis traditionally 'masculine' ideas of creativity - and in that sense of course men are more creative than women. Taking a feminine basis for creativity (which we assume has been historically suppressed) would doubtless show men to be less creative. 

I know both creative men and creative women. They seem different to me - and I think this is excellent. Life would be boring if everyone was creative in the same way. Creativity demands a number of different angles in order to maximise its effectiveness - the whole point of it is to think in different ways. While this is true on an individual level, I think it is also true on a group level, and there is a danger when challenging such notions as the one the OP puts forward of actually increasing the dominance of masculinity over culture, rather than decreasing it.

As we are approaching a more egalitarian society, one of the advantages I hope will be that both men and women will be able to creatively contribute to both art and science, which should strengthen both.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I'll add to my question, aren't males naturally more creative than females?


What makes you think so?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Ramako said:


> As we are approaching a more egalitarian society, one of the advantages I hope will be that both men and women will be able to creatively contribute to both art and science, which should strengthen both.


It must be added that in the twentieth century there had been more female composers than in the rest of history, I think it said something.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

Speaking in very rash generalizations, I think that women are biologically more practical than men. They have to be, because they are the ones stuck with at least a nine month committment of carrying a child, but it's more like a lifetime commitment. You wouldn't be very interested in composing if you are more concerned about paying the bills, doing what is best for the family and so forth. Men are traditionally and maybe more biologically prone to being irresponsibile giving rise to all sorts of impractical activities such as painting and composing. This is slowly changing as we see many great works of art, writing and music from creative women. Thank goodness for the few who do find enough freedom to pursue it, and also those who remain more practical.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Weston said:


> Speaking in very rash generalizations, I think that women are biologically more practical than men. They have to be, because they are the ones stuck with at least a nine month committment of carrying a child, but it's more like a lifetime commitment. You wouldn't be very interested in composing if you are more concerned about paying the bills, doing what is best for the family and so forth. Men are traditionally and maybe more biologically prone to being irresponsibile giving rise to all sorts of impractical activities such as painting and composing. This is slowly changing as we see many great works of art, writing and music from creative women. Thank goodness for the few who do find enough freedom to pursue it, and also those who remain more practical.


I think this sounds like a dubious just-so-story used to provide a rationalization of a sexist attitude. You could just as easily claim that since the women traditionally stayed home with the family while the men went out an hunted (or whatever), that the women had more time to be idle and creative.

(Just to be clear, I think both stories are baloney.)


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

norman bates said:


> It must be added that in the twentieth century there had been more female composers than in the rest of history, I think it said something.


More, or more visible?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

Taggart said:


> More, or more visible?


I think more. I'm not sure about that but for what I know before the twentieth century women often had not even the possibility to study composition in music schools.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I'll add to my question, aren't males naturally more creative than females?


Oh, please, not this again!.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I'll add to my question, aren't males naturally more creative than females?


Well, girls DO go to Jupiter to get more stupider...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

While men are busy doing _manly_ things, women are left with the job of keeping civilization functioning. The job is mentally/emotionally tiring. No time left for dilettante stuff like composing.

Personally I have been working for several decades to destroy civilization; women have thwarted me at every turn.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ramako said:


> I disagree with the attitude, which is sometimes aired, that it is ridiculous to say that women are less creative than men. This is just an appeal to an egalitarian ideal. The notion will only be ridiculous if it can be disproved. There is an evolutionary/psychological basis for the idea that women might be less 'creative' - but this is again only a generalisation, and speculation. What's more, I think it uses a definition of 'creative' which takes as its basis traditionally 'masculine' ideas of creativity - and in that sense of course men are more creative than women. Taking a feminine basis for creativity (which we assume has been historically suppressed) would doubtless show men to be less creative.


As a person working in science, sometimes I'm surprised by the audacious claims people can adjudicate to the scientific method.
The scientific method is a very precise thing and requires very, very carefully posed questions in order to give an answer that can be interpreted unambiguously. 
The scientific method is not a magic ball that will give a thorough answer to all kinds of crazy questions we can have.
If the question is not well posed, sure, you will get some data. But that data will be useless given the possibilities of interpretation. The scientific method is not just a mass of empirical data, it also needs a theoretical framework in which these data can be analyzed.
I dismiss this "scientific" approach for studying creativity, dissonance, etc., since I don't think that a rigorous theoretical framework can be built up in order to give those concepts a completely objective meaning, as you even note in your comment.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

There aren't. There are plenty of women composers today, and they are just as good as men. Next question?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

aleazk said:


> [...]
> I dismiss this "scientific" approach for studying creativity, dissonance, etc., since I don't think that a rigorous theoretical framework can be built up in order to give those concepts a completely objective meaning, as you even note in your comment.


Scientific method can be applied to the subject of dissonance, and I am pretty sure it has been. It's some of the conclusions that fail the test. Creativity, on the other hand, is a sociological concept... and you know how those sociologists are.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I'll add to my question, aren't males naturally more creative than females?


*facepalm*
*headdesk (repeatedly)*
*tries to speak, sputters incoherently, decides she can't be bothered*



oogabooha said:


> Well, girls DO go to Jupiter to get more stupider...













Also, OP, do you know how many exact copies of this thread already exist on TC?
Old. Old as balls. We have had this discussion. It is boring.


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Basically, before modern times, men inherited the property or earned the living, and women were their wives. Talented women musicians gave up music when they married. Clara Schumann wanted to perform more than she was allowed to after she was married. Sometimes, when women had to earn a living - like the illegitimate Barbara Strozzi - they did go on composing and publishing. But even well-versed musicians like my violin teacher often haven't heard of her. A pity, because I love her music.

I have no problem with there being differences between the sexes, but as people say above, we don't have the research, and it seems unlikely there'll be a society any time soon where the sexes have exactly the same formation, expectations, lifestyle and opportunities.


----------



## Taggart (Feb 14, 2013)

Ingenue said:


> ... and it seems unlikely there'll be a society any time soon where the sexes have exactly the same formation, expectations, lifestyle and opportunities.


Thank goodness, I _like_ the current formation of woman!


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

Meaghan said:


> Old as balls.


Hahaha. Best comment, ever!!:tiphat:


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

I'm a woman, and I write good music :3 I don't really see any reason to just make assumptions about what sex is better in artistic pursuits. Plenty of people from every conceivable background have proven themselves to be amazing artists, and amazing in other fields as well.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

ethanjamesescano said:


> Not only in music, but also in Science.
> I don't think it has something to do with discrimination or religion
> Religion only _suggest_ that woman should stay with her children.
> It has nothing to do with _strength_
> ...


I don't see any _problem_. It's just the way it is. Men have been composing, playing and conducting while women have been raising the next generation of composers, players and conductors as well as their future audiences, so that there will be someone in 50 years to listen to their men's compositions. And since Father God or Mother Nature (whatever you like better) has entrusted a greater share of that task to the womenfolk, it is only natural that they will have less time and desire for all the other stuff.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

Old, old, old balls.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> As a person working in science, sometimes I'm surprised by the audacious claims people can adjudicate to the scientific method.
> The scientific method is a very precise thing and requires very, very carefully posed questions in order to give an answer that can be interpreted unambiguously.
> The scientific method is not a magic ball that will give a thorough answer to all kinds of crazy questions we can have.
> If the question is not well posed, sure, you will get some data. But that data will be useless given the possibilities of interpretation. The scientific method is not just a mass of empirical data, it also needs a theoretical framework in which these data can be analyzed.
> I dismiss this "scientific" approach for studying creativity, dissonance, etc., since I don't think that a rigorous theoretical framework can be built up in order to give those concepts a completely objective meaning, as you even note in your comment.


I agree that the 'scientific method' is often misused. I'm not totally sure if you are referring to claims I've made when you refer to the scientific method (I'm not aware of really having made any particular claims, though I have googled the scientific method (which shows how much I know about it) and it does seem to apply to my line of thinking) or my saying I've come across explanations for why women might be less 'creative'. If it is this, all I am saying is that I have read suggestions which seemed plausible to that end, but since they are only explanations I certainly don't claim that they have scientific 'proof' behind them - I have suggested some of my problems with them, and I don't even remember where I read them, so they may not be very 'scientific'.

Equally, however, I disagree when people make bold claims which are based largely on the desirability of the answer. Or, for that matter, dismiss claims based on the undesirability of it. Both happen far too often, and can in serious cases sometimes cause significant problems (I would say that some people ignoring the environmental problems of today is one, but I don't want to cause an argument over it).

I think in this case it is best to make a starting assumption of equality. It seems a good assumption based on the way things are going.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ramako said:


> I agree that the 'scientific method' is often misused. I'm not totally sure if you are referring to claims I've made when you refer to the scientific method (I'm not aware of really having made any particular claims, though I have googled the scientific method (which shows how much I know about it) and it does seem to apply to my line of thinking) or my saying I've come across explanations for why women might be less 'creative'. If it is this, all I am saying is that I have read suggestions which seemed plausible to that end, but since they are only explanations I certainly don't claim that they have scientific 'proof' behind them - I have suggested some of my problems with them, and I don't even remember where I read them, so they may not be very 'scientific'.
> 
> Equally, however, I disagree when people make bold claims which are based largely on the desirability of the answer. Or, for that matter, dismiss claims based on the undesirability of it. Both happen far too often, and can in serious cases sometimes cause significant problems (I would say that some people ignoring the environmental problems of today is one, but I don't want to cause an argument over it).
> 
> I think in this case it is best to make a starting assumption of equality. It seems a good assumption based on the way things are going.


Well, you said in your comment "The notion will only be ridiculous if it can be disproved". And I'm saying that it cannot be proved or disproved since the question cannot be posed in a completely meaningful and coherent way, something which is required by the scientific method in order to give a "scientific" answer. Your own questioning of those speculations you have read are evidence of this.
And since it cannot be proved or disproved, that's why I say it's a ridiculous question.


----------



## Feathers (Feb 18, 2013)

ethanjamesescano said:


> I'll add to my question, aren't males naturally more creative than females?


Well, it may appear to seem so sometimes, only because the concept and standard of creativity is defined from the masculine point of view that was established by a long male-dominated tradition.


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Well, you said in your comment "The notion will only be ridiculous if it can be disproved". And I'm saying that it cannot be proved or disproved since the question cannot be posed in a completely meaningful and coherent way, something which is required by the scientific method in order to give a "scientific" answer. Your own questioning of those speculations you have read are evidence of this.
> And since it cannot be proved or disproved, that's why I say it's a ridiculous question.


I stand by the intent behind my original comment, although I concede my use of the word 'disproved' was unwise and perhaps misleading. Proof must be based on axiomatic definitions in the way that Euclidean geometry is, for example. What I meant was that I cannot agree with a verdict of 'ridiculous' until there is a very substantial amount of evidence against the claim. I believe there is some, but not enough to call it ridiculous at the present time.

Is the question ridiculous? I think it might well be ridiculous to expect a 'scientific' answer to the question of whether men are more creative than women, as you say. I am not after a scientific answer though; I don't see that once we have determined that something cannot be formulated to scientific precision that we must then abandon the question altogether, or the concept of evidence, or any idea of method.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

Ramako said:


> I stand by the intent behind my original comment, although I concede my use of the word 'disproved' was unwise and perhaps misleading. Proof must be based on axiomatic definitions in the way that Euclidean geometry is, for example. What I meant was that I cannot agree with a verdict of 'ridiculous' until there is a very substantial amount of evidence against the claim. I believe there is some, but not enough to call it ridiculous at the present time.
> 
> Is the question ridiculous? I think it might well be ridiculous to expect a 'scientific' answer to the question of whether men are more creative than women, as you say. I am not after a scientific answer though; I don't see that once we have determined that something cannot be formulated to scientific precision that we must then abandon the question altogether, or the concept of evidence, or any idea of method.


Well, as I said, if the question is not formulated in a precise way, you still can collect data. But the interpretation of that data will not give you precise answers.
Personally, I'm not interested in a study saying that "with our very ill defined and not at all comprehensive definition of 'creativity', we have concluded, after analyzing the empirical data, that males are more creative than females". 
And I'm using the pompous term "scientific method". Forget about that. Think about this "method" in the following way: I have some hypothesis or model about how some system works; this model makes predictions about the behaviour of the system; then I go to reality to check if these predictions are actually true; if this is the case, then I take that as an evidence that my model/hypothesis may be correct. Of course, if my hypothesis are ambiguous, then my conclusions will be ambiguous too, i.e., meaningless as conclusions then.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Feathers said:


> Well, it may appear to seem so sometimes, only because the concept and standard of creativity is defined from the masculine point of view that was established by a long male-dominated tradition.


What's the difference between masculine and feminine creativity?


----------



## Kleinzeit (May 15, 2013)

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


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

I, for my part, am not at all convinced that it's a matter of precision. I think we're just simply asking the wrong questions. Kind of like "Where can we find ice on the sun?" kind of questions.

Instead of "why are there [so] few women composers?" ask this instead: "why is there so little knowledge about women composers?"

And for the question "why are women less creative than men?" perhaps we need first to ask "are women less creative than men?" Only if that question returns the answer "yes" can we then go on to ask "why?"

I of course think that that question returns the answer "no," but that may just be because I hang out with so many artists of all kinds, many of whom are women. All I can see from where I'm standing is that because of social conditions, because of faulty thinking, the males get some significant breaks. This means that they can produce feeble work and still succeed. Women pretty much still have to produce at the top of their form to even get noticed. And what that means, in practice, is that female artists _look_ more creative and more talented than their male counterparts.

I enjoy irony.


----------



## Yoshi (Jul 15, 2009)

ethanjamesescano said:


> Not only in music, but also in Science.
> I don't think it has something to do with discrimination or religion
> Religion only _suggest_ that woman should stay with her children.
> It has nothing to do with _strength_
> ...


The problem is that this is old as balls.


----------



## aleazk (Sep 30, 2011)

some guy said:


> I, for my part, am not at all convinced that it's a matter of precision. I think we're just simply asking the wrong questions. Kind of like "Where can we find ice on the sun?" kind of questions.


Well, that's what I have been saying.
We ended discussing precision because if you insist in applying a scientific-like method of research, the results will be imprecise and useless, thing which is a consequence of applying this method to wrong/non-sensical questions...


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

In every branch of the arts & sciences, there are women who have beaten the odds, and their numbers will increase.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

ethanjamesescano said:


> Not only in music, but also in Science.
> I don't think it has something to do with discrimination
> ...


Really?! 

It has EVERYTHING to do with discrimination!

Not only do you insult every woman when you just disregard all those centuries of oppression... You then try to blame their lack of advancement on them, for lacking creativity! That's not just stupid. That's cold.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Not really any memorable women Composers,


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

apricissimus said:


> I think this sounds like a dubious just-so-story used to provide a rationalization of a sexist attitude. You could just as easily claim that since the women traditionally stayed home with the family while the men went out an hunted (or whatever), that the women had more time to be idle and creative.
> 
> (Just to be clear, I think both stories are baloney.)


I think rather someone didn't read my post very carefully and was looking for a knee to jerk. You will not find a less sexist human being than me. But whatever.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

WOMEN TOPIC: Hot potato alert

View attachment 19477


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Not really any memorable women Composers,


Then how come a good number of them are remembered?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Not really any memorable women Composers,


That must depend on your memory.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

Weston said:


> I think rather someone didn't read my post very carefully and was looking for a knee to jerk. You will not find a less sexist human being than me. But whatever.


I don't know you, but what you wrote is certainly sexist.

But take heart, you're in good company here, apparently.


----------



## deggial (Jan 20, 2013)

I like *this* definition for creativity:



> _Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others._


I'd say it does not favour men over women. Why more male artists (or, for that matter, chefs or fashion designers - professions traditionally associated with women) are famous is another question altogether.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Mahlerian said:


> Then how come a good number of them are remembered?


How many make the top 50 Composers?


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> How many make the top 50 Composers?


Depends who writes the list, brah.

(And who designs the orchestra programs / runs the radio stations / signs the 19th century publishing deals that determine the repertoire available to your list-maker in the first place, of course. Do you think artistic merit is the _only_ thing that's ever influenced any of these decision makers? Ah yes, I forgot that Gatekeepers of Great Art are above the cultural mores of their society. They adhere to a higher law, of course. Silly me.)

edit: I was going to go with brevity and be the soul of wit, but I guess that lengthy parenthetical postscript just really wanted out.


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> How many make the top 50 Composers?


That's your primary criterion for being memorable? You listen to tons of music by lesser-known Galante and Classical composers. Don't you understand that popularity is far from the most, let alone the only, important factor here?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

I still haven't heard any names mentioned.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

Here's another question for Mr. Shredder, "How many of the hundreds and thousands of all the male composers that have ever been make it to the top fifty list?"

Right. Only fifty.

(Wait a minute. I just redid Mahlerian's post with different words. Gotta stop doin' that.)


----------



## GGluek (Dec 11, 2011)

Lots of answers to this one, none of them entirely right.

I: a combination of societal expectations, circumstance, inclination, and sexism -- at least up to the last third of the last century. Society didn't "expect" women to be artists. Hence various noms de plume (George Eliot, the Brontes). Hence Fannie Mendelssohn giving up composing to devote herself to her brother and her husband. Hence Clara Shumann toning down her career as a concert pianist until Robert died and she had to support her family. I've personally been involved peripherally in science/engineering education, and until recently, sexism was rampant (and in some places still is).

II: Virginia Wolff addressed the lack of a female Shakespeare in "A Room of One's Own," and the lack of time and space for a woman to be creative still persists -- although it's more easily overcome today. 

III: Sometime in the past 15 years I read an interview with a woman artist (writer?) who posited that biology (hormones?) did have something to do with it -- that there were many more men than women outliers on either end of the human personality type bell curve. "There's no female Beethoven, but there's also no female Jack the Ripper." I find that an intriguing statement, and worth pondering.


----------



## Guest (Jun 11, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> I still haven't heard any names mentioned.


You haven't been reading the gazillion other threads on this topic that have sprouted up on TC like mushrooms?

We've already done it.

Over and over again.

As you already know.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Why is it so hard for women to admit that certain things aren't their forte?


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Why is it so hard for women to admit that certain things aren't their forte?


Oh, baby. I imagine your life and feel sad and sorry. Must be hard.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Meaghan said:


> Oh, baby. I imagine your life and feel sad and sorry. Must be hard.


So you bring up my private life to make up for the lack of women Composers that excel in Classical Music? How convenient. Btw that is borderline report worthy to bring that up.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> How many make the top 50 Composers?


it would be fun to make the same question in a world where men had not the possibility to study music for centuries.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Woman composer





Need more?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Or a world where men weren't worried on what they say was considered sexism. I'll freely admit women are equal to men in the last 20 years of Classical Music. But not before that. It was lopsided for a long time.


----------



## mtmailey (Oct 21, 2011)

*The truth*

View attachment 19482
Now there is a lot of judgements casted such as the creed that women should stay home to do stuff allow the man to work outside.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

mtmailey said:


> View attachment 19482
> Now there is a lot of judgements casted such as the creed that women should stay home to do stuff allow the man to work outside.


Yep that was a big part but still...


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Or a world where men weren't worried on what they say was considered sexism.


I don't have that kind of problem. If men and women have had the same possibilities I would certainly agree that men are more creative. But certainly it's not this the case. OR do you really think that Bach would be considered one of the greatest composers in history if he had not the possibility to study music?

I'll freely admit women are equal to men in the last 20 years of Classical Music. But not before that. It was lopsided for a long time.[/QUOTE]

so men are more stupid than in the past, or it's just that now woman have finally the same possibilities?


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

What exactly about women would make them inherently unable to compose as good as a man?


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Why is it so hard for women to admit that certain things aren't their forte?


Ooooh. Nice non sequitur.

Back to your original question of why you hadn't seen any names: WE'VE DONE IT ALREADY. And then violadude breaks down and does what we've all already done dozens of times on other threads and gives you a nice list.

Your response? Another non sequitur.

Man up, dude.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Or a world where men weren't worried on what they say was considered sexism. I'll freely admit women are equal to men in the last 20 years of Classical Music. But not before that. It was lopsided for a long time.


Actually, tried to delete post, but I can't figure out how to delete the pic. So Oh well LOL Ya, it has the F word in it. Deal with it mods. 

Here's the whole thing in a link actually http://www.gabbysplayhouse.com/webcomics/sexism/


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

violadude said:


> What exactly about women would make them inherently unable to compose as good as a man?


The Y chromosome makes music paper safe to the touch. It's why women can compose now, without fear, on the computer (hence the 20 years ago time frame). Before, they were always in danger of burning their hands. There were special gloves produced, but they were seen as destructive to society.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> What exactly about women would make them inherently unable to compose as good as a man?


If I knew the answer, I would be a genius. I just know that for the most part, men have created a lot more great music than women. That goes for Rock as well. And don't tell me women didn't have the same chances in this genre. Alright Alanis Morissette and No Doubt were big upgrades to to the past. But for the most part, men excelled in these genres. I'll also mention bands as Heart, Vixen, Pat Benatar, and etc.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> If I knew the answer, I would be a genius. I just know that for the most part, men have created a lot more great music than women. That goes for Rock as well. And don't tell me women didn't have the same chances in this genre. Alright Alanis Morissette and No Doubt were big upgrades to to the past. But for the most part, men excelled in these genres. I'll also mention bands as Heart, Vixen, Pat Benatar, and etc.


The fact that you actually think there is a legitimate scientific answer to be found to that question saddens me.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

violadude said:


> The fact that you actually think there is a legitimate scientific answer to be found to that question saddens me.


I don't. I just go by what I like. And a huge majority of my favorite music is by men. I'm sure the same is for you as well.


----------



## Eschbeg (Jul 25, 2012)

A conversation purported to have taken place between William Schuman and Ellen Taafe Zwilich:

Schumann: "So, Ellen, how does it feel to be the first woman to win the Pulitzer Prize in music?"
Zwilich: "Well, Bill, how did it feel to be the first man to win it?"


Hats off to you, Ms. Zwilich.


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

Eschbeg said:


> A conversation purported to have taken place between William Schuman and Ellen Taafe Zwilich:
> 
> Schumann: "So, Ellen, how does it feel to be the first woman to win the Pulitzer Prize in music?"
> Zwilich: "Well, Bill, how did it feel to be the first man to win it?"
> ...


I like that attitude of women
what I don't like with other women is that they brag about achievements whether it's military achievement or whatever specially if only few women or she's the only one to get that award.

PS I'm not a sexist


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> Why is it so hard for women to admit that certain things aren't their forte?


Did you seriously just say that?


----------



## hreichgott (Dec 31, 2012)

Here are 202 to start off with. (I think this list is restricted to currently living composers so it's really just the tip of the iceberg)
http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/a-helpful-list/


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

BurningDesire said:


> Did you seriously just say that?


Exactly my point. That kind of attitude. Not that there aren't exceptions. Just in general slightly weaker in Composing than men for whatever reason. In a perfect world, men in women could be equal. But that's obviously not the case. Some things women do better than men as well. It goes both ways.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> Exactly my point. That kind of attitude. Not that there aren't exceptions. Just in general slightly weaker in Composing than men for whatever reason. In a perfect world, men in women could be equal. But that's obviously not the case. Some things women do better than men as well. It goes both ways.


no, that is simply public recognition. I get that you're trying to speak on a "fair game", and there are people who excel in things as opposed to others, but that has _nothing_ to do with their gender. What music you _like_ does not determine the general course of things (and don't say you didn't expect it to, with your "why can't women just admit they're not as good at composition as men are?").

and don't get mad and say "_this _ attitude is what i'm talking about!", because you are clearly saying something controversial that is considered very sexist and discriminatory. :tiphat:

And, honestly, you can say it's preference, but it is also sexism.

On that note, I prefer anything Vashti Bunyan wrote to anything John Lennon penned


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> no, that is simply public recognition. I get that you're trying to speak on a "fair game", and there are people who excel in things as opposed to others, but that has _nothing_ to do with their gender. What music you _like_ does not determine the general course of things (and don't say you didn't expect it to, with your "why can't women just admit they're not as good at composition as men are?").
> 
> and don't get mad and say "_this _ attitude is what i'm talking about!", because you are clearly saying something controversial that is considered very sexist and discriminatory. :tiphat:
> 
> ...


You are wrong as usual. I'm going by what the public (and this forum) prefers in general. Maybe the public is sexist based on your definition. Maybe I'm a racist as well for not liking Rap music. Yet I do like some Jazz. But everyones top list are heavily favorited to the male Composers. That's a fact. No way to argue against that point. I'll leave it at that as I'm tired of this argument.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> Or a world where men weren't worried on what they say was considered sexism.


That must be a terrible fear to have to live with. Being actually belittled and dismissed on the basis of your sex certainly pales in comparison with how awful it must feel to be accused of belittling and dismissing other people on the basis of their sex. Thank you for the reminder.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

neoshredder said:


> You are wrong as usual. I'm going by what the public (and this forum) prefers in general. Maybe the public is sexist based on your definition. Maybe I'm a racist as well for not liking Rap music. Yet I do like some Jazz. But everyones top list are heavily favorited to the male Composers. That's a fact. No way to argue against that point. I'll leave it at that as I'm tired of this argument.


"The public" has a history of being sexist, so I wouldn't put it past our society.
But I don't care about what you like, because you can't argue with taste.

The problem I have is when you said "why can't women just admit that they're not as good?", because that makes every point you've stated invalid as your image regresses to that of a toddler. It's like saying "why can't black people just admit that they're not good at music?" just because you aren't fond of many black composers. That's a question (but posted as a statement) that goes beyond taste.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

neoshredder said:


> So you bring up my private life to make up for the lack of women Composers that excel in Classical Music? How convenient. Btw that is borderline report worthy to bring that up.


Some folks just seem to have a huge chip on their shoulder. Maybe their boyfriend doesn't talk to them or something...

Honestly, what is the whole fuss about? The great composers have all been men, so what? They have made music that reflects both male and female soul, emotions, perception of the world (think _Tristan und Isolde_), not only the male one. I'd rather listen to someone male, old and dead, but truly skilled and talented, than to someone who is just considered "great" because of a need to include women among great composers too. As long as the music is glorious, it does not matter who composed it.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Alright I made a mistake by comparing music like it is a sport. Popularity doesn't equal best in music. There is no best in music. Just preferences. My mistake.


----------



## Meaghan (Jul 31, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Some folks just seem to have a juge chip on their shoulder. Maybe their boyfriend doesn't talk to them or something...


"Making fun of the imagined personal lives of people you disagree with is dumb! [Member who did that] must have a lame personal life, ha ha!"

Um...

I mean, not that I'm above ad-homs myself (I made one, as y'all pointed out), but isn't your attitude toward them a little... inconsistent?


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

oogabooha said:


> "The public" has a history of being sexist, so I wouldn't put it past our society.
> But I don't care about what you like, because you can't argue with taste.
> 
> The problem I have is when you said "why can't women just admit that they're not as good?", because that makes every point you've stated invalid as your image regresses to that of a toddler. It's like saying "why can't black people just admit that they're not good at music?" just because you aren't fond of many black composers. That's a question (but posted as a statement) that goes beyond taste.


Tony MacAlpine is one of my favorites. Awesome guitarist and pianist. I also love basketball. And yes I'm very careful when mentioning anything about black people. I guess I should do the same with women.


----------



## arpeggio (Oct 4, 2012)

*some of my favorites*

I thought I would add some of my favorites that have not yet been mentioned yet:

Cindy McTee: 




Libby Larsen: 




Carolyn Bremer's _Early Light_. Our band played this piece at it awsome: 




Jennifer Higdon (I am surprised no has mentioned her since we have had threads that have discussed her music.): 




Melinda Wagner: 




Joan Tower: 



 and 




Elisabeth Lutyens: 




Kaija Saariaho: 




Doreen Carwithen: 




Augusta Read Thomas:


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

violadude said:


> What exactly about women would make them inherently unable to compose as good as a man?


Absolutely nothing.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Here is a little philosophical one though:

In short, we are all human and I think rather than rail against the backwards ones, it works better for me if we proceed with the positive and hope it is more likely to catch on. I may be wrong since I'm not in the business of fighting social injustice in any academic way, or real way for that matter, except with the mentally ill.

There are indeed amazing female composers. I am friends with one, who I have no more trouble admitting is better than me than I would with a guy both in the further along as a student sense, and possibly just plain better.


----------



## violadude (May 2, 2011)

You might as well ask why aren't there more composers that come from African villages. It's not because they are inherently unable to compose but because they don't have access or social privileges to be able to receive the tools necessary to compose music effectively. Just like women have been in a similar position in their respective social communities throughout history. But nowadays, I think the number of great men and great women composers is closing even at a faster rate every day. But not as many people acknowledge contemporary classical as much as old classical anyway.

Well, there are plenty of amazing musicians in African villages, but it's a non-written musical tradition that is largely not recognized in the west, so it's not taken as seriously.


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

neoshredder said:


> You are wrong as usual. I'm going by what the public (and this forum) prefers in general. Maybe the public is sexist based on your definition. Maybe I'm a racist as well for not liking Rap music. Yet I do like some Jazz. But everyones top list are heavily favorited to the male Composers. That's a fact. No way to argue against that point. I'll leave it at that as I'm tired of this argument.


I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: do you think that Bach would be considered as he is if he had not the possibility to study composition?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

violadude said:


> You might as well ask why aren't there more composers that come from African villages. It's not because they are inherently unable to compose but because they don't have access or social privileges to be able to receive the tools necessary to compose music effectively. Just like women have been in a similar position in their respective social communities throughout history. But nowadays, I think the number of great men and great women composers are closing even at a faster rate every day. But not as many people acknowledge contemporary classical as much as old classical anyway.
> 
> Well, there are plenty of amazing musicians in African villages, but it's a non-written musical tradition that is largely not recognized in the west, so it's not taken as seriously.


Why is it so hard for africans to admit that certain things aren't their forte


----------



## MagneticGhost (Apr 7, 2013)

It's not really possible to add much to this discussion that's not already been said.

As has been stated Women throughout history have been under-represented in the arts due to their position in society.
Not just in the Arts but in all professions.
In the late 20th Century this divide has rapidly diminished and there are many fine female composers about now in the early 21st.

But, as others have pointed out. Modern "Classical" music is hardly mainstream. 

In the pop world though Women composers and performers have been highly visible and successful in the last few decades.


----------



## starry (Jun 2, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> Alright I made a mistake by comparing music like it is a sport. Popularity doesn't equal best in music. There is no best in music. Just preferences. My mistake.


There's no best and preferences can be involved with how much you may like in a particular style, but I think music is more than just about preferences it's about learning to appreciate things as well.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

norman bates said:


> it would be fun to make the same question in a world where men had not the possibility to study music for centuries.


Wasn't playing the piano or some other instrument an obligatory part of upper-class female education for at least a couple of centuries?


----------



## norman bates (Aug 18, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Wasn't playing the piano or some other instrument an obligatory part of upper-class female education for at least a couple of centuries?


to play an instrument and to learn composition are different matters, and as I said (if I remember well) in France for instance before the twentieth century the courses of composition were forbidden to women.


----------



## ethanjamesescano (Aug 29, 2012)

norman bates said:


> I'm still waiting for an answer to my question: do you think that Bach would be considered as he is if he had not the possibility to study composition?


Yes, the church will discover him


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Or a world where men weren't worried on what they say was considered sexism. I'll freely admit women are equal to men in the last 20 years of Classical Music. But not before that. It was lopsided for a long time.


But you also implied (or so it seemed to me) that composing music is not women's forte, and that they should be willing to admit that. What did you mean by that? Is composing still not women's forte, or is it different now?


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

neoshredder said:


> Exactly my point. That kind of attitude. Not that there aren't exceptions. Just in general slightly weaker in Composing than men *for whatever reason*. In a perfect world, men in women could be equal. But that's obviously not the case. Some things women do better than men as well. It goes both ways.


"For whatever reason" is the key phrase here, I think, and maybe worth some more reflection on your part. I don't think you're considering that the reason why there are fewer celebrated women composers might _not_ be inherent in the sex of the composer, but rather due to social and cultural forces.


----------



## apricissimus (May 15, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Some folks just seem to have a huge chip on their shoulder. Maybe their boyfriend doesn't talk to them or something...


This is _extremely_ condescending. And you wonder why people are annoyed...


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

So far I think nobody has mentioned that many women (well. men too) may know of better things to do.


----------



## BurningDesire (Jul 15, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> So far I think nobody has mentioned that many women (well. men too) may know of better things to do.


There is nothing better for me than working in music. Composing is _my_ forte.


----------



## oogabooha (Nov 22, 2011)

I don't think that comment was supposed to be taken seriously...


----------



## Neo Romanza (May 7, 2013)

Why are there few women composers? Who cares, but while we're on the topic of women composers here's a compositional voice to keep an eye, and ear, out for: Dobrinka Tabakova










There's a new ECM recording of some of her string music titled _String Paths_ coming out this month that sounds, from the audio samples, quite promising:


----------



## Cheyenne (Aug 6, 2012)

Well, that escalated quickly.. I leave the forum, come back and it's seven pages long.


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

neoshredder said:


> You are wrong as usual. I'm going by what the public (and this forum) prefers in general. Maybe the public is sexist based on your definition. Maybe I'm a racist as well for not liking Rap music. Yet I do like some Jazz. *But everyones top list are heavily favorited to the male Composers.* That's a fact. No way to argue against that point. I'll leave it at that as I'm tired of this argument.


I have noticed that those top lists almost as heavily favor non-American composers. Why is that? Why are there so few American composers of classical music? I guess Americans are just not as creative as Europeans. I'm sure science will eventually be able to explain that fact...


----------



## millionrainbows (Jun 23, 2012)

History has been populated by "male geniuses." CM is very history-based.

CM is also related intimately to the church. The Church is the great bastion of patriarchal power. As Sinnead O'Connor showed, it must be destroyed.

Now, the feminist agenda is to "de-genius" history.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Cheyenne said:


> Well, that escalated quickly.. I leave the forum, come back and it's seven pages long.


A controversial topic. Something I should've stayed out of. But I had to put my hand in the bees nest.  As that Alanis Morissette song goes 'You Live You Learn'. lol


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

Let's try a little word play to clarify some issues here.

Women are weaker than men in composing. 
Men are weaker than men in composing.

When you can see both of those as equally ridiculous, you have achieved enlightenment. Of course, what is actually true in both cases is that the word "some" has been left out. Some women are weaker than men in composing. (Some are quite noticably stronger.) Some men are weaker than other men in composing. 

Why do (some) men have such a hard time using the word "some"?

Time to deal with a real question, a question who's answer might actually improve the world:

Why are so many people unaware of all the fine composers there are, of both sexes?


----------



## Ramako (Apr 28, 2012)

aleazk said:


> Well, as I said, if the question is not formulated in a precise way, you still can collect data. But the interpretation of that data will not give you precise answers.
> Personally, I'm not interested in a study saying that "with our very ill defined and not at all comprehensive definition of 'creativity', we have concluded, after analyzing the empirical data, that males are more creative than females".
> And I'm using the pompous term "scientific method". Forget about that. Think about this "method" in the following way: I have some hypothesis or model about how some system works; this model makes predictions about the behaviour of the system; then I go to reality to check if these predictions are actually true; if this is the case, then I take that as an evidence that my model/hypothesis may be correct. Of course, if my hypothesis are ambiguous, then my conclusions will be ambiguous too, i.e., meaningless as conclusions then.


I feel we must be talking at cross purposes. Let me clarify by saying I think an actual study attempting to gather empirical results comparing creativity between males and females would not give very meaningful results, unless creativity is/becomes better understood as a psychological phenomenon than I am aware of.

Consider the statement: "I like Beethoven". It's not based on precisely defined notions, but it is supported by evidence and it communicates content - i.e. is meaningful (if not particularly profound).

This thread is about creativity in the context of historically 'significant' figures. This is actually pretty easy to get a general feel for, and can be analysed somewhat more precisely than whether one likes a composer's music or not. Question, evidence and conclusion I think must all be of a similar level of precision otherwise an imbalance will result, and this seems to me a question which can be answered on an intuitive level. Yes, if you question it too much you can't define it that well. But then the same can be said for many things.


----------



## Guest (Jun 12, 2013)

OP asks, "Why are there few women composers?"



ethanjamesescano said:


> Not only in music, but also in Science.
> I don't think it has something to do with discrimination or religion
> Religion only _suggest_ that woman should stay with her children.
> It has nothing to do with _strength_
> ...


I'm not sure whether to take this as an honest question and try to offer an honest response. Fellow posters are supposed to, aren't they, and not leap to the assumption that the question is, at best naive, at worst, deliberately provocative?

Anyway, others have, I think already done better than I could to offer a considered response, at least on the composer issue, if not the science issue. I have to say that my instinct is to treat the OP as Hilltroll does below.



Hilltroll72 said:


> While men are busy doing _manly_ things, women are left with the job of keeping civilization functioning. The job is mentally/emotionally tiring. No time left for dilettante stuff like composing.
> 
> Personally I have been working for several decades to destroy civilization; women have thwarted me at every turn.


LOL!


----------

