# Favorite Gay Composers



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

The other thread about gay composers is focused more on the music of gay composers and if there are stylistic differences, and unfortunately contains too many arguments. I want to make a new thread to focus on the music of [known to be] gay composers that we enjoy.

I've recently gotten more into the music of Karol Szymanowski (1882-1937). His style evolved out of Scriabin and Wagner, and shifted toward a more "impressionistic" or "Modern" idiom when he discovered Persian poetry. This sparked a new wave of creativity in his output, and lead to The Love Songs of Hafiz, as well as his beloved Symphony no. 3, "The Song of the Night". His "middle period" is full of music inspired by Mediterranean and Middle Eastern cultures, similar to the "exoticism" seen in Debussy and Ravel's music at the time. His opera, Król Rodger (King Roger) was a cumulation of this period, encompassing different themes of beauty, ecstasy, and the cultural melting pot of the Mediterranean. Near the end of his life, he had looked back to his Polish routes, and a new sense of personal voice from Nationalism caused him to shift his music to more distinctly Polish character. His 20 Mazurkas for piano, Stabat Mater, and ballet Harnasie, all come from this period.

My personal favorite works by this composer, which I've heard so far, are the Love Songs of Hafiz op.26, Symphonies 3 and 4 (the 4th is a sinfonia concertante for piano and orchestra), 3 Mythes for violin and piano, 3 Paganini caprices for violin and piano, and his first string quartet.

P.S. a composer's sexuality is just one arbitrary aspect of division made for this specific thread, just like a thread for favorite women composers, or favorite Italian composers, what have you. Nothing more, nothing less.


----------



## Bayreuth (Jan 20, 2015)

Oh dear...........


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Oh dear, oh dear, another can off worms


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

I'll go for Reynaldo Hahn, as much for his performances as for his compositions. I love his characterful interpretations and the flexibility and distinctiveness of his voice, small and dry though it was. 'Le pauvre laboureur' and his own beautiful song 'La barcheta' are my favourites.

I don't know huge amounts about his life, though he is often mentioned as having been the lover and then the close friend of Marcel Proust, hence his place in the Gay Composers pantheon.


----------



## Figleaf (Jun 10, 2014)

Oops, I see Cosmos has made a very similar post already over on the other Gay Composers thread- though with an additional disparaging remark about Hahn's piano concerto. I have never knowingly sat through an entire concerto for anything by anyone, so will have to bow to superior knowledge! 



Cosmos said:


> Reynaldo Hahn is another gay composer, Venezuelan/French who was also in love with Marcel Proust for a time. He wrote some beautiful art-songs, and a charming, though not very interesting, piano concerto.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Figleaf said:


> Oops, I see Cosmos has made a very similar post already over on the other Gay Composers thread- though with an additional disparaging remark about Hahn's piano concerto. I have never knowingly sat through an entire concerto for anything by anyone, so will have to bow to superior knowledge!


It's not a bad work. It's got some lovely moments, great for a spring or summer day


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Karol Szymanowski is my favourite gay composer too.
I think his music is very nice to listen to.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2016)

Other than Bernstein and Barber, honestly, I couldn't tell you any gay composers off the top of my head. My main interest in music tends to be from the late Romantic period backwards - much modern music doesn't interest me. Prior to the 20th century, less gay people were willing to come out of the closet, so whether any composers I enjoy were gay is harder to determine. But it makes no difference to me. If the music is good, the music is good. So - of the two that I know are gay, I'd have to say Barber is my favorite.


----------



## Guest (Mar 31, 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:LGBT_composers

Top 10 From This List:

1. John Cage
2. Michael Finnissy
3. Benjamin Britten
4. Harry Partch
5. Jean Barraqué
6. Francis Poulenc
7. Charles Wuorinen
8. Peter Maxwell Davies
9. Sylvano Bussotti
10. Pauline Oliveros

Roughly speaking.


----------



## Gouldanian (Nov 19, 2015)

Tchaikovsky without a doubt.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

Another for Tchaikovsky, among my all time favorites gay or straight. I enjoy Saint Saens and Britten very much as well. 

Is it definitively known that Schubert was gay?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

From the same list as nathanb's post above. The top 2 are probably correct. The others are approximate.

1) Tchaikovsky
2) Ades
3) Copland
4) Barber
5) Britten
6) Poulenc
7) Liebermann
8) Szymanowski
9) Hahn
10) Tippett


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> Is it definitively known that Schubert was gay?


Every composer who never married or had children was gay.


----------



## Chronochromie (May 17, 2014)

If gay here includes bisexual, then Poulenc, no doubt. One of my favorite composers of the 20th century and of all time. Barber and Szymanowski are pretty great too.



clavichorder said:


> Is it definitively known that Schubert was gay?


No.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

clavichorder said:


> Is it definitively known that Schubert was gay?


Interesting piece for some of the unspeakable nonsense it reports:

http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/a...gay-if-he-was-so-what-debate-turns-testy.html

For example: 'The second movement of the "Unfinished" Symphony had been analyzed to show its possible homosexual character by the feminist musicologist Susan McClary.'


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

DavidA said:


> Interesting piece for some of the unspeakable nonsense it reports:
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/1992/02/04/a...gay-if-he-was-so-what-debate-turns-testy.html
> 
> For example: 'The second movement of the "Unfinished" Symphony had been analyzed to show its possible homosexual character by the feminist musicologist Susan McClary.'


That sounds more like she needed to publish something for a paycheck :/

Anyway, I love Schubert, but there's no reason to believe him to be a gay composer, very little to suggest he was even Bi as people pointed out.


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

DrMike said:


> Prior to the 20th century, less gay people were willing to come out of the closet, so whether any composers I enjoy were gay is harder to determine. But it makes no difference to me. If the music is good, the music is good.


That about sums it up for me too.

I suspect that a good number of famous composers from previous centuries will have been gay even though they may have been married and had families. We don't know for sure and it makes no difference.

But from the ones we know of, Tchaik, Britten and Poulenc. I'd bet Ravel too and if it ever came to light, he'd be top of the list for sure.


----------



## Richannes Wrahms (Jan 6, 2014)

Boulez (allegedly), presumably asexual, probably French too.


----------



## Guest (Apr 1, 2016)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Boulez (allegedly), presumably asexual, probably French too.


Asexual doesn't even begin to describe it. Boulez was, in fact, the first of the Atonalist Cabal's androids to be both weaponized and mobilized. Sent out into the world from a secret laboratory on a remote volcanic island with one mission and one mission only: kill music, leave no survivors, destroy the evidence, and return to base.

Of course, Tonalist agent Johnathan Williams feared for some of the music of the previous eras and started aggressively copying the music for the purpose of preservation. One day, he accidentally hit Ctrl+V with a Dvorak passage on the clipboard and realized he could make new music that way.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Richannes Wrahms said:


> Boulez (allegedly), presumably asexual, probably French too.


He looked that way also


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Gouldanian said:


> Tchaikovsky without a doubt.


Pure and simple.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Pugg said:


> He looked that way also


With that comb over he definitely cared about his looks and wanted probably to impress on someone.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sloe said:


> With that comb over he definitely cared about his looks and wanted probably to impress on someone.


Could be possible


----------



## Belowpar (Jan 14, 2015)

Sloe said:


> Every composer who never married or had children was gay.


You could be onto something here. I think we should add to the list any composer who wrote before getting married as they are obviously bi.

Getting right to the point someone tried to convince me Elton John was gay, but Iwas able to factually rebut that. For cryin' out loud the man has been married twice and has kids!


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

nathanb said:


> Asexual doesn't even begin to describe it. Boulez was, in fact, the first of the Atonalist Cabal's androids to be both weaponized and mobilized. Sent out into the world from a secret laboratory on a remote volcanic island with one mission and one mission only: kill music, leave no survivors, destroy the evidence, and return to base.
> 
> Of course, Tonalist agent Johnathan Williams feared for some of the music of the previous eras and started aggressively copying the music for the purpose of preservation. One day, he accidentally hit Ctrl+V with a Dvorak passage on the clipboard and realized he could make new music that way.


Good lord! God help us all! He and the gangsta rappers must be stopped! Is it too late?

As an aside, I tend to believe Ravel was asexual. Not sure why.


----------



## Andolink (Oct 29, 2012)

Michael Finnissy is my favorite openly gay composer.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

My favourite gay composer is Tchaikovsky (however the Russians try to rewrite history). 

Others would be Szymanowski, Britten, Poulenc, Barber, Copland and Corigliano.

And, in a lighter vein, Bernstein, Sondheim and Cole Porter.


----------



## Delicious Manager (Jul 16, 2008)

Some gay composers whose music I enjoy on a regular basis:

Thomas Adès
Benjamin Britten
John Corigliano
Manuel de Falla
Charles Tomlinson Griffes
Hans Werner Henze
Jean-Baptiste Lully
Jacob Obrecht
Francis Poulenc
Stephen Sondheim
Karol Szymanowski
Pyotr' Tchaikovsky
Michael Tippett


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Curious. Anyone know a good straight theme with gay variations I could listen to?


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Curious. Anyone know a good straight theme with gay variations I could listen to?


:lol: If you mean a theme by a straight composer with variations by a gay composer,


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Cosmos said:


> :lol: If you mean a theme by a straight composer with variations by a gay composer,


You beat me by a few minutes regarding this:tiphat:


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> :lol: If you mean a theme by a straight composer with variations by a gay composer,


No. I want a composer composing a theme in "straight" style followed by variations in "gay" style. Composers have been doing these kinds of things for years-mimicking other styles, such as "neoclassicism".

I've blocked in Sunday from 2PM to 3PM to listen.

Curious to hear how one can distinguish a gay musical style from straight.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

hpowders said:


> No. I want a composer composing a theme in "straight" style followed by variations in "gay" style. Composers have been doing these kinds of things for years-mimicking other styles, such as "neoclassicism".


Well of course there's no such thing as a gay or straight style, just like there's no difference between a men or women style.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> Well of course there's no such thing as a gay or straight style, just like there's no difference between a men or women style.


So then what in heaven's name would be the point of this thread?

What difference does it make if a composer happens/happened to be gay or straight?


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

hpowders said:


> So then what in heaven's name would be the point of this thread?
> 
> What difference does it make if a composer happens/happened to be gay or straight?


Well, I wanted it to be about the music of composers who were/are gay, that's it. And since homosexuality is something that some people try to pretend doesn't exist, or is wrong, and because some of these composers could have struggled with it in their lives, I just felt it an interesting historic note.

Like if this were a thread about favorite women composers. Not like all women from history have a specific "woman" style, just a historic note.


----------



## Nereffid (Feb 6, 2013)

Cosmos said:


> Well, I wanted it to be about the music of composers who were/are gay, that's it. And since homosexuality is something that some people try to pretend doesn't exist, or is wrong, and because some of these composers could have struggled with it in their lives, I just felt it an interesting historic note.
> 
> Like if this were a thread about favorite women composers. Not like all women from history have a specific "woman" style, just a historic note.


I'm OK with having these threads, but I do think there's some difference, discussion-wise, between "gay composers" and "female composers". Not wishing in any way to diminish the very real discrimination (and worse) faced by gay people, but as this thread demonstrates, it's easier to find gay composers among the historical "greats" than it is to find women. Women haven't had the luxury (heavy irony intended) of being able to get by by concealing their true selves, so the historical context is perhaps more significant for a discussion of female composers. Once we've dispensed with the idea that there's a "gay" style or a "female" style, then a thread talking about favourite gay composers doesn't seem much more useful than, say, a thread about "favourite composers who liked brunettes".


----------



## kanishknishar (Aug 10, 2015)

hpowders said:


> So then what in heaven's name would be the point of this thread?
> 
> What difference does it make if a composer happens/happened to be gay or straight?


Oh snap!

"He really waited for this one, John. Got everyone in without anyone realizing it. And then he just pulled that firecracker!"


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

I should mention Arcangelo Correlli. His opus 6 concertos are very popular.


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Chordalrock said:


> Gombert may or may not have touched a kid inappropriately, but he didn't support with taxes and work regimes that bomb women and children for profit, abuse animals on an industrial scale so people can eat themselves fat, pollute the environment, etc. etc.


I hope that the above statement is not an attempt to minimize the atrocity of pedophile activity.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Bulldog said:


> I hope that the above statement is not an attempt to minimize the atrocity of pedophile activity.


Don't get drawn in, B - Chordalrock's better than that one inflammatory post.


----------



## D Smith (Sep 13, 2014)

hpowders said:


> So then what in heaven's name would be the point of this thread?
> 
> What difference does it make if a composer happens/happened to be gay or straight?


+1 on this. This thread is pretty pointless.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I wasn't intending to comment on this post, considering that unless "gayness" has some applicability to compositional style it matters not. I'm doubtful that differences between even heterosexual males and females can be divined from musical compositions.

So ... I'll wait for the post which will ask about my favorite composers by way of eye/hair color, height, weight, and propensity towards having twin toes.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

Bulldog said:


> I hope that the above statement is not an attempt to minimize the atrocity of pedophile activity.


My message was an obvious attempt to put things into perspective. Like, why is animal abuse not an issue while child abuse is a big deal? Adult pigs, for example, are as sentient, conscious, as capable of suffering, and probably about as intelligent as small human children. Why is it OK to abuse one but not the other? Sorry if you find actual measured, rigorous thinking on this topic difficult to appreciate.


----------



## Chordalrock (Jan 21, 2014)

elgars ghost said:


> Don't get drawn in, B - Chordalrock's better than that one inflammatory post.


People who have no arguments shouldn't comment in the first place. I find all this socially induced outrage at very select things grotesque while these same people go into denial about things of greater ethical significance. I dare say there's not been a human child in this generation who has had an existence as miserable as the average dairy animal.


----------



## mstar (Aug 14, 2013)

D Smith said:


> +1 on this. This thread is pretty pointless.


I think it was more of an anti-discrimination statement, but I could be wrong.


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

Sloe said:


> Every composer who never married or had children was gay.


Beethoven? Brahms?


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

I can't wait for the "favorite zoophiliac composers" thread.


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

mstar said:


> I think it was more of an anti-discrimination statement, but I could be wrong.


In a way, it kind of was. But if so many people think it's pointless, no big deal.

So, to all of the people who think this thread is so pointless, why not just ignore it and let it die out? Why come here to post about how much you don't care? Idk, usually when I see a thread I don't care about, I just ignore it.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

> +1 on this. This thread is pretty pointless.


And here we are, still going


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Triplets said:


> Beethoven? Brahms?


Some people think they were.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Sloe said:


> Some people think they were.


They do? Who? I'm quite familiar with biographies and opinion on Beethoven, but can't recall a whiff of this!


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Sorry Tchaikovsky, but Felix Mendelssohn-Bartholdy (1809-1847) is and always will be my number one gay composer.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

KenOC said:


> They do? Who? I'm quite familiar with biographies and opinion on Beethoven, but can't recall a whiff of this!


Here is something about Beethoven´s alleged homosexuality:

http://www.williamapercy.com/wiki/index.php?title=Gay_Music:_The_Case_of_Beethoven's_Ode_to_Joy

Some people want to use whatever they can to prove that a certain historical figure was gay.
He had a male friend, he lived with another man, he never married etc.


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Beethoven wasn't gay.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven wasn't gay.


Of cause he wasn't :tiphat:


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

ArtMusic said:


> Beethoven wasn't gay.


This youtube video says Beethoven was gay.

I have also read on another music forum that someone have heard from another that Brahms had a homosexual relationship.

Then it must be true.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> This youtube video says Beethoven was gay.
> 
> I have also read on another music forum that someone have heard from another that Brahms had a homosexual relationship.
> 
> Then it must be true.


What utter tripe people make up. There is absolutely nothing to say Beethoven was gay unless you take being a frustrated bachelor who always fancied women above his station as a sign.
Brahms tended to shun abiding sexual relationships with women (including Clara Schumann who he loved) but was famously devoted to prostitutes. Nothing to say he was gay.


----------



## Guest (Apr 2, 2016)

I bet he helped them out when they were busy.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> frustrated bachelor .


Frustrated bachelor because his homosexuality was not accepted.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> Frustrated bachelor because his homosexuality was not accepted.


Evidence please?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

DavidA said:


> Evidence please?


He never married and lived with his nephew.
That is enough evidence.


----------



## joen_cph (Jan 17, 2010)

As a minimum, the concepts of asexuality, bisexuality and sublimation should be mentioned here, to just a little bit balance the massive prejudices that are being presented.

(posted on the 2nd of April, BTW)


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Sloe said:


> He never married and lived with his nephew.
> That is enough evidence.


But all his known love interests were female, and he proposed marriage to women (gasp!), but got turned down. He later gave up looking for love and decided to focus all of his energy and passion on music.

Not gay. Just not good in the romance department, so he had no choice.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> He never married and lived with his nephew.
> That is enough evidence.


Evidence? Oh dear!


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

Haydn was clearly gay. He wrote a lot of happy music and as we all know happy is just another word for gay.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

ArtMusic said:


> I should mention Arcangelo Correlli. His opus 6 concertos are very popular.


What's the scoop on Corelli? Never heard about that. De Falla is also news to me, but I am more inclined to believe it since he was active in the 20th century.


----------



## clavichorder (May 2, 2011)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Haydn was clearly gay. He wrote a lot of happy music and as we all know happy is just another word for gay.


OMG who are you and what is up with that username? LOL.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Bernstein and Copland.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

clavichorder said:


> What's the scoop on Corelli?


He was never married.
He had male friends.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> But all his known love interests were female, and he proposed marriage to women (gasp!), but got turned down. He later gave up looking for love and decided to focus all of his energy and passion on music.
> 
> Not gay. Just not good in the romance department, so he had no choice.


Because his male love interests were secret.
He proposed to women because he wanted a beard.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet (Aug 31, 2011)

clavichorder said:


> OMG who are you and what is up with that username? LOL.


Just having some fun with a silly thread. Username inspired by 2 girls 1 cup (can't remember why now but I guess it seemed like a funny idea at the time).


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Sloe said:


> Because his male love interests were secret.
> He proposed to women because he wanted a beard.


There's no proof.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

TwoFlutesOneTrumpet said:


> Haydn was clearly gay. He wrote a lot of happy music and as we all know happy is just another word for gay.


He did have depression from time to time though, but I guess that didn't stop him from being happy anyway.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I know Haydn had arthritis and used Ben Gay ointment liberally. What more proof do you need?


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

As this is an interesting but of course ridiculous thread I can easily add some more of that (no coherence intended at all).

No straight person would ever start a career in music. Their parents must have warned them too (unless they were gay themselves). But they were too quirky to listen. (Ergo: all musicians must be gay in some way. Sexuality is highly overrrated in defining gender).

*****'s and transgenders seem to be completely absent. Lack of musical genes or what? 

Mozart and Haydn must have been as gay as Abba (looking at preferences of my homosexual friends). Wham!

As we all know Jews, Germans and homosexuals produce 80% of Western culture (in science and arts). In that respect I'm not impressed by the lists of openly homosexual composers presented above. It's not like they rule the musical universe. We seem to have to search for them with a lantern. There are two options: homosexuals are not that musical or of course they chose to shut up and express themselves through (homosexual) music. 







-


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Bernstein and Copland


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

I should mention there's increased discussion about Handel. He kept his private life a complete secret and was never married. There have been a few recent articles and a musicologist claims evidence. But I tend to doubt it.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Richard8655 said:


> I should mention there's increased discussion about Handel. He kept his private life a complete secret and was never married. There have been a few recent articles and a musicologist claims evidence. But I tend to doubt it.


I'm supporting the stand that Handel was asexual.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> There's no proof.


There is no proof he was not secretly gay.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Sloe said:


> There is no proof he was not secretly gay.


And there's no proof anyone is not secretly anything! :lol:


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Sloe said:


> There is no proof he was not secretly gay.


Yes, there was.

Contemporary reports state that he was passionate about women and especially likes looking at pretty ladies' faces. All of his known romantic interests were women. He proposed marriage to several women, but they turned him down because he was - well, one lady (whose name escapes me at the moment) stated that he was "ugly and half crazy", so...

Of course, there always exists the possibility that he may have been bisexual, but it's evident that he was strongly attracted to women and thus he was not gay.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Sloe said:


> There is no proof he was not secretly gay.


So no poof then :lol:


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> I'm supporting the stand that Handel was asexual.


I agree with above.

Handel being interested in women goes a bit counter to what various articles are saying:

"Handel's romantic relationships with women-or, more accurately, the lack of them-are not only a modern concern, however. Handel's first biographer, the clergyman John Mainwaring, deals with the "problem" near the beginning of his account, published in 1760, the year after Handel's death: "In the sequel of his life [Handel] refused the highest favors from the fairest of the sex, only because he would not be confined or cramped by particular attachments." Handel, it seems, was married to his art. Yet his contemporary J. S. Bach was even more prolific than Handel in ever sense: Bach fathered more notes of music and some twenty kids. There was indeed a "problem"."

According to Ellen T. Harris' book, his cantatas exhibit a clear homosexual subtext. She also cites various relationships during visits to Italy in suggesting the possibility.

But to me the evidence is pretty weak. I think the guy was too much into his music to be bothered with much of a personal relationship or life. And he was considered attractive as a younger man, so it wasn't that.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Richard8655 said:


> I agree with above.
> 
> Handel being interested in women goes a bit counter to what various articles are saying:
> 
> ...


Debates like this only take place because of the modern mind's insatiable desire for gossip of every kind. I just cannot understand this obsession with trying to 'prove' that people were gay when there is absolutely no evidence that they were.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Debates like this only take place because of the modern mind's insatiable desire for gossip of every kind. I just cannot understand this obsession with trying to 'prove' that people were gay when there is absolutely no evidence that they were.


Yes, it shouldn't make any difference in the enjoyment and quality of the music. But as with any famous person, biographies are written and people are fascinated with what drives these artistic talents and what is their life story. I suppose one could listen to their music abstractly and not care about the person, but for many the human element of who is this person is of interest to many. Myself included.

I would not say it's about gossip but knowing more about the person you admire. But with so little evidence and much speculation in this case, it may have gone a little overboard.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Richard8655 said:


> Yes, it shouldn't make any difference in the enjoyment and quality of the music. But as with any famous person, biographies are written and people are fascinated with what drives these artistic talents and what is their life story. I suppose one could listen to their music abstractly and not care about the person, but for many the human element of who is this person is of interest to many. Myself included. I would not say it's about gossip but knowing more about the person you admire.


I am all for knowing as much as one can about talented people and what makes them tick. My shelves are bulging with biographies. However, the historian should make the biography fit the facts rather than trying to fit facts into his/her suppositions and prejudices. But then some of these people like Ellen T Harris feel they have to justify their existence. Unfortunately they then become like a historical version of the gossip columnist of Hello Magazine!


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

DavidA said:


> I am all for knowing as much as one can about talented people and what makes them tick. My shelves are bulging with biographies. However, the historian should make the biography fit the facts rather than trying to fit facts into his/her suppositions and prejudices. But then some of these people like Ellen T Harris feel they have to justify their existence. Unfortunately they then become like a historical version of the gossip columnist of Hello Magazine!


Yes, that point of view is valid. I edited my thoughts to reflect some of this.


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Unless composers have been unequivocally open about their sexual orientation, we...(gasp)...cannot know it! All else is speculation. Speculation is a valid human activity, but statements that such and such a composer is / isn't gay when no definitive information is in the public realm are just guesses.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

TurnaboutVox said:


> Unless composers have been unequivocally open about their sexual orientation, we...(gasp)...cannot know it! All else is speculation. Speculation is a valid human activity, but statements that such and such a composer is / isn't gay when no definitive information is in the public realm are just guesses.


Most of this thread is speculation. Tchaikowsky and Bernstein were not openly gay as far as I know. So I guess take it up with the OP for creating!


----------



## TurnaboutVox (Sep 22, 2013)

Richard8655 said:


> Most of this thread is speculation. Tchaikowsky and Bernstein were not openly gay as far as I know. So I guess take it up with the OP for creating!


I have no issue with the OP or the thread topic, but perhaps we could better frame our speculations as such, with supporting evidence, as available...


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

TurnaboutVox said:


> I have no issue with the OP or the thread topic, but perhaps we could better frame our speculations as such, with supporting evidence, as available...


Probably true. That mostly would be up to the author to provide, who is really just being quoted and referenced here. As far as the other posts and composers, I don't know.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Wow, 91 posts and not one person has even mentioned Jennifer Higdon who, apart from being one of the more successful contemporary US composers in terms of commissions and performances, is openly lesbian. So that takes care of the earlier comment about lesbians. As to transgender, I know of one who is very quiet about it so I suspect that there must be more.

Now that I come to think about it, about 6 months or so ago, I saw mention of a transgender TC member who is a composer.

I should mention that my opinion is that unless a work is specifically about the experiences of being LGBT, their personal life is irrelevant.


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

Leonard Bernstein admitted he was gay, two years before his wife, Felicia Montealegre, died.

His gayness is/was not speculation.

Bernstein's own daughter, Jamie, admitted her father was gay.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Becca said:


> Wow, 91 posts and not one person has even mentioned Jennifer Higdon who, apart from being one of the more successful contemporary US composers in terms of commissions and performances, is openly lesbian. So that takes care of the earlier comment about lesbians. As to transgender, I know of one who is very quiet about it so I suspect that there must be more.
> 
> Now that I come to think about it, about 6 months or so ago, I saw mention of a transgender TC member who is a composer.
> 
> I should mention that my opinion is that unless a work is specifically about the experiences of being LGBT, their personal life is irrelevant.


My comment wasn't serious of course in any way. I'm glad you took up the gauntlet and broadened the topic by including lesbians and transgenders!


----------



## techniquest (Aug 3, 2012)

> Leonard Bernstein admitted he was gay, two years before his wife, Felicia Montealegre, died.


I hate the term _'admit'_ in relation to publicly acknowledging ones gayness; it has so many negative connotations i.e you _admit_ to a mistake, wrong-doing or crime; you _admit_ failure or defeat.


----------



## Guest (Apr 4, 2016)

Becca said:


> *Wow, 91 posts and not one person has even mentioned Jennifer Higdon* who, apart from being one of the more successful contemporary US composers in terms of commissions and performances, is openly lesbian. So that takes care of the earlier comment about lesbians. As to transgender, I know of one who is very quiet about it so I suspect that there must be more.
> 
> Now that I come to think about it, about 6 months or so ago, I saw mention of a transgender TC member who is a composer.
> 
> I should mention that my opinion is that unless a work is specifically about the experiences of being LGBT, their personal life is irrelevant.


I assume most posters are only naming composers they actually like.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)




----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

View attachment 83244


Admittedly a bit of a stretch


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

It is a pointless thread but there are thoughtful posts on this pointless thread. It makes no difference if a composer is gay, a woman, black, aborigine, white, or pygmy. Is there music good? That is the only important question. By isolating such a meaningless distinction, one is actually isolating that which so many of the same people claim to want integrated into the main stream. Ironic wouldn't you say?

However, I must admit, that when I was in music management, there was a saying that I thought amusing: _"There are three kinds of professional pianists: Gay pianists, Jewish pianists, and bad pianists."_



Chordalrock said:


> People who have no arguments shouldn't comment in the first place. I find all this socially induced outrage at very select things grotesque while these same people go into denial about things of greater ethical significance. I dare say there's not been a human child in this generation who has had an existence as miserable as the average dairy animal.


Try human children in North Korea, many in China, many in Cuba, and millions more in totalitarian and/or dictatorships around the world. And to equate human suffering with animal suffering shows a certain dysfunction of one's moral compass. I am in no way, shape, or form condoning the mistreatment of animals, but sorry, humans are more important.



Richard8655 said:


> Yes, it shouldn't make any difference in the enjoyment and quality of the music. But as with any famous person, biographies are written and people are fascinated with what drives these artistic talents and what is their life story. I suppose one could listen to their music abstractly and not care about the person, but for many the human element of who is this person is of interest to many. Myself included.
> 
> I would not say it's about gossip but knowing more about the person you admire. But with so little evidence and much speculation in this case, it may have gone a little overboard.


I agree, whether or not someone was gay should be as relevant in someone's biography only insofar as their romantic entanglements/relationships just as it is in any heterosexual's biography.

V


----------



## ArtMusic (Jan 5, 2013)

Richard8655 said:


> I agree with above.
> 
> Handel being interested in women goes a bit counter to what various articles are saying:
> 
> ...


It's open to discussion and speculation. I think the possibility is there but there is no evidence as much as even say, Correlli.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Varick said:


> Try human children in North Korea, many in China, many in Cuba, and millions more in totalitarian and/or dictatorships around the world. And to equate human suffering with animal suffering shows a certain dysfunction of one's moral compass. I am in no way, shape, or form condoning the mistreatment of animals, but sorry, humans are more important.
> V


Although I agree with much you say in your post, I strongly disagree with your reply to Chordalrock on this specific point and the way you disqualify his moral compass. To me it seems it's your morality that has stopped developing over the last 30 (or 2000) years or so and is dysfunctional, to use your own words. It conveys a classical opposition between humans (the important centre of the cosmos) and the rest of the universe (only there for human purposes, although you seem to be in the luxurious position of taking a benign stance on animal welfare). Your morality shows a lack of knowledge about the way human life is completely dependant on how we see ourselves relating to the world and treat all that surrounds us, on which we depend, in sustainable ways. Maybe you're behind on your ecology reading. Try to get a better understanding of the way humans - as biological entities that don't differ that much from the rest - depend on this earth and all living things on it (including animals in agricultural use). Even if it were only to be able to keep doing the great stuf (huh!) we do as humans.


----------



## Dim7 (Apr 24, 2009)

Varick said:


> Try human children in North Korea, many in China, many in Cuba, and millions more in totalitarian and/or dictatorships around the world. And to equate human suffering with animal suffering shows a certain dysfunction of one's moral compass. I am in no way, shape, or form condoning the mistreatment of animals, but sorry, humans are more important.


I definitely see how you could see humans as more important in general, with our intelligence and all that, but it is in no way obvious to me that animal _suffering_ is less important than human suffering.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Morimur said:


>


Picture says more then 1000 words?


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Pugg said:


> Picture says more then 1000 words?


Freud? Churchill? Both serious cigar smokers. Gay? How about Fidel?


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Dim7 said:


> I definitely see how you could see humans as more important in general, with our intelligence and all that, but it is in no way obvious to me that animal _suffering_ is less important than human suffering.


Sam Harris, neuroscientist, philosopher, and author makes a pretty good argument for this. We are certain that bacteria don't experience suffering. They are essentially tiny, unthinking, biological robots. We are even certain that insects don't experience suffering, at least not in any way close to what we feel. They are pretty much just bigger robots with more complicated programming, but the lights aren't on. As animals get more complex, their capacity to experience suffering and well-being increases. Fish experience very little suffering, but maybe a little bit. Birds and reptiles can certainly experience suffering, but to a lesser degree than mammals in general. Mammals as a whole tend to have bigger brains, larger frontal parts of the brain, and the kind of brain structure that would lead to the ability to experience suffering and well-being. Even with mammals there is a scale, with dumb mammals like cows and rabbits on one side, and smarter mammals like pigs, dogs, monkeys and apes (that's us) more toward the other side.

Where this argument leads is that since certain animals are able to experience suffering and well-being more than other animals, that means that one's moral obligation to certain animals is greater than your moral obligation to other animals. This would hold true even if we met aliens with higher capacities for suffering and well-being than us. They would be more valuable than us. Or even if we created an artificial intelligence that had a higher capacity for these things. The hypothetical AI and alien life would be more important than a human life, morally speaking, if one is to remain consistent in this argument.

One may or may not buy this argument, but I find it quite compelling. It in no way minimizes animal suffering, indeed, I think we should do everything we can to alleviate the suffering of any conscious being that is able to experience it. It does, however, give a rationale for why certain conscious beings are more important than other conscious beings.

Also. Clearly there would be a lot of debate about which creature has more or less capacity than another creature. Is a squirrel's life worth less than a mongoose? How about an armadillo? This isn't much of a problem, because while we may not yet, or ever, know exactly the extent that certain species feel pain, that doesn't mean it isn't obvious that a pig has a higher capacity than a salamander.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> Freud? Churchill? Both serious cigar smokers. Gay? How about Fidel?


Freud, impossible to say, Churchill, not a clue, Fidel... who knows


----------



## Varick (Apr 30, 2014)

Casebearer said:


> Although I agree with much you say in your post, I strongly disagree with your reply to Chordalrock on this specific point and the way you disqualify his moral compass. To me it seems it's your morality that has stopped developing over the last 30 (or 2000) years or so and is dysfunctional, to use your own words. *It conveys* a classical opposition between humans (the important centre of the cosmos) and the rest of the universe (only there for human purposes, although you seem to be in the luxurious position of taking a benign stance on animal welfare).


I have conveyed no such thing. You have wrongly assumed much from my comments. My stance that we are the most important animals on this planet is no way in opposition to the rest of the universe. Our morality as humans has stopped developing in the past 50 years or so illustrated by foolishly equating animal life with human life.


Casebearer said:


> Your morality shows a lack of knowledge about the way human life is completely dependant on how we see ourselves relating to the world and treat all that surrounds us, on which we depend, in sustainable ways. Maybe you're behind on your ecology reading. Try to get a better understanding of the way humans - as biological entities that don't differ that much from the rest - depend on this earth and all living things on it (including animals in agricultural use). Even if it were only to be able to keep doing the great stuf (huh!) we do as humans.


My morality shows no lack of knowledge of our relation with the world around us. We are the only ones who can maintain the ecological systems of this earth. The idea that if we humans disappeared off the face of the Earth, then nature would thrive and never be in danger of itself is a myth. We are the caretakers of this Earth and everything around it. Our creator has endowed us with this responsibility. I also believe that we were created in our Maker's image. Animals were not. That also gives us dominion over nature, and makes our lives more valuable. We should use that power with great care and responsibility. We haven't always done this, but to think that we are no more important than animal life is the greatest leap to cheapen the value of human life, which we have done considerably in the past 50 years (at least in Western culture).



Dim7 said:


> I definitely see how you could see humans as more important in general, with our intelligence and all that, but it is in no way obvious to me that animal _suffering_ is less important than human suffering.


We are spiritual beings, created in our Maker's image. Animals are not. That is why our suffering is greater. Anyone who inflicts gratuitous suffering on animals is pure scum, but one who inflicts gratuitous suffering on people is worse.

V


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Varick said:


> We are the only ones who can maintain the ecological systems of this earth. The idea that if we humans disappeared off the face of the Earth, then nature would thrive and never be in danger of itself is a myth. V


We can clear this up with a few questions: 1) How old is the earth? 2) Were there billions of years before the advent of humans when life throve upon the earth? 3) What are the greatest threats to the biosphere today?

Clear answers to those questions will set us on our way.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Strange Magic said:


> We can clear this up with a few questions: 1) How old is the earth? 2) Were there billions of years before the advent of humans when life throve upon the earth? 3) What are the greatest threats to the biosphere today?
> 
> Clear answers to those questions will set us on our way.


I do see your point, however I think there's a few things to consider. There have been about a dozen major extinction events in the course of Earth's history.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event#List_of_extinction_events

The worst of these is the Permian-Triassic extinction event which had, to quote wikipedia "up to 96% of all marine species[5][6] and 70% of terrestrial vertebrate species becoming extinct". It is true that humans very well may be the cause of the next major extinction event. If, however, we succeed at NOT killing ourselves and many other species whether it's through nuclear winter, biological weapons, climate change, or any number of scary possible outcomes, then I think Varick is right. Humans are the only ones anywhere near close to having the capacity to be stewards of an entire planet. We have the power to kill ourselves, but I like to think that we also have the power to save ourselves, and other species from destruction. Even if we do kill ourselves and much of the life on this planet, I think the odds that we'd exterminate all life on Earth to be very remote.

Edit: a good example of how we might serve as good stewards is the fact that a meteor-like extinction that most likely killed the dinosaurs would never happen under our watch. We know of meteors' trajectories thousands of years in advance, and we would know one was coming long before it ever got here. All we'd have to do is nudge it out of the way several years before it hits us, and it's trajectory will end up totally different and just fly right past us. We could do this today.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Dedalus, I concur (mostly): I hold that humankind should regard itself as the curator of a museum planet, but has been botching the job grotesquely, mostly through the pernicious, metastatic growth of human populations. But I am anxious to get Varick's answers to my questions.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Varick said:


> We are spiritual beings, created in our Maker's image. Animals are not. That is why our suffering is greater. Anyone who inflicts gratuitous suffering on animals is pure scum, but one who inflicts gratuitous suffering on people is worse.
> 
> V


Just to make it clear that I don't agree with Varick on everything, I want to point out that humans are animals. You come to the same conclusion that I do (maltreatment of (edit:non-human) animals is bad, maltreatment of humans is worse) but from a completely different direction. I personally find the argument I put forth, that I lifted from Sam Harris, much more compelling as it doesn't rely on the unfalsifiable assertion of us being "spiritual" beings, whatever that means, and that other animals aren't "spiritual" beings, whatever that means.

And what if we encountered aliens that were more advanced in every way than us? Would you just say they must be "spiritual" beings as well? Or would you say they aren't spiritual, and thus mistreating humans is worse than mistreating these aliens? I'm just not sure how a person would make that call.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

I would approach this from another perspective: the inflicting of suffering by humans (sentient beings) upon other creatures, if done as a conscious, deliberate act and having no "greater" purpose, is wrong. There is no better, no worse here. Is it more vile to torture a human than a chimpanzee? We have choice. A cat playing with a mouse does not.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

Can I ask what the learned discussion above has to do with the subject under discussion?


----------



## Guest (Apr 6, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Can I ask what the learned discussion above has to do with the subject under discussion?


I've no idea but my severely dysfunctional moral compass is telling me to stay out of it.


----------



## Richard8655 (Feb 19, 2016)

Varick said:


> We are spiritual beings, created in our Maker's image. Animals are not. That is why our suffering is greater. Anyone who inflicts gratuitous suffering on animals is pure scum, but one who inflicts gratuitous suffering on people is worse.
> V


I'm sorry, but what a bunch of anthropocentric baloney. This is why humans in their self-designated superiority have abused the planet and driven many animals to extinction. How sad that in this day and age people still think this way. Middle Ages all over again.


----------



## Morimur (Jan 23, 2014)

Richard8655 said:


> I'm sorry, but what a bunch of anthropocentric baloney. This is why humans in their self-designated superiority have abused the planet and driven many animals to extinction. How sad that in this day and age people still think this way. Middle Ages all over again.


Your statement is an _opinion_ among _many_.


----------



## Becca (Feb 5, 2015)

Dedalus said:


> Edit: a good example of how we might serve as good stewards is the fact that a meteor-like extinction that most likely killed the dinosaurs would never happen under our watch. *We know of meteors' trajectories thousands of years in advance,* and we would know one was coming long before it ever got here. All we'd have to do is nudge it out of the way several years before it hits us, and it's trajectory will end up totally different and just fly right past us. We could do this today.


Unfortunately this is not accurate...
_In the United States, NASA has a congressional mandate to catalogue all NEOs that are at least 1 kilometer wide, as the impact of such an object would be catastrophic. As of June 2015, there have been 872 NEAs larger than 1 km discovered, of which 153 are potentially hazardous. It was estimated in 2006 that 20% of the mandated objects have not yet been found. As a result of NEOWISE in 2011, it is *estimated* that 93% of the NEAs larger than 1 km have been found and that only about 70 remain to be discovered. The inventory is much less complete for smaller objects, which still have potential for large scale damage._

70 is still a lot and it only takes 1. As to the nudge, theoretically yes, practically not nearly so easy. First of all you have to have something ready to go and then you need to get it into the right orbit to deflect the object. As seen with some recent exploratory missions, this can literally take years.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

dogen said:


> I've no idea but my severely dysfunctional moral compass is telling me to stay out of it.


You're right. We have left the already totally exhausted subject of gay composers far behind. It is time, though, to discuss left-handed composers, as there may be some left brain/right brain divergence revealing itself in the music. But that is for another thread entirely.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Becca said:


> 70 is still a lot and it only takes 1.


Absolutely right. In addition, an object that may threaten us in a few years might still be so far away that it has not been detected at all and is in fact undetectable with current technology. The estimate of 70 undetected dangerous near earth objects may take those into account, but I don't know how such an estimate could possibly be made with confidence.

The good news: 2012 came and went without incident.


----------



## Dedalus (Jun 27, 2014)

Becca said:


> Unfortunately this is not accurate...
> _In the United States, NASA has a congressional mandate to catalogue all NEOs that are at least 1 kilometer wide, as the impact of such an object would be catastrophic. As of June 2015, there have been 872 NEAs larger than 1 km discovered, of which 153 are potentially hazardous. It was estimated in 2006 that 20% of the mandated objects have not yet been found. As a result of NEOWISE in 2011, it is *estimated* that 93% of the NEAs larger than 1 km have been found and that only about 70 remain to be discovered. The inventory is much less complete for smaller objects, which still have potential for large scale damage._
> 
> 70 is still a lot and it only takes 1. As to the nudge, theoretically yes, practically not nearly so easy. First of all you have to have something ready to go and then you need to get it into the right orbit to deflect the object. As seen with some recent exploratory missions, this can literally take years.


This very well may be. The fact remains that humans are infinitely more equipped to deal with this contingency than bonobos or dolphins are. Huge meteoric strikes appear to be a pretty rare event, given that the last one happened around 65 million years ago. Just to put this into perspective, recorded history goes back maybe 5 thousand years or so? In any case, the amount of time since we stopped being hunter gatherers and turned into agrarian societies with homes really is a blip on this kind of timescale. Where I'm getting is that, if what you said is true (I have no reason to doubt it) then waiting another 100 years to perfect meteor diverting technology is probably just fine. Heck, even another thousand years, ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years, or a million years are likely to pass without one of these events happening based on what we know of the past events on Earth. I suspect 100 years is all it will take, however, given the acceleration of technological advances that doesn't show any signs of stopping.

My ultimate point is still this: humans are the only ones with anything close to the capacity to save the Earth from any number of disasters. By the same token, we're the only ones with the ability to actually create extinction events, and we are arguably well on our way to doing so. So yes, we have the power to kill ourselves and drag a large portion of Earth's other denizens with us, but if we pull our collective heads out of our asses maybe we won't do that. If we get serious, we can be excellent custodians of Earth.

Edit: I'm also well aware of how off topic this is. The conversation sort of organically shifted to this topic, and I find it to be an interesting topic so I can't help but contribute my thoughts.


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

Dedalus said:


> ...then waiting another 100 years to perfect meteor diverting technology is probably just fine. Heck, even another thousand years, ten thousand years, a hundred thousand years, or a million years are likely to pass without one of these events happening based on what we know of the past events on Earth.


Feeling lucky, pilgrim?  But I absolutely agree with you that we're more likely to be the problem than to encounter the problem! There are those who say it's too late already. That's a depressing thought.


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

If Vincenzo Bellini was not gay (I've heard he was gay and I've heard he was bisexual; no one seems to know for sure), then Tchaikovsky, without a doubt.


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Debates like this only take place because of the modern mind's insatiable desire for gossip of every kind.


According to the book I'm currently reading, not only is the desire for 'gossip' not modern, it was essential to our evolution.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150227-where-did-gossiping-come-from


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> According to the book I'm currently reading, not only is the desire for 'gossip' not modern, it was essential to our evolution.
> 
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/story/20150227-where-did-gossiping-come-from


Must confess these theories are amusing! But then these peopke have to make a living! :lol:


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Must confess these theories are amusing! But then these peopke have to make a living! :lol:


Went away to check the book title (and make breakfast...)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/1846558239

What I've read so far seems entirely plausible.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

MacLeod said:


> Went away to check the book title (and make breakfast...)
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/1846558239
> 
> What I've read so far seems entirely plausible.


As I say, these guys have to make a living! :lol:


----------



## Meyerbeer Smith (Mar 25, 2016)

Mussorgsky
Saint-Saens
Tchaikovsky 
Bellini

Beethoven
:devil:


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

KenOC said:


> Feeling lucky, pilgrim?  But I absolutely agree with you that we're more likely to be the problem than to encounter the problem! There are those who say it's too late already. That's a depressing thought.


This 1968 essay in the journal of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, was the most important work on the problem of overpopulation since Malthus. _The Tragedy of the Commons_, by Garrett Hardin, was a bucket of ice-cold water on the futurists and dreamers of a Better Tomorrow; instead we have the extinction of species after species, global warming, even fundamental changes in the chemistry of sea water. Meanwhile, population growth continues unabated, but it has become The Problem Nobody Ever Talks About. Almost 50 years later, _Tragedy_ remains as relevant today as it was then. Required reading.

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/162/3859/1243.full


----------



## Guest (Apr 7, 2016)

DavidA said:


> Must confess these theories are amusing! But then these peopke have to make a living! :lol:


Which theories are amusing to you?


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

For want of anything better to do I'll add my list. No real surprises here (with the choices, I mean). I won't include Bernstein seeing he had a foot on either side of the line, so to speak.

Britten/Copland/Tchaikovsky/Henze/Tippett/Rorem/Adès/Poulenc


----------



## Bellinilover (Jul 24, 2013)

SimonTemplar said:


> Mussorgsky
> Saint-Saens
> Tchaikovsky
> Bellini
> ...


_Beethoven_ was gay? According to Professor Robert Greenberg, he was constantly falling in love with women. What about the "immortal beloved"?


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Bellinilover said:


> _Beethoven_ was gay? According to Professor Robert Greenberg, he was constantly falling in love with women. What about the "immortal beloved"?


According to some people he had a relationship with his nephew and just like Bellini he never married which is enough for a lot of people to believe he was gay.


----------



## Abraham Lincoln (Oct 3, 2015)

Sloe said:


> According to some people he had a relationship with his nephew and just like Bellini he never married which is enough for a lot of people to believe he was gay.


Decision not to get married =/= homosexuality

Sometimes some people just can't get a date.


----------



## Sloe (May 9, 2014)

Abraham Lincoln said:


> Decision not to get married =/= homosexuality
> 
> Sometimes some people just can't get a date.


Even if you are the most popular living composer?


----------



## Cosmos (Jun 28, 2013)

Sloe said:


> Even if you are the most popular living composer?


He was considered unattractive and ill tempered. To be fair, sure, not marrying _could_ suggest the _possibility_. But since we don't have anything concrete beyond speculation, it would be a bit dishonest to just assume that possibility was true.

My original post was calling for a discussion people's favorite music of _known to be gay_ composers, and so I'd rather focus on what we know rather than what some people speculate.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

Cosmos said:


> My original post was calling for a discussion people's favorite music of _known to be gay_ composers, and so I'd rather focus on what we know rather than what some people speculate.


Well, if that's all you're asking, then it's Tchaikovsky and Poulenc. All finished.


----------



## Casebearer (Jan 19, 2016)

Strange Magic said:


> We can clear this up with a few questions: 1) How old is the earth? 2) Were there billions of years before the advent of humans when life throve upon the earth? 3) What are the greatest threats to the biosphere today?
> 
> Clear answers to those questions will set us on our way.


I've kept silent because the essential questions were put forward here. As answers fail to appear, I'll answer these myself:
1. Very old 
2. Yes
3. Humans

The whole idea of humans being the only creatures that can save the earth when it's in trouble might be true in a technical sense. (Mainly because I see no other candidates). That doesn't mean we'll be effective though. We might underestimate the threats and overestimate our ability to get the social support for what it takes.

More importantly: 'human stewardship' is a nice religiously inspired political "idea" I myself was attracted to very long ago but it lacks any reality and we see no historical evidence of mankind acting as a responsible steward of the earth and what's living on it. In my opinion this convenient idea is used mainly to cover up the mess we make so we can continue what we're doing and still be 'moral and spiritual' animals.

PS. No disrespect meant to the topic starter at all and the ones that merely engage in gay gossip but some of us really care about this subject. I wouldn't mind to have it being kicked out to a separate thread though.


----------



## Tsaraslondon (Nov 7, 2013)

Strange Magic said:


> Well, if that's all you're asking, then it's Tchaikovsky and Poulenc. All finished.


Not that easy since the Russians decided to rewrite history. Apparently Tchaikovsky wasn't gay.


----------



## Balthazar (Aug 30, 2014)

To the OP, I'll go with power couple Samuel Barber and Gian Carlo Menotti who met as teenagers while students at the Curtis Institute. Their partnership extended to professional collaborations, notably Barber's opera _Vanessa_, for which Menotti wrote the libretto.


----------



## dgee (Sep 26, 2013)

I'll lazily not go through the thread, but here are some known gay composers I enjoy:

Henze
Bussotti
Tippett (what a mixed bag, but some good music in there)
George Benjamin
Julian Anderson
Finnissy
Andrew Norman

And some I don't really like that much:

Ades
Richard Rodney Bennett
Peter Maxwell Davies
David Diamond
Lou Harrison
Ned Rorem


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

Balthazar said:


> To the OP, I'll go with power couple Samuel Barber and Gian Carlo Menotti who met as teenagers while students at the Curtis Institute. Their partnership extended to professional collaborations, notably Barber's opera _Vanessa_, for which Menotti wrote the libretto.


And what a masterpiece they made :tiphat:


----------



## Petwhac (Jun 9, 2010)

MacLeod said:


> Went away to check the book title (and make breakfast...)
> 
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/Sapiens-A-Brief-History-Humankind/dp/1846558239
> 
> What I've read so far seems entirely plausible.


One of the best and most enlightening books I've read in a long time!


----------

