One of the positive trends in recent decades has been the slow but steadily increasing in tempo inclusion of more and more former outlier groups into the mainstream of culture and society. Gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation have all lessened as barriers to such inclusion, and we are richer for the change. The explosion of female rock and pop artists in the 1980s and 1990s, after a slower increase in the preceding decades, was one such manifestation. The Rolling Stone Book of Women in Rock, 1997, helped document the phenomenon. The #MeToo movement of right now is an even more powerful phenomenon, and can result in wonderful improvements in many aspects of human life unprecedented in history. This is one area where the future looks bright, if only we can hold onto the gains.

 

To avoid too much thread drift in the 'Female Composers' discussion - aiming to celebrate and promote them, not discuss gender (in)equality), I've started this instead.

I reuse this quote from http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/arti...t-island-discsTo those who say that "No one is preventing women in becoming composers and composing music." I would ask for some evidence to support their assertion.

While I am sure that there is still some resistance to women becoming composers, the biggest issue is the problem in getting their works performed.

 

There's no question about it . Women now play a greater role in classical music than ever before ,w whether as composers, conductors ,members orchestras or arts administrators etc . This is certainly a good thing .
If you look at photos of or televised concerts of say, the New York Philharmonic under Bernstein , the orchestra was almost 100 % male , with maybe one or two women at most . Today, there are numerous women in it in virtually all sections . There are even women in the brass section now, which is unprecedented for the orchestra .
The same is true with orchestras everywhere , even the conservative Vienna Philharmonic .
Until recent years , there were very few women conductors . But now we have Marin Alsop as music director of the Baltimore symphony , the Sao Paulo symphony in Brazil, and she's just been appointed to head the radio orchestra in ultra-conservative Vienna .
Joann Falletta , whom I have played under, has been dong terrific work with the Buffalo Philharmonic , recording interested off beat repertoire for Naxos , for example, and both Alsop and Falletta have appeared with leading orchestras all over America, Europe and elsewhere .
Susanna Malkki of Finland is now music director of the Helsinki Philharmonic and made an acclaimed Met debut conducting Kaaia Saariaho's opera "L'Amour De Lointain " not long ago, only the second opera by a female composer performed there .
The young Lithuanian conductor Mirga Grzynite-Tyla is now music director of the City of Birmingham orchestra in England, succeeding Andris Nelsons .
And more and more women conductors are making a name for t themselves .
Women composers such as Kaaia Saariaho, Jennifer Higdon and others are now among the most frequently performed contemporary composers, period .

 

There's no question about it . Women now play a greater role in classical music than ever before ,w whether as composers, conductors ,members orchestras or arts administrators etc .
...
And more and more women conductors are making a name for t themselves .
Women composers such as Kaaia Saariaho, Jennifer Higdon and others are now among the most frequently performed contemporary composers, period .

And from this are we to infer that therefore there are no issues left to resolve? That there is total equality of opportunity?

 

Becca, I didn't say there are no issues to resolve, but things are vastly different than in the past for women in classical music . And better .

 

That is true, they are a lot better, but women still have a much higher hill to climb to achieve the same results as men. The irony is that when a few manage it, they are considered proof of equality.

 

Regarding females in classical music, it is worth noting the issues seem somewhat different between performing careers and composing careers, according to this interesting article:

https://www.theguardian.com/music/2015/feb/28/why-male-domination-of-classical-music-might-end

 

I would hazard a guess that equality as musicians > equality as conductors > equality as composer > equality getting works performed. There is, of course, one area where women have total dominance ... as sopranos :lol:

 

there are more women in society than men. Why is it that the US has never had a female president?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/10/white-women-donald-trump-victory
this question might seem unrelated, but is imho actually at the root of the problem of why women have a problem getting into leading roles.

 

and I am against any kind of privileges (implemented by laws) that would be based solely on belonging to a certain sex/race/minority. Why should someone have a much better chance of being accepted to a university just because he is black? That should be based solely on talent/achievement. That is the real equality of opportunity. Anything else is perversion and positive discrimination.

this attitude is actually damaging to the minorities themselves, because then everyone will suppose that their success is not based on real achievement/talent, but was gained by belonging to a certain privileged group
http://nowmoney.me/blog/is-positive-discrimination-really-that-positive

The admission to universities should be decided anonymously, ie those deciding about it would have no information about the sex/race of the applicant.

 

Gee, if only societies functioned like a tone row and heard all notes as equal. Instead, we have some notes proclaiming their supremacy so loudly that other notes are drowned out. Perhaps, as Ives once said in another context, we all need to "stretch our ears."

 

Providing for "equality of opportunity" doesn't necessarily imply anything at all about the expected result in terms of outcome. This will depend on the relative number of male/female applicants and their qualifications for the job. For example, if a single job is advertised in which there is genuine equality of opportunity between the sexes then it's anyone's guess whether a male or female is selected. If it so happens that no females apply and some males do then a male will be selected provided of course at least one of the males meets the minimum conditions required of the successful candidate. Even if most of the applicants are female but none of them is as well qualified as a sole male applicant then the male applicant would be expected to secure the job.

As has rightly been pointed out by some others, equality of opportunity is the key issue to ensure fairness, not equality of outcome, as the latter takes no account of possibly differing qualifications between all the applicants. If equality of outcome were to be advocated as the appropriate policy, it could produce some unfair results in terms of not offering jobs to the best-qualified people. I accept that in some situations the latter policy may have been used, if not openly at least covertly.

Where things do begin to become rather more complicated conceptually is in deciding what are the truly underlying factors that determine a person's (whether male or female) likelihood of meeting the eligibility criteria for particular jobs as they come along. At a simple level, it may be one of either having or not having the right number of relevant exam grades, or adequate previous experience, or other quite easily measurable performance characteristics. However, these may indicate only the tip of the iceberg and that the fundamental factors causing disparities among all these measures may be down to one's family connections, such that people coming from wealthy family backgrounds may be more likely to have achieved the requirements than those coming from much poorer backgrounds. In such circumstances, the question may be asked if can it be said that a system of recruitment that is notionally based on equality of opportunity is truly living up to that promise.

The above was one of the issues that was raised in the other thread. I don't pretend to know the answer to this one, or even to have a strong view on a possible solution right now. All that I said in the other thread was that some people might consider that a draconian change in the way societies operate may be the only, or best, solution in order to eradicate any unfairness due to big differences in family wealth. I wasn't advocating any such thing, as one member seems to have wrongly inferred judging by their remark, which I decided to leave unanswered in that thread.

 

Providing for "equality of opportunity" doesn't necessarily imply anything at all about the expected result in terms of outcome. This will depend on the relative number of male/female applicants and their qualifications for the job. For example, if a single job is advertised in which there is genuine equality of opportunity between the sexes then it's anyone's guess whether a male or female is selected. If it so happens that no females apply and some males do then a male will be selected provided of course at least one of the males meets the minimum conditions required of the successful candidate. Even if most of the applicants are female but none of them is as well qualified as a sole male applicant then the male applicant would be expected to secure the job.

But a more significant issue is whether there has been equality of opportunity for all males and females throughout their lives. It's all well and good ignoring gender when choosing between equally qualified candidates, but "if it so happens that no females apply" or that "none of them is as well qualified as a sole male applicant" then this might indicate an underlying problem in the field.

Where things do begin to become rather more complicated conceptually is in deciding what are the truly underlying factors that determine a person's (whether male or female) likelihood of meeting the eligibility criteria for particular jobs as they come along. At a simple level, it may be one of either having or not having the right number of relevant exam grades, or adequate previous experience, or other quite easily measurable performance characteristics. However, these may indicate only the tip of the iceberg and that the fundamental factors causing disparities among all these measures may be down to one's family connections, such that people coming from wealthy family backgrounds may be more likely to have achieved the requirements than those coming from much poorer backgrounds. In such circumstances, the question may be asked if can it be said that a system of recruitment that is notionally based on equality of opportunity is truly living up to that promise.

Just out of curiosity and to get a better idea of where you're coming from: you jumped straight from the flaws of "equality of outcome" in a gender situation to the potential flaws of "equality of opportunity" in a much more general situation. Is this because you think the existence of systemic bias against women goes without saying, or because it doesn't exist?

 

There are definitely still some barriers for equal opportunity of inclusion in music and other pursuits. I don't have all the answers, but I do know that keeping an open mind, treating everyone with respect, advocating the great music from those less often promoted, and encouraging musicians regardless of background/demographics are all important in making progress in this regard. If you are in a position to hire or commission musicians/composers, then there are even more options for you in making changes.

 

Sexism on the conductor front:

http://www.prindlepost.org/2017/02/classical-sexism-female-conductors/

A little gain: my friend's daughter is at uni and training to be a conductor. The world is slowly moving.

 

Another textbook example of antediluvian attitudes still persisting at the top in these "that doesn't happen anymore" times:

Mariss Jansons: "Women conductors are not my cup of tea."

As a woman, I have to say the selective myopia I witness when it comes to acknowledging enduring issues like this one is about the only thing that turns me off to the community.

 

Looking out for your friends is admirable, but once you are representing an organization, there has to be a way for the talent to be judged without past associations or other biases affecting the outcome. Otherwise, the established "good old boys" networks are going to just keep persisting.

Also, working hard is going to be in the cards for any musician, but the opportunity to study with music teachers from a young age and onward needs to be available, as well as opportunities to attend the best universities and schools for music. These are the kinds of systemic problems being referred to earlier in the thread.

 

I really hate to tell you this, but I'm getting a shot at getting into the chamber music side of a local symphony, but the only reason I am getting the chance is because someone on the board for the symphony saw one of my shows and really liked me and also liked my playing

In my life I can assure you that it is just as much who you know as it is what you know

...and I never had any teachers when I was young and I did alright. You got to get out there and shake those bushes once you are out on your own, that's what matters. What you need are more paying gigs and more opportunities to make a real living playing music if you want more equality for everybody. That's obvious.

so why not book a hall, get your insurance strait, and hire the most diverse crowd of players you can get? that's how it is done, so just go do it

 

I do not believe in the false god of 'equality' but I'm happy for anyone who has achieved their dream. There is no cosmic law that says women are perfectly equally as good as men at all activities and vice versa.

 

Do we have any evidence that women aren't as good as men at musical performance or composition?

 

If I might digress slightly...there is an oft-quoted metaphor about a "level playing-field". It is usually poorly used. What is often missed, by those who complain about those who want one, is that once the playing field is level, the competition can commence - and there will be winners and losers.

No-one is saying that there should be no competition and no winners and losers. Everyone recognises that not everyone can have the same skill levels - no-one expects equality to mean that all must be the same - whether dumbed down or dumbed up (?).

But it seems reasonable to ask that the playing field is level, the referees are not biased etc.

 

this is how you talk about an issue like this. There are still going to be winners and losers, even on a level field. there is not enough work to go around, so there you go. What if the best people still turn out to be white men? it could happen that way, you know. so then when you look around and say "why are there not as many women" you will have to say because there were not enough that were good enough to make the cut.

and since music is entertainment and nobody is going to take a hit on sales just to advance a social agenda, that world would probably look a lot like the one we have now.

 

and it is speculation, but think about that for a second....we have people here operating on the assumption that there must be a wide ranging conspiracy to keep out everybody but white men. Anytime a white man is chosen over anybody else, it is just more evidence of this "conspiracy"

but orchestras and ballet companies have to survive in the marketplace

why would they hire less qualified people just because they were white men? ....and that is what we are implying here, isn't it?

it would seem they would hire the best people they could afford. Favoring white men just to keep "everybody else" down is bad business, isn't it? Why would they do that?

 

we have people here operating on the assumption that there must be a wide ranging conspiracy to keep out everybody but white men. Anytime a white man is chosen over anybody else, it is just more evidence of this "conspiracy"

I think "people here" are not operating on an assumption. I am not, I am operating on the lived reality that I have read about. For example, the link in this thread about conductors and the two links I posted in the other thread (Female Composers). I've made no assumption. I don't think it's a "conspiracy" either. It's "just" sexism.

why would they hire less qualified people just because they were white men? ....and that is what we are implying here, isn't it?

No, it isn't.

 

Nobody is saying that the people chosen for orchestras and other musician jobs are less qualified than others. The worry is that those who are equally skilled but are not in a privileged group are being passed over or that chances to gain the skills needed for those jobs are not available to all with the desire and drive.

Businesses have to survive, and in my view, they will survive equally well or better if they are reaching out to and promoting talent from all walks of life.

 

I for one don't think there's a conspiracy going on against women or minorities. But I do think there's a systemic bias. Just because it's systemic doesn't mean it's always deliberate or organised. cf Sarah Kirkland Snider's account of her experiences, or Doug Shadle's examination of how discrimination can happen in orchestral programming without anyone necessarily intending it to. Or attitudes like "well, maybe it will turn out men are better composers than women anyway" asserted without evidence.

I came across this yesterday, which is a response to an article that was very dismissive of female composers. I found the post very funny, though I know others may differ. Actually I'm only mentioning it because down among the comments I found this exchange between a commenter and the blogger:
Commenter: "I'm just going to say that I was composing whole musicals and concertos at the age of 13 and gave up because I saw more female role-models in *science* than in music composition (I'm now trying to work in cognitive neuroscience). I'm sure I wouldn't have been a 'great', had I stuck at music, but it says something about the chances of great women composers becoming recognised as a 'great' that I felt that female role-models in science were more abundantly available."
Blogger: "Yep. When I was in my early teens, I had the idea I wanted to become a conductor. But before I told my family, I had to check Google to see if women could even be conductors because I'd never seen any and I didn't know if there was some secret rule against them or what. This would have been around 2002 or 2003. Same thing with me; I wouldn't have been a great conductor. Probably not even a good one. But that doesn't matter because if I had issues knowing, then that probably means other more gifted girls had issues knowing, too, and we've lost them now to things like science or writing or performing or who knows what else."
Now, obviously teenagers give up on their hoped-for careers all the time, for various reasons, and the world is full of people who never did become composers or conductors. And in those two accounts there's no one actually committing discrimination against the two girls. And moreover, neither of them has said they're actually unhappy with how their lives turned out. But when we talk about level playing fields or equality of opportunity, this is the sort of thing we want to address: eliminate that thought "but I'm a girl". And make men realise the background-level inequalities that go on all the time that they never experience.

 

And you believe that your experience is sufficient to justify dismissing the experiences reported by others?

in as much as I am a musician and I have been around professional musicians all my life and I have never in 40 years of professional playing known any musician to be racist or sexist, yes. If we are talking about racism and sexism as it applies to hiring musicians, yes, I think I put everyone's mind at ease there. That doesn't happen in this world today. 50 years ago, completely different story, but not today.

Which people? Could you be more specific so that we could establish the truth of your assertion?

you guys. You people on this thread talking equality

And again, could you explain what you take "Equality" to be? I suspect that if you think it's a myth, your version of "Equality" is not the one under discussion here.

I am trying to discern what you people mean by that myself. It sounds like there should be the same number of people doing the same thing. Sounds sort of like communism to me. Treating people equally when they clearly aren't equal and all that

ok, I got a couple questions myself....

exactly what does this "Level playing field" mean? Are we all to grow up with a harpsichord in the house and a father who likes to build them? That is actually a great environment to come from. One of my friends got to grow up in a house like that and after years of hard work and dedication she became a serious professional player.

and do you realize how hard it is just to support yourself for a lifetime doing nothing but playing?
you nearly have to take a vow of poverty.

Most professional musicians have to take a regular job to support themselves.

so given that there are lots of musicians and not nearly enough work what exactly about the present day are we complaining about again?

Let me tell you something...you don't need to worry about equality for conductors and choreographers and composers....you need to worry about the fact that there is not enough work for anybody anymore

I say if you want more equality, the answer is open up more venues. Create new revenue streams to support your musicians in your community. Form a local club that raises money and hires local players to put on recitals for you local community. Tie that into your local schools and get kids out to see that and then have the means to connect students with good local teachers. That sort of thing

or you can just attack me. I'm cool with it

 

You people on this thread talking equality

I am trying to discern what you people mean by that myself. It sounds like there should be the same number of people doing the same thing. Sounds sort of like communism to me. Treating people equally when they clearly aren't equal and all that

In this post I explained my view of equality. In this post I gave an example of what I mean by a levelled playing field.

These are really basic things, they don't require communism to bring about.

Imagine you have twins, a son and a daughter. Imagine they both want to be - oh, you know what, if you can't work out where I'm going with this, then there's no point in me continuing.

 

Alright, let me throw this out there again: https://nmbx.newmusicusa.org/candy-...candy-floss-and-merry-go-rounds-female-composers-gendered-language-and-emotion/ which is an actual woman describing her actual experiences as a classical composer.

And repost these:
Commenter: "I'm just going to say that I was composing whole musicals and concertos at the age of 13 and gave up because I saw more female role-models in *science* than in music composition (I'm now trying to work in cognitive neuroscience). I'm sure I wouldn't have been a 'great', had I stuck at music, but it says something about the chances of great women composers becoming recognised as a 'great' that I felt that female role-models in science were more abundantly available."
Blogger: "Yep. When I was in my early teens, I had the idea I wanted to become a conductor. But before I told my family, I had to check Google to see if women could even be conductors because I'd never seen any and I didn't know if there was some secret rule against them or what. This would have been around 2002 or 2003. Same thing with me; I wouldn't have been a great conductor. Probably not even a good one. But that doesn't matter because if I had issues knowing, then that probably means other more gifted girls had issues knowing, too, and we've lost them now to things like science or writing or performing or who knows what else."
which is two actual women talking about how they were put off of careers in classical music because of their perception that it was not a world that welcomed women.

And maybe also repost this one: https://www.icareifyoulisten.com/20...listen.com/2018/02/systemic-discrimination-burden-sameness-american-orchestras/ which makes it clear that there can be a systemic bias without there being lots of actual sexists or racists.

Can you really not see what the barriers are?

 

These woman gave up on their own. How would you have solved that problem would you make it where the numbers in a job have to be filled by a certain percentage of each gender and if you do not meet these percentages companies will be fined?

 

Can you really not see what the barriers are?

yea, sounds like chicks give up too easy

but I'm out...you guys convinced me...there's a grand conspiracy to make sure women and minorities never get to see their dreams fulfilled. We passed that resolution unanimously at our last White Man's meeting in the fall

 

yea, sounds like chicks give up too easy

Oh FFS.

You know, if you'd just said that at the start you would have saved some of us the bother of trying to use reason and facts.

 

In the UK since the 2010 Equality Act:

(a) It is against the law to discriminate against anyone of the following "protected characteristic": because of age, being or becoming a transsexual person, being married or in a civil partnership, being pregnant or on maternity leave, disability, race including colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin, religion, belief or lack of religion/belief, sex, sexual orientation.

(b) The above provision apply at work, in education, as a consumer, when using public services, when buying or renting property, as a member or guest of a private club or association. They also applies to people who are associated with someone who has a protected characteristic, e.g. a family member or friend, and to anyone who has complained about discrimination or supported someone else's claim.

(c) Discrimination can take the form of: direct discrimination (treating someone with a protected characteristic less favourably than others), indirect discrimination (putting rules or arrangements in place that apply to everyone, but that put someone with a protected characteristic at an unfair disadvantage), harassment (unwanted behaviour linked to a protected characteristic that violates someone's dignity or creates an offensive environment for them), victimisation (treating someone unfairly because they've complained about discrimination or harassment).​

In principle, the above seems to provide a very comprehensive level of protection against unfair discrimination in the UK. Therefore, I'm not clear what problems if any are being argued about in the UK. If possibly some organisations may have found ways around the rules in certain parts of the music industry (or elsewhere), it would interesting to learn exactly what those dodges are. If any can be documented, they might be matters that the individuals concerned could take up with their MP, Citizen's Right Bureau, or a legal adviser.

Outside the UK, I have hardly any idea what anti-discrimination legislation exists. Although I have a high regard for the USA, I wouldn't be surprised if it's not up to a similarly high level in that country. I would guess that it's not far (or possibly even tougher) off in some other parts of Western Europe.

I am going to deny myself the opportunity to respond to any of the more "political" points that have been made. Beyond what I wrote earlier in the thread, I don't have much more to add to this thread, except to thank Macleod for raising it, for having the opportunity to see some very amusing exchanges involving others (still ongoing), and for the discussions that I have had.

 

In another musical internet forum I advocated for an additional emoticon, a snare drum rim shot. I've only been here a short time, but I am now advocating for the emoticon drone, as in when something flies right over someone's head.

 

'[Jorma] Panula went on to suggest that female conductor's may be effective when conducting more feminine music. "They can come [to my masterclasses] and try," said Panula. "It's not a problem - if they choose the right pieces, if they take more feminine music. Bruckner or Stravinsky will not do, but Debussy is okay. This is purely an issue of biology."'

For those unfamiliar with Pannula, he is a very successful composer and teacher of conducting. His students include Esa-Pekka Salonen, Sakari Oramo and Jukka-Pekka Saraste.

 

White privilege and all those concepts invented by sjw, feminist and so forth is such a cancer for humanity. They like to see inequality, opression and victims everywhere. Like the me too movement where an allégation can ruin your life because we all know womans never ever lie so we have to accept at facevalue their facebook post and forget about justice and put all those vile mens in prison. Except in the public life, TV, medias all of this is lefty concepts of equality, feminism and social justice is lauh at except from the minorities whi will always see themselves as victims. Thats sad

 

Donald? Is that you?