Women Composers' Thread/International Women's Day 2015 on R3

[P. G. Tipps]

Your statement is complete nonsense. It can only be prejudice that causes you to make it.

Quite!

If we are truly against discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief, etc the very idea of 'positive discrimination' is itself an illogical nonsense and displays blatant prejudice in itself. To the genuine "non-discriminator" selection based on anything other than talent and ability has to be wholly 'negative', surely?

Of course, not all of us are always against a degree of discrimination in certain circumstances. Men and women are clearly different whether the 'equalists' like it or not and some occupations are generally more suited to one rather than the other. However, any discrimination there is based on fact and reality and not unthinking prejudice.

Music composition does not come into that category. Men and women are both perfectly capable of composing and performing music so to discriminate here (however well-meaning, if misplaced) is somewhat insulting and indeed patronising towards women, as others have pointed out ... and it's music composition that we are discussing here.

Where do we stop with such 'positive discrimination'? Maybe a programme devoted to underprivileged-background male composers, aged 18-25?

If not, why not?

[MrGongGong]

Music composition does not come into that category.

You are wrong
And if you bothered to educated yourself about it (the SAM commissioning survey is a good place to start) you would learn something rather than trotting out the same old ill informed opinions masquerading as facts.

Parading your ignorance just makes you look like an arse

[Flosshilde]

Absolutely agree, GG, except for the last sentence - I quite like arses (especially male ones); Mr Tipsy's constant parading of his prejudices & inability, or refusal, to learn just makes him look like an ignorant fool.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

If we are truly against discrimination based on race, gender, religious belief, etc the very idea of 'positive discrimination' is itself an illogical nonsense and displays blatant prejudice in itself. To the genuine "non-discriminator" selection based on anything other than talent and ability has to be wholly 'negative', surely?

Discrimination can be labelled as positive or negative, depending upon an individual's perception. Positive discrimination tries to right the wrong, not by removing negative discrimination, but by pushing a bit further. 'All-female shortlists' is a common one; another is making university entrance easier for those from "poorer" backgrounds. Both are wrong in my view. The problems should be tackled much earlier.

Re freak shows - if I am wrong, Radio 3 will not return to broadcasting wall-to-wall music by male composers in 7 days' time.

[doversoul1]

You are wrong
And if you bothered to educated yourself about it (the SAM commissioning survey is a good place to start) you would learn something rather than trotting out the same old ill informed opinions masquerading as facts.

Parading your ignorance just makes you look like an arse

So tell us about it in your own words. Trotting out links and report titles forevermore just makes you look [insert a word/phrase of your choice].

[MrGongGong]

So tell us about it in your own words. Trotting out links and report titles forevermore just makes you look [insert a word/phrase of your choice].

I've done it several times.
You don't need my words why not read the words of women composers who I would suspect know what they are talking about (hence the links)?

But maybe folks are more interested in ill informed opinions rather than facts?

[french frank]

Men and women are both perfectly capable of composing and performing music so to discriminate here (however well-meaning, if misplaced) is somewhat insulting and indeed patronising towards women

The point that that overlooks is that in the case of 'classical music' it is not true to say that both men and women were capable of composing and performing. What we know suggests that the opposite was frequently the case - in some cases they were actively prevented, in others discouraged. And even when women were able to do so, their work was not valued because they were women.

That isn't a view that many hold now, but the fact that it WAS held in the past means that much of the music written then has been lost to view and it's left to scholars/enthusiasts to dig around for it.

So enthusiasts have dug around for it and are saying: "Look what we've found."

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

The point that that overlooks is that in the case of 'classical music' it is not true to say that both men and women were capable of composing and performing. What we know suggests that the opposite was frequently the case - in some cases they were actively prevented, in others discouraged. And even when women were able to do so, their work was not valued because they were women.

That isn't a view that many hold now, but the fact that it WAS held in the past means that much of the music written then has been lost to view and it's left to scholars/enthusiasts to dig around for it.

So enthusiasts have dug around for it and are saying: "Look what we've found."

Yes. That's all true. But it isn't this week's broadcasts that that really count. What matters is that if this music deserves to be heard on 9/03/15, it deserves to be heard as frequently as similar by male composers
on "normal" broadcasting days. Otherwise...

[doversoul1]

I've done it several times.
You don't need my words why not read the words of women composers who I would suspect know what they are talking about (hence the links)?

But maybe folks are more interested in ill informed opinions rather than facts?

You have posted links and titles several times but I don’t remember reading anything in your words other than ‘oh yes it is’, ‘oh no, it isn’t’ and ‘read this’. And even if you had done, you could repeat it or point to the posts (not those with just links).

Women composers’ own words are, naturally, too subjective and often quoted out of context to be a base of discussion. You are in education, you must know that students always blame teachers for whatever they don’t like.

We need to put women composers words ‘in context’ to understand the situation better.

If you think I/we don’t need your words, we need those links even less. We all know that we can find anything that suits us if we spend long enough Googling about.

But maybe you are more interested in showing (off) how much you know rather than telling us facts?

[ahinton]

The point that that overlooks is that in the case of 'classical music' it is not true to say that both men and women were capable of composing and performing. What we know suggests that the opposite was frequently the case - in some cases they were actively prevented, in others discouraged. And even when women were able to do so, their work was not valued because they were women.

That isn't a view that many hold now, but the fact that it WAS held in the past means that much of the music written then has been lost to view and it's left to scholars/enthusiasts to dig around for it.

So enthusiasts have dug around for it and are saying: "Look what we've found."

At the risk of sounding pedantic (and therefore arguably in the wrong thread), I think that is would be salutary to clarify exactly what should be mngt in this context by "capable of" composing and performing, for is surely a material diffeence between having the ability to do those things and being allowed to do them. Of course, the active and widespread discouragement of women from involvement in performance and composition that once pertained will inevitably have denied most of them access to the kinds of training and study that they would have wanted and needed in order to help enhance their development as professional musicians but, that aside, I remain unconvinced of the notion that very few women had the inherent capability to compose and perform, given suitable opportunities and withdrawal of the customary discoruagement.

That said, to what extent do you think that those who managed somehow to break through all of this nevertheless suffered from insufficient respect and regard for their work solely because they were women - I'm thinking in particular of Szymanowska, C Schumann, F Mendelssohn, Farrenc, Smyth, A Mahler, L Boulanger and Bacewicz rather than more recent women composers (although the same question could as easily be asked about Maconchy, Lutyens and others from the past century as well as living ones such as Musgrave, Beamish, Biungham, Weir and younger living ones)

[teamsaint]

Yes. That's all true. But it isn't this week's broadcasts that that really count. What matters is that if this music deserves to be heard on 9/03/15, it deserves to be heard as frequently as similar by male composers
on "normal" broadcasting days. Otherwise...

Its a simple and obvious point, ( but well made), and my concern about the Radio 3 approach is that it really lets them off the hook, longer term.

Same might be said in other areas or programming too.

Clearly, these sort of events can be an effective way of opening up debate, programming etc, but there is at least equal danger, IMO, of them become tokenistic.

A real commitment by R3 to integrate more female composers, " neglected " composers, and especially contemporary composers on daytime programming would be far more effective at opening up opportunities for female composers, since , despite the issues in big commissions, women are far better represented in today's composing world than ever before.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

You are in education, you must know that students always blame teachers for whatever they don’t like.

[ahinton]

Its a simple and obvious point, ( but well made), and my concern about the Radio 3 approach is that it really lets them off the hook, longer term.

Same might be said in other areas or programming too.

Clearly, these sort of events can be an effective way of opening up debate, programming etc, but there is at least equal danger, IMO, of them become tokenistic.

A real commitment by R3 to integrate more female composers, " neglected " composers, contemporary composers on daytime programming would be far more effective at opening up opportunities for female composers, since , despite the issues in big commissions, women are far better represented in today's composing world than ever before.

I do think, however, that merely upping the tally of music by women composers - or, for that matter, ""neglected" composers, contemporary composers" - "on daytime programming" on BBC R3, whilst it might lead by example, would simply not be enough and might even run something of a risk of putting R3 out on a limb; I'm not against it in principle, of course, but unless music by women composers also features more widely in festivals and other live performance venues (and not only in "women's music" events but intergrated into the repertoire presented), the achievement in redressing the balance will remain woefully incomplete.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

women are far better represented in today's composing world than ever before.

Still only 3% of the composers who have contracts with Music publishers.

I think if Alpie had avoided the expression "freak show" and referred instead to "tokenism", then I think he might well have avoided some of the flak he has received, because his comment that if it was good enough to be broadcast yesterday, it should be broadcast during the rest of the schedules is one I applaud. The joy of yesterday's Festival is that it introduced me to a lot of Music that very clearly is deserving of regular and frequent broadcast - and I hope the Beeb gets enough feedback from listeners to make them realize the obligations that they have made for themselves as a result of the Festival.

[Lancashire Lass]

[QUOTE=teamsaint;473147

A real commitment by R3 to integrate more female composers, " neglected " composers, and especially contemporary composers on daytime programming would be far more effective at opening up opportunities for female composers, since , despite the issues in big commissions, women are far better represented in today's composing world than ever before.[/QUOTE]

Not only that, it would be easier to digest.

I found the whole idea of a day devoted to female composers a real turn-off. Not because they were women, but because it was effectively saying to the listener, here' s a whole load of composers you're probably never heard before, there's a complete range of styles, date of composition, type of orchestral/solo/choral work. Oh, and we'll be having a lot of pc chat about why most of these composers didn't fulfil their true potential. OK, sit back and listen!

(No idea if the chat was all pc, probably wasn't, but I feared the worst and turned off.)

At least a Bach or whoever marathon means you know whether or not you're likely to enjoy it or discover new interesting pieces. This appeared to be too much of a mixed bag for me to want to spend time listening, on the off-chance I'd enjoy some of it.

Far better to drip-feed pieces into general programming, IMHO.