On women and composing

[Serial_Apologist]

Thanks to Ferney and to jean, respectively, for introducing me to the work of Susan McClary and Deborah Cameron. Reading the opening main paragraph in the Wiki entry on McClary, of whom I had not previously heard...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McClary

... it was interesting for me to note that we had both reached similar conclusions on uses of Tonality in the Western tradition, reference my remark about Elisabeth Lutyens's adoption of serialism as a counter to what she appears to have considered to be the "tyranny" of the cadence, which I putatively suggested might be as one possible example feminine creative energy that a) circumvented sterotypical inferences and b) needed the advent of Modernism in music to find expression.

[ahinton]

But notwithstanding that any strengths I have are not in the area of playing music, hence my reluctance to talk in terms of the technical approaches to playing music, I had a feeling that you had got the wrong end of the stick here. I am one of the people who has been putting forward the argument that in composition it isn't substantially different!

I don't think that I have the wrong end of this particular stick, but your "reluctance to talk in terms of the technical approaches to playing music" does not in this particular context need to presume greater strengths "in the area of playing music", for we weren't considering detailed technical approaches to instrumental performance but the mere matter of physique and physicality in relation to it; what I sought to point out is that
(a) instruments differ greatly in terms of the amount and nature of physical stamina required to play them and
(b) no two women's or men's physiques are identical and so there is no commonality among either
The problem there is that, if there are no specific gender differences in approach to intrumental performance, "putting forward the argument that in composition it isn't substantially different" rather falls on a sword of its own making, in that it suggests that there are no such gender differences in composition either! - with which, of couse, I would agree, based upon past and present experiences and current scientific knowledge.

[ahinton]

Thanks to Ferney and to jean, respectively, for introducing me to the work of Susan McClary and Deborah Cameron. Reading the opening main paragraph in the Wiki entry on McClary, of whom I had not previously heard...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_McClary

... it was interesting for me to note that we had both reached similar conclusions on uses of Tonality in the Western tradition, reference my remark about Elisabeth Lutyens's adoption of serialism as a counter to what she appears to have considered to be the "tyranny" of the cadence, which I putatively suggested might be as one possible example feminine creative energy that a) circumvented sterotypical inferences and b) needed the advent of Modernism in music to find expression.

That's an interesting argument but I think that it might be rather over-simplistic to the extent that it appears to be dependent to some degree on the pre-existence of those "stereotypcial inferences" which are by nature external to the act of compsition itself and "the advent of Modernism" (whatever that might mean - and it surely means many different things to many different people!) might have been thought of as helping this situation only to the extent that in the past 125 years or so the means of musical expression available to composers has widened enormously and so it would not seem exceptional for any composer to have recourse to one and reject another out a massive paint-box-full of them for a variety of reasons, not just as a means of expolring "feminine creative energy". Lutyens and Searle were two of a very small number of English composers who, from around the middle of the last century, explored dodecaphony, but did they really do so for such very different reasons as your remark about the former's might be seen to imply?

[teamsaint]

The distinction was clear from the outset but, whilst I'm pleased that you can now see it, what is your take on the part of it that's pertinent to this discussion?

The confusion that Jean pointed out is not the same , as far as I am concerned,as the one that you claim I have from my post # 28.

going back to my post 28 (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) I see them as two rather different issues, and I never confused them, and have even said so on at least two occasions.

And it really isn't my job to show that I am not "jumping to conclusions", because I am not, and because that is your interpretation, and an incorrect one IMO.

[Serial_Apologist]

I sought to point out is that
(a) instruments differ greatly in terms of the amount and nature of physical stamina required to play them and
(b) no two women's or men's physiques are identical and so there is no commonality among either
The problem there is that, if there are no specific gender differences in approach to intrumental performance, "putting forward the argument that in composition it isn't substantially different" rather falls on a sword of its own making, in that it suggests that there are no such gender differences in composition either! - with which, of couse, I would agree, based upon past and present experiences and current scientific knowledge.

Much of this seems predicated on women performing music composed by men who might either disregard any relevance as pertaining to the sex of the performer because this asexual way is the way they want it performed, or write something from their preconceptions about women they think more suitable for a woman to play. This would therefore not apply to, say, a woman composer writing something she considered ideal for another woman to perform because it elicited latent capacities both recognised as feminine approaches to instrument playing, or even to discover if such feminine aspects existed in men.

[ahinton]

The confusion that Jean pointed out is not the same , as far as I am concerned,as the one that you claim I have from my post # 28.

going back to my post 28 (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) I see them as two rather different issues, and I never confused them, and have even said so on at least two occasions.

And it really isn't my job to show that I am not "jumping to conclusions", because I am not, and because that is your interpretation, and an incorrect one IMO.

Whatever truth there may or may not be in any of that, may I repeat my question "what is your take on the part of it that's pertinent to this discussion?" on the understanding that you do see the two issues as different and presumably therefore understand that it's only one of them that we're mainly concerned with here.

In any case, I neither asked nor expected you to "show that you're not 'jumping to conclusions'"; all that I did was ask you to clarify what you believed that you were doing instead!

[ahinton]

Much of this seems predicated on women performing music composed by men who might either disregard any relevance as pertaining to the sex of the performer because this asexual way is the way they want it performed, or write something from their preconceptions about women they think more suitable for a woman to play. This would therefore not apply to, say, a woman composer writing something she considered ideal for another woman to perform because it elicited latent capacities both recognised as feminine approaches to instrument playing, or even to discover if such feminine aspects existed in men.

I don't think that it is so, actually and it certainly was not intended to be! Let's try to take it apart.

Male composer is commissioned to write a violin concerto for Leila Josefowicz; does the composer think differently about the piece he's about to write because the soloist for whom he's to write it is female? and does he accordingly work from the premise of a belief that her playing is in some way/s identifiably different to that of a male violinist?

For next season, female composer gets a commission to do the same; does she respond to it in any identifiably different way in terms of how she goes about writing the piece? What about Josefowicz herself? Might she see herself as a "woman violinist" and accordingly expect a concerto that may be seen and heard to reflect that?

Another factor here is that whatever the gender of the performer/s for which a man or woman might write music, the chances are that it will get performed by a member of the opposite gender at some point; might such performances risk missing something essential? Also, what about orchestras, most of which contain male and female peformers and might on occasion be conducted by female conductors? And what about audiences, which are almost always of mixed gender

"Preconceptions about women" and the possible consequence of what some people might think to be "more suitable for a woman to play" seem to me to be the most crucial aspects of what you write here, each being dependent upon and reflective of some kinds of received opinion rather than upon scientifically demonstrable facts.

[Serial_Apologist]

I don't think that it is so, actually and it certainly was not intended to be! Let's try to take it apart.

Male composer is commissioned to write a violin concerto for Leila Josefowicz; does the composer think differently about the piece he's about to write because the soloist for whom he's to write it is female? and does he accordingly work from the premise of a belief that her playing is in some way/s identifiably different to that of a male violinist?

Yes, one would surely assume he would be thinking, "This is for Leila", and that the fact that she was a woman would be part of his thinking, and he formulate accordingly, whether consciously or unconsciously.

For next season, female composer gets a commission to do the same; does she respond to it in any identifiably different way in terms of how she goes about writing the piece? What about Josefowicz herself? Might she see herself as a "woman violinist" and accordingly expect a concerto that may be seen and heard to reflect that?

She would have her idea of herself, and it might interesting how she might react to a piece which she didn't think had been directed towards the singularity of her style, though she might not say anything about it!

Another factor here is that whatever the gender of the performer/s for which a man or woman might write music, the chances are that it will get performed by a member of the opposite gender at some point; might such performances risk missing something essential? Also, what about orchestras, most of which contain male and female peformers and might on occasion be conducted by female conductors? And what about audiences, which are almost always of mixed gender

In this as in any aspect of it, composition is always what Bristolians might describe as a matter of trial and Errol.

"Preconceptions about women" and the possible consequence of what some people might think to be "more suitable for a woman to play" seem to me to be the most crucial aspects of what you write here, each being dependent upon and reflective of some kinds of received opinion rather than upon scientifically demonstrable facts.

Yes! That's it! Exactly!!

[ahinton]

In this as in any aspect of it, composition is always what Bristolians might describe as a matter of trial and Errol.

FF might take issue with that!

What's happened to all the posts bewtween #27 and what is now your #28?

[french frank]

Thread renamed and posts moved from Early Music, as requested.

[Serial_Apologist]

Thread renamed and posts moved from Early Music, as requested.

Thanks so much, ff.

[Lat-Literal]

I don't think that I have the wrong end of this particular stick, but your "reluctance to talk in terms of the technical approaches to playing music" does not in this particular context need to presume greater strengths "in the area of playing music", for we weren't considering detailed technical approaches to instrumental performance but the mere matter of physique and physicality in relation to it; what I sought to point out is that
(a) instruments differ greatly in terms of the amount and nature of physical stamina required to play them and
(b) no two women's or men's physiques are identical and so there is no commonality among either
The problem there is that, if there are no specific gender differences in approach to intrumental performance, "putting forward the argument that in composition it isn't substantially different" rather falls on a sword of its own making, in that it suggests that there are no such gender differences in composition either! - with which, of couse, I would agree, based upon past and present experiences and current scientific knowledge.

I am not seeing any disagreement!

[Serial_Apologist]

That's an interesting argument but I think that it might be rather over-simplistic to the extent that it appears to be dependent to some degree on the pre-existence of those "stereotypcial inferences" which are by nature external to the act of compsition itself and "the advent of Modernism" (whatever that might mean - and it surely means many different things to many different people!) might have been thought of as helping this situation only to the extent that in the past 125 years or so the means of musical expression available to composers has widened enormously and so it would not seem exceptional for any composer to have recourse to one and reject another out a massive paint-box-full of them for a variety of reasons, not just as a means of expolring "feminine creative energy". Lutyens and Searle were two of a very small number of English composers who, from around the middle of the last century, explored dodecaphony, but did they really do so for such very different reasons as your remark about the former's might be seen to imply?

Well I'm admittedly entering realms of supposition here, and I should really re-read the two interviews of the composers in question, but I would have to say that I detect a far more radical departure in idiom and expression from tradition in Ms Lutyens' music than I find in Searle's, the latter's remaining far more wedded to conventions of tension and release through those different degrees of dissonance-consonance Schoenberg talked about. The influence would seem to be Webern's in her case, though I often hear that of Dallapiccola whose music had a sensuality about it that comes across as feminine to me. Those Italians and their seductive ways, eh? I would scarcely describe Webern's music as having any feminine "feel" to it, (it's a-sexual to me, like Mondrian's paintings), but in Lutyens' case the idiom becomes somehow "feminised", transmogrified in ways analogous to how Barbara Hepworth was abstracting iconic gestures in her sculpture to "feminise" the figure tradition. This is all highly conjectural, I know; but faced as we still are with the ubiquitous plethora of "feminine" images in the mass media and few models to offer alternatives we have to make a start somewhere - pace jean.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Dallapiccola whose music had a sensuality about it that comes across as feminine to me.

Why? (Or, perhaps, "How"?)

[Serial_Apologist]

Why? (Or, perhaps, "How"?)

I think it operates at a subconscious level - like so much commmunication.

(No cop-out intended, but I have to leave for a concert - more tomorrow, maybe).