Music has no gender?

[The_Student]

But this is to think of "structure" as a noun - a pre-existing template which the Music is "bound to". That sort of thinking will result in confusion in a great many works, so that the works have to be twisted and contorted into shapes to which it doesn't actually conform. It's much less confusing to approach "structure" as a process - something you do as a listener (just as the composer has done when composing - it's not for nothing that "to compose" and "to structure" are synonyms - and that the performer does when performing). Music woks within cultural "anticipation" and "expectation" - the composer providing or denying satisfaction, and in so doing realizing/creating the "character" of the piece.


Define "pure" and "spontaneous"!

Even if a composer decides to write a String Trio in which a herd of elephants is directed to walk through the aisle of the concert hall, and the last hour of the piece consists of a looped recording of Marie Lloyd singing "A Little of what You Fancy Does You Good"; those ideas might "spontaneously" occur to the composer seven months before the premiere of the work, but the effects have been calculated and refined (and the elephants hired) by the time of the performance. An extreme example - but, in trying to think of a random series of events "spontaneously" to illustrate my example, I had to "push" my imagination into extremes. To come up with "spontaneous" examples, I had to cut out the more obvious possibilities. There is no such thing as "pure spontaneous activity" - all surprise/novelty depends on what the listener/reader/viewer already knows and doesn't know.

And if a listener finds it impossible to create connections, then s/he has two options according to temperament: deciding that s/he wants to hear the work again and again until s/he begins to make the connections; or deciding that s/he doesn't like the piece and moving on to something else. We all decide the extent to which we want to devoe time to other people's ideas - some of us want to grasp an idea quickly and get very cross when something isn't easily assimilated. Others are intrigued by possibilities that haven't occurred to us before, and want to work at ideas getting closer and closer to our own "understanding" (I don't really like that word in connection with Music - I prefer "assimilation").

:D I love you all! It's like a new family!
I take my hat off to you, I honestly do not know how to argue this point. Except- Cage-4'33! Pure spontaneous activity!

[The_Student]

Brilliant thread. You are the most generous companions!

I think that music's links with voice and dance could make some pieces "feminine" in a biological sense?

It's a beautiful read!

Hmm the feminine music. Could the instrumentation make something masculine or feminine? the choice of tension? Maybe the relationship between tonic and dominant?

[The_Student]

Statistics aside, what do you think it was about the music that gave you this impression? Was it (given that you seem to be very interested in talking about this aspect of music) something about the structure?

As for composers "providing and denying satisfaction"... recently I read David Huron's Sweet Anticipation, which is entirely about this aspect of music, from both a compositorial and a psychological standpoint; and I came out of it with my suspicions strengthened that this is too simplified a way to describe musical "syntax", particularly where non-tonal music is concerned (and I mean pre- as well as post-, as well as musics outside the European tradition). It seems to me that this is a particular case of something more general which doesn't lend itself to such encapsulation.

There was something about it that seemed quite calculated, rough and ready and intelligent. Like a desirable man! Also the piano- it is such a masculine instrument! Unless broken down. In Bachs piano works, I often imagine male and female lines. But this once again goes on previous knowledge- the strong, even headed supportive bass underneath the quite high, psychotic female aria.

[Pulcinella]

No, that doesn't work - there's something missing after symbolic.

And here it is:

Marina Warner explores the tradition of personifying liberty, justice, wisdom, charity, and other ideals and desiderata in the female form, and examines the tension between women's historic and symbolic roles. Drawing on the evidence of public art, especially sculpture, and painting, poetry, and classical mythology, she ranges over the allegorical presence of the woman in the Western tradition with a sharply observant eye and a piquant and engaging style.

Fancy misquoting a google review on your own website!

.

Yes; I did wonder what the tension between women's historic and symbolic sculpture could be.

[ahinton]

Also the piano- it is such a masculine instrument!

Tell that to Martha Argerich!

[anamnesis]

Correct in all particulars!

Addendum: "And when you look long into an abyss , the abyss gazes also into you." (F. Nietzsche). We pull off the ideology that we put in before. If there would be something like gender specific composing we could prove it through double blinded listeing. A significant majority (>>50%) of an audience sample of say >1000 should be able to decide wether a woman or a man has composed the work.
Greetings

[anamnesis]

:D I love you all! It's like a new family!
I take my hat off to you, I honestly do not know how to argue this point. Except- Cage-4'33! Pure spontaneous activity!

Are you sure? If it's played correctly (yes, no joke...), and you are listening to it *concentrated* you will hear something amazing: the complementary music - of the world around you, something you never would notice without 4'33''. The piece is highly structured and far from "spontanteous activity".
Greetings

[The_Student]

Are you sure? If it's played correctly (yes, no joke...), and you are listening to it *concentrated* you will hear something amazing: the complementary music - of the world around you, something you never would notice without 4'33''. The piece is highly structured and far from "spontanteous activity".
Greetings

Indeed, but I mean it is spontaneous as it always changes in every performance. It is purely controlled by the environment and the decisions of the audience- do I cough now or later? How will this impact the sound?! Can I Help coughing at all?

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I was afraid you'd ask that!

Well - having read the rest of your reply, I glad I did! An inspiring, and thought-provoking Post, Richard (indeed, one that has been provoking my thoughts for much of the day!) for which, my deepest thanks. (I'd normally put a few "ale" emoticons here, but it seems rather frivolous to do so.)

[The_Student]

"Completely"? The sheer fact of using sound ... The work of La Monte Young is a useful starting point for a consideration of such ideas. But remember that, as a species, humans like to make patterns - even imposing such patterns on phenomena when these aren't necessarily there in those phenomena (a group of stars that look randomly grouped from our perspective are given "shape" - a hunter, a bull, a crab, a bear with a plough in its bottom ... )

Regardless of the composer's intentions, the structuring of a piece of Music is also an active matter for the listener. If I decide to listen to the "arbitrary" sounds around me (as I frequently do) I create a structured Musical experience - with many of the associations and sequence of pleasure/displeasure/boredom/delight that I would get from hearing a piece of "proper" Music for the first time. (In the same way that when we look at our environment, it can be as moving as looking at a painting/sculpture/photograph. Brimham Rocks wasn't "created" with any intention of giving pleasure or providing a life-enhancing spectacle for human beings - but humans are profoundly moved when they encounter it.


And, yes - when we encounter Music as powerfully successful as Saariaho, or Ustvolskaya, or Lutyens, or Hildegard, or Saunders (or Lachenmann, or Sciarrino, or Clementi, or Schubert, or Ferneyhough ...... ) then it is empowering (if we respond positively to it) - for listener, performer as well as composer.

Let's look at empowerment. This is a very interesting field of study. How is the listener empowered? Is it because what they expect in the music is fulfilled, or because the composer decides to withhold and 'reward' the listener at a later stage making the piece frustrating but at the same time enjoyable? Would be interesting to find out if a male composer withholds for longer than a female? would this depend on temperament and the personality of the composer and the relationship they wish 'to have' with the audience?

[The_Student]

Well - having read the rest of your reply, I glad I did! An inspiring, and thought-provoking Post, Richard (indeed, one that has been provoking my thoughts for much of the day!) for which, my deepest thanks. (I'd normally put a few "ale" emoticons here, but it seems rather frivolous to do so.)

Could you or Richard possibly explain this post by Richard further? I struggled to follow to an extent but wish to understand it

[MrGongGong]

Indeed, but I mean it is spontaneous as it always changes in every performance. It is purely controlled by the environment and the decisions of the audience- do I cough now or later? How will this impact the sound?! Can I Help coughing at all?

P260

http://dss-edit.com/prof-anon/sound/library/Cage_Silence.pdf

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Could you or Richard possibly explain this post by Richard further? I struggled to follow to an extent but wish to understand it

I'm still being "provoked" (in the best possible sense) - shall report back later.

Did you by any chance see the "Imagine" programme on Georgia O'Keefe from a couple of weeks ago (still available on the i-Player)? There was a quotation from an Art critic that might be useful in the context of the Thread title: "Art doesn't have a gender, but Artists do; and the experiences that shape their lives channel the Art they create." (Not an exact quotation.)

But how such channelling manifests itself in Music isn't clear-cut: Literary and Visual artists can make specifically male/female references (at least, in the sense that those terms are understood at the time that the Art is produced) - and probably composers working with recorded sources. But composers working with older, "traditional" pitch/rhythmic materials have to employ words (titles/programme notes) if they wish to make explicit socio-political commentary.

Creating new Music and putting it before a public (audiences, potential performers, the reading panel of a composers' competition) requires nerve, tenacity, and self-belief. Boys making "cissy" Music need to overcome the disapproval and prejudices of their peers and elders; "compensatory" "heterosexual-masculine" attributes might become exaggerated in their Music as part of an attempt to do so.

But no "slugs/sugar" sounds, or "snails/spice" rhythms have been shown to be specifically "masculine"/"feminine" - and I don't know that there can be, because human characteristics traditionally attributed/associated with gender stereotypes are (often) merely cultural flotsam.

And if there are gender-defined ways of imagining sound, then presumably there are gender-specific ways of listening to sound - which, whilst it would explain why those gender-defined sounds can't be identified (if I hear the sounds of a woman's Music in the same way that I hear them in a man's, then I cannot differentiate them in terms of gender - and women have the obverse "difficulty") would simply get us to a complementary impasse.


Just a few random thoughts late on a Friday night.

[The_Student]

I'm still being "provoked" (in the best possible sense) - shall report back later.

Did you by any chance see the "Imagine" programme on Georgia O'Keefe from a couple of weeks ago (still available on the i-Player)? There was a quotation from an Art critic that might be useful in the context of the Thread title: "Art doesn't have a gender, but Artists do; and the experiences that shape their lives channel the Art they create." (Not an exact quotation.)

But how such channelling manifests itself in Music isn't clear-cut: Literary and Visual artists can make specifically male/female references (at least, in the sense that those terms are understood at the time that the Art is produced) - and probably composers working with recorded sources. But composers working with older, "traditional" pitch/rhythmic materials have to employ words (titles/programme notes) if they wish to make explicit socio-political commentary.

Creating new Music and putting it before a public (audiences, potential performers, the reading panel of a composers' competition) requires nerve, tenacity, and self-belief. Boys making "cissy" Music need to overcome the disapproval and prejudices of their peers and elders; "compensatory" "heterosexual-masculine" attributes might become exaggerated in their Music as part of an attempt to do so.

But no "slugs/sugar" sounds, or "snails/spice" rhythms have been shown to be specifically "masculine"/"feminine" - and I don't know that there can be, because human characteristics traditionally attributed/associated with gender stereotypes are (often) merely cultural flotsam.

And if there are gender-defined ways of imagining sound, then presumably there are gender-specific ways of listening to sound - which, whilst it would explain why those gender-defined sounds can't be identified (if I hear the sounds of a woman's Music in the same way that I hear them in a man's, then I cannot differentiate them in terms of gender - and women have the obverse "difficulty") would simply get us to a complementary impasse.


Just a few random thoughts late on a Friday night.

Thank you, that was a really interesting read and has definitely helped me shape my opinion on the topic. I Shall have a look at the programme you mentioned, it sounds like a very fruitful viewing!

I think I might look into the idea of empowerment of the listener through expectation building and resolution. This really tickles me!

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Thank you, that was a really interesting read and has definitely helped me shape my opinion on the topic.

My pleasure - and thank you.

I Shall have a look at the programme you mentioned, it sounds like a very fruitful viewing!

Georgia O'Keefe is always fruitful (and other vegetational) viewing - worth watching even if not directly useful for your studies.

I think I might look into the idea of empowerment of the listener through expectation building and resolution. This really tickles me!

Yes - but "expectations" (not just Schönberg's Op17) can alienate as well as empower: if a listener expects Music to follow certain conventions (including conventions of "resolution"), then they can reject works that don't conform to those conventions: Machaut and Maierhof don't "sell" as well as Mendelssohn and Metallica!