Gender balance at festivals

[Ian Thumwood]

There was an article on the BBC News website last week about a number of festivals who stated that they would now be seeking to address the imbalance of female artists by ensuring that 50% of those musicians engaged to perform would be women. It was really centred around pop music which is of no interest but , being cynical, my thoughts were drawn to how this would manifest itself with both jazz and classical music. I came to the conclusion that Classical concerts must already ben approaching a 50/50 split in the gender of the performers and therefore believed that there would probably be very little impact. As far as jazz is concerned, I could see this policy being used to feature more singers / pop-jazz acts as festivals as opposed to instrumental performers.

The whole scenario is interesting because I don' pay much attention to the gender of a musician if I like their work. It has no influence on me. I like such diverse performers such as Nicole Mitchell, Dianne Reeves, the late Geri Allen, Tomeka Reid , Mary Lou Williams, Maria Schneider and Angelique Kidjo for their music as opposed to the fact that they happen to be women. I believe that most jazz fans feel the same.

Therefore, I just thought that, given the proposal, promoters would probably exploit the situation and book a preponderance of singers and especially younger artists with the effect that the integrity of a festival might be compromised. Does jazz really have to start differentiating between male and female artists and, given that the music is predominantly male, would any artificial calibration be to the detriment of jazz ? Surely we are at a stage now where female jazz artists are not only making a name for themselves in the music but have, for some considerable while, had a massive influence in shaping the music's identity.

In a nutshell, I don't think artificial quotas will do anything but ultimately undermine the music.

[cloughie]

There was an article on the BBC News website last week about a number of festivals who stated that they would now be seeking to address the imbalance of female artists by ensuring that 50% of those musicians engaged to perform would be women. It was really centred around pop music which is of no interest but , being cynical, my thoughts were drawn to how this would manifest itself with both jazz and classical music. I came to the conclusion that Classical concerts must already ben approaching a 50/50 split in the gender of the performers and therefore believed that there would probably be very little impact. As far as jazz is concerned, I could see this policy being used to feature more singers / pop-jazz acts as festivals as opposed to instrumental performers.

The whole scenario is interesting because I don' pay much attention to the gender of a musician if I like their work. It has no influence on me. I like such diverse performers such as Nicole Mitchell, Dianne Reeves, the late Geri Allen, Tomeka Reid , Mary Lou Williams, Maria Schneider and Angelique Kidjo for their music as opposed to the fact that they happen to be women. I believe that most jazz fans feel the same.

Therefore, I just thought that, given the proposal, promoters would probably exploit the situation and book a preponderance of singers and especially younger artists with the effect that the integrity of a festival might be compromised. Does jazz really have to start differentiating between male and female artists and, given that the music is predominantly male, would any artificial calibration be to the detriment of jazz ? Surely we are at a stage now where female jazz artists are not only making a name for themselves in the music but have, for some considerable while, had a massive influence in shaping the music's identity.

In a nutshell, I don't think artificial quotas will do anything but ultimately undermine the music.

Does this mean that the current over-supply of female pop singers with awful screamy tuneless voices and Adele clones is going to increase? Is this a be-ridge too far?

[MrGongGong]

In a nutshell, I don't think artificial quotas will do anything but ultimately undermine the music.

From another online discussion (about music education)

" we’re happy with the status quo pie because we get a big slice of it; "

(I seem to remember saying this before?)

People in positions of power will always have "good" reasons why they should remain there.

You might not pay attention to gender BUT many female Jazz musicians have found that they have to.
Now I wonder why that is ?

https://hcmf.co.uk/gender-equality-keychange-initiative-pledge/

[Lat-Literal]

Opposed on the grounds that it doesn't prioritise music.

Gender is a dimension of music.

Music isn't a dimension of gender.

It's a dimension of people.

The very fact that it is uppermost in minds is a sign of the poorer state of music generally.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

If 50℅ of performers are to be women, will there be similar quotas for gay, transsexual, self identification etc? It would be a shame if the music got in the way of that top priority...

Identity politics, no business like show business, and that's no business at all.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

I think we need to be wary of knee-jerk responses to what we might think the Policy is attempting to achieve. Sticking with HCMF - and the link that MrGG provides. With hundreds of living women composers producing first-rate Music, it might be taken for granted that ensembles dedicated to performing New repertoire might/should be at the forefront of gender balance; I don't think that that is an unreasonable assumption? OK, so last year, the Festival received over 670 applications from groups who wanted to perform at the festival - how many of them do you imagine offered even a single work by a female composer?

I thought "about 100" - on the unscientific basis that my CD collection is in the ratio of about one-in-six, female/male composers. I was hoping that the actual number would be a little higher. It was actually 32. That's a tenth of the 50% ideal that the process is aiming for. And that's not talking about programmes offering all-women composer works, nor even 50% male/female programming - it's all the suggested programmes that managed to offer just a single work by a woman composer. 95% didn't even think it was worthwhile to programme anything at all.

This severe gender imbalance is reflected also in recruitment to Postgraduate University courses (and similar - the proportions for Music Technology courses are even more feeble).

If we genuinely believe that "Music ... is a dimension of people", then we cannot simultaneously accept that this is an acceptable state of affairs - unless we also believe that half of humankind is incapable of producing Music worth listening to. The Gender Equality Pledge is a voluntary (nobody is forced to subscribe to it) commitment to persuading performing groups and concert agencies to think more carefully about the repertoire that they are programming and presenting to the public - and to promote those performers who are enthusiastic in representing this neglected repertoire.

If we are appalled by the current statistics, and value the work of our daughters, nieces, sisters, cousins, aunts ... and mothers! ... then such initiatives are essential.

Otherwise, chaps ... how else do you suggest the injustice could be solved?

[Richard Barrett]

Otherwise, chaps ...

I don't think "it's only about the music, and any positive discrimination is artificial and unartistic" (to sum up many of the objections) is really a valid criticism. There is no such thing as "only the music".

Regarding educational institutions... I do my teaching at an institute for electronic music. As can be imagined there is a large gender imbalance among the students. At a certain point I asked a (female) visiting composer what she thought could be a way of dealing with this, because it seemed to me there was nothing that could be done at the level of applications, given that admissions policy already involved a measure of positive discrimination (ie. if two people are equally qualified admit the woman). Her answer was we needed more women on the faculty, for the principal reason that if girls at school see that this is the case it will make them more likely to apply. And she turns out to have been right, in that the imbalance is slowly but surely getting smaller as a result. As MrGG says, people in positions of privilege can very often find what they think are sensible reasons why that privilege shouldn't be challenged. What we should be doing is asking underrepresented groups in society what they think is fair, because (a) they've had to spend a lot more time thinking about it than those of us without such disadvantages and (b) the results of doing what the privileged sectors of society claim is fair are obviously not (see FG's statistics).

Music is not in a poor state. Society is.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

The immediate problem, as opposed to ethics and fairness, is that these are presumably commercial festivals? Can't speak for the classical world, but "music worth listening to" is in practice that which these audiences will recognise, think to attend and actually shell out cash for? I am very definitely NOT saying this does not include women, but what happens when the laudable ambition of numbers or 50% quotas meets the hard commercial reality of promoters. The Cash Nexus.

On the other hand it's interesting, because most (not all) of those I followed in jazz for nearly sixty years were male, and are now on their last legs. Like me. Will a new younger generation lose the male romanticising of the "jazz life", and yes, sometimes a not too discrete misogyny, and embrace all comers openly? I suspect they may.

[Lat-Literal]

I think we need to be wary of knee-jerk responses to what we might think the Policy is attempting to achieve. Sticking with HCMF - and the link that MrGG provides. With hundreds of living women composers producing first-rate Music, it might be taken for granted that ensembles dedicated to performing New repertoire might/should be at the forefront of gender balance; I don't think that that is an unreasonable assumption? OK, so last year, the Festival received over 670 applications from groups who wanted to perform at the festival - how many of them do you imagine offered even a single work by a female composer?

I thought "about 100" - on the unscientific basis that my CD collection is in the ratio of about one-in-six, female/male composers. I was hoping that the actual number would be a little higher. It was actually 32. That's a tenth of the 50% ideal that the process is aiming for. And that's not talking about programmes offering all-women composer works, nor even 50% male/female programming - it's all the suggested programmes that managed to offer just a single work by a woman composer. 95% didn't even think it was worthwhile to programme anything at all.

This severe gender imbalance is reflected also in recruitment to Postgraduate University courses (and similar - the proportions for Music Technology courses are even more feeble).

If we genuinely believe that "Music ... is a dimension of people", then we cannot simultaneously accept that this is an acceptable state of affairs - unless we also believe that half of humankind is incapable of producing Music worth listening to. The Gender Equality Pledge is a voluntary (nobody is forced to subscribe to it) commitment to persuading performing groups and concert agencies to think more carefully about the repertoire that they are programming and presenting to the public - and to promote those performers who are enthusiastic in representing this neglected repertoire.

If we are appalled by the current statistics, and value the work of our daughters, nieces, sisters, cousins, aunts ... and mothers! ... then such initiatives are essential.

Otherwise, chaps ... how else do you suggest the injustice could be solved?

I see little evidence on this forum of anyone making any sort of effort to write 50% of their posts on women musicians. In order to be consistent this should surely be a requirement?

In the context of music interest and very probably in several other areas, I don't think of myself mostly as a "chap" but rather as a person. I'm not aware of any gender imbalance at, say, Womad, nor do I think "I must rush over to see that great woman singer Mavis Staples". I think "I must rush over to see that great singer Mavis Staples". I will only then talk about how she is one of the greatest woman singers of all time. Rick Wakeman once wryly lamented the absence of groupies at Yes gigs. Only men were daft enough to want to stand in an aircraft hangar listening to 20 minute tracks by long haired geezers wearing capes. Women had more productive things to do. There is, I think, more than a touch of the old rock music debate - and it probably does extend to jazz too - about what is emerging. Not surprising as the spirit is in line with the origin of feminism in the 1970s. The difference is rock is dead.

There appears as a previous poster has implied to be a reasonable gender balance in orchestras. As for the composers, there has historically been an imbalance. More than anyone else on this forum I have in the past three or four years highlighted many of those. As with the men, most are deceased so in the case of HCMF what you are describing may well not apply specifically to the gender of performers. I can't comment on the gender composition of the 670 groups. But if the nature of recruitment to Postgraduate University courses and similar would change as a reflection of new similar changes in earlier levels of education, there would hopefully be a river of talent which by its very nature would include many women. That is far better than trying to acquire 50% out of a few drops from the tap, female or male. Because I would need to see a hundred examples of what is great now in order to be convinced.

[teamsaint]

One, and I really mean it is just one, factor is that taking a profession ( or sub group within a profession) in isolation ,is to ignore choices, genuinely free, well informed choices often, that people take to work in other fields.

http://uk.businessinsider.com/pink-collar-jobs-dominated-by-women-2015-2

But Ferney's example is shocking, as is the lack of women conductors at the major orchestra level, and in my own micro survey of Wickham Festival , (a top quality Folk/Folk Rock /Pop festival that attracts big names) showed an imbalance that I really didn't expect.

I wonder if there are funding issues that men are managing to overcome at the Postgrad level that women, aren't ?




One might ( probably off topic actually)for instance look at these siblings.

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

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bobby_Valentino_(British_musician)

[Ian Thumwood]

The immediate problem, as opposed to ethics and fairness, is that these are presumably commercial festivals? Can't speak for the classical world, but "music worth listening to" is in practice that which these audiences will recognise, think to attend and actually shell out cash for? I am very definitely NOT saying this does not include women, but what happens when the laudable ambition of numbers or 50% quotas meets the hard commercial reality of promoters. The Cash Nexus.

On the other hand it's interesting, because most (not all) of those I followed in jazz for nearly sixty years were male, and are now on their last legs. Like me. Will a new younger generation lose the male romanticising of the "jazz life", and yes, sometimes a not too discrete misogyny, and embrace all comers openly? I suspect they may.

I agree with this statement.

Taking up Ferneyhough's comments, I appreciate that the balance will be different in Classical music but whilst the composers may not be representative of society, I think that the soloists will certainly be more reflective. There may even be an imbalance / bias towards female soloists in Classical music.

The question with jazz is more problematic because of the role played by women in the music. About 50 years ago, most women in jazz would have been singers, pianists or perhaps arrangers. We are now in a situation in jazz whereby some of the most important musicians in jazz are women. Most seem to go about their business without drawing attention to this fact and, in my opinion, a good number of female jazz musicians are genuinely shaping the future of jazz. They are matching their male counterparts on an equal basis and no one bats an eyelid.

Part of me thinks that the whole thing is more to do with being "on message" as opposed to supporting great art. I feel really strongly about this. I mean, do we really need artists like Roxy Coss who may be presenting a "positive image" for women in music but not presenting an entirely negative one for jazz? There are 100's of really great women jazz musicians out there and the presentation of the record seems like a slap in the face for genuine artists. Here is the "angry" girl jazz musician, equipped with a name that makes her sound like a porn actress , dressed in combat fatigues and with the now - obligatory tattoos.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Future-Female-Roxy-Coss/dp/B079VD5SVF/ref=sr_1_1?s=music&ie=UTF8&qid=1519994231&sr=1-1&keywords=roxy+coss

For me, the problem is that you know if festivals decide to go out of their way and emphasize women at jazz festivals, it is going to be the likes of Melody Gardot who will end up sweeping up the gigs because they put bums in seats. You can see the likes of Coss being recruited too to give a festival a degree of "right on" credibility all the while that more "serious" female jazz musicians are going to be over-looked. I am hugely cynical about this because I can see where it will end up because the genuine jazz musicians will eventually be squeezed out by the latest "hot chick playing saxophone." You cannot trust promoters to facilitate the promotion of those artists they should be paying attention to.

Bluesnik's comment about the audience for jazz being predominantly male was correct but I think you are seeing changes akin t what happened with football in the 1990's. I don't think promoting players like Roxy Coss will draw more women in to listening to jazz and may have the reserve effect.

[Richard Barrett]

Part of me thinks that the whole thing is more to do with being "on message" as opposed to supporting great art.

Being "on message" IS supporting great art, including that which hasn't been made yet, by people who under the status quo won't have a chance to make it.

[Ian Thumwood]

Being "on message" IS supporting great art, including that which hasn't been made yet, by people who under the status quo won't have a chance to make it.

Sorry, Richard but I think this is a generalisation. I do not trust the media / promoters / journalists / agent involved to really be too concerned whether the people who are booked are creating "great" music. If women truly creating good music are being ignored, they deserve support. However, the commercial factors involved as discussed by Bluesnik will ultimately ensure that only those artists capable of generating a return or are newsworthy will get booked.

It is really noticeable just how many female artists get booked in Vienne and to realise that 90% are singers. All this is doing for instrumental jazz is making the path clear for the next Candy Dulfer. There is already a scenario in Classical music where soloists are being promoted because of their looks simply because there are so many really talented people out there. It is a harsh world and I am sure promoters will find ways of making this work to their benefit. i.e. Their back pocket.

You might want to compare and contrast the media attention given to the likes of the young and attractive musicians Yazz Ahmad and Laura Jurd in comparison with someone like the more deserving Jamie Branch if you do not believe me.

[MrGongGong]

Being "on message" IS supporting great art, including that which hasn't been made yet, by people who under the status quo won't have a chance to make it.

People in positions of power will always have "good" reasons why they should remain there.

It is interesting that those people who are likely to get fewer gigs as a result of festivals like HCMF becoming more balanced seem to be in favour of a more equitable situation?
Maybe it's not all about £ and self interest after all

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

There appears as a previous poster has implied to be a reasonable gender balance in orchestras.

"Appears" to middle-aged men, who define for themselves what is "reasonable"? Can you name any orchestra in Britain with a 50% female personnel? It is certainly better than it was 50 - or even 30 - years ago, but do you imagine that the greater balance is the result of anything other than active efforts to redress the former injustice, Lats? Exactly the sort of "active effort" that is the driving force behind the latest initiative.

As for the composers, there has historically been an imbalance. ... As with the men, most are deceased so in the case of HCMF what you are describing may well not apply specifically to the gender of performers. I can't comment on the gender composition of the 670 groups.

????

if the nature of recruitment to Postgraduate University courses and similar would change as a reflection of new similar changes in earlier levels of education, there would hopefully be a river of talent which by its very nature would include many women. That is far better than trying to acquire 50% out of a few drops from the tap, female or male.

You'll acknowledge that that's a big "if". Even so, the old "just be patient and wait for things to change" suggestion is no solution - without definite action to alter things, they stay the same. Women attempting to work in Music now need initiatives such as this now, not in 20 years time (possibly - or maybe 30 ... or ...)

Because I would need to see a hundred examples of what is great now in order to be convinced.

But how on earth are you going to get access to "a hundred examples" without such initiatives?