Musicians and Homosexuality

[gorbee natcase]

Not at all, Tchaikowsky was "gay; and so was liberace. he even sued over the fact that a tabloid news paper accused him of homosexuality, and he won large damages. After his death it became common knowledge that he was gay so you never know.

But why did people ask that question in the first place if there wasn't any indication

Or perhaps there was

[gruffalo]

Could it be possible that gay people fair better in the arts than in say brick laying or boxing
as it is more inline with there personalities, as they are much more social creatures and have a real zest for life which is contagious and travels through in music 

you could be right. i cant add much more to this.

[instromp]

I think this is an interesting subject (musicians and (homo)sexuality), and one that is often overlooked by musicologists.  Check out this list of gay, or possibly gay/bi, composers:

Barber, Beethoven, Bellini, Bernstein, Brahms, Britten, Busoni, Buxtehude, Caccini, Cage,  Chopin, Copland, Corigliano, Czerny, Debussy, Delius, Del Tredici, Dussek, Elgar, de Falla, Foster, Gershwin, Grainger, Grieg, Handel, Hildegarde von Bingen, Mahler,  Mussorgsky, Porter, Poulenc, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Satie, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, M.T.T... to name a few.

I didn't make the list, don't yell at me...   

https://jclarkmedia.com/gaybooks/composers.html

Cheers,
Fehrle

I wonder Why Bach inst on this list.....He surely wasnt with a women when he went on that long boat ride on days end with some other guy as told to me by my teacher.

[jas]

Barber, Beethoven, Bellini, Bernstein, Brahms, Britten, Busoni, Buxtehude, Caccini, Cage,  Chopin, Copland, Corigliano, Czerny, Debussy, Delius, Del Tredici, Dussek, Elgar, de Falla, Foster, Gershwin, Grainger, Grieg, Handel, Hildegarde von Bingen, Mahler,  Mussorgsky, Porter, Poulenc, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Satie, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, M.T.T... to name a few.

Hildegard? They were really scraping the barrel with that one. How could anyone possibly make claims about the sexuality of a 12th century abbess? And what evidence is there that Beethoven was gay? The fact that he was a lifelong bachelor? That list looks like a pile of rubbish to me. Labelling someone gay just because they were single (and a good number of them weren't even that) is ridiculous.

These claims are not unfounded.  I suggest you read the following books:  Queering the Pitch, Ravel, a life, Handel as Orpheus, Beethoven and his nephew  also several articles by Maynard Solomon regarding Schubert, The Gay Book of Days.... to name only a few.  You very clearly assumed these were "unfounded claims" without any proof one way or the other.  I will never be "glad" when people blindly accept what they are told and refuse to hear any contrary information.  In terms of bias, surely you recognize that it is a two way street.

I've read I think all of the articles on the Solomon/Steblin debate. It was very interesting reading. But from what I gathered, the point wasn't that Schubert was probably gay; it was that we couldn't assume he was straight, based on what little is known about his personal life.

One real problem remains (and I apologise for repeating reference to it here) - and that is that a listener would have no obvious means of knowing the sexual orientation of the composer or performer/s of a piece of music just by listening to it...

This relates to the Schubert topic I mentioned above. A musicologist, Susan McClary, has written (I think it was in Queering the Pitch) that certain students of hers, having heard Schubert's Unfinished Symphony, asked her if he was gay. I can't remember all the details now, but there was some kind of less-than-masculine quality to the music -- as compared to, say, Beethoven -- that led some people to conclude that he may have been gay. She then analyses the Symphony, identifying the fact that it's less goal-driven and more developmental than a more "masculine" work. There's more but I can't remember what, it's been a while since I read it. Although I wasn't exactly convinced, McClary makes some very interesting points on the subject. I think the concept of "feminine" music is a difficult one, though. It's probably pretty safe to say that, if there wasn't solid evidence to the contrary, scholars who drew such conclusions from absolute music would be bickering over the sexuality of Chopin, Schumann and a good number of others. But Schubert is a bit more mysterious and there's definitely a case to be made for his possible homosexuality.

But I still think most of that list looks like it was plucked out of the air at complete random.

Jas

[dough_mouse]

That list is definitely vastly inaccurate. A lot of the people on that list fathered children, this makes them bisexual at the most, not homosexual or gay. And I dont see them providing any evidence for their more suprising picks.

[emmdoubleew]

I think this is an interesting subject (musicians and (homo)sexuality), and one that is often overlooked by musicologists.  Check out this list of gay, or possibly gay/bi, composers:

Barber, Beethoven, Bellini, Bernstein, Brahms, Britten, Busoni, Buxtehude, Caccini, Cage,  Chopin, Copland, Corigliano, Czerny, Debussy, Delius, Del Tredici, Dussek, Elgar, de Falla, Foster, Gershwin, Grainger, Grieg, Handel, Hildegarde von Bingen, Mahler,  Mussorgsky, Porter, Poulenc, Ravel, Saint-Saens, Satie, Schubert, Tchaikovsky, M.T.T... to name a few.

I didn't make the list, don't yell at me...   

https://jclarkmedia.com/gaybooks/composers.html

Cheers,
Fehrle

Half of these composers fell desperetly in love with a woman to my knowledge. And my knowledge is limited. I think the list is wrong.

[perfect_pitch]

Of course it's wrong... Any idiot who takes that list seriously is incredibly gullible (Sorry, but it's true)...

Cage I can agree with, Gershwin... I don't think so.... but Chopin, Beethoven and Schubert... I seriously doubt it....

Didn't Schubert die from Syphilis??? You can't really catch that from another guy now can you???

[gruffalo]

i think people mis-interpret Chopin's letters for the old style of talking. and friendships in those days, you could pretty much talk about anything without getting ridiculed. now we are too concerned with what other people think of what we say. so we also tend to interpret things with an immature approach.

[mike_lang]

.

[perfect_pitch]

I didn't mean to link it - that post is pretty old....

I just happened to mention that, because at the time I was replying to this message... it was on the news.

My point was on the old post was that Piano Teachers are getting a bad name in Australia because of these Paedophiles....

I didn't mean to link it to Homosexuality... that was just bad timing.

[clef]

hmmmm, I knew it was only a matter of time before a topic like this would be created....

[jas]

hmmmm, I knew it was only a matter of time before a topic like this would be created....

Why dig it up, then? It died about a month ago.

[sevencircles]

I always thought Richter was married, too. Obviously, as Horowitz proves, that doesn't preclude an interest in men.

Indeed, but everyone that knew him knew he was gay.

I believe that he admitted later in life that we was gay and never had any feelings for his wife at any point.

[gruffalo]

Horowitz wasnt gay was he?

[maxy]

Pogorelich was married to his female piano teacher--and was devastated by her death--hence his withdrawl from concertizing/recording for a while. I always thought Richter was married, too. Obviously, as Horowitz proves, that doesn't preclude an interest in men.

For Pogo, many say it was a cover-up.  Gay or not, he is a wacko!  Used to say he was some reincarnation of Beethoven and Liszt.

[pianoamit]

As an openly gay pianist, I have only the following to say. Being homosexual is not different to being bi-sexual or heterosexual. It is a preference which might statistically be less common, but nonetheless, it says absolutely nothing about a persons personality. I have known gay men who are bricklayers and gay men who dress in women's clothes alike. It is ridiculous to assume that simply because one man prefers sexual encounters with another man, rather than a woman, that he is effeminate (or as is sometimes assumed - feminine).

The irony lies in that it is impossible to statistically study people's sexuality. In modern society, sex and sexuality are considered private matters, to be kept behind closed doors. I have a good friend who only found it in himself to come out at the age of 25 (because it is a very difficult thing to to). In the same way, I have a friend who is straight to everyone back home, but openly gay to anyone here in London. I have known a few men who were married, fathered children, and then realised that they were gay (so fathering children is still no proof of heterosexuality). How can we really know a person's sexuality? Is it really our business to meddle in the private parts of a person's personality?

As for gay men who are married to women, a lot is to be said particularly for the older generations. Until today, it is unacceptable to be homosexual in many circles. Particularly with people who are over the age of 40, one is very likely to find some couples that have a 'marriage of convenience'. Gay men marry lesbian women, so that neither partner is forced to reveal his true sexuality.

As for the claims, which seem to be unfounded. The list is quite a bit more extensive than I would have made it. There seem to be composers included who I have my doubts about. However, it disgusts me that certain people cannot accept that there have been great composers who have been gay. For example, I would not say that Brahms was a homosexual: a claim which is based on the evidence of his platonic (but very loving) relationship with Clara Schumann. The theory that he was really after Robert is not convincing to me. Nor would I dream of saying that Mahler was a homosexual. Tchaikovsky, however, was definitely gay, as were Mussorgski (with his friend Viktor Hartmann - to whom Pictures at an Exhibition is dedicated) and Saint-Saëns. The latter was quoted saying: "I am not a homosexual, but rather a paedophile" - a claim which I would disagree with, seeing as accounts suggest that he only seemed to fall for the North-African boys. 

My list would definitely be much shorter than the one originally published, but nonetheless would include some of those names.

Definitely Homosexual Composers: Tchaikovsky, Saint-Saëns, Britten (together with Peter Pears)
Suspected Homosexual Composers: Beethoven (see Beethoven and his Nephew), Mussorgski, Schubert, Bernstein

Ultimately, I think this discussion is futile. Yes. I am a pianist and a homosexual. But I am also Jewish, Israeli, blue-eyed and brown-haired. What do any of these qualities have to do with my music? It did offend me, to see that people are so taken aback by the idea of suggested homosexuality, as though someone had disrespected the great composers. Homosexuality need not mean anything negative for any reason.

These are my thoughts. Think on these things.
Amit Yahav

[prometheus]

Don't you think it is inappropiate to speculate about someones sexual orientation? Not only is it irrelevant, it is also none of our business.

I am glad I am not famous. I hope it will stay that way.

[pianoamit]

It isn't any more 'wrong' to speculate about someone's sexuality as it is to do so about any other feature of theirs. I would speculate about Beethoven's sexuality just as quickly as I would about his eye colour.

[steve jones]

pianoamit,

You raise some good points my friend. And you view seems particularly fair and unbias. But I have to disagree with you on one point - sexuality does not influence music.

This I believe quite incorrect. Straight men today are bound by strict social conventions, and in many social circles, it is not the 'done' thing to be artistic. By that, I mean it is not acceptable to be overly sensitive, intouch with ones emotions etc. If I were to go down to my local and tell a bunch of friends that I cried earlier listening to Chopin, I would probably get jawed with in the hour.

Obviously this is insane. I am a straight man, with as fairly 'conformative' sexuality (be it slightly more creative than some of my friend's!). I train boxing, and possess a strong masculine side. But I also am extremely sensitive to music, something that has been with me since birth. And I find it a great shame that I almost forced to suppress this during my teens, for fear of not being excepted.

As a homosexual, Im sure you must know how that feels time a million. But this is most likely the reason why many homosexuals are so successful in the arts - they have had to overcome any such doubts, and have been liberated by the experience.

Maybe Im just takin rubbish here. But I do think that females and openly homosexual males (living in culturally 'open' areas) are much more free to embrace their creative side than the typical straight male. Today more than ever we are repressed and MADE to feel that our only concerns in life are ale, birds and football...

SJ

[pianoamit]

You must have misunderstood me. I said quite explicitly, that being Jewish, Israeli, blue-eyed, brown-haired, gay, and a pianist, was simply a coincidence. Of course sexuality has no bearing on musicality.

[steve jones]

Indeed, but I think we may both be a cross purposes. I believe that sexuality most definately IS a major influencing factor. Maybe not directly, but through social conditioning.

SJ

[pianoamit]

Do you really think that Tchaikovsky would not have written the Pathétique as it is, had he been in love with a female member of the Czar's family?

[prometheus]

I really have to disagree with Steve also.

First of the notion that someone is either straight, homosexual or bisexual is strange. Sexuality isn't a 'binary' notion. One doesn't either prefer blonde or dark hair either.

It is kind of strange also to say that only gay men are unbound to society. Really, sexuality isn't a choise. So people that want to fit in to society and like society can still be gay. People that are rebels and want society changed can be of any sexuality. Don't tell me all activits are gay. The idea that one cannot be a male and sensitive or an artists is so absurd. Really, where do you live? Even if we take contemporary society it is easy to see this is a strange view. And when we consider history we will see that during some times sensitivity and artistry were actually considered signs of masculinity. Of course it depends on the nature of the sensitivity.
Actually, it eve goes beyond this. At some points in history engaging in homosexual sex by straight, or rather normal men since the concept didn't exist, was an act of masculinity, it was part of the macho culture.
This seems to be something what we cannot comprehend. I have been told that the recent movie about Alexande the Great, which I was also told about that it was so bad I have never seen it, pictured him as a stereotypical gay man as we view one in our society. He was depicted as a feminine sensitive genius, rather than a drunken reckless impulsive megalomaniac ('macho', which is kind of a contemporary stereotype, but he just was a icon of divine, literally, manlyhood, one of a hero-king, like Achilles and Heracles), which he clearly was when we read the historical accounts.

You talk entirely out of your own experience. It seems that you have experienced things that have let you to believe this particular view must be true. It seems that you think that Pianoamit understands your experience for some reason, you talk about that you were forced to supress who you really are.
Everyone suffers from peer pressure. I also did. But I never realised I was bullied because I could not understand why one would want to bully me. Let alone as to why they did it. I do not even have the ability to fit into society if I wanted.
Now my sexuality is not understood. Really, sometimes it seems I feel it would be easier to tell people that I am gay. But I am 'just' staight, I only wan to limit myself to platonic love. Something very simple yet this is not understood or accepted. People just think you are gay and not admitting it.

As for being creative, isn't this just part of intelligence? Are you saying that homosexuals are more intelligent? And, this because they are less masculine, more feminine, so females are more intelligent than males, straight or homosexual? Surely this is false, right?

Hmm, through social conditioning. I must say this kind of changes the discussion. So either straight men are forced to be less creative, which they will have to accept, or homosexuals are encoraged to be more creative. Which of the two?
Also, in the times of these composers, wasn't society very different from now? I am not sure if the same homosexual stereotype that exists today existed at that time. But if it did, was it even accepted to be homosexual at all? I mean, all this goes on when you are a child so the parents must realise their child is homosexual and encorage him to do effeminate and creative stuff?

All of this just doens't make any sense, let alone  that it never works when you try to fit a strict framework on humans or human society. This is always going to be ineffecitve, even if there is a subtle casual relation between two things; it is never going to be very useful.

[steve jones]

Do you really think that Tchaikovsky would not have written the Pathétique as it is, had he been in love with a female member of the Czar's family?

That isnt what I said. My point is that social conditioning inhibits creativity in straight males (in alot of cultures at least). So I do totally think that sexuality plays a role in the development of musicians. Id wager that alot of talent goes up in smoke as a result of social convention.


"First of the notion that someone is either straight, homosexual or bisexual is strange"

Ay? If you want to take that stance then nothing can be categorised. I am straight - that doesnt adequately describe my sexuality, but it covers much of the broad strokes. Not sure why such categorisations might be considered strange, we do this across the board do we not? I am straight, English, white etc. That doesnt tell you who I am, but it a goes a long way in setting the scene.



"The idea that one cannot be a male and sensitive or an artists is so absurd"

I didnt say CANT, as I do infact fit this description. However, I would say that we are actively discouraged by much of society. I mean, is it REALLY ok with most people for a straight guy to do Ballet for example? In some places yes, but in most Id have to say no.

It doesnt fit the profile of 21st century masculinity, that is what Im getting at. Young people (on the most part) will do what ever it takes to fit in with their peers, so it makes sense that young men will feel repressed in the area of creative arts.


"You talk entirely out of your own experience"

Indeed, but unfortunately I have little else to go on. Im quite sure that in othe parts of the world, they have very different ideas regarding gender identities and sexuality. But I do also think that there is a 'rough' model to which modern man is urged to conform, atleast in the western world. For example, being successful in sports, having many relationships with females etc are all seen as alpha male traits. This seems to be universal from my understanding.


"As for being creative, isn't this just part of intelligence? Are you saying that homosexuals are more intelligent?"

No, this is not what Im saying at all. I dont think that sexuality can effect levels of intelligence or creative instinct. I DO feel that cultural standards can inhibit the developed of said creativity.

You make it sound very black and white, yes and no, right and wrong... and this is not what Im talking about. This entire thread is discussing the idea that homosexuals are more prolific in the arts. I agree that this appear to be true, and my speculation is that homosexuals may be less inhibited to embrace the sensitivity than 'straight' men, which I back up by my own experience. I wasnt bullied in repression, not at all! But I do feel that being sensitive to such things does not fit easily into the current gender model.


"Also, in the times of these composers, wasn't society very different from now?"

Ofcourse. And I wont pretend to have any expertise in this area. I have little idea of how homosexuality was percieved in Beethoven's day. But I cant imagine that it was as openly accepted as it is today.

SJ

[pianoamit]

I must say, Steve, that I think I have come on to the fundamental flaw in your reasoning. Whereas I am trying to pragmatically show the facts, you seem to want to rationalise on behalf of society. However, worse yet, you try to paint a picture which excuses this kind of view, and absolves society of the harm that it has - according to your reasoning - inflicted.

Claiming that social conventions inhibit males from being sensitive is as absurd as claiming that these same conventions inhibit women from being insensitive. In fact, much of Western culture is based on the idea of cameraderie between men and women - and that between men and men (or women and women). Starting in the times of ancient Greece (and even before that - though not well documented), the connection between men was seen as a strong and masculine bond of friendship. It is true that this was almost eradicated with the formation of the church, which claimed that according to the bible "...if a man shall lie with another man, they have both committed an abomination...". However, surely, if you were correct in assuming that many men are inhibited from being creative by the barriers posed by modern society, we would not be able to indulge in the great works of creators like Charles Dickens, J. S. Bach, William Shakespeare, Charles Bukowski, and other great male artists.

It is absurd to make these claims, based on the amount of work that we have by many a male who was creative (in spite of your idea of societal bans on male creativity). The notion that we should categorise people by their sexuality, and that these classifications are mutually exclusive, is wrong. I wish, for your own sake, and for the sake of those around you, that you realise this, and stop voicing these opinions before it's too late to repeal them.

Amit

[steve jones]

Ah, but dont forget, there are a lot of men in the world. Some will always break the mold. Just look at the Gould thread in the other section! I think most agree that Gould would be that way whether he wanted to or otherwise, lol.

I mean, since when has man always done as he was told?

With respect to 'Charles Dickens, J. S. Bach, William Shakespeare, Charles Bukowski...', these are perfect examples. But it is really an unfair line of reasoning - I can hardly make a long list of all those wasted talents can I?


Tell you what, let me put it another way...

Go into any 'ordinary' high school, and locate ALL of the male musicians. I would wager that the majority are playing guitar, drums, brass... very masculine instruments. Atleast that is how it was and remains to be in my highschool. The guys are totally prepared to pick up a guitar and join a band, but would far less likely to pick up a violin. Infact, I have only ever known two male violin players (and I used to be incontact with hundreds of musicians). Both were homosexual.

Surely this can not be coincidence?

We have artistically inclined individuals, yet they only seem prepared to work with instruments strongly represented as being symbolic of masculinity?

How many guys in your school played football? How many did Ballet?

How many guys played with GI Joe as a kid, and how many played with Barbie?

How many guys ride motor bikes, and how many ride horses? Well, this example is probably less valid and not applicable in many regions. But never the less, I once got accused of being gay for riding horse. The thing was my sisters and she had convinced me to take a spin around the block on it. As I passed a group of fellas, one (who I vaguely knew) asked me 'Why are you riding a horse, isnt that a bit gay?'.


I honestly dont find this concept 'absurd' in the slightest bit. There are social conventions, and they are very real. This is not to say that they cant be broken!!! But it takes someone with security and strength of character to do so. Unfortunately, these arent traits commonly found in teenage boys. As I am now in my mid 20's, I am totally secure with my creativity, and actually very proud of it.

As for excusing it, you are quite mistaken. Im not even expressing an opinion on it. In 'my' world, many things would be different! I am merely attempting to communicate my view of the current reality.

And believe me, if you can provide sufficient an argument, I would quite happily concede. But I cant see this happening unfortunately! To say 'well this guy is straight and a musician...' hardly fits the bill as its really not estimate how many young me go the other way.

I mean, just look at that film 'Billy Elliot'. A young kid in the North East who cant box for toffee yet takes to dancing like a duck to water. The entire film is based on the ideas that I propose in this thread.

SJ

[mike_lang]

Regarding the homosexual violinists, I attend the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music and have not encountered a homosexual male violinist yet.  I wouldn't assign sexual preferences to instruments, if I were you.

[pianoamit]

What we all seem to be trying to tell you, my dear boy, is that the correlation you are trying to find is not only far-fetched, but unfair. That the meaning of the word gay is often misunderstood is unfortunate. Sir Ian McKellen is a perfect example of a gay man, who is not at all effeminate. Trying to correlate sexuality (or your definition of sexual classifications) with personailty, is like trying to correlate eye colour to toe girth.

[steve jones]

Regarding the homosexual violinists, I attend the Indiana University Jacobs School of Music and have not encountered a homosexual male violinist yet.  I wouldn't assign sexual preferences to instruments, if I were you.

Why not?

I fail to understand why people have a problem with such statements. Is it not the case that young males are more likely to play an electric guitar or a drum kit while girls are more likely to play a flute or violin maybe?

I worked for about 6 years selling these very instruments to people, and I saw distinct trends. No opinions, just facts. I dont think I can remember selling one flute to a male, whereas I was selling them by the box load to young girls (well, to their parents I should say).

Imo, it is absurd to even attempt to deny such links.

But never the less, we are drifting in topic slightly. The point of mine that people seem to have taken exception to is the one that claims social conventions regarding gender influence musical development. Well, not so much musical development a such, but certainly the kind of music that we deal with on this forum.


SJ

[steve jones]

What we all seem to be trying to tell you, my dear boy, is that the correlation you are trying to find is not only far-fetched, but unfair. That the meaning of the word gay is often misunderstood is unfortunate. Sir Ian McKellen is a perfect example of a gay man, who is not at all effeminate. Trying to correlate sexuality (or your definition of sexual classifications) with personailty, is like trying to correlate eye colour to toe girth.

Lol, I think we must live in very different worlds if we are both to be correct.

Never the less, I have to reiterate that I am NOT drawing correlation between sexuality and personality!

I am trying to say that, atleast in my experience of life, that gender roles DO influence our development. I am absolutely amazed that anyone is even trying to debate this point to be quite honest.

SJ

[pianoamit]

There is a large number of overweight Lesbians. Do gender roles, then, also affect our physical development and weight?

[steve jones]

If said Lesbians are down the pub everynight getting the pints down (in true bloke fashion), then yes! If they adopt a stereotypical male attitude of not caring about such things, then I do believe that their sexuality has indirectly influenced their physical appearance.

No?

SJ

[steve jones]

Pianoemit,

Seriously mate, are you honestly saying that you believe creeds, colours and sexual preferences have no influence on such matters?

Surely you must agree that every culture has its ideas of how what constitutes masculine and feminine behaviour and ideas?

I am not trying to mock this idea at all, believe me. Its is very positive in an idealistic kind of way. Its just that its so far away from my experiences that I cant how it holds water.

SJ

[prometheus]

Gay men aren't female. They are male.

Yes, I was very blunt in my interpretation of your words because to me it was not clear what you are after. And still it is not.

You are seeing patters and then you explain them with your theory. You are selectively applying your theory. Your theory should explain everything, not just individual hand picked cases.

The whole notion that some things are male things, or male traits, or male fuctions/jobs/duties are all cultural constructions. Sure, they are very influential but they also differ through region and history. These things are all very complex. People have all kinds of reasons to do things, to be what they are. You can't just explain it because of their sexuality.

Even when it comes to hormones, some homosexuals may be more effeminate males, males with lower testosterone levels, but this will only be a part of all people that engage in homosexual acts or that call themselves homosexual. Furthermore, being 'more female' doesn't mean anything either.

I played with cute barbies and my brother preferred dolls for some reason. Now I am very insensitive and rude, while at the same time being some of an anti-macho. But my brother is kind of opposite. I am creative because I like to engage in mental activities while my brother prefers physical labor, though he isn't stupid. He is more of a macho-type and he is probably soft somewhere deep inside. He seems to be straight and I am also. So now lets take your theory and apply it, a theory you have not explained in detail yet. I am sure it will not tell you anything.

So yes, you are 'right' but only in selectively picked cases, which may be a minority or not. Realise that human culture and human sociology are very complex things and that human sexual preference is one of the least understood elements of human psychology. And this is not just gender preference, but also hair colour. Would you also support a case that females with dark hair are passionate and wild while blonde haired woman are sweet and cute? So what does that tell us about the creativity of a male with a preference for dark haired woman? Or is a male that lives in the western world, with its preference for blonde hair, that still likes dark hair someone that can break away from society as well, just as the homosexual, and thus smart, sensitive and creative?

So in the end 'gay' and 'straight' are only about sexual preference, which of course don't come out of the blue. Surely there are many things that influence ones sexual perference. There are also many reasons people can have for a particular behavoir.
But when you are 'gay' you have a particular sexual preference; you are not a person that follows a particular stereotype.

One would almost say there is a difference between 'being gay' and having a homosexual orientation already.


Colours? You also have things to say on colours? Let us hear them.

[pianoamit]

Aye, Prometheus!

Steve, we all know that sexuality, as much as any other quality a human possesses, shapes his personality in some way, shape or form. But how can you say that homosexuals are more sensitive and creative, when there are just as many gay men who are manual labourers and high-school drop-outs? Some gay men are simply insensitive. When I realised I was gay, I didn't wake up one morning and say: "Oh, I must go find out more about the stereotype to which I must now belong"; I remained myself, but accepted my preference for engaging in sexual contact with other men rather than women. This however, has had no bearing on my musical development, as it was too late in my musical career to have too much of an effect in that way. It is just another part of me. As I have said before, and I will say again. I'm Jewish, Israeli, a pianist, and blue-eyed: none of these qualities relate to each other. I'm Jewish, but I don't play in a 'Jewish way' (Heaven knows what that may be, although you seem to have an answer to everything)... So I'm also gay, but how does that affect the way I play?

[steve jones]

"Your theory should explain everything, not just individual hand picked cases."

To be fair Prometheus, I am not the one quoting individuals names - "J S Bach wasnt gay, so there goes you theory..." type talk is not coming from this corner. Iv been trying to use as broad samples as possible, such as my experience working in the musical instrument trade, and the example below.


"You can't just explain it because of their sexuality."

I agree. Iv only ever suggested that I may have been an influencing factor.

I dont think that being gay makes a man more sensitive. I think that being straight may do the opposite - peer pressure at school to act and behave certain way, pressure from the family to be sucessful in masuline pursuits (such as sport), a personal desire regarding ones self image... all contributing factors that influence the attitudes we adopt and ultimately, the lives we lead.



"But how can you say that homosexuals are more sensitive and creative, when there are just as many gay men who are manual labourers and high-school drop-outs? Some gay men are simply insensitive."

Well, this is merely my interpretation, and this can ofcourse be wrong. This just appears to be were the evidence points. Its is not black and white, nothing is. But I do think that is a fair theory given the experiences Iv had.

I mean, I used to go out with a girl who later went off to a dance / performing arts college. She told me (and this was long after we had finished) that 99.9% of the men at this school were homosexual.

So how do I explain the fact that virtually all the male students are gay?

Are gay men better dancers?

Do they have some in built ability to learn this art better than straight men?

No, ofcourse not!

But I would say that ass dance tends to be a art that is pursued more by males than females, that many males will not follow it, regardless of their level of potential. And the same goes for their parents - alot of fathers would not be happy to dress their first born son in a ballet outfit and send him out to dance classes.

I may be very wrong, but this is how I interpret the situation.

How would you explain this?

Question to both of you.

SJ


PS. Also, dont think that I am agreeing with the ideas that I propose. Like I said eariler, in my 'perfect' world, this would not be the case. But I have to be 'real' and face what I see as facts.

[pianoamit]

Your mistake is not in that you are making an incorrect assumption, but rather in that you make an assumption at all. We can all spend all of our days prancing about and making assumptions about correlations between human features and qualities, but there is really no point. Moreover, it isn't fair to make these assumptions.  And if I told you that virtually 99.9% of students at the Sibelius Academy have blond hair, would you deduce that society makes people without blond hair feel like they shouldn't pursue the fields that are for the blonde-haired and be creative?

Why do you feel such a burning desire to 'interpret' the 'evidence'? What is the benefit of this analysis to you? What is the benefit of this analysis to anyone?

[thomj]

What is the benefit of this analysis to you? What is the benefit of this analysis to anyone?

Nothing to me! Infact, I feel the desire to punch myself in the head after reading this thread! Steve. All respect to you, but you should go do a semester of gender studies or sociology at uni or something

[prometheus]

How would you explain this?

We don't. Human psychology and sociology are so complex it is very hard to explain anything. This case may be pure conincidence. Maybe all these people knew each because they are gay and so they all wen to the same ballet school.  Maybe the other ballet school in town has all straight males. Maybe there is some other reason. Probably them being gat has something to do with it.

The point is that you cannot really use this seemingly relationship to make any predictions or to explain anything. First of, if you want to know if there is a casual relationship between these two you will have to do some objective research, which you aren't doing. Then you claim that society does this. So a social construction creates this relationship. Now societies are different everywhere. You will need to classify societies. I mean, you can even identify this relationship but then you need to know if the notion that society forces, or solely allows them, to do this behavior. Let's take the father. You claim that a father will not like the fact that his sun has an interest in ballet, so the son is not allowed to or doesn't want to. But if this son is openly gay, does that change the position of the father. I mean, if you don't want your son to do ballet, because it is for girls, does it matter if he is gay or not? You see, there is a broad possibility of views a society can have, but only in a very specific case will your theory hold. It must be accepted to be openly gay. The gay stereotype as a effeminate male must exist. But still there must be retraints on being gay. Everyone accepts a gay male ballet dancer. But do you want this atheltic smart gay quarterback, typical popular male stereotype but gay, to lead your football team? In a very liberal society no one will care. In a very conservative one no one will know that he is gay. Your society must be inbetween them.
And then there can be a casual relationship that is explained by something else. Someone may dance ballet because his mother, or even father, also does. So he is forced to play ballet regardless of any of his own preferences. But he turns out to be gay as well. Now you can even imagine a situation where this is true for a large part of society. Casual relationships can be deceptive. Even if they exist very strongly they can be totally meaningless.

[steve jones]

Lol, thomj, we are having a discussion mate, no need to get the arse ache. I would LOVE to study such topics, but unfortunately my days of formal education are long gone and Im left to ponder in private.

So please, feel free to punch away, extra points if you can leave a mark!

Btw, is that all you came here to say? Fantastic contribution...


"Why do you feel such a burning desire to 'interpret' the 'evidence'? What is the benefit of this analysis to you? What is the benefit of this analysis to anyone?"

That is a good question.

I feel the desire to analyse and interpret this because I find the topic to be interesting. The question was asked, and I am curious to know the answer. YOU and another member said that my idea was absurd, and so I attempt to bring evidence to the table to support it.

If you and Thomj have no desire to ponder such things, then why are you even posting in this thread?

Isnt that a little bit like asking 'Why do you care how Beethoven intended the passage to be played', in a thread entitled 'How did Beethoven intend this passage to be played'.

This is a thread discussing homosexuality in the arts! I find the topic fascinating, and I feel the desire to contribute my views. Is that a problem?

Another reason is that I am unable to accept you reasoning, or lack of it. My arguments are based on real life evidence, while yours seem to be 100% normative. Im affraid that I cant accept something just on your say so.


"We can all spend all of our days prancing about and making assumptions about correlations between human features and qualities"

Errr, yes, isnt that what PhD's scientists do?

A doctor notices that a headache drug appears to be giving patients stomach ulcers. So he performs a study to gather evidence with which to prove such a link, and explain it in physiological terms.

He makes assumptions and correlations, about humans, and he then goes out and finds evidence to either prove or disprove the theory!

This is how we draw a line between FACT and OPINION.

Now, although my evidence may not stand up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny, I think that it is adequate to support my views. You have bought nothing but your word, hence why I am having difficulty.

So again, in the hope that we can draw this debate to a close...

Are we in agreement that there does indeed appear to be a greater proporition of homosexual males in arts?

Do you propose this phenomenon to be pure coincidence?

SJ

[steve jones]

prometheus,

First of all, let me just say that I am trying to be as object as if possible, but obviously I am not going to perform a study to prove myself right, lol. Secondly, if you answer to such things is that they're coincidence, then great, I can accept that. I dont agree, but we are all allowed to interpret things are we choose.

But I do certainly stand by the idea that social convention does (be it directly or indirectly) inhibit the development of certain personality traits. Dermography plays a huge role in human variety, yet many concepts seem universal across the developed world. And I strongly believe that if I were follow up on this theory, I would find strong evidence to support it.


"I mean, if you don't want your son to do ballet, because it is for girls, does it matter if he is gay or not?"

Not I. Dont forget, I am with you fellas in that embrace my creative and sensitive side. I do this and am perfectly secure in my hetrosexuality. I am living proof that my own theory is not perfect.

But to answer the question...

The example was bought up to show how the influence from parents can be the precursor to such inhibitions. We learn so much from our parents do we not? I would imagine that if a father consistently told his son not to cry, as it made him a sissy, then he would grow up to reflect that (atleast up to a point). The statment was not directly related to the idea that a hetrosexual male might be less likely to embrace his sensitive side for fear of matching up to his peers.

Prometheus, it appears from you last post that your primary argument against my proposal is simply that I dont have enough 'ammo' to prove it categoricially?

If this is the case then yes, I agree. I am not trying to prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. I am merely trying to defend an idea that I believe to correct, by providing limited, but objectively focussed examples in support.

You yourself claim the idea to absurd, as did Pianoemit. Yet neither of you have come back to me with anything more than 'it must be a coincidence, dont know'.

If you could provide something a little more heavy weight, then I might be forced to question myself. But 'there is not answer, because we dont understand it' does not cut the mustard for me.

SJ

[thomj]

Steve, you have to be American, yes? Or perhaps you're a neo-American (a.k.a. Australian?) It turns out that I have a serious interest in this topic, I've just had nothing concrete from your posts for me to develop a decent reply. I feel as if you're constantly contradicting yourself!

And my arse is just fine, thanks. 

I think it comes down to the fact that you're trying to prove too many points in one go. The first is that the society you have experienced is heavily heteronormative, which isn't hard to believe. You talk of 'straight' guys being oppressed by society's expectations of them. I don't think this is unusual to anyone here. It's definately not news to me. Although, I'd just like to add that all groups of a society have certain pressures/expectations placed upon them. But you knew that already.

Secondly, you seem to try and categorise and simplify everything to the extent that any conclusions you draw seem worthless. There are just TOO many variables to be able to draw any firm conclusions about queers and music. Homosexual, Lesbian and Straight, by the way, are beginning to sound kind of dated.

Queer:

The word ‘queer’ traditionally was used against those identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, intersex or transgender and usually meant ‘strange’ or ‘unusual’. From about the 1960s the connotations of the word changed substantially and the term queer was effectively reclaimed by the LGBIT community. The term was popularized by a flourish of activist groups in the the UK and USA, such as Queer Nation, ACT UP and OutRage, who incorporated new forms of non-violent street protest into HIV/AIDS activism.

Today, queer is used an inclusive, unifying umbrella term for lesbian, gay, intersex, transgender or genderqueer identifying people. The term may also include heterosexuals whose sexual preferences may place them outside the societal ‘norm’ and for those who reject traditional gender binaries.

Tim Edwards [1998] defines the word queer as “an attempt to undermine an overall discourse of sexual catergorisation, and, more particularly, the limitations of the heterosexual-homosexual divide as an identity”.

With that in mind.. I think it's futile to try and make one general assumption about sexuality and music. TOO many factors. TOO many complications.

What is our obsession with classifying and categorising things, anyway?


(a half-arsed attempt at a reply, but it's 4:14am and i'm typing in my sleep. apologies.)

[prometheus]

My view is that you cannot study people's behavior, the way they think or the way a society behaves/evolves/is structured through science. It is too complex.

Now, you have something that could be turned into a theory. But if you do you will find that it will fail. You cannot make a real theory, you only have this, how should we call it, suspicion. You cannot try to turn it into a real theory, not even the professionals in the field can; there aren't any theories that predict human behavior as we can predict the laws of nature.

Now you claim that your suspicion is to stand as long as we cannot explain this part of human behavior and society. Of course this is unfair; if we do not know we just don't know. You can't say something is true, or even worthwhile, just because we don't have another explanation.

That what you say is just your opinion, nothing more. If you want it to be objective it has to be falsifible. You have to postulate your theory in such a way we can find out if it holds or not.

[pianoamit]

By your logic exactly, I could conduct another study. I would collect a list of all the Jews who are musicians. Using this extensive list, I would then hypothesise that social conventions in the Jewish world encourage people to be musicians and not to pursue other professions. By your logic exactly, I could answer the question "Why are so many musicians Jewish?"

I myself would like to repeal a statement of mine, because sexuality is not really a quality of a person, nor a feature. It is a complex set of mental processes, and one which absolutely cannot be summed up as having a correlation with anything (particularly because very little is known about it).

Yes - artists in general tend to be eccentric. It is this eccentricity that gives them the need to express themselves, and the desire to pursue an artistic profession. But this eccentricity can exist in a plethora of forms.

[steve jones]

Thom,

Well, I am from England, so I guess if you want to brand me a Neo American I can deal with that. Not sure how these guys will feel about it though - something tells me they dont like generalisation...


"I feel as if you're constantly contradicting yourself!"

Great... show me an example and I'll address it. Otherwise, its just all hot air bredren 


"The first is that the society you have experienced is heavily heteronormative, which isn't hard to believe. You talk of 'straight' guys being oppressed by society's expectations of them. I don't think this is unusual to anyone here. It's definately not news to me."

Cool, so we are in agreement. A refreshing change!


"There are just TOO many variables to be able to draw any firm conclusions about queers and music."

Quite possibly. But then again I never did suggest that my theory was the 'be all and end all' answer to this little quandry. That would be most arrogant. I merely propose a suggestion that may or maynot hold influence. The odd thing is that for all their talk of 'absurd' and 'far-fetched', they have only been able to express normative views on why my theory is incorrect. Indeed, my theory may have its flaws but Iv yet to hear anything to cast major doubt of its validity.

You're right aswell about me trying to simplify things. But is that not the only way to study such a sample? Ofcourse, if I were going to delve into this to any great degree I would have to get more specific. But for the purpose of this thread, this the only way. I mean, the thread is entitled 'Musicians and Homosexuality'!

But the truth is my interest in the topic really doesnt stretch quite that far. Not by a long chalk infact. It is an interesting topic, one that could probably be debated until the cows the come home. And certainly one that deserves a little more than 'there is no answer, its to complex to understand'. But I dont think I am going to stretch further than recalling from experience to deal with it.

"a half-arsed attempt at a reply, but it's 4:14am and i'm typing in my sleep. apologies."

Quite alright old boy.


SJ

[steve jones]

You can't say something is true, or even worthwhile, just because we don't have another explanation.

Lol, yeah you are quite right, although Im sure history would teach us otherwise! Didnt the world used to flat...   That said, I would be most curious to hear a satisfying counter argument.


"That what you say is just your opinion, nothing more"

Indeed, but I wager that if we could be collectly bothered, we could put many of my claims to the test and gain a true objective conclusion. It may be opinion, but it all evidenced to an extent by my personal experience.



"If you want it to be objective it has to be falsifible. You have to postulate your theory in such a way we can find out if it holds or not."

Mate, I am quite satisfied to just discuss the issue. It would be most enlightening to generate some robust data and make this into a proper, legit theory. But thats hardly going to happen over a bit of off topic banter, right?

Infact, Id eat my hat if someone hasnt already conducted similar research.

How about that guy who tried to prove that ALL men are inherently homosexual, by testing penile blood flow (I think that was the criteria!) during exposure to gay porn. He concluded that the more a male protested against his homosexuality, the inverse was true.

Who the hell funds this stuff??? 

SJ

[steve jones]

By your logic exactly, I could answer the question "Why are so many musicians Jewish?"

Very possibly.

But not really! The link between artistic sensitivity and sexuality makes the theory at least plausible. Im not sure that such a link exsists between Jewish culture and music. But maybe it does, I really dont know.

That said, IF Jewish people were known to hold up musicianship in the highest esteem, then I can imagine this might result in a great proportion of Jewish muso's, yes.

Just look at football in the UK. Most young guys would love to a top flight footballer, even the ones who dont particularly like the game! But they certainly do like what it 'says' about them.


SJ

[pianoamit]

So by that logic, when a boy is 6 years old, he fully understands that he is gay, and decides to pursue the piano as a career and not be ashamed of it in front of his peers?

[steve jones]

No.

By this logic a guy of 15 might quit piano as he doesnt feel it is inline with what he and his peers view a masculine.

There are many straight, male, 15 years old pianists. But Id wager there are far more footballers in this demographic group.

SJ

[pianoamit]

There are also far more footballers overall...