Piano Forum



International Piano Day 2024
Piano Day is an annual worldwide event that takes place on the 88th day of the year, which in 2024 is March 28. Established in 2015, it is now well known across the globe. Every year it provokes special concerts, onstage and online, as well as radio shows, podcasts, and playlists. Read more >>

Topic: Homosexual pianists  (Read 18845 times)

Offline stucoy

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 54
Homosexual pianists
on: July 10, 2006, 05:08:20 PM
Further to the 'What type of pianist are you?' thread, I would like to ask:
1. Is there REALLY a disproportionate number of pianists who are homosexual? I've never been convinced myself. I'm sure that I could name nine heterosexual pianists for every one homosexual one. Perhaps it's because there's been some homosexual high-profile pianists, e.g. Rubenstein, Horowitz (although shouldn't he be classed as bisexual?), Van Cliburn, Richter(?).   Maybe I'm wrong, and there is a disproportionate ratio.

2. Does it really matter if a pianist is homosexual? Does it affect the way he/she plays, or what 'type' of pianist they become?

Your views please.

 

Offline steve jones

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #1 on: July 10, 2006, 05:11:44 PM

Lol, there is a long thread about this, in the 'off topic' section I think.

I got into quite a punch up with a couple of our 'fairer' members  ;D

SJ

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #2 on: July 10, 2006, 05:25:54 PM
Does it really matter if a pianist is homosexual? Does it affect the way he/she plays, or what 'type' of pianist they become?
There is no evidence to suggest either that it does either of those things, nor is there any to suggest why it would - or why it could be expected to...

Consider the case of homosexual composers; as I have observed before, if one attended a string quartet recital comprising, say, Szymanowski's Second Quartet, Britten's First and Tchaikovsky's Third, how would one know that the entire programme had been of music by homosexual composers unless one had actually been told or had read beforehand that all three were homosexuals?

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ramseytheii

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #3 on: July 10, 2006, 05:30:26 PM
high-profile pianists, e.g. Rubenstein,
 

Rubinstein was one of the most notorious womanizers in the history of the piano.   He may have dressed the part of the dandy, but he was no homosexualist.

Walter Ramsey

Offline justliam

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #4 on: July 10, 2006, 05:48:53 PM
Well unless there is a naked man sat on the top of the piano to distract them, there's no logical reason as to why they would be better or worse than annyone else.  Personality makes a pianist, not who he does the lurrrrrve thing with.  It just so happens that gay people GENERALLY have a personality more suited to playing romantic music.  Also, I've been racking my brain trying to come up with a way of tieing the 12 inch pianist joke into this thread, but I just can't find a way.
\\\\\\\"That\\\\\\\'s not a gadget Michael, that\\\\\\\'s just monstrous use of a Biro.\\\\\\\"

Offline franz_

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 817
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #5 on: July 10, 2006, 05:53:28 PM
Actually, which pianists were/are FOR SURE homosexual?
Currently learing:
- Chopin: Ballade No.3
- Scriabin: Etude Op. 8 No. 2
- Rachmaninoff: Etude Op. 33 No. 6
- Bach: P&F No 21 WTC I

Offline justliam

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 137
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #6 on: July 10, 2006, 05:57:08 PM
Phill McCrackin
Ben Dover
Drew Peacock
\\\\\\\"That\\\\\\\'s not a gadget Michael, that\\\\\\\'s just monstrous use of a Biro.\\\\\\\"

Offline moi_not_toi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #7 on: July 10, 2006, 06:04:21 PM
There is no evidence to suggest either that it does either of those things, nor is there any to suggest why it would - or why it could be expected to...

Consider the case of homosexual composers; as I have observed before, if one attended a string quartet recital comprising, say, Szymanowski's Second Quartet, Britten's First and Tchaikovsky's Third, how would one know that the entire programme had been of music by homosexual composers unless one had actually been told or had read beforehand that all three were homosexuals?

Best,

Alistair
First people accuse horowitz and then Tchaikovsky!!!?? WHy!! He fell in love with one of his patrons, but she rejected him. That's why he was so depressed! He wasn't gay!
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
Vote for Bunny!
Vote for Earth!

Offline thalbergmad

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16730
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #8 on: July 10, 2006, 06:10:22 PM
Phill McCrackin
Ben Dover
Drew Peacock

Don't forget the 2 Irish Pianists.

Michael FitzPatrick & Patrick FitzMichael.

Thal
Curator/Director
Concerto Preservation Society

Offline fiasco

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 75
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #9 on: July 10, 2006, 07:44:25 PM
Only the men pianists are gay, though, right?  You don't have lesbain pianists like you don't have straight women cops.  Or straight male fashion designers or ballet dancers.  Of course there's exceptions, but it seems like certain activities are gender based, like objects are gender based in the Romantic languages.  I'm a straight male and totally addicted to the piano.  I've found that women love a guy who plays piano, and even more so if he's straight, ha ha.  People think that in order to be a "sensitive" male, like a musician or a poet, you're either gay or in the closet.  These people have never read Bukowski or heard of Liszt.

Offline bernhard

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5078
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #10 on: July 10, 2006, 07:46:11 PM
Actually, which pianists were/are FOR SURE homosexual?

Elton John?

Liberace?

 ;)
The music business is a cruel and shallow money trench, a long plastic hallway where thieves and pimps run free, and good men die like dogs. There's also a negative side. (Hunter Thompson)

Offline franzliszt2

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 979
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #11 on: July 10, 2006, 07:51:25 PM
Horowitz went to that electric shcok treatment or something because he feared he might have been gay.

Offline ramseytheii

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #12 on: July 10, 2006, 08:14:35 PM
First people accuse horowitz and then Tchaikovsky!!!?? WHy!! He fell in love with one of his patrons, but she rejected him. That's why he was so depressed! He wasn't gay!

Actually I think of all homosexualist musicians the Tchaikovsky case is the most conventionally known.  He felt an overwhelming sense of guilt due to his persuasion and certain things are recorded for posterity in his diaries and letters.   For a while, though it has been discredited, many believed he committed suicide because of this guilt.  I found once an old music encyclopedia from the 1910's, and in the lingo of that day said, "Unfortunately, Tchaikovsky as well as his brother Modest were both afflicted with severe cases of pederasty."  Pederasty apparently being the overall term for homosexualism in those days.

Walter Ramsey

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #13 on: July 10, 2006, 08:24:45 PM
First people accuse horowitz and then Tchaikovsky!!!?? WHy!! He fell in love with one of his patrons, but she rejected him. That's why he was so depressed! He wasn't gay!
OK - so if you don't like Pyotr Ilyich's work being brought into this, then let's substitute Tippett's Third Quartet for Tchaikovsky's. Now can you please answer what I wrote? (which you haven't yet done...)

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline m

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #14 on: July 10, 2006, 09:06:35 PM
Jeez!

Just wondering why people are always so interested in gossiping about homosexuality and why wouldn't they mind their own business?

Personally, I have a lot of homosexual and lesbian friends and in fact, generally find myself much more comfortable with them than with many straight people.
In this regard, although P. I. Tchaikowsky was a gay, I love him not only for that reason.

Since it is a public knowledge (documented in a book in Russian called "Tchaikowsky and his death") I will tell you his death was quite tragic, as he got invloved into an affair with member of royal family (Great Prince Konstantin). Since the homosexuality was banned in the Tsar's Russia, to avoid a scandal the Court of Honor advised him to commit suicide.


P.S. Oh, for the intereseted individuals, in case you read into my message more than I wrote, I can say I am a happily married straight Jew... well.... maybe Jewish... ;)

Offline counterpoint

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2003
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #15 on: July 10, 2006, 09:57:35 PM
It's so dull, this gossip about whether a special pianist is gay or not gay.

One is for sure: he is a pianist!

Is that not enough to be looked at as a strange person?
If it doesn't work - try something different!

Offline earthward

  • PS Silver Member
  • Jr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 52
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #16 on: July 10, 2006, 11:11:31 PM
First people accuse horowitz and then Tchaikovsky!!!?? WHy!! He fell in love with one of his patrons, but she rejected him. That's why he was so depressed! He wasn't gay!

Yes he was!! It's a well-known fact.  He was depressed because he was married to a woman who he wasn't attracted to.

Offline moi_not_toi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #17 on: July 11, 2006, 12:09:43 AM
Yes he was!! It's a well-known fact.  He was depressed because he was married to a woman who he wasn't attracted to.
AHHHHH!!!!! NO!!!!!  :( :( :( :(
I can't believe it!
I'm depressed now. :-[ :-[ :-[
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
Vote for Bunny!
Vote for Earth!

Offline steve jones

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #18 on: July 11, 2006, 02:00:39 AM

I think it really comes down to whether or not you feel that sexuality can be expressed at all in music. If so, then sexuality could certainly influence ones style and musical preferences. If not, then you will believe it to be pure coincidence Im sure.

I personally think that sexuality can be expressed in music. Infact, I think that sexuality is one of THE things we do communicate in our music! But I understand this is quite a controversial statement for some people, and its not one I care to debate again.

But Im sure most would agree that these two polar extremes of theory exist, yeah?

SJ

Offline e60m5

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #19 on: July 11, 2006, 08:57:17 AM
I think it really comes down to whether or not you feel that sexuality can be expressed at all in music. If so, then sexuality could certainly influence ones style and musical preferences. If not, then you will believe it to be pure coincidence Im sure.

I personally think that sexuality can be expressed in music. Infact, I think that sexuality is one of THE things we do communicate in our music! But I understand this is quite a controversial statement for some people, and its not one I care to debate again.

But Im sure most would agree that these two polar extremes of theory exist, yeah?

SJ


I think sexuality can definitely be expressed through music.  But whether that extends to sexual orientation being projected through music, I am not so sure.  I am not doubting it, but nor would I advocate such a statement yet.  The more I think about it, though, the less I feel sure.

If it is accepted that sexuality can be projected through music, the question then becomes whether sexuality is different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.  If there is a difference, then this difference will similarly be projected through the music, but it is the answering of this question which is the stumbling block to me.

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #20 on: July 11, 2006, 10:52:40 AM
I think it really comes down to whether or not you feel that sexuality can be expressed at all in music. If so, then sexuality could certainly influence ones style and musical preferences. If not, then you will believe it to be pure coincidence Im sure.

I personally think that sexuality can be expressed in music. Infact, I think that sexuality is one of THE things we do communicate in our music! But I understand this is quite a controversial statement for some people, and its not one I care to debate again.
The problem here is that you do not care to debate it but that you don't say why. I am not saying that it cannot be so, but the two things with which we need to concern ourselves in our consideration of this are
1. Do composers ever actually seek specifically and deliberately to do so (and why)? and
2. What neurosceintific proof or disproof of the possibility of doing so currently exists?

The answer to 1. is open to debate but in almost all cases no and the answer to 2. is just plain no.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #21 on: July 11, 2006, 10:55:08 AM
I think sexuality can definitely be expressed through music.  But whether that extends to sexual orientation being projected through music, I am not so sure.  I am not doubting it, but nor would I advocate such a statement yet.  The more I think about it, though, the less I feel sure.

If it is accepted that sexuality can be projected through music, the question then becomes whether sexuality is different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.  If there is a difference, then this difference will similarly be projected through the music, but it is the answering of this question which is the stumbling block to me.
But why do you think so? Is it because of a personal instinctive response to the question? Or is it because you believe that you are aware of some scientific corroboration for it?

Many people claim that such things can be - and/or have been - expressed in music, but no one seems to tell us how this is supposed to work in practice.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline e60m5

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #22 on: July 11, 2006, 11:11:58 AM
But why do you think so? Is it because of a personal instinctive response to the question? Or is it because you believe that you are aware of some scientific corroboration for it?

Many people claim that such things can be - and/or have been - expressed in music, but no one seems to tell us how this is supposed to work in practice.

Best,

Alistair

I think the line between a personal instinctive response and scientific corroboration is not as clear cut as you make them out to be.  They are definitely not diametrically opposed concepts.  The problem in answering your question lies in the absence of a sufficiently precise and usable notion of what sexuality is.  My initial post was based upon my own approach to pianism, and what I communicate through it.

You are indeed right in your observation that no one seems to be able to explain the projection of certain "things", in your words, which they claim to be possible.  However, if your assertion was intended to cast doubt upon the truth of such claims (which I take to be the general tenor of your post; forgive me if I am mistaken), it is based upon the rather narrow assumption that all phenomenological expression and experience is capable of being expressed in words, an assumption which I (and I suspect most) would be unwilling to concede.  If nobody can explain how such elements may be projected through music, then to me, this is attributable more to such phenomena being truly ineffable, rather than simply nonexistent.  And this is a crucial distinction to grasp.

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #23 on: July 11, 2006, 11:55:26 AM
I think the line between a personal instinctive response and scientific corroboration is not as clear cut as you make them out to be.  They are definitely not diametrically opposed concepts.
Indeed they are not - and it was therefore insufficiently clear of me to write as I did; I should perhaps better haver written something more along the lones of "personal instinctive response, scientific corroboration or both". However, I wrote as I did because I was simply unclear as to where you stood on this issue.

You are indeed right in your observation that no one seems to be able to explain the projection of certain "things", in your words, which they claim to be possible.  However, if your assertion was intended to cast doubt upon the truth of such claims (which I take to be the general tenor of your post; forgive me if I am mistaken), it is based upon the rather narrow assumption that all phenomenological expression and experience is capable of being expressed in words, an assumption which I (and I suspect most) would be unwilling to concede.  If nobody can explain how such elements may be projected through music, then to me, this is attributable more to such phenomena being truly ineffable, rather than simply nonexistent.  And this is a crucial distinction to grasp.
The fact that my assertion was not intended necesarily to cast doubt upon the truth of such claims was surely clarified in my previous post where I wrote
I am not saying that it cannot be so
No need to forgive anything and nothing to forgive, but my position on the question of whether human sexuality can be or has been expressed, represented or otherwise identified in the composition and/or performance of music is simply that there is as yet far too little reliable scientific knowledge of such matters and how they might work in practice, so any claims made for such possibilities in the meantime must be based upon instinctive belief, speculation, etc. One may as well say the same for emotions and their expression in music, albeit to the lesser extent that it seems largely to be accepted that human emotions can find expression in music and that music's emotional capacity is capable of bringing about "altered states", even though how those chemical and activity changes in the brain may be brought about by, or inspire, musical thinking in the composer or how the same considerations function in the performer and listener are things of which we yet have very little practical scientific understanding.

There is - as perhaps a separate, though obviously linked, issue - the other matter that I mentioned - that of the aspirations/motivations/desires or otherwise of certain composers and performers vis-à-vis expression of sexuality in music, although clearly this is another aspect of the subject as a whole that is not yet amenable to reliable identification based upon established scientific truths.

Following on again from that is, among other considerations, that of the possible differences between heterosexual and homosexual communication that you mention. Even when we are better equipped to pronounce on the subject in general, this aspect may yet remain a more complex one than it might at first seem, since human sexual orientation is a matter of degree rather than a simple "black and white" on of hetero-and homo-.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline jas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 638
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #24 on: July 11, 2006, 12:44:28 PM
I think sexuality can definitely be expressed through music.  But whether that extends to sexual orientation being projected through music, I am not so sure.  I am not doubting it, but nor would I advocate such a statement yet.  The more I think about it, though, the less I feel sure.

If it is accepted that sexuality can be projected through music, the question then becomes whether sexuality is different between homosexuals and heterosexuals.  If there is a difference, then this difference will similarly be projected through the music, but it is the answering of this question which is the stumbling block to me.
One feminist musicologist called Susan McClary wrote an article about Schubert and the fact that she believes that his music reveals a "difference", which she interprets as an indication that he may have been homosexual. Although Schubert's sexuality isn't actually known for certain, there's a certain amount of biographical evidence to suggest that he was, and McClary discusses whether the "missing piece" can be found in his music. She compares his music to that of Beethoven and claims that Schubert's music is less goal-driven, there's more variation upon the same material, less V-I cadences, etc. Apparently, these are more "feminine" traits, especially the less goal-driven nature of the music, which she compares to (straight) male sexuality. I can't remember all of the details but it's an interesting read.

As to piano performance, though (or any other instrument, for that matter), I don't think a person's sexuality or gender makes a difference, presumably because a pianist merely projects someone else's music and has to strike the right balance between personal interpretation and sensitivity to the composer's intentions. I suppose in theory it might, but I've never seen any evidence to suggest it. For example, Argerich is a fairly "aggressive" pianist, moreso than many of her male peers. But there are exceptions to everything.

Quote
Jeez!

Just wondering why people are always so interested in gossiping about homosexuality and why wouldn't they mind their own business?

Personally, I have a lot of homosexual and lesbian friends and in fact, generally find myself much more comfortable with them than with many straight people.
In this regard, although P. I. Tchaikowsky was a gay, I love him not only for that reason.
It's not nosiness, it's an interesting and valid subject for discussion. If we were talking about manic depressiveness and whether that influences a composer's music would you be telling us to mind our own business? I don't see why homosexuality is such a touchy subject with some people. Maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not. Either way, there's nothing wrong with discussing it.

Jas

Offline m

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #25 on: July 11, 2006, 01:30:01 PM

It's not nosiness, it's an interesting and valid subject for discussion. If we were talking about manic depressiveness and whether that influences a composer's music would you be telling us to mind our own business? I don't see why homosexuality is such a touchy subject with some people. Maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not. Either way, there's nothing wrong with discussing it.


No, there is nothing touchy about the topic of homosexuality and in fact, it is a very interesting topic. However, in my view, gossiping about WHO was a gay and who was not just for sake of gossiping is at very least disrespectful to those people. Besides, "who was a gay" was covered many times on this board--just use "search" function. 

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #26 on: July 11, 2006, 01:34:51 PM
One feminist musicologist called Susan McClary wrote an article about Schubert and the fact that she believes that his music reveals a "difference", which she interprets as an indication that he may have been homosexual. Although Schubert's sexuality isn't actually known for certain, there's a certain amount of biographical evidence to suggest that he was, and McClary discusses whether the "missing piece" can be found in his music. She compares his music to that of Beethoven and claims that Schubert's music is less goal-driven, there's more variation upon the same material, less V-I cadences, etc. Apparently, these are more "feminine" traits, especially the less goal-driven nature of the music, which she compares to (straight) male sexuality. I can't remember all of the details but it's an interesting read.
It is if you're prepared to be taken in by its preposterous premises and attempted conclusions. I know that this sounds rather harsh, but the problem is that it is simply a classic example of the kind of invented pseudo-musicology wherewith we are plagued these days but which has little or no real value other than to advance the academic career of the musicologist and is notably short on material which has any credible scientific basis. It's nothing more than speculation.

Assuming for a moment that Schubert's music is indeed "less goal-driven" than Beethoven's (what? - ALL of it?) - an assumption which itself presumes a belief that there actually is such a thing as "goal-driven" music and that it is identifiable as such in certain works from the first quarter of the 19th century - what can or does this tell us about Schubert's potential homosexuality (or, for that matter, Beethoven's lack of it)? Are we therefore to believe that it is impossible for a homosexual composer to be profoundly influenced by the music of Beethoven or for a heterosexual one to be profoundly influenced by that of Schubert? Then again - if we just stick to this Beethoven & Schubert example - what of the perceived difference of emphasis in Beethoven's and Schubert's respective use of the perfect cadence in their different creative periods? - aren't the tub-thumping dominant-tonic conclusions of the 5th and 8th symphonies of Beethoven almost in another world from the way in which he ends the finales of his last five quartets? - and didn't Schubert's musical language also develop, especially in his last couple of years? No - it's all far too prescribed and proscribed to be realistic. Is it credible that Schubert wrote more "variation on the same material" than did the composer of the 32 variations in C minor, the Diabellis and heaven knows how many other variations sets? When you write "Apparently, these are more "feminine" traits", the most important word here is the first, for it is "apparent" only to Ms McClary herself because it just happened conveniently to suit her for it to be so at the time of writing. Again, I'm not deliberately carping here for the sake of so doing, but why are these things "feminine" traits? I'm not even suggesting that they aren't - just that she doesn't have anything with which to support such an assertion.

It's not nosiness, it's an interesting and valid subject for discussion. If we were talking about manic depressiveness and whether that influences a composer's music would you be telling us to mind our own business? I don't see why homosexuality is such a touchy subject with some people. Maybe it's relevant, maybe it's not. Either way, there's nothing wrong with discussing it.
This is fair comment. The fact that speculative hot air by the trillions of litres has been generated by the subject doesn't of itself make it anything less than an interesting and valid one for intelligent discussion.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline demented cow

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 132
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #27 on: July 11, 2006, 02:30:23 PM
To me it seems impossible to develop a serious theory of how somebody's sexual orientation could affect their playing or their compositions, in view of the following points:
a) Even if one could identify undeniably feminine traits in the music of a male performer/player, this is not proof that they are sexually attracted to men, unless one could rule out that the composer/performer is (perhaps unconsciously) trying to depict and/or address a woman by putting supposedly 'feminine' features in his performance/composition. And one could imagine gay players producing 'masculine' ('butch') music because they like men.

b) With deference to the lady that wrote that guff about Schubert reported on above, there can be no objective theory of what is masculine and what is feminine in music. These things are not only culture-specific but person-specific. For instance, in some cultures, it is considered 'gay' if a man kisses another man even on the cheek or wears any kind of earring. The culture I grew up in (Australia) was one such culture. But some heterosexual males within that culture kissed other men or wore earrings without it being a sign of their being gay. Why should there be a difference between social and musical gestures in this regard. One composer may consider perfect cadences masculine, while another composer might use them simply because he thinks they sound good.

I've heard gay players like Bolet and Gavrilov do schockly rubatos. I guess that would be regarded as feminine playing by many. But I've heard Arrau (=straight), Horowitz (=bi?) and Friedrich Lamond (sexuality unknown) do even schockier rubatos. Are they gayer because of that? All I know is that, as a heterosexual male, I certainly don't feel gay because I like schlocky rubatos. And I don't feel more 'manly' because I like Argerich's thunderous Liszt sonata, and nor do I think that proves her to be a lesbian.

Offline m

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #28 on: July 11, 2006, 02:37:06 PM
The problem here is that you do not care to debate it but that you don't say why. I am not saying that it cannot be so, but the two things with which we need to concern ourselves in our consideration of this are
1. Do composers ever actually seek specifically and deliberately to do so (and why)? and
2. What neurosceintific proof or disproof of the possibility of doing so currently exists?

The answer to 1. is open to debate but in almost all cases no and the answer to 2. is just plain no.

Best,

Alistair

Alistair,

Hopefully, I won't offend you as a composer, suggesting that VERY OFTEN what composers think they put into their music and what comes out in reality are two completely different things. And I don't mean quality, but that is just about ideas. This phenomenon can be supported by the usual fact of discrepancy between what composers talk about their music and how they perform it, whether it is R. Strauss, D. Shostakowitch, P. Hindemith, or S. Rachamninov. Moreover, it is usually completely different from what we'd call "performing tradition" of the same pieces.

Let's take Scriabin. Was he thinking about sexuality in his music? Definitely not. He was posessed with completely different, philosophical ideas, with whole his naivity believing that he was a much better philosopher than a musician. However, many see his music first and foremost as sexual. Is it? I have no idea, but sentual?--yes. And this sentuality does not exclude sexuality, but is much broader. It also can include a sense of beauty and harmony of the world, it can also include the idea of "far unreacheable star" or suffering for the world sorrows, it can also include that mystic feeling of touching unreachable, touching those enigmatic secrets of the universe, making every tissue of our body trembling in a holy delight...  

In this respect, it would be a good point to define what people put into the meaning of  "sexuality"--does it have to do anything with the above, or is it that adrenalin rush a few seconds before going on stage? Is it just a testosteron, sexual instinct, or something else?

Since this thread is about homosexuality, at the same time it would be a good point to define how it is different from sexuality and what the homosexuality is, at all? Is it just having sex between the same gender? Then how sex between man and woman of the same race, between man and woman of the same class, or of the same age are different? Aren't those by definition essentially homosexual, as well?

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #29 on: July 11, 2006, 05:17:29 PM
Alistair,

Hopefully, I won't offend you as a composer, suggesting that VERY OFTEN what composers think they put into their music and what comes out in reality are two completely different things. And I don't mean quality, but that is just about ideas. This phenomenon can be supported by the usual fact of discrepancy between what composers talk about their music and how they perform it, whether it is R. Strauss, D. Shostakowitch, P. Hindemith, or S. Rachamninov. Moreover, it is usually completely different from what we'd call "performing tradition" of the same pieces.

I'm not easily offended - and certainly not by what you write here. This is, however, another issue - or at least a side-issue to the thread subject, for all that it is not without its own truth. Composers have from time to time notoriously said and written misleading and/or unhelpful things about their music and it is therefore obviously always the music of which one should take the more notice. I try to say and write as little as possible about mine, partly because of this and partly because I simply don't have much to say or write about it anyway.

Then there is also the discrepancy that you note between what composers think they put into their music and what they actually do put into it; likewise, I don't really get much involved in that in respect of my own work, becuase I don't try to define to myself in words what it is that I think I'm trying to put into it but try instead to treat the music as a kind of living but non-"speaking" (in the verbal sense) organism with which I am interacting (if that doesn't sound too pompous, which I do not intend it to). One aspect of this, however, is that what composers' music means to them and how others respond to it can often generate yet further discrepancy; this can be partly due to the interpreter/s' work and partly due to difference of temperment between composer and listener.
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline stormx

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 396
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #30 on: July 11, 2006, 06:10:46 PM
Alistair,
i respect you a lot, but i have to admit that your long posts are an excellent substitute for sleeping pills.  ;D ;D

Offline ramseytheii

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2488
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #31 on: July 11, 2006, 06:25:48 PM
One feminist musicologist called Susan McClary wrote an article about Schubert and the fact that she believes that his music reveals a "difference", which she interprets as an indication that he may have been homosexual. Although Schubert's sexuality isn't actually known for certain, there's a certain amount of biographical evidence to suggest that he was, and McClary discusses whether the "missing piece" can be found in his music. She compares his music to that of Beethoven and claims that Schubert's music is less goal-driven, there's more variation upon the same material, less V-I cadences, etc. Apparently, these are more "feminine" traits, especially the less goal-driven nature of the music, which she compares to (straight) male sexuality. I can't remember all of the details but it's an interesting read.

There is a whole branch of musicology called "queer musicology," which embraces not only homosexualist interpretations of music and music history but also the feminist.  Susan McClary used to be on the forefront of this movement, though it seems to have had little relevance, and doesn't garner a lot of attention anymore.  The (homosexualist) pianist and scholar Charles Rosen has written hilariously criticizng these analytic conceits, and his essays can be found in the book, "Critical Entertainments." 

There are still interesting music history investigations into the sexuality of monumental figures, however.  Maynard Solomon wrote an infamous article, "Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini," in which he "decoded" several letters from the members of Schubert's exclusively male inner circle.  The "peacocks" of the title refers to a passing mention in sculptor Cellini's memoirs, where he used the term to describe a young male prostitute.  Solomon discovered a reference to the same peacocks in Schubert's friends' correspondence; they said that "peacocks" were the best solution to Schubert's health problems.  There are many other fascianting observations and I recommend you if you are interested in this subject to read the whole article.  It provoked a fury of response, and part of the discussion can still be found on the internet here:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2116

I also read a very unconvincing article in the queer musicology vein analysing Schubert's 4-hand music.  Sorry, the title escapes me, probably because the content was so deficient.

Walter Ramsey

Offline alessandro

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #32 on: July 11, 2006, 06:29:29 PM
Dears,

Well, how about a poll ?! I presume in 'civil' life two point five out of then is homosexual.  And in this forum of pianolovers, perhaps a little more.  I think we can easily get a three out of ten.  What do you think ? How can I make this poll ? It should probably be put in the 'anything but piano' topic.

Kindly,  
 

Offline steve jones

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #33 on: July 11, 2006, 06:38:21 PM
The problem here is that you do not care to debate it but that you don't say why. I am not saying that it cannot be so, but the two things with which we need to concern ourselves in our consideration of this are
1. Do composers ever actually seek specifically and deliberately to do so (and why)? and
2. What neurosceintific proof or disproof of the possibility of doing so currently exists?

The answer to 1. is open to debate but in almost all cases no and the answer to 2. is just plain no.

Best,

Alistair

I did go into it in quite some length on the other thread. But it really didnt lead to any firm conclusions as there were major differences of opinion which we not looking like resolving.

But regarding your two questions...

1. Dont know

2. Dont know

 ;D

Probably not.

But this suggests that intention is a requisite of this being a truth, which is surely not the case. Our subconscious motivates us beyond belief, usually in ways we cant begin to understand. We think we understand and control our actions, but in reality we are slaves to our bodies chemistry and our own subconscious minds.

A fine example of this can be observed when we alter our brains chemistry. Whether truth drug abuse, or physical injury, its a fact that changing the chemistry of the brain can seriously alter our personalities. It can make a happy, gentle person in to violent maniac. Consider the effect of hormones on our personalities?

But even if we abandon the physical aspect, think about how our lives scupt our characters and lead us into actions and behaviours. Things that happen to us as children can influence our behaviour during our entire lives. Indeed, victims of sexual abuse at a young age can suffer the effects for ever. Infact, I believe I am right in saying that alot of child abusers were themselves abused.

Now these may be extreme examples. But what Im trying to ellude to is that we are not just a free thinking mind. We dont consciously make all the decisions! So to it would seem logical that our main means of expression (music in our case) would be influenced to a great extent by such things. As sexuality is a fairly big piece of the human pie (indeed, sex is our fundamental purpose on a ground level is it not?), then I find it indisputable that it will have an influence on our artistic expression.

That doesnt mean that I think homosexuals will all express themselves by playing and composing in highly effeminate ways! It means that it has an influence on some level. But that said, my experience does suggest that homosexuals are more likely to practice artistic forms that are traditional seen as 'effeminate'.

And again, this is just what I think, from my own experiences of life and such. I have not researched the theory to the point of having a solid scientific basis for reason. I also am prepared to acknowledge that this is not everyones view, and that some would be most opposed to it.

SJ

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #34 on: July 11, 2006, 08:15:55 PM
Alistair,
i respect you a lot, but i have to admit that your long posts are an excellent substitute for sleeping pills.  ;D ;D
Good! It's so nice to be able to provide a useful service. By the way, my longer posts are not especially longer than some by others; do those others help you to sleep just as well, or is it just something about mine that does it for you?

Best,

Alistair

Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #35 on: July 11, 2006, 08:24:19 PM
I did go into it in quite some length on the other thread. But it really didnt lead to any firm conclusions as there were major differences of opinion which we not looking like resolving.

But regarding your two questions...

1. Dont know

2. Dont know

 ;D

Probably not.

But this suggests that intention is a requisite of this being a truth, which is surely not the case. Our subconscious motivates us beyond belief, usually in ways we cant begin to understand. We think we understand and control our actions, but in reality we are slaves to our bodies chemistry and our own subconscious minds.

A fine example of this can be observed when we alter our brains chemistry. Whether truth drug abuse, or physical injury, its a fact that changing the chemistry of the brain can seriously alter our personalities. It can make a happy, gentle person in to violent maniac. Consider the effect of hormones on our personalities?

But even if we abandon the physical aspect, think about how our lives scupt our characters and lead us into actions and behaviours. Things that happen to us as children can influence our behaviour during our entire lives. Indeed, victims of sexual abuse at a young age can suffer the effects for ever. Infact, I believe I am right in saying that alot of child abusers were themselves abused.

Now these may be extreme examples. But what Im trying to ellude to is that we are not just a free thinking mind. We dont consciously make all the decisions! So to it would seem logical that our main means of expression (music in our case) would be influenced to a great extent by such things. As sexuality is a fairly big piece of the human pie (indeed, sex is our fundamental purpose on a ground level is it not?), then I find it indisputable that it will have an influence on our artistic expression.

That doesnt mean that I think homosexuals will all express themselves by playing and composing in highly effeminate ways! It means that it has an influence on some level. But that said, my experience does suggest that homosexuals are more likely to practice artistic forms that are traditional seen as 'effeminate'.

And again, this is just what I think, from my own experiences of life and such. I have not researched the theory to the point of having a solid scientific basis for reason. I also am prepared to acknowledge that this is not everyones view, and that some would be most opposed to it.

You make a lot of excellent and wholly relevant points here - and in a most welcome manner which show sane balance, lack of hyperbole and prejudice and an interest in the subject that does not prompt you to blast out any hard-and-fast conclusions just for effect yet still at the same time keeps you alert to what matters within it. When I intimated that I did not deny that something to do with human sexuality may indeed find expression of some kind in certain composers' music, I meant it - in every sense, not least the fact that we cannot prove it or disprove it just because we don't yet have much idea as to how these things work. This is not in any sense denial but what I hope is a sanguine response to important issues of which we cannot yet put our fingers on reliable scientific proof.

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline e60m5

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 369
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #36 on: July 12, 2006, 12:33:25 AM
Oops. Wrong button.

Offline tyler_johnson

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #37 on: July 12, 2006, 02:12:09 AM
damn you guys are really getting into this

Offline houseofblackleaves

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 205
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #38 on: July 12, 2006, 02:18:59 AM
Haha.  yeah.

Didn't horowitz say that there were three types of pianists: Jewish ones, homosexual ones, and bad ones?

Offline steve jones

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #39 on: July 12, 2006, 02:44:39 AM
*** you guys are really getting into this

You know why dont you?

Because its one of those controversial questions where only politically correct views get the time of day. A gay man can announce insanely ludicrous things on daytime TV without anyone blinking an eye lid. Yet have a white, straight, man say anything even slightly against the grain and watch him be bought down to size in a cloud of 'isms' by the uber left hoards.

Its a shame, but pc has taken over all. Freedom of speech is dead and buried.

So when controversial issues like this get raised on the internet, EVERYONE and their granny comes out of the woodwork to have their few minutes on the soap box!

Either that or we are all closet homosexuals, battling without denial. I mean, we do play piano after all, that has to say something...  ;D

SJ


PS. Alistair, sorry mate, when I write one reasonable post then I have to do an arsehole one... you know, yin yang and all!

Offline living_stradivarius

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #40 on: July 12, 2006, 03:38:48 AM
Aaron Copland, Virgil Thomson, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Paul Bowles, David Diamond, and Ned Rorem...
All were considered "gay" and made wonderful contributions to American music.

The label "gay" hardly describes each individual's sexuality. I consider Bernstein's to have followed the Greek model of "bisexuality" more than homosexuality.
Musicians tend to be more sensitive and emotionally attuned; perhaps they demonstrate that true humanity has has no need to abide by our current norms regarding sexual relations.

Why the disappointment moi_not_toi?
Music is like making love: either all or nothing. Isaac Stern

Life without music is unthinkable. Music without life is academic. That is why my contact with music is a total embrace.
Lenny Bernst

Offline m

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1107
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #41 on: July 12, 2006, 05:40:03 AM
A gay man can announce insanely ludicrous things on daytime TV without anyone blinking an eye lid. Yet have a white, straight, man say anything even slightly against the grain and watch him be bought down to size in a cloud of 'isms' by the uber left hoards.


 :o :o :o

In this case (if you are in US) I'd suggest you to find a book called "Bushisms"--quotes from public speeches--the most hilarious reading I ever had in my life.
Noone was blinking an eye lid (at least up until recently).

I think your accertion is... hmmm... little bit exhagurated. 

Offline jas

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 638
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #42 on: July 12, 2006, 09:08:31 AM
There is a whole branch of musicology called "queer musicology," which embraces not only homosexualist interpretations of music and music history but also the feminist.  Susan McClary used to be on the forefront of this movement, though it seems to have had little relevance, and doesn't garner a lot of attention anymore.  The (homosexualist) pianist and scholar Charles Rosen has written hilariously criticizng these analytic conceits, and his essays can be found in the book, "Critical Entertainments." 

There are still interesting music history investigations into the sexuality of monumental figures, however.  Maynard Solomon wrote an infamous article, "Franz Schubert and the Peacocks of Benvenuto Cellini," in which he "decoded" several letters from the members of Schubert's exclusively male inner circle.  The "peacocks" of the title refers to a passing mention in sculptor Cellini's memoirs, where he used the term to describe a young male prostitute.  Solomon discovered a reference to the same peacocks in Schubert's friends' correspondence; they said that "peacocks" were the best solution to Schubert's health problems.  There are many other fascianting observations and I recommend you if you are interested in this subject to read the whole article.  It provoked a fury of response, and part of the discussion can still be found on the internet here:

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/2116

I also read a very unconvincing article in the queer musicology vein analysing Schubert's 4-hand music.  Sorry, the title escapes me, probably because the content was so deficient.

Walter Ramsey
Yes, I've read the whole Solomon/Steblin debate, along with all the side-articles that other people jumped in with. I actually wrote an essay about it a year ago. The whole thing was great; very interesting and vastly entertaining. To me, that's what historical scholarship should be like! To be honest, in the end I was far more convinced by Solomon's argument than Steblin's. It seemed to me that she seemed offended by the idea that Schubert was homosexual, and was being rather selective in her choice of facts to counter his arguments. I remember reading (I think it was in the McClary article) that when Solomon first aired his views at an AMS meeting, one person went so far as to call him a "pornographer".
It made me wonder if the reason the idea bothered them so much was because Schubert was not only part of the "canon", but part of the great Viennese canon, which was completely grounded in a patriarchal society and therefore represented all that was "masculine" in music. Whereas people like Tchaikovsky, from eastern Europe, were that bit more "exotic", making homosexuality/femininity more acceptable. But, this may mean that the problems that Chopin and Tchaikovsky had with large-scale form actually corroborate McClary's views on Schubert.
Anyway, I've gone a bit off topic here. But if anyone here gets a chance to read the whole thing they should; it's very enlightening.

It is if you're prepared to be taken in by its preposterous premises and attempted conclusions. I know that this sounds rather harsh, but the problem is that it is simply a classic example of the kind of invented pseudo-musicology wherewith we are plagued these days but which has little or no real value other than to advance the academic career of the musicologist and is notably short on material which has any credible scientific basis. It's nothing more than speculation.
Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this. I'm sceptical at best about queer musicology. Beethoven was a lifelong bachelor, anyway, so why McClary turns to him as the epitome of raging masculinity I'm not entirely sure. BUT, I can't help but agree with her about the relative "femininity" of Schubert's music as compared to Beethoven's. She doesn't actually say that you can hear through his music that he was gay; what she says is that there's a "difference" there, which she (independently of the Solomon article I mention above) construes to mean that he may have been gay. Apparently, one of her students came to her after having heard some of Schubert's music (not sure what) and asked if he was, which got the ball rolling.
Anyway, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, why do you dismiss the idea completely? Don't you think it's possible for something of a composer's personality/psyche to be imprinted on his/her music? Personally, I do, to an extent. When I look at the music of Chopin, Liszt, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, I can't help but see -- or I suppose it's possible that I want to see -- hints of what I know of their personalities. Chopin's refinement, Liszt's showmanship and desire to be cultured, Beethoven's "upright-ness", Mozart's child-like-ness. Anyone would be totally justified in saying completely the opposite, of course, but I don't believe that it's unreasonable to look to someone's artistic output for clues as to what they may have been like. This doesn't mean I believe that Schubert's sexuality could be seen in his music -- I think it would be impossible to tell. Still, it's interesting grounds for a bit of research (and debate!).

Quote
Assuming for a moment that Schubert's music is indeed "less goal-driven" than Beethoven's (what? - ALL of it?) - an assumption which itself presumes a belief that there actually is such a thing as "goal-driven" music and that it is identifiable as such in certain works from the first quarter of the 19th century - what can or does this tell us about Schubert's potential homosexuality (or, for that matter, Beethoven's lack of it)? Are we therefore to believe that it is impossible for a homosexual composer to be profoundly influenced by the music of Beethoven or for a heterosexual one to be profoundly influenced by that of Schubert? Then again - if we just stick to this Beethoven & Schubert example - what of the perceived difference of emphasis in Beethoven's and Schubert's respective use of the perfect cadence in their different creative periods? - aren't the tub-thumping dominant-tonic conclusions of the 5th and 8th symphonies of Beethoven almost in another world from the way in which he ends the finales of his last five quartets? - and didn't Schubert's musical language also develop, especially in his last couple of years? No - it's all far too prescribed and proscribed to be realistic.
She doesn't make it sound as set-in-stone as you imply. I think she believes what she says, but she's very speculative with it. When she speaks of goal-driven music she refers to a drive towards the V-I cadence; that everything leads to that with no distraction. What she sees in Schubert's music is a more meandering nature -- I don't know if she means by this that his music lacks form -- a penchant for third-related harmonies and unpredictable harmonies. She sees this as a reaction, deliberate or not, against the standard "masculine" form.

Quote
Is it credible that Schubert wrote more "variation on the same material" than did the composer of the 32 variations in C minor, the Diabellis and heaven knows how many other variations sets?
The point you make about the Diabelli variations is a good one; Beethoven did become very preoccupied with getting the most out of his material in his later years. But I think (and I don't remember the entire article verbatim, so the details I'm giving you are sketchy at best) she means within each work -- not variation form. I don't have the article any more, otherwise I'd try to be a bit more precise, but she says things along those lines.

Quote
When you write "Apparently, these are more "feminine" traits", the most important word here is the first, for it is "apparent" only to Ms McClary herself because it just happened conveniently to suit her for it to be so at the time of writing. Again, I'm not deliberately carping here for the sake of so doing, but why are these things "feminine" traits? I'm not even suggesting that they aren't - just that she doesn't have anything with which to support such an assertion.
Again, I agree, but I will say that she cites examples from the Schubert, and she mentions Beethoven specifically. So she does use examples to "support such an assertion", as you say. The fact that you and others don't agree with this doesn't invalid the fact that it is (possible) "evidence".
In fact, as I'm typing this I've remembered that she wrote a very controversial article about Beethoven's 9th. She says of the recapitulation of the first movement that it's "one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release." I think this a load of complete crap, and her analogy (which she subsequently had to change because of the outrage it caused) was unnecessarily violent and, well, "feminist". And actually it was this article that led me to believe -- like you do -- that she sees what she wants to see and jumps to some very odd conclusions. However, I'm going to keep an open mind about the Schubert, because I suppose, like her, I get the impression of an unidentifiable "difference". However, unlike her. I'm not jumping to conclusions about what, if anything, it might mean.

I think that's my longest ever PF -- sorry, PS -- post. Had to shut up sometime. ;)

Jas

Offline moi_not_toi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #43 on: July 12, 2006, 03:10:02 PM
Aaron Copland, Virgil Thomson, Leonard Bernstein, Marc Blitzstein, Paul Bowles, David Diamond, and Ned Rorem...
All were considered "gay" and made wonderful contributions to American music.

The label "gay" hardly describes each individual's sexuality. I consider Bernstein's to have followed the Greek model of "bisexuality" more than homosexuality.
Musicians tend to be more sensitive and emotionally attuned; perhaps they demonstrate that true humanity has has no need to abide by our current norms regarding sexual relations.

Why the disappointment moi_not_toi?

Stupid parents.
I guess because of my upbringing I was taught that nothing good can come from a gay person and that their works should be burned.

Like I've said before: I'm a confused person in a world of Bible Beaters.

yesterday me and my teacher talked about gay composers and Oscar Wilde.
The more I hear about their sad lives, the more i feel sorry for them.
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
Vote for Bunny!
Vote for Earth!

Offline steve jones

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #44 on: July 12, 2006, 03:54:50 PM
:o :o :o

In this case (if you are in US) I'd suggest you to find a book called "Bushisms"--quotes from public speeches--the most hilarious reading I ever had in my life.
Noone was blinking an eye lid (at least up until recently).

I think your accertion is... hmmm... little bit exhagurated. 

Actually Im an England'er.

Trust me, watch 'Richard and Judy' for ten minutes and you'll see what I mean. British TV is full to the rafters with filthy homosexual innuendo, sometimes it can be gut wrenching.

Yet in contrast, the British public have never been more repressed. So much so that hate groups are at an all time high in this country (but I guess there are other factors involved in this too).

Its a big topic, but Im convinced that this plays a role in why these topics get so heated. People just want to get it out (their opinion that is) but arent allowed to in their regularly lives without threat of incoming lefty attack.

Tell you what always makes me laugh about the uber left - how they try to DICTATE to people, using every shady technique in the book. Nowadays they violate our right to freedom of speech, by telling us what is and what isnt 'pc' to talk about. When it comes down to it, they are more right wing than the damn Nazi's! But rather than using guns and death squads, they prefer name calling and social pressure.

But I guess its all just spin anyway. Left, right, does it really matter? Neither of them tells anything remotely like the truth. I try to look at the reality of the world as opposed to what some prick on the TV tells me. And when this doesnt match up quite up to what 'Richard and Judy' say, then you get disapproving looks all round.

SJ

Offline tyler_johnson

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #45 on: July 12, 2006, 04:07:05 PM
That's funny you bring this up because i've been accused by almost everyone I know to be a closet-gay even though i'm straight.  They then lose respect for me because they assume that i'm gay and not coming out of the closet.  Anyone else expirience this?

Offline moi_not_toi

  • PS Silver Member
  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 239
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #46 on: July 12, 2006, 04:28:11 PM
Actually Im an England'er.

Trust me, watch 'Richard and Judy' for ten minutes and you'll see what I mean. British TV is full to the rafters with filthy homosexual innuendo, sometimes it can be gut wrenching.

Yet in contrast, the British public have never been more repressed. So much so that hate groups are at an all time high in this country (but I guess there are other factors involved in this too).

Its a big topic, but Im convinced that this plays a role in why these topics get so heated. People just want to get it out (their opinion that is) but arent allowed to in their regularly lives without threat of incoming lefty attack.

Tell you what always makes me laugh about the uber left - how they try to DICTATE to people, using every shady technique in the book. Nowadays they violate our right to freedom of speech, by telling us what is and what isnt 'pc' to talk about. When it comes down to it, they are more right wing than the *** Nazi's! But rather than using guns and death squads, they prefer name calling and social pressure.

But I guess its all just spin anyway. Left, right, does it really matter? Neither of them tells anything remotely like the truth. I try to look at the reality of the world as opposed to what some prick on the TV tells me. And when this doesnt match up quite up to what 'Richard and Judy' say, then you get disapproving looks all round.

SJ

Hey, You're from England, maybe you could help me with something:

Ok, my grandfather says that all Brits worship College Proffessors.
I told him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Who's right?
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <)
Vote for Bunny!
Vote for Earth!

Offline ahinton

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12144
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #47 on: July 12, 2006, 04:45:48 PM
Yes, I've read the whole Solomon/Steblin debate, along with all the side-articles that other people jumped in with. I actually wrote an essay about it a year ago. The whole thing was great; very interesting and vastly entertaining. To me, that's what historical scholarship should be like! To be honest, in the end I was far more convinced by Solomon's argument than Steblin's. It seemed to me that she seemed offended by the idea that Schubert was homosexual, and was being rather selective in her choice of facts to counter his arguments. I remember reading (I think it was in the McClary article) that when Solomon first aired his views at an AMS meeting, one person went so far as to call him a "pornographer".
It made me wonder if the reason the idea bothered them so much was because Schubert was not only part of the "canon", but part of the great Viennese canon, which was completely grounded in a patriarchal society and therefore represented all that was "masculine" in music. Whereas people like Tchaikovsky, from eastern Europe, were that bit more "exotic", making homosexuality/femininity more acceptable. But, this may mean that the problems that Chopin and Tchaikovsky had with large-scale form actually corroborate McClary's views on Schubert.
Good point about the Viennese canon, as far as it goes, but to what extent did Tchaikovsky really have "problems" with large-scale form?

Don't get me wrong, I agree with you on this. I'm sceptical at best about queer musicology. Beethoven was a lifelong bachelor, anyway, so why McClary turns to him as the epitome of raging masculinity I'm not entirely sure. BUT, I can't help but agree with her about the relative "femininity" of Schubert's music as compared to Beethoven's.
Well, my reason for disagreeing with her here is due to the fact that her statement is almost absurdly over-simplistic as well as being unhelpfully vague. All the talk about the extent of Beethoven's use of perfect cadences and the more prevalent use of variation by Schubert simply adds up to nothing conclusive and is not even all that accurate in itself - but even if it were reasonably accurate, it would still most certainly not provide evidence of relative "masculinity" in the music of the former or "femininity" in that of the latter.

She doesn't actually say that you can hear through his music that he was gay; what she says is that there's a "difference" there
Well, whoopty-doo! Now there's a major discovery! How would any of us ever have become aware of any difference between Beethoven and Schubert without the prior enlightenment of Ms McClary?! Sorry to put that so strongly, but am I really off-beam in finding something ridiculous in that?

Anyway, just to play devil's advocate for a moment, why do you dismiss the idea completely? Don't you think it's possible for something of a composer's personality/psyche to be imprinted on his/her music? Personally, I do, to an extent. When I look at the music of Chopin, Liszt, Mozart, Bach and Beethoven, I can't help but see -- or I suppose it's possible that I want to see -- hints of what I know of their personalities. Chopin's refinement, Liszt's showmanship and desire to be cultured, Beethoven's "upright-ness", Mozart's child-like-ness. Anyone would be totally justified in saying completely the opposite, of course, but I don't believe that it's unreasonable to look to someone's artistic output for clues as to what they may have been like.
I think it would be most unlikely for something of a composer's personality/psyche NOT to be imprinted on his/her music in some way, however subtle it may be. You are, however, right to draw attention to the possible differences between what there is to see (or, more properly, hear) and what some might want to see in terms of personality traits within any composer's music. That said, what about Liszt's refinement (some of which may well have been influenced by Chopin, I am happy to admit) and what of the violence not only of expression but of contrast in Chopin's first scherzo? Cortot often emphasised to his students the importance of Chopin's "bigness" as a composer (despite the preponderance of miniatures in his output) and even Elliott Carter once spoke of the same aspect when discussing Chopin's Preludes (along the line of Chopin's astounding ability to make bold statements within such short spaces of time). Where's the "uprightness" in Beethoven's last three piano sonatas, last violin sonata or last five quartets? - present, undoubtedly, but hardly prominent. No - it's just too simple - and unsurprisingly so, since the personalities of the four great composers you mention here would be expected to be complex and varied. So, what I "dismiss" entirely is only the idea that Ms McClary or anyone else can yet offer us inalienable scientific proof in purely musical terms as to the possibility of identifying the sexuality of the composer in his/her music and of the notion of "masculinity" and "femininity" in musical expression.

This doesn't mean I believe that Schubert's sexuality could be seen in his music -- I think it would be impossible to tell. Still, it's interesting grounds for a bit of research (and debate!).
It IS impossible to tell! - but this surely means that there's nothing to debate and, whilst it may be interesting grounds for research, Ms McClary and her like are not the neuroscientists of the future, so they are simply not equipped to carry it out and then provide their conclusions.

She doesn't make it sound as set-in-stone as you imply. I think she believes what she says, but she's very speculative with it. When she speaks of goal-driven music she refers to a drive towards the V-I cadence; that everything leads to that with no distraction. What she sees in Schubert's music is a more meandering nature -- I don't know if she means by this that his music lacks form -- a penchant for third-related harmonies and unpredictable harmonies. She sees this as a reaction, deliberate or not, against the standard "masculine" form.
Even if so, the "speculation" here is not only on matters which to date admit of nothing but speculation but it is also based on non-existent - or at least non-provable - premises; whatever she may or may not "see" in Schubert's music, the value of her "speculations" about it is assessable only in terms of this arrant nonsense about a "standard masculine form" - i.e. there is no value in them, because there is, quite simply, no such thing as a "standard masculine form" in music!

The point you make about the Diabelli variations is a good one; Beethoven did become very preoccupied with getting the most out of his material in his later years. But I think (and I don't remember the entire article verbatim, so the details I'm giving you are sketchy at best) she means within each work -- not variation form.
This thought did occur to me as I wrote what I did, but I put it to one side in order not to lengthen my post inordinately but, since you've now mentioned it, I still believe that Ms McClary is statistically inaccurate here. The kind of variation you are now referring to is a part of a certain development in music in the 19th century and one could usefully draw a line from Liszt through Wagner to Schönberg here - the sense of perpetual variation of ideas that one finds in works such as Schönberg's D minor Quartet and E major Chamber Symphony is very much an extension of the explorations of Liszt and Wagner in this area - and all three of these composers were heterosexuals - so what price the McClary argument about Schubert now?!

she cites examples from the Schubert, and she mentions Beethoven specifically. So she does use examples to "support such an assertion", as you say. The fact that you and others don't agree with this doesn't invalid the fact that it is (possible) "evidence".
No, it doesn't - at least not in and of itself - but then the reason it doesn't is that it cannot - and the reason it cannot is because nothing can properly be described as "evidence" unless it is for or against something tangible and that a provable case can be made on its basis. In other words, it's not about whether I or anyone else "agrees" or "disagrees" with Ms McClary's assertions but that, whereas my assertion is "I don't know and there's nothing out there yet that will help me to find out", Ms McClary's is "I do know and I'll try to convince the rest of you", even though she does not know any more than I do about such matters.

In fact, as I'm typing this I've remembered thata she wrote a very controversial article about Beethoven's 9th. She says of the recapitulation of the first movement that it's "one of the most horrifying moments in music, as the carefully prepared cadence is frustrated, damming up energy which finally explodes in the throttling murderous rage of a rapist incapable of attaining release." I think this a load of complete crap, and her analogy (which she subsequently had to change because of the outrage it caused) was unnecessarily violent and, well, "feminist". And actually it was this article that led me to believe -- like you do -- that she sees what she wants to see and jumps to some very odd conclusions. However, I'm going to keep an open mind about the Schubert, because I suppose, like her, I get the impression of an unidentifiable "difference". However, unlike her. I'm not jumping to conclusions about what, if anything, it might mean.
The existence of the "difference" is obvious, but it can be meaningfully accounted for only in the strict terms of melodic shapes, phrase contours and lengths, rhythm patterns, harmonic and contrapuntal language, the use of cadence, the use of silence, etc., whereas what the McClarys of this world seek to do is attach some kind of feminist or other agenda to these considerations without any scientifically justifiable reason, or indeed any reason at all other than to try to feather the nests of their own hoped-for future reputations as musicologists. I have no problem with Ms McClary "seeing what she wants to see" in anything (and we certainly don't want to have the aural response unit of the listening police telling us how we should listen and respond to music); it's only when she starts telling us, without a shred of credible corroborative evidence, that what she "sees" is the only correct interpretation - or even one possible interpretation - of the ways in and reasons for which certain of the great composers worked.

I return again to the question of the music of known homosexual composers such as Szymanowski, Copland, Tippett, Britten, Rorem, Henze, etc.; how can we tell from any aspect of the ways in which they wrote their music that they were (or, in Rorem's and Henze's case, are) homosexuals? Would a homosexual composer's work fail to influence that of a heterosexual one, or vice versa? - and, if so, why and how? Ms McClary's posturings don't tell us anything about that. I wonder why? Then what of homosexual performers playing or singing the music of heterosexual composers and vice versa (a very difficult consideration when the "performer" is a symphony orchestra, given that we don't have orchestras exclusively made up of either group)? The ramblings of Ms McClary don't clary-fy that, either. I wonder why?

Best,

Alistair
Alistair Hinton
Curator / Director
The Sorabji Archive

Offline steve jones

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 1380
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #48 on: July 12, 2006, 08:19:55 PM
Hey, You're from England, maybe you could help me with something:

Ok, my grandfather says that all Brits worship College Proffessors.
I told him he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Who's right?


Hmmm, we may have done in part generations but not now. Ofcourse, anyone in a good profession can command a certain degree of respect, but I was never aware that a University professor could more so than say a doctor.

My generation are more likely to bow down for Ronald McDonald!

Indeed, McDonald's was my little cousins first words!!! And he's only two  :o

So I guess the only fare answer is to say that you're both wrong (or right, depending on how you want to word it  ;) ).

SJ

Offline bflatminor24

  • PS Silver Member
  • Sr. Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 313
Re: Homosexual pianists
Reply #49 on: July 12, 2006, 09:07:06 PM
Don't forget the 2 Irish Pianists.

Michael FitzPatrick & Patrick FitzMichael.

Thal

LOL!

Gotta love Thal. Btw, do you have kids Thal?

~Max~
My favorite piano pieces - Liszt Sonata in B minor, Beethoven's Hammerklavier, Ravel's Gaspard de la Nuit, Alkan's Op. 39 Etudes, Scriabin's Sonata-Fantaisie, Godowsky's Passacaglia in B minor.
For more information about this topic, click search below!
 

Logo light pianostreet.com - the website for classical pianists, piano teachers, students and piano music enthusiasts.

Subscribe for unlimited access

Sign up

Follow us

Piano Street Digicert