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!).
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.
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.
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
Topic: Homosexual pianists