Bach = Macho ?

[thalbergmad]

Bacewicz, Bauer, Eckhardt-Gramatte, Tailleferre. Not my area of expertise.

From the 19th century, we have Marie Jaell Piano Concerto. What a little beaut.

Thal

[webern78]

Like?

Don't bother asking. We all know the answer will be seeped to such a degree of aesthetic relativism as to be meaningless. You can't argue with people who use their feelings rather then their heads.

[webern78]

Ideas built upon gender will go crashing down.

All evidence tends to point to the contrary.

[gep]

If you play Chopin to a woman, she will demand you make love to her.

Play Bach and she will do the ironing. Bach is too intellectual to stimulate the female senses.

Thal

You mean that if YOU play Chopin to a women she will even go as far as offering you her body if it makes you stop playing, and if YOU play Bach she'll make a very poited refernce to you shabby appearance?

Oh dear....

[gep]

I hate playing bach. Hes music is plain and boring.

Errr....

 Of course, tastes are personal, but to say Bach is plain and boring is beyond my capablillity of understanding. It's like someone saying he gets bored by breathing, or is fed up with having eyes. It would be impossible for me to understand how anyone finding Bach plain and boring could appreciate any composer whatsoever, especially post-Bach ones, since they would not been what they are if Bach hadn't been around!

gep

[retrouvailles]

Bacewicz, Bauer, Eckhardt-Gramatte, Tailleferre. Not my area of expertise.

I actually was not thinking of any of them. I have only heard concertos of Bacewicz (for two pianos) and Tailleferre (just one of them) from your list, and they were nothing special, but I haven't heard all of their contributions (Bacewicz has an unrecorded concerto for 1 piano). I was thinking of more recent examples such as Ellen Taaffe Zwilich (wrote a very nice neo-romantic piano concerto for Hamelin), Sofia Gubaidulina's Introitus (has been recorded many times already), Lera Auerbach's Piano Concerto (which I've only heard a live recording of, played by the composer), Joan Tower's Piano Concerto (another neo-romantic one which is decent), and a few others I am forgetting.

Also, who is this Bauer? And how did you know of these? Do you just have scores of them?

[iroveashe]

Errr....

 Of course, tastes are personal, but to say Bach is plain and boring is beyond my capablillity of understanding. It's like someone saying he gets bored by breathing, or is fed up with having eyes. It would be impossible for me to understand how anyone finding Bach plain and boring could appreciate any composer whatsoever, especially post-Bach ones, since they would not been what they are if Bach hadn't been around!

gep

Not to mention that he loves Chopin, who probably would have a similar opinion to yours since he idolized Bach.

[weissenberg2]

Don't bother asking. We all know the answer will be seeped to such a degree of aesthetic relativism as to be meaningless. You can't argue with people who use their feelings rather then their heads.

Why are you so sexist?

[webern78]

Why are you so sexist?

Because i cherish truth over ideological brainwashing for the sake of feeling good about oneself.

[weissenberg2]

ideological brainwashing for the sake of feeling good about oneself.

This referring to what?

[thierry13]

Because i cherish truth over ideological brainwashing for the sake of feeling good about oneself.

WOW. AT LAST SOMEBODY INTELLIGENT. I'm so happy to find somebody who agrees with me. Exactly the kind of thing I would say.

[thalbergmad]

WOW. AT LAST SOMEBODY INTELLIGENT. I'm so happy to find somebody who agrees with me. Exactly the kind of thing I would say.

After 5 years, it eventually had to happen

[webern78]

This referring to what?

The notion that men and women are perfectly equal in everything and in every situation.

[gep]

I've never understood why feminists would want women to be equal to men.

Besides, the differences between men and women did arise when we were still falling out of trees and had to decide whether the rustle in the grass was something to a) eat, b) be eaten by or c) mate with. The male and female response to that was different for biological reasons, Since then we have learned how to build particle accelerators and destroy banks, but the basic biological makeup remains the same. Male and female are different, both physically and mentally. But the one isn’t better than the other!

Well, women are better at getting babies, of course. And ironing. And cooking. And generally house holding. But if you praise them for there skills therein, and want the master continue her work, you’re a male in trouble. Strange….

[thalbergmad]

I've never understood why feminists would want women to be equal to men.

They don't. They really want them to be superior.

Thal

[gep]

They don't. They really want them to be superior.

Thal

Hmm, of hardliner feminists that's true I think. You never can win from those types. Open a door for them and you're scorned for your typical male sexist pig idea that a woman is weak, and if you do not open the door you have no manners, which is a typical male sexist pig behavior.

[thalbergmad]

I no longer open doors for women. If they want equality I say let them have it.

Thal

[ahinton]

Bacewicz, Bauer, Eckhardt-Gramatte, Tailleferre. Not my area of expertise.

But Thal, at least you've heard of these people and know who they were, which is more than some people have (though an acute acent on the last "e" of the third-named wouldn't come amiss).

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

They don't. They really want them to be superior.

Where is the evidence to support that claim? - and, in any case, how could any group of people guarantee the "superiority" of another such group? And, for that matter, what does this have to do with Bach?

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

I no longer open doors for women. If they want equality I say let them have it.

That's up to you, of course, but isn't the adherence to such a stance uncivil to all non-feminist women for whose benefit you might at some point find yourself with an opportunity to open a door? In any case, if you do open a door for a woman and get a rude response of the kind mentioned by "gep" for your trouble, you could always quickly close it again - before the woman has gone through it, that is.

There is, of course, no such thing as actual "equality" for women or anyone else, although there has of course been uncivil treatment of women and others in the past and some of this remains today and, even if there were and proof of it were to be sought in the refusal of anyone to open a door for anyone else, its questionable human value would surely be revealed for what it is, would it not?

That said, I'd lay a pound (are there still any of these around?) to a penny that you'd open a door for a woman carrying a couple of banjo cases, even if she was wearing trousers at the time...

Best,

Alistair

[gep]

This week was in the news here that the Dutch government was thinking of making it law that at least 1/3 of all members of the leading staff in any company should be female. Should this law pass (and, given earlier evidence, that may well happen) it would inmediately lead to any woman getting any job anywhere being suspect of getting the job because she is female, and not because she is the most qualified, therby completely destroying all that had been achieved so far in women's equality in employement.
They have tried this "positive discrimination" earlier on immigrant's children in school (giving them higher grades in tests) and immigrants in government jobs (police and such) by lowering the mandatory standards. All this despite severe protests from the immigrants themselves who (rather better than the politicians) saw that doing that would jeopardise their efforts to integration for reasons of any diplomas or jobs so obtained are of degraded value.
But when politicians and pressure groups unite, there is no hope for sensibillity to survive, for the combination on the typical politician's utter disconnection with society and the idealist's general lack of realism is a recipe for disaster.

What all this has to do with Bach I do not know. So, to return to the subject, personally I do think that Bach = Macho to the same degree as Bach = Yellow. In short, I find the statement bogus.

gep

[thalbergmad]

And, for that matter, what does this have to do with Bach?

Nothing, that is the way the thread has developed for some reason.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

That said, I'd lay a pound (are there still any of these around?) to a penny that you'd open a door for a woman carrying a couple of banjo cases, even if she was wearing trousers at the time...

That is a lot of money for a Scot to wager and you would indeed lose it.

Thal

[thalbergmad]

This week was in the news here that the Dutch government was thinking of making it law that at least 1/3 of all members of the leading staff in any company should be female.

We have a female over here in England by the name of Jacqui Smith who undoubtedly thinks along the same lines.

She wants more women in high positions in government and more women executives and on boards of directors, but does not seem to campaign for more women sewer inspectors, bog cleaners or any other jobs that might involve damage to nails.

This is of course the height of stupidity and dangerous, as many people could end up in jobs for which they have no ability at all, which is a bit like Jacqui Smith really.

Thal

[gep]

Recently, a Dutch book appeared stating that the lack of women in (higher) functions (in The Netherlands) is not caused by any "glass ceiling", but is caused by women themselves, who mostly want part-time jobs, are twice as much ill as male employees, complain more than males about what is not nice about their work (work apparently always having to be fun) and are more prone than men stepping out of the job at the first inconvience. All this making (male) employers rather wary of employing women, especially in demanding functions. Also the book mirrored Thal's remark in asking why there are feminist activists demanding an equal share in leading funtions, but not in, say, garbage collector functions. The book also slashed the activists demand that women should be given leading cunctions, stating that women should, like men, work there way up by starting low, work hard and prove their capacity of growing. In short, the book demands of women to stop complaining and start working their fair share if they want a fair share. That, if they want to be takes as equals to men, which the book also stated to be an absolutely rightful demand, the should damn well behave as equal to men, and not as whimpering twits complaining how hard it all is.
Needless to say, the book was slashed and burnt by the Women's Rights League and similar, a protest that lost quite a bit of momentum when it became clear that is was written by a woman. Who has worked hard, and has made a very succesful career too. Apparently it is a bit tricky to call a woman a male chauvinist pig, and somewhat difficult to complain about how a woman has achieved exactly that what the Feminist League want women to achieve.

You'd almost pity those feminist activists.

Almost....

gep

[ahinton]

That is a lot of money for a Scot to wager and you would indeed lose it.

That is a very small amount of money for anyone to wager and if I would nevertheless lose it I can conclude only that your civility towards women - even banjo-carrying ones - is even less than I had previously thought.

Best,

Alistair

[ahinton]

We have a female over here in England by the name of Jacqui Smith who undoubtedly thinks along the same lines.

She wants more women in high positions in government and more women executives and on boards of directors, but does not seem to campaign for more women sewer inspectors, bog cleaners or any other jobs that might involve damage to nails.

This is of course the height of stupidity and dangerous, as many people could end up in jobs for which they have no ability at all, which is a bit like Jacqui Smith really.

Then perhaps that would go some way to explaining why she has chosen to adopt that ridiculous cause if indeed she has done so. In all seriousness, however, there is little or no difference in principle or effect between this kind of positive discrimination and the negative variety that it is supposed purportedly to replace; it is, after all, just as daft to prevent women qualified to occupy certain professional positions just because they are women as it is to advocate the shoehorning of less well qualified ones into such positions for the same reasons. Merit should surely be the only order of the day in such situations. Now that paternity leave rights have been established, there should be even less excuse not to employ eminently well qualified women in certain professional positions purely by reason of their being women.

Best,

Alistair