James Levine

[Florestan]

Florestan's great infatuation with Romanticism probably means he is well aware of the societal dynamics of the past, and the so called 'western canon' is something he surely knows only resulted from this............

Thanks, buddy.

[Turner]

100% of the composers constituing the canon of Western music, and who are listened to and discussed here on GMG on a daily basis, are male. 98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only. Why is this amply documented GMG behavior not deemed derisory or condescending towards women? (Or maybe it is, who knows...)

Polemical exaggerations? Of course, regarding the composers, things have changed during mid-late 20th century in particular, and it is fair to say that women composers are advancing in numbers now (cf. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_composers_by_birth_date).

Also, I don´t agree about the 98% of musicians dealt with here being males, I think a count would show otherwise.

[Florestan]

I don´t agree about the 98% of musicians dealt with here being males, a count would show otherwise.

You misunderstood me. Please read again: "98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only".

[Turner]

You misunderstood me. Please read again: "98% (and I'm being generous) of the great pianists or violinists (men and women alike) discussed and listened to here on GMG on a daily basis recorded music written by males only".

You are right, I misunderstood that passage. Sorry, early in the morning for me .

[Florestan]

regarding the composers, things have changed during mid-late 20th century in particular, and it is fair to say that women composers are advancing in numbers now (cf. for example https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_female_composers_by_birth_date).

That is very true and very fine. But the fact remains that the vast majority of the composers who are discussed here on a daily basis are male. Is this an indication that GMG is a sexist and mysoginistic club? By some views here expressed, it is, but I don't hink there's any rational argument for such a stance.

As for female conductors, Wikipedia lists 134 of them, spread over five continents. Is it much? Is it little?

[Florestan]

You are right, I misunderstood that passage. Sorry, early in the morning for me .

No problem, can happen to anyone. Happened to myself more than once. 

[SurprisedByBeauty]

Who'dda thought that this thread got more controversial as we moved from alleged kiddie-fiddling to the perceived lack of women-conductors. 

[Florestan]

Who'dda thought that this thread got more controversial as we moved from alleged kiddie-fiddling to the perceived lack of women-conductors. 

Well, afaik the most controversial and nasty GMG thread ever, replete with public and private insults of the grossest kind, was on Haydn. Go figure. 

[Florestan]

Fwiw, here is the full quote from Jansons.

In an interview for The Telegraph, Ivan Hewett asked Jansons how he felt about 'the biggest change in the conducting scene' – the increase in female conductors over Jansons's career.

"Hmm, well. Well I don't want to give offence," said Jansons, "and I am not against it, that would be very wrong. I understand the world has changed, and there is now no profession that can be confined to this or that gender. It's a question of what one is used to. I grew up in a different world, and for me seeing a woman on the podium... well, let's just say it's not my cup of tea."

And the sequel:

In a statement issued via the Bavarian Radio Symphony Orchestra, Jansons sought to clarify his statement.

"I come from a generation in which the conducting profession was almost exclusively reserved to men. Even today, many more men than women pursue conducting professionally. But it was undiplomatic, unnecessary and counterproductive for me to point out that I'm not yet accustomed to seeing women on the conducting platform.

"Every one of my female colleagues and every young woman wishing to become a conductor can be assured of my support, for we all work in pursuit of a common goal: to excite people for the art form we love so dearly – music."

Bottom line: he said something which many perceived as stupid and he eventually regretted it publicly. The whole fuss about the matter is greatly exaggerated, and so is his vilification.

[ComposerOfAvantGarde]

Jansons, from what I had read (and it seems both Florestan and I were already familiar with the quoted sources) just acknowledged that his views were outdated. It can understandably be difficult for someone to try to adjust to a world where a parochial world view no longer matches reality. Mistakes are made and Jansons only seems uncomfortable that he is no longer living a life sheltered from this reality, knowing he probably should change his attitude anyway.

[amw]

Also my gratefulness that the 'metoo' movement on social media has at least become as mainstream movement in a misogynistic world.......

Well I think we have to live with the reality of capitalism being the main economic system in which contemporary society operates and it certainly is possible to be a socially conscious consumer.......but I think that putting the onus on consumers to be socially conscious will not really do anything to change the fact that an orchestra or opera company might regularly hire a misogynist or rapist or whatever. It is up to board members and those who have particular power to make decisions like that to say 'it is against the company standards to have a conductor who believes misogynistic things and therefore we won't hire them' or 'due to the great wealth of underrepresented contemporary composers who aren't male, we aim to support the talents of those whose music we believe is of the highest quality by reaching out to more underrepresented composers' and stuff like that.

You probably agree, or have a better understanding of this than I do, though.

But I do feel that society tends to make individual consumers make decisions rather than those with the power to do so addressing the roots of the problems themselves.......

I do agree with all this, but it's certainly good to lay it out in detail..... and yes it seems very difficult to achieve any kind of structural shift in society, which is mostly because the powerful really do not want to be held accountable and will shift responsibility in any way they can.

We are obviously fortunate that at this moment having an accused sexual abuser or a misogynist or some other not very friendly sort of person in a position of power is seen as bad for business, and therefore that position of power is diminished in some way (except for the part where sometimes you can become president of the USA if your opponent is also terrible but happens to be a woman/minority/other disadvantaged group person). We can't rely on that always being the case. Now is obviously a good time to push as many of those people out of power as possible and try to promote women who may have been denied equitable treatment under the current system. But in the long term, obviously, systemic change is needed.

There was a situation that stuck in my memory recently where a new music competition (I think Gaudeamus?) awarded only 15%, or something like that, of its awards to women composers. They were asked why and replied that it was a blind judging contest, and as it happened, only about 15% of the applications had been from women. That's kind of a pattern across the professional music world: the numbers of female composers are usually between 10 and 15% at any given event, institution, etc—sometimes more, sometimes less (I think less than 10% of orchestral commissions go to female composers on average for instance, because orchestra commissions target big names and big names are more likely to be men). But at the primary school level, right before high school, 50% of composers are female..... as one might expect. And then the numbers drop off pretty rapidly: only about 33% by the time composers finish high school and 20% by the time they finish their undergraduate degree.

It's not a huge mystery as to why that is. The start of high school is also, for many girls, the start of a constant regime of sexual harassment and aggression from men—usually much older men—that will follow them everywhere. (It typically starts earlier, from ages 6-10—8 for me—but ages 13+ is when it starts to become very common.) Their male peers will start to pick up this behaviour from the men they look up to. Girls end up organising into groups, and avoiding areas where there is a high concentration of men or boys, and this is almost subconscious. (If you're an autistic weirdo like me and don't manage to get into one of the groups, high school becomes very lonely, and occasionally scary. My personal #metoo story dates from first year of high school.) Even in the context of music schools one sees this, where things like composition class get fewer female students because they are more male-dominated, and things like string classes get more female students because they are less male-dominated, and the cycle perpetuates itself ad infinitam in the absence of affirmative action and stricter sexual harassment policies.

[Karl Henning]

We all know that when the speaker employs the preface I don't want to give offense, he's asking for a pass while he says something he knows to be offensive.

Raise your hand if you have heard now-President Trump use that rhetorical dodge.

[Karl Henning]

But that's exactly the point I'm trying to make: It takes a far broader and more broad-minded change, to level THAT playing-field. Some think that aggression speeds up the process; I say patience, within limits, may do more... depending on the situation. Moreover, the "cup of tea" statement doesn't suggest that someone's mind is closed. Prejudice is actually OK, within fairly wide limits, if one is aware of it and if one doesn't discriminate based on it. I go into concerts with prejudice all the time -- but I don't think I've never not been swayed by a great performance. Arguably I would be more critical of something middle-of-the-run by someone I feel less well inclined about... but then I'm also aware of the bias and may try to compensate. In any case, we can't outlaw feelings and change attitudes by force. We can do that only with the soft power of conviction, setting examples, understanding, compassion yaddayadda.

Heartily agreed.

[The new erato]

My thoughts exactly.

Me as well.

[Ken B]

This reply is not logical and you know it. Jansons is guilty as member of a regime system which suppressed female voices, not as a specific hinderer of specific careers. There are probably 20+ female conductors we cannot name, and we cannot name them because they were discouraged by teachers, professionals, role models, etc., from pursuing a career in which they were not welcome.

Nonsense. This is what Florestan asked for

Could you (or somebody else, for that matter) indicate a person, or an organization, who / which hindered the career of a female conductor?

Did he get an organization as an answer? No, he got one named person. Then when he asked for an example of a woman conductor held back by Jansons -- as a person not as an organization -- he gets this.

Aside from that it is never illogical to ask for evidence.

Some people should read Feynman.

[Mahlerian]

Aside from that it is never illogical to ask for evidence.

Some people should read Feynman.

It's illogical to demand evidence when evidence has already been presented that satisfied the conditions asked for at the beginning.  Changing the conditions in order to keep demanding higher and higher standards of evidence makes it impossible to ever prove anything.

[Mirror Image]

Nonsense. This is what Florestan asked for
Did he get an organization as an answer? No, he got one named person. Then when he asked for an example of a woman conductor held back by Jansons -- as a person not as an organization -- he gets this.

Aside from that it is never illogical to ask for evidence.

Some people should read Feynman.

You're back again? I thought you left? With all these people leaving and then coming back, it gets rather confusing.

[Florestan]

It's illogical to demand evidence when evidence has already been presented that satisfied the conditions asked for at the beginning. 

There was no evidence whatsoever that has already been presented that Mariss Jansons, by his own actions, hindered the career of a woman conductor. Associating him with a perceived "regime system which supresses women voices" is no evidence at all; it is guilt by association which would be laugh out of any court (except, of course, the communist ones, as I said previously). Furthermore, it is preposterous, given that Jansons's recordings, far from supressing women voices, actually feature them. Ask Felicity Lott, Julia Hamari, Sarah Chang or Midori.

Changing the conditions in order to keep demanding higher and higher standards of evidence makes it impossible to ever prove anything.

I asked "name individual X or organization Y", and then when individual X has been named, I asked for evidence regarding him. What conditions did I change, pray tell?

[Karl Henning]

Nonsense. This is what Florestan asked for
Did he get an organization as an answer? No, he got one named person.

He got "the environment, and the inertia of precedent" as an answer in posts by myself and Scarps, though depending on the progress of the discussion, they may not appear as linear responses.

[Florestan]

"the environment, and the inertia of precedent"

Neither one, nor the other of these vague generalities is a person or an organization. What I asked for was a person or organization who/which hindered the career of a woman conductor. And I should have thought that anyone can infer that I wanted to be pointed out to actual, documented cases in which person X or organization Y hindered, by action taken or not taken, the career of the woman conductor Z. Simply expressing one's conservative views on the matter does not qualify by any stretch of the imagination.