With absolutely no intention of offending anyone here, it has been stated that there is some sort of biological connection between musicians and gayness. I read the story of Van Cliburn's partner suing him and the claim to have contracted HIV. We also know of Liberace to name a couple.

What are your views on this?

I believe that there are certain occupations in life where you will find a higher percentage of gay people. I also believe that music is one of those occupations.

Many gay people I know here in the UK tend to work more towards the arts as opposed to the sciences and I have put this down to the fact that the art subjests tend to enable you to express yourself in a more extrovert way. When this is compared to the sciences where things are more exact and methodical where personal opinion and expressionism is not so much a principality and personas tend to me more introverted.

As for a biological connection I wouldn't go along with that - you are either gay or you are not so what has that got to do with music?

I have been involved in music for all of my working life and never and would never consider a biological connection between the two.

Cheers

I believe you're making the error of the false correlation; because there are some well known musicians who are gay, you are presuming that there is a biological connection.

What if I found some gay truck drivers, would there be a proven connection between being gay and truck driving?

What I think is that based on what you presented, there is no special "biological" connection, any more than there is one to any other human activity.

Don't go too fast! Why wouldn't there be? It's not because we can't prove it that it doesn't exist... This is not to say that it does, either.

ClassicalMan,

Where has it been stated that there is such a biological connection?

I agree with Trev that there's a correlation; gay people seem to be overrepresented in the arts. But that's not the same as a causal connection.

Still, recent studies of the hypothalamus seem to confirm a biological basis for gayness. If "hemispheric dominance" in the brain corresponding to predilections, personality and thought processes is also biologically determined, isn't such a connection between sexuality and musical ability possible?

FWIW, I've observed a correlation between left-handedness and gayness (as well as high intelligence). Though lefties are thought to represent around just 10% of the general population, in my unscientific personal experience I've noticed that a disproportionately high number of gay (or smart and/or artistically inclined) people have turned out to be left-handed.

Steven

Toscanini was a heterosexual's heterosexual.

This subject surfaces occasionally. It's usually raised regarding the Horowitz quote (something to the effect that pianists are either gay or bad). Frankly I don't get it, what's the issue? Are you concerned that others may draw conclusions regarding your sexual preference based on your affinity for classical music and playing piano? If so then simply state that Horowitz would have considered you a bad pianist and let them figure it out.

Frankly, I've come to the conclusion that Leviticus got this one wrong and those words were inspired by Bronze Age fear and not an all loving Creator of the Universe (who by the way apparently had no qualms creating gay people).

Well, Horowitz did leave himself a convenient out in the quotation attributed to him ("There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists and bad pianists").

Steven

I assume music provides an environment where it is easier for persons to openly say that they are gay. Guess it is not so well received among for example truck drivers. That may lead to the impression that there are more gay musicians.

On the other hand, over here, among male hairdressers and tailors, there's a very high percentage of gays. Maybe of those gays who tend to develop more female parts than others.

Erm ... I suspect something got lost in translation here.

Steven

You missed the point. I'm just saying your reasoning is flawed.

If you want to go sponsor a study as to whether homosexuality is a predictor of musical talent, go right ahead. But anything short of that, based on the information you've provided, is speculation.

And speculation is not proof.

Or one could speculate that musical talent is predictive of homosexuality. I assumed the conjecture here concerned correlation rather than causation (which is not to say that's any less hypothetical).

Steven

Sexual orientation, sexual identification and “sexual object choice” each may be taken as indicators of homo- or heterosexuality. Individual sexuality may be seen as the sum total of these elements which contribute to that aspect of an individual’s personality which is considered sexual in nature. As we mature, each of us develops an individual sexuality which is as different for each individual as is personality in general. Contributing to this, are our inherited tendencies and our life experience. There is no doubt that both biology and environment contribute to development of sexual orientation (or tendency), sexual identification, and eventually, if not repressed, to sexual object choice. Depending on the degree of acceptance of one’s perceived sexual orientation, conflicts between identification and object choice may occur.

How does this relate to Gay Musicians? There are studies which demonstrate that certain occupational or life choices are correlated with homosexuality. It is unlikely that a causal relationship will ever be proven with total certainty between any two specific human traits. To do so would require a controlled experiment in which one characteristic was modified and the effect on development of another could be observed while all other factors are static. Such an environment is highly improbable. But, it is possible to study the correlation between any two characteristics or behaviors. Standard statistical methods, if properly applied, will indicate whether or not there is a correlation. But this is only a correlation, not a certainty.
“Gayness” is not a dichotomous trait. Every human has both male and female characteristics as well as attraction to both the same and opposite sex. The degree of acceptance of these characteristics, as well the decision to act or not act upon them, also varies. There is the full range of manifestation, from perceived (consciously or not) orientation (of one sort or another) and the acceptance (or denial) of that orientation which determines the eventual “object choice” or sexual behavior. Including, but not limited to: homosexuality, heterosexuality or celibacy (asexuality).

So why might there be more gay musicians or at least more good ones? Is it the “gay gene” at work? Not likely. There are also plenty of gay truck drivers and cowboys, as well. So the “gene” may express itself in many ways. My opinion is that the correlation has to do with the relationship between personal and societal acceptance of characteristics. In a society where every behavior was equally accepted, there would not be an effect such as I will describe.

Although artists are appreciated to an extent by society, they are also considered to be “special.” They are seen to be “different” from individuals in more conventional occupations. The same is true of homosexuals. We will probably never know with any real precision what percentage of artists are straight or gay. Just as we will never know the percentage for the population in general. First, there is no clear-cut definition as to where the line is drawn between gay and straight. (And I believe it is already a very fuzzy line that will become more so in the future.) Second, there is no clear indication of who is gay or straight except for the individuals who choose to identify themselves as such.

Individuals vary in their need or desire to be conventional. Those who feel a strong need to behave conventionally (or need to be perceived as behaving conventionally) are more likely to repress whatever unconventional tendencies they may perceive in themselves (such as homosexuality or artistic tendency). This is not an all-or-none phenomenon. Behaviors that seems more threatening may be suppressed, and other, more unconventional behaviors, may be allowed to express themselves. However, it would seem highly probable that more people who are comfortable with non-conventionality will express themselves in a greater variety of non conventional ways and therefore produce MORE GAY MUSICIANS!!! And more GAY LOVERS (AND SPOUSES) OF MUSICIANS as well.

Left-handedness is another "questionable" trait. Until recently it was considered that left-handedness was not as acceptable as right-handedness and left-handedness was discouraged. Until there is no attempt to discourage left-handedness, we will not know what the natural frequency may be. Even without active discouragement, just the feeling of being different may influence those who feel a strong need to be conventional to change their behavior. Those who do not have such a strong need may be more inclined to express either left-handedness or homosexuality. Given that the President of the United States is now a “lefty” (no pun intended!), we should see any remaining societal “discomfort’ with this trait dissipate rapidly.

Intelligence may also be seen to fall into this category. Or at least the willingness to display one’s intelligence, or more correctly “cleverness”. This has also historically not been a popular or conventional behavior and has been subject to the same constraints as left-handedness and homosexuality.

Another interesting correlation that may be explained by this theory is the correlation between profound deafness and homosexuality. Congenital deafness isolates individuals not only because they are different, but also because they are denied a significant form of human interaction. So acceptance of being different may be a significant part of survival, making it easier to accept and express other differences, therefore contributing to the perceived correlation.

Progress is the result of trying new ideas, and those who feel comfortable only in conventional environments may fail to help the progress of society as much as they otherwise might. Any effort to deny the existence of our inherent and natural differences, and minimize any contributions made by certain individuals because of those perceived “differences,” does a disservice to society and may serve to impoverish our cultural and intellectual heritage. The recognition of the contributions of all members of society, and the recognition of any and all “traits” that may make them “special,” can only be seen as being beneficial to our society and its ultimate advancement.

I believe that my gay limp wrist, longer feminine ring finger, and my love of Kylie Minogue makes me a better musician.

Actually, that's a generally masculine trait. Digit ratio

Oh, thats right.

It was lesbians that were found to have longer ring fingers than usuall.

I remember reading about that statement from somewhere (probably Wikipedia), but based on those options, what would pianists such as Hoffmann and Moiseivitch be classified as?

You don't say what "such as" refers to, but Hofmann and Moiseiwitsch were Jewish:

http://greatjews.net/gjpianists.aspx

Steven

Ok, how about Argerich and Lugansky?

Horowitz was making a wisecrack. I doubt he intended for his quip to be treated as a litmus test for pianistic excellence.

Steven

Van Cliburn's bio in Wiki has this to say about the OP's comment (in part):

"In 1998, Cliburn was named in a lawsuit by his domestic partner of seventeen years, mortician Thomas Zaremba.[2] In the suit, Zaremba claimed entitlement to a portion of Cliburn's income and assets and went on to charge that he might have been exposed to HIV and claimed emotional distress. Each claim was subsequently dismissed by an Appellate Court, citing palimony suits are not permitted in the state of Texas unless the relationship is based on a written agreement."

That is not quite the same thing as saying that he exposed the lover to HIV. Cliburn is 75; if he has HIV I was not able to find any mention of it in the NY Times archive of articles or on his bio on the Kennedy Center website.

It is not a thing to say loosely on a public forum. However, the thread is interesting.

Jeff,

I don't believe the OP was claiming such a thing happened (else I would have challenged it immediately!). It's just a statement that Cliburn's ex-partner claimed it happened in his "palimony" suit. I'm not aware of any substantiation (and therefore take the allegation with the proverbial grain of salt), but the unverified claim is part of the public record nonetheless.

Steven