(In before "why does this issue matter" or before it becomes really off topic)


Is it a coincidence some of the best pianists: from Richter, to (apparently?) Lang Lang, to Kissin, Bernstein, Liberace, Artur Pizarro etc.... Are all gay?

Do you think there is any correlation? Does it matter?

No.And,no.

Lang Lang's gay? Kissin's gay? Richter's gay? Didn't know that about any of them.

In a civilized society we do not distinguish nor do we discriminate based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, skin colour ethnicity, age, or gender.

Here is the ruling from the wise men up in Albany appeals;

By judging a person not on their merits but by which group they belong to, this forms the basis for discrimination”

And what's wrong with trying to find out more about if a certain trait is common amongst people who play the piano even if it is slightly taboo?

No, I just think the the arts are a safer community for being public about it, and so homosexuals who end up in the arts are more likely to have that fact known about them, and homosexuals who have a choice of careers might choose the arts over professions with less understanding communities.

Maybe they are all left handed. Maybe they all dye their hair.

Maybe they all eat hamburgers. Maybe they all wear Gucci jewellery.

Why do you care?

Find something important to concern yourself with in life because this isn’t it.

I do think there is a legitimate question buried in here: is there a correlation between homosexuality and various forms of artistic sensibility, or is this just a media-induced perception? But I don't think it has anything to do with the piano per se, and this isn't a great topic for this forum.

(By the way, my understanding is that Richter's homosexuality is generally acknowledged, while Lang Lang and Kissin are idle speculation by the OP.)


-Jason

No the real question is this;

One more time. Why does it matter what they are or are not?

It's actually important to consider; we don't know what quite a lot of the brain does so...if we can draw correlations we can steadily build a more complete picture of what makes certain talents appear...um...it doesn't matter *socially*, but scientifically it would be remiss to ignore...no?

LOL

No...

Well I can tell you what a few of the brains around here are not doing at the moment; being used constructively.

These performers are what they are. Their motivations for being a certain way are none of our business.

You know most of life is just simply about understanding.

"In a civilized society we do not distinguish nor do we discriminate based on religious beliefs, sexual orientation, skin colour ethnicity, age, or gender."

But we do. We shouldn't, but we do. And it's not noble to act as if it doesn't happen as if that were the same as being politically correct. It is still the case that there are very few internationally renowned concert pianists who are black, for example. Whilst no decent person would judge a concert pianist on such a thing, its still an interesting conversation to have about the various social reasons as to why that might be the case.

I can understand why straight people who are either trying too hard to be politically correct or find it an uncomfortable subject would argue that such a conversation about gay pianists is uninteresting and not worth having. I, however, do find it interesting, to think about the various reasons for why there might be a higher percentage than normal of pianists who are gay, if indeed this is the case at all. Being at music college, this does seem to be the case, although I think it is more the case with singers. In my year, 9 out of the 12 tenors are gay. The other years are similar, and friends of mine in other colleges in the country have said that the numbers are similar where they are as well.
Estimates for how much of the general population are gay in some degree vary from 2% to 10% depending on which study you consult. Clearly there is some kind of disparity here. Does nobody think it might be even slightly interesting to pontificate on why this might be?

I have been in the music industry forty years. Lots of people in all walks of life are gay, lesbian, transgendered.

One experience at a particular college does not make a study sample worthy of consideration.

Would the thread be any better if we were discussing the disproportionate amount of Jewish people in finance?

How about all the black garbage collectors?

How about all of the left handed redheads of the world?

Do not let me prevent anyone from the joys of stereotyping. Carry on

Is it a coincidence some of the best pianists: from Richter, to (apparently?) Lang Lang, to Kissin, Bernstein, Liberace, Artur Pizarro etc.... Are all gay?

Well, some of the best pianist are straight and some of the best pianists are gay so that is normal.

You don't have to be gay or straight to play the piano.

To be able to play the piano you have to sit on a piano bench for 20 years practicing the piano.

"Lots of people in all walks of life are gay, lesbian, transgendered."

Don't patronise me. You can't talk about inadequate study samples on one hand and on the other hand dismiss the difference between 5% and 75% as being one and the same under the generic label of 'lots of people'. You also confused 'one experience at one college' with 'many experiences at many colleges', possibly because it was relayed to you by a single person, but never mind.

If, to use one of your examples, say 75% of redheaded people were left handed, this WOULD be an extremely interesting thing, as it would suggest some kind of biological correlation, and merely acknowledging this fact is not to suggest that anyone should be judged in any way based on it. More to the point, if redheaded people being lefthanded was an already existing stereotype in peoples minds, this would make it doubly interesting. This has got nothing to do with stereotypING. This is to do with talking ABOUT stereotypes. How they arise, and whether or not there is any truth in them. This is not the same as being taken in by them.

Well, what is complex, is that in some cultures it is a no no for guys to make dresses or sew or being a mechanic is no no for women so culturally fewer people based on gender maybe less inclinied to try different things based on their cultural background.

But it's not stereotyping. "Stereotyping" usually has some negative connotation but that's not apparent in this thread.

For example, an incredibly high percentage of the great pianists were Jewish but few of the great composers were Jewish. Those are interesting facts I think. It raises questions about why one field and not the other?

Anyone who does not have children has lots more time to practice. Straight, Gay, whatever. Less children = more practice = play piano better.

I don't think we necessarily want to "pontificate" on such a matter! Ponder, sure.

LMAO! Whoops :P. In my defence, it's 2am here lol

Someone might at any moment show up and "talk in a dogmatic and pompous manner" on the subject.

I did think 'pontificate' an interesting choice of word. Yet I certainly 'ponder' why it seems so many organists are gay. I went to school with a bunch of them, and I have known -and know of- several very high profile organists in the UK.

In the US it seems even more prevalent, not mentioning some of the more obvious examples which come to mind. (Some years ago I used to post on an organ forum -primarily US-based- and that was quite interesting.)

Many, many famous musicians and artists in general have had unusual sexual lives—gay, straight, asexual, bisexual or beastial. Whether or not there is an actual correlation is another question, but I think there are probably just as many people that would fall into those labels in any field. We just know more about the people in fields like art, music and acting because more people become famous in these professions, as opposed to a homosexual piano tuner. Does it matter? No, but it is invariably a part of who they are and thus probably indirectly influences the practice of their art in some way.

Here are a few basic scientific tenets to consider when discussing a topic such as this:

1. Correlation does not imply causation. Sure, more artistic people may be homosexual (or maybe not, I don't know), but that does not imply that being homosexual causes artistic tendencies and it does not imply that an artistic talent may lead to homosexuality. More often than not there is a third, unseen variable which is influencing both observed traits.

2. Valid statements cannot be made based on personal observations (known as the Availability Heuristic). Just because one thinks of something or notices something does not imply any level of significance.

3. The plural of anecdote is not evidence. To say "my friends all agree" or "other people see this as well" are not valid arguments.

Personally, I think Kreisler's statement is likely very true. However, without any form of statistical survey or empirical data to compare against the general population, nobody can say for sure whether the incidence of homosexuality is in fact higher in the arts.

I love the post. I know 5 gay men who all have pianos and none of them play. They are out everynight socializing way too busy to sit on a piano bench to practice or play. Again, it is commitment - not kids or a wife!

Their "motivations" for being gay? Seriously ????

But I agree - it is none of our business.

"It is none of our business" ... *cough* then what is? I must admit, I find it very strange how strong the anti-discrimination impulse is within the current climate, if you will. I mean, um, discrimination isn't a bad thing; it's our way of determining one from another. I mean, people may consider it none of their business as to the sexuality of another, but will *discriminate* against paedophiles; not allowing them to work in schools for instance. But that just makes sense, the masses cry...so why not disclose sexuality, gender, race et al.? If your friend was the only black person in the room and you were trying to direct another to engage them in conversation, why not say "oh, go talk to Peter over there, the black chap" rather than "oh, go talk to Peter over there, the one stood not quite North facing"? Discrimination makes sense; it is, I believe, the fear and inability of the public to accept discrimination that allows unduly *negative* discrimination to continue. Oh, um...it's also quite amusing to me how it's considered acceptable to be discriminatory so long as you are "one of them"...I appreciate that people are just trying to be fair to all, but discrimination isn't the enemy. I mean...explain how someone paralysed from the waist below can't run without being discriminatory towards the notion that there exist disabled people and I'll grant you my salutations. Treating people *equally* doesn't mean treating them the *same* and it seems folly to me that our terms of address shouldn't follow the same approach. Sorry, um, I don't mean to antagonise anyone but...if we live in fear of discrimination or discriminating...well, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate...
Xxx
Edit: Thank you, Carey, for swooping in on the "motivations" point before I did; I'm glad someone else picked up on that

"There are only three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists."
-- Horowitz

I fall into the latter category.


If I recall correctly, there is some debate as to what Volodya actually meant when he said that.

To put this into context: Would you expect career military men being homosexual? Probably not, yet studies show quite a few of them are, just not publicly. I would vote for correlation but would not expect to find causality. In some professions it's much easier to be public about your sexual orientation. Being homosexual might affect a person's career choice at some point.

Obviously no proper study exists on whether homosexuality is a benefit for a skill, and doubt it would be even possible to show such a connection.

Yes, the hairdresser/flower arranger answer. It sounds correct, reasonable and also completely politically correct.

One might also add in addition to the above observation that because homosexuals, even today, are presented with a personally urgent intellectual and emotional conundrum from a wee age in the realization that they are different to the suggestions made by the majority of default and ubiquitous cultural messaging (and that they are then forced to constantly make conscious decisions about what they do or do not do or say about themselves as opposed to just living spontaneously in freedom) that they become during the critical years of brain development sensitive to all kinds of differences and aware of the profound revelation in life that there are no absolutes and that everything is relative.

Heightened sensitivity and the artistic freedom that such precocious, personality-forming understanding brings tends to be helpful to be successful as a pianist.

Understanding does not come from creating taboos nor through exercising duress towards censure nor self-censure.

You are making the case that this topic should be declared VERBOTEN and that those daring to discuss it are guilty of some kind of implicit discrimination. However, I have only seen one single offensive comment on this thread:



This is the kind of discriminatory mis-understanding that needs to be nipped in the bud, not an open and honest discussion of the OP's open question.



Yes.

+1

"Its not true that all ballet dancers are homosexual, i have met at least four in my lifetime that were not."

Rudolf Nureyev (apparently)

I think this Stephen Hough blog "Gay pianists, can you tell?" may be of interest..

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100006381/gay-pianists-can-you-tell/

I think this is incredibly highbrow, uncommonly intelligent, and yet, inherently flawed. But let me be clear on what I think is flawed: your statement presupposes that only the homosexual community is faced with this kind of adversity, and hence, only the homosexual community can reach that super-sensitive place you've described in which such artistic genius, apparently, revels. This, I cannot say I agree with.

Our global society has come a long way towards accepting sexual orientation, but admittingly, still has a long way to go. So, I am not going to argue that your observations are flawed. I think there is a lot of truth in what you say. However, I think the conclusion you draw is falsely based on some unexamined/unknown bias.

Firstly, statistics doesn't agree with you. Using a 2012 Gallup Poll, 3.4% of the US population identifies as LGBT. If we consider an even cross-section of applicants for artistic endeavors, that would mean, for every 97 heterosexual students, there are 3 who are not. So, purely statistically speaking, it is far more likely for a gifted artist to come from the larger population than the smaller.

Of course, we could say that, perhaps, only 5% of heterosexuals go into artistic endeavors. Let's also say 100% of LGBT go into the arts, just so we can create a bias towards LGBT. That means for every 4.85 hetero artists, there are 3.4 LGBT. A much better ratio. This means, for every 59 hetero, there are 41 LGBT (out of 100). While the numbers are much closer, your average Las Vegas casino makes billions on ratios much smaller than this. So, it is still far more likely that a gifted artist will come from the hetero community than the LGBT community.


Secondly, we must examine your claim of emotional sensitivity as driven by adversity. I think there are many types of adversity that make one open to the sort of sensitivity that creates talented artists. Typically, this sensitivity is described as necessarily viewing yourself as "outside" society. This separation allows the artist to "look in" at society and see something they would like to describe/use/exploit in their art. This has been described of every artistic endeavor. The metaphor of Plato's Cave would be accurate to use here. I am sure you know it, so I won't bore you by repeating its applicability here.

To continue, this adversity can be drawn from many areas. You may lose one or both parents, be orphaned from the start, not fit in in school, get picked on, bullied, made fun of, have no luck in the dating world, fail at your dreams.. any number of things can provide that kind of sensitivity that creates an "outside" perspective. I don't think it is even remotely accurate to suggest that the homosexual community has a corner on the market.

As such, we must go back to the statistical analysis and derive the conclusion that it is far more likely a talented artist would come from the hetero community than the LGBT.

Now, why the assumption about LGBT? Well, this is much more speculative, but perhaps because such powerful and well-known people in the community are openly expressive of their orientation, we tend to get the sense that it applies to the artistic community as a whole, even if it does not. I also think that Kreisler's comment applies here, that LGBT individuals tend to be more outspoken and expressive of their beliefs in a community, like the arts, where it is more accepted and where their job doesn't hinder on their sexual orientation.

But none of that supports the argument that LGBT are somehow "inherently" better artists. I think such a concept shortchanges not only heterosexuals who are talented artists, but also every LGBT who worked their tails off to get where they are within the arts. You get to the top of the arts by busting your @$$ until you make it, not by your sexual preference.

Regarding Horowitz's original quote, I think it's flat-out wrong. It's racist and sexist. I'll provide two historical examples: Liszt and Mozart. They weren't Jewish, Russian, or gay, and to this day, they would seem to stand on the pinnacle of pianistic abilities.

No. That is a mistake in logic. My statement makes no such presupposition.

It is also not about "adversity" per se, but about the realization of children during their identity-forming, personality-molding, brain-developing years, without having asked for it or even wanting it, that they are not only different but, particularly in the case of homosexuality, perhaps even considered to be illicitly contrary to the very fabric of one or more or most cultural assumptions in the environment in which they are growing up.

The fact that many/most homosexuals raised in those countries celebrating the Western Music tradition are faced with this situation does not in any way imply that no others might also be faced with a kind of clash or misfit that forces them to be more sensitive, more aware, more consciously engaged by force rather than unconsciously relaxing in their unquestioned and unexamined perfect fit and thus potentially more artistically inclined and/or attracted to self-expression on the piano.

I have limited my statement to homosexuals, not LBT or even BLT. One could also discuss Korean foster children growing up on Iowa farms, unwanted black orphans from the USA being lovingly raised by their two gay Dutch daddies in Amsterdam, confirmed atheists being raised by Southern Baptists, awkward, effeminate straight boys being raised by rabid sports fans, etc. etc. However, the statistical problems you mention become even thornier.

There is another aspect that has not been discussed, which is this: in many, many places within the popular culture in which many boys -- straight and gay -- grow up in still today (or even more so today) it takes a lot of self-confidence, independence of thought or if you wish, " balls ", to even admit that you like classical music and the piano, let alone to actually ask for and receive and persevere through ten years of expensive lessons. Taking piano lessons in (junior) high school can cost you your friends, your quarterback position, your social status, your sexual attractiveness, your shot at homecoming king, etc. etc. If you already don't have one or more or any of those things, then the cost of indulging yourself with your passion for the piano is much lower. Outsiders have less to lose.

This goes without saying.

Lesson learned: Never take apocryphal quotes of campy, ironical, self-deprecating, confontational attempts at humor as a statement of fact.

It is worth pointing out, I think, that being "gifted" in anything also tends to make children feel different in some degree, regardless of their sexuality. There may be some kind of synergistic effect that happens with kids who are gifted and who also happen not to be heterosexual. It's like they get a double-whammy of identity issues on their plate to figure out, and often with not a lot of outside help. My sense is that being in that situation could force a kid into using their imagination in ways that also turn out to be artistically useful.

That's a good point, wr. Walking down the street singing, "Ich hatte viel Bekümmernis" will engender serious social adversity. If the incredulous hearers-by would learn that the offender is gay, well, I think that amounts in their minds to having encountered a gay alien.

Horowitz's statement was meant as a joke. It's just his way of saying a very significant percentage of good pianists are Jewish or gay. I think it's a given he didn't mean it in an absolute sense. His pianistic idol was Rachmaninov, and I'm sure he thought Liszt was very great.

I also would not make this kind of generalization.




However, you make it sound as if " getting to the top " of the arts is like some kind of Mad Men career race. Especially given the materialistic connotations of a busted posterior written with two dollar signs. Arbeit ist zuss & success means material success, etc.

I would argue that there is often (usually? always?) something else or something more going on in becoming a top artist (whether recognized as such or not), such as: parents that are willing to sacrifice their own life for the potential artistic life of their child (Lang Lang anyone?), timing (being in the right place at the right time doing the right things), network/contacts, dumb luck, the right conservatory/teachers/mentors, the right opportunities, choosing a genre/period/composer that is in demand rather than your first love, etc.

Next of course are ephemeral things such as "aptitude", "talent", "character", "poise/charisma", "ability to connect", etc.

I had a Russian piano teacher who said there was a saying in Russian to the effect of "Troubles make your Soul and your playing is always a mirror into your Soul." She believed that truly great artists were made in the character crucible of "nobody knows the trouble I've seen...".

When you hear someone like Mikhail Pletnev play something as dead simple as Thaichowsky's Autumn, you can palpably hear and feel that his inner life has not just been a bed of roses.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcmIKqyQYWA

Yes, talking about all of those things is important, and that's why we do it. We talk about why engineering and science schools are so heavily dominated by men, very few women appear. We acknowledge the achievement gap between predominantly black and predominantly white schools. Good lord, we have entire government funded organizations to study and discuss these matters. Your apparent taking offense at someone pointing out (simply pointing out!) that there seems to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the arts (or, as Kreisler suggested, a higher percentage of openly homosexual individuals in the arts) than other industries is, frankly, just silly.

Normally I shy away from replying to such controversial topics but here I feel my position is so rare only because it is not said enough: I do not believe there is any earthly connection between the two. There is no link. No causality. I have absolutely no idea how one's orientation would ever affect one's skill at the keyboard. It's a complete non-issue for me. The subject bordering on a waste of time. And as such I will now return to enjoying music and practicing piano.

Obviously, for some folks, perception is reality.

ACTUALLY the original post simply referred to "some of the best pianists" - (i.e., Is it a coincidence some of the best pianists: from Richter, to (apparently?) Lang Lang, to Kissin, Bernstein, Liberace, Artur Pizarro etc.... Are all gay? Do you think there is any correlation? Does it matter?)

Somehow this thread evolved from discussing "Some of the best pianists" to "individuals in the arts in general."

As for the OP's original question:

"Do you think there is any correlation" (between playing the piano well and being gay???) NO

"Does it matter/" NO (why should it ?)

Horowitz, who denied being homosexual,[24] once joked, "There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists."

Score = two out of three.

When you are always the last one picked to be on a team, staying home with the piano has more appeal.

This is my thought why many good pianists are gay.

In order to play piano well, there are many qualities needed:

1. Sensitivity.
2. Physical agility and endurance (fingers movement, endurance to practice for a long time).
3. Strong thinking ability (like to figure out complex stuff).
4. Persistence and focus in reaching the goal
5. Meticulous and detail oriented .

Gay men have more chance to possess those required qualities, that is why many of them are more equipped to be good pianists. Females or Hetero men usually lack of one or more of the above components.

And why, pray tell, is that exactly????

On second thought........never mind.

No no, Carey, let RonaldSteinway explain, I assume, himself; which of those qualities do heterosexuals miss out on? And females...? Um...I'm not judging your assertions but...it strikes me that you're insinuating that gay men have the highest chance of being perfect human beings...you're making some pretty bold claims here

I didn't even want to acknowledge the "female" comment. Would any of our female PW members like to chime in here????

I think one of them just did. She even addressed you by name.

Yes, Rubinstein said that it was common knowledge among pianists that Horowitz was homosexual, but no one gave it a second thought.


Absolutely. Stereotypes are exploded and neutralized by discussing them, not by closing our eyes to them. And it's important to remember that stereotypes always contain a kernel of truth, no matter how distorted that truth may become over time.

A good example, (though unrelated to the topic at hand), is the old stereotype that blacks just love chicken and watermelon, as though this were some sort of genetic trait. Until fairly recently, the economic history of black Americans has required them to do a lot with very little, so finding inexpensive sources of protein (chicken), vegetables (greens of various types), and fruit (watermelon) would have been of paramount importance to them, as it would be to any poor family. These foods pack a lot of nutritional wallop, for relatively little money. This is called rational economic behavior, stretching a dollar, etc., and is not due to some innate craving for particular foods. Ironically, poor whites ate pretty much these same foods, yet managed to escape the stereotype. And that's because the essential truth within it was twisted to suit the malicious purposes of bigoted whites, who used it as one more opportunity to ridicule the life style of their fellow Americans who happened to be black.

IMO discussing stereotypes is a good thing. It allows us to break them down and separate the "truth part" from the "lie part". In the process, we can, perhaps, neutralize them entirely. But silence, I'm afraid, is simply acquiescence and only perpetuates the myth, or the "lie part".

***

***

You got me on that one !!

***

This thread is idiotic.

Those words coming from you really made me laugh.

Thank you. You stated, far more eloquently, what I was trying to say.

Please don't quote inappropriate posts - it only encourages the trolls and takes twice as long to delete.

This thread needs to be closed... moderators?

Actually, I had an unfair advantage. I had used the wrong pronoun on another thread, and then apologized. Her response was "Pfft, it happens", which endeared her to me forever.

There's only been one moderator report so far, and I don't see a compelling reason to close it just yet. It's a dangerous topic, and my guess is the thread will go sour soon enough, but there are a few interesting ideas here and there, so I'll wait it out a bit longer.

Why?

It will close of its own accord, like any other thread. So far, I think it's been interesting and 99% civil.

Amazing, those wimps who whine to a moderator at something perceived as offensive. Why not just stay off the thread? And during my commute home from work I seem to have missed some excitement!

And there have been some interesting ideas here...

Words of your own have had similar enough effect on me, Old Man <3 Um...I rather like this thread; a lot of liberally minded enough people posting comments innocuously enough whilst worrying that their own wording or the wording of others might incite some form of homophobic revolt. I mean, um, this thread's hardly about to get out of hand; even the Horowitz quote became deconstructed so as to ensure all that no offence is being taken or received, transmitted or otherwise left lying around... *and*, whilst the conservatively liberal may disagree, the thread began with a valid topic to which all the subsequent posts have pertained some degree of relevance; to close it at this juncture would be, in a way, to say that this is something that *shouldn't* be talked about...anyone who can't see the adverse long term effects of such needs binoculars...soo...um, thank you, Kreisler, for not blowing up the ship before it has a chance to sprig leaks and be abandoned.
Xxx

The moderator agreed that the post was offensive. He deleted it and called it inappropriate.

Not quite sure what that means... but considering your location, I should imagine you as quite socially liberal.

Well of course I never saw it... but still curious.

I find it fascinating how easily some people take offense -- just because somebody said the word "gay" doesn't automatically make them homophobic or anti-gay. So far as I can tell, nothing in the OP is derogatory, insulting, or degrading. I think rather than getting all up in arms about "it shouldn't matter", we should all realize that no, it doesn't matter...but that doesn't mean it's not still an interesting correlation to study.

My own theory is that while male pianists are not more likely to be gay, gay men are more likely to be pianists. A lot of it has to do with the emotional sensitivity that many "alpha" type straight guys repress, or simply don't possess in the first place, and the fact that being a good performer requires a certain amount of outward flamboyancy. There are flamboyant straight men, and there are introverted gay men, I'm not trying to make any blanket statements here, but the point is that it's a fair point. It doesn't really matter, but it's still an interesting topic for idle discussion -- so long as people can realize the difference between discussing sexuality and being homophobic.

Perfectly defining for me what I mean by "conservatively liberal"; Um...it's...well, homing in on notions, questions or even words that merely border non-"politically correct" in an attempt to enforce a free and loving environment rather than allowing one to grow naturally...
Edit: and yes...um...you could arguably call me socially liberal but don't let on; it's an awfully weak position to start off at

Not really.

Few thoughts:

1 -
Interesting - kinda like "gymnastics doesn't make people short, short people make good gymnasts." But I don't think that necessarily applies here. Do fat people make better opera singers? I don't know - the yummy Jonas Kaufmann does pretty well for himself.

2 -
This topic comes up from time to time, and I always find it humorous how some enter conniption territory over such an innocent curiosity. "IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!1111" So Argerich likes (or liked...) her coffee and cigarettes, some pianists like french vanilla ice cream, and you know what? I would be interested to know if it turns out many "great" pianists like peanut butter on their bagels as much as I do? Why does it matter? I'm curious - stop getting so angry about it.

3 -
I also find it interesting that so many have chimed in - though no one has identified as gay. I am gay - and a very out-of-practice pianist I'm curious is all - NO IT DOESN'T MATTER!!!!111111

4-
As a gay man, I think there's credence to the suggested - it's simply easier to "be" gay in the arts. I'm out - but trust me that working in construction, it's not as comfortable to talk freely of my partner and love life. Things have improved, but it's still awkward for some. We'll get there...

-Daniel

You can't compare being fat to being gay (no offence). You can lose weight more easily than to change your own instincts.

FSO, you quoted the wrong post.

I don't plagiarise the future, it's not my style. GeorgeB...well, firstly you *can't* change instincts consciously, that's what makes them instincts, and secondly...um...don't you think fat people have an instinct for cake?

I'm confused. If I look at your list, then I would say that women would have an advantage over men for the majority of the items on your list based on some of the inherent observed biological and evolutionary psychological differences between the sexes (which are considered just as taboo or even more so to discuss in some circles). Yet, we all know that over the past couple hundred of years there have been many more male master pianists with long and spectacular careers than female ones... Something else is clearly going on here. And I think we all know exactly what, too.

We are all products of our social environment.

Gay men can hide the fact that they are homosexual (or at least depend on those who enforce an oppressive and creepy "Don't Ask, Don't Tell!" mask of silence)

However, outside of the odd Isaac Bashevis Singer short story, women can't hide the fact that they are women.

Knowing someone's sexual orientation is about as relevant as knowing how thoroughly they wipe after a bowel movement.

Both are important when looking for a mate I guess

For me this subject is interesting because I am a sociologist, not on personal level. But if I look at my personal experience: I have lots of friends and acquintances who are openly gay and a few who are still in the closet. They come from all areas of professional life. Only a couple are involved with arts. I also know some very good musicians and they are not gay. So I wonder how piano would be in any way special in this regard...

OH, and I now understand why I will never be a good piano player...it's my gender!

Bottomline is , no one can spot a woman or a man playing a certain piece. I don't believe for a second anyone would undergo a 100 sample test and get consistent results guessing whether its a woman or a mn playing. Let alone a homosexual, gay or lesbian. Same chance of guessing that you would have if you had to guess whether the person playing is bald , blonde or has a big nose. I think this discussion is a bit like some of 20th century "classical" music. It s legit as it explores many paths just for the sake of finding out where they ll take us, and whether tehy will take us anywhere. . But after some discussion, you realize, when you arrive at the end of those paths, there s nothing to see there.

This misses the point, I believe.

The question is not: "Can you hear the difference between all men and all women playing the piano while listening blindly?"

The question is: "Why have there been so few women master pianists (or women composers for that matter) with life long careers?"

This question is even more urgent when one realizes that in the course of the history of the piano many more women than men have been introduced to and trained on the instrument while a substantial portion of the classical sonata literature was even written with these women in mind.

The answer of course is that, in general, social norms required successful women pianists and composers to stop (or at least hide) their professional-level activities at such time as their father or husband, themselves blindly obeying social conventions, instructed them to do so.

Exactly right, Offnote's post was not offensive at all. It was very funny comment
Actually. Many here are very prudish or/and from the past as I see it. If you cannot stand
Open comments from everybody do not allow off topic threads at all and close this thread.

I don't remember the whole thing, but it struck me as inappropriate for this forum. Besides the crudeness of the double entendre (which IMO wasn't really all that funny or clever), the tone could have been read as being a bit malicious - it wasn't all that clear that the poster approved of the subject matter.

At any rate, this isn't the place for dirty jokes. It just isn't (and that has nothing to do with personal prudishness, as anybody who knows me in real life would tell you).

That's extremely important to know. Especially if you're gay.

I quoted Horowitz and stated that I was two out of three. Did you think I am Jewish?

I thought I implied pretty strongly that I'm of that persuasion lol

Sorry but this is just plain wrong. A man's musical sensitivity has nothing to do with being gay. It has to do with being a good musician. Period.

Gush, explain to us how it was a dirty joke...and yes you are prudish.

Nope, ain't gonna bite.

OK. And can you explain to us then what ALL the potential elements are that might make a man a good musician which, according to you determine a man's musical sensitivity?

Or, are some or all of those off limits for open discussion too because they don't match one's personal beliefs?

Reminds me somehow of the argument from the creationists that there has to be a god because of their belief in universal agency that everything has to proceed from or be created by something else....and then refuse to discuss who created god...and in turn who created her...

I'm really tempted to have a philosophical discussion right now, but I won't.




What makes a good basketball player? Or a good runner? What about artists? What makes them good painters/sculptors etc.? Talent and dedication. Not race, gender or orientation.

The 100m final at the olympics shows otherwise. Sure, it takes hard work and dedication to become a world class sprinter, but if you happen to have been born male and of African descent then you're at an advantage.

Okay, I admit that's true. Black people are generally the best physically built. The ratio of well-built blacks to equally well-built whites (or any other race) is pretty darn high I'd say.

But does anyone honestly believe that the same ratio applies for gays vs. straights when it comes to raw musical talent? Come on...

I never said I believed that. I just object to your lack of willingness to at least question that hypothesis. There might be something in it, there might not. But you claim to already know the answer.

I don't know anything for a 100% fact but the notion that gays naturally possess musical talent over straights just sounds so stupid to me.

And the reason why I object to that hypothesis is because there is no evidence to suggest that it's true.

there's a different between sensitivity and musical raw talent.
nowhere in the original question was said "is being gay a sign you are more musically talented?"

The capacity for sensitivity IS encompassed in one's talent.

Musical talent doesn't just mean being able to play a piece the fastest. It's the whole shebang, sensitivity included.

Males run faster, on average and, recordedly (come on, that *so* should be a word ), at the extreme...that's a plain fact based on not only statistical data but biological (or mechanical, depending on your point of view) understanding. Um...African...less so bio-mechanically but still so statistically. Piano-wise it would make sense to at least start out wondering whether there would be some difference; both are physical activities after all. A study (I forget which one, sue me ) showed that males with typically low testosterone and females with typically high testosterone seem to be the most talented composers...also, um, male performers exhibited higher levels of testosterone than the average; for whatever reason (as we can't yet determine which causes {it's very likely causal but I'm open to the suggestion that hundreds sampled just happened to dodge the normal curve} the other), um, this would suggest female performers (who on the whole, for obvious reasons {don't make me go on about the whole progesterone malarky) would not match testosterone levels of a male with a similar background and as such would perform *differently* (not necessarily worse, as testosterone could always be a negative impact towards the quality performance, mind)...um...also, painters of both sexes show little to no (statistically insignificant differences) difference to the statistical norm...so...long story short, I think it *will* make a difference, but I couldn't say this with any degree of certainty. Sometimes I *could* tell though, when I'd hear piano through the walls way back in school...um...I'll put that down to luck though. We are made of these hormones; they shape how we think, how we feel, even how we perceive the world (for instance, oestragen will increase olfactory processing by a noticeable degree {this is the reason boys are so smelly :P [a flippant remark, please don't jump down my throat...fingers...meh ]})...to outright say that how we think, feel and perceive the world will make no difference to how a pianist performs is to state, outright, that there is *no* personality in performance...I'm not on board
Here endeth the lecture
Xxx
Edit: Or not Um...bringing it back to gays vs miserables (hohoho...no? *sigh* ); as we don't know what makes homosexuality happen we *can't* know for sure whether there'd be a difference in the comparison...even if the reason is ephemeral (I totally believe in souls, despite having learnt about Science with a capital S...igh )...that ephemerality would be where our personality comes from too and, then, we're back to all that litany I just spewed

This thread gave me the idea of looking at the list of pianists in the "Great Pianists of the 20th Century", the collection of 100 2-CD volumes on Philips. You know, just to get an idea of the statistics.

The first thing that crossed my mind, upon looking at the list, is that I just don't know that much about the sexuality of many of them. The second thought was that, knowing that many gay or lesbian pianists may have hidden the reality of their sexuality from the world (just like people in other fields), the surface indicators of marriage and children don't really count.

So, in the end, it didn't really tell me much, except that reliable data going back very far is probably not easily available.

talent encompasses several things beyond sensitivity, hence both words are not interchangeable.

Sherlock strikes again. The example he gave showed a trait which leads to success and success in that case was running fast. Once again, your point is irrelevant as nobody mentioned speed and the physical ability of one to play the piano was directly affected by homosexuality.

FSO. Please don't take offense with what I am going to say. Can you please structure your post with a few spaces? it is quite hard to read one big long paragraph.

Exactly. That's what I meant by "the whole shebang".



Yeah, that example (which was one of three) wasn't a good one and I admitted it.



Ironically, the above is actually irrelevant as it pertains to my admittedly faulty example.

Also, if you were to read my posts thoroughly before trying to knock me down, you'd know that I said this just a few posts up:

Musical talent doesn't just mean being able to play a piece the fastest. It's the whole shebang, sensitivity included.

Thus proving your above statement even more meaningless.

That pretty much summarizes the gist of your contribution to the thread so far.

Collecting one's marbles and threatening to go home is not the same thing as participating constructively on the thread.

Go on, give into temptation!

Oh FSO... how did you do on English essays?

Well actually, I've been participating.

Hmmm - I've never considered whether a piano might be gay or straight. I'll have to ask the pianos I play. It's hard for a concert grand to be in the closet.

Saying in essence that the only thing that makes a good musician is being musical or that that which makes one musically sensitive is being a good musician or that those who are musically talented are musically talented because of their musical talent is to speak in tautologies.

To state categorically that the OP's question is irrelevant because you KNOW that sexual orientation has and cannot have any impact on the coincidence that there are any number of master pianists who have been revealed to have been gay is either to make a claim to secret knowledge or to state an unfounded opinion as fact and in its impact is but a variation on a theme stated by Silverwood et al.


I can't imagine a better example of " the whole shebang " than one's entire personal identity, which for homosexuals is intimately tied up with the developmental issues which were discussed up thread.

I just don't think that liking men inherently makes you a better musician. The notion that "gays are more sensitive because of their hormone makeup, allowing for more sensitive musicality" just isn't convincing to me. By this logic, the majority of women are better musicians.

Very conveniently, you missed out the bit that came after the first thing you quoted which makes a total difference to the point I was making .


And again, my point was that yours (about linking homosexuality to speed/physical ability) was irrelevant to the overall topic. Not really sure how quoting your point makes mine meaningless.

This thread is not about " liking men ".
This thread is about holding an open discussion about the apparent preponderance of gay master pianists and trying to understand and develop insight into what factors may be in play here.

Rather than just typing rapid-fire, random, off-topic opinions, why not take the time to go back and carefully read the thread, think and reflect about what you have read, separate it from your pre-formed bias and dogmatic formulations and then re-join the discussion?

This is more what I had in mind when I was thinking about creating this thread.

I just went over this. It was an admittedly bad example.

This 'who said what where' game is getting tiresome. If you're actually interested in communicating our opinions to each-other, and you feel that I do not understand your point, please organize your opinions into a single paragraph and I will respond accordingly.

First in my school...to get 0% for presentation in *all* exams (for which it's marked)

if I am actually interested? Lol.

I am interested in reading peoples opinions. But when the other person who is attempting to argue, cuts out bits which are essential to the point being made or makes random points with no plausible explanation to back them up, one will get nowhere trying to discuss

Okay, George.

gush, it's a shame moderators here cannot distinguish proper from non-proper post and they react on any idiot complaint...

p.s.
what happened with right to free speech in this country...

That was a stupid thing to say.

*Very* clichéd, certainly...

Was it Horowitz or Rubinstein or someone who once joked that all pianists are either Jewish, gay or bad?

At any rate, I will take a stab. I think that the best music, what we admire in virtuoso pianists, has a spiritual quality to it. It gives you a feeling that you have access to that artist's inner world, which contains this rich spectrum of feeling that includes joy and melancholy and grief and playfulness, and these feelings are realized moment to moment and note-by-note in the music. I think in order for a person to be able to express the full range of human feeling in music, he must have had some experiences in his life to get him in touch with what it is to really reckon with pain and look suffering in the eye. In buddhist thought, it's necessary to have an honest experience of pain in order to have an honest experience of happiness.

You could say of the Jewish people that they have an almost ancestral sense of suffering. Reminders of the pain of life are built into ceremonies and celebrations, such as stepping on the glass cup during the wedding ceremony. I think it would be impossible for a gay man to have gone through his life in the 20th century without a substantial measure of pain due to the lack of acceptance and understanding he would have received. Being gay in Gilels or Horowitz's time can only have been incredibly isolating, and no wonder that they would have created these beautiful, perfect musical worlds as a refuge from that.

If you're interested in further reading, here's a Telegraph article on homosexuality and pianists. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/culture/stephenhough/100006381/gay-pianists-can-you-tell/

I was going to reference that! Nice first post by the way...and welcome, if you're new.
Xxx

This is a salient point.

Thus far we have discussed four principal hypothoses for the apparent proponderance of gay master pianists:

1. Those that are gay feel more comfortable being in the arts and out in the arts and/or felt attracted to the piano.

2. Because they are flamboyant or because it is unusual for pianists to be homosexual we develop a false perceptional bias that there is a preponderance.

3. The psycho-social challenges of growing up gay make some take to piano practice as a refuge or to later avoid confrontation and troubles in many discriminatory professions and to avoid becoming a priest, hairdresser or flower arranger.

4. The unique, psycho-social adversity of growing up gay makes some precociously consciously aware and sensitive which translates into longer term advantage in playing the piano.

A fifth reason may be:

5. There are physical differences in the makeup of homosexual men ('s brains) which provide them with long term advantage in going far with the piano.

We know that there are differences between male and female brains:



We also know that -- as an integrative art -- successful piano performance requires a unique integration of ratio and emotio and integration within the brain and between the brain and the body. Young males who start early piano practice tend to grow a larger corpus collosum, while females, who already have larger ones, tend to achieve less marked differentiation from piano study.
http://www.musicianbrain.com/papers/Hyde_MusicTraining_BrainPlasticity_nyas_04852.pdf

We also know from research of the Dutch neuroscientist Dick Swaab that there are physical differences between the brains of homosexual men and heterosexual men, and these differences are formed already in the uterus.


http://www.pnas.org/content/105/30/10273.full

How many other differences there may be of which we are not aware is unknown. However, this one would not seem to be trivial given the fact that musical performance is a temporal art form where micro timing differences can make all the difference in the world:

That's too good.

I'd agree with that.

Which country would that be?

Well, what I will say is that -- despite the depressing dearth -- some of my favorite master pianists are indeed women...

Here, as opposed to there.

If, that is, you reside in the same country as zapper.

Ditto.

Check out our Eric Satie, themed recital! Can you spot the 2 gays lol

http://www.pianoworld.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/1993720/1/Erik%20Satie%20Themed%20Recital.html

We all had the same amount of time to learn our pieces, and are all at different levels

Stephen Hough is gay? Who would have thought? He doesn't act gay on stage. For that matter, Horowitz didn't act gay, and I sat about 15 feet away from him on stage for one of his concerts. Neither did Richter, but that was way back in the 60s and maybe I was too young or innocent to notice.

Perhaps if they put a sign on stage that said GAY PERFORMER, that would clarify these things. It might have helped when Richter, Gilels and Berman came over to the US if they had a sign that said CAUTION: COMMUNIST ON STAGE. Everyone would have known where these men stood politically. Or would we? They could have walked off stage and asked for political asylum, and some Soviet artists did. Sometimes, putting labels on artists doesn't help things.

Does anyone else feel this whole thread is getting silly? Do people honestly go to concerts by pianists and spend their time thinking about the sexual orientation of the performer? Even if a gay artist has suffered from a lifetime of repression, and is expressing that emotion in his playing, how are you, the listener, going to know this? All of us receive the emotional content of great music and notable performances in different ways, pertinent to our own lives, and only secondarily if at all do we think about the life of the performer (as in the case of someone like Geoffrey Helfgott). Probably the gayest pianist of them all, Liberace, understood this. As camped up as his costumes were, when it came to playing the piano, he made people forget about all that and just enjoy the music. I think it would be best all around if we just enjoyed the music of the many excellent pianists performing today, and not spend our time wondering what they are doing in their private lives.

How is Liberace the gayest pianist of them all?

It's just discussion...it does no harm and, as such, can only be a good thing..right? Besides...when I hear music that fills me with love I may very well just happen to love the performer; I'm interested in those I love and can find even the dullest fact satisfying...so...um...would it be best if I just didn't think about those I love?

I think he just meant ''most flamboyant'' which is definitely true.

Indeed. Those pesky gays should go crawl back into their holes or step back into the darkness of their closet. Only if they have a trophy wife on their arm should they have the nerve to rub our noses in the details of their private lives.

Wonder why for centuries and still today that there is such a lively market in (auto)biographies from Josquin to Lang Lang if no one is really interested in the lives of great artists?

Since when is Liberace considered a classical master pianist? It is like putting another Las Vegas performer such as Tom Jones on the same list as Pavarotti...

There are several threads in the archives about Liberace, in which his technical and artistic skills are discussed. It will always be a matter of opinion as to how good a pianist he was.

Liberace was a hugely talented classical pianist actually. He just became famous for doing something else.

only little people are interested in someone else closet life...