Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The piano and homosexuality

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.