...Or get so liberally plastered that you awake next to the piano with the terrible thought "I can't...oh, please, no...what the heck happened last night?" as you see reams of Ludovico Einaudi scattered about the room

*Deleted*

I meant as a listener...

You wanna talk about artists backstage life yet you don't understand what it takes to be a great artist and you are ofended easily by the same things you're curious about. It takes drugs, dirty sex, alcohol and more - all the topics you forbid to talk about on this forum. Get real and look into mirror...

Wow 16 pages in less than 2 days, incredible. This topic is obviously of great interest. I understand those who say that sexual orientation is none of my business. What gay men do behind closed doors gives me the creeps. However, I fully respect and support their right to express their affection as they choose (though if it's in public they may be subject to legal action) and make lifelong commitments (get married). However, I disagree that it's none of our business. These are (were) public figures and there's no doubt that their sexual orientation affected their artistic personae. Prior to this thread I didn't know that Richter and Hough were gay. It doesn't change my appreciation for their prodigious talents.

Obviously this is speculation for me, but think about it, a young gay teen won't be distracted into chasing girls as an adolescent and may also be terrified of chasing other boys. That leaves more time for practicing. The stress of having that secret may allow them to gain greater emotional experience which may inform their interpretations of the repertoire. More time to practice and a heavier emotional weight strikes me as a recipe for great pianism if you add in the other necessities, talent, drive to succeed, and opportunity. Given that Jews also faced discrimination and have a culture of success the Horowitz quote takes on significant potential of exposing truth. I have seen capable young boys give up piano perhaps because they thought it was a gay activity.

So I believe the question is a very interesting one and I especially appreciate that the vast majority of this discussion has been either intelligent, light hearted humor or both. To get all PC and say that sexual orientation has no bearing on artistic ability is to diminish the impact of sexual orientation on artistic growth and experience. If we can't discuss the matter as adults for fear of offending someone then we can't explore some of the most important aspects of the human experience.

I thought Stephen Hough's blog was intelligent and forthright. Exactly what we need more of. Thanks for posting the link.

I can't agree more with your latter statement...and your former one reminds me enough to say how sorry I feel for homophobics (inadequate though the term may be); increasingly so, homophobics, racists, anti-Semites etc. become less able to express how they feel and are taught or otherwise told to feel shameful and wicked for their thoughts...um...almost ironic (but not quite) I commend you for having the courage to say outright how you feel. The fact that you bolstered your position by nearly stating that it's an irrational "creeps" and that you respect the life experiences of others despite these creeping sensations slightly diminishes the almost impossible struggle against prejudice (homophobic rights, anyone? )...um...also, you expressed yourself in, with regards to this topic, possibly the most mature and considerate manner I've yet come across...in short, in my opinion, excellent post; gold star. Fortunately, I don't share your affliction (to put it dramatically), but I heavily respect your standpoint (in that you've actually given it some decent thought) and you as a person.

The question is.. is it classical music? or piano & classical lessons?
are their any jazz(gay)players?

Sure..... a ginger gay, playing Jazz

FSO, I have to disagree with your characterization of Steve Chandler's comment as homophobic. One may quibble with his choice of words, but I think he's simply expressing his own orientation, which is straight. I suspect that many gays might call what straight men and women do in the bedroom "creepy" as well. It's not a judgement of them as human beings, but of their sexual activities, and merely expresses the "yuck factor" that those on both ends of the spectrum feel when imagining the sexual life of the other.

But that is a far cry from homophobia. There are too many true homophobes walking around, especially here in the states, to devalue the meaning of the word by applying it too broadly. I've encountered many in my lifetime, and they view gays as sick, perverted, depraved human beings who choose their orientation, choose their life style, and fully deserve any and every tribulation that may ever befall them. There are many areas in this country, where a gay man is risking life and limb to even think of having a drink in a "straight" bar, assuming that his orientation might possibly be revealed to other customers. This is true homophobia, and it can be a deadly serious business.

We are all walking cauldrons of emotions and feelings, shaped by an assortment of biases and prejudices, whether we admit it or not. I will plead guilty myself to the same "affliction" you diagnosed Mr. Chandler with. I even find it unsettling (preferable to "creepy"? ) to see men showing affection in public. It's not their problem, it's my own. Yet there is no way I can simply wish away that reaction, any more than I can wish away my reaction to a Brahms symphony. But what I can do is recognize it as irrational, as a prejudice that's part of me, and rely on reason to guide my beliefs. I fully support gay rights, including gay marriage, because my head tells me it's the right thing to do, even if my gut may occasionally balk a little.

There is no yuck factor for me about what straight people do in the privacy of their bedrooms. I'm at worst ambivalent about it. But I suppose I can understand why some people might find it odd to think about if they aren't that way inclined. The idea however of being unsettled merely by the sight of two people showing affection for each other (or rather certain specific types of people more than others) I can't understand at all. I agree that homophobia is probably a bit strong a word for that, but you're right, it's definitely irrational, and I hate when people try and defend it.

Who cares? If someone is grossed out by it, let them be.

It must be nice to live in your own little world where nothing affects anything else.

See I...we...sorry, I *really* didn't make myself clear; I perhaps stated too lightly how *inadequate* the term homophobe is...that there is merely one word to encompass any degree of unsettlement is abominable and leads to just this kind of thing Um...it's strange though; quite a lot of straight men seem to like seeing homosexual *women* snogging away...which would suggest it's more about attraction than whether the...um...activities are similarly choreographed...but...then surely they would hate seeing heterosexuals out together as half of the couple should be creeping them out...I just think it's one of "those things". Um...perhaps I read too much into Steve's comment, in which case I apologise...see, I'm anti-prejudice but you're under the misapprehension that that's what you are...if you don't like broccoli but have tried it enough times you can't be prejudiced; it's only having had no experience (or too little) that pops you into that category. Now, um, if it makes your stomach balk a bit, that's fine, it just is. I can keep waffling but I'm sure you've got it by now...oh, and just so you know, the LGBT get the royal stuffing kicked out of them world over; I've been assaulted and, at the lower end, had the right Michael taken out of me for what many would call my "choices". Just saying, um, I do know what some *very* whatever-phobic people can get up to.

Why do you write 'um' and '...' so much?

If you think people getting grossed out by homosexual PDA is "irrational" then you're the one living in your own little world, buddy. I'm not prejudiced against gays. I believe in equal rights too, but when I see gay PDA I can't help but feel a little stirred. It's a natural reaction I have, and I'm not the only one.

Creeping out! The funny thing is that probably the worst swear word is what women do for men and gay men to each other.

?

Because his posts seem merely confused.

During my years in the UK I escaped London for Brighton frequently, but never met anyone quite as flowery as FSO. I was there for one reason, no apologies for that, and no games or silly complications involved.

Fortified with a decent breakfast, the Anglo-Catholic Sunday service at St. Bartholomew's was giddily High Church, the smoky incense rendering irrelevant the need for a shower.

Yes, well thats because it's widespread. That doesn't mean it's not irrational.

What word is that?

You have no argument unless you prove why it's irrational.

You can't say it's "irrational" just because you don't like it. That's the exact kind of logic homophobes use against gays.

Lmao, if you say so.

Not sure that's true...but...how about, as everyone seems inclined to say, its nun off you're businiss? I mean, the only reason to fear something is if it's perceived to be a large threat and disgust comes from an inherent understanding of tiny threats (repulsive smells, for instance, indicate rotting which in turn indicates potentially harmful bacteria)...um...what threats do homosexuals pose? We also find disgust in a social sense; microscopic threats to the community produced by individuals. Um...so...is the threat that we notice a very slight diminishing of the gene pool? That's all I can imagine and even that's at a stretch...but anyway, your point is invalid; fear of spiders is widespread and irrational. There *are* poisonous spiders (well...none here )...so you reckon you have to *prove* the fear of spiders is irrational, otherwise there's no argument for it to be so? Hmm...not holding up somewhere I believe...
Edit: Argerichfan; aww! That's unseemly sweet (to me at least)..I can hack being confused if I get to be flowery ^>^ Debussyist; because I'm, irrevocably and deep down, a pillock...is that a good enough answer?

So...where do we stand on the spiders thing?

God I feel like such a #$*%ing idiot right now. I was associating "irrational" with "unnatural". My apologies, Debrucey.

The "yuck factor" seems to me to be conditioning, rather than innate, i.e., genetic. What might be innate is a lack of interest, rather than an aversion. And, many times, what has been conditioned can also be de-conditioned if one really wants to - it can be "wished away", so to speak. But that takes work, and may not be worth the effort for many people.

I don't think "yuck factor" is really the right word. It's not about "yuck," and it's not even about sexuality. It's about discomfort with things that are unfamiliar.

Three quick stories from personal experience:

I used to feel uncomfortable around homosexuals. I grew up in the bible belt, homosexuality was extremely underground in my hometown. But in college, the luck of the draw gave me a gay roommate and one night he and his friends invited me out to the movies. I must have had an awkward, terrified look on my face, because one of his friends quickly said "by the way, all of us are gay and I have AIDS, and we totally understand if you don't want to go." I made a quick joke: "Two conditions: you have to promise not to bleed on me and you have to introduce me to all the cute girls you know as your 'single straight friend'." I made four new, good friends that night, overcame my discomfort in a matter of months, and have never felt the least bit uncomfortable around homosexuals since.

Like many, I also used to feel a bit uncomfortable in hospitals and nursing homes. But as luck would have it, I spent my junior high and high school years getting my hair cut by a barber who just happened to have his barbershop in a hospital (my parents knew him so that's where they took me.) Also, to make extra money, I used to do variety/magic shows in nursing homes with a couple of friends. I also got a job in college doing food service at an assisted living facility. I got used to being in hospitals and around sick people and to this day, despite having had some bad experiences in hospitals, I don't think twice about walking in the door. (Which is also good since my wife works at a hospital!)

Interestingly enough, about 9 years ago, I was invited to play a fundraiser at the home of a board member for the orchestra I was in. They were in the process of raising $30 million for a new arts facility. For the first time in my life, I found myself in a room with fifty millionaires. And I felt really uncomfortable. Having grownup in a lower-middle class family, I didn't understand these people and the world they lived in. To me, they seemed arrogant, self-important, lazy, and unfeeling. Over the course of a couple years, I got to know some of them and discovered that none of them were any of those things. They were wonderful people who, aside from the money, were really no different than people like me.

debrucey, I'm sorry for using the term "yuck factor". That was way too strong a way of describing discomfort. I was thinking more of "strange", "foreign", or "unsettling" (to use your word). After all, sexual orientation involves feelings of attraction toward a specific gender, so it would make sense that both straights and gays might find the habits of the other to be strange, or difficult to understand. But "yuck" is a bit over the top.

As far as being "unsettled" by seeing open displays of affection, that is probably due to simple cultural conditioning, as wr already pointed out. I only brought it up to point out that all of us have inexplicable reactions to things that we cannot control. The key is to recognize these irrational feelings and reactions, and use our rational side to declare our independence from them. I'm sure that in another generation or two, no one will be unsettled by any of this, and discussions such as this will seem quaint.

I hope so haha

Millionaires! Yuck. How could you stand it. You know they carry that 1% virus.