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

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.