Monday, April 2, 2012

The "Woman Composer" Revisited

In response to all the discussion on NewMusicBox recently about women composers, Natalie wrote a great post about affirmative action, women composers, and the new music scene in general. I'd like to focus on some of the points brought up in Amy Beth Kirsten's article. (I'd recommend reading the comments too- some of them are quite illuminating and make really interesting arguments, both agreeing and disagreeing with what I'm about to say.)

Kirsten's main argument is that we are living in a post-gender world. I respectfully disagree. As we've talked about many, many times on this blog before, until there are equal numbers of men and women studying composition, graduating from composition programs, being programmed on concerts, obtaining jobs in the field (whether in academia or not, including residencies, commissions, etc), we are certainly not living in a post-gender world. The new music world is absolutely getting better with regard to the number of female composers, but we are making progress at a snail's pace. Just because we're moving toward a goal does not mean we are anywhere near it. And I don't think anyone can argue that there are equal numbers of male and female composers doing all these thing-- so why are people continuing to argue that gender doesn't matter?

I understand that some people don't wish to discuss it anymore. That's fine. What I don't understand is when people seem to state that no one should discuss it, and that to continue talking about the "woman composer" is detrimental to women in general and female composers in particular (because of the ghettoization/ segregation/ affirmative action problems). On the contrary, I think not continuing the discussion is even more detrimental to female composers, whether they wish to identify themselves as women composers or not. If we stop talking about it, it means that everything is fine, that the underrepresentation and under-programming of female composers is normal and acceptable.

I am not militantly forcing anyone to label herself a "woman composer," just as I do not expect anyone to force me to label myself a "Jewish composer" or anything else that might be applicable. But what is wrong with labeling yourself a woman composer (or a Jewish composer, or whatever you want- Judd Greenstein wrote an excellent comment to Kirsten's orginal article on this topic), while owning the title and being proud of it? Since some women have embraced the term "woman composer," (in applying it to themselves) it is troubling when others speak out against it-- not everyone needs to label themselves in this manner, but please don't judge others for doing so.

Something else I find troublesome is when female composers refuse to program their music on all-women's concerts. Although I understand not wanting to be pigeonholed or only have one's music programmed on specific-gender or other types of demographic concerts, I am concerned that adamantly distancing yourself from such concerts implies a certain kind of judgment. If I am happy to program my music on a women's-only concert, and other women (especially if they are more prominent composers) look down on these types of concerts, how does that affect the reputation of the concert and its music? What does it say about music that happens to be written by female composers in general, when women don't want to be described in this manner? A composer who will only program her music on a concert that includes music by men implies that she does not think that concerts of music by women are worthy, and therefore that the music itself is not as good. If your music is good, why not have it on an all-female concert? If female composers are just as good as male composers, what's wrong with an all-female concert, as long as all the compositions are excellent? We certainly have plenty of all-male composer concerts, and no one seems to have a problem with those. Having your work on a female-composer-only concert shouldn't imply that the work isn't good. However, when people start refusing to be programmed on these types of concerts they are implicitly making a negative statement about the music, which becomes an insult to everyone else on the concert. 

I also wonder what role success plays in these discussions. I once read an interview of a very prominent female composer who refused to label herself a woman composer. I completely understand that not everyone wants to take up this fight, and maybe it's partly an issue of not wanting to be labeled as an affirmative-action success story. But what bothered me about it was that I wondered what this woman thought before she became famous and whether it changed her perspective. It's so much easier once you've "made it" to think something like, "my music is programmed enough, so clearly gender isn't an issue." It would be so helpful for successful female composers to set an example for others instead of telling us our fight is no longer relevant. Setting an example would not only help other women in the field, but it would also help the rest of the world to see that calling oneself a "woman composer" is a proud, not derogatory, term.

There are dozens of reasons why a composer of any gender may or may not be successful. But putting talent aside, for just a moment, it seems disrespectful to all the women who haven't yet made it and may be experiencing sexism to say that this is no longer an issue. One, two, or even 200 successful women composers does not mean that we live in a post-gender world. Just because Barack Obama is president does not mean we live in a post-race world- why is this any different?

Posted by Sarah

7 comments:

  1. Readers interested in affirmative action might enjoy a new posting called "If you need quality, you need affirmative action."

    It begins:

    "New research demonstrates that when affirmative action programs are used, the quality of the applicants increases."

    Check it out at http://bit.ly/H9oEWA

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think that women composers who are anti all-women concerts aren't making a statement about the quality of music, but more a statement about quality of programming. Just like all German or all Op. 8 concerts (for example) are usually pretty boring in terms of programing relevancy, curating a concert based on the composers being women lacks imagination. Furthermore, it acts to segregate women and begs the question "why couldn't this music stand next to the heavy hitting male composers?"

    This is my personal opinion, but I feel like a lot of progress is made through awareness alone. As a performer and studying musician, I make a point to be aware of women who are composing quality music that I connect to. When I program concerts, I don't even have to try to think of whether I've programmed women or not - they're naturally on my concert programs because they're an integrated part of my musical diet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for the link, curtrice! I'm definitely going to read some of the other posts about gender and affirmative action. It's a really interesting topic.

    Jen, unless programming an all Op. 8 concert is some phenomenon I've never heard of (sorry if I sound really ignorant, but are there actually concerts programmed that way?), I think there's a big difference between something like that and the all-women concerts. I don't think certain opus numbers really need our help to be heard or are ignored in any systematic way, but music by female composers is constantly overlooked (in a systematic way). I agree with you that if you program an entire concert in which the only criteria is that the music is composed by women, that might get boring or be a pretty random selection. However, that's the problem of the programmer. You can have an exciting program of all women's music, just as you can have an exciting program of all men's music (which, as I point out in my post, happens quite frequently).

    The problem as I see it is that while concerts of all men's music are programmed all the time, just because, it would be very odd if a concert was programmed that coincidentally contained only music by women (and even if it did, I bet everyone would assume it was meant to be an all women's concert). Of course music by female composers can stand next to the "heavy hitting" male composers- I'm not saying it shouldn't or can't. But there's no reason why it can't also stand next to heavy hitting female composers on a few concerts.

    I think it's fantastic that you make it a point to be aware of quality music by female composers, and it's even better that music by women naturally ends up on your concert programs. Sadly, I think you are one of the exceptions, rather than the rule. But I am still optimistic that things will continue to get better, as long as we keep talking about it!

    - Sarah

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Insideways,

    I agree that female composers who are against all-women concerts aren't making an explicit, or necessarily even a conscious, statement about the quality of music on these concerts. However, they are buying into the very problematic idea that if the music is strong enough it should be able to stand up next to the "heavy hitting male composers." This is problematic not only because of the ongoing discrimination with programming in general, but also because of the very fact that what is "good" music in the Western tradition has been defined by men for centuries. I highly recommend reading Sarah Kirkland Snider's longer comment (she has two) and Judith Shatin's comment on the NewMusicBox article. Shatin discusses how she has met and heard the works of so many women who she never would have known about otherwise through her work with the International Alliance for Women in Music. Of course nobody wants ghettoization to occur, but it is extremely worrying when we think about how many voices we fail to hear when we only choose the ones that sound like (or market themselves as, etc.) the "heavy hitting" male music that we're already familiar with.

    I continue to feel very conflicted about this topic myself (see my post on the Specialty Concert and my post on Some Thoughts on the Gender Narrative for examples of my examination of this issue from two different viewpoints), so I am very sympathetic to concerns about gendered concerts. But, just as in issues of race, any minority group not only needs equal access to opportunities, but also needs a support network. It is, perhaps, no surprise that campus organizations spring up at universities to offer a community for all kinds of minority groups. Do such groups ghettoize their participants? I don't think so, but even if they do to a small extent, I'm not sure that outweighs the positive benefits of having a community.

    In terms of composing and gender, only striving for placement on concert programs or admission into the generally all-male concert spaces, schools, festivals, etc. is a VERY important goal, but it can be lonely, isolating, and damaging for the female composer who has minimal support or who is perhaps not as "Type A." Until we've reached a period of equality, I think that we need to make sure to support women as much as we can. Supporting women through communities and programming advocacy, in my opinion, does not send a message that the music of women is "weak." On the contrary, it is trying to account for structural (and individual) discrimination that is occurring all around us.

    I don't think Sarah is worried about composers making a personal decision about not programming themselves on all-women concerts as much as she is worried about composers speaking out against these concerts--as if they are part of the problem. The problem is much bigger and more complex than the specialty concert, and for lots of women the specialty concert, organization, school, etc. offers a much-needed environment for presentation, exposure, learning, etc.

    As a side note--I think it's fabulous that you naturally incorporate women regularly into your repertoire diet. That is fantastic. I hope someday soon such an attitude is typical and not an exception to the rule.

    -Natalie

    ReplyDelete
  5. Whoops didn't see that Sarah had posted! Sorry for the redundancies! :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am also sorry for the redundancies! Natalie actually wrote her comment first so she should get credit for the original ideas. :)

    ReplyDelete
  7. Oh, one more thing I want to add---In Anthony Tommasini's article from last year that addresses "The Female Factor" in music history he emphasizes how it was more difficult for female composers to break out of anonymity because of the male control of performing ensembles. His point is that a writer, for example, is able to immediately see and assess her work, whereas a composer has to have feedback, rehearsals, and performances in order to improve (contrary to the romanticized notion, most composers don't hear all the details in their heads...). In other words, our uphill battle against structural sexism is made even more difficult because of the performance-based nature of our work. Being excluded or intimidated from the concert field will either push women away from composition entirely or else will push them toward friendlier pockets of the field (such as electronic music, for example, which can be realized immediately through a computer). Anyway, this is just one more facet to consider and one more reason why giving women more outlets for performance, feedback, etc. is vital in terms of compositional growth.

    -Natalie

    ReplyDelete