Dear Sybarite,
may I at first thank you for your wonderful posts which I sometimes use to improve my poor English! Seriously - no kidding.
Back to the thread-
sorry I failed to find the direct link on the following book in the Internet, but I believe you may have read it before, as it was really popular that time ( 2000 ) and was widely discussed in the Net -
Why Men Don't Listen and Women Can't Read Maps by Alan & Barbara Pease ... Alan & Barbara Pease on. 27th March 2000. at. Steve & Katherine's. Alias Grace. by ...
website.lineone.net/~ourbookclub
The book is somewhat similar to the article you posted here about a week ago
http://www.magle.dk/music-forums/336...-up-baton.html
( about the female conductors ), but it is more general - why the behavior of the men and women is not similar in the same situation . Well , I strongly hope you have read it.
May I suppose that ( basing on the proven fact that the female and male brains are differently organised and differently function - please see there, fail to describe it ) , as the composing is a kind of a mental activity - that the pieces composed by the female and male composers may differently sound as well?
To the topic of Tchaikovsky - I am aware of the fact that the composing in the past centuries ( up to the 20 C. ) was totally a man's world just because of the social reasons. Therefore one can not speak about any "female" music of the romantic period in order to compare, but the works of some gay composers could be regarded in this context, though they would shift from one pole to another ( sorry for my awful English one more time, hope you know what I mean -
wasn't suggesting that one could hear anti-semitism in Wagner's music – merely trying to raise the issue of whether, if one can hear sexuality in music, then can one not hear other aspects of an individual in an artist's work? It was rhetorical, as much as anything – I'm sure that nobody would actually be able to do that.
maybe you can agree nevertheless, that somebody would be able to hear such things as the chord progressions and even sometimes name them, or see the difference between the key and modal change, or hear the nuances of the melodic lines and analyse them. Basing on the sources named above , and on my own ( rather modest ) experience, I would say that:
-the female ( or gay , depending on the fact to which "pole" they are closer )
composers would more often use the plagal cadence of the harmonic major as the male composers, or they would prefer it in general cases to the
authentic one, as the progression xxx-IV-IVm-I sounds smoother and not that resolute and definite as xxx-IV-V-I;
- the female ( or gay ) composers would use the dissonant chords or such chord structures more seldom as their male colleagues as the said chords make the music more rough and disharmonic;
- the female ( or gay )composers would pay much more attention as their male colleagues to the nuancing and working out the melodic lines, which makes music generally more beautiful, the male composers in the similar cases may prefer to use the key changes, richer chords, rhythmic changes - in other words, the means making music more complex and sometimes rather not beautiful;
- the female ( or gay ) composers would rather prefer to use the smooth voicings and melodic lines - they would likely avoid the "sharp ankles".
This is a very general approach , there can be for sure a lot of exceptions. Say, the essence about the melodic lines can not be applied to the music of the baroque period, as the rich nuancing was just an inalienable part of that music. I cannot say anything about whether or how it could be relevant to non-diatonic ( atonal ) music.
If you want a short example - here we go.
You asked about Cole Porter - the very first piece of him I mentioned was NIGHT AND DAY, which is actually one of my favourite jazz-standarts.
Let's see -
the
main theme of it ( part A ) based on the commonly used in jazz II-V-I progression. In the original of the piece, this transition is softened by the following means:
II5b7-V7b9-Imaj7, sometimes as well played as
IVm6-V7b9-..., so that you must go the
major harmonic scale as you improvise it ( or necessary add the VIIIb tone ) . Futher, the
bridge is an absolutely fine nuanced piece of work - #IVb5,7 - IVm7 - IIIm - IIIbdim - Imaj7. This is actually none of the mentioned cadences ( jazz is rather a modal music as a Dur-moll system ). But nevertheless, this transition ( complemented by the chromatically descending bass line ) is that smooth that you can glide on it - no trace of any "sharp ankles". As mentioned, I just love this piece - namely for this wonderful feeling here.
Back to Tchaikovsky - you can try to analyse in this way any of his works - as you see it is much more boring as just to listen to them. I myself did that some time ago ( the piano cycle Seasons Of The Year ), came to the certain conclusions and will stand on them.
Herewith I want to say good bye to this thread, and let one of the greatest Russian composers rest in peace at last.
If you want to argue on that matter , may I please ask you from now on to be a bit more specific and use the common musical terms, so that I could understand you. From my side, I can not add anything more to this thread.
ROJO- I hope I answered your question herewith. As you see, there is no uncanny talent here, and not a sign of any sexual discrimination in it. This is just my opinion and I don't think I will ever change it.
Now - to conclude and to finish disputes - one more question to anybody still interested-
....of one composer, then perhaps one can hear it in the music of another composer. Surely it wouldn't make any difference whether any of the composers in question were composers of classical music or easy listening, pop, jazz or rock?....
I like it that we can discuss the related genre here. The rock music was born in the western world in the present times, so I can't imagine any kind of the sexual discrimination in this sphere . Nevertheless-
can you name me a few heavy metal gay or female bands? Well, rather difficult. Ok,what about the blues bands? Or just rock bands?
Please be specific in this case as well ( don't name jazz or pop artists and vocalists/ pure vocal acts ).
Please don't name any at all if you doubt about it ,or if you see you are talking about the exceptions. Rock is almost exclusively a man's world now ,as well as 30 years ago -
why????
Best regards
Andrew
