THESE FORUMS NOW CLOSED (read only)
Fun Stuff => BAND => Topic started by: Caspian on 21 Apr 2008, 09:04
-
..I was talking about this with a friend of mine today, and we couldn't really think up a good reason- Admittedly the 80% figure was an arbitrary number i made up just then. While for certain more testosterone orientated genres (metal obviously being the main example) perhaps the answer is fairly obvious, there's still a huge difference in, well, every other genre you care to name, whether we're talking twee or shoegaze. Sure, you'll often see one or two girls in a band, but it's very rare that you'll see any more then that, or that you'll see a band where the majority are female. Typically it's all a bunch of dudes, and overall it's quite strange.
Anyway, I basically have no real idea as to why this is the case, but it seems to be to the case nonetheless. I'm sure one could argue some sort of feminist point, but that stopped being valid 30 or so years ago. Perhaps things like smaller build is a bit of a disadvantage- big hands are recommended if you want to 'shred it up', and perhaps doing heaps of super fast double kick is something more suited to dudes- but I don't really think that's the case either, and if so it's limited to a niche metal genre. If anyone has any particularly good theory as to why on earth there are so many more dudes playing music then chicks then lets hear it, because I for one am stumped.
-
Just looked at my top 20 artists on last fm, and I agree with you, it's completley male dominated. BSS, at no. 24 are the first to have any kind of female presence. I didn't count Blackalicous or Tricky, as they only had guest female performers. I honestly can't think of a reason. In the last week it's been a bit better, with M.I.A, the Knife and Emmylou Harris, but it's still mostly guys.
Subconscious male chauvinism++
-
Perhaps it has something to do with large portions of the "civilized" world being patriarchal for the past few centuries?
-
feminist points are still far from being invalid.
but i agree, there is a disturbing lack of women in music. on my part, i tend to not really like the sound of female vocalists? higher voices are grating to me -- this might come from years of playing the cello and adjusting my ears to lower sounds, and always having a distinct distaste for the higher octaves on violins. regina spektor's voice drives me insane, i want to throttle her yodeling. i do like bjork quite a bit, though, and the chick from metric.
but why aren't there more women playing instruments? most of the bands i've seen that use strings (like, acoustics, viola, cello, etc.) have female instrumentalists (the instruments are the first ones coming to mind, and murder by death), but you RARELY see a girl on lead guitar or bass. i don't want to say that it's from timidity or a lesser amount of aggression, but actually, i think that has a lot to do with it. the patriarchal point is also a good one.
that said, i recommend the guitarist kaki king if you're looking to get more estrogen into your ipod, 'cause she's great. in one interview she said something to the effect of, "i'd really like it if someone heard my music and was like 'oh wow, that sounds like kaki king' and not 'that sounds really good for a girl.'" it crushed me.
-
If a band has a female lead vocalist, I'll turn them off immediately. I probably shouldn't, since I'm a girl, and I sing, but honest-to-GOD, some of those female vocalists' voices drive me up a wall. And the reason why you don't see many female guitarists is because girls are too busy fangirling the hawt male guitarist and not the guitar. But man, if I don't love me a vintage Tele... Ok, so that's probably not the reason, but girls would rather sing than hold a guitar and sing, I guess.
-
I'm sure one could argue some sort of feminist point, but that stopped being valid 30 or so years ago.
Thoroughly confused by this statement.
With regards to the rest of your post, I think that it depends on your perspective I guess. My iPod is full of female dominated bands. Both of the music scenes I could claim to have been active in had an equal number of women. I can think of literally hundreds of female dominated bands off the top of my head.
It was some sort of reference to patriachy and whatnot.
Also: Just because you can think of 'literally hundreds of female dominated bands' doesn't mean a great deal. Sure, you could think of a huge amount of female dominated bands, but I bet you could think of a lot more male dominated bands, or at least bands where the males had the majority. Certainly there will be a lot of women in the scene, hell, even my local metal scene has a large amount of girls, but that doesn't seem to translate to the actual bands, and it seems to be that way nation/world-wide.
I guess overall my comment was probably more about those who play their instruments. I guess that while the male/female vocalist ratio is probably quite even, certainly the female/male ratio for, say Electric/Acoustic/Bass Guitar/Drums/Cello/Xylophone/Tuba/etc isn't all that even.
-
Okay, as an attempt at adding some objectivity, I've got the top 20 artists on last.fm, and am seeing what the ratio is going to be. Not entirely accurate, sure, but this will help prove the point to some extent.
74 Males, and 1 (ONE!) Female.
Extending that to the top 100 we have 13 females total, and while I'm not sure how many dudes there are, It'd probably be close to 250/300 or so.
-
Girls tend to have smaller hands than men which makes it more difficult for them to play guitar?
-
Dude, I know a girl who has bigger hands than me, and I have big hands for a dude.
-
Dude, I know a girl who has bigger hands than me, and I have big hands for a dude.
You know a girl who has bigger hands then you? Wow! That proves a great deal.
-
Why is it that something like 80% of all band members are male?
Oh, I know! It is because those particular band members do not have vaginas.
-
Well, it's anecdotal evidence suggesting that zerodrone's assumption might not be true.
She also plays guitar, and piano.
-
It was some sort of reference to patriachy and whatnot.
How did it stop being valid 30 years ago?
Have you considered all the connotations of this thread for example?
No, I certainly haven't considered the connotation of this thread. I just thought it was interesting thought to point out, that's all.
And I'm just basing the whole '30 years' thing off the fact that surely since 1978 there hasn't been a huge amount of obstacles preventing girls from joining bands, as the culture has gotten more accepting over the past 50 or so years of rock. It's an arbitrary date I set, and it's probably somewhat incorrect; hardly surprising considering that I'm basically totally ignorant of feminism and equal rights and what have you.
-
Well, it's anecdotal evidence suggesting that zerodrone's assumption might not be true.
She also plays guitar, and piano.
One piece of anecdotal evidence somehow proves that the assertion "women tend to have smaller hands" (note the last of an absolute qualifier) isn't true?
And as far as the whole feminism-is-no-longer-valid thing... well, if you think women have been able to totally make up thousands of years of repression within the last thirty years, you've got some kind of ignorance going on. Just because there are things that say everything should be equal now doesn't mean everything is.
-
ANYWAY. We can discuss my shortcomings and lack of education some other time; that's really not what the thread is about. Nothing wrong with saying that feminism still has a lot of work to do- I don't disagree with that. But how about instead of just saying that, you apply it to the context of the thread?
-
Hmm, aren't a lot of obstacles from keeping a girl from joining a band? Well, there's the whole thing that some guys don't think girls can play guitar or drums or bass as well as a guy, even if that's total BS. Now, I for one, can't play guitar as well as a lot of popular guitarists, but it isn't true in every girl's case.
It's also "more acceptable" for guys to lust after cars and guitars, but it doesn't mean girls don't do that, too.
-
I don't like female vocalists generally.
The B-52's - I hate the songs with heavy female vocals.
Architecture in Helsinki - Sutherland sounds like a ten-year-old.
Scissor Sisters - Ana Matronic's songs are the most irritatingly poppy in the discography.
BSS - This is one of the few bands where I don't mind the female singers.
And then there's the 90's "girl power" genre - Morisette, Brooks, Pink, etc. All awful, but the singing voices are good.
The problem is that female voices are simply not euphonious; with rare exception, they're purely grating. Male voices, high or low, have a smoothness to them, or at least a pleasant roughness, that I have never heard a woman attain and never will.
-
Hmm, aren't a lot of obstacles from keeping a girl from joining a band? Well, there's the whole thing that some guys don't think girls can play guitar or drums or bass as well as a guy, even if that's total BS. Now, I for one, can't play guitar as well as a lot of popular guitarists, but it isn't true in every girl's case.
It's also "more acceptable" for guys to lust after cars and guitars, but it doesn't mean girls don't do that, too.
Both of them, while somewhat valid, don't really account for the rather massive disrepancy (sp?).
Sure there's the opinion of girls can't play (which in my mind is bollocks- most bands will be happy to take a competent musician, whether they've got a penis or vagina), and again, sure it's maybe seen as "a bit weird" for a girl to want to play guitar. but.. does that really account for the massive difference in the amount of guy/girl musicians? Again, I would say no, it doesn't.
-
The problem is that female voices are simply not euphonious; with rare exception, they're purely grating. Male voices, high or low, have a smoothness to them, or at least a pleasant roughness, that I have never heard a woman attain and never will.
Are you seriously claiming that women are not good musicians because they categorically don't have the ability to sing well? That has to be the most prejudiced statement of the thread yet.
-
I find female vocalists very pleasing. Feist, Cat Power, Amy Milan, the girl that sings in "Lazy Line Painter Jane" has her own band that is really awesome, Annie, Kim and Kelley Deal, the girl from Cub, the Vaselines, Shop Assistants, Rilo Kiley, Sleater-Kinney, Bratmobile, Huggy Bear, Heavenly, etc, the girl in The Kills, Jon Spencer's wife, Justine Frischmann (Elastica), Poly Styrene, Jamie Stewart (I kid, I kid).
I find that of singers where I really say "Wow, I love their voice" almost all of them are female. However, I seem to prefer the lyrical content of misanthropic burnt-out men (The National, Spiritualized, LCD Soundsystem, etc.) but that's just cause I can like, totally relate man.
-
You forgot the girl from Be Your Own Pet. That woman can sing.
-
I tend prefer female voices, too. I would be interested to see some good statistics on that aesthetic preference. Of course, even if more people say they prefer male voices, we then have to ask why that is so. There are, after all, usually cultural or personal reasons for such preferences even when we're not aware of them.
I don't think you can downplay the "role-model" factor. Most mainstream acts have been men for a long time, so boys simply have more opportunity to pretend to be in the band. If girls want to pretend to be female musicians, most of the women they see are singers, so that will tend to be the position they see themselves in.
-
The problem is that female voices are simply not euphonious; with rare exception, they're purely grating. (http://img386.imageshack.us/img386/2151/autauxbm5ea11f09b8576e6gd4.gif) Male voices, high or low, have a smoothness to them, or at least a pleasant roughness, that I have never heard a woman attain and never will.
I listen to a lot of female artists, but I guess they're still outnumbered by males in my collection. I appreciate both male and female vocals.
-
I will probably be roundly chastised for this but I think it is true enough, from the vast, vast majority of girls I have known, that there are less of them in bands because:
1. Girls who are way into music want to fuck dudes in bands, or at any rate on some level think of them as being "super cool".
2. Guys want to be in bands so they can be "super cool" and possibly get fucked by girls.
Think about it. Think about how many girls you know who go on and on about how hot Thurston Moore or Nick Cave are.
-
Personally I think it's because girls are less likely to pick up guitar, bass, or drums in adolescence or earlier. There's less encouragement from peers, parents, and social networks. Girls who are interested in musically inclined activities are more likely to go into dance, choir, or orchestral instruments, and this is just a vicious circle of sorts ... girls are more likely to do this sort of thing because their friends are more likely to. A girl's parents are more likely to give her a violin or a piano, or enroll her in a singing or dance class, than give her a drum kit or a guitar.
It's just a cultural tradition of sorts. Boys play rock instruments more often than girls because it's more encouraged in youth and adolescence.
-
I will probably be roundly chastised for this but I think it is true enough, from the vast, vast majority of girls I have known, that there are less of them in bands because:
1. Girls who are way into music want to fuck dudes in bands, or at any rate on some level think of them as being "super cool".
2. Guys want to be in bands so they can be "super cool" and possibly get fucked by girls.
Think about it. Think about how many girls you know who go on and on about how hot Thurston Moore or Nick Cave are.
I don't see why this should be a barrier to girls becoming musicians. I'd give my left nut to fuck Kim Gordon, but that doesn't stop me from playing bass myself.
-
I'm not saying it's a barrier to girls becoming musicians, I'm saying it's a barrier to them wanting to be musicians. Whether through cultural process or whatever, fact is that 99% of every girl I've known that has been "way into" music has wanted to be with a musician, not be one.
-
i dont know. to me, most girls singers i compare with tasteless guitar wankery, ala M.A.B. honestly most of the time i hear a female singer i just get this impression of "look how high my voice can go, and how long i can hold this one, or how many notes i can strangle out of this one phrases. so with few exceptions, i prefer male vocalists.
the most technically impressive and well known(sort of) female guitarist i can think of (cant remember her name, was linked from a guitarist discussion on female guitarists) isnt actually that good and just makes a living out of being female.
since i mostly listen to guitar oriented songs, and the most talented female guitarists i know of could be smoked by a mediocre male lead,, i dont have much female bands.
with the exception of heart and fleetwood mac.
drumming wise, nothing against girls, but i doubt most girls have the endurance to play the heavy technical type of drumming i listen to.
which leaves us with bass, oddly enough probably the instrument least suited to women (the long scale length and strength required), yet it has the larger amount of female players. damned if i know why.
however in a lot of metal bands (specifically the more progressive, folky ones) there are a lot of female instrumentalists on the non standard instruments, violin, etc
-
Because being in a band is a great way to meet hot chicks, not hot guys not so much.
-
This thread is all kinds of wrong. I'll even just say that shoegaze with a male vocalist is not very good shoegaze at all, as my iPod reflects. Then, I will finish my post and continue to simply watch theories of male dominance evolve in spite of this irrefutable evidence.
Irrefutable in my opinion, at least.
-
Seriously, I keep waiting for the next post to be something like, "Girls aren't good at music because they spend all their time cooking and having babies." The misogyny is totally nuts.
-
I don't think you can downplay the "role-model" factor. Most mainstream acts have been men for a long time, so boys simply have more opportunity to pretend to be in the band. If girls want to pretend to be female musicians, most of the women they see are singers, so that will tend to be the position they see themselves in.
I think this is a large factor. Women in bands seem on average to get a larger degree of negative criticism than men as well, which probably makes the roles seem even less appealing. Then there is the fact that their appearance never seems to escape notice and comment, which would be an unappealing aspect for many people. It almost seems like a rarity to hear a conversation about a band with a female member without something being said about the way she looks. Not that there is anything wrong with appreciating someone's physical appearance, but it seems too frequent to me. After all these people are musicians not models, and why do people so often need to comment about disliking someone's appearance, of their approval or disapproval of any changes they made?
I think the subject matter of music is another factor though. Women are, for a vast amount of popular music, the subject of songs and not their participants. In a lot they're demonised and depersonalised, becoming nothing more than an evil agent that tormented the poor singer at some point in the past. This kind of attitude is hardly going to encourage people to become active participants in the music. There is also the fact that women are in general encouraged to be less forward and have less agency than men, which doesn't lend itself well to something as forward as public performance particularly in genres generally regarded as making confrontational, rebellious music (punk, hip hop, metal etc).
There's also the fact that they're constantly treated as a special case. I find it incredibly bizarre that people can dislike female vocalists as a whole so often when I've never heard this opinion about male singers. When a woman is in a band their gender will constantly be a matter of consideration (woman first, musician second, always referred to as being a woman in music in both positive and negative ways) in a way a male band member's genre won't be. Unless of course they play in a band with a woman, I've seen reviews that have treated the male members of a band that included a woman in the stereotypically dominant role of lead vocals as somehow emasculated.
As for the comment someone made about bass being unsuited to women... er, have you never taken a close look at a bass? Or a woman? You don't need to have the proportions of a basketball player combined with the strength of Geoff Capes to play one you know, nor are women the miniscule weedy people you seem to think they are.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MbxRu7fwR24
I have a theory. Girls are just too angry when we make music. You guys don't like pissed off ladies.
-
My guess is that girls tend to be more interested in non-band-related things during the critical high-school/college years. I am guessing this is primarily a cultural/social thing- "girls should care about boys and makeup and fashion" etc. It's more socially acceptable to be a dude in a band than a girl, I think.
I think it's probably more intimidating to be a girl in a band, too.
However I am not a sociologist so I could be completely wrong.
-
The misogyny is totally nuts.
Ah, it took longer than I thought for the "m" word to come out.
Someone please lock this thread. Now.
-
The misogyny is totally nuts.
Ah, it took longer than I thought for the "m" word to come out.
Someone please lock this thread. Now.
Why is that the post that makes you want this thread locked?
-
I think it's probably more intimidating to be a girl in a band, too.
I think Jeph is on to something. I think it might certainly be more intimidating as a girl in a band. I mean, in a scene dominated by dudes, being up on stage as a girl would pretty much put you in the spotlight to be both oogled and lusted after. It might draw a lot of unwanted attention, etc. etc.
That's just my assumption, though.
-
Why is that the post that makes you want this thread locked?
Clearly it is because I hate women.
Calling anyone in this thread a misogynist is the point at which hyperbole emerges. Some people seem to be pretty ignorant of some things (like the guy who says that all female singers he knows of are only trying to show range/technical ability, as though he's actually never heard Cat Power or Yo La Tengo or, fuck, anything other than Mariah Carey) but tarring anyone in this thread with the epithet "misogynist" is intellectually lazy at best.
-
I have a theory. Girls are just too angry when we make music. You guys don't like pissed off ladies.
Incorrect! :wink:
I guess I should be more pissed off then. :x
-
It's a tricky thing to talk about without someone getting offended! People are making some good points though.
I wonder if any musicologist has done a gender census on bands from a given timeframe. I mean, do any of us really *know* that there are fewer females in bands? And if so, what are the proportions (insert joke about boobs and hips here)? Unfortunately all we have to go on so far is anecdotal evidence, which while interesting can't actually prove anything.
Just looking at pop music from the last fifty years, it seems like female musicians, singers in particular, are holding their own in terms of success.
I'm not sure what I think about girls in bands being ogled more than guys- certainly there's more of a "novelty" factor in an attractive woman in, say, a heavy metal band, but i'm sure girls in a given band's audience do just as much guy-ogling as vice versa.
-
Angry girl music is awesome. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ5ehKsx7yk)
-
Personally I think it's because girls are less likely to pick up guitar, bass, or drums in adolescence or earlier. There's less encouragement from peers, parents, and social networks. Girls who are interested in musically inclined activities are more likely to go into dance, choir, or orchestral instruments, and this is just a vicious circle of sorts ... girls are more likely to do this sort of thing because their friends are more likely to. A girl's parents are more likely to give her a violin or a piano, or enroll her in a singing or dance class, than give her a drum kit or a guitar.
It's just a cultural tradition of sorts. Boys play rock instruments more often than girls because it's more encouraged in youth and adolescence.
I think this is true, and it correlates with "non-traditional" bands (ie non guitar-drum-bass-vocals) having a better rate of female membership. The chances are better that a band with cello or violin or piano will have a girl in it. The exception to this is singers, I guess. There are probably more frontwomen than there are female lead guitarists out there.
I was reading an interview with Beth Ditto from the Gossip not too long ago and she said roughly the same thing that A Pack of Wolves said way up there after being asked if the publicity she got hurt her band (her response was that nobody would ever ask James Murphy if DFA hurt LCD Soundsystem). The comment section of that article was 80% "Oh gross it's a fatty" and 10% "Oh gross it's a fat lesbian". So it can be pretty hard out there. I don't particularly think the Donnas were all that good for the short amount of time they were in the limelight but it seemed to me that there was at least an element of "they're girls pretending to rock" in that backlash.
And interestingly enough, outside of traditional pop music, the genre that's probably the most equitable gender-wise in both sales and respect is country and western music, at least here in America.
Not that I have data to back any of this up, mind you.
-
Some people seem to be pretty ignorant of some things (like the guy who says that all female singers he knows of are only trying to show range/technical ability, as though he's actually never heard Cat Power or Yo La Tengo or, fuck, anything other than Mariah Carey) but tarring anyone in this thread with the epithet "misogynist" is intellectually lazy at best.
well, thats clearly aimed at me. thats fine, i was referring to most of the music that i had heard with female vocalists, and with that frame of reference i stand by what i said.
not saying all female singers of every genre are like that, i know they aren't, but as i haven't heard most of the stuff you guys talk about yet, i figured it would be stupid to assume anything about it. that part of my post is definitely aimed mostly at pop singers, but it holds with a lot of rock and alternative stuff i have heard as well.
regardless of how that represents female singers as a whole, i dont find that kind of singing to my tastes.
i will be checking out these other ones(cat power, etc) though.
and about bass guitars, i didnt say girls cant play them as that is obviously false, but when i compare it to the guitar it seems like it would be harder for an average girl to play. body wise, you dont need to be a long fingered muscle man to play bass, but you cant deny that at some point it would probably help.
im surprised that more girls don't do keyboards in bands. from my experience, it seems like a lot more girls grew up playing piano than guys (more socially acceptable, i guess :roll: )
i would love to see more girl guitarists and musicians in the music scene. unfortunately guitar wise, girls aren't at the same level as guys yet. hopefully, as more girls get over the social barriers, that will change.
*disclaimer* my preferred music is metal so that is where the electric guitar and drums, etc comments are coming from.
and girls arent always just novelty factors. case in point angela gossgow from arch enemy
-
Actually from what I remember the only reason The Donnas sold albums was because they were girls.
-
I think its because a lot of the nerdy guys who start bands are scared to have girls in their band.
That doesn't explain why as many girls don't start their own band though..
-
I'm just gonna say patriarchy to avoid reading all the posts.
-
Nerdy guys start bands?
:?
-
All the ones I've been in, yeah. Although come to think of it, they were usually started by nerdy girls at the same time.
Actually from what I remember the only reason The Donnas sold albums was because they were girls.
That did seem to be the main reason, that fact drove their marketing. This meant that both the positive and negative reactions to the band were focussed on their gender rather than anything else. If that fact was disregarded they were just a sub-par pop-punk band, and there were vast numbers of those kicking around at the time and enjoyable comparable levels of success. There was a reason The Donnas were as hated as they were.
-
I thought The Donnas were pretty much touted as The Female Ramones? Seriously, I may rock out to the Ramones, but it doesn't make them any more technically skilled. ;)
-
I honestly don't remember the Donnas being hated for any reason other than that they only had maybe one and a half decent albums' worth of material.
Perhaps some people resented them for being perceived as "using tits to sell music", but Hell, there were people who said that Sleater-Kinney's early material was only popular because boys wanted to hear a girl singing "I wanna be your Thurston Moore".
But in the grand scheme of things, bands are hated for lots of silly reasons, and gender is, I think, no more particularly guilty of this syndrome. People hate Interpol for dressing cool. People hate Conor Oberst's haircut. People hate anyone who lets someone use their song in a commercial. Etc.
-
I remember it seemed like every negative review of The Donnas would bring up the aspect of their gender being used as a marketing tool. They never seemed to just say "this is not very good pop-punk, listen to something on Crackle! instead", their gender was always made an issue. Then again, we were seeing reactions in very different places since you're in the US (I think) and I'm in the UK, and I was reading about them in punk and hardcore zines which might not have been your experience.
-
If it means anything, I <3 The Hush Sound to death.
-
A younger slant, perhaps: Basically until high school there wasn't any music I particularly liked that had any sort of female vocalist. Pissed if I could say exactly why, but in the late 90s (for example) all of the mainstream "rebellious" music was totally male dominated, and the most visible top 40 radio pop was dominated by annoying female vocalists. Of course, given the opportunity to listen to better music, I gradually abandoned my prejudice. I was essentially ignorant of the possibility of a phenomenal female vocalist.
More at the original issue, I think more guys tend to want to join bands in high school because it's just what people are used to. It's a familiar cultural reality, and most people don't try very hard not to be boxed into gender roles.
Edit: In the gap between what's happening in my mind, and what I'm actually typing, I have a tendency to leave out words that change the meaning of a whole sentence.
-
True story! Some 18-20 year old friends of mine have an all-girl punk band here called GUTLOCKER who are crowd favorites, particularly for their deep, poetic tune "Get That Dick Out of My Ass".
-
I... actually don't really listen to any bands with female vocalists regularly. I do really like some of the female backing vocals that I hear sometimes. Thinking specifically of Tara Vanflower's vocals off of the track "Halloween in Heaven" off of Dead Again by TON, the females in How Like a Winter, and the female vocalist in the "She Painted Fire Across the Skyline" trilogy on Pale Folklore (Apparently John Haughm's ex, she did opera so he convinced her to sing). I liked the vocals from The Bastard Fairies, and the female vocalist in Winterpills, but I don't listen to those often.
And who said that the girl from Be Your Own Pet is a good vocalist? Her voice grates on my ears and ruins otherwise decent, if unoriginal, music.
-
True story! Some 18-20 year old friends of mine have an all-girl punk band here called GUTLOCKER who are crowd favorites, particularly for their deep, poetic tune "Get That Dick Out of My Ass".
I'd go to there show.
-
Why the hell would I want to have a band member who is a member of the gender that I happen to write most of my music about? That would be painfully awkward. I just feel a bit safer opening up about that shit around other dudes. It's hard to relate to everything about somebody's difficulties when the other person is different down to the letter of their chromosomes.
-
It's really not all that difficult. Of course, it might also have to do with what gender you usually associate yourself with. See, all the girls I know are fucking awesome, and a majority of the dudes I know are pretty okay. So I tend to hang out with my female friends more.
I was going to start a band comprised two girls and three dudes including myself. When that didn't work out due to everyone else being busy, etc., I decided to try and start one with a female guitarist I am close friends with.
-
Why the hell would I want to have a band member who is a member of the gender that I happen to write most of my music about? That would be painfully awkward. I just feel a bit safer opening up about that shit around other dudes. It's hard to relate to everything about somebody's difficulties when the other person is different down to the letter of their chromosomes.
This is a good point, and indeed there have been a lot of good points throughout this whole thread (except for maybe the idiots dropping the 'waa misogyny' line). To be honest, I can't really see tis being a huge issue unless if the lyrics you're doing are either talking about getting your ex and going all Cannibal Corpse on her, but I guess in some situations is would be quite awkward.
Anyway, good answers people.
I wonder if any musicologist has done a gender census on bands from a given timeframe. I mean, do any of us really *know* that there are fewer females in bands? And if so, what are the proportions (insert joke about boobs and hips here)? Unfortunately all we have to go on so far is anecdotal evidence, which while interesting can't actually prove anything.
Well, if you look at an earlier post of mine, I did it with the top 100 last fm bands. I didn't count all teh dudes but I'd estimate that it was about 250 of them, and only 13 women. So we're basically looking at somewhere around 5% or so.
-
That census is very small though. I'd be interested to see something done on a large scale.
Personally it's never bothered me singing songs about women along with other women, that never even occurred to me as a problem so I didn't consider it as something that would put people off playing in a band with women. I suppose I don't really think of people in that way, with their gender being such a big deal. Interesting thought that it could be a factor for a lot of people and is for some.
-
If you look at last week's top 10 for me on last.fm, 5 of them are female, 3 of them are male, and two of them have no vocals. I am too lazy to tabulate any larger numbers than that though.
Maybe I am not normal, or maybe Caspian has been disproven. As we all know, one anecdote is enough for a disproof.
-
I've actually been wondering about this recently myself, its kinda been bothering me.
I think there is some legitimacy to the argument that girls play more "orchestral" instruments. For example, the cellist of Laura is a chick, and Sophie Trudeau, formerly of Godspeed and now in Silver Mt. Zion, plays violin.
And for all you dissing female vocalists: I will not tolerate this. The chick from Unexpect has an beautiful angelic voice. It is awesome!
-
If you look at last week's top 10 for me on last.fm, 5 of them are female, 3 of them are male, and two of them have no vocals. I am too lazy to tabulate any larger numbers than that though.
Maybe I am not normal, or maybe Caspian has been disproven. As we all know, one anecdote is enough for a disproof.
I'm not referring solely to singers, though.
Also: Object inside Clouds, you were doing so well, but then you had to bring up Unexpect. Why shame yourself infront of all of us?
-
A few people I know refuse to be in a band with female members, allegedly because they always lead to the band breaking up - something about people having to take sides or something... please don't ask me to further explain this because I really don't know any more than that, but perhaps there are a lot more people out there of the same opinion/generalisation?
-
Man fuck that noise I enjoy Unexpect.
Seriously I think they are a good band.
Also Dimmukane would probably like to have a word with you.
-
I think there is some legitimacy to the argument that girls play more "orchestral" instruments. For example, the cellist of Laura is a chick, and Sophie Trudeau, formerly of Godspeed and now in Silver Mt. Zion, plays violin.
The Institute of Education in the UK recently published some research on gender bias in instrument choice: http://ioewebserver.ioe.ac.uk/ioe/cms/get.asp?cid=1397&1397_1=19037
-
Shit, has no one mentioned Sonic Youth?
-
Well, it's kind of a given, Red.
-
Why the hell would I want to have a band member who is a member of the gender that I happen to write most of my music about? That would be painfully awkward. I just feel a bit safer opening up about that shit around other dudes. It's hard to relate to everything about somebody's difficulties when the other person is different down to the letter of their chromosomes.
It is hard to relate to everything about somebody's difficulties period. I have four really close friends, three of them are females. I would say I am more open with the male friend, but I don't think that is due to gender. I couldn't pin down what it is, because the relationships are very different.
-
Well I guess the short answer really is just:
I'm just gonna say patriarchy to avoid reading all the posts.
Also, touring? Since there are already more guys than girls in bands, and I'd imagine it'd be rough sailing (not to mention sexual tension) for anyone, really, to endure the rigors of touring being the only other-gendered person in the group. Again, not a barrier, but probably a contributing cause.
I would like to add, though, that - at least in my experience - female singer-songwriters as a whole wipe the floor with their male counterparts.
-
The lead guitarist in the metal band I sing in flat out refuses to play in a band with a chick. This is nothing to do with sexual tension or anything like that but rather because he does not believe that women can play any musical instrument as well as a guy can. He even went so far as to say that if it came down to choosing between a guy and a girl he would always choose the guy no matter how good the girl is. This was a few years ago and I can only assume that he has changed his terrible opinions on this since he didn't have a problem when I posted an ad looking for a new guitarist that featured the line "Gender is NOT an issue." Funnily enough though, he did express concerns about whether I was being too harsh with the line "No NSBM fuckwits."
At any rate I think it's too complex a problem to label simply as patriarchy or musical skill because it encompasses all these issues. Guys will tend to have bigger hands than girls and so it might be easier for them to play certain instruments (for the record my hands are fucking tiny, most women would have bigger hands than me), some guys may not be comfortable singing about certain issues with women around (which is dumb because if you play a gig you're probably going to be playing the songs to a bunch of women anyway), and socialisation of musical instruments is a reliable factor. I went to a performing arts primary school and most of the girls played piano, violin, flute or sung. Most of the guys played drums, guitar, trumpet, saxophone, bass etc... I also think that the children of our generation will be more likely to have a wider range of instruments to play. Consider that for most of us, our parents probably helped to shape our musical inclinations, I would not be surprised if girls were to be pushed less towards the "feminine" instruments and more towards what they actually want to play, regardless of which gender should or shouldn't play a certain thing.
-
That parental pushing issue was mentioned in the article someone linked further up, the suggested remedy was to make all-male and all-female groups, so that males and females would be represented across all of them. One of the people studying it says that while some people would say not to worry about the instruments chosen, "I think the world would be a poorer place if James Galway had been discouraged from playing the flute and Evelyn Glennie had been told that girls shouldn’t become percussionists."
She of course forgets that with her suggestion in place, people would be pushed to play instruments that are needed, rather than what they actually want to play, so what we should really be doing is getting parents to stop pushing their children into playing instruments, and encourage people who beat up bullies (because bullies will taunt people that play the wrong instrument). But then... what if an excellent musician didn't want to play their instrument originally, but their parents pushed them to continue?
I still advocate beatings.
-
Never underestimate the power of familiarity-- Patriarchy and its effect on social norms are indeed a definite factor, even if it's just via trickle down. I mean, I hate to say it, but the hypothetical "Girls aren't good at music because they spend all their time cooking and having babies," Rynne scorns had a fair bit of truth to it not so long ago, and it's naive to act like such things don't have lasting impact on our culture. Western women were often shunted off into a secondary domestic role or else they were allowed into a more public role society was careful to pressure them into selecting something "respectable." I mean, seriously, who do you think is more likely to get branded as brazen and morally suspect in 1910? A woman who plays a nice, traditional instrument like the cello for family at home or a woman with the temerity to perform on the bar circuit, working in the company of men? There was a lot more incentive for men to take these risks and become the pioneers of today's popular music than there were incentives for females, which has led to there being (generally) more famous male role models in music than females, which thanks to the magic of familiarity and gender roles leads to more young men picking up a guitar and passing on the violin than women. I mean, seriously, you know what June Cleaver and Elvis have in common? They were both famous in 1957.
I really think we're getting closer to parity every day, and there's definitely wondefully talented females out there. But we've still got a ways to go to before we have a culture that uncovers and nurtures all of them.
-
I have always wondered about this- I know many, many great female musicians, but with only a couple of exceptions, they play music that is within defined structures- either they sing, or they play a string instrument in formal classical style. On the other hand, the male musicians that I know play a much wider variety of instruments, play a much wider variety of music, and generally seem to engage in... more creatively demanding/improvisational/open-ended music as a whole. This is just my personal experience, but it's a trend I've noticed for years. I've seen many VERY talented female musicians cower in fear at the idea of sounding something out without music in front of them or improvising. At the same time, I've seen much less talented male players take on the same task without a second thought.
Why is that? I'm not sure, but I don't think it's because girls are somehow inherently less interested or able to perform interesting, creative stuff. I believe it's cultural- the expectation of, um, demure/humble/etc female behavior hasn't taken its leave of our society just yet, and so as we stand today it seems like there's somewhat of a gap between expected female behavior and the aggression/confidence/etc that playing music outside of a formal structure demands. It's a shame, because the couple of girls I know who are really good and know it are very much able to participate in music where the creative expectation is open-ended.
I'm speaking of instrumental players here, not vocalists. I think vocals are kind of a different matter for some reason, but I am having troubling putting into words why that is.
-
Another thing is that a lot of the girls I know (and this is purely anecdotal, take it as you will) just plain don't care about rocking out.
-
(except for maybe the idiots dropping the 'waa misogyny' line).
Yes , because of course, statements that dismiss every single woman engaged in a certain occupation, and statements saying that women just can't do certain things as well as men because they are weak and feeble little angels, are not fucking misogynistic at all.
Fuck this thread.
-
(except for maybe the idiots dropping the 'waa misogyny' line)
I'm not dismissing the entire thread, and more people have made valid points than not. But if I see posts saying that a mediocre male musician is always better than the best female musician, or that music-loving girls' primary aspirations are fucking musicians instead of being musicians, I'll call it as I see it.
-
(except for maybe the idiots dropping the 'waa misogyny' line)
I'm not dismissing the entire thread, and more people have made valid points than not. But if I see posts saying that a mediocre male musician is always better than the best female musician, or that music-loving girls' primary aspirations are fucking musicians instead of being musicians, I'll call it as I see it.
Eh, I guess that's fair enough. i just kind of view words like that as things that often kill any sort of rational debate; I liken it to labelling, say, an anti-immigrantion stance as 'racist' or whatever. instead of using that kinda wording, why not just refute it?
and statements saying that women just can't do certain things as well as men because they are weak and feeble little angels
It's comments like this that I find kind of strange. There are some things women can't do as well as men; there are some things men can't do as well as women. Seems logical, really.
EDIT: Typo. I didn't mean "anti-immigrant". I mean ANTI IMMIGRATION. There is a difference, obviously. [/facepalm]
-
I guess in your world to be a racist you have to be a member of the KKK and to be a misogynist you have to rape a minimum of one woman a week.
Fucking hell people, fucking hell.
-
(except for maybe the idiots dropping the 'waa misogyny' line)
I'm not dismissing the entire thread, and more people have made valid points than not. But if I see posts saying that a mediocre male musician is always better than the best female musician, or that music-loving girls' primary aspirations are fucking musicians instead of being musicians, I'll call it as I see it.
Eh, I guess that's fair enough. i just kind of view words like that as things that often kill any sort of rational debate; I liken it to labelling, say, an anti-immigrant stance as 'racist' or whatever. instead of using that kinda wording, why not just refute it?
If you can suggest another word that means "prejudice against females," I'll use it for the sake of the thread. I apologize if I offended anyone by using that term. But if zerodrone sees me as being unnecessarily hyperbolic for using "misogyny," to me it seems just as hyperbolic for zerodrone to call for the thread to be locked solely because I used "misogyny" in the proper context. It's like the secret word on Pee-Wee's Playhouse: "You said 'misogyny'! Aaaaaaaaaaaaah!"
My intent in the original post, by the way, was to point out that the thread seemed to be moving off-track already. I didn't mean for my post to be the actual derailing point.
-
It's comments like this that I find kind of strange. There are some things women can't do as well as men; there are some things men can't do as well as women. Seems logical, really.
Hardly any, and even when something does come up that in general women are better suited for than men or vice versa it's very rare and there are always exceptions. It's also worth remembering that gender is not the clearly defined thing we tend to think of it as, it's really more of a social construction like race. I really think biological factors have nothing to do with this.
-
Yeah, I absolutely agree. There are really very few cases in music where you can point to a physical, biological reason for men and women to differ. And most of the anecdotal evidence given in this thread doesn’t have any clear biological basis to it. The relative lack of female musicians would seem to be more due to societal pressures than anything genetically inherent.
-
I completely agree with both posts above me, especially the fact that gender is a social construct, and females and males aren't inherently anything, really. It's kind of strange that a lot of people don't realise that, I think.
-
Do I get to go crazy fanboy all over Carrie Brownstein yet? Because that lady has got some bitchin' guitar skills. And Janet Weiss is easily one of the world's greatest living drummers, regardless of gender.
-
It's comments like this that I find kind of strange. There are some things women can't do as well as men; there are some things men can't do as well as women. Seems logical, really.
Hardly any, and even when something does come up that in general women are better suited for than men or vice versa it's very rare and there are always exceptions. It's also worth remembering that gender is not the clearly defined thing we tend to think of it as, it's really more of a social construction like race. I really think biological factors have nothing to do with this.
heh, sometimes when i look at all the other guys, i wonder why women would want to be our equals.
yeah, there always exceptions to any rule. like my vice principle when i was in high school, short fat fingers and played guitar like a mofo. when i speak of general characteristics, there are always the exceptions. i just dont understand why guy and girls have to be the exact same (note i didnt say i had a problem with us being equal), caus frankly you would have to be an idiot not to realize that men and women are different. if i say that men seem to have the advantage on bass playing, its because as a whole we tend to have larger stronger hands.
any real musician will tell you that these are not things that make or break a musician, but merely hurdles. and it seems along with the sociological preconceptions, many girls have another hurdle to jump.
really, i think girls and guys are able to be just as musical as each other, but mostly on different instruments (again mostly due to preconceptions about what women should or shouldnt do)
musicainship is very important to me, and while i dont care who is playing the instrument in question, due to the simple fact that on electric guitar girls are leagues behind guys, i dont end up listening to them very much. with several exceptions, of course.
-
It is not a simple fact that men are better than women on electric guitar. It's not a fact at all, it's a subjective opinion and I think you're completely wrong.
I don't think you really got what I was saying. I was saying that the supposed biological differences that create two clearly distinct genders are not what they are often supposed to be, the concept of male and female is largely something we've invented not something that exists without being constructed by society. Like sexuality it's more of a continuum than a binary opposition. So when you start saying women have more hurdles it doesn't make much sense, particularly with regard to what you're talking about which doesn't hold up even if you do accept the idea of there only being two very distinct genders. For example, I have great hands for bass playing (I still suck, but the hands are there). But most men do not have hands like mine. There really isn't a biological advantage there which accounts for the differences in the numbers of musicians, there is just the slight fact that women are a little more likely to have hands totally unsuited to playing the bass in some rare cases and men are a little more likely to have hands very suited to the task.
-
Yeah, I absolutely agree. There are really very few cases in music where you can point to a physical, biological reason for men and women to differ. And most of the anecdotal evidence given in this thread doesn’t have any clear biological basis to it. The relative lack of female musicians would seem to be more due to societal pressures than anything genetically inherent.
I was referring to things in general, not just music -where the only arguments you could make is that males typically have bigger hands, which while is perhaps a little bit advantageous doesn't really mean a great deal overall.
But yeah, overall, in all aspects of life there's certainly some differences! Two glaringly obvious ones: Men are better at sports. Women are less likely to commit violent crimes. I for one think that calling gender a 'social construct' is maybe a bit too PC. Some people have penises, some have vaginas. Some people have XX chromosomes and some have XY and as a result there are various inherent differences. Perhaps it's just that I'm a simple, not particularly intelligent person, but it seems that it's pretty easy to seperate gender, and the middle ground, the grey area between men and women is pretty small. Let's not throw away a perfectly useful concept just because it's not entirely comprehensive and/or some people may feel a bit excluded, you know?
This is getting very off topic, but hey, I don't think I've ever had a debate on gender issues. It's quite strange/interesting.
Like sexuality it's more of a continuum than a binary opposition.
I would kind of agree with this, but it's more of an, i dunno, an inverted bell curve then any sort or linear continuum. I'd say most people would fit 'male' or 'female' gender roles quite well, and most of said gender roles would correspond with their physical sex.
-
Genetic differences or predispositions aren't always related to gender though. Sometimes they are, yes, but for example the tendency for men to commit violent crimes rather than women is probably more of a social construct than anything inherent to a male. A male can be raised to not be violent and aggressive and a female can be raised to be aggressive. I don't really see anything to suggest that it's genetic or biological.
-
It's the sex vs. gender difference. "Sex" is the biological distinction: penis vs. vagina. It's a fairly cut-and-dry distinction, though there are intermediaries. "Gender" is a cultural view of what how the different sexes behave: masculine vs. feminine. That's a continuum, and it can shape how men and women develop psychologically, what roles they think are available for them to play in society.
Personally, I can’t see any sex-based reason for there to be a difference in the ability of men and women to create music of any form with any instrument. But I think gender roles do play a part in what males and females think they can do. Which is to say if women are less represented in musical roles, that's not a deficiency in the talent of women as compared to men, that's a stifling of women's talents by cultural norms. But there are certainly enough women who've said "screw the norms" to show that they lack nothing in terms of musicality (or plenty of other things, for that matter).
*edit* Ah, I see that gardenhead hit the semantic distinction before me.
-
Men are better at sports.
What?
I was going to participate but now I see that anything I write is going to be completely trite, and a complete waste of time because this thread is no longer a serious discussion.
-
Yeah, with the whole "men are better at physical activities (ie sports)", society comes into it again. I'm sure if women were encouraged to play football and other contact sports with men, and not segregated or whatever, they probably could have developed their own techniques, strategies and roles within teams to be just as good as male players. The thing is, females are generally not encouraged to play contact sports because it's not feminine or whatever.
And if it's not a contact sport then all arguments are pretty much invalid it would seem. Tennis is a good example of females being as good as males at sport.
Sorry for getting so off topic, but I didn't really have anything to add to the discussion at hand that hadn't already been said more eloquently.
-
Genetic differences or predispositions aren't always related to gender though. Sometimes they are, yes, but for example the tendency for men to commit violent crimes rather than women is probably more of a social construct than anything inherent to a male. A male can be raised to not be violent and aggressive and a female can be raised to be aggressive. I don't really see anything to suggest that it's genetic or biological.
The whole nature vs nurture argument! It seemed like eventually it would come down to this.
In both men and women, testosterone plays a key role in health and well-being as well as in sexual functioning. Examples include enhanced libido, increased energy, increased production of red blood cells and protection against osteoporosis. On average, an adult human male body produces about forty to sixty times more testosterone than an adult female body, but females are more sensitive to the hormone.
Yes yes, I know Wikipedia isn't the most reliable source (this quote was referenced, if that helps), but as we can see, the effects of testosterone are real on some sort of level, and men get a lot more of it then women do. And certainly there's other hormones that similarly affect the human body in various ways as well. To me, the argument isn't whether there's a genetic/biological difference, but exactly how much it affects the personality compared to upbringing.
-
Yeah, with the whole "men are better at physical activities (ie sports)", society comes into it again. I'm sure if women were encouraged to play football and other contact sports with men, and not segregated or whatever, they probably could have developed their own techniques, strategies and roles within teams to be just as good as male players. The thing is, females are generally not encouraged to play contact sports because it's not feminine or whatever.
And if it's not a contact sport then all arguments are pretty much invalid it would seem. Tennis is a good example of females being as good as males at sport.
Hey, it was just an example. I needed some sort of proof of difference and this was one that came to mind. I noticed that no one's complained about the violent crime one I mentioned. And do you honestly believe that, say, Venus Williams (or whoever's ranked no.1 in tennis, I don't follow it myself) would stand a chance against Roger Federer? On another example, compare, say, the record for the men's 100 metre record with the fastest time for a women. Or any swimming record. Or we could go on about cricket. Or squash. Or weightlifting.
I'm well aware that this thread is rapidly going down the toilet and that this post won't help, but come on, if you don't anything about sport then you shouldn't really comment on it.
-
Or we could go on about cricket. Or squash. Or weightlifting.
I know for at least two of those (cricket and weightlifting, I have no idea about squash) they are "male" sports and females are generally not encouraged to play them. There is a female cricket league in Australia but it gets nowhere near the funding that the male league does, therefore creating an environment that isn't as supportive for growth etc.
(or whoever's ranked no.1 in tennis, I don't follow it myself)
if you don't anything about sport then you shouldn't really comment on it.
I don't want this to descend into a debate on semantics and nit-picking, but what?
-
Well, yeah, men tend to have larger muscles and be stronger than women on average. Hence faster times, heavier loads in sporting events. I don’t really see what that has to do with musical talent, though.
And to pre-empt anyone, there aren't many musical situations that require excesses of raw strength. The closest thing I can thing of is that hard playing requires endurance, but that doesn't have as much to do with muscle mass as with repeated training, which is something that men or women could do.
-
Just a bit of side tracking there, that's all.
Rynne: I would dare say that certain variants of very fast black metal and death metal would take a bit of raw strength and endurance; but overall that's probably pretty rare, and indeed with good technique it shouldn't be an issue at all.
-
Why the hell would I want to have a band member who is a member of the gender that I happen to write most of my music about? That would be painfully awkward. I just feel a bit safer opening up about that shit around other dudes. It's hard to relate to everything about somebody's difficulties when the other person is different down to the letter of their chromosomes.
I am unable to comprehend this. I am not trying to be mean, I really cannot understand this kind of mindset. Can you or someone else explain?
-
I think what Patrick is trying to say is that making music is generally something that he does with friends as opposed to romantic interests. The act of writing a song is a very personal one, and so I imagine it's a lot easier to make a song about being attracted to a girl, or breaking up with a girl, or falling in love with a girl, or being cheated on by a girl, or anything that has to do with girls, if the people he's making the music WITH can relate to his position instead of being potential subject matter for the song.
Basically, if people make music as an outlet for their feelings about their personal life, which a LOT of people do, it's generally easier to do it if one's bandmates are not and furthermore would never be part of that personal life. I can see where he's coming from ... if I were writing a song about a girl, but I had to collaborate with another girl to do so, it would be really hard to write the song I wanted to write from my own perspective. My female bandmate's contribution simply wouldn't reflect what I was feeling.
When I personally make music I don't do it with a gender-specific mindset (mainly because I don't really write lyrics). But I can see how someone would and how having a mixed-gender band composition might make it a bit difficult.
-
If you can suggest another word that means "prejudice against females," I'll use it for the sake of the thread.
misogynist
Main Entry: mi·sog·y·nist
Pronunciation: m-säj--nst
Function: noun
: a person who hates women
(emphasis mine)
-
Hey, I can cite dictionaries, too! Let's check the Oxford English Dictionary:
misogyny, n.
Hatred or dislike of, or prejudice against women.
misogynist, n. and adj.
n. A person who hates, dislikes, or is prejudiced against women.
adj. That is a misogynist; characterized by hatred of or prejudice against women; misogynistic.
(emphasis mine)
But seriously, like I said, I'll gladly use any synonym you feel is more acceptable. Arguing over words instead of ideas is kinda silly.
-
I just think that misogyny is an extremely loaded term, as much of one as calling someone a racist.
Like Caspian (I think) said, why not just talk about the points instead of one-offing a response like your original one that used the M word? Seriously, can you not see how that response was not helpful to the thread and was inflammatory?
Mostly everyone has been going with anecdotal evidence, so I don't think too many people are making over-arching statements about gender in any grand scheme. Anecdotally, I know a fuckton of female musicians and they do have small hands and they do find it hard to play guitar because of it. I see absolutely no reason other than rampant PC bullshit to refute this.
Like someone mentioned about the tennis thing. I always wondered why there is "women's tennis" and "men's tennis". It seems to me that the only reason to split them up is so that men don't win the vast majority of times. If you want a level playing field, then level it. Have women compete against men in every sport. Maybe in a few hundred years, or through the use of steroids and testosterone treatments, we will have female linebackers. I would be fine with that.
But to dismiss or play down the very real genetic differences between the genders is at best ignorant and at worst living in Magical Unicorn Land.
-
I said at the top of the page that there are obvious genetic differences in men and women. And I also said that I think making music isn't one of the places where they make an ounce of difference. Yes, there's "men's tennis" and "women's tennis" but there's not "men's poetry" and "women's poetry" or "men's painting" and "women's painting." You never see orchestras with "first male violin" and "first female violin." Music and art aren't adversarial physical contests where men's bodies are more suited to win than women's.
Yeah, women are different than men. But that doesn't mean that those differences extend over every aspect of their lives.
*edit* You know what? I keep seeing this "small hands" argument as to why women aren't in bands as much as men. What I think I'd like to see is some sort of evidence that men who are smaller than average are also underrepresented in bands. Because if it really is a matter of size, then it's not a matter of sex: similarly sized men and women should be at similar disadvantages.
-
Just a bit of side tracking there, that's all.
Rynne: I would dare say that certain variants of very fast black metal and death metal would take a bit of raw strength and endurance; but overall that's probably pretty rare, and indeed with good technique it shouldn't be an issue at all.
i would like to note that most of my anecdotal knowledge and conclusions are regarding highly technical music, specifically metal like that.
anecdotally, i dont have ridiculously large hands(about 9inches from pinky to thumb, i can do two white keys above an octave on piano) but i havent met more than one or two girls with hands even as large as mine.
even with my larger hands, i find the increased stretch when playing bass to be very inconvenient. i am sure with more practise i wouldn't notice it so much, but still it is something that could put off a beginner, especially someone with smaller hands than mine, (from my experience nearly all girls would fall into that category, along with a lot of guys too)
and someone said something about my statement(guys being better at electric guitar than girls) being completely false? maybe i should rephrase that.
the currently existing electric guitar players that are girls, are not at the same level as the currently existing guy guitarists. i have no reason to doubt that with the same amount of practise girls could reach the same level, but as of yet they haven't.
to clarify THIS (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ES1RypBww_g) is the type of guitar playing i am refering to.
as a point of my general knowledge, which is anecdotal, i have never seen a female lead guitarist in a metal band, or any that approach that level of skill. prove me wrong if you like, or say that you dont like that style of fast playing, but that doesn't change my point.
-
I think someone should start a new thread where we assume that the difference is nurture, not nature, and we talk about it. This thread had potential, but the really interesting bits, the cultural stuff, got overrun by the general gender skirmish.
-
Yes, there's "men's tennis" and "women's tennis" but there's not "men's poetry" and "women's poetry"
Basically every American University would disagree with you on that point. People take classes in "women's literature" (or "african-american literature", etc.) all the time. And it is generally the feminists who want there to be that distinction, which only confuses me more.
*edit* You know what? I keep seeing this "small hands" argument as to why women aren't in bands as much as men.
No you don't. I said it twice. I also said it as an idle speculation as to why some women might not choose to play guitar. If your reading comprehension did not allow you to see that I was just engaging in a possible idle speculation, I apologise.
What I think I'd like to see is some sort of evidence that men who are smaller than average are also underrepresented in bands.
Well, I think they are. Most drummers I know are a little beefy and most guitarists I know are lanky with large, skinny fingers. Again, anecdotal, but think about it. How many 5'4" guys do you see in bands?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mini_Kiss ?
-
Psh, they don't even play their own instruments.
-
I think what Patrick is trying to say is that making music is generally something that he does with friends as opposed to romantic interests. The act of writing a song is a very personal one, and so I imagine it's a lot easier to make a song about being attracted to a girl, or breaking up with a girl, or falling in love with a girl, or being cheated on by a girl, or anything that has to do with girls, if the people he's making the music WITH can relate to his position instead of being potential subject matter for the song.
Bullseye. Sorry for the poor wording on my part, Roo!
-
One of my bands had a stripper as a singer. She couldn't sing or write lyrics (she had me write them) but she had a practice space and lots of coke!
It took her about three months to realise I was not writing, not trying to write, heavy metal songs, just loud Sonic Youth rip-offs.
NB: I realise not all strippers are stupid. I have known several who were very intelligent. I dated one who wrote poetry and listened to The Cure!
-
Yes, there's "men's tennis" and "women's tennis" but there's not "men's poetry" and "women's poetry"
Basically every American University would disagree with you on that point. People take classes in "women's literature" (or "african-american literature", etc.) all the time. And it is generally the feminists who want there to be that distinction, which only confuses me more.
Ah, touche. Though, I wouldn't necessarily argue that's because women or minorities are worse at it than white men, but that their contributions might've been overlooked due to cultural bias.
*edit* You know what? I keep seeing this "small hands" argument as to why women aren't in bands as much as men.
No you don't. I said it twice. I also said it as an idle speculation as to why some women might not choose to play guitar. If your reading comprehension did not allow you to see that I was just engaging in a possible idle speculation, I apologise.
Well, we can be together in our lack of reading comprehension, then, as you seem to have missed the numerous other references in the thread by people who are not you. :wink:
What I think I'd like to see is some sort of evidence that men who are smaller than average are also underrepresented in bands.
Well, I think they are. Most drummers I know are a little beefy and most guitarists I know are lanky with large, skinny fingers. Again, anecdotal, but think about it. How many 5'4" guys do you see in bands?
I don't know. I don't trust anecdotal evidence too much in the first place, since people's memories tend to recall anecdotes that support their own conclusions while overlooking ones that don't. In fact, that pretty much screws everyone in this thread, since no one so far has given any concrete percentages about the amount of women in bands that aren't biased by personal musical preferences (i.e., "looking though my music collection, I see ...")
-
But my music collection is so big I think it could stand up as a statistical analysis of the height/weight issue of people in bands.
Seriously, my music collection is huge.
Most women can't even handle my music collection.
OK, I'll stop now. :-)
-
I'm having difficulty imagining that physical differences between the genders are a major factor in the lack of female instrumentalists. Among the most virtuosic young performers of classical instruments -- the performers whose performances must meet the highest levels of technical proficiency -- women have taken a prominent role in instruments including cello, violin and piano. Martha Argerich, Anne-Sophie Mutter and Mitsuko Uchida are performers who can be compared reasonably against the most talented male performers in the world. Not to mention pop performers like Janet Weiss, Kathy Foster and Kelley Deal.
I also think that there's something at work here, in addition to simple gender discrimination. What gets omitted in these discussions is the legacy problem: think of how many more role models young male guitarists, drummers and bassists have to look to than up-and-coming female instrumentalists. Think of how male guitar teachers will typically favor male students, hence the novelty of programs like Girls Rock Camp (http://www.girlsrockcamp.org/). Think of how (primarily male) music critics and marketers tend to ghettoize all girl acts from the early '90s like Sleater-Kinney as "Riot Grrrl". Like in many other areas, the lack of female rock and metal instrumentalists is self-perpetuating.
Ultimately the biggest difference is that if you take a bunch of 14 year old American boys and 14 year old American girls and ask each group what they want to be when they grow up, you're going to get a lot more boys than girls say "guitarist" or "drummer". I think, though, that you're going to see the numbers slip closer to 50/50 as time goes on, and as each generation of female instrumentalists provide aspirational models for the next generation.
-
Yes, there's "men's tennis" and "women's tennis" but there's not "men's poetry" and "women's poetry"
Basically every American University would disagree with you on that point. People take classes in "women's literature" (or "african-american literature", etc.) all the time. And it is generally the feminists who want there to be that distinction, which only confuses me more.
Well, I think they are. Most drummers I know are a little beefy and most guitarists I know are lanky with large, skinny fingers. Again, anecdotal, but think about it. How many 5'4" guys do you see in bands?
I find it odd too, how it is the feminists that want to keep the distinction, but could you imagine if a male wanted "men's literature"? There would be outrage, and not just because people would think it was about porn. Same if people started men's colleges. Now, this doesn't go for all feminists, my mother is one of the good feminists, the kind that just wants equality, not special treatment, so I know not all feminists are the misandrist pots calling snow black.
And for short guys in bands? Angus Young, Ronnie James Dio, Udo Dirkschnieder, just off the top of my head. I forget his name, but I think the guitarist in Nightwish is 5'5", so not quite.
I do fit the guitarist image you have, though, and my father fits the drummer one.
I would disagree with whoever said that some kinds of metal would take strength, I don't think that the really fast picking takes strength so much as it takes practice to get your hand to go back and forth that fast, maybe some strength in the fingers if you are going to do rapid tapping sections, but I don't think that a female would have trouble getting that much finger strength.
In the sports side of things, I would say that if females played against males, they would be as good as them, the average female would need to work more to get muscled for football (american), but if you have seen the female weightlifters, they have plenty of muscle. The average female might play differently than the average male, but that would be more down to body type than gender.
This is anectodal, but I know a girl that has played soccer for most of her life, she has really big leg muscles now, from soccer, mountain biking, and rock-climbing. She plays at least as well as the males I have seen her play against for fun, including ones that also play soccer, and she doesn't need to strain herself to do it.
If something requires brute strength, the males would have an innate advantage, but working at it can overcome that, and I can't really think of anything else that would give a male an advantage, except for average height.
-
Ah, touche. Though, I wouldn't necessarily argue that's because women or minorities are worse at it than white men
Have you read Sylvia Plath or Ayn Rand?
*ducks and runs*
-
I find it odd too, how it is the feminists that want to keep the distinction, but could you imagine if a male wanted "men's literature"? There would be outrage, and not just because people would think it was about porn. Same if people started men's colleges. Now, this doesn't go for all feminists, my mother is one of the good feminists, the kind that just wants equality, not special treatment, so I know not all feminists are the misandrist pots calling snow black.
They do have courses in that and there isn't any outrage, or at least they do at the university I study at. My flatmate is currently doing one titled something like 'men and masculinity in American culture'.
Think of how (primarily male) music critics and marketers tend to ghettoize all girl acts from the early '90s like Sleater-Kinney as "Riot Grrrl".
I know what you're saying, but Sleater-Kinney were tagged with that because they did come out of the riot grrl scene. Corin Tucker's previous band Heavens To Betsy were one of the most important bands in it, and their early records sound very riot grrl. The term did get applied to a lot of artists who didn't deserve it, but S-K wasn't one of them.
-
I know, but by The Woods, a lot of critics were still labelling them Riot-Grrrl or Grrrl Rock. Why? By that point they were just rock.
-
Ah, touche. Though, I wouldn't necessarily argue that's because women or minorities are worse at it than white men
Have you read Sylvia Plath or Ayn Rand?
*ducks and runs*
What is your problem with Ayn Rand? The 60+ page author filibusters or the horrible philosophy behind it?
I have been reading more male writers recently, but that is because Tamora Pierce isn't out with anything new yet, and I keep forgetting to put a hold on the new Diane Duane book.
aPoW, really? I had never heard of that class before, that is interesting.
-
re "women's writing" as it is supposedly distinguished from "men's writing"
Don't make the mistake of making statements about "the" feminists. There is an enormous variety of opinions within the "feminist" and "gender studies" movements (as far as they can really be distinguished). The idea that women's writing is essentially different than men's is a pretty divisive issue. Interestingly enough, the theory of women's writing is not a sex-based one - men are entirely capable of writing like a woman.
As to the existence of "women's literature" courses around, the reason could be as well the relative size of the female author community over time than any essential writing difference. Because there is such a narrow genealogy of women writers, the continuity of their works is much stronger than for men, which does lend itself to a good course curriculum. Also the thematic material more likely engaged by women writers because of their social position is different than mens'.
-
I think the thread has gotten a bit off topic, but it was to be expected. It's interesting to follow though.
-
And for short guys in bands? Angus Young, Ronnie James Dio, Udo Dirkschnieder, just off the top of my head. I forget his name, but I think the guitarist in Nightwish is 5'5", so not quite.
I do fit the guitarist image you have, though, and my father fits the drummer one.
I would disagree with whoever said that some kinds of metal would take strength, I don't think that the really fast picking takes strength so much as it takes practice to get your hand to go back and forth that fast, maybe some strength in the fingers if you are going to do rapid tapping sections, but I don't think that a female would have trouble getting that much finger strength.
In the sports side of things, I would say that if females played against males, they would be as good as them, the average female would need to work more to get muscled for football (american), but if you have seen the female weightlifters, they have plenty of muscle. The average female might play differently than the average male, but that would be more down to body type than gender.
well, to be fair Dio is a vocalist not a instrumentalist. dont think long fingers would be all that much help playing angus young's pentatonic rock stuff. but then im just nitpicking on your examples, i agree with what you are saying. there are plenty of exceptions to the rule.
'bout the metal strength, it takes quite a bit. guitar wise, the faster stuff, like constant riffing in 16th at 200bpm takes a lot of endurance, even if your technique is correct. if it were wrong then you would likely cramp up long before that. quite aside from being warmed up you need to be in shape to pull off a long metal show, but that comes with learning the instrument. i'd say the most physical one would be drumming. there doing say blast beats and double kick drumming at high tempos takes a lot out of you. a lot of pro metal drummers are beastly looking. like check this guy out from immortal (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1etDl5JPyWw). if you ever watch concerts, even just a normal rock band the drummer is almost always shirtless and sweaty after a song or two from the exertion.(not a bad reasong to have female drummers actually... :-) )
as ive said before, anyone with enough time and the right attitude can become an exception to the rule. unfortunately, that has only just started with female rock musicians.
-
Sweet nunfucking christ there is so much stupid in this fucking thread.
So much fucking stupid.
-
Next time, on QC Forums: someone embarrassingly reveals that they are a homophobe! Stay tuned to find out who!
-
Sweet nunfucking christ there is so much stupid in this fucking thread.
So much fucking stupid.
well, i looked back through the thread and all of your posts just say "fuck this thread" or blanketly describe all the posters as near rascists and woman haters.
much as i hate being the newbie dissing the older member, either state your own opinion on the matter or stop posting at all, if you hate the thread so much.
you may not like my opinion, but at least i have one and am trying to back it up and phrase it the best i can (which would be a lot easier if it weren't on the net)
i think its a pretty valid topic to discuss, given that whole genres of music are almost devoid of female prescence (such as metal) and the general music scene seems to be predominantly male(not my observation).
-
I don't like your opinions because they're fucking stupid, and it's not my job to have to educate people on why they are smug fucking pig-ignorant bigots.
So eat shit.
-
well, i dont see where you would have a problem with my last few posts, but okay.
-
Holy fucking shit can you not use capital letters, what are you, 10?
-
This thread is gay.
....oh shit.
-
Holy fucking shit can you not use capital letters, what are you, 10?
Yes, I can.
Edit: nevermind, this is getting a bit ridiculous. Its a fucking message board, not worth getting worked up over. Khar, i may have tripped off this thing by calling you down earlier, so sorry about that. Pretty sure this thread is over anyways.
-
I had a nice post written up, and then the forums killed it.
I think the main problem someone might have with your comments, Diablo, is the statement that men are better at guitar than women. I think what you meant was that the male guitarists you know are better than the female guitarists, and that is fine, as long as you aren't saying that being female makes you a worse guitarist. Of course, I am sure that the female guitarists you know aren't all worse than the male guitarists you know, just the best of the males are better than the best of the females.
-
In the sports side of things, I would say that if females played against males, they would be as good as them, the average female would need to work more to get muscled for football (american), but if you have seen the female weightlifters, they have plenty of muscle. The average female might play differently than the average male, but that would be more down to body type than gender.
This is anectodal, but I know a girl that has played soccer for most of her life, she has really big leg muscles now, from soccer, mountain biking, and rock-climbing. She plays at least as well as the males I have seen her play against for fun, including ones that also play soccer, and she doesn't need to strain herself to do it.
If something requires brute strength, the males would have an innate advantage, but working at it can overcome that, and I can't really think of anything else that would give a male an advantage, except for average height.
Are you serious? Most sports have a large emphasis on brute strength. Sorry about this derailing, again, but if you seriously think that females could play sports as good as men, then you're kidding yourself and living in 'magical unicorn land', to paraphrase Zerodrone. It's just stupid to think that women will be anywhere near as good as men in pretty much ANY sport (short of marathon swimming, which women do well in) for a very long amount of time. Compare, again, ANY sport at the elite level (any sport) and men are a lot better then women, even if it's the more 'traditional' or 'acceptable' sports for women to compete, the men are better, with the possible exception of Gymnastics, where the smaller build of most women is an advantage.
Also: Khar, either post something useful or shut the fuck up.
-
I don't like your opinions because they're fucking stupid, and it's not my job to have to educate people on why they are smug fucking pig-ignorant bigots.
So eat shit.
What's the point of being enlightened about gender/sex roles in society if you're not going to be patient with the people who need to hear it most?
-
What's the point of being enlightened about gender/sex roles in society if you're not going to be patient with the people who need to hear it most?
Wow, do you honestly think you could be any MORE condescending with that remark?
-
Sorry, I was trying to couch it in his terms. Khar implies that his hostility is because of how utterly ignorant he thinks certain opinions are. I am basically trying to say I don't think he's acting consistently given what he believes.
-
okay i think this has run its course
-
I had a nice post written up, and then the forums killed it.
I think the main problem someone might have with your comments, Diablo, is the statement that men are better at guitar than women. I think what you meant was that the male guitarists you know are better than the female guitarists, and that is fine, as long as you aren't saying that being female makes you a worse guitarist. Of course, I am sure that the female guitarists you know aren't all worse than the male guitarists you know, just the best of the males are better than the best of the females.
huh, i thought i had said that. no wonder it was all badly received, thanks for saying what i should have been saying.
pretty sure i made it a point to say that being female doesnt make you worse, just in my music outlook and anecdotal knowledge the best of the best are male.
thanks. still no clue what was wrong with my post about strength for certain metal playing, but w/e.
edit: ^ to jeph, sorry i didnt notice your post there. ill stop bumping this now.
-
What's the point of being enlightened about gender/sex roles in society if you're not going to be patient with the people who need to hear it most?
The point is I (hopefully) do not unthinkingly denigrate women.
-
Yeah, but saying somebody is stupid just because they do? Misguided and ill-informed, yes. Stupid? No.
-
Wow, do you honestly think you could BE any more condescending with that remark?
(http://www.topnews.in/light/files/Matthew-Perry.jpg)
-
aw matt don't look at me that way :cry:
-
Tommy that's a good post but if you were a man you could've done it better.
-
Yeah, take that you fucking girl.
Trying to post rationally and reasonably in this thread. How the fuck dare you? Who the fuck do you think you are?
Also - you may think you are okay at playing piano but you actually fucking suck and will never do it as well as a man.
To be honest I have absolutely no idea as to who or what Tommy here is criticizing, or if he even is criticizing anyone, or if he even has a point.
He was on a pretty good "excellent post" streak, too. I imagine it's just gone over my head, though.
-
ACK!
-
God that's a fucking terrible comic, why did you have to remind me?
-
I'm just a terrible person. When I'm not getting my misogyny/racism/homophobia on, I'm reminding people about really, really awful comics.
Also:
(http://prospectknights75.org/images/used/garfield-coffee.jpg)
Actually perhaps that was a bit too far.
-
Anyway, now that for the most part we're done with the 'nature' arguments, can I bring up something that I thought was an interesting point? I know that jeph said;
okay i think this has run its course
But here's what someone on another forum said, and I think I'll quote it ad verbatim. I agree with most of what's being said by this guy, although as this was posted on a metal forum, obviously there's bit of a metal slant to it, but it can be applied to an extent with other music too. Anyway, I think it's great. Here you all go:
From a sociological viewpoint (ala my university class I took), men are more involved in risky behaviours. You see a similar, and most likely related ratio in other areas of (western civilization) humanity as well - men commit a far greater number of crimes, in all categories. In the top-25 ways people die, men lead all but *breast cancer* (and in most cases, lifestyle choices are a great contributer in most of the leading causes of death). Men are more likely to be smokers, drinkers and drug users. Men are more likely to be non-religious. And so on.
No-one, at this point, is really sure why all of these differences between the sexes crop up. It could be from the socialization process, in which we parents expects our boys to be little policemen, sports stars and politicians, colour their rooms blue and give them toy guns as a kid (and girls can be housewives, teachers or nurses, pink rooms and Barbies). One thing for sure is that girls are better in inter-personal/social situations (make friends easier, etc) than males are, and males are better in spatial stuff (hand-eye coordination and such).
Given that metal has, since Ozzy began singing about sorcerers, witches, magic, Satan, war/politics and such (and considering the musical roots of metal, in hard rock and blues [oh noes sattanik!!11]) and such - AND how rock'n'roll was for so long considered to be "Devil's music" even before the more extreme version of it (metal) came about, metal in it's own way is a high-risk activity.
It eschews a main-stream lifestyle (especially in it's earliest/earlier days, though now it seems to be more socially acceptable in certain ways) and way of thinking; "normality" is in many ways the antithesis of heavy metal. Heavy metal is closely associated with alcohol, loud noise, screams, charged-up lyrics which question our (western) society, and so on.
Thus, since women are far less likely to be involved in high-risk behaviour, and since metal is involved with a much more rebellious lifestyle, metal does appeal to a more masculine audience, no doubt about it. Mind you, most of my post was a sort of speculative association between what sociologists know about gender differences and the lifestyle of heavy metal, but one could say it wasn't a bad go at it, in any case
Here's another one that's probably a good deal more contentious, but has some good, albeit more controversial points:
A reason that there are overall less females in bands is that it's more like the traditional role of the male to seek recognition from the world at large and go out there and be a hero, whereas women tend to seek their recognition from their peer group - that's why (I think) many women are more concerned with careers and status and "fitting in" and doing the socially acceptable thing than men. Also, women may on average be more practical and realistic and tend less to follow rock star career dreams. Consider that women often want to build a safe "nest" in which to raise children; the music business doesn't provide that. That is the answer in terms of traditional role models, anyway, I think. I actually find it encouraging that the number of serious female musicians (i.e. excepting industry fabricated pop princesses) seems to have risen in the last 30 years or so.
Again, I didn't post these comments, so don't come yelling at me. I think that while the whole nature/genetic thing has been thoroughly killed in the previous pages this thread still has some interesting points to be argued in the nurture side of things. Sorry if this completely fails, but this thread has a bit more to offer, surely.
-
Given that metal has, since Ozzy began singing about sorcerers, witches, magic, Satan, war/politics and such (and considering the musical roots of metal, in hard rock and blues [oh noes sattanik!!11]) and such - AND how rock'n'roll was for so long considered to be "Devil's music" even before the more extreme version of it (metal) came about, metal in it's own way is a high-risk activity.
It eschews a main-stream lifestyle (especially in it's earliest/earlier days, though now it seems to be more socially acceptable in certain ways) and way of thinking; "normality" is in many ways the antithesis of heavy metal. Heavy metal is closely associated with alcohol, loud noise, screams, charged-up lyrics which question our (western) society, and so on.
Thus, since women are far less likely to be involved in high-risk behaviour, and since metal is involved with a much more rebellious lifestyle, metal does appeal to a more masculine audience, no doubt about it. Mind you, most of my post was a sort of speculative association between what sociologists know about gender differences and the lifestyle of heavy metal, but one could say it wasn't a bad go at it, in any case
This is an interesting idea. However, it doesn't explain why women are far better represented in hardcore and punk than in metal. Or at least they seem to be, the male to female ratio isn't nearly as good as it could (and should) be, but it appears to be significantly better than metal. Hardcore is much more rejecting of a mainstream lifestyle and values, it's associated with non-mainstream appearance (tattoos, piercings etc) and the lyrics are far more directly questioning of society than those found generally in metal. So presumably hardcore and punk would have just as few women as metal if high risk was such a large factor but this isn't the case, after all punk led to riot grrl a sub-genre completely dominated by women.
Oh, and as a side note on the alcohol comment they made, in the UK it isn't true that men drink more than women.
A reason that there are overall less females in bands is that it's more like the traditional role of the male to seek recognition from the world at large and go out there and be a hero, whereas women tend to seek their recognition from their peer group - that's why (I think) many women are more concerned with careers and status and "fitting in" and doing the socially acceptable thing than men. Also, women may on average be more practical and realistic and tend less to follow rock star career dreams. Consider that women often want to build a safe "nest" in which to raise children; the music business doesn't provide that. That is the answer in terms of traditional role models, anyway, I think. I actually find it encouraging that the number of serious female musicians (i.e. excepting industry fabricated pop princesses) seems to have risen in the last 30 years or so.
I think this is getting closer to the reason. In western society the public sphere has been considered a masculine domain with the private, domestic sphere considered feminine, which would push women towards not becoming performers even if they have an interest in the music, which would begin to account for the discrepancy between the amount of women who listen to genres like metal and the amount that become musicians. I'm not so sure about the nest-building argument though, I think men crave as much stability as women.
-
I think the better recognition in punk could likely come from there being more role models. I mean, really, when you think of the big people in metal, all of them are male, but in punk you have at least Joan Jett, I don't really know all that much about punk, but she gets airplay, and lots of it.
-
I think you're right, but why is it that more women have had a prominent role in punk than in metal to provide these role models? It might be related to the higher political content of punk, coupled with (at its inception) a closer relationship with fashion, whereas metal has never really been in fashion even when it's been very popular.
-
Hardcore is much more rejecting of a mainstream lifestyle and values, it's associated with non-mainstream appearance (tattoos, piercings etc) and the lyrics are far more directly questioning of society than those found generally in metal.
i agree with the rest of your post, but that part stood out as false to me. far as i know, metal contains some of the most offensive lyrics out there, that totally go against mainstream values (death or black metal anyone?), not to mention the music itself being the direct opposite on mainstream stuff. sure the appearance stuff is probably right(i don't know either way) but liking hardcore and punk is much more acceptable in society these days. compared to the prejudice you face when you say you like metal ("isn't that the stuff about raping dead babies in a burning church? so do you praise satan now?), punk and hardcore seem almost mainstream.
i dont know, the society's view of punk/hardcore is sort of like "punk rocker, tattoos, rebel, dyed hair" while metal's is more "long hair, suicidal, homocidal, antichrist"
hell, the fact that people listened to metallica has been entered as evidence to prosecute them for murders, leading some to be on death row. (west memphis 3)
so i think that would be why more women are in punk and hardcore bands than metal bands, going with the whole "high risk behavior" theory.
-
Are we not counting 80's hair-metal then? From extensive research (ie: watching The Decline of Western Civilization Part II several times), it seems like there were plenty of women in the metal scene back then.
-
Were they performers or fans, promoters or label owners? I've only seen the first Decline... and I must admit I don't know too much about hair metal.
Hardcore's still far less mainstream than metal, and although it might be less deliberately offensive for the sake of it (except for grindcore of course) it's not exactly a proponent of mainstream values. There may be a fair number of bands in black metal that espouse values very opposed to the mainstream that description doesn't describe every band in the sub-genre just a few, which can't be said about anarcho punk. Death metal lyrics might be as shocking as a horror movie but they're pretty clearly similar to that, fantasies (although like horror movies they often have a lot to say and aren't just escapism). Whereas with hardcore bands being militantly vegan, anarchist, pro-choice, anti-homophobic etc is par for the course. Songs with lyrics like "No more bullshit end it now, thanks to the ALF keep it up. Claim we're nazis, claim we're criminals. Authorities scared of the movement" are perfectly normal, whereas with metal a band like Cattle Decapitation with an explicitly vegan message attracts notice. When I got into hardcore it was a surprise if you found out somebody ate meat, Christians were unheard of and if a Christian band did come about then they'd definitely have a load of songs written about how they should get the hell out of the scene, and right wingers were something that only occurred in the US, which led to bands like Zao getting threatened with any action to prevent their gigs in the UK taking place that were necessary. Also, I could be wrong about this but it seems that punk bands have had a trickier time with the authorities (in the US and UK at least) than metal. Running battles with the cops at Black Flag gigs, squats getting raided, prosecutions for Crass and the Dead Kennedys for obscenity which were blatantly politically motivated etc.
I'm not saying metal can't be controversial, or political, or shocking to some people, there are so many examples of great metal bands who've done just that. But I do think that in general hardcore punk is a genre far more opposed to the general values of mainstream society. I might be biased since I have a strong connection with it, but I'm sure it's no less controversial. I also think you have to take into account not only the perceptions of people unacquainted with the genre but also the way the material within the genre is perceived by the listeners, and the relative obscurity of hardcore to compared to metal.
-
There were definitely a bunch of female performers in the hair/glam metal scene. Lita Ford is the only one I can think of off the top of my head, but there were others, for sure.
If we're talking about hardcore punk, I'm pretty sure it started out just as much a boy's club as metal is. Until the whole Olympia/Riot Grrl/K Records thing, were there really any female members of punk bands? The bassist from Black Flag and the Butthole Surfers' drummer are the only ones that come to mind.
-
okay i get what you are saying then. i do think that most of the stuff i said covers a lot of the more underground groups but okay. while you say hardcore tends to hate christian bands, id presume there is a lot more actual hating of christians in metal. for clarification to the other person, im not talking about hairl metal or the more mainstream stuff.
both genres have the "us against the world" thing going on, plenty of bands have been kicked out of places for being to "off the beaten track" im pretty sure there are quite a few metal bands that have been flat out banned from ever going to certain countries because of their subject matter.
Again i have much more knowledge about metal than i do about hardcore, so take what i am saying with a grain of salt.
hardcore is definitely more obscure than metal, the problem is that metal is so "infamous". id rather people didnt know what i was about than already have the wrong idea about it. so im probably going to keep thinking my preferred genre is the more high risk one, but i see what you are getting at there.
why there is more women in one than the other? no clue. may have something to do with the music itself, not all the stuff surrounding it, though i don't know how.
i kind of want to say that level of skill required to play punk (not hardcore) is so low that practically anyone can start a band. with more people in punk bands and the easy accessability, there could probably be more women in the genre. note i am not saying that because it is easy the female-male ratio would change just that the ease of access and increased volume of people in the genre means that some of them are bound to be women. back to the high risk thing, punk(not hardcore) has been around for long enough that a lot of it really is mainstream now.
-
If we're talking about hardcore punk, I'm pretty sure it started out just as much a boy's club as metal is. Until the whole Olympia/Riot Grrl/K Records thing, were there really any female members of punk bands? The bassist from Black Flag and the Butthole Surfers' drummer are the only ones that come to mind.
The Slits...
-
Can't believe I forgot the Slits. Then again, they really weren't part of the hardcore scene.
-
As well as X-Ray Spex, Crass, Chumbawamba, The Rezillos, The Adverts, The Raincoats, Vice Squad and plenty more up until riot grrl. Hardcore was extremely male-dominated in the 80s, but you have The Dicks, The Beastie Boys (female drummer while they were a hardcore band), Black Flag and some others the names of which are escaping me right now. Riot grrl did mark a very significant change in punk and hardcore though, no denying it. It's still not that great, but things are better than they were.
diablo_man, I think we can basically agree that both could be classified as high risk genres from the standpoint of the comment Caspian quoted, which still leaves us with the question of what causes the disparity. And I think you're onto something with the technical skill aspect. Although plenty of punk and hardcore bands contain incredibly technically skilled musicians, this isn't seen as a prerequisite for forming a band. In fact, no technical skill at all is required (see Beat Happening, though naturally they get more and more adept the longer they were around). This serves to break down the barriers between crowd and audience and who can be in a band, making it easier and more acceptable for people who might otherwise have been marginalised and taking the creation of music out of the sole hands of those with extensive training and expensive instruments and making it more open. It's one of the things I love most about punk and hardcore actually, and is very probably part of the reason you get more women in bands in that scene.
-
I see a lot of NY art punk, and first-wave British Punk in that list Tommy, I don't see a lot of hardcore bands. My point, I guess, is we're not talking about genres, we're talking about scenes. I really don't think there's anything about metal, or punk, or polka, that makes it more or less friendly to women.
-
The Blood Sisters website (http://kzsu.stanford.edu/~hannah/) is a pretty good resource for bands that include women in heavy music, but sadly it hasn't been updated in a long time. I've found a lot of good information there over the years although it's nowhere near comprehensive. Like 7 Seconds said, "it's not just boy's fun".
-
Teh Uterus - it scares menfolks.
One might say.
-
What the fuck are you talking about?
One might say.
-
What I was really saying there was:
There are a lot of stereotypes flying around and some of them are full of shit but there is obviously a grain of truth in the idea that men and women have difficulty relating,
and that there's not much more to say on about that so let's not beat the point to death,
and I'll say something somewhat nonsensical and almost certainly out of context mostly to amuse myself and bring some ironic levity to the whole thing.
-
Off the top of my head, some women in punk and the associated subgenres -
bands
Plus hundreds more. Sorry, this is sort of important to me.
Honestly, what the hell does this prove? I'm sure if I was feeling particularly bored I could browse through Metal Archives and find plenty of females in metal bands (GALLHAMMER \m/). Saying that there's hundreds doesn't prove shit, I'm sure there are heaps but without any sort of comparison to the amount of males or whatever listing a couple of females in bands doesn't really say anything worthwhile.
-
karl gambolputty... asked about whether or not there were any women in punk bands before riot grrl which sparked all that off. I think it also says something about punk and metal relatively since it's really easy to start reeling off loads of extremely influential, well-respected punk bands with female members, a fair few of the big names in the scene over the years, but I'm having a hard time doing the same with metal bands in my head. Maybe that's just because I don't know anywhere near as much about metal, and I would love to be proved wrong, but when I think about it that's how it seems.
-
karl gambolputty... asked about whether or not there were any women in punk bands before riot grrl which sparked all that off. I think it also says something about punk and metal relatively since it's really easy to start reeling off loads of extremely influential, well-respected punk bands with female members, a fair few of the big names in the scene over the years, but I'm having a hard time doing the same with metal bands in my head. Maybe that's just because I don't know anywhere near as much about metal, and I would love to be proved wrong, but when I think about it that's how it seems.
Well, here's a few, I'd rather not just list a lot but so be it:
Nightwish, and all of the shitty-but-popular-in-europe symphonic power metal bands. Epica, After Forever, Within Temptation etc etc.
Arch Enemy
Diablo Swing Orchestra
Boris
While I wouldn't call Swans metal, they're certainly somewhat close in a couple of albums. If Tommy can claim the B52's as 'associated with punk', I will associate Swans with metal.
Nuclear Death were a much loved thrash band with a female vocalist, as were Holy Moses.
The Gathering
GALLHAMMER \m/
Nadja
The Angelic Process
The Goslings (most of the dreamy doom stuff seems to be done by husband/wife teams, quite strange)
Jucifer (another husband/wife team)
There's 16 off the top of my head, that'll do. Ultimately, though, I'll concede that metal is much more a male-dominated genre. Again though, listing some bands doesn't really prove much.
-
^yup that covers all the ones i could think of, though nightwish and lacuna coil(thats another one) are kinda borderline metal.
aside from a few random girls i have seen playing flute, etc on a couple folk metal bands i dont know of any metal bands with girls on instruments, as opposed to just singers. at least none that have attained any degree of recognition.
either way, metal is definitely the biggest boys club.
-
How like a winter (MDB worshipers that I like) has a female violinist, but that still falls under the kind of instrument a female is expected to play (though my brother plays violin).
-
Er, My Dying Bride themselves have two female members, the keyboard player and the bassist. Bolt Throwers bassist is a woman, (and she fucking slays too). Astarte have female guitar, keyboard and bass player (only the drummer is male), Cryptic Wintermoon has a female keyboard player, so does Skyclad (also on fiddle as well). Chthonic are/were half female (drummer, singer and lead I think), Silent Streams of Godless Elegy had a female violinist, Matriarch are all female, a few examples off the top of my head.
That's just concentrating on instrumentalists not yet mentioned. There are many other bands with female vocalists, supporting or otherwise.
-
Huh, didn't know that about MDB.
Is it just me, or does something involving winter seem like a cheating name for a metal band, you could go ___winter, winter___, or ___ winter ___, and you have a good metal name. I mean, really, looking at the MA list of bands by name, just looking at the ones starting with winter, there are 121 from my count. Not 121 seperate names, there are quite a few duplicates from different countries.
-
Er, My Dying Bride themselves have two female members, the keyboard player and the bassist. Bolt Throwers bassist is a woman, (and she fucking slays too). Astarte have female guitar, keyboard and bass player (only the drummer is male), Cryptic Wintermoon has a female keyboard player, so does Skyclad (also on fiddle as well). Chthonic are/were half female (drummer, singer and lead I think), Silent Streams of Godless Elegy had a female violinist, Matriarch are all female, a few examples off the top of my head.
That's just concentrating on instrumentalists not yet mentioned. There are many other bands with female vocalists, supporting or otherwise.
I had forgotten about Bolt Thrower! the female guitarist in Astarte, does she play lead or rhythm? I'd like to check them out, im interested. never thought much of my Dying Bride, but thanks for pointing those out.
-
Random break of thought: MDB are actually really, really good! I just got their Turn loose the Swans album and it's seriously excellent.
Also: Tommy, fair enough that you're mentioning them because they're in the first wave of punk- perhaps you could've pointed that out straight away, though.
-
This thread makes me want to learn how to play the guitar and create a band, just out of spite.
-
This thread makes me want to buy a skirt and rock out.
-
(http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/4195/thewickedtinkerswe7sk5.jpg)
Hey Dan it worked for these guys.
-
"No more bullshit end it now, thanks to the ALF keep it up. Claim we're nazis, claim we're criminals. Authorities scared of the movement"
I think the idea of metal is "think for yourself", not "wank over my opinions because I'm in a shitty band".
/
:-D
-
Considering that there have been a number of extremely right wing bands in the history of metal I think we can discount that as the point of metal. It might be what the music tends to make you think though, which is perfectly valid.
Just because D.S.-13 present their views in a straightforward, confrontational manner doesn't mean they want people to adore them for it. Sometimes it's good not to be mealy-mouthed about things. You may not agree with what they say, but their reasons for saying it probably aren't for ego gratification. Playing fast hardcore has never been a route to big crowds and adoration after all.
-
Dude, I'm just being a dick. I don't believe hardcore bands put themselves on a pedestal more than metal bands do.
Although I tend to disagree with the idea that metal is more socially accessible than hardcore in general, but that might be due to Australia in general.
-
I would venture to guess that its because females have a tendency to express their emotions and feelings in a more straight forward way... such as talking about them or something. So guys have a stronger tendency to try and desquise their emotional venting as something more socially acceptable, like playing guitar, or getting blasted and beating the piss out of anyone different than you.
-
dude guys are capable of expressing their feeligns. by talking and shit
i think.
well i can.
-
Well yeah, I'm not saying its unheard of. I'm talking about blanket stereotyping here. I thought thats what we were doing. My bad. haha.
-
You can put me under any blanket you want, baby!
/
:-D
I express my feelings typically by putting on somebody else's music and airdrumming. You flail around and get out a lot of stress while getting a half-decent isometric and aerobic workout in. Really effective, but not half as fun as real drums, which I suppose is what gets people started.
-
Considering that there have been a number of extremely right wing bands in the history of metal I think we can discount that as the point of metal.
This is a pretty sub-par comment. Are you telling me that there's never been any right wing punk bands? heard of RAC? And just the HUGE amount of skinhead/nazi/white-power punk that there is? It far exceeds the amount of right wing metal bands- though certainly there's a lot of 'em. Overall, though, that's hardly a valid point.
Furthermore, the idea that being right wing means you don't "think for yourself" is completely ignorant, and shows a fairly large lack of knowledge about right wing politics and politics in general. (for the record, I'm not much of a right winger, bit of a centrist myself).
-
Well, it all depends on your outlook. Personally I'd say that fascism is an ideology that definitely aims to make people not think for themselves, and that this is to a large extent the end result of all right wing thinking. I have a very dim opinion of any politics on the right, but that's really a discussion for another time.
I don't think punk rock has any kind of a specific point like "think for yourself" any more than metal does. As you point out, it's too broad and there are too many bands that wouldn't fit into that assessment.
-
Well, it all depends on your outlook. Personally I'd say that fascism is an ideology that definitely aims to make people not think for themselves, and that this is to a large extent the end result of all right wing thinking. I have a very dim opinion of any politics on the right, but that's really a discussion for another time.
:x
I guess that is a discussion for another time. Doesn't make that comment any less retarded, though.
Anyway, how about moving away from punk and metal? Let's steer this thread in an unlikely direction: ambient. Seems like this genres are HUGELY male dominated- I for one can think of only one ambient artist/group with a female member (which would be Natural Snow Buildings, which I doubt too many people have heard of). I'm a fairly big fan of this genre and I like to think I know a bit about it (although certainly there'll be people on here who'll know a lot more then me). I seriously can't think of another one- Leah Buckareff in Nadja, maybe, but that's about it.
Ambient is a pretty well respected genre, it's not all that rebellious. Here we have a rather different example from punk and metal but a similar result.
Discuss.
-
If you're agreeing to let something lie don't try to get in any parting shots, particularly insulting ones. No need to get personal, and if you'd like to know why I think that you can always just pm me.
You make a good point about ambient. One possible reason that occurs to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong since you clearly know more about the genre than me) is that the people I know that make ambient music create it on computers, alone, and they don't do live performances. So we have the factor of it bring based in a field traditionally seen as male, that of computer technology. I don't know what the ratio is now but when a friend of mine studied programming a few years ago she said she was the only woman on her course. There seems to be a greater stigma attached to a woman who spends most of her time in front of a computer screen. The general expectation of society also seems to expect women to be social to a greater degree than men and ambient doesn't really provide that since it largely seems to lack live performance and bandmates, which might be a discouraging factor.
-
You would think that after four pages of this thread we could all agree that men are just plain better than women.
Please direct all angry and humourless responses to me via PM.
-
Girls are icky.
-
Patrick's face is icky.
-
I meant what I said and I'll stand by it to the death.
/obscure?
-
If you're agreeing to let something lie don't try to get in any parting shots, particularly insulting ones. No need to get personal, and if you'd like to know why I think that you can always just pm me.
You make a good point about ambient. One possible reason that occurs to me (and please correct me if I'm wrong since you clearly know more about the genre than me) is that the people I know that make ambient music create it on computers, alone, and they don't do live performances. So we have the factor of it bring based in a field traditionally seen as male, that of computer technology. I don't know what the ratio is now but when a friend of mine studied programming a few years ago she said she was the only woman on her course. There seems to be a greater stigma attached to a woman who spends most of her time in front of a computer screen. The general expectation of society also seems to expect women to be social to a greater degree than men and ambient doesn't really provide that since it largely seems to lack live performance and bandmates, which might be a discouraging factor.
Fair enough about the parting shot. I kind of misunderstood your post for a parting shot as well. :D One thing that's worth noting, though, is that while some/most ambient is done on computers, most of it isn't, and a lot of it is played live. It's a point that, while somewhat valid, I don't think really accounts for the large differences. Worth noting that there's also a similiar discrepancy in post-rock - or at least the epic quiet/loud version of said genre- which surely is closer to rock, and indeed maybe classical- but the only female I can think of in the epic post rock genre is Mono's bassist.
-
well, here is something for you guys. i remembered the name of the most famous female guitar shredder that i alluded to a million posts ago. her name is The Great Kat.
heres a video of her playing (most videos are short and crappy, this is the best i could find)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=evvYWN3bKi4
here is an interview with her, as i said before she is a bit egocentric. makes malmsteen look downright humble.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENo4EZ-OEJo
so there you go. according to the shred and metal section at ultimate guitar, she is the best/most famous female shredder out there. i have seen a few videos of girls playing better than her, but as far as i can tell she is the only one with a degree of fame.
cant say i like her or her music much, but there you go.
-
That isn't her own song, she's just another cog in the male motivic music monstrosity.
-
well, feel free to look for more of her stuff, that was the best video i could find on youtube for her.
-
1. There are slightly fewer women than men into the heavier end of music, but not big enough to make a difference in my opinion.
2. Women are totally physically capable of playing any instrument; Women may have smaller hands but it is proven that their manual dexterity is superior, making up for this. You don't need to be particularly strong to play the drums, especially if the are amplified (I am 5'6" and weigh 10 stone and I play the drums, does that sound superhuman to anyone?) and a smaller body gives you BETTER endurance, not worse, why do you think all long distance runners are so small? Anyone can play bass, no arguments here, its just a guitar with four strings.
3. Girls are much less likely to be encouraged to take up an instrument early on, meaning that they always look worse than male peers of the same age.
4. Women are much less likely to be praised for any progress they make on their instrument than men, or encouraged to play in a group context, which lowers their self esteem in relation to playing publicly. When they are praised they often get told they are good "for a woman", which is even worse.
5. Women who play live do get harrassed, no doubt about it, anyone who says otherwise is a liar or incapable of seeing what is right in front of them.
6. Women seem less prone to the kind of monomania which makes certain guitar players stand out as excellent, or rather they tend to focus on the guitar less as the point of this behaviour.
7. Most importantly in my opinion, when a women wants to join a band only one member of that band has to have a prejudice against women members, the rest of the band will probably follow that one persons lead and reject her to keep the band together.
I don't think there's anything particularly hyper-masculine about loud music or the concerts they take place at, but there is a definite air of masculine exclusion surrounding Metal, Punk, Indie or whatever which stops most women who don't want to actively seek confrontation from even taking up an instrument in the first place, and most of these women are labelled troublemakers and excluded for that reason.
-
We've already had a conversation about the great kat, and she is pretty damn bad.
-
1. There are slightly fewer women than men into the heavier end of music, but not big enough to make a difference in my opinion.
You would've done so well, if only you hadn't included this point. There are FAR less women playing heavier music then men (except for maybe punk, ok tommy? :wink: )
This has inspired me to do some more genre specific searching. (http://www.last.fm/tag/genrename/artists is the way I'm doing it)
Top 50 metal bands (some of which aren't metal, but anyway): SIX females. Actually as much (per capita) as the last.fm top 100, but still NOT A LOT. And Evanescence isn't exactly metal.
Top 50 punk bands. Now, punk is pretty subjective but so is metal- there's certainly a few stinkers in this top 50 that clearly aren't punk (blink 182, anyone?). Anyway: ONE. At least I think so (black flag bassist was female?), there may be a few female bassists/guitarists/drummers I don't know about. Definitely no vocalists, though.
The two traditionally 'heavy' genres out of the way, (and me having proven the over guy wrong). I thought I'd look through some more genres.
Top 50 indie bands. This could be quite interesting (i know this is a subjective/meaningless genre etc etc). Thirteen here. Less then i thought, actually. I may be out by two or three, I know all the bands there but only vaguely.
Top 50 Rock bands. Again a bit subjective. The Evanescence singer, Meg from the White Stripes and Kim from the Pixies (I hope her name is kim.. isn't there a Kim in Sonic Youth? Maybe?) prevent it from being a clean sweep.
Top 50 Pop bands. Could be interesting. 37 women! Quite impressive. 7 out of the top 10 are women.
Top 50 BANANA bands. Only Gwen Stefani gets in this illustrious tag. There aren't 50 bands, though. :?
Top 50 Jazz bands. I'm just going off singers for this one. (And there's NO WAY that Norah Jones or freakin' Michael Buble is jazz, ffs.) Anyway, eight of them, most them up in the top 20, though.
I'd like to do the top 50 twee bands, but I have no idea who any of the bands are and I can't really be arsed looking through all of 'em. Perhaps someone else could do this?
Anyway I'd do more but except for drone (7 girls in the top 50, I think) I don't really know any off any other genres well enough. That concludes my little survey thing, I may be out by one or two in a few places. I know I didn't count the guys but for, say, Metal and Punk, there may be over 150 of them in each genre, and I can't be bothered doing that.
Interesting to note, as well, the sausage fest that is Death Metal has TWO (Bolt Thrower's Bassist, Arch Enemy's Singer) females. Come on punk, pick up your act :-P :-P
-
Anyone can play bass, no arguments here, its just a guitar with four strings.
Man I don't care about gender debates, because, well, they go around in circles. But wait WHAT. Basses are like... a guitar + 1/3 in terms of size.
-
My 8 year old brother could play most of Gene Simmons' bass lines, I'm sure.
-
Gene Simmons is shit.
Discuss.
-
Gene Simmons had a bass duel with some dude on an Australian music show and beat the shit out of him. Gene Simmons has actually become a really technical bass player.
That said, his basslines suck. Eat shit, Gene Simmons.
I always wanted to name a cat "Gene Simmons".
-
Gene Simmons is shit.
Discuss.
And you know what? Hitler really wasn't a nice guy.
-
1. There are slightly fewer women than men into the heavier end of music, but not big enough to make a difference in my opinion.
You would've done so well, if only you hadn't included this point. There are FAR less women playing heavier music then men (except for maybe punk, ok tommy? :wink: )
Except dude, that's not what he said. Read it again.
-
1. There are slightly fewer women than men into the heavier end of music, but not big enough to make a difference in my opinion.
You would've done so well, if only you hadn't included this point. There are FAR less women playing heavier music then men (except for maybe punk, ok tommy? :wink: )
This has inspired me to do some more genre specific searching. (http://www.last.fm/tag/genrename/artists is the way I'm doing it)
Top 50 metal bands (some of which aren't metal, but anyway): SIX females. Actually as much (per capita) as the last.fm top 100, but still NOT A LOT. And Evanescence isn't exactly metal.
Top 50 punk bands. Now, punk is pretty subjective but so is metal- there's certainly a few stinkers in this top 50 that clearly aren't punk (blink 182, anyone?). Anyway: ONE. At least I think so (black flag bassist was female?), there may be a few female bassists/guitarists/drummers I don't know about. Definitely no vocalists, though.
The two traditionally 'heavy' genres out of the way, (and me having proven the over guy wrong). I thought I'd look through some more genres.
Top 50 indie bands. This could be quite interesting (i know this is a subjective/meaningless genre etc etc). Thirteen here. Less then i thought, actually. I may be out by two or three, I know all the bands there but only vaguely.
Top 50 Rock bands. Again a bit subjective. The Evanescence singer, Meg from the White Stripes and Kim from the Pixies (I hope her name is kim.. isn't there a Kim in Sonic Youth? Maybe?) prevent it from being a clean sweep.
Top 50 Pop bands. Could be interesting. 37 women! Quite impressive. 7 out of the top 10 are women.
Top 50 BANANA bands. Only Gwen Stefani gets in this illustrious tag. There aren't 50 bands, though. :?
Top 50 Jazz bands. I'm just going off singers for this one. (And there's NO WAY that Norah Jones or freakin' Michael Buble is jazz, ffs.) Anyway, eight of them, most them up in the top 20, though.
I'd like to do the top 50 twee bands, but I have no idea who any of the bands are and I can't really be arsed looking through all of 'em. Perhaps someone else could do this?
Anyway I'd do more but except for drone (7 girls in the top 50, I think) I don't really know any off any other genres well enough. That concludes my little survey thing, I may be out by one or two in a few places. I know I didn't count the guys but for, say, Metal and Punk, there may be over 150 of them in each genre, and I can't be bothered doing that.
Interesting to note, as well, the sausage fest that is Death Metal has TWO (Bolt Thrower's Bassist, Arch Enemy's Singer) females. Come on punk, pick up your act :-P :-P
You said it yourself, these tags are very subjective. Way too subjective to actually base anything off. Also Red Peril said 'into', so I assume he means in the respective scenes in general, particularly in a band. This argument has been done to death in this thread, maybe everyone should agree to disagree?
-
1. There are slightly fewer women than men into the heavier end of music, but not big enough to make a difference in my opinion.
You would've done so well, if only you hadn't included this point. There are FAR less women playing heavier music then men (except for maybe punk, ok tommy? :wink: )
This has inspired me to do some more genre specific searching. (http://www.last.fm/tag/genrename/artists is the way I'm doing it)
Top 50 metal bands (some of which aren't metal, but anyway): SIX females. Actually as much (per capita) as the last.fm top 100, but still NOT A LOT. And Evanescence isn't exactly metal.
Top 50 punk bands. Now, punk is pretty subjective but so is metal- there's certainly a few stinkers in this top 50 that clearly aren't punk (blink 182, anyone?). Anyway: ONE. At least I think so (black flag bassist was female?), there may be a few female bassists/guitarists/drummers I don't know about. Definitely no vocalists, though.
The two traditionally 'heavy' genres out of the way, (and me having proven the over guy wrong). I thought I'd look through some more genres.
Top 50 indie bands. This could be quite interesting (i know this is a subjective/meaningless genre etc etc). Thirteen here. Less then i thought, actually. I may be out by two or three, I know all the bands there but only vaguely.
Top 50 Rock bands. Again a bit subjective. The Evanescence singer, Meg from the White Stripes and Kim from the Pixies (I hope her name is kim.. isn't there a Kim in Sonic Youth? Maybe?) prevent it from being a clean sweep.
Top 50 Pop bands. Could be interesting. 37 women! Quite impressive. 7 out of the top 10 are women.
Top 50 BANANA bands. Only Gwen Stefani gets in this illustrious tag. There aren't 50 bands, though. :?
Top 50 Jazz bands. I'm just going off singers for this one. (And there's NO WAY that Norah Jones or freakin' Michael Buble is jazz, ffs.) Anyway, eight of them, most them up in the top 20, though.
I'd like to do the top 50 twee bands, but I have no idea who any of the bands are and I can't really be arsed looking through all of 'em. Perhaps someone else could do this?
Anyway I'd do more but except for drone (7 girls in the top 50, I think) I don't really know any off any other genres well enough. That concludes my little survey thing, I may be out by one or two in a few places. I know I didn't count the guys but for, say, Metal and Punk, there may be over 150 of them in each genre, and I can't be bothered doing that.
Interesting to note, as well, the sausage fest that is Death Metal has TWO (Bolt Thrower's Bassist, Arch Enemy's Singer) females. Come on punk, pick up your act :-P :-P
You said it yourself, these tags are very subjective. Way too subjective to actually base anything off. Also Red Peril said 'into', so I assume he means in the respective scenes in general, particularly in a band. This argument has been done to death in this thread, maybe everyone should agree to disagree?
ah, it seems I misread his post. i thought he said something about how many were in bands.
Having said that, a lot more guys are into metal then girls. I only have anecdotal evidence but I think most people would be hard pressed to really think of a good argument the other way round.
-
Oh ok, well I only have anecdotal evidence to support my argument that it's almost equal, men and women in metal. See, my argument is just as valid as yours. Do you see how ridiculous that reasoning is?
-
Is there anyone who really believes that metal appeals equally to western female culture and western male culture?
-
I don't know enough to support either side, I am just saying, the reasoning that's been used in the last couple of pages of this thread is FUCKING STUPID, GUYS!
-
Top 50 BANANA bands. Only Gwen Stefani gets in this illustrious tag. There aren't 50 bands, though. :?
Melt-Banana: Japanese noise-punk group with a female singer, Yasuko, and bassist, Rika Mm'. Rika is tiny to boot, but she has no problem busting out crazy-ass basslines.
M.I.A.: "Education number one, here we go: 'banana.' Ba-Na-Na. Say it again now!"
-
Yay, controversial thread!
I read somewhere that Joey Santago's girlfriend wanted to join the Pixies in the early days, but wasn't allowed to because they "already had a chick" in the band. Do you guys (I use the word in a non-gender specific sense) think that tokenism is a significant factor in a lot of bands with female members?
-
hmmm, thats a point.^
dont think that is really issue, except for the bands that have made it into the limelight. those bands tend to have lots of reviews saying "its kind of mediocre, but it has a girl on bass! listen to it!" i dont really agree with the tokenism that some of them put forward. it is much easier to get an interview on TV or whatever if you have a gimmick. and some of the bands use their female members for this. (case in point: The Great Kat, who i posted earlier, if she wasnt a girl she would just be another egotistic mediocre guitar player who no one has ever heard of.)
-
Real life story of women sticking it to the "women vs men" physical ability debate.
When I was teaching high school marching percussion we had a female student who wanted to march the largest bass drum, we're talking 40lbs of weight. She was absolutely tiny, she couldn't have weighed more then 80-100lbs, maybe less. We didn't let her, not because she was a girl, but because we were worried that she couldn't physically handle it. She would pick up that bass drum and carry it around all the time during breaks just to prove us wrong. After the guy who played it dropped out, she came up to us and said that she was playing it and we had to give her a reason why she couldn't. We let her. She could carry that drum longer then the guys who were bigger then her and carried lighter drums.
That was when I discovered that physical differences/limitations are a thing of the mind.
I wonder about the future influence of Guitar Hero/Rock Band. Pretty much all of my friends of both genders love those games. If cultural acceptance is the reason for fewer female rock musicians (which I think it is), I wonder if the popularity of these games will encourage more people to pick up a real guitar, bass, or kit.
-
Maybe I'm being a pedantic prick here, but the thing is that your story is just a single instance, what's called "anecdotal evidence" and anecdotal evidence, statistically speaking, is pretty much meaningless. You can't take a single experience and use it to generalize on all individuals in a population of people/objects/whatever. It's like an old argument against the idea of smoking causing cancer. A person can say, from their own experience, that their uncle chain-smoked everyday since age twelve and lived to be 79, dying from something other than cancer. It's wonderful that the imaginary uncle didn't die of cancer, but the one case doesn't mean there's no connection between smoking cigarettes and cancer.
-
You can't take a single experience and use it to generalize on all individuals in a population of people/objects/whatever.
You can, however, use it as a cue to rethink a generalization that it clashes with, which was the earlier poster's experience - this can be seen as one of the meanings of "the exception [the single experience] proves [=tests, in this case by disagreeing] the rule [in this case the generalization]".
Paul
-
I guess I didn't quite think of it that way. The way I saw it, the presentation of his point irked me. Sorry!