Gay jazz

[daveyboy]

Hi everyone, thanks for all your contributions to my last topic. We
got well off the subject at times, but we cracked 10 pages (woohoo!)
and all of it was interesting and stimulating.

OK, here's another one, and it's a biggie -

You'd have to agree that in almost every area of the arts, homosexuals
are over-represented. Theatre, literature, classical music, dance,
Broadway, visual arts... But not jazz. As far as I know, Cecil Taylor
is one of the few openly gay practitioners of jazz. Any ideas why this
is so? Are gay people not attracted to jazz because the music has no
resonance for them, or is jazz so hostile to gays that they seek
expression in practically every other medium instead? (I hope not.) Or
are there plenty of gay jazz musicians, but they're still mostly in
the closet? If so, why? (This post, btw, is not intended as an
exercise in scurrilous outing, so I request we keep it in the abstract
and not use names, as everyone of course is entitled to their absolute
privacy.)

[andrewh]

Define "over-represented".

Or have I just fallen for the troll?

[alimcg]

Guts used to have a pretty gay golf game - then he bought a real man's driver. Now he just swings gay.

[daveyboy]

Aug 3, 2009 22:11:26 GMT 10 andrewh said:

Define "over-represented".

Or have I just fallen for the troll?

No, no troll here. Serious poster.

Definitely wasn't suggesting any negative sense, if that's what you're asking.

Simply that I think it's difficult to dispute that in all the artistic fields I listed (and probably quite a few more) there is a greater proportion of gay people compared to their percentage in the general populace.

[andrewh]

Tell me their percentage in the general populace and I'll tell you if you're right.

[daveyboy]

Aug 4, 2009 20:18:24 GMT 10 andrewh said:

Tell me their percentage in the general populace and I'll tell you if you're right.

Obviously very difficult to arrive at an accurate figure, but a widely-accepted estimate is 4 - 10% I believe. What figures do you have access to that makes you so certain you'd be right?

[andrewh]

I suppose I don't much care for your terminology. Or indeed for this topic. Seeing, however, as I'm the only one biting, can I direct you to a bit of original research/thought on the topic at Critical Studies in Improvisation (2008) reproduced at www.criticalimprov.com/index.php/csieci/article/view/850/1411.

Of more interest (to me) is the representation of women in jazz, something touched on (as well as the question of sexuality) in the entry on 'Jazz' in Kimmel and Aronson's Men and Masculinities (ABC-CLIO, 2003), and brilliantly discussed (in part - it's not the main topic) in Sandy Evans' 2008 Peggy Glanville-Hicks Address, reproduced at www.newmusicnetwork.com.au/PGH/SE08.html.

[daveyboy]

Aug 5, 2009 7:11:59 GMT 10 andrewh said:

I suppose I don't much care for your terminology. Or indeed for this topic. Seeing, however, as I'm the only one biting, can I direct you to a bit of original research/thought on the topic at Critical Studies in Improvisation (2008) reproduced at www.criticalimprov.com/index.php/csieci/article/view/850/1411.

Of more interest (to me) is the representation of women in jazz, something touched on (as well as the question of sexuality) in the entry on 'Jazz' in Kimmel and Aronson's Men and Masculinities (ABC-CLIO, 2003), and brilliantly discussed (in part - it's not the main topic) in Sandy Evans' 2008 Peggy Glanville-Hicks Address, reproduced at www.newmusicnetwork.com.au/PGH/SE08.html.

You don't care for my terminology andrewh? Care to elaborate? (Care to answer any of my questions, in fact?) And what is so unattractive to you about this topic? Do you mean it is something that is best not discussed at all?

Was I presumptuous in some way? Should I have first tendered my qualifications?

Might you have made some assumptions about my gender or sexual orientation perhaps?

So far, you seem to have preferred to question everything about my question without offering much in the way of answers.

However, I do thank you for the links to the Tucker article, which has some extremely helpful-looking references and purports to address exactly the issue I raised, although after a quick glance at the level of jargon and word-play, I have a fear that she (I trust the author has no objection to the gendered subject pronoun) will never trouble with anything so quotidian as answering her (ditto for the gendered possessive) own question; and the far more readily comprehensible Evans lecture. I look forward to reading both of them when I can find a few hours. (btw you need to remove the last dot from the link for Sandy's lecture.)

So, everyone, I will read the articles andrewh has offered and I look forward to doing so, but in the meantime, does anyone else have an opinion? I had hoped we could get this subject off the ground and fly it round a little, something these forums are eminently suitable for, rather than blowing it up on the tarmac.

[jec]

Sorry but this topic is a turkey.

[trumpetguy]

why is this topic a topic?
What does an individuals sexual persuasion have to do with anything other than their own business?
What is the point in finding out hopw many gay jazz musicians there are?
I don't get it.
I would assume that the balance is pretty much the same as any other part of society, but really, who cares?

[andrewh]

Christ, what an unbearable wanker. I'm sorry I joined in on such a fatuous, vacuous topic. I should have left this pile of shite in the silence it deserves.

I didn't get to your first question because your initial insupportable, inexplicable claim ("You'd have to agree that in almost every area of the arts, homosexuals are over-represented") came first, and I thought I'd clarify that before moving on. For what it's worth, I don't agree, as I don't think there can be any such thing as "over-representation" in this context. But seeing as you're demanding answers, I offer, in order: no - but I've read an article that talks about this, so I'll give you a link; I don't know - but I've read an article that talks about this, so I'll give you a link; I don't really know - but I've read an article that talks about this, so I'll give you a link; as I don't know the answer to the previous question, I can't really posit a theory here. That covers your first post.

Your next question avoids, ignores or misses my irony, so I can't really answer it.

Then to your next post, where you take me to task for my tone even though I'm the only arsehole on here who can be bothered to reply to your trite, pointless, outdated, and frankly offensive shit (and I gave you a link to an article that discusses in painful detail everything that you seem to want to know yet you can't be bothered to read it before banging on some more) I guess my answers are: no; no; not much; I find it a little ugly (and pointless); no I don't; no you weren't, just thick; not at all; and certainly not about your sexual orientation, which doesn't interest me one bit, but certainly about your gender as you call yourself "daveyboy" and on the little thing beside your name you self-describe as "male" - so you're either a bloke or a troll, in my book.

And as to your last question, even though it's not directed at me, I may as well answer for the sake of completeness: obviously not.

Now bugger off.

[aj]

What are you trying to say, andrew?

[daveyboy]

Aug 5, 2009 16:35:44 GMT 10 trumpetguy said:

why is this topic a topic?
What does an individuals sexual persuasion have to do with anything other than their own business?
What is the point in finding out hopw many gay jazz musicians there are?
I don't get it.
I would assume that the balance is pretty much the same as any other part of society, but really, who cares?

Jazz exists in a social environment, like all artforms. I'm unsure why discussion of that social environment would not be considered legitimate. Will anyone seriously contend that sexual orientation is not an element in artistic expression? Any university graduate with a major in Gender Studies would beg to differ.

What is the point in finding out how many gay jazz musicians there are? I don't intend to do a survey. I'm only asking it on this forum, which exists for discussion of matters pertaining to jazz. If it were ascertained that there is a different proportion of gay practitioners in jazz compared to other artforms, that may indeed tell us something significant about jazz. Or is jazz just about chords and scales?

[daveyboy]

Aug 5, 2009 20:44:35 GMT 10 andrewh said:

Christ, what an unbearable wanker. I'm sorry I joined in on such a fatuous, vacuous topic. I should have left this pile of shite in the silence it deserves.

I didn't get to your first question because your initial insupportable, inexplicable claim ("You'd have to agree that in almost every area of the arts, homosexuals are over-represented") came first, and I thought I'd clarify that before moving on. For what it's worth, I don't agree, as I don't think there can be any such thing as "over-representation" in this context. But seeing as you're demanding answers, I offer, in order: no - but I've read an article that talks about this, so I'll give you a link; I don't know - but I've read an article that talks about this, so I'll give you a link; I don't really know - but I've read an article that talks about this, so I'll give you a link; as I don't know the answer to the previous question, I can't really posit a theory here. That covers your first post.

Your next question avoids, ignores or misses my irony, so I can't really answer it.

Then to your next post, where you take me to task for my tone even though I'm the only arsehole on here who can be bothered to reply to your trite, pointless, outdated, and frankly offensive shit (and I gave you a link to an article that discusses in painful detail everything that you seem to want to know yet you can't be bothered to read it before banging on some more) I guess my answers are: no; no; not much; I find it a little ugly (and pointless); no I don't; no you weren't, just thick; not at all; and certainly not about your sexual orientation, which doesn't interest me one bit, but certainly about your gender as you call yourself "daveyboy" and on the little thing beside your name you self-describe as "male" - so you're either a bloke or a troll, in my book.

And as to your last question, even though it's not directed at me, I may as well answer for the sake of completeness: obviously not.

Now bugger off.

andrewh, I have no idea why you're so grouchy. Maybe you should go for a long walk in the park and cool off. It's a lovely night where I am.

I will not trouble to respond to the points you've raised (such as I understand them) because you're clearly in an inflamed state.

But I wouldn't necessarily read anything into my moniker. It may even be my Monica.

I most certainly will not bugger off. I have just as much right to be here as anyone else. I will continue to post when I feel so inclined, without descending into abuse or name-calling. If that annoys you, so be it.

Thank you again for the links you offered. I look forward to reading them.

[jec]

it's still a turkey.