• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required as is 20 years of participation in forums (not all true). Come here to have fun, be ready to be teased and not take online life too seriously. We now measure and review equipment for free! Click here for details.

For rock music to survive it will have to cut back on testosterone

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,980
Location
UK
#1

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,254
#2
From the Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/oct/23/rock-music-survive-testosterone-guitar-female

I find the comments after the article interesting. People who would normally acquiesce to the latest social justice ideas don't like being told that their taste in music is 'wrong'.
How do you know what these people would normally acquiesce to?

And I couldn't find any reference in the article to anyone's taste in music being wrong?

The closest I could find was this:

"That said, it is hard to separate the question of whether rock has any life left in it from a mountain of ideas that have long been bound up with the dominance of men, and the fact that most of them have now curdled into hopeless cliche. Picture David Brent from The Office playing his infamous Bruce Springsteen-esque anthem Free Love Freeway, and you should instantly understand that things that once seemed thrilling and romantic – cars and girls, leather trousers, Jack Daniel’s – now look not just outdated but completely ridiculous."

But the charge seems to be one of cliche, rather than one of immorality (assuming that's what you mean by "wrong"?).
 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
5,791
Likes
4,489
Location
Australia
#3
The term 'Rock 'n Roll' is rooted in testosterone. Pun intended. Purely sexual in its tone, like 'Blues' has always been.

'Rock' is the white-bread version for the music conservatives.
 
Last edited:

Blumlein 88

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Feb 23, 2016
Messages
8,949
Likes
11,565
#4
My favorite comment:
For rock music to survive people just need to keep playing it. It doesn't matter who they are, and it never has.

That's the spirit. Hey, beyond the female ax handlers (guitartists) try and look at the multitude of female drummers. Some are awesome and have exactly the old spirit of rock and roll without any testosterone. If anyone needed testosterone it would seem drummers did, but they don't.

Look at some of the high quality blues guitarists which are female. There are several known and I'm sure others being overlooked. They are really worthwhile musicians.

There was a NYT article last year sometime saying, "women are making the best rock music today". I would if not agree at least not argue the point much.

Now rock music was nearly or maybe as a mainstream medium has been killed by corporate marketing. Which means what is left actually has more freedom to continue what rock music was about. The bands are out there even if they aren't making FooFighters money or getting the recognition the horrid rap/hip hop/bull shite music is. Reminds me of the semi-autobiographical movie Almost Famous.

No electricity (invented by Muddy Waters you know), but some other assets.




 

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
5,791
Likes
4,489
Location
Australia
#5
My favorite comment:
For rock music to survive people just need to keep playing it. It doesn't matter who they are, and it never has.

That's the spirit. Hey, beyond the female ax handlers (guitartists) try and look at the multitude of female drummers. Some are awesome and have exactly the old spirit of rock and roll without any testosterone. If anyone needed testosterone it would seem drummers did, but they don't.

Look at some of the high quality blues guitarists which are female. There are several known and I'm sure others being overlooked. They are really worthwhile musicians.

There was a NYT article last year sometime saying, "women are making the best rock music today". I would if not agree at least not argue the point much.

Now rock music was nearly or maybe as a mainstream medium has been killed by corporate marketing. Which means what is left actually has more freedom to continue what rock music was about. The bands are out there even if they aren't making FooFighters money or getting the recognition the horrid rap/hip hop/bull shite music is. Reminds me of the semi-autobiographical movie Almost Famous.

No electricity (invented by Muddy Waters you know), but some other assets.





You keep saying 'Rock', not 'Rock 'n Roll'. The two are different. There were, indeed, female groups who provided the other side of the coin in 'Rock 'n Roll' but they were in a minority and with few up-front names to their groups. I am talking fifties, here.

After that it became 'Rock'. There were many great female 'Rock' artists.

Hey, I was there and I noticed.
 
Last edited:

Wombat

Major Contributor
Joined
Nov 5, 2017
Messages
5,791
Likes
4,489
Location
Australia
#6
You keep saying 'Rock', not 'Rock 'n Roll'. The two are different. There were, indeed, female groups who provided the other side of the coin in 'Rock 'n Roll' but they were in a minority and with few up-front names to their groups. I am talking fifties, here.

After that it became 'Rock'.

Hey, I was there and I noticed.
P.S. Rock ran out of new ideas years ago. It is generally boringly rote. 'I have heard that before' is a usual personal response since the post-Seventies.

The downfall of 'Rock' music was the video clip. IMNSHO.
 
Last edited:
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,980
Location
UK
Thread Starter #8
How do you know what these people would normally acquiesce to?
I am used to how the Guardian comments section works!
And I couldn't find any reference in the article to anyone's taste in music being wrong?

The closest I could find was this:

"That said, it is hard to separate the question of whether rock has any life left in it from a mountain of ideas that have long been bound up with the dominance of men, and the fact that most of them have now curdled into hopeless cliche. Picture David Brent from The Office playing his infamous Bruce Springsteen-esque anthem Free Love Freeway, and you should instantly understand that things that once seemed thrilling and romantic – cars and girls, leather trousers, Jack Daniel’s – now look not just outdated but completely ridiculous."

But the charge seems to be one of cliche, rather than one of immorality (assuming that's what you mean by "wrong"?).
But some Guardian readers are going to love the sort of stuff that he says is ridiculous, and possibly for the music rather than the visuals or the testosterone level. He is coming dangerously close to implying that people who like a certain sort of music are a certain 'type' of person. If you like music whose visuals are a sexist, male cliche (in his opinion), does that mean you are a sexist male?

For me, the most irritating paragraph is this one:
The upper reaches of bills at festivals are still depressingly male-dominated. Last year the Guardian discovered that among 370 gigs listed for one night on the Ents24.com listings website, 69% of the acts were made up entirely of men, just 9% were female-only (half of whom were solo artists), and almost three-quarters of mixed-gender acts contained no more than one woman
Judging art by statistics - and he is indeed judging it through his use of the word 'depressing'. Even Guardian readers are not prepared to let that one pass without protest.
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,254
#9
I am used to how the Guardian comments section works!
He is coming dangerously close to implying that people who like a certain sort of music are a certain 'type' of person.
Yet you're happy to apply your own scattergun stereotype to the people commenting on the article.

Judging art by statistics - and he is indeed judging it through his use of the word 'depressing'. Even Guardian readers are not prepared to let that one pass without protest.
Is there any field in which you think it would be unacceptable for males to dominate by such a wide margin? Politics, for example? I guess I'm trying to get at whether you see this as a special case because it's do with art, or whether domination by men in any field is never a concern in your view?
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,980
Location
UK
Thread Starter #10
Is there any field in which you think it would be unacceptable for males to dominate by such a wide margin? Politics, for example? I guess I'm trying to get at whether you see this as a special case because it's do with art, or whether domination by men in any field is never a concern in your view?
As many in the comments section say, they judge art by whether it appeals to them, and they don't feel that in doing so they are biased against any particular identity.

If it has a good tune, why would they worry about the superficial identities of the person or people producing it? By what other criteria should art be judged?

In answer to your specific question: no, I don't think that 'domination' of a field by males is a problem, if equality of opportunity exists for all. The word 'domination', though, is already biasing the question. A statistic may show a metaphorical 'domination' but it doesn't mean that those nasty brutish toxic males have elbowed the females out of the way; merely that there are certain things that are more interesting to men than women.

If you object to that last statement, on what criteria should a person decide whether to self-identify as male or female?
 

svart-hvitt

Major Contributor
Joined
Aug 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Likes
1,170
#12
Yet you're happy to apply your own scattergun stereotype to the people commenting on the article.



Is there any field in which you think it would be unacceptable for males to dominate by such a wide margin? Politics, for example? I guess I'm trying to get at whether you see this as a special case because it's do with art, or whether domination by men in any field is never a concern in your view?
Most prisoners are men.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,980
Location
UK
Thread Starter #13
A question for you @andreasmaaan. In Britain, it is likely that in the near future, a person will be able to self-declare as male, female or 'X', and for their birth certificate to be changed accordingly.
The Government is planning to reform gender identity rules to make it easier for people to choose their own gender in law.
Under plans being considered by ministers, adults will be able to change their birth certificates at will without a doctor’s diagnosis, while non-binary gender people will be able to record their gender as “X”.
...“It’s vital that this reform ...allows all trans people to have their gender legally recognised through a simple administrative process.”
Now, surely at the precise moment that that bill becomes law it will be *impossible* to know whether a field has become 'dominated' by born males, or the non-toxic (as many would see it) self-identified version. Can it make sense to legislate to shift towards a 'better' balance of male and female in any particular field when people themselves are choosing whether to be male or female, possibly based on their degree of affinity with a particular field? It's a circular absurdity!
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,254
#14
In answer to your specific question: no, I don't think that 'domination' of a field by males is a problem, if equality of opportunity exists for all. The word 'domination', though, is already biasing the question. A statistic may show a metaphorical 'domination' but it doesn't mean that those nasty brutish toxic males have elbowed the females out of the way; merely that there are certain things that are more interesting to men than women.
Sorry, I thought it was obvious I was talking about numerical domination.

In answer to your specific question: no, I don't think that 'domination' of a field by males is a problem, if equality of opportunity exists for all.
100% agree. In some cases, numerical domination of a field may reflect a genuine difference in average levels of interest, while in others it may reflect cultural issues of concern. In most cases IMHO, it tends to be a combination of the two, often with a causal connection between them. This is why in fields where efforts have been made to increase opportunities for women and to remove cultural barriers (i.e. normalised forms of sexism and discrimination), levels of interest and participation among women have tended to rise over time.

If you object to that last statement, on what criteria should a person decide whether to self-identify as male or female?
I don't object to last statement ;) But I don't understand your question. This is not a question of "should" in my opinion; it's an individual's own business.
 
Last edited:

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,254
#15
Can it make sense to legislate to shift towards a 'better' balance of male and female in any particular field when people themselves are choosing whether to be male or female, possibly based on their degree of affinity with a particular field?
If you're talking about legislated affirmative action, I don't believe in this type of legislation in the first place, so the question is moot from my perspective.

I agree with the change of law, however.

(I think... It's the first I'd heard of it. Do you have a link to more information?)
 
Last edited:
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,980
Location
UK
Thread Starter #16
I don't object to last statement ;) But I don't understand your question. This is not a question of "should" in my opinion; it's an individual's own business.
If we are giving primary school children lessons in gender and informing them that they can transition if they feel the need or desire to, on what basis should they choose to make the decision to change?
https://www.transgendertrend.com/scottish-transgender-schools-guidance-controversy-nothing-new/
“It is important to acknowledge that children in primary school may socially transition. The right time to transition will be when the child or young person feels they are ready”
 

andreasmaaan

Major Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
4,418
Likes
4,254
#17
If we are giving primary school children lessons in gender and informing them that they can transition if they feel the need or desire to, on what basis should they choose to make the decision to change?

https://www.transgendertrend.com/scottish-transgender-schools-guidance-controversy-nothing-new/
It seems to me that that article discusses the question: How should adults respond to a child's interest in changing gender / desire to change gender?

I think the question of what a child should do if they are thinking about these issues is very dependent on the child and their circumstances, and that adults are in a good position to offer guidance and care, but not to decide on what basis the child should make their decision.
 
OP
Cosmik

Cosmik

Major Contributor
Joined
Apr 24, 2016
Messages
3,075
Likes
1,980
Location
UK
Thread Starter #18
It seems to me that that article discusses the question: How should adults respond to a child's interest in changing gender / desire to change gender?

I think the question of what a child should do if they are thinking about these issues is very dependent on the child and their circumstances, and that adults are in a good position to offer guidance and care, but not to decide on what basis the child should make their decision.
What if a girl in your charge says "I want to be a boy because I want to be a rock star. I am desperately unhappy with the thought I may not be able to be a rock star. I thought I could become a rock star as a girl but the statistics given by Mr. Harris show that it is dominated by boys. I stand a far better chance as a boy".
 

Ron Texas

Major Contributor
Joined
Jun 10, 2018
Messages
2,891
Likes
2,946
Location
Surrounded
#19
What if a girl in your charge says "I want to be a boy because I want to be a rock star. I am desperately unhappy with the thought I may not be able to be a rock star. I thought I could become a rock star as a girl but the statistics given by Mr. Harris show that it is dominated by boys. I stand a far better chance as a boy".
That's not a person who is uncomfortable with her gender. She just envies men for their real or imagined advantage. Many women are annoyed by "it's a man's world".
 

maverickronin

Major Contributor
Joined
Jul 19, 2018
Messages
1,007
Likes
883
Location
Midwest, USA
#20
What if a girl in your charge says "I want to be a boy because I want to be a rock star. I am desperately unhappy with the thought I may not be able to be a rock star. I thought I could become a rock star as a girl but the statistics given by Mr. Harris show that it is dominated by boys. I stand a far better chance as a boy".
I'd teach her how to interpret the statistics properly since the disparity is obviously a result of different interests so she probably has a better chance being a girl. Also I'd give her albums from a bunch of awesome metal bands with female lead singers.


Girls can do death metal too.
 
Top Bottom