Producer chicks

- ask away
Post Reply
Atheory
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 1246
Joined: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:47 pm
Location: london

Post by Atheory »

yeah i always though techno was a far left type of music, what with its roots in gay and black culture, and then underground parties etc.

a room of ones own by virginia wolf is a pretty good explaination of why certain mediums are pretty male dominated, though hopefully this will change with time.


re brain chemisty.....its not a really well understood science in the first place, least of all by the people posting here, myself included, so it seems a little trite to try and explain differences in that way. whilst social conditions are a much more reasonable explaination when combined with innate human characteristics. its a difficult big topic, but hopefully some people will start asking a few questions if they read this topic.



or alternatively, people who believe in equality = gays.
whichever is less taxing mentally. :roll:
thom
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Montreal

Post by thom »

steevio wrote:floppy haired minimal wimps :wink:
Aren't they into 2-chord rock now?
steevio
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 3495
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 12:18 pm
Location: wales UK
Contact:

Re: Producer chicks

Post by steevio »

royen wrote:
steevio wrote:... and theres always been a much higher percentage of men making music since the beginning of time, so there must be a reason for that.
I think the dominance of men in the history of western music... well, to make a long story short: excepting fragments of ancient greek notation, almost all preserved music from about 800 AD until, say, the 16 or 17 hundreds was to some degree religious. Now the christian church has always been very oppressive to women (I assume I won't have to argue this point). Their role for a long time was to sit down and shut up. Consequently, very few women made it onto the list of composers whose music was written down and preserved.

Add to that the fact that social mobility was lower and you had to have at least some pedigree to be able to study music, womens rights were often nearly non-existant, and a woman who actually went off and did something for herself was often considered, well, deviant... well...

(way to generalize a thousand years of history, me! :D)

My point being that just looking up the List of female composers on Wikipedia and concluding that, hey, there weren't that many, doesn't really prove anything.
probably because all the women were out working in the fields while the men sat on their lazy arses and eventually got bored of gambling. :)
Hehe, in so many words :D
good points about religion, but why focus on western music, what about music in tribal cultures past and present.
interesting subject, i'm sure there must have been thousands of detailed studies on this, too deep a subject to generalise here i reckon.
royen
mnml newbie
mnml newbie
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:24 am

Re: Producer chicks

Post by royen »

steevio wrote:good points about religion, but why focus on western music, what about music in tribal cultures past and present.
interesting subject, i'm sure there must have been thousands of detailed studies on this, too deep a subject to generalise here i reckon.
The problem with tribal cultures is that they rarely (or never) bother to write music down or, for that matter, preserve the name of the initial composer. Also, the idea of a composer and music as something that exists beyond the performance is, I think, a (non-exclusively) western concept.

But yeah, it's definitely a very complicated subject ...
User avatar
Dusk
mnml mmbr
mnml mmbr
Posts: 225
Joined: Wed Apr 23, 2008 12:29 pm

Post by Dusk »

Atheory, you need to calm down. I for one posted a facile generalisation because I wanted to spark some discussion beyond that which i had time to fully engage in myself. I have a degree in psychology including two modules on gender formation, for what its worth. For your part you should do a bit more research into the kind of neurological hardwiring that we're referring to (albeit clumsily.)

"Baron-Cohen's theory is that the female brain is predominantly hard-wired for empathy, and that the male brain is predominantly hard-wired for understanding and building systems. " Simon Baron Cohen - article http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/news/pag ... 43,00.html

Inborn structural and chemical differences are then shaped, reinforced or counteracted by very complex environmental pressures, as you say, but that doesnt stop the underlying neurological differences being the fundamental factor underlying observed differences in the kinds of play children engage in.

Male type-tendencies, from a very young age, can be summarised as follows:

"Some psychological tests also show the male advantage in systemising. For example, in the mental rotation test, you're shown two shapes, and asked if one is a rotation or a mirror image of the other. Males are quicker and more accurate on this test. Reading maps has been used as another test of systemising. Men can learn a route in fewer trials, just from looking at a map, correctly recalling more details about direction and distance. If you ask boys to make a map of an area that they have only visited once, their maps have a more accurate layout of the features in the environment, eg, showing which landmark is south-east of another.

Boys are also better at constructing block buildings from 2D blueprints. These are constructional systems. And in Nick Hornby's novel, High Fidelity, the male protagonist is obsessed with his record collection, and works in a second-hand record shop catering for (almost all male) customers searching for that one missing item in their collections of music. Collections (of albums, or anything else) are often highly systematic in nature.

The male preference for focusing on systems again is evident very early. Our Cambridge study found that at one year old, little boys showed a stronger preference to watch a film of cars (mechanical systems), than a film of a person's face (with a lot of emotional expression). Little girls showed the opposite preference. And at one day old, little boys look for longer at a mechanical mobile." (Baron Cohen, Cambridge - see http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 22,00.html)

On the contary, females' early tendencies and abilities are very different:

"Baby girls, as young as 12 months old, respond more empathically to the distress of other people, showing greater concern through more sad looks, sympathetic vocalisations and comforting. This echoes what you find in adulthood: more women report frequently sharing the emotional distress of their friends. Women also spend more time comforting people. When asked to judge when someone might have said something potentially hurtful, girls score higher from at least seven years old. Women are also more sensitive to facial expressions. They are better at decoding non-verbal communication, picking up subtle nuances from tone of voice or facial expression, or judging a person's character." (Baron Cohen, Cambridge - see http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/ ... 22,00.html)

The above Guardian article simply summarises this area of research. If you really want I can provide links to more specific pieces of research.

In looking for the developmental reasons for these observed differences, it can be found that chemical differences during gestation probably play an important role:

"The presence of androgens in early life produces a "male" brain. In contrast, the female brain is thought to develop via a hormonal default mechanism, in the absence of androgen. However, recent findings have shows that ovarian hormones also play a significant role in sexual differentiation.

One of the most convincing evidences for the role of hormones, has been shown by studying girls who were exposed to high levels of testosterone because their pregnant mothers had congenital adrenal hyperplasia (4). These girls seem to have better spatial awareness than other girls and are more likely to show turbulent and aggressive behaviour as kids, very similar to boys." (Sabbatini,http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n11/ment ... omens.html.)

But instead of all the above, just use your eyes and your intuition. My girlfriend is a bigger dance music fan than me. We both *love* this music from the ground up, but she could not be less interested in a single technical aspect of it's creation, dissemination, culture or classification. They are irrelvant, my domain only.

What matters to her is how the music makes her feel.
Some music:
www.myspace.com/cloakmusic

Reviews, news and more:
www.inverted-audio.co.uk
User avatar
PsyTox
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 1797
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:59 pm
Location: BE
Contact:

Re: Producer chicks

Post by PsyTox »

victorgonzales wrote:How come there aren't very many girls producing dance music? I know there are plenty but theres fifty times as many guys doing it.

I figure girls are just not down for learning the software or hardware since they are more about the passion side of music rather than the technical side.

There are plenty of chicks in other types of music though so why not ours?
maybe there are less women who are producing but the few that do often make pretty sweet music that kicks our ass. Shinedoe, Anja Schneider or Anoesjka just as prime examples.

As far as differences between men and women, it's simply true. Ask anyone in a management environment: never put a team of women only together or you'll have trouble in no time. But never have a full-male team either or you'll get lots of work done but nothing in detail. Generally speaking, women just are more detailistic then us man, while men work faster because they don't go into every nook and detail of everything.
How people here can find that sexist remarks is beyond me. One isn't better then the other, on the contrairy, it's just wonderful that we are alike yet with some minor differences. I've been working at my current job with two (female) co-workers and I'd never have it any other way again. I've learned to pay more attention to small things and improve my work, while they admit that it's nice to have me around so things can move on.

There's a reason why the farmer puts one rooster between 20 hens :lol:

Anyway, I think that also goes for producing: girls can just as well produce, and once they do, they'll probably make sure it's very detailed and "right". While some men might more easily settle.
Of course, a lot of women don't produce simply because fiddling endlessly with controllers and buttons that bleep and flash just isn't attractive to them.

God I love them all :lol:
thom
mnml maxi
mnml maxi
Posts: 1112
Joined: Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:14 am
Location: Montreal

Post by thom »

^^^I agree so much I think I'm going to explode.

Hooray for girls indeed.

They give this stupid world a meaning. Whatever that meant.


I wish I was gay though.
royen
mnml newbie
mnml newbie
Posts: 32
Joined: Tue Apr 22, 2008 11:24 am

Post by royen »

PsyTox: It's sexist because you make broad generalizations based on a persons sex rather than their individual achievements. In fact, that's also a decent definition of the term 'sexism'.

And seriously, what's with all the "I like girls" comments?
Post Reply