[Smt-talk] FW: Gender Terminology in Music Theory

[Stephen Jablonsky]

I am amused by the line of this discussion because I began studying music theory 60 years ago in a world that was very different from today. It was a time when you could say “feminine cadence” and no one blinked. That’s because the idea of any living thing besides whie men having rights was unknown. Our thought patterns were filled with stereotypes that were never questioned. We all knew that the downbeat was stronger than the beats that lead up to it, so we had no trouble ascribing it as a male attribute as long as we did no thinking about the words we were using. We have certainly come a long way since then. At least now we do something that passes for thinking about critical issues, probably enough to disconnect “strong” from “masculine.” I am sure Catherine the Great would agree, and probably Margaret Thacher and Hillary Clinton as well. Let’s not forget all those amazing ladies we have admired in the Winter and Summer Olympics. I can see them getting  to the downbeat on time.



Dr. Stephen Jablonsky, Ph.D.
Music Department Chair
The City College of New York
Shepard Hall Room 72
New York NY 10031
(212) 650-7663
music at ccny.cuny.edu

America's Greatest Chair 
in the low-priced field







On Apr 29, 2014, at 10:23 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:

> 
> May I trust that this repulsive and witless ad hominem will not see dissemination? Thank you.
> 
> MWM
> Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2014 22:17:31 -0400
> Subject: Re: [Smt-talk] Gender Terminology in Music Theory
> From: psheehan251 at gmail.com
> To: mwmorse at bell.net
> CC: smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> 
> Dear Readers (and Trolls):
> Of course "feminine cadence" and "masculine cadence" are examples of sexist usage.  Ascribe, describe, Ockham?  It's sexist.
>  
> In addition to Paul's utterly reasonable alternative (crusis, etc.), one could simply distinguish between "metrically emphasized" and "metrically non-emphasized" events.
>  
> All the best,
> Paul Sheehan
> Nassau Community College
> Garden City, New York
> 
> 
> On Tue, Apr 29, 2014 at 4:10 PM, Michael Morse <mwmorse at bell.net> wrote:
> Like "sexist," the attributions "masculine" and "feminine" are ascriptive, not descriptive. Adjectives have no direct prescriptive power in reality, despite their undeniable if merely occasional affective influence; that matter was sorted out in 1324 by William of Ockham. Today, 1991 is every bit as much ancient history as 1324.
> 
> MW Morse
> z. Zeit freier Kunstler
> 
> > From: Jennifer.Bain at Dal.Ca
> 
> > So to refer to a cadence that ends on a strong metric position as
> > masculine and one that ends on a weak metric position as feminine is not
> > sexist...? Didn't we sort this out in 1991?
> > 
> > Jennifer
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Smt-talk mailing list
> Smt-talk at lists.societymusictheory.org
> http://lists.societymusictheory.org/listinfo.cgi/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.societymusictheory.org/pipermail/smt-talk-societymusictheory.org/attachments/20140430/eee25155/attachment-0003.htm>