A Discussion on Race and Composition

Hmmm...I'll just start with the questions.

1: Does anyone think that if you're a composer and part of the non-majority (not White/European-descent) that it's harder to find work, network, and ultimately be known for it?

2: Is there a glass ceiling for minorities like myself in the amount of opportunities in music?

3: Are certain races restricted to certain genres of music?

4: Do you think it's hard to succeed as a minority who composes outside of their own minority-groups traditional (or even stereotypical) genre of music?

I'm interested in hearing your viewpoints on whether or not this is a real issues or not and the reasons why you feel that way.

J

1: Does anyone think that if you're a composer and part of the non-majority (not White/European-descent) that it's harder to find work, network, and ultimately be known for it?

Probably, but this is mis-directed. We need to talk less about race and more about first/third world bullshit.

2: Is there a glass ceiling for minorities like myself in the amount of opportunities in music?

Same as first point.

3: Are certain races restricted to certain genres of music?

NO.

4: Do you think it's hard to succeed as a minority who composes outside of their own minority-groups traditional (or even stereotypical) genre of music?

Eh, I'm not racist so I don't know. But the point is mostly that race isn't an issue, countries are.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean with "minority". Clearly European people aren't the majority of the world population… Do you mean within a specific country?

Hmmm...I'll just start with the questions.

1: Does anyone think that if you're a composer and part of the non-majority (not White/European-descent) that it's harder to find work, network, and ultimately be known for it?

2: Is there a glass ceiling for minorities like myself in the amount of opportunities in music?

3: Are certain races restricted to certain genres of music?

4: Do you think it's hard to succeed as a minority who composes outside of their own minority-groups traditional (or even stereotypical) genre of music?

I'm interested in hearing your viewpoints on whether or not this is a real issues or not and the reasons why you feel that way.

J

I dont feel that race really plays that much of a role in obtaining work these days in the field of composition. Nor do I feel that there is any certain restrictions placed on a certain race from composing a certain genres.

However I do feel that some minority groups segregate themselves into restrictive genres or to only network with certain people, thus limiting the what kind of work they can do, how much work they get, and how successful they are.

William Grant Still a perfect example of a composer his is minority who doesn't let the fact that he is black define him music.

However for ever William Grant Still, there are 10 other composers who let the fact that they are a minority define them and define how they work. They are usually the ones are feel that because of their race they are not able to succeed or they will have more problems trying to. Unfortunately, most of the time, there problems are stem from themselves.

I'm a bit confused about what you mean with "minority". Clearly European people aren't the majority of the world population

I'd say 4 x NO, but of course it depends on what people you are dealing with - intelligence, open-mindedness, creativity, ego, views, etc.

I think my question pertains more to the United States. What is the racial climate like in other countries? I've gathered that other countries aren't as prejudice or as close-minded as the US can be. Sorry I didn't clarify that.

In music?! Is this a joke?

Okay, in the labor force I will definitely agree with you that uneducated people do stupid things like letting 'racism' play a role in their decision-making. Even this is hardly the case anymore. But in music?

Sorry, I'm having a difficult time perceiving it. I'm not saying, "It couldn't happen..." but racism is one of those things I believe wholeheartedly originates as a result of being stupid, uneducated, and a completely worthless human being. In music, I have a difficult time rationalizing racism in anyone with a legitimate music education.

Not saying it doesn't happen, I just couldn't fathom anyone with the intellectual prowess to write, perform, or study music to actually prescribe to racist views. Doesn't make much sense to me, is all.

Sorry, I'm having a difficult time perceiving it. I'm not saying, "It couldn't happen..." but racism is one of those things I believe wholeheartedly originates as a result of being stupid, uneducated, and a completely worthless human being.

In most cases it's probably much more related to cultural imprints. I mean, people didn't suddenly become smart, educated and valuable after centuries of essentially racist societies. Sure, that can be related to "education" to some degree, meaning that if you know nothing about people who happen to look a lot differently than what you're used to, and have never talked to them, you are more likely to assume that they are completely foreign beings that don't share all the essential human traits with you. But that doesn't make you necessarily stupid. (And with that I certainly don't want to imply that it's "ok to be racist because it's the fault of your environment" - that's just silly).

After all, I'm sure ALL of us have some culturally imprinted biases that may be looked at very critically in a few decades. And some people are quite keen of hanging on to such biases, regardless of how clever and educated they are. And this applies as much to musicians as to anyone else.

After all, I'm sure ALL of us have some culturally imprinted biases that may be looked at very critically in a few decades. And some people are quite keen of hanging on to such biases, regardless of how clever and educated they are. And this applies as much to musicians as to anyone else.

Perhaps my view of what it means to be 'educated' is different from others'. I'm aware that culturally imprinted biases generally exist. My view on the matter is that a truly educated individual is one who can transcend those biases and form a subjectivization independent of the cultural imprint. Personally, the only reason these 'biases' exist at all is because civilization itself is systemically adversarial, which I think needs to change systemically as well. So, in a sense, my view on 'true education' is probably not as common as the traditional 'norm' of most societies.

But history still teaches us that it's generally not individuals who "transcend" towards being non-racist independantly of the society they live in, but that societies as a whole begin to reject certain biases over time (and build up new ones), with some people within those societies being a bit faster at this than others. (Note: With "bias" I definitely don't only mean negative thing. A cultural bias is pretty much everything that defines a certain culture, be that aesthetic or moral values, traditions, etc.)

To think that an individual can truly "transcend" their cultural biases seems rather unrealistic. Sure, you can "transcend" certain biases that have been somewhat loosened by historical/sociological processes already (such as realizing how silly it is to be racist when your culture has been exposed to people of other ethnicities for long enough and people have started to realize that "they're not so different from us after all"). But how realistic is it for a person born these days to transcend the bias that it's wrong to murder random people? And would you even -want- to transcend this bias?

The point about racism or discrimination based on some other categories isn't that once you've realized a certain truth, you'll see how wrong it is and stop doing it. It's about widening the borders of what you are willing to treat "as someone like yourself", the borders of whom you are able to sympathise with, and there's no clear limit to where this could (and maybe someday will) stretch. It goes from total egocentricity on one side, over caring about your family and friends or something, over caring about humans that share certain (often arbitrary) characteristics with yourself, over caring about any creatures that have certain abstracted properties (such as "self-awareness"), over caring about "nature as a whole" and so on. And often, it requires certain cultural findings (either scientific or empirical on a more personal basis) to widen your borders some more in this respect. And I don't think the call should be to "drop those borders altogether" and "transcend beyond cultural biases", but simply to take said scientific and empirical findings seriously and be ready to adapt your position based on them, instead of blindly clinging to the status quo. Therefore I -do- believe it's something different if a person living in the US in the year 2009 is racist to Aristotle being racist, or a person living deep inside a jungle without contact to many people being racist. And this difference isn't primarily based on individual "education" of any sort, but rather to taking a certain stance in respect of whatever "education" your society is currently able to deliver (which of course may also imply scepticism, but probably not blind obstinacy disguised as "scepticism"). Of course, this also means that you have to "get this education" in the first place, but that kind of education is often a very empirical thing that is easily learned if you live at most places in today's world - but much more hardly accepted.

In most cases it's probably much more related to cultural imprints. I mean, people didn't suddenly become smart, educated and valuable after centuries of essentially racist societies. Sure, that can be related to "education" to some degree, meaning that if you know nothing about people who happen to look a lot differently than what you're used to, and have never talked to them, you are more likely to assume that they are completely foreign beings that don't share all the essential human traits with you. But that doesn't make you necessarily stupid. (And with that I certainly don't want to imply that it's "ok to be racist because it's the fault of your environment" - that's just silly).

After all, I'm sure ALL of us have some culturally imprinted biases that may be looked at very critically in a few decades. And some people are quite keen of hanging on to such biases, regardless of how clever and educated they are. And this applies as much to musicians as to anyone else.

That goes with a saying that I've heard: People can end up only being "products of their environments", never seeking higher knowledge or values. That's very prevalent in human sociology/psychology. As an African-American, I had White/Caucasian friends in high school that grew up in less diverse areas their entire lives and upon coming to a bigger city they expressed having never had a Black/other minority friend before. My friends weren't racist/prejudiced themselves, but they did however speak of the type of language and expressions used around their hometown by older generations and some contemporaries that were heard on a daily basis.

I think it's definitely something that is ingrained in society and will take a considerable amount of time before the playing field is leveled for everyone. Blatant racism/discrimination is shunned and sometimes prosecuted in most places today. However, the passive, unspoken, societal norms of days when ignorance was promoted or overlooked is unfortunately still perpetuated(in a lesser, but nonetheless detrimental form). That quiet mindset transcends into every facet of interpersonal civilization.

Perhaps my view of what it means to be 'educated' is different from others'. I'm aware that culturally imprinted biases generally exist. My view on the matter is that a truly educated individual is one who can transcend those biases and form a subjectivization independent of the cultural imprint. Personally, the only reason these 'biases' exist at all is because civilization itself is systemically adversarial, which I think needs to change systemically as well. So, in a sense, my view on 'true education' is probably not as common as the traditional 'norm' of most societies.

You're correct about 'true education'. Idealism can change the state of things sometimes (I wish) so none of this would be a topic of debate. Unfortunately(not meaning that you don't already know), not everyone has the opportunity, resources, or more importantly motivation to educate themselves beyond what they experience on a day-to-day basis. Like I said above from what Gardener had written, people can sometimes just be products of their environments. Being able to transcend the unenlightened perspectives, biases, and mass-media's propensity towards fear and scare tactics isn't a really culturally accepted ideal. :sadtears:

But history still teaches us that it's generally not individuals who "transcend" towards being non-racist independantly of the society they live in, but that societies as a whole begin to reject certain biases over time (and build up new ones), with some people within those societies being a bit faster at this than others. (Note: With "bias" I definitely don't only mean negative thing. A cultural bias is pretty much everything that defines a certain culture, be that aesthetic or moral values, traditions, etc.)

To think that an individual can truly "transcend" their cultural biases seems rather unrealistic. Sure, you can "transcend" certain biases that have been somewhat loosened by historical/sociological processes already (such as realizing how silly it is to be racist when your culture has been exposed to people of other ethnicities for long enough and people have started to realize that "they're not so different from us after all"). But how realistic is it for a person born these days to transcend the bias that it's wrong to murder random people? And would you even -want- to transcend this bias?

The point about racism or discrimination based on some other categories isn't that once you've realized a certain truth, you'll see how wrong it is and stop doing it. It's about widening the borders of what you are willing to treat "as someone like yourself", the borders of whom you are able to sympathise with, and there's no clear limit to where this could (and maybe someday will) stretch. It goes from total egocentricity on one side, over caring about your family and friends or something, over caring about humans that share certain (often arbitrary) characteristics with yourself, over caring about any creatures that have certain abstracted properties (such as "self-awareness"), over caring about "nature as a whole" and so on. And often, it requires certain cultural findings (either scientific or empirical on a more personal basis) to widen your borders some more in this respect. And I don't think the call should be to "drop those borders altogether" and "transcend beyond cultural biases", but simply to take said scientific and empirical findings seriously and be ready to adapt your position based on them, instead of blindly clinging to the status quo. Therefore I -do- believe it's something different if a person living in the US in the year 2009 is racist to Aristotle being racist, or a person living deep inside a jungle without contact to many people being racist. And this difference isn't primarily based on individual "education" of any sort, but rather to taking a certain stance in respect of whatever "education" your society is currently able to deliver (which of course may also imply scepticism, but probably not blind obstinacy disguised as "scepticism"). Of course, this also means that you have to "get this education" in the first place, but that kind of education is often a very empirical thing that is easily learned if you live at most places in today's world - but much more hardly accepted.

Correct, correct! Once society in general and each subculture finally moves out of the pre-existing modes of perception & thought, questions like those on the initial post will sadly remain points of concern for those that aren't of the majority.

The problem is that it's almost impossible to measure. Especially in art related fields. I mean, in some fields with more easily quantifyable skillsets you can more or less look at a group of "evenly skilled people" and then make observations about whether all those people actually do get the same "chances to succeed" within a society. But you can't do that with something like music, because there's no way of telling if two people are "evenly skilled" (nor is this even necessarily a relevant criterion in music). In the arts you never fully know what all the actual reasons are that person A is more famous/successful/appreciated than person B, and it's often also rather futile to try to break this up into categories such as "race", because it's a field that is so highly individualised and pluralistic that you'll never be able to accurately measure the influence of a single parameter like this.

But even on a personal basis, it's often quite impossible to tell if you're either racist/non-racist (or biased against some other group or not), or if you're discriminated against based on race/some other criterion or not. Many people who believe not to be racist are still influenced by the latent racist background of their culture without realizing it. I myself might be racist, without knowing it, and that somewhat scares me. How can I ever know that the skin colour of a person I meet doesn't unconsciously influence my judgement of them in a small way? Likewise, many people (ESPECIALLY in vague fields like the arts) believe to be discriminated against for some arbitrary reason (such as race), without this actually being the case. Most composers think they're somewhat good at composing, yet of course many other people don't share this sentiment. So we'll always be looking for reasons unrelated to music to explain to us why some people don't like our music but the music of another guy. But again, there's no way of really knowing what all these reasons are.

Maybe this is more off in left field, but just bare with me on this... as I sincerely believe it will respond to you after I bring context to this discussion.

I believe racism follows along the same cognitive lines as bullying. As you may or may not be aware, 'bullying' is a well documented issue in public schools in the United States. What often happens is a 'bully' actually rarely ever begins his/her social journey 'as a bully.' They begin as the victim of someone else's compulsory actions within the social environment of school to be accepted by the majority. Along this cognitive thought process, basic critical thinking skills have not been nurtured as a coping mechanism for this kind of environment.

So, the bully reacts, much like instinctively we react to something that we perceive as a threat to our acceptance by society. But without the ability to critically think through the problem this creates for the individual, the bully often lashes out at either the individual who created it to begin with or to someone the bully is confident will create the least resistance. The bully never connects his/her behavior as a bully with the systemic behavior that caused it to begin with... either compulsive antagonism with a completely unrelated motivating factor or with having been on the receiving end of such behavior and lashing out.

In either event, the bully fails to connect his/her behavior to the effect it has on others. Thus, the result is a cognitive disassociation between what is effectively a perpetuation or continuance of what ends up becoming a 'social norm'. In much the same way, racism has equally systemic roots in cognition, I believe. For those that discriminate, it's often due to some adversarial reaction to a social or environmental event. Perhaps a family member was overlooked for a job because a more qualified applicant of a minority origin was selected (or perhaps was selected because the employer was concerned about appearing to be discriminatory otherwise - i.e. reverse discrimination). This is at the heart of American History X, in case anyone wanted to know. The roots are only amplified for minorities.

When you're on the receiving end of discrimination, and when critical thinking is not nurtured during cognitive development, the reaction is just as severe. When social and environmental factors create an adverse result, the individual's reaction is to rationalize this with, "Oh, well, s/he is just a racist." Well-meaning people who simply have no bias in anyway can be perceived to be racist simply as a reaction to an adverse result. Gangs often form as one way to combat what is perceived to be society turning its back on minorities. Equally, some gangs form as a reaction to other gangs forming. Thus, you end up with an entire societal issue based around the absence of an individual's cognitive ability to cope with their environment.

Only the problem worsens for those who do gain this cognitive awareness, especially in areas where gangs are more prominent. The reality for many, along these lines of bullying and where race is concerned, is that it can all be addressed systemically through education... it just isn't addressed as effectively as it could be simply because at the earlier stages of development, children in the United States are not exposed to cognitive exercises that develop critical thinking as early as they should be. We're talking about 6th, 7th, and 8th graders who are still babied with objective behavioral systems as though they can't cope with more mature approaches to conflict resolution.

In Colorado, following the Columbine incident, many middle school students were enrolled in a conflict resolution course mandated by the state. A few years later, over 50% of the behavioral problems associated with school violence (bullying, racism, etc.) were reported to have improved. Even still, conflict resolution doesn't seem to completely solve the problem, as almost 50% indicates, 'conflict resolution' proves itself to be more of a 'half-measure' than a solution. After watching the video about it, I feel my view on this is further reinforced. The action plan is not a cognitive process at all, nor does it appear to engage kids in how to successfully evaluate these problems in any critical way.

So, no. I don't believe in any sense of this discussion, that racism is purely a result of inherent social biases. I believe the problem is wholly systemic and can be almost entirely resolved in the education system if the structure of education itself is completely reorganized. In my opinion, nothing of the way a society behaves is inherent to humanity. Whatever undesirable behavior exists within the society is systemically rooted in a motivating factor perpetuated or otherwise acting as a negative consequence of the system itself.

I understand everything you're saying and agree in certain aspects with what you are saying but I strongly believe that a reorganization of the structure of something greater than just education. School could be considered a microcosm of society to some. However, starting from the ground up sounds nice, but there are people in the trees and higher who's learned biases (from previous intolerant generations) give new meaning to an actually successful "trickle-down" theory.

I get that some people today cognitively are unaware of their responses to your "bully" and not to get into who is the bully and who isn't because there are pies thrown on both sides. That's called a lack of intercultural competence.

I do disagree wholly with you on one point though. How can the norms of a society not be based on or inherent to humanity? Pick up any book on cultural anthropology and you'll find that these behaviors (the organization of tribes, presently synonymous with the term ethnic groups) are present at the primal level. The solution to social problems may not be found only in the external structure of society, but rather in the hearts and minds of human beings.

So back to the original topic at hand:

Based on what has been discussed about humanity, how can there not be speed bumps and issues for minorities of all types in the field of composition? We can be idealists and hope that is not the case. People can on the surface be accepting of groups of people they don't understand, no matter if their profession is shared, but understand: the continued dilution of customs, beliefs, biases, and other learned behaviors that we acquire from our primary caretakers/family/tribe AND previous mores/value systems and living environments... -> remain.

It seems that the passage time and generations can remedy old ways of thinking.

I do disagree wholly with you on one point though. How can the norms of a society not be based on or inherent to humanity? Pick up any book on cultural anthropology and you'll find that these behaviors (the organization of tribes, presently synonymous with the term ethnic groups) are present at the primal level. The solution to social problems may not be found only in the external structure of society, but rather in the hearts and minds of human beings.

Read this before you continue discussing this with me, please. It's just so you understand the context of my position on this. I don't necessarily 'disagree' with your assessment that the solution is deeper. It is. But if you don't remove the systemic problem that stimulates the behavior to start with, the 'hearts and minds' of human beings will always require restructuring.

It brings to mind the idea that you can train yourself not to react to pain by exposing yourself to it and consciously coping with it. You 'can', but if you really don't want to feel pain, remove the stimulus that's causing it. It's really very simple in concept.

The only reason it's so incomprehensible and perhaps 'unprecedented' - it's not exactly what anthropologists could really tell us anything about, as they study culture as it is, not as it could or should be - is because we've always had a system that attempts to cope with existing scarcity instead of creating solutions that produce abundance and eliminate stimuli that instigate these undesirable social behaviors.

I'm not saying everything can just magically be solved by changing the underlying structure. But a great deal of it could be SO MUCH BETTER than it is if we stressed higher level cognitive functions at earlier levels of childhood development. Systemic changes to education are desperately needed in US schools. The No Child Left Behind Act, for example, is just about the most dangerous legislation of this century, in my opinion. It's borderline indoctrination and 'scary scraggy' in my book.

I think my question pertains more to the United States. What is the racial climate like in other countries? I've gathered that other countries aren't as prejudice or as close-minded as the US can be. Sorry I didn't clarify that.

You mean closed minded in the sense of not having a perfect, racially harmonious utopia like all of the other tolerant countries in the world?

I really do hate to say this buy get over yourself. Welcome to the human race. When it comes to art race is a non issue. Societal issue?...sure. Art? No one cares. Please don't make me list one billion examples of this already self evident point.

I'm sorry if this sounds harsh but the focus on race, skin color, ethnicity etc makes me sick. Art transcends ALL of that crap.

Rant over.

But how realistic is it for a person born these days to transcend the bias that it's wrong to murder random people? And would you even -want- to transcend this bias?

I agree with what you say but just to point something out, your example has less to do with cultural bias and more with the fact that murdering people goes against our genetically imposed sense of morality. It's really hard to find a society, any society, where you'll find a "kill people at random" tradition and this is the reason for that.

Hmmm...I'll just start with the questions.

1: Does anyone think that if you're a composer and part of the non-majority (not White/European-descent) that it's harder to find work, network, and ultimately be known for it?

2: Is there a glass ceiling for minorities like myself in the amount of opportunities in music?

3: Are certain races restricted to certain genres of music?

4: Do you think it's hard to succeed as a minority who composes outside of their own minority-groups traditional (or even stereotypical) genre of music?

I'm interested in hearing your viewpoints on whether or not this is a real issues or not and the reasons why you feel that way.

J

1: No....why would it be?

2: Not that I know of *looks up* No, I don't see one..

3: Why would they be?

4: It shouldn't be! And if it is....then that's tooooo bad

I agree with what you say but just to point something out, your example has less to do with cultural bias and more with the fact that murdering people goes against our genetically imposed sense of morality. It's really hard to find a society, any society, where you'll find a "kill people at random" tradition and this is the reason for that.

True. But there's not a very clear line there about where genetics end and culture begins. The idea of "don't kill others of your kind" may be a very primal instinct, but what exactly "of your kind" means is in the end something very cultural and/or personal. Your family? Your countrymen? Every being you can reproduce with? There have always been cultures that had no problem killing humans of certain other societies quasi randomly (of course rarely actually "randomly", but let's say "without scruples").

But yes, my example wasn't a good one when I was talking about cultural biases. My problem was: I wanted to use a very universal bias in order to make a strong point, but I kind of forgot that this automatically precludes culture-specific biases. Silly me.

1: No....why would it be?

2: Not that I know of *looks up* No, I don't see one..

3: Why would they be?

4: It shouldn't be! And if it is....then that's tooooo bad

You naive, liberal child.

You naive, liberal child.

Really? I would like to ask those reading to provide personal examples or contemporary antecdotes of a quality composer or compositions being systematically supressed and hindered due to the artist's race or ethnicity.

Provided they are out there does this qualify as proof of organized, systematic bigotry in the music world? Or rather proof that *gasp* there are actually some small minded twits in decision making positions who maybe shouldn't be?

A little perspective people. I'm sure you can find many frustrated artists who will declare "racism" in regard to their non success when it actualy may be due to the fact that their music simply sucks.

I'm sure you can find many frustrated artists who will declare "racism" in regard to their non success when it actualy may be due to the fact that their music simply sucks.

And you had to go in and throw that line. You were doing so well until then, too! What a shame.

All we need to do is define what 'sucks' means when someone says, "This music sucks!"

I'd like to think that good music written in an idiom that it doesn't necessarily relate to at all... sucks. Writing a contemporary 'pop' piece and calling it 'a pop piece' when it doesn't even sound anything like 'pop' will likely fall into the ranks of 'suck'... especially when the artist has no idea what s/he is doing to begin with or what a 'pop' piece even sounds like...

I wouldn't actually say, "This music sucks," though, because it would work perfectly well in a different idiom. If an artist insists that an arrangement of a Mozart Symphony for a chamber ensemble is a contemporary work that should be programmed on a "New Music" concert, I would be inclined to tell them the work would not be appropriate (unless of course the artist did something drastically different and unique in the arrangement).

Saying music 'sucks', at least to me, says that a piece is simply being called something that it isn't, or it's being targeted at a group with a different aesthetic. Those people will agree, "This music sucks, it doesn't belong here..." and they might be right. It might belong on the radio or in a TV commercial for all we know.

Bleh, I'm just rambling on a bit.

well, to certain point, yes, but not as an exclusive rule.

one can find music in places where it might sound most innapropriate, accidently on a public trasport, or a youth center (the point of departure of my love for arvo part's music) and so on. basically, to some degree, music as live art, an art for living, is found there where it was never intended to be (as a piece of art). not a concert hall, not a festival, not even what could be called a musical event. and no, i do not speak about performance art (''It can happen anywhere, at any time, or for any length of time. ''), though this child was what to me grasped a meaning of art much better than most of its contemporaries.

I think using the words "suck" and whatever is entirely beyond the question. You can as well say "music not accepted by X group" or "music that I don't like," or a number of other things, which can all be summed up as "this music sucks," if for entirely different reasons.

It's a type of statement that is generally banned from discussions and so on because there's about ten million ways to say something much more insightful rather than that and still get the same point across.