Institute at Berklee College of Music Finds There Are Too Many ‘Male-Identified’ Jazz Educators
“How have these hierarchies endured?”
This is so dumb. Who listens to these social justice bean counters?
The College Fix reports:
College study: There are too many ‘male-identified’ jazz educators
It probably comes as no surprise in this day and age that there exists a place called the “Institute of Jazz and Gender Justice” at Boston’s Berklee College of Music.
The institute claims jazz “remains predominantly male due to a biased system,” which “impos[es] a significant toll on those who aspire to work in it.”
So its main page asks right under the title banner “What would jazz sound like in a culture without patriarchy?”
A recent study by the institute appears to confirm the assertion as it shows “male-identified jazz educators” outnumber “female-identified counterparts” by six to one. The latter group comprises just eight percent of instrumental jazz instructors, and only 15 percent of all jazz faculty.
Researcher Lara Pellegrinelli (pictured), an “ethnomusicologist” who received her PhD in music from Harvard and teaches at The New School, contributed to the study.
According to the research, “women are outnumbered substantially on the most popular jazz instruments; in every faculty rank and as administrators; leading ensembles and teaching studio lessons; and teaching academic subjects, such as music history, music theory, and composition.”
“How have these hierarchies endured?” the study asks.
The researchers further claim “although some scholars and writers have attempted to restore women to jazz history, this is not enough […] we must identify spheres of musical activity in which we can untangle the threads of systemic gender bias, halting the erasure of female-identified artists now while ensuring that their careers find the institutional support needed for them to thrive in the future.”
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Lara Pellegrinelli is yet another tiresome activist. Just go away. No one cares.
I looked at her picture: what? No man-glasses?
when your brain is no more than a hammer, everything looks like a nail;
her question, even as a feminist, should be “Why is jazz a predominantly male-based music?”
Smoky, smelly vans full of female jazz musicians on road trips, touring jazz clubs across America in the ’40s and ’50s.
Yeah, NOBODY has seen that movie.
There are plenty of prominent female jazz vocalists—Ella, Sarah, Billie, for starters.
Female jazz instrumentalists— Mary Lou Williams comes to mind, But that’s about all I can think of. One of Louis Armstrong’s wives was a pianist, IIRC.
“female-identified artists”
Why not just call them “female artists”?
Because she knows the ones that rise to the top won’t be actual females?
Cindy Bradley is pretty awesome.
I love me some Sonny Rollins, but this chick can blow a horn.
https://cindybradley.com/
All of this stems from a belief that all demographics should be proportionately represented in all professions, activities, and endeavors. This is actually a very tall order to substantiate because it takes only one exception to disprove and then everything else must be to some extent demographically disproportionale. Take for example Chinese Language teachers. I suspect that the number of ethnic Chinese are over represented – for obvious reasons. Many other professions are likewise naturally exhibit skewed demographics: Nursing, underground coal mining, professional basketball, classical musician, etc. Logically then the other professions, activities, and endeavors must be, on average, demographically skewed. So if there are many professions where there is some natural, social skewing of demographics, why do some people still persist in their assumption that all (or any) professions, activities, and endeavors should have proportionate demographic representation? How is this to be policed over time given shifting demographics in a free market? This is why “Equity”, though perhaps satisfying of someone’s aesthetic ideal, fails to appreciate the individual who comes with both inherent talent and cultural familiarity necessary for excellence or at least success. Equal opportunity is a much better fairness objective to achieve excellence for society as a whole.
It’s just more equity overreach by Marxists.
Capitalism is about equality of opportunity. Marxism demands equality of results.
Capitalism says, “everybody should be ALLOWED to do X” (e.g., attend college).
Marxism always expands this to “everybody MUST do X.”
It’s not even a logical extension.
Male-identified jazz educators outnumber female-identified counterparts by six to one? That’s easily solved. Just order 40% of the male-identified jazz educators to identify as female. Problem solved.
These articles never stop. Hang down jazz musicians are as good as uterus carrier jazz musicians. The illness exhibited by this female identifying loon is both stunning and never fixable. Once a Marxist always a Marxist. And MISERABLE.
Leave a Comment