Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner The piano and homosexuality

Regarding Horowitz's original quote, I think it's flat-out wrong. It's racist and sexist. I'll provide two historical examples: Liszt and Mozart. They weren't Jewish, Russian, or gay, and to this day, they would seem to stand on the pinnacle of pianistic abilities.

But none of that supports the argument that LGBT are somehow "inherently" better artists.

I think such a concept shortchanges not only heterosexuals who are talented artists, but also every LGBT who worked their tails off to get where they are within the arts. You get to the top of the arts by busting your @$$ until you make it, not by your sexual preference.

I have been in the music industry forty years. Lots of people in all walks of life are gay, lesbian, transgendered.

One experience at a particular college does not make a study sample worthy of consideration.

Would the thread be any better if we were discussing the disproportionate amount of Jewish people in finance?

How about all the black garbage collectors?

How about all of the left handed redheads of the world?

Do not let me prevent anyone from the joys of stereotyping. Carry on

Do you think there is any correlation? Does it matter?

Your apparent taking offense at someone pointing out (simply pointing out!) that there seems to be a higher percentage of homosexuals in the arts (or, as Kreisler suggested, a higher percentage of openly homosexual individuals in the arts) than other industries is, frankly, just silly.

Gay men have more chance to possess those required qualities, that is why many of them are more equipped to be good pianists.

No no, Carey, let RonaldSteinway explain, I assume, himself; which of those qualities do heterosexuals miss out on? And females...? Um...I'm not judging your assertions but...it strikes me that you're insinuating that gay men have the highest chance of being perfect human beings...you're making some pretty bold claims here

I didn't even want to acknowledge the "female" comment. Would any of our female PW members like to chime in here????

Horowitz, who denied being homosexual,[24] once joked, "There are three kinds of pianists: Jewish pianists, homosexual pianists, and bad pianists."

Score = two out of three.

When you are always the last one picked to be on a team, staying home with the piano has more appeal.

This has got nothing to do with stereotypING. This is to do with talking ABOUT stereotypes. How they arise, and whether or not there is any truth in them. This is not the same as being taken in by them.

I think one of them just did. She even addressed you by name.

This thread is idiotic.

Yes, Rubinstein said that it was common knowledge among pianists that Horowitz was homosexual, but no one gave it a second thought.


Absolutely. Stereotypes are exploded and neutralized by discussing them, not by closing our eyes to them. And it's important to remember that stereotypes always contain a kernel of truth, no matter how distorted that truth may become over time.

A good example, (though unrelated to the topic at hand), is the old stereotype that blacks just love chicken and watermelon, as though this were some sort of genetic trait. Until fairly recently, the economic history of black Americans has required them to do a lot with very little, so finding inexpensive sources of protein (chicken), vegetables (greens of various types), and fruit (watermelon) would have been of paramount importance to them, as it would be to any poor family. These foods pack a lot of nutritional wallop, for relatively little money. This is called rational economic behavior, stretching a dollar, etc., and is not due to some innate craving for particular foods. Ironically, poor whites ate pretty much these same foods, yet managed to escape the stereotype. And that's because the essential truth within it was twisted to suit the malicious purposes of bigoted whites, who used it as one more opportunity to ridicule the life style of their fellow Americans who happened to be black.

IMO discussing stereotypes is a good thing. It allows us to break them down and separate the "truth part" from the "lie part". In the process, we can, perhaps, neutralize them entirely. But silence, I'm afraid, is simply acquiescence and only perpetuates the myth, or the "lie part".