Sarah Chang is resplendent in front of the mirror at the Kruszynska boutique in Knightsbridge. She’s popped in for a concert gown fitting and has donned a fairytale creation of delicate pink and green lace over ivory silk. It’s perfect for Mozart and it looks stunning.
But maybe it is also symptomatic of the way that classical music’s female stars have collided with popular culture. A woman musician can play wonderfully and she can also look good – but what exactly is the top priority these days? The case of Susan Boyle has of course brought this issue into the headlines on an even wider scale.
Half a century ago, most female musicians did not care about their appearance: what mattered was how they sounded. Indeed, a ‘high priestess’ attitude seemed positively encouraged; anything visual was downplayed so that the music could sing out unimpeded.
In the 1940s, the pianist Dame Myra Hess always wore a plain black dress for her concerts. The late Rosalyn Tureck, famed for her Bach, was not amused when a press photographer captured an image of her, in her twenties, focusing on her legs. The Australian pianist Eileen Joyce (who plays Rachmaninov on the soundtrack of the movie Brief Encounter) enjoyed coordinating her dresses with the music she was playing, often changing gown between pieces; then, it caused amusement. Now, though, it’s de rigeur.
Chang, 28, adores high fashion and heels, but insists that her concert clothes shouldn’t be a distraction. “They must be repertoire-appropriate,” she tells me. “When I need a dress for the Brahms Concerto it must be substantial and robust, but if I’m doing a big Carmen concert the dress can be red and hot and fun.”
But has the pressure on young women musicians to look like supermodels gone too far? After all, these women have spent most of their lives practising their instruments for long, lonely hours, devoting themselves tirelessly to the interpretation of great music, making huge personal sacrifices and struggling for recognition. Then they’re judged on how they look. This is patently daft.
Of course the male musicians have worked equally hard, but men of comparable talent can simply don a tux or tails, pop on their glasses, brush a few strands of hair over the bald patch and stride on to a stage without worrying that they don’t look as if they’ve stepped off the pages of a glossy magazine. The music industry loves men who look good, but it’s not a prerequisite for a career. For 21st century women soloists, it seems that a gift for music is just not enough.
Female singers can get away with being overweight – a spare tyre supports the voice. But when did you last see in the world’s top concert halls a woman violin soloist plumper than a size ten, or a bat-winged female pianist under the age of 60? Yet some of today’s greatest musicians are seriously unphotogenic men. Grigory Sokolov, among the finest pianists on earth, is the shape of a Siberian bear. Even Nigel Kennedy is no oil painting. Would women with the equivalent in talent and looks have had the opportunities to shine? We’ll never know, but the speculation is sobering.
Some female musicians might have poorer careers if it were not for their physical beauty. This sounds frivolous, but there’s a darker aspect to it. I’ve attended music festivals (usually run by men) at which the women performers have all been not only gifted but also young, willowy and grateful for concerts. I’ve met female would-be soloists whose hopes of concert engagements following auditions have been dashed when they refused to do certain things beyond playing the music. And I’ve heard interpretations of great concertos by a few well-established women who look fabulous and whose images have been plastered over every music magazine, yet whose questionable musicianship has left me infuriated and incredulous.
To add insult to injury, some of the stuffier critics seem automatically to take against glamorously dressed female soloists. That’s equally iniquitous, because in some cases these musicians really are fabulous, yet find themselves presumed frivolous – again, judged for appearance, not expertise. In that sense, women in music just can’t win: damned by one set of people if they don’t look good, damned by another if they do.
Chang is fortunate: she has it all. But spare a thought for the undiscovered Susan Boyles of classical music who may never be noticed in a world in which the core values have become dangerously and often destructively skewed.
Jessica Duchen's Classical Music & Ballet Blog. Novelist/journalist JD writes for The Independent, London
Tuesday, May 05, 2009
Concert, not catwalk
I have a rather angry piece in the Indy today about the way that the pressure on young female musicians to look good as well as sounding good has gone too far. Here's the Director's Cut. (By the way, I love Sarah, but if you look in the pages of the Indy at articles by Other People, you might stumble upon one of the musicians I had in mind.)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Complete and utter agreement with this, of course. I read a few days ago that a movie about Susan Boyle is in the works and that Catherine Zeta Jones has expressed interest in playing the lead. I had to check to make sure this was not a joke, and it is not. For people like Zeta Jones, Simon Cowell and the rest, this is, of course, a matter of restoring the balance of their universe. I suspect such a movie would have ZJ in heavy make-up for the first part -- always good for an Oscar -- and then in the second as herself, after her character has received the make-over to end all make-overs. And so the movie would conclude with Susan Boyle looking like ZJ, which is to say, exactly the way a singer should look on Planet Idol, the whole point of the Susan Boyle story effectively nullified and made a nonsense. I have long had little doubt that the classical A and R people stalk competitions with one ear on the music and both eyes on profile, cleavage or crotch, ever alert for the next Vanessa Mae or Tzimon Barto. And if they do happen, possibly by accident, to sign up someone who has the mind, heart and soul as well as the fingers and looks, the pressure on that artist to allow her/himself to be marketed in great part on appearance, to be 'sexed up', must be great, the more so, I have no doubt, on females. There may, of course, be some -- artists of extremes and of increasingly dubious abilities -- who welcome this, and perhaps instigate it. The point of overriding importance, of course, is that it is very hard to think that in today's 'market', for such it is, Guiomar Novaes, Myra Hess, Gina Bachauer, Tatiana Nikolayeva, Ginette Neveu, et al., would get a look-in, at least not without the sort of exceedingly drastic makeover I suspect Susan Boyle is going to get in that movie (though not, I just pray, in life).
This is all tied in with a history of music conflating pageantry with talent/musical substance. Simon Cowell and the shows he's on embody this to its fullest potential. He purposefully conflates pageantry, supposedly in vogue ideals of beauty, and mass-appeal personality with talent. He does it to make money.
Classical music has long had a problem with Pageantry, and when we add to this a drive to 'sex up' the music we can end up with some pretty disturbing results, especially in regard to sexism... another thing classical music has had problems with. When classical musicians buy into that conflation to join a consumer-capitalist marketplace, this is what you get. You get extremely inferior Bach Cello suites that sell because the scantily-clad blonde woman is suggestively draped over her cello on the cover.
Myra Hess was beautiful anyway, even in a plain black dress - and it was a beauty which lasted too. I must confess to having in the past bought a piano record because a young lady pianist looked good on the cover. Several disappointments taught me to be more discerning.
Two things, Jessica.
1st Male performers are pretty much required to look good, too. Think Joshua Bell. Sure Sokolov is not pretty, and that's might well be a reason he's virtually unknown except with piano afficionados.
2nd Beauty is a rather malleable concept. No one would notice Janine Jansen for her beauty were she to walk the street in her day clothes. However, after a stylist has spent a couple of hours on her hair &c and she's donned some splendid gown and fondles her Strad, sure, most people will say she's beautiful. In other words you can have a career without being absurdly beautiful.
Thank you, thank you, thank you! I've really begun to notice a difference in the last ten years in how female musicians are being marketed. It started with opera singers (many of whom are now being penalized if they have a spare tire or several, actually). Now, it seems, everyone has to look like a sex kitten. It's crazy! I saw the photo shoot of a young ex-student of mine the other day who is all of 18, and she looked like a soft porn star.
it's refreshing to see someone like Argerich, who whilst beautiful when young, doesn't seem to care much about how she looks these days, and still knocks everyone else off the stage with her incredible energy and panache!
Good points raised. Nice to see Sarah Chang in full bloom as it were. I remember hearing her play as a 12-year old prodigy in taffeta party frocks. Makes me feel old....
In response to Philip, I too am shocked by the Catherine ZJ as Susan Boyle story. Old so-and-so that I am, I recall the days when she was just another budding TV star, and came to Leicester to open a shopping centre. How much of her image must be down to clever marketing and expert fitness and beauty regimes.
I think there's a danger of looking at two markets as one.
There's the entertainment market - which is the prime mover for encouraging 'beauty' in artists - and which merely happens to use music as a vehicle for those artists. As a market, it is not concerned with real musicality as such, and why should we be worried about it?
Then there's the core music market, and I don't believe that this really concerns its;f with beauty over music - looks are a convenient incidental.
We need to be careful not to confuse the two. We don't complain too much when we dip into the "entertainment" equivalent of the wine market, or when choosing to buy a stereo rather than a 'proper' hifi, for example - we only get upset about it in music because we see ourselves as embodying the real music market, and are upset that a bunch of good-looking pretenders are selling more CDs or concert tickets.
Hey, we're happy to think, cheap golf-clubs made in the East as "copies" of top-notch pro-clubs, marketed heavily in magazines and sold at a good profit for retailers at a price we can easily afford to pay - what's not to like? But as soon as the music world does this, we're up in arms about it.
The same market distinctions apply to computing products, lawnmowers, waterproofs. . . you name it. We don't tend to have a problem with it anywhere else, so maybe we should be more accepting of it in music, and recognise that there are two audiences, two markets, and play to the appropriate one for us, rather than complaining about "the other one".
Post a Comment