Newsgroups: bit.listserv.allmusic
Date:         Tue, 15 Dec 1992 08:39:04 PDT
From:         David Malbuff <SPGDAM@UCCVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New Thread

>    Why is it that even today female bands do not receive the same
>level of interest as male bands?  Essentially what is the sexism of
>the music industry and why is it so prevalent?  Female singers, i.e.
>Shitney Houston (oops, that's Whitney), Madolla, and Sinead are seen
>as okay.  Bands with female lead singers are accepted, many times
>she's even allowed to play bass.  But bands which consist solely of
>women, do not recieve nearly as much recognition.  The same can even
>be said for this list.  How many times have we discussed the merits
>of an all-women band?
>    Why is this so?  Are there fewer female bands?  If so why?  Is
>there a general lack of interest?  Or is it that they are just not as
>encouraged as males are.  (I know that's weird, musicians rarely
>receive any early encouragement, but do women receive even less?)  I
>feel like I'm witnessing something akin to the Elizebethan attitude
>toward actors -- Women are not allowed.  If they are then they must
>be harlots.  Why else would they live on the road and parade
>themselves on stage before a public?
>    I'd really like some discourse on this.

Given the locus of this forum (a network dominated by college and university
personnel), a discourse on this subject is likely to generate an extremely
low signal-to-noise ratio. ;-)  However, I'll take the bait; I've always
been P.C. - NOT!

First of all, I don't believe the music industry is sexist. The people who
own the record companies and radio stations could care less who makes the
music, so long as they make a profit. If there were hordes of all-female
groups out there with commercial potential, they'd be signed and in the
studios right now. The only prejudice in the biz is against those who
don't sell.

There have been a few all-female bands that have been signed to major labels.
Many of us can remember the Go-Gos and the Bangles (even if we'd rather not).
I can assure you that if those bands had continued to make commercially
successful music, there would have been more such bands.

The best all-female band I ever heard was the Slits. They weren't technically
impressive, but so what. They were still great. Of course, that was 15 years
ago.

Right now, the prejudice is against bands, period. The industry is
biased in favor of solo acts playing dance music. Rock and roll bands are
"out" (excepting metal). One reason R.E.M.'s _Out Of Time_ album was so
phenomenally successful, I believe, is because it had been so long since a
rock & roll band with a conventional lineup had even charted. But that
commercial success was a fluke, at least by industry standards. The trend is
away from bands, and toward solo performers whose music is made by
semi-anonymous musical conglomerations. Or can anyone here name the members
of C&C Music Factory?

This said, it is also true that there are fewer all-women bands than all-men
bands, and it has always been so. I don't know if this has to do with the
nature of companionship and competition among women, as opposed (apposed?)
to that among men, but I suspect so. Girls are often encouraged to be
manipulative, rather than direct, presumably on the theory that men will find
them less intimidating. A rock and roll band will be dominated by one or more
strong personalities; women who resist the role of "manipulator" will most
likely gravitate toward groups where their honesty will be appreciated. I
often hear women complain that their friendships with other women are not as
resilient as those among men; perhaps this situation retards the development
of more all-female bands. Additionally, being in a band, especially one that
is just starting out, can be a risky venture. A woman in a band with men
is in a different situation than that of a woman in an all-female band,
especially on the road in strange places with rowdy and/or drunken audiences.
I think that the perception of what a band is all about tends to reinforce
the reality that women on their own are much more vulnerable to emotional
and physical harm, regardless of the actual risk involved.

Also, it is unquestionably true that male R&R bands with female performers in
featured roles (especially singers, of course) attract more attention than
their all-male counterparts. A female musician who wants to get attention is
better off working with at least some men in the band. And vice versa.

Perhaps we are entering a time when mixed groups are considered the norm, and
all-male or all-female bands become more of a curiosity. I believe there will
always be more male bands, but almost every musician I've ever known always
sought to work with the best and most compatible players they could find,
regardless of sex. Having worked with female saxophonists, drummers, pianists,
guitarists, and singers, I'll personally attest that you are so damn grateful
when you finally find a musician that fits in with what you're trying to do,
you simply can't let any other consideration get in the way. Not only is
sexism unreasonable, it's just plain stupid.

No, I don't believe that there is any kind of "rule", spoken or unspoken, that
keeps all-female bands from being heard. The reason we don't talk about more
all-female bands on ALLMUSIC- or anywhere else- is that there are so few to
talk about. There is no great undiscovered wealth of all-female bands, in the
past or present, who have been cruelly silenced by an unjust society, no matter
how romantic that may sound. Sure, I've heard Bikini Kill; they're good, but
hardly revolutionary. Artists in the past have overcome obstacles far steeper
than anything you'll find in 20th-century America. If the music is good, it
will, eventually, be heard. The mainstream may ignore it, but the mainstream
won't silence it. If it's there, it will be heard.

David
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU