Is this true Yas Forums?

Is this true Yas Forums?
Do you think female artists are more creative than their male counterparts and what are some good examples?

Attached: IMG_20200307_222901.jpg (1080x1149, 251.1K)

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=LZq1vWeXdlI
rollingstone.com/music/music-features/research-proves-female-artists-are-more-creative-than-men-962899/
csap.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/cssw-mauskapf-11-18-19.pdf
slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/)
youtube.com/watch?v=e6fNWXaIV90
youtube.com/watch?v=dXgX0pPX7E8
youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3DxELVPj4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Women could never make this
youtube.com/watch?v=LZq1vWeXdlI

I don't mean to toot my own horn, but as a male, I totally agree with this. I have contributed virtually zero amount to music, versus, say, women as a whole, who have contributed much of a grander scale of, let's say, contributions. Thanks.
Also, Rolling Stone call me.

Yes.

Attached: pierro scruffi.jpg (300x300, 13.98K)

They just get more attention because since women have such little interest in things, it's still special to see a woman being passionate about something. In this case women being passionate about making music.
It's the same reason women doing men thing are interesting in general.

Sure I mean look at literature, you've got virginia woolf, the bronte sisters, shakespeare, virginia woolf, margaret atwood, that one black lady, uhhhhhhhhhh............ zadie smith? Men BTFO

You can't measure creativity in a subject like music where everything has already been created.

Creative at sucking penis maybe

to paraphrase sam hyde a woman who can play guitar half as well as the average guy is a novelty

FINALLY WE WERE ABLE TO MANIPULATE STATISTICS TO GET THE RESULT WE WANTED XD

No. It all boils down to the fact that their attention span is minimal and unless they really want to, their music is lazy or the result of outward production. But I do agree that a lot of women have great creativity and vision. If they worked as hard as males and cared for music as much as males they would make great music.

Men are pigs, what do you expect? All they do is Oink all day on Yas Forums.

Yeah this has always been the case. The patriarchal society has put emphasis on inferior less creative male music but a more careful peek into the past and even present shows that women are more creative.

>research proves
This phrase means nothing anymore. At least 50 interesting albums are made by men for every 1 interesting album with a female leader.
>SOCIETY is stopping women from being recognized for it
Yeah the music industry is hard for everyone. Society didn't stop you from actually learning an instrument or music theory. Such bullshit

Attached: 0tnwnpctzxj41.png (640x764, 445.11K)

I think nowadays people think more about creativity in terms of image rather than music when it comes to musicians. I'm also convinced it's just that women are getting more attention than men nowadays. It's harder to sell a male artist, a women will get more views. It's because sex sells and both men and women find women aesthetically pleasing.

This, I like exile in guyville but watching Liz Phaire stumble over open chords in every live song is so cringe

>photoshop
You mean faceapp and snapchat?

rollingstone.com/music/music-features/research-proves-female-artists-are-more-creative-than-men-962899/

The study: csap.yale.edu/sites/default/files/files/cssw-mauskapf-11-18-19.pdf

>unique acoustic “finger prints” from audio files, analyzing standard musical attributes (e.g., “tempo,” “mode,” “key,” “time signature”), as well as aural and emotive dimensions of music (“valence,” “danceability,” “acousticness,” “energy,” “liveness” and “speechiness”).

I don't think you can really say "this song is 3% different from the danceability norm and 8% different from the tempo norm" and come up with an objective creativity/novelty score.

>Not surprisingly, male artists have more songs in both tails of the distribution, which is likely caused by female artists’ underrepresentation in the musical labor market.

Restated: both the highest and lowest levels of creativity are from male artists. It is true that this could be due to there being 3.5x the number of male than female artists in their sample population, so male outliers have a higher chance of being represented, but there could be other reasons for this, too.

for the nearly 10% of artists whose networks feature 10 or more unique collaborators, the benefits (costs) associated with women’s (men’s) creativity becomes significantly more substantial. Even at their median network sizes, women produce more novel songs thazn their male counterparts.

The crux of their claim is that women seem to be more creative when having lots of collaborators compared to men. Their reasons for why this seem to be purely speculative, though:

> Female artists may benefit from having more collaborators because key behaviors used to take advantage of collaborators’ diverse knowledge (e.g., help-seeking, asking questions, and taking ideas) are more socially acceptable for women, while the coordination costs for men seem to outweigh the potential benefits associated with collaboration.

I think that investigation is bullshit.

Creative people have more feminine or at least more gender bending traits. This is not new, it was discovered ages ago.

The study claims female musicians get less attention than male musicians.

>Creative products made by women tend to be assigned less value, assessed less positively, and garner less attention and recognition (Bielby and Bielby 1992, Lindemann, Rush and Tepper 2016).

And the study is looking at objective novelty metrics (analyzing how different certain musical qualities are from the average song), not attention. I don't think those metrics can give you an overall objective "creativity/novelty ranking", but people should at least read some of the study instead of reading the headline and making a guess explanation.

I'm pretty skeptical of a lot of the claims in it, and especially their proposed explanations for some of the findings, though at the same time it seems to be an empirical attempt at comparing novelty when controlling for and adjusting variables (namely that women with a lot of collaborators are claimed to make more novel songs than men with a lot of collaborators).

They also speculate that women in female-minority genres need to work harder to stand out more, which makes women in those genres more creative than the men in them on average, and this actually does make sense to me and seems to follow my anecdotal experience, even if I'm not sure there's proof of it. My blind guess is you'd find a similar pattern for other minority situations, like white rappers, black electronic musicians, etc.

tl;dr Some questionable things, especially how they score novelty and their speculations on causes, but interesting and possibly relevant nonetheless.

>I don't really believe it and that's pretty clear but here is my dissertation on how it's "interesting"
fuck off reddit

It does sound questionable.
>They also speculate that women in female-minority genres need to work harder to stand out more, which makes women in those genres more creative than the men in them on average
This makes some sense maybe in genres like jazz. But in other genres like trap or folk I think being a woman is a bonus, especially in the Internet age.
I guess these articles are useless, it's easy to cherry pick data to sound like either side is true.

That's called being open minded ,philistine

it's called being intentionally fucking retarded, which is all "open minded" in this context actually means. You're transparent, and you're not clever. Go play le epin doubles advocate on reddit, reddit

>measuring creativity
excellent meme
I give it two meme points

It is interesting, though. It's real statistical data. How can it not be interesting, if you're into statistics and scientific studies? There's nothing strongly pushing the main claim as being definitely true or false. I'm not saying it's right or wrong, but it's worth reading and considering if you're interested in social issues or whatever. The study does read like it has a political slant, but I don't think it can be dismissed out of hand or anything.

>This makes some sense maybe in genres like jazz. But in other genres like trap or folk I think being a woman is a bonus, especially in the Internet age.
Folk/indie stuff is so saturated with women that, instinctively, I'm not sure if that's true (though I have no data). But for trap and other internet-dominant genres, instinctively I would probably agree.

>I guess these articles are useless, it's easy to cherry pick data to sound like either side is true.
Yeah kind of. There could be 100 studies on this and probably 50 would find one result and 50 would find the opposite. (slatestarcodex.com/2014/12/12/beware-the-man-of-one-study/) I wouldn't say it's entirely useless though - just not to be taken as proof of anything one way or the other.

>doubles advocate

>They also speculate that women in female-minority genres need to work harder to stand out more, which makes women in those genres more creative than the men in them on average
Wouldn't being a woman in a male dominated genre make one stand out regardless of quality simply because they're different?

>Folk/indie stuff is so saturated with women that, instinctively, I'm not sure if that's true
Good point now that I think about it

Yes.

Attached: Mommycore.png (696x686, 681.36K)

>it's real statistical data
ah yes danceability. Fuck off reddit.
>greentexting doubles advocate
fuck off reddit

>Wouldn't being a woman in a male dominated genre make one stand out regardless of quality simply because they're different?
It absolutely does.
One of the better examples of this is the whole "where in the top 50 GOAT list should we put Lauryn Hill?" debate.
At the end of the day, she's a good singer and rapper who appears on a total of three or four albums yet that's apparently enough to be considered one of the greatest.

>t. reddit

Is julia holter famous or is she only posted in Yas Forums?

Rolling Stone? More like Rosenstein!

>n-no u

Potentially, but if the genre is mostly men (or even women) who for some reason are less interested in listening to female musicians in that genre, they may buy/stream their music and attend their shows less often. If that is the case, then the ones who do actually end up getting a lot of streams/etc. could on average be more creative/better than male artists with a similar number of streams.

But of course that's theoretical, and it's about averages and every individual case will differ. And I imagine it would definitely have to conflict with the rareness/abnormality effect you mention of something being uncommon and thus seen as more special and interesting. The power of each effect might vary a fair bit by genre and listening demographics. Seems like there've been a lot of studies on this, but probably not worth the time to dig through them all.

Thank you for your intelligent input.

>Is julia holter famous
Yes.

The only dubs advocate in this thread is me

Your posts are rife with both redditonian jargon and syntax. You need to go back.

lol
I read Rolling Stone on the website, it seems to be one of the few places where there are still old fashioned high quality journalists. I hate to say this though but it really looks like the male-written articles are the good ones and the female-written ones are low quality. Women journalists in RS even put emoticons in their articles, excessively post their opinion, disregard facts, write in a way that's too informal.
The site is starting to devolve into becoming like every dumb pop click bait website. It's a shame. RIP journalism.

again dude, you're transparent. You can type all that you want and they can put out whatever retarded fluffpieces they want. At the end of the day everyone knows that women are generally mediocre and clumsy. Men have a substantially higher variation in IQ and are also significantly more prone to mental illnesses which often correspond with creativity, neverminding the fact that anyone with two brain cells to rub together who isn't a dipshit feminist with an axe to grind can see how the cards fall. You're not interesting or smart. You just go out of your way to be a faggot.

I could literally sit here all day naming groundbreaking male musicians. Who are the amazing female musicians? Bjork, Kate Bush and... who else? How many can you really name? I'm talking throughout all of human history. Could you even get to 20?

Fail. Look at my dubs, you might learn something
Lana is not creative, she's just attractive and pushed by the media

This is totally clickbait but there's some creative women and men.

youtube.com/watch?v=e6fNWXaIV90
youtube.com/watch?v=dXgX0pPX7E8

I don't think you could say either artist is unoriginal or creative. The idea of objectively understanding human creativity or implying that one piece of art is more "creative" than another is kind of a futile effort.

women are better at love songs lyrics and singing. men make all the bad-ass, complex, well-thought out and performed actual music part of music. I'd say there's not a clear cut winner of music. about 50/50.

>quoting sam hyde
ok incel

I really like lana but most of her albums sound the same which isn't inherently wrong if they are good but she's not that creative.
To me personally Kanye is the most creative male artist alive which again doesn't mean he's the best but every album since late registration feels way different then the other especially yeezus. I can't think of any female artist is in the same league as him or better when it comes to being experimental and creative.

>Lana isn't creativ-
youtube.com/watch?v=Qg3DxELVPj4

> Women are better than men at X
> But "Society" ignores them

I guess I should be writing for Rolling Stones now since I cracked this journalistic code.

>women are better at love songs lyrics and singing
Oh really? How about you name all of the great love songs and all of the great singers, even from the last 20-30 years, and see who has the better score.

>women are better at love songs lyrics
Very funny Baitman

>literally
You need to go back.

It's kind of my dream to write this kind of shitty articles too, Idk what's stopping us.
Also they should remake the movie Almost Famous set on present day.

Carla Bley
Laurie Spiegel
Wendy Carlos
Eliane Radigue
that's all I've got

You got it, we all obviously know that you're right and everyone else is wrong, trying to look at claims to the contrary is only proof that you're pants on head fucking retarded and need to die because you're reddit and a feminist.

You're just as dumb as any SJW espousing that we all obviously know women are more creative and smarter than men, etc. You could make an actual argument, or you can proclaim your gut feeling formed from aeons of reading things on the internet is undeniable reality. Variability in male IQ or increased rates of mental illness are data points you could argue as things to consider, not hard proof that anyone not in full acceptance of what's obvious to your pea brain must be playing tricks. The world isn't as cut and dry or as full of bad actors as you think.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHHAHA

Attached: fripplaugh3.jpg (260x381, 21.51K)

Shut up, reddit.

Based.

I've legitimately never heard of any of those people.

you're not smart and you're not clever. You're just a tryhard. Women are not "more creative" or better than men in general at playing music, writing, art or anything else. You know this, and so does everyone else. Kill yourself you insufferable redditor.