Does anyone (or everyone!) else teach mostly girls? What is it with the boys - street cred? I only have three boys among my collection of students (although two of them are teenagers, which I suppose is encouraging!)

I have mainly girls...

Out of 30 I have 5 younger boys and 2 teenage boys.

Maybe it depends on the instrument?

I teach several boys. When one starts and likes music he will tell his mates and then they want to do the same. We don't have a street cred problem here at all really. An interesting fact that I have found is that all of the best musicians that I have known, and I mean the really brilliant ones now, have been left-handed males.

I also have mostly girls, but the most outstanding right now is a 5th year boy on sax, has his sights on the RSAMD.

I'm sure it didn't used to be this way. Something to do with the ladish culture in the 21st century, videogames, DVDs, football. Attitudes among boys tend to be away from music, then of course they go to the football and sing their favourite songs!

On the reverse, the vast majority of students on my music degree were male.

That's interesting! One of the little boys I teach is left-handed...will have to watch and see

I think Bach was left handed (he certainly wrote for an active left hand on the keyboard )

He also had 22 children ... ... ...

Are left handed girls more brilliant that right handed ones too?!

Struth David!!And you so young too! And we thought that Bach was busy! Sorry. Couldn't resist that. I know what you mean really.

my pupil ratio works out at roughly 50 - 50 boys and girls

Interesting thread. I count 9 boys out of about 45. All my adult pupils are female - in fact thinking back over the years I can only think of a couple of my adult pupils that were male.


Could be. At the school I work at I only tend to see boys walking past my window for their drum lessons (and guitar come to think of it).

Then those 15 are women, rather than girls. Welcome to the 21st century, David.

I have 73 girls, 3 adult women & 29 boys at present. I find it generally works out at about twice as many girls as boys, but at the moment seems to be even more girls than usual. I seem to get more girls who are really keen & determined, but there are a few boys who are very enthusiastic, too. There just seem to be more boys who are being pushed by parents, rather than really wanting to do it themselves, but I haven't got any really bad examples of that at the moment. Some of the boys are a bit less organised about coming on time, with their books etc., but most are doing well.

There are 15 brass players at my school, only 3 of which are girls. Maybe it does depend on the instrument.

Among my private and school pupils I have 40 girls, 12 boys, 4 women and 4 men - so girls to boys is about 4 to 1, but adult pupils are equal.

Goodness, Bev - I make that 105 pupils!! Is that a record? (Not counting class teaching, of course)

Incidentally, whenever I've been on an EPTA course, AB session or similar, the balance has usually been 98 women to 3 men.

All 56 of mine are female. I have only ever taught two male students, both at college in the first year I taught there (six years ago now ).

If I can call them 'pupils', I have one boy and one girl.

In my school there are 13 females having lessons and 26 males. (14 of those males and 1 female are learning to play the bagpipes ).

The majority of my students (both young and mature) are male. Don't ask me why. Demographic preference for a particular instrument? I've no idea.

Having said that, the girls and the women tend to be a quicker on the uptake of skills than boys and the men. This is due to one main factor. Females listen with full attention to what I am saying first, before trying things themselves, rather than the men and boys who just plunge headlong into it when I'm only half way through an explanation. Then they wonder why they either can't do it, or are struggling.

Additionally, women do tend to have a more thoughtful approach to a new skill or solving a problem, whereas men mor often than not launch themselves into things without too much thought and then can't work out why/how they come unstuck....

I think partly it is instrument-related. Boys are more likely to go for "cool" instruments like brass, saxophone, keyboard, guitar and percussion than they are for what are perceived as "girly" instruments, i.e. strings, flute and oboe.

I think there are also big differences in attitude between boys and girls. This is a generalisation, and there are exceptions, but girls will carry on with lessons even if they know they aren't very good at something. Boys need to feel they are making progress, and are much quicker to drop things when they feel they aren't succeeding. So you tend to get a fair number of very good male musicians, but there are far more mediocre females.

At risk of gross generalisation, has anyone else noticed that where there are more female students for an so called 'girly' instruments (or even more neutral like piano), the more successful tend to be male. Often girls vastly outnumber boys in school, but more often only go that far, while the fewer boys are more likely to take things to higher levels, show greater talent, go to further study, become professional.

That is my experience, though I'm sure others won't agree.

Please do not add to the perception of 'girly' instruments . I teach the violin and as already pointed out, the majority I teach are male. I never even like to think about instrument and gender relation, the stigma of 'girly' will always rub off on youngsters even if you so much as mention it.

Most professional orchestras are still a 60/40 split, men to women - with the exception of the Vienna Phil, which at the last count had just one female, a violist. Is/was she a token gesture, so they weren't prosecuted for discrimination?

I don't know if this is standard or not, and will be interested to see what others say, but my own experience of male pupils is that they either don't have the same staying power and concentration levels as girls, or else they are very good indeed. Less of them are middling, whilst more of my female pupils could indeed be described as mediocre. They get there, but my highest exam results and best performances have always come from boys. (Talking about piano, by the way!)

I am not trying to "add to the perception of 'girly' instruments", just telling it like it is in my area. I know several boys whose parents started them on strings or flute at junior school, who quickly gave up when they realised at secondary school that very few boys were playing their instruments. (I do also know one violinst and one flautist who carried on with lessons because they knew they could be really good at their instrument.) Brass players, on the other hand, tend to continue lessons for longer.

I agree with your figures on professional orchestras, but I think if you looked at the age profile you would find far more females than males in the 25-35 age range for violin. When women have a young family they tend to drop out of orchestras whereas the men stay in, which is one reason why there are more men overall.

My friend is a boy - technically we are about the same standard, but my sight reading is better, whereas his playing is much more expressive. Our orchestra is very thin on males - 2 boys and the conductor are male in one, and 3 boys who can never turn up at the same time in another!

That's interesting - I have a roughly 50/50 split (also on piano). Of the very best, 4 are boys and 2 girls, but I also have 4 boys who really have very poor concentration - none of the girls are that bad - as you say, they do manage to get there in the end.

I think its certainly a valid point. Not from a teaching perspective but if you look at the top flute players there are many notable people from both genders yet the best, Moyse, Rampal, Galway, Gaubert all seem to be male.

I've heard the theory that because they're not a 'typical' player of the instrument they end up working harder to prove themselves and thats why they become better than their counterparts. Yet with other instruments such as trumpets etc the majority of players seem to be male and the best players are also more likely to be male. Does anyone have any views on why that might be or is it just that music itself is becoming more associated with one gender?



Isn't the Vienna Phil more of a special case though? I think i heard that players needed to spend a certain length of time in the Vienna Opera's orchestra before they can even be considered for a post. Maybe the female players in the Opera orchestra simply move before gaining the required experience while the male players are more happy to wait it out with a view to future gains.

A bit like the way none of the men I know read the manual for a new appliance...then wonder why they can't get it to work just by pushing all the buttons at random

I do have a lot of pupils, but I have had more in the past & will probably have a few more still by the end of the year - requests are still coming in from schools, though I am starting to turn a few down. A lot of school pupils have only 15 or 20 minutes, so the work load is not quite as horrendous as it sounds, but it is a lot.

I agree about courses, they're usually attended by almost all women.

My students work out about 50/50 right now. Although in the concert band i conduct it is mostly girls, there are about 25 girls and 5 boys. I also think it does depend on the instrument too, out of a 14 strong clarinet section only 2 are male! And as a female trombonist i find that whenever i join a band or even if i am only called in as a replacement i tend to find myself being the only female surrounded by the rest of the male lower brass section... and i often get funny looks!

I don't think this is true for all instruments. There are some fine female clarinettists e.g Sabine Meyer, Emma Johnson and violinists e.g. Nichola Benedetti, as well as good male players (I love Joshua Bell and Maxim Vengerov, who I think excel at different types of music). Maybe it's just that many men do tend to be very single-minded about their work, and therefore put their whole selves into it, whereas many women are keen to build a home and family as well as a career? Music is a hard taskmaster and to remain right at the top means sacrificing a lot of other stuff on the altar of St Cecilia.

This is true in so many other areas as well. I teach in a language department of a university. In a class of 40 students there are only 2 or 3 boys. The lecturers are about 60% men, 40 % women and the most senior staff are almost entirely men.

As far as organs are concerned (had to shove my oar in hadn't I! ) it seems that it has played more by boys- at all courses there is always a majority. When I got to Ripon everyone had a mild shock that I was an organ scholar and female to top it off! I even got asked at the interview whether I would feel comfortable in an all male environment (well it's not actually all male, but hey). Anyway, despite that analogy, my mum has more female pupils than male, though my dad has all men. Hmm!

I teach brass to 31 boys, 43 girls and 1 (male) adult. In addition to this I take whole class recorder lessons where the split is approx 50/50.

Are you saying that men can't multi-task and that this might be one instance in which that's to their favour?

My Teacher's pupils are more girls than boys, but I don't think there's too much difference.

At the moment out of 25 pupils, I currently have only 5 boys. (The instrument is piano).

I think some men can multi-task very effectively when it's connected with their work ! I'm really saying that perhaps men are more willing than women to sacrifice everything to their art long-term. That's why although there are more good female players than male at say age 25, by age 40 the dominant players are mostly male.

I'm not saying it is, i don't really know enough about every other instruments to be sure. I don't dispute that on all instruments there are virtuoso players of both genders however looking at the really top class players who you instantly think of most of them are male. Its certainly true on the violin Heifetz, Menuhin even Vengerov today.
I'd also dispute the validity of Benedetti, she is obviously a good player but i certainly wouldn't put her in the same class as Vengerov. I've heard her playing in a few concerts with the RSNO and i'd have said that their (former) leader was a far better violinist both technically and solistically than Benedetti, but that's just in my view.
I'm also not entirely sure of the 'woman do other things' card that comes up whenever this kind of discussion emerges. I'm not saying that its not a factor but at that kind of level i don't think it should come into it. After all most male players have a family/home etc to worry about eventually.




I think you're getting caught out in thinking it takes longer to emerge than it really does. In the regional concert band of the top 5 flautists 4 were male. All of them were in the same year group and now they've left so they've drafted in another male player, previously on percussion, to take on the flute part because the girls weren't up to it technically.
I know its purely anecdotal and may not be reflected in every region/country etc but its also true on almost every instrument, long before having children etc comes into it. Its also a pattern repeated in most of the amateur bands i've seen, despite men's supposed obsession with work.

I wouldn't put Benedetti in the same class as Vengerov (he is fantastic), but that there are other women violinists I'd rate more highly than her - e.g. Sarah Chang, Kyung Wha Chung & Anne-Sophie Mutter. There are probably more men pianists than women right at the top, but those women who are at the top (e.g. Hewitt, Uchida, Argerich) are extremely good.

I think one needs to remember that Benedetti is relatively young as a person and a player - I'm not sure it's fair to compare her to more mature players. Whether she has what it takes to become really great I don't know, but she has a lot of potential. Vengerov is undoubtedly in a different league if one compares them directly. But then he is 13 years give or take older than her and was winning prizes before she was born, so it's hardly a fair comparison! Let's see what she is like in her 30s first!

Re: anecdotal evidence - I know that in the youth orchestras I played in when I was a teenager, the situation was reversed and most of the excellent players were female. So I think that basically one can't draw a

I disagree. If Benedetti is setting herself up as a recording artist doing concerts at the top level, playing a Strad, with all the following and paraphenalia that her position suggests then she should be able to compete at that level. In my view her playing at present just doesn't merit that.
I'm not even sure about the potential aspect, going on what i've heard of her background she seems to have been hothoused with respect to playing the violin. I think most people if put in that kind of position with the same advantages, and the right inclination could probably get just as far.
After all in another thread we were comparing Galway to Pahud so presumably Galway should have been given some concessions given his age and Pahud his inexperience?
I'm fairly certain that if you looked at Vengerov's recordings when he was the same age as Benedetti he would sound much better.

As to anecdotal evidence i'm not sure you're correct in your assumption. If we are talking about the situation today then only current evidence, anectdotal or otherwise, is relevant. If you looked at the band i referred to earlier now then you would probably assume that girls were the best on all instruments, in fact the top oboist and clarinettist are at a specialist music school, the best flautist would actually be playing the drums and in all likelihood some of the other better players just wouldn't want to go because of the disparity between males and females.

I do take your point that it can depend very much on location etc. or even the years you are in a particular band but i don't think Berkshire Mum was correct in suggesting the balance between male and female players swung between 25 and 40, coincidentally the time when they're most likely to have children.



I don't think anyone would dispute that there are many women playing as well or better than many men on all instruments. I'm not particularly clued up on modern pianists but my guess is for someone in the field they could easily name at least as many male player who are just as good as the examples you highlight. Looking back certainly Rachmaninov etc.

Well I have to disagree that she "can't compete" because all of the playing that I have heard has been good - not Vengerov, but not bad either, and comparable IMO with some soloists with much more experience. And many music critics would agree with me. I wouldn't expect her to be playing with the maturity of a violinist over a decade older both in age and playing terms.


Well Vengerov started playing at 5 and was winning concerts by 10 so in that respect they're pretty similar.

(Actually if anything a young violinist growing up in Russia was probably more likely "hothoused")

I'm not saying that she is as good as Vengerov - I don't think she is. But I think as a 20 year old violinist she has a lot of maturing and growing up to do, and while I don't think she's a great violinist now, she's certainly good, and has the potential to become better IMO.

(I'm also not sure she has "set herself up" as a soloist - she won a competition, and took advantage of that fact (and indeed who can blame her) - if anyone has "set her up as a soloist" it is her agents etc... and indeed after winning YM and getting CD offers one can't blame her for not wanting to go and join the daily grind of a jobbing musician. She certainly has more exposure and more CD deals than most soloists in her position at her age would have, as a result of the YM result. I suspect she is at least as good as many soloists of her age, she has just been fortunate to get a leg up into the international world/being known rather sooner than most, which has contributed to her success. It doesn't take away IMO from the fact she's a talented young lady. (I expect there may be some who are as good that will never have her luck - such are the vagaries of real life). She has certainly been catapulted into the international soloist status sooner than would probably otherwise be the case, but that's more to do with marketing execs going "ooh young attractive violinist who people already know cos they've seen her on the box...")


Have you listened to his early recordings or are you just assuming that?

I have actually listened to some of his early stuff, and it's darn good. But certainly his playing now is IMO better and more mature in many respects. There's good reason to suppose that Benedetti's will develop. How far, we simply don't know. I'm not convinced she's going to become great, but then I'm not convinced she's not going to either. I think it's too early to tell.

I don't think it much matters when someone becomes "great". IMO both Pahud and Galway are in that bracket in different ways IMO. I do find it astounding that Pahud became so good as to be in the Berlin Phil at 22, but at almost 40, he's going to be a reasonably mature musician/person and age becomes IMO somewhat irrelevant.

Without wanting to sound patronising, Benedetti is a raw 20 year old. Yes, that's two years into 'adulthood' but IMO it's still pretty young as a musician and I wouldn't expect someone to be "as good as they're going to get" at 20 unless they are truly exceptional. Actually in many ways I'd say as a person and as a musician she comes across pretty mature for her age, which is a good sign. But I think it's too early to say that she's not capable of being great.

(Vengerov is exceptional IMO, but even he has developed from his early recordings to his latest ones.)


I don't know if you're right or not to doubt BM's assertion. I just don't think that "the situation in my concert band is this" is much evidence either way.

Actually there is a very interesting book which researched the connections between personality and instruments and to some extent gender/personality and instruments too. There are definitely some instruments seen as more "male" eg brass instruments/guitar/drums/sax etc and others as more "female" eg violin/flute etc. and yes, it may be a generalization, but it's a stereotype which does exist, and which some children find hard to struggle against (eg a boy carrying a violin case or a guitar case - which do you think would appear "cool" to his peers? And don't forget peer pressure is a very important influence for children......) (The book, incidentally, is "The Musical Temperament" by Anthony Kemp, but he also quotes other researchers' findings. I studied the issue for one of my CT assignments - it made interesting reading!) Obviously there are exceptions, otherwise you'd never get guys like Nigel Kennedy, Maxim Vengarov, Yehudi Menuhin, Wissam Boustany, James Galway etc. but it's a real test of a child's commitment to both their chosen instrument and to music.

I'm not saying that she 'can't compete' precisely. She is a relatively talented player, probably good enough to get recordings etc. But she isn't great, or at least compared to others she isn't. I'm not a violinist so i can't provide a list of players, but i'm guessing you would probably accept that most of the great violinists are and have been to date male? In spite of most violinists at lower levels, certainly in the last few decades being female. Maturity obviously comes with experience of playing the instrument so i wouldn't expect the playing to be as mature, or maybe even as confident technically. But in a great player i'd have thought the core of greatness if you like would be there and i really don't see Benedetti as having that, just my view though.

Well if we're going on what competitions they've won Vengerov's was an international competition whereas Benedetti was only playing against the best of Britain, i did have to look that up though. Even looking at it from that perspective Benedetti was 6 years older than Vengerov and just winning a national competition. Obviously its a very impressive achievement, i certainly wouldn't have a chance at it, but there seems a significant difference in ability. Would Vengerov be where he is if he hadn't won that competition at 10? My guess is he would. Would Benedetti be so prominent/have a record deal if she hadn't won BBC YM?

I'm not saying that she won't get better, nor am i criticising her for exploiting the advantages she has worked for and been given, however i don't think she's one of the best players. I also don't think 50/60 years from now there will be many people listening to her work in the same way they might listen to truly great players like Galway and Pahud on the flute or Heifetz and Vengerov on violin.

I'm not really a fan of the violin so it was a guess as i stated. You'll have a better formed view on it than i do but from the "darn good" i'm guessing that the earlier stuff is better than Benedetti's?
It's quite true we don't know how far they'll go, and 10/20 years from now if she becomes great i'm quite happy for you to say 'i told you so', i really don't see it happening though, the hype can only last so long and i, personally, don't think her playing is likely to get good enough to become great. That's not to say that she won't have a successful solo career etc though.

I'm quite aware its not a lot of evidence, but its probably more valid than what seems a fairly baseless assertion. I'm quite happy to accept that at virtually all the top music conservatories etc the intake will be predominantly female, however i think that at the top end many if not most of those intakes will be disproportionately male.

I'm probably way off the wall here - and I don't actually even know what I'm talking about - but I'm hoping that it will ring a bell with somebody else.

It's the father's sperm which determines the ### of a child, right? Aren't there certain conditions which make it more or less likely that the child will be male or female? Does one type of sperm have more staying power than the other - ie it survives longer in the womb - and does one seem to have the ability to swim further than the other, but not survive for so long?

Please don't be too hard on me if I'm completely wrong but I was wondering if this difference between male and female might be in any way significant...

Not necessarily.........I know of 2 contemporary pianists - both excellent - one of whom won a big piano competition in his 20's, the other didn't. Both are, I would say, equal - but one had opportunity handed to him on a plate (with the competition), the other had to work hard for years to achieve the same sort of recognition.

Its purely a matter of opinion obviously, and it did happen so there's very little point hypothesising about it. However i think someone like Vengerov would probably have came through regardless. If he hadn't entered that competition would it have any major effect on it his playing? I don't think he would have suddenly increased his practice or became better technically because of it.
I'm not saying it wouldn't have taken more work from Vengerov if he hadn't got the extra attention from winning competitions but i think his playing would have carried him through regardless. It might have taken him longer to become as prominent as he is today but his playing would be just as good, as would his recordings, and conductors, orchestras etc would probably be just as keen to work with him on that basis as on any competitions he may have won.

This year 13 girls 19 boys - the instruments are flute, recorder and piano.

The preponderance of boys in my case is partly because I teach a family of seven children, six of whom happen to be boys.

In my humble opinion the reasons for male dominance in music are exactly the same as in any other field.
They are historic and sociological. I'm not going to churn out all the arguments in defense of women and against male domination because we all know them, whether we agree or not.

I am all for equality of opportunity and in my nursery class I take the drums away from the the macho little boys who think that is their preserve and I give them to the girls. And I take the chime bars away from the timid little girls and give them to the boys. - Seriously, I try to make children understand that their tastes do not have to be governed by stereotyped role models or peer pressure and any girl who wants to play the trombone is perfectly entitled to do so and any boy who wants to sing is equally entitled to do so. As far as ### differences are concerned I simply haven't joined. I know that out there in the real world these pressures exist but it is my firm belief that the world (not just the musical world) would be a better place
if we stopped turning girls into passive sponges and boys into war mongerers.

Yes but my point was that it would have probably taken him a lot longer to get where he is today had he not won that competition, and I'm not meaning his abilities - I'm meaning the recognition and fame that he has. (And incidentally, I didn't start the hypothesizing..........) Competition winners are immediately thrust into the spotlight and often embark on a hectic schedule of recitals etc thus exposing them yet further. Non-competition winners have to work to promote themselves much harder, therefore it takes longer even if their playing is superb. They still need "the lucky break" so to speak............

My initial point was that he would still be recognised as a great player today, even if he hadn't won the competition. That takes into account the additional time factor you suggest, it may have taken longer but by now he would in all likelihood be in the same/a similar position to the one he's in just now.
If he had the kind of talent and ability to win or even enter that kind of competition at 10 then it would only ever be a matter of time, even if he hadn't got the top prize the kind of exposure he would get at such a young age etc.