Here’s Why You Seldom See Women Leading a Symphony

As these charts show, there’s a particularly thick glass ceiling in the conducting profession.

Marin Alsop, music director of the Baltimore Symphony, is the only female conductor of a major US orchestra. Photo by Grant Leighton

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Earlier this month, Vasily Petrenko, the principal conductor of the Oslo Philharmonic and the Royal Liverpool Philharmonic, provoked outrage when he told a Norwegian newspaper that “orchestras react better when they have a man in front of them” because “a cute girl on the podium means that musicians think about other things.” (His words have also been translated as “sweet girl,” which isn’t really any better.)

This all went down a few days before Marin Alsop, the principal conductor of the Baltimore Symphony Orchestra, became the first woman to conduct the Last Night of the Proms, a 118-year-old London concert that marks the end of the city’s eight-week summer season of classical music.

Female conductors around Europe were quick to express their frustration with Petrenko’s statements. Sarah Alexander, chief executive of the National Youth Orchestra, where Petrenko is also a conductor, put out a statement. From the Guardian:

[She] said it was very disappointing that Petrenko should “express such a narrow view when he is chief conductor of an organization that is run by a woman, half of whose teaching staff are women, all of whose senior management team are women and 50 percent of its members are young women, for whom we actively encourage a vision as future leaders.”

She added: “It’s not an opinion I have ever heard him express before.”

Petrenko later clarified that he was referring only to orchestras in Russia, and that his wife is a choral conductor. He encouraged women to study conducting, assuring them that their success depends “on their talent and their work, definitely not their gender.”

Which got us thinking: How big is the gender gap in orchestra conducting, actually?

The numbers above include assistant and substitute conductors, and many of the women work for smaller-budget or youth ensembles. Now look at the gap when we hone in on larger orchestras.

Finally, let’s look at the elite, America’s 22 highest-budget orchestras…

That lone woman is Alsop, of the Baltimore Symphony. Here she is conducting the Last Night of the Proms earlier this month:

In the wake of Petrenkos’ comments, observers have pointed out that the tradition-steeped world of classical music has made gains in gender parity. Many prestigious orchestras have significant female membership—women outnumber men in the New York Philharmonic’s violin section—and several renowned ensembles, including the National Symphony Orchestra, the Detroit Symphony, and the Minnesota Symphony, are led by women violinists. Brass, percussion, and string-bass orchestra sections are still predominantly male. And conducting is especially lopsided; it’s “one of the last glass ceilings in the music industry,” the Guardian notes. And that’s worrisome given that a good number of women are still studying it at an advanced level—although that gap widened this past year.

In 2009 and 2012, as you may notice, nearly half of the conducting doctorates went to women. Some people with higher degrees in conducting go into academia rather than helming an ensemble—but the gender distribution of music school professorships isn’t very equitable either.

As we’ve reported previously, a number of US orchestras have discovered that they have to bend tradition to say afloat, whether that means projecting concerts outside their venues in high-def or teaming up with mainstream pop and rock musicians. Putting women on the podium may not be traditional, but if Alsop’s Proms—which racked up a record number of sold-out shows (57 of 75) and employed an unprecedented number (five) of female conductors—is any indication, that’s an innovation that audiences appreciate.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate