Sensitive/female-sounding scales or chord progressions?

Tobias A. Ratka

New Member
Hey everyone!

So as the title already says, I'm looking for chord progressions or scales that sound sensitive or (not trying to be sexist) but girly/female.

Or to be more precise: I'm looking for the musical equivalent of a scared, little girl that's sucking her thumb and holding her teddy bear tightly.



Does anybody have any ideas or recommendations? I'd be hapy for some answers!


Thanks
Toby :)
 

leogardini

Senior Member
No scale will sound like anything until you make a melody or harmony out of it.
Keep in mind that the instruments choice and rhythm sometimes are more important than the melody and harmony.
Try Lidian mode. It’s a cliche that always works for ludic feelings.
 
Last edited:

mikeh-375

old school
Like Leo says, but Tobias, I'm sure you feel your music as you create it right? so you should be able to assess the emotion your writing imparts and whether or not it's effect is universal enough ( or cliched enough) to get the point across to others. Depending on the way it is presented and used, even a simple major scale might do the job, as might just one note if it is scored/coloured appropriately.
 
Last edited:

halfwalk

Active Member
"Not trying to be sexist, but how can I use music to reinforce baseless gender stereotypes?"

Maybe think of fragility as a human characteristic rather than an inherently "girly" thing. And then your options will open up, because you will have removed these needless artificial constraints you have imposed upon the work.

A scared boy is a scared girl is a scared human
 

fiestared

Vintage -but- not obsolete
Hey everyone!

So as the title already says, I'm looking for chord progressions or scales that sound sensitive or (not trying to be sexist) but girly/female.

Or to be more precise: I'm looking for the musical equivalent of a scared, little girl that's sucking her thumb and holding her teddy bear tightly.



Does anybody have any ideas or recommendations? I'd be hapy for some answers!


Thanks
Toby :)
Ask julio Iglesias, he knows...:rofl:
 

Alexandre

Member
Hey everyone!

So as the title already says, I'm looking for chord progressions or scales that sound sensitive or (not trying to be sexist) but girly/female.

Or to be more precise: I'm looking for the musical equivalent of a scared, little girl that's sucking her thumb and holding her teddy bear tightly.



Does anybody have any ideas or recommendations? I'd be hapy for some answers!


Thanks
Toby :)
You ARE being sexist as your image of a scared little girl is sincerely utterly ridiculous as gender with a scared child is totally certainly irrelevant when translated into music...
So think twice before posting questions with very primitive sexist insinuation if I may tell you honestly what I think.
Now the right question is : how to translate musically a scene with a scared little kid holding on to his teddy bear?
 

halfwalk

Active Member
I should clarify my point, because maybe I was being too harsh on the OP. Their intentions were good ("not trying to be sexist") but the topic itself is a bit misguided. The problem I'm addressing is that the OP does not appear to recognize their implicit bias. On the contrary, they seem to think they are decidedly not prejudiced.

And that's the issue I have; if you don't realize you're being sexist, then you have no motivation to reassess your beliefs and potentially change them. It's frustrating if you genuinely believe you aren't exhibiting prejudice, when you actually are. And that's one of the reasons sexism is still a widespread problem; many of us aren't even aware how implicitly sexist we might be in our daily lives and organic thoughts.

Anyway, the main on-topic point I had was that OP might be writing themselves into a corner needlessly by injecting arbitrary gender-based "rules" into the composition.



And this thread going on without any trigger warning?
Now I’m getting pretty scared!
Of course, any time this topic is brought up anywhere, someone comes in with a snide remark about being triggered, as if to make light of a concept they maybe don't quite understand or agree with, or of which they might even be afraid. Belittle away, if that's truly what you enjoy, but that mindset is harmful to an open dialogue.

Based on this remark, I don't think you actually understand what a trigger warning is, and why it might be significant to some people (and how it has almost nothing to do with this topic being addressed here).
 
Last edited:

nordicguy

Active Member
I should clarify my point, because maybe I was being too harsh on the OP. Their intentions were good ("not trying to be sexist") but the topic itself is a bit misguided. The problem I'm addressing is that the OP does not appear to recognize their implicit bias. On the contrary, they seem to think they are decidedly not prejudiced.

And that's the issue I have; if you don't realize you're being sexist, then you have no motivation to reassess your beliefs and potentially change them. It's frustrating if you genuinely believe you aren't exhibiting prejudice, when you actually are. And that's one of the reasons sexism is still a widespread problem; many of us aren't even aware how implicitly sexist we might be in our daily lives and organic thoughts.

Anyway, the main on-topic point I had was that OP might be writing themselves into a corner needlessly by injecting arbitrary gender-based "rules" into the composition.





Of course, any time this topic is brought up anywhere, someone comes in with a snide remark about being triggered, as if to make light of a concept they maybe don't quite understand or agree with, or of which they might even be afraid. Belittle away, if that's truly what you enjoy, but that mindset is harmful to an open dialogue.

Based on this remark, I don't think you actually understand what a trigger warning is, and why it might be significant to some people (and how it has almost nothing to do with this topic being addressed here).
You really talk like somebody who knows it all anyway.
So, just forget about my comment.
...
By the way, I was reacting to the the post you’v already...edited.
Go figure.
 
Last edited:

Leon Willett

Active Member
Humans with XY chromosomes have statistically higher testosterone blood levels than humans born with XX chromosomes. This causes XY chromosome brains to generate more decisive, insensitive, risk taking, sometimes stupid and aggressive actions. It also causes higher skeletal muscle tissue generation, statistically speaking, and larger and more dense bones.

XY chromosome-bearing humans have statistically higher estrogen blood levels and lower testosterone levels, among many other things. This, statistically, gives rise to slightly lower skeletal muscle tissue, slightly less dense bone tissue and thinner bones too. It also generates more long-term, calculating, careful, planning, sensitive and caring thought patterns, statistically speaking.

Because stating these facts in this way is tiresome, and kind of ridiculous... in every-day language, and in popular culture, some people slip up for a second and just say "girly" or "dude-like".

And everyone knows what they mean.

To associate vulnerability or delicateness, or aggression or stupidity, with a particular arrangement of chromosomes, or to word a question by using and abbreviation ("girl-like", for example) is not, in itself, exhibiting any bias -- implicit or otherwise -- at all.

And to jump on it is just virtue signalling.
 

mikeh-375

old school
There is also the case that male composers have to be sensitive in order to create emotion in their work - the more sensitive you are, the more potent your music imv. Conversely, female composers have to also develop some musical testosterone for certain compositional styles. Fortunately, these traits can be acquired and exploited by both sexes and are a common denominator I'd say. Music is sexless.