>>126735083
Do you think it was political when these kinds of things featured no women, regardless of how good their work actually was? Because let's be real, that was most of history, and it was political, just unchallenged, and therefore unnoticed by us as the beneficiaries of that male default. They were just left out unless they really couldn't be avoided for some reason - like Hildegard Von Bingen.
Currently studying art history and it's the same way. Almost comical how blatant some of it is. The most prolific book of art history actually contained zero women in its early printings, starting in 1962. No Mary Cassatt, Frida Kahlo, Georgia O'Keeffe, Gentileschi etc. We know there wouldn't be a lot in there, but it gets pretty bad.
I know it's annoying though, but I just try to look at it as a temporary over correction. It won't last. If anything it's good because we get to discover some good shit that we've missed out on even hearing before this kind of thing dies down and most of them are once again forgotten.
As far as classical goes, older acts especially will never really get their seat at the table even where it's deserved, as men make up the majority of listeners and are less likely to choose to listen to the females in the first place. Nothing inherently wrong or evil about that, females would naturally do the same thing. Just playing devil's advocate.
There are quite a few good contemporary females as well, I'm more familiar with them, but you may not be interested in fucking with anything contemporary if you're just getting into classical. Didn't mean to go on such a rant but oh well.
