Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Sisters with Transistors

rogerebert.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 83 posts

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#31

Post by layoutIfNeeded »

“Music is haunted by the specters of Beethoven and Mozart, even Elvis and John Lennon, with the canon being built around these names that we are told deserve not just celebrating but worshipping. These old, dead white men.”

What a distasteful opening of an otherwise interesting article.

As if some patriarchal conspiracy was forcing classical composers like Mozart and Beethoven down people’s throats... No, most simply listen to their work being enamored by the virtuosity and talent of these people who lived centuries ago. Framing their work in the context of contemporary American identity politics is very cheap journalism, and distasteful.

And let’s not conflate classical music with postmodern experimental electronic music either. They don’t belong to the same league. I do appreciate both genres, and while we can argue about the subjectivity of art all day long, there’s a reason why the former enjoyed wide acclaim throughout the eras, while the latter remained an obscure academic interest.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#32

Post by jxramos »

nerdponx wrote: post #19
wpietri wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a mistake I think of as "universalizing my preferences". Yes, it doesn't work for you. So one of two things is true: 1) a professional writer and a popular, long-running publication's professional editors have totally failed to do their jobs, or b) you're not the target audience. In this case, it's definitely the latter. This is writing meant to be read linearly from beginning to end. The purpose of the early…

"Long read" or "long form" is already a term for these articles, and I usually can't stand them in print either. Fine, some people like when their information is presented in the form of literature. I don't mind it myself once in a while, but usually I find myself wishing they'd get to the point, and I feel no wiser for having taken so long when (and if) they do ever get there. If nothing else, I really wish -- if on…

This is why I appreciate Axios coverage. It's so to the point and to the other extreme it's almost embarrassing to think of all the spilled ink others have poured forth.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#33

Post by deeblering4 »

teddyh wrote: post #20
nerdponx wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you can go back in time and put them in the pantheon back then, I don't see much of an alternative.

Violence begets violence, and likewise, discrimination begets reverse discrimination. Someone must step up and end the cycle.

Are you proposing that we all just pretend women were never oppressed and move on with our lives?

That would essentially be gaslighting half of earths population.

The cycle will end by itself in time through a series of under-corrections, but it’s not going to happen overnight.

And I’m sorry to say that comments like yours that undermine attribution of women are not part of the solution.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#34

Post by jxramos »

KineticLensman wrote: post #9
grenoire wrote: post #4

Slightly off-topic; I can't read this article without scrambling my brain. Whatever review is hidden inside here is behind a wall of obscure references that only the niche target audience can understand, and as I try to navigate around all of these, I'm able to find a couple sentences which actually convey what's going on in the documentary and what the author thinks about it. Please don't write like this, you're onl…

> a wall of obscure references that only the niche target audience can understand The first para contains references to >> Beethoven and Mozart, even Elvis and John Lennon The next para lists the 'sisters' themselves. I hadn't heard of them but then that is the whole point of the film under review > I'm able to find a couple sentences which actually convey what's going on in the documentary and what the author thinks…

I like to think we'd all be better off operating "without needing the approval of others" be them male or female. In the end it's the open market of ideas and services that will judge you in your contemporaneous settings, but who knows maybe future generations will dig someone's particular works. Or maybe they can just do the work because they enjoy it themselves. Just to it.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#35

Post by gumby »

norswap wrote: post #15

I wish we could appreciate women's talents without feeling forced to prefix the whole thing with a blob about restoring them to their righteous place on the pantheon of whatever.

I wish that too, and eventually we will get there. But there is a lot of progress and catching up before we get there.

Nowadays when I watch films or read books from the 50s, 60s, and 70s the depth of casual sexism is quite shocking. So that shows some progress. But still there’s a tremendous amount of inequality to be overcome.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#36

Post by havernator »

fao_ wrote: post #28
teddyh wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not the GP poster, and so I was not commenting on this specific case, but only on the more general principle. But if we apply the general principle to this case, it can be argued that placing women on a pedestal like this is both demeaning and othering them.

I'm... really (honestly!) not sure how this demeans women? Like to put it clearer: I absolutely in no way can see even a path to understanding how it is demeaning to talk about things people did in the past, that were deliberately ignored or buried, because of their gender. I'm also not really sure what you mean by "general principle", either, to be honest? Thanks in advance!

> I absolutely in no way can see even a path to understanding how it is demeaning to talk about things people did in the past, that were deliberately ignored or buried, because of their gender.

Not the parent, but a common take on pieces like this is that they’re trying too hard, and end up trying to promote people who’d clearly not have made any kind of “pantheon” even if they’d been men, yet frame it as if they would have. The tone of this piece is a lot like one of those, even if the film isn’t doing that (haven’t seen it).

As for how that might be demeaning, imagine if things were reversed and you read a piece about the forgotten Great Men Inventors that opened with put-downs of Roberta Oppenheimer and Thelma Edison and the Wright Sisters and demanded that we consider among their ranks the unjustly forgotten men inventors, who are just as good and important... like Edwin Moore, who patented the push-pin. Would that be inspiring to men, do you think? Or would it come off as lame pandering and an indictment of the premise (“there are tons of men who accomplished great things in the past but were ignored because they were men”) that they couldn’t find any better examples? Nb that a scarcity of such examples even given perfect record keeping is exactly what one would expect in a society in which one sex had had far fewer opportunities to do work we consider notable, no matter their actual potential.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#37

Post by lstamour »

duquedeturing wrote: post #13
brylie wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, only in the U.S.

Found it (for rent) on Vimeo for other countries.

https://sisterswithtransistors.com/watch lists where to watch it for the US, UK and elsewhere (Vimeo) but the Vimeo excludes the following countries: France, Germany, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Austria, Russia, Poland and Israel.

I can confirm as a Canadian that I'm having a hard time watching it without (presumably) a VPN.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#38

Post by walshemj »

gumby wrote: post #35
norswap wrote: post #15

I wish we could appreciate women's talents without feeling forced to prefix the whole thing with a blob about restoring them to their righteous place on the pantheon of whatever.

I wish that too, and eventually we will get there. But there is a lot of progress and catching up before we get there. Nowadays when I watch films or read books from the 50s, 60s, and 70s the depth of casual sexism is quite shocking. So that shows some progress. But still there’s a tremendous amount of inequality to be overcome.

The Star Treck pilot is an example.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#39

Post by mark-r »

NikolaNovak wrote: post #8
grenoire wrote: post #4

Slightly off-topic; I can't read this article without scrambling my brain. Whatever review is hidden inside here is behind a wall of obscure references that only the niche target audience can understand, and as I try to navigate around all of these, I'm able to find a couple sentences which actually convey what's going on in the documentary and what the author thinks about it. Please don't write like this, you're onl…

Hmm - based on the comment I thought I would find an article full off synth terms like LFO or subtractive synthesis or low pass 12db filter or whatever,but it reads like a regular movie review, focused entirely on people and their plight...

It is absolutely a regular movie review. I had no idea Roger Ebert's name was still being used after his death, but he was one of the most highly regarded movie critics ever. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Ebert
Post reply on HN