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

71–80 of 83 posts

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#71

Post by wpietri »

allturtles wrote: post #68
wpietri wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think his point is pretty clear in that paragraph: "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." The problem is the dead overshadowing the living.

Isn't that the very point of a canon? It takes time for a society to ratify the quality of a cultural artifact, to sift through the chaff and decide on what and who the 'greats' are. Invariably, at any given point in time, most of them are dead. It's possible that in the long run, people will consider Clara Rockmore, Delia Derbyshire, etc. to rank with Beethoven, Mozart, etc. It doesn't seem likely, though. I don't t…

That could well be the mechanism of a canon. But I'm not sure it's the point. There are a bunch of notions that go with it that seem to serve societal functions.

To me, it looks like canonization is more to do with our primate desire to find/create status hierarchies. That seems bad enough when we do it with living people, creating the sort of structures that enable oppression of disfavored groups. But it seems both sillier and worse to do it with dead people.

So I suspect the point of a canon as selected by people of social power is to reinforce the social power structure. Something like what the Catholic church does with canonization. They get to gatekeep "goodness" and control the knowledge and resources that let up-and-comers grow. It becomes another stick to beat the young with, a way to make them "pay their dues" to people holding power.

So my hope is that in the future nobody will waste much time doing fantasy mental tournaments for "greatest" artist between different eras.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#72

Post by allturtles »

wpietri wrote: post #71
allturtles wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't that the very point of a canon? It takes time for a society to ratify the quality of a cultural artifact, to sift through the chaff and decide on what and who the 'greats' are. Invariably, at any given point in time, most of them are dead. It's possible that in the long run, people will consider Clara Rockmore, Delia Derbyshire, etc. to rank with Beethoven, Mozart, etc. It doesn't seem likely, though. I don't t…

That could well be the mechanism of a canon. But I'm not sure it's the point. There are a bunch of notions that go with it that seem to serve societal functions. To me, it looks like canonization is more to do with our primate desire to find/create status hierarchies. That seems bad enough when we do it with living people, creating the sort of structures that enable oppression of disfavored groups. But it seems both…

Your view is very cynical. But as you say, everyone engages in these kinds of status games - even totally powerless people will happily debate the greatest X of all time, so I don't see how this process can be seen as one driven by the powerful only.

I also don't see how your egalitarian vision of a 'flat' cultural world is practically possible. There is limited attention and time span available to people to experience culture (read/listen to music/look at paintings, etc.) That time span will have to be allocated to certain works over others, and doing it randomly is obviously a bad system. People will inevitably give each other advice on the best way to invest that time and a canon will emerge.

If it could exist, I think it would be a very unpleasant world, personally, with no common cultural referents. Allusion would disappear from cultural works, because only a tiny fraction of your audience would recognize what you're alluding to.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#73

Post by fao_ »

havernator wrote: post #36
fao_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wou…

> 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

Those articles already exist though? I'm thinking about The Oatmeal's article on Nikolas Tesla versus Edison, which in no way actually devalues "Men as a concept". There are very many articles in which this is done and I haven't seen it been observed that it devalues men.

What's different here is that this is centering the oppression that these women faced from the men around them, and the society that they lived in. Now, of course you can't do that with most men, since they haven't faced of crushing, systemic oppression to that all-encompassing degree on a large scale like this. However, when it is relevant, it is told. For example, Turing's story is often interwoven with the fatal systemic oppression he faced, because he was a gay man. And I'm not sure anyone can say that specifically is demeaning to him.

What you're calling out here, excusing my arguments above, is merely hyperbole as part of marketing, and I'm not at all sure that's relevant to what this comment thread is talking about.

> who are just as good and important... like Edwin Moore, who patented the push-pin.

I'm... not really sure what you mean to do here? This is a confusing comparison to draw here.

I can't actually see an example of where Edwin Moore is remembered as 'inventor of the push-pin', whereas the women in these articles are remembered to some degree -- after all we have this archival footage! It's just that their names are not as prominent after the fact, which is unexpected given the tangible contributions that they made.

The fields you're comparing here are disparate, and Edwin Moore hardly had a professional career out of, say, making aeroplanes. Whereas these women were both highly regarded (The one woman turned down a prestigious job offer in a highly regarded musical establishment specifically to make electronic music), and their work was influential to their contemporaries -- they just aren't mentioned after the fact.

Given these two pieces of fact, the only reading I can see here is that you intended to deliberately draw a bad, dodgy example, and hoped I and other people wouldn't notice. Which seems rude at best. I'm not sure how the article demeans women, but your comparison here certainly seems to? I hope you can correct this, if this is not what you intended! Thanks for your response anyway!

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#74

Post by deeblering4 »

teddyh wrote: post #70
deeblering4 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Are you proposing that we all just pretend No. > The cycle will end by itself in time through a series of under-corrections, but it’s not going to happen overnight. Perhaps, but that’s not what the reality is at the moment. At the moment, there are what amounts to large corrective movements, which some argue to be over-corrective, and others who argue that anyone who is against any large amount of correction must b…

I can see what you mean but its not so black white to me. My stance is in the middle, somewhere in between large corrections and nothing at all.

I see progress as a series of under corrections, like a pendulum swinging back and forth, eventually settling into a neutral middle state.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#75

Post by wpietri »

allturtles wrote: post #72
wpietri wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That could well be the mechanism of a canon. But I'm not sure it's the point. There are a bunch of notions that go with it that seem to serve societal functions. To me, it looks like canonization is more to do with our primate desire to find/create status hierarchies. That seems bad enough when we do it with living people, creating the sort of structures that enable oppression of disfavored groups. But it seems both…

Your view is very cynical. But as you say, everyone engages in these kinds of status games - even totally powerless people will happily debate the greatest X of all time, so I don't see how this process can be seen as one driven by the powerful only. I also don't see how your egalitarian vision of a 'flat' cultural world is practically possible. There is limited attention and time span available to people to experien…

It's not driven by the powerful only. But for a long time they were definitely the ones who determined the canon.

I'm not interested in a perfectly flat world. I disagree that a unitary canon will emerge on its own. I don't object to individuals saying, "I like X, maybe you will too." What I object to is the use of power to create and maintain status hierarchies.

I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that lack of an imposed canon will end cultural references. When I look at social media, I see a carnival of reference. Things still become widely seen, widely heard.

And if your dark fantasy came true, so what? That would mean that each person has found art that is more meaningful to them than whatever was previously being imposed as important, and found community with that "tiny fraction" of others who found the same things valuable. Should they required to spend time on things they like less?

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#76

Post by havernator »

fao_ wrote: post #73
havernator wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 wou…

> 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 Those articles already exist though? I'm thinking about The Oatmeal's article on Nikolas Tesla versus Edison, whi…

Sorry for being rude by taking your question in good faith. Won’t do that again.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#77

Post by allturtles »

wpietri wrote: post #75
allturtles wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your view is very cynical. But as you say, everyone engages in these kinds of status games - even totally powerless people will happily debate the greatest X of all time, so I don't see how this process can be seen as one driven by the powerful only. I also don't see how your egalitarian vision of a 'flat' cultural world is practically possible. There is limited attention and time span available to people to experien…

It's not driven by the powerful only . But for a long time they were definitely the ones who determined the canon. I'm not interested in a perfectly flat world. I disagree that a unitary canon will emerge on its own. I don't object to individuals saying, "I like X, maybe you will too." What I object to is the use of power to create and maintain status hierarchies. I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that lack of…

> imposed canon

> Should they required to spend time on things they like less?

This is where I'm not getting you. What are the powerful forces imposing the canon? Who is forcing you to listen to music (or read books, or watch movies, etc.) that you don't like?

What is considered great arises out of organic, decentralized processes. There's no central bureau of music that requires everyone to listen to Mozart because they decided he's the best.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#78

Post by wpietri »

allturtles wrote: post #77
wpietri wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not driven by the powerful only . But for a long time they were definitely the ones who determined the canon. I'm not interested in a perfectly flat world. I disagree that a unitary canon will emerge on its own. I don't object to individuals saying, "I like X, maybe you will too." What I object to is the use of power to create and maintain status hierarchies. I also think it's ridiculous to suggest that lack of…

> imposed canon > Should they required to spend time on things they like less? This is where I'm not getting you. What are the powerful forces imposing the canon? Who is forcing you to listen to music (or read books, or watch movies, etc.) that you don't like? What is considered great arises out of organic, decentralized processes. There's no central bureau of music that requires everyone to listen to Mozart because…

Your serious belief is that everybody just happens to like things? There are no structural forces that influence what gets created, promoted, or held up as "great"? That in the arts there's nobody with more power than anybody else?

I suppose by the same token, the highly improbable demographics of Fortune 500 CEOs, legislators, and faith leaders are just some statistical quirk?

Please tell me more about this world you live in. I would like to visit sometime.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#79

Post by teddyh »

will4274 wrote: post #43
fao_ wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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!

> "he's so smart and talented" "I know, and he's black too!" The subtle implication is that most smart and talented people are not black, that smarts and talents are atypical in blacks and more common in other races.

C.f. “Articulate”.

Re: Sisters with Transistors

#80

Post by layoutIfNeeded »

antonvs wrote: post #69
layoutIfNeeded wrote: post #31

“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…

> there’s a reason why the former enjoyed wide acclaim throughout the eras That reason is in no small part the propagation of taste via culture. > As if some patriarchal conspiracy was forcing classical composers like Mozart and Beethoven down people’s throats... An unsubtle description perhaps, but it does get at the idea of how cultures promote certain work at the expense of others. Yes, there's certainly "forcing…

>Your adulation of those musicians is a direct consequence of your embedding in a cultural context that you seem blissfully unaware of.

As someone whose musical taste spans from classical composers to jazz pioneers, from early Chicago house to ceremonial flute music from Indonesia, I can only smirk at your comment.

Mozart's sister's talent may have been suppressed, or she might have been content with her life, we will never know. By judging the actions of 18th century Germans, it is in fact you who seem to be unaware of the modern cultural context that you're embedded into. Modern American morals are neither universal, nor ultimate. Thinking that they are in fact is the colonialist attitude. You should rethink that!

>Attitudes like yours hold back the development of a more equitable society. You should rethink them.

Sweetie, don't try to shove a narrative where there's none, this isn't Twitter. Noone argued against your "equitable" society or whatever. I've just pointed out a fallacy in the distasteful opening of the original article, namely, that early electronic musicians (some of whom happened to be women), weren't sidelined in favor of Mozart, Beethoven or Elvis. Rather, people simply preferred those kinds of music over their experimental bleep bloops.

And don't try to derail the conversation with deconstructionist "arguments", such that people's preference for 19th century classical composers, or rock music over early experimental electronics stems from some internalized colonialist heteronormative bias, because that's bollocks. Sure, art is subjective, and if someone was raised by a pack of wolves then they would likely prefer the sound of howling over Beethoven's 9th symphony, yet I seriously doubt that early electronic musicians (yes, some of whom happened to be women) would have reached wider audiences even if women weren't historically disadvantaged. This is simply not a question of gender.

Post reply on HN