Hacker News Reader

> like Mozart

I am reminded of Maria Anna Mozart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maria_Anna_Mozart

Before she approached "marriageable age" and was forbidden from performing, she was an equal musical talent to her brother, and sometimes received top billing.

None of her compositions have survived.

> As if some patriarchal conspiracy was forcing classical composers like Mozart and Beethoven down people’s throats...

No, but patriarchal and racial structures in society have historically suppressed artists who weren't white and male.

Adam Neely has a good video on how the term "music theory" here in the West is essentially just "the harmonic style of 18th century European musicians" [1]. It's worth a watch if you're interested in music.

[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr3quGh7pJA

>patriarchal and racial structures in society have historically suppressed artists who weren't white and male

This is plain false. Those non-white and non-male artists who have reached sophistication and virtuosity comparable to Mozart and Beethoven were and are still acclaimed. Don't try to shove a narrative where there isn't one.

Also, this doesn't add anything to the discussion about why audiences prefer dead (!) white (!!) male (!!!) composers like Mozart and Beethoven over the works of early experimental electronic composers. The answer is simply because most people don't like listening weird noise.

Your theory is that although we have clear historical evidence of centuries and centuries of broad societal oppression based on gender and race, that there was some countervailing force in art that perfectly balanced that out such that the playing field for art was entirely level?

Please do explain what that force was. In detail. With examples. Because that sounds entirely implausible to me.

Check what gary_0 posted above on Maria Anna Mozart.

> 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 down the throat" that occurs, via peer pressure, education, public promotion, and so on, but there's also the suppression of contributions that don't fit the society's constraints.

Name some of the great female composers of Beethoven and Mozart's era. I'll wait.

You now either have to take the position that "women just aren't that good at music," or you have to acknowledge that something was going on at that time - something that still happens today. That something is strongly hinted at by the comment someone else posted about Maria Anna Mozart, who was "forbidden from performing once she reached marriageable age."

In that context, your denial of obvious facts starts to seem monstrous.

> Framing their work in the context of contemporary American identity politics is very cheap journalism, and distasteful.

The US didn't invent the patriarchy, it inherited it directly from the European societies that settled the US, and Beethoven and Mozart's society was a big part of that. Beethoven was born 6 years before the Declaration of Independence; Mozart 20 years before; and Germans were one of the biggest groups to settle the US.

Your adulation of those musicians is a direct consequence of your embedding in a cultural context that you seem blissfully unaware of. The reason you like them is because you are directly descended, a mere 10 generations back, from peers of those musicians. You were brought up in a culture that privileged their work, and have absorbed that indoctrination uncritically.

One of the other pieces of indoctrination you've absorbed is apparently that the culture didn't, in fact, systematically and unfairly suppress the voices and capabilities of women, which is why you haven't replied to the comment about Maria Anna - you can't afford to acknowledge it, since you can't refute it, and it eats at the foundation of your indoctrinated beliefs.

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

>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.

> Mozart's sister's talent may have been suppressed, or she might have been content with her life, we will never know.

Oh yes, we have no possible way of knowing whether women's talent was historically suppressed. It's a mystery for the ages indeed.

Your own comments are a perfect demonstration of the phenomenon you're denying.

> 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.

I'm not an American. And I suppose I should accept that you're embedded in a deeply sexist culture, and have a vested interest in maintaining that. But really, you could at least be a bit self-aware about it.

> Sweetie

Lol. You're quite the master debater.