[MV72018]

Thanks for the insight, BC.

If Stanford allowed its facilities to be used for a concert by Ted Nugent or Kanye West you'd presumably have no problem with that, after all they'd just be concerts, not political statements. Allowing such toxic substances to give concerts at Stanford would send the impression that the university regarded it as culturally legitimate for them to do a concert at Stanford. To me, that would be an unfortunate result, just as it would be to allow "Kiss" or the "The Rolling Stones" to perform at the Acropolis, the Taj Mahal, or the Alhambra.    

Matters cultural and political are not always easily separable, as we've unfortunately seen in recent years. An interesting and much contested example of cultural-political interaction has been percolating the last few years. Peter Gelb, general manager of New York's Metropolitan Opera, has declined to engage zealot Putin supporters, Russian conductor Valery Gergiev and Russian soprano Anna Netrebko, for performances at the Met because they've refused to criticize Russia's invasion of and brutal war on Ukraine. Would your position be that Met productions are just theatrical performances, not political statements, therefore Gelb should not bar them from performing at the Met?   

Is your argument BTS isn't well known enough? Too political? I'm not sure what your point is.

One of my points was this: that just because some proposed event would be a "pop concert" in a university facility like the football stadium doesn't mean or imply that all comers should be welcomed if enough tix could be sold. Other factors properly deserve attention, e.g., the values represented by the would-be performer and the degree to which the performers exemplify cultural excellence, which the university purports to be promoting.

What is it about BTS that concerns you then? I'm not aware of any potential political messaging problems. As for cultural excellence, BTS is the epitome of the k-pop cultural wave.

If you really view BTS as an example of "cultural excellence" (in any sense other than that they may be the best pop band within the boy-band genre), then it would probably be fruitless to continue our exchange. That the "Mission Impossible" series may (to some folks) be the best or one of the best in the contemporary action-movie genre scarcely qualifies it as an example of TRANS-GENRE cultural excellence, in the way that Goethe's "Faust." Beethoven's "9th," and Renoir's "La Grand Illusion" do. There's a big difference between a group's popularity and it's cultural value. IMO, the Beatles are an extremely rare example of a pop group that was extremely popular and was also a legitimate example of cultural excellence, in significant part because of the brilliant songs (including melodies, lyrics, arrangements, and Abbey Road studio recordings) written by McCartney and Lennon. Their works will long endure and enlighten.

[MV72018]

Thanks for the insight, BC.

If Stanford allowed its facilities to be used for a concert by Ted Nugent or Kanye West you'd presumably have no problem with that, after all they'd just be concerts, not political statements. Allowing such toxic substances to give concerts at Stanford would send the impression that the university regarded it as culturally legitimate for them to do a concert at Stanford. To me, that would be an unfortunate result, just as it would be to allow "Kiss" or the "The Rolling Stones" to perform at the Acropolis, the Taj Mahal, or the Alhambra.    

Matters cultural and political are not always easily separable, as we've unfortunately seen in recent years. An interesting and much contested example of cultural-political interaction has been percolating the last few years. Peter Gelb, general manager of New York's Metropolitan Opera, has declined to engage zealot Putin supporters, Russian conductor Valery Gergiev and Russian soprano Anna Netrebko, for performances at the Met because they've refused to criticize Russia's invasion of and brutal war on Ukraine. Would your position be that Met productions are just theatrical performances, not political statements, therefore Gelb should not bar them from performing at the Met?   

Is your argument BTS isn't well known enough? Too political? I'm not sure what your point is.

One of my points was this: that just because some proposed event would be a "pop concert" in a university facility like the football stadium doesn't mean or imply that all comers should be welcomed if enough tix could be sold. Other factors properly deserve attention, e.g., the values represented by the would-be performer and the degree to which the performers exemplify cultural excellence, which the university purports to be promoting.

What is it about BTS that concerns you then? I'm not aware of any potential political messaging problems. As for cultural excellence, BTS is the epitome of the k-pop cultural wave.

If you really view BTS as an example of "cultural excellence" (in any sense other than that they may be the best pop band within the boy-band genre), then it would probably be fruitless to continue our exchange. That the "Mission Impossible" series may (to some folks) be the best or one of the best in the contemporary action-movie genre scarcely qualifies it as an example of TRANS-GENRE cultural excellence, in the way that Goethe's "Faust." Beethoven's "9th," and Renoir's "La Grand Illusion" do. There's a big difference between a group's popularity and it's cultural value. IMO, the Beatles are an extremely rare example of a pop group that was extremely popular and was also a legitimate example of cultural excellence, in significant part because of the brilliant songs (including melodies, lyrics, arrangements, and Abbey Road studio recordings) written by McCartney and Lennon. Their works will long endure and enlighten.