[cctop]

I'm going to say something that will likely enrage 80% of the demographic on this board:

The Grateful Dead were boring and over-rated.

Times change, music changes.

I got BTS tickets for my 58-year-old wife and her cohort of highly-educated professional middle-aged women, who giggle like schoolgirls when they talk about the concert.

MV72018, I'm not a K-pop fan either but I thought the movie "K-Pop Demon Hunters" was creative and entertaining. I expect it to win the Oscar this year for Best Animated Feature.  If you have Netflix and especially if you have kids/grandkids under 18, give it a shot.

[cctop]

I'm going to say something that will likely enrage 80% of the demographic on this board:

The Grateful Dead were boring and over-rated.

Times change, music changes.

I got BTS tickets for my 58-year-old wife and her cohort of highly-educated professional middle-aged women, who giggle like schoolgirls when they talk about the concert.

MV72018, I'm not a K-pop fan either but I thought the movie "K-Pop Demon Hunters" was creative and entertaining. I expect it to win the Oscar this year for Best Animated Feature.  If you have Netflix and especially if you have kids/grandkids under 18, give it a shot.

[BostonCard]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

[BostonCard]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

[MV72018]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

Thanks for the insight, BC. Typically gracious of you. 

So, if Stanford allowed its facilities to be used for a concert by Ted Nugent or Kanye West you'd seemingly have no problem with that, after all a concert by either would be just a concert nor a political statement. 

P.S. I fail to see that matters cultural and political are always separable, as we've unfortunately seen in recent years.  
Universities can inspire not just by developing better microprocessors and new cures for disease but by striving for, nurturing, and sometimes attaining cultural excellence, both in the composition of their faculty and students and in their performing arts presentations.

[MV72018]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

Thanks for the insight, BC. Typically gracious of you. 

So, if Stanford allowed its facilities to be used for a concert by Ted Nugent or Kanye West you'd seemingly have no problem with that, after all a concert by either would be just a concert nor a political statement. 

P.S. I fail to see that matters cultural and political are always separable, as we've unfortunately seen in recent years.  
Universities can inspire not just by developing better microprocessors and new cures for disease but by striving for, nurturing, and sometimes attaining cultural excellence, both in the composition of their faculty and students and in their performing arts presentations.

[MV72018]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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?   

[MV72018]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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?   

[Jamesy]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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.

[Jamesy]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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.

[fullmetal]

Why is this discussion being forced upon us but for the desire to *make* this political where it was not before?  The discussion of other artists and venue choices is appropriate in another forum for those artists and those venues.  I don't see the need to drag other divisive topics into this thread.

[fullmetal]

Why is this discussion being forced upon us but for the desire to *make* this political where it was not before?  The discussion of other artists and venue choices is appropriate in another forum for those artists and those venues.  I don't see the need to drag other divisive topics into this thread.

[MV72018]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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.

[MV72018]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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.

[BostonCard]

I’m still very confused about what political message Stanford is purported to be broadcasting by bringing in BTS.  If we are scrutinizing their values, help me out by identifying those values for me. 

I’m guessing that the objection is not to their values but that in your opinion they don’t exemplify cultural excellence… which is fine; I’m not into Kpop either, but I’m not understanding why you insist on imposing your taste and being the arbiter of cultural excellence.  Based on what I’ve already seen described as “bloodbath” on Ticketmaster trying to get tickets, there are *a lot* of people who disagree with us.

BC

[BostonCard]

I’m still very confused about what political message Stanford is purported to be broadcasting by bringing in BTS.  If we are scrutinizing their values, help me out by identifying those values for me. 

I’m guessing that the objection is not to their values but that in your opinion they don’t exemplify cultural excellence… which is fine; I’m not into Kpop either, but I’m not understanding why you insist on imposing your taste and being the arbiter of cultural excellence.  Based on what I’ve already seen described as “bloodbath” on Ticketmaster trying to get tickets, there are *a lot* of people who disagree with us.

BC

[82lsju]

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.

how do you assess the appropriateness of the following upcoming shows booked by Stanford Live?

- Leif Ove Andsnes
- Batshit
- Philharmonia Baroque
- Aterballeto
- The Sex Lives of Puppets
- Rob Kapilow
- Zee Zee
- You are Who I Love
- Hysterical: Marsha Warfield

see more here

https://live.stanford.edu/

[82lsju]

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.

how do you assess the appropriateness of the following upcoming shows booked by Stanford Live?

- Leif Ove Andsnes
- Batshit
- Philharmonia Baroque
- Aterballeto
- The Sex Lives of Puppets
- Rob Kapilow
- Zee Zee
- You are Who I Love
- Hysterical: Marsha Warfield

see more here

https://live.stanford.edu/

[Jamesy]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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.

[Jamesy]

It’s a pop concert not a political statement.

BC

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.

[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.

[Jamesy]

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.

I agree. This is a fruitless discussion.

[Jamesy]

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.

I agree. This is a fruitless discussion.

[82lsju]

looks like there is now a 3rd show on May 19th.

[82lsju]

looks like there is now a 3rd show on May 19th.

[BostonCard]

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.

I wonder if contemporaneous critics universally felt this way.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la...story.html

https://www.quora.com/What-did-music-cri...nia-period

"Don't let the Beatles bother you. If you don't think about them, they will go away, and in a few more years they will probably be bald….
And teenagers, go ahead and enjoy your Beatlemania. It won't be fatal and will give you a lot of laughs a few years hence when you find one of their old records or come across a picture of Ringo in a crew cut."

60 years from now, it is entirely possible that some now-20-year-old will trash whatever is popular music then as a cultural wasteland and pine for the important culturally relevant music of… BTS

BC

[BostonCard]

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.

I wonder if contemporaneous critics universally felt this way.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la...story.html

https://www.quora.com/What-did-music-cri...nia-period

"Don't let the Beatles bother you. If you don't think about them, they will go away, and in a few more years they will probably be bald….
And teenagers, go ahead and enjoy your Beatlemania. It won't be fatal and will give you a lot of laughs a few years hence when you find one of their old records or come across a picture of Ringo in a crew cut."

60 years from now, it is entirely possible that some now-20-year-old will trash whatever is popular music then as a cultural wasteland and pine for the important culturally relevant music of… BTS

BC

[BostonCard]

nice compendium of ca. 1960’s critics going off on the Beatles.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/t...es.427417/

BC

[BostonCard]

nice compendium of ca. 1960’s critics going off on the Beatles.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/t...es.427417/

BC

[MV72018]

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.

I wonder if contemporaneous critics universally felt this way.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la...story.html

https://www.quora.com/What-did-music-cri...nia-period

"Don't let the Beatles bother you. If you don't think about them, they will go away, and in a few more years they will probably be bald….
And teenagers, go ahead and enjoy your Beatlemania. It won't be fatal and will give you a lot of laughs a few years hence when you find one of their old records or come across a picture of Ringo in a crew cut."

60 years from now, it is entirely possible that some now-20-year-old will trash whatever is popular music then as a cultural wasteland and pine for the important culturally relevant music of… BTS

BC

I asserted nothing about "contemporary music critics."

BC, your entirely-possible-in-60-years-comment may indeed pan out. But even if it did all that that pining 20-year-old you imagine would have done would be to have shown the persistence of "cultural relativism," a profoundly corrosive, noxious force, which is increasingly widespread today. Obviously, cultural preferences vary greatly across space, time, age group, etc. Fine. But there is more to cultural excellence than being ephemerally extremely popular, which can be and often is manufactured by those standing to gain financially from fostering it. 

Those who embrace, tout, or tolerate cultural or ethical relativism -- holding that no cultural or societal phenomena are objectively any better than any other -- forfeit the right to have their critiques of even the worst cultural or societal phenomena of their day viewed as more than just their own subjective judgments, even if some might vigorously and admirably oppose such phenomena in their personal lives. i believe that (trans-genre) cultural and socio-ethical excellence are not chimaeras, that aesthetic judgments such as "Beethoven's 9th" or Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen" is a greater human achievement than any BTS work, and that social-ethical judgments that contemporary Nordic societies are greater human achievements than Nazi society or the kind of society that the current president is trying to create are more than (and cannot be reduced to) mere subjective expressions of personal preference. 

(IMO, cultural excellence claims about a work depend on whether and the degree to which a work, because of its properties, can retain the experiencer's interest upon multiple encounters, whether the work embodies a measure of organic unity or coherence from its diverse complexity, and the degree to which it sheds meaningful, non-obvious light on some aspect of the perennial human condition. Also involved are the kinds of basic needs that all humans have across space and time and the ways we have evolved for satisfying them, either directly physiologically or indirectly psychically, through encounters with works of art and social institutions.)

[MV72018]

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.

I wonder if contemporaneous critics universally felt this way.

https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la...story.html

https://www.quora.com/What-did-music-cri...nia-period

"Don't let the Beatles bother you. If you don't think about them, they will go away, and in a few more years they will probably be bald….
And teenagers, go ahead and enjoy your Beatlemania. It won't be fatal and will give you a lot of laughs a few years hence when you find one of their old records or come across a picture of Ringo in a crew cut."

60 years from now, it is entirely possible that some now-20-year-old will trash whatever is popular music then as a cultural wasteland and pine for the important culturally relevant music of… BTS

BC

I asserted nothing about "contemporary music critics."

BC, your entirely-possible-in-60-years-comment may indeed pan out. But even if it did all that that pining 20-year-old you imagine would have done would be to have shown the persistence of "cultural relativism," a profoundly corrosive, noxious force, which is increasingly widespread today. Obviously, cultural preferences vary greatly across space, time, age group, etc. Fine. But there is more to cultural excellence than being ephemerally extremely popular, which can be and often is manufactured by those standing to gain financially from fostering it. 

Those who embrace, tout, or tolerate cultural or ethical relativism -- holding that no cultural or societal phenomena are objectively any better than any other -- forfeit the right to have their critiques of even the worst cultural or societal phenomena of their day viewed as more than just their own subjective judgments, even if some might vigorously and admirably oppose such phenomena in their personal lives. i believe that (trans-genre) cultural and socio-ethical excellence are not chimaeras, that aesthetic judgments such as "Beethoven's 9th" or Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen" is a greater human achievement than any BTS work, and that social-ethical judgments that contemporary Nordic societies are greater human achievements than Nazi society or the kind of society that the current president is trying to create are more than (and cannot be reduced to) mere subjective expressions of personal preference. 

(IMO, cultural excellence claims about a work depend on whether and the degree to which a work, because of its properties, can retain the experiencer's interest upon multiple encounters, whether the work embodies a measure of organic unity or coherence from its diverse complexity, and the degree to which it sheds meaningful, non-obvious light on some aspect of the perennial human condition. Also involved are the kinds of basic needs that all humans have across space and time and the ways we have evolved for satisfying them, either directly physiologically or indirectly psychically, through encounters with works of art and social institutions.)

[82lsju]

I asserted nothing about "contemporary music critics."

BC, your entirely-possible-in-60-years-comment may indeed pan out. But even if it did all that that pining 20-year-old you imagine would have done would be to have shown the persistence of "cultural relativism," a profoundly corrosive, noxious force, which is increasingly widespread today. Obviously, cultural preferences vary greatly across space, time, age group, etc. Fine. But there is more to cultural excellence than being ephemerally extremely popular, which can be and often is manufactured by those standing to gain financially from fostering it. 

Those who embrace, tout, or tolerate cultural or ethical relativism -- holding that no cultural or societal phenomena are objectively any better than any other -- forfeit the right to have their critiques of even the worst cultural or societal phenomena of their day viewed as more than just their own subjective judgments, even if some might vigorously and admirably oppose such phenomena in their personal lives. i believe that (trans-genre) cultural and socio-ethical excellence are not chimaeras, that aesthetic judgments such as "Beethoven's 9th" or Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen" is a greater human achievement than any BTS work, and that social-ethical judgments that contemporary Nordic societies are greater human achievements than Nazi society or the kind of society that the current president is trying to create are more than (and cannot be reduced to) mere subjective expressions of personal preference. 

(IMO, cultural excellence claims about a work depend on whether and the degree to which a work, because of its properties, can retain the experiencer's interest upon multiple encounters, whether the work embodies a measure of organic unity or coherence from its diverse complexity, and the degree to which it sheds meaningful, non-obvious light on some aspect of the perennial human condition. Also involved are the kinds of basic needs that all humans have across space and time and the ways we have evolved for satisfying them, either directly physiologically or indirectly psychically, through encounters with works of art and social institutions.)

so who do you think would be appropriate to book for an event in the stadium?

[82lsju]

I asserted nothing about "contemporary music critics."

BC, your entirely-possible-in-60-years-comment may indeed pan out. But even if it did all that that pining 20-year-old you imagine would have done would be to have shown the persistence of "cultural relativism," a profoundly corrosive, noxious force, which is increasingly widespread today. Obviously, cultural preferences vary greatly across space, time, age group, etc. Fine. But there is more to cultural excellence than being ephemerally extremely popular, which can be and often is manufactured by those standing to gain financially from fostering it. 

Those who embrace, tout, or tolerate cultural or ethical relativism -- holding that no cultural or societal phenomena are objectively any better than any other -- forfeit the right to have their critiques of even the worst cultural or societal phenomena of their day viewed as more than just their own subjective judgments, even if some might vigorously and admirably oppose such phenomena in their personal lives. i believe that (trans-genre) cultural and socio-ethical excellence are not chimaeras, that aesthetic judgments such as "Beethoven's 9th" or Wagner's "Der Ring des Nibelungen" is a greater human achievement than any BTS work, and that social-ethical judgments that contemporary Nordic societies are greater human achievements than Nazi society or the kind of society that the current president is trying to create are more than (and cannot be reduced to) mere subjective expressions of personal preference. 

(IMO, cultural excellence claims about a work depend on whether and the degree to which a work, because of its properties, can retain the experiencer's interest upon multiple encounters, whether the work embodies a measure of organic unity or coherence from its diverse complexity, and the degree to which it sheds meaningful, non-obvious light on some aspect of the perennial human condition. Also involved are the kinds of basic needs that all humans have across space and time and the ways we have evolved for satisfying them, either directly physiologically or indirectly psychically, through encounters with works of art and social institutions.)

so who do you think would be appropriate to book for an event in the stadium?

[KartyFan]

And since cultural excellence is objective, by which objective criteria does BTS not meet the standard of cultural excellence?

Are there any musical artists that meet this standard who are actuve today?

[KartyFan]

And since cultural excellence is objective, by which objective criteria does BTS not meet the standard of cultural excellence?

Are there any musical artists that meet this standard who are actuve today?

[Jamesy]

And since cultural excellence is objective, by which objective criteria does BTS not meet the standard of cultural excellence?

Are there any musical artists that meet this standard who are actuve today?

Since MV didn't say anything about Coldplay performing last year, I assume they might meet this nebulous standard?

[Jamesy]

And since cultural excellence is objective, by which objective criteria does BTS not meet the standard of cultural excellence?

Are there any musical artists that meet this standard who are actuve today?

Since MV didn't say anything about Coldplay performing last year, I assume they might meet this nebulous standard?

[PAsportsfan]

I vote for Body Count.

[PAsportsfan]

I vote for Body Count.