No one has ever accused me of being a critic of culture. Certainly not a serious critic. Doesn’t mean I can’t spot a serious review of culture when I read it, or a pretentious one [1].
Claiming, as the “critic” did in the linked piece, that Dylan (Update: correction: s/b: Bing Crosby), Sinatra, Elton John and Neil Diamond are not important (his emphasis) in spite of possibly — just possibly! — being very good at their art, is like saying Hemingway, Faulkner, Steinbeck, and Marquez, although very good writers, have been unimportant to our literary tradition, not a one of them deserving of their iconic status owing to their respective contribution, influence, encomiums, etc..
In other words, a real non-starter for a cultural critique, especially one I think was pretty clearly intended to be serious-minded. Not.
Most boomers have an opinion about Bob Dylan. A commenter at Lileks was right, some get downright evangelical over him. I like Dylan. Blood On the Tracks has to be my favorite, Hwy 61 Revisited has some real good stuff on it, and when I hear Hurricane the volume goes up, way up. As for John, Happy Wife says she knows all the lyrics to every song on Yellow Brick Road, impressive given it’s a double album set. I appreciate Diamond and Sinatra, not enough to commit either to my iPODs, but simply for their level of achievement and influence in their art. Same goes for Pete Seeger, btw (R.I.P.). Diamond is also interesting for the fact that he dropped out of medical school where he was doing quite well to become a musician.
1. Hat tip: Lileks
Who is Burt Archer? A critic? Never heard of him.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bert_Archer
Update: A commenter at Lilek’s blog pointed out to me that it wasn’t Archer who thought Diamond, Sinatra, John, and Crosby (I said Dylan above but have now corrected it) were unimportant. Rather he was trying to say that that’s what a Boomer would say. I reread that part and the commenter may be correct, but the context doesn’t make it clear.
Incidentally, if you visit the link, you may find Mr. Archer’s supposed view on sexual identity a might, shall we say, curious.
My personal will and identity, not withstanding, amongst other factors, cannot identify with Mr. Archer’s argument regarding sexual behaviors.
Thanks for the clarification of Archer’s article. As a Boomer by birth year, I know I would not say such a thing about Diamond, Sinatra, John, or Crosby, but then again, I’ve never been a proponent of group identifications.