Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Igel

(37,620 posts)
23. Eh.
Sun Aug 19, 2012, 12:45 PM
Aug 2012

If the past stifles the present in a democratized culture, it's because most people prefer the past to the present. They think it better satisfies their needs.

In the 1990s American and German lit swamped the Czech literary scene. It wasn't necessarily what publishers wanted to publish. It was what readers wanted to buy. The indigenous writers and literati were irate about it. Let's assume there are 20 popular writers at any given time. Each year, they can turn out a certain amount of literary production. If you have a population of 10 million and you're just considering the year's output, there might be some really good stuff; odds are it won't be as good. Now, if your up against writers from a cohort of over 400 million literature, fairly prosperous people and you're picking the best for the last 40 years you're facing some stiff competition. So the foreign and the past swamped the present in the 1990s Czech literary scene.

The solution was the same in both cases: For the musicians and the writers to actually produce material that readers wanted. Or to produce less popular material that the musician or writers liked, and be happy that there are at least some others that support it, rather than rant about how superior they are and how boring and pedestrian those lesser being, the "majority," are.

As for the Olympics, if you're looking at cultural contributions you don't want to focus on the here-and-now. What's the contribution of Russian music and literature to world civilization and culture? Pussy Riot? Only if "world civilization" is defined to be a very, very small number of people.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

The Beatles: Time to let it be? [View all] dipsydoodle Aug 2012 OP
The Counterpoint (From the same article...) Nostradammit Aug 2012 #1
Thanks dipsydoodle Aug 2012 #2
We were pissed when mom insisted on watching.. orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #3
Lost in Space and Ed Sullivan were both CBS programs Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #7
Thanks ,now I'm searching to see the tv schedule orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #8
Could have been Disney Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #10
Guess what ? ' The scarecrow of Romney Marsh ' is just orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #11
Amazing Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #13
I got to talk to Guy Williams once on the telephone. orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #14
They opened up pop music, broke through the formulas that others have played to death... WCGreen Aug 2012 #4
here is why I disagree DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #5
Eloquently Correct!!!!! orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #6
"George who was the star anyway" cleduc Aug 2012 #9
well said TeamPooka Aug 2012 #32
They were overrated. Proud Corporate Dem Aug 2012 #12
Check your Rosetta stone ,,and who rates? orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #15
I don't know but I just never really cared for the Beatles much. They were all on LSD. Proud Corporate Dem Aug 2012 #17
What's a winner look like? orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #18
Try some Barry Manilow if you want some good music. Proud Corporate Dem Aug 2012 #19
I didn't judge , I just wondered . Barry wrote some orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #20
Is that a trivia question? I give up. Proud Corporate Dem Aug 2012 #21
Me too ,Dad didn't care for the Beatles either. orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #22
unless the corporartions you like DonCoquixote Aug 2012 #26
LOL! Politicalboi Aug 2012 #30
are you sure you're in the right place? Dyedinthewoolliberal Aug 2012 #28
LOL! Politicalboi Aug 2012 #29
Disagree. The Beatles were great! LeftishBrit Aug 2012 #16
Eh. Igel Aug 2012 #23
I couldn't help NOT to let this one be: nightscanner59 Aug 2012 #24
Wow! Woof! Great. Didn't even know he did that one. Infectious. Thanks! Judi Lynn Aug 2012 #25
Wasn't released until after he died dipsydoodle Aug 2012 #27
In 1962, how many people were talking about songs from 1912? rug Aug 2012 #31
Some humour from the past - 1963 dipsydoodle Aug 2012 #33
Latest Discussions»Editorials & Other Articles»The Beatles: Time to let ...»Reply #23