April 27, 2007

Programming Board: The Future of Out-of-Touch Parenting

This op-ed from a Programming Boarder amused me. Trying to justify the execrable choice of Third Eye Blind to the campus, he blathers:
Our apologies if you’d love to see Dave Matthews come to Dartmouth, but chances are he’s not even considering the college scene, and if he were, he would charge a few hundred thousand, minimum... Prefer Weezer over Third Eye Blind? Sorry, Weezer isn’t touring right now... The University of Vermont is having Ok Go come for a concert; some people said they’d rather have them instead of Third Eye Blind. But Ok Go wasn’t available on May 6 — they were already booked at UMass-Amherst by the time we knew our schedule... PB doesn’t operate in a bubble. It’s our job to offer events that reflect the desires of the student body, and in this case, Dartmouth decided that they wanted Third Eye Blind, winning with 5646 points — 639 points ahead of the runner up, Hot Hot Heat. Dartmouth spoke and PB listened — so we booked Third Eye Blind.
Dave Matthews, Weezer, OK Go, Hot Hot Heat. Geezus.

The problem isn't that Programming Board is restricted by the cost of bands or touring schedules or the Athletics Department hogging the facilities. It's that they have no fucking idea what a good musical act is, what's even remotely current, or how old their audience is.

In my time here, PB has brought us (as far as I can remember) O.A.R., Maroon 5, Dashboard Confessional, Vanessa Carlton, The Roots, Talib Kweli, and now Third Eye Blind. Talib was a good choice and The Roots an okay choice, but then again, PB probably was just like, "well, we need a black act... who's touring?" PB was saved by the simple fact that there aren't any black artists who are bad as the white artists PB picks. Seriously. Even Black-Eyed Peas (oh wait, didn't they play here too?) aren't anywhere near the level of complete intolerability that Vanessa Carlton reaches with every fucking song.

Programming Board's excuses fall apart when you consider the successes of FNR. I realize that the bands FNR selects (especially in the past year) don't appeal to much more than a smallish subset of campus. But the point is, they consistently book bands that make them fucking giddy with joy, they have a great fucking time doing it, and they manage to do it with Programming Board's money.

11 comments:

  1. Anonymous9:53 AM

    In the PB's partial defense, Harvard, Penn and Princeton were also unable to resist booking Third Eye Blind this spring.

    http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2007/04/apparently_third_eye_blind_still_exists_is_popular.html

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yeah, but Penn at least got Ben Folds for the same show. Besides, Harvard, Princeton, and Penn kids have Boston and Philly for music scenes. Especially considering how nonexistent our alternatives are, PB has an extra obligation to not suck, since they should be our link to the outside world and all of its culture.

    Also, I can totally understand if, failing any exercise of taste and ingenuity, PB sticks us with some act just because its in the area, playing at a few other colleges. But why not TI? And why didn't TV on the Radio even show up on list of options? Or Yo La Tengo? Why?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anonymous12:29 PM

    Dave Matthews Band is not walking through that door. Weezer is not walking through that door.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Pitino#Professional_coaching

    ReplyDelete
  4. The PB editorials argument is essentially. "LOOK! we couldnt get anyone good so we got someone bad!" Weak. If you can't get anyone good, then don't spend our money on a shitty act. Save that cash. Reappropriate it.

    Im no fan of No Child Left Behind. I think its stupid that under-performing schools get punished via funding cuts. But i advocate it with PB. They consistently hold poorly planned, poorly attended events, and their funding should just be cut. Drastically. If they want to bring Hootie and the Blowfish to campus next term, they can pay for it by holding some fucking bakesales.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anonymous4:37 PM

    Weird post. I didn't think the PB op-ed was that bad. He basically says that they have (1) a low budget, (2) a remote location, (3) and one date at Leverone given to them on relatively short notice. And they did the best they could under the circumstances, and even ran it by some other people first. What's wrong with that?

    The PB is trying to bring in a band for the whole College, not a niche band that no one's heard of to play in the basement of Collis. I'm not sure what FNR's "success" has to do with it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anonymous10:04 AM

    Dudes, Darlog is posting again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. yeah, but it's just this freshman erickson kid (first name Anfin). He hasn't said anything interesting yet.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anonymous3:32 PM

    Didn't DMB play Leede in like 1992?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Wordverification3:41 PM

    Anfin wrote on Dartlog that "we can be glad that the Court decided to keep its nose out of the private sphere and can only hope it will decide to do so more often," which seems like a flip-flop.

    Wasn't it previously Dartlog's position that the court should intervene to help MacGovern get his proxy votes counted, defeating the evil Alumni Association?

    (And when exactly does Anfin think the NHSC meddled in the private sphere, anyway?)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Dartlog, like TDR in general, doesn't have an official party line. It's one thing if any specific individuals flip flops, but the notion of the blog or the paper as a whole doing so simply doesn't make sense.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Wordverification: You are quite right, I'm perfectly unaware of any case in which the NHSC interfered with the private sphere—though I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to find one.

    I would, however, like to point out that the NHSC itself seems to think it has the power to intervene in the private sphere if necessary. From their dismissal notice: "the petitioner's allegations fail to 'meet the threshold necessary to intrude upon the association's internal affairs.'"

    When I wrote "the Court" I was thinking of courts in general and probably (subconsciously) the U.S. Supreme Court, which makes a habit of invading the private sphere. Just off the top of my head, Gonzales v. Raich comes to mind. The sentence you pulled from the entry was, however, unclear. For that, I apologize.

    ReplyDelete