A University in Liverpool is planning to offer a Master of Arts degree in... wait for it... The motherfucking Beatles.
What exactly will the degree be named? Master of the Art in I Have Enough Money to Blow That I Went To Liverpool and Majored in Beatlemania? Master of Art in I'm Hung Up On a Band That Doesn't Exist Anymore? Master of Arts in I Have No Personality So I Devoted Myself to The Most Popular Band of All Time, Hoping Someone Will Like Me? Master of Art in If There Is An Afterlife, John Lennon and George Harrison Are Laughing Their Asses Off Right Now?
Seriously, if I ever meet someone with this degree, I will punch them in the face.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Funny titles! Although, it seems as worthy a program as a degree in divinity/religion. That is, at least The Beatles made something worth celebrating. Theologians and religious figures just manufacture hatred and death.
ReplyDeletecarrie, feel free to tell c.b. to shut his pie hole. he only wishes that he could get a degree in beatlemania. his comments come from a place of bitterness over the official recognition of skills that he feels he has already earned a phd in...
ReplyDeletethis entry was HILARIOUS by the way...
Mr. C.B.,
ReplyDeleteAs someone with a degree in religious studies, I'm not sure I can agree with your analogy. While programs undoubtedly differ from school to school (and a divinity degree differs greatly from a religious studies degree), I believe most students with degrees in religion have studied history, sociology, psychology, and philosophy as part of their curriculum, in addition to dogmatic laws or scriptures of various religions. A degree in religion does not mean you have been indoctrinated with the beliefs of a religion.
Ergo, I feel a degree in religion calls for more complex study than a degree in a pop band that existed for 10 years. This is not to say that the Beatles did not have a large cultural impact. However, I question the validity of a master's degree in a subject that can be condensed into a two-hour Vh1 special.
Anyway, thanks for reading!
Dear Ms. Carrie,
ReplyDeleteThank you for your ill-fated consideration of my supposition.
(1) Your logic seems to fail. The Beatles have affected history, sociology, psychology, and philosophy and, as a result, all of these disciplines have graduate courses (for credit) specifically on The Beatles' impact. Therefore, by your logic, study of the Beatles is equally as valid as study of religion
(2) There is no such thing as culture.
(3) The Beatles are bigger than Jesus (probably because unlike him, they actually can be proved to have existed).
(4) The Beatles did not exist as a functioning entity for 10 years.
(5) The Beatles Anthology, an important part of the canon, unlike anything on VH1, is over six hours, and that is an act of humility on the part of the Beatles to cut their story so short.
(6) Where you may have an argument is that the hypocrisy of religion is so overwhelming, that it is probably indeed more complex than the Beatles' story.
(7) Positing one thing being more complex than another as a sole reason for validation is a fallacy.
Mr. C.B.,
ReplyDeleteYou certainly have a point that The Beatles have affected history and sociology (psychology and philosophy I am not convinced of), though I would point out that this impact covers a recent and relatively small span of time. I don't think you can successfully argue that the impact of the Beatles is equal to the impact of religion (in both good and horrible ways). Based on length of time and the scale of socio-political impact, I would have to say no, the study of the Beatles is not as valid as the study of religion. By your qualifiers one could argue that a master's degree in Brittney Spears is valid, as it could be argued that she has impacted history and sociology on a small time frame. I admit this can be a slippery slope, as I would feel that a master's in Mozart is valid, though I would suggest a certain span of time needs to pass before the impact of any artist can truly be established. If in 200 years the impact of the Beatles is still as highly regarded as it is now, I could perhaps accept this as a valid course of study.
However, my original point in mentioning the incorporation of other disciplines into a religious studies degree was as a counter to your assertion that "Theologians and religious figures just manufacture hatred and death." Having a religion degree does not make you a theologian nor a religious figure; a philosopher of religion is not the same as a theologian. A "degree in religion" means studying the beliefs of many religions and the impact of those beliefs on societies. Your use of "religion/divinity" is incorrect, as those programs are not interchangeable. Religious studies programs are secular studies just like any other liberal arts program, and having a degree in religion does not require you to adhere to any of the beliefs of the religions you study.
While master's programs are intended to offer specialization, I do feel having a master's degree in religious studies would have required tackling more complex subject matter than having a master's degree in the Beatles. I'm not sure I understand how you see this as a fallacy. Shouldn't master's programs require complex study? Using a John Lennon quote to support your assertion seems like more of a fallacy to me.
For the record, I completely agree with your statements on the hypocrisy of religion, though these opinions are not relevant to this conversation. Do you feel that the hypocrisy of politicians negates the study of political science? Also, the existence of the historical Jesus is largely accepted as proven. The existence of Jesus as the Christ cannot be proven, nor is it relevant to a religious studies degree. I wonder though, is it your opinion that if something cannot be proven to exist it should not be studied? What about something that does not exist yet? Are you willing to discredit all academic study related to the theoretical?
I apologize if I was incorrect in saying that the Beatles existed for 10 years. I was under the impression that they formed in 1960 and broke up in 1970, though I am clearly not as big a fan as you, and my knowledge of the group is vastly inferior to yours. You are certainly correct that the story of the Beatles could be stretched out longer than two hours, or even six, but does it really require two years of study? My opinion remains unchanged that pursuing a master's degree in the Beatles would not confront one with the same intensity of study found in other master's programs.
As always, I appreciate your comments, and suggest that we respectfully disagree on this manner. I hope I incorrectly interpreted your statement "Thank you for your ill-fated consideration of my supposition" as snide, as I would very much like these comments to remain respectful and friendly.
Dear Ms. Carrie,
ReplyDeletePlease rest assured, there is no malice in our mischief. For example, were we wanting to be snide, we'd say "Wow, Bunny Fun Kitchen doesn't own a skillet big enough to fry the enormous red herring that is your response." Were we to believe in culture, we'd think that our direct, cynical northern ways are at odds with your southern gentility of discourse.
Cheers,
Dr. C.B. (spent too many years in school and too much money to be called "Mr.")