Da Ya Think He’s Nuts?

After reading Robert Hilburn’s article on the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame (“The Magnificent Seven,” Oct. 10), in which he puts Rod Stewart on the B List, I am adding Hilburn to my F List.

I am tired of him passing off dismissive and inane comments regarding Stewart (“The argument for Stewart on the A List is his pre-1977 work . . . the argument against: everything since”) as criticism . We Stewart fans do not even need to dignify Hilburn’s pithy remarks by citing what Stewart has contributed to rock ‘n’ roll post-1977.

Please explain to me: What is the point of employing a critic who has already made up his mind about an artist’s music before he listens to the latest album or an artist’s performance before he even attends the concert?

Why do I have this uneasy feeling that Hilburn has already rated the artists of the future?

STEPHEN TROPIANO

Los Angeles

*

Regarding Hilburn’s Hall of Fame rankings, I must say this: First, he needs to get a life. Second, what culturally deprived rock did he crawl out from under?

By putting Pink Floyd and the Grateful Dead on the B List, Hilburn has set Western civilization back 20 years with regard to music. While Elton John and the Jackson 5 do deserve to be on the A List, I do question the inclusion of the Velvet Underground and the Animals.

With this kind of “analysis,” Hilburn would put Roper’s painting “Dogs Playing Poker” ahead of Da Vinci’s “Mona Lisa.”

BRAD CLEVINGER

Colorado Springs, Colo.

A Matter of Trustees

Regarding “Art, History and the Real World,” Oct. 3:

Suzanne Muchnic states in her article that the Los Angeles County Museum of Art is eager to show off a new study center for Japanese scrolls, claiming that it is visible proof that LACMA officials have tried to please me. I would like to clarify the facts.

The main reason I chose LACMA to house my collection 10 years ago was the museum’s agreement to include a world-class study center within the Pavilion for Japanese Art. LACMA even promoted the study center in its fund-raising brochures, which were distributed in Los Angeles and Japan.

Office space for museum staff was included in the pavilion’s original designs, but LACMA insisted that all offices be removed. However, after the curator of Japanese art arrived, I was told that he needed to have an office right in the middle of the proposed study center. Six years later, after endless pleading with LACMA officials, it has taken a lawsuit to finally remove that office and produce the study center that the museum is now proudly exhibiting.

I believe it is possible for LACMA to rebound from current difficulties and become a great museum. In talking with museum executives throughout the country, I’ve noticed one common characteristic that is apparent in successful museums: the willingness of trustees to put their personal agendas and egos aside for the good of the museum itself.

At present, LACMA is like a leaking boat where the captain blames the water instead of taking responsibility for the condition of the vessel.

JOE D. PRICE

Corona del Mar

In the sidebar to Muchnic’s cover story, “A Little Historical Context, Please,” I was disturbed to read the quote of museum trustee Arthur Gilbert, who stated that “everything in the Anderson Building is junk,” referring to that part of the museum that contains the collections of modern and contemporary art.

As a frequent visitor to the museum, a longtime member and an artist, I am offended by this blatantly ignorant assessment from an individual who is in a position to make policy, purchase and exhibition decisions at LACMA. To dismiss the work of Picasso, Modigliani, Braque, Hockney and many others as “junk” is quite disturbing.

Granted, not all of us can appreciate every artist or every style. However, Gilbert, as a trustee, should possess the cultural awareness to understand that modern and contemporary art is not worthless and most definitely has a very important place in our society. To think otherwise seems to come frighteningly close to labeling such work as “degenerate.”

TED RUBIN

Van Nuys

It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll

In response to Eddie Vedder’s reported unhappiness with being a rock star, reader Bill Turner jokingly advises the Pearl Jam singer to mail him $500,000 and then go to work in a fast-food joint (Letters, Oct. 17).

Perhaps a less sarcastic response would be more appropriate. When a person achieves enormous professional and material success yet still is not happy, we should seriously consider what we can learn from this person’s plight. Could it be that riches and stardom are not the key to happiness?

Vedder’s unhappiness may have more to teach us than Turner’s advice. Besides, I worked in a fast-food joint for three years while in college, and I’d bet that it may be more entertaining than Turner would imagine.

SIMON LAKKISSherman Oaks

Karen Sexton’s charge that Paul McCartney is guilty of “plagiarism” for using the “Abbey Road” cover as the basis for his new “Paul Is Live” album is absurd (Letters, Oct. 17). Her letter is just another example of the Paul-bashing bandwagon that many people have jumped on since 1970.

Sure, McCartney’s very best music was probably made with the Fab Four, but anyone who saw him perform on either of his last two tours knows that not only is he still alive but he can still rock with the best.

But getting back to this “plagiarism” charge: Is the Clash guilty of plagiarizing Elvis for its cover of “London Calling”? Or even closer to the point, how about the Knack and its parody of the “Meet the Beatles” cover?

I suggest that Sexton and other Paul-bashers need to lighten up. Next they’ll be dumping on McCartney because he wasn’t the world’s first vegetarian.

SCOTT MINTYLong Beach

Multicultural Prism

In response to Jan Breslauer’s article regarding the Los Angeles Festival (Oct. 3):

Listening to the discussions, I feel that one of the main points and major achievements of the festival needs more emphasis.

Although I did not attend all the events--as a festival like that is not designed and should not be designed to honor everyone attending everything--still I could see beyond the debate of centrism versus multiculturalism. The main achievement is that the festival stepped beyond that debate, a wonderful exploration of human culturalism rather than just multiculturalism.

While multiculturalism is the anatomy of the culture or our society, showing the components and how they are put together or clashing with each other, human culturalism is exploring the physiology of the society with its different components.

Human culturalism goes a step beyond. It shows me that the “other” is actually a part of me. There is something very human, very sacred and very spiritual that goes deeper than color, race, language or mode of expression.

Something made us very different at one level but very similar at a deeper level--something warm and reassuring that addresses our loneliness and separation, a feeling that makes us belong to an ever-expanding family, locates us on a combined platform within the universe and tantalizes our imagination with the taste of immortality, part of the spirit of God in us.

As I went from a movie to a play to a discussion to an exhibit, I met people I never dreamed of meeting. I kept finding part of me in each person, words of mine in each dialogue, pains I suffered, hopes I maintained, dreams I never allowed to die, smiles that may not show and tears that make the dryness tender and wet. I am grateful to those who made that a part of this city’s history.

MAHER HATHOUT

Los Angeles

Hathout is chairman of the Islamic Center of Southern California and served as a consultant to the Los Angeles Festival. Letters should be brief and must include the writer’s name, address and phone number. Letters are subject to editing and condensation. Mail to Calendar Letters, Los Angeles Times, Times Mirror Square, Los Angeles 90053. By fax: (213) 237-7630.