album Beyoncé - 'COWBOY CARTER'

[Rotunda]

1 minute ago, PrettyHurts said:

I think what's annoying about the interpretations is a lot of people spread them as if they are fact. It's less about theorizing and interpreting and more about "cracking the code" which is unnecessary and it kinda spreads misinformation and puts words in Beyoncé's mouth. I wish people could be more patient and just wait and see. Stop overthinking so much

And while I feel like Bey's art is a great place to have some fruitful discussions about culture, politics, etc. the way her haters and some of the stans act like they're interpretations are 100% correct actually shut down those conversations. 

[swissman]

5 minutes ago, PrettyHurts said:

I think what's annoying about the interpretations is a lot of people spread them as if they are fact. It's less about theorizing and interpreting and more about "cracking the code" which is unnecessary and it kinda spreads misinformation and puts words in Beyoncé's mouth. I wish people could be more patient and just wait and see. Stop overthinking so much

This is the definition of the Hive's issue, and it usually has nothing to do with cracking codes.

[Blue Rose]

59 minutes ago, Lose My Breath said:

I also totally agree that this will out debut Rennie

 

And I post the numbers because I find it interesting to correlate any kind of promotion with how it sells, not to tear anything down.  It does seem to be moving slowly, but IDK truly as I don't have anything to compare it to, and I have no clue the starting numbers for any of the inventory, just speculation. 

 

It seems like the cover helped it push around 10k in sales, it'll be interesting if the tracklist, features, and credits do the same

I love your updates. 
Those who don't like them, can just skip them.

[Rotunda]

6 minutes ago, Draper. said:

Again, she's not gonna disclose the details of her work because she never does. If you want to avoid any interpretation of what she's presenting and just think all is just a bunch of casualties because "she put on that dress because it was pretty", "she chose that location because it looked good on camera", "she used that as a background video because it was cool" then fine. But many of us choose to believe that she's way more intentional than that and like sharing and reading each other's interpretations. 

I think the complaint is less about people sharing theories and more like ppl communicating like the commenter this TikTok user is replying to: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLjdpkrt/

[swissman]

2 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

And while I feel like Bey's art is a great place to have some fruitful discussions about culture, politics, etc. the way her haters and some of the stans act like they're interpretations are 100% correct actually shut down those conversations. 

But don't you think Beyoncé knows that by not giving us the cheat codes, people will speculate?

 

If someone thinks they're correct, does it really matter?

 

She seems to know we'll look into what her meaning is and seems to make very clear, direct choices where there's really little misinterpretation to be made. How many ways are we to interpret that she used a horse that is born black but grows white over time on the cover of an album celebrating a genre that was born black but grew white over time? She's not being vague with her symbolism. This cover is perhaps her most direct (both in art direction) and in the simplicity of the symbols given to us.

[Blue Rose]

1 hour ago, UncleRandy said:

Do you guys think she will release a collectors edition vinyl? like how she did with Renaissance with the standard cover, poster and a booklet? 

Yes there should be one. And it will be available in places like Amazon where you might save on shipping fees

[swissman]

If Beyoncé named her album Dollyoncé and you didn't know who Dolly Parton is, does that mean people who say "It's because of Dolly Parton" are wrong?

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by swissman

[Draper.]

1 minute ago, Rotunda said:

I think the complaint is less about people sharing theories and more like ppl communicating like the commenter this TikTok user is replying to: https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLjdpkrt/

I can understand that but I think Beyoncé is not giving us the visuals or a documentary because she doesn't want to give us everything and end the conversation there. I think she might actually be interested in some of the interpretations and theories, have us live the album, and be a part of the conversation by adding what she feels needs to be added. For example: the cover for act i wasn't initially supposed to be a horse but a disco ball, so the original idea for the cover for act ii might have not initially featured a horse because it was shot recently (it probably was the alternative cover). So what if she saw the theories about the three acts being horses because they are actually related to the genres she's doing in those acts and tried to do that instead of her original idea? 

[swissman]

it just seems like if you are mad that some people act like their interpretations are facts, then you're just mad that art is doing its job. art should make someone feel and believe something. unless the interpretations majorly differ from what we know the artist's intentions were (like saying she's going to play early-American patriotic marches because she's on a horse and wearing American colours), then what's the point if it still supports the same message?

like before we get mad that people are believing interpretations as facts, let's ask ourselves if the interpretation in any way negates or undermines what we already know to be true about the project. if it doesn't, then there's really no issue.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by swissman

[Rotunda]

Just now, swissman said:

But don't you think Beyoncé knows that by not giving us the cheat codes, people will speculate?

 

If someone thinks they're correct, does it really matter?

 

She seems to know we'll look into what her meaning is and seems to make very clear, direct choices where there's really little misinterpretation to be made. How many ways are we to interpret that she used a horse that is born black but grows white over time on the cover of an album celebrating a genre that was born black but grew white over time? She's not being vague with her symbolism. This cover is perhaps her most direct (both in art direction) and in the simplicity of the symbols given to us.

I feel like we're approaching this from different angles because I don't think the bulk of this is responsive/relevant to the point I'm raising.

 

Yes, Beyoncé knows her actions will cause conversations. I'm sure she knows some people will misinterpret her art. I think as long as the broader majority does not walk away with the wrong interpretation of Bey, she is fine with people misinterpreting her art. But if the dominant narrative ever became that she was exploiting Africa for her personal gain (like during The Gift), or that she's some proponent of American Nationalism (like some people are trying to say right now), she's unbothered. That's not really relevant to the discussion that I'm having. 
 

When I clock out of my 9-5, my other job is being a debate coach. I dislike poor discourse.  I think it's problematic from a dialogue POV for people to be immediately rushing to concoct theories to script certain thoughts and intents onto a woman, and present those theories as fact.  I think moves in this direction limit the ability for us to approach art from all angles, and shut down fruitful conversations about art that deserves to be dissected fully.

[futuresuperstar2023]

Cowboy Carter is named that for a reason. Bey didn't just decide to name her album title her husband last name.The title is not pertaining to her husband but at the same time it works because that happens to be his last name.

Edited March 22, 2024 by futuresuperstar2023

[Rotunda]

5 minutes ago, Draper. said:

I can understand that but I think Beyoncé is not giving us the visuals or a documentary because she doesn't want to give us everything and end the conversation there. I think she might actually be interested in some of the interpretations and theories, have us live the album, and be a part of the conversation by adding what she feels needs to be added. For example: the cover for act i wasn't initially supposed to be a horse but a disco ball, so the original idea for the cover for act ii might have not initially featured a horse because it was shot recently (it probably was the alternative cover). So what if she saw the theories about the three acts being horses because they are actually related to the genres she's doing in those acts and tried to do that instead of her original idea? 

I mean, I don't see an issue with theorization/speculation. I just think that good discussion requires recognition that our interpretation isn't the only interpretation. 

[Rotunda]

7 minutes ago, swissman said:

it just seems like if you are mad that some people act like their interpretations are facts, then you're just mad that art is doing its job. art should make someone feel and believe something. unless the interpretations majorly differ from what we know the artist's intentions were (like saying she's going to play early-American patriotic marches because she's on a horse and wearing American colours), then what's the point if it still supports the same message?

This is nonsensical. Art should not make you lose the ability to reason.

[futuresuperstar2023]

It's perfectly fine for people to make theories about the album title and cover. People will always have speculations and thoughts on a project. Isn't that what makes things fun and help hold you until the album and Visuals come? I don't see a major issue with that. The fun seems to be sucked out of everything now.

[swissman]

3 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

This is nonsensical. Art should not make you lose the ability to reason.

Nothing in what I described suggested someone has lost their ability to reason. As I mentioned, if the interpretations align to what we know of the artist's intention, then why is someone's interpretations such an issue? That, in itself, is an exemplification of having "reason". If you know Beyoncé is reclaiming country, then it's MORE than reasonable to think that her album's title has a double entendre that represents a reclaiming of one of the most notable names in the entire country music history. It would be unreasonable to argue against that, actually.

 

If you've seen people who aren't thinking with reason, then that's on them. I don't think it's fair to apply that to the whole discussion.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by swissman

[makeme]

When did American pride get washed into maga? The two are not mutually exclusive the ****!

 

Also, Carter is now HER name. Enough!!!!

[Blue Rose]

Okay but this theory is a gag

 

 

[ultraviolence.xx]

WAIT i just noticed that the CDs on the store come with an "additional song"?? did we know this?

[futuresuperstar2023]

2 hours ago, swissman said:

Nothing in what I described suggested someone has lost their ability to reason. As I mentioned, if the interpretations align to what we know of the artist's intention, then why is someone's interpretations such an issue? That, in itself, is an exemplification of having "reason". If you know Beyoncé is reclaiming country, then it's MORE than reasonable to think that her album's title has a double entendre that represents a reclaiming of one of the most notable names in the entire country music history. It would be unreasonable to argue against that, actually.

It's common sense but everything isn't common anymore in this day and age. People want to argue abut dumb ****.

[TryMe]

2 minutes ago, Blue Rose said:

Okay but this theory is a gag

 

 

Omg if this is true, her mind

[Rotunda]

20 minutes ago, swissman said:

Nothing in what I described suggested someone has lost their ability to reason. As I mentioned, if the interpretations align to what we know of the artist's intention, then why is someone's interpretations such an issue? That, in itself, is an exemplification of having "reason". If you know Beyoncé is reclaiming country, then it's MORE than reasonable to think that her album's title has a double entendre that represents a reclaiming of one of the most notable names in the entire country music history. It would be unreasonable to argue against that, actually.

There is nothing wrong with having a certain interpretation of art/media based on whatever prior knowledge you're operating from. 
 

The second you assert that your unconfirmed version of reality is the only one, and use that to shut down discussions of art, you're behaving like a moron. 
 

You obviously take issue with Beyoncé haters who assert as fact that her invocation of the American Flag represents some part of a Western Imperialist/Pro-America project, which is why you keep clinging to an arbitrary distinction that dogmatism is okay as long as it probably aligns with the intent of the author. 
 

My point is that it's inherently anti-intellectual to present a theory as fact and use it to railroad a discussion. Appreciation of art does not necessitate dogmatism…for most users at least.

 

 

Edit: And to be clear. My point is specifically in the context of certain Hive members who assert certain theories as fact to admonish other members of the Hive or who are clearly just trying to win internet points. My point has never been a criticism of people who are theorizing broadly.

Edited March 22, 2024 by Rotunda

[swissman]

30 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

There is nothing wrong with having a certain interpretation of art/media based on whatever prior knowledge you're operating from. 
 

The second you assert that your unconfirmed version of reality is the only one, and use that to shut down discussions of art, you're behaving like a moron. 
 

You obviously take issue with Beyoncé haters who assert as fact that her invocation of the American Flag represents some part of a Western Imperialist/Pro-America project, which is why you keep clinging an arbitrary distinction that dogmatism is okay as long as it probably aligns with the intent of the author. 
 

My point is that it's inherently anti-intellectual to present a theory as fact and use it to railroad a discussion. Appreciation of art does not necessitate dogmatism…for most users at least.

What I'm saying is there is a difference between knowing:

• this project aims to reclaim genres
• Beyoncé did a lot of research into country music history
• Beyoncé loves double entendres
• etc.

and then saying with relative certainty that her album title is a reference to herself and the VERY famous Carter family of country music which also happens to be her last name.

 

vs. knowing:

• this project aims to reclaim genres
• Beyoncé did a lot of research into country music history
• Beyoncé loves double entendres
• etc.

and then saying with relative certainty that her album title has nothing to do with the VERY famous Carter family of country music which also happens to be her last name.

 

 

I'm not saying dogmatism is good, and I don't even think it's really happening that much in the Hive. I just think that there's certain areas where we can agree with relative certainty that these things were intended, AND if they aren't, since they still align to that which we know as fact, it doesn't change nor reinterpret the work. If someone dogmatically thinks the name is a double entendre, what difference does it make? Or if someone says Bey meant to use those horses as a way to mirror her reclamation of country, it doesn't take a thing away from the fact that she's doing a reclamation of the genre. imo this is about putting all the clues on the table and then seeing what we have.

 

I agree it's anti-intellectual to present theories as facts in such a way that doesn't allow for anything else but I think you're also rounding up here and that hardly anyone is doing that, and if they are, we as intellectuals can see through it and move along. It doesn't seem like as big a deal as it's being made to be in this thread.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by swissman

[Rotunda]

14 minutes ago, swissman said:

What I'm saying is there is a difference between knowing:

• this project aims to reclaim genres
• Beyoncé did a lot of research into country music history
• Beyoncé loves double entendres
• etc.

and then saying with relative certainty that her album title is a reference to herself and the VERY famous Carter family of country music which also happens to be her last name.

 

vs. knowing:

• this project aims to reclaim genres
• Beyoncé did a lot of research into country music history
• Beyoncé loves double entendres
• etc.

and then saying with relative certainty that her album title has nothing to do with the VERY famous Carter family of country music which also happens to be her last name.

 

 

I'm not saying dogmatism is good, I just think that there's certain areas where we can agree with relative certainty that these things were intended, AND if they aren't, since they still l align to that which we know as fact, it doesn't change nor reinterpret the work. If someone dogmatically thinks the name is a double entendre, what difference does it make when whether or not Bey meant to use those horses as a way to mirror her reclamation of country doesn't take a thing away from the fact that she's doing a sort of reclamation of country.

 

I agree it's anti-intellectual to present theories as facts but I think you're also rounding up here and that hardly anyone is doing that, and if they are, we as intellectuals can see through it and move along. It doesn't seem like as big a deal as it's being made to be in this thread.

As a former educator/current debate coach, I think people having solid reasoning and debate skills are important. This doesn't have to matter to you (or Beyoncé for that matter).
 

My point is that the dogmatic way some members of the Hive try to assert theories as facts is bad for how we engage with her art, because her art deserves a thorough discussion of all perspectives and analyses. Some theories will always have more merit than others, which is what I mentioned in a very early post in this discussion, but dogmatism is a bad standard to set for yourself. 

Mind you, the specific example I brought up was how someone in the Hive addressed another Bey fan. It wasn't comparing Bey fans and her haters. 

 

And just to clarify, I never attempted to quantify how common this behavior has become amongst the Hive, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that I "rounded up" to make something a bigger issue than it is. I've been fairly clear about expressing that this is only an issue I've seen with a segment of the Hive, and I'd love to see where you got the insinuation that I was somehow trying to make a broad claim. I don't think this issue is a big deal. I was just confused to see you seemingly dance around my points for some reason, when I feel like I was very measured.

Edited March 22, 2024 by Rotunda

[swissman]

38 minutes ago, Rotunda said:

As a former educator/current debate coach, I think people having solid reasoning and debate skills are important. This doesn't have to matter to you (or Beyoncé for that matter).
 

My point is that the dogmatic way some members of the Hive try to assert theories as facts is bad for how we engage with her art, because her art deserves a thorough discussion of all perspectives and analyses. Some theories will always have more merit than others, which is what I mentioned in a very early post in this discussion, but dogmatism is a bad standard to set for yourself. 

Mind you, the specific example I brought up was how someone in the Hive addressed another Bey fan. It wasn't comparing Bey fans and her haters. 

 

And just to clarify, I never attempted to quantify how common this behavior has become amongst the Hive, so I don't know where you're getting this idea that I "rounded up" to make something a bigger issue than it is. I've been fairly clear about expressing that this is only an issue I've seen with a segment of the Hive, and I'd love to see where you got the insinuation that I was somehow trying to make a broad claim. I don't think this issue is a big deal. I was just confused to see you seemingly dance around my points for some reason, when I feel like I was very measured.

I've never advocated for dogmatism though.

 

Perhaps that's why you felt I "danced" around your points. It seems that this "debate" went quite far from where it started, which was someone saying very matter-of-factly that they thought the fan theories were reaching, to which I replied that they actually seemed rather sensible in their claims. Now it's become a topic centred around dogmatism which is why I thought you were rounding up a bit because a fan reaching for a point or even taking a theory as a fact is not quite the same thing as a fan dogmatically ignoring evidence just to support their viewpoint at the expense of all others. Of course dogmatism isn't great. I don't think anyone here was saying it was (or maybe I missed it), which is why I felt you were talking broadly, which is fine, but I was not talking about the aspect of the topic you were so it becomes hard to have a "debate" that addresses all points made when each person is discussing something slightly different, where one is talking about the merits to theories and the other is talking about dogmatism.

 

 

Edited March 22, 2024 by swissman

[Eóghan]

what's with all the essays in here?