Do you like rock 'n' roll?

[The Modernist]

goldwax - you're doing a great job on my point of music listening as social communication/interaction.

if you need some help, go to wikipedia and look up:

J. Radway
J. Staiger
H. Jenkins
L. Mulvey

and to some extent:

k. burke
t. adorno
the manchester school


i think they'd all back us up on the audience studies/media effects/uses/rock-n-roll-is-fun front.

No they wouldn't.
Most of them have never even addressed this area.
You've just thrown a lot of names at him, most of whom ( there are a few I've not heard of, but it does at any rate seem a very arbitory list) have precious little in common with each other let alone the topic in question.

In terms of goldwax's argument that it was just about fun and had no wider sociological meanings within a post-war context, I await with interest your explanation of the legions of sociologists or cultural theorists that support such a view.

[Count Machuki]

goldwax - you're doing a great job on my point of music listening as social communication/interaction.

if you need some help, go to wikipedia and look up:

J. Radway
J. Staiger
H. Jenkins
L. Mulvey

and to some extent:

k. burke
t. adorno
the manchester school


i think they'd all back us up on the audience studies/media effects/uses/rock-n-roll-is-fun front.

No they wouldn't.
Most of them have never even addressed this area.
You've just thrown a lot of names at him, most of whom ( there are a few I've not heard of, but it does at any rate seem a very arbitory list) have precious little in common with each other let alone the topic in question.

In terms of goldwax's argument that it was just about fun and had no wider sociological meanings within a post-war context, I await with interest your explanation of the legions of sociologists or cultural theorists that support such a view.

well, thesis forthcoming, and i've read all these guys, as you have. while they may not take rock and roll as such into account, the structures and theory are DEFINITELY there, and i'm surprised you don't see it, mr. subcultural studies.

on the side-point, if people use rock as fun, then that's it's function in that case, right?

i await...well, more time, to frame a better response, and a better line of questioning on yr part, frankly.

i wish you the best

cg

[Davey the Fat Boy]

In terms of goldwax's argument that it was just about fun and had no wider sociological meanings within a post-war context, I await with interest your explanation of the legions of sociologists or cultural theorists that support such a view.

Right...let's defer this matter to the experts. That's what real rebels do.

[The Modernist]

surely you must feel there's a more rebellious form of music out there.

-fela kuti's compound was burned, and his mother killed over rebellious songs he had written

-many from the tropicalia movement in brazil of the 60s were imprisoned for their beliefs as expressed in song

-the litany of african-american testifying songs

-cold war calypso records are filled with hate for kruschev, castro, and the iron curtain

there's loads more, where that came from, wilson. then again, on your side, you've got a Brit and a witch in a bag.

Again I fail to see your point. Of course artists are treated more harshly under dictatorships than within liberal democracies. But what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

[Count Machuki]

surely you must feel there's a more rebellious form of music out there.

-fela kuti's compound was burned, and his mother killed over rebellious songs he had written

-many from the tropicalia movement in brazil of the 60s were imprisoned for their beliefs as expressed in song

-the litany of african-american testifying songs

-cold war calypso records are filled with hate for kruschev, castro, and the iron curtain

there's loads more, where that came from, wilson. then again, on your side, you've got a Brit and a witch in a bag.

Again I fail to see your point. Of course artists are treated more harshly under dictatorships than within liberal democracies. But what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

when has trinidad even been a dictatorship???...brasil? for f's sake, man. and don't think that all governments (ruling classes/elite) don't have some sort of agenda to stifle truly revolutionary expression.

[The Modernist]

goldwax - you're doing a great job on my point of music listening as social communication/interaction.

if you need some help, go to wikipedia and look up:

J. Radway
J. Staiger
H. Jenkins
L. Mulvey

and to some extent:

k. burke
t. adorno
the manchester school


i think they'd all back us up on the audience studies/media effects/uses/rock-n-roll-is-fun front.

No they wouldn't.
Most of them have never even addressed this area.
You've just thrown a lot of names at him, most of whom ( there are a few I've not heard of, but it does at any rate seem a very arbitory list) have precious little in common with each other let alone the topic in question.

In terms of goldwax's argument that it was just about fun and had no wider sociological meanings within a post-war context, I await with interest your explanation of the legions of sociologists or cultural theorists that support such a view.

well, thesis forthcoming, and i've read all these guys, as you have. while they may not take rock and roll as such into account, the structures and theory are DEFINITELY there, and i'm surprised you don't see it, mr. subcultural studies.

on the side-point, if people use rock as fun, then that's it's function in that case, right?

i await...well, more time, to frame a better response, and a better line of questioning on yr part, frankly.

i wish you the best

cg

I've had a bit of a "bad day at the office" so I shouldn't take it out on you, apologies.
but I do think it a bit of a specious list to be honest and not all that relevent..sure The frankfurt School had lots to say on popular culture, but I would challenge much of it. most of it was written in the 40's as a response to fascism and I would question its relevence here. I wasn't aware someone like laura mulvey had written much on this topic either (I know her theories on cinema, which i largely disagree with).

To be honest I'm confused at what you're supporting in Goldwax's arguments. Perhapsd you'd could explain?

on the side-point, if people use rock as fun, then that's it's function in that case, right?

I'm surprised you didn't throw in Talcott Parsons into your list with that logic!

I'm sure when I can establish what you're saying we'll be in near agreement as I normally do agree with what you say on these things.

[The Modernist]

surely you must feel there's a more rebellious form of music out there.

-fela kuti's compound was burned, and his mother killed over rebellious songs he had written

-many from the tropicalia movement in brazil of the 60s were imprisoned for their beliefs as expressed in song

-the litany of african-american testifying songs

-cold war calypso records are filled with hate for kruschev, castro, and the iron curtain

there's loads more, where that came from, wilson. then again, on your side, you've got a Brit and a witch in a bag.

Again I fail to see your point. Of course artists are treated more harshly under dictatorships than within liberal democracies. But what's that got to do with the topic at hand?

when has trinidad even been a dictatorship???...brasil? for f's sake, man. and don't think that all governments (ruling classes/elite) don't have some sort of agenda to stifle truly revolutionary expression.

Brazil certainly had a dictatorship then, I don't know about Trinidad.
When did I say ruling elites didn't have "some sort of agenda to stifle truly revilutionary expression"?

[The Modernist]

Here's where I jump off the Goldwax/Davey TFB/Machuki train- you are treating the notion of rebelling as something that must be measured up to- as if it can't be considered just because a bunch of suburban white kids weren't real revolutionaries. They didn't have to be overthrowing anything to feel like they were forging the new way. And it that feeling that gives rock and roll its sense of abandon, at least in part. Whether it's genuine or not is of little interest to me. My guess is that's how it felt. OK, maybe there wasn't anything inherently rebellious about Buddy Holly, but he could certainly be threatening to a member of the old guard. He was participating in what some people saw (even if they were wrong) as a danger to the country. And to make things worse, he married a Latina! In the 50s! Pat Boone wouldn't have done that. When Boone was set up as the "safe" alternative, some kids preferred him- more commercially successful than Little Richard by a mile, if I remember correctly- but some kids chose Little Richard. And for white suburban kids in the south, yes, that was rebelliousness on some level.

However, I jump off the Jeff K train when it takes an exalted importance- as I've said all along, if you believe its existence gives music any form of natural superiority, you are being duped. Is Pat Boone's music being used to sell shoes? No, Iggy's is. Your so-called rebelliousness is being sold back to you. I'm not trying to dispute that feeling of sticking it to the man that existed when music was new, but I think if you're still holding on to that notion now that we know it's being controlled by the same "man" that controls our laws, our wars and our capitalist agenda- then I think you're more than a little naive.

Spot on.

I think the reasons why rock n' roll happened were complex and we shouldn't generalise audience response. Nevertheless it was in part a product of post-war consumerism and the creation of a new kind of consumer -the teenager. In expressing this new state the teenager differentiated itself from previous generations through their tastes, behaviour and social mores, and in this the notion of "rebellion" is indeed relevant.
The response of the superstructure, by which I mean the producers and media outlets, as well as the authorities in general was roughly three staged:
1. To try and stiffle it - the bust on Alan Freed, the banning of performances etc.
2/ The next stage was to sanitise it - the relaunching of an "all American" American Bandstand, the launching of safe white artists -Pat Boone etc.
3/ The final stage which Toomany addresses was to commodify it.
"Turning rebellion into money" indeed.

[The Modernist]

There is a lot in what you say about the way the narrative of rock n' toll has been rewritten to marginialise the richness and complexities of the black rn' b tradition.
However do you deny that Elvis say wasn't seen as emblematic of something new and dangerous (even if this was a bleaching of black music), and that by consuming such artists teenagers weren't at times consciously making a statement about themselves and their values?
And if rock n' roll was so non- threatening, simply another form of entertainment, why were the authoritues so uncomfortable with it?

[Jeff K]

In the case of rock, rebellion was largely assigned to rock by rock critics in the late '60s, based on their own experiences living in a particular time and place, and without regard to the historical truth of what really happened before their time, which accounts for why the rich tapestry of the music--crossover blues shouters, doowop groups, girl groups, etc.--has been overlooked for 40 years in favor of the simple, clear narrative of: blues and country had a baby, they called it rock and roll, the rock and rollers of the '50s were rebels and mostly played electric guitars and directly begat the Beatles, the Stones who also played electric guitars and so on and so forth on to psych and metal and prog and punk and new wave and alternative on down the line.

It's a simple, clear narrative--which the masses, even the educated masses, like--with rebellion overemphasized so that it becomes the thread that unites--defines, even--that narrative, and anything that doesn't fit in with the program gets marginalized, distorted, or left behind.

Doesn't the fact that girl groups, doo-wop, crooners and whatever else that didn't fit under the 'rebellion' banner put forth by the rock critics did in fact get left behind when people started started started buying all that "blues and country had a baby, they called it rock and roll" in droves prove the point that they were more attracted to that kind of of music? Why did they get drawn to it? If it was plain old escapist fun we'd be talking about the Coasters as much as Dylan here.

You keep using the late 60's as your time frame when the writers started marginalizing the music and creating a myth but by that time the majority of music fans had already made their choice. I understand what you're saying and you make a few valid points but I think you fall short when you try to lay the blame on writers and the rest of us were merely following what they wrote like sheep.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

In the case of rock, rebellion was largely assigned to rock by rock critics in the late '60s, based on their own experiences living in a particular time and place, and without regard to the historical truth of what really happened before their time, which accounts for why the rich tapestry of the music--crossover blues shouters, doowop groups, girl groups, etc.--has been overlooked for 40 years in favor of the simple, clear narrative of: blues and country had a baby, they called it rock and roll, the rock and rollers of the '50s were rebels and mostly played electric guitars and directly begat the Beatles, the Stones who also played electric guitars and so on and so forth on to psych and metal and prog and punk and new wave and alternative on down the line.

It's a simple, clear narrative--which the masses, even the educated masses, like--with rebellion overemphasized so that it becomes the thread that unites--defines, even--that narrative, and anything that doesn't fit in with the program gets marginalized, distorted, or left behind.

Doesn't the fact that girl groups, doo-wop, crooners and whatever else that didn't fit under the 'rebellion' banner put forth by the rock critics did in fact get left behind when people started started started buying all that "blues and country had a baby, they called it rock and roll" in droves prove the point that they were more attracted to that kind of of music? Why did they get drawn to it? If it was plain old escapist fun we'd be talking about the Coasters as much as Dylan here.

You keep using the late 60's as your time frame when the writers started marginalizing the music and creating a myth but by that time the majority of music fans had already made their choice. I understand what you're saying and you make a few valid points but I think you fall short when you try to lay the blame on writers and the rest of us were merely following what they wrote like sheep.

Girl group stuff, doo wop stuff etc. constituted a large part of the popular music of the day. That stuff was all hits. People loved it. But there was a format shift to albums, while this stuff was only available on singles, and the Beatles were like a meteor crashing into the pop music planet, causing these groups to go extinct before they had a chance to really adapt.

But the music remained popular. Look at the enormous popularity of American Graffitti and its soundtrack, in, I think 1972. Look at Sha-Na-Na and Showaddywaddy. Look at the endless oldies reunion tours and the Oldies radio format. This was a market that was ignored and underserved. It didn't get any press after 1964, but the market and the fans were there, rewritted out of history, but still there.

But the late '60s rockers were the ones that controlled the media now, not the stodgy adults, so they weren't interested in anything but sex, drugs, and rebellion equalling rock n roll.

Talk about your real underground: it's doo wop and southern soul (which morphed into chitlin circuit soul) and girl groups. Not the arty stuff championed by the NME and the Village Voice that never sold shit simply because it wasn't popular, DESPITE all the press it got.

I've given all of this a bit of thought. Allow me to reframe the debate a little:

Honestly I think Jeff makes a good point here. By the time the early 60's rolled around the concept of teen rebellion was clearly in place, as The Stones and The Who would soon use it to their advantage.

In truth I think all of us have it a bit backwards. The teen rebellion narrative did not come about after the first wave of rock. It pre-existed rock altogether. This should be obvious as "Rock Around the Clock" was introduced in The Blackboard Jungle. In fact the "juvenile delinquent" film was a staple of Hollywood for years before rock hit - going all the way back to the Dead End Kids. Much as we like to think that rock shook Norman Rockwell's America, freaked mom and dad out, and made junior a rebel - the reality is that mom and dad were already freaked out about junior before anybody ever heard of Chuck Berry. It was simply natural that people would come to associate this new music that kids were discovering with the archetype that had already been established in our culture.

So to the extent that rock came already framed by the larger media as "rebellion music" - I suppose some saw it that way. I still maintain that the artists who made it likely had little interest in any of that, and my guess is that most kids felt that it existed somewhere else among other, more rebellious kids than themselves.

[Leg of lamb]

This is all getting so Hegelian!

[king feeb]

In the case of rock, rebellion was largely assigned to rock by rock critics in the late '60s, based on their own experiences living in a particular time and place, and without regard to the historical truth of what really happened before their time, which accounts for why the rich tapestry of the music--crossover blues shouters, doowop groups, girl groups, etc.--has been overlooked for 40 years in favor of the simple, clear narrative of: blues and country had a baby, they called it rock and roll, the rock and rollers of the '50s were rebels and mostly played electric guitars and directly begat the Beatles, the Stones who also played electric guitars and so on and so forth on to psych and metal and prog and punk and new wave and alternative on down the line.

It's a simple, clear narrative--which the masses, even the educated masses, like--with rebellion overemphasized so that it becomes the thread that unites--defines, even--that narrative, and anything that doesn't fit in with the program gets marginalized, distorted, or left behind.

And that's how the myth gets created and people buy into it and believe it because they haven't heard or experienced otherwise and so, yes, rebellion becomes part of the experience of like rock in this day and age, even if it isn't really rebellion at all, but rather excitement, fun, and escapism.

I contend that marketers and other music sellers are far more guilty of perpetuating this myth than critics (and besides, saying that these critics weren't around is ludicrous- most of the critics in the sixties were older than 10!). I mean... what an easy sell! The myth of a rebellious Fonz character on a motorcycle roaring into your small town to shake things up has been a hot item since... well Brando in "The Wild Ones" and Elvis. You are right that this vision of rebellion is a scam- it's nothing but a marketing hook which streamlines a complex situation into an easily-saleable image.

Oddly, the examples you gave of continued interest in 50s music, ShaNaNa, American Grafitti et al, have a lot more to do with this type of image-mongering than they do with the reaality of the huge phlanx of talented yet forgotten R&B pioneers of the 50s.

I contend that the entire ducktailed-JD image is actually a trojan horse designed to sucker buyers. I agree with you there. I also agree that this image does a large disservice to the rich musical history of the era.

But where I part company with you guys is that I think this marketing image is merely a simulacra of real rebellion. It has the same relationship to early rock and roll as Satan worship does to heavy metal- it is a mere caracture, a sort of media shorthand that helps to label and sell the music. Unfortunately, it also cheapens the real rebellion of the fifties. Please see below.

I'm not so much dismissing it as inconsequential as I am arguing that it is not crucial. Personally I don't think rock music emerged in the spirit of rebellion. I think it was a very repressed world and much of this music was born out of a longing for freedom and abandon. I don't think the artists who made it, nor the kids who bought it, did so very often in condemnation of anyone. I think they just loved the music.

While the artists and songs involved may not necessarily be rebellious on the face of it, I still contend that rebellion is a crucial part of the entire rock and roll experience, and the music would be changed beyond recognition without it.

Rebellion does not need to be a condemnation or a stiff middle finger, or a leather jacket or a motorcycle... in a repressed world, such as the USA in the 50s, a longing for freedom, abandon and fun is rebellion.

[The Modernist]

You make many valid and interesting points here, however in trying to assert a polarised "position" are too dismissive of some key issues in my view.

Racism. Pure and simple.

Yes, fear of miscegenation and outright racism certainly lie behind much of this.

Kids didn't care about race as much as their parents did. Nor were they trying to integrate schools in the '50s or fight for civil rights or anything else. They didn't care about changing attitudes per se, they just didn't care about race as much as their folks did. They were willing to overlook it in the pursuite of fun.
.

I assume you're talking of white kids here. You say "they didn't care" quite a lot here which seems to me remarkably sweeping. Nevertheless was the attraction to black music, whilst not unprecedented (there'd always been white kids attracted to jazz), of such a scale to represent a genuine social change? You admit that it represented a change from their parents' values, yet dismiss this as irrelevent. I would argue this is highly relevent in assessing why rock n' roll created the impact it did socially and why indeed its danger is not simply an invention of white 60's rock critics as you claim.
As to the motivations of the kids themselves I would say these were multifarious, I think some would be quite aware that that in involving themselves with black music they were involving themselves in something that was seen as taboo, the more astute may have understood some of the political and social implications of this. You say civil rights came after, like it was some totally unconnected event. Yet the first protests began in 1955. Is it really such a stretch to imagine that the involvement of white kids a few years later when it became a mass movement wouldn't have been aided by their exposure and empathy with black popular culture?
But for many it was about pure fun,yes, but in 50's Eisenhower America -the decade of the organisation man, such unbridled hedonism with its attendent perception of the relaxing of sexual morals might well have been seen as a threat.
And if the kids were so disinterested in rebellion, why were hollywood so desperate to sell them it as a package in contemporary films like "The Blackboard Jungle" and "The Wild One"?

Lots of kids fell for it, but it wasn't ALL teen idols. There were girl groups, good pop groups, early soul acts like Sam Cooke or Jerry Butler or Dee Clark, folk, and tons of doo wop groups. .

sure

Then the Beatles--innocuous, clever, cute, adorable, teen idols with music to back it up--that took it to a new level. THEN the critics came in and decided to write the history of ALL rock and roll within the context of civil rights, Vietnam, The Pill, etc. etc. etc..

Too pat. Which critics are we talking about here and what did they say specifically that you so object to. And what about the numerous memoirs/rememberences/personal histories of people who talk of the impact of rock n' roll on them and how it represented a shock of the new. In your analysis rock n' roll was merely a continuum of the 1940's, after all didn't people want to have fun then too?

re Elvis. No, I do not think that rebellion was the main reason that kids were attracted to him. They liked him because he was fun and cute and cool. Remember, Elvis was always self-0effacing, polite, yessired and yes-ma'amed everyone, and was never seen doing anything bad except having fun on stage, which just happened to express itself in ... wiggling his hips. Ooh! How rebellious!
.

Crazy isn't it. And yet national television would only film him from the waist up so sexually potent was his dancing seen to be, the Roman Catholic church denounced him, radio programmers refused ro play him, he was deemed "obscene", he was hated for playing "n***er music".. all of which paints a rather more complex picture than you suggest.

[The Modernist]

in a repressed world, such as the USA in the 50s, a longing for freedom, abandon and fun is rebellion.

A point I've been labouring to make. Thank you for making it so concisely.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I'm not so much dismissing it as inconsequential as I am arguing that it is not crucial. Personally I don't think rock music emerged in the spirit of rebellion. I think it was a very repressed world and much of this music was born out of a longing for freedom and abandon. I don't think the artists who made it, nor the kids who bought it, did so very often in condemnation of anyone. I think they just loved the music.

While the artists and songs involved may not necessarily be rebellious on the face of it, I still contend that rebellion is a crucial part of the entire rock and roll experience, and the music would be changed beyond recognition without it.

Rebellion does not need to be a condemnation or a stiff middle finger, or a leather jacket or a motorcycle... in a repressed world, such as the USA in the 50s, a longing for freedom, abandon and fun is rebellion.

Well gosh feeb...

If we're going to expand the concept of rebellion that broadly, then sure. Who could argue that. But that's not the myth that we were all handed. Rock is about a stiff middle finger to authority - that's the crap I've always been fed.

While the 50's were repressive, for a suburban white teen they were hardly the equivalent of life in a gulag. It strikes me as a bit romantic to imagine that this music gave a generation a means to rebel against oppression via the pursuit of dancing and fun - but hey, if it works for you...

[Ray K.]

It strikes me as a bit romantic to imagine that this music gave a generation a means to rebel against oppression via the pursuit of dancing and fun - but hey, if it works for you...

Such a rebel rouser was immortalized in the cinematic masterpiece Footloose... no dancing indeed - take that "man".

[jimboo]

in a repressed world, such as the USA in the 50s, a longing for freedom, abandon and fun is rebellion.

A point I've been labouring to make. Thank you for making it so concisely.

Feeb is spot on.I keep on saying it.The music is the soundtrack to our lives. What are you rebelling against? what've you got?

No one era has the sole rights as a true pure act of rebellion using music as a weapon save for the blues.Rebellion for most of us consists of little victories or acts of defiance against our bosses or peers. Rock is er more than a feeling.

[The Modernist]

Well gosh feeb...

If we're going to expand the concept of rebellion that broadly, then sure. Who could argue that. But that's not the myth that we were all handed. Rock is about a stiff middle finger to authority - that's the crap I've always been fed.

While the 50's were repressive, for a suburban white teen they were hardly the equivalent of life in a gulag. It strikes me as a bit romantic to imagine that this music gave a generation a means to rebel against oppression via the pursuit of dancing and fun - but hey, if it works for you...

What Feeb's saying really isn't so outlandish -I'm surprised you react to it in the way you do, it's always been a standard take on the fifties.
The desire for freedom, the desire for personal expression (it's no accident that this was the decade that popular psychology really took off in The States) and a break from the conservative mores of post-war middle America: these are the leitmotifs of the 1950's. And they can be found in differing ways in Brando and Dean, in "On The Road", in Pollock and a whole lot more things besides.

[king feeb]

While the 50's were repressive, for a suburban white teen they were hardly the equivalent of life in a gulag. It strikes me as a bit romantic to imagine that this music gave a generation a means to rebel against oppression via the pursuit of dancing and fun - but hey, if it works for you...

Well that's admittedly a little more dramatic than I intended (although it isn't if you consider, for instance, the Velvet Revolution in the Czech Republic). In the USA, it was more of a paradigm shift... an old way of thinking being subsumed by a new one. The old guard trying valiently to keep this new mode of thought at bay, using every societal tool at its disposal to do so. And the new thought wasn't just rock and roll music: it was breaking out in the arts and literature and especially in the movies and other media (Mad magazine may have been even a larger influence on 60s rebellion than Elvis... certainly a topic for another debate).

In the present day, conservatives like Bill O'Reilly point to those times as the point where society began to go to Hell in a handbasket, plunging us into an icy cold age of secular humanism. Brrrrr!

Obviously, there was no revolution, just millions and millions of tiny acts, thoughts and choices, and each little rebellion chipped away at the stony facade until it resembled the modern world, for better or worse.