American Politics & Pop Culture

This was a really overwhelming film at times and I feel that there's so much more to be said about it than I can conceivably fit into one blog reflection, so I'm going to focus on Lennon's success (or lack thereof) as opposed to the actions of the Nixon administration and their image of him. I have to say that Lennon comes across good hearted guy, really devoted to his ideals of peace, even if he was somewhat naïve about his own ability to effect change in the system. That being said, at the time, the youth movement, the antiwar movement, and a host of other "movements" were vocal, visible, and really unprecedented. I don't think anyone, be they Nixon and his supporters, or the movement participants themselves, knew quite what they were facing and the extent of what they could achieve. It was a new and uncertain time for everybody involved, on both sides. That being said, I think that is why Nixon & Co. were so scared of this otherwise benign and stumbling hippie musician. They saw the crowds, the demonstrations, and the like, and were worried about this raw angst and dissatisfaction translating into electoral power.

The film mentions the 26th Amendment and the fact that millions of 18-21 year olds would be voting in 1972, and this scared the Nixon administration, and thus their efforts at silencing Lennon and other "agitators" of the left began. However, when all the noise died down, Nixon had won in a huge popular landslide and, in my opinion, all of the hippies, Panthers, and other leftists were left there looking stupid. For all of the noise and agitation of the late 60s and early 70s, what did Lennon, Bobby Seale, and other leftist radicals achieve? Perhaps they changed the minds and political leanings of some young people, but they by and large went on with their lives, got careers and a family, and participated in the same society they were so dissatisfied with in their youth. While I'm no Nixon fan, I believe he got it right in 1968 with his notion of the "silent majority." These protest movements, of which Lennon was for a time a figurehead, were loud, visible, and in-your-face, but just getting thousands of people out into the street to wave signs ultimately does not translate into political change or capital. In a way, it's too bad and tragic that even something as important as the 1960s-70s "movement period" was unable to bring out its goals and make whatever lasting policy changes they desired, but I guess that speaks to how our system works and, alternatively, to the fact that the "rest" of America, those who weren't out protesting, ultimately carried the day...the voice and attitude of the country as a whole was not out marching in the streets.

I think this films shows that, at the time, nobody really knew what these movements would achieve or the extent of their power, but once this had been discovered, first in 1968 but especially in 1972, the establishment really started to disregard them, the "silent majority" wrote them off, and many believers in these leftists causes became disenchanted and dropped out as well. For Lennon's part, I think he was a true believer but that even his faith was tested and dealt a blow as a result of the government actions against him and the failure of the peace movment. Sadly, I think that Lennon and by extension all he represented about popular culture, radical politics, and the like, and their ability to effect actual, meaningful change were overstated and that history has proven that they did not, in fact, change much of anything in actual political practice, policy, the war, and the like.

Posted by woitx002 at 04:17 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The John Lennon documentary was very eye-opening because I’ve heard those songs so many times – “Revolution” and “Imagine” – and never really considered the impact Lennon’s songs and actions had on America at that time.

Like we saw in the week 3 lecture and Sahara, during WWII any public forum was edited by the OWI to make sure it was in support of our country and the war. Then came the Vietnam War, and a different attitude took over. There was no attack on our country, and many people were confused and upset that we had troops in Vietnam. All of a sudden people like Lennon, Hoffman, and Rubin weren’t afraid to expose the injustice that was occurring. As Perone discusses in “Music and Radical Politics,” Lennon even goes as far as to compare what was going on in the US to Germany around WWII. His message in the radical political Sometime in New York City album says, “Don’t think they didn’t know about Hitler,” which was in reference to how the German officials kept the deaths of millions of Jews a secret from the citizens so people would support Hitler.

I don’t believe Lennon’s efforts were at all in vein. He was one of the most popular people in the world and wasn’t even an American citizen – he was just so passionate on creating a peaceful, just world. In one scene of the documentary he said something along the lines of, “this is not me, this is just an image.” People might have thought he was crazy, but I think he just knew that was the easiest way to get to people. Although his efforts weren’t considered successful after Nixon was re-elected in 1972, I believe there was a lot gained through his form of protesting. Lennon gave young people a voice. There were many teens and young people who became very politically active during this time. Also, I don’t believe Lennon’s only goal was to prevent the re-election of Nixon. His efforts to get John Sinclair out of prison through the concert worked. I think all of his other protests, songs, and speeches were just too vague to get anything accomplished. “All we are saying is give peace a chance,” was the song that he chanted. He didn’t give specific goals, or work to get anything changed, he just wanted people to be aware of what was going on. Lennon wanted Americans to know that they had a right to speak up and protest for what they believed in, and he undoubtedly succeeded at doing this.

Posted by osbo0100 at 03:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Ben Arnold talks about the history of music and war, and how for every war there was songs wrote or played during it. I think that music is an important tool in war times. Lennon was very influential when if came to the music regarding Vietnam. I truly think that he did save lives with how he approached the revolution. All you have to do is look at the gathering and the concerts that were set up by him. Thousand upon thousands of people gathered and sang for peace. I think the fact that he was a Beatle helped him a lot. Young people listen to famous people. Because he already had star power he could get the message out better than anyone else.
This obviously scared the government. They were trying to fight a war that Lennon was protesting. Both sides knew it was a mistake to be there; it’s just like Iraq. If you ask the majority of the population why were there they wouldn’t know how to respond, not because of their incompetence on the subject matter but because we should not have gone over there. And the government does not admit to their mistakes, so instead of getting us out of Vietnam they would get rid of Lennon, the person fueling the mass protests.
In my opinion the government will always be corrupted in some way, and because they run the show, their going to get away with it. Like spying on people and putting them in jail for being a traitor to the U.S. for not supporting the war. I think it’s our responsibility as citizens to speak up when something is not right. We should not be punished for speaking out against the government in a country who was based on the ideal of freedom of speech. If this were going on today I would probably be in jail right now. Every chance I get to bash the Bush administration I do. I don’t think the “leave the country or shut up” is a good theory. It’s not fair to kick us out just because the administration is doing a shity job.
In the documentary Sicko by Michael Moore, they were in France talking about health care, and when he interviewed some of the citizens they told him that the government is sacred of the people. If things aren’t going the way they want it, protests and riots are thrown. In the U.S. the people are scared of the government. Our government is supposed to be for the people, and by the people. It was very obvious that the people were for John Lennon, yet our government tried to kick him out of the country because he was promoting peace.
It really says something about who’s running the country when they are against PEACE!

Posted by robak003 at 12:52 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I do believe that music can save lives in certain ways. Music can offer someone a hobby, an escape from life and the stress it causes, a form of release from anger and sadness, or a message. All of these things can save a life in one way or another.

I don’t believe Lennon’s attempts to change things was a complete failure. Sure, Nixon was re-elected, but he is remembered as a crooked politician, while Lennon is remembered as a hero of peace. Besides he had a huge impact on millions of American youth, who protested the war, and gave a new perspective to the world on how they could have peace if they really wanted it.

The government felt threatened because they new the impact music and a voice in general could have on the population. Music hits people on a whole new level of realization and delivers a message that will be heard by people whether by listening to it or by people talking about it. The government took extreme measures to put a stop to the message Lennon was preaching, but it was unwarranted because it broke the ideals that this country was built on.

Being disloyal and disagreeing with a point of view are two very different things. You can disagree and be heard without being a traitor. A traitor is someone who gives help to your enemies in the form of information or supplies neither of which Lennon did. The enemy was the communists, not the American people who disagreed with the Nixon administration.

America is supposed to be a country where you as a citizen are allowed to speak your mind. America was founded on the belief that you can think for yourself and you will not be silenced by the government. To tell people to leave if they don’t agree with the government is the least American anyone could do.

Posted by nels5175 at 11:34 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

To say that music of the 1960s and 70s was just a niche for disaffected youth is a lie. If it were not, the US government would not have been so concerned with terminating John Lennon’s visa so they could deport him from the country after he started a large peace movement against the Vietnam War. The song “Imagine” by John Lennon promotes equality and ideas of communism, like in the line “Imagine there’s no heaven, and no religion too.” This came about during the cold war with the USSR, which would have threatened the US government because Lennon had so much power over the thoughts of the American people. Some artists had too much of a radical leftist view, such as MC5. In the Perone article, “Music and Radical Politics”, it mentions punk bands having a “kill for peace” attitude and wanting a “complete revolutionary overthrow of the US government” (100). Their music was loud and violent making it very different from the sounds of bands like The Beatles. The article also mentions that artists like MC5 hardly sold any records compared to the sales of The Beatles. This goes to show that musicians with enough fame could have the American public follow them on any political movement, as long as it was somewhat rational. Proof that Lennon’s views were rational can be described by the Beatles’ song “Revolution”, written by Lennon. He claims that revolution does not have to be brought about by violence, and that change can be brought about peacefully. I have a friend whose dad said the only time he has ever cried was when John Lennon was killed. These kinds of actions speak louder than any arguments saying that music has a large effect on creating peace.

Posted by kuni0018 at 08:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

It’s quite amazing the transformation that the Beatles themselves took through the ages and then see them after they broke up. Back in the early 60’s they were a mop-top group who only as John Lennon later stated sang about superficial things such as girls and puppy love. According to the video that we had watched last week; the history of rock and roll, it was after Lennon met Bob Dylan did he realize that he should be writing more politically active songs.

One part I found very interesting was when the reporter Gloria Emerson asked John whether he actually thinks that he saved any people by writing and singing songs about peace. Though I don’t agree entirely with all of John Lennon’s beliefs I do agree that he undoubtedly influenced if not saved any people’s lives. He surely knew this; the media, millions of people across the world were obsessed with everything that he did. Instead of singing of “superficial” things he knew that if he sang politically charged songs he would surely make a difference.

I really believe that music has had an effect of the beliefs and thoughts of Americans. If we look relatively recently bands such as Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Pearl Jam, and Soundgarden dominated the early 90’s with their grunge rock. Rage Against the Machine sang of worldwide issues from American wage slavery to military sieges. Due to people such as Bob Dylan and John Lennon’s and their well-known political activism I believe singers and bands now are more vocal when it comes to voicing their opinions on specific things. It is evident that one can look at the musical acts of the time and by analyzing their lyrics could have a pretty good idea of the social issues around them during that particular era.

Posted by dhill004 at 03:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Christina Johnston – Lennon
When looking at the interaction between music and political influence, it becomes imperative to realize the power that a popular artist has when composing the sound, lyrics, and tone of a song. Lennon’s association with Ono, and disgust for the violent actions in Vietnam set him up to be viewed by the government to be a political ‘other,’ as well as a considerable threat. This poses the question, that if the statement made by Gloria Emerson on the New York Times was indeed true, and Lennon made no difference in American lives; then why was he viewed as such a threat by the US government?
He was such a threat because of the influence which he earned through his early years of success and fame. If Lennon was just an average Joe protesting, he wouldn’t receive nearly the level of national attention that he did. Musical artist have proven Emerson’s accusation of the nullity of popular culture on American lives wrong countless times. For example, Bono is raising millions of dollars in the fight against AIDS through his music and his stance on the issue, and is directly affecting thousands of lives, while raising awareness for the cause. Lennon accomplished a similar feat in that; he provided a look into an alternative to the war and loss that Americans were experiencing. If nothing else, he got people thinking about why we occupied Vietnam, and as a result, people developed their own opinions about the ideals he was promoting in his music. We are by no means out of control of our own thoughts as an American culture, but the simple song about change and peace has the power to expose us to a new way of thinking, from which we can develop a stance. It’s very ironic how the film shows the hypocrisy of Nixon, being that he was thrown out of office for activities which were clearly “un-American,” when he so adamantly pointed the finger of blame towards Lennon.

Posted by joh03704 at 02:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

1960s America was a time in which social movements such as the woman's liberation, the civil rights movement, and various rallies against the Vietnam War were taking place. One of the most controversial issues of this time was the Vietnam War. Some say that this "un-patriotic war" divided the country because it was not as easy to rationalize retaliation as attacks such as Pearl Harbor or 911. Thus many were against the war, but no one more so that John Lennon.

The documentary "The U.S. vs. John Lennon" sent a quality message about peace and the need for change, which continues to be an issue today. Much like many thought the Black Panther party of the 1960s was dangerous because they carried guns; many thought that because Lennon promoted revolution, he promoted violence. James Perone, author of "Musical and Radical Politics," supported this notion stating, Lennon's song "Revolution No I" is directed at someone who is calling for a violent overthrow of society." However, after watching the film it is clear that John Lennon wanted revolution through peace and the primary reason Lennon and the Black Panther party were feared was not because they were violent but rather because they "stood up to power."

In the end, it was ironic that President Nixon, after working so hard to monitor Lennon, resigned from office because of his own disloyalty to the country. No one can argue against "peace being patriotic" and if the government would have listened to Lennon they would have realized that "All [he] was saying [was] give peace a chance."

Posted by dollx040 at 10:33 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

John Lennon had a very different way of getting people to listen to him. Instead of causing violence or destroying things he used his musical talents to speak to people. Lennon and Yoko Ono were two of the most important anti-war activists of their time. In the film when Gloria Emerson asked Lennon if he thought his music actually saved a life, he replied yes. I agree with Lennon, because without all of their anti-war propaganda the war might have lasted much longer than it did. Yoko Ono and Lennon did many things to try and raise awareness and peace in the United States and around the world. One that caught a lot of attention was the “Bed In” where they sat in bed for seven days. Many reporters came to see them, and around the country people began to think peace was an option. Besides things like the bed in music was their most powerful communicator was their music. Music has a way of reaching to a lot of people that words can’t get too. They wrote many songs that people could relate too. A lot of people were confused about why we were fighting the war, and Lennon’s music gave them something to latch on too. Music is not just something that rebellious youth enjoy, it attracts all kinds of people and does have the ability to save lives.

If you talk about music in the context of today’s world, there is a type of music for everyone. There are so many different genres with different rhythms and different beats. This versatility of music gives it the ability to save lives. There is music for every kind of feeling and mood. For people over seas, like today in Iraq, and then in Vietnam, music can help keep them sane. It can give them an out for all the frustration, anger and fear that they feel. For these reasons I believe music does have the ability to save lives, and John Lennon was a huge factor in saving lives with music.

Posted by elmxx014 at 10:32 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

When it comes to questioning whether or not John Lennon was politically influential during the 60's brings up a very interesting question and I think the answer is yes and no. Why yes? When it comes to political theories such as elitism and pluralism Lennon played a very unique, political role as being an artist. In some ways he was viewed as an elitist because of his easy access to the media, financial resources and faithful followers of his musical career. In some ways, I view him as a pluralist due to his strong opposition to the majority of elitists at the time and how he called upon those citizens who agreed with his views to exercise their rights, such as freedom of speech, their pluralist power, in order to sway political power in the movement's favor. Lennon's influence was successful in the release of Sinclair, but failed when Nixon was reelected president, hands down. Political power and music are "ultimately linked" (Street 253). For example, it is interesting that it is actually political policy, the constitution, that empowers people to make music to influence people, in other words exercise their freedom of speech. So, I definitely think that political figures see musicians, who oppose their views, as threats. I think censorship of all different types of mediums arose from this. But, after Nixon's reelection, Lennon and his music were no longer seen as much of a political threat. I think this could be due to the fact that Lennon considered himself an artist first and a politician second. And also because Lennon was radical and associated himself with radical people. I wasn't alive during the 60's, but I don't think everyone was a radical leftist, otherwise it wouldn't be considered that radical. I do believe that the majority of the people were middle class working people who heard his messages, but didn't care to join the revolution.

Posted by cros0189 at 10:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This week I will ignore the question and instead use this precious webspace to note that I am protesting the comically small size of our classroom. I urge the other students in the class who feel the same way or are cramped and uncomfortable to join me, as all we have to lose is one tiny mark on our grade. There are 16 weeks in the class, I ask that you risk just one in hopes that we can get a better, larger, more open room to watch movies in.

Posted by kupp0012 at 08:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Elvis, Bob Dylan, and the Beatles were all classic and iconic members of American pop culture and music in their own right, but they impacted the country differently. Elvis marked the epoch of rock and roll to the world, and was a main figure in the changing era of American sexuality. He was swooned over by teenagers while vilified by much of the conservative and religious members of the country. The Beatles had more of a wholesome mainstream appeal, and were liked by most everyone. The Beatles early career wasn’t marked by the sexual scandal that Elvis’ was, but they were still seen as teen heart-throbs everywhere. Bob Dylan was seen more as a social reformer, bringing together rock and roll and the thinking and revolutionary types. Each of these artists had a unique appearance that both added to their icon status, and to their popularity. Elvis wore outlandish outfits to highlight his movement onstage, while the dapper and diminutive Beatles originally dressed in suits and ties; Bob Dylan’s appearance really emanated an “I don’t care” attitude that was also parlayed in his music. I believe that Elvis represented what parents didn’t want their children to behave like sexually, while the Beatles embodied asexuality originally that had more parents approving of them. I agree that music can be very tantamount to teenagers and impressionable kids, but I believe it is more impressionable than pornography as it can display a wide range of emotions and thinkings, while pornography is more limited. Elvis’ success in copying music that had been around before relied on several things, his ability to present it in a fresh new perspective was one; he also gave the music of an older generation a new rebellious twist that many teens found appealing. The musical heritage of the Beatles and the Rolling Stones were founded in much of old American blues and gospel, which gave them almost American roots that appealed to Americans; they incorporated those classics into their music which allow them to seem almost familiar while being new bands. I agree with George Clinton saying that “most kids hate their parent’s artist”, but I see that as more being rebellious toward their parents than anything toward their music. Kids want to have their own identity, and enjoying what their parents enjoy doesn’t separate them. I do see teenage rebellion being a reason that Elvis and the Beatles were popular, but I can’t say that it was the prime reason because all generations of children have been trying to listen to different things than their parents, so this was nothing new. I see the role of women as really the catapulting factor in the cultural and financial success of these bands. Women really envisioned themselves having a personal link to these artists, and in doing so, felt a close connection which compelled them to support the artists in any way they could. While Bob Dylan embodied the “bad boy” role that many people seem to think draw to women, he was less of a sexual icon, and as such wasn’t supported by mostly women.

Posted by nemme003 at 11:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Through the world of music, appearance and sexuality definitely played a significant role in Beatles and Elvis’s influence on the popular culture. As Clinton acknowledged, Elvis’s celebrity status skyrocketed just for the fact that parents during his early days on the spot hated his artist image. Similarly, as it has been known throughout history, it is always the things that get banned that usually attract the most attention and curiosity. So obviously kids were fascinated for his celebrity image.

The Beatles took the same approach to growing their celebrity status. Even though they did not include physical movements such as hip swinging like Elvis, their lyrics had just about related sexual content. They also had English accent and shaggy hair cuts, which made them stand out and attract even more attention. People usually are attracted to whatever is new, and in this case, there has never been any artists that had same figure like the Beatles did.

Bob Dylan on the other hand had a different approach: Apart from smoking cigarette on every other scene he was in and always wearing sun shades, he was a very distinguished poet that had a different approach to expressing his music. He used his talent to support political movements, a move that many artists before him never made.
Bloom has his opinions about the effects of rock music but I believe in the popular saying that sex sells. In other words, the Beatles and Elvis’s sexual approach to music sold easily to young people.

When one adds up the fact that these artists appeared soon after the World War II, during the times of revolutionary movements when young people were starting to let go of their highly conservative ways, there was no better way to win the attention of young and sexually curious young men and women than expressing music with sex filled content.

Posted by onon0006 at 11:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

There is no doubt that African Americans are the ones responsible for the gift of rock and roll. They knew all along what music should feel like, but foolish American morals resulted in that wonderful gift staying within their community. Elvis was then sent forth to bring that gift to the masses. He didn't copy or plagiarize anything flat out; he merely popularized it. His success was due to his talent, good looks, and and of course his whiteness. This wasn't all that bad, for people realized how important and necessary he was and was going to be in helping rock and roll explode. The Beatles and the Rolling Stones gained immense fame for being a few of the first who took what Elvis did and expanded on it. These two bands also had their own look and routine, which is exactly what America wanted so desperately at the time. Being British and having that foreign factor work to their advantage here didn't hurt either. In conclusion, Elvis was necessary to bring great music to the masses, for the masses were too stubborn at the time to turn their ear to the sounds of the Black community and accept its genius.

Andrew Probelski

Posted by probe001 at 11:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Without question, Elvis and The Beatles took a sexually conservative America into a new age and drastically influenced the morals and values held by society. I do not think, however, that this was due to a direct influence as much as these artists providing an outlet for a "bored" American society. In his article The Closing of the American Mind Bloom comments that "The inevitable corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority that represses it." (74). It was not the lyrics of songs by Elvis and The Beatles that encouraged this "sexual interest," rather it was their very presence and image that they radiated that provided an outlet for teenagers to decide for themselves on issues of morality and sexuality.

While I agree with Bloom on the fact that their music allowed a rebellion against parental authority, I disagree with the idea that it provided a negative influence. Bloom also states in his article that "The result is nothing less than parents' loss of control over their children's moral education at a time when no one else is seriously concerned with it." (76). This implies that this "cool" new rock music had a greater influence on children than their parents do, which I find inaccurate. While parents could not completely restrict their children from listening to rock music, they were able to discuss with them what it meant to have strong morals and why it was important. Teens cannot be sheltered forever and will ultimately have to make up their own decisions on morals. In my opinion, it is better that they are exposed to these "evils" while still in an environment where their parents do have the ability to influence them. Bloom also states that "Rock gives children, on a silver platter, with all the public authority of the entertainment industry, everything their parents always used to tell them they had to wait for until they grew up and would understand later." Rather than hindering teens by sheltering them, Elvis and The Beatles gave them the opportunity to think for themselves and mature sooner. This is what ultimately led to the strong social influence that these artists had on a sexually conservative America. They themselves didn't define what was right or wrong directly, but provided the outlet and means for Americans, specifically teens, to define it for themselves.

Posted by marsh401 at 11:44 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Beatles and Elvis took rock music to a new level. But they did not just do this by way of their musical talent and memorable lyrics. Their appearance and actions deserve a handful of the credit too. The Beatles came onto the scene in America and brought “Beatlemania” with them. Girls and women alike went crazy for them. Crazy might even be an understatement. The Beatles were like a new drug. “Rock music provides premature ecstasy and, in this respect, is like the drugs with which it is allied” (Bloom 80). Due to the complete, for lack of a better term, wildness, The Beatles had to stop doing live tours and become a “studio band” because no one could hear anything at their concerts (lecture). The constant “scream” from the fans, consisting the majority of females, was overpowering and drown out their music. One reason for the insanity over this historical musical group was their appearance. They had a totally different look from the current “look” of every man in America. They had longer, straight hair and a different sense of fashion. In general, they were irresistible to the vast majority of the American youth population.

“The inevitable corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority that represses it” (Bloom 74). Elvis was the other major craze of the rock world. Girls wanted to be with him and guys wanted to be him. For the youth population, he was an icon. He too had “a look” that helped propel him to stardom. He had his slicked back hair and “gyrating” hip. He captivated the youth of America, but was looked down upon by parents and the middle age to older population. He was too sexually “provocative” and his dancing was poisoning the youth. But he was the newest and “hippest” thing in rock music.

The Beatles and Elvis mesmerized America. Not only were they the new sound, but they were the new look.

Posted by mcgui149 at 11:31 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The atmosphere in the United States during the 1690s was one of change and innovation. The music, and therefore the youth culture, was undergoing a rapid conversion to the long excepted mediocrity to a new phenomenon known as “rock and roll.” The music was new to the majority of America. As the video stated, the music had been around in African American venues for years, but performers like Elvis “made it ok for white people to listen to” this sensational new sound. Fans of rock and roll were intrigued by the new styles that were being presented. Rock and roll had an innovative new life behind the music, and it invigorated the youth of the nation. On top of this, rock music was being presented to the masses by attractive cool young men. The boys wanted to be like them, and the girls wanted to be with them. The changes that normally happen when people break the teenage years were amplified by the incredible new experience that was rock and roll. It was more than just music, it was a culture. For teens looking to define themselves and break free of their childhood, rock offered an amazing outlet for their need for self-expression, as well as their desire to be “cool.” It was little wonder that this new culture grabbed millions of young Americans and solidified itself in the hearts and history of the nation forever.

Alex Schreiner

Posted by schr0845 at 11:25 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Elvis, The Beatles, and Bob Dylan each exploded in to the music scene leaving an everlasting impression on both the past and future of Rock-n-Roll. These three phenomenons, in addition to directly influencing the success and aspirations of one another, intensely influenced and inspired people of their generation. This leads many to ask: What exactly was it about these musicians that made them extraordinary to their time?

Through the in depth accounts portrayed throughout the selection “The History of Rock-n-Roll,” which is a significantly captivating film for any true music lover, we notice comparable attributes of Elvis, The Beatles, and Bob Dylan through their timing of arrival, unique and liberating attitudes, and their ability to connect with society.
“Music gave people a sense of hope in the future at a time when the world was in flames.” This quote from the film explains exactly why the explosion of these three musicians was so intensified. Elvis, The Beatles, and Bob Dylan all made there mark at a time when society was in a very vulnerable state. The music they generated provided Americans with an escape from unpleasant thoughts of where society was heading, and gave them hope for change. Because of their unique and liberating attitudes, these three musical phenomenons were able to capture the thoughts, thrills, desires, and frustrations of society at the time, and put them into words and music. Elvis with his seductive hips, The Beatles with their unique wittiness, and Dylan with his powerfully genuine lyrics were all able to connect with society on a whole new level because they moved away from self censorship and vouched for a different route; one that was free from restrictions, revolved around raw feelings and emotions, and was true to the core.

Although the timing of their explosion into the music scene proves to be quite crucial, it should not be confused with the reason for their outstanding success. The quality of Elvis’, The Beatles’, and Dylan’s music, in my opinion, stands superior to that of the majority of musicians before or after their time.

Posted by munoz047 at 11:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I found the selections taken from the film “The History of Rock-n-Roll” very interesting and entertaining. I never knew much about the background and origins of the music Elvis, the Beatles, and Dylan played. I enjoy all of their music, but to be honest didn’t know much of the history behind it. This documentary did a great job of making it more clear as to what and how this music came to be, and provided some of the speculative reasons for why it became so popular.

There is no clear reason for why the music of these artists, the Beatles in particular, became so popular with the young generation. However, there are a number of things that may have contributed. There was a lot going on in America at this point in time politically, socially, and culturally. And music was a way to respond to it.

The music of the Beatles was a bit more light-hearted and fun, yet the older generation didn’t care for it too much and was baffled as to why this music was so popular. This difference in generational opinions on music may have been a primary reason the younger generation liked it so much. It was a way to rebel against their elders.

The music of the Beatles, and the Beatles themselves, were especially popular with the young females. At this time girls had to walk a fine line of being prim and proper, but also had to adapt to the role of being sexy and modern. Becoming basically obsessed with the Beatles was a way for girls to break from the sexual repression of the time and show a side of their sexuality that had never really been seen. Girls expressed just how much they adored a group of good looking men. They mobbed, cried and screamed in excessive amounts to show their affection towards the Beatles. This had never been done to this extreme and I think it was a way to rebel against the social constraints that women were trying to break from at this point in history.

Posted by Martine Schroeder at 11:18 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

According to George Clinton, “Most kids hate their parents artists…They want to get away from that more than anything.” The prime reason for Elvis and the Beatles success is rebellion according to Walley and Stark. I definitely disagree with Walley’s and Stark’s statement. It was not rebellion or bored teenagers from the baby-boom that caused the emerging artists success but, rather a new style or a way to express themselves, to go with the developing new music and culture of that era. According to the article, “Beatlemania,” by B Ehrenreich, “Adolescents are going through a strenuous period of emotional and physical growth, which leads to a need of expression…” It was a way to express themselves and not riot or try to cause trouble. Of course, group conformity can have both powerful and profound effects on what might happen but, it was not intended to be violent or rebellious. According to the same article by B. Ehrenreich, the teens, “did not riot for anything, except the chance to remain in proximity of their idols…” I definitely agree with Clinton’s statement on the other hand. According to the book, “Meet the Beatles,” the teens acted the way they did because it was something new and different from their previous generation, “We screamed because it was a kick against anything old-fashioned.” Why were the Beatles, Elvis, etc. so popular than? They had distinct music, they were different, and they were doing things that others were not doing. What was the role of woman in this phenomenon and why were they so up taken by Elvis and the Beatles? According to, “Meet the Beatles,” “They were drop dead cute,” and, “Beatles appearance especially their long hair, which too many made them look like girls.” These young women were looking for idols of their generation, seeing that every generation has an idol. Also the young girls of that generation were walking a path that, “Was a narrow and careful defined terrain,” According to the article, “Beatlemania,” by B. Ehrenreich. Rock n Roll was a chance for them to express the sexual repressed yearning s and freedom. According to the same article by B. Ehrenreich a woman who was thirteen at that time said the following, “I liked their independence and sexuality and wanted those things for myself.”

Posted by karp0040 at 11:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Elvis' music was heavily influenced by rythym and blues and gospel. Before he brought this music to the mainstream it was seen as "race music" and was popular mostly in the black culture. The reason Elvis became so successful with music that had been around for years was because his face was more "acceptable" to the mass white audiences. He was seen as a rebellious good boy and had a wide appealing image. He made it okay for the mainstream American popular culture to like the music that blacks had been listening to long before. Elvis' ability to break through prejudices and bring new music to the mainstream paved the way for other artists to follow.

Rock and roll is a genre characterized by rebellion, revolution, and evolution. Elvis started this movement with scandalous dance moves and loud music. His popularity allowed other artists to build off of what he had started. New artists found their voice and old artists found new audiences.

Posted by fran0723 at 11:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I agree entirely with the statement that the some of the success of the Beatles and Elvis was based on the generation difference between the youth of that time and their parents. Most kids no matter what time period think that whatever their parents do can't be that cool or appealing. The opposite also applies, if your parents keep telling you that you can't listen to this certain type of music or dress a certain way, you will naturally be attracted to the thing that upsets them so much. However it wasn't just the rebellious element that attracted throngs of youth to them but these bands also played a different type of music that many had never heard before and utilized their appearance to form some sex appeal. I feel that this sex appeal along with the ever growing female movement allowed for younger teenage girls to express themselves through fashion, music and gender equality in the work place. Teenagers were also coming into contact with more and more spending money which would allow them to purchase more things like records and clothing. The success of these bands can never be explained by one or two different things. The Beatles and Elvis were bands that were at the perfect moment in time for them to have the impact that they did on our culture and society. Also along with the help from the notion that anyone who listened to or enjoyed that type of music was being some how rebellious, these bands were able to captivate an entire generation and any one passed that with their music.

Posted by hove0107 at 11:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Diana West in her book entitled Death of the Grown Up has made the claim that Elivis Presely and other figure heads of the 50's and 60's embodied an antibourgeois culture. And likewise, the bourgeois had an anti-rock ideology. She makes the case that this is the generation that began the death of the grown up as it is defined in her book. I think she, and parents of the day, up to and including me (not a parent yet) would definatley agree with Bloom's claim that "Music can become tantamount to pornography for teenager." She claims that never before had anything been marketed to heavily to teenagers and kids. In fact, as she apty points out, the word "teenager" didn't even appear in our language until shortly before the rock revolution in the 50's. It may be that rock was deliberatley created and perpetuated just to get kids to go crazy over it and get hooked to maximize profits from sales in the same way cigarettes were infamously targeting teenagers for sales with familiar characters like Joe Camel. Bloom makes the claim in his article "The rock business is perfect capitalism, supplying to demand and helping to create it. It has all the moral dignity of drug trafficking, but it was so totally new and unexpected that nobody thought to control it, and now it is too late." He also describes Mick Jagger as "playing the possessed lower class demon and teen aged satyr...with one eye on the mobs of children of both sexes whom he stimulated to a sensual frenzy and the other eye winking at the unerotic, commercially motivated adults who handled the money." This is clearly not a wholesome endeavor by any stretch of the word. From this very predictable perspective of capitalism and vulgarity, it seems as though there is nothing good the rock culture has to offer in social terms literally or figuratively. Parents should have been outraged and not just for obvious reasons. As Bloom points out "I believe it[rock] ruins the imagination of young people and makes it very difficult for them to have a passionate relationship to the art and though that are the substance of liberal education." Clearly the parents who believed that rock or antibourgeois culture of the 50's was not just annoying, but posed a greater threat to their children and their psychology and education were really on to something that Bloom revealed so many years later. Unfortunatley, the parents at the time probably had no way of articulating this as Bloom does, and being so new, they probably also had no idea of how bad it would be for their kids and the culture in general in the long run. The issue is more dangerous for our culture now than many realize. Again Allan Bloom "The inevitable corollary of such sexual interest is rebellion against the parental authority that represses it." But what seems to be dangerous, is the thought of what will happen when the antibourgeois kids become parents themselves. The. Many of them are parents who need parents. THey may have no ability to realize such things as they often have no ability to be scrupulous and think outside of their own perspective and so on, all hallmarks of liberal education. Such an ideology is certainly hard to break. "It may well be that a society's greatest madness seems normal to itself. And the conclusion is bleak with no grown ups as Diana West points out "Responisibility and restraint are not only bedrock virtues of liberal civilization, they are also hallmarks of the grown-up. Without them, civilization becomes anarchic, and the grown up slips and regresses." When the grrown up regresses, what will their kids be like? The future?

Posted by dahme012 at 11:07 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Elvis and The Beatles brought an uproar to the American society. They changed the way music sounded, they changed the way girls and women acted, privately or publicly, and they changed boys and men - to be more like them. Elvis and the Beatles brought a new kind of music to the stage. Along with the new sounds, they brought new dances and appearances. Elvis was either famous, by the ladies, or imfamous, by those opposed to the dancing. The ladies loved the leg move that Elvis had. Others hated it, calling it "provocative." Elvis also had a new look that most men didn't have. He had long hair that was slicked back, not just an ordinary crew cut every other guy had. The Beatles, on the other hand, brought on "Beatlemania." Ehrenrich said that Beatlemania, “was the first and most dramatic uprising of women’s sexual revolution” (pp. 524). At Beatle concerts, no one could hear a thing, including the band, because girls would just scream and scream because the Beatles were right in front of them. The Beatles also had a different look than the average male in the United States. They had long, straight hair and had their own style of clothing. Just like Elvis, they had brought a new sound to the stage of music. The Beatles would get mobbed by girls left and right if the girls new the Beatles would be around a certain place at a certain time. They were not acting like respectful young ladies. They acted, as some would say, like "hooligans."

Posted by woehl007 at 11:05 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Elvis and The Beatles were both very popular among men and women. Women wanted them and men wanted to be them. Elvis and The Beatles were both sexual icons. They were obviously attractive, unique, young men, and their music and the way they performed at that time was pretty provocative. I believe their attractiveness and uniqueness really propelled their success in the music industry. Yes their style of music and presentation “irked” many parents. Parents disapproval very well could have been part of the reason for their popularity, because I am sure many kids enjoyed their music, however when the kids found out that their parents strongly disapproved they probably became a little more vocal about their love of the music to “rebel” against their parents. Between wanting to rebel, and also being presented with a new unique form of music, I think those aspects really propelled Elvis and The Beatles into their Super Star status.

Posted by zabor005 at 11:01 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The American 1960s was a decade characterized by countless economic and cultural struggles, the overindulgence of love and ecstasy, and the invasion of a British rock and roll movement. During the 1960s, bands like the Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin were exponentially rising in popularity and fame. The increased fame of these British rockers caused rock and roll to become the fundamental social force of the decade. It personified the hedonism and decadence of the era and made a blatant statement to the world about American morals. These bands incarnated the pure intemperance of rock and roll. The music of the British quartet, the Beatles, however, was kept pure and innocent.
When the Beatles first arrived in American pop culture, it was during a time when rock and roll personified a changing view of the female sexuality. According to the reading The British Are Coming!, “…the Beatles appeared less intimidating for another reason – they didn’t flaunt their sexuality” (29). American females could “…embrace the [Beatles] without feeling they were joining some kind of cadre of juvenile delinquents…” (29). Because the lyrics to their songs upheld the societal paradigm, the group was less of a threat to parents who wanted their daughters to remain innocent. The lyrics of the Rolling Stones described lewd sexual acts whereas the lyrics of the Beatles described holding hands and puppy love. The Beatles were popular because the image the Beatles portrayed allowed parent and child alike to embrace their music without feeling threatened or delinquent.

Ian R. Bell

Posted by bellx236 at 10:56 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The Beatles and Elvis Presley came at an ideal time to exploit the sexual loosening of America. In one of the prompts, it is contended that American society was sexually conservative at this time. I don't necessarily know if I agree with that. I think that in the years before the British invasion, our culture had already been loosening the belt on sexual inhibition. The Kinsey report showed that America was a lot more perverse than most would like to admit. These covert sexual undertones were ready to boil over, and these acts provided the necessary heat to unleash an intense sexual backlash against the old guard.

Elvis was a homegrown icon, and there's definitely no arguing that he triggered a wave of activity that made parents cringe. His hip swinging and facial expressions were apparently enough to make girls faint. The Beatles were, according to Ehrenrich (525), enough to make girls wet their pants. The provided a means and an excuse for girls to lose themselves. They provided the suggestive music and movements, and the public ate it up. I am not totally convinced that Bob Dylan was intended to be a sexual icon though. In comparing Elvis/Beatles to Bob Dylan, the overall focus of their songs seem to be different. While the Beatles focused on romance with songs like '8 Days a Week', 'I Want to Hold Your Hand', and 'She Loves Me' (among MANY others), they sang about optimistic love. Elvis, on the other hand, still had sexually charged lyrics and actions, but he focused on downsides of romance. 'Heartbreak Hotel', for instance, talks about how painful relationships can be.

Bob Dylan's music seemed to be more politically charged. The only song of Bob's that I'm familiar with that openly concerns women is 'Lay Lady Lay'. Songs such as 'Hurricane' and 'Like a Rolling Stone' seem to focus on political aspects. Dylan was not known for his hip swaying, good looks, or lip sneer. He was known more as a poet and a lyricist than a sexual icon. Therefore, I would contend that that the Beatles and Elvis took advantage of an underlying sexual society, and that Bob Dylan came and grabbed a completely different audience - one that was fed up with the wars and political unrest.

Oh, and for the record, the best Beatle was Paul.

Jeff Batts

Posted by batts002 at 10:55 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

A common theme throughout the readings and the documentary this week was 'sexuality'. In the texts and film, sexuality is a useful tool in describing the phenomenon of the era. First is the way in which The Beatles used atypical images to further their sexual appeal. By being everything that American men (at the time) were not, The Beatles were able to step out of the rigid structures of male/female image stereotypes. The sexuality exuded by The Beatles' audience(s), primarily teenage girls, is described in detail by Barbara Ehrenreich et al. In their work, Ehrenreich et al desribe the sexual aggression displayed by teenage girls in this era to be a rebellion against the strict standards to which females were expected to adhere to. For teenage girls, screaming at a Beatles' concert was no more than a way to counter the double standards placed upon them. According to Ehrenreich et al, a girl must walk the fine line between being a classy, moral lady while being sexy enough to attract a male counterpart. At Beatles' concerts, however, a girl could scream at the top of her lungs and do her part to break down the unreasonable standards set upon her. In much the same way, Elvis Presley stuck to his upbringing to make a name for himself, just as The Beatles had done. For Elvis, it was the way in which he stuck to his southern ways that made him 'sexy' to America. By defying the upperclass, Elvis 'stuck it to the man' through the use of his lyrics, his dance moves and his rock n' roll attitude. Lindsay Waters detailed an appearance on national television in which Elvis truly spoke to conventional listeners. By singing to an actual hounddog and addressing the camera to speak to the viewers, Elvis became a leader in the rock n' roll cultural revolution.

Posted by stap0069 at 10:50 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

The music of Bob Dylan as compared to Elvis and the Beatles is vastly different. And these differences are not only present in the musical content but also in the way the musician is viewed by their fans. Listening to Bob Dylan you hear more that just music, its poetry, and that is exactly how his fans react to him. He is speaking to their intellectual soul. Whereas the music played by the Beatles and Elvis speaks of love and casual relations. It predominantly speaks to the sexual desires of their young fan base. But no matter what aspect of the soul the music targets it is all about individuality.

Bob Dylan’s songs inspired a generation to think individually. He took this genre of music and turned it into something that spoke to people’s conscious minds. It seemed to stir many new views on life. The article by Bloom has a passage that says, “music is the medium of the human soul in it’s most ecstatic condition of wonder and terror.” This idea of wonder and terror that was instilled in Bob Dylan’s music is what made it so great. It’s the type of music that makes you think and puts everything in a new perspective.

The music of the Beatles and Elvis seemed to spark a revolution of rebellion upon the pure ways of the past. It played on the sexual desires of the young that had never been unleashed. That idea I think is what made it so revolutionary, the fact that something like this had never been experienced with such a force before in that generation. Bloom says, “rock music has one appeal only, a barbaric appeal, to sexual desire.”

So how do these two completely different genres co-exist together? Altogether I think it created a whole new way of thinking not only out of desire but out of wonder.

Posted by veire003 at 10:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

I think women were taken with Elvis because of his blunt sexuality. No one came close to having the same sexual charisma that he did in his early days. The wiggle of his hips, the quiver in his lips, whew! Elvis was the polar opposite of Lawrence Welk, Sammy Kaye and Bing Crosby. They were useful as the soothing, crooning voices during the unsettling time of World War II. People would hear them on the radio warbling through the night and I think it probably set a tone of calmness and normalcy. The war was over, service men and women came home and started the baby boom. The norm was to buy a Chevrolet, a dog and a colonial style house with a picket fence in front and pop out children.
Things became so monotonous and safe after a time of turbulent war. The generation after the “Greatest Generation” needed their own identity; to break out of this Pleasantville world. I think that’s what George Clinton meant by “most kids hate their parent’s artist…” It’s because they need their own generational identity. Elvis’ introduction into the mainstream gave white kids permission to like music different than their parents. After all what was wasn’t to like? He was white, very good looking and a good Christian boy from Tupelo, Mississippi. So Elvis became the liberator for the post World War II generation, those who were too young to participate in the war effort but were now of an age where they wanted to be apart of a social movement. It’s happened in every generation really. You associate the young people of a said generation with a genre of music. I associate my parents with the disco of the seventies, my sister with the grunge movement of the nineties and someday I hope I’ll be associated with the indie rock movement of today.

Posted by byro0028 at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

With World War II finally over, a new decade in America was starting. The 1950’s were a time of change for the United States and music was one of the foremost areas where this change was felt.
Rhythm and blues had been a prominent form of spiritual expression in the Black community for decades. However, it did not mainstream until Elvis Presley came onto the scene. One key element that was essential for the movement of rhythm and blues into mainstream American music was the increasing position of the television in American homes. Elvis Presley was a slick, tough Caucasian male, unafraid to show himself as a rebel to the American people as he gyrated his hips in front of the entire nation. This allowed the caucasian American population to view rhythm and blues as a part of their culture instead of the segregation of music they had previously experienced. Another element Elvis brought was his crude sexual innuendos that had parents appalled and every girl lovestruck. Singlehandedly, he opened up American television to being open about sexuality, a practice that had never before been seen in America. The sheer fact that parents disapproved of Elvis’s music catapulted his fame even more as evidenced by George Clinton when he stated that “most kids hate their parent’s artists... they want to get away from that more than anything.”
As Elvis paved the way for the rhythm and blues movement in America, the Beatles started the revolution in Great Britain. Greatly influenced by Elvis, the Beatles followed his lead by being trendsetters for clothes and hairstyles. They let their hair grow out and found themselves to be heart throbs everywhere they ventured. Overall, they started a revolution of change and treading against the grain of popular society of the time to become predominant figures.

Posted by basse044 at 10:43 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Music can birth a feeling from one gentle note, or from a massive chorus. Either way music has the power to create thought, emotion, and a way of life. Each musician in his own time created a following and a reason for living. The Beatles turned their band from playing great songs to playing great songs with a purpose that led their fans into a new political direction. The involvement of sex, drugs, and politics in music created a more conjoined youth which today is a more well informed group of adults. The appeal of these bands is not just their alluring personalities or good looks. It's the way that they make people feel and think about the world around them. These artists are just as much political leaders as have been any other president or politician. Influence over community falls over those who have thought and drive. These three sets of artists had both.

Posted by Chris Lewis at 10:40 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Teenage culture was artificially created shortly before the arrival of rock and roll. There was suddenly a new phase of life, between childhood and adulthood. Rock music emerged as the anthem for this new phase. Musicians like Elvis and the Beatles drew criticism for the raw sexuality evinced in their dancing, lyrics, beats, and fans. Different analysis of this effect popped up in the media.
Ehrenreich et. al. considered it as the announcement and ratification of teen sexuality and frustration (533). Beatlemania was a result of changing social roles and aspirations. While it was a form of conformity, giving meaning and validation to girls awakening sexual personas, it was also a form of personal revolt. Girl’s protested the sexual repression that was their role. They laid claim to feelings of desire and accepted the role of pursuer instead of the inactive recipient and blocker of sexual advances. It was a ‘safe’ form of sexuality where they could escape the invisible life of housewife, never ending in “the tedium of marriage” (532).
Bloom focused more on rock’s “attempts to capture the rawest passions” (73). He feared that the tribal beats and explicit lyrics resulted in a deadened generation that would never enjoy life. They would be incited to anarchy and rebellion by the base emotions rock called forth. The sexuality roused in the youth was a dangerous consequence that would ruin our society.
I agree with both of them in some respects. Elvis’s hip wagging and the Beatle’s hysteric fans were symbols of the growing sexual revolution. Women were beginning to lay claim to a more active role in sexual relations. Young girls wanted more than a fancy house filled with children and a husband to pay for it all. There was a desire to claim the perceived power inherent in sexuality. It was also a form of conformity, legitimizing the new social desires and confirming ones trendy status.
Bloom also had a point in the excessive exposure to ‘obscene’ lyrics that run counter to the dominant ideology can lead to what I like to think of as ‘rebels without a clue’. It can incite extreme passions with no real link to the underlying reality that inspired the song maker. Elvis’s pelvis stirred many a young girl’s fancy without her really grasping the sexual nature s