Jasmine Omorogbe
There were many groups that plowed the path for rock n roll in the United States. As someone mentioned previously this week, many are not given the credit they deserve, such as the Rolling Stones in addition to other groups and the plethora of black artists whose songs were "borrowed".
There are definiite differences in the sexuality of the three groups we are focusing on this week. Elvis was obviously sexy with his slickback hair, smooth skin, cute smile and hot dance moves (although they look more like a seizure or spastic movements to me) and definitely used his looks as a marketing tool. The Beatles were more sexy "by accident". They didn't see themselves as sex symbols, they weren't marketed as sexy, that is probably one of the things that made them even more attractive to their audience. However, they were doing something different from the norm in America at that time, which added that edge to their appeal also. On the other hand, Dylan was far from sexy (maybe only my opinion), he didn't seem to be one who was about appearances. He was more attractive because of his bada**, independent attitude and the content of his music more than anything.
Each of the three utilzed appearance in the formation of their musical identity, whether the statement was made by paying explicit attention or ignoring it.
As far as Elvis' rediscovery of the music form, I think it was because as we discussed in class, Elvis made it ok for white people to listen to what was previously known as "race music". He somewhat "opened the floodgates" by drawing the attention of the masses to it. His new style of music combined with his looks and dances that pushed the envelope ensured his seat in rock n roll history forever. As with anything today, anything that is controversial garners a lot of media attention and upsets some, but is also GREAT for publicity and attracting new fans. This is part of why he was so incredibly popular.