What are the strengths and weaknesses of Peterson’s ‘production of culture’ approach, to the birth of Rock ‘n’ Roll.
Richard A. Petersons beliefs of the evolution of Rock ‘n’ Roll are very well established but there are gaps in his theory. He does talk firmly about the genre taking over swing and growing in a very short space of time after World War I and how the use of radio pushed the market in the right direction which forms a strong point. In my opinion, he leaves many other different angles out whilst making his point. He basically puts the development of Rock music down to the development of television and the change in the use of radio and doesn’t really express himself on many other possibilities. He fails to go into depth on key elements like how pivotal acts like Elvis Presley actually were in promoting the newly found genre of music. Although his theory is very strong, I think his beliefs are slightly one dimensional and could involve slightly more on the issue of culture. For instance, how teenagers at the time were looking for rebellious material and culture was crying out for ‘Rock’.
Thursday, 28 February 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Wrong war, rock and roll emerged after WWII.
You make some reasonable points here, particularly the emphasis on teenage rebellion, but perhaps you could have emphasised the nature of the extraordinary sound of the music as a factor a little more strongly.
Post a Comment