Reading Petersons thoughts on Rock'n'Roll music in 1955, I disagree with some theories. His report doesn't discuss the musical creativity and how the technology of music was evolving rapidly, i.e the guitar, making music sound different, exciting and shocking audiences as it was something they had never heard before. Not only was music evolving,so was fashion and culture, people were becoming open to new ideas. This was mostly to do with the War, people trying to forget bad memories and becoming more liberated. I feel that Rock'n'Roll was a catalyst towards the dramatic social changes.I disagree that artists like Elvis and Berry were not responsible for the birth of the genre. Of course the artists took advantage of the circumstances, but they should take credit for what they did for the history of music. Although Peterson is correct that a baby boom wouldn't have produced a teenage audience in 1955, children born during the war would have been teenagers by this time, and this created the big audience, and popularity because they would have also had bad memories of the war, many with lost family members. I believe it became a sort of escapism, the change in society was reflected in music.
Word Count: 202
This is a reasonably good analysis of Peterson, if a little waffly towards the end. While I agree with you about the glaring omissions in his argument, you could have dedicated a bit more of your post to a summary of his strengths in order to achieve a little more balance.
ReplyDelete