Customer Reviews


77 Reviews
5 star:
 (27)
4 star:
 (23)
3 star:
 (15)
2 star:
 (5)
1 star:
 (7)
 
 
 
 
 
Average Customer Review
Share your thoughts with other customers
Create your own review
 
 

The most helpful favorable review
The most helpful critical review


40 of 40 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Ignore the main title and focus on the sub-title
As I understand it, Wald's principal thesis, which is reflected in the somewhat provocative main title, is the following: As rock/pop performers -- of which the Beatles were the most conspicuous example -- began to see themselves more as "artists", they consciously aspired to create "high" or "serious" art and in the process divorced themselves and their music from...
Published on June 20, 2009 by R. M. Peterson

versus
8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Academic style, doesn't deliver on the title's promise
I found this book to be quite interesting as a history of popular music, but disappointing with regard to its thesis of demonstrating the effects of the Beatles on the history of rock and roll music. The book is well annotated, thoroughly researched, and written in a very sophisticated, academic style. It contains a wealth of information that cannot be found in other...
Published on January 5, 2011 by J Bouffard


‹ Previous | 1 28 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

40 of 40 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Ignore the main title and focus on the sub-title, June 20, 2009
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
As I understand it, Wald's principal thesis, which is reflected in the somewhat provocative main title, is the following: As rock/pop performers -- of which the Beatles were the most conspicuous example -- began to see themselves more as "artists", they consciously aspired to create "high" or "serious" art and in the process divorced themselves and their music from entertainment and, especially, from dancing. At the same time, in part because it is easier to write about "art" than "entertainment," the media pushed the notion that these self-conscious, auteur-ish, studio products were indeed "art", something to be taken and discussed seriously. The two impulses fed and reinforced one another, pushing white rock/pop music further and further away from entertainment, dancing, and (for the first time in 20th-Century popular music) black music. By 1969, "[r]ock had become a white genre."

Whether or not you agree with that thesis (and Wald does marshal enough points and arguments in support of it that I come away willing to accord it some measure of validity), HOW THE BEATLES DESTROYED ROCK 'N' ROLL is still quite valuable as a history of American popular music in the 20th Century (or, ragtime through disco). Especially interesting to me were the discussions of how technological changes -- including recording itself, then advances in recording and developments in the methods of "delivery", such as radio, television, and LPs -- affected popular music. Other influences were economic in nature (the Depression) or political (Prohibition, World War II). I also appreciated the profiles, many of which are several pages in length, of key figures of American pop music, such as Paul Whiteman, Guy Lombardo, Benny Goodman, Mitch Miller, Frank Sinatra, and Harry Belafonte.

Wald is pragmatic and instructive on the blurred dividing lines of genres. For example: "[M]ost of our modern musical genres [are] at root simply marketing categories--that is, we call something jazz or rock less because of any inherent musical characteristics than because we think it will be of interest to people who consider themselves jazz or rock fans." Wald is sensitive to, and intelligently discusses (without letting the matter take over his book), the many manifestations of racial prejudice in the last century of American pop music. Best of all, the book reflects a mature perspective on the very exercise of musical history and criticism. For example, he introduces his book by quoting Charles Rosen (a distinguished classical pianist and critic) to the effect that a music critic does not have to love a work of art or a style in order to write about it critically, but the critic must at least recognize and allow for the fact that other people do love that work or style. In addition, Wald also recognizes that most of those who write music criticism are not the average music fans: "It is often said that history is written by the victors, but in the case of pop music that is rarely true. The victors tend to be out dancing, while the historians sit at their desks, assiduously chronicling music they cannot hear on mainstream radio."

On the negative side, the book drags at times, and some points seem belabored or over-illustrated. I also sense that it could have been organized better. Perhaps shorter chapters or periodic "sign-post" headings would have helped. (But then again, it is published by Oxford University Press, so those kinds of reader-friendly devices might violate the house style.) Whatever the reason was, I could only read a chapter or two at a time. I therefore give the book 4.5 stars and round down to four. Still, whatever you think of the book's title and the thesis that gave rise to it, HOW THE BEATLES DESTROYED ROCK 'N' ROLL is a fine book.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


64 of 67 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Misleading Title but a Good Music Book, June 15, 2009
By 
Mr. Bey (Riverside, CT United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
Accusing one of the greatest bands in history of destroying rock and roll is a bold statement. However this book doesn't really focus on that notion at all. How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll focuses more on the history of music with greater attention focused on lesser known bands that Wald felt were relevant to music. The book has heavy emphasis on Jazz and ragtime so if that isn't your cup of tea then this book is not really for you.

The book reads like Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States but from a music perspective. Wald throws out popular notions of who was relevant to the formation of modern day music and explores the lesser known bands. This makes for a pretty interesting historical perspective on something we all know and love but it wasn't what I was expecting from the book. In fact the Beatles are rarely mentioned at all in it.

To make a long story short if you're a fan of music historiography then you'll enjoy How the Beatles Destroyed Rock n Roll. If you're looking for an book that focuses on the darker side of the fab four however, you're out of luck.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


30 of 34 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The Beatles? Who were they?, January 23, 2010
By 
Lee Hartsfeld (Central Ohio, United States) - See all my reviews
I figure I'll get my complaints out of the way first, starting with the terrible title. Yes, the media has pretty much reduced popular music history to (pick one) The Beatles, Elvis Presley, and Frank Sinatra, so it may be that, to get readers, an author has to name-drop one of those three. Imagine if the title had mentioned Earl Fuller, Paul Whiteman, Billy Murray, or Lawrence Welk--the volume might be gathering dust in a Big Lots bin as we speak. Still, "How the Beatles...." is so very misleading as to be a shame. Then again, if it succeeds in grabbing attention, more power to it.

My second major gripe--Wald's assertion that mood music "would have made little sense without long-playing discs" (i.e., prior to 1948), since its main function was "to create a lingering, romantic ambiance." Well, no. Mood music originated as material for silent movies, the musical stage, and early radio, and it proliferated on disc--examples by Paul Whiteman, Erno Rapee, Domenico Savino, and Andre Kostelanetz are common items on eBay. Many of the staples of mood music are 19th and early-20th-century light works that were also staples of early sound recordings--"Narcissus," "To a Wild Rose," "Old Folks at Home," "In a Clock Store," etc.

Finally, I can't help thinking that Wald has exaggerated the gap between early sound recordings and what was happening, performance-wise, outside of the recording studio. Granted, sound recordings provide a limited document, given the particulars of the medium (length, sonic limitations, the use of studio musicians, the recording process' lack of portability, etc.), yet I find no basis for presuming a huge disconnect between what we hear on 78s and what we might have heard "live," especially given that recordings initially followed from (and were necessarily derivative of) other media such as sheet music, pit band orchestrations, music hall sketches, etc.

What I liked, on the other hand, could fill a book. First and foremost, Wald is to be praised for treating popular music as just that--popular music. As in, the music that people listened to, vice the music that critics think people SHOULD HAVE listened to. It's a sad comment on music journalism that it's taken this long for the concept of "popular" to take hold, but late is better than never. That his approach has been received as revolutionary is a bit scary, not least of all because it's true. Again, better late than never.

And his coverage of the impact of rock and roll on jazz, etc. is the savviest account I've yet seen--yes, absolutely, beyond a doubt, rock and roll was seen at the time (by professional musicians, at least) as a triumph of amateurism, which it was to an extent. My jazz-musician father and his friends expressed this view again and again over the years, and even as a kid I could hear the difference in competence between the jazz on my parents' hi-fi and the rock on the radio. My father did surprise me at one point by describing rock and roll as something jazz brought on itself by becoming too remote in its complexity from the popular audience. Wald is also spot-on in his description of Mitch Miller as, more or less, the inventor of modern record production. And I suppose that Paul Whiteman and the Beatles performed similar functions in (what's the best term?) Europeanizing African-American pop music (jazz and R&B, respectively), in making dance-oriented music more a thing to listen to by adding Classical trappings (Ravel, in the case of Whiteman; string quartets and tape loops in the case of the Fab Four).

Greatly appreciated, too, is Wald's emphasis on the sheer, amazing scope of black popular music over the decades, even as PBS and other forces of conventional thinking continue to stereotype same as loud, pounding, and--worst of all--a thing of musical illiteracy, of feeling and instinct over formal accomplishment. Not that white performers haven't been typecast in similar ways--for instance, if Bob Dylan knows the chord changes to "Stardust," the rock press would kill to keep it from coming out--but African Americans are especially the victims of the "natural" cliche--natural rhythm, natural feeling for melody, etc., and never mind that Duke Ellington, James Reese Europe, and Scott Joplin rank among our best-educated and most innovative musicians.

Unlike probably most readers, I came to this volume with a strong orientation in pre-rock pop music--nothing in here is especially "new" to me, but much of the treatment is. Some reviewers have criticized Wald for taking on too much, but he didn't have much of a choice, really, given that basic pop music history is the victim of such neglect. He's taken on a long-overdue task, and there's bound to be a rushed, unfocused quality to some of the text--mainly because he's covering so much new ground. New ground that should not be so. Considering the hugeness of the task, Wald has done a brilliant job. Five well-deserved stars.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


8 of 9 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Academic style, doesn't deliver on the title's promise, January 5, 2011
By 
J Bouffard (Green Brook, NJ, USA) - See all my reviews
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
I found this book to be quite interesting as a history of popular music, but disappointing with regard to its thesis of demonstrating the effects of the Beatles on the history of rock and roll music. The book is well annotated, thoroughly researched, and written in a very sophisticated, academic style. It contains a wealth of information that cannot be found in other books about popular music, and it effectively debunks a host of myths about popular music.

But in the end, if one judges by the title, it is supposed to be a book about the Beatles, or at least a book focusing on the Beatles' effect on rock and roll music. So, after being "hooked" in the introduction by the author's childhood experiences with Beatles' recordings, the reader is disappointed to read over 200 pages of small-typeface text which, despite the exquisite level of detail mentioned above, say virutally nothing about the Beatles. Discussion of the Fab Four is limited largely to the final chapter and an afterword, and these pages have a decidedly unexpected, anti-climactic effect on the reader. I read the final two chapters multiple times to see if perhaps I was missing some nuance, some tidbit of information which would make the trip seem worthwhile, and I continually came up empty. Granted, the extensive detail in most of the book is required to fully explore and "set up" the reader for a consideration of the Beatles, but when it comes time finally sit down and eat the big meal, the reader/diner is in many respects left hungry, wanting for more. It's like listening patiently to a long joke, and never hearing the punch line.

The book is supposed to demonstrate that the Beatles popularized a style of music originally developed by black artists, making it more appealing to a broad based, white audience, but also further developing and transforming rock and roll into a deeper, more artistic form; a "music-as-art" style. This latter point, the author contends, was celebrated by critics as something good, while similar trends in the past (viz., the work of Paul Whiteman and his orchestra in ragtime and jazz in the first half of the 20th century) were typically viewed negatively by historians. It is at this point where I still am somewhat confused; Wald contends that the Beatles' transformation of rock music into a more elevated art form lead to the stagnation of the genre, as well as the separation of rock from styles of music developed by primarily black artists (rhythm and blues, soul, etc.). As a result, Wald contends, rock music today is far less evolved and developed, relative to Beatles' music, than is modern black music (rap, hip hop) to black music of the late 1960s.

I find no compelling evidence, from my listening experience, to accept this view. Rock music has evolved considerably since the Beatles, with discrete movements such as Heavy Metal, Punk, Grunge, Progresive, etc., and while I am not saying that any of these forms are necessarily good or positive developments in the history of rock, I'm not sure they are any different in kind or in scope from the transformation of black music from 60s R&B to modern hip hop. As for the issue of rock being separated and segregated from black artists, I supposed this is true today, to a degree, where rock music, or at least what I see as rock, is today a largely white genre. Still, the causal connection of this to the Beatles' work is not completely evident to me upon reading of the book.

In illustrating the difference between "art music" and music focused on entertainment, the author contends that rock and roll, post-Beatles, became more of a listening genre than a dance genre, and that dance music became more exclusively associated with black artists. While this seems plausible, I am not sure to what degree the evidence suggests that the Beatles and their music per se initiated or caused this trend. The same trend occurred in jazz, which in the ragtime and big band eras was largely a dance music form, while bebop and later forms essentially removed jazz from the dance music scene altogether. If this transformation occurred in jazz without any specific artist being singled out as responsible for the trend, why would we look to the Beatles or any other band as the cause of the same trend in rock music? Perhaps the changes in dancing and its association with music are caused by other societal trends - the development of improved listening technology, the advent of other forms of communication which obviated the need for social dancing, etc. - and the music of the artists of the day was simply following suit.

As a book covering the Beatles in general - and I think from the title, it's reasonable for a prospective buyer to expect this book to be about the Beatles - the book is remarkably disappointing. While we learn many new and interesting things about popular musicians throughout history, the discussion of the Beatles overall is brief, quite "summarized" in comparison to the level of detail eleswhere in the book, and devoid of new or surprising insights. Short schrift is given to the development of the Beatles' style, the transformation of their music throughout their catalog of albums, the differences in the writing styles of Lennon, McCartney, etc.

If you enjoy learning details, reading about history, and love all types of music, I think you will enjoy this book, even if it doesn't have the focus that the title suggests. It is extremely well-written and chock full of facts you won't read elsewhere. But if you are looking for another great book on the Beatles, or to learn something new and different about them, you will be disappointed.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


5 of 5 people found the following review helpful
4.0 out of 5 stars Well written history of early 20th century music, July 9, 2009
By 
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
As should be obvious from the other reviews, the title of this book is more than a little misleading. This is mainly a history of popular music stretching from the ragtime era up until the mid 60s. While claiming to be an alternative history its not always clear where the author is seeking to distinguish his view from that of the mainstream. This is not to say that this is an uninteresting book, just not as controversial as the title would make it seem.

The author does a very good job of describing the various aspects of the music scene over the years, in particular how marketing and technology caused dramatic shifts in the lives of musicians and the listening public. The transformation of the music industry into its modern form is tracked over this time and is the main focus of the book.

If there was one thing that would round out this book it would be to have an auditory component. There are doubtless many readers who won't have much clue about what much of the music, especially in the begining of the book, sounded like so including a selection of songs with this book would make for a much richer experience.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


4 of 4 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Meh., April 25, 2010
Talk about burying the lead...
As every other reviewer has pointed out, the Beatles don't even show up until the very last chapter, and I think it's the shortest one. If I were to judge this book solely on the main title, and not the subtitle, I would give it very very low marks, as it's not really about the Beatles at all. Furthermore, if the jacket quotes are to be believed, I would have been pleased as punch to have read "a muscular revisionist account that will get people thinking quite differently" about modern music. What I read, however, was a rather dry, academic history of trends in society and technology, and how they affected everyday musicians. I will admit that I learned some things from reading this book, but a lot of what Mr. Wald writes about is not breaking new ground. I was not familiar with some of the things he writes, particularly the pre-war period, but I for one think it strains credulity to go back that far for a history of rock and roll.
I thought about this for a while before writing this, and I have to say, as much as I think this book has some interesting information for music history types, ultimately whether or not one agrees with him may come down to a generational difference. I was born not very soon after the Beatles "destroyed rock and roll" and I haven't noticed any degradation of the genre to this day. Maybe for people of an older generation, this point has some resonance, but to me the whole point is moot. I enjoy "art rock" as much as funk, Philly soul, Motown, Stax/Volt, Hip Hop, folk, etc. etc. This book's point may have been more relevant 35 years ago, but seeing as I listen to a rapper from Novia Scotia, and psychedelic bands from the Isle of Wight, my mixed feelings about the Beatles music aside, they most certainly did not destroy rock and roll, or anything else.

I know my review is a little harsh. I did enjoy a good portion of this book, but it is not about what the title says it is, and aside from some minutae about the music industry, the only things that have stuck with me are a comment made by Benny Goodman about Frank Sinatra (Very funny), and the author's epilogue, which was more refreshing and candid than the entire preceding book.

If you're hoping for a subversive take of the history of rock, look elsewhere. This book is not it. If on the other hand you want an exhaustive and somewhat bone dry, academic read about music before rock and roll, than you'll probably enjoy this. Finally, I might be belaboring the point, but I very sincerely doubt Alan Whiteman will ever enjoy the long shadow cast by the Beatles. Ever. Talk about a Stretch. Proceed with caution.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


9 of 11 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Interesting Tidbits, But Overall Misses The Mark, September 28, 2009
By 
frankp93 "frankp93" (Connecticut United States) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
[...] I scan the liner notes of some often-played recordings, but no hit. "I know this name from somewhere" and it's driving me nuts.

Wald's premise in "How the Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll" is that what we perceive today as popular music, as well as what history tells us was popular in decades past, is often shaped by misleading or incomplete benchmarks, whose original meanings have long since evolved.

In our current age of recorded and even semi-recorded "live" music, Wald asks us to consider a time when records were regarded as mementos and sales tools for a band or artist's live performances. For an industry today in the throws of tumultuous change, it's fascinating to read about the economics of sheet music versus record music production, Prohibition and Wartime rationing, labor conflicts involving musician's unions and publishers, not to mention demographics and evolving social mores and how they all influenced the environment for both live and recorded music and its subsequent evolution into the mass-pop-culture we're living in today.

Beginning with ragtime, which the author identifies as the first mainstream popular music in America, Wald traces more a parallel history of popular music than an alternate one. While he presents a steady stream of ironic and interesting subplots and twists, much of the overriding story in which he couches his insights is the stuff of standard jazz and pop music history, well-covered in other books and even in abridgements such as Ken Burns' series. If you've never read a history of jazz, Wald's narrative may seem strangely selective and arbitrary, but I suspect that's part of his point about history itself.

Unfortunately, somewhere just past the middle of the book, Wald's premise morphs into
a fairly ordinary and un-ironic evolution of rock music from blues, R&B and the remnants of swing, along with an attempt at 50's pop revisionism. Aside from an interesting digression on the birth of the LP and derivation of the term "Album", most of this is standard 50's lore and I didn't detect much new.

The title of the book is particularly unfortunate and I suspect more than one reader will wonder half way through, having barely scratched the 1940's, whether "How Paul Whiteman Destroyed Jazz" or "Mitch Miller: The Real King of Pop" might have been more appropriate, though certainly less appealing titles to younger generations of readers. "How Dick Clark Destroyed New Year's Eve" would make a fine sequel, tying up all those Guy Lombardo references.

Another repeated annoyance is the author's jarring tendency to step out of third-person narrative and into first, as in:

"...the dislocations and population shifts of World War II all had roles in breaking up the big dance orchestras' dominance of popular music, but most of the records I just mentioned..."

The jacket bio states Wald has been teaching at UCLA; I fear he may be reading too many student papers.

But the real disappointment in "How the Beatles Destroyed Rock and Roll" is the concluding chapter on the Fab Four where Wald's grand
thesis amounts to: The Beatles, as part of the British Invasion, were somehow responsible
for divorcing white American kids from the dance-esthetic at the core of all good popular music when they abandoned public performance and began making records that amounted to "audio novels". Thus began the irreproachable chasm between white and black musics that has not healed, even today.

If you buy that, and are willing to ignore a great deal of what's emerged as popular music in the past 30 years, not to mention hoards of white suburban kids embracing hip-hop culture, you'll find Wald's book a sympathetic read.

[...]
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
2.0 out of 5 stars Great ideas, but needs focus, November 27, 2009
Wald makes a lot of outrageous claims, such as comparing the influence of Paul Whiteman to that of the Beatles, but in spite of this, Wald puts a narrative together that is always on the cusp of being fascinating, except that it never really comes together.

I'm trying to figure out as I read, What exactly is this book about? Where is the alternative in this history? What is the point. The author is tantalizingly close to having a point by the time he gets to the Swing Era, by which time the book seems to be congealing into a survey of American popular music from the perspective of the popular listener. It is becoming (at this time) a fairly comprehensive guide to who is listening to what, under what circumstances, and why these tastes change over time.

At this point, it had the potential to be a masterwork; but the book breaks down from there, meandering into a series of tangents without finding a point. Bebop is not mentioned, the death of the big-bands and the decline and eventual devastation of jazz is given a cursory treatment, and Wald drowns in an ocean of details that are put into the service of arguing minor points. By the time Wald gets to the Beatles, the reader has ceased to care enough to notice how questionable some of his analysis is.

In effect, Wald wrote half a book when he set out to write four or five. Wald would be an excellent contributer to the following series.

1.) The Rise of the Middle Class and the Dawn of American Popular Music.

2.) Blacks move North and Whites go to the cities: the Ragtime Life Begins.

3.) Louis Armstrong: from Ragtime to Jazz

4.) The Radio and Benny Goodman Swing that Music

5.) Meanwhile, Blues and Country Lurk

6.) Swing Ambushed From All Corners, from Bop on the one hand to Blues and
Country on the other, to the Cabaret Tax and the LP.

7.) R&B and Rock & Roll--and how the Beatles widened the chasm.

8--etc all the stuff that's happened since.

This is not something that can be done in the scope of the Wald book. You need either a huge Tome or a series to truly cover the kind of ground that Wald wants to cover, and indeed, the pace of the last couple of chapters is so frantic that even Wald must have felt like he was writing the last pages of a term paper on the due day. Wald seems like a great guy to do this and it needs to be done.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


6 of 7 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Popular Music In The 20th Century, August 1, 2009
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
It's taken me awhile to get to this review. I've had some difficulty distilling the essence of this book, which I guess is what a review is for.

Here's some random thoughts:

As others have mentioned, the title is a hook & isn't the main thrust of this book.
(see my point #4 below).

Some of his main theories as filtered through me:

1. The most popular music tends to sink to the lowest common denominator, rather then the highest quality. Examples he gives include Paul Whiteman in the 20's & 30's & Pat Boone in the late 50's & 60's. This seems to me to be the book's main point

2. The 20's & mid-late 60's were the most exciting times in 20th century music & culture. He's the first person other then myself who I've heard that from.

3. Popular music tends to be dance oriented, especially since the average household no longer has several musicians living in it as they did in the early 20th century. He seems to find that the advent of records & radio harmed musical community.

4. He really seems to feel that the split of Black & White music in the late 50's ruined "Rock 'N Roll"; and by R&R here he means the original 50's definition of it. Within the context of that narrow definition, I would tend to agree, though I'm really not a fan of 50's R&R; to me the important music of the 50's was Chicago Blues, Jump Blues, some early R&B, & Jazz.

5. He gives several (legitimate) examples throughout the 20th century of black music being on the cutting edge & then being watered down by white artists for the white community. Up until the mid 60's, I completely agree with him.

There are some very good ideas here, though I don't agree with all of his musical tastes; I'm almost the exact age as the author, & we seem to agree on much music from before we were born, but after about 1965 our tastes go different ways. He seems to be more of an R&B person, while I'm more into various forms of rock & singer-songwriter music from the mid 60's on.

Coincidentally, I just watched the 10 hour Time-Life History Of Rock & Roll, which at least through the 60's seems to share many of the author's opinions. Nice companion piece to this.

My biggest criticism is that I found his writing style somewhat dry, this was a slow academic read.

Worth reading if the evolution of POPULAR music in the 20th century is of interest to you, & you enjoy an academic writing style. The key word again is POPULAR.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


13 of 17 people found the following review helpful
3.0 out of 5 stars Rock'n'Roll revisionist history - or wishful thinking?, February 26, 2010
By 
L. Allen (Memphis, TN USA) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   
Vine Customer Review of Free Product (What's this?)
The author's premise is that the American music scene was doing just fine, thank you, before the Beatles brought on the so-called British Invasion of the mid-sixties. Elvis was King, on the comeback trail after his Army stint (albeit primarily via terrible movies), the folk music scene was bringing back both traditional Anglo-American and African-American songs to a larger audience and American jazz was still the hippest musical form on the planet. While the author gets much of what was happening right, mostly, I think that he misses the earth-shattering import of the Kennedy assasination in its global impact and destabilizing effect on the American psyche. Sure, the Beatles were big at home back in the UK, but let's face it - when they came to the U.S. and appeared on the Ed Sullivan show, it was not just their American-rooted music that touched the masses of teens, it was the newness, the freshness of their approach that actually bore almost no resemblance to the prevailing music scene in the States at the time. American youth needed something bigger than their bleak situation with the Viet Nam war escalating and the civil rights debacle playing out on their television sets every night. And, in a way, it is because of, rather than inspite of, the British invasion and the arrival of blues-based bands such as the Rolling Stones, Animals, and the Yardbirds that helped American youth discover even deeper roots of Chicago and Delta blues, and New Orleans funk, all musical styles that the author insists were subsumed under the weight of the UK pop groups. His contention that the truly American musical art forms would have thrived without the advent of the Beatles and British Invasion ignores some realities of the time - especially that much of the music being produced in the U.S. would have remained segregated on commercial radio stations for a far longer period of time had not the Beatles introduced white teenagers to the likes of "Mr. Postman", "Long Tall Sally" and "Money". And, sorry, but no amount of Dylan, Odetta, Pete Seeger, the Kingston Trio, or Joan Baez would have converted American teendom to a truly desegregated music scene.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No


‹ Previous | 1 28 | Next ›
Most Helpful First | Newest First

Details

Search these reviews only
Send us feedback How can we make Amazon Customer Reviews better for you? Let us know here.