were there any social critics of the beach boys in their early days?

[dwtherealbb]

and by that i mean anthropologists and sociologists who criticized them as painting a smiley face over "Amerika". For those that don't know what "Amerika" means its a euphemism to describe cold war America as a fundamentally racist oppressive society.

[gxios]

It was just pop music- nothing serious, nothing important.  Until Sgt Pepper, there was no mainstream or underground press (that I've ever been aware of) concerned with rock and roll.  If anything, it was being praised for allowing black label owners like Barry Gordy a chance to compete in the market.  Pop songs were mostly about love and its problems, hardly the stuff of sociological comment, other than possibly snobbism from fans of other music.  Up until 1965, I only saw Beach Boys records in collections owned by girls.  "Barbara Ann" and "Sloop John B" were the first Beach Boys records I had conversations with my male friends about (I am an east coast guy, it may have been different on the west coast).

[Chocolate Shake Man]

The question, though, seems to me to be about scholarly work not journalism. To be honest, I'm not sure if there was much scholarly work being done on rock and roll in the early 60s - academia was a pretty elitist enterprise then carried out by white men who wouldn't have considered rock and roll to be a serious research area. I have seen more contemporary articles though that say essentially what you are saying. The criticisms like the ones you are describing mostly came at the time from the folk music quarter who saw pop music as whitewashing the real issues occurring in the United States.

[I. Spaceman]

Until Sgt Pepper, there was no mainstream or underground press (that I've ever been aware of) concerned with rock and roll. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crawdaddy!

http://www.rockmine.com/Archive/Library/Mojo.html

[guitarfool2002]

Greg Shaw, Paul Williams - great stuff! I hope people asking about this in the thread take these names and links and do some research and read those original publications at and around the links. The famous radio ad where Jim Morrison advertises Cheetah magazine was pulled from a Tom Maule KHJ aircheck, October '67, by the way.

Add Melody Maker in England to the list.

"Hit Parader" was another pre-Pepper magazine that couldn't be considered "scholarly" in some circles but there was still some very insightful writing about rock and pop music to be found in those pages. Not the same as Williams and Shaw and their peers, but some great writing would sneak through the more fanzine-like stuff.

There were outlets for this beyond published magazines.

KRLA Beat, which circulated the US in various top 40 markets outside LA, was also a terrific source for this scene. It wasn't all gushy, nor was it tabloid or gossip material: There were some good hard news articles on what these artists were doing, and that paper's archives are a terrific source of research. Other radio stations had similar papers and newsletters which was where fans got their news apart from the fanzines, and where some good writing though more info-based than critical, would appear.

Capitol Records had "Teen Set", which again was a different kind of journalism but still pretty damned good for music which was supposed to involve just "the kids".

How about writers like Tom Nolan, writing in the LA Times magazine his "Frenzied Frontier..." piece which can be seen reprinted in LLVS? It's damn close to the kind of writing and detail which would go into 'rock journalism' a few years later. Including Brian Wilson's admission that he had taken LSD...and recall specifically the reaction McCartney got for *the same admission* months later. McCartney's words caused a scandal at that time...Brian saying that to Tom Nolan in LA in fall 1966 didn't cause a ripple because it was such a part of the LA/Sunset Strip scene, and the words probably did not make it out of that Los Angeles newspaper magazine feature.

Point being - it was published.

How about the whole genesis of "Inside Pop", which was a respected musician like Leonard Bernstein coming out and telling people to listen to these kids and their music, and take it seriously because it was that vital and that important to pop culture. He was right: pop music no matter what incarnation it would appear in future years did indeed assume a higher position of importance in everyday life and pop culture than classical, jazz, or any other type of "respectable" music.

And there was Bernstein on national TV laying it out, with musical and lyrical examples, and David Oppenheim providing a news-journalism credibility by editing together clips of these artists in a journalistic style which CBS News would become known for through 60 Minutes.

All of this, again, pre-Pepper.

I feel it was there - not in-your-face out there but still able to be found if you knew where and when to look. It was sowing the seeds for what would become rock journalism, in the vital years 65-66-67 because the same audience reading KRLA Beat would soon be reading Ben Fong-Torres, Christgau, etc, just a few years later.

That's just more information for anyone interested in the earlier rock/pop journalism - the original request/question was so loaded it wouldn't be worth opening that can o' worms...

[kookadams]

It was just pop music- nothing serious, nothing important.  Until Sgt Pepper, there was no mainstream or underground press (that I've ever been aware of) concerned with rock and roll.  If anything, it was being praised for allowing black label owners like Barry Gordy a chance to compete in the market.  Pop songs were mostly about love and its problems, hardly the stuff of sociological comment, other than possibly snobbism from fans of other music.  Up until 1965, I only saw Beach Boys records in collections owned by girls.  "Barbara Ann" and "Sloop John B" were the first Beach Boys records I had conversations with my male friends about (I am an east coast guy, it may have been different on the west coast).

  ? Yer joking right?

[clack]

and by that i mean anthropologists and sociologists who criticized them as painting a smiley face over "Amerika". For those that don't know what "Amerika" means its a euphemism to describe cold war America as a fundamentally racist oppressive society.

The "Amerika" spelling was 1st used by the KKK during the 19th c., then taken up by the Yippies (and other leftists) in the 60's  -- the implication being that the USA = Nazi Germany. Because JFK and LBJ were the same as Adolf Hitler, these jackasses pretended to believe.

[hypehat]

It was just pop music- nothing serious, nothing important.  Until Sgt Pepper, there was no mainstream or underground press (that I've ever been aware of) concerned with rock and roll.  If anything, it was being praised for allowing black label owners like Barry Gordy a chance to compete in the market.  Pop songs were mostly about love and its problems, hardly the stuff of sociological comment, other than possibly snobbism from fans of other music.  Up until 1965, I only saw Beach Boys records in collections owned by girls.  "Barbara Ann" and "Sloop John B" were the first Beach Boys records I had conversations with my male friends about (I am an east coast guy, it may have been different on the west coast).

  ? Yer joking right?

He's kind of right. The rock press today slobber over Please Please Me or whatever, but that was certainly not the attitude of the time. This was just pop music, a passing fad, here today gone tomorrow type stuff. The Beatles regularly faced questions of what they'd do when it was all over in their early days!

[kookadams]

This thread doesnt make any sense.

Rock n Roll was not only most prominent and prolific in the first decade (56-66) but theres countless resources to prove that it declined immensely thereafter.

From 1968 onward rock music was no longer commercially viable in the United States. There were a handful of exceptions but the revolution that Chuck Berry started had fizzled into nothing in the late 60s.

And its pointless to call that an "opinion" when the music speaks for itself.

[SMiLE Brian]

Rock and Roll has never really declined, its just the public taste in music changes. It is asinine to suggest people in the late 1960s and early 1970s would be content with simple Chuck Berry rock and roll. Groups like CSNY captured the movement of change in the USA.

[dwtherealbb]

From 1968 onward rock music was no longer commercially viable in the United States.

Actually, rock music really took off from 68 onward. Take a listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bP-LbR8u8

There wasn't much of this type of music before 1968

[hypehat]

This thread doesnt make any sense.

Rock n Roll was not only most prominent and prolific in the first decade (56-66) but theres countless resources to prove that it declined immensely thereafter.

From 1968 onward rock music was no longer commercially viable in the United States. There were a handful of exceptions but the revolution that Chuck Berry started had fizzled into nothing in the late 60s.

And its pointless to call that an "opinion" when the music speaks for itself.

No, you don't make any sense. You cling to this f***ed, ignorant idea that 'rock and roll' 'died' in 1966, only to be resuscitated by The Ramones and The Ramones alone. Quite frankly, I'm sick of it.

I could go about this three ways.

I could riff on your line, 'The music speaks for itself'. Yeah, you're absolutely right. So EDUCATE yourself about it. You are dismissing the greatest rock bands of all time, Jimi Hendrix, The Velvet Underground, The MC5, The Stooges, The Doors, The 13th Floor Elevators, Black Sabbath, Queen, and 1000's of other bands for absolutely no reason. I haven't even got started on everyone that isn't expressly 'rock', yet. The 65-75 era could be the greatest period ever in soul music. Kraftwerk pretty much invented electronic music in a pop context in the early 70's. Or what about Miles Davis pretty much exploding jazz? ETC ETC

Or, I could try and bemoan and empathise with your lack of a progressive attitude. If music never got past Chuck Berry, it'd be sh*t. And I love Chuck Berry. But, what makes those early Beatles records you love so fucking good is that they're expanding on that template, as artists. They're not emulating. Great art,  and rock and roll, is not about strict emulation.  

Or, I could just call you ignorant for statements like "From 1968 onward rock music was no longer commercially viable in the United States". Dude, in the 70's the record business made more than the movies. Or confused. Are The Beach Boys exempt from the murder of rock and roll in your eyes? Pet Sounds is as un-rock and roll an album as you can possibly imagine.

EXPLAIN YOURSELF, YOU CAD

[kookadams]

I'VE NEVER DISMISSED GREAT GROUPS LIKE THE STOOGES, MC5, VELVET UNDERGROUND ETC. THERE WERE A SELECT HANDFUL OF GREAT GROUPS IN THE LATE 60S BUT THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN COMPARE TO WHAT WAS PROMINENT IN THE EARLY-MID 60S. I EMPHASIZE THE RAMONES BECAUSE THEY CAME ALONG AT A TIME WHEN COMMERCIAL MUSIC WAS BLAND AND STAGNANT. THE RAMONES TOOK THE ETHICS OF WHAT TRUE ROCK WAS AND REINVENTED IT IN A MOVEMENT THAT REVOLUTIONIZED THE WORLD!

I'M NOT DISCREDITING ANYONE OR BEING HOSTILE SO WHATS WITH THE HORSESHIT??!

[hypehat]

BUT THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN COMPARE TO WHAT WAS PROMINENT IN THE EARLY-MID 60S.

This. This is the horseshit.

It's called your opinion, stop passing it off as fact.

[kookadams]

Either you have no idea what I'm getting at or you're just trying to get attention by being hostile. I aint the one that starting name calling and bitching.

[hypehat]

Oh no, I called you a cad. That was supposed to be a light-hearted sign off. Can you seriously be offended by someone calling you a cad?

But, you're right. Maybe I don't understand what the hell you're trying to say. All music is bad after 1966 apart from the bands you like? Doesn't that make it a good period of music if there are bands you like in it?

[kookadams]

I'm not offended I'm just saying that there was a great era of music in rockNroll from the mid 50s to late 60s and it got lame after that. Not everything but most of it. And I bring up the ramones cuz they were a drawback to that era of singles before excess ruined it.

[kookadams]

ALSO- as a young dude when I was a child in the early 90s I was lucky enough to be exposed to the LAST years of the radio playing rockNroll. K-earth still played good music, now its all sh*t. The radio was once a wonderful thing now its a sick joke.

[18thofMay]

From 1968 onward rock music was no longer commercially viable in the United States.

Actually, rock music really took off from 68 onward. Take a listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bP-LbR8u8

There wasn't much of this type of music before 1968

This is not true! Led Zep stole most of their music from other artists and gave them zero credit! Do some research it's out there for all to see.

[kookadams]

From 1968 onward rock music was no longer commercially viable in the United States.

Actually, rock music really took off from 68 onward. Take a listen to this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9bP-LbR8u8

There wasn't much of this type of music before 1968

This is not true! Led Zep stole most of their music from other artists and gave them zero credit! Do some research it's out there for all to see.

Led Zepplin is  the ultimate antithesis of everything rockNroll was about. Ben Weasel said it best: Robert Plant is a slimy f***, John Bonham really sucked
Those greedy f*ckers, those phoney shits They made their money off idiots.  12 dollar concerts were all the rage, They bought cocaine for Jimmy Page
"Stairway to Heaven" makes me see redBonzo's buried, only three more left
I hate Led Zeppelin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hrp2N_i7Axk

[SMiLE Brian]

WE GET IT THAT YOU HATE MUSIC....

[kookadams]

WE GET IT THAT YOU HATE MUSIC....

I love music, but I don't care for muzak.

[SMiLE Brian]

Define "Muzak"

[kookadams]

Define "Muzak"

Worthless background music made for commercial value etc. sh*t you'd hear in an elevator or thats sold at starbucks. Pretty much the majority of the mainstream hit songs of the 70s, 80s to the current. No substance or historical value///

[SMiLE Brian]

Define "Muzak"

Worthless background music made for commercial value etc. sh*t you'd hear in an elevator or thats sold at starbucks. Pretty much the majority of the mainstream hit songs of the 70s, 80s to the current. No substance or historical value///

All music has value in the eye of its beholder. Your loss if you won't listen to each decade's good music.