This story originally appeared in the February 24, 1964, issue of U.S.News & World Report.
In case you're worried about the craze over those Beatles—here are some reassuring words from one of the best-known sociologists in the U.S. David Riesman, Harvard professor and noted author on social trends, was interviewed by "U.S. News & World Report."
Q Professor Riesman, is the furor over the singers who call themselves the Beatles a sign that American youngsters are going crazy? A No crazier than hitherto. In the first place, any large city will turn out a minority capable of nearly anything. One mustn't exaggerate and attribute to the vast majority the reactions of the minority.
Q Would you say that the fad for the Beatles is a mania, then? A It's a form of protest against the adult world. These youngsters are hoping to believe in something, or respond to something new that they have found for themselves.
Q Will it last very long? A No. No craze does. The way to describe a craze or fad is to point out that it starts out as a minority movement. It is self-fulfilling, self-nourishing for the minority that supports it, and every member of the minority is supposed to respond in the same way. As soon as the majority takes it up, it can no longer be a fad. Some new fad has to come along for a new minority.
Q Does the fact that the Beatles are British have anything to do with the craze over them? A The relevance, I guess, of these young men being British is that it is perhaps more difficult to cultivate fads within America because they're so quickly promoted by TV, records and other mass media. So we have to use other English-speaking lands in order to have a place for the fads to grow.
Q How would you compare the current Beatles craze with the Elvis Presley craze of a few years back? A Compared to the Elvis Presley craze, it is a very minor one. Presley created a definitely "antiparent" outlook. His music—and he, himself—appeared somewhat insolent, slightly hoodlum. Presley was a much more gifted musician than adults gave him credit for, but he antagonized the older generation. And that gave the younger generation something to hang on to which their usually permissive parents openly disliked. In this respect, my impression is that the Beatles have none of this somewhat sinister quality that Presley represented for adults. They don't have the quasi-sexual, quasi-aggressive note that was present in Presley.
Q What about the shaggy-dog hair style of the Beatles? A Well, they are British, and the British are accepted as being eccentric, anyway. So the hair styles don't have the same meaning as they would have if the Beatles were unkempt in the American "beat" style. Actually, these young men, although unkempt in one way, are very "kempt" in another.
Q Does that account for their popularity with teen-age girls? A I don't know. Presley also had this tremendous impact on girls. But he had a male audience, too, with his swagger and his aggressiveness and his defiance. But it's very safe for a young girl to admire these Englishmen. Then, too, there are four of them, and there's safety in numbers.
Q So you would just let the craze run its course— A What else? I don't see it as at all dangerous. I think, actually, that adult concern, worry, monitoring, and so on, is probably the best fuel to add to the fire. If I were the Beatles' press agent, I'd work to have ministers and professors and the press all saying, "Oh, dear! Oh, dear!"
It could be so much worse...look at the lyrics and music videos of popular music nowadays. Parents were worried about Elvis and The Beatles then....And the sad part is it will only get worse as the years go by.
I mean, The Beatles mostly had love songs and sure they had longer hair than the norm..and did have subtle references of drugs and sex. But nowadays, you have extreme language, nudity, and there is nothing subtle about the lyrics.
"Presley was a much more gifted musician than adults gave him credit for"
Nothing against Elvis, but for someone whom didn't write much of his own music and taking that this article was only written by an American in 1964, whom didn't know what we know now , I found the above comment "funny".
The kids liked the Beatles to protest against adults? They screamed to protest adults? Weigh in, young people!
Quoted Text
These youngsters are hoping to believe in something,
Isn't everyone?
Quoted Text
or respond to something new that they have found for themselves.
"Hoping" to respond? They're just excited about it, like Harry Potter was excited about the Nimbus 2000 broomstick. They just liked it!
Quoted Text
So we have to use other English-speaking lands in order to have a place for the fads to grow.
Right, because there have never been any fads here in America.
Quoted Text
my impression is that the Beatles have none of this somewhat sinister quality that Presley represented for adults.
I would agree with that for the early Beatles. They were marketed as giant stuffed toys. I still see young girls responding to the pictures of Beatles with a stuffed animal. They're just like one, only alive. You can pet him, dress him in funny costumes, and he won't mind!
Quoted Text
They don't have the quasi-sexual, quasi-aggressive note that was present in Presley.
Excuse me? The Beatles were completely sexual. And Lennon was as likely to snarl as not. Poor Professor Riesman missed this, probably because he was a boy.
Quoted Text
they are British, and the British are accepted as being eccentric, anyway.
Way to go, Brits! You guys get a free pass to be eccentric. Over here, we have to justify it.
Quoted Text
Actually, these young men, although unkempt in one way, are very "kempt" in another.
This is a good observation, and I think added to their appeal. Safe, well-groomed, nicely dressed stuffed animals... that snarl. Bring it on!
Quoted Text
But it's very safe for a young girl to admire these Englishmen. Then, too, there are four of them, and there's safety in numbers.
Is he saying the Beatles aren't likely to jump her, or she's mentally "safe" because she's liking one of a group? As an old lady, I think the early Beatles' image (as crafted by Epstein) made a nice "starter package" for girls just discovering their sexuality. Young posters, would you like to set me straight? Are the Beatles less scary than "real" boys?
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
Well, they are British, and the British are accepted as being eccentric, anyway.
Great. We can get away with anything and just blame it on our eccentricity. Surly Americans don't really believe this? And what the hell must he have made of The Stones?
I just want you to reassure him - talk to him, make him see the error of his ways. Then I'll hit him.
can you give an example of what the class was like??
Sure. I was in the prof's office one afternoon to talk about a paper I wanted to do on the British Labour Party after the war, and the prof, who was an earnest, dogged sort, kept dragging nearly every possible line of approach back to a discussion of American policy, or American imperialism as he was convinced it was, in Latin America. No surprise, really; his classes were the same way and a desire to get off the subject was one of the reasons I wanted to write about something else. But the whole conversation was odd to the point of being perverse, with him throwing in a lot of squinty looks and finger pointing off to the side gestures either out of habit or for some imagined effect, so I had a look at his bookshelves to see what it was he was specifically interested in, and more importantly, which sort of writers interested him; and sure enough, up on one end he had a neatly lined up set of six or eight Noam Chomskys. I'd had a little mental bet with myself that he'd have at least two.
So I wrote a pointless piece of tosh about Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas. No Chomsky citations, though.
Q Will it last very long? A No. No craze does. The way to describe a craze or fad is to point out that it starts out as a minority movement. It is self-fulfilling, self-nourishing for the minority that supports it, and every member of the minority is supposed to respond in the same way. As soon as the majority takes it up, it can no longer be a fad. Some new fad has to come along for a new minority.
Lulz. It'll die down in another 40 years, I figure.
You're so vain, you probably think this post is about you.
you wouldn't suppose that the good "doctor" would like to update his article/paper?!?!?
I like to think he'd get as big a chuckle out of it as we're doing. Unless, of course, he was a regularly quoted "social expert", and had to keep revising his opinion as time went on to save face.
And what the hell must he have made of The Stones?
He probably would have nattered on about Elvis' dark side some more-- unless the Stones got a free pass for being "eccentric".
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Bobber
Male
Female
Logged
