I think that the main weakness of the cultural perspective is that Peterson doesn’t actually mention the music at all. He doesn’t mention any of the features of the music which obviously contributed to the genres appeal to such a large audience and what made the rock and roll genre so popular. The instruments that were used to produce the rock and roll genre are not mentioned and neither are the many different genres all pieced together to make the rock and roll genre. Peterson doesn’t take these factors into account at all. Nor does he take into account that everyone has unique tastes which can’t be culturally defined by one person.
I also don’t think you can generalise and say that factors such as technology had a great impact on the birth of rock and roll music. Yes it may has helped it on its way but if the transistor and other inventions were made later on, say in the 1960’s then it would have helped any popular music at that time. The same can be said for television, yes it would have contributed to the success of the rock and roll genre as it allowed more people to gain access to the music from another source rather than radio but I dont't thin it can be said it helped in the birth of rock and roll.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
While I agree that Peterson's perspective does rather overlook the significance of the music and that of the artists who emerged in the 1950s, I feel that some of your arguments are perhaps a little too dismissive of his ideas. You suggest that, had some of the technological advances that Peterson has drawn attention to emerged during another period they may have resulted in similar effects on the music of the time. This, however is very similar to the argument that Peterson himself makes about the jazz and blues of the 1930s and 1940s. Indeed he answers these criticisms with reference to legal and institutional changes.
Post a Comment