12 Angry Men: A Portrait of the 1950s

The nostalgic reminiscences of the 1950’s often conjure up thoughts of happier, simpler times not unlike those of the long running successful television series Happy Days.  However, the reality of the decade was far from simple and happy.  Although it was a decade filled with a consumer culture reeling in its successes following a long depression and a world war win, the 1950’s were also filled with anxiety and domestic unrest.  Fear of a nuclear holocaust was part of everyday life during the early days of the nuclear age that included air raid drills and bomb shelters, along with the rise of the communist Soviet Union as a world superpower.  Alarm about communism within the United States and a fear of a violent overthrow of our government was viewed as a constant threat to American democracy.  International and governmental concerns were only a part of the everyday worries with which Americans dealt; racial issues haunted Americans as well with the rise of the Civil Rights Movement. 

The arts, including those in the entertainment industry, can give us a better understanding of some of these issues and how they affected the everyday life of Americans.  For example, the movie, 12 Angry Men released in 1957 portrays a courtroom drama in which twelve jurors are to decide the guilt or innocence of a man on trial for the murder of his father.  These twelve men, during their deliberations, expose their own prejudices and character flaws while debating the fate of the accused.   Because this movie was released in the decade when the Civil Rights Movement was born, it becomes all the more important in portraying racial prejudices in white America.  This movie was also released after the pandemonium of McCarthyism had reached its height and shows that the true threat to America’s democracy is its very own citizens.  Therefore, this film is also a warning to American citizens not to evade their responsibilities or it may threaten the very foundation of our democracy.  For these reasons, this film can be viewed as a reflection of the time in which it was made and was probably meant to be just that.

Although primarily created as entertainment for the purpose of making money, movies can be a vehicle for the creators to effectively portray their views of the society’s wrongs and how these issues are dealt with in the contemporary everyday life of their time.  Playwright Reginald Rose was very aware of the themes he included in his teleplays, which also carried through into his screenplay for 12 Angry Men, including “community and social responsibility, justice and the pressure of the times upon the people who live them.”[1]  These themes become obvious in this drama as each of the jurors discusses his views of the case, showing the difficult “process of judging people and issues”[2] without prejudice and the responsibilities that go along with that process.  Rose was very effective in portraying the importance of each man’s “attributes, failings, passions, and prejudices”[3] intertwined with the “awesome truth that they hold a boy’s life in their hands.”[4]  The realization of this responsibility becomes more evident when the jurors are quick to condemn the boy, each for his own separate reasons, until Juror Number Eight, played brilliantly by Henry Fonda, wants a moment to discuss the evidence before deciding the boy’s fate.   Although Juror Eight is not convinced of the boy’s innocence, he is not quite convinced of the boy’s guilt, thus reasonable doubt.   He obviously struggles with the responsibility of this boy’s fate when Juror Eight explains “It’s not easy to raise my hand and send a boy off to die without talking about it first.”  This is the beginning of the discussions, arguments, and presentations of the evidence in the jury room which brings out each man’s character within the film.

It is interesting to note that 12 Angry Men was a “thoroughly absorbing”[5] television play broadcast in 1954 before it was made into a movie which premiered in 1957, because Rose was able to effectively mirror the current events of the day into his writings.  The fact that the accused is a boy of a minority race is of the utmost importance when examining the issues portrayed in this particular movie.  The teleplay, broadcast just three years earlier, has a defendant from the slums, however, “there is nothing to suggest that he is not white.”[6]  Prejudices existed; however, the racial divisions became more evident later in the 1950’s as the Civil Rights Movement came to the forefront.  The 1954 Supreme Court decision in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas found the “separate but equal” doctrine to be unconstitutional.[7]  Although a few states did reluctantly comply with the new laws, the Deep South was adamant about reestablishing legalized segregation.[8]  This defiance ultimately brought violence and federal government intervention to the cause of civil rights for African Americans.  In addition, Rosa Parks’ refusal to give up her seat to a white man the following year began a year-long bus boycott in Birmingham, Alabama which brought national attention to the lack of rights afforded African Americans, especially in the Deep South.  Although national attention had been given to the cause of African American civil rights, Latino Americans were also fighting for their own equal rights.  Latinos had been considered second class citizens as well, especially in areas of the Southwest, and were denied access to white areas.[9]  Because the film adaption of 12 Angry Men came after these events, Rose cleverly incorporated racial prejudice into the film, although it had been absent from his teleplay, by having the defendant of Hispanic descent. 

Racial prejudice becomes evident during deliberations when Ed Begley’s Juror Number Ten insists on the boy’s guilt because he was a Hispanic boy from the slums.  Juror Ten cannot see past the boy’s race or his background.   He makes his case to the rest of the jury by stating, “You know he’s guilty.  None of them people are any good” and continuing “You know how these people lie.  It’s born in them.” thereby placing all Hispanics into one lower class group of people who cannot be trusted.  It is not hard to fathom Juror Ten’s hatred towards the accused based solely on race and Begley plays the character with a resounding and believable zeal.

Furthermore, Juror Four, played by E.G. Marshall, shows prejudice to the inhabitants of the slums and automatically assumes that the accused is guilty.  He states, “The children who come out of slum backgrounds are potential menaces to society” when discussing the background of the boy.  Although Juror Four makes his statement in a more acceptable way when compared to the prejudices of Juror Ten, the message is still clear in that “irrational prejudice is incompatible with justice.”[10]

In addition, Lee J. Cobb’s Juror Number Three makes up his mind based on his bad experiences with his own son and sympathizes with the crime victim, the boy’s father.  Although his prejudice is not based on the boy’s race or his slum background, he can still not view the case with an open mind.  He sees this as his opportunity to “punish all youth for the pain and worry caused him by his own son.”  Juror Three explains his history with his own son by relaying that after his son walked away from a fight when he was nine, Juror Three insisted his son be “a man.”  His son eventually stood up to his own father, hit his father in the jaw, and ended their relationship.  Juror Three, therefore, feels the entire younger generation is guilty and needs to be punished for their contempt and disrespect.  Juror Three is guilty of stereotyping a group of people and assuming they are all the same rather than looking at each individual, which is another type of prejudice evident in the film.

            Prejudice is undoubtedly not the only theme of 12 Angry Men which was relevant in the 1950’s.  The threat to our democracy was a constant fear in the minds of Americans in the conformist decade of the Cold War.  This film shows that shirking civic responsibility can also create a risk to the true democratic ideals on which the United States was based.   During the 1950’s it was communism that was seen as the biggest danger to our democracy.   Communism was considered demonic and a “real threat to American security”[11] during the Cold War years.   Although many Communist Party members had abandoned the Party by the 1950’s, they were still seen as security threat due to their past associations and Senator Joe McCarthy claimed to know a number of Communists who had infiltrated the United States government.  Even though the threat was quite exaggerated by this junior Senator from Wisconsin who preyed on that fear to further his own career, Americans were quite concerned about the security of their democratic government.   Because there was such alarm regarding the state of our democracy, Rose was able to use this theme within 12 Angry Men to show that communism was not the threat of which American citizens should be concerned, but the real threat to democracy is the people themselves and their lack of civic and social responsibility.

This film becomes a public service announcement of sorts in reminding the public that our democratic system renders someone innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt and the civic responsibilities of American citizens should be taken seriously as a right and an honor of being a member of that democratic society.  The most obvious of the men who feels that jury duty is an inconvenience is Jack Warden’s Juror Number Seven, who is in a hurry to convict the boy so that he can make it to the New York Yankees baseball game that evening.  This becomes even more evident as Juror Seven changes his mind midway through the film just to break the stalemate in a tied six versus six vote for conviction.  He states, “I don’t know about the rest of them but I’m getting a little tired of this yakety yakking back and forth.   It’s getting us nowhere.  So I guess I’ll have to break it up.  I change my vote to not guilty.”  Furthermore, he will not explain his reasons for the change of heart when confronted except for a simple, “I don’t think he’s guilty.” Juror Eleven points out the obvious lack of civic responsibility instilled in Juror Seven when he states, “You have sat here and voted guilty with the rest of them because you have some baseball tickets burning a hole in your pocket.  And now you change your mind because you are sick of the talking?” This demonstrates that the outcome is not of much importance to Juror Seven as long it does not interfere with his personal plans.  Rose, therefore, illustrates that, if all citizens felt this way, it is certain that our democracy would not work effectively and justice would not be carried out fairly.

During that same conversation between Juror Eleven and Juror Seven, Juror Eleven, an obvious immigrant by listening to his dialect, reminds us that “everyone must play his part”[12] to ensure the system works.  When Juror Seven breaks the tie by changing his vote, Juror Eleven reminds Juror Seven, “If you want to vote not guilty then do it because you are convinced the man is not guilty, not because you’ve had enough.  If you think he is guilty then vote that way.  But don’t you have the guts to do what you think is right?”  Juror Eleven demonstrates the huge responsibility these jurors have in deciding the fate of the accused.  Furthermore, by stating, “We have a responsibility.  This is a remarkable thing about democracy.  We have nothing to gain or lose by our verdict.  This is one of the reasons why we are strong,” Juror Eleven recaps what it is to be a democracy.  In short, it is crucial that everyone have their say and that everyone work together for the common good.[13]  Furthermore, personal feelings should not be allowed to cloud the judgment of each juror, whether it is by prejudice or dissatisfaction.  Juror Eleven, played by George Voskovec, makes it quite clear that every citizen should be honored to help democracy at work and that evading that responsibility is harmful to the system. 

A true reflection of this time in American history must include the controversies that abounded regarding racial divisions and prejudices, as well as fears over the threats, whether real or imagined, to our democracy.  The film 12 Angry Men is a great example of 1950’s art that reflects the time in which it was made.  The film’s themes cover these issues including racial prejudice and civic responsibility.  However, as a truly timeless piece of art, 12 Angry Men can also be a pertinent example of those issues well beyond the time period when the film was made.  The Happy Days series to which we alluded earlier also used the premise of 12 Angry Men in an episode and this show appeared on television twenty years after 12 Angry Men premiered.  In the episode entitled, “Fonzie for the Defense” which premiered on May 30, 1978,[14]  both Fonzie and Mr. Cunningham are called for jury duty and appear on the same case:  a black motorcyclist is charged with burglary of a woman’s purse.  In true 12 Angry Men fashion, Mr. Cunningham sees jury duty as an inconvenience and is more worried about the status of his hardware store than the guilt or innocence of the accused.  Fonzie, on the other hand, is honored to perform his civic duty and takes the case very seriously.  Because he is not immediately convinced of the accused’s guilt, Fonzie is even labeled a “Communist.” However, he eventually enlightens the remainder of the jury of a piece of contradictory evidence which proves the accused is innocent.  This episode echoes the premise of 12 Angry Men, and was televised in the late 1970’s.  In the following decades, other television shows have also copied the basis of 12 Angry Men.  Doogie Howser, M.D. presented an episode entitled, “Eleven Angry People… and Vinnie” on March 17, 1993 where “Vinnie serves on a jury and angers the other jurors by casting the only dissenting vote.”[15]  Even more recently, an episode of Monk entitled, “Mr. Monk Gets Jury Duty” aired on March 17, 2006[16] has Monk serve on a jury in a minor robbery trial.  Although the main storyline involves a federal prisoner’s escape plot, the minor robbery trial follows the premise of 12 Angry Men in that Monk is the sole juror convinced of the defendant’s innocence.  He continues to reexamine the evidence and sways the other jurors to reconsider.  One by one, the jurors are convinced and find the defendant “not guilty,” again paralleling the story in 12 Angry Men.

Because the themes in 12 Angry Men still ring true today, and because the themes were presented so well in the film, this movie can be considered a timeless piece of art in addition to a great piece of entertainment.  Considered one of the best films of all time, 12 Angry Men had a lot to say.  Although the film was made fifty years ago when equal rights for all races and genders was a fairly new idea, audiences today can appreciate the characters within that jury room.  Prejudices still exist in everyday life even today.  How many average white Americans would cringe with fear if a Black or Hispanic teenager approached them in a dark parking lot?  In addition, civic responsibility is still considered a chore.  How many of those called try to be excused from jury duty?  It is unfortunate that we have not learned any of the lessons that Reginald Rose tried to teach us in his extraordinary film for we would be a stronger, more united nation had we listened.

---

[1] J. Crosby, “Six Rose Plays Prove TV is Exerting Literary Influence,” The Modesto Bee.  1956, April 27. 11.
[2] “Twelve Angry Men,” Press Telegram, Long Beach CA. 1957 May 28. A10.
[3] A.H. Weiler, “12 Angry Men,” 1957 April 15. IN The New York Times Guide to the Best 1000 Movies Ever Made, Ed. J.M. Vincent Canby and P.M. Nichols. (New York: Random House, 1999).  910-911.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Crosby, 11.
[6] Answers.com.  Twelve Angry Men (Themes), Accessed 2009 March 2009.
[7] J.W. Davidson, W.E. Gienapp, C.L. Heyrman, M. Lytle, and M. B. Stoff,  Nation of Nations (New York:  McCraw Hill).
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid.
[10] Answers.com
[11] E. Schrecker, The Age of McCarthyism. (New York:  Bedford, 2001).
[12] Answers.com
[13] Ibid.
[14] T. Fuller. “Happy Days Online (1997-2008),” SitcomsOnline.com.  Accessed 2009 March 10.
[15] “Eleven Angry People…and Vinnie (1993)” Doogie Howser, M.D., IMDb.com  Accessed 2009 March 10.
[16] “The Show Episode Guide:  Mr. Monk Gets Jury Duty” NBC Universal, Inc. USANetwork.com Accessed 2009 March 10.

Longing for "Happy Days"

Considering the tragedies this past week in both Boston and West Texas, it is difficult to comprehend the sorrow that has accompanied these events.  Because of these events,  I thought I would write today about society’s desire to look back at history through a nostalgic lens, hoping to recapture happier, less stressful, times.  This is especially true when we remember the 1950s.  They are often remembered as the “Nifty Fifties.”  In fact, there was a successful television sitcom, now found often in syndication, called Happy Days which brings that nostalgic look at life in the fifties onto our television screens cementing that desire for a simpler life.  

Happy Days was one of my favorites when it first aired in the 1970s, and it has become a classic in our household even today.  1970s tended to remember the 1950s in that nostalgic light.  But, we have to remember that Happy Days is a situation comedy, devised for television.  It is NOT reality.  As much as we long for simpler days of yesteryear, our memories are selective.  The 1950s had its own set of baggage especially in relation to the Cold War.  It was the height of the nuclear age with the duck and cover drills, bomb shelters, and fears of communist infiltration, especially through the fear of covert spies.  But these anxieties are often overlooked when we think of the 1950s.  We prefer to remember the soda jerks, the drive-in restaurants and movie theaters, the be-bop rock-n-roll, and Elvis.  It is nice that we remember the good, the fun, and the carefree, but that is not the whole picture.  Times are tough now, but they were tough then.  Our parents and grandparents had their own set of anxieties.  We must remember that every generation has its own set of problems and no generation is completely carefree.  That said, let us pray for happier days ahead and an end to the string of recent tragedies.

Boston Marathon 2013

I'm having trouble finding the appropriate thing to write about today in light of the tragic events that have unfolded in Boston.  I have family who live near Boston and were in the city for the marathon.  They were fortunate enough to have made it home safely, but many others did not.  Although the death count is relatively low (at 2 the last time I checked), it is still too high considering that they died senselessly.  This tragedy is just beyond comprehension.  At some point today's events will also become a part of American history just as Pearl Harbor and September 11, and I will be able to appropriately add these events to the annals of American history.  Until then,  ....

Anti War Songs as a Reflection of Public Opinion: Vietnam Era

            The musical changes that occurred throughout the 1960’s mirror the political and social revolutions that arose during that decade, from the cheery, entertaining love songs early in the 1960’s to the anti-war and political sentiments that arose through the counterculture in the latter part of the decade.  The generalization of the transformation in popular music reflects popular opinion; however, we can see much more specific conversion by looking at songs that were written in response to the Vietnam War.  Songs specific to the war itself are the best sources of the changing American opinion, especially that of the younger generation. 

            One of the first war songs released during the 1960s was Staff Sergeant Barry Sandler’s “The Ballad of the Green Berets”  which hit #1 on the popular music charts on March 5, 1966.  This song reveals the pride as well as the enthusiasm in defending the honor of America against all enemies.   The fact that this song is in a traditional, formal form of the literary ballad itself reflects the honor of those defending democracy and American ideals.  The form of the song complies to the traditional literary ballad with its four line stanzas and use of repetition of the words, “The Green Beret” at the end of each stanza.  As a matter of fact, newworldencyclopeida.org defines a ballad as “normally a short narrative arranged into four line stanzas with a memorable poetic meter.”  This form is evident in “The Ballad of the Green Berets” highlighting the formal tradition of the proud Marines. 

            Upon further close reading of “The Ballad of the Green Berets,” we can see additional evidence of the pride in our soldiers deployed to fight in Vietnam.  These soldiers are described in line two as “fearless;” in line four as “brave;” and in line six as “America’s best.”   The Green Beret is also honored because he “died for those oppressed” (line 19) emphasizing the ultimate sacrifice of our beloved Marine for the betterment of the humankind.  These descriptions of an honorable man willing to stand up against evil is ever-present in “The Ballad of the Green Berets.”  Its popularity paralleled America’s opinion of the Vietnam War.  In 1966, most Americans backed the War as a fight against Communism. This was reflected in the popularity of this traditional, proud “Ballad” which underscored the pride of our soldiers resisting evil and representing the perceived oppression of South Vietnam in their efforts to retain democracy, as misguided and misunderstood as this theory was.

            In contrast to the “Ballad of the Green Berets,” Country Joe McDonald released “I-Feel-Like-I’m-Fixin’-to-Die Rag” in November of 1967.  Ironically, Country Joe actually wrote the “Rag” in 1965, before “Ballad” was released.   Country Joe used sarcasm and a catchy tune to ignite skepticism in the war effort and to make a political statement.  As a matter of fact, according to the Bing Dictionary website, synonyms of the word “rag” include “mock, taunt, or poke fun at.”  Merely because Country Joe calls his song a “rag,” we know the song will have sarcastic undertones.  Far from the traditional “Ballad,” Country Joe uses a six-line stanza in his verses.  He further uses an eight-line chorus that completely changes form to shorter lines with an inconsistent rhyme scheme where he purposefully eliminates the words, “four” and “eight” which would have provided the traditional rhyme.  This in itself conveys that the tradition has been broken, thus representing the broken trust between the American public and US foreign policy.

            At first glance, Country Joe seems to be condoning the War, with lines like “Now you can go get those Reds,/ The only good Commie is one that’s dead;/ you know that peace can only be won,/ When we’ve blown ‘em all to kingdom come!”  (lines 17-20)  However, we have to remember, this is a “rag,” which is poking fun at America’s policy on the war.  It is important to remember, though, that Country Joe supported the soldiers, as he was one himself, but that he felt America’s foreign policy had been unable “to come up with a clear and compelling goal in Vietnam.”[1]  In fact, Country Joe’s political statement was intended to bring attention to the government’s unclear objective in Vietnam and the effect on the everyday soldier fighting a war he didn’t understand. 

            Country Joe was only one in a long line of popular music artists who released anti-war statements through their songs.  Credence Clearwater Revival’s “Fortunate Son” was intended to bring attention the “poor man’s war.”  The draft ensured that troops would be conscripted to serve; however, the system was flawed because conscription could be deferred if one was enrolled in college.  Therefore, those that could afford college avoided the draft and those that could not were drafted and deployed to Vietnam.  “John Fogerty’s ‘Fortunate Son’ takes the common (and correct) perception that the rich and privileged weren’t serving in Vietnam but were all too happy to make others go.”[2]

            More simply stated through Marvin Gaye’s “What’s Going On” and Edwin Starr’s “War,” appeals for peace were expressed due to the enormous loss of American lives at the expense of a questionable War.  Gaye begins by stating, “Mother, mother, there’s too many of you crying./ Brother, brother, brother, there’s far too many of you dying.”  (Lines 1-2) The loss of American lives was devastating.  Gaye adds, “war is not the answer/for only love can conquer hate.” (Lines 6-7)  “What’s Going On” not only questions why the loss of lives, but pleads for peace and understanding.

  Edwin Starr’s “War” is much more blunt in its repetition of “War!/Huh! Yeah/What is it good for?/ Absolutely nothing.”  (Lines 1-4)  These few words say everything in protest to the war.  By 1970 when “War” was released, Americans were questioning whether the war was winnable, feeling that the loss of American lives was in vain.  Starr explains, “war I despise/cause it means destruction of innocent life.”  (Lines 5-6)  Again, this reiterates Gaye’s point in that there are “too many of you dying” for a questionable cause.

            The complete reversal in the sentiments of the popular music reflected public opinion.  By 1967, the same year that Country Joe released his “rag,” the anti-war sentiment was rising not merely within college campus teach-ins across America but also in the public with the Anti-Draft Week protests that year.  Although popular opinion primarily still supported the containment of communism in 1967, there was some rise in the questioning of U.S. foreign policy beyond the college campus environment.  This was reflected in songs like “Rag” because, although Country Joe does not outright condemn war, he does question the purpose of America’s involvement in Vietnam.  After the Tet Offensive in early 1968 with its high American casualty rate, the American public began to distrust the U.S. government and doubt that U.S. involvement was worth the cost in American lives.  “Fortunate Son” (1969), “War” (1970), and “What’s Going On” (1971) were released in response to America’s rising uncertainty about US involvement in the war.  Therefore, we can clearly see the parallel in the rise of anti-war music with the decline in American support for the War.

---

[1] Steward O’Nan. The Vietnam Reader: The Definitive Collection of Fiction and Non-Fiction on the War.  (Knopf Doubleday 1998) 282.

[2] Ibid.

Unlikely Counterparts: The Beach Boys and Janis Joplin

            When we think of the Beach Boys and Janis Joplin, on the surface, we really cannot see any similarities between these two musical artists, except that they both were popular in the 1960’s.  Even that is not saying much about their similarities because the Beach Boys were popular in the rock and roll of the early 1960’s and Joplin was popular in the hippie generation of the late 1960’s.  However, if we delve deeper into their backgrounds and their lives, we can see that the Beach Boys and Janis Joplin were both very important icons with similar stories to tell.

            The Beach Boys consisted of the Wilson brothers:  Brian, Dennis, and Carl, along with cousin Mike Love, and friend Al Jardine.  Their music personified the California beach experiences of the consumer culture of the 1950’s including, surf, girls, and fun; however, the main driving force behind the Beach Boys’ music was anything but “fun”.  Brian Wilson, the eldest of the Wilson brothers, composed most of their songs and, although, these songs appeared to personify a youthful fun image, they also contained “anxiety and malaise”.  Although this anxiety was also a feature of the 1950’s society with the fear of nuclear holocaust, communism, and the Cold War, Brian was actually battling his own personal demons, including the psychological damage done by his manager/father who physically abused his sons.   If we look deeper into Brian’s songs, we can see his loneliness and isolation in the lyrics of “California Dreaming,” “Don’t Worry, Baby,” and “God Only Knows.”  The Beach Boys’ most critically acclaimed album, Pet Sounds, written by Brian after a nervous breakdown and time in total reclusion, was not well received by the public, but contained songs artistically relaying Brian’s psychological dilemmas.  Brian further developed the intricate sounds he started with Pet Sounds on the Beach Boys’ next big hit, “Good Vibrations”.  Although the Beach Boys were primarily known for their California songs, Brian was beginning to show the psychedelic sounds of the acid rock which would be developing in the next few years.  However, the Beach Boys’ attempt to adopt the hippie look of the late 1960’s was not well received and so they began to successfully recycle their hits on the oldies circuit instead of putting out new music. 

            In contrast, Janis Joplin was a popular artist in the late 1960’s during the height of the psychedelic rock era.  Joplin obviously did not use the perfected harmonies or intricately arranged compositions like that of the Beach Boys.   One other obvious difference between Joplin and the Beach Boys is gender:  male versus female, which in early rock and roll is quite significant in that most rock and roll artists were men.  Joplin became iconic as a symbol of women’s liberation which was at its height in the late 1960’s.  She also broke the traditional thinking that a female singer had to be pretty to be successful.  Joplin was not a physically attractive teenager and was shunned by her peers.  She was even voted “Ugliest Man on Campus” during her brief stay at the University of Texas.  Despite her looks, Joplin became a successful musical artist.  In addition, Joplin’s bluesy style music was the exact opposite of the consumer culture represented in the Beach Boys’ songs.   However, Joplin and Brian Wilson had much in common, both feeling betrayed, lonely, and out-of-place.  Joplin continued to look for her escape in music and developed her niche as a singer in San Francisco’s counterculture, wearing outlandish outfits while performing her own interpretations of blues and rock and roll.  Unfortunately, Joplin also looked to drugs and sex with strangers, both male and female, in an attempt to feel accepted and squelch her loneliness, the former which eventually killed her by overdose. 

            In addition to their feeling of isolation, both Joplin and the Beach Boys became trapped in the stereotypes that made them famous.  Joplin was seen as the tough girl with a soft, vulnerable side and the Beach Boys became the iconic California sun and fun group.  Neither artist had much success when they attempted to go outside of these stereotypes.

Another similarity between Joplin and Wilson is the ability of both artists to blend their own personal lives into their music.  Brian Wilson incorporated the fun of the California lifestyle along with his loneliness into the songs he composed and performed with the Beach Boys while Joplin incorporated her “war against any and all limits” and the needs of her lifestyle, the casual sex and drugs, into her interpretation of blues and rock and roll music. 

            The most important similarity between the Beach Boys music and that of Janis Joplin is the ability of that music to remain fresh and new years after it was released.  Both the Beach Boys and Joplin were truly timeless artists revealing their most inner selves through their music, reflecting the times in which they lived through their music, and touching our hearts with their artistry even decades later.

            

Altamont Speedway Music Festival as a Symbol of the Decade

          The music of a specific era can tell us about the generation for whom the music was created, especially in the mid-twentieth century and beyond.  For example, the music of the 1960s with its psychedelic sound and rebellious lyrics relate the ideals of the counterculture who were vocally defying the traditional norms of the past generation.  More often than not, the Woodstock Music Festival held in August 1969 is thought of as a symbol of the counterculture era, culminating the entire 1960s decade as it came to a close.  However, Woodstock as a symbol of the 1960s generation is misleading.  The Woodstock Music Festival portrayed a communal feeling of peace, cooperation, tolerance, and community spirit during its three-day run in upstate New York and was actually the exception instead of the norm.  The counterculture represented a defiance of the 1950s rigid standards of an older generation and was often accompanied by resistance and violence rather than peace and cooperation.  The 1960s counterculture protested the war in Vietnam, fought for civil rights for oppressed African Americans, resisted conformity and authority, and created a new generation of vocal Americans bent on making changes from the expected conformity of the past generation.  In the decade of the 1960s, three major political figures were assassinated, John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr. highlighting the decade of hostility.  Additionally, brutality was associated with racial riots and violent war protests.  A more appropriate representation of the 1960s then would be one that incorporated that hostility and violent behavior.

               Although less well known, the Altamont Speedway Music Festival is a better representation of the 1960s decade.   The Rolling Stones performed as part of the free concert at Altamont Speedway in northern California on December 6, 1969, literally at the close of the decade.  This concert displayed violence at the hands of the Hell’s Angels who were hired as security for the free festival.  Instead of providing that security, Hell’s Angels created more brutality by stabbing an unarmed black man while the Rolling Stones performed “Under My Thumb.”  The Hell's Angels in San Francisco were known for drug use, alcohol, and violent behavior.  Their stint as security at Altamont was no different. The Hell's Angels had already caused an altercation during the Jefferson Airplane concert before The Stones took the stage.   

               The documentary Gimme Shelter details The Rolling Stones' involvement with the concert and covers the specific incident at Altamont. It is interesting to see Mick Jagger's reaction in the documentary as he watches back the concert footage because he couldn't see what was happening on the ground while it unfolded. Jagger said he thought it was just another scuffle on the ground at the time and he really had no idea that the man was being stabbed. Granted, the documentary is long in its entirety, but it is worth the watch, even if just for the section while the Stones perform while the Hell’s Angels stab the man.   You can jump to 1:20 and see the incident and Jagger's reaction.

              We can't undermine the importance of this concert at Altamont, not only because of its violence which completely contrasts with the love and peace of Woodstock, but because of the symbolic peak and decline of the counterculture era and the end of the 1960s decade.  Therefore, the symbolic culmination of the 1960s era was the Altamont concert as opposed to the Woodstock Festival.  The 1960s created a generation of young people who survived in a world of violence created by rebellion against conformity.  Although Altamont’s legacy is contrary to Woodstock’s, it reveals more about the reality of the culture created during the 1960s than that of Woodstock’s dream of peace and love.

The British Invasion: The Beatles and the Stones

            During the rise of the counterculture of the 1960’s, rock groups from England looked across the sea for success in America.  Among these groups of the “British Invasion,” were both the Beatles and the Rolling Stones.  Both the Beatles and the Stones were groups who had established themselves in their home country of England before "invading" the United States.  Both groups had their roots in African American blues mainstreamed into popular music by 1950’s rock and rollers such as Elvis Presley, Chuck Berry, Little Richard, and Buddy Holly.  In addition, both groups were instrumental in bringing rock music to the rise of the counterculture in the mid to late 1960’s.  However, that is where the similarities end.   

            The Beatles were a musically and artistically talented group of working class boys from Liverpool.  Instability existed in the lives of both John Lennon and Paul McCartney from an early age.  Lennon’s father disappeared when he was young, so he was shuffled off to live with an aunt because his mother’s waitress job did not provide enough stability to raise young John.   John was just a teen when she died which permanently affected his life.  John had anger issues having been abandoned by both of his parents at a young age but the circumstances helped him creatively display his emotions through his music.  McCartney’s mother also died when he was a teenager, but Paul’s home life was more stable than that of the Lennon family.  Paul was more concerned with the loss of income when his mother died than the emotional loss that John felt.

            The Beatles’ early music, although synthesized from the American rock and rollers of the fifties, stressed simple lyrics and enhanced vocal harmonies.   Although they covered American artists, they were able to add their own sound, changing the cover to interpret it with their own spin.  They also achieved success with their own compositions as all members of the Beatles were very creatively artistic.  Beatles music re-energized American rock music after the lull experienced by the loss of Elvis to the Army, Chuck Berry to prison, Little Richard to the seminary, and Buddy Holly to his early and tragic death.  The Beatles' music was happy, hopeful, simple, and fun in a time when America was mourning the death of President John F. Kennedy.  The Beatles emphasized love and hope when it was needed most.  Furthermore, the Beatles were quite seasoned professionals by the time they entered the American mainstream music scene, having toured England, Sweden, and Germany.  The Beatles had extraordinary management with Brian Epstein promoting their entry into the United States, causing a pop explosion known as Beatlemania, making the transition into the American music scene a smooth and successful one.

         The Rolling Stones, on the other hand, were from the middle class section of London and were afforded better upbringings including time at University for most of the members.  The Stones formed after the Beatles and were arguably not as talented in their early years.  They did not perform any of their own compositions not yet having developed a style of their own.  The Stones made their mark on London by copying the style of American blues artists, actually imitating them rather than creatively infusing the black blues into their own style.  They were also not as successful as the Beatles in Europe, mainly staying in London’s club scene and not venturing out into the touring circuit that encompassed the Beatles' success.  The Stones also lacked the managerial and promotional talents that Brian Epstein had afforded the Beatles and thus their first introduction into American mainstream music was a failure.  Their management was smart enough to assess the damage and creatively re-image the Stones as an anti-Beatles group turning them into the “bad boys” of rock music.  This image appealed to the teens’ rebellion against parental authority which was a main theme in the arising counterculture.  The Stones also infused their male chauvinistic attitudes into their music, especially appealing to the teen males.  Mick Jagger and Keith Richards did eventually compose songs for the Stones, which were drastically more successful than their earlier attempts at covers, and they kept these themes  of rebellion and chauvinism within their songs.  Although not as commercial as the Beatles, the Stones were instrumental in bringing the blues sound back to American music and the Stones songs became anthems of the counterculture movement in the 1960’s.

          Both the Rolling Stones and the Beatles were great bands of their time for different reasons.  The Beatles were commercially appealing and very successful in their American invasion bringing rock back into American music and hope back into the lives of the American youth after the tragedies of 1963.  The Stones were instrumental in vocalizing the themes of the counterculture through their music.  Both groups were influenced by the psychedelic sounds of the drug culture in the later 1960’s and both groups were able to grow musically as needed to continue their success.   It is unfortunate that the Beatles were so talented individually that they could no longer work artistically as group and broke up in 1970.  Ironically, the Beatles break-up coincided with the end of the decade, and the end of the counterculture. The Beatles break-up appropriately signified the end of an era.

Early Rock and Roll

            Although Elvis Presley is thought of as “The King of Rock and Roll”, there were many other artists in the early days of the new genre whose influences helped to shape the new music.  A few of these artists are Chuck Berry, Buddy Holly, and Little Richard.  All three of these personalities were instrumental in creating rock and roll by bringing something new to music.  Because of this any one of them could arguably be dubbed the "Father of Rock and Roll."

            Chuck Berry contributed a new sound by combining blues with a rhythmical sound and appealing to a multiracial audience.  He was able to do this mainly because of his upbringing as he was born in St. Louis in the late 1920’s and grew up in a lower middle class African American family.  Berry was luckier than many urban African Americans in that he escaped the rural poverty that was prevalent in the lyrics of the blues music, but he had a true love of this musical style even though he did not personally relate to the lyrics.  Berry wrote “Ida Red”, a “countrified blues song” and attempted to record it at the Chess brothers’ studio in Chicago.  “Ida Red” was not successful on its own, but after Berry reshaped the song into a “rhythmical rock and roll” style”  and renamed it “Maybelline,” it became a national hit reaching number five on the charts in 1955.  Berry attempted to release a few other blues style songs, unsuccessfully.  He  then began to write songs that appealed directly to the white teenage record-buying audience and became a very successful early rock and roller.            

            Berry’s success in the late 1950’s was short lived because Berry was confined to a prison term, but Berry broke ground in the rock and roll world, tearing down racial barriers by appealing to white audiences.  Berry was the first African American rock and roller to get white airplay with “Maybelline” due to his carefully enunciated lyrics allowing him to pass for white in a strictly segregated society.  Berry knew how to appeal to the white teenage world and specifically targeted them in his music.  Because of this, Berry was able to attract a larger unsegregated audience than he would have if he had strictly composed blues tunes.  Berry’s musical style was also new, thus  defining rock and roll with his unprecedented compositions of blues beats, country runs, and humorous lyrics.  Berry’s influences can be heard in many artists who came after him including the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and Bob Dylan.     

             Another of the founding fathers of rock and roll, Buddy Holly was born in 1936 in Lubbock, Texas, and formed a band in high school which he named The Crickets.  Holly also wrote his own compositions which appealed to the white teenage audiences due to their fun, simple sound, but Holly was the groundbreaking in that he was the  first white rock and roll artist to write his own songs.  Holly also changed the sound by “double tracking” the voice and  the guitar as well as using a full orchestra in his compositions.  Based on his own musical influences, Holly blended country, rhythm and blues, Latin, and gospel into the unique “Tex-Mex rockabilly sound” of which he is so well known.    Because his style was so different than most whites had heard, Buddy Holly and the Crickets were often mistaken for blacks and were even booked at the Apollo Theater in Harlem which, to that point, had only booked black artists.  Holly had paradoxically broken through the racial barriers opening rock and roll to both black and white audiences.  Although his life was cut short by that infamous plane crash in 1959, Buddy Holly’s music and style influenced many of the up and coming artists including the Beatles and the Hollies (for whom their name is a tribute to Buddy Holly and the Crickets).

             Lastly, Little Richard, born Richard Penniman, was a unique performer solely for his flamboyant on-stage style for which he is most remembered.  Little Richard, however, broke ground for his musical sound as well as his performances by utilizing the piano in his compositions like no other rocker had before him.  Little Richard’s 1955 recording of “Tutti Fruiti” topped the R&B charts, but also gained a modest pop following topping out at number twenty-one on the pop charts. Little Richard’s music also broke racial barriers just as Berry had, integrating audiences at his flashy shows.   Even when the audiences started out segregated, once the music started, blacks and whites would be rushing the stage and dancing together.  Little Richard brought races together in the musical world, opening the door for African American mainstream artists.  Little Richard used the “flash” of his on-stage persona to attract audiences, but, at the same time, he appeared “non-threatening” to the white world.  He would dress in sequins, wear makeup and eyeliner, and sport long black fingernails, bringing an air of femininity to his stage persona that made the white world feel less threatened by the sexual nature of his songs.   Little Richard, through all of this, stayed true to the “shouter” style of traditional rhythm and blues, and was able to introduce this style of music to a whole new white audience.  Further, his style opened doors for later performers including Jerry Lee Lewis, Kiss, and David Bowie, who used flashy stage shows to entertain their audiences.  Little Richard was the first true black entertainer introduced to the white world.

                Thus an argument can be made for any one of these performers as the “Father of Rock and Roll.”  Their contributions certainly do not downplay the importance of Elvis Presley in mainstreaming rock and roll, but had they not come before him, it is hard to say how Elvis would have been received.  They all opened doors for later performers, including Elvis, and broke racial barriers allowing teenagers of all races to come together through music.  No single performer can be credited with creating rock and roll, but it was a combination of each building on the last which created the genre of rock and roll.