One of the most important strengths to Peterson’s belief is that it gives a wide variety as to the explanation of how Rock and Roll became popular, at the same time however one of its biggest weaknesses is that it doesn’t address why Rock and Roll became so popular, we get a great deal of history on the matter but no explanation as to just why Rock and Roll became so popular when it did and not before or after. There is no personal insight into the debate which takes away from his belief as it doesn’t feel right. Another issue is the stereotyping of occupational careers, while some people may have fallen into the categories listed such as “Craftsmen” or “Showmen” there will have been people in the industry who didn’t fit these categories and were their own exception. The best strength to his argument is to dispel the common belief that the baby boom helped spark the Rock and Roll introduction when in fact “market demand had been growing for over a decade by 1955 but the
decision makers within the culture industry failed to notice it until
certain structural changes in their arrangements forced this
realisation”
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
A interesting assessment, if a bit waffly at times. I am sure you are right that there were of course people in radio in the 1950s who fell outside of the categories that Peterson provides, but this is inevitable with any such categorisation and doesn't really constitute a weakness in Peterson's theory. Perhaps you could have afforded to go into a bit more detail about his lack of focus on the music and what it was that made it so appealing to the market he so clearly identifies. Be careful with quotes, while yours is relevant, remember that you only have 150 words.
Post a Comment