This article by William T. Bielby looked into why it is that rock and roll is a predominantly male dominated industry. After a promising introduction I hoped this article might shed some light on the situation. Bielby (2004, p. 1) clearly states, “Drawing on my research on the first generation of grass roots bands in the post-Elvis era, I describe how the social structure and status system of schools shaped this new cultural form and why it developed as a male-dominated form of cultural production”.
However I do not feel that any new or exciting light has been shed on the topic at all, rather just a series of commonsense type conclusions were drawn.
I would like to add that the “grass roots” music production immediately after Elvis’ influence on music and the onset of rock and roll (1958-1963) is a great place to start looking for the answers to these issues – I just feel the answers were quite simplistic (which does not mean they are incorrect).
Firstly, the main argument as to how the social structure and status system of schools shaped this new cultural form was based around two main factors: 1. With rock and roll came the onset of the “party subculture” which involved “parties, concerts, drinking [and] dating” (Bielby, 2004, p. 9). Parental control over women participating in these activities was much stronger that parental control over men, therefore women were excluded somewhat; 2. Boys, while at school, were more into sports than music as an extra curriculum activity – success on the sports field was directly related to popularity. Rock and roll music performance offered the less athletically enabled teenagers to participate in an activity that offered the same amount of popularity, not only with male peers but female ones too. So this is how social structures and schools shaped early rock performance.
This then leads to how rock performance and involvement developed as a “male dominated form of cultural production” (Bielby, 2004, p.1). Bielby calls on the work of Coleman who in 1957 conducted several interviews and surveys on these topics and they showed that women were much more likely to listen to music as a leisure activity and purchase records than men however this interest in popular music did little to improve their involvement in rock. Furthermore, women were often in the charts with hit singles prior to Elvis, it was only rock they were excluded from. The previous paragraph suggests that women were excluded because they were not allowed to participate due to parental restrictions and because they did not value sport therefore did not need the alternate mode of acceptance. Simple but fair explanations. Also, maybe even more simplistic, Elvis was the original rock and roll role model. Men saw Elvis, women wanted Elvis therefore it was men who wanted to be like Elvis. Bielby (2004, p. 4) suggests that the events leading to men’s interest in rock and roll and the desire to learn to play such music went something like this;
“1. See Elvis on TV.
2. Decide you want to be Elvis.
3. Ask mum and dad for a guitar.
4. Discover you are not Elvis.
5. Now what do you do with that guitar? Learn how to play.
6. Start a band? But how?”
Well, if Elvis impressed the girls so much they’d call on their male friends who share a common interest in impressing the girls and there we have it, an all male rock band. Again, simple but possibly true.
The final reason for male dominance offered by Bielby is that rock music is an “anthem for teenage male rebellion and sexuality”, but even he is a little wary of this apparent explanation. It has been suggested by many other writers but Bielby believes that this possible reason neglects the other components leading to female exclusion.
From reading this article I am left wondering if the only reasons females were excluded from rock performance in the very early years (after Elvis but before the Beetles; 1958-1963) was because of some school yard bravado and strict parenting, or because of the males’ desire to impress them, then why is it still a problem? Why, if exclusion was born from such simple social restrictions, are men still dominating the rock scene?
Sarah Gillam
References
Bielby, William T. 2004, 'Rock in a Hard Place: Grassroots Cultural Production in the Post Elvis Era', American Sociological Review, vol. 69, (february), pp. 1-13
http://0-www.jstor.org.library.newcastle.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/3593072.pdf
However I do not feel that any new or exciting light has been shed on the topic at all, rather just a series of commonsense type conclusions were drawn.
I would like to add that the “grass roots” music production immediately after Elvis’ influence on music and the onset of rock and roll (1958-1963) is a great place to start looking for the answers to these issues – I just feel the answers were quite simplistic (which does not mean they are incorrect).
Firstly, the main argument as to how the social structure and status system of schools shaped this new cultural form was based around two main factors: 1. With rock and roll came the onset of the “party subculture” which involved “parties, concerts, drinking [and] dating” (Bielby, 2004, p. 9). Parental control over women participating in these activities was much stronger that parental control over men, therefore women were excluded somewhat; 2. Boys, while at school, were more into sports than music as an extra curriculum activity – success on the sports field was directly related to popularity. Rock and roll music performance offered the less athletically enabled teenagers to participate in an activity that offered the same amount of popularity, not only with male peers but female ones too. So this is how social structures and schools shaped early rock performance.
This then leads to how rock performance and involvement developed as a “male dominated form of cultural production” (Bielby, 2004, p.1). Bielby calls on the work of Coleman who in 1957 conducted several interviews and surveys on these topics and they showed that women were much more likely to listen to music as a leisure activity and purchase records than men however this interest in popular music did little to improve their involvement in rock. Furthermore, women were often in the charts with hit singles prior to Elvis, it was only rock they were excluded from. The previous paragraph suggests that women were excluded because they were not allowed to participate due to parental restrictions and because they did not value sport therefore did not need the alternate mode of acceptance. Simple but fair explanations. Also, maybe even more simplistic, Elvis was the original rock and roll role model. Men saw Elvis, women wanted Elvis therefore it was men who wanted to be like Elvis. Bielby (2004, p. 4) suggests that the events leading to men’s interest in rock and roll and the desire to learn to play such music went something like this;
“1. See Elvis on TV.
2. Decide you want to be Elvis.
3. Ask mum and dad for a guitar.
4. Discover you are not Elvis.
5. Now what do you do with that guitar? Learn how to play.
6. Start a band? But how?”
Well, if Elvis impressed the girls so much they’d call on their male friends who share a common interest in impressing the girls and there we have it, an all male rock band. Again, simple but possibly true.
The final reason for male dominance offered by Bielby is that rock music is an “anthem for teenage male rebellion and sexuality”, but even he is a little wary of this apparent explanation. It has been suggested by many other writers but Bielby believes that this possible reason neglects the other components leading to female exclusion.
From reading this article I am left wondering if the only reasons females were excluded from rock performance in the very early years (after Elvis but before the Beetles; 1958-1963) was because of some school yard bravado and strict parenting, or because of the males’ desire to impress them, then why is it still a problem? Why, if exclusion was born from such simple social restrictions, are men still dominating the rock scene?
Sarah Gillam
References
Bielby, William T. 2004, 'Rock in a Hard Place: Grassroots Cultural Production in the Post Elvis Era', American Sociological Review, vol. 69, (february), pp. 1-13
http://0-www.jstor.org.library.newcastle.edu.au/stable/pdfplus/3593072.pdf
