Adult Responses to Popular Music and Intergenerational Relations in Britain, c. 19551975

By Gillian A. M. Mitchell

‘Adult Reactions to Popular Music and Inter-generational Relations in Britain, 1955–1975’ challenges the often unquestioned assumption that ‘the older generation’ largely reacted in a negative or hostile fashion to forms of music popular with young people in Britain from the 1950s to the mid-1970s (including rock ’n’ roll, skiffle, ‘beat’ and rock music), and that the music invariably exacerbated inter-generational tensions. Utilizing extensive primary evidence, from first-person accounts to newspapers, television programmes, surveys and archive collections, the book demonstrates the considerable variety which frequently characterized adult responses to the music, whilst also highlighting that the impact of the music on inter-generational relations was more complex than is often assumed. There has been a growing recognition among scholars of the need to reassess the alleged ‘generation gap’ of this era, but this theme has yet to be examined in depth via the prism of popular music. [NP] The book is also distinctive in the thematic approach it adopts. Rather than attempting a chronological survey, it identifies three key arenas of British society in which adult responses to popular music, and the impact of such reactions upon relations between generations, seem particularly revealing and significant, and explores them in considerable dep

• Language: English
• Publisher: Anthem Press
• Release date: Feb 28, 2019
• ISBN: 9781783089024

Book preview

Adult Responses to Popular Music and Intergenerational Relations in Britain, c. 1955–1975

ANTHEM STUDIES IN BRITISH HISTORY

The Anthem Studies in British History publishes a range of studies in British history including social, political, gender, migration, cultural, visual, economic, environmental and war history, as well as the history of the English language and literary history. This series offers a wide perspective on British history studies from all periods and covers compelling and coherent aspects of the topic. Innovative and challenging approaches, as well as studies grounded on emerging research, are welcome.

Series Editor

Marie-José Ruiz – Université de Picardie Jules Verne, France

Editorial Board

Hilary Carey – University of Bristol, UK

Jeremy Crang – University of Edinburgh, UK

Robert Crowcroft – University of Edinburgh, UK

Fara Dabhoiwala – Princeton University, USA

Kent Fedorowich – University of the West of England, UK

June Hannam – University of the West of England, UK

Edward Higgs – University of Essex, UK

Kathrin Levitan – College of William and Mary, USA

John MacKenzie – Lancaster University, UK

Jennifer McNabb – Western Illinois University, USA

Benedicte Miyamoto – Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, France

Jude Piesse – Liverpool John Moores University, UK

Eric Richards – Flinders University, Australia

Ophélie Siméon – Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, France

Marie Terrier – Université Sorbonne Nouvelle, France

Adult Responses to Popular Music and Intergenerational Relations in Britain, c. 1955–1975

Gillian A. M. Mitchell

Anthem Press

An imprint of Wimbledon Publishing Company

www.anthempress.com

This edition first published in UK and USA 2019

by ANTHEM PRESS

75–76 Blackfriars Road, London SE1 8HA, UK

or PO Box 9779, London SW19 7ZG, UK

and

244 Madison Ave #116, New York, NY 10016, USA

Copyright © Gillian A. M. Mitchell 2019

The author asserts the moral right to be identified as the author of this work.

All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright reserved above, no part of this publication may be reproduced, stored or introduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without the prior written permission of both the copyright owner and the above publisher of this book.

British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data

A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

ISBN-13: 978-1-78308-900-0 (Hbk)

ISBN-10: 1-78308-900-8 (Hbk)

This title is also available as an e-book.

CONTENTS

Acknowledgements

Notes

Bibliography

Index

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my sincere gratitude to all who have assisted me in the preparation of this book. I am grateful to the editorial and publishing staff at Anthem Press for their help and guidance, and to the reviewers for their helpful and constructive comments. The research for this book was completed with the assistance of Small Grants from the Carnegie Trust (ref. SHIO-XCC129) and the British Academy/Leverhulme (ref. SG152256); I am indebted to these organizations for their generosity.

I am also grateful to all those colleagues from the School of History at the University of St Andrews and to those associates who offered assistance and guidance during the completion of the work. I wish to thank, in particular, Prof. Gerard DeGroot, Dr James Koranyi and Dr B. Lee Cooper for writing references for my grant applications, and Prof. Aileen Fyfe for her advice on research funding, grant application and publication. I am particularly indebted to Prof. Colin Kidd for his advice and encouragement, and his supportive, detailed and constructive comments on my work.

Particular thanks must also be expressed to Reverend Prof. Ian Bradley for his myriad helpful suggestions and comments regarding the postwar churches and their attitudes towards popular music. Dr Mark Johnson also provided many helpful ideas on this topic during the early stages of research, and Reverend Edward McGhee offered some illuminating thoughts on the role of folk music within the church during the 1960s. Prof. Simon Frith helpfully shared his recent work on the role of live music within cinemas in postwar Britain.

I also wish to thank those who consented to be interviewed, or who provided vital information, for the project, both in person and via email. Reverend Dr Douglas Galbraith, Chris Charlesworth, John Lockley, Dr Anthony Simons and a former member of a Carnoustie church youth club (who wished to remain anonymous) all gave generously of their time, providing detailed and insightful comments which have greatly enriched the work.

In addition, I wish to express my gratitude to Massimo Moretti of CANALPLUS, to Robert Pirie of St Andrews and to David Reed of the British Music Hall Society for their assistance in obtaining archival materials and sources, and to Tony Jasper for his helpful email correspondence regarding the role of popular music within the church.

I am extremely grateful to all the archivists and librarians who have helped me during the research for this project. Particular thanks must be expressed to the Methodist Church, the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church and the organization Churches Together in Britain and Ireland for permitting access to archival materials; Kate O’Brien and Samantha Blake of the BBC Written Archives for their extensive assistance throughout the project; and Dr Sam Riches of the Regional Heritage Centre at Lancaster University, Charlie Morgan of the Oral History Archive at the British Library and the staff at the IBA/ITA Archive of Bournemouth University for their help and advice during the final stages of the preparation of the manuscript.

Finally, I owe a special debt of gratitude to my family and friends for their generosity, love and support. I wish particularly to thank my parents, John and Rose Ann Mitchell, for all that they have done to help and support me; my sisters, Hilary and Roslyn; my brothers-in-law John and Tom; and my nephews, Fergal, Patrick and Dougal. It is to all of them, and to the memory of my grandmother, Hannah Kirk, my great aunt, Margaret McAteer, my uncle, Thomas Kirk, and our dear family friend Bernadette Doyle that this book is dedicated, with much love and appreciation.

BBC copyright content reproduced courtesy of the British Broadcasting Corporation. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

‘Call it music? This is TNT!’ declared the Daily Mail correspondent Don Iddon in September 1956. He was referring to rock ‘n’ roll, the American musical trend which had suddenly begun to feature prominently in British headlines. As Rock Around the Clock, an otherwise innocuous film-vehicle for American musician Bill Haley, was screened in cinemas in the autumn of that year, press reports of youngsters ‘jiving in the aisles’, vandalizing cinemas and generally participating in ‘riots’ which were, frequently, spearheaded by ‘Teddy Boys’ proliferated. For almost two weeks, readers encountered stories of rowdy ‘teenagers’ aiming fire extinguishers at outraged ushers, of widespread disruption in the streets of Manchester and South London and of Alsatian dogs and plain clothes police officers patrolling cinemas. The incidents petered out relatively swiftly, constituting a typical ‘nine-day wonder’ for commentators, most of whom ultimately refocused their attentions on the rather more significant crisis developing simultaneously in Suez. Nevertheless, with their inflammatory language and palpable outrage, the Daily Mail’s initial reports on rock ‘n’ roll, which described the genre as ‘cannibalistic […] music of the delinquents’, both ‘deplorable’ and ‘tribal’ in character, certainly set the tone for much of the press coverage of the music.¹ Competitors from the Daily Mirror to the Manchester Guardian duly produced various reports on ‘jiving rioters’ ‘whipped into a frenzy’ and ‘savages drunk with coconut wine’ possessed by ‘the spirit of the rock’.² However, the Daily Mail’s original coverage remains particularly infamous, cited not merely as evidence of initial press hostility towards rock ‘n’ roll, but also as a particularly ‘apocalyptic’ articulation of adult responses to the music in society more broadly.³ The papers seemed to confirm this by printing letters from older readers whose appraisals of the music resembled those of Iddon in tone and style; while some believed that youngsters ought to receive ‘medical treatment’ for their enjoyment of this music, others saw the incidents as ‘a terrible indictment’ of modern life and a threat to the cultural integrity of Britain.⁴ The dangers inherent in the licentious ‘jungle beat’ of the music were repeatedly highlighted. Many who were young at the time recalled similar reactions from their own parents and elders. Yet, for many of these youngsters, there was something almost thrilling and galvanizing about the disapprobation which their elders expressed towards their musical choices. As Pete Frame suggested in his history of the music of this era (which he had also experienced and enjoyed at first hand), ‘[m]‌ost teenagers who saw and liked [Rock Around the Clock] did so because it made them feel part of a new movement, one from which previous generations were excluded [… I]t was their music. Music which parents and teachers couldn’t relate to or identify with’.⁵

Rock ‘n’ roll, thus, became a potent symbol of what would later become known as ‘the generation gap’.⁶ The cultural divide between the much-scrutinized generation of British youngsters who matured after the war, thereby benefitting from post-austerity affluence and the attendant increase in educational and leisure-time opportunities, and their parents, whose lives had been shaped by the grim privations of the 1930s and war years, became a particular fixation for social commentators in this period. Young people – particularly perhaps those of working-class background who had left school early and were, thus, primary beneficiaries of postwar prosperity and employment opportunities – found themselves frequently in the spotlight, as sociologists, religious commentators, youth leaders and politicians sought to understand them and, frequently, to help and to guide them.⁷ This perceived need for ‘guidance’ was heightened by a steadily developing concern that this generation, with its perceived affluence, autonomy and increasingly expressive fashions and leisure habits, could grow beyond the control of adults and authorities. Fears concerning juvenile delinquency were, of course, far from novel.⁸ However, highly publicized episodes of general consternation surrounding perceived ‘subcultures’, such as the flamboyantly dressed and reputedly criminal ‘Teddy Boys’ in the 1950s or the strident, factional ‘Mods and Rockers’ of the early 1960s, constituted moments in which anxieties surrounding youth culture reached a climax.⁹ Even in less drastic situations, however, the self-confidence and independence of the young frequently caused concern. This period, in short, witnessed a heightened preoccupation with ‘the younger generation’ and ‘the teenager’, and popular music was often seen to operate at the heart of this ‘new’ generational culture.

Though able to recognize the generalizations and simplifications to which such scrutiny could lead at times, those who were young in this period nonetheless frequently came to embrace this sense of separation from their parents’ generation. Their recollections of belonging to such a distinctive generational culture seemed to intensify retrospectively, as general interest in, and nostalgia for, the era of their youth increased apace. This appeared to encourage many of them to contribute to the mystique which the period attained in popular memory, by proudly asserting their first-hand experiences and shaping of its cultural upheavals. Such generational mythology proved both compelling and enduring. As with ‘juvenile delinquency’, neither ‘youth culture’ nor discourses of generational difference were postwar inventions, but such ideas undoubtedly increased in importance during the late 1950s and intensified further in the 1960s, as the ‘baby boomers’ reached young adulthood.¹⁰ ‘Age gap’ narratives would re-emerge with regularity over the ensuing half-century and beyond, and in an academic context, the important work of the Birmingham Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies (CCCS) helped to develop the idea of distinctive youth subcultures – from ‘Teddy Boys’ to ‘Mods’ and ‘skinheads’ – operating in defiance of societal norms and established structures.¹¹

Music frequently featured at the heart of such subcultures; contemporary studies observed the ways in which groups such as the Mods or the ‘bike boys’ developed intense relationships with the beat and sound of the music to which they listened, using it actively to cement their relationships with the distinctive youth ‘scenes’ which they inhabited.¹² While subsequent scholarship has suggested that ‘membership’ of such subcultural groups was more fluid and sporadic than some of the original accounts suggested, there is no doubt that popular music often seemed to embody, and to encourage, behaviour which ran counter to acceptable adult norms and expectations. Rhythm and lyrics offered bold ‘new form[s]‌ of sexual articulation’ to adolescents, while the intense devotion which fans showed to their idols assumed an all-consuming, quasi-religious character at times; although such developments clearly worried adults, there certainly were many young people who sought to embrace fully the chance to assert and embrace a distinctive, and deliberately ‘rebellious’, generational identity via their musical choices and tastes.¹³

The generationally orientated ‘possessive memory’ of those who experienced their youth within this era also served to reinforce the pervasive idea that rock ‘n’ roll and the values of the adult world were intrinsically incompatible. Rock ‘n’ roll itself was, of course, the first in a series of musical trends associated with the youth market, for which the music industry catered increasingly from the late 1950s onwards.¹⁴ Yet, while the diverse popular styles, from skiffle in the late 1950s and early 1960s to ‘beat’, folk and rock music in the 1960s and early 1970s, variously evolved, combined and flourished, creating an ever-richer musical environment for fans, the basic perception that adults were excluded from such musical worlds, and likely to respond to them with suspicion, dislike and even fear, remained fairly constant.

Until now there has been little concerted attempt, on the part of historians and commentators, to challenge such a perception. That young people asserted strident identities by making musical choices of which their elders were likely to disapprove remains a prevalent popular impression of this era, and, indeed, the notion of generational conflict revolving around musical tastes remains potent today. As a result of such subjective impressions, few have perceived the Daily Mail’s original estimation of rock ‘n’ roll as anything more than a unilateral, even amusing, expression of horrified, ‘square’, adult incomprehension. Don Iddon was, patently, no rock ‘n’ roll fan; he was based in New York City in 1956, and his impressions of the music had undoubtedly been influenced by the incendiary reportage of fairly serious violence which had been linked, by American commentators, to the rock ‘n’ roll scene.¹⁵ Nevertheless, it is seldom observed that the Mail’s initial reports did exhibit moments of greater balance and nuance. ‘To [use the cinema incidents to] argue […] that [Britain] is going to the dogs is ridiculous’, the paper declared. Although the ultimate assessment of the music remained negative, and the paper recommended ‘the discipline of work and service’ as a remedy for the misdemeanours of the ‘rock ‘n’ roll babies’, the editors did express appreciation for the natural high spirits of this ‘grand [young] generation’, and understood the exhilaration caused by the music.¹⁶ Similarly, condemnatory letters which were printed in the Mail were frequently counterbalanced by correspondence which saw little harm in the music. The Mail’s major competitors were, likewise, more balanced in their treatment of the music, and of the ‘rioting’ youngsters, than the excitable initial headlines suggested. The Daily Mirror developed a particularly multidimensional stance on contemporary popular music, recognizing that, while vivid stories of ‘Teddy Boy riots’ boosted readership figures, it was unwise to alienate the younger market which the paper sought increasingly to attract. Its stance on pop was, ultimately, epitomized far more by the ‘disc columns’ written by the enthusiastic Patrick Doncaster, or the excitable coverage of ‘Beatlemania’ throughout the early 1960s, than by stories of youngsters driven to misbehave by immoral music (although such sensational items still made occasional appearances throughout this period).¹⁷ Indeed, although traditionally exhibiting right-leaning sociopolitical tendencies, the Mail itself was certainly not entirely unadventurous in its approach to popular music as the 1960s began. Thoughtful commentary on the ever-developing music scene was provided by well-informed critics such as Kenneth Allsop and Adrian Mitchell, and, like the Mirror and other major newspapers, the Mail eagerly embraced all things Beatle-related as the popularity of the Liverpool group soared to unimaginable heights in the 1960s.¹⁸

In many ways, the newspapers served as a gauge for public opinion during this time – certainly helping to shape it, but also, inevitably, reflecting and responding to developments in wider society. Thus, just as their coverage of popular styles was not one-dimensional, so too were the reactions of the broader adult society to the music considerably more multifaceted and complex than the straightforward ‘generation gap’ mythology suggests. While questioning the absolute nature of adult hostility towards popular music, it is equally necessary to assess the extent to which those who were young at this time truly embraced the idea of belonging to a discrete and unique generation – and to question how far, and in what respects, music served to shape and enhance such self-consciousness. While there is plentiful evidence that young people enjoyed and consumed ‘their’ music with unprecedented enthusiasm in this era, the manner of that consumption – and the extent to which music became a powerful emblem of strident generational identity – deserves closer scrutiny than it has hitherto received. Some undoubtedly built their lives around music – but whether this approach was taken by the majority of youngsters is important to question.

The purpose of this book, therefore, is both to explore the responses of sectors of the British adult population to those forms of music popular with the young from the late 1950s to the early 1970s, and to assess the impact of popular music on generational identities and on relations between generations. It does not attempt to deny the existence of adult animosity and condemnation, nor to minimize the genuine love and excitement which modern pop styles inspired in so many young people in this era. However, in broad recognition of the essential, innate complexities of the human condition, and also of the fact that this was a particularly turbulent era for Britain, as the country emerged from postwar austerity, and attempted to adapt to cope with myriad sociocultural and technological changes, the book seeks to identify the ‘grey areas’ within the ‘black and white’ account of a generational divide fostered and epitomized by conflicts revolving around musical tastes. It thus contributes to a growing body of scholarship which seeks, in various respects, to reappraise the period from the late 1950s to the early 1970s – from the thoughtful, detailed survey-texts produced by Dominic Sandbrook, David Kynaston, Brian Harrison and Peter Hennessy, and the far-sighted work on postwar youth culture by such authors as John Davis, Bill Osgerby and Adrian Horn, to the revisionist pieces which have instigated a questioning of the assumptions surrounding intergenerational hostility in this era – such as the seminal work of Selina Todd and Hilary Young, the writings of David Fowler and recent publications by Patrick Glen and Klaus Nathaus.¹⁹ The book is also indebted to those scholars who have approached the music scene of this era from an historian’s perspective – in particular, the recent studies of Gordon Thompson and Keith Gildart, and the earlier works of Brian Ward and Dick Bradley.²⁰ It is also informed by the writings of those who work within the discipline of popular music studies – particularly the rich and varied output of Simon Frith, who has commented extensively on many aspects of the postwar music scene, including its relationship to youth culture.²¹ The book builds, in various respects, upon the foundations provided by these works, all of which inform and enrich its principal arguments.

Methodology

The book also seeks to break new ground in the structure and method which it deploys. It adopts a thematic approach, eschewing a more sweeping, chronological focus in order to offer ‘snapshots’ of certain facets of British society in which popular music appeared, in various ways, to make a particularly distinctive impact on older people and on the attitudes of the generations towards each other. The fact that the social institutions and entities discussed in the book are, frequently, strongly associated with negative responses to popular music and cultural change, and with intergenerational conflict, also makes them particularly pertinent to the study. Three key subjects of focus have been chosen. The first chapter explores the particularly pervasive and fundamentally important area of family life, probing in greater depth the widely held assumption that popular music styles frequently caused conflict, and otherwise invariably enhanced generational divisions, within families during these decades. As highlighted, family life has never been considered a particularly sympathetic forum for modern pop music, but the extent to which this was truly the case during this era becomes the focus of this section. The next chapter focuses on the reactions of various Christian denominations to popular music, with a particular emphasis on the activities of church-based youth clubs which experienced a significant, if fleeting, surge in membership numbers from the late 1950s to the 1960s. The churches were affected particularly keenly by social changes during this era; facing decline, they either lamented the circumstances which had effected their receding significance, or were determined to adapt and modernize. Their representatives are, accordingly, usually seen to belong to one of two principal ‘camps’ regarding their attitudes towards popular music, in its perceived capacity as an emblem of changing times; either they adopted a strongly condemnatory stance or else they tried, too earnestly, to embrace the music in the hope of attracting the next generation – to the embarrassment of their younger clients and to the irritation of older parishioners. Assessing the accuracy of such stereotypes becomes the dominant purpose of this chapter, particularly via an exploration of the ways in which church youth clubs – often a vital social outlet for young people – attempted to utilize modern popular music to cater for their young patrons. The final chapter examines a facet of the subject which has often been fleetingly remarked upon as a distinctive curiosity of the era, but which has never been extensively analysed – namely, the introduction of young popular musicians into Variety Theatre shows, a practice which began in the late 1950s but which remained quite prevalent into the early 1970s. The successful young musicians, it was hoped, would help to revive the moribund theatrical form and bring much-needed revenue to struggling theatres. While this was less successful, in the short term, than had been hoped, and while the new generation of performers was not made uniformly welcome by audiences or older co-stars, ultimately the worlds of popular music and Variety came to make a distinctive impact on one another. The generations, and the performance styles which they represented, increasingly fused and intermingled, both onstage and, later, as the Variety genre successfully transferred to the rapidly developing field of television, via the ‘light entertainment’ show. These cultural fusions would have a dramatic, and enduring, impact on British popular culture.

Owing to this thematic focus, the book inevitably engages with ideas articulated within scholarly works which focus on more specific facets of this period. These include the work of Angela Davis, Laura King and Claire Langhamer on postwar family life, the valuable survey of the Youth Service by Bernard Davies and the collections of essays co-edited by Tony Jeffs; James Nott’s recent monograph on dance-hall culture, which informs the discussion of leisure and dance in the first chapter; and the rich literature on the nature and extent of secularization in postwar Britain, as it focuses on the attempts, by churches, to reach out to the young, and to embrace their culture, as their traditional status receded. The seminal works of Callum Brown, Hugh McLeod and David Bebbington on postwar religious change have proven particularly pertinent.²² On Variety theatre, there has been considerably less scholarly work completed. Oliver Double’s Britain Had Talent constitutes an invaluable guide to this distinctive theatrical form. He also provides helpful, if succinct, remarks on the manner in which popular musicians entered the Variety sphere from the 1950s onwards. Understanding of the broader world of popular theatre during this period is also augmented by the earlier work of Peter Bailey and J. S. Bratton on Music-Hall (considered to be the Victorian ‘ancestor’ of Variety) and Vivian Devlin on the distinctive Scottish Variety tradition.²³

None of the institutions discussed in the book existed in isolation, of course, and each chapter inevitably finds itself exploring many supplementary aspects of postwar British society and culture which affected, in various respects, the development of its central themes and entities. For instance, all three chapters, in different ways, devote considerable attention to changes in leisure habits, focusing especially on dancing, methods of socializing and the consumption of radio and television programmes. The first two chapters, meanwhile, consider the changing significance and role of the home during the postwar decades. Gender remains a recurrent sub-theme throughout the whole work, as does the concern with juvenile delinquency which proved so dominant during this era. Similarly, the work inevitably comments upon the attitudes of major public bodies, other than those which constitute the principal focus, towards popular music – these include education authorities, the government, the press and broadcasting companies (particularly the BBC).

The work is, therefore, highly focused in its thematic approach, contributing considerably to the developing scholarship on each of the distinct areas under discussion. However, it may also be ‘read’ as a broader social survey of this period as a whole, such is the range of subject-matter which it covers, both directly and in passing. Nevertheless, while endeavouring to explore ‘Britain’ during the period 1955–75, it cannot claim to be a truly exhaustive study of all regions, peoples and countries which comprised the nation. While questions of ethnicity receive some intermittent coverage, the preponderance of evidence and examples relates to what may be considered ‘dominant’ white British cultures. Scotland and England, overall, provide the majority of evidence, although the nature of the coverage does depend on the particular subject-area under discussion. Chapter Three, for example, tends, predominantly, to explore Scottish and English developments within Variety culture, although there is still some fluidity, in recognition of touring performers and shows. However, the chapter on family life and popular music, particularly via its deployment of oral histories, draws examples from a somewhat broader range of geographical areas. There is, thus, a certain malleability – and perhaps, at times, selectivity – in the geographical focus of the study; again, this largely arises from the thematic approach adopted. However, despite this, the work still aims to contribute to understanding of British society as a greater entity.

Defining Terms: ‘Popular Music’ and ‘Generations’

Both of the key terms which are particularly central to this study – namely, ‘popular music’ and ‘generations’ – are far from straightforward to define, their essentially ‘slippery’ nature acknowledged by scholars who have endeavoured to explain them.²⁴ Semantic debates surrounding the term ‘popular music’ have featured prominently in scholarship, with some commentators, including Simon Frith, noting that it is often deployed quite specifically to describe music which (unlike the more intellectualized, artistically focused ‘rock’, which constructed itself as a separate entity from the late 1960s onwards) is created for overtly commercial purposes.²⁵ The frequently deployed abbreviation ‘pop’, in turn, represents, effectively, a crystallization of this, connoting catchiness and, possibly, ultimate disposability.²⁶ Other scholars have, however, questioned such defined boundaries, perceiving ‘no clear difference’ between pop and rock, and, indeed, readily accepting the broad synonymity of ‘pop’ and ‘popular’. As Motti Regev notes, even those who try to assert differences between rock and pop often find themselves inadvertently conflating the two genres.²⁷ Regev also historicizes the definition process, concluding that the most significant question is not the identification of absolute, ‘inherent’ differences among music styles, but the manner in which they are perceived and constructed by society and by commentators within different time periods.²⁸ Frith himself is not unequivocal in his definitions; elsewhere in his extensive body of work, he has acknowledged the manner in which different styles frequently overlap.²⁹ This book finds it most helpful to adopt a fairly malleable definition of the ‘popular’, founded upon identification of whichever styles appeared most prominent and successful at different points throughout the period.³⁰ Such breadth, in fact, suits this era, during which a great variety of named genres emerged. These include, of course, rock ‘n’ roll, imported from America in the mid-1950s via the work of Elvis Presley, Bill Haley and Chuck Berry, and adopted by young British performers such as Tommy Steele, Cliff Richard and Marty Wilde; skiffle, its near-contemporary, popularized particularly by the exuberant Lonnie Donegan, and often considered a gentler, more domesticized alternative to rock ‘n’ roll; so-called ‘beat group’ music, a label associated with the proliferation of guitars-and-drums outfits which emerged in the early 1960s (as epitomized by the Beatles); and folk music, which experienced a transatlantic revival in the postwar period, and became a very stylistically varied entity in 1960s Britain, while also, frequently, demonstrating some concerns with contemporary sociopolitical issues. ‘Rock’, as a more ‘artistic’ style, also becomes a significant concern in parts of the book, while other musical styles, from calypso and folk to trad jazz and ‘twist’, make more fleeting appearances.

However, the book is not particularly concerned with identifying or delineating such genres precisely. Certainly, each possessed notable basic key features, deployed particular instruments, styles or rhythms, and often developed distinct bodies of fans. That the core of this ‘fan base’ was predominantly young must also, of course, be acknowledged. As noted, young people had become a crucial focus for the record industry by this time.³¹ The famous and widely-cited surveys of teenage consumerism conducted by Mark Abrams highlighted that ‘teenagers’ (whom he identified as ‘unmarried’ young people between the ages of 15 and 25) were responsible for almost a quarter of national expenditure on ‘records and record players’.³² Linkages between ‘youth’ and popular music were also undoubtedly further strengthened by the fact that modern music styles were, generally, performed by very young adults. Gordon Thompson perceives this to have been one of the most significant developments within the postwar music industry, as the arrival of styles which could be played by musicians lacking conventional training served to breed a new generation of performers able to challenge traditional adherence to professional standards of musical skill.³³

Nevertheless, it was also the case that none of the styles so eagerly embraced by the young was, in any sense, musically pure. As scholars frequently note, rock ‘n’ roll itself was, originally, effectively a marketing label utilized to sell a particular fusion of styles to young American consumers.³⁴ The tendency of commentators to generate publicity for the music scene by boldly announcing new trends, many of which, in actuality, shared essential characteristics with other concurrent trends, became a prevalent feature of this era. Tommy Steele and Cliff Richard had begun as skiffle performers, and Lonnie Donegan started his career in a jazz band, but by the late 1950s they were usually closely identified with one single musical style. Similarly, the ‘death’ of rock ‘n’ roll was frequently announced at the end of the 1950s, following the disappearance of several of its most significant original performers (including Presley, who entered the army in 1958, and Buddy Holly, who was killed in an aeroplane crash the following year), with critics often speculating on whether skiffle or calypso would replace it as the next ‘fad’. This was not, however, the attitude adopted by all observers. Even at this stage, there was some recognition of ‘musical intertexuality’ – of the ways in which the different styles could, and did, fuse together, and of the difficulties inherent in separating genres absolutely.³⁵

Such fluidity and blurring of boundaries actually provides the book with one of its most significant recurring themes – that is, the many ways in which the essential dynamism and fluidity of the popular music scene, particularly from the mid-1950s to the mid-1960s, served to make the world of pop more accessible and comprehensible to adults. Critics were certainly highly aware of the great stylistic diversity within the music scene, particularly during the early 1960s; by this time, as rock ‘n’ roll had ceased to seem such a controversial topic of news, commentators frequently deployed the term ‘beat’ to describe various tunes and songs which, though often deemed suitably melodic and pleasant, or redolent of older popular styles, had nonetheless discernibly borrowed or adapted the rhythms with which rock ‘n’ roll had been strongly associated.³⁶ The once-feared ‘beat’ had, it seemed, become a positive strength for the music industry, offering various exciting possibilities for other musical styles. What was observed within this ‘folding back of musical codes’, as Kevin J. Donnelly terms the process, was not a straightforward dilution, but an ideal and exciting compromise between old and new.³⁷ The label of ‘beat’, thus, often became, at this time, a byword for an interesting and commendably experimental amalgam which might offer something to audiences of all ages. The flexibility of music terminology was, thus, not only observed, but also positively capitalized upon, by some writers. At certain points, in fact, it seemed to assist adults to attain a better comprehension of the contemporary popular music world, and even, at times, to perceive it as more accessible to them. As the various chapters of the book demonstrate, such perceptions afforded adults of diverse occupational and cultural backgrounds – from church ministers to Variety producers – a ‘springboard’ of sorts, from which they could leap into the musical world of the young, and attempt to utilize it for a wide variety of leisure-related, social, spiritual and even political purposes. In recognition of this, it makes sense to continue to adopt a flexible approach to definitions. The deployment of ‘popular’ as an ‘umbrella’ term for the various genres popular during this period is, thus, not uncontroversial, but it does prove effective for the purposes of this study, and to encapsulate the varied and changing character of, and contemporary discourses surrounding, the many forms of music which it discusses.

Like popular music, ‘generation’ is a term which has been much debated by scholars, with sociologists setting the pace for the discussions which have ensued over the past two decades.³⁸ It is also similar to ‘popular music’ in that it may be interpreted loosely or with more culturally based specificity. As Bryan S. Turner asserts, ‘in epistemological terms’ there are ‘broadly speaking two approaches to the definition of generation’ – the first which centres upon the straightforward identification of a ‘cohort of individuals who are born at a given time’, and the second which hinges on a conception of ‘generational cultures and consciousness where the specific date of a cohort may be less important than the general historical setting of generations’.³⁹ Both have been valuable to historians, but Alistair Thomson cautions against overly straightforward usage of the term, arguing that it is unwise to conflate, unthinkingly, ‘birth cohort’ with ‘generation’. ‘The formation of a generation’, he argues, ‘requires that it be collectively recognised and articulated at the time of its inception, in the attitudes, practices and ways of being a self-conscious generation, and in how it is defined by others – most frequently, by ‘the older generation’. [… The] active generational consciousness’ of the group in question, he continues, ‘is sustained by a cohort that continues to define and remember itself as a distinctive generation, and to be represented as such in the wider culture’.⁴⁰ This notion of generation as construct, dependent upon shared, consciously asserted, and retrospectively re-emphasized values,