Source A states that in 1964, The Beatles were infamous, they were everything of the time. The country stood still if anything to do with The Beatles was happening. The source states that “instead of the evening rush hour an extraordinary silence and emptiness had descended upon London, on England, on Britain. ” This statement is a bold one, basically saying that the Beatles were every British person’s favourite band. Most certainly an overstatement but definitely a widespread feeling felt by many in the 60’s.
Joanna Lumley’s source A is an animated, descriptive piece that paints the picture almost of 1964. She describes in detail, the feelings and emotions of Beatles fans: “John, Paul, George and Ringo being cool, hip, smart, lippy, charming and funny. It was very heaven to be alive. ” I think that this explains well that the Beatles’ impact on the 60’s was huge. I think that the source also describes how the 60’s was moving with the times very quickly, maybe even in some cases ahead of it’s time. The music, of the Beatles and other bands, was very influential, still influencing people nowadays.
If the 60’s really was how Joanna Lumley describes it then it was an era dominated by “Beatles-mania. ” In source A it says “the nation held its breath because that evening the fab’ four were appearing live on Juke Box Jury. ” Also it says that “No-one was to be seen by the flower-stall, the newspaper stand. ” I think that overall this statement not only describes how the Beatles were everyone’s everything and they were the utmost importance in society, but that it really was “Heaven to be alive” because music for the first time was society’s favourite subject.
The impact of the Beatles was obviously phenomenal, changing cultural feelings and becoming one of the most important things in the public’s lives. The reasons for their amazing impact and influence is not described in detail except for that the members of the band were “cool, hip, smart, lippy, charming and funny. ” A catch to anyone! Does the evidence of Source C support the evidence of Sources A and B about the effects of pop music in the 1960’s? Explain your answer. Sources A and B in general describe the Beatles era and the 60’s as being obsessive and fanatical.
Concerts such as the Mad Mod Ball at Wembley were incredibly scary according to source B, describing that the crowd were so mad and maniacal that the bands performing were “Terrified. ” Source B also states that “I doubt if the stones ever played so close to their audience again. I can remember their terrified faces, when they were trying to get off the stage, surrounded by the heaving, maniacal, screaming mob. ” In comparison to Source C, A and B state that the obsession of the fans was over the top and that sometimes scarily crazy where as Source C states that “it was never as crazy as they used to say it was.
Source C however is an opposed opinion as it is from Paul McCartney, a performer where A and B was from the fan’s viewpoint. I think that this is still able to be compared effectively but not directly, because it is still analyzing the time of life and subject. Source C. although being a performers opinion, still has a sense of a fan’s mind, and as Paul McCartney admits he used to be a big fan of music in his youth, I think this is important in showing how McCartney’s views are possibly more truthful than that of Joanna Lumley or other fans.
In analysis it can be noticed that Source C instantly opposes the views of fans as it says that “it was never as crazy as they used to say it was. ” Also Paul McCartney says that “They’d only want your autograph. ” Sources A and B suggest that the fans wanted to scare their favourite bands. I do not think that Sources A and B support Source C in the way that the fans were maniacal and intentionally scared the bands but in a part of Source C, Paul McCartney does support A and B as he states “So Johnny Ray and people like that would run and get their jacket ripped off. A main reason that C does not support A and B is because Paul McCartney felt like he was on the same wavelength as the fans and therefore understood them, he felt this way because he says that “I used to do the same thing myself. ” If Source C was from another performer that did not feel the same way as Paul (probably a majority of other performers) it would probably support Sources A and B. The main point to be taken from this source is the opposing views of people. For example, one person’s terror maybe another person’s fun.
What’s interesting about it is that Paul McCartney believes that you have to understand and comply with fans than to oppose them, as he mentioned that “They’d only want your autograph. ” Whereas Johnny Ray, who didn’t try to see it from a fan’s viewpoint, would have his “jacket ripped off! ” How helpful are Sources D and E in helping you to understand why many young people believed that the 1960’s gave them opportunities that had never had before? Sources D and E describe the radio and television of the 60’s. Source D explains a television schedule, that is very different from what we know of now.
It does not describe the various programmes because there was only one. It simply says that “Cathy McGowan invites you to meet a galaxy of stars. ” I think that this is a lot more direct and that it targets the audience personally more than the “TV times” of nowadays. This is a possible reason that the younger generation in the 60’s felt more opportunistic. The way in which it boldly states “The weekend starts here,” is very clever in drawing in the audience, it is a phrase and method that is still used a lot today, hearing it one “Top of the Pops” every Friday..
Source E is description of the radio in the 60’s. The source clearly states that the radio stations did not target the teenage audience which “was clearly the way of the future. ” So when pop song playing, radio Luxembourg came on to the radio, the teenagers were able to hear all the pop songs that they had dreamed of: “in those rock famished days and hearing all the pop songs we had ever desired? ” I think that source E is good in explaining how not only the teenage generation felt about the boring BBC radio show but how they overcame it and made good of whatever they could. Even if the reception was lousy, the songs were faded out after a second or so. ” Comparing the two is interesting as it shows how television clearly progressed faster and before radio.
It is also strange how the music orientated media (radio) did not play the music of the time like pop music etc. and how television did. It is hard to understand why radio did not play the most popular music. A possible reason for the failure of progress on the BBC radio show, is that maybe the governing bodies of the BBC felt it inappropriate to have “that kind of music on the radio. I think the BBC soon realised that this angle was not the best way of broadening their audience, soon changing it’s music to pop and rock genres. BBC radio has since evolved to become a widespread, successful radio franchise. Use Sources F and G and your own knowledge, to explain why some people came to see the 1960’s as a period of bad influences in British people. Sources F and G are statements about from a singer, Janis Joplin and an extract from the daily mail on the subject of the clean up TV campaign.
Source F, the extract, describes a campaign that was in action at the time, “The women of Britain clean up TV campaign. ” This campaign was a religiously motivated campaign that tried to “clean up TV” because many women of the Christian faith felt that TV was no longer supporting Christianity and that it no longer inspired “purpose or hope. ” Mrs Whitehouse, the campaign organiser obviously felt that music was not as important as most people did and for that fact felt that music was not as suitable any more. Music probably could be construed as a bad influence for obvious reasons as bad lyrics or “unruly actions. A brilliant example of these thoughts and feelings is when Elvis performed a “sexually provoked dance while performing on stage on a television programme. This eventually ended in him being filmed from the waist upwards from then on! I think that the campaign was probably over the top with what they thought were bad influences but I can also see how many things may have been construed as bad influences. For example, although not a sixties band, the sex pistols were extremely frowned upon when on television.
The main “Clean up TV” points being made were that the BBC, generally an “on the level” television channel was becoming too slack with the content that it broadcast. Mary Whitehouse, the campaign leader felt that Christian people writing for the BBC were not getting their work shown as the BBC were no longer as supportive of the Christian faith as they used to be. Whether this is a truth, it is not know, but it was certainly a widespread thought that television and pop culture was a “bad influence mixture. ” I think that simply people who did feel this way were simply not moving as fast with the times as youth, television and radio.
They simply did not understand that times were drastically changing and that no longer would television or society be a prayer saying, carol singing community anymore. Pop culture was taking over and changing society. Source G describes Janis Joplin, a singer that was deemed a bad influence sometimes. The source describes Janis as “a rebellious teenager” who in the end “died of a drugs overdose in 1970. ” Anything involving drugs was obviously a bad influence and when in the media as much as a singer, even more so.
The 1960’s was probably seen as an era of bad influence because in some ways it was, e. g. Drugs and Alcohol became a lot more commonly used. The big problem will probably always have been drugs. Although I think overall the 60’s was a bad influence many aspects of it were strong and inspiring. Such as the freedom and actions of people who did not want to conform and the ability to express emotions through music and poop culture. It’s safe to say that possibly, without the sixties, we would still be a country of conformity.
The 60’s taught us to say what we want and even if drugs were a big bad influence, people with common sense knew not to do them. In comparison, the two sources do suggest that the sixties was an era of bad influence but maybe people of the time failed to see the strengths of the decade as we do today. Overall, I feel that certainly now the teachings and lessons learnt from pop culture in the 60’s, area a lot more appreciated. For instance, not many people in the modern world look back upon the sixties as being a bad time, I n fact many feel that it was possibly the greatest time of their lives.
In summary Janis Joplin was, in my opinion, an inspiring person, to come from a rebellious and tough childhood, to a famous blues singer but eventually I believe she became a bad influence, finally dying of a drugs overdose – not inspiring whatsoever. Study all sources and using your own knowledge and agree or disagree with the statement “Popular culture in the 1960’s did more harm than good. All of the sources suggest different things, whether “popular culture in the 1960’s did more harm than good” is not a fact that is known and calculable, but from the sources given a good estimate can be made.
Sources A and B say that the fans of bands were maniacs and crazy. Source C is a slight contradiction to the above and is a different viewpoint, a performer’s, not a fan’s. Sources D, E, F and G describe the media at the time and the older generation’s opinions of the youth culture of music and society. Source H is a look at the financial situation of the youth of the 60’s. Source I compares the numbers of students in full education from 1961 compared to 1969.
I think that although all of the sources do not directly support or oppose, and in some cases even relate, they all give a sense of the feeling and atmosphere of the time. I think that all together the sources portray the 60’s as being an era of change, in society, music and culture. From sources A, B and C I can tell that music was a huge influence and part of people’s lives. I also think that although probably influencing some people to take drugs and do similar activities to the bands, but I also think that the music of the era inspired many people to follow dreams and access the non-conformist side of their personalities.
I think the rebellious attitudes actually did more good for people as it showed them not only a different way of life but also that “No,” they don’t have to follow rules that were laid down upon them. I think that Paul McCartney’s views on the 60’s are probably a little more realistic than that of Joanna Lumley. I think that Joanna may have slightly exaggerated and because she was looking back a long time her memories may have become more than they were.
I believe that the 60’s were a “mad” time of life and that the influence of music and culture had taken over but I wouldn’t go as far to say that they did more harm than good. As I said, I think that they inspired people to do good more than they influenced them in a bad way. Sources D and E are interesting in the way that they show how television evolved quicker than radio did. Many would make the assumption that radio, being the music world, would have evolved and followed the popular music quicker than television, but from sources D and E, I can see that it didn’t.
The only reason I can think why radio didn’t evolve before television is that radio was not thought about as the younger generation’s main source of music, television was. And the fact that shows like Juke Box Jury were on the TV back up that point. Sources D and E do not really suggest whether pop culture did more harm than good or not, but that some people at the time thought that it did, with the clean up TV campaign and the BBC’s apparent refusal to play popular music as soon as television, this is certainly what one can perceive from the sources.
What they definitely suggest is that music was most definitely the biggest part of pop culture and that it was the biggest influence, whether it was bad or good. Sources F, G and H suggest many things about the sixties that all the other sources don’t. For a start (particularly F) they suggest that not everyone believed the popular culture of the sixties was a good thing. Source F shows how Christianity was being affected and the older generation frowned upon some of the content of so called pop culture.
The “clean up TV campaign” is a prime example of how people agreed that pop culture was a bad influence in the 60’s. I think that pop culture, excluding drugs and drink influences, was a positive influence on the public. I believe that the campaign was O. T. T and that they exaggerated how bad or good it was. From source H, it is apparent that youth had more money than ever when pop culture was around, so the influences from it must have been positive in some respect because people had more money.
Overall the sources A, B, C, D, E, F and H give sense of a very positive atmosphere in the sixties and that pop culture influenced for the better. Source G would support the statement that popular culture did more harm than good, because it describes how singer Janis Joplin was influenced in a bad way, as she died of a drugs overdose. This is clearly a bad reflection of the sixties but an honest one. A well known problem in the sixties but not a common one. Source I basically disproves any claims that pop culture was bad for the 60’s and later generations.
It is the simplest yet the most effective in making people realise how good for people the 60’s pop culture was. 190,000 more people were in full time education in Britain in 1969 than in 1961, (200,000 in 1961 and 390,000 in 1969. ) a clear and simple statement that the 60’s really was an era of change and that the influence overall was a very positive one. As you may have noticed I have used the word era a lot, this is because the 60’s really was an era, because as it is known, an era, no matter how long or short, is a significant period of time that is important to the people and society it involves.