- Karal Ann Marling (1994) “When Elvis Cut his Hair: The Meaning of Mobility,” As Seen on TV: The Visual Culture of Everyday Life in the 1950s”
Artifact for posting:
- One of the videos below. (Disregard what syllabus says about listening/posting)
Duke U seminar on relationship between popular music and masculinities in the United States
11 comments:
Discussion Question:
Since Elvis was considered to be a disgraceful rebel by many people of the older generation, did his participation in the draft remedy his image? After all, military service involves strict training, discipline, and a suppression of individuality – all of which would tame Elvis’s character. The article for today’s class notes that he did return from the military as a changed man, but did this change the opinion of those who scorned him?
Artifact Discussion:
The third Elvis video on the blog post has several distinct characteristics that reminded me of our class discussions about military music and the “When Elvis Cut His Hair” article. For one thing, the music of the video had a march-like rhythm similar to those of drill songs. It includes the phrase “Hut, Two, Three Four” repeated multiple times during the song – this phrase is often used in war movies and even actual military training. Nevertheless, the image of “G.I. Life” depicted in the clip is romanticized, and the uniform and patriotic atmosphere serves more to bolster Elvis’s appearance than to represent the military accurately.
In addition, the video portrayed Elvis as an object of female affection, a trait of his that was noted in the “When Elvis Cut His Hair” article and is known to the general American public. In this video, one woman who moves to the beat of Elvis’s song in her chair angers her partner with her behavior, and he even tells her, “You’re with me.” The way that she just casually responds to him and resumes her listening to Elvis anxiously shows that she really likes Elvis – and perhaps his music, too. Also, there are several women dancing to the song in front of Elvis and his band; the way that they face him and dance to his music further emphasizes his “electric effect on female fans” (“When Elvis Cut His Hair” 179). Elvis himself dances in front of them with some hip swaying in a manner reminiscent of his notorious “abdominal gyrations” that infuriated so many critics (“When Elvis Cut His Hair” 176). These points affirm the romanticism of soldier life in terms of being handsome and able to attract many women.
Question:
Did Elvis inspire other performing artists to add more motion to their stage performances? Did the fact that Elvis helped the TV to become used for what it was intended (motion) increase sales of television sets?
Artifact Discussion:
The first video posted, “Hound Dog” by Elvis Presley, demonstrates a milder version of Presley’s style. It shows off his amazing vocal skills and his winning stage appearance. Personally, I think that Elvis has a great voice, even though only one article of his time praised his talent. Many of the critics of his time opposed his gyrating, thrusting, shaking dance moves. However, from the video, it does not appear that Presley took the dancing out of hand. He merely moves slightly to the rhythm of the music. I think his motions are appropriate, and the minor movements help bring to life the song. Especially based on today’s standards, Presley’s dancing is far from obscene. At the time, though, it is understandable why people might criticize Elvis. Elvis was the first to venture into this realm, and the times were generally more conservative than they are now.
It is important to note, however, that this video is not representative of Presley’s usual style. While I am sure that Presley sustained the same sonorous voice quality in all of his songs, I think that “Hound Dog” showed less of the dancing, wild Elvis than other performances did. In the article, “When Elvis Cut His Hair: The Meaning of Mobility,” we read that Steve Allen “dressed Elvis in white tie and tails, took away his guitar, plopped him down on a set full of pseudo-classical columns, and had him serenade a dog while standing perfectly still.” This is certainly talking about the “Hound Dog” song. Steve Allen could find nothing objectionable in Presley’s performance and signed Presley up for three upcoming dates.
Although so many people opposed Elvis, he continued to have success, particularly because the younger generation (teenagers) was crazy about him. This shows the weight of the young opinion on the media.
When did more rock n’ roll bands begin to jump and dance around on stage? Elvis may have been the first, but who came after? I know bands like Led Zeppelin and The Who were known to be crazy performers but they performed mostly in the seventies.
Artifact Discussion:
What I noticed about the first two videos was the contrast of his clothing and the lack of shots towards his lower body. The quality of the videos, which I’m sure is similar to the quality seen on American TV in the 50’s, was poor. In spite of that, because of his outfits you can distinctly see the brightness of his shirts and ties in comparison to his dark suit. The same cannot be said of the third clip. His army uniform does not pop even though it is in color and higher quality. In addition to the haircut it seems like he has made a large transformation in his act. His clothes in the first two are exactly what Marling was talking about in her article. Although it does not seem like he is wearing hot pink here, Elvis certainly sports and interesting outfit. In the second clip he is wearing a possibly gray jacket with specks of white, a black shirt and a bright tie. I doubt any workingman would wear that to his job. Yet, a working army man would certainly wear a uniform like the one in the third clip.
Also, to me it was weird that they so briefly shot his lower body. I know that screenshots of his lower body were banned on the third showing of the Ed Sullivan show and highly disputed elsewhere. In the quick glimpses of his “notorious left leg” in the second clip you can see the movement that made him famous. But it is also clear that filming his upper body was the safer way to show off Elvis.
Question: Many (including Marling) note that Elvis was very influential in the fashion and behavior of the younger generation in the 1950s. However, could it be possible that a changing society was responsible fore Elvis’s relatively radical behavior and he only represented a catalyst? Do societies always move toward a more liberal nature as they are established for long periods, especially in terms of masculinity?
Artifact discussion:
After watching Elvis on the Steve Allen Show it became apparent that this show was trying to contain a radical side of society that was deviating from the puritanical values that some considered was the pinnacle of vanilla society in the 1950s. The means of containing Elvis came in the form of limited pelvic and dance motions, serenading to a literal hound dog, and being dressed in black tie. Elvis’s behavior and demeanor were uncharacteristic of the colorful, theatrical, and sometimes even flamboyant (for his time, especially). I find it interesting that this change of what society deemed masculine and respectable (depicted in Steve Allen’s show) to the enormous personality and Duck’s Ass that describes Elvis happened so quickly.
I believe Elvis was a catalyst to spark this kind of radical behavior in his generation. While so much of the younger population, regardless of time, is influenced by idols that they see in media, it is no surprise that the radicalization and liberalness of society evolved like it did in the mid-twentieth century. Marling also cites the importance of Elvis being enlisted in the military. Though this may be seen as a sobering-up moment for Elvis and potentially killing his career and rapport with his younger generation, it only widened his fan base to include an older generation that lingered for their childhood. All in all, Elvis’s influence on not only societal behavior, but media’s way of information dissemination remind of us the power of popular figures in society.
Was Elvis really the first celebrity of his time to use clothing as a means for creative expression? What other visual components added to his musical persona?
In her article, “When Elvis Cut His Hair,” Karal Ann Marling emphasizes the differences between the wild, colorful clothing that Elvis displayed on stage and that of the typical middle and working-class man. She suggests that Elvis sought to embody a type of amplified leisure style, wearing “souped-up versions of contemporary leisurewear” (174). Prior to reading this article, I had no knowledge of the fact that Elvis’ style stood so far outside the social norms of fashion during the 1950s. This is probably due to his lasting legacy in the fashion world as many teenagers bought up any and every article of clothing that looked like something Elvis would wear. His leisure suits also set the precedent for the clothing styles of disco musicians in the 70s with his use of loud colors and luxuriously soft fabrics. However, in these videos, he doesn’t appear to be wearing anything notably out of the ordinary for the time period.
I also find it interesting that Manning mainly focuses on the visual aspects of Elvis in her article, sticking to the subjects of his hairstyle, clothing, and physical gestures onstage. All of these visual characteristics strongly add to Elvis’ innovative rock-n-roll style, leading me to view him as a musician as well as a visual performance artist for the new medium of television. The videos indicate the importance of the performance aspect of his music as well (ex: the inclusion of a real live hound dog in Hound Dog, the military costume in G.I. Blues).
Question:
What effect did Elvis’s return and changed persona have on the younger generation that idolized him? Did they reject him like the critic in the NY Times that Marling cites? Could that have been a catalyst toward a style more radical still?
Discussion:
Elvis’s progression in style and dress up to the point of his induction into the army is particularly interesting. As the article points out, you can see in in the earliest video clips that his dress is rather stiff and unmoving, his hair slicked and solid. Later in his career his hair becomes messier, and his hair and his clothes move more with his dancing as he performs. As the youth of the 50’s rebelled against their WWII-bred parents, it seems that they embraced the messiness and lack of stiffness more and more as Elvis’s popularity skyrocketed. Elvis played to the youth’s desire for personal liberation and individual expression. It was a rebellion before rebellion was mainstream.
However it is interesting to note that, as mentioned in the article, Elvis’s entire demeanor changed upon returning from the army. We can start to see that in the third video as his sideburns are shorter and he is wearing a uniform. “He came back [in 1960] vowing never to let the famous sideburns grow out again” (167). In fact he decided to ding duets with Frank Sinatra, if anything a symbol of the old guard, an idol to his parents’ generation, and a former scathing critic of rock and roll. In this way I can see Elvis as a representative, something like a face for youthful rebellion in America at the time. He became more and more messy, more in-your-face, and at the time some thought more feminine in his dress and actions as he entered his latest teenage years and early 20’s, but eventually he was forced by society to mature into the type of G.I.-type manhood that was typical of the age.
I find it interesting that we talked about soldiers last week and the effect chanting-type music has to mold them into what a soldier “should be”, and comparing it to Elvis’s return as a “real man” as society deemed it at the time, the G.I.
Is it fair to say that there is a connection between "transgression" or "individualism" and "masculinity"? I'm going to hesitantly say "no" because other famous transgressors like Madonna and Lady Gaga are women.
In "When Elvis Cut His Hair," Karal Ann Marling asserts that the hype around Elvis caused a shift in traditional gender roles with regards to hair grooming. Marling states "with their poodle cuts and Italian boy looks, girls were appropriating manly preroga tives of grooming while robust males were spending more time and money on their long, wavy hair (whichrequired frequent applications of ”control wax”) than their dates or their mothers did" (Marling 167). One of the implications of this that fascinates me is that John Berger's formulation in which "men act and women appear" is, perhaps, reversed. Or at the very least, both men and women are appearing. This is illustrated in the music video "GI Blues" in which it is so obvious that Elvis is quite conscious of his "image" and how he is being perceived by the camera. As is demonstrated in this video, Elvis is a master of cultivating a sexually appealing image, which seems to be historically a feminine responsibility. It's also interesting that the only people on stage are men. All the women are voyeurs. Another important assertion that Marling makes is that Elvis' hair symbolized transgression and individualism. His hair was not neatly and predictably combed into compliance -- at a time when this was very much expected. (I cannot remember seeing so much hype surrounding a celebrity's hair other than Jennifer Aniston's famous 'Rachel' haircut that every woman in America went crazy for.) It seems clear to me now that it's not just the lyrics of the music that create expectations about "masculinity" but also the performer's image and behavior too.
Question:
I'm interested in knowing where/who Elvis's inspiration came from. Was his music truly the beginning of this change in pop culture, or did it stem from earlier forms of rebellion and individuality?
Artifact Discussion:
After watching the "G.I. Blues" video, my critical opinion of Elvis has swayed a little bit. That's not to say that I was personally critical of Elvis, but I understood where his critics were coming from after reading "When Elvis Cut his Hair." In the video, you can see the pelvic thrusts and other phallic gestures that the article discusses. However, I do not believe that they are as accentuated as his critics believed them to be. Due to the social context of the time, his dance moves, fashion style, and music genre was clearly very contrasting to what people were used to. However, I believe that it was the change in style that people weren't used to which was interpreted as crass. If you put this video into the social context of today, though, I believe that nobody would read into his moves at all.
It is more so the individualistic rebellion and break from the social norm of the time described by the article that people had issues with, and were thus uncomfortable with. Thus, they linked these eccentric fashion choices of Elvis directly to his dance moves and his entertainment persona as a whole. This is why the article refers to critics saying that these moves should remain constricted to burlesque dancing. Really, what these critics were condemning was his drastic change in style that was sweeping over the nation. However, I don't think that the moves themselves should have been vilified, even back then.
Discussion Question: Elvis style and demeanor has always interested me. I think that the way Elvis carried himself played a major factor in his success. If Elvis had been presented in the public eye different from the ways that made him unique do you think that he would have been as successful?
Artifact Discussion:
I think that a change in the way Elvis dresses and carries himself can be seen after reading the article and watching the video clips. His tone is especially different and even with the difference in the theme of the songs there is some aspect that make me lean towards what the article points out. There are several arguments that talk about Elvis' career at this point. Whether is was the army or other factors I could sense a slow fade in his music and in the attention and reactions he was getting from others. Its intersting what Evan mentioned about the clothes because when you think about it, the way someone dresses usually is consistent. Given the certain circumstances the way people dress is something that doesnt change much. The changes in how Elvis presented himself were obvious and could be a point of discussion in whether or not that was a sign for the changes he went through during this time period.
Elvis' later appearance could be associated with rebellion. When we think of a rebel some of the characteristics that Elvis possessed in his later days come to mind. The "Shake, Rattle and Roll" song made picture Elvis as the rebel not only because of his appearance but also because of the lyrics and the way he moved during the performance.
Question: Was Elvis Presley seen as more of a source of the changing masculine identity, or a reinforcement of ideas that were already underway yet unpopular? What did his image do for other (particularly male but also female) artists at the time and those who came generations after him as “individuals”, as “mobile bodies”, and as men (or women)?
The article talks about mobility being a part of Elvis Presley from the fluidity of his hair and the color of his clothing (which serves as a reflection of the expansion of the male wardrobe) to the movement of his hips. His style, and individuality could be seen as a near opposite to what military life may necessarily conform soldiers to, but a huge part of what it may have meant to be a man and perhaps, an upper class man, at that time—leisure and freedom.
The second video showing Elvis depicted him as a freer spirit, wearing clothes that magnified his movement and hair that ultimately danced with his body. We could see that a public that saw his style as symbolizing youth/ rebellion was able to sensor his appeal through the way he was depicted on television, at times, strictly waist up, and in the hound dog video, through less movement and in a tux/ suit.
However in the third video, “GI Blues”, the scene that Marling describes, after returning, with a different, shorter haircut, in uniform, and a covering a smaller area with his dancing, Elvis is in a way, transformed into the image of a “man”: collected, working, courageous/patriotic. Others see him as obviously still having perhaps threatening sex-appeal, as one man comments to the woman with him who is enjoying his music, “you’re with me”, but his overall performance seems to have shifted to that of a “new manhood”. I wonder if critics and the general public saw this persona as more relatable, authentic, mature, or reconcilable to the views of the time. In any event, both the article and the artifacts reveal the changing nature of what was seen as masculine with the political/national climate that held potency in the realm of artistry, music, and the public response to it.
Question:
After reading the article for today, I wonder how much of Elvis’s fame came from his looks and how much from his music. Had Elvis not had a signature hairdo and controversial dance moves, would his music still be as popular and well-known as it is now? Is the success of a musician linked more directly to his/her music or his/her appearance?
Artifact Discussion:
In the first video (Hound Dog), it’s pretty obvious how uncomfortable Elvis is. Maybe it’s the tux, maybe it’s the acoustic arrangement of the song, maybe it’s the fact that he’s singing to a dog in a top hat. I think it’s probably a combination of all three things. “The King” is out of his element completely. He’s looking really clean, and he’s forced to do some sort of gimmick for a song that’s popular enough on its own (not to mention it’s not supposed to be cutesy). Then there’s the fact that he’s only being backed up by guitar, which robs Elvis of the full sound he’s used to performing with and, most importantly, dancing to.
Post a Comment