Reading:
- Norma Coates (2007) “Teenyboppers, Groupies, and Other Grotesques: Girls and Women and Rock Culture in the 1960s and early 1970s,” Journal of Popular Music Studies
- Barbara Ehrenreich, Elizabeth Hess, Gloria Jacobs (1991) “Beatlemania: Girls Just Want to Have Fun,” The Adoring Audience: Fan Culture and Popular Media, ed. Lisa A. Lewis
- David Dempsey (1964) “Why the Girls Scream, Weep, Flip,” New York Times, 23 February 1964, SM15
Viewing:
- Videos of Beatles fans, listed to the right of this post, under "Period Film Clips" (these are the artifacts for the posting)
9 comments:
Question:
David Dempsey suggested that “the method of expressing this idolatory [obsession with a singer] seems to be changing.” (Dempsey 68) Is it really changing? Is the fandom surrounding Justin Bieber, for example, significantly different from the fandom of the Beatles? How and why?
Artifact Discussion:
David Dempsey’s article “Why the Girls Scream, Weep, Flip” drove me crazy. He had a bunch of assumptions about the teenage fans of the Beatles that I think were most likely untrue. For example, he suggested that crazed female fans were often unattractive and socially awkward and finally finding an outlet for sexual and social expression through the group craze (Dempsey 70). After reviewing the videos, I don’t think this was reflective of all of the women that constituted the Beatles fandom. First of all, many of the female fans seemed to show up for the concerts with their close girlfriends. The girls in “Beatles fans interviews” seemed to know each other already. There were women of varying levels of physical attractiveness. And lastly, the women in “Do you think the Beatles are going out of style?” seemed to me to be smart, articulate, confident, and assertive.
Dempsey also suggested that although the fans “continue to jump with joy” that it isn’t really and is simply “what they think is joy” (Dempsey 70). It is probably true that some fans pretended to enjoy the Beatles simply to jump on the bandwagon of the sweeping social craze, but to imply that this reflected the majority of the “rhythmically obedient” fans is presumptuous (Dempsey 69). Dempsey also acknowledged that the Beatles fans constituted “millions of females between the ages of 10 and 30,” (Dempsey 68) but then argued that the crazed “rhythmically obedient” fans were the adolescents whilst the “emotional” fans composed the rest of the fans. This was probably not the case; I know that Twilight had a hardcore following from adult women that call themselves the “Twi-Moms.” There were probably hardcore adult female fans of the Beatles.
I thought Barbara Ehrenreich’s, Elizabeth Hess’, and Gloria Jacobs’ article “Beatlemania: Girls Just Want to Have Fun” was more insightful. Ehrenreich et al suggested that “in a highly sexualized society” that called young women to be “enforcers of purity within their teen society,” that the Beatles craze offered young women an opportunity to “protest the sexual repressiveness” (Ehrenreich et al, 85). After listening to the fans in the videos talk about wanting to marry George Harrison, theorizing about when he was going to get married (and they seemed to have given a lot of thought to this!), or only being willing to trade their ticket for a date with Paul McCartney, I think it’s obvious that it was to a certain extent, an expression of romantic or sexual desire. In “Beatles fans get interviewed,” one girl says “these Beatles have looks, they have talent, they just have brains” describing why she was going crazy for the Beatles rather than other boys. But at the same time, I would not say that romantic desire was the only motivation behind the Beatles craze. I’m sure some women went crazy for the Beatles because of the quality of their song-writing and performance. There were certainly men in the video that cited these reasons for being Beatles fans.
Discussion Question:
I found it interesting that the “Beatlemania” article claims that “compared to Elvis, the Beatles were almost respectable.” (Ehrenreich 101). Since I had asked about Elvis’s reputation among the older generation in a post last week, I was wondering how the reaction of the older generation to the Beatles’ emergence on the entertainment scene would compare to that towards Elvis. After all, in the first Beatles’ fan video, it sounded like many parents of the girls who went to see the Beatles did not approve of their venture.
Artifact Discussion:
The videos of the Beatles’ fans on the blog demonstrated many of the stereotypes of female fans mentioned in the three articles. In the first video, the girl who claimed that she came from 90 miles away and the others who disregarded their parents’ potential objections to seeing the band typified the point in the “Beatlemania” article that “the Beatles were the objects; the girls were their pursuers” (Ehrenreich 90). The resolve with which the fans declare their dedication to seeing their favorite band and ignore their families’ wishes supports the idea that they are “rebelling against an adult world” who are not as enthusiastic about the Beatles (Dempsey 70). From skipping school to wearing what they think the Beatles would appreciate, these fans clearly are subservient to their idolatry of the band.
In the second video, the craze with which the female fans talk and the strong determination in their responses given to the interviewer further support the image of girls being obsessed with rock stars. The young man who is interviewed gives a calm and perhaps more “coherent” statement about the Beatles. Also, the child who appears at the end of the video claims that the Beatles are not his favorite artist – which is significant in terms of gender because children are often considered “androgynous” before going through puberty.
The third and fourth videos depict mobs of girls gathering to watch the Beatles live (third video) and screaming at them during a concert (fourth video). The second girl sitting in the row of fans in the third video (around 0:51 min.) made a particularly strong impression on me because she says that she wants to “touch the Beatles… if I could just get to touch Ringo, you know, backstage or anything.” She epitomizes the teenybopper whose sexual attraction to male rock stars fuels her fanaticism. In addition, the screaming female fans that nearly drown out the Beatles’ music when they start and stop playing in the fourth video demonstrate the “manifestations of female sexual desire (screaming, groupiedom) for male rock stars” (Coates 81) often associated with Beatles-obsessed girls.
Question:
The Beatlemania: Girls Just Want to Have Fun article makes the claim that women’s obsession with the Beatles was “the first and most dramatic uprising of women’s sexual revolution.” Do these authors of the article believe that the women’s fascination with Elvis Presley was not a sexual revolution, or are they simply claiming that the Beatles were able to target a broader audience since they were not explicitly sexual in their lyrics and dance moves and thereby were sexy in and of themselves?
Artifact Discussion:
In the third video, the girls going to the Beatles concert would not sell their tickets even for a great deal of money. They said that the only thing they would exchange for their tickets is the opportunity to touch a Beatle, meet them in person, or go on a date with one of them. One girl (the second person with the microphone) says that the Beatles turn her on. It is obvious that girls express sexual desire for the men in the group. In the first video, a girl being interviewed says they have looks, talents, and brains. The girls in the third video admit that they are crazy for the cute, adorable Beatles. Also, the most people interviewed in the third video have the opinion that if George were to get married, it would wreck the Beatles and ruin the group. Obviously, many women enjoyed the fact that (at the time) 2 members of the band were unmarried.
I found it rather amusing that, in the third video, a group of women paid over a hundred dollars in a day alone to rent a helicopter in order to try to see the Beatles. The year before that, they had chased them on the freeway and had received a ticket that had cost them money as well. The amusing part was that they were trying to seem “classier” than the girls who screamed and hollered at the Beatles, but in my opinion, stalking the Beatles seems even creepier. The articles we read were definitely accurate in the fact that many young women, even ten-year-old girls, were crazy for the Beatles. In the fourth video in which we see performances, we can notice that the Beatles dress in suits, have appropriate lyrics, and avoid obscene gestures and dance moves. According to the articles and my opinion, this makes the group appeal to a wider audience, while still alienating many parents (and thus maintaining the appeal due to teenagers’ desires to go against what their parents like). However, there are some aspects about which I think the articles are incorrect. For instance, girls in the film clips did not seem socially awkward at all; many seemed to enjoy the Beatles together as a group.
Question:
In her article, Coates willingly admits her obsession with the Beatles, but she is embarrassed of her prior fascination with the Monkees. However, the early Beatles’ songs such as “Hold Your Hand,” “Please, Please Me,” and “When I Saw Her Standing There,” resemble the “teenybopper” style of the Monkees. Why, then, is it more socially acceptable to listen to and enjoy the Beatles than the Monkees?
Artifact discussion:
I knew the Beatles were teen heartthrobs during the sixties, but I was still shocked by the amount of screaming in the first video of their Washington, D.C. concert. The second video in which various girls express their desires to marry various Beatles members reminds me of widespread obsession with boybands such as N’Sync and Backstreet Boys during the 1990s. But unlike the pre-dominantly female fan base of these teen boy bands, the Beatles maintained a large male fan base as well. Even in the first video with the screaming girls, the cameraman zooms in on several male fans just as excited as the girls in the audience. Perhaps the television and media at the time just focused on the female fan base of the Beatles because they made more noise.
In the last video, the television reporter comments that there are no boys waiting in line to see the Beatles. Perhaps female fans were more devoted because they appreciated the aesthetic of the Beatles as well as their music style. Male fans, fearing homosocial implications, probably would have avoided waiting in line for hours on end to see a Beatles show.
Question:
I was interested to understand the difference between Elvis and the Beatles. The fan mania surrounding Elvis seems to me to be similar to that of the Beatles, and yet Beatlemania is described in the articles as the first of its kind. What was different about Beatlemania? Also Elvis posed something of a sexual revolution for males, but Beatlemania is said to have been the beginning of a sexual revolution for females. Doesn’t the subjugation of the groupie female garner more sexual power for males?
Artifact Discussion:
It is interesting that Beatlemania as written about in the articles and other media is primarily thought of and delegated to females, especially teenage ones. As others bloggers have pointed out, many times in the artifacts, the camera would pan to young men who would seem just as excited to be watching the Beatles as their female counterparts. The difference, of course, is the idea of sexuality. In television interviews, we see that the young men like the Beatles because of the musical talent and style, while the young women describe them as “heartthrobs” and talk about wanting to marry various members.
That idea of sexuality is goes back to some of the ideas brought up earlier in the class, of rock music being gendered. Now, we see male “heartthrobs” performing for female “groupies” as described in the Coates article. This is another step in the gendering of rock music. I think that it is interesting that television focused such gendering questions on females (Males were asked “why do you like the Beatles”, while females were posed “when will the Beetles get married” and “which do you like the most”). It seems to me that the Beatlemania was not something created and fostered to be so big by teenage girls alone, but more of a media phenomenon. It seems almost a fad (albeit a long-lasting fad) to like the Beatles for young girls. However if so, it was certainly a fad that would masculinize the genre of rock and disenfranchise women in that field for years to come.
Question: The "teen-ager" is something that has been apart of our society and will continue to be for a while. When thinking about some of the artists or groups in my life time that have inspired this phase, I can only picture attractive young men that make music for society's youth. Could an artist who make to same music but is not essentially an attractive figure get the same attention as Elvis or the Beatles?
Discussion: The whole concept of the "screaming teenager" is something that I always found comical, while the presence of these artists are hero like in the eyes of teenage girls. In school girls would often compare boys to these artists. At the same time the level of importance placed on these artists seemed to be something that is unobtainable for young boys.
The interviews by the Beatles' fans showed their infatuation towards them. After watching the clips it seemed that The Beatles were on a level in these girls minds that that no average Joe could reach. As a male I find it ridiculous the amount of effort that teens put in following these groups. Although I have a great amount of respect for these groups I find the screaming and jumping a bit too much. Still, after reading the Dempsey article, I find it hard the wrap my mind around the idea of the teen culture. "you can't expect girls of 15 or 16 to have a mature set of values." Its a phase that females growing up with me went through and will continue to be true the youth in the future. Hopefully, they will look back a realize how ridiculous it really was.
Question:
In the article “Beatlemania: Girls Just Want to Have Fun,” the need for teenaged women of the 60s to remain “pure” until marriage (or at least until a very long time into a relationship). Why, then, if virginity was so valuable, would the music and media of the time aim to sexualize women? Was this just a less damaging outlet through which women could release their innate sexual desires or was it a way in which society tested women, in order to better weed out the “indecent” women from the “decent” ones?
Artifact Discussion:
I’ve always known how popular The Beatles were with girls in the 60s and how crazy their fans could get, but watching these videos really drove home the idea of how much more important the image of The Beatles was over their actual music. In the first video, for example, the screaming audience is so loud you can barely hear the guys singing at times. All these girls are so excited just to be in the presence of their idols that they don’t seem to be paying much attention to the live music. The fan interview video also demonstrates this, as all the girls who are asked about when George Harrison will get married mention how “it would ruin the group” if he got married. It is just crazy how much more important the sexuality and potential availability of each band member is over what their music sounds like. Shouldn’t fans be following a band around because they like their music more so than what they look like?
Something I was really struck by was the interview video which included a male. It is so rare to see The Beatles’ fanbase being in any way depicted as male, even though so many young males of the 60s were crazy about The Beatles too. They don’t, however, seem to be nearly as crazy as the women. None of them were waiting in line to see The Beatles as early as some girls were; they didn’t pull stunts like the girls in the helicopter, and they don’t seem to make as much noise during the shows as the women do. I wonder how much of this is reality and how much is manipulation from the media. Were male fans quieter in general and less Beatle-obsessed, or did the media choose to only show the female fans? I think it might be the latter, as the media usually likes to portray male musicians as very female-friendly. This usually increases the general popularity of a musician as women become fans because they want to be with him, and other men become fans because they want to be like them. Based on this theory, I’m curious as to why Elvis is now seen as an artist with a mostly female audience, while The Beatles, who during their time were just as popular (if not more so) with women, are now seen as a band that everyone loves. Is this the point when how good each artist’s music really is comes into play?
Question:
The reading, "Beatlemania; Girls Just Want to Have Fun," argues that teenage girls' craze over The Beatles was due to a cultural context. More specifically, Barbara Ehrenreich argues girls of that young age were sexually repressed during this time and their obsession over The Beatles was to rebel against this double standard. However, I would argue this theory. In no way, shape, or form do I think that young teen girls today are expected to remain sexually repressed. Yet, I think that they have similar reactions and emotions towards pop stars today. Do you think that young girls treat stars such as Justin Bieber the same way they treated The Beatles? If so, do you think it is due to a similar social context that Ehrenreich describes, or because of other factors?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTCm8tdHkfI
Artifact Discussion:
I think that the videos of The Beatles fans portray Ehrenreich's view of girl fans much closer than that of Norma Coates' argument. The first important thing that I noted from the videos is the very similar reasoning that the girls use to describe the passion for The Beatles. When they are asked by the interviewer why they love The Beatles, they always give some superficial response about how they're fun and cute and bring happiness to the world. They want to go on dates with their favorite Beatle rather than discuss their music with them. Because of this, it is easy to agree with Ehrenreich's argument that The Beatles were used as a means for young girls to release their sexual repression. Also, the girls in the crowd of The Beatles concert in Washington start shrieking the loudest when the music sharply changes in tempo or volume. This is congruent with David Dempsey's explanation that these crazed girl fans exemplify "rhythmically obedient" types. As Dempsey says, "They like to keep time to the music, and the crazier the music, the better they like it."
Another thing noted very easily in the videos is the contrast between the boy and girl fans. It is clear from the interviews with the boys that they are just as big of fans as the girls are. However, when one boy is asked why he likes The Beatles, he describes how he appreciates their music, their sound, and their talent. Thus, it is easy to understand why critics would use terms such as "teenyboppers" and "groupies" to associate girl fans with rock and roll music. Norma Coates' argument does not hold much ground as evidential from the videos because the general view of the girl fans displayed shows that they liked the image of The Beatles rather than have an appreciative taste for their music. Furthermore, the boys shown at the concert are rapt in the music, clearly enjoying the sound, while the girls just scream and shout chaotically in a "rhythmically obedient" way.
Question: Why weren’t women more visibly a part of rock culture during this time? Has this at all changed? In what ways has it stayed the same? In what ways have the stereotypes of the groupie perpetuated in today’s society in the way we think about the musician/ fan relationship or women and music(rock)?
Within the clips posted, viewers are able to see the articles in action: the girls who were portrayed as being groupies and teeny boppers; the ostracizing of these groups and the television coverage that emphasized the female portions of the audience, which in effect may have contributed to the displaced abjection the articles described within the critiques of Beatles music and the status of the groupies of rock n roll. However what is also seen in these clips is the agency employed by many of these female fans; through watching one becomes enlightened to the important element of choice that these young women have; when they are asked if they would give up their tickets, they say they wouldn’t for anything other than to meet the Beatles.
While critics of the time may have framed this in a way that highlights the mania that surrounded these screaming fans who were floored with adoration for this male band, the articles reveal a perspective that it is important to consider the possibility of the Beatles as fulfilling a fantasy for some females, and that through what was described as this “mania”, they expressed a self-awareness that might even be seen as transgressive. In the interviews there were even some women who claimed they were taking a helicopter to see the Beatles because it was important for them to complete a task—since they’d started it, they would finish it; it was not necessarily that the Beatles had a huge degree of power over them.
Finally, there were women in these clips who wore casual clothing to the concert and women who spoke to the musical talent of the band showing for one thing that not all female fans were to be lumped into the same category of fan-type, and secondly, reiterated in the reading that questions the light in which female fans were cast: as girls a part from them music and outside of what rock was really all about. The reading really calls to attention the male/ masculinized perspective that may have dominated and subjected the criticisms of fans during this time; but in doing so, it also allows people to think of new ways in which to view “groupies” and women in general, as people who were more involved in rock and roll culture (as artists, musicians, etc.) than what they may have been given credit for.
Post a Comment