Rock: A Social History

Brief review of _Rock and Roll: A Social History_ (1996), by Paul Friedlander.

Well, I read the first half of the book, and I see no reason to continue. 
The problem is that Friedlander, a professor of popular music, fails to
tell me anything I don't already know about the history of rock.  I would
imagine his book would serve as a good primer for those who know nothing
about how blues evolved into rock and roll, which was then exported to
England, only to return with the Beatles, etc., but, if you already know
this story, Friedlander doesn't add much.  In fact, think of his book as a
text for freshmen fans of rock music, which means that if you, like me,
are already well into your second decade of listening to and thinking
about the Who, it's too elementary for you.

(Please don't take that paragraph as an invitation to begin another war
about whether or not "My Generation" is rooted in the blues or is,
instead, the first rock song to break free of blues conventions.)

Friedlander's short chapter on the Who is interesting only because it
seems to acknowledge that Pete, Roger, John, and Keith were as important
as the Beatles and the Stones.  Indeed, Friendlander states that, while
the Who didn't receive the commercial success of those two rival bands,
its music "most directly and thoughtfully confronted the philosophical and
political issues of the day" (121).  (I say "seems, by the way, because
the Who's chapter follows those on the Beatles and the Stones, which
implies a lesser importance.  Furthermore, the Who's chapter is just
twelve pages long, while the Beatles warrant twenty-three pages and the
Stones get fifteen.)

While all of us here on this mailing list will certainly agree with him
about the Who's importance, Friedlander fails to expand much beyond his
initial statement and, instead, gives brief biographies of the band
members and summarizes their career, rather than offering the sort of
in-depth analysis of Pete's writing and the band's performing I would have
preferred.  But I shouldn't expect so much from this book since its
purpose is to be an overview of the whole of rock, and not a definitive
statement about any particular band or individual.

To sum up, Friedlander's book, even though it is fairly well-written,
isn't worth buying unless you know absolutely nothing about the history of
rock.  It would be a better idea, I think, to skim through it in the
library or bookstore and save your bucks for the new edition of _Maximum R
& B_ and for the forthcoming biography of Pete.

Jim McWilliams
mcwill@siu.edu