'Rock Me on the Water' Review: Something New Came Along
By: Frank Gannon (WSJ)
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
People of a certain age will remember—with embarrassment or nostalgia, or both—"Rock Me on the Water," a seminal song from Jackson Browne's 1972 debut album. Ron Brownstein borrows the title for his admiring, perhaps occasionally too admiring, cultural history of Los Angeles in the early 1970s. He believes that, in those few years, L.A. came to dominate America's popular culture, transforming not only the music scene but movies, television and politics as well.
It was quite a transformation. As Mr. Brownstein nicely observes, in the mid-1960s Los Angeles was dismissed as "a vapid desert of silicone and sunburn." While the rest of America was on the verge of exploding or imploding over civil rights, urban unrest and the war in Vietnam, American movies, records and TV shows were (in the words of Ronnie Milsap's later song) "lost in the Fifties."
In 1961, Newton Minow, the FCC chairman, described American television as "a vast wasteland." Mr. Brownstein quips that it would have been equally accurate to call it "a vast cornfield." He makes the point by listing the CBS schedule for May 4, 1970, the day Ohio National Guardsmen opened fire on a crowd at Kent State University. Viewers that night could watch "Gunsmoke" (which had premiered in 1955), followed by "Here's Lucy" (successor to 1951's "I Love Lucy"), "Mayberry R.F.D." (a spin-off of 1960's "Andy Griffith Show") and "The Doris Day Show."
By 1972, CBS shows like "All in the Family" and "M*A*S*H*" were addressing topics like bigotry, the so-called generation gap and the war. Meanwhile, Mary Tyler Moore was bringing the challenge of second-wave feminism to the patriarchy of a Minneapolis newsroom. In 1974—the apogee year for L.A'.s influence, in Mr. Brownstein's view—new sitcoms introduced an African-American family ("Good Times") and a multicultural neighborhood ("Chico and the Man").
Through the first stages of 1960s turmoil, Mr. Brownstein notes, the Hollywood studios continued to churn out formula flicks. Big changes began in 1967 with "Bonnie and Clyde" and its transgressive celebration of criminality, and "The Graduate," which "condensed the generation gap into a single bedroom," as Mr. Brownstein puts it. In 1970, the Oscar for best picture went to "Midnight Cowboy," a kind of X-rated buddy film. "The Godfather," "Chinatown" and "Blazing Saddles" followed, as well as the Vietnam documentary "Hearts and Minds."
As for the music scene, it was reaching new levels of technical competence and expressive range. In addition to "career-redefining albums" by Linda Ronstadt, Joni Mitchell and Mr. Browne, there were records from other artists, including Neil Young, Frank Zappa, Tom Waits and Gram Parsons—refining the distinctive "SoCal sound." Mr. Young's "On the Beach" was an unexpectedly bleak ecological lament; Zappa moved engineering into the realm of art; Mr. Waits used his gravelly Sprechgesang to channel Jack Kerouac and Jack London; and Parsons explored his concept of "cosmic American" music on a haunting solo album that was recorded in 1973 and released posthumously the next year.
Mr. Brownstein, a veteran reporter and now a senior editor at the Atlantic, makes all this cultural history memorable by telling much of his story through profiles of figures like Jack Nicholson, Norman Lear, George Lucas, Ms. Ronstadt and Mr. Browne, and the Eagles' Don Henley and Glenn Frey. Of Warren Beatty, he writes: "He drove down Sunset Boulevard in his black Lincoln Continental, a shark inside a whale, and flirted with women in the next lane."
Some major culture-shapers were not so famous. Robert Wood, for instance, began running CBS's Los Angeles affiliate in 1960. The station endorsed Richard Nixon for governor in 1962, and in 1964 Wood delivered an on-air editorial denouncing Berkeley's Free Speech protesters as "witless agitators." A few years later, now in New York and network president, he realized that change was inevitable if CBS were to remain profitable, and his outlook changed accordingly. He hit it off with writer-producer Norman Lear, defending his scripts from carping and interference. They were together in the control room on Jan. 12, 1971, when the first episode of "All in the Family" was broadcast. From that moment American TV—America itself—would never be quite the same.
Probably the most important figure in Mr. Brownstein's portrait gallery is the agent-impresario-mogul David Geffen. He was 20 when he started out in the William Morris Agency's mailroom, and he was 29 when he sold his Asylum record label to Warner Communications for $7 million. A brashly seductive operator who channeled Svengali and P.T. Barnum, Mr. Geffen created or curated American popular culture during the 1970s by discovering, befriending, bankrolling, counseling, recording and managing many of L.A.'s biggest talents and brightest stars.
What does all this popular history add up to? Mr. Brownstein argues that, thanks in no small part to L.A.'s cultural revolution, Americans became more suspicious of authority, more sensitive to women's rights, more lenient toward premarital sex and more tolerant generally. He notes the irony that many of these changes were brought about by apparently chauvinistic white males. He notes as well that the music scene was somewhat behindhand. Male musicians refused to believe that "chicks" could really rock.
With a book so rich in detail, it may be ungrateful to point out what isn't there. Mr. Brownstein overlooks musicians like Harry Nilsson, Lori Lieberman and Patti Dahlstrom. There was also a lively comedy scene that was jump-started in 1972 when Johnny Carson moved "The Tonight Show" to Burbank and Mitzi Shore opened the Comedy Store, where a new brand of humor developed, more freewheeling and less neurotic than its East Coast counterpart.
L.A.'s cultural revolution ended with a whimper around 1975, Mr. Brownstein suggests, with Bruce Springsteen's "Born to Run" and the nascent punk scene in Manhattan's East Village, among other harbingers of a shift eastward. But its effects are still with us, for better or worse. Mostly, it is hard not to think, for better.
Mr. Gannon was a special assistant in the Nixon White House.
Tags
Who is online
42 visitors
One could point to it as the decade that began the decline of a great civilization.
The Book is:
ROCK ME ON THE WATER
By Ron Brownstein
Harper, 439 pages
Sorry, but I beg to differ in opinion here Vic. I don't see the 50s as some great utopia, but then again, I'm not a middle-aged white male either. The 60s and 70s opened the eyes of many to see real issues affecting real people.
I only wish I was middle-aged, Lol! It's fine if you like things as they are, but you should have a point of reference to make the comparison. In every part of our civilization, the 20 years, or so, following WW2 was clearly it's high point IMO.
For white males it was, but not anyone else.
I disagree. I think it was good for everyone.
You mention women. Ok what has the "feminist movement" done to women? Women can't think for themselves. They must follow the left's doctrine on abortion and now we are seeing the destruction of women's sports in order to accommodate the "transgender movement/narrative."
So you believe that women can't think for themselves?
They certainly can if they are allowed to. Feminism prevents that from happening.
Yep. Like we should go back to sperate water fountains and sundown laws.
Before we play the old broken record, let me show you how black Americans were also recipients of America's golden age:
"According to a report released by the Urban Institute, the state of the African-American family is worse today than it was in the 1960’s. Before you become offended and charge , “What about the White family?!” The report also discloses that families of all ethnicities are showing a decline; however, the African-American household has suffered the worst decline. Plus, YourBlackWorld.com offers you news specifically about the state of Black America, so, our focus will be on the state of the African-American family.
In 1950, 17 percent of African-American children lived in a home with their mother but not their father. By 2010 that had increased to 50 percent. In 1965, only eight percent of childbirths in the Black community occurred out-of-wedlock. In 2010 that figure was 41 percent; and today, the out-of-wedlock childbirth in the Black community sits at an astonishing 72 percent. The number of African-American women married and living with their spouse was recorded as 53 percent in 1950. By 2010, it had dropped to 25 percent.
The original report titled “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action,” was released in 1965 by the late New York Sen. Daniel Moynihan. Moynihan, who was the assistant labor secretary at the time of the report’s release, laid out a series of statistics on the African-American family. Moynihan, in his report’s conclusion declared, “ at the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time .” Sadly, the outlook of the African-American family is more bleak than when Moynihan wrote his conclusion.
“ An analysis of national data indicates that little progress has been made on the key issues Moynihan identified ,” wrote Gregory Acs, of the Urban Institute, in a statement released with the report. “ Further, many of the issues he identified for Black families are now prevalent among other families .” The Urban Institute’s report also added to the original scope of the Moynihan report to include the rate of incarceration, employment, and educational attainment in the African-American community. “ Since the Moynihan report was released, another major social trend has put further strains on Black families — the mass incarceration of Black men ,” Acs said. “ By 2010, about one out of every six Black men had spent some time in prison, compared with about 1 out of 33 white men .”
A demographic breakdown by race was not available for the 1965 report, but numbers beginning in 1974 showed disproportionate numbers of African-American men being sent to prison. In 1974, it was nine percent of Black men compared to one percent of white men. By 2010, that had risen to 16 percent of Black men and three percent of white men. The report did note that number has started to decline slightly among Black men.
Unemployment for African-American men remains more than twice as high as among white men. For white men in 1954, unemployment was zero. For African-American men in 1954, it was about 4 percent. By 2010 it was 16.7 percent for African-American men and 7.7 percent for white men. In 1954, 79 percent of African-American men were employed. By 2011 that had decreased to 57 percent. For Black women the numbers rose. In 1954, 43 percent of African-American women had jobs. By 2011 that had risen to 54 percent. The trend among African Americans was mirrored among whites, but in both cases white men and women fared better in terms of employment. Although the earnings gap between African-Americans and their white peers has narrowed, it still persists with Black men earning about 70 percent what white men do. In 1960, Black men earned about 60 percent what white men did.
There is one area of improvement: High school graduation. In 1964, fewer than half of African-American students finished high school. That compared to roughly 70 percent of white students. That has since risen to about 85 percent for both Blacks and whites. But, the number of Black students that repeat grades or were suspended was higher than for whites. Half of Black male students have been suspended, compared to 21 percent of whites."
For those who are occupied with "race."
Allowed to?
How so?
I bet you were all AGHAST when they burned their bras too!
Has nothing to do with what I said...
Typical.
Yes, allowed to by the bullying feminist leaders.
How so?
First of all, Women who were pro life should have been allowed into the "Women's March." Second, Women's sports should have been protected from transgender men. Third, women should be proud to act feminine. A mantra that tells them to simply copy men and acquire masculine traits is actually demeaning to women. Feminism should honor all responsible choices, including becoming a wife and mother.
I don't need any man to 'allow'' me to think. I have been doing that quite well on my own since 1952.
Man? We were talking about feminist control of/influence over women.
No, YOU are talking about alleged 'feminist control of/influence over women'.
Excuse me?
Allowed to?
Bullying feminist leaders?
Wow, you need to come into the present day and time.
There is nothing stopping any woman from thinking for themselves, much less by these alleged 'feminist leaders' and 'bullying' 'feminist leaders' you are referring to, whoever they are??????????????????????????????????????????
I should have said anyone or any group. Apologies.
You seem to be making the case that things were better for black Americans when they were still segregated. Admittedly, when segregation was banned that didn't do away with prejudice and how white Americans treated black Americans, and in fact it forced interaction and integration which was vehemently unwanted by many whites. Another unforeseen effect was that black owned businesses suffered since previously they had a captured clientele since black Americans weren't allowed to shop and eat at white establishments so once segregation was ended their black customers could then go shop and eat at white owned establishments which took a lot of the money formerly kept within black communities and dispersed it into white communities.
But none of that addresses the fact that most of what you list as a decline of black Americans after the 1950's was due to an already existing prejudice in our justice system and poverty among the black communities. Whites use and deal drugs at the same or higher rates than black Americans, yet black Americans are 3 times more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted and serve time (and serve longer sentences) for drug crimes even though they represent only 14% of the population. So while the dismantling of segregation allowed black Americans more access to formerly whites only neighborhoods and businesses, it did nothing to address the prejudices already existing among the police, courts, local governments and neighbors living in those formerly whites only areas and merely brought them into more contact and thus more conflict.
But should black Americans wanting equality be blamed for that? Should they really be told they were better off not trying and that they should have just accepted segregation so some old white pieces of shit bigots could live out their 1950's after WWII prosperity, their "Leave it to Beaver" lifestyle where black Americans were expected to just be grateful for their table scraps?
I think if you actually ask black Americans whether they feel better off today or pre-1960's most will strongly proclaim that they are better off now with the opportunities and freedoms they get today even though they recognize the continued legacy of systemic racism they experience almost daily in just about every corner of American society.
"Segregation was never good for black people. We were not better off during Jim Crow. Not even a little bit. Those who wax nostalgically about how we thrived during segregation and leveraged it to our economic advantage to support and sustain healthy, strong black communities are just straight-up wrong.
We need to stop romanticizing life for African Americans before integration. The overwhelming majority of black people were trapped in abject poverty (or at best, a fragile subsistence), locked out of nearly every profession or industry where they could gain access to significant income and wealth, regardless of their level of education or social-economic status. We were also excluded from Wall Street and other centers of capital and investment. (In fact, for much of America’s history prior to integration, not only could we not acquire stock and commodities—we were counted as livestock ourselves). As recently as the 1950s, the rare African American with a Ph.D. could hope for no better than a job as a teacher or minister.
And the great black entrepreneurs in the age of segregation operated with absolutely zero legal protection or civil rights , essentially deprived of any legal means of protecting their assets/wealth. Laws both civil and criminal were set up so that white people could take property, money, land, etc. from black people with impunity. And what they couldn’t take, they would destroy—the devastating 1921 race riot that destroyed Tulsa, Oklahoma’s “Black Wall Street” is the best known, but far from the only example of this truth. Countless black people, including (maybe especially) the educated and relatively wealthy—including many WWI veterans who tasted freedom in Europe—were lynched (concurrent with the establishment and rise of the Ku Klux Klan) in order to eliminate them as a source of economic competition and as a way to use terror to keep blacks “in their place.”
I think for myself just fine thanks. The feminist movement helped me get where I am today. I wouldn't be able to work for a male-dominated field if those women didn't fight for it back then. I wouldn't be paid the wages I am if it weren't for feminists fighting for it. Roe v. Wade was about the RIGHT for women to make choices for herself, not something forced upon women.
FFS Vic, my mother suggested I get an abortion when I got pregnant with my son, do you really think for one second I felt pressured to do so? I'll answer with a resounding HELL NO. I have the right if I CHOOSE to, but it's not something that is required of women to do. As far as the transgender subject... doesn't apply here. Quite frankly, I don't give a rats tiny ass about sports to begin with, let alone the hoopla that is continuously brought up regarding transgenders in sports.
Hell it was 1870 when the 15th Amendment was passed [that doesn't mean it still wasn't difficult for African American men to exercise their right to vote] and the 19th Amendment wasn't passed for women's voting rights until 1920 [again, not to say that it still wasn't very difficult]!!! Talk about being behind!
Don't you dare try and tell me that equality movements weren't a good thing for people like me, supporting a household of 5.
I agree with you here Vic. Myself I remember when they didn't. During the 60's and 70's NOW was very aggressive towards women who wanted to stay home with their children full time. They portrayed them as submissive to men and as ignorant uneducated women simply because they saw more value in their life choice. NOW helped make many civil rights advancements for women but I never liked how they tended to belittle women at the same time.
Oddly enough, I still get shit from stay at home moms because I work. People still give my husband and I shit because my husband was the one that stayed home for 3-4 years.
That is too bad, but there is no women's organization making you feel inadequate or less of person for having a career. I think an organization that supports women should support all choices women make.
I completely agree with that sentiment. It still stands that feminism helped people like me. I think people should do as they choose if it's right for them and their families. My stepdad said some nasty things to me and my husband when my husband was being a stay at home dad. I didn't see a difference between how my household was being run vs. how his household was run with my mother at home [most of the time anyways]. I mean, why is it different for my mother being home? Why was that okay, but not for my husband to be at home? Trust me, that mentality is just as bad as feminism's idea that women should be working across the board.
And should NOT be condemned for NOT being feminine!
They weren't all segregated and I'm simply saying that it was a better time for everyone. We go through this every time we discuss this subject and it's getting tedious. Save the speech. 2021 is part of the era of the left and it is a terrible period in the nation's history and the future looks worse.
I am telling you - they had nothing to do with equality. Many women were able to achieve without the "feminist movement." The movement is about lining up women to march in lockstep for ideological goals - many of them are detrimental to women.
Correct!
Essentially they tried to define what a woman should be like and in the process made life a bit more difficult for all of us.
Still living in the past eh?
Need we erase it all?
Burn/ban all the books?
Who is 'erasing all history'?
Who is 'burning/banning all the books'?
You know, the people who don't like reading or books.
Who are they?
Phantoms of a destructive 'political imagination' mostly. I do not know anyone who does not read books and of all genres.
I am not an avid reader. My husband was. That does not mean I would burn books, any book.
There was a lot of the examining of the decades of the 20th century in America. I remember being in high school a long time ago and being assigned to read "Only Yesterday" and "Since Yesterday " by Frederick Lewis Allen , which were popular culture histories of the 1920's and then the 1930's. Walter Lord wrote a book about the decade of the 1900's and then the 1910's, and there is also the magnificent book by William Manchester , The Glory And The Dream , which is a massive and highly readable history of the United States from the election of FDR to Watergate, thus covering in great detail the pop culture and political events of the 30,s, 40's, 50's, 60's and part of the 70's. David Halberstam also wrote a lengthy book on the 1950's.
All the decades had their ups and downs, innovations and setbacks. It's kind of the way the world is.
The 1970's means the "me generation" in my opinion.
The Gen Xers that always seem to be forgotten? I think that the 90s coined the "me generation", but that's merely my opinion.
Me generation
Okay, so not your opinion, but someone else's opinion. I don't know what decade you grew up in [although I have my suspicions], but I was born in the 70s, married to someone born in 1970 and I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I don't see the ones that grew up without parents in the house as the "Me" decade by any means. Most like me were forced to be severely independent, because the parents were not available. Baby boomers and early Gen Xers had mom at home. The kids that were born in the 90s were put in a bubble and sheltered from anything deemed bad.
Is this the Tom Wolfe you're referring to in your comment? Because if it is... he was born in 1930; he had no idea what it was like being a kid in the 70s, 80s, or 90s. Your other reference, Christopher Lasch was born in 1932 and died in 1994... never really got to see the "me" decade, now did he?
So, you tell me how the Gen Xers were deemed as the "me" decade. Not someone else's words, your own explanation.
Yep, that's what I remember. That term was used during the 70's for us who graduated high school and college during that decade. Although it didn't apply to anyone I knew.