Did '60s Rock Rot?
By William J. Bennett

I’m a lover of early rock-and-roll music. I played guitar in the 1950s, have a juke box in my home today, and still enjoy the good stuff. At the same time, I’m a strong critic of current hyperviolent, hateful, exceedingly sexualized and vulgar music.

It’s reasonable to ask whether there is a link between these two forms of rock. Right from the beginning, rock was built, like many other products of the ’60s, on icon-smashing, rebellion, and a heavy whiff of sex. The question becomes: Could we have enjoyed the good aspects of the rock-and-roll revolution without eventually ending up with the trash we now face in the 1990s? Or was there an inevitable, straight line of descent from the Beatle’s "I Want To Hold Your Hand" (1964) to Cannibal Corpse’s "Stripped, Raped, and Strangled" (1994)?

I think we could have had the good without the bad, but only under certain conditions. First let’s acknowledge that rock music connects nicely to freedom. Rock deserves an honorable mention on the list of little innovations that eventually convinced the residents of Eastern Europe that they could live more interesting lives without communism. A 1980s Springsteen concert brought thousands to the Brandenberg Gate on both sides of Berlin’s Wall.

Is there something intrinsic in the rock ethic that quickly leads down the slippery slope from liberty to libertinism? Perhaps. But I would point out that the slippery slope argument can be employed on almost any issue, and so has to be invoked with discretion.

There is obviously a sexual component to many rock-and-roll songs. But the same is also true of much poetry, literature, and painting—including great works. I have no illusions about rock being high art. I’m simply pointing out that containing the seeds of corruption and being corrupted aren’t the same thing. The fact that something has the potential to push the envelope too far doesn’t necessarily mean we’d be better off without it. The graphic scenes in "Natural Born Killers" are not a natural extension of the graphic scenes in "Macbeth."

Yes, rock-and-roll music put us on a risky slope, but so have many other expressions of freedom. What is supposed to keep us from sliding down these slopes are cultural brakes. And in the last three decades, many cultural brake lines have been cut.

Rock-and-roll music expresses emotions that are common in the young. Throughout history it has been the propensity of the young to rebel and push the limits. It has always been the responsibility of adults to push back. What was new starting in the 1960s was that many adults no longer pushed back; they no longer provided guidance to contain and channel these sentiments in a good direction. Adults, as Irving Kristol once wrote, forgot how to answer one of civilization’s oldest questions: "Why not?"

It is up to adults generally and parents preeminently to provide children with "Why not?" answers on questions of drugs, drinking, sex, indolence, irresponsibility, and so forth. In the late 1960s, many parents became intellectually and morally disarmed; they did not register disapproval or insist on warranted restraint. This was a serious collapse, and it had disastrous consequences.

And this occurred not just in homes but also in places like corporate boardrooms. It was once understood that the entertainment industry would exercise corporate responsibility, even to the point of self-censorship. There were lines the profit-seekers would not cross. No more. We now see companies like Seagram/Universal, Sony, bmg and others exploiting the youth rebellion instinct—and even expanding it. Michael Green, the president of the National Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences, which awards the Grammies, recently said this (specifically in reference to drug use): "We happen to be an industry [rock music] that runs fast, it runs hard, it sells the manifestation of the rebellion that kids need to exercise. I mean, it’s their job to rebel and we sell that rebellion."

This is inaccurate and irresponsible. But we see much the same philosophy in other industries: Saab tells us to "Peel off inhibitions"; Burger King instructs us that "Sometimes you gotta break the rules"; and Healthy Choice cereals assures us that if you want to be happy, "You gotta make your own rules." This is what one commentator calls "Liberation Marketing."

In an increasingly nihilistic cultural environment that says there are "No Limits," it’s not surprising that some rock-and-roll music—like so many other things— has gone too far.

I’m willing to concede that rock music has played its part in what’s gone wrong in American society since the 1960s. But putting the Chiffons, the Crystals, and the Shangri-La’s at the root of our cultural collapse? As the latter group sung in its big hit, "No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no."

William J. Bennett is co-director of Empower America and John M. Olin fellow at the Heritage Foundation.