The Origin Of "The Fifties"

[sheeplady]

Science fiction writers of the post-WWII era saw this coming and had a lot of fun with it. In Frederick Pohl and C.M. Kornbluth's "The Space Merchants"(1952), set in a future America, government had disappeared and all was run by corporations, of which the advertising business was the most powerful. Possession of earplugs was a Class-A felony.

Sadly they didn't realize we'd [almost] all be walking around with earbuds in our ears and screens glued to our eyes that "customize" our advertising content, while making us feel "proud" to be individuals rather than "cattle."

I need to think through this a bit more (working now, so this is quick on break) but I'm wondering about the rise of individualism (as opposed to collectivism) that occurred following WWII and the intersections between that and early mass media (small number of TV stations, controlled content, etc.) to a much more individualistic targeted advertising process.

Consumerism crossed with the U.S.'s obsession with the individual, taken up by marketers, which further isolated us.

 

[LizzieMaine]

The appeal to "rugged individualism" was a cornerstone of the NAM's strategy beginning in the mid-thirites as part of its ongoing efforts to undermine the New Deal, and it remained so after the war thru the organizations's formal propaganda arm, the Natiional Industrial Information Council headed by Alfred P. Sloan of General Motors. The NIIC had at least two nationally-known journalists on its payroll, George Sokolsky and Fulton Lewis Jr., both of whom had nationally syndicated newspaper columns and radio news prorgrams, and both of whom held strictly to the NAM's "American individualism" line, especially when it came to news relating to the labor movement.

The Sun Oil Company, headed by J. Howard Pew, was also a conduit for NAM influence on the media. Pew was a central figure at the NAM and the NIIC, and his company's long-term sponsorship of radio newscasters Lowell Thomas and Morgan Beatty ensured that the NAM line was carefully presented five nights a week to millions of listeners under the guise of "straight news reporting."

Moving into television, NAM members R. J. Reynolds and Chrysler controlled NBC's "News Caravan," and when this newscast was replaced by the Huntley-Brinkley Report that program was underwritten by NAM member Texaco. CBS avoided this trap by not selling sole sponsorship for its evening news program, but NAM member Alcoa was not happy with the content of Edward R. Murrow's documentary series "See It Now," and it ended as a regular series not long after Alcoa canceled its sponsorship.

The NIIC was also the key mover behind the "Religion In American Life" campaign of the postwar years -- it wasn't just religion in general that it promoted, but a very specific sort of anti-New Deal "Christian libertarianism" of which Billy Graham became the most visible spokesman during the 1950s. An extremely well-documented book about this latter campaign came out last year by historican Kevin Kruse "One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America."

The NAM even had a hand in the production of, believe it or not, a series of "Merrie Melodies" cartoons at Warner Brothers. Working thru the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, they paid Warner Bros. approximately $66,000 to make three animated shorts promoting an individualistic capitalist philosophy: "By Word Of Mouse," "Heir Conditioned," and "Yankee Dood It." In these films various animated characters, including Elmer Fudd and Sylvester The Cat were used to teach a view of capitalism in which there was no place and no need for any sort of organized labor. These films were produced by the regular Warner cartoon staff, and included no credit or title card identifying their sponsor, and were distributed to theatres as part of the regular Merrie Melodies cartoon package for their respective seasons. The truth of their origin wasn't made public until the 1970s, by which time they'd gone into endless reruns on local television.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

One of my very earliest memories is the "Camel News Caravan"with John Cameron Swayse as anchor. When Chrysler started sponsoring it on alternate days it was called "The Plymouth News Caravan." At least they were right up front telling you who was bringing you that program. Quite a bit of early tv programming was named for its sponsor. One of the more prestigious programs was "The U.S. Steel Hour," which I liked for its spectacular intro of molten steel being poured out of Bessemer converters and giant crucibles. The content didn't interest me much because it ran to adult dramas.

 

[LizzieMaine]

What's interesting to note is that prewar network news was, for the most part, not sponsored at all. The networks presented it on a sustaining basis as part of their compliance with public-service requirements. Some commentators, like Lowell Thomas and H. V. Kaltenborn, who presented opinion and analysis mixed with news, were sponsored, and infotainment news personalities like Floyd Gibbins and Walter Winchell were sponsored, but the straight network news roundups didn't start to pick up sponsorship until the war era.

 

[Inkstainedwretch]

Lizzie, do you think that the pre-war unsponsored newscasters delivered a better brand of news? I recall reading a book by a writer who had covered the Spanish Civil war and he said that all of the correspondents there were biased in favor of whatever newspaper syndicate they reported for with a single exception: the Christian Science Monitor. He said that the CSM reporters were meticulously unbiased in reporting what they saw and heard. This came as a great surprise to me, that a church-based publication could be unbiased, but I later read that the CS church for a very long time kept its hands off the reporting of its newspaper.

 

[Stearmen]

The irony of American Graffiti was, it was set in Madesto, California, 1962. So all those people using it as an example of how great the good old days were, are actually singing the praise of the 60s!

 

[LizzieMaine]

Lizzie, do you think that the pre-war unsponsored newscasters delivered a better brand of news? I recall reading a book by a writer who had covered the Spanish Civil war and he said that all of the correspondents there were biased in favor of whatever newspaper syndicate they reported for with a single exception: the Christian Science Monitor. He said that the CSM reporters were meticulously unbiased in reporting what they saw and heard. This came as a great surprise to me, that a church-based publication could be unbiased, but I later read that the CS church for a very long time kept its hands off the reporting of its newspaper.

Generally speaking, I think this is true -- the main drawback in the prewar era was that there really weren't that many radio reporters available. Both NBC and CBS had their European Representatives, but if something was happening away from where those reps were stationed, the networks would have to pick up reports from wire-service stringers who happened to be where the news was happening. Sometimes this worked out -- William Shirer started out as a wire-service man and then joined the CBS staff -- but other times it didn't. CBS used two stringers in 1939-40 who later defected to the Nazis and broadcast Goebbels propaganda back to the US: Robert H. Best of the United Press, and Donald Day of the Chicago Tribune. Part of the problem was expense -- both networks ran their news operations on a shoestring, and claimed they simply couldn't afford full-time bureaus in all the major capitals, and this stemmed from the fact that the news operations weren't seen as moneymakers.

Correspondent bias was a real thing even before radio, and it was a matter of official policy at some papers, especially the Hearst and McCormick papers. Reporter George Seldes was repeatedly interfered with by his paper, the Chicago Tribune, and finally quit in protest to become the most prolific and forceful press critic of the Era.

The Monitor was always a step above all other news outlets in its integrity. When Mary Baker Eddy founded the paper she declared that its only purpose was to "injure no man, but to bless mankind," and the editors and reporters were expected to take that charge seriously. I have good friends who are CS, and that ethos is a foundation of the religion itself.

 

[BlueTrain]

Interesting topic but time is short and I had to skip most of the pages.

One thing I believe is that the "fifties" were more than a decade. The beginning is a little fuzzy but I was before 1950 to be sure, perhaps 1945, the end of the war and maybe even earlier, if saddle shoes is any indication. The end, however, is a little easier to pinpoint and I'd have to say it was November 22, 1963. I sure hope I have that date correct.

Time flows from one moment to another without pause, although probably at different speeds, depending on whether you're looking forward or backwards. To me, looking backwards, the fifties were many contradictory things. It was progressive and conformist, all at the same time. One might remember only bad things but if you were only born in 1946, as I was, you probably have no memory of the Korean War, labor troubles, the Red Scare or the floods on the Mississippi. But there are always floods on the Mississippi.

The fifties to me mean a time when we didn't have certain things we've now had for probably at least 40 years. Interstate highways, beltways (highways), fast food restaurants everywhere, public radio and television, indoor shopping malls and so on. What there was, however, were drive-ins with car hops (everywhere!), local DJs who took requests, shopping downtown (the traffic was awful and there was no parking!), Christmas parades and high school homecoming parades, mail order catalogs, men's shops and lady's shops, dressing up for dates, three television stations, Howdy Doody, local live TV programs and so on.

I still find it remarkable that, in spite of how the population of the country practically doubling since the end of WWII, so many places in this country have become under-populated.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When I think of saddle shoes, I think of college campuses and high schools c. 1936-40. Those saddles were brown and white, and were always very, very dirty. They were as much an icon of the last prewar years as jitterbugs, goldfish swallowing, and portable radios without an aerial.

That said, your observations more or less square with my own argument further back the thread that "The Fifties" were largely the latter half of the actual 1950s and the first few years of the 1960s. 1950 had less in common with 1960 than 1960 had in common with 1970.

 

[BlueTrain]

It might be that the fifties started when teenagers were invented, not when rock and roll was invented, and I think there might be as much as a ten year difference between the two. Of course, it was probably rock and roll that made more of a difference or rather more correctly, saying it made a difference. Before that, music didn't belong to any particular generation. Or at least I don't think it did.

 

[LizzieMaine]

I think the differentiation of music into generations began most sharply in the twenties -- the people listening to Jean Goldkette or other such "hot dance" bands tended to be younger by quite a bit from the ones buying Henry Burr or John McCormack records.

By the mid-thirties the differentiation had become quite sharp -- followers of swing music tended almost entirely to be about ten years younger than those who were creating it. Most of the leading figures of the swing era were born between 1900 and 1910 -- and their fans were almost entirely those born after 1910, with the leading edge of swing fandom being the college-age kids of the 1934-37 era, and their high school kid brothers and sisters following along. Similarly, the popularity of the swooner-crooners of the Frank Sinatra/Dick Haymes style in the mid-forties was driven almost entirely by young women born in the mid-to-late 1920s -- the stereotypical "bobby soxers." It's hard to put into words how much Sinatra and his kind were loathed by the World War I generation during these years -- let's just say the antipathy was both pronounced and generational. (Swing fans didn't think much of them, either -- they looked at Frankieeeeeeee the way punk rockers looked at disco.)

In both such cases, parents railed against this awful music that was sure to lead their children to wrack and ruin, and in both cases it was the wide distribution of the music by radio that brought it to the attention of the kids. The parents of the Swing Generation -- adults born in the 1880s and early 1890s -- weren't to any great extent the people buying Benny Goodman or Artie Shaw records. If they bought popular music at all, they were buying sedate hotel orchestras a la Guy Lombardo or concert/semi-classical performers like Nelson Eddy.

So when rock-n-roll came to the attention of white teenagers in the early to mid 1950s, it was following a pattern laid down by the previous two generations. The main difference is that, in general, the musicians were getting closer in age to their target audience -- Elvis, for example, was born in 1935, and his earliest prime audience was born 1935-40. The Beatles were born in the early 1940s, and their earliest prime audience was born 1945-50. I don't know enough about rock music to project this pattern any further than that, but it would be interesting to see how far forward it carries.

 

[BlueTrain]

Pat Boone was born in 1934, so I guess you're correct.

 

[EngProf]

I think the differentiation of music into generations began most sharply in the twenties -- the people listening to Jean Goldkette or other such "hot dance" bands tended to be younger by quite a bit from the ones buying Henry Burr or John McCormack records.

By the mid-thirties the differentiation had become quite sharp -- followers of swing music tended almost entirely to be about ten years younger than those who were creating it. Most of the leading figures of the swing era were born between 1900 and 1910 -- and their fans were almost entirely those born after 1910, with the leading edge of swing fandom being the college-age kids of the 1934-37 era, and their high school kid brothers and sisters following along. Similarly, the popularity of the swooner-crooners of the Frank Sinatra/Dick Haymes style in the mid-forties was driven almost entirely by young women born in the mid-to-late 1920s -- the stereotypical "bobby soxers." It's hard to put into words how much Sinatra and his kind were loathed by the World War I generation during these years -- let's just say the antipathy was both pronounced and generational. (Swing fans didn't think much of them, either -- they looked at Frankieeeeeeee the way punk rockers looked at disco.)

In both such cases, parents railed against this awful music that was sure to lead their children to wrack and ruin, and in both cases it was the wide distribution of the music by radio that brought it to the attention of the kids. The parents of the Swing Generation -- adults born in the 1880s and early 1890s -- weren't to any great extent the people buying Benny Goodman or Artie Shaw records. If they bought popular music at all, they were buying sedate hotel orchestras a la Guy Lombardo or concert/semi-classical performers like Nelson Eddy.

This concept of lag-time between initiation and general acceptance of a musical genre has some interesting aspects. To some extent it's inevitable, since a composer/performer has to be of a certain age to be in a position to actually get the music "out there". So, Elvis had to be twenty-something to be in a position to get records, radio, and TV shows produced. These attracted the (younger) teenagers who were his primary followers.

I may "steal" some of this discussion and apply it to a course I'll be co-teaching next year with a professor from the School of Music. The course is called "Social History of Technology" and it combines music, art, and literature with science, math, and technology.
It would be interesting if there was a functional relationship between the origins of musical genres and their popular acceptance, especially if that correlated with advances in technology (instruments - recording - radio - TV - Internet, etc.)

So when rock-n-roll came to the attention of white teenagers in the early to mid 1950s, it was following a pattern laid down by the previous two generations. The main difference is that, in general, the musicians were getting closer in age to their target audience -- Elvis, for example, was born in 1935, and his earliest prime audience was born 1935-40. The Beatles were born in the early 1940s, and their earliest prime audience was born 1945-50. I don't know enough about rock music to project this pattern any further than that, but it would be interesting to see how far forward it carries.

 

[plain old dave]

Great thread, lot of good points. Few random observations:

I would date the beginning of The Fifties really as 1954-55. A truck driver from Tupelo and a former Western Swing bandleader on one side and a North Dakota bandleader that took decades to learn to properly pronounce "wonderful" on the other. Hemi-powered Dodges and Chryslers, and the start of prevalent tailfins, multicolor paint jobs and overall flashier cars.

The end, though, I would really date a little over two years after the JFK assassination. IMO The Fifties died at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965, and this idea is somewhat explored in the Mel Gibson movie "We Were Soldiers." It is not widely known that Hal Moore was a junior officer in Korea.

 

[EngProf]

Great thread, lot of good points. Few random observations:

I would date the beginning of The Fifties really as 1954-55. A truck driver from Tupelo and a former Western Swing bandleader on one side and a North Dakota bandleader that took decades to learn to properly pronounce "wonderful" on the other. Hemi-powered Dodges and Chryslers, and the start of prevalent tailfins, multicolor paint jobs and overall flashier cars.

The end, though, I would really date a little over two years after the JFK assassination. IMO The Fifties died at Landing Zone X-Ray in the Ia Drang Valley in November 1965, and this idea is somewhat explored in the Mel Gibson movie "We Were Soldiers." It is not widely known that Hal Moore was a junior officer in Korea.

Definitely agree that the real fifties started in ~54-55. Us leading-edge Baby-Boomers (1940's birth dates) had to get old enough to start wanting and getting Davy Crockett hats, Hula-Hoops, transistor radios, Kellogg's Sugar Corn Pops, and all the other good 1950's stuff.

I don't attach the end of the fifties to any particular date or historical event. They just died out gradually in the roughly 1962-1964 time period.

 

[2jakes]

I can’t relate to everything that happened in the ‘50s except mostly the rock & roll music that
I listened on the radio when I was young.
Also the live concerts at my local auditorium.
Chuck Beery, Fats Domino & our local boy Buddy Holly were very young
when I saw them perform.
This was our music (young kids).

It was a gradual change of music/styles that began in early ‘60s with the Beatles.
In the late 60s, I was in the military & it was Creedence & the Moody Blues.
I did like some of Dylan & Johnny Cash. I never got into heavy-metal.
No reason actually. In fact, I started to enjoy earlier music from the 20s,30s, & 40s.
Today, when I listen to '50s music I think of my school years & how naive I was with girls.

Women...now there is a topic that would take up volumes.
And I still can’t figure them out....probably never will.

 

[Stearmen]

It might be that the fifties started when teenagers were invented, not when rock and roll was invented, and I think there might be as much as a ten year difference between the two. Of course, it was probably rock and roll that made more of a difference or rather more correctly, saying it made a difference. Before that, music didn't belong to any particular generation. Or at least I don't think it did.

Actually, teen music goes back a lot further then the 50s. You can read what preachers and politicians were saying about Ragtime, and how it was corrupting the youth and it sounds exactly like what later religious figures and politicians were saying about Rock & Roll, and more recently Rap. The more things change! Oh that decadent Scott Joplin.

 

[2jakes]

Actually, teen music goes back a lot further then the 50s. You can read what preachers and politicians were saying about Ragtime, and how it was corrupting the youth and it sounds exactly like what later religious figures and politicians were saying about Rock & Roll, and more recently Rap. The more things change! Oh that decadent Scott Joplin.

I don’t know what instrument accompanies the piano.
But it’s a very beautiful rendition & makes me want to
put on a tux & take a lady slow dancing under the moonlit night
... even if it’s decadent!

 

[Stearmen]

Women...now there is a topic that would take up volumes.
And I still can’t figure them out....probably never will.

Don't worry 2Jakes, I will tell you everything I know about women from my long years of experience!.................................................I got nothing!

 

[2jakes]

Don't worry 2Jakes, I will tell you everything I know about women from my long years of experience!.................................................I got nothing!

You are indeed a lucky fellow!
Did you know that in tennis “Love” means nada, nothing, zero !