The Seven Ages of Rock, Beginning With Adolescence

In the new BBC documentary The Seven Ages of Rock, which I watched last night until the film on the other side started, the story of rock begins in 1966 with Jimi Hendrix arriving in London. He has to go to London because Rock 'n' Roll never happened in America - Elvis, Chuck Berry, Jerry Lee Lewis, Gene Vincent, Dick Dale … none have existed in the BBC’s parallel universe in which rock is an entirely British phenomenon until Hendrix, the first rock icon, arrives. Little Richard only earns a passing reference on account of influencing Hendrix’s showmanship. Footage of Dylan is shown on account that his rough singing style inspired Hendrix to sing. We see The Who smashing guitars, which inspired Hendrix to smash guitars. Early film of the Rolling Stones is shown to highlight the influence of the blues on Hendrix. The programme makers seem to think that if the word ‘blues’ is mentioned enough times (along with grainy footage of Muddy Waters) it will give the programme an air of historical authenticity so the audience won’t notice the complete omission of the actual birth of rock in 1950s America.

I don’t like to speculate on the motives for this shameless rewriting of history. Maybe the BBC thought the 1950s was just too square for an audience which will largely have no memories of that period. Or perhaps the they just felt spending time on Elvis would be going over old ground and that a new angle was required. I sort of agree but if you’re making a documentary of something you can’t just omit the major figures and expect it to be taken seriously. Will we next see a BBC History of World War 2 starting in 1941 with no mention of Churchill and Hitler? There’s no possibility of course that the ‘hideously white’ BBC might have passed over Elvis and The (also omitted) Beatles in favour of a black artist for politically correct purposes.

All in all this was a terrible documentary, poorly conceived, contrived, confused, and for the most part utterly dull, padded out with aging ex-rock-stars talking reverently about Hendrix’s guitar playing to convince us of his god-like seminal status.

This was supposed to be about the birth of rock not a tribute to Hendrix’s virtuosity. There was no attempt to introduce or define the subject (possibly giving justification for devoting the first episode to Hendrix) let alone put it in historical perspective. Why seven ages beyond it making a snappy title? What makes Britpop and The Velvet Underground rock but not surf-rock or rock ‘n’ roll? Devoid of any attempt to engage the viewer with an actual narrative about the birth of rock music and its cultural impact The Seven Ages of Rock was left reliant on archive musical footage to sustain interest. And the footage merely emphasised that rock music of the 60s is already a form well developed and moving in new directions. This is not the birth of rock but the onset of adolescence.

If you’re wondering what that makes rock music of today I’d say we’re on about the third reanimation of the corpse.

The BBC can kiss the sky for my license fee. It’s at the stage I’d rather go to prison than pay for this sort of propaganda, which seems to be making up an increasing amount of the BBC’s output.

Still they did reply to my letter, although without answering my question at all.

Dear Mr Johnson

Thank you for your e mail regarding 'Seven Ages of Rock'. 

I understand that you are disappointed that Elvis will not feature in the

journey through the history of rock music.

Please be assured that I will certainly register your dissatisfaction on the

daily audience log.  This internal document will be made available to the 'Seven

Ages of Rock' production team and senior BBC management.

Feedback of this nature helps us when making decisions about future BBC

programmes and services and your comment will play a part in this process.

Your interest in the BBC is appreciated, thank you for taking the time to

contact us. 

Regards

(name omitted) 

BBC Information