One thing interesting to note when it comes to Rockabilly today, is that is now considered a unique, underground and perhaps obscure subculture, yet it is derived from a movement that was once the dominant popular culture. I guess the same can be said for all 'revival' movements.
Yet as Erin Akerson observes, today's adaptation of the once-mainstream subculture is often lost in translation.
"Many subcultures based on a past era, including Rockabilly, often fail to understand the meaning of the original culture... the need to restore a genre and create a revival speaks volumes not only about the group reviving them, but also about what is going on in larger society and becoming a form of protest."
Akerson's sentiments echo those of Chambers', who said a revival is seldom based on recreating history. Being a lover of 40s, 50s and 60s popular culture and music myself, I can confirm that I reinterpret aspects of these eras without a true understanding and with very little attention to historical accuracy. But what Akerson brings up that is new, is the idea that this is born out of protest, or a disenchantment with the way modern society is perceived.
This is certainly true for bands such as Kitty, Daisy and Lewis, who consciously do not use any recording equipment or technology made since the 1960s. There is an unspoken snobbery amongst retro-orientated music groups and their fans towards 'modern music', and perhaps this distaste for today's popular culture is what fuels the revival movements.
This is certainly true for bands such as Kitty, Daisy and Lewis, who consciously do not use any recording equipment or technology made since the 1960s. There is an unspoken snobbery amongst retro-orientated music groups and their fans towards 'modern music', and perhaps this distaste for today's popular culture is what fuels the revival movements.
Bibliography:
Akerson, E. Rockabilly Rumble: An Examination of A Southern California Subculture. ProQuest LLC, United States, 2009.


