Why The Monkees Matter: Teenagers, Television and American Pop Culture

I enjoyed reading this book. Each person who writes about the Monkees write from a different angle and this is yet another one. I don't agree with all that was said and I know that some of what is written is not right. For example Micky and Davy were/are actors and Peter and Mike are the musicians.

Although much attention has been paid in the past to the music, this long-needed book is a scholarly review of The Monkees TV series and why it was so innovative. In its careful analysis of themes and characters, this book opened my eyes in a number of ways. For example, I never before thought of this program as a tribute to feminism, but the female guest characters are discussed and praised for their feminist contributions. The numerous innovations of the series such as "breaking the fifth wall" are also discussed. And you'll find a discussion of each fictional Monkee character - who are not always the same as the real Monkees. I found this book so fascinating I read it a second time as soon as I had completed it.

Very interesting facts and theories about the influences the Monkees had on the youth culture. Some annoying swings and misses when the author would talk about Frank Crawley doing end of show interviews with the guys when everyone knows it was Bob Raphelson who did the interviews. But overall ineresting information that I had not thought about befoŕe.

Brilliant, insightful, important! These words best describe Rosanne Welch's new book Why The Monkees Matter. As she demonstrates The Monkees were so much more than made for TV rock band. Knowingly or not they, the writers, directors, producers used the program as a vehicle to make statements about sex, politics, music and the 60ies. This book is a must for die hard Monkee fans and pop culture enthusiasts alike. Thank you Rosanne Welch for putting into words what we the fans have known for so long about the band and TV show we love!

The book is interesting and enlightening. I like a book that takes this group seriously. The one downside: it is poorly edited. "Led" is often "lead," for instance.