cheddatom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Well, in my opinion, you simply have to be yourself to be authentic. If an artist is dressed up to create an image which was not their design, but then dno't make it clear that this is not their own image, that's not authentic. If an artist sings someone else's music with no creative input, but they give the impression that they are creatively involved, that's not authentic. just two examples, but to me it means a sort of "honesty" so if anyone is "faking" in any way, it's not authentic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeBrownBass Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1332245617' post='1585387'] Well, in my opinion, you simply have to be yourself to be authentic. If an artist is dressed up to create an image which was not their design, but then dno't make it clear that this is not their own image, that's not authentic. If an artist sings someone else's music with no creative input, but they give the impression that they are creatively involved, that's not authentic. just two examples, but to me it means a sort of "honesty" so if anyone is "faking" in any way, it's not authentic. [/quote] How do you take aliases then, artists that change there name for an image or marketing purposes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Why can performing simply not be about entertaining people? That is the result. How you get there doesn't really matter. Doesn't matter if you are David Jones or Ziggy Stardust. If the latter is more entertaining then who cares? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ahpook Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='thepurpleblob' timestamp='1332246502' post='1585412'] Why can performing simply not be about entertaining people? That is the result. How you get there doesn't really matter. Doesn't matter if you are David Jones or Ziggy Stardust. If the latter is more entertaining then who cares? [/quote] it can if you're not interested in the arguments above, and there's nothing wrong with that - in the same way most people aren't interested in the finer details of the internal combustion engine when they get on a bus. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='ahpook' timestamp='1332245583' post='1585386'] when i hear the word authentic, i reach for my revolver (or rather a metaphorical revolver, my conception of which is made up of all the revolvers i've seen in films and television, the couple i've fired, the toy revolvers i had when i was young, the revolvers people have told me about, etc. etc. etc) [/quote] Sounds like a lot of hard work. I just use an 1867 Navy Colt, cap and ball percussion job for maximum authenticity. And size of exit wound. [quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1332245617' post='1585387'] Well, in my opinion, you simply have to be yourself to be authentic. [/quote] Ah! But once one chooses between authenticity and inauthenticity, one has made an conscious decision to embrace authenticity. So one is no longer authentic. [quote name='JakeBrownBass' timestamp='1332246304' post='1585405'] How do you take aliases then, artists that change there name for an image or marketing purposes? [/quote] Inauthentic. Edited March 20, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1332247378' post='1585437'] [b]Inauthentic.[/b] [/quote] Do you REALLY believe that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JakeBrownBass Posted March 20, 2012 Author Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1332247378' post='1585437'] Inauthentic. [/quote] Stevie Wonder? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bilbo Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Haven't read all of this but I am forming the view that one of the barriers to a definitive concept of authenticity in this case is the broad range of uses to which popular music is put. There are those who live eat and breathe the stuff and those for who it is merely a soundtrack for their lives. To some it is merely the noise that occurs between the interesting talky bits on the radio and to others, it is the soundtrack to their shopping experience. SOme use it as a soundrack to their XBOX activities and others as a soundtrack to their predatorial 'man/woman hunting every Friday and Saturday night. Each audience will have its own perspective on authenticity depening on the purpose to which they put the stuff. The commercialisation of it all via Cowell and his predecessors is entirely legitimate if you 'use' the product the way you would a ready meal or a air freshener. It is only if you are looking for the Art element; self expression, the voice of a generation etc that authenticity becomes relevant. The ethnomusicology of popular music is getting more and more complex and Popular Music is now as diverse as other genres like Classical and Jazz. You get these authenticty arguments in Jazz (where some think it stopped at 1935), classical (the 'period instruments' brigade) and folk (not electric instruments, only play geographically relevant instruments etc). Pop music has become a varied field and someone who considers Eminem authentic will be shouted down because he doesn't play conventional instruments etc. My beef is calling DJs 'musicians' but am I the authority that determines authenticity? Of course not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tauzero Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='thepurpleblob' timestamp='1332241880' post='1585252'] I work in IT and people love to bang on about things being "virtual". It's equally ridiculous. It's not virtual - I can see it; it's there on that screen [/quote] Virtual has a very specific meaning within IT, and has had for four decades. Authenticity is a bit different. In fact, going by what the OP has said is the actual question, I would say that my barn dance band often has an unauthentic audience. Blissfully unaware of us being a traditional English band [1], they will turn up dressed as cowboys (and occasionally, in full-on unauthenticity mode, Indians [2]). This is generally enough to turn our mild-mannered dulcimer player apoplectic. [1] Other British and European musical traditions are also available. May contain nuts. Contents may settle in Transit. [2] Also known as Native Americans. Other Indians may be available. Do not bend, fold, spindle or mutilate this post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1332248653' post='1585470'] Virtual has a very specific meaning within IT, and has had for four decades. Authenticity is a bit different. [/quote] Don't lecture me about IT terminology - I am a highly authentic IT'ist don't you know Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Rich Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) For me part of whether an artist is "authentic" or not is whether they have something to say, be it lyrically or musically. Led Zep took blues and gave it a bit of a twist so have more to say than Jedwood who seem to perform whatever they're given and enjoy the ride. (It's possible that Jedwood do indeed have something to say but no one has ever been able to listen to them speak for more than 2 minutes before being driven mad). So for me authentic includes early rap highlighting life in the ghetto, people like Billy Bragg and Morrisey with more political and social type stuff, the old blues men singing about misery, probably most punk, probably singer songwriters like Adele. (I've realised I don't like most of these examples ) Less authentic are people only interested in fame, performing other peoples material with the help of Autotune, or more modern rap that's about bling and power. In the middle there are people like Madonna and Lady Gaga who have something to say but also cultivate a strong image and are media savvy. [i]Edited to make some sort of sense[/i] Edited March 20, 2012 by Fat Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I think it's interesting and something I hadn't really thought about before. I have been an enthusiastic amateur musicians of one sort or another for about 40 years and an even more enthusiastic listener for even longer. I've done some soul-searching and can honestly say that I've never given a monkeys about the "authenticity" of the artist. I'm rather intrigued as to what it is about the consumer of the music (for want of a better term) that makes this important. Do you guys care or is this really just an academic point? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1332249120' post='1585484'] For me part of whether an artist is "authentic" or not is whether they have something to say, be it lyrically or musically. Led Zep took blues and gave it a bit of a twist so have more to say than Jedwood who seem to perform whatever they're given and enjoy the ride. (It's possible that Jedwood do indeed have something to say but no one has ever been able to listen to them speak for more than 2 minutes before being driven mad). Less authentic are people only interested in fame, performing other peoples material with the help of Autotune, or more modern rap that's about bling and power. [/quote] Are you suggesting that Led Zep were less interested in fame than Jedward? I don't have any idea but I don't think you can assume that. I can't believe that people pay money for Jedward's output but presumably they do and it must be relevant to them... even if they are ten years old. Can you be authentic to a ten year old... don't see why not. Edited March 20, 2012 by thepurpleblob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirky Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 Does it not all just boil down to taste? Eventually you discover music that moves you (or makes you move) and it becomes important to you. I say eventually, because when you're young that's only part of it - there's also fashion, wanting to be in a 'gang' etc. Its no less important (to the individual) for being about more than just the music, but most robust battles fought out in the playgrounds, letters pages of the NMA, forums etc are, lets face it, pretty unsophisticated ("Blur are s**t, Prince is God" and so on ad nauseum). I've reached a point where I can listen to any sort of music, work out whether I like it or not all by myself, and genuinely don't care or even think about whether it is "credible" or "authentic", "genuine" or "manufactured". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepurpleblob Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='Kirky' timestamp='1332249829' post='1585510'] Does it not all just boil down to taste? Eventually you discover music that moves you (or makes you move) and it becomes important to you. I say eventually, because when you're young that's only part of it - there's also fashion, wanting to be in a 'gang' etc. Its no less important (to the individual) for being about more than just the music, but most robust battles fought out in the playgrounds, letters pages of the NMA, forums etc are, lets face it, pretty unsophisticated ("Blur are s**t, Prince is God" and so on ad nauseum). I've reached a point where I can listen to any sort of music, work out whether I like it or not all by myself, and genuinely don't care or even think about whether it is "credible" or "authentic", "genuine" or "manufactured". [/quote] I was planning on shutting up but.... ^^ this. Same here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Rich Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='thepurpleblob' timestamp='1332249480' post='1585497'] Are you suggesting that Led Zep were less interested in fame than Jedward? I don't have any idea but I don't think you can assume that. I can't believe that people pay money for Jedward's output but presumably they do and it must be relevant to them... even if they are ten years old. Can you be authentic to a ten year old... don't see why not. [/quote] That's why I said have more to say than Jedwood (most musicians have imo) , I think Led Zep copied an older style of music and were probably partly motivated by fame judging by their lifestyle when they made it big. And the poor quality of their later albums! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='Fat Rich' timestamp='1332249120' post='1585484'] For me part of whether an artist is "authentic" or not is whether they have something to say, be it lyrically or musically. Led Zep took blues and gave it a bit of a twist so have more to say than Jedwood who seem to perform whatever they're given and enjoy the ride. (It's possible that Jedwood do indeed have something to say but no one has ever been able to listen to them speak for more than 2 minutes before being driven mad). So for me authentic includes early rap highlighting life in the ghetto, people like Billy Bragg and Morrisey with more political and social type stuff, the old blues men singing about misery, probably most punk, probably singer songwriters like Adele. (I've realised I don't like most of these examples ) Less authentic are people only interested in fame, performing other peoples material with the help of Autotune, or more modern rap that's about bling and power. In the middle there are people like Madonna and Lady Gaga who have something to say but also cultivate a strong image and are media savvy. [i]Edited to make some sort of sense[/i] [/quote] But only some. The whole premise of the thread is nonsense. Why should someone with "something to say" be any more 'authentic' than someone only interested in fame and fortune? Besides, an awful lot of people with "something to say" just spout rubbish - which, of course, is fine because it's their rubbish and they are sincere in their message. In practice, of course, people will tend to admire people with "something to say" if they agree with what they're saying and then consider them to be 'authentic'. But why should, say, Billy Bragg be more 'authentic' than, say, Nick Griffin. Both are surely 'the real thing' in terms of having "something to say" and fervently believing in it. All of which is personal, subjective opinion and you'll either agree or disagree - but it won't change anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fat Rich Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332253935' post='1585604'] But only some. The whole premise of the thread is nonsense. Why should someone with "something to say" be any more 'authentic' than someone only interested in fame and fortune? Besides, an awful lot of people with "something to say" just spout rubbish - which, of course, is fine because it's their rubbish and they are sincere in their message. In practice, of course, people will tend to admire people with "something to say" if they agree with what they're saying and then consider them to be 'authentic'. But why should, say, Billy Bragg be more 'authentic' than, say, Nick Griffin. Both are surely 'the real thing' in terms of having "something to say" and fervently believing in it. All of which is personal, subjective opinion and you'll either agree or disagree - but it won't change anything. [/quote] You're probably right, and I only said "part of whether an artist is "authentic"". And I put "authentic" in quotes because I'm not sure it's the appropriate term for music or artists. I'm less interested in music where someone's pushing an agenda, I'm more interested in something with a groove Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flyfisher Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 I wasn't having a go at anyone in particular - well, at all really. To do so would negate my basic point. I entirely agree that "authentic" is an irrelevant descriptor for music, and probably any artistic endeavour. There are no rights and wrongs. It's all subjective. But I guess it will never stop people arguing over the Stones or the Beatles or how good/bad Pink Floyd are (is?) or how much a pile of ceramic sunflower seeds is worth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skankdelvar Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='skankdelvar' timestamp='1332247378' post='1585437'] Inauthentic. [/quote] [quote name='silddx' timestamp='1332247930' post='1585450'] Do you REALLY believe that? [/quote] [quote name='JakeBrownBass' timestamp='1332248308' post='1585459'] Stevie Wonder? [/quote] Like I said, authenticity is not a state of being. It's a second party's perception. As for Mr Stevland Hardaway Morris Judkins, I don't blame him for changing his name to (Little) Stevie Wonder. I mean, just try getting that on the single sleeve. And later on, he became an 'authentic' artist, which serves only to prove that 'authenticity' is not a permanent condition but someone else's shifting assessment of the artist's 'integrity'. In fact, SW's an interesting example. He started out as pretty much the Jedward of his day (see his appearances in films like Bikini Beach), but didn't get generally slagged off for inauthenticity. That was because he was in the pop market and because 'authenticity' didn't become an issue in pop till the early-mid 60's. See, all manner of ghastly folkies and jazzers were stroking their chins to a bloody point long before the concept of authenticity slunk into rock like a mangy, yellow dog. That was probably around the time someone screamed "Judas" at Dylan. Just as today, these tripemongers were saying more about themselves than they were about the artists they deified or vilified. [color=#ffffff].[/color] Edited March 20, 2012 by skankdelvar Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Low End Bee Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 It's worrying me. All our from the heart, blood, sweat and tears releases from now on will now carry a gold leaf embossed 'Premier Cru' label on the CD. All the stuff we just churn out for money and chicks will be labeled 'Tune de Table' to avoid confusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cheddatom Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 (edited) [quote name='JakeBrownBass' timestamp='1332246304' post='1585405'] How do you take aliases then, artists that change there name for an image or marketing purposes? [/quote] I'd say an alias for a solo act is just like a band name for a band. If they have chosen the name because they think it will represent anything other than themselves or their art, then it's not authentic. So, if I call my band "total *****" because I think we're total *****, or because I feel it represents our sense of humor, or our music, or whatever, then it's authentic. If I call my band "total *****" because I think it'll get us more attention, then the name's not authentic - unless the whole point of the band is to grab as much attention as possible, in which case that would be authentic, but only if we were honest about our intentions. I was in a band called "The Premature Ejaculators". Only 3 out of 4 members suffered from the condition, but we felt it represented our band in that we always left our audience wanting more. Edited March 20, 2012 by cheddatom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OliverBlackman Posted March 20, 2012 Share Posted March 20, 2012 in discussing the music. IMO the music is authentic when written by an artist/ band for the purpose of [i]expressing themselves[/i] rather than writing it to make money or having it restricted/adapted to fit in with an outsiders view of what a single should be. Unfortunately most pop music is manufactured and rarely written by the artist. This view is based on what i am taught and research, so could be inaccurate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xilddx Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 [quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332272513' post='1585964'] in discussing the music. IMO the music is authentic when written by an artist/ band for the purpose of [i]expressing themselves[/i] rather than writing it to make money or having it restricted/adapted to fit in with an outsiders view of what a single should be. Unfortunately most pop music is manufactured and rarely written by the artist. This view is based on what i am taught and research, so could be inaccurate. [/quote] That's my view of this too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dlloyd Posted March 21, 2012 Share Posted March 21, 2012 [quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332272513' post='1585964'] in discussing the music. IMO the music is authentic when written by an artist/ band for the purpose of [i]expressing themselves[/i] rather than writing it to make money or having it restricted/adapted to fit in with an outsiders view of what a single should be. [/quote] Is this therefore "inauthentic"? [media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pVM00eoohI[/media] If so, "authenticity" is a worthless concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.