Authenticity in Popular music.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332442011' post='1588515']
More worthy by what criteria?
[/quote]

I could equally ask you 'equally worthy by what criteria?'.

However, if you’re wanting one simple empirical criterion there isn’t one, nor a list of empirical criteria to tick off. It doesn’t work like that.

Value (or worth) judgment is a skill that, like any other skill, is learned and needs to be practised. People may have more or less natural ability but it’s learned from teachers, from role models, and through practice; but that doesn’t stop there being difficult and disputable judgments.

For example, whether [i]Sgt Pepper[/i] is more worthy or not than [i]Revolver[/i] is a difficult one, but whether [i]Revolver[/i] is more worthy than the Rollers’ second album [i]Once Upon A Star[/i] is a much easier judgement. Whether Beethoven is more worthy than Britney Spears is easy, but whether Beethoven is more worthy than Mozart is a much more difficult judgment.

So, by what criteria do you judge Beethoven and Britney Spears or The Beatles and The Bay City Rollers to be equally worthy? Or are you saying that there are no criteria for such a judgement? In which case the claim that they are equally worthy is without foundation.

So - just as you ask me ‘more worthy by what criteria? - I ask you ‘equally worthy by what criteria?’

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1332461973' post='1588847']
But if a piece of music can be addressed objectively, surely it's failed as music? ...
[/quote]
And what are your criteria for saying that?

Anyway, I'd say the opposite. If music has nothing to it that can be adressed objectively then it not only fails as music, it fails in any and every other way too. If music was purely subjective then it could never communicate anything.

[quote name='tauzero' timestamp='1332461973' post='1588847']
... After all, music is about the subjective, not the objective. That applies to the composition, the performance, and the listening.
[/quote]
I have no grasp of why you would say that music is about the subjective and not about the objective. For a start, music can be learned, and that applies to composition, performance and listening and all three of those have objective elements.

I don't and wouldn't claim that there is no subjectivity at all in music but to claim there is only subjectivity seems to me wholly bizarre.

[BigRedX]

In the end the only people who care about "authenticity" in popular music are music journalists, music course lecturers and people who's opinions can be found reproduced in "Pseuds Corner" in Private Eye.

All that matters with music is do you like it or not.

Edited March 23, 2012 by BigRedX

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332524472' post='1589661']
In the end the only people who care about "authenticity" in popular music are music journalists, music course lecturers and people who's opinions can be found reproduced in "Pseuds Corner" in Private Eye.

All that matters with music is do you like it or not.
[/quote]

people are conned into what they like through image and media exposure such as TV or Radio. So it's not quite as simple as you suggest. For example with katy Perry and Lady Gaga the music is written to be in keeping with the image of the artist. Not very authentic and those who say they like it probably wouldn't have done without the brand association.

[risingson]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332528729' post='1589730']
people are conned into what they like through image and media exposure such as TV or Radio. So it's not quite as simple as you suggest. For example with katy Perry and Lady Gaga the music is written to be in keeping with the image of the artist. Not very authentic and those who say they like it probably wouldn't have done without the brand association.
[/quote]

You have a choice as to what music you listen to, just like you have a choice to buy what car you want as well. The only difference is that a lot of people will be marketed to and will choose to buy a Vauxhall over a Kia or a Hyundai because Vauxhall's marketing arm reaches further and influences more people.

However, I would actually argue that people that buy into what is popular music to the extreme are one of two types of people: 1. lazy, or 2. people nowhere near as interested in taking an active pursuit in listening to the music. Let's face it, most of here are passionate about music, which is why subjects like these ones are so hotly debated. But the vast majority of people aren't nearly as interested. If what comes on Radio 1 or Radio 2 is remotely palatable then it will be listened to. Inherently lazy in itself, but then maybe I'm just as lazy for buying ready meals from Tesco instead of cooking for myself like a real chef would. Nothing's right or wrong, but it is telling about the way in which we consume things, up to and including new music.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332523060' post='1589630']
I could equally ask you 'equally worthy by what criteria?'.

However, if you’re wanting one simple empirical criterion there isn’t one, nor a list of empirical criteria to tick off. It doesn’t work like that.

Value (or worth) judgment is a skill that, like any other skill, is learned and needs to be practised. People may have more or less natural ability but it’s learned from teachers, from role models, and through practice; but that doesn’t stop there being difficult and disputable judgments.

For example, whether [i]Sgt Pepper[/i] is more worthy or not than [i]Revolver[/i] is a difficult one, but whether [i]Revolver[/i] is more worthy than the Rollers’ second album [i]Once Upon A Star[/i] is a much easier judgement. Whether Beethoven is more worthy than Britney Spears is easy, but whether Beethoven is more worthy than Mozart is a much more difficult judgment.

So, by what criteria do you judge Beethoven and Britney Spears or The Beatles and The Bay City Rollers to be equally worthy? Or are you saying that there are no criteria for such a judgement? In which case the claim that they are equally worthy is without foundation.

So - just as you ask me ‘more worthy by what criteria? - I ask you ‘equally worthy by what criteria?’
[/quote]

I think we agree. Such judgements [u]are[/u] subjective.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332529624' post='1589745']
I think we agree. Such judgements [u]are[/u] subjective.
[/quote]
No, we don't agree, but that's life.

[BigRedX]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332528729' post='1589730']
people are conned into what they like through image and media exposure such as TV or Radio. So it's not quite as simple as you suggest. For example with katy Perry and Lady Gaga the music is written to be in keeping with the image of the artist. Not very authentic and those who say they like it probably wouldn't have done without the brand association.
[/quote]

Why is this important? It's not.

If I knew the secret ingredient that could persuade people to like my band I would be using it and so would everyone else.

Edited March 23, 2012 by BigRedX

[Gust0o]

I didn't find anything authentic on Earth. But I did find this authentic collection of all things authentically alien. Or something. Something authentic.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332531839' post='1589791']
No, we don't agree, but that's life.
[/quote]
Ah, I obviously misunderstood then.

OK, so you say:

[i]However, if you’re wanting one simple empirical criterion there isn’t one, nor a list of empirical criteria to tick off. It doesn’t work like that.
Value (or worth) judgment is a skill that, like any other skill, is learned and needs to be practised. People may have more or less natural ability but it’s learned from teachers, from role models, and through practice; but that doesn’t stop there being difficult and disputable judgments.[/i]

How can anyone learn a "value judging skill" if there is no empirical criteria to determine how accurate their judgements are?

Thus, pupil A might learn to judge the worthiness of music from one set of teachers and role models and pupil B may learn from a completely different set of teachers and role models. Without empirical criteria as a basis for such judgements, isn't it likely that pupils A & B would "learn" to judge the worthiness of music in completely different ways?

Surely, unless the worthiness/unworthiness of music can be strictly defined then it must, by definition, be a subjective judgement.

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='risingson' timestamp='1332529247' post='1589739']
You have a choice as to what music you listen to, just like you have a choice to buy what car you want as well. The only difference is that a lot of people will be marketed to and will choose to buy a Vauxhall over a Kia or a Hyundai because Vauxhall's marketing arm reaches further and influences more people.

However, I would actually argue that people that buy into what is popular music to the extreme are one of two types of people: 1. lazy, or 2. people nowhere near as interested in taking an active pursuit in listening to the music. Let's face it, most of here are passionate about music, which is why subjects like these ones are so hotly debated. But the vast majority of people aren't nearly as interested. If what comes on Radio 1 or Radio 2 is remotely palatable then it will be listened to. Inherently lazy in itself, but then maybe I'm just as lazy for buying ready meals from Tesco instead of cooking for myself like a real chef would. Nothing's right or wrong, but it is telling about the way in which we consume things, up to and including new music.
[/quote]

advertising of music is a lot stronger than the advertising of cars though. An example that springs to mind is an ex girlfriend. She was very much into JLS, why because she had followed them on x factor and they were always on the music channels which was her access to music.

I'm sure she is not alone and it would say a lot about why One Direction are doing so well. Theres a video of them live in NY which is very good proof that they cannot sing.

What am i trying to say? Whether a tune is authentic in popular music or not, it doesn't make a difference as to whether people will buy it.

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332532681' post='1589808']
Why is this important? It's not.

If I knew the secret ingredient that could persuade people to like my band I would be using it and so would everyone else.
[/quote]

You said "all that matters is if you like it or not." Im saying thats not the case.

The secret ingredient is money for marketing, thats how bands get interest and lots of people are paying companies thousands of pounds just to get in magazines. This in turn creates more fans. Hopefully these fans will pay to see you play and buy your EP.

The thing is most bands that do this won't admit it because they're embarrassed they had to buy success.

Also gig a lot and increase your chances of getting lucky enough to find a manager, promoter, publisher or record label that has an interest in what your doing.

[Musky]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332532681' post='1589808']
Why is this important? It's not.

If I knew the secret ingredient that could persuade people to like my band I would be using it and so would everyone else.
[/quote]
Try telling that to Milli Vanilli.

Authenticity [i]is[/i] important, but because it's such a nebulous concept it's very difficult to pin down. Or Fake.

The thing is, people are often very happy with inauthenticity in the music industry. What we don't like is a mismatch between the basis for claims to authenticity and the reality. It's the reason why X Factor winners are so often paraded singing unaccompanied, or why Lady Gaga was widely promoted solo at the piano. Both subjects can be viewed as inauthentic by some widely held criteria, yet they have to demonstrate the claims made for them stand some scrutiny.

It's important for any originals act, as a mismatch can seriously damage a career or prevent it taking off in the first place. Which is what Jake's question was getting at in the first place.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Musky

[BigRedX]

I don't think that the secret ingredient is money. Or at least that's not the whole story.

Sure you can throw loads of money into marketing an act, but at some point the money coming back has to be greater than the money going in. That's elementary business sense. And while using money to put an act in the public eye will help them sell more CDs/downloads/concert tickets, you can't maintain success at a sustainable level simply by payola if enough people don't like the music.

However this has nothing to do with authenticity or lack of it.

I'm still to be convinced that authenticity is at all important to the average person who spends money on music.

[Musky]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332538662' post='1589906']
I'm still to be convinced that authenticity is at all important to the average person who spends money on music.
[/quote]

Sure it is. In a nutshell - nobody likes to be lied to.

Of course people look for different authenticities in different acts, so the fact that Madonna (for instance) is constantly recreating herself makes no difference to me. Yes, her persona at any given point is a confection but that doesn't make her any less 'real' if you accept her on those terms. If she stops the constant image and style changes she becomes just another heritage act.

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332538662' post='1589906']
I don't think that the secret ingredient is money. Or at least that's not the whole story.

Sure you can throw loads of money into marketing an act, but at some point the money coming back has to be greater than the money going in. That's elementary business sense. And while using money to put an act in the public eye will help them sell more CDs/downloads/concert tickets, you can't maintain success at a sustainable level simply by payola if enough people don't like the music.

However this has nothing to do with authenticity or lack of it.

I'm still to be convinced that authenticity is at all important to the average person who spends money on music.
[/quote]

1. I read last year that there was a study which found that over 90% of the bands signed to labels make a loss. Labels are making losses but they aren't as bad as they would be without their big acts who are making a profit. These are bands such as Coldplay and Foo Fighters, both have had unrivalled publicity.

[u][b]Most[/b][/u] bands artists signed to a label don't have anything released and are dropped or they make 1 or 2 albums and then are dropped. The public don't hear about this but it's happening all the time to hundreds of artists/bands.

2. The average joe? probably nothing. But those who are making music? Well it can effect the way we write music.

[flyfisher]

[quote name='BigRedX' timestamp='1332538662' post='1589906']
I'm still to be convinced that authenticity is at all important to the average person who spends money on music.
[/quote]

I'd say it's important to them, but that the judge for that authenticity is themselves.

Thus, I'm sure Madonna fans consider her to be the 'real deal' and as authentic as it comes, which is undoubtedly important to them as they give her their money. On the other hand, there will be legions of other people who 'see through' her various manifestations as just cheap publicity-seeking nonsense and regard her as completely 'fake'.

Where are the objective criteria by which to determine which group of people are correct in their assessment of her authenticity?

[risingson]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332533912' post='1589840']
advertising of music is a lot stronger than the advertising of cars though.
[/quote]

You'd be surprised.

[skankdelvar]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332541605' post='1589974']
Thus, I'm sure Madonna fans consider her to be the 'real deal' and as authentic as it comes, which is undoubtedly important to them as they give her their money. On the other hand, there will be legions of other people who 'see through' her various manifestations as just cheap publicity-seeking nonsense and regard her as completely 'fake'.

Where are the objective criteria by which to determine which group of people are correct in their assessment of her authenticity?
[/quote]

No need for a set of objective criteria to determine which group is correct. Because both groups are correct. As is the third group who believes her authenticity as a 'modern icon' is rooted in the knowingness and transparency with which she plays the game while slyly acknowledging her 'fake'-ness. They are - by their own estimation - 'in on the secret'.

Madonna is a hall of mirrors and makes my head hurt.

Edited March 24, 2012 by skankdelvar

[BigRedX]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332540019' post='1589939']
1. I read last year that there was a study which found that over 90% of the bands signed to labels make a loss. Labels are making losses but they aren't as bad as they would be without their big acts who are making a profit. These are bands such as Coldplay and Foo Fighters, both have had unrivalled publicity.

[u][b]Most[/b][/u] bands artists signed to a label don't have anything released and are dropped or they make 1 or 2 albums and then are dropped. The public don't hear about this but it's happening all the time to hundreds of artists/bands.
[/quote]

As I said in my previous post money matters, but it's not the only thing, otherwise pop music would be a guaranteed investment. You'd sign an artist (or manufacture one) throw lots of money at them and sit back and watch the returns come flooding in. However this doesn't happen so there must be other things at work. The artist must have something about them and their songs that the audience can connect with. That quality is entirely subjective and changes slightly all the time. Money and marketing can help but they guarantee nothing when dealing with any "product" like music who's value is not absolute and objective. However IMO authenticity doesn't enter into the equation.

Of course most bands or artists don't ever make any money. That's been the case since music started to be sold on records (and was the case for song writers working for publishers writing sheet music before that). The few very successful acts subsidise the rest for as long as the record companies think that there might be some potential in them. The time scales might be shorter these days but it's always been like that. Anyone with a passing interest in music knows this. Again I fail to see what authenticity has to do with it.


[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332540019' post='1589939']
2. The average joe? probably nothing. But those who are making music? Well it can effect the way we write music.
[/quote]

Sorry I really don't understand what your try to say here. Are you implying that authenticity changes how you write?

I think overall my biggest problem with the question of "authenticity" is that it gets bandied about along with phrases like "worthy", "real" "paying your dues", and when it's used to describe music the end product to my ears is something deadly dull and boring with no sense of fun or style. Don't get me wrong I like to have to think about my music but I want to be entertained too, but if it comes down to it I'll take fun over "authentic" any day.

Edited March 24, 2012 by BigRedX

[spinynorman]

In researching authenticity in popular music, you could do worse than read "Escaping the Delta", by Elijah Wald. There's nothing more authentic than the blues, right? No one more authentically blues roots than Robert Johnson? Well, maybe not.

http://www.elijahwald.com/rjohnson.html