Authenticity in Popular music.

[xilddx]

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1332335874' post='1586813']
Is this therefore "inauthentic"?

[b]If so, "authenticity" is a worthless concept.[/b]
[/quote]
This I also believe and why I think this is the correct conclusion to the OP's assignment question.

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1332335874' post='1586813']
Is this therefore "inauthentic"?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pVM00eoohI[/media]

If so, "authenticity" is a worthless concept.
[/quote]

Well yes, pretty much all of Motown with a few exceptions like Marvin Gayes whats going on. The artist's had virtually no choice in what they were singing.

Its not worthless, there are many people who play music to please themselves but very few of them gain a big following.

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='silddx' timestamp='1332333886' post='1586740']
That's my view of this too.
[/quote]

holy cow!

[Skol303]

Good question! But I don't think there's a 'correct' answer to it.

To some people, authentic music is that played by musicians using instruments, not electronic sounds made my computers.

JLS are an authentic pop band to a 14-year old schoolgirl, but not to a middle-aged Zeppelin fan. And vice-versa.

In short: I’d argue that the authenticity of music is in the ear of the listener – it’s purely subjective, rather than objective.

[dlloyd]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332337293' post='1586846']
Well yes, pretty much all of Motown with a few exceptions like Marvin Gayes whats going on. The artist's had virtually no choice in what they were singing.

Its not worthless, there are many people who play music to please themselves but very few of them gain a big following.
[/quote]

I'm just not sure your definition is valid... is this "inauthentic"?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtAzaQ_fd-A&feature=fvwrel[/media]

Edited March 21, 2012 by dlloyd

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332337293' post='1586846']
Well yes, pretty much all of Motown with a few exceptions like Marvin Gayes whats going on. [i][b]The artist's had virtually no choice in what they were singing.[/b][/i]

Its not worthless, there are many people who play music to please themselves but very few of them gain a big following.
[/quote]
I'd say Motown was authentic. You're making a mistake in categorising who the artist is. The artist is not the singers, that's just marketing; the artist in this case is the whole Motown setup: lyricists, composers, arrangers, musicians, singers, producer, etc. And it made money as well as these artists expressing themselves - those two not being mutually exclusive.

Edited March 21, 2012 by EssentialTension

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1332348757' post='1587096']
I'm just not sure your definition is valid... is this "inauthentic"?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtAzaQ_fd-A&feature=fvwrel[/media]
[/quote]
Authentic

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332350659' post='1587151']

I'd say Motown was authentic. You're making a mistake in categorising who the artist is. The artist is not the singers, that's just marketing; the artist in this case is the whole Motown setup: lyricists, composers, arrangers, musicians, singers, producer, etc. And it made money as well as these artists expressing themselves - those two not being mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

I wonder what the general view would be about that statement if 'Motown' was replaced with 'Simon Cowell'? Or the Monkees perhaps?

Surely there is no inherent 'worthiness' in music, only subjective opinions. As such, I remain of the view that the basic premise of the thread is worthless.

Edited March 21, 2012 by flyfisher

[OliverBlackman]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332350659' post='1587151']
I'd say Motown was authentic. You're making a mistake in categorising who the artist is. The artist is not the singers, that's just marketing; the artist in this case is the whole Motown setup: lyricists, composers, arrangers, musicians, singers, producer, etc. And it made money as well as these artists expressing themselves - those two not being mutually exclusive.
[/quote]

i get what your saying but documentaries on motown i have watched indicate that the songs were not written from feelings. There was a lot of depression in detroits black community and whoever started motown saw there was a need for music that would cheer people up. A BBC documentary on detroit described it as false happiness. I wouldn't call that authentic.

[BottomE]

[quote name='JakeBrownBass' timestamp='1332172576' post='1584253']
Hey guys, i'm in the middle of doing some research in Authenticity in popular music for an assignment at uni.

I thought i'd open the discussions with you lot.

What are your feelings on the matter, what makes for example Led Zeppelin more authentic than lets say, Jedward etc...

You can see where i'm going with this

So what is your take on authenticity in music. What makes it authentic and what doesn't.
[/quote]

I think i see where you are going.

The media play a big part. In the old days bands that featured in Melody Maker were oft perceived to be cool and those in Smash Hits less so. When punk erupted it was all about sub-culture but punks were pretty smart marketeers playing on this. I remember they used coloured vinyl as a sales gimmick and The Sex Pistols were more manufactured than many less cool bands. Peer pressure also plays a part - bands that your mates say are cool, rootsy etc. The radio or TV programme that you are played on plays a part.

Its all bollocks though. If its good its good

edit for typing rubbish

Edited March 21, 2012 by BottomE

[SteveK]

I couldn't give two hoots if something is "authentic" (however you want to define it) or not. It's the job of an artist to convince me that it [b]is[/b]. A good artist will convince me.

[risingson]

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1332335874' post='1586813']
Is this therefore "inauthentic"?

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5pVM00eoohI[/media]

If so, "authenticity" is a worthless concept.
[/quote]

I was literally just about to say the exact same thing. [quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332355495' post='1587269']
I wonder what the general view would be about that statement if 'Motown' was replaced with 'Simon Cowell'? Or the Monkees perhaps?
[/quote]

Berry Gordy was no better than Simon Cowell, in fact he was probably a lot worse in how he dealt with paying and treating people. But Motown had real people who were passionate about music driving it. Real writers (H/D/H), real blue-collar, immensely passionate and talented musicians and hugely talented front men and front women. I'd struggle to include any of the aforementioned qualities to any artists to have been reeled off of the Syco production line.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332355495' post='1587269']
I wonder what the general view would be about that statement if 'Motown' was replaced with 'Simon Cowell'? Or the Monkees perhaps?
[/quote]
Of course I wasn't claiming to be discovering what is the general view, which might well be that Motown is comparable with Simon Cowell or the Monkees. That's not my view.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332355495' post='1587269']
Surely there is no inherent 'worthiness' in music, only subjective opinions. As such, I remain of the view that the basic premise of the thread is worthless.
[/quote]
I don't agree with the now very common view that there is no inherent worthiness in music or indeed in other art (or entertainment) forms and, following from this, that there are no standards. I am well aware that this is an unfashionable point of view but, put simply, I don't accept that 'it's all subjective'. The claim that 'it's all subjective' seems to me itself to be a subjective claim and so there's no good reason for me to pay any attention to it. However, if the 'it's all subjective' claim is intended as an objective claim then it is inconsistent and incoherent and there is still no good reason to pay any attention to it.

No need to tell me you don't agree, I already know that.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='blackmn90' timestamp='1332355790' post='1587275']
i get what your saying but documentaries on motown i have watched indicate that the songs were not written from feelings. There was a lot of depression in detroits black community and whoever started motown saw there was a need for music that would cheer people up. A BBC documentary on detroit described it as false happiness. I wouldn't call that authentic.
[/quote]
I think there can be little doubt that Motown was a business venture and was selling product successfully because people were made happy, albeit in a passing way, by its product but, nonetheless, Motown was serious about the content of its product even when it didn't address prevailing social and political problems. However, the problems of life are not merely social and political they are also personal and people do want - even need, I'd say - to hear songs about love and loss.

I don't see how that makes it inauthentic. I'd also say that I don't really accept that authenticity is merely about feelings or about expressing oneself.

However, there were Motown songs, especially in the late 60s and early 70s which were much more explicit in their references to social problems. Here's a couple of them:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01-2pNCZiNk


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Qh-8ZMoLeY&

[dlloyd]

To the OP...

Have you been to the Uni library?

What does "authenticity" mean? Is it a valid measure of worth? Are there different kinds of "authenticity"? Can something be "authentic" in one way and "inauthentic" in another? Are there types of "authenticity" that are defined by the artist and types that are defined by the listener?

That should provide you with enough for an essay.

Read this book... http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AxfSyg5PZ6sC&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332359065' post='1587336']
I don't agree with the now very common view that there is no inherent worthiness in music or indeed in other art (or entertainment) forms and, following from this, that there are no standards. I am well aware that this is an unfashionable point of view but, put simply, I don't accept that 'it's all subjective'. [b]The claim that 'it's all subjective' seems to me itself to be a subjective claim and so there's no good reason for me to pay any attention to it. [/b]However, if the 'it's all subjective' claim is intended as an objective claim then it is inconsistent and incoherent and there is still no good reason to pay any attention to it.
[/quote]

You're right, of course, that my opinion is subjective, but so is your choice not to pay attention to it. But doesn't that just reinforce the subjectivity of it all?

My point about there being no inherent worthiness in music wasn't meant to denigrate music, far from it, but rather to suggest that all music is equally worthy.

Yes, individuals will be able to give all sorts of reasons why one piece of music is better than another, but I'd bet there won't be a universal consensus - which is what we'd expect from such a subjectivity subject.

[EssentialTension]

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332368751' post='1587501']
You're right, of course, that my opinion is subjective, but so is your choice not to pay attention to it. But doesn't that just reinforce the subjectivity of it all?
[/quote]
I didn't say I choose not to pay attention, I said there is no good reason to pay attention. It's a matter of logic not mere choice.

While I would accept that opinions can have subjective elements and/or culturally relative elements, I don't accept that opinions are necessarily wholly subjective and/or culturally relative. Opinions can also be true or false, or partially so. So, I don't see at all that this 'reinforces the subjectivity of it all'; I want to deny 'the subjectivity of it all'. So, I'm not really claiming that your opinion is subjective rather that the claim that these opinions are merely subjective is incoherent and, in fact, false.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332368751' post='1587501']
My point about there being no inherent worthiness in music wasn't meant to denigrate music, far from it, but rather to suggest that all music is equally worthy.
[/quote]
This is where we really differ because I don't accept that all music is equally worthy. For example, Beethoven actually is more worthy than Britney Spears; The Beatles actually are more worthy than The Bay City Rollers.

[quote name='flyfisher' timestamp='1332368751' post='1587501']
Yes, individuals will be able to give all sorts of reasons why one piece of music is better than another, but I'd bet there won't be a universal consensus - which is what we'd expect from such a subjectivity subject.
[/quote]
When it comes down to it, I'm not really interested in (or expecting) consensus, unanimous or majoritarian, including the common consensus that 'it's all subjective' which, illogically and incoherently as I claim, is then often stated as an obviously objective and absolute truth.

[cheddatom]

I think you can break it down into each aspect of an "act". Is the act as a whole authentic. Is the performance authentic. Is the recording authentic. Is the song authentic etc etc.

If you pay to go and see someone sing and they're miming, that's not authentic, but if you know they're going to be miming, it is authentic. If you think you're listening to artist A singing on the CD but you're actually listening to artist B then the recording isn't authentic.

People seem to be relating "authenticity in music" to "quality of music" - although it is subjective, I don't think many musicians would agree that Britney Spears produced a higher quality of music than Beethoven. However, in terms of authenticity, she doesn't pretend to write her own songs - what's not authentic about Britney Spears? (besides any cosmetic surgery)

Or is "authenticity in music" the same as "artistic integrity"? In which case i'm not sure Britney Spears ever produced any "art" at all (in that picking a song off the shelf and singing it as instructed is not an artistic expression in my opinion).

Edited March 22, 2012 by cheddatom

[dlloyd]

[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1332409358' post='1587771']
I think you can break it down into each aspect of an "act". Is the act as a whole authentic. Is the performance authentic. Is the recording authentic. Is the song authentic etc etc.

If you pay to go and see someone sing and they're miming, that's not authentic, but if you know they're going to be miming, it is authentic. If you think you're listening to artist A singing on the CD but you're actually listening to artist B then the recording isn't authentic.

People seem to be relating "authenticity in music" to "quality of music" - although it is subjective, I don't think many musicians would agree that Britney Spears produced a higher quality of music than Beethoven. However, in terms of authenticity, she doesn't pretend to write her own songs - what's not authentic about Britney Spears? (besides any cosmetic surgery)

Or is "authenticity in music" the same as "artistic integrity"? In which case i'm not sure Britney Spears ever produced any "art" at all (in that picking a song off the shelf and singing it as instructed is not an artistic expression in my opinion).
[/quote]

The problem here is that the OP has been set an essay on "authenticity" in popular music. What he is most likely being tested on is his ability to review current academic thought on the topic. "Authenticity" is a term that is used in a number of senses in art philosophy, each of which have been studied (and published on) extensively.

While this discussion is interesting, it's a bunch of amateurs arguing about stuff we don't really know that much about. The OP would do himself a disservice if he were to base his essay on the opinions in this thread. If he does, chances are he won't get that good a mark.

A good place to start would be in the Chapter "Authenticity in Art" in the Oxford Handbook of Aesthetics. Fortunately, it's available online...

[url="http://denisdutton.com/authenticity.htm"]http://denisdutton.c...uthenticity.htm[/url]

Edited March 22, 2012 by dlloyd

[skankdelvar]

The more I think about the question that the OP has been set, the more I feel the need to dab my temples with eau de cologne and have a nice lie-down.

Authenticity - as an aestheic concept - seems fairly straightforward compared to the vagueness both of the question's wording and of the intent with which it seems to have been posed.

[BigRedX]

If I was a student on this course, I'd take a vaguely worded assignment like this to have a pop at the lecturer's favourite artist in favour of something that I knew they hated.

I'm like that though...

[flyfisher]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332377028' post='1587600']
This is where we really differ because I don't accept that all music is equally worthy. For example, Beethoven actually is more worthy than Britney Spears; The Beatles actually are more worthy than The Bay City Rollers.
[/quote]


More worthy by what criteria?

[pete.young]

[quote name='Bilbo' timestamp='1332173411' post='1584274']
I think it is a case of manufactured over organic. If the impetus comes from the creativity of individuals who are in the bands, then there is a level of integrity that is missing when the 'band' are the front for a corporate hit making machine.

[/quote]

Not good news for Motown then?

[Musky]

[quote name='dlloyd' timestamp='1332360327' post='1587360']
To the OP...

Have you been to the Uni library?

What does "authenticity" mean? Is it a valid measure of worth? Are there different kinds of "authenticity"? Can something be "authentic" in one way and "inauthentic" in another? Are there types of "authenticity" that are defined by the artist and types that are defined by the listener?

That should provide you with enough for an essay.

Read this book... [url="http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=AxfSyg5PZ6sC&pg=PA78&redir_esc=y"]http://books.google....A78&redir_esc=y[/url]
[/quote]
[quote name='cheddatom' timestamp='1332409358' post='1587771']
I think you can break it down into each aspect of an "act". Is the act as a whole authentic. Is the performance authentic. Is the recording authentic. Is the song authentic etc etc.

If you pay to go and see someone sing and they're miming, that's not authentic, but if you know they're going to be miming, it is authentic. If you think you're listening to artist A singing on the CD but you're actually listening to artist B then the recording isn't authentic.

People seem to be relating "authenticity in music" to "quality of music" - although it is subjective, I don't think many musicians would agree that Britney Spears produced a higher quality of music than Beethoven. However, in terms of authenticity, she doesn't pretend to write her own songs - what's not authentic about Britney Spears? (besides any cosmetic surgery)

Or is "authenticity in music" the same as "artistic integrity"? In which case i'm not sure Britney Spears ever produced any "art" at all (in that picking a song off the shelf and singing it as instructed is not an artistic expression in my opinion).
[/quote]

"The secret of success is sincerity. Once you can fake that you've got it made." - Jean Giraudoux

I've got to admit, I was a little disappointed that the question that the OP had been set could be filed under 'marketing'. At least they had the good grace to put the word authentic in inverted commas.

But it's been an interesting conversation, and for me the quotes above get to the heart of the matter.

There are clearly many different authenticities. To talk about all music being authentic is a bit of a red herring: yes, all music is authentic (including John Cage's 4'33") in that it exists, but the authenticities created by musicians and fans alike can be very different. What is authentic for a boy band and a metal band may be completely different. As a generalisation fans of boys bands couldn't give a damn about notions of artistry, whether they can play an instrument, write a song or were assembled by a musical svengali - what is prioritised is looks and the faint promise of availability. Different genres have different authenticities.

But it gets even more complicated. Was Ziggy Stardust authentic? I'd imagine few engaged with Ziggy Stardust without realising he was a creation of David Bowie, and many in turn knew Mssr. Bowie was Davie Jones in previous times. But people interact with Ziggy Stardust as a performance, authentic within it's own frame of reference. You could even read David Bowie as a performance of Davie Jones if you wanted to push things a bit. Moreover, it's well worth asking what exactly is being authenticated - the music, the performance, the artist, the audience or even a subculture? Murky waters indeed.

To be a little more germane to the OP's essay question, it's quite easy to tease out the different authenticities within different genres (the key ones at least). The look, the sound, the attitude are probably as far as you need to go for a thousand word essay. Any thing else will depend entirely on the genre (or sub-genre).

Just don't be caught faking it. Die hard fans might overlook it, but others rarely will.

[tauzero]

[quote name='EssentialTension' timestamp='1332359065' post='1587336']
I don't agree with the now very common view that there is no inherent worthiness in music or indeed in other art (or entertainment) forms and, following from this, that there are no standards. I am well aware that this is an unfashionable point of view but, put simply, I don't accept that 'it's all subjective'. The claim that 'it's all subjective' seems to me itself to be a subjective claim and so there's no good reason for me to pay any attention to it. However, if the 'it's all subjective' claim is intended as an objective claim then it is inconsistent and incoherent and there is still no good reason to pay any attention to it.
[/quote]

But if a piece of music can be addressed objectively, surely it's failed as music? After all, music is about the subjective, not the objective. That applies to the composition, the performance, and the listening.