Kurt Cobain VS J. Lo and the pursuit of authenticity

AMP: sci-fi art, regular art, pictures, photos, comics, music, etc.

Moderator: Beowulf

Post Reply
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Kurt Cobain VS J. Lo and the pursuit of authenticity

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Not too long ago there was a very minor row on this forum about "selling out" and the credibility an artist has. It just so happened that I ran across a more than coincidental article in a recent zine that opened a bigger dialogue on the topic than I previously thought possible:

As seen in Edmonton's own SEE
“I can’t fool you, any one of you. It simply isn’t fair to you or me. The worst crime I can think of would be to rip people off by faking it and pretending as if I’m having 100% fun.” —Kurt Cobain, addressing his fans in his suicide note

“I’m real, I thought I told you / I’m real, even on Oprah / That’s just me / Nothin’ phony, don’t hate on me / What you get is what you see” —Jennifer Lopez, addressing her fans in “Jenny From the Block”

It’s hard to think of a recent figure in popular music more respected than Kurt Cobain, prized for his raw vocal style, his turbulent songwriting (with many of the lyrics drawn from the most emotional aspects of his personal life), his tortured ambivalence in the face of the corporate marketing machine (most famously evident in his decision to pose for the cover of Rolling Stone while wearing a T-shirt reading “Corporate Magazines Still Suck”), his championing of borderline-unlistenable “outsider” musicians like Jandek and Daniel Johnston, and, of course, his suicide—ultimate proof that the pain he sang about was no exaggeration.

Similarly, it’s hard to think of a recent pop star less respected by the critical establishment than Jennifer Lopez, whose CDs and videos are the pinnacle of glossy, prepackaged, image-conscious record-label “product.” Lopez, despite her claims to the contrary on “Jenny From the Block,” seems unmistakably inauthentic, whereas Cobain is indisputably the real thing. And as any good rock fan knows, real is much, much better than fake.

But as Yuval Taylor points out in his new book Faking It: The Quest for Authenticity in Popular Music (which he co-authored with Hugh Barker), telling real from fake is a much more complicated matter than it first appears. Take Leadbelly, one of Cobain’s favourite artists, whose sparse, elemental recordings of traditional folk songs made him an icon of authenticity to his (mostly white) fans—but whose image was in fact carefully crafted by his manager, John Lomax, who had him perform in a prison uniform and deliberately expunged the “white” pop and jazz songs from his live repertoire.

Actually, though, Taylor and Barker are less interested in tearing down musical myths than in simply figuring out exactly what we mean when we say a record sounds “authentic,” and exploring the effect that the cult of authenticity has had on how music is made and perceived by the public. Their test cases span the history of recorded song, from Mississippi John Hurt and Jimmie Rodgers to Donna Summer, Neil Young and Moby, and there’s nothing fake about the level of intelligence and scholarship they bring to each of their subjects.

Yuval Taylor spoke to SEE Magazine over the phone about Faking It.

SEE: Is there a date where you can see a sea change taking place in music history, when authenticity suddenly became the yardstick music is measured by—or at least when a perceived lack of authenticity became something that made people say a piece of music was bad?

Yuval Taylor: Well, I think there are certainly moments where you can see authenticity suddenly becoming more important. The idea of an authentic musical experience goes at least as far back as the 19th century. But you can see it really flaring up in country music in the late 1940s, for instance, when Hank Williams became the paragon of authenticity. And it happened again in the late 1960s, with the rise of Bob Dylan and the singer/songwriter. Plus I think there was just a general sense of disillusionment then, that people didn’t want to be lied to anymore and were looking for authenticity in all aspects of the culture, even in the pop charts.

SEE: Authenticity in someone like, say, Joni Mitchell is one thing, but what do pop stars like Jennifer Lopez get out of these displays of authenticity? That “Jenny From the Block” song didn’t seem to convince anybody and she was widely derided for it.

YT: Well, people who weren’t her fans derided her, but her audience ate it up. That song wouldn’t have been the huge hit it was if the fans didn’t like it. I don’t think J.Lo ever lost credibility with her core market, but reaffirming her authenticity was an important career move, and I think that was exactly the right song at the right time. Plus, she really is from the block—she’s from a working-class Latino neighbourhood. Hugh would very much disagree with this statement, but I think it’s a really clever and empowering song. She acknowledges that she’s rich, but she does so in a way that says, “Girls, I did it and you can do it too.”

SEE: But it’s not a song that many critics would want to be caught praising. Can you give some examples of artists whose reputation has suffered unfairly because they didn’t seem authentic enough? How about the reverse: are there artists whose perceived authenticity has artificially inflated their reputation?

YT: I think Donna Summer’s reputation has suffered greatly because of these concerns. She is one of the great musical innovators and performers and she is definitely not seen that way. As for overrated musicians, I’d say John Lee Hooker and Lightnin’ Hopkins are both pretty limited talents whose output has been overpraised for its supposed authenticity and where the praise far exceeds the music’s value. I also feel that the whole metal scene has suffered greatly because of the pursuit of authenticity. Metal used to be a great, theatrical, inauthentic genre, and the personal, confessional mode of all these pop-metal bands like Staind and Evanescence is nowhere near as much fun.

SEE: Throughout the book you’ll play off a supposedly authentic artist against a supposedly inauthentic one—Neil Young vs. Billy Joel, Michael Nesmith vs. John Lennon—and often the inauthentic one will come off looking pretty good. Did you take some pleasure in making these contrarian arguments, knowing you’d tick off a lot of rock fans?

YT: Well, it’s always fun outraging rock fans. But we’re not just trying to get people’s goats; hopefully, we’re making comparisons that bring out some nuances in the music. For instance, the comparison between Neil Young and Billy Joel is a really interesting one, especially when you consider that they both recorded well-known songs about the search for authenticity: Neil Young recorded “Heart of Gold,” Billy Joel recorded “Honesty.” And we ask, well, where’s the difference? And the difference, I think, is that Joel is simply being earnest and talking about telling the truth, whereas Young is slipperier. He’s more interested in exploring himself and being honest in his own way, in being honest to himself at any given moment.

SEE: Could a case be made that authenticity is “out” these days? Look at American Idol, which is pretty much the epitome of inauthenticity, but which is also one of the biggest popular music phenomena of the last 25 years.

YT: Well, I think American Idol is a very old idea—it’s basically just an update of Arthur Godfrey’s Talent Scouts from the 1940s and ’50s. But interestingly, American Idol is careful to put signifiers of authenticity in there that Arthur Godfrey never would—the backstage moments with the performers, the way the judges are always urging the performers to “be themselves.” No, if anything, I think our culture is more aware of authenticity than ever. You see Alicia Keys recording an album called The Diary of Alicia Keys or Ashlee Simpson recording an album called Autobiography, and you see displays of authenticity in genres like pop-metal which never tried to be authentic before, or even in Broadway shows like Rent.

SEE: You suggest in your final chapter that a truly mature music fan will have “grown beyond” worrying so much about the realness of a song or a performer. Have your own tastes changed and evolved over the years?

YT: Well, I still find myself intrigued by questions of authenticity and wondering how true a song is to a performer’s life. But when I was young, I’d dismiss a lot of songs for being too theatrical and fake—I hated Van Halen, for instance. Now I like all kinds of music that make no pretense toward being real. At the same time, however, there’s no getting away from the fact that a Neil Young album will go up in my estimation in direct proportion to how real it seems.
I've always been irritated to no end by the hipster scene and their circlejerk take on modern music, most of it from a source too stagnant to offer anything better than the very pop-marketing machine they scorn, especially since I more typically associate myself with more aggressive and theatrical music. To them, this is a cardinal sin because it's not about pressing personal issues that we all face in our day to day life expressed as profoundly as the Bob Dylan handful of chords formula will permit them, but to me, most metal songs and their themes serve as a lens for those same topics, and the theatricality is disarming and gets closer to me in a roundabout way.

/steps off soapbox

So yeah, any truth to this?
User avatar
Flagg
CUNTS FOR EYES!
Posts: 12797
Joined: 2005-06-09 09:56pm
Location: Hell. In The Room Right Next to Reagan. He's Fucking Bonzo. No, wait... Bonzo's fucking HIM.

Post by Flagg »

I despise bands that sound almost exactly like earlier more popular bands without adding anything significant to the original sound. Be it the Stone Temple Pilots with Pearl Jam or Jet with The Strokes. It just reeks of corporate executive whores saying "wow, this band is great and sells tons of CD's, let's find 10 others that sound just like them!". That's what I see as inauthentic.

I have no real use for the vast majority of popular music anyway, because it sounds bland, soulless, and like I've heard it a hundred times before.
We pissing our pants yet?
-Negan

You got your shittin' pants on? Because you’re about to
Shit. Your. Pants!
-Negan

He who can,
does; he who cannot, teaches.
-George Bernard Shaw
User avatar
aerius
Charismatic Cult Leader
Posts: 14795
Joined: 2002-08-18 07:27pm

Post by aerius »

I've pretty much given up trying to categorize music as "real" or "fake" or whatever, I just don't have the time or energy for that these days. Music right now is either "I like it" or "I don't like it", I don't care if it's a highly commercialized tune by Nelly Furtado or some song by an artist you've never heard of because she only plays in my local bar, if I like it that's cool, and that's all that matters.
Image
aerius: I'll vote for you if you sleep with me. :)
Lusankya: Deal!
Say, do you want it to be a threesome with your wife? Or a foursome with your wife and sister-in-law? I'm up for either. :P
User avatar
Losonti Tokash
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2916
Joined: 2004-09-29 03:02pm

Post by Losonti Tokash »

I agree with Aerius on not caring too much over whether a song passes this "authentic" bar. I'll listen to a song, and if I like it, I'll buy the damn album. It pisses me off to no end when people bitch at me for listening to so-called "manufactured" bands.

The article itself is pretty lame. What with the paragraph wanking over Kurt Cobain and his massively overrated music and lumping Staind and Evanescence into the metal genre. And the term "pop-metal."
User avatar
Eris
Jedi Knight
Posts: 541
Joined: 2005-11-15 01:59am

Post by Eris »

I think the problems that crop up around the whole selling out issue are because the authenticity is a damn trouser word -- its the contrast (here between different sorts of music) that wears the trousers, and the word doesn't mean much of anything. To be clearer take another trouser word: 'real.' Real by itself doesn't mean anything, it just contrasts things.

Is that real cream or a hallucination of cream? Is that real cream or coffee whitener? Is that real cream or cream from a genetically modified cow? All those are legitimate uses of the word real in one sense or another, but they're not even close to being related. When people talk about "authentic" music half the time they're completely talking past each other. More annoying is that scarcely anyone notices how much our notion of authenticity is informed by our musical culture, either, especially in one like the US current musical world where it's at odds with itself.

I've been toying around with the idea of only giving out the title authentic to artists that compose in the fashion of the old Tin Pan Alley composers: sitting in a building writing music at a piano all day and garnering revenues from the sale of sheet music. Never explain this either, just see how many pretentious annoying people I can needle every day being obtuse and arcane.
"Hey, gang, we're all part of the spleen!"
-PZ Meyers
User avatar
phred
Jedi Knight
Posts: 997
Joined: 2006-03-25 04:33am

Post by phred »

for me there a re a few basic categories of music (pop, rock, rap, etc). how many and where you draw the lines is pretty much a matter of semantics.
IMHO accepting or rejecting any piece of music on any basis other than "I like how it sounds" is basically wanking, although I might give minor concession to someone who complains about lyrical content, that argument only goes so far
"Siege warfare, French for spawn camp" WTYP podcast

It's so bad it wraps back around to awesome then back to bad again, then back to halfway between awesome and bad. Like if ed wood directed a godzilla movie - Duckie
User avatar
Tsyroc
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 13748
Joined: 2002-07-29 08:35am
Location: Tucson, Arizona

Post by Tsyroc »

I think there's something to be said for people who can really perform live or do very interesting things with their intruments or voices live but that doesn't necessarilly make me want to buy their recordings. For instance, I always sort of liked Van Halen's "Cathedral" off of Diver Down but I liked it more after I saw that it was all performed by Eddie on an electric guitar.


On the same note seeing artists performing ridiculous dance numbers to prerecorded versions of their own vocals doesn't impress me at all. That's what music videos are for. Now if they can do all that dancing around crap and really sing at the same time, then that's an impressive show.

A recording is pretty much all about how it sounds regardless of how it got to sounding that way.
By the pricking of my thumb,
Something wicked this way comes.
Open, locks,
Whoever knocks.
User avatar
TithonusSyndrome
Sith Devotee
Posts: 2569
Joined: 2006-10-10 08:15pm
Location: The Money Store

Post by TithonusSyndrome »

Flagg wrote:I despise bands that sound almost exactly like earlier more popular bands without adding anything significant to the original sound. Be it the Stone Temple Pilots with Pearl Jam or Jet with The Strokes. It just reeks of corporate executive whores saying "wow, this band is great and sells tons of CD's, let's find 10 others that sound just like them!". That's what I see as inauthentic.
For me, even more irritating is when an elder band decides to take on the image and sound of their much-later progeny. It adds insult to the injury of what you just described to have a band like Metallica somehow get to thinking that they needed to take on the raiment of the bands they inspired in order to remain "current". :roll:
Losonti Tokash wrote:The article itself is pretty lame. What with the paragraph wanking over Kurt Cobain and his massively overrated music and lumping Staind and Evanescence into the metal genre. And the term "pop-metal."
I don't think the article was wanking over Kurt Cobain, just making mention of how many hipsters will wank over him. And while Staind and Evanescence aren't even remotely metal, his arguments are mirror images of real developments in the sphere of metal, particularly where beetfaced metalcore bands are gaining momentum.
Post Reply