Chapter One - Authenticity in critical discourseIn order for music to be consumed by an audience it first needs to be bought into the public eye. This has been done via a number of mediums over the past 60 years. Radio has played a considerable role in the publicising of music, and continues to do so. The 1980’s saw the emergence of Music television which went hand in hand with the rise of the music video, and live performances continued to become notoriously important in sculpting s musicians reputation. Perhaps the most influential of publicising mediums which has continued to shape not only public opinion but invest in cultural significance is the music press.
The literature of rock and roll began with the birth of the music publication in the 1950’s when magazines such as NME (1952) we born. Critics in this field became increasingly important in the promotion of music and their importance lies in their ability to deconstruct meaning out of music for which an audience can consume and interpret as they see fit. When the 1960‘s emerged the aesthetic standards of a music critic began to become more concrete. Writers from the music press began to experiment with different styles to suit this new form of journalism. It was fast and punchy with wham-bam characteristics to reflect and emulate the non-stop notion of rock‘n‘roll. Rock journalists told sanctimonious stories of rock stars and painted images of hope for fans and readers. “We give the kids what they want. We write about their idols”(2005,p198) stated ex NME editor, Alan Smith. But perhaps most importantly of all, there was no element of prejudice in these publications. They simply concentrated on what really mattered - Good music.
“In a society increasingly divided by colour and class, teenagers are able, at least through their music, to transcend those barriers.”(2002,p24)
New music publications began to crop up everywhere. They not only concerned themselves with the publicising of music, they took it further than that. Rolling Stone magazine was launched in November 1967 in San Francisco. Its founder, Jann Wenner, made it their priority to focus on more than just music. “Rolling Stone was for the artists, the industry, and every person who believes the magic can set you free”(1994,p88). By the 70‘s the Rolling Stone became a symbolic marker for youth culture and American politics. Its writers embarked on an earnest and ideological mission to show the public that music was more than just a tune. Critics became gatekeepers of quality with a number of primary concerns, not only to their publications, but to a dedicated following of readers. This chapter intends to highlight the aims of the music critic, focusing on their primary responsibilities as the voice behind the music.
The concept of “Authenticity” in popular music criticism is a notoriously inconsistent term, yet critics in this field have consistently adhered to such a paradigm, expressing its significance and importance when criticising rock and pop music. The problem that arises in this instance is how is the “authentic” article is distinguished from the non-authentic.
Popular rock critic and Sociologist, Simon Frith, describes the term in two ways.
“In the history of rock, two different authenticity discourses flow together. One originates in a folk art paradigm, the other in a version of high art”(2005,p45).
The first definition listed by Frith relates to notions of tradition, community and roots. He highlights that an audience needs to observe some recognisable traits in order to connect with the music. We can see here that past experiences and recognition play a large part in confirming the authenticity of music, and in particular, that the authenticity of a song or album is decided by its listener.
An interview conducted with Jamie Fullerton, current deputy news editor at NME, highlighted some issues regarding authenticity in music criticism. “Anything that is written with music rather than commerce in mind I'd class as authentic.” Fullerton’s theories on this aspect of music criticism do differ slightly from Frith’s. When asked about authenticity as being the primary concern of a rock writer he also believed that the audience play a part in assessing an authentic product.
“Not sure what you mean by authenticity - literally it means "real", so do you mean "not manufactured"? If so, then not really, music is generally listened to on its own terms.”
Arguably Fullerton’s ideas on the topic do lack some academic substance. A number of prominent figures in this field would argue with his assessment on the matter. Ex-Rolling Stone writer Jon Landau, for example, would side with Frith, stressing the importance of the audience, their subconscious and their experiences. “Landau regards rock authenticity as the expression of individuals or groups, but related to traditions, roots and the audience”(2005,p193). The importance of a “lived experience” is labelled as vital by Frith and Landau in assessing the authentic article.
The second definition listed by Frith can be described as opposite to the first. In the case of high art, we can see the article as an authentic product because it deviates from particular traditions and roots and does not conform to such reproductions. This idea of an “original“ product is seen as significantly important when discussing authenticity, partly because it avoids what may be considered to be normal or average - and in an ideological sense, rock music prides itself being anything but average.
Within rock culture, deviating from the norm is seen as essential. Critics, fans and musicians are all searching for something “new” and potentially, although cliché, something “revolutionary”. When rock and roll emerged in the 1950’s, along with the new “teenage” generation, it did exactly this. The likes of Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry introduced a new form of fast paced, rebellious music to the masses and it was a hit. The reason for this is because rock and roll was new and it was created by the artists on their own terms without embracing any level of commercialisation. Modern day music critics know this all too well and that is why the rock stars of the 50’s are labelled as original, real and authentic.
Rock and Roll throughout the 1950’s, 60’s and 70’s was definitive in influencing the music we listen to today. It was an experimental stage which gave rise to a number of sub-genres and it was when rock and roll was at its purest form, untouched by records conglomerates, MTV and commercial pop music. The commentary of rock stars in this era was responsible for shaping the opinions of the public and criticising the social state of the country. Music soon became more than a tune, it became intellectual. In 1962 when Bob Dylan released his self-titled debut, “Bob Dylan” this new rock and roll art form became a whole new academic entity and voice of the people. Where Elvis freed the body with his groovy 50’s rock and roll dance moves, Dylan became a pioneer who freed the mind with near lyrical perfection.
Arguably the greatest rock critic ever, Lester Bangs, believed that the importance of rock as a voice of the people was vital, and it is partly what makes music authentic. “The Clash are authentic because their music carries such brutal conviction”(2005,p194). In this case Lester Bangs has opted for a traditional approach in confirming a bands authenticity. In “Reading Rock and Roll” Kevin Dettmar stated that, “Real rock is always about rebellion, always about disrespect to the hierarchy, a blow to the empire. The authentic article is never the commercial article.”(1999,p25). Dettmar’s definition would confirm The Clash as an authentic group of musicians, not only because of their punk ideologies and protest songs, but because they wrote music from the point of view of the oppressed. They opposed commercialisation and welcomed creativity.
Dettmar’s ideas on the definition of rock and roll lead us on to another topic surrounding the authenticity of music . He stated that “The authentic article is never the commercial article.”(1999,p25) and although a number of critics would probably agree with this comment, it does highlight an area of possible conflict. The first being, how is the word “commercial” defined in this particular instance. In the case of Dettmar the definition he is referring to would be as follows:
“Done for profit: Done for the primary aim of making money”
Although the music industry, and the music press, are both businesses with the primary objective of profit we can agree with Dettmar in this case. Musicians with profit in mind rather than music are subjects manipulated by commercialisation and their music will automatically ignore the idea of authenticity because they are plagued by money and success.
“Musicians make records so that their music can be heard, but they must make them without appearing to be in the embrace of the corporate beast”(1999,p23)
Dettmar’s concern of commercialisation highlights another negative issue of music criticism that is vital when discussing authenticity - The notion of “Selling Out”. This is a term, often overused in music criticism, that can refer to the demise of a previously popular band. Jamie Fullerton of NME described the term as “Compromising artistic values for success”. In the case of authenticity, a band who disregard their previous musical ethics and ideologies in search of success would be considered to be inauthentic.
The idea of “selling out” can be associated with a number of areas within popular culture, but the primary area where its deepest response lies is within rock music. It would make little sense to say that musicians such as Madonna or Britney Spears have “sold out” because they are products of a popular capitalist music scene. They would have very little ethical standards from their birth of their contrived music careers and their music carries little sense of conviction, anger or aggression. One of the key distinctions between rock and roll and pop music is the emphasis on their ideologies and perspective goals. Rock music prides itself on integrity, realness and the search for authenticity. The musical careers of these rock stars is not characterised by a yearning for profit or publicity, its about messing with the system, about making people feel something and its about taking something completely undiscovered and showing it to the world. Rock bands and pop stars ultimately play to a different set of unwritten rules.
“The potency of the idea of ’selling-out’ lies not simply in the selling of recorded music, charging for performances and the marketing of fan merchandise, but in professed attitudes and symbolic responses to the process by which resources are transferred from the ’buyers’ of rock to its sellers.”(1995,p22)
The production and consumption of rock music, in this instance, is characterised by a long term struggle that has been an area of dispute since the 1960’s. Recording artists in the rock and roll field are driven by an enigmatic urge to express their natural creativity, an urge to write something original and utterly unpredictable. The problem that then occurs with these rock acts relates to their “bosses”, the record labels. They are characterised by less of an “urge” and more of a “need”. First and foremost, record labels are a business, and they have a responsibility to ultimately maximise their profits, this may mean that a particular band has to change their sound, style or dumb down their creativity to adhere to a more commercial route. Simon Frith, rock critic and sociologist, notes the negativity of these actions and their effects in the following quote,
“What is bad about the music industry is the layer of deceit and hype and exploitation it places between us and our creativity.”(1995,p21)
Barney Hoskyns, established music critic and author of “Hotel California” and “Waiting for the Sun”, two texts about the history of rock music in California throughout the 60s and 70s, would most certainly side with Frith in this case. He argues that music is not about sales or materialistic intentions. His views reflect the ideological rock and roll dream of untouchable elements that can only be described and never physically grasped.
“Music is about spirit, not matter, it’s about our emotional lives, not our material status.”(2003,p6)
In this area of music criticism and music production, the ideas of philosophical thinker Karl Marx can be highlighted as an issue of concern. We understand that record labels are primarily a business with the main goal of maximising profit but there is dispute over the music press and their primary role. Some would argue that as a printed publication they are primarily a business, but the role of newspapers and magazines is arguably subject to some dispute. Is it a business or should it act as a fourth estate (A voice of the people) ? Marx stated that, “The freedom of the press was not to be a business”. If we were to apply Marx’s ideas to music criticism we can argue that music critics should search for authenticity and then report on it. If critics believe a band has “sold out” or are “inauthentic” then they have the right, the freedom and the responsibility to say so.
An argument opposing Dettmar’s comes from Jamie Fullerton of NME. He believed that commercialisation and authenticity do not have to juxtapose one another. He stated that commercial music could “Definitely” still be authentic music. In some cases the term “selling out” is used as an easy scapegoat by lazy journalists. If a band maintains their previous ethical standards yet are commercially successful then arguably they maintain their authenticity. In this instance, authenticity can be viewed as less of a quality that a band searches for but more of a way of affirming the quality of a band.
Music critic, Leon Rosselson, believes that bands do not exist to adhere to this cliché notion of disrespecting the hierarchy and sticking it to “the man”. His perspectives on a bands existence do not conform to the nostalgic ideologies of Lester Bangs and Simon Frith - He sees music as another form of entertainment, simply constructed for an audience to consume and listen to. His slightly cynical perspective disregards the work and ideas of academics in the music criticism field, who would undoubtedly disagree with him.
“Songs never converted anyone. This is not what they are for. They are for sharing ideas, hopes and feeling about what is sad, funny, ridiculous, horrifying.”(1995,p56)
When Jamie Fullerton (NME) was asked whether an audience can identify with the authenticity of a particular band, his answer reflected that of Rosselson’s. He to views music as a simply constructed form of entertainment. “Audiences aren't really concerned - people just care about a tune. Which is all music really is“. In one way, Fullerton is right, music is just a construction of sounds created by instruments, but as Landau stated in point 5 and Hoskyns stated in point 13, rock music is a lot more than that.
Associated with the idea of “selling out” is the debatable relationship between the record labels who produce these rock bands and the music press themselves. This area of assessment still remains relatively unclear as to the function that each entity is responsible for. Roy Shuker noted that the ideologies of the music press have shifted due to over influence by record labels. His ideas focus on a dependent relationship in which the press and the music industry need one another to maintain existence.
“The music press and critics are not, at least directly, vertically integrated into the music industry…A sense of distance is thereby maintained, while at the same time the need of the industry to constantly sell new images, styles and product is met.”(2002,p6)
This “relationship” has been identified by a number of critics in the field as vital. Both the press and the music industry do rely on one another to sell their products, but the question remains as to what extent they do rely on each other. Barney Hoskyns idea that rock journalism has become little more than a “Service industry”(2003,p5) to the record industry concurs with Shuker’s ideologies. If this is the case then the concept of the authentic article means very little. There can be no concrete authentic product if this industry is as artificial as Hoskyns and Shuker note it to be.
Simon Frith, on the other hand, opposes this argument to some extent. His ideas on the dependency of both industries is not associated with a controlled music press, more of a set of mutual beliefs. In “Pop music and the press” Frith declares this statement,
“Music papers and record companies work together. Not because the papers are ‘controlled’ by the companies advertising, but because their general interpretations of rock are much the same.”(2002,p36)
This suggests that the music press lies untouched by any negative influences of the music industry. It is encouraging to note that the press remain independent in this situation, able to construct autonomous opinions of particular musicians by simply listening to a record, and most importantly of all, they are able to do this on their own terms. This relates back to Marx’s viewpoint - notifying the press as an independent service industry for the people, or in this case, the fans of the music press and the music they publicise.
To regard authenticity as the primary concern of a critic is a bold statement. There are a number of listed arguments that suggest a critic is just another monotonous cog in the publishing industry, there to serve a simple purpose - writing reviews, detaching themselves from the nostalgic romanticism of music, but it is clear that there is more to it than that.
As this chapter has highlighted, there are a considerable number of debatable attributes that help to label the role of a music critic. The aesthetic of rock is that it is distinguishable from what is considered to be “middle brow”. It deviates from the norm and it thrives on tensions and conflict. The idea of “selling out” plays a crucial role in defining what is authentic because rock culture is generally characterised by deviating from a commercial framework set in stone by our mass consumer society. Perhaps the most important thing to note is that rock journalism, more than any other form of journalism, is not about detachment, in fact it’s about the complete opposite.
There is a very real connection between a rock bands search for authenticity, a fans search for authenticity and a critics search for authenticity. It demonstrates a tightly woven community of people with shared values and dreams - All of whom are in search of that artistic integrity and mythical romantic genius.
Music critic, Nick Cohn, classifies this intrinsic fantasy as sociological need, in which critics deliver this notion of the rock vision to the people. “Rock is a dream, a heaven, an imagined community of lonely boys with subversive attitudes. Life itself is all about listening to records.”(2002,p49). For critics like Cohn, music criticism is about conveying that illicit hope of love and love lost. It’s about telling an audience that rock and roll is alive in our hearts and in our souls, it’s about conveying that indescribable magic of when you first hear a record - And when this is all said and done, it’s far from just a record, it’s a beacon of hope that shapes a generation with stories that only appear real when we close our eyes. And that, more than anything else, is authentic.
