For those who don't know me, I like record reviews. I don't think they should dictate anyone's taste, but I find them interesting to read. Anyway, I was reading a review of one of my new favourite records- "The Creek Drank the Cradle" by Iron & Wine, and the second paragraph went like this...
"Not so for Sam "Jim" Beam. He makes bare-bones music that constantly nods to musical periods long since passed, perhaps the earliest being the 1920s of Blind Lemon Jefferson. In short, Beam makes roots music with southern themes, though to end there would do him a disservice. But now knowing this, you may be wondering: What are his qualifications? Is this guy authentic?"
The writer (Ryan Kearney, of pitchfork.com - in case you couldn't tell) then goes on to decide that actually, he is "authentic" and it is a good album after all- a sentiment that I heartily agree with, but that's not the point.
The point is, does authenticity really matter? What does it even mean? I don't think I am authentic- a British, slightly middle-class, soon-to-be music student who writes slightly angsty folk-pop - but does this mean my music sucks? Even when my music does suck (which, to be fair, it definitely does sometimes), I'm pretty sure that isn't the reason.
Don't get me wrong- I am all for honesty in music, and I seriously dislike pretentiousness. Absolutely. But does "authenticity" mean that only Americans are allowed to play banjos? Or that only kids are allowed to use kiddy musical instruments? Plenty of British indie-alt-folk-whatever acts would disagree with the former, and er- Sigur Ros would disagree with the latter. I know, a slightly less effective piece of rhetoric there, but you get the idea.
My point is this- I believe that if music is "good"- if it appeals to my taste in lyrics, musicality, content, whatever, then surely it is "good," regardless of how "authentic" the artist is.
Do you agree?
Posts
Amen Glover. I'm never sure what 'authenticity' in music really is supposed to be.
ReplyDeleteI think there is an excerpt from A Picture of Dorian Gray that says something along the lines of, true art isn't made to be seen side by side with the artist but, the art should be seen separately from it's creator. And although music is art, there is something about it that I feel binds the creation and creator together more so than say a sculpture or a painting. Thus perhaps not allowing me to see the piece of music separately from it's creator.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do feel as though the authenticity of the Artist often has a lot to do with how I interpret the music itself. Perhaps I feel this way because I see writing, and making music as more of an extension as ones self more so than I do other forms of art, like say, a portrait of someone other than one's self.
Good Post Danoh.
Hey, good reference :P did you enjoy the book then?
ReplyDeleteI think I agree with what you are saying, but I don't know if I would call that "authenticity"- I think what annoys me is when people take it to mean that someone's background defines what kind of music they make. Why should it?
Maybe its less about "separating" the music from it's creator, but more about the creator feeling the freedom to extend and express his/her personality through whatever musical genre they want to.
I have a feeling it is unhealthy to reply this quickly- I should probably get off the computer for a bit.