Thread is now about Holist.

[AFK]

Jesus Christ.  Where the fuck am I? 


Rant coming tonight about this sad state of affairs.

[Dildo Argentino]

I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Jesus Christ.  Where the fuck am I? 


Rant coming tonight about this sad state of affairs.

Where are YOU?  In some hipster coffee & wine bar, apparently.

There's nothing wrong with a perfectly functional vase, as opposed to some shit made by some hippie that's not cured all the way through and has a big thumb print in it to look "authentic".

[Don Coyote]

I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

What I was after is that the motivation is the music.

I'm not seeing it.  The motivation is irrelevant, it's whether or not the band is making music that its fans appreciate.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Back shortly.

[Don Coyote]

Jesus Christ.  Where the fuck am I? 


Rant coming tonight about this sad state of affairs.

Where are YOU?  In some hipster coffee & wine bar, apparently.

There's nothing wrong with a perfectly functional vase, as opposed to some shit made by some hippie that's not cured all the way through and has a big thumb print in it to look "authentic".

shit like glassware with bubbles and inclusions to prove was made by hand.
shit like a "cup" that will neither hold water nor allow you to properly drink from it if it did.
shit like poorly thrown mugs that are too heavy with terrible crazing in the glaze and obvious runoff.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

I mean they are not after cash, nor fame, nor the adoration of their peers - those things may figure in making the career attractive, but first and foremost, they like to play music a great deal.

And I have a firm belief that I can in the majority of cases hear whether this is the case, in the music. Of course I make mistakes, and, of course, musicians are perfectly capable of having, then losing, then even regaining this quality.

Most of the music I like I consider authentic. Some is just clever or funny, and I don't mind that I can hear (or delude myself that I can hear) that the motivation is not music as such. But there's plenty of music that I don't like but consider authentic (in fact, what I like varies a great deal with mood) and as such have respect for. And then there's the dross: usually inauthentic, uninventive and ridiculous without being funny.

UH...people who would rather be doing music than anything else AS A CAREER, who get a HUGE HIGH from rocking the house down, also suffer from THE GRIND. Because most of touring is being cooped up with your shitty coworkers 24/7, eating bad food and putting up with shit.

They're doing it so they can pay their property taxes and go to Amsterdam or whatever when it's over. Same reason anybody else works. For money.

[Dildo Argentino]

For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

As for examples, of course, I can give you tons. For me, first and foremost, Tom Waits. But also Ween (just stopped, a shame), Cake, OK Go, Money Mark, Paolo Nutini, Sparklehorse (God rest his soul), Radiohead (purely from the sound of it, a recently acquired taste), Robben Ford, Lisa Hannigan, The Streets, Jaco Pastorius (my hero, died on my birthday all those years ago), Bobby McFerrin, Victor Wooten, Tinariwen, Dr. Lonnie Smith, Fatboy Slim, Gorillaz, Frank Zappa, James Brown, Kathryn Williams, Kid Koala, Ladysmith Black Mambaso, Regina Spector, Manu Chao, Zaz, The Tiger Lillies, The Lounge Lizards, Taj Mahal,  Mercury Rev, PJ Harvey, Lou Reed, Fela Kuti ... and the list goes on, I hope it's sufficiently diverse...

Actually, the prime example of someone who is far from authentic, in fact a totally fucked individual that somehow contains an inhuman, VALIS-type piece of musical talent is Prince. And I like him (about a third of the time).

Or an interesting example, the duo Pomplamoose. I had a few months of infatuation, because the woman is extremely cute (from my angle, anyway). But then I somehow weaned myself off it: precisely because I began to have a sense that for her, somehow the whole music thing was just a vehicle despite the very clever and even emotional songs. But Jack Conte: he's a music nut. I now prefer his solo stuff.

[Dildo Argentino]

Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Also having a bit of experience in this, I have noticed this.

There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't often make for durably great music in itself, but it does make for gigs that all the people there enjoy, so what's wrong with that? But the one thing that strikes me about the band I am in is that even if we never played in public again, we would still play, and I cherish that fact.

[Don Coyote]

Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Also having a bit of experience in this, I have noticed this.

There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't often make for durably great music in itself, but it does make for gigs that all the people there enjoy, so what's wrong with that? But the one thing that strikes me about the band I am in is that even if we never played in public again, we would still play, and I cherish that fact.

it seems you are constructing a definition of music that allows you either feel better about your music by including yourself in this definition or by excluding those that are vastly mire successful than yourself.

[Dildo Argentino]

I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

That's not what I said.

I said fame or financial gain or peer recognition can be motivations (often important at the outset, actually), but if the music is to be enduringly valuable, they must take second seat to the music itself. We've all seen it so many times: a certain degree of raw talent and a strong motivation to 'make it' produce one or two decent records. If it stays that way, it's over. If music becomes the primary motivation (while making a living is still a very respectable secondary one), there's a chance of that talent becoming more aware, conscious and realising its full potential. Tom Waits contra I don't know... Van Morrison. Sad sight he is nowadays.

[Don Coyote]

I disagree. your qualification that they are only authentic if they are not trying to get something other than enjoyment  from their art. that means that damn near all great art is not art at all.

Okay, I've been thinking about that while I was making dinner, and you are right. Enjoyment is the wrong word. What I was after is that the motivation is the music. It's the music they need to, want to make the most, and that then includes, of course, all the extremely talented musicians who make music to escape their demons or at least to keep them at bay, or even to dance with their demons.. So, most certainly, I wouldn't want to say it's only "smiley, happy music" that qualifies as authentic. But whatever emotion dominates, if the music is made for its own sake, rather than as a means to achieve something else (other than self-actualisation, increasing one's own authenticity) - things like a living, cash, fame, peer support - it's authentic. For me.

I still think you ate wrong to predicate the authenticity or realness of any cultural work over whether the creator (s) are motivated by fame or financial gain or not.

That's not what I said.

I said fame or financial gain or peer recognition can be motivations (often important at the outset, actually), but if the music is to be enduringly valuable, they must take second seat to the music itself. We've all seen it so many times: a certain degree of raw talent and a strong motivation to 'make it' produce one or two decent records. If it stays that way, it's over. If music becomes the primary motivation (while making a living is still a very respectable secondary one), there's a chance of that talent becoming more aware, conscious and realising its full potential. Tom Waits contra I don't know... Van Morrison. Sad sight he is nowadays.

I apologize if that is the case.  However,  you predicating the authenticity of a cultural work on its continual popularity.

[Dildo Argentino]

Having a bit of experience in this, the majority of people in bands that make CDs and play shows have a base motivation of wanting people to like them.

As opposed to someone who plays piano in their living room, alone.

Also having a bit of experience in this, I have noticed this.

There is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't often make for durably great music in itself, but it does make for gigs that all the people there enjoy, so what's wrong with that? But the one thing that strikes me about the band I am in is that even if we never played in public again, we would still play, and I cherish that fact.

it seems you are constructing a definition of music that allows you either feel better about your music by including yourself in this definition or by excluding those that are vastly mire successful than yourself.

That could be a fairly acute, if malicious reading of what I was saying. But if you check my list, you'll see there are plenty of vastly successful musicians on there (and also not so successful ones). Also, I am not constructing a definition of music at all, anything that at least one person calls music is music. I am trying to construct, if anything, a definition of authenticity. And I see it as an overarching passion for making the stuff you make, be it music or whatever else. If that's not there, you can be extremely highly skilled (Al Di Meola, and I could name other guitarists), atrociously talented and successful (Michael Jackson, Prince) but what you make is going to lack conviction. Sheer ambition (as in the case of Jackson and Prince) is probably the best substitute for the seriousness about creativity that art is a pretty good word for, but it still falls short.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

For me, subjectively, the word authentic does have an application in this context. I consider music to be authentic if the musicians' only or primary motivation is that they enjoy making it more than anything else they could be doing instead.

So, if they are doing it because it makes money, it can't be authentic?

Can you give me an example of authenticity?

As I said, the financial viability of the profession can be a motivation, but if the music is authentic, it's a secondary one. It could even be a thought-experimenty-type of test: if the musician would stop being a musician if it suddenly didn't make money any more, chances are they weren't authentic.

As for examples, of course, I can give you tons. For me, first and foremost, Tom Waits. But also Ween (just stopped, a shame), Cake, OK Go, Money Mark, Paolo Nutini, Sparklehorse (God rest his soul), Radiohead (purely from the sound of it, a recently acquired taste), Robben Ford, Lisa Hannigan, The Streets, Jaco Pastorius (my hero, died on my birthday all those years ago), Bobby McFerrin, Victor Wooten, Tinariwen, Dr. Lonnie Smith, Fatboy Slim, Gorillaz, Frank Zappa, James Brown, Kathryn Williams, Kid Koala, Ladysmith Black Mambaso, Regina Spector, Manu Chao, Zaz, The Tiger Lillies, The Lounge Lizards, Taj Mahal,  Mercury Rev, PJ Harvey, Lou Reed, Fela Kuti ... and the list goes on, I hope it's sufficiently diverse...

Actually, the prime example of someone who is far from authentic, in fact a totally fucked individual that somehow contains an inhuman, VALIS-type piece of musical talent is Prince. And I like him (about a third of the time).

Or an interesting example, the duo Pomplamoose. I had a few months of infatuation, because the woman is extremely cute (from my angle, anyway). But then I somehow weaned myself off it: precisely because I began to have a sense that for her, somehow the whole music thing was just a vehicle despite the very clever and even emotional songs. But Jack Conte: he's a music nut. I now prefer his solo stuff.

I'm trying to see where you think James Brown wasn't primarily in it for the money.  Or Tom Waits.

And being into a group because the singer is cute and then quitting the group because it's a vehicle?