Thread is now about Holist.

[Don Coyote]

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.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

[Dildo Argentino]

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I knew I was going to step on someone's toes shortly

Right now I would say they were great to begin with but went on far too long and produced some amazingly pretentious stuff... but I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about them. Show me some late period greatness, please!

[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.

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.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, those would apparently be authentic.

Whereas a properly prepared group would not be.

I was responding to the bolded.
You know, the part where holist contradicts himself. 

[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.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Well, yes.  He was a great big sellout.

So was Michelangelo, Picasso, and every other well-known artist in the entire history of mankind.

Art is only valuable if a closed, small group of elites can see it or enjoy it.  And the artists had better fucking sweat blood.

[LMNO]

I think holist might be confusing "authentic" with "music that means something to me, subjectively."

[Dildo Argentino]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Well not quite. I must be expressing myself particularly ineptly, and I apologise. There are plenty of examples of inauthentic musicians remaining popular in the long term (Fleetwood Mac, anyone? Kenny G is in fact still playing large gigs!)

Fleetwood Mac is/was inauthentic?

I knew I was going to step on someone's toes shortly

Right now I would say they were great to begin with but went on far too long and produced some amazingly pretentious stuff... but I am open to being persuaded that I'm wrong about them. Show me some late period greatness, please!

No, my toes are untrod.  I fucking HATE Fleetwood Mac.  But to say they weren't a massive influence on music for more than 30 years is nothing short of ridiculous.

And pretentious?  Are we talking about the same band?  They turned into low-grade drek at the end.

Also, let's take a look at Metallica.  Their "golden years" were when they were doing things strictly commercially.  When they decided that they'd made their pile and began to experiment, they blew enormous chunks.

[LMNO]

Does Nigel really enjoy working with glass? Does Nigel love exploring the possible ways in which glass can be made comply with her wishes, commands? I think yes. It is a great and happy coincidence that she can also pay the bills with that work.

As for art galleries, I applaud the ones in your neighbourhood... the commercial ones over here (as opposed to those run by artists' societies that put on shows at cost, and the pictures may or may not be for sale) operate with very wide margins, the artists usually getting less than half the selling price. And I've yet to meet an artist (and I meet quite a few, as I translate for several artists' societies and attend openings quite frequently) who doesn't prefer to sell direct.

So, your criteria for "authenticity" is "loves doing it"?  I just want to make sure we're clear on that.

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

N'Sync fucking loved singing their music.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Basically, yes. It can be a pretty tortuous kind of love... Prefers doing it to anything else. Not because it's a living, or a source of admiration and support, but just because.

You realize how condescending that is, right?

[Dildo Argentino]

Babies love banging pots and pans. Doesn't make it "authentic".

Actually, I think it does. No easy listening, mind you! But authentic.

[Don Coyote]

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.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Well, yes.  He was a great big sellout.

So was Michelangelo, Picasso, and every other well-known artist in the entire history of mankind.

Art is only valuable if a closed, small group of elites can see it or enjoy it.  And the artists had better fucking sweat blood.

It's basically taking the arguments over what works should included in the canons completely assbackwards by running completely away ftom amd rejecting amy works that are canon as being true representative works of that field.  denying their validity because the "canon" excludes the works you enjoy.

[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.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

HE did not! I've been to his house and the rather large museum next door. I would wager the majority of the stuff he worked on was never sold.

[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.

So musicians who aren't well known, who have to take a day job to pay the bills and support their families and it leaves them too tired to play club dates that pay less than it costs to haul the goddamn equipment over there, aren't authentic?

No, altough I can see how you could read it that way, I think that's an uncharitable interpretation. And actually, those guys, in my experience, may play less club gigs, but they do, they save up, and they drive their own equipment, and haggle with venues... because they are in it for the music. And the gigging.

It's awfully nice of them to destroy their lives for our enjoyment.

Now, if we could only get them to play for free every weekend, they'd be more authentic than Leonardo Davinci.

qho is not at all authentic because he produced works merely for financial stability.

Well, yes.  He was a great big sellout.

So was Michelangelo, Picasso, and every other well-known artist in the entire history of mankind.

Art is only valuable if a closed, small group of elites can see it or enjoy it.  And the artists had better fucking sweat blood.

It's basically taking the arguments over what works should included in the canons completely assbackwards by running completely away ftom amd rejecting amy works that are canon as being true representative works of that field.  denying their validity because the "canon" excludes the works you enjoy.

In the end, it's basically just making up a completely bogus and irrelevant qualifier for art/music that is only important to people who worry about other peoples' impressions of their own musical taste.

[Dildo Argentino]

You know, the part where holist contradicts himself. 

Okay, okay!  I contradicted myself! It's not a such big deal (how does that Walt Whitman quite go?)

I'm trying to articulate a position that is not entirely definite and which I have certainly not had to articulate in such a demanding environment before. Self-contradiction is just an indication that better articulation or correction is required. Thanks for helping me with that, by the way.

[Don Coyote]

totally ignoring that most if not all his well known works were for financial gain. or throughout history great works of art were produced on a commission by people who were professionally trained to produce tgat type of work. That there were guilds built around many of the arts.