Thread is now about Holist.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing. 

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist... 

[Cardinal Pizza Deliverance.]

The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

[Don Coyote]

I'm still not seeing the connection between "authenticity is subjective" and "coercion and oppression are ok."

If you're still lurking, I would like to request that you expand on that some more.

I second this.
I'm still convinced that this was a communication failure, and I'm very interested in what he was really trying to say.

He was - as far as I can tell, and I could be wrong - trying to say "It's too underground for you" without actually saying "It's too underground for you".

Music is one of those subjects that certain people take as a territorial thing.

Well yes, you could take advice and summaries from the uncomprehending... or you could just wait for the real thing. 

Gee, I wonder why people react poorly to Holist... 

Don't you get it?
Condescension is a part of the board culture. He is just trying to fit in by implying no-one else is as smart as he is.
We really should go easier on him. English is such a nuanced language. It must hard to properly insult people the way he actually wants to.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Yeah, it's kind of a waste. But you can't really have discourse with someone who can't separate their ego from their argument, because if you tear apart their argument they feel like you're tearing apart them, personally.

I think you misconstrue me entirely. It's a pity.

I don't think it's much of one, honestly, at least not for me. Apart from your difficulty with the English language, you're just another philosophy major. It's not like I'm missing out on anything.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Your obvious man-crush for me is a little creepy. 

Just sayin.

I prefer my men filling a suit properly.

Did he seriously just try to homo-shame you, there? Wow.

Well I mean a man that likes other men is basically a woman. Right?

OHHHHH now it makes sense. 

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

All I really have to say about Holist's rant about authenticity is that he seems to be conflating authenticity with individualism. He also seems to be lacking in understanding of how integral tradition is to culture, and the connection both have to authenticity. I don't even want to touch his issues of cultural absolutism.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Because authenticity is bullshit.  Originality is a better quality to consider, but even IT isn't necessary.  After all, Badfinger was basically a Beatles rip off, and they're 10 times better than The Beatles.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Cruel?  I am his king.  I am a wise and benevolent ruler.  Hell, I even give him something to rage against, as can be plainly seen in his last post.  I mean, shit, we have a discussion about MUSIC, and that's sufficient grounds for him to spazz the hell out and then start making a diagnosis of my mental and emotional state, right?  Hell, you can't get that level of froth on fucking FACEBOOK, talking to TEABAGGERS.

I am here because Holist and people like Holist need me.  I am a Holy Man™, and I give them what they need.

I read this as follows: "holist, if you stay here and talk to other people while avoiding me, you'll just admit defeat and prove that you need me in your sorry little life". Which is a subtle and passive agressive way of telling me to fuck off."

While you are entitled to your opinion, and certainly free to call me paranoid or whatever else you wish on account of the above interpretation, I simply wish to mention that, luckily, I am not obliged to share your opinion, and I most emphatically don't. Keep having fun!

We are back where we were last year.

"To understand recursion, you must first understand recursion."
- Triple Zero

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Did I miss anything of value in that wall of text a couple pages back? 

[minuspace]

The funny thing about authenticity in culture is that it can always ellude objective observation by those it most transparently engages - like a fishes epistemological approach to water.  What if reality TV and such was just a foil for what was actually going on?  That which it (the degenerate) indicates is the total unacceptance of what we should already know to be false (wait, I think I just blew my socks off...)

[East Coast Hustle]

I think that "authentic" is about as useful a cultural signifier as "hipster".

Which, now that I think about it, is probably why hipsters are so obsessed with authenticity.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Because authenticity is bullshit.  Originality is a better quality to consider, but even IT isn't necessary.  After all, Badfinger was basically a Beatles rip off, and they're 10 times better than The Beatles.

Authenticity can be a useful concept, but it requires a context to be useful within.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

The last time I saw a lot of debate about 'authenticity' was high school. Beatles vs Rolling Stones or some shit. No one could define 'authenticity' in a meaningful fashion pertaining to their argument in a substantive way then, either.

Because authenticity is bullshit.  Originality is a better quality to consider, but even IT isn't necessary.  After all, Badfinger was basically a Beatles rip off, and they're 10 times better than The Beatles.

Authenticity can be a useful concept, but it requires a context to be useful within.

I music, I can only think "Hey, that guy does BB King as well as BB King" or "This other guy hasn't paid his dues".

[Cain]

-

[LMNO]

Ok, a couple of things:

Authenticity, in particular, " from Greek authentikos "original, genuine, principal," from authentes "one acting on one's own authority," from autos "self" (see auto-) + hentes "doer, being," (from the Online Etymology Dictionary) is a quality of informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessment, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles

First off, while your etymology is nice, your definition of "authenticity" is completely different than what one would find if you looked it up in the dictionary.  I know this because I, well, looked it up in the dictionary:

1.  of undisputed origin or authorship; genuine: an authentic signature   
2.  accurate in representation of the facts; trustworthy; reliable: an authentic account   
3.  (of a deed or other document) duly executed, any necessary legal formalities having been complied with 
4.  music   
a. using period instruments and historically researched scores and playing techniques in an attempt to perform a piece as it would have been played at the time it was written 
b. ( in combination ): an authentic-instrument performance   
5.  music  Compare plagal 
a. (of a mode as used in Gregorian chant) commencing on the final and ending an octave higher 
b. (of a cadence) progressing from a dominant to a tonic chord 

So, since you pretty much created your definition out of thin air, let's call that authenticity¹, so we know that we're using your definition, and not someone else's.

(as an aside, do you see anything odd about desiring consistency in your beliefs, at the same time making up unique definitions to words that other people don't use? Or, for that matter, preferring objectivity to subjectivity, yet subjectively defining words?)

But, that's not the point.  Let us now apply authenticity¹ to the intent of the discussion at hand: "What makes music authentic?" is now "What makes music authentic¹?"  For you, this would mean music written or performed by people with informed self-awareness and self-determination that has to do with self-knowledge, realistic self-assessments, acceptance of the shadow (Jung), and not playing roles.

And that makes no damn sense at all.  I can't even begin to fathom how one can listen to a piece of music and determine if the composer and/or player has an acceptance of the shadow, or if they even know or agree with Jungian psychology in the first place.

And I don't think I even want to go near your concepts of moral relativity.