Music and Authenticity

This is a recent post that I made for a History of Rock 'n Roll class that I'm currently taking about authenticity and commercialism in rock music.  I think I probably angered the teacher with this because she's very judgmental about music.  Forgive the typos I didn't proof read it.

   The first thing that I would like to point out is that use of labels.  A lot of artists are sometimes labeled improperly and often times labeling can put an artist in a sort of box by throwing them in with other artists that may sound similar or existed around the same time.  The only use for labels is so that historians and in some cases the general public can organize time periods of music in an easy-to-understand format.  Most artists prefer to not be labeled because in some cases it can set boundaries for where they are expected to go and can limit the direction of their music.

On the subject of rock being authentic and pop music being unauthentic, I think that this is a completely false assumption and honestly I think it's a little insulting.  Who are we to determine what is "authentic" or not?  First what needs to be considered is that pop music (referring to of course popular music) is exactly what the title says.  It's not actually a genre of music.  When jazz music was rising with big bands in the 30's it was considered popular music because the majority of the population was listening to it (and dancing to it).  When The Beatles were releasing albums in the 1960's they were considered a rock band but because that was what people were listening to during the 60's, it was considered popular music.  People look back on the Beatles, the Kinks, and the Rolling Stones as rock bands today, not pop bands.

With that out of the way, if somebody wants to argue that any of these bands aren't "authentic" because they were once considered pop bands, I will fight you to the very end.  The older generation of the parents that were raising their children through the British Invasion probably thought that the music their children were listening to was complete hogwash, because that's always what the older generation thinks.  I will probably think that music being released as pop music in the year 2040 was never as good as the music that I grew up listening to.

For those of you that want to try to argue that today's pop music isn't "authentic," I urge you to think about what I just wrote.  Lady Gaga is probably one of the most unique artists that is making music today, in both her extravagant lifestyle, and in the music she makes.  Her whole motivation behind making music is to test the boundaries of what society can handle.  I'm not saying that I enjoy her music, but rather I recognize that it is something new, but not all that different from the aesthetic that the Beatles exploited in the 60's.  They are both rock stars in their own rights, the only thing that differs is the sound of their music.  They were both heavily produced, heavily promoted, and had a huge following of loyal fans.  Authenticity is not the issue.  

I suppose I should actually address the topic of this discussion now that I've gotten all of that out the way.  I don't think that authenticity or the idea of being commercial is the issue at all.  Looking again at Lady Gaga, she has now released two studio albums, both of them to huge public acclaim (maybe not to critical acclaim, but one can't deny her popularity).  As it happens in most situations, an artist is given a relatively small budget and very little artistic breathing room for their first album, which if it does well, is increased.  So in a way, one could see commercialism as increasing artistry and "authenticity."  With more money and more artistic freedom, artists have the power to explore different musical possibilities and take their music in a different direction.  

After much research that I've done over the past few years and several interviews with top ranking officials, I think the real problem is the recording industry, rather than the artist.  My experience has been that the RIAA is screwing musicians out of fair royalty percentages and rights to  their music.  Most artists are so obsessed with the very idea of being able to record and get their music out to the general public, that they neglect to really think about the small print of their contracts.  This is such a broad topic that I don't feel I could do any adequate explaining in this discussion board post.  

I think when it comes down to it, all music is in some way aimed at a commercial audience with the intent of making money.  The Sex Pistols were a pivotal band in the punk scene in the 70's, but without commercialism, they wouldn't have been able to continue making music.  Yet, they still managed to balance the idea of commercialism and authenticity.  They managed to make some great music that people liked.  Frankie Avalon, even though he couldn't really sing and didn't write his own music, was widely successful as a teen idol.  He made a lot of money for Chancellor Records and made a lot of people happy with his music.  Lady Gaga is in no way similar in musicality and quality to Mstislav Rostropovich, but her music still makes people.  In the end isn't that all that matters?  People are happy listening to all of these musicians and widely separated styles of music, so shouldn't that be what authenticity means?  

As stated, authenticity and commercialism is not the differentiation between rock music and pop music, and in that case, any other genre of music.  We are not the ones to judge whether music is authentic or not.  There is not paradox within these genres of music, there is only this: money makes the world go 'round.