P. Puterbaugh, ‘Sounds of Silence: Pop Music Today Has No Political Edge’ (15 February 2004) Greensboro (NC) News & Record, pH1.
The third and final article I am going to review and comment on from the text The Resisting Muse: Popular Music and Social Protest is titled Available Rebels and Folk Authenticities: Michelle Shocked and Billy Bragg, by Mark Willhardt. This article is essentially written in three parts. The first deals with what I would term the theory of authenticity, the second applies this to particular events relating to the career of Michelle Shocked and the third, aspects of the career of Billy Bragg. My interest for these purposes is particularly in the first two of these sections.
The term ‘authenticity’ as referred to here concerns itself with the basis on which integrity and respect is afforded to music. Willhardt examines three central aspects of authenticity: authenticity of genre, authenticity of ethos and authenticity of use. He notes that in practice these can be very difficult to separate as they overlap to a large extent, however for theoretical purposes they can be examined independently.
Authenticity of genre is the basis on which a particular style of music is said to develop from isolated manifestations into a recognised form. Willhardt states that the music (later) known as ‘folk’ was in existence prior to the label and that the establishment of this style as a genre came out of cultural necessity; indeed he suggests that genres themselves are a form of historical reflection and categorisation. He sees this process as an ‘attempt to document, if not regulate, normalizing practices’ by identifying the quality of a community. One view of this form of authenticity is that it establishes a conservative agenda by excluding works and other forms of community and specifying parameters. It also arguably serves to establish community and provide a form of identification for both artists and listeners.
Authenticity of ethos is more concerned with the biographical elements of the artist. Willhardt suggests that the typical narrative that underlines authenticity of ethos is one of struggle over time which is overcome by personal talent. Using Woodie Guthrie as an example, he suggests that Guthrie established a template for folk artists and a measure by which others would forever be assessed. The combination of the intent and articulation of his lyrics as well as his commitment to being associated with the events that he wrote about, served to establish the truth and integrity of his work. This therefore serves to illustrate the overlap between authenticity of ethos and use.
Authenticity of use is seen by Willhardt as being far more complex to determine. He suggests that there a range of uses of music, some which assist to establish authenticity and others which directly detract from it. The type of use that serves to establish authenticity can depend on the genre of the music. Uses that are seen to aid authenticity of protest music are those which aim to convert outsiders to join a social cause or those which seek to reinforce the views of those already within the community.
Uses which are said to detract from the reputation and respect of artists, on the other hand, concern prioritising financial reward. Whilst realising a reasonable return for artistic expression may not detract from the authenticity of the work or artist, the desire to realise excessive or maximum profits – often seen as the goal of major corporations such as record labels – can detract from the authenticity of the music. Profit based uses counteract the authenticity of ethos and other authentic uses. Indeed, authenticity itself runs the risk of being perceived as a mechanism for increasing sales. Willhardt notes the absence of political music following 9/11 in the United States as one possible illustration of profit use dominating uses that would serve to establish authenticity through social action.
However Willhardt contends that there are other possible perceptions to use for profit rather than merely the absolute position that profit use destroys all authenticity. One is that profit use serves to illustrate the falsity of authenticity of genre and ethos as constructions rather than natural or inherent qualities. The other is to view commercialism as a necessary context which whilst detracting from some aspects of authenticity can also serve to allow it in ‘small, lived moments of agency’.
One example of such a small moment of agency is given in the following section of the article which examines the career of Michelle Shocked. After a number of successful CDs she was advised that her recording Arkansas Traveller would not be released by her record label, Mercury (owned by Polygram) nor would the next album be funded. Shocked sued to be released from the contract on the basis of the 13th Amendment – involuntary servitude. The case was settled out of court and she was released from her contract and able to secure the return of her whole catalogue after ten years. In categorising this as a moment of agency Willhardt states: I would suggest that this attempt to wrest her music from a corporate structure which didn’t support her and which in fact actively worked against her is an authenticity of use: protest linked to action, creating agency, resulting in change. The music is used as the tool....
Like most theories there appears to be a scale to the notion of authenticity as it relates to protest music.
At the far left of the scale are notions of economic independence (and irrelevance), the formation of genres and works within these for the purposes of communicating and establishing communities and the attribution of reputation and integrity to artists based on ability and the need to strive to achieve goals.
At the far right of the scale are notions of economic dependence and desire, the formation of genres for the purposes of limiting the scope of competition and the establishment of communities to further the ideals of profit. Artistic integrity, ability and biographical background are seen as being irrelevant unless they can be used to further popularity in order to create more wealth.
There are probably other factors that could be attributed to each of the ends of this scale and if others have ideas on how to phrase the ‘scale of authenticity’ I would be delighted to hear them; but the point is essentially one of deciding where our culture has been on this scale in the past, where it is today and where we would like it to be in the future.
I would suggest that since the 1960s we have been moving from left to right. There was perhaps a time with the emergence of the free culture movement and open file sharing networks where we moved partially back from this point. The abandonment of DRM could also be seen as a step to the left if it were not accompanied by watermarks and ISP filtering which are most certainly a pull back to the right as the technological tools of profit use.
I would very much like us to be somewhere much further left from here in the future. This point would be somewhere at which a professional sector of artists could realise a reasonable return, maintain artistic independence and offer real commentary on the world with access to the opportunity of their work being received on a large scale. We have the technology, creativity and intelligence to find this place, but how do we free ourselves from this involuntary servitude? I am tempted to say that the ‘answer... is blowing in the ...breeze...’ but Lessig provides the parameters for creating this environment – law that enables not prevents; architecture that allows competition and exchange; social norms that support creativity and diversity; economics that is no so overbearing as to subvert the purpose... This is what we need to achieve but aside from an out of court settlement with humanity (not likely), how do we get the record labels to release us from the environment where authenticity is defined by profit?
My only answer, at this stage, is, in increments.
As I explained in the last post, commercialism came in through a process of small exchanges between culture and society, and that too must be how it dissipates. The Free Culture Movement has set the course for this change but it is not yet here and as a movement it must do just that, move, one step at a time. If I could free myself from the shackles of my personal regulation enough I would take steps to deliberately combine the free culture movement, social movement and artists... for me this would be a positive next step to the left. I once said that I thought the only thing that could save culture, was culture; now maybe I should add 'incrementally' to that phrase...
No comments:
Post a Comment