Is live performance the only authentic rock experience? I don’t believe it is. Having said that I do believe it is an integral part of proving or creating ones authenticity. As Regev (1994) explains, “Components of popular music - lyrics, amplification, recording technology, assemblage, stylistic eclecticism - have been interpreted in the rock context as aesthetic means for expressing rebellion and subversiveness, thus discovering in rock music aesthetic genuineness and serious meanings”. In other words, all the studio work is an accepted and appreciated part of the rock experience; it is not in conflict with the live performance but rather live and studio work together to create the entire authentic rock experience. An artist or band is not seen as ‘cheating’ for using studio equipment and effects during the recording of an album, providing they can prove during a live performance that the sound being generated is coming from the musicians and the instruments they play – if it the performer does not achieve this live then they are deemed inauthentic and a ‘pop’ act (Auslander, 1998).
Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Wakman (1999) explains;
“If
Hendrix on stage was a near-mythic presence who both drew upon and signified a complex history of racial representations, Hendrix in the studio was something or someone else, an almost insular figure who could lose himself in the seemingly endless sound possibilities afforded by electric technology. In neither case do we find a more ‘authentic’ Hendrix, but rather in the sum of the two we find a story of the contradictions embodied by Hendrix, the most public of African-American performers, whose move to surround himself with a world of sound seemed more and more an attempt to escape the entrapment of the image that surrounded his celebrity”.
Not only does this explanation of Hendrix explain the importance of the studio in his work but it places the studio as the place where he is most honest, where he produces the music he is feeling without the added pressures of being an African-American icon during a racially charged time. While his image is of major importance to his success, his studio time is vital to the actual music he produces.
This leads me to another point made by Auslander (1998). Many of our ideas regarding authentic come from the knowledge we already have relating to a band or artist. We know that Hendrix was an amazing guitarist who was a successful black man in a white dominated genre – we automatically see him in a positive, authentic light. We know the Monkeys did not actually play instruments and were produced for TV’s sake – we automatically rule them out of the authentic rock world and place them in inauthentic pop. We need to be aware that our ideas of authentic are not solely based on the music we hear on recordings or the performances we see live; it is the combination of the two further combined with the knowledge we already have about that artist that then come together to create the authentic rock experience. None of these components alone can create the sense of absolute authenticity – each component relies on the other as evidence. The artist must have a history of live performance before they are signed as a rock artist and make an album, once the album is done it must be good, the live performance of the album must be as good as the music on the album and the performers must actually be creating the music on stage rather than just acting. This combined with the listener’s knowledge that the artist is thus far believed to be a genuine rocker creates the notion of the authentic – if any of the components are missing then the authenticity can be questioned.
I do agree that live performance is an integral component of the authentic rock experience – I just don’t believe that it is the sole decider of authenticity.
Sarah Gillam
Auslander, Philip 1998, ‘Seeing is believing: Live performance and the discourse of authenticity in rock culture’, Literature and Psychology: a journal of psychoanalytic and cultural criticism vol. 44 no. 4, pp.1-26.
Regev, Motti 1994, ‘Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, (Feb, 1994), pp. 85-102.
Wakman, Steve 1999, ‘Black sound, black body: Jimi Hendrix, the electric guitar, and the meanings of blackness’, Popular Music and Society, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 75-113
Take Jimi Hendrix for example. Wakman (1999) explains;
“If
Hendrix on stage was a near-mythic presence who both drew upon and signified a complex history of racial representations, Hendrix in the studio was something or someone else, an almost insular figure who could lose himself in the seemingly endless sound possibilities afforded by electric technology. In neither case do we find a more ‘authentic’ Hendrix, but rather in the sum of the two we find a story of the contradictions embodied by Hendrix, the most public of African-American performers, whose move to surround himself with a world of sound seemed more and more an attempt to escape the entrapment of the image that surrounded his celebrity”.Not only does this explanation of Hendrix explain the importance of the studio in his work but it places the studio as the place where he is most honest, where he produces the music he is feeling without the added pressures of being an African-American icon during a racially charged time. While his image is of major importance to his success, his studio time is vital to the actual music he produces.
This leads me to another point made by Auslander (1998). Many of our ideas regarding authentic come from the knowledge we already have relating to a band or artist. We know that Hendrix was an amazing guitarist who was a successful black man in a white dominated genre – we automatically see him in a positive, authentic light. We know the Monkeys did not actually play instruments and were produced for TV’s sake – we automatically rule them out of the authentic rock world and place them in inauthentic pop. We need to be aware that our ideas of authentic are not solely based on the music we hear on recordings or the performances we see live; it is the combination of the two further combined with the knowledge we already have about that artist that then come together to create the authentic rock experience. None of these components alone can create the sense of absolute authenticity – each component relies on the other as evidence. The artist must have a history of live performance before they are signed as a rock artist and make an album, once the album is done it must be good, the live performance of the album must be as good as the music on the album and the performers must actually be creating the music on stage rather than just acting. This combined with the listener’s knowledge that the artist is thus far believed to be a genuine rocker creates the notion of the authentic – if any of the components are missing then the authenticity can be questioned.
I do agree that live performance is an integral component of the authentic rock experience – I just don’t believe that it is the sole decider of authenticity.
Sarah Gillam
Auslander, Philip 1998, ‘Seeing is believing: Live performance and the discourse of authenticity in rock culture’, Literature and Psychology: a journal of psychoanalytic and cultural criticism vol. 44 no. 4, pp.1-26.
Regev, Motti 1994, ‘Producing Artistic Value: The Case of Rock Music’, The Sociological Quarterly, vol. 35, no. 1, (Feb, 1994), pp. 85-102.
Wakman, Steve 1999, ‘Black sound, black body: Jimi Hendrix, the electric guitar, and the meanings of blackness’, Popular Music and Society, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 75-113
No comments:
Post a Comment