Does the notion of authenticity rely on live performance?

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

Woodstock Revisited

One of rock’s most memorable events was the original Woodstock festival, held in upstate New York in the summer of 1969. Following the Vietnam war, this festival was put on to promote peace and the love of music.

500,000 people from all walks of life ended up attending the infamous 3-day festival and, although people came from clashing backgrounds, the music helped spread peace. All in all, 

Woodstock brought peace through music during a difficult time. It’s now written in history books as one of the greatest rock concerts of all time. When havoc and destruction should have occurred, people came together instead.

On the 30^th anniversary of Woodstock in 1999, a new Woodstock took place to pay tribute to the greatest rock concert of all time. Unlike the original Woodstock, Woodstock ’99 left a negative impression on the world of rock.

Sheryl Crow, a female performer at Woodstock ’99, described the audience as disconcerting 

and said that it was the worst performing experience she’s ever had.

“These people were so full of rage and totally unappreciative of the music, kids raised without any pride in themselves. I’m still really (angry) about the event and regret being a part of it” (As said by Sheryl Crow in Cateforis, 2006, p 313).

Why the drastic change? This festival was supposed to commemorate the orginal Woodstock, in which people banned together. However, at Woodstock ’99, the crowds got out of control as they raged, rioted, looted and flashed body parts for the camera.

Maybe Woodstock is something that can’t be re-created or re-visited. It wasn’t meant to be as big and grand as it turned out to be. But, that’s the spirit of it all. Without planning and without rules – Woodstock ’69 defied the odds and ended up showing America the healing power of music. Through rock, people forgave their differences for three days and focused on nothing but peace and prosperity. Isn’t that what music is supposed to be about? You can’t re-create that feeling. Maybe – just maybe – if we stop trying, it’ll come back to us one day and the world will see another successful Woodstock. Until then – I think it’s about time we stop trying so hard to make it happen.

 

Woodstock 1969    Woodstock 1999

References

Woodstock ’69 Web site, www.woodstock69.com

Theo Cateforis, 2006, ‘The Rock History Reader,’ CRC Press

rock for rock's sake - where has it gone?

Why is it with every search I do, whether it be in Google scholar or on a university database, do all the results for anything to do with ‘popular music’, ‘rock music’, or ‘rock and roll’ deal with the emergence of or history of music? Is anyone writing about music now? Or has music, as far as academics are concerned anyway, had its day? Sure, rock was invented in 1955 with the onset of Elvis Presley; sure, rock became recognised as more than pop music in the 1960s; ok, females were excluded in the formative years of rock therefore the industry developed into a male dominated one; yes, the 1970s saw a major increase in rock bands – then what? I am yet to find a journal article that discusses any bands or artists which are performing now - or at least who have occurred during my music listening years. There are many articles on the audience or popular music in general, and even more on music and its effect on youth - but what about a discussion on rock for rock’s sake? Or an analytical look at the lyrics of a recent band? How about some recognition for the contributions made toward the genre ‘rock’ by recent bands and artists? Let’s look at why women are still minorities of rock? Are women still minorities of rock? All these questions I’d love to answer as best I can but here’s the catch – I can’t write anything without the backing of an academics work because I am just a student with no authority on the subject. I am sure that there are more works out there, that there are journals full of recent articles tackling these problems but in the months I have spent searching databases and the web I am yet to find any (apart from the odd book chapter about U2 but, come on, there is more to rock today than that!). The only writings about recent rock music are performance and album reviews. Contemporary rock music has reverted back to being treated as just entertainment and is being written about in gossip and entertainment magazines and blogs. The hard work put in during the 1960s to have rock recognised as ‘art for art’s sake’ and not just profit making, industry pleasing music seems to apply only to rock made in that era. Is this true? Is the art of rock really dead? Or is there just a lack of scholarly text which creates the illusion that contemporary rock is not worth deeper analysis?

Sarah Gillam

The Rock star Style: Since when can you DIY??

I hope I am not the only one that becomes enraged when seeing Miley Cyrus wearing a Led Zeppelin T-shirt. Or Nicole Ritchie donning a head scarf, ala Axl Rose and flashing the rock on symbol at photographers as she is snapped walking up rodeo drive for a shopping spree thanks to dad Lionel.

A recent interview with Motley Crue Bassist, Nikki Sixx, illustrates that even the musicians are feeling the frustration. When asked what music would be playing in his version of hell, Sixx promptly replied, “Ashlee Simpson. She is not a rock chick.” (2004).
My point I, when did Rock and Roll become so commercial, that simply purchasing a vintage T, hanging Bon Jovi’s Slippery When Wet vinyl on the wall, and putting your facebook status as Rock on, become even remotely, rocks tar
It seems there is a lot of money to be made with marketers inventing and pedaling new ideas of how the ordinary person can be a rock star at home. When flipping through the latest issue of Rolling Stone, there article, ‘Rock and Roll Must Haves’ may as well be a DIY kit of how to achieve rock star status all in the comfort of your own home. According to Rolling Stone, one must have; the Guitar Hero, World Tour game, the Sex Pistols new graphic novel , The Man with Kaleidoscope Eyes by Alan Aldridge, a Sony USB turntable and of course the vintage T and scarf that all the celebs are wearing.

It is mind blowing that a genre that developed in such an effortless, real and raw circumstance, has become such a marketed product. This new wave of rock and roll consumerism is blurring the line between the greats and the would be’s if they could be’s

If we give the ordinary man a guitar, tell him to, play it, swear on stage and of course have all of the typical rock star paraphernalia where does that leave us? While I believe that rock stars are born and not made, it is sure hard to spot the genuine from the fakes in this day and age. In my opinion there has been no real rock band that has been able to fill the shoes of Guns n Roses since the 1980’s. Velvet Revolver came close, yet fell apart due to the pitfalls that are involved in a rock star’s life. Of course bands like RHCP, Pearl Jam and STP must be applauded for their input, and it absolutely does not go unnoticed. However, I’m sure you will agree with me that they are a different sounding type of rock. I really hope that this does not mean that we will have to put up with the likes of Fall Out Boy and Hinder, to fill the rock fans desire for down and dirty music.

References
Hiatt, B 2008, ‘Gear’, Rolling Stone, December issue, no. 685, p. 34, acp magazines.

Rock and Roll Guru
http://rockandrollguru.com/?p=1302

Chief Marketer
http://chiefmarketer.com/media360/broadcast_cable/rolling_stones_10042005/

In The Beginning: The Racial Divide

There are many contributors to rock and roll music. But none have had as much influence as the crew of the 1950’s and 1960’s that took the blues sound and ran with it. This pivotal time in the development of the Rock and Roll genre showcases the explicit relationship that music and culture have.

Rock and Roll is typically referred to as a union of rhythm and blues stemming from African American beats and melodies, coupled with youthful subject matter that as time went on applied more to middle class white society than its predecessors. The forefathers of this genre are undoubtedly those personalities of the 50’s and 60’s who saw this underground, often unspoken of music sound, become mainstream.
Fats Domino, Lloyd Price, Ike Turner, Hank Williams, Joe Turner, Louis Jordan, Ray Charles, Little Richard, Jerry Lee Lewis, Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, Buddy Holly - and Elvis Presley are among the names that spring to mind when we talk of pioneers of Rock and Roll. As time went on and decades rolled past, Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and Led Zeppelin found themselves filling the shoes of those left behind.

Therefore the development of this genre was multi-racial, in the beginning. However, fast forward to the 1980’s and finding a black American engaged in rock music would be hard to come across. This issue became of such precedence that the Black Rock Coalition (BRC) developed to support those Black Americans displaced by the turn that rock music had taken in later years. Chapters in Los Angeles and New York emerged to support the desire of any black Americans that wanted to play, write or record rock music. There was such an obstacle as it was implausible to record executives and many music consumers that there was a place for black Americans in rock music, the fore-founders of the genre.

Between the 1980’s and today, the environment has changed very little. When trying to think of an African American rock group when writing this article, I found myself stumped and asked a friend if any names sprung to mind. Within the rock genre I found a few names that have a strong representation, Lenny Kravitz, Slash and Pharrel Williams. Williams is the founder of N.E.R.D, of which is the closest thing that the 20th Century has in the way of an all African American Rock and Roll Band. And to be honest, I personally feel that’s pushing it to class N.E.R.D as rock. There music is more, hip hop and rap. Pharrel himself is considered a master of those genres and commands a high power and even higher sum of money to work with him.
It is thought that as this genre evolved; the subject matter of rock music songs became less and less relevant to young, African Americans post WWII. The melodies that at first emerged as an outlet for black oppression, was superseded by the typically ‘white’ subject matter, that had no bearing on the African American lifestyle.

Now this race of people have a huge representation in Rap and Hip Hop genres that developed in response to the turn that Rock and Roll took. It is rather sad that the grassroots culture that Rock and Roll developed from are no longer as involved in the genre as they once were. But again it is evidenced that music and culture have a mutually exclusive relationship, where these two entities affect each other in all aspects of the word. It is like considering what came first the chicken or the egg. In this case what changed first? Was it the music of Rock and Roll that changed in response to the changing culture of a post WWII society, or alternatively did the music revolutionise culture and open it up to a whole new way of life. It is hard to argue either side, and only those that experienced this development first hand will be able to answer, if at all, that question.

References:

Mahon, M 2000, 'Black like this: race, generation, and rock in the post civil rights era', American Ethnologist, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 283-311, JSTOR.

http://oldies.about.com/od/rockandrollpioneers/Rock_and_Roll_Pioneers.htm

Teen Idols

A teen idol is defined as a rock artist who attracts a large following of mostly female teenagers because of their sex appeal, popularity and music talent. They exist today, but the origins of such idols developed in the 1940’s as rock first began to hit the music scene in America.

Although popular with the female fans, many avid rock historians see teen idols as a threat to rock’s survival.

“Wimpy, overwhelmingly bland and safe, their connection to rock & roll was often tenuous, and their commercial ascendancy has even been discussed as a conspiracy by the music business and sundry other moral authorities to rob rock & roll of its vitality” (http://www.history-of-rock.com).

Was it that these idols were taking away the classic elements of rock? Instead of the vulgar lyrics and risqué style of older and more legendary rock artists, these idols made their claim to fame with sheer sex appeal and good looks. They didn’t have to wear face paint like KISS or bite the head off a bat like Ozzy in order to attract a following. They were able to lure women with charm – something that wasn’t a common trait in most rockers.

This should stand to see why avid rock historians disapprove of teen idols. In their defense, rock music was and is the music that defied the norms. Adding pretty faces with good manners doesn’t fit with the stereotypical rock image.

References

Wikipedia – searched ‘teen idols,’ accessed on May 28, 2009

History of Rock Web site, www.history-of-rock.com

Frank's not into rocking 'n' rolling

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, rock ‘n' roll was truly born, birthing a world of music that introduced and expressed a new and different (and quickly popular) sound. Some people from earlier generations in the show and music businesses did not approve of the new style of music. One such critic was Frank Sinatra. In 1957 he was quoted as saying,

“Rock and roll is the most brutal, ugly, desperate vicious form of expression it has been my misfortune to hear. Rock n' Roll smells phony and false. It is sung, played and written for the most part by cretinous goons, and by means of its almost imbecilic reiteration, and sly, lewd...in plain fact, dirty lyrics…it manages to be the martial music of every sideburned delinquent on the face of the earth." (Frank Sinatra at 1958 Congressional hearings, New York Times Magazine, 12.1.58, p.19).

It is partially true what Sinatra mentioned above, however I do not think this held true until the 1970s when rock then began dividing into different subgenres. So Frank, fast forwarded about 13 years, and I would agree with you more. In the 70s, rock music grew to ‘soft rock’, ‘progressive rock’, ‘heavy metal’, etc. and not until the 80s did rock emerge into ‘hardcore punk rock’ or ‘alternative rock.’ With the formations of these new types of rock, it became a time of speaking out and rocking out. However, to categorize all rock ‘n’ roll music (especially in the 1950s) as “smelling phony and false” well Frank, that’s a bit harsh. Chuck Berry, Big Joe Turner, James Brown and Little Richard, to name a few, all had early rock ‘n’ roll career hits and are still considered some of the best-known and most influential artists of all rock ‘n’ roll time. Rock ‘n’ Roll has changed dramatically since the 1950s, constantly forming into many other rock-influenced styles, but it would have never come about if it wasn’t for the “cretinous goons” playing for the “sideburned delinquents.” Do not get wrong, I am a fan of Frank’s music; however his opinion on rock ‘n’ roll is something that I would beg to differ.

Frank wondering, perhaps, why people love rock 'n' roll so much

References:

Frank Sinatra at 1958 Congressional hearings, New York Times Magazine, 12.1.58, p.19

Shirley, David. The History of Rock and Roll. Canada: Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data, 1997