Registered user login:

Keeping it unreal

Jeff Sharlet

Published 16 April 2007

We consider the "primitive" music of blues singers such as Leadbelly to be more authentic than that of the Monkees. But all pop musicians are fakes

Faking It: the quest for authenticity in popular music

Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor Faber & Faber, 288pp, £14.99

ISBN 0571226590

Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor, two publishing professionals who have turned out their personal record collections to produce a persuasive defence of inauthenticity as the defining characteristic of great popular music, borrow the title of their book, Faking It, from a suicide note - the most authentic, and also the stupidest, genre of all. "The fact is," wrote Nirvana's singer Kurt Cobain shortly before eating the muzzle of a shotgun in 1994, "I can't fool you, any one of you . . . The worst crime I can think of would be to rip people off by faking it and pretending as if I'm having 100% fun." (The italics are Cobain's.)

Like many people of a certain age, I remember where I was and what I was doing the day Cobain died. I was in my third year of college, I was in a dorm; friends and I were drinking 40-ounce bottles of Colt 45 malt liquor, and when we heard the news, we laughed. Cobain, the gold standard of rock-star sincerity since his suicide, had long seemed to us like a joke, a poseur, a pretty-boy pop singer for the high-school teens who gathered in herds of earnest weeping within hours of the news. We slightly older boys and girls were past that kids' stuff; we listened to 1980s art-punk and traditional blues - two of the fakest musical genres ever presented to the public as revelations of the real - and it was to the forgotten pain of dead black men, Skip James and Son House and Mississippi John Hurt, that we raised our 40-ouncers.

Little did we know that these musicians had been served up to us on platters, literally, resurrected 30 years before by another generation of white college boys who had looked up and recorded the old men as stand-ins for their fantasies of the romantic savage. They had at least bothered to produce some records; all my friends and I did was listen to them and drink malt liquor, a beverage manufactured to exploit poor black people and winos of all races. For us, it was liquid authenticity.

Our choice of malt liquor and callow disregard for suicide constituted what Barker and Taylor call an authenticity "trap" - the harder you try to "keep it real", the more artificial you become. Barker and Taylor explore the trap in ten chapters ranging from 1920s blues to Nirvana's last concert, most of which pair an artist generally considered authentic with one generally considered not, often to surprising effect.

The Monkees, for instance, fare well compared to the pedantic "therapy songs" of John Lennon. And if Billy Joel, "obnoxious and bullying . . . mawkish or lecherous", doesn't look so good next to Neil Young, Barker and Taylor none the less make a compelling case that the "Piano Man" was as honest a songwriter as Young. Young's insistence that he creates his best music without craft or thought is a cliché every bit as banal as Joel's phony Italian accent on "Big Shot", but the results are more interesting because Young is more interesting. "In 'Honesty'," write the authors, "Joel sings, 'I don't want some pretty face to tell me pretty lies: All I want is someone to believe.' In 'World on a String', Young sings, 'It's just a game you see me play, only real in the way I feel from day to day.'" Joel's truth is blunt and static, they argue, while Young's is shiftier. "For Young . . . being real means being true to whatever he feels at the moment, and that can and will change." Barker and Taylor want us to follow the bouncing ball - Young is the better artist not because he's more authentic, but, in a sense, because he's less so. There is no essential truth to Neil Young, only the pleasure (and pain) of brilliantly crafted pop filtered through the veil of the real.

Cobain's companion is Leadbelly, a favourite of folk aficionados who to this day perceive him as a giant of "black music", even though the vast majority of his fans were white. (When white producers brought Leadbelly to New York City in 1935 to play "traditional" music, Life magazine declared in a headline: "Bad Nigger Makes Good Minstrel".) Cobain's swan song, performed on MTV's Unplugged a few months before his suicide, was a cover of Leadbelly's "Where Did You Sleep Last Night", about a woman who wanders into the woods after her husband is hit by a train. Cobain, so deep into the authenticity trap by then that he'd never escape, seemed to be making one last attempt not to "fake it", by reviving a song by his "favourite performer", and exiting the stage without an encore.

But Leadbelly, Barker and Taylor reveal, was by necessity a master of "faking it", a sophisticated musician of cosmopolitan taste limited to a repertoire of "Negro" songs and told by his manager to perform in prison garb. That manager was John Lomax, one of the early 20th-century giants of what has come to be known as "roots music". "The music that was, for Lomax, the most authentic," write the authors, "the most black, the most free from 'white influence', was the most primitive." That doesn't mean Leadbelly was primitive, only that Lomax and, decades later, Cobain decided to believe that he was, the better to break the bonds of artificiality they felt modernity and celebrity imposed. Leadbelly was a tool. This shifty truth comes to us by way not of postmodernism, but of old-timey Marxist analysis. In 1937, the novelist Richard Wright, profiling Leadbelly for the Daily Worker, declared his coerced performances "one of the greatest cultural swindles in history".

But that's not quite right, either. Wright recognised Lomax's manipulation of Leadbelly (who later successfully sued Lomax), but he assumed there was a genuine Leadbelly behind the music, a real black expression minstrel-ised by the white man. In fact, many of Leadbelly's songs came from white folks, who'd learned them from black musicians, who'd composed them with African inflections as reinterpreted by white musicians eager to add "floating" rhythms to the marching beat of Scots-Irish reels. The strongest argument of Faking It is for the endless "miscegenation" of music. Great popular music is always a collage of cultures, while the quest for authenticity all too often functions as a means of policing racial boundaries.

Consider the case of Mississippi John Hurt, the subject of the book's longest and most powerful essay. First, there's his name: Mississippi was an add-on from the record company. Then there's his reputation as a patriarch of the Delta blues: Hurt wasn't from the Mississippi Delta and he insisted he wasn't a blues musician. And then there is the problem of his blackness, thought by the white fans who rediscovered him in the 1960s to be pure and profound ("Uncle Remus come to life," write the authors). When Hurt was "discovered" the first time, he was performing for black and white audiences backed by a white fiddler and a white guitar player who also happened to be the local sheriff. He recorded blues because the record company insisted he do so. Meanwhile, Jimmie Rodgers, a white musician who happened to be a bluesman, recorded what came to be known as "country" music because the blues were reserved by the market for black men. One more twist: when Harry Smith included two of Hurt's songs on his great Smithsonian Folk Anthology, most listeners mistook the black musician for a white hillbilly.

The term "folk" itself presents more problems. Until 1949, country music was simply "folk", as was much "black" music. Racism was the centrifuge that separated them: Henry Ford, for instance, poured money into a campaign to promote square-dancing as a form of authentic (read: white and Protestant) Americanism. One of the pioneering producers of "old-time" music in the early 20th century, Ralph Peer, later boasted: "I invented the hillbilly and nigger stuff."

The weakness of Faking It, otherwise a fascinating and nimble investigation of pop's paradoxes, is its failure to explore the political implications to which it so often points. Barker and Taylor have escaped the authenticity trap, but only by embracing the pleasures of inauthenticity. There's nothing wrong with entertainment, they insist. True enough; but there's nothing wrong with taking music seriously, either, even when it's "fake".

Barker and Taylor do that, too, but after describing the marketing manoeuvres that made country and the blues racially "pure" categories (and left much of folk a politically impotent exercise in earnestness), they shy away from the legacy of that divide: rock purists and anti-hip-hop crusades on the one hand, and, on the other, pop music that entertains but rarely provokes, and never threatens any real danger but suicide, packaged and sold as a gesture of romantic authenticity. By the time they get to punk, a genre defined by politics, they're so committed to avoiding the authenticity trap that they celebrate punk's overlooked showmanship, failing to recognise that their embrace of inauthenticity as the essence of popular music is itself a trap.

But, as they write of the Monkees' utterly contrived "I'm a Believer", so what? It's still a great song. And Faking It is a great collection of true stories about "fake" music. It's the essay as Möbius strip; a literary illusion that ultimately makes less of an argument than it seems to, and yet tells us more about what's true, what's not, and why that doesn't always matter, than a more straightforward confrontation with the secrets and lies of pop music ever could.

Jeff Sharlet is contributing editor of Rolling Stone

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • NowPublic
  • Reddit

36 comments from readers

MNeumann
20 April 2007 at 11:48

This about a quarter right and therefore ends up being badly wrong. What's right is that white music collectors, after blues, folk, or bluegrass, consistently went after what they considered authentic material. This usually meant folksy or stereotypically (pseudo-)ethnic material. The artists who obliged them, whether Leadbelly or Hurt or, later, Ralph Stanley, did indeed produce faux-traditional music. They were also either second rate or sold themselves short. But artists who didn't play this game, who remained frankly professional and commercial, had nothing fake about them, and at least in that sense it's nonsense to say all pop musicians are fakes. Some examples: Charlie Spand, Maceo Merriweather, Memphis Minnie, Charley Patton, Blind Lemon Jefferson and Jimmy Yancey in blues; Jimmy Martin in bluegrass.

hassett
20 April 2007 at 13:32

I would quibble with the characterization of "Where Did You Sleep Last Night?" as a Leadbelly song, though no doubt Cobain meant to pay homage specifically to Leadbelly's recording of it. But the history of that song -- an Appalachian folk song known to date at least to the 1870s which is and was a staple as much of the white, old timey repertoire (Louvin Brothers, Bill Monroe) as of the blues -- points directly at the impossibility of "authenticity" in as mercurial and essentially mongrelized an endeavor as music, American or otherwise.

USliberal
20 April 2007 at 14:16

Well before punk, the so called folk revival demonstrated that popular music could have a strong political dimension.

DriveByAbuser
20 April 2007 at 15:25

If you swap the misnomer 'authenticity' for what it is really being used to mean, i.e. 'of substance', then you'll find this book has little to add.

Ace2
20 April 2007 at 15:27

Anyone with even the tiniest knowledge of Blues knows that Leadbelly was co opted by Woodie Guthrie and Pete Seeger, et al. So what? Most blues came from the period 1920 to 1940, before any white people knew of its existence.It wasn't written or recorded for white college students, and most of the recordings of old masters from the sixties feature the same repertoire. If authentic means you have to hear it in a cottonfield under the hot sun from a guy who's being whipped by an overseer, then authentic doesn't exist. But then every "mexican" restaurant where I live is staffed with blue eyed blond cooks and waitresses, and says "authentic Mexican food" on its sign. It's a debased word with no meaning whatsoever, and the fact that a snide reviewer writes about it as though it had some value which needs to be defended doesn't detract from the qualities of blues or mexican food.

MoonHog
20 April 2007 at 16:10

Very well written and insightful review. Nice job.

drewheyman
20 April 2007 at 16:35

Really odd how "faking it" in Cobain's words equates to how much fun he's having, and in these pretentious tools' words to how "real" it is, with not nary a mention of personal enjoyment. i like billy bragg's music, even though i could care less about the political parties in England and only marginally about the plight of the unionized working man, of which i am neither. i guess that means i am fake. Ok, good to know.

And anyone who would dare to suggest that Neil Young is less authentic than Billy Joel obviously hasn't realized that "rock n'roller cola wars" are what sets Joel off in the throes of history, not actual historical strife. then again, that matches the writers to a T, so it makes sense that they would suggest that.

jmark1949
20 April 2007 at 17:49

"Authentic" vs "Fake" is simply an irrelevent argument. I don't care if the musician is faking it, borrowing it, inspired by it, or inventing it. If I enjoy the music, that's enough for me.

uriah17
20 April 2007 at 18:50

In your third year in college, you laughed at the news of someone's suicide?

imouse
20 April 2007 at 18:55

Oh my! Journalists and (perhaps) academic types are still at it, trying to divine differences that may or may not exist; see also record producers, recording companies and the like. They all seem to need labels. OK, once we get a handle on this label or that, it all comes together in our own minds through our ears. We listen or play it if we like it; "86" it if we do not.

When I first began listening, in the late 40's, "folk" like "jazz" was defined as "unwritten." Truly, does that help anyone?

Pete Seegar referred to Francis James Child. Does that mean if it weren't in his book it too wasn't folk?

What idiot ever thought Woody wrote "folk: music. He wrote songs, as do almost all of today's pop stars; they too want the publishing rights. It's always about money. Always/

irwin Moss, LA

Esoth
20 April 2007 at 18:58

Who hasn't been embarrassed by one performer or another's attempts to be "authentic" or establish, "street cred"? A lot of great art is 'channeled' in that an artists represents something genuine and profound, and the question of whether it is also autobiographical is simply irrelevant. Humans can empathize, can't they. This whole authenticity thing is just another form of musical snobbism, which is an undeniable part of the fun of refining discriminating tastes. The authors strike me as cynical and wanting to be their own rank of authenticity cop.

guidedbynoises
20 April 2007 at 20:26

I always thought "authentic" music was music played by someone who actually FEELS the music they are playing and they are enjoying it, as opposed to, say, worrying about how much money the record company (i.e. Lomax) wants them to make? As for Cobain's "faking it", I think it applies to that statement. I've read every book out there about him and just about every magazine interview, and it was apparent the industry burnt him out as bad as the drugs and he wasn't FEELING his music anymore. You want authentic? Check out Robert Pollard.

www.guidedbynoises.net

Admiral
20 April 2007 at 21:51

We're all faking it. So what.

focuzen
20 April 2007 at 21:55

ARTISTRY is PACKAGED and PROMOTED in order to become part of COMMERCE. The first casualty of this PROCESS is the TRUTH. This is obvious to anyone who reads an old record sleeve. However, truth doesn't always heal a soul, hence - the record industry!

focuzen
20 April 2007 at 21:57

In the words of Maxim Gorky, "truth doesn't always heal a wounded soul."

Raymond A
20 April 2007 at 22:56

Another self-indulgent and irrelevant publication. Let's all split hairs for a few hundred pages and try to find relevance where none exists. Who cares??

raymond a

pomo yid
21 April 2007 at 02:41

On the surface it appears that a music of yearning is false if it is contextualized by a manipulative consumer format. But that strikes me as a gross oversimplificaiton. Money can not necessarily connect us with what we are longing for especially when we are afraid to know what is and even more afraid to have it. I think Kurt Cobain was afraid to enjoy the attention/love that he was receiving from his fans so he perceived himself as fake. I think the author of this article is afraid to even know that he needs this attention/love, so he perceives everything as fake. The truth is that life demands us to compromise with others, function in varying pscyhological modes and combinations of fakeness and realness.

robertnbarrie
21 April 2007 at 03:03

I believe Neil Young hits it on the head when he talks about being true to the moment, regardless of the potential implications of what that might bring. We are faking it some days and some days we are not, those who see that truth as a tool to a wider appreciation and awareness should fare much better than Kurt Cobain who never understood how HIS "faking it" gave us some of his best moments.

Rob Barrie

andersjordan
21 April 2007 at 04:15

I think you've confused certain ideas here--if you're trying to suggest that sincerity is ultimately 100% fake, sure, you are right. The converse of that is that if I get angry at someone and feel like punching them in the face, then if I am authentic I will do so. But we don't do that because we realize that authenticity is great for the person acting in that way but not so great for the people around them. A simple reading of Shakespeare and not some music book could have told you that.

The authenticity that you talk about here shows itself through time and is a lot less mysterious than this article makes it out to be. There is a reason that when a person plays a Nick Drake record today the music hasn't dated at all, and that is because he is not "faking" his expression of emotion, even if it is also true that during his lifetime he was hoping to be successful. What he didn't do is compromise the integrity of his music in order to be successful. Otherwise the difference between "Citizen Kane" and a wine commercial made by Orson Welles near the end of his life would be nil. And it is not.

Also the idea here of what Neil Young is trying to say about the songwriting process is a bit confused. As I understand it, Young tries to assert as little control as possible over the melodies that he produces--the effect is something beautiful, something which no amount of analysis could produce or explain.

What Young doesn't do is try to "fool" the audience that his music comes from a subconscious level and feeling if it doesn't. This is true of Bach and other great writers of melody--the question of why it is beautiful seems beyond explanation; rather it comes from the artist's intuition. This type of music is I believe extraordinarily "authentic"... the thing about the Monkees or any number of songwriters is that the music is soured by the artist's intentions in producing the melody--eg. money. So for example if someone I care about commits suicide, I will not go searching for the latest Alanis Morrisette CD to relate to, because I do not believe she can express that type of emotional pain. I will listen to someone who has experienced that type of pain and is not trying to fool me about it.

The fact that you talk about laughing at someone's suicide also shows that you may need to gain the depth of emotion which would allow you to differentiate between these various types of expression.

addmuzak
21 April 2007 at 04:39

Writing about music is like dancing to architecture. Listen yourself and then make your own personal judgements.

nicky
21 April 2007 at 05:34

Uh, Jeff, you were maybe 20 years old when Kurt Cobain died. And you laughed? I couldn't even finish this article. I was too distracted by your and your friends' total lack of empathy. Suicide is never funny. Well, maybe yours might be. Unbelievable.

john coffin
21 April 2007 at 18:25

Just a brief comment on Leadbelly's musicianship:

The great bassist, Pops Foster, played with Leadbelly at many of his New York gigs. Foster noted that he had to tune Leadbelly's guitar for him.

yobro
21 April 2007 at 18:45

Reading this made me think of the White Stripes, a totally contrived package that many reviewers have hailed as the essence of authenticity, of blues and rocknroll. Boy do they rock though-- Jack White is extremely talented-- and that's what counts for me. The package helps the entertainment value for the (consumer) audience, and White appears to know that and has exploited it well. His homage to delta blues, from the music he plays to the fake family history of him and his bandmate Meg to his last name, show that this is one artist who consciously understands that havinga certain amount of fake packaging is pretty important in order to be successful in america. Like certain other bands, I'm thinking of the Kinks and VU, there's also a palpable sense of irony and depth of thought involved in the posturing, and that helps me enjoy it. If you gotta fake it to make it, why not have some real fun with it?

I agree that being real is about feeling the music when you make it, that's a huge part of whats makes it valuable for the rest of us. The rest is less important.

joeybswift
21 April 2007 at 22:28

all music is PERFORMED. whenever music is played for an audience it is self-consciously directed. i wouldnt take the time to listen to a performer who wasnt trying to produce something he thought i would want to listen to. sometimes the motivation of the musician might be money, sometimes it might be internal emotions, but neither motivation makes the music more or less authentic. those factors could certainly influence the sound music produced (for example if it was trying to copy popular conventions or alternatively create something unique) and especially influence the receptivity of the listener, if he is aware of them, but they in no way determine the music to be necessarily good or bad, beautiful or awful. so called authenticity has no certain relationship with music. although, if you want intention can rightly influence interpretation one way or the other.

Joe Adams
22 April 2007 at 02:51

Lomax's greatest contribution was his five-hour interview with Jelly Roll Morton (who played the piano and sang), a put-on artist, faker and genius.

aquatic
22 April 2007 at 14:48

Sharlett's a contributing editor to Rolling Stone? I don't know what he has contributed here aside from incredible narcissism and a grand display of pure mental masturbation.

Steve T.
22 April 2007 at 21:46

BTW, John Lomax's son Alan actually did the Jelly Roll Morton interview recordings, and five hours is the edited down version. The complete set, now out on the Rounder label, fills seven CDs. That's a lot more than five hours.

I think of Jelly and I think of something Joe Darensbourg, who had known him as a youngster, once observed: "Well, Jelly was a great prevaricator, or liar to be exact." He was constantly reinventing himself, not just who he was at that moment but who he'd been before. The result was an utterly unique individual, one of a kind. That's pretty authentic.

JeffSharlet
23 April 2007 at 05:42

I'm a bit distressed by the comments below and elsewhere on the web in response to the bit about laughing at Kurt Cobain's death. One reader here notes that he stopped right there. If you continue, you'll see that the awfulness of laughing at Cobain's suicide was my point -- such callow stupidity was the result of my friends' and my sense that Cobain was a fake, and thus unworthy of regard. What Barker and Taylor call an "authenticity trap." These days, I still think Cobain was a fake, but I like his music as well. And, of course, I'd never laugh at a suicide. Unless it was REALLY funny.

lobby
23 April 2007 at 12:47

One must have a heart of stone to read the death of Kurt Cobain without laughing

rockmccox
23 April 2007 at 20:03

Whenever you record something, it ceases to be authentic. The same is true about writing words down, so please disregard this and that last sentence.

http://www.myspace.com/joshcolehousehold

golem812
24 April 2007 at 17:33

Why is the pursuit of money automatically unauthentic? If a hardworking, 30-something, married-with-kids band finally makes it by "selling out," more power to them. A group of people making money for their families in a way that's more creative than working in a boring concrete-and-steel skyscraper--what's wrong with that? Rock on, indeed. They paid their dues and they deserve their success. I feel the same way if they're only 16, like the Backstreet Boys or whoever. I don't have to listen to their songs to admire their success! The fantasy of a pure, uncompromised world is just that--a fantasy, invented by people who are apparently fortunate enough to live in a vacuum, unclouded by concerns for money. Show me what's faker than that unreal world! How would you rather make a bunch of money: selling guns, or selling art? Money is life; if you're trading art for life, you're selling out? This isn't a "deep" or "thorny" dilemma at all, it's perfectly obvious. Give me a break.

Serena Goode
25 April 2007 at 10:48

I've read this book (unlike some of those commenting below). It is NOT an attempt to say what is or isn't authentic. For instance it certainly doesn't say Billy Joel is more authentic than Neil Young, although it compares their careers. It doesn't say that all pop musicians are fakes or attempt to say that inauthenticity is always good.

What it actually does is to analyse the ways in which the pursuit of authenticity (among musicians, listeners and critics) has shaped or distorted the history of popular music.

Some of the comments below have leapt to ridiculous conclusions about the book based on throwaway comments in the review (or just on the headline). You might not agree with everything in the book if you do read it, but it'd be better to argue with the things it actually says rather than what you imagine it might say.

Buddy66
25 April 2007 at 22:23

"It's always about money. Always."

Mr. Moss is right of course. The playback/feedback used to be: Whites imitated (or stole) Black music; Blacks listened to the commercially successful White adaptations and imitated them in hopes of laying in some coin; Whites, recognizing the superior quality of Black efforts, imitated the new adaptive licks; and ... you get the picture?

It was, and I'm sure it still is, all about the pursuit of money and success. Everbody adapts and imitates whatever succeeds. Get ready for a truly outrageous claim: Kid Ory and Woody Herman told me so!

turtle86
26 April 2007 at 10:41

Yes, but this thing about money is pretty irrelevant. Of course popular music is generally performed for money, but that doesn't change the fact that there are pressures on many performers to be (or appear to be) authentic either personally (as in honest, revealing, heartfelt) or culturally (in a way that will satisfy the blues, folk or world music purists). All artists work for money or success, but we still often differentiate between them on how authentic we feel they are, so all this stuff about money is a red herring.

xcubbies
25 June 2007 at 13:25

Does this mean that Eric Clapton really isn't god?

rocksteady
11 August 2007 at 20:34

This is silly. The act of marketing music does not automatically mean that the music itself is not "authentic". If John Hurt is packaged as a "blues singer" to fit into a marketing niche, it doesn't follow that the blues or folk or hillbilly songs that he sings and plays are not authentic in some way.

I've heard similar arguments about the "authentic" "folk process" ie, where songs have been handed down person to person, this being the only "true" folk music. The fact is, folk artists from Robert Johnson to Bob Dylan learned much of their repertoire from recordings. This doesn't diminish their musical authenticity.

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.

Also by Jeff Sharlet

Read More

Vote!

Is this the worst economic situation for 60 years?