Authenticity in Music: Real or Imagined

 Music has been around long enough to have a valid argument about authenticity. For decades various artists within various genres have laid claim to being authentic. Claiming authenticity can be a challenge. Depending on the genre, people within have criticized their own people for not “keeping it real “. What is authentic? And how has history affected this authenticity? Can an artist be authentic simply by claiming to be or is authenticity found within the music of an artist? Today we will examine authenticity in music. Is it real or imagined? 

First we should consider how authenticity is defined within the context of music. Authenticity can be interpreted in a few different ways. Authenticity to some means staying true to the roots of the music being played. It can be never forgetting where, as an artist, you came from. It can even be as simple as never signing to a major label because that would mean the artist was now a sellout and will only pander to the mainstream and ignore or forget their past. However you want to define it, roots appear to be at the heart of authenticity and anything else beyond that is phony.

When Bob Dylan went electric on July 25, 1965 at the Newport Folk Festival, it was seen by purists as the ultimate betrayal to authenticity. The non-purists thought it was awful because they could not hear Dylan due to the surrounding noise and terrible audio quality of the show. Whatever side they were on, to them, Dylan had sold out. When Bob Dylan had first hit the scene a few years prior, he was seen as a prophet, especially after the release of his album The Times They Are a-Changin’. Within the album , Dylan put forth a notion of the inevitability of change and the push against government and in extension a society that was resistant to change. When Dylan went electric in 1965, it was perceived by many as going commercial and therefore joining society instead of fighting against it.

Perhaps it was a naive society that looked to Dylan as a prophet. 1960s America was in turmoil and people needed someone to look up to and lead them from the madness around them.  To the fans, Dylan represented something much higher. To Dylan, this change was just another step in the evolution of his sound and style. 

The reaction from Dylan’s disciples is not unusual. When it comes to defining authenticity and an artist, it’s the fans that appear to perpetuate the idea more than the artist. If an artist wants to change and move in a different direction than what brought fans to them in the beginning, the reaction, such as it was with Dylan in 1965, could be swift and brutal. 

When Metallica released their self-titled album (tagged the Black album) fan reaction was fractured and marked a major shift in their sound. Up until 1991, Metallica garnered a loyal fan base with their fast, complex thrash-metal sound. The difference between the previous album …And Justice for All and the Black album was stark and polarizing. Many loyal fans found the production of famed producer Bob Rock to be too polished and much too radio-friendly and accused the band of selling out. Popularity does not make an artist immune to backlash. When Taylor Swift switched from country to pop in 1994 and released 1989, many of her country fans felt abandoned and Swift was criticized and questioned about her sincerity of her pop persona. Swift was smart about the transition and fully embraced it marking the meteoric rise to the top.   

Like Taylor Swift, R.E.M. enjoyed greater success and recognition after a major shift in their career. Prior to 1988, the band was signed to I.R.S., an independent label. Their first few albums made them popular among the indie and college crowds who saw their music as staunchly authentic. However, when R.E.M. signed a major deal with Warner Bros. in 1988, once again, purists felt betrayed, feeling the band would lose their authenticity in pursuit of a wider audience. R.E.M. have always countered these claims by saying they still had the same message, but now they have a wider audience to tell it. Still many would feel the deal would compromise their sound for a wider appeal.

Questioning an artist's authenticity can be seen as a critical evaluation of an artist, looking at a shift in their direction closely. This evaluation can sometimes determine whether the shift was made for artistic or monetary gain. The biggest point that many critics and fans bring up is that the artist is selling out. In the past, this seemed to be the biggest sin an artist could commit. If someone who was with an indie label suddenly signed with a major label, the move was seen as going mainstream for more money and less creative control. However, this view has shifted over the last decade or so. Artists who would not have dared selling the rights to their songs in the past are now selling their catalog for millions and sometimes billions of dollars. This type of deal is becoming commonplace, ensuring both the financial security of the artist and the legacy of their music for decades to come. Oddly enough, as more artists pursue this path, the less criticism it gets. 

So where does history fit into this. Authenticity in music is attached to history in everyday experiences of regular people instead of the grandiose figures that are featured prominently in history books. It is the boots-on-the-ground stories that make authenticity in music ring true. From the very beginning of postmodern music, there was a divide between the serious classical music and folk music, with folk being idealized as authentic because it was traditional, with roots in oral stories in a rural setting. Stories of hardship, even if it was sometimes exaggerated or fabricated, resonated with audiences and connected them to the artist and their music. It seemed to be more difficult to connect to an orchestra and therefore did not seem real.

With the rise of Blues and Jazz in the early - mid 1900s, authenticity became synonymous with the everyday plight of Black musicians. Racism and economic struggles were brought out in music that became associated with genuine emotional expression and suffering through lived experiences. Although it can be looked back as romanticism, people connected with these musicians through the music and viewed it as authentic. 

The view of authenticity changed with the music. Rock and roll authenticity meant rebellion, even if it was only against what their parents listened to and the rise of artist songwriting. Up until the 1960s, much of the music released was either cover songs of earlier blues or if it was original, the song was written by professional songwriters. Groups like the Beatles, the Rolling Stones and the Beach Boys began to compose their own material and were viewed as authentic. Songs began to take on real world problems. Political, economic and cultural topics were hot and if an artist wrote about these issues, they were seen as authentic. 

Authenticity in music began as something personal and then shifted to society, then shifted again by the end of the 1960s back to being personal. By the 1970s the idea of peace and love had gone sour in society. There were still political songs because of the economy and the Vietnam War but popular songs on the radio had turned to a more introspective and personal view, focusing on relationships and personal growth. Punk music emerged in the mid 1970s  as a bright light in direct response to society as a whole championing an DIY ethos with anti-corporate attitudes. With its in-your-face attitude toward society, many saw this brief movement as true authenticity within a lot of insipid music at the time, even if it did scare the hell out of a lot of people. 

By the 1980s music became more polished as some artists moved out of clubs and into stadium rock. Artists like Bruce Springsteen, Madonna, and Michael Jackson became global icons, causing critics and fans to see their success as a compromise to authenticity. The 1980s were well known for its excess and media such as MTV did not help. Videos of partying and having a good time were seen as inauthentic. Some artists would attempt to sway this view with a ballad that had a video of how hard it was to be on the road all the time. While it is true that a life like that could be difficult, the connection between artist and fan was at its most distant. Most saw this view as shallow and could not understand why having the life of a rock star could be so difficult. Authenticity had taken a hard hit.

The 1990s brought back authenticity to its roots, and artists such as Nirvana and N.W.A. returned to crafting their music about personal issues. Bands such as Nirvana and Soundgarden wrote about personal, existential and socially disillusioned themes while hip hop artists such as N.W.A. wrote about poverty, drug problems and police brutality. Authenticity in music of the 1990s had turned once again to be on a deeply personal level offering an honest reflection to a society that had appeared to turn its back on them. 

Today authenticity appears to be more elastic than ever. As genres blur and artists share more about their personal lives, the definition of authenticity appears to be less clear. As we have seen, authenticity in music is a moving target, changing decade by decade. So there is no real definition anymore and fans appear to change their mind almost daily as to what exactly authentic means. Today it seems to be about transparency, vulnerability and personal branding, although many see this as more manufactured than true. The Internet has blurred the lines and we know more about artists today than we ever have. Authenticity is not fixed, it is a cultural construct that evolves with history. Authenticity can be a valid concept, but it is a concept of what people believe in at a certain time. 

Sources for this article include:

Deena Weinsien, Rock n America: A Social and Cultural History (Toronto, University of Toronto Press, 2015)

Paul Friedlander, Rock and Roll: A Social History, (Colorado: Westview Press, 2006)