Thinkin' 'bout the Catcher in the Rye blues...

I've begun this argument several times. In my head, on facebook, to friends, to stranger and now, to the internet at large (or at least the two followers to my page and anyone else who wanders in by accident). Oddly it is one that I have never successfully finished. It is the subject that has plagued me constantly at shows, in stores and at home. It is that of authenticitiy.

The thing is, I've never truly accepted the lack on inauthenticity and therefore, have been unavailable to comment. The acceptance of authenticity comes after removing yourself from a particular group or scene (here comes that word, you'll read it a lot in this post...probably). The idea of truly understanding the authentic worth of something comes from being a neutral party. For example, the current argument seems to be the authenticity of, say bands that the popular music press such as Kerrang and NME have publicised in favour of those who have either not made it into the pages but play within the barriers of that particular genre or those groups or artists who transcend the popular to a higher grounds of acceptance. For example, a recent group that can argue to who have done this would be Kings of Leon, a band who managed to become popular from various singles in their first three albums but hit the 'big time' with their song "Sex on Fire" from the "Only by the Night" LP. A more solid and probably universally agreed example would be someone like Bruce Springsteen who has held a devoted following over several decades.

OK, so here we have the grounding for AN argument, not THE argument. The multiple facets stemming from this initial stream though, not all of which I could tolerate. Firstly, to those who fit in the first category, I feel equal parts sympathy and indifference. Showbusiness, in all of its many forms, takes time and hard work (of which you should know). Unfortunately it takes a lot of luck too. But I'm not here telling you how to get a record deal. In fact, I'd prefer if you didn't try as, I've been told by people in the biz (I went to a seminar day on 'How to make it' last year, met some interesting people etc etc), record labels arn't picking bands up, in fact more and more are being dropped (even Feeder got dropped and they fit into the whole M.O.R tweenyboppers hordes-of-fans thing). A perfect misunderstanding of course would be what my dad said to me when he heard that albums cost £50,000 to make. Which of course is true if Nigel Godrich is producing you in LA and EMI are paying for it...

Hmmm, I'm diverting. Authenticity. Oh yes. Well basically the argument of 'who is right, who is wrong' seems pointless. Because, everyone is wrong...to everyone else. It's a personal thing, you see. Or is it? I'd like to suggest that the idea of authenticity is one of point-of-view or of choice. But that isn't exactly true. A promoter (who worked for a venue, not for one particular night) told me that during a metal night, a punter told him that because the band didn't have "long hair and ripped jeans" they were not 'metal'. Now, the poor fellow wanted to SEE metal, not hear metal. What a funny thing? But this points down the essence of a 'scene'. People tell me that scene's don't exist, usually other musicians who can't really understand the value of grouping yourself with other acts like yourself in order to bring a group of people to a gig who know what to expect. However, I do value this opinion as i LOVE diversity. A lot of my friends-in-bands seems to be in alt.noise/weirdy bands and I am not, but I love to play gigs with them for DIVERSITY! Excellent. The problem is most metal and rock subgenres come with their own style; i.e. its own scene. So metalcore, hardcore, post-rock, goth, psychobilly, punk-rock, new wave, rockabilly, post-metal, queercore, post-punk, riot grrrl bands...expect a dress code, tattoos, hair styles, brands of alcohol and drugs (a very, very important part to sub-culture).

OK, so this idea of a scene applies to roughly every group and, thus, follower of sub-genre bands, of which has been discussed. It does however, affect the popular. The body builder-gets-lost-in-Topman look has straddled the glossy print for a while now (I remember it being a vibrant part of music culture since Britpop, but has only really established itself in the high street since The Libs/Razorlight back in 2004). As per my aforementioned example, anyone notice the radical change in style in Kings of Leon between their second and fourth album? They shaved, put on the v-neck cotton tees and skinny jeans and did this all the way to the top of the charts. I'm not suggesting you sell your soul for rock and roll, just change the place you buy your clothes. This 'scene' nature in pop music has also come from a specialisation in music knowledge. This IS kind of a personal thing, but the amount of times I've professed my love for Tom Waits and got a "who?" back is incredible. What is noticeable is that the followers of a particular 'scene' are usually encyclopedias of that one subject. Ask a metalcore fan about post-punk though and he'll be stumped.

But there is a type of person which, once again, transcends the scene thing. These followers are the equivalent to Springsteen in my previous example. It's not even a generational thing, but is more obvious in older men (and some women) than it is in younger people. "Authenticity" seems to belong to these types of music though, often evoking the roots of pop music culture (so, American culture then). Blues, country and folk are often regarded as stately as they were the precursors to rock and roll, but even that has been dogged into a scene. The 'new' folk, 'anti-folk' (a literal meaning would suggest that if 'folk' is for everyone, ant-folk is the music of the self), has become a craze amongst the lo-fi practictioners and has already found the kings, queens, princes, dynamos (Johnny Flynn, Laura Marling, Mumford and Sons, Jeffrey Lewis). The english london hipster thing crashing into the new york-boho thing. The 'scene' is truly alive. The pretentiousness is unbearable. And if I see one more fucking checked shirt, they'll get a Phillips in the neck.

But all the talk of authenticity is quite judging. Perhaps I've taken the role of Haulden Caulfield and brandished everyone a phoney, a big fat phoney!!! But all this witnessing of various 'scene's' has got me pissed and unable to bring myself to enjoy gigs as much as I used to. It all began when I started going to London for shows regularly. There's something about the atmosphere that makes it obvious that everyone is there to be SEEN and not to WATCH. The Shins was an awkward experience, feeling like some members of the checked shirted, thick rimmed glasses wearing crowd were judging me for reasons unknown. The Silver Mt Zion Orchestra (known for their dandy pranciness and generall pretentiousness) was also a horrifyingly boring and tedious show and was pushed to its very limit by being insulted by the lead singer (because I had been drinking). I mean, what a twat.

Oh well. So sometimes the argument is brought up again and never finished, and I have a feeling it'll be my life's work. Sometimes you get a feeling that authenticity is a eye-of-the-beholder kind of deal-y...I just don't know...