Authenticity vs Artifice

A cannon of Authenticity and a cannon of Artifice?

it was meant to be as genral as possible to facilatet discussion
But yes

Would an 'artificial canon' be something you cite deceptively, for appearances or arguments' sake, as opposed to your true secret list of desert-islanders? I'm reminded of the time when I went for a job in a record shop as a teenager, and they asked me to list my ten favorite albums, and I had 'Bitches Brew' and 'Sister Lovers' on there, when if I was being honest I would've put Scorpions' 'Virgin Killer' and Billy Idol's 'Whiplash Smile' instead. (BTW I didn't get the job, I imagine they probably got 20 CVs with the exact same list on them)

Establishing a canon of 'truly authentic' artists is more tricky than one might think! In order to qualify, no trace of corrupting (i.e.interesting) influence can be present. Springsteen? No - too much Dylanesque wordplay and jazzy arrangements in the first two albums. Mellencamp? - nah, eccentric painter and distant Bowie/Defries connection. Who might be entered into this monochromatic pantheon - Foghat? Savoy Brown? Stereophonics? And - it has to be said - the bands who nobody wants to admit to finding boring (AC/DC, Motorhead - sure, you've got the t-shirt and the show was 'fun'[as far as I'm concerned the word 'fun'='I spent a lot of money and tortured myself trying to be sociable for once, so don't spoil it'], but when was the last time you bought the current CD? Fugazi might qualify too.)

Lou Reed vs David Bowie?

Go ahead, twist my arm! Let's go back to origins, then: Little Richard or Pat Boone? Twist harder! Beatles vs. Stones!!

Haven't we determined that artifice = authenticity a lot of the time, at least in pop? I can't have been the only one who felt Kiss was less authentic when took off their makeup.

That reminds me of when Robert Smith protested in an
interview that he was not like all of those other
80s big-haired artists because he always wore
his hair and makeup that way, not just on stage.

Canon of authenticity = canon of artifice = much-of-a-muchness dud
Canon containing Whiplash Smile = classix0r

The Shaggs = Authentic!

i don't completely understand still but i don't think the opposition of authenticity vs artifice is totally non functional because ... (firstly forget eliminating influence, obviously any act of communication will have some mutually known elements involved for example language, even if they are misunderstood, qua shaggs) ... but humans do have a maybe naive attachment to the truth, and ultimately they do shy away from signs of insincerity, which comes in a variety of forms: outright lying, self deception, ignorance of yourself, immaturity, etc ... the point is, does the band use the language given (ie guitars, notes, words, facepaint, effeminate postures, macho postures) to communicate something authentic? ... maybe that's the point

'Naive attachment to truth' - but if people believe their own bullshit strongly enough, doesn't that convince others?

Even authenticity becomes an artifice when repeated every night in stadiums across the country. Music is an art... all art is really artifice on some level. I don't really care about authenticity vs. artifice, I care that the artifice is carried off *well*.