Fake

Why, then, are there so few palatable pop songs?

Despite technology, I think this is as difficult to do as it ever was.

It's more a matter of whether or not something sounds genuine, which lends itself to being called fake. The mere existence of something does not automatically preclude it from being fake -- it's the nature of it.

Motivation and integrity are the tricky gray areas, but that 1960s rockist fetish seems to be eroding. Interesting, still, that different genres are held up to different standards.

E.g., Britney is fake, as proven by her explicitly stated desire to do a folk album based on The Bell Jar. We are meant to draw no distinctions between Britney-as-personality* and Britney-as- product, and yet we can imagine that no one involved in the creation of her music actually, honestly believes in it as their preferred artistic accomplishment.

* Note, though, that this gets complicated with someone like her, because Britney-as-personality is also "fake," in relation to Britney- as-person. But much work is done to cover up that distinction, too -- the product's target audience is not meant to dwell too much on these distinctions, unless they're dwelling on them in self- conscious, media-savvy, and yet ultimately product-determined ways, e.g., "Lucky." Back to the pomo critical theory ...

"It's not music, it's a company...it's about ideas and distribution, infiltrating the media with our agenda."

I was referring to the falsity of process, the idea that there even *is* a process to making pop music anymore. There needn't be any effort.

As far as things ringing true or what have you, I think it's obvious when someone is hijacking another's sound/image/etc., and that's always the most glaring example of fake to me. Take The Strokes for example. PSYCH!

How can any music be fake, though? You can hear it, yes? Therefore it exists.

Dude, fake things exist! They're just not what someone's claiming they are. If you try using the above logic in the world at large, you're going to end up buying a whole lot of "genuine" Rolexes and wandering around saying, "But I can feel it on my wrist, yes?"

See: John Cage?

http://24hour.beaufortgazette.com/24hour/entertainment/story/756771p- 798220c.html

(The Strokes incidentally I think do 'mean it', and their shallowness and blankness is more a reflection of how little 'it' there is in Velvetsian indierock in the first place).

Incidentally, my high-handed declaration that I didnt use the word 'fake' is of course nonsense - I wrote a whole bloody article on it.

http://24hour.beaufortgazette.com/24hour/entertainment/story/756771p- 798220c.html

(a) Identify the performer with the art in the old-fashioned sense -- in the way it seems 1940s moviegoers might have looked at filmstars, or the way people viewed the self-created Thriller-era Michael Jackson -- i.e., consciously or unconsciously assuming that the entire product is the deliberate extension of the artist's personality? Or would she

(b) Look at the performer strictly as a performer -- almost the way one watches camp performances or drag shows, or the way that so many hip-hop stars present themselves, as businessmen more than artists -- and therefore view the performer almost as an intelligent tool, a person uninvested in the process who is just so fabulous as an individual that she's able to entertain us with hardly any personal effort, and is savvily aggrandizing herself so successfully that we should live vicariously through her ability to do so? Or would she

(c) See the performer in that "Making the Video" / "MTV Diary" sense, as a normal girl, just like her, who works very hard to entertain us all and very much hopes that we'll be pleased and just loves doing what she's doing? Or is it

(d) Some combination of the above, or possible something I wouldn't even understand?

I'm just really trying to mentally figure out how much of the general portrayal gets swallowed and taken as genuine, and how much gets taken as "performance" in an image-conscious media-savvy way, and how all of this interacts with liking the end product. And I'm damn confused, really.

Does that matter?

perhaps what is meant intuitively by fake music is the perceived level of marketing that goes on with an act?

It's not my intent to pick on anything, or even to talk about the quality of the music itself. What I'm trying to get at is how much of the overall Britney product, particularly in terms of her "personality" off-record, is taken sincerely and how much is taken as performance. I'm assuming that you've found a way to navigate your reactions to the song and your reactions to the product, and I'm assuming that the way you choose to navigate those things is completely different from the way it's done by a 13 year old with Britney's posters tacked up on her walls.

Maybe a part of the appeal of pop stars at such an age is precisely the not knowing what is real and what is not. This would actually seem to fit with my experience -- part of the root-level childish awe in glitzy pop stars lies in not completely understanding how they get to do the things they do, not understanding how they're allowed to do those things, and more importantly not having any clue about what their lives are actually like.

I have to say that if someone out of Royal Trux is trying to demonstrate that it takes *real* hard work to make records which sound like the Royal Trux, then the joke is most definitely on him.

Maybe stuff like Pop-Stars is changing all that - but on the other hand - maybe it's just polarizing kids into being either wildly cynical or unbearably shallow. Ya know?

In any case, my two examples are so different as to be unfair anyway, although they are popular case studies here. I believe the Strokes sincerely love the Velvets and the NYC punk thing, and think Johnny Thunders was a snappy dresser, and I also believe Britney sincerely wants to be famous. Maybe sincerity is less crucial for a "pop" performer?

But the reason for the sincerity double standard is I think that rock makes a habit of explicitly disdaining fakeness more than pop does. The position of most of the pop fans I know on the Strokes, like them or not, is to dislike the hype as much as or more than the band. It's a "why can't people admit they're a pop act?" thing.

Doesn't mean it's bad, but it's total bullshit.

- I can't use Britney as an example because I don't know anything about her - so I'll use Debbie Gibson, teen pop sensation from a different era. She made music, however bad, that was important to her, so it was real to her, at least.

You might call Andy Warhol's work "fake" because it approached art from a commercial angle - but he believed in it, and it carried a message that anything can be art if you want it to be.

Then there's that NSynch/New Kids/NewEdition/Menudo guy. (The old, fat, bald guy.) He knows damn well that he's slapping shit together for mass consumption.. and even though some 13 year old girl is totally moved by, "Girl, You're Wicked Awesome" - we know that the old,fat,bald guy is just counting his dough because he knows that 13 year old girls were moved by Fabian, Pat Boone, Davy Jones, Shawn Cassidy, Leif Garrett, etc.

So I guess it's OK for a teenager (who thinks she's an artist) to make this crap, but a guy with nugget rings is just cashing in - and that's what's "Fake."

But seriously, yes: it's pretty hard to claim there's any fakery going on there -- they very much seem to believe in what they're doing. What's unusual is that they also seem so comfortable with revving up the media hype engines, while it's customary for an ostensibly indie band to disdain such things. This goes to the excellent witticism above about a purist being one who's neurotically afraid of being conned -- indie listeners who I think might be a bit more open to the Strokes under other circumstances are currently refusing to bite, assuming that any band who approaches their own press in such a manner is obviously not to be trusted.

I'm also really keen on this: "It's fake in the sense that it may be admirable for what it is, but instead tries to be admired for what it isn't." Which is obviously what separates elements of the Britney- loving in here from Britney-loving at large: how many 13-year-olds know what Cheiron was?

Your list of teen-screams brings up a different point; don't these male performers gain the approval of 13 year old girls because they're "cute", with music as an afterthought? That's why I bought my Fabian album, although hearing him growl "Turn Me Loose" does give me a thrill as well... (have I just lose all my credibility?)

Despite the monies of the guy with the nugget rings, there are others writing these pop songs whom nobody probably wants to see sing -- or perhaps can't sing -- so why not let Britney belt 'em out? (or coo them as the case may be)

There are layers between the other instruments and the listener, too, but these don't ever seem to be called into question do they? Only the vocals. Recorded music is just that and there are inherently layers of artifice between the performer and the listener. Why does everyone focus on just the voice in these cases? Because generally that's whose name and face is on the record? It seems other musicians and instruments don't get held up to the same scrutiny.

Dishonesty re Strokes v. Britney is in the marketing, not the music -- compounded in the case of the former by a fawning media.

Important assigner of value often forgotten here - Rarity.

Or perceived rarity at that, so perhaps sincerity/inspiration/integrity/talent/originality that has believably escaped most commercial compromises should not be so lightly dismissed as irrelevant to value. Such things *are* scarce and if genuine do show a certain amount of integrity that can quite reasonably be valued as a rare and good thing.

Well, yes. But what about the case where we might have some idea? It doesn't usually bother me if the artist is in some way indifferent to it but - and I know this is going to sound funny coming from me - finding out the creator of a piece of work thinks it's a joke can affect the way I feel about it. For example, and this is going back a bit, I was really freaked out when Slowdive thought that somone crying to Catch The Breeze was hilarious. Maybe it shouldn't have mattered, but it did, at least until the memory of that particular interview got half submerged under all the other shoegazing detritus.

I suppose I'm drunkenly trying to make the point that how an artist feels about a piece of work, if (and only if) I am aware of it, forms part of the context of that work, and so can affect the way I respond to it. The coupling is weak, to be sure, but to say it isn't there in me somewhere would be lying. As a result I'd rather not know about the sincerity level of the artist, as the effects of finding out tend to be negative.

The focus on the voice doesn't come from the listener -- it comes from the product itself! Britney's performance at the VMAs, for instance, didn't feauture people playing keyboards or tweaking sequencers or playing guitars -- it, like everything else in the genre, was packaged around the voice. So I don't think it's fair to say that the rest is ignored -- if Britney appeared holding a Les Paul and pretending to play a big guitar solo in the middle of the track, people would think she was the biggest joke going. The only request is that the artist actually do the things the product is trying to imply that she does. Which isn't so awful -- is it that much to ask that you're not lied to?

And Richard -- quite right about discovering intent. I mean, imagine that your significant other constantly said "I love you," and then you discovered one day that their saying this wasn't actually meant to imply very much, and was just tossed out to appease you. The next time you hear them say it, you might not appreciate it as much, correct? Same principle, different scale.

Were Zepplin fakes & charlatans? Swiping tunes left and right and not giving credit where credit is due? Has anyone ever heard that NY folksinger's (forget his name) 1967 version of 'Dazed & Confused?'

I know it, I know it, I know a couple people will say it makes no difference, that if she looks as good on the video and sounds as good on the radio, Britney is every bit as good as Aretha (for instance). I do, I really do understand this intellectually. But I disagree with it vehemently. In fact I find the idea repulsive.

I should have stayed out of this discussion like I promised to do in the beginning...

Actually the only issue that I have in all this, is that someone with merely the right look and feel really does have the edge over the person with the inspiration and the talent. I think the industry is all fucked up over this - especially if you're female. They're willing to fake the talent if you've got the look - but not the other way around. Or rather, they don't even give us the chance to look past a less than average appearance to get to an exceptional talent. Of course this is all our own fault as a consuming public for demanding both at once - and only a change in our general preference for ass over brain would ever change that.

But it honestly *bothers* me that the line between skilled entertainment and artistic musicianship has blurred so far that it marginalizes talented people for purely shallow reasons. It seems unjust somehow and I guess I don't find that especially harmless.

(I'd also say though that Aretha - or any of the big soul singers - doing bad or inappropriate material is actually worse than any teenpop, because of the huge amount of free rein the singer is given)

I guess the bottom line for me is - you can compare records to make for illuminating criticism, but setting records against each other in competition is not neccessarily useful (it can be fun though!). There are situations in which a Britney record would be better. There are situations in which an Aretha records would be better. My question was never whether fake is better or worse, but what it *is*.

That's crummy and forgetable??

See, I think the thing here is, how many supposedly 'forgettable' bands/scenes/etc. ended up creating pop songs that stick? Answer -- way more than anyone allows for. This is why I still love ABC's "The Look of Love" and "Poison Arrow," for instance -- the scene may be dead and buried, the hype long past, but dammit those songs rool.

(That said, I like Aretha much, much better, but it's because I think she has a much stronger voice, better arrangements and songs, displays more personality in her performance.)

Is this a new phenomenon, though?

Well, those artists aren't all "crummy" because of the process behind making their records, it was largely done the same way pop music has always been done whether Sinatra or the Shangri-La's or the Brill Building sound or lots of 60s soul or disco or whatever. Did Sinatra offer more to the creation of his tracks than Britney? Probably, but they still function the same role on the record and potentially could play the same role in the music-making process.

And is it naive to think that it's natural in post-hiphop pop music for the front personality to take a back seat to the track? Sinatra and Aretha's voices were the stars of those shows and, although Spector, Brian Wilson and others architected signature sounds then, too, of course, more often than not isn't the backing track, not the vocal track, what is most exciting about today's pop? (That's not very well thought, that, and now I have to go to see Ray Davies.)

Is any music fake? i think we've gone all over the place but keep coming back to the idea that it's not the music so much as aspects of the artist that bothers us. If the artists involved (and this may be the producers and writers rather than the more visible singers/players) care about their craft and have put some genuine work into producing this item of work then we have no reason to use labels like "fake".

On the other hand my preference is that even if you like some music, it shouldn't matter if it was a doddle to reel off. That's irrelevant. A sort of musical equivalent of the "intentional fallacy" -- if you'll pardon my pretention.

Sure it IS disappointing (as that Royal Trux interviewer probably felt) to discover something you genuinely like was a joke, or a five minute no-brainer, and probably will make a difference to your enjoyment, but fundamantally you will still like it.

How come nobody's mentioned the KLF in all this?

It doesn't make any difference to me, as it's just extra INFORMATION, like discovering that the guitar solo was played on a Strat as opposed to any other kind of guitar. If I liked it before, I'll like it after.

Plus, it's fundamentally untrustworthy info. As dq says, who believes interviews? (Who even READS them?)

Also, Alan. WHY is it disappointing to find out that something was thrown together as a joke, rather than being the product of hours of toil? It's as good a way of producing a piece of music as any other.

Honestly no, Gareth. What makes you say so?

ps. i haven't actually read 45, but I have read most of his other stuff (inc the manual) and the histories of the JAMMS etc. My copy of Shag Times is very dear to me!