I am re-reading Faking It: The Quest For Authenticity in Popular Music by Hugh Barker and Yuval Taylor. I am still impressed with the book, and am glad it was written. Yet, while they certainly push the reader to reconsider whether or not "authenticity" is a category worth considering when evaluating an artist, they never directly ask a question via their use of examples that would challenge their readers to question whether the word has any meaning at all.
The first chapter discusses the lives and careers of two artists - Kurt Cobain and Leadbelly - and the way the epithet "authentic" distorted the perception of their music, and in particular Cobain's view of himself as a public figure. The relationship between the two became fixed forever because Nirvana's last performance, on MTV's "Unplugged" series, was of the Leadbelly tune "Where Did You Sleep Last Night". This chapter illuminates all the problems and pitfalls inherent in using the category "authenticity" when approaching American popular music (and, by extension, the artists who perform it), yet it might have been just as illuminating to use another performer entirely - Britney Spears.
I have yet to read a serious music journalist who takes her or her music seriously. Yet, when one considers, in detail, what it is she does and how she does it, I have to wonder if the whole question of "authenticity" isn't one that, in the end, is only applied to those performers certain people prefer, and withheld from those whose music they do not like. Her music is danceable, as the best popular music has always been. Some of the songs, especially on her more recent recordings, deal with sexual themes, including masturbation and a menage-a-trois, yet sex has been at the heart of popular music styles for centuries. Her shows are elaborate productions, very often choreographed with her lip-synching rather than singing the songs. Do the words "Michael Jackson" mean anything? Her voice is limited both in tonal range and emotional reflection; Billie Holliday could barely sing more than an octave and even her happiest songs end up sounding quite melancholy because there was something about her voice that seemed to bring out the ache that always existed deep inside her. Her music has been popular, for the most part, with young teenagers, particularly girls. All I will say to this is "Elvis" and "The Beatles".
What I believe most people object to about Britney Spears is the deliberate packaging and production of "Britney Spears" as something more than just a performer. Yet Bob Dylan, The Rolling Stones, The Beatles, Elvis, Chuck Berry, Metallica - these performers are also packaged as "not just" performers. Really, though, that's all they are; musicians or groups of musicians of varying musical talent and ability (not the same thing at all) who play for our enjoyment (another word that deserves to be unpacked in book form).
So if Britney Spears is a big faker while U2 is the real deal, all I can ask is, "Why?"
