WEBVTT - Authenticity, Part 2 0:00:03.080 --> 0:00:06.840 Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio. 0:00:12.760 --> 0:00:15.080 Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind. My name 0:00:15.120 --> 0:00:15.640 is Robert. 0:00:15.520 --> 0:00:18.680 Land, and I am Joe McCormick, and we're back with 0:00:18.760 --> 0:00:22.480 part two in our series on the concept of authenticity. 0:00:22.840 --> 0:00:25.080 If you haven't heard part one yet, you probably want 0:00:25.079 --> 0:00:27.280 to go back and check that one out first. But 0:00:27.400 --> 0:00:30.440 in brief last time, we explored a lot of the 0:00:30.520 --> 0:00:35.480 different overlapping cultural understandings of authenticity, and we also looked 0:00:35.520 --> 0:00:39.400 at a psychology paper that tested how well people were 0:00:39.479 --> 0:00:44.559 able to assess authenticity in others, and the conclusion was that, 0:00:44.640 --> 0:00:48.080 at least within the scenario tested, which was classroom interactions, 0:00:48.400 --> 0:00:50.479 we are not nearly as good as we think we 0:00:50.560 --> 0:00:54.320 are at judging whether other people are really being themselves 0:00:54.480 --> 0:00:57.160 or whether they are really being authentic. Now, maybe that 0:00:57.240 --> 0:01:01.000 finding wouldn't be reproduced in other scenario or using other 0:01:01.080 --> 0:01:04.120 measures of authenticity, because, if you recall from last time, 0:01:04.160 --> 0:01:08.040 the measure in that study was comparing other evaluations of 0:01:08.280 --> 0:01:12.840 authenticity with self evaluation. So you have people say themselves like, 0:01:12.880 --> 0:01:15.039 do you feel like you can be yourself around people? 0:01:15.319 --> 0:01:18.040 Do your actions reflect your inner thoughts and feelings? Things 0:01:18.080 --> 0:01:20.959 like that and then have other people judge that same person, 0:01:21.080 --> 0:01:24.000 you know, how authentic do you think they're being. But 0:01:24.360 --> 0:01:28.319 if it's generally true that we're worse at detecting authenticity 0:01:28.400 --> 0:01:32.160 than we think we are, that has profound implications on 0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:36.360 everyday life, because we make implicit and explicit judgments about 0:01:36.400 --> 0:01:40.240 authenticity all the time, and we use these judgments to 0:01:40.319 --> 0:01:43.520 manage our relationships, to decide who we like and who 0:01:43.560 --> 0:01:48.080 we trust. But also those judgments are they're sort of 0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:52.919 conceptually contagious throughout the mind, and we end up using 0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:57.000 assessments of authenticity not just for people, but to determine 0:01:57.000 --> 0:02:01.480 our feelings about inanimate objects and our feelings in domains 0:02:01.520 --> 0:02:04.360 outside of personal relationships. And one of the big examples 0:02:04.680 --> 0:02:07.320 that comes to mind for me is the domain of 0:02:07.600 --> 0:02:10.440 art and esthetics. We promised last time we'd be getting 0:02:10.520 --> 0:02:12.359 artsy fartsy today, so here we. 0:02:12.320 --> 0:02:15.560 Are, and you know, we might throw in a few 0:02:15.600 --> 0:02:19.399 references to less artsy creations, some of the things we've 0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:22.840 talked about on Weird House Cinema before, for example, But yeah, 0:02:22.840 --> 0:02:25.600 we're going to be talking about authenticity in the arts. 0:02:25.880 --> 0:02:27.520 I guess some of this will come down to where 0:02:27.560 --> 0:02:30.000 you draw the line between art and entertainment, or if 0:02:30.040 --> 0:02:33.639 you draw a line at all. But one area in 0:02:33.680 --> 0:02:40.200 which I think people often seem especially concerned with authenticity 0:02:40.360 --> 0:02:46.120 in artistic expression is music. There's actually a book chapter 0:02:46.240 --> 0:02:49.880 about psychological studies of authenticity from two thousand and six 0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:52.919 that I've been reading through. This was a chapter by 0:02:53.280 --> 0:02:57.600 professors Michael H. Kernis and Brian M. Goldman, and I 0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:01.079 actually am only mentioning it because it uses an epigraph 0:03:01.280 --> 0:03:04.560 that really struck me. It's a quote from the singer 0:03:04.600 --> 0:03:09.400 songwriter Leonard Cohen, and the lyric goes, if by chance 0:03:09.440 --> 0:03:12.440 I wake at night and I ask you who I am? Oh, 0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:15.080 take me to the slaughterhouse and I will wait there 0:03:15.120 --> 0:03:18.880 with the lamb. So this is a lyric from the 0:03:18.960 --> 0:03:21.720 Leonard Cohen song Stories of the Street, which is a 0:03:21.760 --> 0:03:25.600 track on his nineteen sixty seven album Songs of Leonard Cohen. 0:03:26.280 --> 0:03:29.799 Now I think the authors selected it as an epigraph 0:03:29.840 --> 0:03:33.639 for this chapter because it invokes the idea of personal authenticity. 0:03:33.880 --> 0:03:36.240 There's that line, if by chance I wake at night 0:03:36.320 --> 0:03:38.640 and I ask you who I am? It implies a 0:03:39.240 --> 0:03:42.320 crisis of authenticity, wondering who am I? Who is the 0:03:42.360 --> 0:03:46.680 real me? And the second half is the resolution of 0:03:46.720 --> 0:03:49.840 that conditional If take me to the slaughter house and 0:03:49.920 --> 0:03:52.920 I will wait there with the lamb. I don't know 0:03:52.960 --> 0:03:56.040 exactly what that means, and I would resist saying that 0:03:56.080 --> 0:03:59.960 it decodes to a sentiment that can be plainly expressed, because, 0:04:00.400 --> 0:04:03.400 like a lot of good poetry, it sort of seems 0:04:03.440 --> 0:04:06.120 to express an idea or a feeling that is real 0:04:06.640 --> 0:04:09.800 but is difficult to say directly. Whatever it means. It 0:04:10.680 --> 0:04:14.720 maybe suggests something about vulnerability, maybe something about the desire 0:04:14.760 --> 0:04:18.840 to protect or to be protected, and whatever it means, 0:04:18.839 --> 0:04:21.320 I found it really striking. So I was interested in 0:04:21.320 --> 0:04:24.000 this quote because it's it's a song lyric that not 0:04:24.080 --> 0:04:28.000 only concerns authenticity with the line about I ask you 0:04:28.040 --> 0:04:31.840 who I am, but in my personal opinion, it illustrates 0:04:31.880 --> 0:04:35.800 the quality of authenticity and music and rob you might 0:04:35.839 --> 0:04:38.320 feel differently, you the listener might feel differently. If so, 0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:41.280 that's fine. We all have our unique responses to art. 0:04:41.360 --> 0:04:46.280 But whatever authenticity means in lyrics and musical performance, it 0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:50.839 feels present to me here. And I think at least 0:04:50.960 --> 0:04:54.599 part of what authenticity means in music and lyrics is 0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:57.919 that it feels like the words and the melody express 0:04:58.000 --> 0:05:01.480 a real genuine feeling in artist, and that these words 0:05:01.520 --> 0:05:07.680 are not carelessly selected, but instead are are carefully meaningfully 0:05:07.800 --> 0:05:10.719 picked because they are the words that best point to 0:05:10.760 --> 0:05:14.600 that sort of dark, ambiguous, inexpressible feeling underneath. 0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:18.640 Yeah, and am and lamb rhyme with each other. And 0:05:18.640 --> 0:05:21.800 that's that's undeniable master at work here. 0:05:22.120 --> 0:05:23.960 I mean, actually, I think there's a lot of interesting 0:05:23.960 --> 0:05:27.719 stuff one could get into about how structural constraints like 0:05:27.800 --> 0:05:32.520 meter and rhyme interact with with the expression of ideas. 0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:34.760 Like if they sort of like force you to choose 0:05:34.800 --> 0:05:37.520 different words, then you might otherwise, and yet those words 0:05:37.600 --> 0:05:39.640 must in order for the poem or the song to 0:05:39.640 --> 0:05:42.360 be good still be true. What does that do to 0:05:42.720 --> 0:05:43.880 the way your mind works? 0:05:44.320 --> 0:05:46.760 Yeah? Yeah, I like it. You know, it works better 0:05:47.120 --> 0:05:49.880 that we're using the lamb instead of some other animal 0:05:49.920 --> 0:05:52.520 that you might take to a slaughterhouse, because the lamb 0:05:52.520 --> 0:05:56.440 also brings in its own symbolism and its own language. 0:05:56.480 --> 0:06:00.160 So yeah, I like it. I like the line. I'm 0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:02.440 not familiar with the song all that much, but I 0:06:02.520 --> 0:06:03.000 like the lyric. 0:06:03.279 --> 0:06:05.680 I think I've read that it was Cohen talking about 0:06:05.960 --> 0:06:09.720 an experience where he went by himself to Cuba, and 0:06:09.800 --> 0:06:12.640 at some point I think he says that he was 0:06:12.680 --> 0:06:15.599 like at the embassy, and they send somebody to talk 0:06:15.640 --> 0:06:17.960 to him, and they say that his mother is worried 0:06:17.960 --> 0:06:21.920 about him or something. Anyway, So I mentioned that because 0:06:22.440 --> 0:06:26.320 to me, this does illustrate that quality of authenticity and music. 0:06:27.240 --> 0:06:29.800 And by contrast, I don't want to single out any 0:06:29.839 --> 0:06:32.400 particular song or artists to like hate on as the 0:06:32.800 --> 0:06:36.200 Encyclopedia entry for fake, but I think we can all 0:06:36.440 --> 0:06:39.520 probably think of a piece of music we've heard and 0:06:39.720 --> 0:06:44.680 found to have a quality of apparent insincerity which makes 0:06:44.720 --> 0:06:48.080 the work unpleasant and uninteresting to us. Fill in with 0:06:48.120 --> 0:06:49.000 your own examples. 0:06:49.400 --> 0:06:53.120 Yeah, I'll get into some examples, not of like outright 0:06:53.320 --> 0:06:56.719 like fakery or anything here in a bit, But I 0:06:56.760 --> 0:06:59.560 think that some of the most interesting examples are examples 0:06:59.640 --> 0:07:02.080 that are kind of in that middle ground where either 0:07:03.200 --> 0:07:08.800 it is divided people about the artist's potential sincerity and authenticity, 0:07:09.560 --> 0:07:12.760 or it has been something that you know that won 0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:18.320 individually and subjectively wrestles with like do I like this, 0:07:18.520 --> 0:07:21.680 Do I believe this artist? Other people seem to believe them, 0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:24.040 but I'm not sure I do, And so. 0:07:23.920 --> 0:07:28.160 Forth, yeah, yeah, Well that's interesting that you know audiences 0:07:28.240 --> 0:07:30.480 can be divided in that way, because I mean, it's 0:07:30.520 --> 0:07:34.240 a truism that everybody has their own subjective reaction to art. 0:07:34.400 --> 0:07:37.560 But I think you can also see some very stark 0:07:37.720 --> 0:07:41.720 trends in the way people relate, especially to authenticity and music, 0:07:41.760 --> 0:07:45.320 because I would say for some of us, the relationship 0:07:45.320 --> 0:07:50.080 between musical expression and authenticity maybe only enters the mind 0:07:50.120 --> 0:07:52.440 every now and then, maybe when we hear something we 0:07:52.480 --> 0:07:58.920 find especially moving and sincere seeming or especially false. But 0:07:59.120 --> 0:08:02.560 for other people, it's like a clear, ever present, front 0:08:02.560 --> 0:08:05.600 of mind element of our taste in music, maybe even 0:08:05.640 --> 0:08:09.480 the single most important factor. And I'm curious, like what 0:08:09.640 --> 0:08:12.360 makes that difference and in the people for whom it 0:08:12.480 --> 0:08:14.600 is front of mind in their esthetics. 0:08:14.680 --> 0:08:19.120 Why Speaking of Leonard Cohen, your inclusion of this quote 0:08:19.200 --> 0:08:21.400 kind of send me down a rabbit hole of reading 0:08:21.800 --> 0:08:25.800 some other tidbits from interviews with Leonard Cohen and sort 0:08:25.840 --> 0:08:30.840 of refreshing myself about his career. But I ran across 0:08:31.000 --> 0:08:33.680 this one quote from an Alan Twigg interview with Cohen, 0:08:34.160 --> 0:08:37.400 and I want to read it here. Cohen says, quote, 0:08:37.400 --> 0:08:40.040 the question is who am I? So we invent a 0:08:40.120 --> 0:08:43.360 self a personality, We sustain it, we create rules for it. 0:08:43.559 --> 0:08:46.640 When you stop asking those questions in those moments of grace. 0:08:47.000 --> 0:08:48.840 As soon as the question is not asked and the 0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:52.000 dilemma is dissolved or abandoned, then the true self or 0:08:52.040 --> 0:08:55.080 absolute self rushes in. That's our real nourishment. 0:08:55.360 --> 0:08:57.760 That's interesting in that it connects to what you were 0:08:57.760 --> 0:09:00.640 saying in the last episode about the more you sort 0:09:00.679 --> 0:09:03.600 of examine your own authenticity, the harder it can be 0:09:03.720 --> 0:09:04.760 to let it flow. 0:09:05.320 --> 0:09:08.240 Yeah. Yeah, and I don't know. Yeah, I feel like 0:09:08.280 --> 0:09:11.720 if I'm questioning the authenticity of a work of music 0:09:11.960 --> 0:09:14.560 or a film or whatever kind of art I'm engaging with, 0:09:14.840 --> 0:09:17.800 like I'm probably not that engaged with the art, you know. Yeah, 0:09:17.920 --> 0:09:21.920 I'm caught up in a bunch of other nonsense about 0:09:21.920 --> 0:09:25.080 the art, and I'm certainly not experiencing it in the 0:09:25.080 --> 0:09:27.840 way that the artist probably intended me to do, unless, 0:09:27.920 --> 0:09:30.760 of course, that is the artist's intent, that they are 0:09:30.880 --> 0:09:33.079 challenging authenticity or something with that effect. 0:09:33.160 --> 0:09:36.080 That's a really good point. It's like, when we do 0:09:36.800 --> 0:09:39.760 really get into evaluating whether something is authentic or not, 0:09:39.840 --> 0:09:41.880 it does make you have to like step back from 0:09:41.920 --> 0:09:46.080 the experience of it. I assume a desire for perceived 0:09:46.120 --> 0:09:49.800 authenticity in the expression of musical artists is to some 0:09:49.880 --> 0:09:53.280 degree always present. But I was thinking about how it 0:09:53.360 --> 0:09:58.040 seemed especially important to me when I was a teenager, Like, 0:09:58.240 --> 0:10:01.080 when I was a teenager, the worst thing a musical 0:10:01.160 --> 0:10:06.040 artist could be was fake, contrived pandering. What did this 0:10:06.160 --> 0:10:08.240 mean to me? I don't know exactly. I mean, I 0:10:08.280 --> 0:10:11.840 could think of specific artists like very I don't know, 0:10:11.920 --> 0:10:14.880 like very commercial rock bands or something that I would 0:10:14.920 --> 0:10:18.440 think of as very fake and seemingly and sincere. Uh, 0:10:19.160 --> 0:10:20.880 you know. I don't know on what basis I was 0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:24.680 deciding that, But I don't feel the same urge to 0:10:24.880 --> 0:10:28.640 like seek raw authenticity and root out fakeness and music 0:10:28.679 --> 0:10:31.680 that I once did, though obviously I still don't like 0:10:31.760 --> 0:10:35.120 feeling like an artist is treating me with contempt. But like, 0:10:35.200 --> 0:10:37.360 why is it that, as I think, maybe I'm not 0:10:37.440 --> 0:10:38.959 a loane in this, Like, why is it that as 0:10:39.000 --> 0:10:43.400 a teenager you're especially tuned into this meta media quality 0:10:43.440 --> 0:10:46.680 of authenticity as opposed to more just sort of like 0:10:46.840 --> 0:10:49.520 in the work or in the song qualities of a 0:10:49.520 --> 0:10:50.160 piece of art. 0:10:50.600 --> 0:10:53.679 That's interesting and I think we might get into some 0:10:53.720 --> 0:10:55.319 of that in a bit, because it makes me think 0:10:55.360 --> 0:10:58.319 of like the hyper social aspects of the teenager brain, 0:10:58.720 --> 0:11:01.480 you know, yeah, that we've touched on before on the show. Yeah, 0:11:01.520 --> 0:11:03.319 I suppose it's kind of a weird area to get 0:11:03.320 --> 0:11:08.200 into because, you know, thinking again about artists at particular 0:11:08.240 --> 0:11:12.680 times in their careers where they seem to divide their audience. 0:11:13.720 --> 0:11:16.120 It's interesting how two different musical artists can take on 0:11:16.240 --> 0:11:19.040 a persona to be received in wildly and it can 0:11:19.080 --> 0:11:22.800 be received in wildly different ways. And the way they're 0:11:22.840 --> 0:11:26.280 received for these persona personas or changes in their style 0:11:26.679 --> 0:11:29.480 may also differ over time. So I think one of 0:11:29.520 --> 0:11:31.360 the like the main examples that comes to mind is 0:11:31.400 --> 0:11:34.439 the whole And this is not something certainly I was 0:11:34.480 --> 0:11:36.959 not around to experience this in real time, but you 0:11:37.040 --> 0:11:39.320 read about it and hear about it in retrospectives. But 0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:42.360 Bob Dylan going electric in nineteen sixty five. 0:11:42.600 --> 0:11:45.280 People allegedly shouting Judas at him. I don't know if 0:11:45.280 --> 0:11:49.400 that really happened, but that's what I recall reading about it. So, yeah, 0:11:49.400 --> 0:11:53.280 he had recorded like acoustic folk albums and then it 0:11:53.360 --> 0:11:55.840 suddenly was playing with an electric guitar in a full band, 0:11:56.360 --> 0:11:58.800 and some people didn't like that. They saw that not 0:11:59.000 --> 0:12:01.280 just as a change in style that well, yeah, you know, 0:12:01.360 --> 0:12:03.280 artists go through different kind of periods. It was like 0:12:03.480 --> 0:12:06.600 that was a betrayal. He was no longer what I 0:12:06.720 --> 0:12:07.520 signed up for. 0:12:08.400 --> 0:12:11.920 Yeah, and it's it can feel kind of silly looking 0:12:11.920 --> 0:12:14.080 back on it, because from our point of view, like 0:12:14.120 --> 0:12:16.880 we know everything that came after that shift, like you know, 0:12:17.120 --> 0:12:20.240 put out a lot of great material, great albums, and 0:12:20.320 --> 0:12:23.880 other changes in style and explorations of different styles and ideas. 0:12:24.559 --> 0:12:27.760 But he remained Bob Dylan throughout all of it. And 0:12:27.840 --> 0:12:29.920 you know, some of it is maybe not everybody's favorite, 0:12:29.920 --> 0:12:30.920 but some of it's pretty great. 0:12:31.120 --> 0:12:32.040 I certainly think so. 0:12:32.800 --> 0:12:35.280 Now of course that in that example, you have like 0:12:35.360 --> 0:12:39.920 a shift in sound that I think would largely be reflected. 0:12:40.080 --> 0:12:42.400 You know, it's not like he would he would okay, 0:12:42.440 --> 0:12:44.160 he would say, all right, after one album, I'm gonna 0:12:44.160 --> 0:12:46.720 put the guitar away. But you do have other artists 0:12:46.720 --> 0:12:49.360 who have kind of like a single album that seems 0:12:49.360 --> 0:12:51.400 to be an outlier. It seems to be like an 0:12:51.400 --> 0:12:54.679 exploration of something different than is maybe not well received 0:12:54.679 --> 0:12:57.520 by fans. And I think one example that came to 0:12:57.520 --> 0:12:59.840 mind on this front is Neil Young's nineteen eighty three 0:13:00.000 --> 0:13:00.720 album Trance. 0:13:01.280 --> 0:13:04.400 This was actually within a stretch of Neil Young albums 0:13:04.440 --> 0:13:08.600 where he was like changing genre every album. So during 0:13:08.600 --> 0:13:11.680 this period, you know, Neil Young, he had sort of 0:13:11.720 --> 0:13:13.880 he had worked in folk, he had worked also in 0:13:13.960 --> 0:13:18.520 heavy electric rock. He'd done both. But he in the 0:13:18.600 --> 0:13:22.880 eighties he released a country album, a blues album with 0:13:22.920 --> 0:13:28.560 like Horns, a rockabilly album called Everybody's Rockin', and then 0:13:28.600 --> 0:13:31.960 this I'm not necessarily saying them in the correct order, 0:13:32.040 --> 0:13:34.880 but then also this electronic album, which is probably the 0:13:34.920 --> 0:13:36.800 weirdest of all of them. 0:13:37.120 --> 0:13:40.080 Yeah, he has he uses a robotic voice on some 0:13:40.120 --> 0:13:43.760 of these tracks, and I've read that this was not 0:13:43.840 --> 0:13:46.280 well received at the time by some fans, but I 0:13:46.280 --> 0:13:49.200 don't know. I like some of the roboty songs on 0:13:49.240 --> 0:13:50.240 this particular album. 0:13:50.400 --> 0:13:53.440 Yeah, you have to be in the right mindset to 0:13:53.480 --> 0:13:58.600 receive it, especially with songs like computer Cowboy. But but yeah, 0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:00.360 I think there's stuff to appreciate there. 0:14:00.520 --> 0:14:02.720 Now a couple of examples that I want to bring up. 0:14:02.720 --> 0:14:05.560 These are ones that definitely occurred during my teenage years, 0:14:05.679 --> 0:14:07.480 so you know, getting into that idea of being like 0:14:07.559 --> 0:14:14.520 hypersensitive to perceived inauthenticity. So one that comes to mind 0:14:14.600 --> 0:14:19.000 is David Bowie exploring a more experimental industrial sound on 0:14:19.040 --> 0:14:21.720 his album Outside in nineteen ninety five. 0:14:22.080 --> 0:14:24.240 So were there people who were like that, there is 0:14:24.280 --> 0:14:27.640 a real David Bowie and this is not it. It is my. 0:14:27.640 --> 0:14:31.200 Understanding that, like at the time, some of the older 0:14:31.280 --> 0:14:35.400 David Bowie fans were not crazy about it, and their 0:14:35.520 --> 0:14:36.840 line of thought was like, well, I don't want to 0:14:36.840 --> 0:14:38.240 go see him in a concert if he's going to 0:14:38.280 --> 0:14:41.720 be doing this MTV material, you know, It's like I 0:14:41.760 --> 0:14:43.680 want to hear the hits, you know, which I guess 0:14:43.760 --> 0:14:46.560 is always the case with artists putting out new material 0:14:46.680 --> 0:14:49.920 and trying new things. But yeah, this was more of 0:14:50.120 --> 0:14:53.200 an industrial sound. It was like I think right after 0:14:53.240 --> 0:14:55.480 this album, he ends up touring with Nine Inch Nails. 0:14:56.040 --> 0:15:00.240 So at the time, I like, I bought the album 0:15:00.280 --> 0:15:05.440 like I did as the television commanded me, and I liked, 0:15:05.480 --> 0:15:06.960 And I guess I still I don't really listen to 0:15:07.000 --> 0:15:09.800 this album anymore, but I remember it having some tracks 0:15:09.800 --> 0:15:13.080 that I dug. But at the same time, like some 0:15:13.160 --> 0:15:16.080 of that dialogue was in my head about I wasn't 0:15:16.080 --> 0:15:19.400 thinking of it in terms of authenticity and inauthenticity or 0:15:19.440 --> 0:15:22.880 fakery even or even really getting deep into like David 0:15:22.880 --> 0:15:25.800 Bowie's personas, but it was. But on some level I 0:15:25.880 --> 0:15:29.000 was wondering, like, is this is this something he's doing 0:15:29.160 --> 0:15:33.720 just to remain popular or is this his heart? You know, 0:15:33.840 --> 0:15:37.200 is his Is he legitimately exploring new sounds and trying 0:15:37.200 --> 0:15:40.040 new things? And I think it's it's my understanding now 0:15:40.040 --> 0:15:42.200 it is the latter. Like he he is an artist 0:15:42.280 --> 0:15:46.560 that was continually reinventing himself and trying new things and 0:15:46.600 --> 0:15:48.720 this was just a phase of that. And you know, 0:15:48.800 --> 0:15:51.600 he stuck with this sound for I think another album 0:15:51.600 --> 0:15:52.640 and then he tried other things. 0:15:53.040 --> 0:15:56.200 That is interesting. So I have no real familiarity with 0:15:56.280 --> 0:15:59.560 Bowie's nineties output, so I don't really know anything about this, 0:15:59.680 --> 0:16:04.400 but yeah, that an artist as a chameleon like as 0:16:04.440 --> 0:16:07.240 as David Bowie. And you know, with all this history 0:16:07.240 --> 0:16:10.160 of playing these different explicitly different characters, you know, with 0:16:10.280 --> 0:16:14.160 different with names named characters, uh, and engaging in these 0:16:14.160 --> 0:16:16.720 different styles, that there would it's he would hit some 0:16:16.920 --> 0:16:19.440 point that people would say, Okay, now this one is 0:16:19.480 --> 0:16:23.120 not for real, that's fake. Yeah, and that that would 0:16:23.160 --> 0:16:25.760 have to suggest something about like the broader the way 0:16:25.800 --> 0:16:29.080 that that genre or what he's doing in it is 0:16:29.120 --> 0:16:31.920 received in the broader marketplace, like what the marketplace thought 0:16:31.960 --> 0:16:33.760 about industrial music or something. 0:16:34.440 --> 0:16:37.600 Yeah. Yeah, Because another example that comes to mind, and 0:16:37.640 --> 0:16:39.760 this is not a major moment in music history or anything, 0:16:39.800 --> 0:16:41.560 but it's the one that stood out to me because 0:16:41.600 --> 0:16:44.120 again I was a teenager at the time, and that 0:16:44.280 --> 0:16:47.640 was that the band Danzig suddenly went industrial in nineteen 0:16:47.720 --> 0:16:50.640 ninety six as well, So that's what a year after 0:16:50.760 --> 0:16:53.920 outside and that one I remember as being a lot 0:16:53.960 --> 0:16:57.280 more jarring, and certainly, looking back on it like it is, 0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:01.240 it is a is a rather darch departure from the 0:17:01.240 --> 0:17:06.840 previous material and seems like maybe it's a little less authentic. 0:17:08.040 --> 0:17:12.199 I don't know. I'm sure Danzig fans will disagree or 0:17:12.280 --> 0:17:15.200 agree on this. I have no point of reference here, 0:17:16.119 --> 0:17:18.119 but you know, this kind of thing keeps happening, like 0:17:18.160 --> 0:17:20.080 the most recent one, and I am not super well 0:17:20.119 --> 0:17:21.760 informed on all the ins and outs of this story, 0:17:21.800 --> 0:17:25.040 but you know, it made huge headlines that Beyonce was 0:17:25.080 --> 0:17:28.760 going to put out a country album, and it seems 0:17:28.760 --> 0:17:31.560 like that probably stirred up some of the same discussions, 0:17:31.600 --> 0:17:34.840 like Beyonce do a country album? Can someone who has 0:17:34.840 --> 0:17:38.400 not done country music albums before do a country album? 0:17:38.520 --> 0:17:40.680 Of course they can. We just ran across some other 0:17:40.720 --> 0:17:45.080 examples of people doing the same thing. But yeah, anytime 0:17:45.119 --> 0:17:48.720 an artist shifts and tries something new, takes on a 0:17:48.720 --> 0:17:50.960 new persona, etc. It raises these questions. 0:17:51.080 --> 0:17:53.480 I don't really know anything about this example either, except 0:17:53.480 --> 0:17:56.480 I saw some kind of headline about her maybe claiming 0:17:56.520 --> 0:17:58.439 that it was not actually a country album. 0:17:59.000 --> 0:18:01.960 I don't know, yeah, but you know, artists engage in 0:18:02.000 --> 0:18:04.240 the sort of shift all the time. And it also 0:18:04.320 --> 0:18:06.320 it reminds me a bit of our discussion about recipes 0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:08.679 in the past. You know, whatever we now think of 0:18:08.720 --> 0:18:11.640 as the standard recipe was at some point a shift. 0:18:12.160 --> 0:18:15.639 And likewise, I mean, speaking of industrial music, one of 0:18:15.160 --> 0:18:19.080 the big industrial mainstays out there has has has always 0:18:19.119 --> 0:18:22.560 been Ministry. Ministry started out as a synthpop group. If 0:18:22.560 --> 0:18:25.080 you go back to their first album, it is it's 0:18:25.240 --> 0:18:28.080 very I mean, I'm you know, you can still you 0:18:28.119 --> 0:18:31.879 can still feel the Ministry in the album, but it's 0:18:31.920 --> 0:18:34.840 a different sound entirely. And that was just you know, 0:18:34.960 --> 0:18:39.240 part of this particular group's evolution, and you know, it 0:18:39.240 --> 0:18:41.520 doesn't mean it's inauthentic, it's just where they were at 0:18:41.520 --> 0:18:43.960 that point in time. But I get I guess in general, 0:18:44.080 --> 0:18:46.359 I'm willing to give most artists the benefit of the 0:18:46.400 --> 0:18:50.879 doubt on these shifts and changes, though I'm sure there 0:18:50.880 --> 0:18:54.000 are some examples that are that are maybe a little 0:18:54.160 --> 0:18:58.280 more heavily slanted in the direction of inauthenticity. But you know, 0:18:58.359 --> 0:19:01.240 it's not as fun to discuss those and throw a 0:19:01.240 --> 0:19:06.640 lot of criticism at bands and performers for trying new things. However, 0:19:07.000 --> 0:19:09.320 there was that one Garth Brooks album, as I remember, 0:19:09.560 --> 0:19:11.640 where he took on a different persona and did non 0:19:11.640 --> 0:19:15.399 country music Chris Gaines, Chris Gaines. Yeah, this was not 0:19:15.480 --> 0:19:18.520 well received, as I recall, was it not? I don't 0:19:18.520 --> 0:19:20.720 think it was. I don't think he came back to 0:19:20.760 --> 0:19:23.159 the persona either. But again, this is an area that 0:19:23.200 --> 0:19:26.399 I know even less about. So Garth brook fans, you know, 0:19:26.480 --> 0:19:28.639 write in I guess and we'll we can just we 0:19:28.680 --> 0:19:29.440 can hash this out. 0:19:29.920 --> 0:19:31.640 How surprised are people going to be when they find 0:19:31.640 --> 0:19:33.679 out that Garth Brooks is actually also one of the 0:19:33.680 --> 0:19:34.640 guys in slip Knot? 0:19:35.800 --> 0:19:38.600 That's right? They have nas son you'd never know. 0:19:46.480 --> 0:19:48.760 But I wanted to briefly come back to the question 0:19:48.840 --> 0:19:53.119 of why it is that music might feel like, of 0:19:53.160 --> 0:19:56.680 all the genres of art out there, why music would 0:19:56.720 --> 0:20:00.720 be especially subject to authenticity concern and is like, why, 0:20:00.800 --> 0:20:04.359 you know, teenagers are really concerned about whether this singer 0:20:04.880 --> 0:20:08.800 singer songwriter is authentic as opposed to I don't know, 0:20:08.880 --> 0:20:14.040 you know, like painters or something. And I obviously there 0:20:14.040 --> 0:20:15.880 could be a lot of explanations here, but I kind 0:20:15.880 --> 0:20:18.600 of wonder if it has to do with the fact 0:20:18.720 --> 0:20:22.680 that music is the art form most likely to be 0:20:22.920 --> 0:20:28.160 experienced in an involuntary way. So, for example, you will rarely, 0:20:28.320 --> 0:20:31.000 if ever, be forced to look at a painting or 0:20:31.040 --> 0:20:33.320 watch a film. There you know, there might be social 0:20:33.359 --> 0:20:35.040 pressure to go see a movie with your friends that 0:20:35.080 --> 0:20:37.359 you're not really interested in, or something like that some 0:20:37.400 --> 0:20:40.640 weird circumstance, but generally you can look at what you want, 0:20:40.720 --> 0:20:42.800 and if you don't like what you're looking at, you can, 0:20:42.960 --> 0:20:45.800 like you know, direct your attention elsewhere or even shut 0:20:45.800 --> 0:20:48.600 your eyes, unless you have the aid of some kind 0:20:48.640 --> 0:20:51.840 of technology like you know, headphones or something, which are 0:20:51.880 --> 0:20:55.480 not appropriate to use in many say social or work scenarios. 0:20:55.880 --> 0:20:59.600 You cannot practically shut your ears off to music the 0:20:59.640 --> 0:21:01.680 way that you can shut your eyes or avert your 0:21:01.680 --> 0:21:05.520 eyes from a painting. And if music is audible in 0:21:05.520 --> 0:21:08.840 the place where you are, you're gonna hear it. Technically, 0:21:08.880 --> 0:21:10.960 I guess this would be true of any sound based 0:21:11.080 --> 0:21:13.760 art form because of the nature of our bodies. But 0:21:14.119 --> 0:21:18.159 generally that's going to mean music. So music is like 0:21:18.600 --> 0:21:21.760 especially difficult to tune out if we don't like it, 0:21:21.800 --> 0:21:26.439 And I wonder if that makes us especially sensitive to 0:21:27.000 --> 0:21:29.920 what we would think of as artistic deficiencies in it. 0:21:30.440 --> 0:21:33.199 And then on top of that, a lot of music 0:21:33.280 --> 0:21:37.800 has a linguistic element, unlike a lot of other art forms. 0:21:37.840 --> 0:21:41.480 Because there are words in most popular music, there is 0:21:41.600 --> 0:21:45.960 increased opportunity to scrutinize what a song is saying and 0:21:46.080 --> 0:21:48.600 evaluate it for sincerity or truth. 0:21:49.240 --> 0:21:52.160 Yeah. Yeah, though again, just because the song is annoying 0:21:52.200 --> 0:21:56.439