WEBVTT - From the Vault: Authenticity, Part 2 0:00:06.000 --> 0:00:08.560 Hey you welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My 0:00:08.760 --> 0:00:11.119 name is Robert Lamb. It is Saturday, so we have 0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:14.080 another vault episode for you. This is going to be 0:00:14.560 --> 0:00:17.639 Authenticity Part two. This is part two of three, originally 0:00:17.680 --> 0:00:22.200 published three twenty one, twenty twenty four. So let's dive 0:00:22.280 --> 0:00:23.520 right in. I hope you enjoy it. 0:00:27.000 --> 0:00:33.520 Welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind, a production of iHeartRadio. 0:00:36.680 --> 0:00:39.000 Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name 0:00:39.040 --> 0:00:39.680 is Robert. 0:00:39.440 --> 0:00:42.559 Lamb, and I am Joe McCormick. And we're back with 0:00:42.680 --> 0:00:46.400 part two in our series on the concept of authenticity. 0:00:46.760 --> 0:00:49.080 If you haven't heard part one yet, probably want to 0:00:49.080 --> 0:00:51.440 go back and check that one out first. But in 0:00:51.520 --> 0:00:54.800 brief last time, we explored a lot of the different 0:00:54.880 --> 0:00:59.560 overlapping cultural understandings of authenticity, and we also looked at 0:00:59.600 --> 0:01:03.320 a psycho ecology paper that tested how well people were 0:01:03.400 --> 0:01:08.480 able to assess authenticity in others. And the conclusion was that, 0:01:08.560 --> 0:01:12.000 at least within the scenario tested, which was classroom interactions, 0:01:12.319 --> 0:01:14.399 we are not nearly as good as we think we 0:01:14.480 --> 0:01:18.240 are at judging whether other people are really being themselves 0:01:18.360 --> 0:01:21.080 or whether they are really being authentic. Now, maybe that 0:01:21.160 --> 0:01:24.920 finding wouldn't be reproduced in other scenarios or using other 0:01:25.000 --> 0:01:28.039 measures of authenticity, because if you recall from last time, 0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:31.960 the measure in that study was comparing other evaluations of 0:01:32.240 --> 0:01:36.760 authenticity with self evaluation. So you have people say themselves like, 0:01:36.800 --> 0:01:38.959 do you feel like you can be yourself around people? 0:01:39.240 --> 0:01:41.960 Do your actions reflect your inner thoughts and feelings? Things 0:01:42.000 --> 0:01:44.880 like that, and then have other people judge that same person, 0:01:45.000 --> 0:01:47.920 you know, how authentic do you think they're being. But 0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:52.240 if it's generally true that we're worse at detecting authenticity 0:01:52.320 --> 0:01:56.080 than we think we are, that has profound implications on 0:01:56.160 --> 0:02:00.280 everyday life because we make implicit and explicit judgments about 0:02:00.320 --> 0:02:04.160 authenticity all the time, and we use these judgments to 0:02:04.240 --> 0:02:07.440 manage our relationships, to decide who we like and who 0:02:07.480 --> 0:02:12.000 we trust. But also those judgments are they're sort of 0:02:12.200 --> 0:02:16.840 conceptually contagious throughout the mind, and we end up using 0:02:16.960 --> 0:02:20.920 assessments of authenticity not just for people, but to determine 0:02:20.919 --> 0:02:25.400 our feelings about inanimate objects and our feelings in domains 0:02:25.440 --> 0:02:28.280 outside of personal relationships. And one of the big examples 0:02:28.600 --> 0:02:31.240 that comes to mind for me is the domain of 0:02:31.520 --> 0:02:34.360 art and esthetics. We promised last time we'd be getting 0:02:34.440 --> 0:02:36.280 artsy fartsy today. So here we. 0:02:36.240 --> 0:02:39.480 Are, and you know, we might throw in a few 0:02:39.520 --> 0:02:43.320 references to less artsy creations, some of the things we've 0:02:43.400 --> 0:02:46.760 talked about on Weird House Cinema before, for example. But yeah, 0:02:46.760 --> 0:02:49.520 we're going to be talking about authenticity in the arts. 0:02:49.800 --> 0:02:51.440 I guess some of this will come down to where 0:02:51.480 --> 0:02:53.920 you draw the line between art and entertainment, or if 0:02:53.960 --> 0:02:57.480 you draw a line at all. But one area in 0:02:57.600 --> 0:03:02.880 which I think people offer and seem especially concerned with 0:03:03.320 --> 0:03:09.640 authenticity in artistic expression is music. There's actually a book 0:03:09.720 --> 0:03:13.560 chapter about psychological studies of authenticity from two thousand and 0:03:13.560 --> 0:03:16.600 six that I've been reading through. This was a chapter 0:03:16.680 --> 0:03:21.280 by professors Michael H. Kernis and Brian M. Goldman, and 0:03:21.440 --> 0:03:24.160 I actually am only mentioning it because it uses an 0:03:24.240 --> 0:03:27.960 epigraph that really struck me. It's a quote from the 0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:32.880 singer songwriter Leonard Cohen, and the lyric goes, if by 0:03:33.000 --> 0:03:35.360 chance I wake at night and I ask you who 0:03:35.400 --> 0:03:38.200 I am, Oh, take me to the slaughterhouse and I 0:03:38.240 --> 0:03:41.560 will wait there with the lamb. So this is a 0:03:41.640 --> 0:03:45.160 lyric from the Leonard Cohen song Stories of the Street, 0:03:45.200 --> 0:03:48.000 which is a track on his nineteen sixty seven album 0:03:48.440 --> 0:03:52.520 Songs of Leonard Cohen. Now, I think the authors selected 0:03:52.560 --> 0:03:55.600 it as an epigraph for this chapter because it invokes 0:03:55.640 --> 0:03:59.000 the idea of personal authenticity. There's that line if by 0:03:59.080 --> 0:04:01.280 chance I wake at night and I ask you who 0:04:01.320 --> 0:04:05.240 I am? It implies a crisis of authenticity, wondering who 0:04:05.320 --> 0:04:08.640 am I? Who is the real me? And the second 0:04:08.720 --> 0:04:12.520 half is the resolution of that conditional if take me 0:04:12.600 --> 0:04:14.760 to the slaughter house and I will wait there with 0:04:14.840 --> 0:04:18.640 the lamb. I don't know exactly what that means, and 0:04:18.680 --> 0:04:22.080 I would resist saying that it decodes to a sentiment 0:04:22.120 --> 0:04:24.760 that can be plainly expressed, because, like a lot of 0:04:24.760 --> 0:04:28.440 good poetry, it sort of seems to express an idea 0:04:28.640 --> 0:04:31.719 or a feeling that is real but is difficult to 0:04:31.760 --> 0:04:36.679 say directly. Whatever it means. It maybe suggests something about vulnerability, 0:04:36.880 --> 0:04:40.520 maybe something about the desire to protect or to be protected, 0:04:41.279 --> 0:04:44.240 and whatever it means, I found it really striking. So 0:04:44.400 --> 0:04:47.120 I was interested in this quote because it's a song 0:04:47.240 --> 0:04:51.440 lyric that not only concerns authenticity with the line about 0:04:51.480 --> 0:04:54.400 I ask you who I am, but in my personal opinion, 0:04:54.600 --> 0:04:59.360 it illustrates the quality of authenticity and music and Rob 0:04:59.440 --> 0:05:01.960 you might feel differently. You the listener might feel differently. 0:05:02.000 --> 0:05:04.799 If so, that's fine. We all have our unique responses 0:05:04.839 --> 0:05:09.920 to art. But whatever authenticity means in lyrics and musical performance, 0:05:10.080 --> 0:05:13.919 it feels present to me here. Uh And I think 0:05:14.200 --> 0:05:17.880 at least part of what authenticity means in music and 0:05:17.960 --> 0:05:20.760 lyrics is that it feels like the words and the 0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:24.680 melody express a real genuine feeling in the artist, and 0:05:24.720 --> 0:05:28.960 that these words are not carelessly selected, but instead are 0:05:29.560 --> 0:05:33.640 are carefully meaningfully picked because they are the words that 0:05:33.800 --> 0:05:38.520 best point to that sort of dark, ambiguous, inexpressible feeling underneath. 0:05:38.880 --> 0:05:42.560 Yeah, and am and lamb rhyme with each other, and 0:05:42.560 --> 0:05:45.680 that's undeniable master at work here. 0:05:46.040 --> 0:05:47.839 I mean, actually, I think there's a lot of interesting 0:05:47.880 --> 0:05:51.640 stuff one could get into about how structural constraints like 0:05:51.720 --> 0:05:56.560 meter and rhyme interact with the expression of ideas. Like 0:05:56.640 --> 0:05:59.360 if they sort of like force you to choose different words, 0:05:59.360 --> 0:06:02.080 then you might otherwise, And yet those words must in 0:06:02.160 --> 0:06:03.920 order for the poem or the song to be good 0:06:03.960 --> 0:06:06.920 still be true. What does that do to the way 0:06:06.920 --> 0:06:07.800 your mind works? 0:06:08.240 --> 0:06:10.679 Yeah? Yeah, I like it. You know, it works better 0:06:11.040 --> 0:06:13.800 that we're using the lamb instead of some other animal 0:06:13.839 --> 0:06:16.440 that you might take to a slaughterhouse, because the lamb 0:06:16.440 --> 0:06:20.360 also brings in its own symbolism and its own language. 0:06:20.400 --> 0:06:24.520 So yeah, I like the line. I'm not familiar with 0:06:24.600 --> 0:06:26.919 the song all that much, but I like the lyric. 0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:29.599 I think I've read that it was Cohen talking about 0:06:29.880 --> 0:06:33.640 an experience where he went by himself to Cuba, and 0:06:33.720 --> 0:06:36.560 at some point I think he says that he was 0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:39.520 like at the embassy and they send somebody to talk 0:06:39.560 --> 0:06:41.839 to him, and they say that his mother is worried 0:06:41.880 --> 0:06:45.799 about him or something. Anyway, So I mentioned that because 0:06:46.360 --> 0:06:50.240 to me this does illustrate that quality of authenticity and music. 0:06:51.160 --> 0:06:53.720 And by contrast, I don't want to single out any 0:06:53.760 --> 0:06:56.320 particular song or artists to like hate on as the 0:06:56.720 --> 0:06:59.920 Encyclopedia entry for fake, but I think we can all 0:07:00.000 --> 0:07:02.599 I'll probably think of a piece of music we've heard 0:07:03.320 --> 0:07:08.320 and found to have a quality of apparent insincerity which 0:07:08.360 --> 0:07:11.840 makes the work unpleasant and uninteresting to us. Fill in 0:07:11.880 --> 0:07:12.920 with your own examples. 0:07:13.320 --> 0:07:17.040 Yeah, I'll get into some examples, not of like outright 0:07:17.240 --> 0:07:20.000 like a fakery or anything here in a bit, but 0:07:20.560 --> 0:07:23.000 I think that some of the most interesting examples are 0:07:23.040 --> 0:07:25.320 examples that are kind of in that middle ground where 0:07:25.720 --> 0:07:31.760 either it is divided people about the artist's potential sincerity 0:07:31.840 --> 0:07:36.040 and authenticity, or it has been something that you know 0:07:36.200 --> 0:07:41.760 that won individually and subjectively wrestles with like do I 0:07:41.920 --> 0:07:45.000 like this, Do I believe this artist? Other people seem 0:07:45.040 --> 0:07:47.600 to believe them, but I'm not sure I do, and 0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:48.119 so forth. 0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:52.320 Yeah, yeah, well, that's interesting that you know audiences can 0:07:52.360 --> 0:07:54.480 be divided in that way, because I mean, it's a 0:07:54.520 --> 0:07:58.160 truism that everybody has their own subjective reaction to art. 0:07:58.320 --> 0:08:01.480 But I think you can also see some very stark 0:08:01.640 --> 0:08:05.640 trends in the way people relate, especially to authenticity and music, 0:08:05.680 --> 0:08:09.240 because I would say for some of us, the relationship 0:08:09.240 --> 0:08:14.000 between musical expression and authenticity maybe only enters the mind 0:08:14.040 --> 0:08:16.360 every now and then, maybe when we hear something we 0:08:16.400 --> 0:08:22.840 find especially moving and sincere seeming or especially false. But 0:08:23.040 --> 0:08:26.480 for other people, it's like a clear, ever present, front 0:08:26.480 --> 0:08:29.520 of mind element of our taste in music, maybe even 0:08:29.560 --> 0:08:33.400 the single most important factor. And I'm curious, like what 0:08:33.559 --> 0:08:36.280 makes that difference and in the people for whom it 0:08:36.400 --> 0:08:38.520 is front of mind in their esthetics. 0:08:38.600 --> 0:08:43.040 Why, speaking of Leonard Cohen, your inclusion of this quote 0:08:43.120 --> 0:08:45.840 kind of sending down a rabbit hole of reading some 0:08:45.920 --> 0:08:49.920 other tidbits from interviews with Leonard Cohen and sort of 0:08:50.200 --> 0:08:55.079 refreshing myself about his career. But I ran across this 0:08:55.120 --> 0:08:58.280 one quote from an Alan Twigg interview with Cohen, and 0:08:58.679 --> 0:09:01.400 I want to read it here. Cohen says, quote, the 0:09:01.480 --> 0:09:04.319 question is who am I? So we invent a self, 0:09:04.360 --> 0:09:07.280 a personality, We sustain it, we create rules for it. 0:09:07.480 --> 0:09:10.560 When you stop asking those questions in those moments of grace. 0:09:10.920 --> 0:09:12.760 As soon as the question is not asked and the 0:09:12.760 --> 0:09:15.920 dilemma is dissolved or abandoned, then the true self or 0:09:15.960 --> 0:09:19.000 absolute self rushes in. That's our real nourishment. 0:09:19.320 --> 0:09:21.679 That's interesting in that it connects to what you were 0:09:21.679 --> 0:09:24.560 saying in the last episode about the more you sort 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:27.520 of examine your own authenticity, the harder it can be 0:09:27.640 --> 0:09:28.680 to let it flow. 0:09:29.240 --> 0:09:32.160 Yeah. Yeah, And I don't know, ye, I feel like 0:09:32.200 --> 0:09:35.640 if I'm questioning the authenticity of a work of music 0:09:35.880 --> 0:09:38.840 or a film or whatever kind of art I'm engaging with, like, 0:09:38.880 --> 0:09:41.360 I'm probably not that engaged with the art, you know. Yeah, 0:09:41.840 --> 0:09:45.840 I'm caught up in a bunch of other nonsense about 0:09:45.840 --> 0:09:49.000 the art, and I'm certainly not experiencing it in the 0:09:49.000 --> 0:09:51.760 way that the artist probably intended me to do, unless, 0:09:51.840 --> 0:09:54.679 of course, that is the artist's intent that they are 0:09:54.800 --> 0:09:57.000 challenging authenticity or something to that effect. 0:09:57.080 --> 0:09:59.920 That's a really good point. It's like, when we do 0:10:00.000 --> 0:10:03.679 you really get into evaluating whether something is authentic or not, 0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:05.760 it does make you have to like step back from 0:10:05.840 --> 0:10:10.000 the experience of it. I assume a desire for perceived 0:10:10.040 --> 0:10:13.720 authenticity in the expression of musical artists is to some 0:10:13.800 --> 0:10:17.200 degree always present, But I was thinking about how it 0:10:17.280 --> 0:10:21.200 seemed especially important to me when I was a teenager. 0:10:21.840 --> 0:10:24.560 Like when I was a teenager, the worst thing a 0:10:24.640 --> 0:10:29.839 musical artist could be was fake, contrived pandering. What did 0:10:29.880 --> 0:10:32.079 this mean to me? I don't know exactly. I mean, 0:10:32.120 --> 0:10:35.760 I could think of specific artists like very I don't know, 0:10:35.840 --> 0:10:38.800 like very commercial rock bands or something that I would 0:10:38.840 --> 0:10:41.480 think of as very fake and seemingly and sincere. 0:10:42.280 --> 0:10:43.280 Uh you know. 0:10:43.320 --> 0:10:45.480 I don't know on what basis I was deciding that, 0:10:45.679 --> 0:10:49.440 But I don't feel the same urge to like seek 0:10:49.600 --> 0:10:52.840 raw authenticity and root out fakeness and music that I 0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:56.200 once did, though obviously I still don't like feeling like 0:10:56.240 --> 0:10:59.320 an artist is treating me with contempt, But like, why 0:10:59.360 --> 0:11:01.280 is it that as And I think maybe I'm not 0:11:01.360 --> 0:11:02.880 a loan in this, Like why is it that as 0:11:02.920 --> 0:11:07.319 a teenager you're especially tuned into this meta media quality 0:11:07.360 --> 0:11:10.600 of authenticity as opposed to more just sort of like 0:11:10.760 --> 0:11:13.400 in the work or in the song qualities of a 0:11:13.440 --> 0:11:14.160 piece of art. 0:11:14.520 --> 0:11:17.600 That's interesting, and I think we might get into some 0:11:17.640 --> 0:11:19.240 of that in a bit because it makes me think 0:11:19.240 --> 0:11:22.240 of like the hyper social aspects of the teenager brain, 0:11:22.640 --> 0:11:25.400 you know that we've touched on before on the show. Yeah, 0:11:25.440 --> 0:11:27.080 I suppose it's it's kind of a weird area to 0:11:27.080 --> 0:11:31.640 get into because, you know, thinking again about artists at 0:11:31.679 --> 0:11:35.880 particular times in their careers where they seem to divide 0:11:35.920 --> 0:11:39.640 their audience. It's interesting how two different musical artists can 0:11:39.679 --> 0:11:42.679 take on a persona to be received in wildly and 0:11:42.720 --> 0:11:45.920 it can be received in wildly different ways. And the 0:11:45.960 --> 0:11:49.559 way they're received for these persona personas or changes in 0:11:49.600 --> 0:11:53.160 their style may also differ over time. So I think 0:11:53.160 --> 0:11:54.880 one of the like the main examples that comes to 0:11:54.920 --> 0:11:58.120 mind is the whole And this is not something certainly 0:11:58.200 --> 0:12:00.200 I was not around to experience this in real time, 0:12:00.200 --> 0:12:03.160 but you read about it and hear about it in retrospectives. 0:12:03.160 --> 0:12:06.160 But Bob Dylan going electric in nineteen sixty. 0:12:05.800 --> 0:12:09.040 Five, people allegedly shouting Judas at him. I don't know 0:12:09.080 --> 0:12:12.560 if that really happened, but that's what I recall reading 0:12:12.600 --> 0:12:15.680 about it. So, yeah, he had recorded like acoustic folk 0:12:15.760 --> 0:12:18.640 albums and then it suddenly was playing with an electric 0:12:18.640 --> 0:12:21.959 guitar and a full band. And some people didn't like that. 0:12:22.000 --> 0:12:24.280 They saw that not just as a change in style 0:12:24.360 --> 0:12:26.280 that well, yeah, you know, artists go through different kind 0:12:26.320 --> 0:12:29.120 of periods. It was like that was a betrayal. He 0:12:29.280 --> 0:12:31.440 was no longer what I signed up for. 0:12:32.320 --> 0:12:35.839 Yeah, and it's it can feel kind of silly looking 0:12:35.880 --> 0:12:38.000 back on it, because from our point of view, like 0:12:38.040 --> 0:12:40.800 we know everything that came after that shift, like you know, 0:12:41.040 --> 0:12:44.120 put out a lot of great material, great albums, and 0:12:44.240 --> 0:12:47.800 other changes in style and explorations of different styles and ideas. 0:12:48.480 --> 0:12:51.679 But he remained Bob Dylan throughout all of it. And 0:12:51.720 --> 0:12:53.840 you know, some of it is maybe not everybody's favorite, 0:12:53.840 --> 0:12:54.840 but some of it's pretty great. 0:12:55.040 --> 0:12:55.960 I certainly think so. 0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:59.200 Now of course that in that example, you have like 0:12:59.240 --> 0:13:03.840 a shift in sound that I think would largely be reflected. 0:13:04.000 --> 0:13:06.320 You know, it's not like he would he would okay, 0:13:06.360 --> 0:13:08.080 he would say, all right, after one album, I'm gonna 0:13:08.080 --> 0:13:10.640 put the guitar away. But you do have other artists 0:13:10.640 --> 0:13:13.280 who have kind of like a single album that seems 0:13:13.280 --> 0:13:15.320 to be an outlier, It seems to be like an 0:13:15.320 --> 0:13:18.600 exploration of something different than is maybe not well received 0:13:18.600 --> 0:13:21.440 by fans. And I think one example that came to 0:13:21.440 --> 0:13:23.839 mind on this front is Neil Young's nineteen eighty three 0:13:23.880 --> 0:13:24.640 album Trance. 0:13:25.200 --> 0:13:28.319 This was actually within a stretch of Neil Young albums 0:13:28.320 --> 0:13:32.520 where he was like changing genre every album. So during 0:13:32.520 --> 0:13:35.600 this period, you know, Neil Young, he had sort of 0:13:35.640 --> 0:13:37.800 he had worked in folk, he had worked also in 0:13:37.880 --> 0:13:42.440 heavy electric rock. He'd done both. But he in the 0:13:42.520 --> 0:13:46.800 eighties he released a country album, a blues album with 0:13:46.840 --> 0:13:52.480 like Horns, a rockabilly album called Everybody's Rockin', and then 0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:55.920 this I'm not necessarily saying them in the correct order, 0:13:55.960 --> 0:13:58.760 but then also this electronic album, which is probably the 0:13:58.840 --> 0:13:59.960 weirdest of all of them. 0:14:01.040 --> 0:14:04.000 Yeah, he has he uses a robotic voice on some 0:14:04.040 --> 0:14:07.680 of these tracks, and I've read that this was not 0:14:07.760 --> 0:14:10.200 well received at the time by some fans, but I 0:14:10.200 --> 0:14:13.120 don't know. I like some of the roboty songs on 0:14:13.160 --> 0:14:14.160 this particular album. 0:14:14.320 --> 0:14:17.360 Yeah, you have to be in the right mindset to 0:14:17.400 --> 0:14:22.520 receive it, especially with songs like Computer Cowboy, But yeah, 0:14:22.680 --> 0:14:24.280 I think there's stuff to appreciate there. 0:14:24.440 --> 0:14:26.640 Now a couple of examples that I want to bring up. 0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:29.480 These are ones that definitely occurred during my teenage years, 0:14:29.600 --> 0:14:31.400 so you know, getting into that idea of being like 0:14:31.480 --> 0:14:38.160 hypersensitive to perceived in authenticity. So one that comes to 0:14:38.200 --> 0:14:42.400 mind is David Bowie exploring a more experimental industrial sound 0:14:42.800 --> 0:14:45.640 on his album Outside in nineteen ninety five. 0:14:46.000 --> 0:14:48.160 So were there people who were like that, there is 0:14:48.200 --> 0:14:51.080 a real David Bowie and this is not it. 0:14:51.080 --> 0:14:54.160 It is my understanding that, like at the time, some 0:14:54.320 --> 0:14:57.520 of the older David Bowie fans were not crazy about 0:14:57.560 --> 0:15:00.320 it and their line of thought. I was like, oh, 0:15:00.320 --> 0:15:01.640 I don't want to go see him in a concert 0:15:01.680 --> 0:15:04.960 if he's going to be doing this MTV material, you know, 0:15:05.120 --> 0:15:07.080 it's like I want to hear the hits, you know, 0:15:07.120 --> 0:15:09.640 which I guess is always the case with artists putting 0:15:09.680 --> 0:15:13.240 out new material and trying new things. But yeah, this 0:15:13.400 --> 0:15:16.120 was more of an industrial sound. It was like, I 0:15:16.160 --> 0:15:18.440 think right after this album he ends up touring with 0:15:18.560 --> 0:15:23.240 nine inch Nails. So at the time, I like, I 0:15:23.280 --> 0:15:26.640 bought the album like I did as as the television 0:15:26.840 --> 0:15:30.080 commanded me, and I liked and I guess I still 0:15:30.080 --> 0:15:32.400 I don't really listen to this album anymore, but I 0:15:32.440 --> 0:15:35.120 remember it having some tracks that I dug. But at 0:15:35.120 --> 0:15:38.120 the same time, like some of that dialogue was in 0:15:38.200 --> 0:15:40.840 my head about I wasn't thinking of it in terms 0:15:40.880 --> 0:15:45.600 of authenticity and inauthenticity or fakery even or even really 0:15:45.600 --> 0:15:48.200 getting deep into like David Bowie's personas, but it was. 0:15:48.280 --> 0:15:51.080 But on some level I was wondering, like is this 0:15:51.760 --> 0:15:56.200 is this something he's doing just to remain popular or 0:15:56.280 --> 0:15:58.440 is this his heart? You know, is his Is he 0:15:58.640 --> 0:16:01.760 legitimately exploring new sound and trying new things? And I 0:16:01.760 --> 0:16:04.600 think it's it's my understanding now it is the latter. 0:16:04.760 --> 0:16:08.360 Like he he is an artist that was continually reinventing 0:16:08.480 --> 0:16:11.320 himself and trying new things, and this was just a 0:16:11.360 --> 0:16:13.600 phase of that. And you know, he stuck with this 0:16:13.720 --> 0:16:16.040 sound for I think another album and then he tried 0:16:16.080 --> 0:16:16.560 other things. 0:16:16.960 --> 0:16:20.120 That is interesting. So I have no real familiarity with 0:16:20.160 --> 0:16:23.480 Bowie's nineties output, so I don't really know anything about this, 0:16:23.640 --> 0:16:28.040 but uh, yeah, that an artist as a chameleon, like 0:16:28.120 --> 0:16:30.600 as as David Bowie, and you know, with all this 0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:33.960 history of playing these different explicitly different characters, you know, 0:16:34.000 --> 0:16:37.920 with different with names named characters, uh, and engaging in 0:16:37.960 --> 0:16:40.400 these different styles, that there would it's he would hit 0:16:40.560 --> 0:16:43.160 some point that people would say, Okay, now this one 0:16:43.240 --> 0:16:46.720 is not for real, that's fake. Yeah, and that that 0:16:46.760 --> 0:16:49.360 would have to suggest something about like the broader the 0:16:49.400 --> 0:16:52.800 way that that genre or what he's doing and it 0:16:52.880 --> 0:16:55.600 is received in the broader marketplace, like what the marketplace 0:16:55.640 --> 0:16:57.680 thought about industrial music or something. 0:16:58.360 --> 0:17:01.520 Yeah. Yeah. Because another example that comes to mind, and 0:17:01.520 --> 0:17:03.720 this is not a major moment in music history or anything, 0:17:03.720 --> 0:17:05.800 but it's one that stood out to me because again 0:17:05.840 --> 0:17:08.280 I was a teenager at the time, and that was 0:17:08.359 --> 0:17:11.560 that the band Danzig suddenly it went industrial in nineteen 0:17:11.640 --> 0:17:14.560 ninety six as well, So that's what a year after 0:17:14.680 --> 0:17:17.840 outside and that one I remember as being a lot 0:17:17.880 --> 0:17:22.959 more jarring. I'm certainly looking back on it like it is. 0:17:22.119 --> 0:17:26.080 It is a rather starch departure from the previous material 0:17:26.520 --> 0:17:32.000 and seems like maybe it's a little less authentic. I 0:17:32.040 --> 0:17:36.520 don't know. I'm sure Danzig fans will disagree or agree 0:17:36.560 --> 0:17:40.119 on this. I have no point of reference here, but 0:17:40.240 --> 0:17:42.119 you know, this kind of thing keeps happening, like the 0:17:42.160 --> 0:17:44.399 most recent one, and I am not super well informed 0:17:44.400 --> 0:17:45.800 on all the ins and outs of this story, but 0:17:46.240 --> 0:17:49.080 you know, it made huge headlines that Beyonce was going 0:17:49.119 --> 0:17:52.760 to put out a country album, and it seems like 0:17:52.800 --> 0:17:55.560 that probably stirred up some of the same discussions, like, 0:17:56.440 --> 0:17:58.879 Beyonce do a country album? Can someone who has not 0:17:58.880 --> 0:18:02.520 done country music album before do a country album? Of 0:18:02.520 --> 0:18:05.040 course they can. We just ran across some other examples 0:18:05.080 --> 0:18:09.159 of people doing the same thing. But yeah, anytime an 0:18:09.240 --> 0:18:13.200 artist shifts and try something new, takes on a new persona, 0:18:13.200 --> 0:18:14.880 et cetera, it raises these questions. 0:18:15.000 --> 0:18:17.399 I don't really know anything about this example either, except 0:18:17.400 --> 0:18:20.400 I saw some kind of headline about her maybe claiming 0:18:20.440 --> 0:18:22.359 that it was not actually a country album. 0:18:22.920 --> 0:18:25.879 I don't know, Yeah, but you know, artists engage in 0:18:25.920 --> 0:18:28.120 the sort of shift all the time. And it also 0:18:28.240 --> 0:18:30.240 it reminds me a bit of our discussion about recipes 0:18:30.400 --> 0:18:32.600 in the past. You know, whatever we now think of 0:18:32.640 --> 0:18:35.560 as the standard recipe was at some point a shift. 0:18:36.080 --> 0:18:39.560 And likewise, I mean, speaking of industrial music, one of 0:18:39.080 --> 0:18:43.040 the big industrial mainstays out. There has has has always 0:18:43.040 --> 0:18:46.480 been Ministry. Ministry started out as a synthpop group. If 0:18:46.480 --> 0:18:49.000 you go back to their first album, it is it's 0:18:49.160 --> 0:18:52.160 very I mean, you know, you can still you can 0:18:52.200 --> 0:18:55.840 still feel the Ministry in the album, but it's a 0:18:55.880 --> 0:18:59.120 different sound entirely, and that was just, you know, part 0:18:59.119 --> 0:19:03.440 of this particular groups evolution. And you know, it doesn't 0:19:03.440 --> 0:19:05.600 mean it's inauthentic, it's just where they were at that 0:19:05.800 --> 0:19:08.160 point in time. But again, I guess in general, I'm 0:19:08.200 --> 0:19:10.560 willing to give most artists the benefit of the doubt 0:19:11.200 --> 0:19:14.919 on these shifts and changes, though I'm sure there are 0:19:14.920 --> 0:19:18.359 some examples that are that are maybe a little more 0:19:18.520 --> 0:19:22.199 heavily slanted in the direction of inauthenticity. But you know, 0:19:22.280 --> 0:19:25.159 it's not as fun to discuss those and throw a 0:19:25.160 --> 0:19:30.560 lot of criticism at bands and performers for trying new things. However, 0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:33.240 there was that one Garth Brooks album, as I remember, 0:19:33.480 --> 0:19:35.560 where he took on a different persona and did non 0:19:35.560 --> 0:19:36.240 country music. 0:19:36.440 --> 0:19:37.120 Chris Gaines. 0:19:37.560 --> 0:19:40.119 Chris Gaines. Yeah, this this was not well received, as 0:19:40.160 --> 0:19:43.080 I recall, was it not? I don't think it was. 0:19:43.440 --> 0:19:45.520 I don't think he came back to the persona either. 0:19:45.680 --> 0:19:47.640 But again, this is an area that I know even 0:19:47.680 --> 0:19:50.760 less about. So Garth brook fans, you know, write in 0:19:51.080 --> 0:19:53.000 I guess and we'll we can just we can hash 0:19:53.040 --> 0:19:53.400 this out. 0:19:53.800 --> 0:19:55.560 How surprised are people going to be when they find 0:19:55.560 --> 0:19:57.600 out that Garth Brooks is actually also one of the 0:19:57.600 --> 0:19:58.520 guys in slip. 0:19:58.320 --> 0:20:02.080 Knot I have nasan you'd never know. 0:20:10.400 --> 0:20:12.679 But I wanted to briefly come back to the question 0:20:12.760 --> 0:20:17.040 of why it is that music might feel like, of 0:20:17.080 --> 0:20:20.600 all the genres of art out there, why music would 0:20:20.640 --> 0:20:24.919 be especially subject to authenticity concerns like why, you know, 0:20:25.040 --> 0:20:30.000 teenagers are really concerned about whether this singer songwriter is 0:20:30.080 --> 0:20:33.240 authentic as opposed to I don't know, you know, like 0:20:33.320 --> 0:20:38.240 painters or something. And I obviously there could be a 0:20:38.280 --> 0:20:41.440 lot of explanations here, but I kind of wonder if 0:20:41.480 --> 0:20:44.679 it has to do with the fact that music is 0:20:44.800 --> 0:20:48.000 the art form most likely to be experienced in an 0:20:48.080 --> 0:20:52.720 involuntary way. So, for example, you will rarely, if ever, 0:20:52.840 --> 0:20:55.720 be forced to look at a painting or watch a film. 0:20:56.160 --> 0:20:58.040 You know, there might be social pressure to go see 0:20:58.040 --> 0:21:00.120 a movie with your friends that you're not really interested in, 0:21:00.200 --> 0:21:03.399 or something like that. Some weird circumstance. But generally you 0:21:03.400 --> 0:21:05.240 can look at what you want, and if you don't 0:21:05.359 --> 0:21:07.520 like what you're looking at, you can, like you know, 0:21:07.640 --> 0:21:11.320 direct your attention elsewhere, or even shut your eyes unless 0:21:11.359 --> 0:21:13.720 you have the aid of some kind of technology like 0:21:13.800 --> 0:21:16.800 you know, headphones or something which are not appropriate to 0:21:16.960 --> 0:21:20.560 use in many, say, social or work scenarios. You cannot 0:21:20.680 --> 0:21:23.919 practically shut your ears off to music the way that 0:21:23.960 --> 0:21:26.040 you can shut your eyes or avert your eyes from 0:21:26.040 --> 0:21:29.760 a painting. And if music is audible in the place 0:21:29.800 --> 0:21:33.120 where you are, you're gonna hear it. Technically, I guess 0:21:33.119 --> 0:21:35.520 this would be true of any sound based art form 0:21:35.920 --> 0:21:38.800 because of the nature of our bodies. But generally that's 0:21:38.800 --> 0:21:43.760