Do guitars = Authentic and if so , why

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

I have four hours until monday. Forgive me

― anthony, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

no.

― Michael Taylor, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No, they don't, but I think it's cute that Madonna's all pretending she's a guitarist all of a sudden.

Seriously, I hate the idea that people think guitars make an act more authentic. Did guitars make Sid Vicious / Richey Manic authentic? Neither could play them, but they held them, so does that make their bands objectively better acts than, say, Britney Spears or the Ronettes cos they don't hold guitars? Of course not - they're only "better" if you like their music better, what does what the artist do have to do with it?

― Ally, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

No, but if the alleged juxtaposition of guitar/synth is taken into account (this appearing to be the big division throughout the eighties, at least):

Guitars -- recognizable form down through the centuries, folk tradition, 'real'

Synths -- new, plastic, false, 'anyone can play it'/'it plays itself'

A gross oversimplification and seen solely in a very limited scope. But there you are, and the implications still play out. DJs -- not really musicians, not really 'playing' anything. Techno guys use synths/drum machines, etc. This is all a matter of stereotypes at base (especially since anyone can play guitar too! just ask Half Japanese).

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

The guitar is authentic in the same way all potentially deadly weapons are authentic. Even John Fogerty could crack your skull with a guitar (I'm talking electrics with lots of finish here, acoustics spectacularly explode upon contact with the head but they don't really cause that much damage). Try doing that with a bank of synths (or a DAT player).

The assurance of non-violence is the most transparent form of inauthenticity. Those mythic frequencies which cause spontaneous bowel movements are also very authentic, perhaps even moreso than guitars.

― Kris, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Synths and DAT players may be harder to wield, but they look like they could do damage.

― Ned Raggett, Sunday, 26 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Yeah, c'mere and let me smack ya with my Liberation. I don't think the 'ax' (literally) aspect of things has much to do with this phenomenon. It's just history. People see things that are solidly tried-and-true (ie, older things) as being more authentic, since they already [unconsciously] know what they're getting. Of course, this doesn't make much rational sense (ever heard someone say "this is a guitar?"), but as I have been reminded countless times, most peoples' tastes are not conscious rationalizations.

With more and more of the baseline music consuming public (ie, the all-important TRL crowd) having grown up accustomed to people using computers and electronics to make music, this sort of judgement of authenticity is becoming less and less of an issue of actual marketability and more and more something marginally more arcane (such as the fodder of discussions between aging classic rock aficionados and/or indie/garage snobs).

― matthew m., Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For some reason, I think I remember hearing on Howard Stern how former WWF female wrestler Nicole Brown was suing WWF for, among other things, getting clobbered with a real acoustic guitar. So even those would hurt some.

I've always thought that this "guitars v. synths" debate was a phony one. As is the distinction between "live" and "studio." It's all artificial -- or real -- in the sense that human hands made it, manipulated sounds to make music. Maybe when synths were new, exotic and expensive the debate had some (though not much IMHO) merit.

― Tadeusz Suchodolski, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I think what Ned mentioned earlier is the key here - the idea is not just that the guitar is more authentic - its that it requires a 'professional' musician to play it. When people like Stevie Wonder and Joe Zawinul started using electronic instruments they were seen as just another addition to the musical palette -debate might rage about whether they sounded any good or not but they were still musical instruments weilded by the musical elite. its during the eighties that the real split seemed to happen. Most of the attacks on the synth-led 80's bands came from people who claimed "they're not real musicians" ,"anyone could do that" The rise of sequencers meant that we'd all seen someone hit one key and a whole song come storming out. The split broke along the lines; Guitars/songwriters/'professional' musicians( often with some training )/able to'cut it' live/ unionised VS keyboards/dance music/ amateur/ untrained/studio-based/ununionised. In fact the musicians union's attempts to seperate off an elite group of qualified, authentic musicians (like any other professional group would do, doctors, lawyers etc.) meant that most forward-looking, left-leaning musicians were more in tune with any other union tan their own. Since then the rise of samplers, DJ's etc have made this split even more acute. The authenticity argument here is no different from the one that has paralysed the fine art world for years ( sometimes it seems that the fine art world has spent the last 25 years arguing over questions that the rest of the world cares little about - "what is art?", "is the idea behind a painting more important than the physical talent displayed?" ).

― Mat O, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

musicianship bring the authenticity , no? The instrument is merely the tool. Since the guitar has had a 30 year plus dominance over vast swathes of music some misguided oldies obviously see it as the true path to some vision of what they see as authentic music. the notion that the guitar is a 'folk' instrument (unless of course you are spanish or Americs (broad sense latin/north), european traditional instruments (north and east) are more in the line of fiddles, pipes, flutes, other strings, (squeezboxes and accordians entering later). The guitar really enters into the north european tradition 'folk' quite late since it is such a great accompaniament to singing especially solo siniging.

Oh look a one line answer has wandered off again. so in short

Musiscians and composers make music authentic not instruments.

― Ed, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Music is authentic, not the means by which it is created. The guitar, or sampler, or drum machine, or record deck or sax is just the paint on and canvas (maaaannn). Music is to be judged on what it sounds like, if anyones saying good music is easier to make with samplers or drum machines or that Dance Music isn't real or authentic then they can feel my wrath. Music is music, and the means used to create it are merely the paint and the canvas as I say.

― Ronan, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I should've made my own views clear I guess - personally I dont give a fuck which instruments are used - or who (or what) is playing them - its how it makes me feel that counts - the point I was trying to make tho' is that the supposed 'authenticity' of the guitar isn't simply a result of it being around a long time, it's part of a strategy, sometimes knee-jerk, sometimes thought-out ,by an elite group of music professionals to keep 'amateurs' out of the professional music world. Samplers, sequencers etc. are a threat to old-school musicians precisely because of their democratic nature.

― Mat O, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

I find the question of authenticity in music really interesting.

We're just conditioned to believe that certain elements in music are authentic. Even in genres where authenticity is prized like folk, music was manipulated, selected or recorded in such a way as to appeal to pre-existing notion of what was "authentic" rather than to honestly record the music people were making. In the early sixties, guys like John Lee Hooker & Howlin Wolf made acoustic solo records to appeal to the "real folk blues" audience, even though they had been performing with electric bands for years prior. Go back even further and see Stephen Foster writing "old-timey" songs... or look at Bluegrass - which has "authentic" traditional roots, but has only existed for a few years more than rock & roll in the form we recognize it now. But all those myths are part of what gives music its appeal...

And Sun Ra wasn't from space and The Ramones aren't even really brothers!

Music's a lot more fun if you don't worry if it's authentic or not.

― fritz, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

As usual, water finds its own level at the lowest point it can get away with. The question of whether or not 'anyone can use a sampler' is now irrelevant, as guitar bands decided they were going to stop bothering to expand the vocabularies of THEIR instruments. So now all 'proper' instruments are played as if they're primitive machines as well. Hooray for democracy.

― dave q, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

For some reason, I think I remember hearing on Howard Stern how former WWF female wrestler Nicole Brown was suing WWF for, among other things, getting clobbered with a real acoustic guitar. So even those would hurt some.

I got news for her...wrestling hurts some. She musta got clobbered by Jeff Jarrett. Why would you step into the ring with him if you were unwilling to take a guitar shot? What an idiot.

― Kris, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

Anyone heard durutti column 'the guitar and other machines'? Renders the synth vs. guitar argument pretty pointless. Anyway, isn't most music made using conventional instruments by conventional players pretty old and cliched? Guess this leads onto the musician v. non- musician debate, which i don't much care for either. It's the end result that 'should' matter. Although the presence of the argument suggests that some people are more enamoured of the culture surrounding music than the actual music itself. Not being a very social person it doesn't affect me that much.

― Anas FK, Monday, 27 August 2001 00:00 (twenty-four years ago)

four years pass...

― Yawn (Wintermute), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:39 (twenty years ago)

we've come a long way since 2001.

― Special Agent Gene Krupa (orion), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:42 (twenty years ago)

http://www.harmony-central.com/Newp/2005/Real-Guitar-15-lg.jpg

― peanut gallery (jcartledge), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 03:56 (twenty years ago)

"authentic" seems to be a euphemism for misogynist, which for mysterious reasons (the guitar as extension of penis? who knows?), the guitar is phenomenologically much more so than synths. to claim that these distinctions don't exist or are unimportant may be socially forward-thinking, but that strategy tends to increase that divide rather than bridge it. so really, synths need to become more misogynist (c.f. fratboy acceptance of prodigy, et al), guitars less so (c.f. K records). hoorah for software guitars and keytars!

― vanslashen, Tuesday, 10 January 2006 05:21 (twenty years ago)

au·then·tic P Pronunciation Key (ô-thntk)
adj.
1. Conforming to fact and therefore worthy of trust, reliance, or belief: an authentic account by an eyewitness.
2. Having a claimed and verifiable origin or authorship; not counterfeit or copied: an authentic medieval sword.

Law: Executed with due process: an authentic deed.

Music:
-Of, relating to, or being a medieval mode having a range from its final tone to the octave above it.
-Of, relating to, or being a cadence with the dominant chord immediately preceding the tonic chord.

Obsolete: Authoritative

― Special Agent Gene Krupa (orion), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 19:50 (twenty years ago)

my mother would see someone with a guitar as more authentic than someone with a samling device.

she may not see the same person as more authentic than a person with a synth, but probably.

my definition of "authentic" is of no importance. and im sure most people don't share it.

― bb (bbrz), Tuesday, 10 January 2006 20:04 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.