# Authenticity in relation to compositions, where did the idea come from



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

As a newbie dabbling in composition, I was listening to a talk today about the value of works, and the word "authenticity" came up.

My first reaction was "how can a work be not authentic"? Unless it's being passed off as someone else's work or clearly plagiarises something.

So I started reading about the idea in relation to musical composition (rather than performance which seems to be another whole kettle of fish), and found of course it's quite contentious.

My questions here are:

1. When did people start applying a yardstick of authenticity in evaluating the value of a work? Was it 20th C? 

2. Is it still commonly used by people (e.g. musical directors) to evaluate submitted works?

3. Have any studies been done as to the consequences of this?

My suspicion is that a rise in prominence of this notion has led many composers to take ever more extreme measures to achieve uniqueness at the cost of a mass exodus of listeners to popular music, which seems not to concern itself with such notions. This I suspect has resulted in the death of many orchestras by driving away the audience. I'm sure that's an extremely contentious notion


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

*Zzz*

For me, authenticity means the expression of a creative idea that is it in keeping with your own nature and feelings - something that is genuinely pleasing to you - and not compromising an inspired idea for the sake of approval or for any other outside influence. The work is somehow characteristic of you and your values. It's more a heart thing than a head thing. It's the immediate connection with a spontaneous idea and the expression of it. Only you can know if you're being genuinely honest with yourself in your self-expression. It's not the means to an end; it's the end itself, the journey. The quest for authenticity is probably as old as time and something that can only be answered from within by the person and not as the result of a "study". I believe that today's listeners still look for authenticity in a performance, otherwise the performer would just be going through the motions. A number of famous composers who spoke with an authentic voice in their compositions were also great improvisers, such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Frederick Chopin. Good luck with your composing.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

I probably don't know the thinking that you refer to and only understand the term authenticity as applied to artistic creation in a common way. Authenticity is not really the same as uniqueness. Doesn't authenticity just refer to a quality of "having a distinctive voice"? Without authenticity I think art tends towards being craft. But I don't think authenticity can be faked - for example, by trying to sound new or different - as it is surely something apparently natural and unforced. Authenticity has probably been valued for a long as artists have been named. 

As for your theory that the need to appear authentic drives artists to be stupidly radical and that this has led to the death throes of music, I don't see any grounds for such a position. Presumably you mean that the need to be different is also a need to do unpopular things? Why would an artist fake or force the unpopular? That is counter-intuitive. At the same time, how could you differentiate between new art that is contrived in the way you suspect and new art that is meant and intended (presumably aspects of authenticity) by the artist? Your approach seems to be to guess at motive but people's motives are not at all easy to discern and it is often rather rude and arrogant to try. 

I was recently listening to some orchestral music of Villa-Lobos. This is music that is very varied and colourful but that sometimes edges towards being very kitsch. That would normally turn me off but the occasional passages and pieces in the music seem totally authentic - a part of the composer's voice and musical language - in a way that most kitsch hardly ever is. Villa-Lobos is not manipulating us or being lazy or indulgent; he is talking to us in a unique (if often apparently backward-looking) language. And, for me, it works. It is helped, of course, by the extraordinary and unique facility that he has for deploying an orchestra.


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2018)

Compose the damn thing you want to compose, and that will be authentic. Compose it very well, with an expansive knowledge of the craft, and not only will it be authentic but it will be a bloody good composition. Both things are important. One should be happy with what one writes, and I think that's what makes something authentic above all else.


----------



## MarkW (Feb 16, 2015)

It's a hard one to get a firm grip on. In general, authenticity means true to the artist and what he/she feels and wants to say. Inauthentic often involves the intercession of marketing considerations. Although, that ssid, Copland's "American" idiom was no less authentic for it being intentionally accessible and popular.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

It looks as though "authentic" is a relation between the composer and the music, it's not an intrinsic property of the music. To know whether the music's authentic you'd have to know about the life and times of the composer, and see how well it fits into his values and ideals. This raises all sorts of interesting epistemological problems.

Irony is a related concept.

Note that a piece of music could be great fun to hear for a lot of people, possibly people who the composer despised, but still inauthentic.

It would be good to have a clear example of an inauthentic piece of music, this maybe -- or is it ironic? How to answer such a question?


----------



## Guest (Sep 20, 2018)

Lachenmann is still being authentic there, even irony has long been a part of his interest as a composer. There's a really great interview with him about it in Van Magazine I recommend.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

MarkW said:


> It's a hard one to get a firm grip on. In general, authenticity means true to the artist and what he/she feels and wants to say. Inauthentic often involves the intercession of marketing considerations. Although, that ssid, Copland's "American" idiom was no less authentic for it being intentionally accessible and popular.


I would not just say marketing considerations, but also trying to do something just because some external authority says that is what you are supposed to do. Often it is political or prestige considerations.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

shirime said:


> Lachenmann is still being authentic there, even irony has long been a part of his interest as a composer. There's a really great interview with him about it in Van Magazine I recommend.


I have read it. Despite what he says I think this piece is a sell out. It's too comfortable for the bourgeoisie, too accepting of bourgeois (musical) values. It's about as radical as Till Eugenspiegel's Merry Pranks.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

I might also note that "authenticity" is a vague notion assigned by a given listener, probably with no real evidence of any tangible sort. A sense that a work is "inauthentic" may be just another way to express a negative reaction that the work didn't do what the listener wanted, and not actually be a reflection of the composer's true motivations or the product made from them.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> I might also note that "authenticity" is a vague notion assigned by a given listener, probably with no real evidence of any tangible sort. A sense that a work is "inauthentic" may be just another way to express a negative reaction that the work didn't do what the listener wanted, and not actually be a reflection of the composer's true motivations or the product made from them.


No, I think you're wrong about that. A piece is inauthentic when the values embodied in the music are inconsistent with the values held by the composer. There are clearly epistemological problems, but no more so than with any sort of psychological attributions.

A good example of prima facie authentic music is Britten's War Requiem. Some people argue that the rondo finale of Beethoven's op 130 is inauthentic. Strauss's four last songs are probably authentic - but imagine the possible world where the same music was written by Boulez - the music would be the same but it would be an inauthentic composition.

Authenticity and inauthenticity judgements have nothing to do with whether you have a "negative reaction to the work."


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> No, I think you're wrong about that. A piece is inauthentic when the values embodied in the music are inconsistent with the values held by the composer. There are clearly epistemological problems, but no more so than with any sort of psychological attributions.
> 
> A good example of prima facie authentic music is Britten's War Requiem. Some people argue that the rondo finale of Beethoven's op 130 is inauthentic. Strauss's four last songs are probably authentic - but imagine the possible world where the same music was written by Boulez - the music would be the same but it would be an inauthentic composition.
> 
> Authenticity and inauthenticity judgements have nothing to do with whether you have a "negative reaction to the work."


No, I am not wrong here, unless "inauthentic" is suddenly a positive reaction. I note in your previous post, you call a work a "sell out," which certainly seems like a negative reaction, and a completely personal one. You can really have no confidence about the impression of values held by anyone but yourself.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> No, I am not wrong here, unless "inauthentic" is suddenly a positive reaction. I note in your previous post, you call a work a "sell out," which certainly seems like a negative reaction,


It can be a sell out and a perfectly enjoyable piece of music. When you say it's authentic or inauthentic, it's not a simple judgement of the music, it's a judgement about the fact that _this_ man has produced _this_ piece. The same piece by a different man may not have been a sell out at all.



JAS said:


> You can really have no confidence about the impression of values held by anyone but yourself.


This is probably not the place to discuss this, but I think this is wrong on two counts. First, observations of another person's actions over time and in context can give you a very good indication of their values. And second it is particularly hard to have a reliable judgement of your own values because self deception is so rife. Other people are better placed to know what you believe and desire than you are.

It is certainly true that all attributions of values, desires and beliefs are defeasible. However they are possible, indeed necessary.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> It can be a sell out and a perfectly enjoyable piece of music. When you say it's authentic or inauthentic, it's not a simple judgement of the music, it's a judgement about the fact that _this_ man has produced _this_ piece. The same piece by a different man may not have been a sell out at all.


Based on your comment, I suspect that it would have to be "a sell out" for it to have a chance that I might consider it "perfectly enjoyable." There is a common trick used in advertising in which very crude (in the sense of rough) animation is used because it gives a false sense of honesty to the commercial. (The idea is that it is less highly refined, and therefore somehow more honest, which can be highly effective even though it is entirely untrue.)



Mandryka said:


> This is probably not the place to discuss this, but I think this is wrong on two counts. First, observations of another person's actions over time and in context can give you a very good indication of their values. And second it is particularly hard to have a reliable judgement of your own values because self deception is so rife. Other people are better placed to know what you believe and desire than you are.


Frank Bridge wrote music in two very different styles during his lifetime. Which music is authentic for him, his earlier works or his later ones? Would a relatively "happy" piece by a composer who more typically wrote more somber works be "inauthentic" merely because he had an atypical moment of happiness in his or her life? Why wouldn't a thread called "Authenticity in relation to compositions, where did the idea come from" be the right place to have this discussion? It seems as perfect a place as there ever was.



Mandryka said:


> It is certainly true that all attributions of values, desires and beliefs are defeasible. However they are possible, indeed necessary.


This is simply gibberish.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> This is simply gibberish.


You're a bit rude! I'm sure it isn't gibberish. On the contrary it's a rather deep idea.

I've never heard anything by Bridge so I won't comment.

Don't you like Till Eulenspiegel? I do, and it probably isn't a sell out, it is authentic . . . 
.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> You're a bit rude!


I am just authentic.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

JAS said:


> I am just authentic.


That's OK then!


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> No, I think you're wrong about that. A piece is inauthentic when the values embodied in the music are inconsistent with the values held by the composer. There are clearly epistemological problems, but no more so than with any sort of psychological attributions.
> 
> A good example of prima facie authentic music is Britten's War Requiem. Some people argue that the rondo finale of Beethoven's op 130 is inauthentic. Strauss's four last songs are probably authentic - but imagine the possible world where the same music was written by Boulez - the music would be the same but it would be an inauthentic composition.
> 
> Authenticity and inauthenticity judgements have nothing to do with whether you have a "negative reaction to the work."


I think you are right but it leads to a problem for the OP where we seemed to be asked to make judgments about authenticity for composers who we don't know and who have no track record. Presumably, that is impossible?


----------



## isorhythm (Jan 2, 2015)

The problem with some of these definitions of authenticity is they assume the artist has some kind of uncorrupted inner truth, which is totally separate from outside influences, and the goal is pure expression of that inner truth. In reality people's personalities and values are shaped by outside influences their whole lives, through a constant interaction between inner impulses and outside influences.

That doesn't mean the concept is useless, but it makes it hard to draw a bright line. I think if an artist is actually conscious of making something he or she doesn't really like or care about in order to achieve some goal, that's inauthentic and it usually shows. But there's a lot of gray area.


----------



## DaveM (Jun 29, 2015)

Mandryka said:


> No, I think you're wrong about that. A piece is inauthentic when the values embodied in the music are inconsistent with the values held by the composer. There are clearly epistemological problems, but no more so than with any sort of psychological attributions.
> 
> A good example of prima facie authentic music is Britten's War Requiem. Some people argue that the rondo finale of Beethoven's op 130 is inauthentic. Strauss's four last songs are probably authentic - but imagine the possible world where the same music was written by Boulez - the music would be the same but it would be an inauthentic composition.


This sounds to me like a contrivance. Who makes the decisions as to what the values of the composer are in the first place? And who is qualified to judge a work 'inauthentic'? Who knows what was in the mind of Beethoven? Why are Strauss' Four Last Songs 'probably authentic'? Was a hearing held on the question? Is Myaskovsky's Symphony #27 inauthentic?

Some famous actors are known to do less popular 'Indie' movies and then a very popular, high paying movie (think Marvel) that brings in more income. Is that being inauthentic?

Not to mention that I think there is confusion in some posts in this thread. Are we talking 'authenticity', 'uniqueness' or 'originality?


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

DaveM said:


> This sounds to me like a contrivance. Who makes the decisions as to what the values of the composer are in the first place? And who is qualified to judge a work 'inauthentic'? Who knows what was in the mind of Beethoven? Why are Strauss' Four Last Songs 'probably authentic'? Was a hearing held on the question? Is Myaskovsky's Symphony #27 inauthentic?


Interpreting behaviour in a way which makes others appear rational is difficult and will always be subject to revision in the light of new information or in the light of more coherent explanations. Fortunately we have a very well honed system for doing it though -- the system of attributing beliefs, desires etc. Imagine how difficult -- impossible -- life would be without folk psychological explanations!

My view is that the best explanation of Beethoven's actions in terms of beliefs and desires and intentions and values is the best account of what was going on "in his mind." I do not believe that the mind is a private internal object, I do not believe that Cartesian dualism makes sense.

Whether The Four Last Songs are authentic or not depends partly on our best judgements about Strauss's states of mind at the time of writing them -- his views about tonality for example, and about nostalgia, ageing, death. What conclusions we draw about his mental states will depend mainly on his actions -- it's through actions that we can access mind -- his mind is, as it were, part of the world, not hidden from it, viewable only by him. On the contrary, ubiquitous self deception makes us very poor at knowing what we think and feel.

And, because authenticity is IMO a relation between the musician and his art, whether The Four Last Songs are authentic depends partly on the nature of the lyrics and the music.

I'm not sure what you're getting at when you ask if a hearing was held. Obviously people make judgements. Neither do I know why you think what I'm saying is contrived -- what I'm doing is analysing a very entrenched and fundamental part of human behaviour -- and a very problematic and paradoxical one.

And I know nothing about Myaskovsky, neither the man nor his music, so I won't go there.


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

Mentioning Myaskovsky made me think of another example of possibly inauthentic music -- the last movement of Prokofiev Symphony 7. I'm sure there are tons of examples from Shostakovich -- the last movement of the 5th example. Bartok's Concerto for Orchestra possibly too.


----------



## Larkenfield (Jun 5, 2017)

Oh, I think Prokofiev and Shostakovich can be forgiven for what might be their authentic shortcomings. Even in the examples cited above, they still sound like Prokofiev and Shostakovich, and I think it's up to the performers to make the works work. Not all composers at all times are able to stay exactly uncompromised and on course artistically, especially when they may seeking something materially or have to kiss the hindquarters of the political people sitting on the throne. Sometimes a composer may lose his way and I think that happened to Richard Strauss, dedicated materialist that he was, but he found himself again with his _Four Last Songs_. Imagine living a life where your livelihood depends on creating something out of nothing... thin air. And yet listeners may always expect the composers to be "authentic" according to the listener's standards. Sometimes a composer may simply be trying on a different hat/style - like Lachenmann, and then he has to suffer through what sounds to me like a poor performance, though his desire to write something uplifting could still be entirely authentic - rather than conforming to what he may have done up to that point. I think what matters is that the great composers are able to bounce back from what could have been one of their less convincing efforts, where they may have lost touch with their unique creative vision and then rediscover it again.


----------



## EdwardBast (Nov 25, 2013)

Mandryka said:


> I have read it. Despite what he says I think this piece is a sell out. It's too comfortable for the bourgeoisie, too accepting of bourgeois (musical) values. It's about as radical as Till Eugenspiegel's Merry Pranks.


No, it's less radical than Till.


----------



## Josquin13 (Nov 7, 2017)

For me, "authenticity" means the 'authentic' style of a period performance, or staying true to what is known of the musical conventions and practices of the times that a composer wrote their music, i.e., knowing what they expected to hear, as a child of their times. While scholars have debated and disagreed on various aspects relating to period style, they don't disagree on all of it (nor the gist of it). Indeed, some of the practices used in the original instrument movement are unquestionably "authentic". (The revival has also spawned a whole Renaissance of 'authentic' instrument making.)

For example, the late scholar/musician Bruce Haynes argues in favor of Bach's extensive use of violin 'slurs'--called 'graces' in the 18th century--at the opening of Cantata BWV 130. In his booklet notes to Eric Milnes' recording of the BWV 130, Haynes discusses how the function of a violin slur in Bach's time was different from the later Romantic Age. He writes,

"To a musician reading these notes in 19th-century mode, a series of slurs mean nothing more than an absence of articulation, they are a mere technical instruction for legato. But in the 18th century a slur of up to three or four notes was thought of as a grace, its function being to indicate an emphasis with a diminuendo. Thus it was an indication of legato playing only incidentally... the series of slurs are thus a code for a chain of separate accents, one at the beginning of each slur; not the modern single impulse with articulation, but three independent thrusts, like short pickups. Playing this way gives this passage a rather different meaning... "

Which means that when the slurs are played in "Modern Conservatory style" the violins can limit or bog down the requisite agility and rhythmic articulation of the rest of the ensemble: giving us a very different sounding Bach (& clearly not one the composer intended).

With that in mind, have a listen to how the opening violin slurs in BWV 130 are played on period violins:





Hayes concludes that the effect of the violins changes significantly "depending on whether the slur is perceived as an expressive device (as it generally was in the 18th century) or as a technical instruction (as in Modern Conservatory Style.)"

To better illustrate this point, now have a listen to how the violin slurs are played in the opening bars of Helmut Rilling's modern instrument recording (in contrast to actual Baroque 'graces'). It will be a real eye opener. Notice how Rilling's modern violins are more cumbersome than the period violins, and how their lack of agility--due to the purely legato effect--impedes the swiftness of the chorus and trumpets, making the music drag in comparison:






And bear in mind that Rilling is considered to be one of the least pedantic conductors performing Bach's choral music on modern instruments today.

There are many other examples that can further illustrate the "authenticity" of period instruments, etc., in realizing the musical conventions & practices of Lutheran Germany, which are contained within Bach's scores. Though that doesn't necessarily make playing Bach's music on a piano, or a modern cello, etc., invalid either. However, those aren't instruments that Bach knew or tailored his keyboard or Viola da Gamba works to. Hence, as Glenn Gould once said, a pianist must inevitably create their own "transcription" of the keyboard works of Bach, for piano.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Larkenfield said:


> For me, authenticity means the expression of a creative idea that is it in keeping with your own nature and feelings - something that is genuinely pleasing to you - and not compromising an inspired idea for the sake of approval or for any other outside influence. The work is somehow characteristic of you and your values. It's more a heart thing than a head thing. It's the immediate connection with a spontaneous idea and the expression of it. Only you can know if you're being genuinely honest with yourself in your self-expression. It's not the means to an end; it's the end itself, the journey. The quest for authenticity is probably as old as time and something that can only be answered from within by the person and not as the result of a "study". I believe that today's listeners still look for authenticity in a performance, otherwise the performer would just be going through the motions. A number of famous composers who spoke with an authentic voice in their compositions were also great improvisers, such as Mozart, Beethoven, and Frederick Chopin. Good luck with your composing.


Thanks, that's a very interesting take on it, and one I like. So basically if you're honest with yourself, and not cynically trying to rip something off for whatever purpose, then you're basically authentic.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I probably don't know the thinking that you refer to and only understand the term authenticity as applied to artistic creation in a common way. Authenticity is not really the same as uniqueness. Doesn't authenticity just refer to a quality of "having a distinctive voice"? Without authenticity I think art tends towards being craft. But I don't think authenticity can be faked - for example, by trying to sound new or different - as it is surely something apparently natural and unforced. Authenticity has probably been valued for a long as artists have been named.
> 
> As for your theory that the need to appear authentic drives artists to be stupidly radical and that this has led to the death throes of music, I don't see any grounds for such a position. Presumably you mean that the need to be different is also a need to do unpopular things? Why would an artist fake or force the unpopular? That is counter-intuitive. At the same time, how could you differentiate between new art that is contrived in the way you suspect and new art that is meant and intended (presumably aspects of authenticity) by the artist? Your approach seems to be to guess at motive but people's motives are not at all easy to discern and it is often rather rude and arrogant to try.
> 
> I was recently listening to some orchestral music of Villa-Lobos. This is music that is very varied and colourful but that sometimes edges towards being very kitsch. That would normally turn me off but the occasional passages and pieces in the music seem totally authentic - a part of the composer's voice and musical language - in a way that most kitsch hardly ever is. Villa-Lobos is not manipulating us or being lazy or indulgent; he is talking to us in a unique (if often apparently backward-looking) language. And, for me, it works. It is helped, of course, by the extraordinary and unique facility that he has for deploying an orchestra.


Thanks for your comment.

The reason I suspect certain directions in musical evolution have lead to troubles for orchestras is the fact so many are going bust, dealing with financial problems and falling patronage. And so many of the people I know think modern music sounds horrible. There is a lot of modern music which does sound horrible to my ear, and which sounds like you could compose it in a very short time with no effort or care. There's also of course a lot of modern music which is completely awesome. Some of which is more approachable than others.

If one likes late 19th C and early 20C romantic music though and composes in that style I think they are maybe viewed as inauthentic, if at least adding nothing to the canon of value. Although if someone found another Puccini opera that had been lost I don't think people would be complaining it added nothing of value to the canon.

I wonder if there's some kind of competitive snobbery going on with composers etc.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Mandryka said:


> No, I think you're wrong about that. A piece is inauthentic when the values embodied in the music are inconsistent with the values held by the composer. There are clearly epistemological problems, but no more so than with any sort of psychological attributions.
> 
> A good example of prima facie authentic music is Britten's War Requiem. Some people argue that the rondo finale of Beethoven's op 130 is inauthentic. Strauss's four last songs are probably authentic - but imagine the possible world where the same music was written by Boulez - the music would be the same but it would be an inauthentic composition.
> 
> Authenticity and inauthenticity judgements have nothing to do with whether you have a "negative reaction to the work."


I don't know how we can even deterministically state what the values embodied in a piece of music are.

I also don't think we should limit people to only writing about their internal values. There should be no limits at all. It's art.

But it seems like if I as a white male write a "negro spiritual" song I can't be authentic. That makes as much sense as saying I can't make an authentic Borscht because I'm not Hungarian. The 2 things are independent the person and the work in my view.

I think once one starts to associate authenticity with legitimacy, and then require the authorship to match the work in some cultural way, we're starting to become bigots. Or is that not what actually happens?


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

In other fields, the concept of authenticity is much easier. Something is either authentic or counterfeit

For example a painting is either an authentic Monet / Degas / whoever or someone else painted it. It relates to the authorship. Same with written works, banknotes, handbags etc etc.

It basically boils down to being that if the stated author is the real author, then it's authentic.

So by that measure as long as you write works which you don't try to ascribe to some other author, or plagiarise from some other author then it's authentic.

That means I think it's not a very useful metric to apply to a piece.


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

Enthusiast said:


> I think you are right but it leads to a problem for the OP where we seemed to be asked to make judgments about authenticity for composers who we don't know and who have no track record. Presumably, that is impossible?


I wasn't asking for judgements of authenticity about unnamed pieces. My questions (labelled 1, 2, and 3) were about when the concept started being used, how it it currently used (if at all) and have the consequences been studied. Nothing to do with particular or non-particular works at all.


----------



## regenmusic (Oct 23, 2014)

I think authentic works very well as a descriptor in music. There are always the originators of styles. I remember in the styles of music that I saw the development of in my lifetime, for example Progressive Rock and New Wave/Punk, you could tell there were some more innovative musicians who created the first distinguishable works in this style. Later bands came in and they either were composed of real artists who continued to make interesting music in this style, or they were more or less glamorized copies of the innovative artists works. It is a bit of a cruel adjective to put on music, but then music criticism often is. So, while we don't really see classical music as easily as forms of pop music, we can see how Minimalism had some early exponent and later artists who really didn't contribute the same exploratory passion, but it may work well for functional music for films, advertising, and so on.


----------



## eugeneonagain (May 14, 2017)

Is 'authenticity' to be linked to works based only upon originality? I don't think so. Prior to and even after the baroque era it was very common to borrow or make use of themes - often standard themes like e.g. La Folia - to produce what are considered genuine works of art.

As to the idea the OP brought up of not being able to write an 'authentic' Negro spiritual; that may be half right, but wasn't it a Jewish guy who wrote Billie Holiday's most famous song _Strange Fruit__? _And inspired by his disgust at a photo of a lynching.

Most of that thinking has been blown away surely since Bix Beiderbecke?


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

another concern I have is whether something is authentically of a style.

It's like we create classifications, find something close and say some piece is authentically or not of that style.

But it seems all to be arbitrary, so makes as much sense as saying a fish is not a cat and therefore isn't authentic.

Recently we also hear a lot of talk about cultural appropriation, and I think it's quite a similar issue. We've (as humans) always appropriated things from other cultures that we like, and the world wouldn't work if we could only use things our culture created. That doesn't even start to contemplate people with more than 1 cultural identity, or who identify with a culture(s) to which they are not genetically associated.

Maybe it all started with the first copyright infringement cases.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

adrien said:


> Thanks for your comment.
> 
> The reason I suspect certain directions in musical evolution have lead to troubles for orchestras is the fact so many are going bust, dealing with financial problems and falling patronage. And so many of the people I know think modern music sounds horrible. There is a lot of modern music which does sound horrible to my ear, and which sounds like you could compose it in a very short time with no effort or care. There's also of course a lot of modern music which is completely awesome. Some of which is more approachable than others.
> 
> ...


I can't think of a single example of successful music that was written in the style of 150 years earlier. Some composers did succeed in incorporating an old style in a new piece - I'm thinking Pulcinella or, perhaps, Ancient Airs and Dances or even Prokofiev's Classical Symphony - but the charm of such pieces would quickly wear very thin if there were too many examples.

I don't know why a Brahms symphony could not be written today but I do know that it couldn't. Is it that the fire and spark comes through the composer exploring new territory? Of is it that composers cannot but reflect their times? I do not know.

BTW, in Britain I don't think we are seeing orchestras vanish. Orchestral players are making less but that is because they don't get to record in a studio much any more - most recordings are live - and I guess earners like playing the soundtrack for a film are less common. Of course, classical music in general is far less popular and essential than it was and the composing of modern music that you currently find ugly doesn't need to be invoked to explain a downturn in interest.


----------



## Enthusiast (Mar 5, 2016)

adrien said:


> I wasn't asking for judgements of authenticity about unnamed pieces. My questions (labelled 1, 2, and 3) were about when the concept started being used, how it it currently used (if at all) and have the consequences been studied. Nothing to do with particular or non-particular works at all.


No, you weren't. But you were implying that our judgments would be that many modern composers make strange music to feign authenticity. I don't think such a view stands up so it was a problem with your post. There is a problem with ascribing authenticity (or a lack of it) to the music of a new composer. The distinctiveness of the voice is all we have to go on at first.


----------



## JAS (Mar 6, 2013)

How does one feign authenticity in music (or art)? (I have already given one example in advertising, where being less refined can be used to suggest a sense of honesty to an audience is suspicious of a lot of polish, although, ironically, this technique is often used very slickly.) Is this like pretending to be sincere? I think modern composers are working in an environment where, if they want to be taken seriously, they are expected to be "progressive," "individualistic," "highly original" and "edgy" even though none of those things are really important as musical goals. (I suspect that some people are using the term "authenticity" as a way to mask the fact that they are demanding that "modern" music sound a certain way.)


----------



## adrien (Sep 12, 2016)

I can think of a great many extremely successful relatively recent pieces that were written in the style from a former era.

Most classical musicians don't really think much about this, but I'll posit that the most successful composer ever to live (and he's still alive) is.... John Williams.

Walk down the street in any major western city, you'll find very few people who do not recognise a number of his works, whereas any of the composers that musicians tend to think of when discussing the greatest or most successful composer (e.g. Beethoven, Mozart, Bach etc) would not register.

That is real success, not just financial, but number of people recognising your work. So what if it's film music.

It's still commonly played in orchestra concerts as well.

I'll stick my neck out even further, and posit that the film industries found out in the 60s that avante garde music doesn't appeal to the masses, and that's why the current refuge of melodic tonal music is in film and has been since the late 70s.


----------

