Music of the United States

As Alice Echols argues in her book “Hot Stuff”, the rise of American disco was intertwined with the rise of the masculine queer subculture that was arising in New York and San Francisco.  Echols also claims that the popular disco group Village People served as ambassadors of gay macho to the rest of the world.  However, because of society’s misconceptions about what a gay man stereotypically looks like, many heterosexual men failed to realize that the disco culture was actually promoting a queer subculture, believing instead that these disco groups were a new representation of masculinity in America.

This misperception of the disco movement led to an interesting intersection between the disco movement and the United States military.  In 1978, Village People released a song entitled “Y.M.C.A.” that became extremely popular in the United States, and served as an excellent advertising tool for the YMCA.  Once the United States Navy realized that disco music could potentially be an extremely powerful recruiting tool, they decided to reach out to Village People to see if they would be willing to create and perform a song that the Navy could use to recruit more potential troops.

The different perceptions of disco between the gay and straight cultures are extremely important in this particular case, because at this point in time, openly gay individuals were not allowed to serve in the United States military.  While this particular military policy did not actually receive the name “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” until 1993, the military had effectively operated under this policy for almost two hundred years prior to Village People performing the song “In the Navy”.  Because of this, the song could possibly have two different interpretations depending on the background of the person listening.  Members of the United States Navy who sponsored this production would likely view it as promoting the Navy as being hyper masculine group, simultaneously stroking their own egos, and hopefully incentivizing other young men to join their ranks.  However, queer men who saw this advertisement during this time period may have viewed it as a work of satire, mocking the fact that the armed forces are unknowingly utilizing the rising hyper-masculine gay subculture as a recruiting tool, while the target audience for this type of performance would not have been allowed to join.

While in this particular scenario, the music itself was not censored, it highlights one of the many ways in which queer voices have been silenced over the course of American history, particularly in regard to them participating in the armed forces.  However, the disco movement certainly seemed to take the appropriate steps to challenge society’s views on homosexuality, which began the process of allowing homosexuals to be fully integrated into all facets of American life without having to hide their true personalities.

Echols, Alice. “Homo Superiors.” Hot Stuff: Disco and the Remaking of American       Culture. New York: W.W. Norton, 2011. N. pag. Print.

Our discussion in class on Friday about the ‘authenticity’ of Iggy Azalea inspired me to think more bout the role of entertainment and the formation of authenticity.  Performs are judged by the public based upon a myriad of factors- moral behavior, treatment of fans, and authenticity.  Being in the spotlight requires a certain ‘image’ to be presented, and this image must be deemed ‘authentic’ by the public in order to be accepted.  However, as in the case of Iggy Azalea, what the public believes is or is not ‘authentic’ may not coincide with the the true ‘authenticity.’  Therefore, the concept of ‘authenticity’ is socially constructed, especially within the entertainment industry, and what is deemed ‘authentic’ is a story or image presented to the public and accepted by relevant others.

This is not a new idea; the relationship between authenticity and public acceptance has been around for centuries.  In The Prince, a dejected and ostracized Machiavelli states, “a prince will not actually need to have all of the qualities previously mentioned, but he must surely seem to have them..I would go so far as to say that having them all and always conforming to them would be harmful” (69).  For Machiavelli, ‘authenticity’ is a dangerous thing and it is more advantageous to emulate the image the image you desire, rather than reveal your true nature.  The same philosophy is adopted by many popular music artists.  They give the audience what they expect to see, and they are declared ‘authentic.’ We saw this with Black Minstrels, popular Hip-hop music, and Hillbilly music.  All of these genres had specific images associated with their performance, and in order for the performers to be accepted by the public, they lived up to the audience’s expectations by wearing blackface, describing violent communities filled with crime, or wearing overalls, respectively.

How is something socially declared ‘authentic’?  In music, the public has a general image or expectation based upon a basic working knowledge of each genre or group.  But what factors play into this basic level of knowledge?  Richard A. Peterson argues that ‘authenticity’ is based in ethic/cultural identity, the elasticity of group membership, status identity, the authentic experience, and the constructed self.  I would argue that each of these factors is very influential in determine is a performance is authentic, but I would not argue that each of them is equally important for all groups.  For today’s entertainers place heavy emphasis on the “constructed self,” where they remain true to a fabricated self that is deemed ‘authentic’ by the public but is not an ‘authentic’ representation of them as an individual.  This creation of a public identity is an adherence to the same principles described by Machiavelli in 1532, where perception of the public is the most important thing to consider when in a position of social or political power.  The individual must play the role of a ‘performer’ for the public rather than be a true representation of themselves.  They are only an ‘authentic’ representation of the image the public has placed upon them.

The implications of the publics influence over ‘authenticity’ has several implications.  One of the most apparent and worrisome is the changing nature of authenticity.  ‘Authentic’ music is defined by the public and it can be changed by the public.  This is clearly seen in our study of Elvis’s covers of R&B songs originally performed by black artists.  The public believed that R&B was exclusively a black style of music, but when American youth responded positively to Elvis’s performance of R&B, the image of R&B and later Rock ’n Roll was changed forever.  The publics change of perception influenced and defined genres of music who still influence the music industry today.  Recognizing this influence makes me wonder about other examples of where public has lead to the success and failure of musical artists.  It also makes me question the integrity and ‘authenticity’ of music as a representation of the artist/perform themselves.  Is success an indicator of a loss of self, forfeited at the price of fame obtained by being molded and shaped by the public?

Comparing popular music to music belonging in category of “art” is as much a practice in arbitration as it is a rift between esoteric and common. Definitions for popular music and for art music vary from individual to individual and absolutely have different components now than they did 150 years ago. For the purpose of this post, popular music will signify music that is accessible, both physically and psychologically. Fortunately, such a definition seems historically accurate and therefore probably appears in some form in most interpretations of the term. Music considered to be art, on the other hand, usually earns its label by having enriching or enlightening qualities that do more than satisfy our innate, physiological yearning for the mere audible sounds of music. These definitions make reconciliation between the foundational notions of popular and art music possible. For instance, in accordance with the aforementioned definitions, accessible yet enriching music serves as a popular-artistic musical hybrid that defies the notion that popular and artistic music cannot co-exist. Certain composers managed to produce music that qualify as such a hybrid. Beethoven, for instance, wrote music that Henry Higginson accurately depicts as capable of “teaching the uneducated” while remaining “the pinnacle of music.”¹ Beethoven’s work resonated so much with the average audience that it could enlighten the most casual listener’s understanding whilst simultaneously fulfilling the definition of art music for even the stuffiest critic. Even if it had not met the art music critic’s criteria, Beethoven’s music, by simply enriching the everyday listener’s appreciation for music, would have merited being labeled as art.

Bob Dylan also serves as an example of an artist whose music soared in popularity amidst the artistic accreditation it received. Few doubts exist about the popularity of Dylan’s music. His work was accessible both in the theme of its lyrics and the vastness of its projection; vivid and relatable topics, such as dissatisfaction with hypocrisy and superficiality in “Bringing it all Back Home, 1965” often pervaded his songs, which reached just about anyone via widespread attention on radio stations. At the same time, the music Dylan produced was unique in its raw yet profound identity, earning praise for its staunch criticism of various 1960s phenomena.  Therefore, while undoubtedly being popular and even common, Bob Dylan’s music exhibited qualities not only enriching to the typical listener but so impressionable to the weathered musician that new styles and genres emulating aspects of Dylan’s pieces sprang up shortly after his career’s conclusion.

All in all, popular music can mesh with artistic music. Simply appealing to popular taste does not disqualify music from belonging in the artistic category in which music stimulates the listener to the extent that he/she is compelled to contemplate the music played on a profound level. Nothing fundamentally prevents popular music from possessing artistic qualities.

Comparing popular music to music belonging in category of “art” is as much a practice in arbitration as it is a rift between esoteric and common. Definitions for popular music and for art music vary from individual to individual and absolutely have different components now than they did 150 years ago. For the purpose of this post, popular music will signify music that is accessible, both physically and psychologically. Fortunately, such a definition seems historically accurate and therefore probably appears in some form in most interpretations of the term. Music considered to be art, on the other hand, usually earns its label by having enriching or enlightening qualities that do more than satisfy our innate, physiological yearning for the mere audible sounds of music. These definitions make reconciliation between the foundational notions of popular and art music possible. For instance, in accordance with the aforementioned definitions, accessible yet enriching music serves as a popular-artistic musical hybrid that defies the notion that popular and artistic music cannot co-exist. Certain composers managed to produce music that qualify as such a hybrid. Beethoven, for instance, wrote music that Henry Higginson accurately depicts as capable of “teaching the uneducated” while remaining “the pinnacle of music.”¹ Beethoven’s work resonated so much with the average audience that it could enlighten the most casual listener’s understanding whilst simultaneously fulfilling the definition of art music for even the stuffiest critic. Even if it had not met the art music critic’s criteria, Beethoven’s music, by simply enriching the everyday listener’s appreciation for music, would have merited being labeled as art.

Bob Dylan also serves as an example of an artist whose music soared in popularity amidst the artistic accreditation it received. Few doubts exist about the popularity of Dylan’s music. His work was accessible both in the theme of its lyrics and the vastness of its projection; vivid and relatable topics, such as dissatisfaction with hypocrisy and superficiality in “Bringing it all Back Home, 1965” often pervaded his songs, which reached just about anyone via widespread attention on radio stations. At the same time, the music Dylan produced was unique in its raw yet profound identity, earning praise for its staunch criticism of various 1960s phenomena.  Therefore, while undoubtedly being popular and even common, Bob Dylan’s music exhibited qualities not only enriching to the typical listener but so impressionable to the weathered musician that new styles and genres emulating aspects of Dylan’s pieces sprang up shortly after his career’s conclusion.

All in all, popular music can mesh with artistic music. Simply appealing to popular taste does not disqualify music from belonging in the artistic category in which music stimulates the listener to the extent that he/she is compelled to contemplate the music played on a profound level. Nothing fundamentally prevents popular music from possessing artistic qualities.

Comparing popular music to music belonging in category of “art” is as much a practice in arbitration as it is a rift between esoteric and common. Definitions for popular music and for art music vary from individual to individual and absolutely have different components now than they did 150 years ago. For the purpose of this post, popular music will signify music that is accessible, both physically and psychologically. Fortunately, such a definition seems historically accurate and therefore probably appears in some form in most interpretations of the term. Music considered to be art, on the other hand, usually earns its label by having enriching or enlightening qualities that do more than satisfy our innate, physiological yearning for the mere audible sounds of music. These definitions make reconciliation between the foundational notions of popular and art music possible. For instance, in accordance with the aforementioned definitions, accessible yet enriching music serves as a popular-artistic musical hybrid that defies the notion that popular and artistic music cannot co-exist. Certain composers managed to produce music that qualify as such a hybrid. Beethoven, for instance, wrote music that Henry Higginson accurately depicts as capable of “teaching the uneducated” while remaining “the pinnacle of music.”¹ Beethoven’s work resonated so much with the average audience that it could enlighten the most casual listener’s understanding whilst simultaneously fulfilling the definition of art music for even the stuffiest critic. Even if it had not met the art music critic’s criteria, Beethoven’s music, by simply enriching the everyday listener’s appreciation for music, would have merited being labeled as art.

Bob Dylan also serves as an example of an artist whose music soared in popularity amidst the artistic accreditation it received. Few doubts exist about the popularity of Dylan’s music. His work was accessible both in the theme of its lyrics and the vastness of its projection; vivid and relatable topics, such as dissatisfaction with hypocrisy and superficiality in “Bringing it all Back Home, 1965” often pervaded his songs, which reached just about anyone via widespread attention on radio stations. At the same time, the music Dylan produced was unique in its raw yet profound identity, earning praise for its staunch criticism of various 1960s phenomena.  Therefore, while undoubtedly being popular and even common, Bob Dylan’s music exhibited qualities that enriched not only the typical listener but also the weathered musician whose subsequent style would  emulating aspects of Dylan’s pieces as so many artists’s did  up shortly after the conclusion of Dylan’s career. 

Bibliography