Authenticity from musicians, actors, athletes, etc...

dreunc1542, how do you feel about lines like "They say I can't rap about being broke no more"? Was Eminem right that by gaining wealth he had lost the privilege to rap about poverty? "Rock Bottom" is my favorite Eminem song, and "If I Had" is not far behind. I wish he still rapped about being broke.

 

That's something I've been thinking about, and my answer is that I think it still works (assuming the song is good) because rappers, and other musicians, often use personas. So it's fine as long as he's not trying to pass it off as relating to the way his life is now. I'm not sure how I'd feel if Eminem came out with a whole new album about him being poor, though. I feel like it's kind of expected that one's music grows and changes along with them. Is that a good expectation to have all the time? I'm not sure. Most rappers are at their best when they're young and hungry.

 

I think there are a lot of people who start off being pretty authentic and then it gets them into trouble and then they start listening to the PR flaks who want them to play the game.

 

Springsteen's focus on working-class problems is accepted as genuine. Why shouldn't rap artists get the same leeway?

 

I don't particularly care as long as the celeb (athlete, musician, movie star, etc etc) does not unconditionally purport to be something they are not -- or never were.

Bob Dylan hasn't been a hardscrabble working stiff pinching pennies and worrying about the daily rent for 50 years, but he was at one time, so he understands how it feels. Now Jakob Dylan, probably not.

Bruce Springsteen grew up in a lower-middle class family and struggled with money until his mid-20s. Because of bad decisions he made coming up, he didn't really become "rich" for several years after he hit the big time. It wasn't like he went from sleeping on a mattress in a boarded-up Asbury Park flophouse to a 10-room mansion overnight. He did eventually, but it took a few years.

It's a little amusing when he sends his daughter to Duke and gets her involved in equestrian competition (one of the most hoity-toity of all hoity-toity sports), but it doesn't mean Dad can never sing about working class concerns again.


The one thing he has always been careful to do is not go into a touchdown dance -- write songs screaming, "I'm so bloody rich!! I own apartment buildings and shopping centers!! Watch me burn, you fools!!"


Sure, the rap artists should get the same leeway.

 

But, that song is awesome.

 

I'm confused. Are you a fan of Milli Vanili or not?

 

If the art is authentic (or honest) - by whatever definitions we bring to bear on it - why worry about the artist?

 

Can the authenticity of the art be completed separated from the person who creates it?

 

It has to be, doesn't it?

The Pieta would be The Pieta whether or not I liked Michelangelo or found him personally trustworthy. Same with Picasso or Mozart or Hopper or Cage.

The work is the work is the work.

And art of stunning honesty and authenticity and power is often done by weak, miserable, craven individuals.

 

Fair point. Chinatown is one of my favorite movies despite Polanski's transgressions.

I hadn't really thought about in the long view that you're bringing up. When I encounter a new album, I don't do so, at least initially, with the thought of how will people view this album many years from now when the musicians, likely, fade from view and just their music is left. Instead, I consider it from the perspective of how do I enjoy it based on what I know of the album at this time, and sometimes that includes what I know of the musician who made it.

The work is still the most important aspect of it, yes. If the work sucks, I could completely connect with an artist and not care. But I also don't find myself just completely ignoring the people behind the art either.

Take someone like Wagner, for example. I'd say that his personal views affect the way some people view his works and his historical place as a composer. Not saying that's how it should be, but it certainly happens. Now, some of his antisemitism arguably comes out in his work so I guess in that case one could just be judging the work.

 

This is veering toward buck's argument on the Gatsby thread that art cannot intentionally carry a message. [Apologies if I've got that wrong, buck.]

No, we can't turn off our reactions. No matter how good the cinematography and editing in Triumph of the Will were, I still watched it thinking, "You lost, you lost, you lost." But that reaction doesn't negate the cinematography and editing.