Does Authenticity Trump Quality?

« MP3 of the Week | Main | Reselling Bits »

Does Authenticity Trump Quality?

I have posted in the past that convenience trumps quality and of that I am sure.

But a confluence of moments today on my way to sun valley for a week of skiing make me wonder if authenticity also trumps quality.

It started when my friend andy forwarded his post on a rolling stones dvd from a show they did on the 1975 tour - the first with ron wood. That dvd is andy's favorite live stones show even though his wife pointed out to him that the video quality stinks and the sound quality is equally bad.

Andy goes on to wonder if the advent of hd audio and video, home theaters, surround sound, etc will lead to a world where we cannot simply appreciate the raw power of a great artist(s) at work if it lacks the quality of a modern production.

I think not andy.

On the plane to salt lake I listened to my friend jason chervokas' down in the flood. I often go back to these amazing podcasts for long flights. They are a great way to pass time when you have plenty of attention to give.

Most down in the flood podcasts feature recordings going back easily 100 years. They are scratchy, weak, and lacking anything close to modern production values.

And yet the authenticity of the performances and the raw energy and joy of the music comes through loud and clear.

And then I opened the arts & leisure section of today's new york times to find judy rosen's piece on early 20th century pop music. I am writing this on my sidekick on a short hop from salt lake to sun valley so I can't go online and listen to the internet stream of Stella Mayhew's "I'm looking for something to eat" which has been converted from wax cylinder to digital audio by the UC Santa Barabara along with another 6000 cylinders of early 20th century music.

Thank god someone is doing this. We are talking history here.

Right before I got on the plane, my friend Pat sent me an email talking about a keith richards/chuck berry duo on Little Queenie he heard this morning doing chores around the house. He was so pumped that he fired off an email to a couple buddies who could appreciate his joy.

I replied ' keith's unique sound is etched on the face of rock and roll'. This is indeed history we are talking about. 100 years from now they'll be talking about Keith Richards the way Jody talks about Stella Mayhew in todays' paper.

So I think authenticity, particularly the authentic works that artists build on, are always going to be valuable.

And I am dying to see Andy's dvd and I don't really care what the quality is as long as the performance lives up to his billing.

Sent from my mobile device

Comments (9) | | TrackBack (0)

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b2c969e200e5502237518833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Does Authenticity Trump Quality?:

Posted March 20, 2006 in Venture Capital and Technology

Comments

I'm concerned we are missing the primary point of the discussion.

The year is 2095.

Will the 14 yr old at that time, ever have a chance to listen to THINGS RECORDED IN THE 1960's or 1970's....

Or, will they say -- "I cannot even bear to hear/see that stuff -- it's unwatchable and unlistenable..."

Will they feel the same way many of us are "branded" about silent movies....how many of us will pay for old time silent movie content, or actually watch it?

Point is, the future and technology hold the previous CONTENT hostage...(like silent movies) - and my fear is, it WONT GET THE EXPOSURE it deserves....

I hope I'm wrong..but I want the kid in 2095 to at least be exposed, and have the opportunity to hear the past...and not laugh it off becasue the old time formats were so "ancient.."

Get my drift? The freaks who SEEK content will always be able to get it...

I'm concerned with the passive, who "bump" into something by accident. Then, they grow to love it, and seek out more.

Can that happen in the future, becasue of technology advances?

Posted by: Andy | Mar 20, 2006 9:28:57 AM

the kids can't bear to read Homer or Shakespeare either. maybe that's what 'education' is for. maybe some things will be reinterpreted by future artists in a way that makes them accessible. maybe if people aren't educated to appreciate them or they aren't be reinterpreted, they are just without enduring value.

maybe if in some totally unforeseeable turn of events people turn into passive consumers of crappy art, products, and thought, superintelligent robots with highly developed senses of esthetics will take over the world.

Posted by: druce | Mar 20, 2006 11:02:50 AM

Well, I'm not certain convenience trumps quality - it may for some, possible most, but not me.

I guess I'm just not that lazy - or the music is more important to me.

Posted by: jackson | Mar 20, 2006 12:20:52 PM

From an audio perspective unless we humans grow an additional set of ears I think stereo sound will satisfy and captivate for many generations to come. The bootleg stuff will always be a fans only thing I believe. With a tree camera set up I'm surprised a board mix of the show was not taped. How do I get a copy of that DVD? The Amazon link had none available. I'll watch it w/with out the wife.

Excuse me now, I need to go over to Amazon and pick up the Hail, Hail, Rock & Roll DVD...

Posted by: Tony Alva | Mar 20, 2006 12:23:39 PM

Fred, this a great question - one to which there is no answer. Take the Ford Mustang. Now, as a guy of a certain age you might really hanker for the car you loved but couldn't get when you were 17. But a 30-year-old classic ar is a huge commitment just to keep it running. Meanwhile, the new models are pretty cool and come with all the safety and efficiency to go along with the HP under the hood. Which one to choose at a similar price point?

Rock music, well - it's petty much entirely derivative now: not much you can say is truly "new" if anything, so does that chip away at its authenticity? Does it become like chamber music? Dunno really.

And here's another thought: plenty of old-time rockers, Keith Richards included, are re-releasing catalogue in remastered, souped-up versions - essentially going for quality over the authentic, scratchy vinyl? Some claim to "uncover" he real studio sound they'd always intended.

Is that quality, or is it authentic?

Posted by: Tom W. | Mar 20, 2006 2:22:40 PM

authenticity is quality.

Posted by: Charlie Crystle | Mar 20, 2006 3:30:01 PM

Fred-

I think you're talking about two very different things here. The first is the question of production quality. Poor production quality WILL, inevitably, limit the audience for great art--be it music, film, whatever. It's just a fact that a certain percentage of potential consumers are turned off by production issues.

Part of it is a question of expectations--they same people who accept a low fi bootleg knowing it's provenance may not listen to pre war blues for audio reasons alone.

As you know, I love prewar recordings and listen to them a ton, but even I am sometimes put off by poor audio. I love the Soul Stirrer Alladdin records of the 40s, but very few quality transfers are in circulation. I've even started collecting the 78s even tho, for the moment, I don't have a 78 playback device, just because I want the music for the long haul and the shit that's out there is mostly unlistenable. Similarly I love the Grateful Dead and will gladly listen to soundboard boots, but rarely audience boots.

The issue of authenticity is much more complex. In American pop culture we fetishize authenticity. But the great irony is that the authenticity we fetishize itself is an inauthentic construct. Even the great Fats Waller, composer of St. Louis Blues, concocted a cock and bull story about hearing some guy playing slide guitar in a bus station down south as the inspiration for his mid-teens composition, Yellow Dog Blues, a straight MS style blues song at a time when that kind of country blues was rarely heard outside of MS. Why? Because even Waller knew the sales appeal of "authenticity." We want "real" backwoods music, or Delta blues, the more "primative" the better. But it's all show biz. Witness blackface minstrelsy--the template for American pop and as inauthentic, at least in one way, as you can get. But the minstrel stuff that became mega popular in the mid 19th century--Daddy Rice's Jim Crow act--became that popular because for some reason the sound and identity it presented was deemed more "authentic" than all the other blackface acts of the time. Depsite it's obvious inauthenticity.

Posted by: Jason Chervokas | Mar 20, 2006 7:19:56 PM

Fred - When i read the headline of this post i was expecting a rant about your 2nd favoritie subject, nd one undercovered of late in your blog, politics.

I think its fair to say that authenticity trumps quality in politics these days too, since its so hard to actually find.

Examples that may resonate (or not):

- GW over Gore in 00. I would argue the same was true for GW of Kerry in 04. Flawed as Gore/Kerry were as candidates, there is a clear qulaity difference in terms of experience, leadership and policy to a majority of Americans.
- Dems who would vote for McCain over Hilary in '08. Certainly one could argue that quality wise McCain is no GW, but issues wise I suspect there are alot of dems out there who would vote for him even if confronted with McCains views on choice, iraq, etc.
-And finally the concerns out there about Mark Warner being "positional" rather than authentic ass raised in the Matt Bai NY Times Mag piece.

Just a thought to extend the metaphor - I think the authenticy premium applies to many things in American culture and business beyond music and politics. Like chossing a consumer product, selecting professional service providers for your business, etc.

Posted by: jasonascott | Mar 21, 2006 6:19:03 AM

Druce - Ok, I'm not old yet. Reading Shakespeare in high school was something I seem to recall people enjoying -- reading Julius Caesar and stuff out loud is entertaining if nothing else.

As for "forcing" kids to listen to music of whatever sort to educate them, isn't that music class?

Posted by: candice | Mar 22, 2006 1:48:28 AM

A VC

Musings of a VC in NYC