I don't think that's true of music, any more than it is about poetry. And it's questionable, to say the least, about painting.
>From: Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: May 16, 2018 11:57 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Nearly getting it, not quite
>I am always happy to chuck the term 'inauthentic' back at those who say it - however - yes - 'mechanical' - oh dear - this is the trouble - we can't seem to escape the word authentic. While I agree mostly with what Jaime said I can't help thinking about music and painting etc - stuff we say about feeling and energy etc, all those sorts of adjectives which share the stubborn subjectivity of authentic. The concept of 'feeling' is paramount in music, all of it probably - judgement of quality within classical music corresponds largely with 'feeling' and ditto in jazz - he/she plays with feeling - he/she plays mechanically etc. We rarely quibble about the term used in that context. The concept of authenticity is used quite freely too in connection with both being true to some original intention by the composer and by adhering to certain values. It's in rock and pop music that the word begins to become vague, misleading, problematic etc. And as for poetry... well - is it possible to be an authentic postmodernist?
>On 15 May 2018, at 23:20, Luke wrote:
>> The discussion about 'authenticity' and having to edit a MA portfolio is proving to me that I nearly get poetry, not quite. I make sense of some poems, and can say it's quite clever how it does something. But any way of generalizing to the value of a poem is a complete bluff. The best impression of a critic I can do is to say that something is too mechanical, or that I like how I felt when it clicked a little. Any help?