AuthorshipandthepopularsongKeithNegusEssaypublishedinMusicandLettersVol93No4,2011,607-629.ISSN0027-4224.FinalVersionsubmitted18July2011.Forthepublishedversionpleasevisithttps://academic.oup.com/ml/article-abstract/92/4/607/1141626

2

AuthorshipandthepopularsongWithinthebroadfieldofmusicologyandmusiccriticismtheauthorascreativeoriginatorandauthorityremainsacentralfigure.WhetheracriticisconcernedwiththecanonicalgreatsofWesternartmusicoranemergingcanonofpopularmusicians;whetherascholar’sfocusiscritical,formallyanalyticalorbiographical-repertoireislocatedwithinaclearframeworkofassumptionsabouttheindividualauthorialself.Anobviousresponsemightbe;whynot?Thereareusuallyobjectivelyidentifiableindividuals,collaboratorsorgroupsofpeoplethatarelegallyrecognised,economicallyrewardedandsociallyrecognisedasthecreatorsofamusicalwork(whetherasong,astringquartetorfilmsoundtrack).Inaddition,thereisconsiderableevidencetosuggestthatmusiclistenersinterpretandunderstandsongsorsymphoniesasmotivated,authoredandintentionallycreated–notnecessarilyinamysticalormagicalmanner,butaccordingtothetechniquesandmechanismsofcompositionthatareroutinelydiscussedwithinandpresentedbythepressandbroadcastmedia,alongwithinformationaboutmusicalactivitiesacquiredovertheinternet.Theevidencetosupportthewidespreadvernacularvaluingofauthorshipinpopularmusiccanbefoundinjournalism,discussionsamongstfansoninternetforaandaplethoraofblogs.Recognitionofauthorshipisalsoapparentinscholarshipthatfocusesonindividualartistsandtheirsongs(thetextswithinwhichauthorialintentislocatedorimplied),whetherjournalarticlesorbooklengthstudies.1Evenwhentheissueisapproachedcautiously,fromthestanceofacriticalmusicologyinformedbyculturalstudiesscepticism,thenotionofauthorshipseemsunavoidable,exemplifiedinRichardMiddleton’sanalysisofhowtheEurythmicscreatedtheirmusic,imageryandperformances.AlthougharguingthattheauthorshipofAnnieLennoxandDaveStewartentailedworkingwithstylesthat‘carrytheirowndiscursivebaggage’,andmanifestedanironic,knowinguseofsignsandexistingpopelements,theauthorsarecentraltoMiddleton’sanalysis–albeitasself-consciously,postmodernist‘authors’(deliberatelyininvertedcommas)awareofandrefusingtheromantic‘mystificationsoftraditionalnotionsofauthorship’.2Hence,whetherinfantalk,journalismoracademicwriting,authorshipisroutinelyattributedtoandheardinasong’sperformanceandreadfromlyrics.Thisisnottopresupposeaconsensus,norcoherencetotheinterpretationofauthorship.Oneofthereasonsfanscometogethertodiscusssongs(whetherinpersonbeforeandafterconcerts;orinvirtualforaontheinternet;orasacademicsatscholarlyconferences)isforthepleasuresofdisagreeingandevenfiercelyarguingaboutthewayauthorsare

1SeeforexamplevariousessaysinRichardMiddleton(ed)ReadingPop:ApproachestoTextualAnalysisinPopularMusic(OxfordUniversityPress,2000)andtheseriespublishedbyEquinox,IconsofPopMusic.2RichardMiddleton‘Authorship,GenderandtheConstructionofMeaningintheEurythmics’HitRecordings’CulturalStudies,9(3),1995,465-485,468-9.Thephrase‘themystificationsoftraditionalnotionsofauthorship’isdeployedinalargelyrhetoricalmanner,withoutclarification,substantiationorillustration.

3

implicatedinthemeaningsofsongs,thestoriesandcontextsthatinformsongs,andthewidersocialsignificanceofsongs.3Acommonpointofdebateconcernstheattributionofauthorship,anissuethathasbeenprevalentinthehistoryofwesternartmusic.4Inthestudyofpopularmusicthecreditingandacknowledgingofauthorshiphasusuallybeenframedandgivenfocusbylegaldisputesaboutcopyrightandplagiarism.Yet,duringsuchdisputesitisraretofindtheresultantcriticalreflectionsaboutsocialinfluencemovingoutwardsandconnectingwithdiscussionsaboutauthorshipinotherdisciplines(musiccriticismandmusicanalysissooftenreducetheissuestostylisticinfluence,orthesimilaritiesbetweentwotexts,ignoringbroadercontextualissues).InthefirstpartofthisessayIshallsketchthecontrastingagendaspresentedbyandimplicitwithinthemusicologyandsociologyofauthorship.Iwillthenarguethatinsightsfrommusicologyandsociologycanbebroughtintodialoguewithideasdrawnfromthestudyofliteratureandnarrative,andsuggestthatthisallowsfordisaggregatingor‘unbundling’differentfacetsofanauthor’sidentity.Iaimtoproposewaysofdevelopingamusicologyofpopsongauthorship,andpointtosomeopportunitiesforinterdisciplinarydialoguesbetweenmusicology,sociologyandthestudyoffictionalnarrative.FromauthortoauteurtoabsenceWhenGeorgeHarrisonwenttocourtinanefforttodefendthesimilaritiesbetween‘MySweetLord’(1970)and‘He’sSoFine’(1962),asongcreditedtoRonaldMack,hewasfoundguiltyof‘subconsciously’copyingTheChiffons’recordingofthissongandwasrequiredtoformallyofferfinancialrecompense.5Thechargeof‘subconscious’copyingallowedHarrisontoretainhisintegrityasacomposer–hehadnotdeliberatelycopiedthesong,andthechargewascompatiblewiththewidelyacknowledgedinfluenceofearly1960sgirlgroupsontheBeatles’songwriting.6Incontrast,JohnLennonquiteconsciouslyusedlyrics,melodicphrasesandarifffromChuckBerry’s‘YouCan’tCatchMe’(1956)incomposing‘ComeTogether’(1969).LennonhaddrawnmuchinspirationfromBerryandusedlyricsandmusicalphrasesinanumberofothersongs(manymotifsthathadbeen‘borrowed’byBerryhimselffromprevioussongs).7UnlikeHarrison,Lennonreachedanoutofcourtsettlementthatentailedpaymentandanagreementtorecordthreesongs 3Varioussitesontheinternetprovideawindowintothewaysthatfanscanpassionatelyandpolemicallydebatethemeaningofsongs.Seeforexamplewww.songmeanings.net4AwellknownexamplebeingthenoveltyToySymphony,oftenplayedatChristmas.FormanyyearsthiswasattributedtoHaydn,thentoMozart’sfatherLeopold,althoughnowdoubtsremainastoitsauthorship.5Thecasecontinued,and-somewhatironically-laterresultedinHarrisonacquiringthecompanyBrightTuneswhichownedthecopyrightto‘He’sSoFine’.SeePeterDoggettYouNeverGiveMeYourMoney:TheBattlefortheSouloftheBeatles(London;Vintage,2010).6BarbaraBradby‘SheToldMeWhattoSay:TheBeatlesandGirl-GroupDiscourse’,PopularMusicandSociety,Vol28No3,(2005)pp359-390.7AsKevinHowlettwroteinthelinernotestothedoubleCDTheBeatlesLiveAtTheBBC‘Thechoiceofmaterialintheseandotherprogrammesclearlyrevealstheartistwhohadinspiredthegroup.ChuckBerryheadsthelistwithnineBBCcoverversion’,TheBeatlesRadioSessions1962-65,p9,AppleRecords,1994.ForadiscussionoftheinfluencesonChuckBerry’ssongwritingseeBrucePeggBrownEyedHandsomeMan,TheLifeandHardTimesofChuckBerry(Routledge,NewYork,2002).

4

ownedbyMorrisLevy(therightsholder).Lennon’ssubsequentversionoftheChuckBerrysongappearedonhisalbumRock’n’Roll(1975),anarrangementandrecordingwhichironicallyreferredtotheinstrumentationandambienceof‘ComeTogether’(acknowledgingthesimilaritiesbetweenthetwosongs,yetmarkingthecontrastsbetweentherecordings).TheoutofcourtsettlementmeantthatLennonalsoretainedhisintegrityasasongwriter.HewasnotobligedtoformallyacknowledgeBerry’s‘contribution’,asBrianWilsonoftheBeachBoyswasrequiredtodowiththesong‘Surfin’USA’(1963)whichbecameaChuckBerrycomposition,despiteWilson’slyrics.8Although‘ComeTogether’wascreditedasaLennon-McCartneycompositionwhenreleased,PaulMcCartneywasnotinvolvedinthedispute,anovertacknowledgmentthatitwas‘John’ssong’,allowingMcCartneytocategoricallyretainhiscreativeintegrity.Thesearejusttwoexamplesfromamongstmanyothercases,settledoutofcourt,whichhaveentailedasimilar‘deal’inwhichnoformalcompositionalauthorialcredithasbeenconcededeventhoughfinancialrecomposehastakenplace:Dealsthatallowsongwriterstoretaintheirauthorialintegrityasoriginators.9SuchdisputesillustrateWillStraw’sobservationthatthe‘problemofauthorshipinpopularmusichasnormallybeenreducedtooneoftherelationshipbetweensongwriterandsong.’10Itisthecomposerandlyricistorthesongwritersthatareroutinelyvaluedastheauthors,andthisunderpinsthelegaldisputesreferredtoabove.ThispointisfurtherillustratedinRobBowman’sstudyofthecontrastingmelodic,harmonicandtimbralqualitiesofdifferentperformancesofIrvingKing’sandHarryWoods’scomposition‘TryALittleTenderness’(1932)asrecordedbyBingCrosby(1933),ArethaFranklin(1962),SamCooke(1964)andOtisRedding(1966).ItisalsovividlyapparentinTomPerchard’sstudyoftheimprovisationsofTheloniousMonkinwhich,regardlessofhowlittleresemblancethereisbetweenMonk’sperformances(1966)and'Lulu'sBackinTown'(1935)byAlDubinandHarryWarren,the‘original’composersofwhatmoreorlessamountstoachordsequencearelegallycreditedastheauthors.11Bowman’sandPerchard’sstudiesareindicativeofasignificantmusicologicalresponsetouncriticallyreceivedromanticnotionsofauthorship,anddemonstratetheinfluenceofpopularmusicstudiesandjazzscholarshipinshiftingthefocusfromtheworktotheperformance.Or,moretentatively,inthewordsofNicholasCook,‘musicology’sfaltering 8SeePeggBrownEyedHandsomeMan162-3.9AninterestingcaseisthatofSteelyDansongwritersWalterBeckerandDonaldFagenwhoreachedanoutofcourtsettlementwithKeithJarrettoversimilaritiesbetweentheir‘Gaucho’(1980)andJarrett’s‘LongasYouKnowYou’reLivingYours’(1974).InitialunsubstantiatedreportssuggestedthatthisentailedfinancialrecompensewhilstallowingBeckerandFagentoretainsongwritingcredit.However,insubsequentpublications(mostnotablysheetmusicsongbooks),Jarretthasbeenreceivingasongwritingcredit.Acasethatisperhapsillustrativeofthreesongwritersstrugglingtoasserttheircreativeintegrity.10WillStraw‘Authorship’inBruceHornerandThomasSwiss(eds)KeyTermsinPopularMusicandCulture(Oxford,Blackwell,1999),199-208,201.11RobBowman‘Thedeterminingroleofperformanceinthearticulationofmeaning:thecaseof“TryaLittleTenderness”’,inAllanMoore(ed)AnalyzingPopularMusic,(CambridgeUniversityPress,2003).TomPerchard'TheloniousMonkMeetstheFrenchCritics:ArtandEntertainment,ImprovisationanditsSimulacrum’.JazzPerspectives,5,1,2011.

5

advancetowardsaperformancestudiesparadigm’hasbeenanattempttochallengethecentralityofthe‘musicalwork’andamovementawayfrom‘aconceptualparadigmthatconstructstheprocessassubordinatetotheproduct’.12Drawingfromtheatrestudiesandethnomusicology,Cookhasarguedthatnotatedmusicalworksshouldbetreatedas‘scripts’thatareopentointerpretationandre-interpretation.Althoughillustratedlargelywithreferencetothescoresofwesternartmusic,Cook’sarticleisindicativeofattemptstochallengecomposer-centredmusicology-tothinkabouttherelationshipbetweenacomposition(whetherapopsongorsymphony)andtheperformancesofthatcomposition.Cookisscepticalaboutastrandofperformancetheorythatwoulddoawaywiththe‘work’andmerelyinvertthepreviousparadigm,andconvincinglyinsiststhatmusicalperformancesarealwaysofsomething(andthissomethinginvolvesanauthor).Althoughperformancehasbeenincreasinglyacknowledgedasatheoreticalissue,anddespitethecriticalrecognitionaccordedtoperformers(whetherimprovisingjazzmusicians,pre-popcroonersorgirlgroups),itistheoriginatingauthor(thecomposingsongwriter)thatholdsaprivilegedplaceintheeconomicandculturalvaluingofcreativity(rightsrevenueisallocatedtothesong‘writer’andnottheinterpreter).Certainly,inthecriticalreceptionofpopmusicsincethe1960s,therehasbeenavaluingoftheperformerwhocreatestheirownmaterial-Lennon,BobDylan,StevieWonder,ToriAmosorPJHarvey-authenticatedasaformofdirectexpression,ratherthantheperformerwhoprovidesaninterpretationorrenditionofasong.13Atthesametime,anenduringlegacyfromthepre-rockerahasseenvalueaccordedtosongwritersabletocomposeforothersinsuchawayastocontributetothepersonalandstylisticidentityofasinger,whetherBurtBacharachandHalDavidwritingforDionneWarwickortheMotownRecordsteamofEddieHolland,LamontDozierandBrianHollandwhosesongshelpeddefinethemusicalidentitiesofTheSupremes,FourTops,andMarthaandtheVandellas.IfLennonandHarrisonaretwoofthemostprominentpopularsongwriterstoretainauthorialintegritydespiteobvious‘influences’,thiswasincontrasttotheambiguitiesthataccompaniedthecriticalreceptionaccordedtoMadonnaduringthe1980s.MuchcommentaryaboutMadonnaatthetimefocusedentirelyonhervisualimage,andneglectedhermusicandmusicianship.InoneofthefirstmusicologicalstudiesofMadonna,SusanMcClarylocatedsuchanapproachwithinthecontextofsocial,culturalandmusicalgenderdivisions,arguingagainstthoseatthetimewhohadneglectedMadonnaasmusician.ThefollowingcommentsthatprefacedMcClary’smusicalanalysisallowmetobeginopeningupaseriesofissuesthatIwillbeaddressingthroughoutthissection,movingincreasinglyoutwardsfromtheindividualtosocialandculturalcontext:

IwillbewritingofMadonnainawaythatassignsconsiderablecreditandresponsibilitytoherascreatoroftexts.Tobesure,theproductsascribedtoMadonnaaretheresultofcomplexcollaborativeprocessesinvolvingtheinputofco-writers,co-producers,studiomusicians,videodirectors,technicians,marketingspecialists,andsoforth.Asisthecaseinmostpop,thereisnosingleoriginarygeniusforthismusic.Yetthetestimoniesofco-workersandinterviewersindicate

12NicholasCook‘BetweenProcessandProduct:Musicand/asPerformance’MusicTheoryOnline7,2,(2001),6/2.13ForadiscussionofdebatesabouttheattributionofauthenticityinpopularmusicseeAllanMoore‘AuthenticityasAuthentication’,PopularMusic,21,2,209-23(2002).

6

thatMadonnaisverymuchincontrolofalmosteverydimensionofhermediapersonaandhercareer.Eventhoughcertaincomponentsofsongsorvideosarecontributedbyotherartists,shehaswonandfiercelymaintainstherighttodecidefinallywhatwillbereleasedunderhername.ItmaybethatMadonnaisbestunderstoodasheadofacorporationthatproducesimagesofself-representation,ratherthanasthespontaneous,‘authentic’artistofrockmythology.Butapuppetshe’snot.14

ManysubsequentwritershavetakenupMcClary’scall,andasignificantbodyofscholarshiphasendorsedandextendedthisapproachtoMadonna’sagency.Yet,Madonna’sauthorshipofsongshasstillbeenmarginalisedevenasfeministscholarshavestressedherindependenceandeditorialpower,andarguedforMadonna’scontroloverhercommodificationandself-representation.ThevaluingofMadonna’sauthorityasproducerofsignshasnotnecessarilycontributedtotherecognitionofhersongwriting.Forexample,inSheilaWhiteley’sstudyofwomenmusicianssheprovidesdetailedcasestudiesofJoniMitchell,AnnieLennox,k.d.lang,TracyChapmanandToriAmoswithfineattentiontothedetailsoftimbre,melody,harmonyandvocaltechnique.Yet,heraccountofMadonnafocusesalmostentirelyonhervideos,withverylittleattentiontomusicalcontent.15ThisscepticismaboutMadonnaascreativemusicianhasalsobeenapparentininterviews,aconspicuousexamplebeingoneconductedbysongwriterPaulZolloinwhichheprefacedhisquestionstothesingerbysaying:‘It’sinterestingtolearnthatyouhavewrittensomanyofyourownsongs’,towhichMadonnaresponded:

It’stheimagethatgetsintheway.WhatamIsupposedtodo?Theinformationisonthelabel.Iftheydon’treadit,that’snotmyproblem.I’mnotgoingtoputastickerontheoutsideofthealbumthatsays“Listen–Iwrotethesesongs!”Youknow,theypayattentiontowhattheywanttopayattentionto.16

InfocusingonMadonnaasamusician,andemphasisingherco-writingandco-production,McClarydevelopedanargumentaboutherauthorialauthoritythatwasinformedbyauteurtheory.AuteurtheorydevelopedinfilmcriticisminitiallyinFranceduringthe1950sand1960sandsuggestedthatdespite(andalsobecause)filmmakingisdependentoncollaborations(whetherconsensualorconflictridden)itisthedirectorwhoimposeshisorherwillandvisionuponthefilm.Hence,thepracticeoffilmmakingandthemanifestandlatentcontentofmoviescanbetreatedasmotivatedand‘authored’bythedirector,andberecognisedasanAlfredHitchcockorSpikeLeeorSallyPotterfilm–acommonwaythatmoviesarediscussed(regardlessofthedisputesaboutthe 14SusanMcClaryFeminineEndings,Music,GenderandSexuality(Minnesota;UniversityofMinnesotaPress,1991)149.15SheilaWhiteleyWomenandPopularMusic:Sexuality,IdentityandSubjectivity(London:Routledge,2000).ForexamplesoftheemphasisonMadonnaassubculturaliconratherthanmusicianseealsoSantiagoFouzHernandezandFreyaJarmen-IvensMadonna’sDrownedWorlds:NewApproachestoHerCulturalTransformations1983-2003(Aldershot:Ashgate,2004);CathySchwichtenbergTheMadonnaConnection:RepresentationalPolitics,SubculuralIdentitiesandCulturalTheory(Boulder:WestviewPress,1993).16PaulZolloSongwritersonSongwriting,FourthEdition,(CambridgeMA,DaCapoPress,2003),616.

7

applicationofthisterminfilmstudies).17Madonnaisnottheonlypopularmusiciantobeportrayedasauteur.RonMoyhascharacterisedKateBushasauteurandarguedthatthisconceptallowsforunderstandinghowfemalesongwriters(healsoreferstoMadonnaandBjörk)negotiateandimposetheirwill–authoringsoundsandimagery,regardlessofthecontributionofnamedmaledirectors,producers,collaborators,engineers,musiciansand‘mentors’(suchasPeterGabrielandRichardBurgess,inthecaseofKateBush).18Yet,backinthe1980sKateBushwascreditedasacreativesongwriterinafarmoredirect,traditionalandindividualmannerthanMadonna(asMoyacknowledges).And,despitetherecognitionofMadonna’sauteurialinfluence,reservationsremained.AsWillStrawobserved,highlightingtheironiesofinfluencemediatedthroughthelegalframeworkofcopyright:

Inconceivingmanyofherperformances,Madonnamayhavedrawnonthemusic,dress,andposturesofdragsubcultures,butthereisnowidespreadsensethatthesethingswerethelegalpossessionsofthosesubculturesorthatherborrowingwasanactoftheft.However,whentheseelementsbecomepartofMadonna’sownlegallyprotectedperformances,theirsubsequentborrowingbyothersmaybejudgedasanactofplagiarismordirectimitation.19

Evenwhenanalysinghowauthorshipisconstructedthroughmarketingandpublicity,asisemphasizedbyLauraAhoneninanethnomusicologicalstudyofhowauthorshipisrepresentedandcommerciallymediated,allsignsstillleadbacktoanidentifiableauthor;whethertheindividualsinger-songwriter(suchasToriAmos)orthebandthatgiveallmembersacreditas‘collective’authorsregardlessofhowthesongwascreated(suchasU2orREM),ortheauthorofamorebroadlydefinedbundleofmusicaltexts(Madonna).AhonensuggeststhattheriseoftheDJhasledtoanotionof‘diffusedauthorship’.But,onlytoasmalldegree.Samplinghasnotchallengedthenotionofauthorship,justinvolvedtheneedtocreditarangeofauthors,withtheDJassuming(oncemore)the‘auteur’role(anobviousexampleistheauthorialcreditgiventoFatBoySlimforhisquitetransparentuseofothermusicalrecordings).20 17SeeJohnCaughieTheoriesofAuthorship(BritishFilmInstitute/Routledge:London,1981)–despiteitsgeneraltitleitisconcernedwithdebatesaboutauteurshipinthestudyoffilm.18RonMoyKateBushandtheHoundsofLove(Farnham:Ashgate,2007),72-88.TheearliestapplicationofauteurtheoryinthestudyofpopularmusiccanbefoundinDaveLaingBuddyHolly(London:Macmillan,1971).SeealsoLelandA.Poague’sapplicationof‘auteur’theoryasameansoffindingaunityacrossBobDylan’soeuvre,‘DylanasAuteur:TheoreticalNotes,andanAnalysisof“LoveMinusZero/NoLimit”’TheJournalofPopularCulture8,1,(1974).19WillStraw‘Authorship’inBruceHornerandThomasSwiss(eds)KeyTermsinPopularMusicandCulture(Oxford,Blackwell,1999),199-208,201.20LauraAhonenMediatedMusicMakers:ConstructingAuthorImagesinPopularMusic,(FinnishSocietyforEthnomusicology,2007);LauraAhonenConstructingAuthorshipinPopularMusic:Artists,MediaandStardom(Saarbrücken,Germany:VDMVerlagDr.Müller,2008).

8

Thevaluingofauthorshipisfundamentaltomusiccriticismandmusicologicalexplanation-theunderstandingoftexts,andthestylisticpracticesthroughwhichtextshavebeenproduced.Yet,theissueremainsunder-interrogated.Itsimportanceisapparentintheromanticnotionofthegreatindividual(stillaninfluence),inthebroadenedsenseoftextsasauthoredthroughsomenotionofauteurialwill,andintheshifttowardsperformancestudies(aperformanceofsomething,asCookargues).Suchperspectivesareinstarkcontrasttothesociologicalcritiqueofnotionsofauthorshipwhichseekstodeemphasisetheindividual,anapproachepitomisedbytheinfluentialwritingsofHowardBeckerandPierreBourdieu.Drawingfromhisexperiencesasajazzpianoplayer,Beckerproducedaseriesofessaysduringthe1970sculminatinginthebookArtWorldsinwhichheofferedachallengetotheideathatartisproducedbyuniqueindividualsworkingalone,arguingfor‘artascollectiveaction’,andemphasising‘patternsofco-operationamongpeople’rather‘thanworksthemselvesandthoseconventionallydefinedascreators.’21Beckerdrewtheterm‘artworlds’fromitsuseineverydayconversationinthecreativearts,anddeployeditasametaphortosignalthenetworksofpeoplewhoco-operateaccordingtoasharedknowledgeofconventions,andconsensualroutines:‘Artworldsconsistofallthepeoplewhoseactivitiesarenecessarytotheproductionandcharacteristicworkswhichthatworld,andperhapsothersaswell,defineasart.’22Becker’stheoryemphasisesthecharacteristicfeaturesofthemakingofanartworkwhichareoftennotimmediatelyapparentandacknowledged,suchastheavailabilityofmaterials,distributionsystemsandtechnologies(apiano,amplificationoraconcerthall).Aboveallheemphasisesthetakenforgranted,internalisedconventionsthatresultindecisionstoselectcertainscalesandharmonies(andnotothers),orwhichdeterminethelengthofaperformance(thethreeminutepopsong).Conventionsareenabling,theyallowforartisticworktooccur,forcreativecommunicationtotakeplace;musicianscanplaytogetherbecausetheyshareknowledgeoftheconventions.Butconventionscanalsobeperceivedasconstraining.23Furthermore,Beckerstresseshowtheproductionofartsimultaneouslyentailstheproductionofreputations:‘Alltheco-operationwhichproducesartworks,then,alsoproducesthereputationsofworks,makers,schools,genresandmedia.’24BuildinguponBecker’sarguments,Bourdieudevelopedatheoryofthe‘fieldofculturalproduction’asachallengetowhathecharacterisedasthe'substantialistmodeofthought'whichforegroundstheuniqueindividual.25Bourdieuarguedthatthe‘fieldof

21SeeHowardBeckerArtWorlds(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982);‘ArtWorldsandSocialTypes’AmericanBehaviouralScientist196(1976)703-;‘ArtasCollectiveAction’AmericanSociologicalReview396(1974)767-776.22HowardBeckerArtWorlds(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982),34.23Foranextendeddiscussionofthisissuesee‘Chapter4Conventions’inKeithNegusandMichaelPickeringCreativity,CommunicationandCulturalValue(London:Sage,2004).24HowardBeckerArtWorlds(Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,1982),362.25PierreBourdieuTheFieldofCulturalProduction(Cambridge:PolityPress,2003).Bourdieu’sandBecker’sworkinformsJasonToynbeeuseoftheterm‘socialauthorship’andthenotionthatan‘authorstandsatthecentreofaradiusofcreativity…thebiggestadvantageoftreatingpopularmusicauthorshipinsuchawayisthatitenablesonetobe

9

culturalproduction’couldbeenvisagedasacompetitivearenaoccupiedbyartists,whethertheybepoets,novelists,paintersormusicians,alongwithstateandcommercialinstitutions,andotherintermediaries.Hestressedthesociologicalstrugglesoverposition,powerandprestigethat-farfromsimplyunderpinningthefield-areintrinsictothecreationofartworksandartisticreputations.Whilsthismodelwasinformedbyvarioussociologicalandanthropologicalprecedents,italsoresonatedwithalongstandingargumentabouttherecordedmusicindustry;ifanindividualwantstoberecognisedandrewardedasamusician(orvisualartistornovelist)thentheirchancesmaybeshapedbyacertaintalentandmarketablerepertoire,butthematerialchancesofrealisingsuchpossibilitieswillbedeterminedmorebyconflictsoverposition,astruggletodefinewhatconstituteslegitimateartisticpractice,ratherthananyconsensuallyacknowledgedability.LikeBecker,Bourdieuarguedthatthefieldofculturalproductionisnotonlycharacterisedbyastruggletogetcreativeworkproduced,buttohaveitcriticallyrecognised.Suchstrugglesmayinvolveauthors,critics,commercialenterprisesandacademics–allattemptingtoinfluencetheideasthroughwhichanyauthor’sworkisvaluedandappreciated.Ifmusicologicalaccountsprovidehintsandbriefglimpsesofsuchstruggles,thesociologicalapproach,afterBourdieuandBecker,seekstousesuchtensionstoshifttheargument,maintainingthattounderstandculturalproductionweshouldnotlooktowardsthelifeoftheindividual.Bourdieuwasemphatic;'theessentialexplanationliesoutsideofthemintheobjectiverelationswhichconstitutethefield.'26ForPeterMartinasociologicalapproachmustbedetachedfromtheinterpretationoftextualmeaning,aestheticjudgementandthecreativityofmusicians;‘wemustremainindifferenttotheargumentsofmusicians,critics,andsoonintheirvariousdebatesanddisputes.’27Suchasociologicalcritiqueofauthorshipmightallowforcontrastingperspectivesonthesongwritersreferredtoabove.Forexample,itwouldbepossibletoarguethatneitherChuckBerrynorJohnLennonshouldbeisolatedandelevatedasexemplaryindividuals,butinsteadshouldbesociallylocatedwithindistinctfolk,bluesandrock’n’rolltraditions,alongwiththefieldsofcommercialmusicproductionthatareframedbynotionsofindividualownershipandthepowerfulideologicalforceofcopyrightlawwhichprotectsamodelofprivatisedintellectualproperty.28Whatsooftenappearsasthecontextandbackdroptoamusician’srisetoprominenceandcriticalrecognition(thesociologicalconditionswhichtheindividualmanagestomusicologicallytranscend)shouldbeemphasised.InBourdieu’sterms,thecreativeandculturalrecognitionofauthorsshouldbeviewedassociallyconstitutedratherthantheresultoftalentorgenius.29 scepticalaboutgrandclaimstocreativeinspiration’MakingPopularMusic:Musicians,CreativityandInstitutions(Arnold;London,2000).26BourdieuFieldofCulturalProduction30.27PeterJ.Martin,SoundsandSociety:ThemesintheSociologyofMusic(ManchesterUniversityPress,1995),12.28TheprofoundinfluenceoflegaldefinitionsofauthorshiparediscussedandillustratedinJaneGainesContestedCulture:TheImage,theVoiceandtheLaw(ChapelHill:UniversityofNorthCarolinaPress,1991).29So,forexample,sociologistRichardPetersonmadethefollowingcommentswhenexplainingtheemergenceofrock’n’roll:‘Thereadermayhavenotedthatoneimportantoccupationaltypeseemstobemissing,thecreativeartist,thegenius.SomeperformersinvolvedwiththeadventofrockincludingChuckBerry,LittleRichard,andElvisPresley

10

Insightfulassuchanapproachmightbeinilluminatingthesocialconditionswithinwhichanysongwritermightreceivedeconomicrewardandcriticalrecognition,Iremainscepticalofthesociologicalapproachduetothewayitsimplyreversestheimbalancedaccountoftherelationshipbetweenindividualcreativityandsocialcontext.ThisisapparentwhenBourdieuarguesthat'positiontakingsarisequasimechanically-thatisalmostincidentallyoftheagentsconsciousnessandwills.'30Thespecificqualitiesofsongsandthewaytheyresonate(anddonotresonate)withothermusiciansandlargenumberslistenersisevadedorisdissolvedintoafieldofbattlesforpowerandprestige;withartisticreputationsexplainedsolelyintermsofsocialstrugglesoverideasandresources.Whilstthereiscertainlyavalueinadvocatingsuchanapproach,particularlytocontestnaïvenotionsofgenius,asIhavearguedelsewhereinabookco-authoredwithMichaelPickering:

Inculturalstudiesandthesociologyofculture,geniusisoftencritiqued,ordismissedentirely,becauseofanoverridingconcerntoreconceivecreativityasamoregeneralphenomenonthanthatadvancedinconventionalaestheticcanons.Whilethisisself-evidentlylaudable,ithascreatedahugeobstacletothinkingaboutexceptionalityinculturalcreativity.Itisonethingtoargueagainstelitismbutquiteanothertoattributecreativity,equally,toeveryone.Thisismisleading–flatteningtheconceptintoinsignificance.31

Whilstonlyafewsongwritersmayreceivetheepithetgenius,itisthisissuethatisattheheartofthetensionsanddisputesbetweenmusicologyandsociology.Musiccriticisminsiststhatthereissomethingthatmakesmusicandmusiciansspecial;thatthereissomethingmorethanthefieldofculturalproductioncanoffer.TheuniquequalitiesofMilesDavisortheBeatlesorBjörkcannotbesociologisedaway.Anyonewithknowledgeofthesemusiciansknowsthattheydidnotcreatemusicinisolation,norinamysticalmanner.Thereisnothingverymysteriousaboutrecentseriousmusicalstudiesofthewaytheseartistscreatedtheirwork.32Nomatterhowmuchcontextandcollaborationisaddedtothepicture,theirauthorshipwillnotgoawayandiscentraltoanyunderstandingoftheirmusicanditsinfluence.Incertainrespectsthemusicologyofthepopularsongisstillgrapplingwithaquestionthathasbeenprevalentinthestudyoffictionalnarrativeandliterature,andwhich-intermsofwrittenrecordsinthewesterntradition-goesbacktoPlato.Itisthatdeceptivelysimplequestion;whatisanauthor?Itimpliestwofurtherquestions:What haverecentlybeencalledgeniuses.Atthetime,however,theywerenotsodesignated,nordidtheyactthepart’.‘Why1955?ExplainingtheAdventofRockMusic’,PopularMusic9(1990),114.TiaDeNorahasappliedBourdieu’sapproachtoastudyofthe‘socialconstruction’ofBeethoven’s‘genius’seeBeethovenandtheConstructionofGenius(Berkley;UnivofCaliforniaPress,1997).ForacritiqueofthisseePeterKivyThePossessorandthePossessed,Handel,Mozart,BeethovenandtheideaofMusicalGenius(YaleUniversityPress:NewHaven,2001).30BourdieuFieldofCulturalProduction59.31KeithNegusandMichaelPickeringCreativity,CommunicationandCulturalValue,14932SeeforexampleWalterEverettTheBeatlesasMusicians:theQuarryMenThroughRubberSoul(OxfordUniversityPress,2001);NicolaDibbenBjörk(Equinox;London,2009);IanCarrMilesDavis,TheDefinitiveBiography(London,HarperCollins,1999).

11

doesanauthordo?Whatisentailedintheprocessofauthoring?Overalongperiodoftime,thosedebatingthesequestionshavedealtwithconceptsoforiginality,representation,creativity,andcommunicationalongwithnotionsoftheself,subjectandgenius.33Inthecontemporarystudyofpopularmusic,thesequestionspermeatediscussionsofindividualmusicians(whetherDylanorMadonna),andcanbefoundroutinelypositedininterviewswithsongwritersandinterrogatedinacademicstudies.Inthisway,alongtraditionofwritingaboutpoetryandfictionfeedsintothestudyofthepopularsong(whetheracknowledgedornot).Thesociologicalcritiquetakesofffromalaterpointonthistrajectoryofdebateaboutauthorship,anddovetailsintoanemphaticrejectionoftheauthorasthepointofauthorityforallattributionsofintentionality,expressionandmeaning.ItisnocoincidencethatBourdieu’stheoryofthefieldofculturalproductionwasbeingdevelopedinarticlespublishedfrom1968,theyearafterhisFrenchcompatriotRolandBarthesfirstpublishedacriticalandconceptualexecutionoftheauthor.Asiswidelyknown,the‘deathoftheauthor’wasaphraseintroducedinabriefessaybyBarthesandofferedanovertchallengetotheideathatthemeaningofanytextcanbefixedandunderstoodinrelationtothefigureoftheauthor.Contemporaneouswithsociologistswishingtotransferattentiontobroadersocialconditionsandinfluences,Barthesarguedforashiftinprocessesofinterpretation;amovefromanauthoritativetexttointer-textualreferencepoints;fromauthor’sintentionstoreader’sinsights.WhilstBarthesworkissignificantinraisingcriticalquestionsabouttheapparentunityofanyauthorialidentity,inpracticetheideawasoftenappliedinsuchawaythatthereadernowbecamethe‘author’ofthetext.Ifthemeaningofanytextisnotfixedbutforeveropentovariousinterpretations,thenitisnolongertheoriginatorwhoshouldbeheldupastheauthorityonthismatter.Theinterpretationsoftheviewer,reader,andlistenershouldbeintegraltohowartworksareunderstood.Despitetheapparentlydemocratisingandpluralisticsentimentsthathaveoftenaccompaniedtheapplicationofthisneworthodoxy,thedeathoftheauthorandtheapparent‘riseofthereader’hasprovedtobelessaboutrevealingandsupportingtherealresponsesofordinaryreaders,butinsteadameansofelevatingtheprominentinterpretationsoftheprofessionalcriticandscholar.Strikingly,asSeánBurkehasargued,indenyingtheauthor–inseekingtoremovetheauthorfromthediscussion-suchanapproachmerelyemphasizestheauthor’spresence;theauthoracquiresagreatersignificanceduetoherorhis(apparent)absence.Burkealsohighlightsthecontrastbetweenatheorythatsoughttoeradicatetheauthorfromdiscussionoftexts,andwidespreadpublicbeliefsandpracticeswherebytextsareheard,seenandreadasauthoredandauthorsareintegraltohowatextisdiscussedandinterpreted.34Abeleagueredauthoremergesfromtheargumentssofar;clingingtotheircreativeintegrityinthefaceofaccusationsofpersonalplagiarism,passivecomplicityintheirsocialconstructionandcommercialmediation,wilfulconceitinstrugglesforpowerandprestige.Thisisnotthenaïve,mysticalgreatindividualthatistheobjectofsociologicalscepticismanduneaseamongstcriticalmusicologists.Itisanauthor–andanideaoftheauthor-thatismore 33SeeSeánBurkeAuthorship:FromPlatotothePostmodern(EdinburghUniversityPress,1995).34SeánBurkeTheDeathandReturnoftheAuthor:CriticismandSubjectivityinBarthes,FoucaultandDerrida,SecondEdition(EdinburghUniversityPress,1998).

12

obviouslymediated,constructedandcontested.Itisneitherthegreatindividualimpliedinacertaintrajectoryofmusiccriticismandmusicology,norisittheenigmaticphantomconjuredupbysocialforces,fieldsofproductionandbattlesforresourcesandprestige.Itisafarmoretentativeauthor,anauthorthatIbelievecanbeilluminatedandanimatedbytheapplicationofideasdrawnfromthestudyofnarrative,alongwithinsightsfromstudyofsongsandstardom.Betweentherealauthorandthepublicpersona:negotiatingauthorshipinthepopularsongInhisinfluentialbookTheRhetoricofFictionWayneCBootharguedthatadistinctioncouldbemadebetweenthe‘realauthor’ofanytextandits‘impliedauthor’,termsthathavebeenadoptedwidelyinthestudyoffictionalnarrative.35Whatanyaudiencemember,criticorscholarknowsofthe‘real’authorofanarrativemaybeinformedbyextensiveinformationacquiredthroughfirsthandexperience,facetofaceencounteroritmaybebaseduponverylimitedknowledgeaccruedfromtextsormediaandgossip.Therealauthorcouldbeidentifiableasoneperson(anovelist,poetorsongwriter)oritmightbemanypeople,asinthemakingofafilm,thecontinualchangesandadditionstoafolkballadpassedonorallyovermanyyears,oratrackcreatedbyasongwriting/productionteam.Iftherealauthorisoneperson,heorshemayholdincoherentorinconsistentviews(evidencedinpublicstatementsorininterviews)orwemaybeawarethatthispersonhaschangedtheirbeliefssincecreatingaparticularfictionalorfactualwork.Iftherealauthorismorethanoneperson–themembersofarockbandandtheirproducer,thewritersofaraptrack,forexample-itmightbeimplausibletoreducesuchcontributionstoanyonesetofauthorialattributes,beliefsandexperiences.Booth’suseofthistermanditsadoptioninnarratologydoesnotpresupposeatranscendent,unifiedandknowable(andcoherentlyselfknowledgeableindividual).Instead,itplacestheauthorininvertedcommas,orinbrackets,orsimplytooneside,asslightlyunknowable.Itiscertainlynotincompatiblewiththeclaimthatarealauthor’sidentitymaybeconstitutedandrealisedthroughaseriesofpositiontakingsinthefieldofculturalproduction.Itattemptstolightlyundermineanyreificationofauthorshipbyarguingthattherealauthorcanbedifferentiatedfromthe‘impliedauthor’,whichHPorterAbbotsummarisesas‘thatsensibility(thatcombinationoffeeling,intelligence,knowledge,andopinion)that“accountsfor”thenarrative.’36Abbottsuggeststhattherealauthorisgenerallyknowableonlyasafact,butnotreallyasasensibility.Theconceptofthe‘impliedauthor’canbeusedtodisrupttheideathatthemeaningoftextscaninanystraightforwardwaybeattributedtotheexperiences,values,beliefsofthepersonor

35WayneCBoothTheRhetoricofFiction(Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,1961).Seealsohislaterre-statementofthevalueofthisapproach,‘ResurrectionoftheImpliedAuthor:WhyBother?’inJamesPhelanandPeterRabinowitzACompaniontoNarrativeTheory(Blackwell,Oxford,2005).SeealsodiscussioninH.PorterAbbottTheCambridgeIntroductiontoNarrative(CambridgeUniversityPress,2002).AsIwasfinishingthefinaldraftofthisessayIdiscoveredLoriBurn’suseofsimilartermsdrawnfromSeymourChatman(impliedauthor,narrator,narratee,impliedreader)‘VocalAuthorityandListenerEngagement’inMarkSpicerandJohnCovach(eds)SoundingOutPop:AnalyticalEssaysinPopularMusic(UniversityofMichiganPress,2010),154-186.36AbbottTheCambridgeIntroductiontoNarrative,77.

13

peoplenamedasauthoronthecredits(eventhoughthethreadsdoleadtowardsoneormorerealpeople).Takingafurtherstep,adistinction(againdrawingfromBooth)canalsobemadebetweenthe‘impliedauthor’andnarrator,theonewhotellsthestoryorspecificpartsofthestory.Anovelmaybenarratedinthefirstperson(‘Iwasarrivingatthestation…’)orthirdperson(‘Shewasarrivingatthestation…’)andlessfrequentlyinthesecondperson(‘Youwerearrivingatthestation…’).Inasimilarway,asongmaybenarratedinthefirstperson;it’shappeningorhappenedtome:‘Irememberthethirty-fivesweetgoodbyes’,‘yesterday,allmytroublesseemedsofaraway’.Or,asongmaybenarratedinthethirdpersonsingular:‘He’sarebel’,orthirdpersonplural‘Alltheauthorities,theyjuststandaroundandboast’.Unlikemanynarrativeforms,songsregularlyaddressthelistenerinthesecondperson.37Thisisunusualinnovels,andrelativelyrareinfilmanddrama(apartfromwhenthecameramediatesthedialoguebetweencharacters).Thisisinpartbecausepopularsongsdrawfromanoraltraditionofdirectlyaddressinganaudience(you–singularandplural)andbecausesongsmakeextensiveuseofvernacularspeechwherebythecasualuseofthesecondperson‘you’issubstitutedfor‘I,’deliberatelyorcoincidentallyimplicatingthelistener.Interviewswithsongwriters,andscholarlystudies,makeitclearthatsongsarewrittenandsungwithanawarenessthatlistenersoftenidentifywiththe‘you’inphrasessuchas‘Iloveyou’or‘youreallygotme’(she/heissingingtome),astapleofthelovesong.38But,the‘you’isnotalwaysanunnamedlovedone.InhisscornfulandindignantsongofbetrayedtrustBobDylanopens‘Positively4thStreet’(1965)withtheline‘You’vegotalotofnervetocallyourselfmyfriend,whenIwasdownyoujuststoodtheregrinning’.Thenarratorgoesontorecountthevariouswaysthatthisunnamed‘you’haslethimdown.In1981MarkBoothwrotethatthissonghas‘surelyfoundnoguiltylistenerwhoidentifieswiththeaddressee.’3915yearslaterSimonFrithagreed:‘IthinkitwouldbeimpossibletoreadBobDylan’s‘Positively4thStreet’asifwewerethe‘you’atissue’.40Bothwritersareinagreement:Alistenerwouldnothearthe‘you’inthissongasaddressedtohimorher;‘we’canidentifywiththesingerbecauseitallowsustoarticulatesimilarfeelingsofdisappointmentthatwemighthaveexperienced.Wearewiththesinger,thatisourpointofview,directedatourown‘you’.

37In2010aBritishnewspaperproducedasummaryofthemostrecurrentwordsinalltheBeatlesrecordedsongs.Themostfrequentwordis‘you’(occurring2262times),followedby‘I’(1736times),thetwowordsoftenfeaturingtogetherinthatperennialromantictropeofthepopsong-‘Iloveyou’.‘Beatleslyricsandthewordstheyusedmost’,TheGuardianonline,http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/datablog/2010/nov/16/beatles-lyrics-words-music-itunesaccessed6June2011.38ForadiscussionofthisissueseeTimMurphy‘TheWhen,Where,andWhoofPopLyrics:TheListener’sPrerogative’PopularMusic,8,2,1989,185-193.39MarkBoothTheExperienceofSongs(NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress,1981),17.40SimonFrithPerformingRites,OntheValueofPopularMusic(Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,1996),184.

14

YetbiographiesandmemoirssuggestthatsomepeopleinGreenwichVillagedidinterpretthesongasdirectedatthem.West4thStreetiswhereDylanhadfirstplayedatGerde’sFolkCity,wherehehadlivedinanapartmentandwherehehadmetJoanBaez.Thesongisa‘valedictorytotheGreenwichVillagescene’andmanypeople,includingIzzyYoungwhoranafolklorecentreinGreenwichVillageandIrwinSilberfounderandeditorofSingOut!magazine,thoughtthatitwasdirectedatthempersonally.41Dylanmayhavebeenvagueinthe‘you’heusedinthesonglyric.Buthegavethesongatitlethatclearlylocatedhisrageinaparticulargeographicallocation–4thStreet.Thesonglyricmaynotbespecific(‘you’and‘me’).Itisthetitlethatcontainsthesting.Theuseofpersonalpronounsisjustoneaspectoftherhetoricalartofthesong,aqualitythatFrithhasemphasizedandwhichbothBoothandDavidLodgehavehighlightedintheirwritingsaboutnovelsandliteraryfiction.Throughpersonalpronouns-‘I’,‘you’,‘him’,‘us’,‘them’-charactertraitscanbeconveyedinaneconomicalmanner,allowingfortheblendofprecisionandvaguenessthatisfoundin‘Positively4thStreet.’Likenovels,allsongscontaincharacters.Thecharactersmaybetypesorstereotypes-thehomelovingorfallenwoman;themaleoutlaworramblingman–bothtypesafeatureofcountry,bluesandrock.Thenarratormaybethecentralcharacterormightbecommentingon,orindialoguewithothercharacterswithinasong.In‘LeaderofthePack’recordedbytheShangri-Las(1964),thenarratorBettyiswearingJimmy’sring,andindialoguewithherfriends.ShetellsofherloveforJimmy(theleaderofamotorbikegang),referstoherparent’sdisapprovalandnarratesJimmy’seventualdramaticdeathfromamotorbikeaccident.Popsongsarepopulatedwithstrikingiconicfiguressuchas‘JohnnyBGoode’(1958),ChuckBerry’spoorcountryboywhocouldplayaguitar‘likearingingbell’andwhoisdestinedforfame;SydBarrett’scrossdressing‘ArnoldLayne’(1967)whose‘hobby’ofstealingwomen’sclothesfromwashinglinesgetshimarrested;theBeatles’miserly‘MeanMrMustard’(1969)andviolentMaxwellEdisonof‘Maxwell’sSilverHammer’(1969);DollyParton’s‘Jolene’(1974),theflirtatious,attractiverivalforherman’sattentions;WalterBecker’sandDonaldFagen’s‘KidCharlemagne’(1976),theundergroundchemistwhosuppliesLSDtothecountercultureandwhoisarrestedwhenhiscarbreaksdown;RubénBlades‘PedroNavaja’(‘PetertheKnife’)(1978)acharactertakenbysurprisedandshotasheassailsawomeninpossessionofaSmithandWesson38Special–asongsetinNewYork’sLatinbarrioandwhichpayshomagetoBertoltBrechtandKurtWeill’s‘BalladofMacktheKnife’(1928);DavidBowie’sotherworldlyZiggyStardust(1972)anddisturbed,decadentAladdinSane(1973);Speech’s(ToddThomas)‘MrWendal’(1992)awisehomelessmanbefriendedbythenarrator;orEminem’s(MarshallMathers)scurrilous‘RealSlimShady’(2000).Incontrast,characterisationinpopularsongsmaybeimplied,intimatedandimpressionistic,asexemplifiedinthesongsofREMandNekoCase.Thelatter’s‘PeopleGotaLottaNerve’(2008)followstherealauthor’spracticeofdeliberatelycomposingambiguouslyrics,andmight(ormightnot)beheardasatalenarratedfromtheperspectiveofananimalexploitedbyhumans,whilstplayingwiththeclichédideaof

41DavidHajduPositively4thStreet:theLivesandTimesofBobDylan,JoanBaez,MimiBaezFariñaandRichardFariña(London;Bloomsbury,2001),279.

15

womanasman-eater.42Thecharactersinpopsongsaresignalledfromthepropertiesthatcanbeheard(thewordsused,actions,names,musicalarrangement–thequalitiesofthe‘I’or‘you’)andfromthatwhichcanbeinferred(thetraitsthatmaybeimpliedthroughallegoryandmetaphor).43Whilstthedistinctionsbetweenimpliedauthor,narratorandcharacterarerelativelystraightforwardinthestudyofliteraryfiction,whenitcomestosongs,thesensibilityimputedtotheimpliedauthor,andtheidentityofthenarrator,andtheattributesofcharactersthatappearinthesongcannotbeisolatedfromthepublicpersonaorstarimageofthesongwriterorsinger.44Thisisnotonlythecaseforsongwritersthatsingtheirowncompositions,butwhenasongiscreateddeliberatelytocontributetothepersonaofasinger-whetherPaulAnka’sre-writingof‘Commed’Habitude’into‘MyWay’(1969)asananthemofindividualachievementagainstadversityspecificallyforFrankSinatra;orthe20orsocreditedmalesongwriters/producersthatcontributedthetrackstoRihanna’salbumRatedR(2009).WhenAnnPowersreviewedthisalbumfortheLosAngelesTimesshereferredtoitsreleaseafterawidelypubliciseddomesticassaultbysingerChrisBrown,anddescribeditas‘acomplexandfascinatingportraitofayoungwoman’semotionalprocessafterenduringabuse.’Powersheardsongsthat‘expressthewholerangeofwhatanabusedwomangoesthrough’andcalledthealbum‘aportraitoflivedexperiencethatdoesn’tstepbackfromwhat’shardesttoadmit.’Powersresponsewasinformedbystoriesinthemedia,andabeliefintheexpressivityofasingerabletochannelauthenticemotionsintothesongsandtrackscomposedforherbyateamofmalewriters.45Whenchallengingothernaïvequestsforauthenticityinthemusicologyofpopularsongs,AllanMoorehasarguedthatwhatavocalistpresentsinanysongisapersonaratherthananauthenticexpressionofrealperson.46MooredrawsfromEdwardTCone’sworkonthecomposer’s‘voice’inWesternartmusic,anddevelopstheideabyconsideringhowapersonaisconveyedthroughlyric,vocalmelodyandaccompaniment.Forexample,hecitesthewayRichardThompsonuses‘theobsessiverepetitionofthesequenceDm-Bm-Gm-E’to‘amplify’hisarticulationofthe‘disintegrationofarelationship’inthesong‘The 42Iamreferringtoambiguitythatisdeliberatelyproducedaspartofasongwritingstrategy,andnotdivergencesofinterpretationbylisteners.AsAllanMoorehasnoted;‘withmanysongs,ambiguityisonlytheresultofunfamiliaritywithidiom,andisthusdependentuponthenatureoflisteners’competence’‘ThePersona-EnvironmentRelationinRecordedSong’MusicTheoryOnline11,4,2005,6.43IamalsodrawingherefromDavidLodge’sargumentsaboutfiction,andthewaytheidentityofcharacterscanbeinterpretedfromtheiractions,attributesandspeech.Lodgealsowrites:‘Thenamingofcharactersisalwaysanimportantpartofcreatingthem…inanovelnamesareneverneutral’TheArtofFiction,(London:Penguin,1992)37.44Therearecertainauthorswhose‘star’presencedeeplyaffectstheinterpretationofthecharactersintheirwork,andwhoactuallyplayonthisintheirwritings.Examplesmightincludethewaythe‘characters’ofMartinAmisandPaulAusterappearintheirfictionalwritings.SeealsoJoeMoranStarAuthors:LiteraryCelebrityinAmerica(London,PlutoPress,2000).45AnnPowers‘AlbumReview:Rihana’s‘RatedR’LosAngelesTimes,November232009,http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/music_blog/2009/11/album-review-rihannas-rated-r.htmlaccessed14June2011.46AllanFMooreRockThePrimaryText(OpenUniversityPress,1992)

16

WayThatItShows’.47Moore’sargumentissuggestiveofhowanimpliedauthorandfictionalcharacterisationareconveyedthroughtheinterplayofmelodyandaccompaniment,orvoiceandsetting.Yet,itisnotonlyinthesongtextthatapersonaispresent.Studiesofpopularmusicperformance,notablyPhilipAuslander’swork,allowforMoore’s‘musicalpersona’tobeextendedtoencompassallaspectsofperformancewhen‘musiciansplayforanaudience’48,asdoesscholarshiponstardomwhichstresshowknowledgeofarealauthorismediatedbytheir‘starimage’.49Thestarimageandperformingpersonaaddsfurthercomplicationstothewaypersonalidentityandtextualmeaningarecreated,particularlywhentheauthor’spublicidentityistransparentlymanneredandstudiedasinEminem,EltonJohn,AliceCooper(initiallythenameofaband,andthenthepublicpersonaofVincentFurnier),ElvisCostello,LadyGaga,DavidBowie,MarilynMansonandperhapslessobviouslyBobDylan–mostofthesecouldbethoughtofasinventedcharacters,adoptingvariouspersonasorapersona,singingsongsaboutfictionalcharacters.Thistheninformstheauthorshipofsongs,whetherStefaniGermanottaiswritingfor‘herself’asLadyGaga,orMaxMartinwritingfortheBackstreetBoys,orDamonAlbarniswritingforthe‘fictional’bandGorillaz.50Thesedistinctionsbetweendifferentauthorialidentitiescanbeexploredfurtherwithreferencetotworelativelywell-knownsongswrittenbyRayDaviesandrecordedbytheKinks-‘VillageGreenPreservationSociety’and‘Lola’.IneachcasetherealauthorisRayDavies,oneofthemostcriticallyacclaimedsongwriterstohavecometoprominenceduringtheearlyrockeraofthe1960s.Thesongsarecopyrightedtohisname.Theimpliedauthorisaparticularsensibilitythathasbeenconveyedbythesongs,notonlylyrically,butalsothroughinstrumentationandvocals,alongwithmelodiesandarrangementsthatarefrequentlycharacterisedby‘sing-a-longsthatoweasmuchtofamilyget-togethersastheydotothemusichalltradition.’51Theimpliedauthorofthesesongsmaybeheardaswhimsical,bewildered,anddoubtful-theviewsofamanwhofeelsoutoftimeandplace,slightlyestrangedand‘notlikeeverybodyelse’(aphraseusedasthetitleofoneofRayDavies’ssongs).Atthesametimeitisanauthorialsensibility‘withagreatcapacitytosympathizewithothers’,characterisedbyaconcernwith‘thecontemporaryindividual’srelationshipwithfamily,place,thepast,nationalidentity,technology,thestate,andinternalforces’alongwith‘theindividualinvariousstatesofconfusionandincompleteness.’52Thesong‘TheVillageGreenPreservationSociety’isthefirsttrackonthealbumTheKinksAreTheVillageGreenPreservationSociety,athemed‘conceptalbum’releasedin1968that(asmanycommentatorsnoted)representedamusicalandlyricalcontrastfromthe 47AllanF.Moore‘ThePersona-EnvironmentRelationinRecordedSong’MusicTheoryOnline11,4,2005,7.48PhilipAuslander‘MusicalPersonae’TheDramaReview50,1(2006),100-199;102.49SeeLeeMarshall,BobDylan,TheNeverEndingStar(Cambridge:Polity,2007)7.50ForadiscussionofGorillaz’sauthorshipseeLarsEckstein‘TorpedoingtheAuthorshipofPopularMusic:aReadingofGorillaz’‘FellGoodInc.’PopularMusic28,2,2009,239-255.51AndyMillerTheKinksAreTheVillageGreenPreservationSociety(Continuum;London,2003),19.52ThomasKittsRayDavies,NotLikeEverybodyElse(Routledge;NewYork,2008),252.

17

contemporaryrealitiesofanti-Vietnamwarprotests,racialtensions,andrevolutionarystrugglesonuniversitycampusesandcolonialterritories.Itwasalsostylisticallyatoddswiththewaysuchconflictsweregivensonicexpressionthatyear,insongssuchas‘StreetFightingMan’bytheRollingStones’sandJimiHendrix’sdistortedandsearingguitartexturesonElectricLadyland.ThenarratorofthesongadoptsthevoiceofaconservativerepresentativeoftheVillageGreenPreservationSociety.Ormoreaccurately,thesongissunginthefirstpersonplural–‘wearethevillagegreenpreservationsociety’-asifitisananthem,thesongofthissociety.Suchanaddressisnotuncommoninpopularsongs,andimpliesa‘we’andan‘us’.Inthiscasethe‘we’and‘us’isrelativelyclear;itisaspecificfictionalsocietydedicatedto‘preservingtheoldways’andtheseviewsarebeingpresentedtolisteners.The‘we’and‘us’ofpopularsongsisfrequentlylessprecise.Itmayrefertotwopeopleinarelationship(‘wedon’ttalkanymore’)oritcanimplicatethelisteneras‘us’deliberatelyorinadvertentlyprovokinganassentordissent,asintherefrain‘wedon’tneednoeducation’,or‘wearetheworld’whichprovokedReebeeGarofalotorespond‘ifwearetheworldthenhowdowechangeit?’53Inthiscase‘we’arebeingaskedtoagreethatthevillagegreenshouldbesaved.Incommentaryovermanyyears,thealbumhasbeenroutinelycharacterisedasawhimsicalnostalgicpaeanforalostEngland,wistfullyevokinganidealisedvillage,andwithgoodreason:ThetitlesongasksGodtosavealistofsuchrecognisablyEnglishentitiesasdraughtbeer,strawberryjam,theGeorgeCross,MrsMopp(aradiocharacter),SherlockHolmes,the‘English-speakingvernacular’,chinacups,OldMotherRiley(musichallact)andTudorhouses.Yet,theopeningandclosingline-themostrepeatedphraseoftherecordedsong,apartfromthechorus-asksforDonaldDuck,VaudevilleandVarietytobesaved.ThispromptedAllanMooretoremark‘EvenintheEnglishvillage,thepresenceofsafeAmericanculturalheroesisaccepted.’54However,thetheatrestyleknownasVaudevilleisalsonotcharacteristicallyEnglish,havingdevelopedinNorthAmerica,andtheprominencegiventoDonaldDuckisquitedeliberate.55Itisbothironic(fullycognisantofitsincongruencewithanEnglishvillagegreen)andcomic,suggestingaDisneyesquevillagegreen–agreenthatmightappearincartoons,orthecaricatureofavillagegreenthatmaybepastichedataDisneyWorldorDisneyland.Yet,thesong’scartoonsurfaceisundercutbyamoreprofoundandpessimisticsensibility.‘TheVillageGreenPreservationSociety’drawsfromaneo-pastoraltraditionofmusic,poetryandfictioninwhichtheanxietiesaboutthepresent(urbanisation,rationaltownplanning,modernistarchitecture,statebureaucracyandsurveillance)areresolvedthrougharetreatintoanidealisedpastoralsimplicity;an

53ThefirstbeingthewellknownrefraininRogerWaters’‘AnotherBrickintheWall’(1979)asrecordedbyPinkFloyd;thesecondbeingasongcomposedbyMichaelJacksonandLionelRitchiewhichprovokedReebeeGarofalotorespond‘ifwearetheworldthenhowdowechangeit?’ReebeeGarofalo‘UnderstandingMegaEvents:IfWeAreTheWorldThenHowDoWeChangeIt?’inRGarofalo(ed)Rockin’theBoat:MusicandMassMovements(Boston:SouthEndPress,1992).54AllanMooreRock,ThePrimaryText,101.55KittsdetailstheconsiderabletimeandeffortthatDavieshasdevotedtodraftingandredraftinghislyrics.RayDavies,NotLikeEverybodyElse.

18

enduringaestheticlegacy,tracedbyRaymondWilliams,inwhich‘thepeaceofcountrylife’iscontrastedwith‘thepoliticalchaosofthecities.’56Musicallythesongisbasedonastraightforwardrepeatingstrophicsequenceofthreechords(C,G,F).ThevoicingofGandFinthefirstinversioncontributesasenseofunrootedness(orasearchforrootsinthevillage).Themelodyrunsineasytosingdiatonicstepsupanddownthescale-thequalityofananthemthatordinarypeoplecansingalongwith.Thesong’sordinariness,anditssenseofirony,isalsosignalledbya‘truckdriver’sgearchange’,modulatingupwardsatonetoD,atrickthatiscorny,over-familiarandverymuchanodandwinktowardsvaudevilleandvariety;‘apainfullypredictableshowofamateurdramatics…acheap,tackywayofgeneratingartificialmomentum’accordingtoDominicPedler.57Incontrasttothissunnykitschpastoral,‘Lola’(1970)isasongofthenocturnalcity,openingwithreverbladen,lightlydistorted,sardonicguitarchordsascendingC,Dtothesong’skeyofE,asweenteraLondonSohobarwherethechampagne‘tastesjustlikeCocaCola’,instantlylocatingtheactioninasleazypartoftownfarfromtheinnocenceofthevillagegreen.Thefirstpersonnarratorisaman,confusedaboutgender,sexualityanddesire,recountinganencounterwithatranssexualoratransvestite,ambivalentastowhetheritisapleasurableexperience,embracingananxietyandconfusionthatis,again,farfromtheethosofthevillagegreen.Itisacamprockballadthat‘tapsintotheenergyofarichhistoryinEnglandandEuropeofcross-dressingbothforsubversivepurposesandforfun.’58Itisagainstrophic,usingsimpletriads(E,A,D)andasing-alongmelodythatdeploysafamiliar‘lalalalala’refrain(‘lalalalaLola’)againevokingaudienceparticipationinasing-along.TherealauthorofbothsongsisRayDavies.Idonotneedtomakeanyassumptionsaboutthelife,beliefs,experiencesandvaluesoftherealauthor–althoughthereareplentyofinterviews,autobiographicalandbiographicalwritingsaboutthelifeofRayDaviesandhissongwritingintentions.Theimpliedauthorcanbeinterpretedfromthesongs,theparticularselectionoflyricalimagery,theuseofaspecificstylisticcodes,drawingondistinctgenrecodesfromfolk,pop,rock,countryandmusichall,alongwithmelodicshapesthatareeasilysingable,andtheadoptionofanordinary,untrainedvoice,somewhatthinandfragile,thatconveysadegreeofvulnerability.Theimpliedauthor–thesensibilitythatpresentsthesefictionalworlds–isonethatuseswryhumourandsatiretoundercutsentimentality,deployingironyandincongruity–qualitiesidentifiedinThomasKittsinsightfulstudyofRayDavies.59Theimpliedauthorreferstoveryspecificdetails–foods(jam),drinks(CocaCola),names(DesperateDan),places(Soho).Yet,theimpliedauthorof‘TheVillageGreenPreservationSociety’holdscontrastingsocialandpoliticalviewstothoseoftheimpliedauthorof‘Lola’.Thenarratorsareequallycontrastingcharacters,framedbysharplysketchedlyricalandmusicalpersonaeinthesongs.Dependingonourpriorknowledge,wemayalsohearthestarpersona;wemaycomprehendthesetwosongsaspartofabodyofworkcontainingmanyothercharactersandnarrators.Wemayalsohearthemasexpressionsorconstructionsofastaridentity: 56RaymondWilliamsTheCountryandtheCity(London;HogarthPress),17.57DominicPedler‘TheTruckDriver’sGearChange:AMuso’sIntroduction’,http://www.gearchange.org/muso_intro.aspaccessed14June2011.58KittsRayDavies,NotLikeEverybodyElse,9859KittsRayDavies,NotLikeEverybodyElse.

19

ApersonaadoptedbyRayDaviesasameansofpubliclycommentingonmores,behaviours,habitsandroutines.Wemayhavenowayofknowingwhetherthisiswhathe–the‘real’author-mayormaynotbelieve,orwhetherhehaschangedhisviewsandideassincerecordingthesongs.Muchcriticismevadesthesedistinctionsandtensions,assumingaconsonancebetweentherealauthor,thestarimageandthecharacterinthesong,supposingthattherealRayDavieshascreatedsongsthathaverevealedtruedetailsofhisbeliefs,lifeandexperience.ThisisapointnotedbyMatthewGelbartinhisstudyofhowDaviescreatedadistinct‘personaandvoice’;‘criticalreceptionhastendedtobepreoccupiedwithattemptingtofigureoutwhatthe‘real’RayDaviesthinks’.60Kitts,forexample,hasarguedthatthecharactersofDaviessongsare‘extensionsofhispsyche’–aclaimthatisimpossibletoverifyandnotreallynecessarywhenunderstandingthesongs.Yet,thistypeofargumentiscommonwhenitcomestotherelationshipbetweensonganditsauthor-acontinualquesttofindthe‘realperson’behindthestarimage,tolinkthesentimentsofthesongtothesingerandsongwriter.Arguablythisisanissueinallfictions,althoughsongsandmusiciansseemmorepronetoliteralinterpretationsthantheworkofnovelistsandfilmmakers.ThesongwriterandsingerRichardThompsononceremarked‘thereshouldbeanoteonalbumsleevesmakingitclearthatthesesongshavenorelationtoanypersonlivingordead.’61Analternativecriticalresponseistoarguethatthereisnorealmusicianlurkingbehindanywordsandimages.ThisisLeeMarshall’sstanceinhisstudyofBobDylan;‘whilewhatweseemaysuggesttousarealitytowhichwedonothaveaccess…whatweseeisallthereis’.Hearguesthatfansandcriticsspendtoomucheffortsearchingforthe‘real’personbehindthestarimage,ignoringthewayknowledgeisshapedby‘whatweseeinfrontofus,notfromanythingbackstage’.62Asimilar,butmorenuancedposition,isdevelopedbyFrithinPerformingRiteswherehesuggeststhatthetensionsbetweenrealpersona,‘starpersonality’and‘songpersonality’canbeharmonisedthroughperformanceinsuchawaythat‘truthoffeelingbecomesanaesthetictruth,notamoralone’;pithilysummedupinhisclaimthat:‘“Sincerity”…cannotbemeasuredbysearchingforwhatliesbehindtheperformance;ifwearemovedbyaperformerwearemovedbywhatweimmediatelyhearandsee.’63Yet,thisposition–thatanytruthandmeaningresidesintheperformancepersonaorstarimage–ignoresthewaythatknowledgeoftherealauthorinformsinterpretationsofthepersonae.Thereissomethingbehindandbackstage,nomatterhowinaccessibletothecuriousfan.Iseenoreasonwhywecannotretainasenseofbothrealauthorand 60MatthewGelbart‘PersonaandVoiceintheKinks’SongsoftheLate1960s’JournaloftheRoyalMusicalAssociation128,2003,200-241,201.61QuotedinDavidHepworthandMarkEllen‘WhatAreWordsWorth?’Word,24,2005,70-89,75.62LeeMarshallBobDylan,TheNeverEndingStar,38,41.63SimonFrithPerformingRites,OntheValueofPopularMusic,215.InFrith’sdiscussionoftheperformanceofpopularmusichewritesofthe‘realperson’as‘whatweliketoimaginetheyarereallylike,whatisrevealed,intheend,bytheirvoice’(199).ThereisagreatersenseuncertaintyconveyedinFrith’sformulationthanIreadinAuslander’suseofFrith’sworkinhistheoryofperformance,althoughbothmakethepointthattherealpersonisperformed(andnotrevealedorexposed).

20

performingpersona,withoutromanticallyreducingonetoanexpressionoftheother,oreradicatingtherealpersonbyassumingapostmoderncollapsingoftherealanditsrepresentation.ToreturntoRichardThompson’sreflections:‘Thebiggestmisunderstandingispeopleassumingthatyou’rewritingaboutyourownlife.It’sreallymuchmoreobliquethanthat–it’smediatedreality.’64AsThompsonimplies,therearemediationsbetweentherealauthor,thesongandaperformance.Inauthoringandpresentingsongstothepublicmusiciansarecontinuallynegotiatingandoftenquitedeliberatelyseekingtoconflateorcontestthedistinctionsbetweenonstage/offstage,public/private,artist/artwork,documentary/dramaandreal/imaginary.Itmaybefutiletopeerbehindatthemomentofperformance,butthereismuchtoexploreintheactivitiesandthemediationsofauthorsthatprecedeandthenconnectwiththepersonainperformance.Thecategoriesofrealauthor,impliedauthor,characterandnarrator,and(star)personacanbeusedtoquestionandtounbundlethepresumedconnectionsbetweenauthorandsong,andequallytoquestiontheclaimthatthereisnothingmorethanaperformingpersona:Toallowforacriticaldiscussionofhowvalues,beliefs,worldviewsandexperiencesarecreated,represented,conveyedandmediatedthroughsongswithoutbeingreducedtotheauthenticexperienceorcoherentbeliefsofthesongwriterorsinger,orreducedtothesurfaceappearanceofaperformance.Thesecategoriesalsoallowforanexplorationofhowmusiciansnegotiatesuchtensions.Forexample,sincethe1960satypeofsinger-songwriter,adoptinga‘confessional’,acousticandintimatestyleofdeliveryhasoftensoughttoblursuchdistinctions,placinganemphasisontheautobiographicalandpersonalrelationshipsasawayofproviding‘amicrocosmicinsightintothepoliticsofloveandhatewhichhadearliercharacterisedfolkprotest’.65ProfoundlyinfluentialherehasbeenJoniMitchell,andparticularlythealbumBlue(1971),withitssparseacousticguitarandpianotexturesandconversationaldeliveryofhighlypersonallyricsseeminglyproviding‘awindowintohersubjectiveuniverse’.66Yet,thisintimatepersonalworldhasbeenconsciouslyconstructedbythesongwriter,notonlythroughtheselectionoflyricalimagery,butalsothroughtheadoptionofspecificproductiontechniques.AsNicolaDibbenhasargued,thecreationofanambienceofintimacyisdependentupon‘theamountofreflectedsound,andrelativeloudnessofsoundswithinthemix.’67Notonlydoesthesenseofintimacydependonproductionpracticesandaestheticchoicesitalsoentailsanideologicalcommitment,asWhiteleynotes,‘aninvestigationintothebiographical,ratherthantheideological,contextoftruth’.68PerformersinfluencedbyJoniMitchell(suchasToriAmos,FionaAppleandSinéadO’Connor)haveencouragedthelistenertohearthecollapsingofsuchcategories;

64BillFlanagan,WritteninMySoul(Chicago;ContemporaryBooks,1987),223.65SheilaWhiteleyWomenandPopularMusic:Sexuality,IdentityandSubjectivity(London,Routledge,2000),75.66SheilaWhiteleyWomenandPopularMusic7867NicolaDibben‘VocalPerformanceandtheProjectionofEmotionalAuthenticity’inDerekScott(ed)TheAshgateResearchCompaniontoPopularMusicology(Farnham:Ashgate,2009),317-333.68SheilaWhiteleyWomenandPopularMusic75

21

toheartherealpersonexposed,revealedinthenarratorofthesong,seeminglywithnocriticaldistancebetweentherealauthor,impliedauthorandpersona.Suchastylemaybemaybeheardasnaïveandsentimental,solipsisticeven,placingtheunified,naturalised,free‘bourgeois’subjectatcentreoftheworld.CharlotteGreigcomesclosetothisviewwhenshedescribesJoniMitchellas‘narcissismandself-indulgencepersonified.’69ThecategoryofconfessionalsongshasalsobeencriticisedbyLoriBurnsandMélisseLafranceinadiscussionofToriAmos:‘ByconstantlyframingAmos’smusicaspersonalinnature,hercriticsirresponsiblyignorethesocialcontextfromwhichherexperiencesemerged’.BurnsandLafranceadvanceamoregeneralclaimthatthelabelof‘confessional’songs‘duetoitsinevitableassociationwithguilt,apology,andsin…appearstobereservedprimarilyforfemaleartists,areservationthatimplicitlyreproducestheChristian/malesupremacistsnotionsofwoman-as-already-fallen’.70Yet,itcanbecounteredthatthisisareductivecaricatureoftheconfessionalaesthetic;songwritersarebynomeanssuchpassiveorcomplicitvictimsofanoppressiveaestheticideology.WhilstitmaybeinfluencedbytheCatholicconfessional,italsohasrootsinradicalfolkprotest,andatypeof‘confessionalpoetry’,namedbycriticsinthelate1950s,butsometimestracedbacktoWaltWhitman.71Itisalsonotthesolepreserveofwomen.Lennon’spost-BeatlessongsonthealbumsPlasticOnoBand(1970),Imagine(1971)andMindGames(1973)haveregularlybeendescribedasconfessional,andevidencesuggeststhattheywereaquitedeliberateaestheticstrategywherebytherealauthorsoughttochallengethefabmop-topBeatlestarpersona.The‘confessional’songsandperformancesoftheseandothermusiciansdonotnecessarilyneedtobeviewedasdetachedfromsocialcontext.Insteadtheymightbeinterpretedasprovidinganexpressivecritiqueoftheindustrial,commercialsystemsthathaveallowedforthecommodifiedfragmentationandalienationoftherealperson,thepersonaandcharacter.ItiscertainlypossibletointerpretO’Connor’sandMitchell’ssongs,andLennon’simmediatepost-Beatlessongsinsuchaway.ThesesongwritersmightbeviewedasengagedinaRomanticchallengewhichseekstoresolvethetensionsbetweentherealauthor,impliedauthor,narratorandstarimage,andrecoverthefragmentedselfthroughanaestheticthatconsciouslyseekstodissolvesuchdistinctions,engagedinasociologicalorpoliticalaswellasasubjectiveandstylisticstruggle.Theblurringofthesedistinctionscanalsobeheardinmuchrapinwhichthereisafrequentstruggletoasserttheimportanceofsocialcontextby‘beingreal’tothelifestylebeingportrayed.72PerhapslessobviouslythisblurringhasalsobeenafeatureofchartpopintheUKinthetwentyfirstcentury.LilyAllen,forexample,hasbeenbothcelebratedandcastigatedforhercandidcommentariesoncelebritycultureandthechanging 69CharlotteGreig‘FemaleIdentityandtheWomanSongwriter’inSheilaWhiteley(ed)SexingtheGroove:PopularMusicandGender(London;Routledge,1997),168-77,174.70LoriBurnsandMélisseLafranceDisruptiveDivas:Feminism,IdentityandPopularMusic(London:Routledge,2002),64.71SeeM.L.Rosenthal‘RobertLowellandthePoetryofConfession’inTheModernPoets:ACriticalIntroduction(NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress,1960),225-244.SeealsoDavidGrahamandKateSontag(eds)AfterConfession:PoetryasAutobiography(SaintPaul:GraywolfPress,2002).72SeeJeffChangCan’tStop,Won’tStop:AHistoryoftheHip-HopGeneration(London;EburyPress,2005).

22

experiencesofyoungwomen.SiaMichelinTheNewYorkTimesdeclaredthathersongs‘captureasenseofuniversalteenageangstwithhercinematictalesofbadbreakups,clubspatsandbackstabbingfriends.Shesymbolizesanewblogging-age,middle-classgirl;cockilyambitious,scepticalyetenthusiastic,technicallysavvy,musicallyopen,obsessedwithpublicexpressionandreadytofightback.’73MuchofthisisevidentinAllen’s‘TheFear’(2009),co-authoredwithGregKurstin,andawardedanIvorNovellobytheBritishAcademyofSongwriters,ComposersandAuthors.Aconventionalpopsong,withalightandairysynth-poparrangement,narratedinthefirstpersoninadeceptivelyeasyconversationalvoice,ittellsofayoungwoman’sunscrupulousdesiretobecomerichandfamousbyexploitingherownbody(takingherclothesofffortabloidnewspapers),seekingfastcars,diamondsand‘massiveconsumption’.Yet,asMichelobservesofAllen’ssongsingeneral,‘darknesslurksbeloweverycheerysurface’,anditisapparenthereasthissongmovestoamoremelancholicchorusinwhichthenarrator’svoicebecomesmulti-tracked,echoeyandmoredistantandnolongercertainwhatis‘rightandreal’orwhatshe’s‘meanttofeelanymore’,untilsheis‘takenoverbythefear.’Thesonggeneratedconsiderablediscussionaboutwhetherthenarratorwastherealauthorsingingfromdirectpersonalexperience,exposingheranxieties,reflectinguponpastactionswithasenseofmildshame,‘arealpersontellingusthemostintimatedetailsofherreallife’74,comparabletoPowersinterpretationofRihanna.Orwhetheritwasnarratedinthefirstpersonbyacharacter-‘apieceofpersonaprojection…inwhichsheshapedselectedaspectsofhercharacterandautobiographyintosongsthatwouldringabellwithordinaryyoungwomenandthemenwhowanttogotobedwiththem.’75Whilstthecelebritystatusofperformersofrapandchartpopmeansthattheyareoftenrequiredtoauthenticatethemselvesinexaggeratedways,whencomparedwiththesingersongwriter,76thedifferentcategoriesofauthorshipcanbeusedtoexplorehowtheirauthorshipispresentedandcriticallymediatedbyjournalists.Incontrasttotheblurringofrealauthor,impliedauthor,characterandpersona,performerssuchasKateBush,LaurieAnderson,thePetShopBoys,SteelyDan,TomWaits,RandyNewman,LadyGagaquiteconsciouslycraftacriticaldistanceandopenupspacesbetweenthesecategories.Thismaybeachievedthroughirony,campandartifice,satire,studiedunderstatement,manneredindifference,orunsubtleexaggerationwhenpresentingcharacters,whetherinthefirst,secondorthirdperson.Forexample,SteelyDan(comprisedofsongwritersDonaldFagenandWalterBecker)usemusic,lyrics,songstructuresandarrangementstodisruptanyassumptionofacorrespondencebetweenrealandimpliedauthor,characterandpersona.WalterEveretthashighlightedtheband’sharmonicpreferenceforseventh,ninth,eleventhand 73SiaMichel‘LilyAllen,Britain’sNewPopStar,HasCheek,andBite,toSpare’NewYorkTimes,5August2006http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/05/arts/music/05alle.htmlaccessed17May2011.74NeilMcCormick‘LilyAllen–It’sNotMe,It’sYou:PopCDoftheweekreview’TheDailyTelegraph,22January2009-http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/culturecritics/neilmccormick/4317076/Lily-Allen-Its-Not-Me-Its-You-Pop-CD-of-the-week-review.htmlaccessed17June2011.75RobertChristgau‘LilyAllen:TheSameEverygirlAfterAll’Barnes&Noble,16February2009-http://www.robertchristgau.com/xg/bn/2009-02.phpaccessed19May2011.76Moore‘AuthenticityasAuthentication’

23

thirteenthchordsandtherarityof‘unadorned,unambiguousandnaïvetriads’77.AcharacteristicofSteelyDanhasbeentheirextensiveuseofwhathascometobecalled,somewhatwryly,bythesongwriterstheµmajoror‘moo’or‘mu’chord.Thisisamajorchordwithanaddedsecond(oradded9th)whichisvoicedtode-emphasizethethird(frequentlyvoicedas1,5,9,10,oftenwiththe3inthebass)78.Fagenhasalsoremarkeduponhowthevocalmelodiesoftheirsongsare‘derivedmoreinstrumentally’ratherthancreatedasindependentsungmelodies–acharacteristicthatmeansthattheyarenoteasilymemorableorsingablewithoutthe‘chordalbackground.’79Thereisnoattempttousesingablemelodiestodrawthelistenerintothenarrator’sworld.Becker’sandFagen’ssongsareconstructedsothatharmoniesandvoicing,alongwithshiftstochordsandmodulationsthatwouldbeunexpectedinconventionalrocksequences,areusedtoenhance,undermineandextendlyricalcontent–transformingthesentimentofabanalturnofphraseintoallusionsaltogethermoreprofound,edgy,elusiveorodd;inflectinglyricswithsinister,unsettlingoranxiousovertones;underminingtheexpectedandfamiliar.Thismusicalorientationisfusedwithwry,ironicandevencynicallyricsinwhich,asEveretthasalsopointedout,thesongwritersrepeatedlyhavetheirnarratorscharacterisingtheworldandbehaviourofothersthroughsarcasm,hyperboleandlitotes.Theirlyricsareinfluencedbyso-called‘blackhumorists’suchasJohnBarth,JosephHeller,TerrySouthern,anddystopiansciencefiction(thetwostrandsblendedinKurtVonnegut,anotableinfluence).Fagenrecalledthat‘wewereafteratheatricaleffect,thefrictionproducedbythemixofthemusicandtheironyofthelyrics’80Thesongsarepopulatedbynarratorswhoareromanticlonersordreamers,outsidersoronthemargins,oftenmalelosersofsomekind.Althoughmostsongsaresunginthefirstperson,theyareveryclearlycharacterstudies,thesongwritersuninterestedinconfessional,autobiographicalsongwriting.Thesongsusefastidiouslycraftedrhymingschemeswith‘vowelsounds…meticulouslymatched’oftenthroughassonance,simileandenjambment,astylethat‘doesn’thappenbyaccident,andtestifiestoBeckerandFagen’sthoroughnessinwringingeverydropofsyntacticintriguefromtheirmini-narratives.’81Thesongsareproducedwithanunderstandingofhowrecordingsmaybelistenedtohundredsoftimes;informingtheinclusionofobliquemusicalandlyricalreferencesthatconstituteaplethoraofindulgentasides,footnotes,quotes,knowingnudges,punsandallusions(incorporatingreferencestoobscurejazzrecordings,toliterature,toeventsandcharacters);signifiersthatmaynotbenoticeduntilafterrepeatedlisteningandtheacquisitionofconsiderableknowledgeabouttheact.Thisblendofmusicalcharacteristics,lyricalconcernsandattentiontodetail,presentsahighlyidiosyncratic

77Everett,Walter‘ARoyalScam:TheAbstruseandIronicBop-RockHarmonyofSteelyDan’,MusicTheorySpectrum,Vol26(2004)pp201-35,205.78Forinternetdiscussionsofthischordanditsappearanceinvarioussongsseewww.steelydan.com/songbook.html‘IntrototheSteelyDanSongbook’(accessed11November2009)andwww.hakwright.co.uk/steelydan/mu-major.html‘SteelyDan,TheMuMajorChord’(accessed11November2009).79CitedinBrucePollockandJohnStix‘SteelyDan,Introduction’2-3SteelyDanComplete,UniversalMusicPublishing,WarnerBrothers,Miami,1995,2.80BrucePollockandJohnStix‘SteelyDan,Introduction’81DonBreithauptAja(London,Continuum),38.

24

‘sensibility’andidentity,onethatoffersnodiscerniblepersonalorautobiographicalpointofidentification,withnopretencethattherealauthorswillberevealed.Arelatedapproach,albeitwithoutthecraftedlevelsandlayers,canbefoundinRandyNewman’shabitofpresentingconcisebluesinflectedpopsongswith‘unreliablenarrators’;narratorswhosesincerity,valuesortruthfulnessmaybeopentoquestion.Theideaoftheunreliablenarrator(againintroducedbyBooth)isonethathasquiteconsciouslyinformedNewman’ssongsashenarratesinthefirstpersonfromtheperspectiveofavarietyofcharactersthatholdprejudicedormorallydubiousviewpoints.AshetoldZollo:‘Ilikeuntrustworthynarratorsandthingswheretheaudienceknowsstuffthatthenarratordoesn’tknow.’82Newmanwasonceaskedwhyhe‘steppedoutofcharacter’inthesong‘Rednecks’(1974)–atalenarratedfromtheperspectiveofasouthernracistbigot–aviewpointthatissomewhatunderminedwhenthenarratingredneckabruptlystartstosympatheticallypontificateabouttheplightofblackpeople.Newman’sresponsegivesaninsightintothewayhissongwritingcraftisinformedbyatacitifnotanexplicitawarenessofthesedebatesaboutauthorship,narrationandcharacter:

It’sjustamistake.Theguywouldn’tknowthat.It’sanerror,onmypart,asawriter.ButIdiditanyway.Iknewit.Yousee,withthatguy,everything’sfine,he’sinsulted,he’sabigot,right?He’sinsultedbythefactthattheyhumiliatehisgovernor–thegovernorofastateoftenmillionpeople–onthisTVshow…sotheguydoesthissong,andtheonethingwrongwithitishewouldn’tknowthenamesofalltheghettos,hewouldn’tknowHoughinClevelandandallthatstuff.Soitisoutofcharacter,you’reright,butitisn’tmesteppingin.Itismesteppingin,butIknewit.Anyway,IknewIdiditwrong.83

Itmightbecounteredthatthisslippage,ratherthananerror,makesthecharacterinthesongevenmoreunreliable–andperhapstherepresentativeoftheVillageGreenPreservationSocietyisequallyunreliable,andnottobetrusted,forwishingtosaveDonaldDuck.Therearemanyothersongwriters(likeNewman,orBeckerandFagen),acutelyawareoftheslippagesthatcanoccur,andthespacesthatcanopenup,betweentherealauthor,impliedauthor,narrator,characterandstarpersona.Theymayattempttousecontextualor‘paratextual’informationtoinfluencethewaytheirsongsareinterpretedintheseterms.Thismayentailspeakingininterviews,writinglinernotes,addressinganaudienceataconcertinamannerthatattemptstoclarifythemeaningofasong.Ortheinterviewmaybeusedtoobfuscate,atacticroutinelyusedbyTomWaitswhoonceremarked‘Iusuallytrytoburyanythingautobiographical.’84AsPollyHarveyrespondedtoaninterviewerwhotoldherthatmanyofhersongshadbeen‘writtenspecificallyfromyourpointofview’:

Well,Idisagreewithyouthereentirely.I’mnotinterestedintellingpeoplemyautobiography.…somethingI’vealwaysdone,andI’vetalkedaboutthistillI’mblue

82PaulZolloSongwritersonSongwriting,FourthEdition(NewYork:DaCapoPress,2003)26983ZolloSongwritersonSongwriting27184QuotedinBillFlanaganWritteninMySoul388.

25

intheface,isadoptthetechniquesawriterwouldadopt,whichistoassumedifferentnarratives–thirdperson,firstperson,dramaticmonologue,castingmyselfasamanorasawoman–asawayofexploringideasandcharacters.Inthatway,I’mnodifferentfromanynovelistoranypoet,oranyothersongwriter.85

Anencounterwithacriticthatconfirmsthattheauthorisfarfromdead,andthatauthorshipandthepopsongisrarelystraightforward.Epilogue:unbundlingtheauthorTheideathattheself,self-knowledgeandpersonalidentitymayonlybeknownasabundleofattributes,experiencesandbeliefsandthatthesemaybeneithercoherentnorcompleteisatheorythathasoftencroppedupinphilosophicaldebates.ItcanbetracedbacktophilosopherDavidHume’ssuggestion(firstpublished1739-40)thatthemindisabundleofperceptions.86JohnPerryhasmorerecentlytakenupthisthemeandwrittenoftheselfasa‘bundleofcognitivecomplexes’characterisedby‘aconstantactivityoftryingtomaintaincoherenceandorder’.87Suchanotionresonateswithanawarenessofapparentcontradictionsorparadoxesinourordinarybehaviour,beliefsandattitudestowardsothers.Perry’sversionofbundletheory–acompeting‘bundleofbundles’isdrawnfromphilosophicalreflectionsuponhispersonalexperiencesalongwithobservationsofthelivesofothers;variedsituationsinwhichbehaviourandworldviewsoftenappeartobeincoherentandcontradictory,yetstillattributabletoone‘self’.88Ifindthissuggestiveoftheapparentparadoxesandinconsistenciesthatmaybefoundintheactivities,workandperformancesofsongwritersandmusicalauthors–contradictionsthatshouldnotbetreatedasproblemstoberesolved,butenigmastobeinterrogated.Therearetwoothersalientwaysinwhichthenotionofabundleofqualities,attributesandbehavioursresonatesinpopularmusicculture.First,isthecommercialcontractwhichdefinesarecordingartistsignedtoamusiccompanyasa‘bundleofrights’throughwhichthecorporationexploitstheirlegalrighttousetheimageonaT-shirt;musicinagame,advert,filmorpublicplace;writingsinamagazine;voiceoveronradio;lyricsinasongbookandsoon.Anartist’smanagementmayassigntheserightstoonecompany,ortheymaylicensetheuseofvariousaspectsofanartist’screativeworkacrossbusinessesdividedbygeographicalterritory.Whilstcopyrightmaybeusedtopolicetheinfluencesonsongwriting(onbehalfofindividualsratherthangroupsofpeopleortraditions),ithasincreasinglyallowedtheunbundlingoftheselfasaconditionofculturalproduction.AsRosemaryCoombehasargued: 85JamesMedd‘WhatYouSayisPowerful,ClaimsPollyHarvey,WhatYou‘Imply’EvenMoreSo’Word,100,June2011,22-23,22.86DavidHumeATreatiseofHumanNature(London:Penguin,2004).87JohnPerry‘SelvesandSelf-Concepts’inJosephKeimCampbell,MichaelO’RourkeandHarrySilverstein(eds)TimeandIdentity(MITPress:Cambridge,Mass),229-247,244/246.88SeediscussionofthisinMatthewH.Slater‘Introduction:FramingtheProblemsofTimeandIdentity’inJosephKeimCampbell,MichaelO’RourkeandHarrySilverstein(eds)TimeandIdentity(MITPress:Cambridge,Mass),1-24.

26

Variouscomponentsofanindividual’spersonamaybeindependentlylicensed…Acelebritycould,theoreticallyatleast,licensehersignatureforuseonfashionscarves,grantexclusiverightstoreproduceherfacetoaperfumemanufacturer,voicetoacharitableorganisation,legstoapantyhosecompany,particularpublicitystillsfordistributionaspostersandpostcards,andcontinuetomarketherservicesasasinger,actress,andcomposer.Thehumanpersonaiscapableofalmostinfinitecommodification,becauseexclusive,nonexclusive,andtemporally,spatially,andfunctionallylimitedlicensesmaybegrantedforuseofanyvaluableaspectofthecelebrity’spublicpresence’.89

Thedisaggregationofthepublicpersonahasincreasedatthesametimethattheconceptualunderstandingandcommercialmanagementofanartists’repertoireofsongshasshiftedfrombeingthoughtofintermsofsinglesandalbumstobundledandunbundled–oneoftheconsequencesofthedigitalizationofrecordinganddigitaldownloading.PinkFloydsuccessfultookEMItocourttostopthecompanyunbundlingthealbumDarkSideoftheMoon(1973)winningtheargumentthatthisisanentireartworkandmustbesoldandpurchasedcompleteratherthanasaseriesofdiscrete,individualtracks(althoughtheyquietlyallowedthealbumtobeunbundledayearlater).Incontrast,whentheBeatlesbackcataloguewaseventuallymadeavailablefordigitaldownloaditwasmadeaccessibleunbundled–meaningthatthehugelyinfluentialandcriticallyacclaimedalbumsSgtPepper’sLonelyHeartsClubBand(1967)andAbbeyRoad(1969)-originallycontaining‘suites’ofsongssegueingintoeachother-couldbepurchasedasisolatedtracks,thealbumsbrokenupintoabstracted,decontextualised,sometimesincompletesoundingorabruptlyendingtracks,forshufflingorre-sequencingattheconsumerswillandwhim(muchtotheconsternationofsomerockcritics).Ifmusicianscanunbundlethecomponentpartsoftheirpublicpersonasandtheiralbumrepertoire(asindividualsmaythinkoftheirpersonalselfasabundleofidentities),Iwillconcludebysuggestingthatwe(critics,musicologists,scholars)canalsounbundletheideaoftheauthor-andperhapswithsimilarmixedconsequencesandanxieties.Wecanaskhowandinwhatwaysthevariouscomponentsthatmakeupanauthor’sactivitiesandidentitiesareconceived,constituted,combinedandcommunicated.ThiswouldentailretaininganawarenessoftherangeofperspectivesthatIhavesurveyedinthisessay.Frommusiccriticismandmusicologywecandrawonthefactthatthereis,inmostcasesweencounter,arealauthorwithintentions,beliefsandasetofethicalandmusicalvaluesthattheywishtoconveytolisteners.Thiscanberesearchedandverifiedaccordingtoinformationthatisavailableaboutlivinganddeadsongwritersorcomposers(andcertainlynotnaivelyassumedorreadfromtexts).Comprehensionoftherealauthorcanproceedwithanawarenessoftheequallyrealworldinwhichthereisbothpartialknowledgeandanexcessofinformationaboutthestrugglesforcriticalrecognitionandcommercialreward,alongwiththesocialcircumstanceswithinwhichcreativityisrealisedinrelationtogenreworlds,legalframeworksandvariousmaterialconstraints.TheapproachthatIamadvocatingheredoesnotseetheauthordisappearundersociologicalpowerstrugglesandcriticalinterpretations,butneitheristheauthortreatedasatranscendenttouchstone.Theauthorproducesandinhabitspersonasthatareboth 89RosemaryCoombeTheCulturalLifeofIntellectualProperties(DukeUniversityPress,1998)91.

27

musicalandsocial,andthebundledorunbundledtextsandidentities(impliedauthors,characters,narrators,personas,starimages)canprovidevariousinsightsintothematerialandideologicalstrugglesthroughwhichpopularsongsaremadeandmediated.Theunbundledauthorcannotbeexplainedreductivelythroughmodelsofsociologicalfields,cannotbecontainedbythemultipleormonologicalinterpretationsofcritics,andcannotbecondensedintobiographicaltaleswilledbygreatindividuals.AbstractWithinthebroadfieldofmusicologyandmusiccriticismtheauthorascreativeoriginatorandauthorityremainsacentralfigure.Yetsociologistshavebeenscepticaloftheemphasisplacedonauthorshipintheartsandhumanities,andarguedthatcreativity,artworksandartisticreputationsareproducedthroughsocialprocessesandstruggles.Meanwhile,astrandofculturaltheoryhasfollowedBarthes’pronouncementof‘thedeathoftheauthor’anddeemedauthorshipirrelevanttocriticaldebateaboutmeaningandvalue.InthisarticleIadvocateanintermediateormediatingapproach,attunedtotheinsightsfrombothmusicologyandsociology,andsuggestwaysthatconceptsdrawnfromthestudyoffictionalnarrativecanbeusedto‘unbundle’theauthor.ThroughthisIopenupaseriesofquestionsabouthowauthorshipisconstructed,conveyed,communicatedandcontestedthroughthemediationsofpopsongsandidentitiesofsongwriters.