Like a Can Opener in a Worm Factory

I just hae considerably more respect for pop as an art form when it's an authentic expression of an individual vision raher than a staged process where those responsible for the creationof a particular track or melody or lyrics aren't the ones who perform, usually because they have the wrong image,or whatever.

Why? People have been covering each other's work since time immemorial. The notion of "authenticity" in art is as bizarre as the notion of "purity" - cf the book "Faking It", which analyses this particular obsession and reveals the confusion underlying it.

I suspect we're coming at this from very different perspectives. For me, the idea of authenticity in popular music sets up an artificial binary system in which one category of performers is lauded and the other attacked, on the basis of external factors agreed by the self-appointed group of taste-makers (it's no coincidence that these modes of discourse often crystallise around particular points of gender, race & class, either - DEFINITELY read "The Sex Revolts" for more about this). Not only that, but our notions about what fits in what category shifts as tastes do (see, for example, opinions about sampling or rapping in the 1980s from Proper Rock Critics), but there always has to be an "out" group. A hell of a lot of these ideas have been applied downwards from those who see themselves as the victors of musical history, or are damn bitter because they think they should be, since they're supporting "real" music, not "manufactured crap".

If you haven't read much about the frequently heated debates on Rockism, then I definitely recommend doing so. It's very interesting (oh, and while I loathe Paul Morley, his linked article is worth a butchers).

As to the possibility of getting at culture from the inside, fifth-column style, I'm not really sure about the usefulness of that. It's certainly a concept punk laughed at, and it's no coincidence that Guy Debord was an inspiration there. Now, it's reasonable to argue that Gaga represents that kind of constructed situation he suggests, a radical construction which brings about change through its presentation to its spectators, but I'm not so sure. I've never really believed in his solution (I think the Spectacle is far too ingrained to be that easily disrupted), not least because mass capitalism has been co-opting radical artistic gestures for centuries, and getting better at it all the time. And if I did believe in Debord's solutions, I still wouldn't believe Gaga represented a sufficiently rupturing presence to make any of that happen - she's good, but she ain't that good, and she IS essentially working within an established framework.

Now, that's not to say I don't like her, because I do. But my criteria for liking music come down to "Do I enjoy this?", not "Do I think this is Good Music?". Levels of authenticity are an unhelpful distraction to me, a Manichean "them v us" set-up which actively spoils enjoyment (FWIW, I don't like either version of "Hallelujah", but then I'm not massively fond of the original either. I generally like Leonard Cohen a lot, though).

Damn, I really must get you to read Chuck Eddy, don't know if you'd like him but he can be highly distracting.