Grammy Awards, Taco Bell & Esperanza Spalding: the Art of Authenticity

I love music.

I've loved it since I first put a needle on a 45 (yep, that old). It soundtracked my life, reflected my heartaches, and serenaded my romances. I've lived music as a longtime singer/songwriter and I remain admirably contemporary in my musical tastes (i.e., I knew who Arcade Fire and Muse were). So when I watch the Grammy Awards I do so as a fan, a cheerleader, a participant and, yes, a critic.

There was obviously an abundance of extraordinary talent on stage. These are, after all, the folks being awarded for excellence, they should be talented! And while there are those select few who perform with elegant simplicity, it seems more likely that to be truly relevant in today's music industry, one is compelled to put on a production worthy of Franco Dragone. Act after act exploded onstage with cadres of limb-snapping dancers, robotic vocorder vocals, lights and smoke and mirrors and enough gymnastics to exhaust Cathy Rigby. As I blinked frantically enough to ward off seizures, I couldn't help but wonder why cacophony has so thoroughly bewitched the art of music.

I absolutely enjoy snappy choreography, spectacle is fun, and vibrant stage presence is a must, but nowadays you not only have to possess a model's body, Alvin Ailey's dance moves, a fierce stage entourage and plenty of digital enhancements, it doesn't appear you need to be all that good at the actual singing part. Or at least it's getting harder and harder to figure out if you are.

Allow me this incongruous analogy:

The recent Taco Bell "where's the beef?" brouhaha struck a chord. Look, if you tell me I'm getting a beef taco with sand product and oatmeal dust and I still want to buy that taco and inexplicably find it palatable, you've done your job as an honest promoter and I'm a consumer with no taste. Likewise, if a listening, cheering, music-purchasing fan knows the artist they're cheering has had each note auto-tuned to perfection, every strum mimicked by an actual player and those original songs ghostwritten by a pro and they still love that artist, well, OK...they're buying into the illusion (delusion?) and no harm done. They don't mind the sand and oatmeal.

But what about those of us who want the real thing? Who want to know that what we're hearing and cheering is true singing talent, perfected over years of experience or nurtured from innate ability? That a songwriter we admire has honestly created his catalogue, artfully rendered from hours in the bubble with his creative muse?

When Esperanza Spalding staged her upset much to the chagrin of Bieber handlers and screaming Wikipedia-hacking pre-teens everywhere, it was a rare moment of victory for authenticity. I don't begrudge young Justin his success; every era has its boy-toy singers and he's on delightful par with Bobby Sherman, Davey Jones, David Cassidy, even Simon LeBon. He has his talent, for certain, but put him on a stool with an acoustic guitar and no trickery and all too quickly we see behind the curtain. Saturday Night Live has unwittingly served to "out" the ranks of dubious stars who lack authentic singing skills, from Nelly Furtado, Britney Spears, Taylor Swift, even nominated Florence and the Machine. And yet, strangely, even when it becomes clear just how limited these singers are, fans don't seem to care. Sand and oatmeal.

When I came up in the music business, being able to hit your notes with heart and tone was a matter of pride to every singer I knew. Our analogue engineers had to arduously punch in words or syllables that needed pitch correction and that could take some serious billable time. Sometimes we were obligated to re-record entire sections of a song for that one bad note. We worked our chops in the process and being pitch perfect got you both work and respect.

Then came Pro Tools and the birth of the digital star. When I last recorded in a digital studio in Burbank, CA., the engineer working with my group was also engineering the sessions of a young (to remain nameless) Disney star who was selling records by the millions and, as it turns out, couldn't sing a lick. Our engineer reported that he was required to auto-tune, "I'm not exaggerating, every single note" and spent even more time trying to get her tone somewhere near human aural tolerance. She was a huge singing star nonetheless and that record? Yep, sold millions. Sand and oatmeal.

Digital manipulation is here to stay and like any other technological advance, it can be used for both good and evil. It allowed me and many other independent artists to make our records and it has literally revolutionized the recording industry. It has also served to manufacture into existence marginally talented artists whose polished perfection is a sham. And a shame. Sold to a gullible public who don't know the difference or don't care.

Yet even in the midst of all this artistic chicanery, the true artists emerge. And every once in awhile someone like Esperanza Spalding pierces the curtain and shows them all how it's done. And we are delighted by her authentic and mesmerizing talent. Not a speck of sand or oatmeal in sight.

 

Follow Lorraine Devon Wilke on Twitter: www.twitter.com/LorraineDWilke

Comments

[Hellooo]

07:16 AM on 02/21/2011

when we lived in Los Angeles with authentic food from everywhere available, my husband preferrred the Taco Bell tacos to the handmade, visibly authentic food from Olvera Street. I know for a fact that the goal of Taco Bell was to produce an "American" taste not an authentic one.

[emlr]

09:36 AM on 02/16/2011

To me the most jarring sounds are those of the singers? who yell their songs ala J Hudson. Real singers can hit a high note without yelling.

[Hellooo]

07:19 AM on 02/21/2011

I always have believed that people do what they are paid to do, I would wager that J Hudson could croon a tune with the best. Nobody pays these artists to sing or play. They are paid to perform.

[Lorraine Devon Wilke]

10:36 PM on 02/15/2011

People, people, people, before you all go off on a tangent about my decrepitude and lack of perception, please actually read what I said. I LOVE pop music, listen to it daily, download it to my IPod, speed-walk, work and rock out to it. This is not an indictment of pop music, it's a comment about the technical manipulation of what used to be organic and authentic. Expanse, I'm with you on the grit and soul of vocals that lacked perfection but struck the right chords nonetheless. But that's the point: digital manipulation is all about creating false perfection and I'm not sure what the point of that is. But no where did I say that Esperanza's win meant others weren't worthy. Lots of true artists out there that I wildly support, many of them far younger than me. I even download Eminem so come on, give me a break! :)

[donnyraindog]

12:10 AM on 02/16/2011

Read your whole piece ,you had me at dropping needles on 45s! I try half heartedly to listen to modern pop and wonder just how many top artists of the last few years could hold a room by themselves with an accustic guitar not many but to be fair there was a lot of bad music and downright frauds in the best of years.I believe i've read that in 1969 which saw possibly more great rock then any year in history sugar sugar by the archies was the biggest selling single.

[Lorraine Devon Wilke]

03:06 PM on 02/16/2011

Thanks, Donny ("you had me at dropping needles"...hilarious!). I agree that there's never been a shortage of dubious pop stars ("Sugar Sugar" was a masterpiece, wasn't it?:). Every era has "shamed" itself (I'm smiling as I write that!) with its own contributions to the field. And to be even more fair about today's roster, I listen to adult alternative music daily and have discovered a slew of bands and singer/songwriters who are brilliant and heartfelt and whose music I happily support. I think any of us who bemoan the current crop ARE talking about the digitally propped-up stars whose success and fame is built on something the Pro Tools engineer built. Frankly, if pop consumers don't care, that's fine. Sometimes it's just fun to bop along to a good record regardless of who's responsible for its excellence. I just thought the bigger point regarding authenticity deserved to be made. Thanks for weighing in.

[wendulajoy]

10:09 PM on 02/15/2011

Seriously? Have you ever heard Nelly Furtado or Florence in concert? You categorically dismissed them based on SNL performances, yet I highly doubt you've heard them live and in person. Just as a previous commenter pointed out, you're using some flawed logic to say that if one person actually won, the other nominees were undeserving. Pop music may be grating to some, but there is a reason it's popular.

[Angelus2007]

05:26 PM on 02/15/2011

You sound a lot like my parents when I was listending to Metallica, or their parents when they were listening to The Beatles and Rolling Stones. You also sound like those a generation behind when Maddona was big, or Queen and their glam rock theatics, or even Elvis. Just because todays music isn't what you like, doesn't mean there isn't talent. The show is part of the reason people watch. If you don't like it, so be it, can still listen to your 45s.

[lilyinbloom]

07:43 PM on 02/15/2011

While Esperanza is indeed talented and deserving of her award, this isn't to say that other more popular musicians aren't. There seems to be this divide amongst what's in the Top 100 and what is good music. When people act like they can never overlap, it's no wonder they don't more often.

[expanse]

07:59 PM on 02/15/2011

All those artists you mentioned were actually talented. All of them. Most came up organically, played in bands and scrapped to get noticed. I think in this day and age, it is so easy to craft an image ( thanks current technology) and the record companies can take such control over the artist and their image ( like it was back in the beginning we have come full circle).

However, it is very easy to tell when a voice is altered on a recording. It sounds like a computer. I can easily tell whether a singer has had their vocals altered and who hasn't. Which is why I don't like these American Idol "perfect" singers. Everyone thinks THAT is good singing when it is anything but. Imperfection, raw vocals, the missed flat note, all make a recording unique. Paul McCartney or Elton John didn't have the range of Steve Perry or Freddy Mercury but they were never as tagged with the title "can't sing" as some female singer would who can't do the vocal gymnastics of Barbara Streisand. Yet, McCartney and Elton connected with their material. They had passable voices and they knew how to make you feel the songs they sung. In addition, people don't understand the difference in using a backing track, auto tune or out right lipsyncing. I don't mind if someone using a back track or lip syncs a few songs if they are dancing or performing heavy numbers. A Britney level of lipsyncing is inexcusable.

[Hellooo]

07:23 AM on 02/21/2011

If you remember, or maybe had heard Barbara Streisand in her beginning, you would have heard three or four different imitations per song. Her voice was strong but unpredictable. She grew, practiced, settled down, and became Barbara Streisand. These children will do the same.