Authenticity: When is Elvis Not Elvis?
I.
In the United Kingdom for the past 25 years, [Elvis] Presley and the
Beatles have enjoyed the joint honour of having achieved 17 No. 1 hits.
Now, nearly 25 years after his death, and 33 years since The Beatles last
reached the top of the British charts, Elvis is the unchallenged king.
He has 18 No. 1s. – The Age, June 2002.18
Elvis’s 18th hit in the UK was a remix made in 2002 by Tom Holkenborg who, with the Elvis estate’s blessing and using the name JXL, added drum samples, basslines, and more than a minute to the original runtime of Presley’s “A Little Less Conversation.” The song (written by Billy Strange and Scott Davis) was a standout among the typically throwaway tracks he recorded for his movies in the late 1960s, and came from the 1968 film Live a Little, Love a Little. As remixes go, Holkenborg’s treatment of the song was fun, lean and tastefully done. That Elvis should be given some credit for the song along with JXL appears reasonable (and vice versa), and although it may be stretching matters to award Elvis credit for achieving his 18th No. 1 hit, that designation is a measurement of sales and is a reflection of the popularity of the performance or performer, so Elvis might be considered more than a little responsible for the song’s success. But there can be no doubt the song was substantially transformed, and to some criticism (Elvis fans and others noted that the song was already one of his funkiest, and the last thing it needed was a modern 120-beat-per-minute disco interpretation). Furthermore, like remixes of published recordings in general, there are concerns of authenticity regarding original performance or mixes versus performance or mixes added (often many years) after the fact, and of who should be credited for the result. There are also questions of archival and cultural authenticity: what is being presented to audiences as Elvis, versus what is being presented as JXL? What series of transformations did the material undergo? Is there a risk that I could confuse the two if not made aware of their differences, thereby making reasoned assumptions about cultural material that are not valid?
A short tour through iTunes proves that critical questions such as these do in fact test the authenticity, and ultimately the trust, that music archives, whether they are commercial are not, need to cultivate to be successful. iTunes carries the two versions of “A Little Less Conversation,” both of which come from published compilations of Presley’s music. Recognizing the need for metadata of some type to help users access the music and also to act as a surrogate for traditional album liner notes, iTunes does in fact provide some minimal information about the songs they sell, but only as related to the albums from which they came (meaning that songs taken from compilations and rereleases don’t give dates of original song release, and since many albums rereleased on CD don’t provide year of original publication, this can become a real problem). Because JXL’s version of “A Little Less Conversation” was included on one of the most recent compilations of Elvis’s hits (of which there are dozens), Elvis alone is listed as the artist, and there is no mention anywhere of JXL or Tom Holkenborg.19 Although a nominally sophisticated listener would probably be able to detect the modern sound of JXL’s treatment upon hearing it, the lack of collateral information regarding the song’s context is damaging to iTunes archival reputation and, even if unintentional, deceives the listener. They are selling a song that appears to be something it is not. If it weren’t for the difference in runtime between JXL’s version and the original from the movie that is also available, the user would be unaware on the face of things that any differences existed between the two versions offered for sale.
Figure 1. Screen shot of iTunes song information menu for
the JXL version of “A Little Less Conversation.”
II.
For a document, speaking per se is not enough. It also must be able
to speak reliably….In many cases, this reliability is achieved through
fixity….But with newer media…this reliability is achieved
not by fixity but by repeatability.20
The sort of disconnect seen in the case of iTunes and “A Little Less Conversation,” between the actual content of cultural material and the information provided about that content, is the nightmare of traditional academic archives, but may become more commonplace as the sheer volume of digital files placed online increases. It is this particularly digital character of the files that can potentially jeopardize authenticity of material, because copies can be so easily digitally altered, especially when compared to analogue or “hard” copies.21 As noted earlier, online musical content is typically copied from original sources or copies of those sources; therefore, the authenticity of the copy in representing the original over time (or repetitions/playbacks of a copy that appears to represent the original) becomes critical. How is this authenticity expressed, how do we know the real deal in a digital environment?
“One possibility would be to maintain audit trails, indicating the series of transformations that has brought a particular document to the desktop. A second possibility would ignore the history of transformations and would instead specify what properties the document in question would have to have to be authentic. This would be akin to using a script or a score to ascertain the authenticity of a performance.”22 David Levy’s options for assessing authenticity of a copy, either tracking changes made to an object or measuring an object against a master, both have their strengths and weaknesses. In the former method, we must be tracking changes to the right file, that is, changes to a file that has already been authenticated. In the latter, the master we use to authenticate our copy must itself, at some point, be authenticated. The maddening circularity of this chicken/egg dilemma demonstrates the challenges of authenticating digital copies, but in real world terms suggests that a combination of the methods is probably what is most appropriate and feasible, building a sort of good faith due diligence to ensure the greatest possible degree of authenticity.
It is this version of authenticity, in fact, that may be most meaningful. Far from a cleanly defined concept, authenticity is not to be switched on or off, but rather admits of degree, Authenticity of a copy, its “faithfulness” to an original or master, is quite dependent on the needs of the user. “The context of use, in other words, determines which properties of the original must be preserved in the copy.”23 How can online music archives determine the contexts in which their users utilize downloaded copies of songs? Just as it is difficult to determine uniqueness of a document or collection, user purpose is as varied as individual identity, and ultimately a copy will not be authentic for all purposes.24
Authenticity in context is the key to effective evaluation of music providers. All of the providers considered here use some type of metadata, regarding content, formats/systems, or administrative details, to control their files to greater or lesser degree and ensure authenticity. eTree’s Live Music Archive demands extensive content and administrative metadata from members who upload material, to help ensure that their documents are authentic. This kind of claim to authenticity speaks to its audience, who generally come from a tradition of tape trading where documentation of both performance and recording method is of prime concern. There is also a sense of self-policing, and of doing justice to the performers who are the subjects of the tapers/recordists, as the presence of a reviews section, error reporting center, and “Band Policy and Notes” link testify.
Figure 2. Screen shot of the Live Music Archive's recording
information for a performance of the band Godspeed You Black Emperor!
The Max Hunter Folk Music Collection also provides metadata for authentication, as well as some value-added content in the form of song transcriptions (made by Hunter but for our purposes could be considered distinct from the actual recorded song files). In this case the scholarly community is looking for complete information as a measure of authenticity, and transcriptions of the songs can be used to check against the recording content. Depending on the user, copy quality may or may not be a part of the authentication process (although as noted above the collection does offer a CD-quality download), but thorough and accurate information regarding the circumstances of the original recording is key. Any information that Max Hunter collected along with the recording is critical. The metadata that appears to be missing, however, and the collection’s weak spot in regard to authentic copies, is slim administrative information, beyond the very basic details, on how the downloaded files were rendered for online delivery. It is helpful to know whether they were “cleaned up” for presentation purposes, and what systems were used in the process. It is unusual for an archive of this type, definitely concerned with authenticity, not to explicitly provide such information.
Figure 3. Screen shot of one version of "Barb(a)ra
Allen" from the Max Hunter Folk Song Collection.
We have seen the weaknesses of iTunes’s metadata as it regards authenticity,
but should also note that for many of its pop culture users, this type
of authentication may be unnecessary, outweighed by the benefit of convenience.
The other commercial provider we have considered, eMusic, takes some steps
in terms of providing a sense of authentic copies. As opposed iTunes,
eMusic presents its copies in the context of the original albums, and
collectors can therefore be assured of getting complete albums in the
same running order as the original release.25
Additionally, eMusic’s explanation of its VBR .mp3 method, a compression
system that maximizes .mp3 bitrate for more efficient downloading, adds
to the confidence its users, mostly alternative or independent music fans,
have in the system and the authenticity of the copies downloaded.
Figure 4. Downloading Bill Nelson's "Crimsworth"
album from eMusic. Note the content metadata in the download screen.
Confidence is critical to authenticity, especially
if we consider what is authentic in terms of patrons and the context in
which they use copies. Another name for confidence is trust, which is
the final archival principle considered in assessing how online music
providers deliver cultural material.
NOTES
18. Bruce Elder, “A little less conversation has Western world talking,”
The Age, June 29, 2002 (http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/06/28/1023864656845.html).
19. Note also the composer information is wrong, with the composers’
names incorrect and incomplete.
20. Levy, p. 25.
21. Ibid., p. 29.
22. Ibid., p. 30. Clifford Lynch echoes this in his adjoining article
from the same piece in which Levy’s article appears, couching the
concept in terms trust (discussed in further detail below). “Virtually
all determination of authenticity or integrity in the digital environment
ultimately depends on trust. We verify the sources of claims about digital
objects or, more generally, claims about sets of digital objects and other
claims, and on the basis of that source, assign a level of belief or trust
to the claims. As a second, more intellectual form of analysis, we can
consider the consistency of claims, and then further consider these claims
in light of other contextual knowledge and common sense.” Clifford
Lynch, “Authenticity and Integrity in the Digital Environment: An
Exploratory Analysis of the Central Role of Trust.” In Abbey Smith,
ed., Authenticity in a Digital Environment. Washington: Council on Library
and Information Resources, 2000, p. 46.
23. Ibid., p. 26.
24. As Levy notes, “The source…does not and cannot fully specify
the properties of the things it is used to make. There is a division of
responsibility between the source and the environment in which it operates.”
Levy, p. 28.
25. iTunes will often be able to offer only portions of albums, so that
song context is lost.