I don’t buy the notion of authenticity in music, that is, that some musics have necessarily more integrity than others based on the manner of their making. Usually such a case made is vociferous in tone and highly partisan.

Roots music, rock and roll, soul, folk, classical music are usually said to be more authentic than, say, a pop phenomenon or a producer-lead project. Something like Pop Idol would be the worst example for vilification and whereas I can certainly sympathise with the contempt in which that is held I really can’t be bothered with the polemicist language that surrounds the criticism. Like with many other things sympathy is lost by the weakness of the argument made.

There are none more contrived than the credibility types, those supposedly cool artists lauded by hipsters. They are as planned and plotted as it gets. In some sense the Cowell/Fuller axis is more of a genuine article. They stoke the machine successfully and gain mass support. They are not an elitist clique of snobs who tend to use music as a vent for self importance. The idea that the authenticists might represent a more elevated form of the art is nonsense. They are just playing the game, most of them, like everybody else trying for recognition, ideally as much of it as they can get.

Yes, I would like to be party to an argument that underlines the low quality of runaway successes from dodgy talent shows. But the case made by sulky, petulant malcontents playing in bands isn’t it.