The Canon

We've all heard the reaction of someone, a friend or whoever, not really bothering to give something they *haven't* heard of a chance. and it's that sort of snap decision making that's annoying, and it's that sort of snap decision making that is completely reversed for the bands that are part of the canon. Instant and positive reactions are usually bad, just like instant and negative reactions. This may vary with some genres or artists but as a general rule I think it's true.

For people who aren't interested in music particularly, all they buy is passed on from somewhere. How many of us here were initially introduced to bands by older brothers and sisters or possibly parents? Sure for us, we like music enough that we get older and form our own tastes but if you don't care much about music you're pretty malleable (sp?).

Also it's because the average joe punchclock (thank you mr burns) has no interest in music that they DO go and buy any old shite they heard recommended from anywhere. You're not telling me people who like nothing but pop music went and bought the Beatles #1 cd for any other reason than the name. People buy Levis jeans and Gucci shoes cos they've been indoctrinated into thinking they're great (people who have no interest in fashion too it must be said), no matter how they look on the person, all I'm saying is that music is the exact same.

You then pick between the brands in your consideration set based on the equity of each brand to you, i.e. how good you think it is/will be. Ronan's jeans example is OTM. I am faced with two pairs of jeans at a similar price: one is Levi, one is EdgyFashionJeans and I haven't heard of them. Jeans are not a 'close' category for me so the EdgyFashionJeans aren't in my consideration set and I buy the Levis.

Once your consideration set widens and your expertise increases brand familiarity can have a negative effect on brand equity i.e. you discount the Beatles in part because everyone else likes them.

But the point is that familiarity neednt arise through reinforcement of a positive message ("being told what to like"). Just being there, visible, is usually enough, and big pop and rock brands are certainly that. If positive canon-building was all it took, Pet Sounds and The Velvet Underground And Nico would have sold as much as Sergeant Pepper.

There are particular problems in exploring a new genre - you want to give, say, modern jazz a try: this will require some persistence - what is worth persisting with?

The Canon, which is essentially just a consensus among intelligent, interested people about what is good, offers some help.

OK there is a further dimension which is more problematic. There is a common belief (one I don't personally buy) that society will somehow be better or more civilised if people listen to the "right" music or otherwise consume the right art. For these people the Canon is not just a consumer's guide: it has an additional, quasi-mystical role, as a civilising influence and preserver of values. You can reject this as baloney (I certainly do) but if you do be clear what you're rejecting. Almost all the debate on ILM is predicated on an assumption that the music people listen to is somehow, at least a little bit "important" , that it actually matters whether people think "Debaser" is better or worse than "Yesterday". If you reject the view that the art we consume matters then most of the discussion in this forum is pointless windbaggery; if you don't, and believe that listening to some music is more valuable than listening to other music, then you will presumably be able to compile a list of works having such value. Your choice may be too idiosycratic to be Canonical, but, please be clear, your position will not be that the Canon should not exist, but that it should be replaced by yours.

"the problem with a collective list (which a canon is) is that it's backed by no single person's experience and interpretation, and so a sense of how these records might relate to everyday life is lacking."

Yes but if something lacks certain qualities that would make it more valuable (and as you say the Canon lacks certain positive qualities by definition), it does not follow that it is not valuable. If I want to listen to bebop it seems useful to know that there is consensus that Charlie Parker is the greatest musician in that genre: it may be more useful than a personal recommendation by a Bud Powell fan who thinks otherwise. Of course I don't believe that this puts me under an obligation to like (or even listen) to Charlie Parker's music.

My basic point is that most debate about music, whether acknowledged or not, is a debate about what should be in the Canon. To conduct such a debate and simultaneously hold that the Canon has no value is trying to have one's cake and eat it. Of course if one restricts oneself to saying "I like this, and so might you", that is very different: that is perfectly consistent with contempt for the notion of a canon. But as soon as you start criticising anyone for poor taste you have blown that position out of the water.

ArfArf, Tom's not devaluing the Canon concept so much as pointing out a failing - that is, it's not personalized / individualized. Such a thing is great as a primer, or an introduction, and if that's all you want, then it's fine. But after a certain point, when one's experience in that genre becomes solidified, the canon fails. The fact remains that reaching a consensus on a particular list of things might make for a great reference, but removes the information & emotion that resides between the lines.

This isn't to piss on the idea of a canon (something which some people do - for instance, those on that new PFork listing saying, "This came first, so listen up", indirectly devaluing what's popular for what's been there), but to simply display that there's more beyond it, which is why so many folks ATTACK the Canon (like Ronan w/ his Beatles / Pixies brouhaha) - just because the Canon exists doesn't mean there isn't stuff outside of it worth exploring.

And, instead of using Canon ad nauseum, perhaps a term like "accepted knowledge", or "the concensus", or something less powerful than THE CANON should be used - there are certain ideas in music that have been reinfornced over & over & over again, and the ideas are accepted by a large percentage of people, without considering (or caring to consider) what lies behind these ideas. The line where the objective nature of these ideas (the "facts", as it were) smacks into the subjective nature of people's opinions on this music is where the meat of this argument takes place. I'm of a mind to simply draw my circle in the sand, stake my claim, and fie on thee who don't agree. However, part of me feels that such a stance would mean I accept the differing ideas as The Truth, when in fact they're as true as folks want them to be, and those that adhere to these truths dogmatically are wrong, NOT because the ideas they believe are false, but because they're unwilling to think about anything outside those ideas.

Maybe God exists; I tend to think otherwise. I have no problem with those that feel otherwise. (When I was younger, I used to, of course - if I'm right, they're wrong, so QED and shut the fuck up.) I have SERIOUS issue, though, with folks demeaning my beliefs without taking time to consider my stance & why I feel this way.

Sorry if I rambled incoherently there - I'm trying to make a concerted effort to contribute to the more cerebral threads on ILM, so I'm bound to make a doofus of myself @ times (since such thinking doesn't come so easily to me).

I am not necessarily arguing that the Canon is a good thing (I do think it is inevitable but that is a different matter). I do have sympathy with, the argument that it would be better if it did not exist.

But let's be clear what the implications of that are. We should no longer live in a world where people were likely to listen to, say, Bach, because we should have no concept of why his music should be preserved rather than that of the thousands of other composers who have lived since his time. Artistic value cannot be objectively identified and the nearest we can come to some kind of semi-objective view of what has value is by the kind of consensus we are discussing here.

The position that meaningful discourse about artistic value is possible is not consistent with a position that the Canon has no value. If we deny the value, not of a particular Canon, but of the concept itself, we can still know what we like, but we have no basis for suggesting that our tastes are any better or worse than anyone else's.

As for the thing about personal taste, I dont think it's a mystical argument. The canon does not have to back itself up - it is an abstract, as you say. This means that a referral to the canon is shifting the terms of an argument into the abstract, where I don't think it should go - it's a cop-out if you like. Complaining about the canon is also dumb on these terms, of course, like complaining about the top 40 - nobody actually likes the entire canon or the entire top 40.

I don't think this is true. In fact, the music industry is often shocked when well-established bands fail to bring in expected record sales. (A recent example: R.E.M.)

anyway in the case of canonical stuff being bought years later, which is what I'm talking about, people buying it are not part of the movement it represented, in short, and as I've said, they're only buying it based on it's status. I guess The Beatles, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin and co are the best examples of this happening. It's the fact that people tend to like these bands in complete inconsistency with the rest of their tastes that gets me. And that does happen.

Maybe it is consistent with the rest of their tastes, but not in a way that you recognize. (Maybe it's not that important for their taste to be consistent?) There are certain artists who seem to transcend their genres in the sense that people who don't normally listen to those genres will like those artists (or perhaps you'd think they pretend to like them). Billie Holiday is the only jazz singer I really listen to, but honest to god, I like her. (Actually, I hardly ever listen to her, because I find her too depressing, but I think still love her music and hope that in some future phase of my life I will be able to listen to her without the unwelcome emotions. Same goes fro the Carpenters.) I listen to hardly any country music, but I do like Hank Williams, though maybe only in small doses. The Beatles are a classic case of a band which attracts a lot of listeners who are not primarily rock listeners. I don't believe this is just because these people have all been told that the Beatles are great and they must listen to them.

I don't understand this business of people not being part of the movement certain bands were involved with? Does that mean they shouldn't want to listen to them? That makes no sense to me.

Beyond that though I think they're helpful and good for provoking discussion.

I admit that my use of the term "mystical" was a kind of lazy shorthand. Please let me clarify my meaning. Consider the following statements:

"the problem with a collective list (which a canon is) is that it's backed by no single person's experience and interpretation, and so a sense of how these records might relate to everyday life is lacking."

"Tom's not devaluing the Canon concept so much as pointing out a failing - that is, it's not personalized / individualized."

"As for the thing about personal taste, I dont think it's a mystical argument. The canon does not have to back itself up - it is an abstract, as you say. This means that a referral to the canon is shifting the terms of an argument into the abstract, where I don't think it should go - it's a cop-out if you like."

Behind each of these statements is an assumption that is no more than an article of faith. The assumption is that Joe Schmoe's assertion that The Dark Side of the Moon is a good album will be more valuable than a consensus among a group of critics because "a sense of how the records might relate to everyday life" will not be lacking, because it is more "personalized/individualized", etc. Interestingly this assumption is not presented as a proposition (which would of course invite rebuttal); in an interesting sleight of hand it is presented as though it were evidence. Furthermore, no actual evidence is offered in support of the proposition implicitly made. These statements and ones such as "a referral to the canon is shifting the terms of an argument into the abstract, where I don't think it should go" are simple statements of belief. They have the same status in a rational discussion as the proposition that "Christ died to redeem our sins", a proposition rich in meaning to believers but almost totally devoid of meaning to the rest of us. Hence my use of the term "mystical".

cf Dr C's fab April post re Tom and Anna, discussing Steps and S Club 7.

But there is it seems to me still a big difference between saying "I like DSOTM" and "DSOTM is one of the best albums of all time" aka "Look at all these other people who like DSOTM". The first can be backed up with individual reasons, the second is a reason in and of itself. I prefer the first because I think open dialogue between music fans is fun and important, and I think by thinking about what you personally get out of music (or any art) you grow as a person. Yes, this is belief - where did I say it wasn't?

As for your REM example, I don't think they were ever canonical.

Nevertheless, Tom, I think it is disingenuous to say "I'm not offering evidence I'm explicitly stating a preference". You express a belief that a more personal response is preferable to a consensus: and back that up by reasons, namely (to take only one of three or four similar reasons given) the canon is not backed up by "a single person's experience". Now I admit that this appears tautological, but nevertheless it is not quite a statement in the form "I prefer this because it happens to be what I prefer"; it is in the form "I believe x to be true for the following reasons". In other words your statement takes the form of an argument, offered in evidence of the view expressed.

My point is that the proposition that "a single person's experience" is more valuable than a consensus is an unsupported assumption. Those who agree with this particular belief (ie those already on your side in the debate) will accept your argument and those who do not will not recognise that you have offered any argument at all.

Mark, the point of my Christian analogy is that, while a Christian will sincerely believe that Jesus died to redeem our sins, it is not a statement that can be offered as evidence in meaningful discourse with someone who does not believe it to be true. As with an unsupported assertion that individual experience is to be preferred to consensus, one either believes or one does not.

Incidentally, Tom, I do not believe your scripture/canon analogy holds. In a discourse about aesthetic value an appeal to received wisdom is evidence, assuming that one believes that the question of value in art is not absolutely subjective. There is nothing mystical about it. One the other hand an appeal to scripture is not evidence for the non-believer. One can profess to be a non-believer in the canon, but as previously discussed the logical outcome of such a position is that no meaningful discussion of aesthetic value is possible.

(To clarify. I am not suggesting that discourse about aesthetic value cannot take place without an appeal to the Canon. But it cannot take place without implicitly rejecting the proposition that aesthetic value is a purely subjective matter. For meaningful discourse to take place there needs to be implicit agreement that certain qualities are indicators of value: for example that songs with intelligent lyrics are generally to be preferred to songs with banal lyrics, that music showing a higher degree of originality is to be preferred, that works in genres whose possiblities appear to be exhausted are likely to be inferior to works in genres that are not, and so on. No two people or groups of people will agree precisely what these indicators of value should be and how much relative weight each should have, but, as stated, the establishment of at lease a loose consensus will be necessary for meaningful discourse. Once these criteria are established, then the ranking of works according to how completely they meet them is inevitable: those works that by general consensus rank highest will form the Canon.

Since all discourse will take place in the context of consensual values an appeal to the Canon - which provides rapid-reference evidence of what those values are - seems to me entirely legitimate. This is not to defend excessive reverence: the Canon and the values that create it are constantly shifting.

A perfect illustration of this is given by the frequent complaint that end of year lists are "predictable". The complainant is claiming that he or she has been able to identify the values that will be applied by the group or sub-group so accurately that he/she can predict the what will be included in its mini-Canon. The schizophrenic obsession with and disparagement of such lists is a perfect reflection of the concerns of this thread.)

That's just not true. Recent example springing to mind was the Missy Elliott thread where Tim (I think) was saying why he *likes* Missy. Precisely the reasons why other people there didn't like her. There is not implicit agreement that certain qualities are of value, or if there is it's worth stepping back and reassessing those qualities. Why intelligent lyrics? Why any lyrics? Dance music or pop music might not need intelligent lyrics? But hey maybe they could sound good?

Alot of the assumptions you made in your post seem to make your argument inverted on itself. We need a large consensus cos we use a loose implicit general one? I'm not sure I do.

DeRayMi, *some* artists transcend their genres yes. But mass popularity is not transcending a genre. you're not telling me miles davis united jazz fans with rock fans or anything, he's just jazz and yet you'll find people with no interest in jazz listening to him. And I think for someone to have what I think is good taste in music on a general level, consistency and knowing what they like themselves is the main thing I look for. And just like people buy Levis jeans that look stupid on them, people buy canonical albums that they'd never have bought otherwise.

Actually, Miles Davis is kind of a bad example for you, since a lot of jazz heads will tell you that during his fusion years Miles Davis wasn't really making jazz. On the other hand, predominantly rock listeners who own one Miles Davis album are probably more likely to have "Kind of Blue" than "Bitches Brew," even though the latter would seem to have more connection to rock.

The consistency thing worries me. I'm reminded of a vocational interest test I took in high school. (Would you rather read to a blind invalid or change a flat tire. . .) I answered the questions honestly, but my logic was different from what the test makers anticipated, so when I got back my score there was a comment along the lines of: the inconsistency in my answers suggested that I hadn't been answering seriously, or something like that, when in fact I was not trying to saboutage the test; I was giving honest answers. (In fact, it would have been easy to guess at what would have been considered an appropriately consistent answer to the questions there.)

So someone buys a CD in a style they normally won't listen to? I don't understand why that's a bad thing. If they pretend to be into it when they not, that can be annoying. But at least there's a chance that they will discover something new.

As for your REM example, I don't think they were ever canonical.

Maybe not, but they achieved mass popularity, yet consumers have not snapped up their latest CD.

Also sort of what Tom said above I guess but the whole thing promotes the "but you've got to like" argument. And I'm not afraid to sound snobby when I say that the canon is a bit of a leaning post for people who know fuck all about music to fall back on in place of coherent reasoning for why they like something. I am skeptical about how much can really be said in defense of one's taste anyway, but I agree that it's not interesting to invoke the canon in defending a particular band or artist. Nobody has to like any particular thing.

(It's kind of ironic about this canon thing. . . If anything, after hanging around ILM, I feel pressure to like what is new, even though there is very little of what is new, that I've heard, especially in relatively new genres, that I like.)

this looks cool, it's a shame i wasn't around to bully people with the subject and i guess it's a little old by now.

interesting reading though. much more so than reading an academic text on canon theories.

Revive.

This thread is for complaining about, and defending, musical canons.

What's your particular beef with the canon at the moment, WmC? I think you'll need to kick-start this back into life with a new opinion we can get our teeth into.

I think I'm coming to terms with the canon, in that I'm of an age, and in a time and technological position, where "canons" no longer really enter my thoughts at all.

I'm intrigued by Ronan's assertion that more people in a double-blind test, as it were, would prefer Debaser to Yesterday; while I'd probably prefer Debaser myself, I think there's the simple fight between beauty and abrasion that beauty would almost always win with most people.

I have absolutely no problem with any musical canons; I don't give enough of a shit about any ILM'er's* musical opinions to care whether they agree or disagree with mine. I just revived this thread as a way to suggest that the fussing and fighting going on here should be brought to this thread instead.

*with one or two exceptions, and the cool part is that they don't know that I care what they think

I didn't get the Debaser/Yesterday point, since it seems that Debaser is totally a key part of a canon foisted upon indie upstarts, while Yesterday is often shrugged off as schwang wang wang McCartney.

But of course it was a different world back on Jan. 1, 2002.

I've not been part of the endless discussion of the canon around here, but I've been the white male crit obsessive whatever my whole life.

It's interesting that the criticisms of the current smackdown survivor series poll involves knocking boring white guy Mojo/Rolling Stone choices, when the roots of the game seemed based on the idea "Wow people around here really like Steely Dan and Hall & Oates. What other bands (some being seemingly non-fogey canon) get that kind of love and might be ILM canon, lets have a war."

A real discussion of the old rock crit guy canon might have contained Smokey Robinson, The Clash, Chuck Berry and Sly & the Family Stone. It probably wouldn't have left out Hank Williams and Bob Marley or Muddy Waters and other people from other genres.

See all the books written and edited by Dave Marsh, Greil Marcus, Ben-Fong Torres or whoever.

Other potential canons. (yardbirds, hendrix, zeppelin, cream, sabbath) (Link Wray, the Doors, The Cramps, MC5, Radio Birdman) (Joni Mitchell, Linda Rondstadt, Aretha Franklin, Dusty Springfield) (Bee Gees, Elton John, Billy Joel, Lionel Ritchie, Shania Twain) (Garth Brooks, Frank Sinatra, Rudy Vallee, George Michael) (Guns n' Roses, Teena Marie, Expose, Bang Tango, Jimmy Castor)

what I'm trying to say is, I'm not sure what canon means. I should look it up.

Even more Beatles bashing. Yawn......

THREADKILLAH

Are there any bad albums in the "canon"? Apart from sgt peppers obviously.

depends what the/your "canon" is, and whether it contains any albums you dislike.

Yeah, but disliking something that isn't to my taste, doesn't necessarily mean it's bad . Sgt Peppers is my least fave Beatles album, but since millions of others rate it, am I wrong for disliking it? (and it contains 2 of my fave Beatles songs).
The canon is there because so many people rate an album highly. The canon isn't just contributed to by the critics, it's the public too surely? Would anyone really rather trust the buying public more than critics? (not trusting either is perfectly fair I suppose).

the canon is just the subset of music in which the most people's ideas of musical importance overlap

Every time somebody uses a phrase like "most people" I end up wanting statistical back-up

Gender and the musical canon By Marcia J. Citron

I don't agree with Ronan's original assumption that people force themselves to like the classics. Unlike many other canons (cinema, literature, jazz) the pop/rock one is remarkably accessible - there's not a lot of hard work involved.

When I was a teenager I was stubbornly anti-canon, based more on my dislike of classic-rock bores at school (and their hatred of synth-pop, dance music, hip hop, etc) than anything. Then my tastes started broadening and I started checking out a lot of classic albums that appeared on all-time lists (UK ones rather than US), and I was surprised how easy to love they were. You don't have to force yourself to like the Beatles, or Stevie Wonder, or the Byrds. Some I didn't take to (Springsteen, Steely Dan, the Doors) but I seem to remember that only one (Trout Mask Replica) was really "difficult" and would have involved some degree of pretending to like it. Where the imbalance comes in is feeling compelled to have an opinion either way on, say, the Stones, whereas music fans are not expected to engage with Mobb Deep or Orbital on any level at all. But, as Tom said EIGHT YEARS AGO it's a starter kit, that's all.

When you're younger, the canon is a great way to discover new things that aren't "current" and in my case, I kept digging & digging (and I still do so). But yes, I the majority of stuff in a "mojo canon" is very accessible. But it's no big deal if you dont like it. Noones going to care that i could never get into Astral Weeks or Sgt Peppers. I got into funk and jazz and krautrock instead.

Some people cant get into the stuff in a rock canon, some cant get into chart music. Does it really matter? I think if anyone makes an attempt to listen outwith their comfort zone, they should be lauded, even if they dont like it. Maybe in 10 years time it might click for them. 10 years ago i hated black metal, now I like some of it (classic stuff and the arty kind). That is not the only example either. As i get older i give less of a fuck about the canon, but im still glad I checked a lot of it out.

Astral Weeks, there's another one I never got. What I find weird is when people (including people on ILM) get anguished about much-loved albums, old or new, and keep asking "What am I missing?" Nothing. Maybe you'll get into it one day, maybe you never will - so what? These records aren't going to disappear. If at the age of 50 or whatever I suddenly fall in love with Astral Weeks or Trout Mask Replica or the fucking Doors, then great - I just can't see not liking Record X ever being a source of angst.

And if you dont like astral weeks, its not like you cant escape from hearing it! You dont hear it on the radio or on tv. There's no real reason to hate it.

Oh right, I've basically just said the same as Herman.

If you don't see taste as a battleground before the age of 20 you're missing the point. If you still see taste as a battleground after the age of 30 you're missing the point.

I got more open-minded after 30. I listen to far heavier (and far weirder) shit than I listened to before. I just like hearing new things, but I still love all the grunge stuff I was into at 18, maybe it was because it got me into music? I dunno, but at about 23/24 i read about coltrane and krautrock in Mojo. Britpop/nu-metal was in full swing by then so the NME/Melody Maker/Kerrang didn't speak to me as much anymore, so I went looking, this was pre-internet, so believe me, the canon lists in magazines were bloody helpful. If you dont like a rock canon, check out other genre canons. If you avoid music because its "canon" then I think that silly, but if you dont like it, enjoy what you like!

i don't like astral weeks or sgt. pepper's, either.

so there, cannon.

lets fire them out of a cannon!

let's fire most of the cannon out of a cannon.

what discs have entered the cannon since, perhaps, kid a at the beginning of the decade? american idiot (oy vey)?

not even sure kid a is in. that would back it up to, perhaps, in utero and/or ok computer?

If we're using MOJO here is the 1996 Readers Top 100 albums Of All Time

but that seems to be the last time they did it, I think mojo has more younger readers now, so I'm sure lots more stuff may be in it now.

Rolling stone:
Rolling Stone Readers Top 100 Albums from 2002

The Rolling Stone Top 500 Albums(December 2003)

pretty sure it's safe to say Kid A is in the cannon

canon, rather

The most recent MOJO I have in my reading pile has a gigantic article on Captain Beefheart (and he is on the cover) and another on Syd Barrett. Sure, it focusses too much on dated stuff, but Beefheart is hardly freaking boring old canon farty.

That 500 Albums Rolling Stone list released 7-8 years ago was my springboard into getting into music.

do you still like the albums from it that you liked then?

There was a Rolling Stone Top 100 albums of the last 20 years list in 1987 that was my buying guide for awhile back then. I can't find it anywhere now though.

http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rstone.html

Actually, here it is (3rd list from the top)

When I was a kid, we didn't have a canon! It was bad to bring rock into the classroom.

The Rolling Stone 80s list on the same web page is horrible. Reminds that me when we talk about "the Mojo/Rolling Stone canon" there's a massive difference between the to mags, and indeed the two countries.

president keyes you mean this one? http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/rstone.html#albums

yeah theres always big differences in RS & Mojo. Dave Matthews Band for instance will never get in a Mojo one

Nor would you see this in Mojo:

55. Centrefield - John Fogerty
56. Closer - Joy Division

lol! rolling stone is so passe.

Basically, if this were 20 years ago and RS represented the canon I would be the Lex.

im sure a Spin canon will be different to the rolling stone one
http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/spinend.htm

http://www.rocklistmusic.co.uk/spin100.html#SPIN%2020th%20Anniversary%20Special,%20July%202005
Spin 100 Greatest Albums 1985-2005

3. Nirvana – Nevermind (Dgc, 1991)

but no Bandwagonesque = LIARS