The Canon

You simply can't have a complete discussion of music without recourse to its concretes. Any thread like this is going to be permanently hamstrung if it doesn't delve into the actual materials of which music is made, and I think this is why I often find ILM frustrating, because we simply can't get into that stuff here -- you can't really describe the ways in which particular modes of musical discourse work without talking about, for instance, F-sharps and minor ninths and patterns of tension and release. Instead, we have an atomizing mode of discourse that, by stressing solipsistic and non-rational considerations above all others, emphasizes above all else the totally unbridgeable gaps between human beings, and engages in what a friend of mine calls "the mystification of reality".

The antidote to that is technical discussion, is the treatment of music as a coherent language capable of expressing articulate aesthetic ideas (rather than just as a bunch of sounds that you like or you don't). My ideal mode of discourse is one in which the technical discussion exists side-by-side with the subjective considerations that have ascendancy on ILM; the discourse that results from a synthesis of those two things is far more illuminating and joyful than either one taken alone. People always seem paranoid that technical understanding will somehow "murder to dissect", but it never really does. But you can't use other words for it -- it's the whole "dancing about architecture" thing, which is a wildly overstated (and overrated) quote but which contains the core of truth that you really can't fully paraphrase into words the specific technical materials of which the arts are made. And the problem is, as I've said, that it is with the understanding of those technical materials that the synthesis is to be had.

Music is above all a narrative, made up of a synthesis between sound and language, and our experience as listeners is to varying degrees made up of reactions to both of its aspects. The presence of an intelligible narrative is not a subjective issue, it's one that's every bit as clear-cut as the difference between "The man walks to the store" and "!@#!@#%% nkl!! ,.+p-=-`[][][": if the latter is a statement that's equally as intelligible as the former, then show me the language in which it's written. Show me how it's different from "!@#!@#%% nk?!! ,.+p-=-`[][][" and "!@#!@#%% nkl!! ,.+p-=-`[])][". Every statement presupposes a language in which it's expressed, and an audience that can understand it: "!@#!@#%% nkl!! ,.+p-=-`[][][" may be meaningful in assembly language, but it's the requirement of the artist to give that statement a frame in which to be understood. Without that frame, it may look interesting, and perhaps even be pleasing, but it's not communicative or sustainable -- and art made in such a way tends to be a series of interesting moments with no real feeling of unity or coherence. This is one of my problems with Cage -- it could be argued that the classical music tradition tended (with some exceptions) to overemphasize the linguistic, articulated element at the expense of the sonic, textural/timbral element, but Cage would have us skew the equation just as badly in the other direction. The famous irony is that Cage's music, which at its worst is pages upon pages of "!@#!@#%% nkl!!" with no sense of unity at all, often ends up sounding exactly like serial music, which at its worst is pages upon pages of "!@#!@#%% nkl!!" whose narrative is so arcane and mathematical that it's essentially unintelligible. Neither supplies a language in which to make these statements articulate, so both end up operating on a very superficial level -- whereas someone like George Crumb often integrates his "!@#!@#%% nkl!!" moments into a larger framework that enables one to hear them as articulate aesthetic statements, which is the wonderful thing about him at his best...

So all this stuff about "objective value" and the like is a red herring in a way, since the key question really is: does what music communicates to people actually exist, or is it solely in our own heads? Is it meaningful language, or "sound in time" without meaning? And my answer, as you've guessed, is "both". And it's on those grounds that I take my stance on the idea of a canon: whether or not the actual canon reflects these ideals, I do subscribe to the notion of a body of work that does communicate something articulate and of value, being passed through the generations as something to the effect of: "Here. Look at this. Figure out what it's saying, since it is indeed saying something. See whether you like it, and whether you've learned anything new from it. Let's talk about what we hear in it." Whether or not you like a particular work, whether or not it pleases you, is a wholly different thing, and perhaps what we mean when we say music is "good" implies the co-existence of those two factors: "it has something worthwhile to say, _and_ I like it". If the canon as it stands has suffered from the efforts of those who use their own prejudices to determine whether or not a piece of music has something worthwhile and enduring to say, I don't see how that invalidates the notion of assembling a body of work from which one can at least begin, and which is believed to have the power to illuminate.

1) grasping towards an *informal* language for discussing the music I like is pretty much the purpose of my blog. Unfortunately the Canon has no time for informalities and *far too much* time for formalities.

Phil - Surprisingly, I don't think I really disagree with a single word you just said. Though I would like to say that I think the approach to listening to and discussing music that you've suggested is the dominant form, and fairly widespread. Thus, don't fret too much about the lack of such discussion on ILM, I'm sure you can find it dominating just about any other thoughtful discussion of music. Anyways, no I don't see music at all as tabula rasa. But I also don't see myself as a tabula rasa that music can inscribe itself upon (and I realize that you would never make such a suggestion). Because there is no innocent position that I or the music that I am listening to can occupy, because our relationship is necessarily mediated by an interpretive structure that I cannot begin to understand or penetrate, I choose to align myself with an extremist-subjectivist position because it seems to be somehow more honest, and definitely easier. But I'll happily acknowledge the "dialogic" aspect of any listening experience - like I've already said, I'm never alone when I'm listening to music, and I'm sure the composer is one of the many ghosts sitting in the room with me, egging me on to some sort of understanding. (By the way, contrary to your friends quote, it's the other extreme position, an absolute focus on your "object value" red herring, that I find to be a form of mysticism. I have yet to have objective reality presented to me in a tangible form, thus I continue to view it as a religious hoax.)

To bring it all back to Ronan's original question (oh yeah, remember that?), the problem with the cannon has very little to do with the process that creates it (and no, for the record, I would never claim that the cannonization of a work is born out of something so simple as "People liked it" - though I submit that those three words signify a more complex process than might initially appear), but with the ends to which it is put. The cannon often ends up serving as an alibi, rather than an explanation, for a given preference. More importantly, it has a tendency to create a language that cannot even acknowledge certain forms of art that have not yet been admitted to the cannon.

Thus, the possible problem with your idea of introducing "technical discussion" to the ultra-subjectivist discourse of ILM is that most of music's technical language seems to be based on analyzing only a very specific kind of music. When applied to, say, Missy Elliot, Basement Jaxx, or Steve Reich, old school music theory has a tendency to "expose" these new forms of music as shallow. I'm not sure I agree with Tim that the "technical discussion" approach can't be applied to the music he likes. I'm all for speaking about the quantifiable, technical aspects of today's pop. But I do agree with Tim that "we" have yet to find a way how to do it. Because there's something going on here that we have yet to quantify, yet to invent a codified technical language to identify, etc. It's not an impossible venture, but it's got a long way to go before it will meet Phil's requirements for "complete discussion," methinks.

By the way, Phil - really really disagree with you on the Cage- serialism comparison. Actually, can't say much about Cage, because I haven't heard enough, but serialism is a language that, with time, one can learn to understand and appreciate as easily as Bach's. Webern especially becomes transparant (not to mention emotionally moving) with repeated listenings...

(sorry for being such a windbag)

1) Matthew, Tim -- good points, which I look forward to spending more time on shortly;

2) Mark -- I must have changed a lot, then, as Marcello's post is on crack, especially regarding the "black/white - felt/thought" equation, which is just ridiculous;

3) Matthew -- there's a lot of gorgeous serial music! I love Webern, Schoenberg, Berg -- though I should confess that I tend to prefer their pre-serial work -- and can enjoy Boulez if I'm in the right mood. I should've made clearer that I was comparing the worst Cage pieces to the worst serial pieces (both of which fail, among other things, by their lack of meaningful differentiation); by the latter I might mean some of Babbitt's stuff, which I generally can't stand. I do, on the other hand, think that serial technique is based on a fundamentally flawed assumption involving octave identity, but that's a different kettle of fish that I'd want to spend some time on before I put it forth at any length.

To clarify: it could, if the language for it existed (as you yourself note).

The other difficulty of course is that formulating such a language in a manner that would be understandable by myself and Phil speaking his own language would require either him to listen to all my stuff and transplant some of the rules from his own field of expertise (as messy an operation as a baboon-human heart transplant I'd imagine) or for me to go away and listen to all the stuff he listened to to get a grasp on the original language, setting up automatically a heirarchy of listening tastes ("this is the stuff you *need* to know, this is the stuff you can pursue as a hobby") which a) doesn't really help my situation at all, and b) touches the heart of one of the canon's annoyances - the presumption that it's better to, say, listen to modern music in the light of the Beatles, than to listen to the Beatles in light of modern music.

A formal vocabulary also really limits the level to which one can get across the multiplicity of resonances that sounds have, which is why some people see doing away with the vocabulary as not just a compromise but a primary goal. The question becomes: do I sacrifice a sense of personal accuracy for the satisfactions of legitimacy and respectability?

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.