The Canon

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.)

Uh? maybe (probably) I'm misunderstanding but didn't the Stones do EXACTLY the same as The Beatles wiv cover versions up to 1965?

(also by performing lennon-mccartney songs, stones acknowledged the primacy of the moptop canon-forming project)

You say

"Right, I see where you're coming from now. In that case my basic position is that I am not interested in your version of meaningful aesthetic discourse, which boils down to assessing records using pre- established assumptions about value. My preferred approach would be using ones experience of records to assess those assumptions from moment to moment."

A few points:

First, I am outlining as objectively as I can how discourse works in practice. I am not advocating a particular form of discourse that one can opt in or out of according to preference.

Secondly, I am not suggesting anything so rigid as you infer. I agree that each new listening experience potentially challenges existing values. Each new record potentially redefines not only what you like, but your understanding of why you like what you like. In order to describe in words what is a dynamic, highly complex series of responses I have presented a very slowed-down and highly simplified model, which I realise does not do justice to real experience - although I think it is pretty accurate in its own terms. I don't think your view of how the process works is inconsistent with mine.

One should not confuse the experience of art (which I agree will in generally be enriched by shedding preconceptions about value as far as possible) with discourse about art, where some common ground as to how value is to be determined is necessary.

I agree with you also that changes in the canon are by far the most interesting thing about it. I also suspect the existence of the pop canon is much more recent phenomenon than many seem to realise. 60's pop was replaced by Rock (it's easy to overlook just how passe bands like The Byrds, The Kinks, The Beach Boys or even The Beatles were considered in the early seventies); Rock in turn was replaced by punk, which with the well known exceptions despised pretty much everything that had gone before. Although the forces that would determine the Canon were no doubt bubbling away under the surface there was nowhere near enough consensus for a recogniseable canon to be widely accepted before the eighties.

The notion of a Canon originates, in the UK at least, from around the time of the birth of Q magazine, when the NME generation of critics, sensing the way the wind was blowing, started to take the view that "dinosaur" bands like Led Zeppelin, Pink Floyd and The Rolling Stones had made some not-so-despicable records after all. It was no doubt connected to the popularity of the cd format and the recognition that repackaged Iggy Pop and Doors records could be sold to new fans and resold to old ones. Cue glossy magazines, critics talking about "importance", interminable lists of Greatest Albums of All Time followed by the inevitable and highly welcome backlash against all that crap.

The above is a very potted history (no Glam for instance) but I hope corrects the misimpression that The Beatles and The Rolling Stones were "canonical" when they were releasing "Revolver" or "Between the Buttons". Although commentators prescient enough to take the view that what The Beatles or Dylan were doing would ultimately be seen as Serious Art did exist, they were an eccentric minority in the Sixties, when pop culture was generally assumed to be transient froth: in any case one band and one singer-songwriter hardly constitutes a Canon.

Ronan I don't think your Tom/Missy Eliot argument holds. Of course disagreements take place. Where there is shared values the identification of areas where they don't apply has its own interest. But if we find we have no values in common then discourse will ultimately break down.

Incidentally the values I suggested - intelligent lyrics etc - were just examples, not an expression my own views. In fact I'm interested in the aesthetics of banal or nonsense lyrics, and particularly in the way they allow the added humanity/accessibility of a voice while keeping the distraction of "meaning" to a minimum.

Any examples I give will be crude, but lets say I read a comment that a record is "well worth buying despite its obvious pretentions". I might think "I had kind of assumed that pretentiousness would have been a quality that would automatically prevent me from being liking a record. But I am still interested in hearing this record; I might like it even if it is pretentious".

In this admittedly clumsy example my ability to tolerate a certain amount of pretention has emerged as a shared value, but it was not a pre-established one.

A lot of problems arise from the slippage between obvious virtues and the mom-and-apple-pie cliches that arrive as a shorthand for ditto. I am very likely (on this board and off) to say aggressively that I prefer "soulless pre-manufactured robot-music" to [insert favoured opposite], and by extension therefore yes "unimaginative music rah-rah", but what I mean by this is probably not what my pore aggressee means (tho in my defence I *am* by implication criticising the lack of imagination/originality/felt soul involved in the phrasing of his/her original demand for imagination/originality/felt soul blah blah; a lack which to me suggests his/her EXAMPLES of imagination will not be to me terribly imaginative).

I can't work out if I'm agreeing w.you here or disagreeing , ArfArf.

Ronan a couple of points:

My argument is that there must be some shared values before meaningful discourse about aesthetic value can take place. Obviously we can listen to a record and say whether we like it without having shared values. We can both agree that we prefer hip-hop to alt.country without having shared values (other than that particular preference). But we cannot have a meaningful discussion about the relative merits of hip-hop and alt.country unless we have some shared values.

Some people would argue that no meaningful discourse about aesthetic value is possible because all such judgements are completely subjective. This is an intellectually respectable position and one I sometimes find attractive. But the view that we can have meaningful discourse without shared values is not, I think, tenable.

You are right to say that "pretentiousness" means different things to different people. Mark's comments make a similar point: confusion about terminology makes discussion of value more problematic. But if I am inventing a theoretical example I can define it how I wish. So I am able to set your mind at rest by assuring you that in the example given the parties had an identical notion of the meaning of pretentious.

More talk about what these shared values need to be like would be helpful, I think. It seems to me that we could talk about shared values on a very high level, like "likes guitar solos", as being the kind of thing that can ground discussion. Then on the other hand there are values like "likes satisfying cadences", which perhaps would be held by many more people than realize it. Obviously the former kind of value helps to ground a certain kind of discussion, but we might not want to say that it lets us say classic rock fans talk meaningfully to rap fans, or something like that (I don't know - I'm just saying, if we want to be strict about it). Maybe the latter kind of values ground a broader kind of discussion, one that's more inclusive. Because these values are more fundamental or at least less obviously held, though, it may take some doing to arrive at a place where the people discussing realize that they can discuss becaue they do share values.

So, more talk about the nature of these values that you (ArfArf) think must be shared would help me understand what you're arguing for. I personally am inclined to think that in practice both sorts of values ground different kinds of discussion, and that there are some values common enough that most people can, theoretically, talk meaningfully about most music with most other people. That's just a hunch though.

I'm not sure how much sense this makes. I haven't been following too well this very good discussion.

I also think you're making a mistake by saying that the subject of discourse (music, the cannon, etc) is somehow distinct from the discourse itself. By your definition, it seems like it would be impossible to go about listening to something in an entirely innocent manner, i.e. unaffected by the centripetal pull of consensus. Which I agree with. It is certainly not the *only* influence on one's ability to listen to and think about music, prior to writing or speaking about it. But it's still present. Even when I am sitting in a room that is empty except for me, a stereo, and a single CD, I am never truly alone in my listening experience.

As far as a use-value for music... There must be one, certainly? I'm not going to attempt to define it, but I am convinced that music enriches our lives. All of our lives, not just those of us who are obsessed enough to have more than 12 CDs in our collection. It's like reading and writing. Some people do it more than others, or choose less "thoughtful" or "canonic" avenues for their reading habits (People Magazine v. TLS), but they're still getting quite a bit out of the enterprise. I might say that I prefer TLS over People, or that I prefer Cannibal Ox over Will Smith, but this is not any sort of judgement about anyone else's taste other than to say that I, personally, don't really agree with them. That said, I do think that certain forms of art-production provoke thought and discussion in a way that others sometimes do not (or, in the case of something like People, the thought-provoking element needs to be imported from without - I can do a Marxist/Feminist/Deconstructionist reading of an article in People, but there is nothing in the article itself that suggests such a reading), and thus have an added use- value in that regard.

As for proof of "the tautological complaint that the Canon lacks the element of personal choice" when compared to any favorites list generated by a single person - I submit to you the "individual picks" lists than are appended to just about every year-end wrap-up list this year (Pitchfork's, for example). You'll see any of the individual critics making choices that are quite different from the consensus, and if they have any guts, they'll even go out on a limb and confess to liking something that they know they're alone on (and not just because they're the only person in the world who actually heard it). As an example, I'm sure I'm just about alone here on ILM in being entertained on a level that includes something more than mere irony-humor-value by Mr. Iglesias's "Hero" video...

But ultimately, I would maintain that, with or without a cannon, we have "no basis for suggesting that our tastes are any better or worse than anyone else's." Why would I need to suggest that? I find Cannons useful on the level that's already been acknowledged - as a way in to something I have no knowledge of. If a very large group of people like a piece of music or find it to be representative of a given genre that I've never heard of, then that serves as a way for me to discover a new genre. In the end, I don't have to agree that Aphex Twin's "Windowlicker" is the pinnacle of IDM, but because I've heard that opinion so many times, I was willing to go out of my way to listen to it and thus give myself my first taste of IDM... From there, I can start making my own choices. But I do not need to appeal to any Cannon to defend my own tastes, because honestly I feel no need to defend my own tastes. They are my own, and if they're not yours, I am not the least bit concerned. To go back to Tom's scripture-cannon analogy - it is TOTALLY apt because just as an appeal to scripture is dependent upon all participants in the discussion being "believers" in the truth of the scriptures, any appeal to the cannon is dependent upon all participants in the discussions being "believers" in the truth of "received wisdom." For someone like myself, the idea of "objective value" reeks of the same unfounded religious mysticism as the miracle of the immaculate conception.

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.

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