The Canon

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