canon talk 2k5

[vesper]

is there a point where an album's ambitions and/or influence, and specifically not its songs, maintain its status in the canon? if so, is this okay? is this inevitable?

i've been thinking about this question ever since i read amanda petrusich's kid a entry on the leaked pitchfork 100, where she only talked about its influence, its role as a hipster ticket, and its tokenistic value (which is pretty weird, but okay). maybe this question is a little (argh) rockist, since the crux of what i'm asking seems to be if there is such a thing as a timeless song, but i still wonder if what an album represents, and not what it actually does, makes it valuable.

kid a definitely seems to be one of those albums whose legend is more interesting than its substance. but is this okay? there is something to be said for an album that crystallizes its time so succinctly that, 20 or 30 or 50 or 100 years later, it gives perspective into our millenial values. (not that i'm saying kid a is really that album, but roll with me here.) on the other hand, i wonder if all that critical and public consensus only creates a feedback loop (ripping off one of hstencil's threads on ILM that i can't find now), and we're all left touting kid a's story (like petrusich's entry) instead of its music.

[earl grey]

i think context is a key part of any album, but the songs themselves are always the most important - especially if it's be considered part of the "canon." which is why i've never fully bought into the brilliance of records like shadow's 'entroducing' or aphex twin's 'SAW II" ... i feel like ppl like them more for what they represent than what they actually sound like. at the same time, a big part of my love for things like chicago house, or early 90's techno, or say 'marquee moon,' is that the great music reaches even greater heights when i think about the context.

it's tough to separate context and content in my eyes, but the canonical albums are essential in both arenas IMO. oh, and i personally think 'kid A' is an amazing album in both respects - but that's another discussion....

[vesper]

yeah, i would never want to divorce context from an album; doing so would come way too close to the New Critic's approach toward literature around the middle of the 20th century (and i loathe looking at art as if it exists in a vacuum).

i guess what i mean by "the legend of kid a" is actually the idea that 'this is a great album because of its goals/what it has created, not its own results', which seems (to me anyway) to be the unspoken strain running through threads like this (http://www.matadorrecords.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2823). i mean, even though people are saying that they don't enjoy [x], they still maintain [x]'s place in the canon. i've never been able to get behind this idea.

-----

i should also point out that for all my carrying on about 'the canon', i actually resent the idea of one. however i also acknowledge that the lack of an "official" canon doesn't mean an oral or mental canon exists, especially within indie (or any specialized) circles. i'm trying to dig around it, though.

[earl grey]

Originally posted by vesper
yeah, i would never want to divorce context from an album; doing so would come way too close to the New Critic's approach toward literature around the middle of the 20th century (and i loathe looking at art as if it exists in a vacuum).

i guess what i mean by "the legend of kid a" is actually the idea that 'this is a great album because of its goals/what it has created, not its own results', which seems (to me anyway) to be the unspoken strain running through threads like this (http://www.matadorrecords.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2823). i mean, even though people are saying that they don't enjoy [x], they still maintain [x]'s place in the canon. i've never been able to get behind this idea.

-----

i should also point out that for all my carrying on about 'the canon', i actually resent the idea of one. however i also acknowledge that the lack of an "official" canon doesn't mean an oral or mental canon exists, especially within indie (or any specialized) circles. i'm trying to dig around it, though.

to me, a thread like that is more "lots of people who have similar tastes to me love this album/artist, but i don't" - because ultimately the canon only matters to someone if they enjoy what's in it. i guess "canon" inherently implies something that isn't personal - in which case i'd look at it as a collection of albums most people think are essential.

i don't particularly resent the idea of a canon, as it's a good entry point to a genre. it's just not good to give one too much weight.

i was thinking some more about context on the subway - the examples i mentioned above were about context within an era of music. i think what is equally (if not more) important is context within an artist's career.

[Wallerton]

Originally posted by earl grey
i don't particularly resent the idea of a canon, as it's a good entry point to a genre. it's just not good to give one too much weight.

Here's a thought, vesper: would you resent the idea of an indie-rock canon so much if the albums it contained weren't ranked? What if the list were alphabetical? Chronological?

Maybe a semi/pseudo New Critical approach is actually what's called for here. If the objection is that works are considered canonical more for their influence than for whether or not they're actually enjoyable, then it seems to me you're necessarily talking about context. A truly New Critical approach (and not even the most dogmatic New Critics could escape contextualizing the literature they canonized) would involve taking each record on its own terms, not taking into account the fact that influential records are sometimes less listenable/enjoyable/whatever than the records they inspired.

Does that make sense? I'm sleep-deprived and a wee bit tipsy right now.

Having said all that, I'm not particularly opposed to the idea of a canon, but I tend to have an accomodationist stance on canon formation. My loosely defined canon would consist of works that are both influential and influenced, but I don't think I'd rank the individual entries.

Edit: How interesting that our discussion of indie rock is informed by theory! Any other English majors out there?

[earl grey]

Originally posted by Wallerton

My loosely defined canon would consist of works that are both influential and influenced, but I don't think I'd rank the individual entries.

Edit: How interesting that our discussion of indie rock is informed by theory! Any other English majors out there?

agreed.

i actually majored in molecular biology - my science days are mostly behind me though.

[vesper]

i don't know that there is a ranked canon? like i said before, there isn't an official one, just a collection of albums that everyone agrees are 'essential to any serious music fan' (which makes me twitch). i know i'm being a little dramatic about the gravity of a canon: i agree with earl that it is a good point of entry; i worry that it becomes a focal point.

my problems with the canon stem from three major points, all of which are probably antiquated:

1. tastemaking. this seems to be fading the most (ie, it's okay for someone to not like the beatles or led zeppelin), but there is still the idea of "getting it," where not enjoying [x] = not being smart enough or hip enough or knowledgeable enough to enjoy something that it so basic and sensory. which leads me to...

2. privileging certain forms over others for reasons (and this is important) that don't really have anything to do with the music. yeah, i mean issues like race, class, gender, and sexuality. this guy on a message board said that he didn't like the violence and chauvinism and greed of "gangsta rap" and that the only rappers he likes are eminem, beastie boys and everlast/house of pain. there seems to be something else going on here other than his dislike of "gangsta rap," right? on the same thread, another guy said "Yeah, I used to like rap - back in the 80s. Back before rap was angry black people being angry" although i'm sure he has absolutely no problem with angry white people being angry. is there a point where we accept a certain stance or a certain sound or a certain platform for an artist because of societal prejudices or perceived roles? and on to...

3. homogenization. when new music is acceptable because it spins off of the accepted artists that preceded them.

i'm disarming myself a bit, cos i know that i'm pushing theories to extremes. plus, at this point, there seems to be a greater stress on eclecticism than on specialization; maybe this would have been a more appropriate conversation in the 70s.

[Wallerton]

Originally posted by vesper
i don't know that there is a ranked canon?

I had the Pitchfork 100 in mind when I said that.

there seems to be a greater stress on eclecticism than on specialization

I think that's probably true. Glen Matlock was fired from the Sex Pistols, supposedly because he admitted to liking the Beatles. That reflects a dogmatic narrowmindedness about music I'd like to believe isn't as widespread or pronounced as it used to be.