'Canonical'-type shit you just don't get

[Randy Watson]

There seems to have been a move in the last few years to place Elton John in the canon. In the early nineties this would have been met with derision by all. I don't know how this has come to be, apart from some shameless lobbying on the part of John himself. Anyway, I think he's shit and I don't think people should be free to write their own history without challenge.

I completely agree with Blissblogger about Eric Clapton. The box set is a flag for wankers.

Grateful Dead/Jefferson Airplane just do nothing for me.

Jet are Lenny Kravitz aren't they? No-one so beholden to the canon ever ascends to it, if it is ascended to at all.

I find it very hard to disassociate him from the accusations made againt him but why is R Kelly rated so highly? To me he's no better than mid-eighties also-rans like Freddie Jackson.

 

[noel emits]

The Roots

Don't know much about The Roots (except that a Glastonbury set on the TV was a bit of jazz-wankery-audience-participation-self-congratulatory irritation iirc), but an Aquarius Records review of Phrenology prompted me to check out the track 'Water' and it's real good. Surprising, almost heads into Faust territory. I don't think they're canonical in most peoples estimation, and one track does not make for a classic group anyway, but check out that song.

 

[noel emits]

Never understood the Clapton love at all either, but hearing Witchdoctor by John Mayall's Bluesbreakers on Sonic Boom's excellent 'Spacelines' compilation goes some way towards explaining.

 

[hamarplazt]

the psychological process of it, i suspect, often goes like this -- you hear something Canonical and initially are unimpressed and cos it's a more interesting posture, and a little bit of a relief too, something to strike off the list, you stay with that impression. and kind of cherish a bit

This is certainly a part of it, but when you've listened to music for a long time, you get to know yourself enough to know when something is just not worth trying to get any more. That doesn't mean that you can't understand the historical importance, just that you've become so confident with your own taste that you accept that some things are not for you. It's not that I don't recognize the position of Hendrix in rock, it's just that I can't understand it - I can't see why anyone would ever be inspired by something sounding so goddamn awful. Believe me, it's not something I started out thinking, to begin with I had no real opinion about him except that I'd have to check him out, that he was on the list... but eventually, every time I heard him, even when trying open mindedly to get him, I always ended with the same feeling... that it was one of the most disgusting sounds I've ever heard. And if it makes me disabled, I'm glad to be so; whatever pleasure Hendrix might provide - I know it's the kind of pleasure I don't want.

 

[matt b]

i used to have a 7" by a hardcore punk band whos name now escapes me, with over 50 songs on it. each song was like a split second of frantic drumming and a singer going "neeeeeearrrrrgggggghhhhh" - you'd look at the lyric sheet and see paragraphs of dense lyrics about bringing multinationals down.

probably on slapaham records. won't really matter which one.

that whole breakcore thing bites that style big time but with less panache and professionalism.

i'm waitng for the hardcore (punk) revival.

 

[arcaNa]

i'll certainly second neil young. i don't understand what all the fuss is about. at all.

 

[mpc]

i'll certainly second neil young. i don't understand what all the fuss is about. at all.

go and buy 'harvest'

 

[mms]

u2, someone explain to me about u2 and why eno was involved when he could have been making amazing records with phil collins


my god u2 are bad. only saving grace is the delay on 'the edge's' guitar but even listening to that for more than a minute makes me feel sick.

 

[HMGovt’s Glorious Return!]

u2, someone explain to me about u2 and why eno was involved when he could have been making amazing records with phil collins


my god u2 are bad. only saving grace is the delay on 'the edge's' guitar but even listening to that for more than a minute makes me feel sick.

Definitely. RAUS! The video for the latest one was good though.

 

[simon silverdollar]

ok, ok, now i'm confused.
what the fuck is this 'canon' anyway?
did i miss something?
i thought we were just talking about stuff that a lot of people liked.
but then i hear that there's a special 'canon'. and that autechre might be in it, but prob not, and that robert johnson's place in it is shaky.
who decides what goes in the 'canon'?
is it just all popular 'alternative' stuff?
like, are pearl jam in the canon?
or do a majority of record collecting hipsters have to like you to be in the canon? [ that wasn't meant to sound as nasty as it perhaps did]

anyway, i'm confused...someone please explain this to me.

 

[Pearsall]

ok, ok, now i'm confused.
what the fuck is this 'canon' anyway?
did i miss something?
i thought we were just talking about stuff that a lot of people liked.

that's what I meant when I started the thread.

maybe 'the canon' is like some kind of Masonic thing, and knowledge of it comes complete with secret handshakes, fiddly trouser-legs, strange woodland rituals, and the like.

 

[robin]

i hate pink floyd

 

[puretokyo]

go and buy 'harvest'

and then 'after the goldrush'.

now, to really get some controversy in play, i just don't understand jungle. at all. not the slightest bit.
to me, it seems abrasive, aggressive and irritating without having any redeeming darkness or catchiness, you can't move your body to it, etc? canon-wise, i'm thinking here specifically of stuff like remarc etc. can't stand it.

 

[Logan Sama]

it seems abrasive, aggressive and irritating without having any redeeming darkness or catchiness, you can't move your body to it, etc?

Certain things you need to experience in their natural element to understand them.

Speak to someone who actually went raving to it in it's peak during the late 90's and see the look in their eye as they recall what it was like, and you will get an inkling of an idea what it's redeeming features are.

It's infectiously energetic and you certainly can dance to it.

 

[Jay Vee]

But the thing is, Phil Collins is (or was) a very accomplished drummer. Even if you slag off everything Genesis have ever done, there are still the sessions for Eno and his work with Brand X. Collins' entire career is replete with extremely good drum breaks; whether or not you actually like the stuff he's playing along to. Oh, and he's a better vocalist than Peter Gabriel.

The solo career is still complete pants though.

AND he produced and played on Frida's "There's Something Going On", which to my mind redeems just about all of his other 80's silliness.

Shit i just don't get: Eminem, Tupac, The Doors, most of the "popular" Stax canon (Sam & Dave, Booker T. , blah blah (those horn charts do not make me happy), give me Al Green over Otis Redding ANY day, Dylan and most of the asshattery that issued out of San Francisco during the late '60s. Except for Love, of course.

 

[Pearsall]

DMC mixing competitions. Technically impressive yes, but apart from the occassional dj with a sense of humor it's all a bit reminiscent of a Joe Satriani-style masturbation session, isn't it?

 

[Logan Sama]

lol

Good call.

 

[turtles]

Maybe one way of looking at the whole canon thing that's not so based on personal opinion is in terms of influence. as in, what artists/bands/whatever were so influential that without their existence huge chunks of their respective genres would never have happened?

So obvious things like the beatles, the beach boys, the stones--without them then vast swaths of rock would never have happened. No velvet underground and a lot of indie rock disapeers. no kraftwerk, bye bye most of techno.

Getting a bit more modern: no basic channel (whom i love) and a lot of experimental techno never happens, no autechre (whom I half-love) and a lot of IDM never happens (which many of you might view as a good thing).

Maybe then we can say: nirvana, in the canon, pearl jam not? how about maybe eminem, I don't think there are really many bands out there that wouldn't exist without eminem. Also maybe the streets, not sure exactly how influential he is. There are lots of great bands/artists who didn't really move things forward so much as keep the quality level high.

so two new questions: what are the bands that people think are canonical but really didn't add much to the musical landscape? and what canonical bands do we really wish hadn't existed because of their terrifying influence on musical culture?


of course this kinda takes things out of the "let's fight about personal opinions" thing, which is supa fun. so carry on with that too.

 

[Backjob]

Okay, now that someone's admitted a love for basic channel, I wanna know WHY. Like explain in fresh language what makes it good. I don't mind that "Vainqueur" track which kinda bangs, but, I dunno, it's just so many people whose opinions I respect seem to love this label and I just don't get it. Pray tell, dave.

Canonical but added nothing:

Guns and Roses (who are still great despite that, but really didn't do anything new)

Canonical and detrimental:

Gotta go with whoever said Pavement (who are shit) and also add
Aphex Twin (who had some great moments, but also inspired some of the worst music ever made)

 

[martin]

But surely 'the canon' is a complete fabrication, as it's an arbitrary signifier that undergoes constant flux...oh fuck me, I nearly did a sensible post! Er, imagine Parminder Nagra all gothed out! I think the most underrated band ever were The Wolfe Tones, but there you go.