Ten "cannonical" albums that are closer to dud than classic.

Couldn't disagree more with VU&Nico, Nation of Millions, Trout Mask and Exile.

Fairly indifferent towards the rest.

I'd like to add:
everything the Beastie Boys have ever done
Husker Du's Zen Arcade
The Roots in general

and more when I remember...

None of these even made the Top 1000 in the last (so far) Virgin Top 1000 book collected by Colin Larkin

I bought Exile a few months back and was shocked at how rubbish i thought it was.

isn't the Virgin list is based on polling customers and not critics, though? because canons tend to be written by critics, so I'm not sure that's the best place to go to smash one.

A combination of both. I doubt Kate & Anna McGarrigle would have reached the list from customers votes only.

because canons tend to be written by critics, so I'm not sure that's the best place to go to smash one.

Canons tend to be suggested by critics, and then picked up by the audience. "Canonical" albums are usually enjoyed both by audiences and by critics. Exactly like the classical music canon.

I too, for what it's worth, bought Exile expecting at least something I could hear as a rock & roll classic, and was astounded at the pile of shitty posturing contained therein.

Aren't all "canonical" albums, really?

Personally, I feel like attacking Public Enemy, Captain Beefheart, Otis Redding and Velvet Underground isn't all that usual, but they are among the very worst cases of overrated albums to me.

And there is no way that I would even dream of attacking such obviously beautiful classics as "Sgt. Pepper" and "Pet Sounds.

"Rise" is decent. Other than that, I enjoy nothing that John Lydon has ever been involved in.

Anyway Geir, "Lick My Decals Off, Baby" is commonly regarded as better than "Trout Mask." Get with the program baby.

and Public Enemy is by no means the "whitest black music ever" - that distinction, my friends, belongs to either Lauryn Hill or The Roots.

Stickers. Decalcomania, I believe the word is for a 19th-century middle-class obsession. Somehow the previous seems appropriate for Mr. Hongro's musical leanings--very Victorian and musty, no Negroes allowed and all. Rock on.

that's insane like geir.

in what parallel universe has this occurred?

Actually, apart from hip-hop, Otis Redding and Aretha Franklin, I will actually say that the black albums usually associated with the "canon" are actually great ones: "What's Going On", "Songs In The Key Of Life"/"Innervisions", "Purple Rain"/"1999". Definitely deserved "canonical" items all of them.

I'm not a big punk fan either, but I always thought
Replacements' _Sorry Ma, Forgot To Take Out The Trash_
kicked sooo much. It's the only Replacements album I
truly dig, which is odd, since most people consider it
a minor detour on their path to greatness.

BTW: The Virgin Top 1000 book is a fucking joke. And Sgt. Pepper is a relic.

I'm not a big punk fan either, but I always thought
Replacements' _Sorry Ma, Forgot To Take Out The Trash_
kicked sooo much. It's the only Replacements album I
truly dig, which is odd, since most people consider it
a minor detour on their path to greatness.

And Geir, you're the first person I've heard refer
to "black albums." I'm not denouncing this, it's just
odd.

True. Not too bad that one either (for a funk album, that is, anyway).

And, yes, I enjoy "Sign "O" The Times". Wrote "1999" by mistake, while I really meant "Sign "O" The Times".

in what parallel universe has this occurred?

In the universe where people listen to records and come to some kinda consensus about which ones work best. In the Beefheartian (?) universe, "Decals" is commonly regarded his best album--in fact Mr. Van Vliet hisself says this too.
So--as I say, grumpily, completely over this stupid fuckin' Geir Honrgo bullshit--get with the program baby.

"albums by black acts" probably would have been a more correct term (or "R&B albums", as Jimi Hendrix and Love obviously don't fit in with the rest musically). Probably mainly a matter of English not being my native language.

The difference is that Trout Mask Replica is extremely, incredibly complex and difficult to play. While any moron with a tape player and an amplifier could make either of the other two albums mentioned, replicating Trout Mask Replica would require phenomenal skill. I don't think this says anything about the *quality* of the music, but it strikes me as a major major difference. Beefheart at Co.'s arrangements are mind-shatteringly complex in many cases - at first it sounds like just babble, but then you realize that it's more like five musicians playing five completely and very strange and different songs at the same time. That takes a lot of effort and concentration.... for what that's worth...

....or a lot of LSD.....

In music, there is no such thing (or shouldn't be such a thing) are "black music" or "white music". However, I was speaking of artists that are actually black, rather than "black music". What is usually called "black music", I don't like at all. Period.

Or pop music being your native idiom.

At the same time, you champion "Sgt Pepper's", but after having watched a TOTP2 retrospect on the Beatles this afternoon, I've concluded that this album is largely tedious and that the only reason it has been placed in the canon is because of the divine "A Day In The Life". Apart from that, we've got the quite good "Mr Kite!", "Getting Better" and "Fixing A Hole", the twee "When I'm Sixty-Four" and the rest is quite banal when compared to any of their post Rubber Soul output. In an ideal world, "Sgt Pepper's" would be replaced with "Magical Mystery Tour" (had it been a proper album). I don't understand either, why "Sgt Pepper's" was considered such a breakthrough for the Beatles when Revoler was a much more cathartic and revolutionary turning point? Was it the concept of the whole thing? Or what?

I've noticed you have picked a lot of long albums. I always find that these albums are best heard on random play. Troutmaskreplica, particularly, is a lot more fun if you bung on the random play button and listen to a few tracks at a time instead of trying to listen to it end to end (impossible! maybe?).

I am comparatively young to the music canon (22), therefore I too often can't understand why some albums are rated so highly. Whilst not being terribly offended by "The Velvet Underground & Nico", I honestly can't see why it's so good because I wasn't there at the time. It just sounds regressive to my ears and a lot of it really does grate, though I feel guilty for admitting this. The same with "It Takes A Nation Of Millions...", the lyrics are good but why does each song have to go on for over 5 minutes with very few musical changes? Whilst some may argue that hip-hop production hadn't developed fully at the time, I know this is not true as Run DMC, NWA and countless "old-skool" hiphop acts had made much better albums (musically that is) before this one. Sure they were making a statement but if statements made great albums then Fun>Da>Mental would be in a lot more top 100s. Same for "Never Mind The Bollocks", an exercise in shit songs with an aimless "message" directed behind it that, surprise surprise, wasn't new at all.

Some more for the canon-destructor:

Smashing Pumpkins: Siamese Dream
IMHO one of their worst albums. Not as beautiful as Gish nor conceptually fully formed as Mellon Collie, only "Today", "Soma" and "Mayonaise" shine through what is mostly a dirge of piercing guitars.

Prodigy: Fat of the Land
How many other bands have their worst album as their most canonical or best-selling? This is drivel. I put it on again to see if it had improved with age. It hadn't. How can such a great act turn into a such a crap band?

The Beach Boys: Pet Sounds
Okay, I love the Beach Boys, I like Pet Sounds a lot, but equally I hate it simply because it's their only canonised album. It seems that Pet Sounds is widely regarded as the be-all and end-all of their career, when in fact like "Sgt. Pepper's", it is merely "pretty good" in retrospect. That sounds harsh, I know and the pages of the canon are filled with accounts of just how much effort was put into Pet Sounds, but really does can any Beach Boys fan honestly say that they prize this over the harmonic ballads of "Today!" or the grotesquely beautiful "Smiley Smile" or the bruised and battered "Surf's Up" or the fried "Love You"? I prefer any of these over boring old Pet Sounds which fails because the lyrical matter is so pedestrian compared to other albums. I'd rather here a song about vegetables, wind chimes or flying in airplanes than "Here Today", sad but true. And maybe this is why Pet Sounds fails my ears. The production is so good but the lyrics on this album are the only time Beach Boys fans hear Brian's true heartbreak. It's painful whereas other albums are a lot less personal.

oops.

However, "Surf's Up" is almost as good, and definitely among the most underrated albums of all time, alongside "Sunflower"

There, I said it and I'm not ashamed. There's a frikkin' OK EP on that thing. And Goo's even worse.

No, it isn't. The album contains obvious classics such as "Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds", "For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite", and I also see "Fixing a Hole" and "Lovely Rita" as some of the best songs they ever did. Not to mention the beautiful "She's Leaving Home".

And as for referring to "grownup" styled songs as "twee", why then, don't critic write off Sinatra's entire Capitol output as "twee" in the same breath?

haha, geir doesn't even know the names.

Top 100 lists.

Siamese Dream is one of the finest rock albums ever recorded.

and "being there" has nothing to do with appreciating great music, unless you're a total idiot. There is nothing 'regressive' about the Velvet Underground whatsoever. You either appreciate art, or you passively immerse yourself in the bowels of pap masquerading as 'entertainment' like most of society. It's your choice.

MY WHITE AlBUM:

01. Back In The USSR
02. Dear Prudence
03. Ob-La-Di, Ob-La-Da (fun little song, plus it helped
inspire John's "How Do You Sleep")
04. While My Guitar Gently Weeps
05. Martha My Dear
06. I'm So Tired
07. Blackbird
08. I Will
09. Julia
10. Birthday
11. Everybody's Got Something To Hide (not a classic,
but worth it for the kicking bass line)
12. Sexy Sadie
13. Helter Skelter
14. Revolution 1
15. Cry Baby Cry
16. Good Night (OK, it sucks, but Ringo had to have
a song, and would you prefer "Don't Pass"?)

Some of the other songs could have been shunted
onto side 2 of _Yellow Submarine_, ala the American
version of _Magical Mystery Tour_.

And I will gladly write off ALL Sinatra as twee.
Except for the song that celebrates the thinness
of his paramour. What's that called?

you may kiss the geir.

What? So I HAVE to like "VU&N" now or I'm a consumerist sheep? How is this album not regressive? Some may call it rootsy or something but the only tracks I really like are "Sunday Morning", "Femme Fatale" and "All Tomorrow's Parties" (scarily close to Geir's choice cuts - eek!). The others don't sound much different to anything Bob Dylan did ten years previously, so how is this special? And I do think being there was important. People say this album is good cos it's a precursor to Punk or that it's a biography of living in the mean streets of NYC(is that the right city?). As a 22 year old growing up in Letchworth, Hertfordshire I just missed the seventies and I was but a bairn when punk broke so people shooting heroin in back alleys some time in the seventies doesn't really inspire me. Then again I like Reggae music so what the hey? I don't hate this album, just don't understand why it's supposed to be so good.

But would you rather:
"Within You, Without You" or "Love You To"?
"Good Morning, Good Morning" or "Good Day Sunshine"?
"With A Little Help From My Friends" or "I'm Only Sleeping"
"Lovely Rita" or "Got To Get You Into My Life"?

which are better?
I've tried to pick equivalent songs for both Revolver and Sgt here, hence these particularly choices.

Jody: everybody should just give themselves a NICE LITTLE PAT ON THE BACK [read in Church Lady voice] for hating Exile on Main Street

Jess: haha

Jody: i don't get the "i listened to this supposedly classic album once and didn't take to it therefore it's horribly overrated and you're all a bunch of sheep" attitude

Jess: people have real issues with asserting their "individuality"

Jody: rather than actually giving the record some time and figuring out what's good about it

I'd tell anyone to start with 'decals' over 'trout mask'. When I was 15, I bought the latter first due to it's constant presence on those fucking top-100 lists and my reaction was "okay glad to know about this, uh, check" and so I didn't find out about 'decals' or 'doc at the radar station' or 'bat chain puller' for another 5 years.

one thing I'll say about Geir's list... several of those albums are important precisely because of the magnitude of their influence, the degree to which they inspire other trends which have become important... you might hate the trends they've inspired, but judging these records for their rewards to the passive listener seems to miss the point a bit. saying that tupac or dre are more 'listenable' than public enemy... well that's certainly one way of putting it.

someday 'revolution 9' will get the respect it deserves

I really had planned to leave this thread alone, but Geir! Calling "When I'm 64" a "GROWNUP" STYLED SONG (!!) and then equating it with Sinatra's 50s work???? This certainly ranks in your Top Five posts. (How long before this thread makes its appearance?) Plus, I can't believe you're championing Sinatra: He didn't write any of those songs, you know...

The other classic Stones albs from this period are huge, white-hot blazes; Exile is a low, weak, crackly burn, spreading its warmth across a roomy, rustic house verrry slowly. I think people are disappointed cuz they don't wanna wait for the house to warm up.

I hear you - and I'm jealous of how you and others on this board are able to find pleasure in such a greater variety of music than I am. That's why I'm here - to get my (ick) "horizons broadened." I see how it may not look that way when I come in here toss off a glib judgment; you don't know me, so I understand why you'd give a rat's ass what I think, when it's not backed up by at least a stab at analysis. (I mean, I don't think what I wrote was any "worse" than stuff I see around here all the time - I've had to steel myself for seeing stuff I like slagged ultra-casually and hard - but others have clearly earned the right, and I'd be an idiot not to realize that.)

Still, I ain't no anti-canon indie-only reverse-snob. I just didn't like an album. (Of course, checking out "the canon" means taking a chance on music outside one's normal channels, and is thus more likely to lead to discovering stuff one doesn't care for, so it's not like I was surprised.)

That said I agree that observing people patting themselves on the back for renouncing the canon is, in general, a sight not to behold. I'm not asserting, see, that Otis or Aretha are not of value, just that criticism of them is not unheard of, even from an aficionado of the genre. (And Wexler surely qualifies.)

What I hate more than the canonizers (whoever "they" are) are the people who insist on leaving artists like Whitney out of the canon--by default, usually. I mean, maybe I'm misinterpreting Jazzbo, and I don't know anything about his/her musical preferences, but that seems terribly dismissive, with little evidence to suggest that he/she has actually bothered to listen to any Whitney. I wanna be careful and not play the other side of the coin by arguing TOO much in the other direction (sure, she's recorded her share of dreck), but almost every single from My Love is Your Love was great, and the remixes were brilliant; she has some good singles scattered throughout her career, in fact. She doesn't really fit my definition of classic "soul" (try "diva," perhaps), but that doesn't in and of itself make her soulless. I guess to sum up I'm saying that I'm not so much bothered by what's in the canon as by what's automatically left out (and if somebody already said this, I apologize, as I merely scanned this thread).

1. PJ Harvey - Rid of Me
2. Sonic Youth - Daydream Nation
3. Tori Amos - Little Earthquakes
4. Liz Phair - Exile in Guyville
5. Patti Smith - Horses
6. Slint - Spiderland
7. Kiss - Alive
8. The Pixies - Surfer Rosa
9. Pavement - Slanted and Enchanted
10. Dr Dre - The Chronic

No, of course not. I'm always glad to hear criticism as long as it goes a little deeper than WAAH OVERRATED HORRIBLE.

it's a stray spark. :-)

There's a difference between "this doesn't appeal to me" and "I think it's rubbish" (which is what ESOJ said) -- obv. we've all got things we're passionate about disliking, but I can't help but see his "shocked" claim as a thin veil masking his schadenfreude. Maybe I'm jumping to conclusions, but I would honestly expect to see him make a fairer and more informative assessment of the Doofus Dan LP.

'with a little help .. ' -- a very twisted lyric and Ringo song, masquerading as beatles-esque saccharine, masquerading as billy shields' johnny ray style heart-racker

'lovely rita'/'good morning .. ' -- a debauched bi-sexual romp masquerading as wearing establishment clothing and playable on the BBC

this was the first album to have lyrics with it, so where does john lennon saying "leave it" fit in on that lyric sheet ? can't you see this album as part of a sexual revolution unfolding as the album was made, a revolution that was un-broadcastable ?

this was an album pushing at the limits of 1966 as these limits constantly changed -- to view these songs that almost seditiousley deal with the isses of the day under such a cunning 'everyday-beatles' veneer by straight-up-front 2003 standards, ie to avoid what else was happening in the songs and why, is to do the Beatles a dis-service

and they are all good songs in their own right too, but to view them without enjoying the double entendres and agendas, the smutty humour hiding within such respectable sounding songs, why not just admit that you just don't get it ?

and if you don't enjoy daydream nation or two virgins then you just don't get them either ..

why not accept that lots of people can see plenty in these records as both artifacts from their times and as completely acceptable rock records now ? why not accept that some people do love them ? who are you to say "oh dude, this is sooo over-rated" ? do you want someone to come along and explain everything to you that you haven't understood yourself ? why not give some things the benefit of the doubt until you know what is going on in these records ?

The criticism is that those two tracks aren't poppy or "beautiful" enough - but they aren't jazz or classical music, either.

I have a problem with any criticism that asks the work to be something that it's not. If you go see a stupid Vin Diesel action flick, don't judge it on the same merits you'd judge Citizen Kane. If you listen to '60s pop with an experimental edge, don't complain that they slipped in a little something long and droning.

Whereas "Exile" strikes my ears so falsely - and has been elevated to such a height - that the combination of the two did make me marvel at how far of the mark it seemed to fall (for ME and me only, but there you go). There may well be Schadenfreude involved, too, since I admit to being irrationally bugged sometimes by the Stones and their 'tude.

To state that one must understand something on some vague terms before stating whether they like it or not is basically killing all rock criticism, ever.

why not accept that lots of people can see plenty in these records as both artifacts from their times and as completely acceptable rock records now ? why not accept that some people do love them ? who are you to say "oh dude, this is sooo over-rated" ? do you want someone to come along and explain everything to you that you haven't understood yourself ? why not give some things the benefit of the doubt until you know what is going on in these records ?

you write as if i've listened to the album once and then dismissed it. I've been listening to the Beatles most of my life and I've decided after much delibitating that Sgt Pepper's is the least deserving of the canon of their later output and I've given the reasons - because I don't think that over all the songs are as good as other albums nor did it really break any more ground than "Revolver". Apart from "A Day In The Life", "Tomorrow Never Knows" achieves more sonically than the whole of "Sgt. Pepper's".
And as I pointed out - I wasn't there at the time, no, so I can't comment on any revolution that was occuring. But should you have to know the history of an album to appreciate it fully? Probably, yes, but to my ears "Revolver" is the album, not "Pepper's".

"Overrated" is not necessarily a criticism though -- lots of things (lots of perfectly good things, mind you) are in fact overrated because they've been lionized to such a degree and there's no way they could live up to the reputation. "Overrated" doesn't really have a value judgement attached other than to say "a lot of people have gotten unnecessarily worked up about this," which shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not you like it.

I might not "understand" it (i.e. "have the key to its soul" or whatever) any better than the other guy, but I like the idea of deferring to the person who's spent a little time with it and has gotten a chance to hear the nuances and colorations that one might miss as a casual first-time (or second-time) (or plain old "not very attentive") listener.

Plenty of things are horribly overrated, it's a valid point to make. No one calls anything they like overrated though, it's usually just a quick key phrase for saying "This is popular but I don't like it." I was really more objecting to the statement that disliking a lionized work was equivalent to not giving it a chance and basically being dense about an album. That's just as inaccurate as if I came in and said that someone was an only-own-12-cds Rolling Stone reader for valuing Sgt. Pepper's.

(FYI this is devil's advocate because I like most of Sgt. Pepper.)

As for the deference point - why? If you've listened to an album X amount of times - and let's face it, it's kind of hard to avoid the albums in question on this thread if you're beyond a casual music listener - why is your opinion any less valid than someone who listened to it 10,000 times? For argument's sake here, let's just say, Jody, that you dislike Turbonegro. You've listened to Apocolypse Dudes a few times and it just didn't grab you. Now I've listened to it around a million times, and I like it. Would it be valid for me to tell you that you simply don't understand it and that my opinion as a veteran Turbojugend is more valid? I don't think that holds weight.

If you dislike something, you dislike it. I don't see why it's invalid be it a canonical album or a Limp Bizkit album. Every album has its devoted fans, even Radiohead ones. (Melissa if yr reading, I'm just kidding ya)

I guess I just bristled up at a very specific post on this thread - I totally agree that if someone busts into a discussion with "YA THIS SUXOR" then that's really just very childish and unuseful to civilization as a whole but I don't see that happening very often on here so it just got my back.

I should probably point out that I'm unfamiliar with most of the Stones' work (anything beyond the hits, basically) so I was pretty unprepared for it anyway.

"The listener always completes an artist's work. In this regard Trout Mask Replica offers two features that other records do not: (1) an enormous variety of musical puzzles that require a considerable amount of time and concentration to figure out, and (2) a seemingly inexhaustible supply of unfinished ideas that one can fill in oneself. From fragments the record makes available, the castaway could begin to create whole new musicals, symphonies, island anthems, and the like. As my own lingering puzzlement gave way to unbothered pleasure, I could imagine myself sitting on a coral reef charting the rise and fall of hits contained within this one album. Flash "'Neon Meate Dream of an Octafish' edged out 'Sugar 'N' Spikes for the number one position this week as a new dance craze based on the last several bars of 'Pachuco Cadaver' swept the island!""

Because I don't really believe in the sanctity of personal opinion. Which is not by any means a rally for an objective canon -- it's just that our culture's so individualistic that people grow up believing that it's all about ME and MY CHOICES and WHAT I THINK and FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE. Like why does everyone's "perfectly valid opinion" (which we're entitled to) have to begin and end with man-as-his-own-island? Me, I wanna learn things from other people. I don't wanna be the sole authority on WHAT I THINK -- I want other intelligent opinions to help me shape my own.

I don't know why Matos finds the idea that Decals is the best Beefheart album such an affront; it is true that, as Jess' writes, among hardcore Beefheart heads there is a lot of love for that record. I've never been able to choose personally, and I really don't want to have to. He's one artist I fully admit to an uncritical love (well, ok, those Mercury albums do suck). But for me, Decals is singular for the MARIMBA!

George's post on Sgt' Pepper is one of the better things I've read from him. Made me want to go back and listen to the record (and yes I rate it below many other Beatle recs, it's at least my 6th or 7th favorite).

This is a great thread, and I love the fact it was started by Geir, who gets way too much shit around here. He also started the POX, and that didn't stop everyone from going nuts with it. Sinkah's Geir thread also spawned some of the better recent writing around here.

Which leaves the White Album as the only genuine canon-smashing pick here!

I too think the record is very patchy; it gets by on the "ooh they had so much range" praise but really about half the songs are quite mediocre (the other half are great mind you, and of course the point of double albums if they're any good is that noone will ever agree on which half is which). But still... too much music hall crap, too much McCartney in full on twee mode, too many "experiments" that don't work (who doesn't skip Revolution #( every time?) Nevertheless it's still the premier Beatles album for people who don't like the Beatles, simply because it's so over the place.

But I don't see how this is the same as what you originally said about deferring to people "more experienced" with an album. You could write a 10,000 word treatise on Pet Sounds, just as a personal example, and I'm still not really going to like it. It doesn't make you wrong and I enjoy reading other people's opinions and can understand why people would enjoy the canon albums I don't personally find pleasing, but I'm not going to defer to them. It's not a matter of FUCK THE WORLD. I don't even think that's necessarily true of you, JBR, and I don't mean that in a bad way cos I would hope that isn't necessarily true of you: if you deferred to the more experienced listener unabashedly then why would you be debating anything at all?

All this goes under the assumption that the person the universal you is disagreeing with isn't well versed in a particular canon artist's work. Again, this isn't something I'm necessarily seeing within this thread which is why my hackles were raised by that particular post a bit. As dog latin says - it was written as if no one else had ever heard more than one Beatles song.

(haha Ben, I'm wondering the same thing, I've artfully avoided real discussion on this board for ages)

I agree with this wholeheartedly, and I'm ashamed that one of the few times I've seen someone make it in my month or two on ILM, it was in response to ME doing it. Again, I'm sorry.

But I still don't see, Jody, what's got you so bent out of shape. Like I said, I wanna learn, thanks for helping teach. But damn, it's JUST an ALBUM, isn't IT? I don't consider my person opinion sanctified at all... any more than I am GRAVELY OFFENDED by Evan saying Slanted and Enchanted is "50 billion times closer to dud" or whatever. He's missing out! But shit! Maybe it's *because* I haven't spent so much time on ILM, but I don't see how you jump from me being snide and unconstructive to "our culture's so individualistic that people grow up believing that it's all about ME and MY CHOICES and WHAT I THINK and FUCK EVERYBODY ELSE. Like why does everyone's "perfectly valid opinion" (which we're entitled to) have to begin and end with man-as-his-own-island?

I mean, damn!

Not saying you have to defer by liking it if you don't -- but unless you're a career pessimist and perennial fun-hater why wouldn't you ultimately want to like records? Why would you want your QED to be "I hate this" when you listen to an album with the goal of liking it? This is where deference comes in -- "I don't like it now, but what does this fan see in it that I don't?"

if you deferred to the more experienced listener unabashedly then why would you be debating anything at all?

I don't defer all the time. It's, as they say around here, a guideline not a steadfast rule.

Am I being melodramatic here? Or is there something to all this?

hey that rhymes!

Oh come on! Does ANYBODY out there actually like the beyond-irritating self-indulgent screaming annoyances that are "Conduit for Sale!," "Chesley's Little Wrists," and "No Life Singed Her"?? WHY!?!?!?!

I have no problem with the other songs though. "Summer Babe" and "In the Mouth of a Desert" rule! They rule!

in fact, martin newell's 'off-white album' shouldn't be in the canon, etc., either.

1. Why does everyone pick on Geir so much? He seems a damned sight more mature than, say, Calum (but that's not saying much.)

2. Speaking of canonical bands: Why do people pretend to like Pavement?

I like geir too, but you start off like you're defending him, and at the end you sound like you're criticising him.

Decals isn't widely available. I finally found a copy in January this year. As a record it is where the experiment of trout mask ends, almost.

Trout mask is fucking great too. Its flawed but i'm not that bothered. It did change me, and after listening to it it gave me a out of listening to songs and melody. I started listening to more avat garde-ish things from then on and this record started the break from songs.

but good thread. I liked jodya nd Ally's posts and the discussion on the stones was good too.

So, then, it is quite obvious that, for those of us who do love them, the album comes off as just a bunch of fodder. Certainly enough great tracks to make it work as a single album (although I am afraid I would be voted down when I wanted to leave "Helter Skelter" off the album and let "Honey Pie" and "Martha My Dear" stay on it). But that just isn't enough for that canonical position anyway. If non-Beatles fans feel like they must like a Beatles album, I suggest they better try to get into "Revolver" which does at least sound like a typical Beatles effort (and which is usually less bashed by non-fans than "Sgt. Pepper" is anyway).

but I sold that a while back when i needed money.

Haven't heard 'em, except for a couple not-bad songs on the Slates EP.

Anyone under 27 either has no appreciation for the band or parrots back the bullshit of 80's underground nostalgics.

The songs are either generic hardcore or generic ballad. musically the songs are uninterestnig, the vocals are not-so-hot, and the songs are all too by-the-book to sound meaningful.

In rock and roll there's always been such a premium placed on moving forward--the new. "Exile" is a very conservative record, even more so than other Stones albums. It's the most casual great record they ever made, it's evil but kinda genial about it. As usual, I suspect that the Geirs of the world would say it lacks the great songs, etc. And as usual I say that songs are fucking overrated--hey Geir, go to Nashville, every single person there is muttering melodies and words into tape recorders, they're writing songs like there's no tomorrow, and you can eat pancakes too! Songs are great but to do what the Stones did on that record, to have such control of tempo and groove and all that clichéd and banal stuff everyone's sick of in this accelerated and tempoless world is something else entirely. To say that's not part of Art is not stupid, maybe, but certainly, uhh, deprived.

It's the same with Otis Redding. Yeah, big insight above: Otis Redding overdid it! No shit. "Dock of the Bay" is great because he had calmed down. But OK, why listen to a man who overdoes it then? Because it's fun, it's exciting (or used to be, perhaps), because he gets the words wrong to "Satisfaction," and because the contrast between the overdoing it and the discipline of the MGs is interesting. Oh yeah, forgot, we have to concentrate on the SONG and the MELODY and all that, just like they do down in Nashville--nothing else matters. Hell, William Faulkner I find unreadable because he overdoes it; the payoff vs. the effort I put into figuring out what the fuck he's talking about just doesn't compute (for me), but I realize that overdoing it is what he's all about, and in small doses it's good, I see what he's doing. He just blathers on. It's mannered, so what. Otis Redding is mannered too.

I'm just saying that in my opinion it's immature to worry about what's already a given with any particular artist. Tom Verlaine certainly has an ugly voice, but on the other hand he plays guitar. The Beatles sound a bit thin but quite often they come up with something cool in the arrangement, plus they could sing well. Captain Beefheart is rocking yet not rocking, somehow, and it can be maddening, but he often does something simple that pulls you back in and makes you realize that someone there, maybe not even him, knows what he's doing. The Stones' songs on "Exile" aren't all that fully formed but Charlie Watts and Keith could've just done the record with the two of them, it would've sounded about the same. I'm just saying that the Geirs of the world don't seem to get this elementary fact--that you don't listen to every piece of music for the same things, and that something that at first sounds sloppy or incomplete can often later reveal its secrets. You've been listening for the wrong things. Some people are the same way, no? It seems elementary as well to suggest that one is well advised to stop wanting people to do something they're not gonna do, and accept (or simply not accept, if you can't handle it) what they are good at, what they can do.

If I wanted to live in a word where everything was fully realized, that exploited every single nuance of its premises, I sure as hell wouldn't be listening to rock and roll.

You forgot how cool their lyrics are!

IT'S THE LYRICS, PEOPLE!! "Label wants a hit! / and we don't give a sheeit! / 'Cause we're gettin' NOOOOO PLACE!!" Awwwww man.

Mr. Diamond, did you actually bother reading what I wrote? my issue is with the idea that because Beefheart fans rate Decals over TMR that therefore it's in the same place in the widespread canonical/critical scheme of things, and it isn't. the only place my opinion entered into this is that I thought Jess Hill was being an asshole toward Geir about it ("get with the program, baby") when it wasn't warranted--you'll notice upthread that I specifically left any opinion I had of the album(s) out of the discussion. (and if you want to know, I can't make the comparison because I've never heard Decals.)

I like his voice; it's the stylistic (and logical) midpoint between Patti Smith and Ric Ocasek.

revue

jody, i was right the first time, thanks.

(I agree with everyone that this is a great and/or crazy thread, but I think a just-as-useful thread would be "ten non-canonical albums that are closer to classic than dud and which deserve serious consideration for entry into the [so-called?] canon." Reasons provided, of course.)

also, crosspost: matos in not getting joke in desperation to be "right" shockah

it's especially true for daydream nation or Captain Beefheart in general -- you can put money on how many times people who claim they're unlistenable have played them

they say it's unlistenable, that's not just a figure of speech, that's when that artfulness or rock or pop music, whatever it is, is just not communicating to those people -- why do those people then feel they have to communicate to us that they don't like such'n'such using such superficial criteria ? without admitting that they don't really get it, even though they call it unlistenable ? i find that unreadable, ok ? art history is littered with people saying "oh no, that's rubbish" etc. etc. -- i call that disingenuisely dismmissing something, itself dismissable

someday 'revolution 9' will get the respect it deserves
well, the revolution will not be televised

In any reader-driven poll, be it magazine or radio, certain recent albums tend to be much higher on the list while certain older albums tend to drop in popularity somewhat. I think that has to do more with attention span than quality. I remember CFNY in Toronto doing its top 102 songs of all time on some Labour Day weekend in the early 90s and very new singles by Green Day and Pearl Jam being in the Top 10. They shouldn't have been in the Top 10, but the listeners kept calling in for the newest hits. Same with them damn magazine lists. They're skewed to the recent. Tori Amos, Oasis and Pearl Jam have not yet released albums that deserve to be considered as among the best of all time.

Oh, I definitely agree with you, as proven by science because I like at least a couple songs by pretty much every act ever. I don't understand when people can't find at least a song by someone that they can enjoy because really it doesn't seem very difficult to enjoy things. Basically this is all a theoretical argument on both sides, and your FUCK THE WORLD post was no more melodramatic than my WHO WILL DEBATE THE CANON! post.

Like I said, my only real problem with any of the arguments put forth on the thread is the notion that someone who disagrees with a critically praised/generally popular act just doesn't "understand" or know about the act. It's just disingenuous; a kind of cop out to actually discussing the artistic merits of any given artist, as much as just stating that the artist is "overrated" would be a cop out.

"You don't get it" is the same thing as saying "you're a moron" and I don't think that's a fair way to talk about the majority of ILM. I mean, specifically, George - why are either of those albums so great? Why are you so certain that anyone who finds them overrated must not understand them or have listened to them more than once, half-heartedly? What do those albums have that is so wonderful? With the caveat that I usually avoid Sonic Youth discussion because they don't particularly grab me, so I don't seek them out - convince me to do it, George.

to have listened to something enough to call it unlistenable and dismiss it as such is to me admitting that you don't get how that album works -- not that there's anything wrong with you, except that

it is a waste of everybody's time to disclaim something that you haven't given the time to understand -- what grounding can such criticisms have ? generally, i'm not saying anything, but here, it's the lack of grounding in what the albums are about in some specific criticisms/posts that have have just left what's been said looking a bit over the top

Why are you so certain that anyone who finds them overrated must not understand them or have listened to them more than once, half-heartedly?
where the criticisms levelled at those albums (in this thread have been)(are) superficial, have not dealt with the substance of the albums except to say "twee" or "unlistenable" or "generally over-rated"
but
what you're saying here is a generalisation -- i don't mean "anyone" -- i've just seen a couple of loose criticisms in this thread where it is obvious that there hasn't been enough time or thought put into the subject of the criticisms because there isn't that understanding of the albums (that's evident from those specific posts themselves)

it would be easier to list the specific posts, but i think you know which they are

playing devil's advocate might work for generalisations, but that wasn't the point i was making (except, generally, people who haven't listened to the albums enough to see what others see in them aren't in a position to call them over-rated, itself such an over-worked term) -- this was specific reaction to a couple of posts (eg Geir says daydream nation is unlistenable, end of story)

and i don't think 1 1/2 half-hearted listens or even a dozen un-enthusiastic or forced listens will work

you might not like discussing sonic youth -- well people will have personal preferences, and you admit as much with Sy -- some people won't admit as much, with Sy, with beefheart, with exile .., for example

Matos, the "critical" consensus on Captain Beefheart is that "Decals" is his best album--do you want me to say get with the program again? The "consensus" has "TMR" as a great blueprint for what came after, but not as realized as "Decals." "Doc at the Radar Station" is up there too. Plus, Matos, you haven't heard "Decals" so why even say anything about it then? Worrying about some "canon" and whether or not something "belongs" is fun but I do not take any of it seriously--I got my own canon, as should you. Let's talk about something important, like whether catfish or tilapia makes the best fish burritos.

When I say that Tom Verlaine has an ugly voice, that doesn't mean I don't like it, sort of. He can't sing for shit but the words on "Marquee" are good--ditto "Dreamtime." I find Verlaine's tone arch and irritating at times--but he means to be arch and irritating, I think, and succeeds. I don't really care about what Tom Verlaine has to say, it's just nice guitar playing.

also, I haven't had fish burritos in two years and am greatly looking fwd to them in Seattle.

Ben, I actually agree with you in certain aspects. However I disagree with the notion - not necessarily one you're putting forth - that a subjectively valuable aesthetic or social background is something that would raise the value of an album.

I'm trying to think of how exactly to word it...Basically, you might dislike the sound of "punk music", for example. You can still understand the socio-political overtones of certain acts, or the aesthetic reasonings for the need for the punk movement; however you can also still think that the Sex Pistols are shit, in no uncertain terms. So basically what I'm saying is that deeming something "unlistenable" is different from deeming it "worthless," which I think is the misunderstanding behind the argument that "unlistenable" = "misunderstanding the music," because the understanding seems to have more to do with the artist and the climate than it does with the music itself, necessarily.

Incidentally, from my own dealings with Geir over the many, many years (as a side note, does Geir realize which A.M.A personality I am?), I don't think he is dismissing the albums as worthless but rather as things that he thinks are musically distasteful. It takes a while to get used to his style of rhetoric, but at heart he basically discusses albums in a void.

-- M Matos (michaelangelomato...), April 8th, 2003 5:58 AM." - OUTRAGEOUS!

As for the others. Geir you like Travis, Coldplay and The Lightning Seeds. I hardly think John Lydon, Mick Jagger or Tori Amos will be losing sleep at night for your attack on their masterpieces.

I don't agree with whoever said that bands like Pearl Jam or Tori Amos haven't been around long enough to deserve canonisation. A lot of these albums are well over ten years old - is that not long enough? An album that came out yesterday could be the best album of all time but as everyone knows, only time can tell. Plus a lot of these lists rely on fashion. During the Britpop years, you could find at least six or seven Beatles albums in the top 100s of magazines like Q and Uncut but since the decline of bands like Oasis, the "Revolvers" and "White Albums" have been replaced by "Metal Box", "Pet Sounds", "The Man Machine", "Troutmask" and "Low", mainly due to current bands bigging up these albums. No-one wants to sound like a Gallagher cliche nor does anybody need to be told again how great "Sgt Pepper's" is. Looking at the top100 greatest albums of all time in Q Jan 1998, "Pet Sounds" piddles in at number 31 while "Revolver" takes the top spot with "Sgt Pepper's" at number 7 and "Abbey Road" and "White Album" not far behind. In 2003 this is unthinkable because many bands revere Brian Wilson as a deity and spit on the Beatles.

Anyway, I think the reason most of the pedanticism (except that Captain Beefheart thing, what the hell?) occurred is cos people who did list albums as "overrated" kind of got the piss taken out of them. Which is fine but it always breaks down to meta-argument when that happens.

Kind of simplified, but that's my gist.

check out this thread:
Debates of Artistic Value in Rock Music: A Case Study of the Band Weezer, 1994-2001

The Manics laughed when Lennon got shot, does this count?

Dude, you're a dumbass.

JAPANESE BLUEGRASS ROX U R ALL GAY

So while I don't like every album that's highly revered by the mainstream OR by subcultures (not by a long shot), I'm grateful for the existence of canons because they give me an idea of where to look when I'm curious about something I wasn't necessarily curious about before. I don't believe in defering to the canon ever, especially if you can tell what it is that THEY'RE appreciating (be it perfect harmonies or ambitiousness or whatever), and why you don't appreciate it. You shouldn't pretend to value qualities you don't, cuz that's LYING. And lying makes baby Jesus cry.

That said, I don't think you have to belittle people who do like those things (though for entertainment's sake I do like the belittle the artists and people who get paid for their opinions). I think the canon works best as a tool for understanding subcultures and whatever remains of the monoculture, even if it sometimes fails as a Must-Hear list.

U R RETARDED

Dave q, I think you're talking about "respecting" things more than "valuing" them.

This will change. The 1998 list was a lot more "represenative", in that it looked a bit more like what a Mojo list would look like (and the albums patronized by Mojo are usually the ones that win in the long run).

Right now, there is a "contemporary R&B" craze that means the likes of Aretha Franklin and Otis Redding are often preferred rather than The Beatles. But that is not going to last anyway, as soon as the R&B craze dies and is replaced by something else.

Partly true, but then, why aren't Britney Spears and Christina Aguilera riding high in the same polls? There must be some differences, obviously....

Well, my list (without reasons - was in a hurry and will possibly try to do it later), would then simply be like my own Top 10 of all time - only with "Pet Sounds", "Woodface", "OK Computer" and "Sgt. Pepper" removed because they are all more or less "canonical":

1. Selling England By The Pound – Genesis (1973)
2. Skylarking – XTC (1986)
3. Construction Time Again – Depeche Mode (1983)
4. Foxtrot – Genesis (1972)
5. Black Celebration – Depeche Mode (1986)
6. Odessey & Oracle – The Zombies (1968)
7. Temple Of Low Men – Crowded House (1988)
8. High Land Hard Rain – Aztec Camera (1983)
9. A Trick Of The Tail – Genesis (1976)
10. No Sleep Til Famous – Merrymakers (1995)

But then again, this is just a list of personal favourites (Genesis and Depeche Mode riding high, obviously). Everybody has personal favourites, and they will usually vary a lot.

What the "canon" is is sort of a list of albums enjoyed by a lot of "serious" music fans. Not necessarily the most popular ones that have been (I mean, you don't see "Frampton Comes Alive", "Whitney Houston", "Aquarium", "Happy Nation" or "Music Box" in those lists, do you?), but the ones that are seeminly most popular among "serious" music fans. And as such, the "canon" is interesting, both as a means of seeing what kind of music will be the "Four Seasons" and "Eine Kleine Nachtmusik" of our age, but also as a nice guide to check out great albums (i.e. albums that are usually considered great by critics and fans alongside) within various genres.

?? It's only been going about 10 years hasn't it

What does 'win in the long run' mean anyway? Get voted for again in Mojo again years later (after any rogue 'R&B crazes' have passed)?

2272 Mojo Poll results:

1. Selling England By The Pound – Genesis (1973)
2. Skylarking – XTC (1986)
3. Construction Time Again – Depeche Mode (1983)
4. Foxtrot – Genesis (1972)
5. Black Celebration – Depeche Mode (1986)
6. Odessey & Oracle – The Zombies (1968)
7. Temple Of Low Men – Crowded House (1988)
8. High Land Hard Rain – Aztec Camera (1983)
9. A Trick Of The Tail – Genesis (1976)
10. No Sleep Til Famous – Merrymakers (1995)

Almost all of those albums are way older than 10 years old anyway.

Hmm...but Matos, if you never listened to the goddam album, what possible good can your opinion of whether or not someone else thinks it's better or worse than another album be?

Also, you're wrong about Bob Christgau. He thinks--I totally disagree--that "Bat Chain Puller" is the best Capt. Beefheart album. Read his '70s book, he gives "BCP" an A and "Decals" an A-.

Being an individualist, I don't give a shit about anyone's "canon." Use your own ears. And I guess you have a sense of humor but it's not too in evidence as far as I can see--I was yanking clueless Geir's bat chain about "TMR" and the fact that it's no more "canonical" in the bigger scheme of these idiotic "canons" than "Decals." In other words, he's picking "canonical" albums that aren't necessarily so, unless you're so worried about all this bullshit you actually take what some rock critic sitting around making up lists seriously, which I certainly don't. I mean I dig "Big Dig" and "Flash Gordon's Ape" more than I do "Human Gets Me Blues" or even "Moonlight on Vermont," and my likes/dislikes/perceptions are just as valid as anyone else's, including yours.

I like Pavement a whole lot. I don't pretend to like them.

Hands up if you thought of Life of Brian just now.

1) Pavement, "Slanted and Enchanted". So whimsical. So playful. Such complete and utter shit.

2) Sex Pistols, "Never Mind the Bollocks". Have to second Geir's call here, and I will also restate my previous assertion that the Sex Pistols were a boy band that got out of control. Now the Clash, there's a punk band.

3) Sonic Youth, "Daydream Nation". Sometimes they're fun. But I went through a brief period of pretending to like them, and I'll never get those four months back.

4) Anything by Led Zeppelin. Wonderful musicians, sure. But they were instrumental in inventing warlock rock. Every time I hear a stoned metalhead sing the praises of Manowar, and it's happened, oddly enough, I project astral spit in the direction of Page and Plant.

5) Anything by Oasis. I'll borrow some words from their vocabulary for this. Wankers. Talented wankers. Stupid bloody cunts.

or make more sense.

do you?

"We're The People's Front Of Judea, and we hate the Judean People's Front". :-)

I can tell Matos doesn't have the energy to explain, so I will: This thread is about the "rock canon," which, Matos is arguing, includes Trout Mask Replica and excludes Decals. Matos is not arguing which album is better. He's admitted that he hasn't heard Decals. He's saying that the critical consensus (a nebulous term I know, but that's kinda the whole fucking point) marks TMR as Beefheart's greatest work. And since this is a thread about the "rock canon," which is built via "critical consensus," then saying that some people like Decals more is completely irrelevant. Since you are an "individualist" who doesn't "give a shit about anyone's 'canon,'" maybe this isn't the thread for you.

(I'm sorry for how condescending that was but I'm in a grumpy mood and he's been saying the same thing over and over and over...)

MANOWAR ROXXOR U R ALL GAY!

Maybe because me listing it among those 10 wasn't exactly a surprise? :-)

um, "it takes a nation" (and "fear of", incidentally) are better than anything the beatles or the stones have ever done.

Do explain.

I'm sorry, there is just no hope for you.

alex, i think "nations" is certainly a defining moment - in a way, it's not as good an ALBUM (i.e. coherent whole) as "fear of a black planet" - i suppose there is room for argument about the assumption that it's the best rap album ever. but it's not even NEAR the demesne of dud.

And you just can't argue with the fact that each time a magazine or somebody else with a readers base that vary in age vote those Top 100 lists, The Beatles usually end up having 3-4 albums in the Top 10. Those who don't like The Beatles, sure, probably nice enough to them, but they have to admit they are in a very small minority.

Okay, that's cool. "Better" would take just so much difficult explanation.

There are some differences, but reader-driven polls are still reader-driven polls. Albums that are current favourites may be a little higher on the list than deserved. Also, the majority of people listening to the Britneys and the Christinas are probably not reading those music magazines, let alone sending in their ballots.

However... As I mentioned earlier, it is very long and some of the tracks go on for a day and a half each. The lyrics are v. great, yes but the beats are often too repetitive and harsh. I much prefer Straight Outta Compton - it's so much more defined and it doesn't have Flava Flav on it (I don't hate Flava Flav but after sixteen tracks of constant egging it gets tedious, ok?).

Surprised to see the mention of Pearl Jam on this thread - have they ever made anything we can consider important? They seemed to be far more an American thing than a British...... thankfully.

This may also be the case with critic polls. Just think of all those British critics going bananas over The Next Big Thing every other day.

HAPPY EASTER MOFUGGAS!

HA HA HA HA *vanishes in puff of smoke*

about half of Geir's list is totally OTM (although I finally came around on VU+Nico recently)

http://www.amusicdirect.com/images/lda8/lda80208.jpg

classic

Oh c'mon! It has the Clash attempting about fifteen different musical genres and succeeding on about four of them! Plus it was important.

Maybe because me listing it among those 10 wasn't exactly a surprise? :-)

-- Geir Hongro (geirhon...), April 9th, 2003.

...or maybe most fans don't really consider 75 shit words thrown together at random to be any sort of serious attack.

The CD age, with its possibilities to skip single tracks, has made this album considerably more enjoyable. Because, actually, it does contain some great tracks, for certain. "Sunday Morning" and "Femme Fatale" are both beautiful songs, but then unlistenable crap like "Heroin" and "European Son" needs to be skipped, and then there isn't a lot left of the album give those are among the longest tracks. Terribly patchy and definitely not a classic!

I agree with this 100%, except that I'd transpose the song selections. for me, it's the plodding nico tracks and their distracted, droning, monotone vocals that really bring this album down. where it succeeds is in chewing up and spitting out the conventions of earlier rock music, balancing harmony and dissonance, order and chaos. to my ears, the nico tracks are just too mannered, and haven't dated at all well.

-- bernard snow (andrew.bryso...), August 28th, 2006.

otm, most overrated album ever! well, maybe not the most, but close.

that said, it's a...er, "sprawling" enough album to have several good to great songs on it.