Does anyone actually eschew canons?

You have to define "cannon" more clearly. Does "cannon" mean the set of popular underground favorites and critic's darlings (which is the most popular definition)? Because Sterling is implyiong that "cannon" applies to any set of standards. I have a set of standards and favorites, but to "cannonize" them would be to say to the world, "This is album you must have, or you are a damn fool." And I won't do that. Few critics (or even fans) worth their salt would be so presumptious.

3 [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Latin, standard] a : an
authoritative list of books accepted as Holy Scripture b : the
authentic works of a writer c : a sanctioned or accepted group or
bo dy of related works "the canon of great literature"
4 a : an accepted principle or rule b : a criterion or standard of
judgment c : a body of principles, rules, standards, or norms

[what pisses me off is that i'm actually interested in these questions and spin off threads coz i think others might be and becuz I want to keep "purity" in the original threads and these questions seem like they could generate a thoughtful discussion of their own -- like what would it mean not to have a canon? who comes close? what are different approaches?]]

2) So what you're saying is, if this line of thinking holds true, then everything is equally valid. I've heard this before, and it's crap, and I don't think even you believe it, but at least you showed us how you came to the conclusion. You talk of "attempts to unify solipsism with relativism and universalism," which obviously can't be done, and is beside the point anyway.

3) "the canon as a whole contains everything, and we simply can't see the areas of it which contain those bits we deem as being 'outside' of the canon." But if the canon contains everything, then by definition nothing is outside the canon. Are you drinking?

4) "Which means that none of us can distinguish quality, we're all deluded, nothing has any more intrinsic value than anything else, and we mgiht as well all listen to Kylie." Well, for the record, I though Kylie's last album was a prime example of vapid pop done as well as it possibly could be. It was absolutely brilliant, as far as vapid pop goes.

But let's get down to it: what we're really asking is, is some music more worthy than other music? Does anything have INHERENT worth outside of any sort of popularity or critical acclaim? Would anything be good even if no one ever heard it? If a tree falls in the forest...?

To which I say, please leave me with some illusions. They're all I have. Hell, they're all anyone has. Yes, some things are good, and some things are not so good. And by writing about music, you can indeed lead people away from the path that leads to eternal mediocrity, and a lifelong lack of passion for what they listen to, and an eternal existance in Polo shirts. If you don't believe that, why do you write about music?

May you should put down the drink.

Maybe I should put down my own drink, eh?

First, I quoted Thatcher's words, definitely NOT her intentions! The quote, as a combination of words with a meaning outside of the values attributed to it from the person who said it initially, is relevant. (Plus I socked it to the milk-snatching bitch later on!)

Those are just some thoughts on the nature of canons, Kenan, not necessarily my actual feelings on the matter. The problem with defining quality is that it is appreciated so subjectively as to become almost solipsistic in it's nature - even if we can all agree that X and Y are great records, we may not all agree on why, and any attempt to broaden out the canon from a solipsistic/subjective basis almost always ends up with the conclusion that we can't define quality and we can't form a definitive and unarguable canon, and that therefore we oughtn't even try. If you strip away all the romanticist bullshit and electric-shock-therapy-blues from Robert M Pirsig's Zen & the Art of Motrorcycle Maintenance, then the heart of the book is a treaticise on the nature of coming to an objective definition of the structure and nature of quality, the conclusion basically being that quality is the moment of interface between one ("you, me, EVERYBODY!" to quote The Blues Brothers) and culture, ie; the moment of interface between subjective (I, you, one) and objective (the artifact/product/art/experience), and that our ability to experience this moment of quality is affected by our own individual analogues of experience re; culture, life, etcetera. And because we're all different in terms of our genetic responses to things and our culturally acquired responses to things, our individual quality interfaces are gonna be all different. For example, I had a moment of quality last night listening to Missy and it was cool, and several others while playing football last night too, and then this morning I had one whilst walking down the cliff listening to April 5th by Talk Talk; now these moments were all vastly different but I appreciated them all, and possibly equally, possibly unequally - I can't say for sure. Is the thrill of nutmegging someone and rolling the ball netwards somehow intrinsically lesser than the prickling, warm feeling behind my eyes and the bowling-ball-in-my-chest sensation of listening to April 5th on a wind-ravaged cliff face at dawn? I dunno. It's really beyond me to say.

I think 'quality' as defined above exists (more or less), and I think there definitely is a way of objectively compiling a canon of artifacts which inspire moments of great quality, however, I am completely at a loss as to how to go about compiling/defining it, and because of the subjective and individual nature of each person's experiences/values/'quality' sensors, I don't think it would be possible to satisfactorily achieve it.

As for why I write about music, well, I have an ego to support, and bullshit to spout, plus I love it to bits, and I'd like to fascistically spread my own ideals of quality and the composition of the canon aroudn the world!

You and I actually don't disagree in any way.

:)

Possibly brought on by another Sterling highball! Badabing!

More directly to the point of the thread, canons -- or more precisely, the arguments over what should or shouldn't be in them -- serve useful purposes both in terms of giving people who care about art something to talk about and sharpen their thinking with, and in terms of preserving and promoting assorted worthwhile work to the less obsessive populace. The same arguments go on in every field of art and criticism, don't they?

And if you accept the pomo line that any artwork only has the value assigned to it by the beholder -- that there's no "inherent" value in anything -- then it seems to me the role of the critic and the canon becomes in a way more important. Because if you care about music (and presumably everyone on a board called I Love Music cares about music), then helping to create value (either real or perceived) in music you care about seems like an entirely worthwhile pursuit. I mean, no one else is going to do it, are they?

The canon is dead. Long live the canon.

http://www.limpbizkit.com/uploaded_media/Resize%20Assistant-7.jpg

http://www.digitaljournalist.org/issue0111/images/CANON-EOS-1D.jpg

The Canon
The Canon
Defining the canon by influence
Do We Really Need A Post-Punk Canon?

http://www.vgmuseum.com/images/nes/01/rampart2.gif