<i>SPIN</i> and the "Alternative" Canon

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

In 1995, the SPIN Alternative Record Guide came up with the Top 100 Alternative Albums of All Time.

The top 10:

1. Ramones, Ramones
2. Public Enemy, It Takes a Nation of Millions to Hold Us Back
3. Velvet Underground, The Velvet Underground & Nico
4. Husker Du, Zen Arcade
5. Nirvana, Nevermind
6. Patti Smith, Horses
7. Big Star, Radio City
8. R.E.M., Murmur
9. Sonic Youth, Daydream Nation
10. X, Wild Gift

The rest can be found here.

My questions:

1. Does this list accurately reflect an "alternative" canon as SPIN defines the term? (In the book's introduction, it claims to be wide-ranging without giving into "Tony Bennett's alternative!" hype.) Are the various factions of "alternative" music well represented? Does Public Enemy at #2 right on, or does it smack of tokenism?

2. If the book were published today, in 2003, how different would the list be? Which new records of the last eight years would be included? (Odelay? OK Computer?) Whose stock has gone down?

3. Is the whole point of an "alternative" canon (or "alternative" anything) decidedly arbitrary and ridiculous? Is this list, which encompasses both Madonna and Sonny Sharrock, even meaningful? Or does it serve only to privilege the tired old concepts of innovation and rebellion at the expense of other values?

Thank you, and good night.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:18 (twenty-two years ago)

SPIN hasn't been credible since about 1988, so I wouldn't worry your head about such stuff & nonsense.

― Alex in NYC (vassifer), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Is this list, which encompasses both Madonna and Sonny Sharrock, even meaningful?
Sure as hell it is.
It's a breath of (almost) fresh air and it's much more interesting than all the other lists, which look like this:

01) Beatles 02) Beatles 03) Beatles 04) Beatles 05) Rolling Stones 06) Beatles 07) Van Morrison 08) Bob Dylan 09) Jethro Tull 10) Beatles 11) [Insert random: Sonic Youth, Nirvana or token black singer]

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:25 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, thank God someone's around to stick up for a dark horse like the Velvet Underground or Public Enemy instead of those universally feted critic's darlings Jethro Tull.

― sundar subramanian (sundar), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:29 (twenty-two years ago)

WHat it means: it's a tiresome space-filler for when there isn't anything otherwise interesting to write about (or more accurately, they were too lazy to explore). It means the editorial and contributor base (and readership) had sufficient turnover since the last time they had published such a list, just six years prior. The magazine is irrelevant anyway, it means nothing.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:40 (twenty-two years ago)

Mr. Diamond, the list didn't appear in the magazine, but in an actually pretty good record guide they published devoted entirely to "alternative" music. So point taken about the irrelevancy of SPIN and of such lists, but it was in fact a well-researched and ambitious book, with a wide range of contributors (including Eddy, Kogan, Sinker, Reynolds, etc.).

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

The Spin guide was actually fairly comprehensive and OTM--for about a minute. Within a year or two, the whole paradigm of what constituted "alternative" had started to shift, thereby making the book more or less obsolete except for music-nerd reference purposes, and it's only gotten more dated since.

More to the point:

1. Yes, as long as it's understood that the perspective was an "alternative" one--that is, mostly white, mostly male, rock-oriented, enthusiastic about hip-hop but not necessarily "of" its core demographic (an arguable notion, I admit), and just starting to get over "disco sucks" conditioning and embrace electronic/dance music, but only in album format.

2. Too big a topic for me to cover alone, especially when I have work to do.

3. Perhaps not, but it would no doubt be increasingly tough to encompass.

― Lee G (Lee G), Thursday, 29 May 2003 16:53 (twenty-two years ago)

having gone back and copied a bunch of stuff from old SPINs (85-91), in particular the Singles columns, mostly by John Leland, I must say it's too bad in some ways that they felt obligated to take up the "alternative" banner in such a canonical way. their '89 lists, particularly the top 100 singles, were so smart because they were so wide ranging, and while that doesn't help you brand your name as is oh so crucial when you've product to push, it's still a more realistic and frankly better way to do things.

― M Matos (M Matos), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:07 (twenty-two years ago)

just starting to get over "disco sucks" conditioning and embrace electronic/dance music, but only in album format.

True. The enthusiasm about Moby's Everything is Wrong really stands out for me. It's one of the most recent albums to appear in the book (cut off was probably mid-1995), and it's given a 10: its importance is that it's supposedly the first electronic/dance album to explore a wide range of emotions and hold together as a big, sprawling full-length. So yes, quite rockist. But also quite dated in that almost nobody talks about Everything is Wrong anymore. Play was such a force, both commercially and critically, and introduced people to Moby who'd never heard him before, that it's now seen as the definitive Moby album, the Moby "sound." Not only was Everything is Wrong not the future of techno, it wasn't even the future of Moby.

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

Matos, is that an argument against "alternative" as a meaningful term altogether, or just against the concept of an "alternative canon"?

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Once upon a time, Spin was a really good magazine. Not without its faults, to be sure, but it was. I was a reader from issue 1, and for many, many years, it was far more interesting than anything else you were likely to encounter at a mainstream newsstand, and more interesting than many of the more prominent zines of the time, truth be told. Frankly, I think it lost the plot about the time the word "alternative" ceased to mean anything whatsoever to anybody, which is perhaps no coincidence.

― Lee G (Lee G), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

jaymc, sorry didn't catch that it was in book form. In that case it means that the "alternative" era was cresting, and they carped the diem with a book. I just find it really sad what happened to that magazine. If the book has the writers you mentioned I'm sure it has some worth, assuming they wrote individual entries. But in terms of representing a consensus or an ethos, nah. That top 10 just looks so bleedin' obvious (right down to, yes, the tokenism of Public Enemy). I'd have to read the introduction, but to me it just looks like editorship farmed out a bunch of record reviews. I much prefer to spend my time with book-length examinations by a single writers, then these types of compendiums. I never thought these things like Trouser Press and Rolling Stone Record Guide were in any way useful - gimme Xgau's guides and let me tussle with him and his aesthetic.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

I should have said "totally lost the plot."

― Lee G (Lee G), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:25 (twenty-two years ago)

x-posted with Lee and Matos there, but yeah I essentially agree 100%.

Lately I have been feeling pangs of regret over throwing out most of my run of the original magazine in a move-related purge a few years ago.

― Mr. Diamond (diamond), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Am I wrong in wanting to dissociate the Record Guide from the magazine? It seems like some of you are stepping into this thread with the usual prejudices against SPIN, many of which have been debated in other threads. I'm sort of more interested in the concept of an "alternative" canon, and its merits and inconsistencies, with this list being the most prominent example thereof. (I suppose I only put "SPIN" in the thread title to get your attention.)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 17:29 (twenty-two years ago)

it's a pretty good record guide, sorta more comparable to the old rolling stone illustrated histories (one writer per artist) or (ESPECIALLY) the trouser press guides than your standard record guides. someone who used the top 100 for building a record collection would have a more interesting collection than someone who used your standard top 100 list. that said, when I read it in 97 it already seemed fairly dated, and at that point it was only like two years old. I have no doubt alot of people were 'turned on' to stuff because of it though (eg. myself and john fahey).

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 29 May 2003 19:51 (twenty-two years ago)

what did you and john fahey get turned on to?

― scott seward, Thursday, 29 May 2003 20:20 (twenty-two years ago)

the only record guide i still regularly read is Trouser Press...

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 29 May 2003 20:23 (twenty-two years ago)

scott - 2 live crew

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 29 May 2003 20:28 (twenty-two years ago)

ha! i knew it. that explains his later more difficult period.

― scott seward, Thursday, 29 May 2003 20:29 (twenty-two years ago)

he went mad trying to transcribe "me so horny." it's true.

― Yanc3y (ystrickler), Thursday, 29 May 2003 20:31 (twenty-two years ago)

When did the Ramones go from being a "good" band to "The Best Band EVER"? Honestly.

― David Allen, Thursday, 29 May 2003 21:44 (twenty-two years ago)

the book came out in 95 I think

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 29 May 2003 21:52 (twenty-two years ago)

to be honest, the spin guide is a pretty decent introduction to a lot of stuff. the trouser guide is better overall, but as an introduction, the spin guide does the trick.

― jack cole (jackcole), Thursday, 29 May 2003 21:58 (twenty-two years ago)

I own four of these. I AM NOT SPINWORTHY.

― Curt1s St3ph3ns, Thursday, 29 May 2003 22:02 (twenty-two years ago)

so, um, nobody wants to, like, debate the canon? (i shoulda just said hey i found this list somewhere, i don't know where it's from, looks pretty interesting!)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 22:15 (twenty-two years ago)

canon, shmanon, Rob Sheffield wrote some funny, dead-on shit about numerous '80s bands in that book (Chuck and Frank K. got some good stuff in there too). While Eric Weisbard, Terri Sutton and many others were trippin' something fierce when writing those reviews (especially for artists who seriously don't belong there, like AC/DC and Stone Temple Pilots), I've worn out my copy BAD. I think it qualifies more as a stack of papers than a book now. I think its a purty decent canonical list of What's Hep even today. Basically the more recent the artist the more dated the summary feels. Anyhow, I'm just saying the book has value.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 29 May 2003 22:21 (twenty-two years ago)

in case it ain't clear, I'm saying my damaged copy counts more as a stack of papers than a book (the binding is FUCKED), not that the book itself isn't a book or whatever.

― Anthony Miccio (Anthony Miccio), Thursday, 29 May 2003 22:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Okay, I’ll make a point instead of whining:

The Ramones at #1 is, I think, more symbolic of them representing alternative than of The Ramones being the best alternative album.

Chronologically, it makes sense. Weisbard and Co. probably couldn’t pick anything post-1985 since it hadn’t stood “the test of time” yet. And anything before 1970 would sort of be antithetical to the grand narrative of alternative rebelling against the dominance of classic rock, which was still taking shape in the sixties. (Although this doesn’t stop them from including pre-rock exotica and musique concrete elsewhere in the book, for history’s sake.)

So, look around between 1970-1985, and the Ramones seem like a perfect choice for a guide to “alternative” -- the whole story of the band being that they cut through rock’s bloated proggy tendencies in the mid-seventies. (You could, I suppose, make this case for the Sex Pistols as a band, as a phenomenon, as THE icons of punk -- except SPIN thinks Never Mind the Bollocks doesn’t quite measure up as an album. Which is what it’s about.)

What else would’ve made more sense? Maybe Velvet Underground? (though of course I realize that's sixties)

― jaymc (jaymc), Thursday, 29 May 2003 23:17 (twenty-two years ago)

yeah, they very pointedly had NMTB at 100. they actually had some explanation/reasoning for the ramones s/t at #1, something beyond a simple 'cuz it's best'.

― James Blount (James Blount), Thursday, 29 May 2003 23:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, thank God someone's around to stick up for a dark horse like the Velvet Underground or Public Enemy instead of those universally feted critic's darlings Jethro Tull.
Now, now...there's no need to get persnickety Sundar the Barbarian. Put away your fabulous sun sword and tell Ookla to sit the fuck down.
My greivance with the kind of list I have a beef with is that:

It insists that nothing good was made after 1975 That only white rock is worth a damn (the random black artist just screams "TOKEN!")

They give the Beatles waaaaay too much credit.

Whats worse, any music buff can write one of these in their sleep. There are no surprises. If the list-makers had gonads or imagination the beginning of the list would look like this

LIST #0. Any random Beatles, Dylan, Springsteen or Stones. We'll assume you already have all these, so here's the rest you should look for... #1., etc.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Friday, 30 May 2003 18:36 (twenty-two years ago)

That does annoy me, that black artists very rarely get on these lists. Especially when their plundering artists from the 60s. They go back and hail the Stones, Dylan, and Beatles, but forget that at the same time there was just this diverse amount of really great popular music. Otis Redding, Sly and The Family Stone, Santana, these were all bands on the charts, influencing every white band that currently gets listed as golden god. I'm not saying any of those bands don't get occassional praise, but not half as much as the white bands from the same era.

― David Allen, Saturday, 31 May 2003 13:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Exactly.
Its almost as if Black Musicians only get bigged up "in theory"
The whole 60s == Great/70s80s90s == Pants is also bad because it perpetuates a myth of "music era hierarchy by decade" which can't stand up to analysis. Every decade has an equal amount of gems, one-hit wonders, novelties and utter shite. The 60s are just as (bad|good) as any other decade.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Sunday, 1 June 2003 00:23 (twenty-two years ago)

The best decade = June 27, 1967 AND NOTHING ELSE.

― Sterling Clover (s_clover), Sunday, 1 June 2003 01:26 (twenty-two years ago)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Bah, Humperdink! It was Dec 11, 1982 at 11:15om...when I heard Art of Noise's "Close to the Edit" for the very first time. Everything before and after that just pales in comparison.

― Lord Custos Epsilon (Lord Custos Epsilon), Sunday, 1 June 2003 01:42 (twenty-two years ago)

five years pass...

this book was a HUGE part of my adolescence...used to be sort of a holy grail...def. most of my favourite music now is direct result of me reading about it first in this book...I tend to see it as the rock-crit establishment's response to Kurt's suicide, as it tends to canonize many of Kurt's pet bands (Vaselines & MPII make the list, Raincoats 1st album gets 10)(but no Melvins entry...wtf?), but at the same time it VERY MUCH is a period piece in the best way possible, capturing a very slippery and easily-lost moment in popular music...it dates in a good way, in the same way that that second Lester Bangs anthology was dated, a way in which you are able to recapture the lost 70s, unmediated by those retcon artists who reconstruct the 70s to make themselves look cool...same way with the 90s and this book, and if you can get past the kneejerk "wtf-is-weisbard-thinking-including-The-Silos" gag-reflex, you'll stumble upona very fascinating & forgotten moment in recent history...

obv. the "canonical" list is fucked...you can tell by the number of albums rated 8 or 9 that made the list, while a bunch of 10s didn't...but again it's such a weirdly-eclectic list with such poor/awesome timing (jaymc OTM abt Everything is Wrong...another example: Mellow Gold) that it comes off so much cooler than anything that has been made since...I think if we were to update the alternative canon nowadays it would probably end up a lot less interesting.

― ^ban with extreme prejudice (Drugs A. Money), Saturday, 1 November 2008 17:29 (seventeen years ago)

It isn't a bad list at all, and I like that it has things like ABBA and the Go-Go's and the Roches in it - beating the Pumpkins! I would have assumed that "only in the 2000s" would that happen for a list like this. The time capsule/period piece reading is interesting...what would this have looked like in 1999? More Pavement, surely. I wouldn't mind owning/hearing more of the things on this list.

― Doctor Casino, Saturday, 1 November 2008 20:08 (seventeen years ago)

Yeah, that's a great list. A young person could do a lot worse than using that as an introductory guide.

Five records that would certainly place high if it came out today: In the aeroplane over the sea, Dig Me Out, I Can Hear the Heart Beating As One, Perfect From Now On and White Blood Cells

― kornrulez6969, Saturday, 1 November 2008 20:17 (seventeen years ago)

i'm surprised that i like 5 of albums on the original list, but canons are such a bullshit concept (as is "alternative")

― lex pretend, Saturday, 1 November 2008 20:20 (seventeen years ago)

WTF is "alternative" anyway

― Pantheism F. Mohair (res), Saturday, 1 November 2008 20:30 (seventeen years ago)

(In the book's introduction, it claims to be wide-ranging without giving into "Tony Bennett's alternative!" hype.)

???

― Mr. Snrub, Saturday, 1 November 2008 20:38 (seventeen years ago)

black people are not alternative.

― u s steel, Saturday, 1 November 2008 20:55 (seventeen years ago)

what about Us3?

― Pantheism F. Mohair (res), Saturday, 1 November 2008 21:10 (seventeen years ago)

black people are not alternative.

― u s steel, Saturday, November 1, 2008 8:55 PM (19 minutes ago)

OTM

― Kevin Keller, Saturday, 1 November 2008 21:14 (seventeen years ago)

Except for TV on the Radio. But they have a white guy in the band, so it's OK.

― staggerlee, Sunday, 2 November 2008 17:01 (seventeen years ago)

just off the top of my head...albums that were rated 10 in the book that did not make the list...

David Bowie - Station to Station
The Slits - Cut
Suicide (first album)
Slayer - Reign in Blood
Joe Ely - Honky Tonk Masquerade
Talking Heads - Remain in Light
Madonna - Like a Prayer
The Fall - This Nation's Saving Grace
The Fall - 458489 A-Sides
(maybe The Fall - Slates as well, can't quite remember...)
Mekons' Rock N Roll
Motorhead - No Sleep til Hammersmith
Dinosaur Jr. - You're Living All Over Me
The Flesh Eaters - A Minute to Pray, A Second to Die
Cheap Trick
at least three Ornette Coleman albums...

― ^ban with extreme prejudice (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 3 November 2008 23:55 (seventeen years ago)

oh yeah...
The Raincoats (s/t)
Can - Soon Over Babaluma
Throwing Muses (s/t)
...I can't remember if A.R. Kane's 69 was rated 10 or 9...

― ^ban with extreme prejudice (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 3 November 2008 23:56 (seventeen years ago)

(I heart Simon Reynolds)

― ^ban with extreme prejudice (Drugs A. Money), Monday, 3 November 2008 23:57 (seventeen years ago)

Well, the albums were rated by just the one writer assigned to the artist, while presumably the list was compiled from everyone's votes (and possibly discussed by committee and shuffled). If I were there I would have locked the doors until they agreed to include Remain In Light.

It seems that least dismissive people on this thread are the ones who actually read the book. It came out when alternative radio had become nearly as boring and conservative, with its post-grunge rock and britpop, as AOR & MOR radio in the late 70s. This alternative canon could be a beautiful thing when someone picks it up because they're wondering what else is out there like Nirvana and Soundgarden, and instead gets turned on to Tom Ze and Funkadelic. And what's the pish posh about it being all white music? It features King Sunny Ade, Arrested Development, Albert Ayler, Bad Brains, Derek Bailey, Arika Bambaataa, Basehead, Boogie Down Productions, Neneh Cherry, Chic, Ornette Coleman, Terence Trent D'Arby, De La Soul, Digable Planets, Digital Underground, Dr. Dre, EPMD, Eric B. & Rakim, Gang Starr, Grandmaster Flash, Ice Cube, Ice-T, Linton Kwesi Johnson, Jungle Brothers, Nusrat Fateh Ali Khan, Kool Moe Dee, Fela Kuti, Last Poets, Living Colour, L.L. Cool J, Thomas Mapfumo, Massive Attack, MC Lyte, N.W.A., Augustus Pablo, Lee Perry, P-Funk, P.M. Dawn, Prince, Public Enemy, Queen Latifah, Run-D.M.C., Salt-N-Pepa, Schoolly D, Roxanne Shante, Sonny Sharrock, Slick Rick, Sly & Robbie, Soul II Soul, Sun Ra, Too $hort, A Tribe Called Quest, Ultramagnetic MCs, Wu-Tang Clan, and various compilations of disco, funk, reggae, go-go, house, techno, hip-hop, "Ultimate Breaks & Beats," etc.

It was a great way to introduce artists and genres that your average non-music geeks never would have heard of before the web, filesharing, allmusic.com, podcasts and dozens of webzines. Glenn Branca, Musique Concrete, Flipper, Diamanda Galas, Halo of Flies, Kip Hanrahan, MX-80 Sound, No Wave, Adrian Sherwood, Sun City Girls, Henry Threadgill, Tropicalia, Wipers, La Monte Young and John Zorn. Then on top of all that you have Chuck Eddy recommending Quarterflash, Rose Tattoo, Skatt Bros. and Loverboy. The top tens by musicians and writers throughout the book was a nice touch, and a good chance to slip in interesting albums that wouldn't get mentioned otherwise.

I still pull it out now and then. It would be fun for some of us geeks to see an expanded edition, but it was perfect as is, an enjoyable sampler that doesn't try to capture every single essential album, but rather offers a sample of the tip of the iceberg.

― Fastnbulbous, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 04:49 (seventeen years ago)

In the book's introduction, it claims to be wide-ranging without giving into "Tony Bennett's alternative!" hype.)

???

― Mr. Snrub, Saturday, November 1, 2008 8:38 PM (3 days ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

In the '90s Tony Bennett started doing some gigs at 'alternative' clubs.

― curmudgeon, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 05:03 (seventeen years ago)

The list was compiled by the book's editors; there weren't any votes.

― Matos W.K., Tuesday, 4 November 2008 05:43 (seventeen years ago)

I must say it's too bad in some ways that they felt obligated to take up the "alternative" banner in such a canonical way. their '89 lists, particularly the top 100 singles, were so smart because they were so wide ranging, and while that doesn't help you brand your name as is oh so crucial when you've product to push, it's still a more realistic and frankly better way to do things.

OTM. Their lists (like that '89 singles list and the album list in that same issue that had James Brown's then-long-out-of-print-and-forgotten Sex Machine at number one) used to spit in the face of anything remotely resembling concise canonization and/or categorization. I think their taking up the "alternative" banner was a desperate move, borne out of the mistaken belief that their demographic had finally come home to roost. All it did was water down the magazine and rapidly turn it into a laughingstock, aka, something the Spin of '85-'91 would have laughed at.

― Sara Sara Sara, Tuesday, 4 November 2008 06:14 (seventeen years ago)

I don't think they were mistaken or desperate at all! "Alternative" was always the magazine's banner, if only in the "alternative to Rolling Stone sense. In 1995, the term seemed like it had some permanency and the book seems like a logical extension of it. And as Fastnbulbous points out, the book's (and magazine's) idea of what "alternative" consisted of is a hell of a lot broader than anyone else's at the time. They had as much right to try to define the phrase as anyone; it's not the magazine's fault that "alternative" would be dead in the water within three years of the book's publication.

― Matos W.K., Tuesday, 4 November 2008 09:51 (seventeen years ago)

I like "Everything Is Wrong" way better than "Play"--am I alone?

― dr. phil, Wednesday, 5 November 2008 03:47 (seventeen years ago)

five years pass...

Ha my wife and I had dinner with a couple we know, and the guy is totally into like beefheart and Mingus and the stooges and I mentioned this book and pulled it off the bookshelf and he wa super into it and wanted to borrow it haha

― jaymc, Sunday, 14 September 2014 07:08 (eleven years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

SPIN and the "Alternative" Canon