Defining the canon by influence

How would you measure the influence/s of derivative artists? REM influenced a lot of bands - but that was because they were more popular/more accessible than the Velvet Underground. ...

I don't even slightly believe that music comes out of thin air: it's exactly because i'm interested in where it DOES come from that I want the word "influence" to get lost — it's an obfuscation (it allows you to say things like "Michael Bolton has clearly influenced no-one", which as a lead-up to "objective measure" is a poor start).

As proved (again) on yr earlier thread, the notion of "influence" is confused in the extreme, so the idea that the value of a canon could be clarified defining it in terms of such confusion is a non-starter. Dave makes a good point.

What you also have to do — as well as suggesting a mechanism of measure — is explain why an "objective measure of influence" would be a useful thing. What would it tell us?

(GET BACK IN THE CAN...BACK...IN...THE...CAN!

many of these bands, however "influential", will nonetheless often all use the same standard subset of notes and chords belonging to the do-re-me-.. subset of notes and its sibling minor and seventh scales -- some will advance the ideas put forward by others and some will call that theft, and everyone in the pecking order will probably wish to be associated with this canon, top 100 etc., however arbitrary ideas like "100" might be

not that examining the basic elements of music perception is itself some way out of eliminating anxiety of influence or derivation, but i think derivation as has been applied most obviousley to the "evolution" of language may be a less competetive and more medium-term means of analysis, for those who feel participation in said analysis meaningful or useful, short-term

"REM influenced a lot of bands - but that was because they were more popular/more accessible than the Velvet Underground. ... "

Yes, they did - which is why Automatic for the People is consistantly in the top 10 of great album polls.

"What you also have to do — as well as suggesting a mechanism of measure — is explain why an "objective measure of influence" would be a useful thing. What would it tell us? "

A mechanism of measure would be easy - well, easy in theory, time consuming in practise. You could take a band/artist and list 5 major influences. You can then measure the success of this band in terms of chart success. So that means that the 5 influences have so-many points based upon chart success of the influenced. Let's take an easy example:

OASIS: Influences - Beatles, Sex Pistols, Who, Stone Roses, Nirvana.

Oasis' chart sucess (what points to give what is unnecessary to work out at this stage) is then accredited to each of these influences. That way, by everything being influenced by everyone else, the influential artists are given their due. It means that older artists will be given more points because they cast a longer shadow, but really successfull, influential modern bands (Nirvana, Radiohead) would be similarly up there. With a bit of tweaking, the same principle could be applied to albums, or indeed any other art.

What purpose does this have?

Well, people only get influenced by things that move them in some way. Therefor, by measuring influence in this fashion, you are indirectly measuring the effect that a band or artist has had on other artists, and the effect that those influenced artsist have had on the music-buying population.

The only subjective part of the whole operation would be deciding who is influenced by who, but this is a far easier thing to agree on than who is better than who.

I don't think I made this point clear. It would tell us how much a band/artists "means" to both artists and population. Hence, it would be an objective way of measuring subjective tastes.

We have this already, it's called the Top 40.

"A is important to B" and "B sounds like A" are completely different things: if you just lump them in together, you're building in the obfuscation I'm complaining about.

Actually you could adapt this system, to language itself!! Insterad of worrying WHAT words mean to people, we could measure HOW MUCH they mean to people!! Then "The" would come top in the english-speaking world!! Hurrah!!

It may well be an obfuscation (cool word, by the way!) but it's a fact - influence is complicated. The influence of Bob Marley extends way beyond the music, and it's this type influence that can be acknowledged in this way. It's not strictly necessary to acknowledge HOW an artist is influenced for this to work, just that they are. You know as well as I do that popular music is NOT just asbout the music - it's a wider, social thing, and this system allows this to be acknowledged.

Be warned though: I see the Pastels as a major (generally negative) influence on the Velvet Underground. Also: please ensure you use the Jamaican pop charts.

Am I getting the hang of this now, ILM?

the second insert is not so good

the third is fine: it also clarifies the basic problem w.john's suggestion ("not acknowledging HOW" seems to sidestep the main interesting aspect...)

• Artist A inspires Artist B
  
• Artist A altered their style of music to conform to the style of Artist B
  
• Artist B is well liked that Artist A aspires to be like them.
  
• Artist B is so thoroughly hated that Artist A will alter their music to distance themselves from Artist B
  
• Artist B's albums are extensively covered
  
• Artist B once had great clout over the sound of a decade ago, even if the effect on current music is obscure and hard to notice.
  
• Artist B's name is used as a token example of his genre.
  

  ― Lord Custos Alpha (Lord Custos Alpha), Thursday, 19 September 2002 18:30 (twenty-three years ago)

I propose finding a Chinese character for these words -- clarity + they just look a lot cooler.