100 Greatest Rock Albums

1HYHUPLQG�WKH�%HDWOHV��+HUHV�([LOH��DQG�1LFR��7KH�7RS��5HFRUGV�RI�$OO�7LPH��$�&DQRQRI�3RS�DQG�5RFN�$OEXPV�IURP�D�6RFLRORJLFDO�DQG�DQ�$HVWKHWLF�3HUVSHFWLYH$XWKRU�V��5DOI�YRQ�$SSHQ�DQG�$QGU«�'RHKULQJ5HYLHZHG�ZRUN�V��6RXUFH��3RSXODU�0XVLF��9RO��1R��6SHFLDO�,VVXH�RQ�&DQRQLVDWLRQ��-DQ��SS��3XEOLVKHG�E\��Cambridge University Press6WDEOH�85/��http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877541 .$FFHVVHG��

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Cambridge University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PopularMusic.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded on Fri, 28 Dec 2012 01:09:10 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=cup

http://www.jstor.org/stable/3877541?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


Popular Music (2006) Volume 25/1. Copyright @ 2006 Cambridge University Press, pp. 21-39

doi:10.1017/S0261143005000693 Printed in the United Kingdom

Nevermind The Beatles, here's Exile 61 and Nico: 'The top 100 records of all time' - a canon of

pop and rock albums from a

sociological and an aesthetic perspective

RALF VON APPEN and ANDRE DOEHRING

Abstract For this article the authors analysed thirty-eight lists of 'The 100 greatest albums of all time' type. As the findings demonstrate, a canon of popular music has evolved which shows strong tendencies towards stability in featuring albums from the late 1960s (especially those by The Beatles), while only a few albums from the 1990s have gained 'classic' status. The canon's contents and exclusions are explained by the social dispositions of the participants, predominantly white males aged twenty to forty. Influenced by efforts of the cultural industries, these actors also evaluate certain albums for the purposes of distinguishing themselves from the 'mainstream'. Furthermore, aesthetic and artistic criteria underlying the esteem of the 'masterworks' are identified by analysing reviews. The authors suggest that future research on canonisation should interlock sociological and aesthetic perspectives. Findings from such an approach might initiate reflection among music fans about their own exclusions, and result in an opening up of the meaning and significance of the canon.

Introduction Among the diverse forms of canonising pop and rock music, compiling lists like 'The 100 greatest albums of all time' is one of the most prominent and influential. For about thirty years, critics and fans alike have been electing their favourite 'rock-classics' in music magazines, on radio stations or on the Internet. By analysing these votes, based on a large number of lists and a broad sample of participants, one can obtain an insight into the level of esteem in which certain pop music records are held. In the first part of this essay, we document the existing canon using data extracted from a collection of international lists and then compiled into a meta-list. In this way we can demonstrate historical development and change in the canon, as well as stagnation and stability in the choices of certain albums and musicians over the years. Next, taking two different approaches, we discuss why these specific albums have been elected. In the first place, we outline a sociological approach, then, by analysing reviews of the top albums, we characterise an aesthetic perspective on the canon. As we shall argue, it is only by

21



22 Ralf von Appen and Andre Doehring

integrating both approaches (the sociological and the aesthetic) that canons like the one discussed can be thoroughly grasped, and thus gradually opened up.

Documentation of the canon Since the emergence of rock journalism, both writers and readers have been annually making up their minds about which albums were the year's top releases. Beyond that, this constituency has been contrasting the value of these new releases with older records by voting for the 'best albums of all time' at irregular intervals. In these lists, new records replace albums that do not pass the test of time. Indeed, those records that do the pass the test, and also appeal to young listeners, are labelled 'masterworks'. The desire reflected here for orientation, and the need to distinguish between records worth remembering and worth forgetting, were highly evident around the Millennium. In 1999, the authors began collecting twenty-two of these all-time- greatest-lists for analytical comparison (Appen and Doehring 2000). Since then it seems that the widespread need for reading and compiling lists has continued, allowing us to collect sixteen more lists from the last five years. For this essay all thirty-eight were compiled into a meta-list (see Table 1). The first column contains the position an album reaches if we sum up all lists from 1985 to 2004, the second column holds the results from the list we compiled in 1999, and in the third column only the results from the last five years are shown.1

To begin with, it is significant that voters have a high level of agreement about the canonic inventory stock. Out of the 950 possible positions (thirty-eight lists multiplied by twenty-five ranks), only 273 are occupied in our meta-list. The higher an album is positioned, the stronger the consensus gets.

By way of a preliminary survey it is important to state a few trivial but nonethe- less essential features of the records on the list. These can be considered as requirements of admittance: all our top thirty albums contain songs that have a four-four time, very rarely exceed the time limit of four minutes, were composed by the musicians themselves, are sung in English, played by a 'classical' rock-formation (drums, bass, guitar, keyboard instruments) and were released on a major label after 1964. The fact that nearly all musicians are white males from the USA (43 per cent) or Great Britain (52 per cent) is striking.2

Among the thirty 'best' albums, a 'golden age' of rock music can be identified. The period from 1965 to 1969 contains forty per cent of all albums in Table 1; furthermore, as much as thirty-four per cent of all points given (12,350) go to records released in those five years. About thirty per cent of the albums were recorded in the 1970s, twenty per cent in the 1990s. In contrast to the late 1960s, the years from 1980 to 1984 must have been quite desolate (musically speaking) - not more than 3.7 per cent (466 points) go to these five years. Moreover, in the 1980s (in total twelve per cent) predominantly British rock music seems musically significant as it is represented by three repeatedly mentioned albums (which, by the way, are anything but representative of the music of the 1980s): The Queen is Dead (The Smiths), The Stone Roses (The Stone Roses), and The Joshua Tree (U2).

Of utmost interest is The Beatles' striking dominance, as four out of the ten top records are by them. In total they collected a sixth (2,021) of all given points for seven albums which were elected into the list. Compared to other musicians generally referred to as 'heroes of rock' - e.g. Bob Dylan (four albums; 705 points) or the Rolling



Nevermind The Beatles 23

Table 1. The meta-list, compiled from thirty-eight rankings.

Album Musician(s) Sum Year

1 2 1 Revolver The Beatles 566 1966 2 1 3 Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts ... The Beatles 541 1967 3 8 2 Nevermind Nirvana 469 1991 4 5 4 The Beatles The Beatles 435 1968 5 4 6 Pet Sounds The Beach Boys 409 1966 6 14 7 Abbey Road The Beatles 342 1969 7 12 8 Dark Side Of The Moon Pink Floyd 336 1973 8 6 12 The Velvet Underground & Nico The Velvet Underground 327 1967 9 7 18 Blonde On Blonde Bob Dylan 295 1966

10 25 5 OK Computer Radiohead 290 1997 11 3 31 Astral Weeks Van Morrison 268 1968 12 11 13 Exile On Main St. Rolling Stones 263 1972 13 9 24 What's Going On Marvin Gaye 249 1971 14 13 19 Never Mind The Bollocks ... The Sex Pistols 242 1977 15 10 23 Highway 61 Revisited Bob Dylan 241 1965 16 23 9 The Joshua Tree U2 236 1987 17 17 10 The Bends Radiohead 222 1995 18 16 17 The Stone Roses The Stone Roses 201 1989 19 29 11 London Calling The Clash 185 1979 20 21 20 Blood On The Tracks Bob Dylan 163 1975 21 15 34 Are You Experienced? Jimi Hendrix Experience 160 1967 22 24 21 The Queen Is Dead The Smiths 158 1986 23 19 35 Automatic For The People R.E.M. 154 1992 24 38 14 Rumours Fleetwood Mac 131 1977 25 33 22 Achtung Baby U2 129 1991 26 46 16 Ten Pearl Jam 121 1992 27 27 36 Born To Run Bruce Springsteen 120 1975 28 51 15 Rubber Soul The Beatles 118 1965 29 18 80 Let It Bleed Rolling Stones 116 1969 30 22 61 (What's The Story) Morning Glory? Oasis 110 1995

Stones (six albums; 527 points) - The Beatles still receive the most adulation. Note- worthy also are the results for Nirvana (three albums; 516 points) and Radiohead (two albums; 512 points). Their musical work has met with unanimous approval in only a few years and gathered more appreciation than the works of Pink Floyd (473 points) or U2 (415 points). With just one record in the meta-list, the Beach Boys (409 points) and The Velvet Underground (327 points) came in respectively eighth and ninth in the ranking of the most popular album-artists.

The Beatles' portion of points has increased from 16.6 to 19 per cent in the last five years' lists. Accordingly, their status as 'classics' has not only been maintained but has become even more evident. On the other hand, Bob Dylan, the Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Marvin Gaye, and Van Morrison lost significantly in their reputation (Astral




Weeks even dropped twenty-eight positions). By comparing old and new lists, it is obvious how the comparatively new albums of Nirvana, Radiohead and U2 could gain consent among the participants. This cannot be accounted for by the logic of our method because, as we have shown, the general lack of recognition for music of the 1980s remains unchanged throughout the years.

Additionally, it is important to note a high state of stability in the canon: thirteen albums are among the top twenty both in columns two and three. What is more, five of our current top ten albums had already been voted into the list by New Musical Express critics from 1974.3 Further information can be gained by comparing this canon to a list of best-selling albums (see Table 2).4 First, there is a striking lack of congru- ence between Tables 1 and 2. Only The Beatles managed to reach higher positions in both lists. Some of the albums highly valued in Table 1 were selling relatively poorly (Pet Sounds 1.6 million; Highway 61 Revisited 1.5 million; Astral Weeks 500,000; The Velvet Underground & Nico 311,000),5 while most of the best selling albums are completely ignored in the canon.

Furthermore, the contrast with the sales figures clearly brings forth other exclusions from the canon, apart from those particular to the 1980s. While one can find some female musicians in Table 2, the canon contains only five albums recorded by women among the first one hundred albums and only one in the top fifty (Horses by Patti Smith)!6 The small role black musicians play in the canon is equally noteworthy. Only sixteen out of the first one hundred artists are persons of colour, and only two of them are to be found among the top thirty, although musicians like Michael Jackson or Whitney Houston are commercially successful (see Table 2). African-American music styles like soul, blues or hip hop hardly appear in the canon. Likewise, hard rock and country, both very popular according to Table 2, are ignored in Table 1.

The 'greatest albums' from a sociological perspective Following Max Weber, Kurt Blaukopf (1984, p. 18) proposed that a sociology of music should explain musical action causally in its process by interpreting it as social action referring to others. Regarding the above presented results, the following questions arise for a sociological perspective: Which group of persons has made the choices that yield these lists? Why are they making such choices, if we interpret this behaviour as musical action in the above sense? We present some thoughts on social characteristics and strategies of the participants in three subdivisions: (a) common dispositions, (b) identity - distinction and (c) influences of culture industries. We believe that this perspective on the canon allows causal explanation of why The Beatles, Nirvana and The Beach Boys - or even more specifically the albums presented in Table 1 - are held in high esteem by the voters.

(a) Common dispositions Following Pierre Bourdieu (1987, p. 98), common sets of dispositions for a collective are formed by the conditions of existence. These dispositions consist of a commonly held and experienced habitus, which acts subconsciously in regulating patterns of practical behaviour and cultural consumption. Thus, a group that was socialised in the same class is expected to develop similar tastes. Feminist or postcolonial theory drew attention to other categories of social inequality like gender, race, regional



Table 2. Best-selling records, according to US sales figures and estimated worldwide sales.

Album Musician(s) Year Sales USA Sales world- Position in our (Mio) wide (Mio) meta-list

1 Their Greatest Hits 1971-1975 The Eagles 1976 28 41 - 2 Thriller Michael Jackson 1983 27 54 40 3 The Wall Pink Floyd 1979 23 20 32 4 Led Zeppelin IV Led Zeppelin 1971 22 30 39 5 Greatest Hits Vol. 1 & 2 Billy Joel 1985 21 15 -

Back in Black AC/DC 1980 21 42 7 Come On Over Shania Twain 1997 20 35 - 8 Rumours Fleetwood Mac 1977 19 30 24

The Beatles The Beatles 1968 19 18 4 10 Boston Boston 1976 17 18 -

Bodyguard O.S.T. Various Artists 1992 17 37 - 12 Cracked Rear View Hootie & the Blowfish 1994 16 17 -

Greatest Hits Elton John 1974 16 20 -

Jagged Little Pill Alanis Morissette 1995 16 28 55 The Beatles 1967-1970 The Beatles 1973 16 20 - No Fences Garth Brooks 2000 16 16 - Hotel California The Eagles 1976 16 26 82



26 Ralf von Appen and Andrd Doehring

descent or age, which have an effect on one's taste and value judgements.7 Accord- ingly, the task for our study is to identify a common disposition for the group of participants.

Yet, almost immediately it seems that the empirical investigation is doomed to failure as the participants cast their votes without giving information about age, sex, race, etc. One possible way of accessing this kind of data is by using the readership surveys the magazines themselves carry out for the advertising industry. Data for the German edition of Rolling Stone magazine show, for instance, that the characteristic reader is male, aged twenty to forty and has a higher educational level compared to the average German population.8 In addition, these readers are termed 'financially independent'. Upon the basis of this data the following thoughts can be developed.

As the readers of German Rolling Stone magazine resemble one another in at least three respects (gender, age, educational level), the conclusion can be drawn that they have a more consistent taste than people who differ from this. Opposing Bourdieu, the sociologist Gerhard Schulze interprets taste as an instrument for establishing social networks across classes.9 People with common behaviour and values link together in 'milieus' (Schulze 1992), where they communicate about central topics and aesthetic concerns without being locally bound. Following Schulze, we might say that readers of German Rolling Stone form a 'milieu' because they have, and then further develop, a distinct taste in comparison to other groups. By making up lists they reduce their aesthetic insecurity that is arguably caused by the large amount of music released. For the music papers, this is the 'key ideological moment', as Simon Frith (1996, p. 84) terms the readers' polls. The polls serve 'as public display of the magazine's success in forging a community out of its disparate consumers'. The arising canon, perpetuated over the years, represents their consensus.

Now, as we can see, the diverse readerships of music magazines do not mark- edly differ from one another on the whole since they show a common preferential treatment of certain albums, musicians and periods: apart from eight albums, our top twenty-five equal the German Rolling Stone list from 1997. This suggests a hypothetical similarity of the audiences. Constructing a Weberian Idealtyp ('ideal type'), the group of persons participating in the canon consists of predominantly white males from the western hemisphere, aged between twenty and forty, having a higher educational level. The marginal appearance of Others (female, minority and non- western musicians) then follows from the structure of this ideal-typical group. The category of age among canon-constructors can only give us an indirect understanding of the preferential treatment of late 1960s' albums, as the characteristic voter is too young to have been a music fan in this period. But without doubt his habitus is influenced by former canons. Usually, such preceding selections are not easily over- come. Following Niklas Luhmann (1990, p. 236), who speaks of an 'anchoring effect', the former generation that once participated in the canon, men around sixty, may not be actively involved in the canon any more. But they were the first to define its requirements and standards, i.e. they have thrown the canonic anchor into the ocean of music.

Furthermore, a higher educational level reinforces the cultural capital used in the social action of evaluating pop music. While for Bourdieu cultural capital was restricted to the field of fine arts, in this case it also comprises popular culture. Hence, Bethany Bryson (1996, p. 888) renamed it 'multi-cultural capital', because she dem- onstrated how high status individuals act on diverse cultural fields. The group of 'omnivores' (Peterson 1992) at stake here differs from low-status groups by selecting




a multitude of musical styles across highbrow/lowbrow barriers, whereas 'univores' group around single genres like country or easy listening. On the other hand, the musical tolerance of omnivores is not infinite, as Bryson showed. Their musical taste is indeed broader than the average, but the genres least preferred by higher educated status groups are the ones that lower status groups favour most, namely heavy metal, rap, country and gospel (Bryson 1996, p. 894). This means that as soon as a genre conveys a flavour of lower social prestige, tolerance will come to an end and the wish for distinction over-determines the musical choice. Such studies can explain the actual exclusion of these genres from the canon.

Of course, reflection of this sort must remain hypothetical until thorough empirical investigation is carried out. Some of the assumptions involved have to be clarified. For example, is it the case that the participants are actual omnivores or just a 'little group of nerds' obsessed with the music of the late 1960s, and will the data from American or English magazines alone allow similar conclusions, etc? Nevertheless, the Weberian construction of the canon's participants could help us to understand its rules, strategies and exclusions. For instance, The Beatles are preferred as they are male and white, come from England (and not, say, Namibia) and were present in former editions of the canon. Further, their music does not have a flavour of lower social prestige. Just the opposite, it has an 'arty touch', which rewards using one's multi-cultural capital on it. However, since all this is true of David Bowie as well, who is not placed that high in the canon, we have to look out for further explanations.

(b) Identity - distinction For Alois Hahn (1998) the deeper function of canons lies in their fictional symbolic representation of a group's identity that establishes itself by processes of distinction. Bourdieu has structurally explained this volition to distinguish ourselves from others. Each class condition is defined, simultaneously, by its intrinsic properties and by the relational properties which it derives from its position in the system of class conditions, which is also a system of differences, differential positions, i.e. by everything which distinguishes it from what it is not and especially from everything it is opposed to; social identity is defined and asserted through difference. (Bourdieu 1984, pp. 170-2) It is not only the group of people participating in the canon as a whole, but also different parties within this group, who use processes of distinction to mark off their specific positions and roles. The differences between readers' lists on the one hand and lists made up by critics on the other are due to these strategies: a critic, who cannot present a list that discernibly differs at least in part from their readers' taste, will lose his expertise.10 Certainly, he must not make up a totally dissimilar list because that would show that he did not belong to this group. He has to prove his musical knowledge by subtle differences. Following Bourdieu (ibid., p. 229), the exceptional knowledge of (musical) experts legitimates the value that an album holds for distinction. Therefore, 'musically omniscient' critics praise uncommon albums, and by doing so establish their role and opinion-leading position in the group.

In addition, the results show exclusions by which the group as a whole can be described. For instance, one can find neither greatest hits compilations nor sound- tracks in the meta-list. It can be argued that participants implicitly claim that an album has to be the 'work' of an 'author'.11 Apparently, compilations or music composed for accompanying a movie are published more for commercial than artistic reasons. The group similarly rejects best-selling records. By clearly showing disapproval of these




albums, group members distinguish themselves from ordinary listeners. The reasons are quite obvious: people who are involved in making up lists invest a lot of time in music. It can be reasonably assumed that music means a lot to them and plays an important part in their construction of identity. They invest their cultural capital, their knowledge of music, and change it into social capital on the market, which the canon represents to them. As they regard themselves as 'experts', the esteem of specific records serves to raise them above the 'lay listeners'. From the assumed artistic hierarchy of the records emerges a social hierarchy achieved through distinction from the mainstream.

By now we are able to explain why, for instance, The Beatles' 'red' or 'blue' albums are not present in the canon and why Pet Sounds has been voted for despite (or possibly due to) its low sales. Yet it still remains unclear why Bowie, who has not sold too many records either (while being widely critically acclaimed), is not placed as high as The Beatles.

(c) Influences of the culture industries If the operation of a system of distinction is key in explaining the taste of our particular group, it would nevertheless be wrong to deduce from this that the group is immune to the marketing strategies of record companies. For one thing has to be said in advance: without the concerted action of the music industry and the media it would not be possible to reach a consensus covering the western hemisphere as represented in our meta-list. Only music that has been recorded, distributed and advertised has a chance of canonisation.

Specific strategies of the media and the record companies keep certain musicians and bands present in the participants' minds.12 Ideally, artists are treated like brands, as a survey of the past activities of The Beatles demonstrates. Their compilation 1 was a worldwide best seller; Yellow Submarine (1999) and Let it Be (2003) have been re-released in digitally remastered versions; George Harrison's death, both McCartney's and Lennon's sixtieth birthdays, as well as the twentieth anniversary of the latter's death, led to coverage on TV, radio, and in the press and certainly resulted in much media presentation of Beatles music;13 the Beatles' Anthology, encompassing TV broadcasts, three double-CDs, a book, a video- and DVD-edition, provided 'new' material for fans around the world for several years.

Similar branding can be seen in the cases of Nirvana and The Beach Boys: Cobain's iconisation was intensified by the publication of his journals; anniversaries like 'ten years since Nevermind' or 'ten years since his suicide' gave rise to articles in music magazines, which had an effect on the albums' sales.14 The music of The Beach Boys has been re-released in stereo versions and luxurious box-sets - which shows that the imagined target-group consists of people with enough disposable income to spend on them. Generally, for all of these bands we can observe that none of their records are sold at a lower price level. Indeed the reverse seems to be the case. In Germany, The Beatles' albums are sold at higher prices than other records. The economic value supports the symbolic.15

By integrating these influences into our perspective, we can explain why The Beatles are more present in the canon than Buddy Holly, for example. He has not had ongoing coverage like that of The Beatles; although he died early, he has not become an icon like Lennon or Cobain; his records are sold at 'nice price' and have not been improved in sound quality; after the Buddy Holly film biography, the Buddy Holly




stage musical finally threw discredit upon him in the eyes of the canon's participants. From the aforementioned we can see how the branding of a musician may easily fail if the culture industries do not care for the target group's demand for authenticity. To get back to Bowie, on the one hand, he has always kept himself apart from the mainstream, but on the other, he never wanted to meet listeners' claims for authenticity (for example by turning down collaborations with the culture industries).16 On the contrary, doing commercials, earning money with his website or issuing shares in his future operations might have cost him canonical reputation. And finally, maybe he is just too much alive for higher appreciation.

To put it in a nutshell, the pop canon can be interpreted as the result of the social action of a group consisting of higher educated white males of the same age group. As they have common dispositions and tastes, they form a milieu around magazines or radio stations, in which they distinguish themselves quantitatively as well as qualita- tively from those who consume mass products and genres of lower social prestige. The preference for The Beatles, Nirvana or The Beach Boys is causally explained at least in part - these bands conform to the canon's rules that we inferred from the common dispositions of the participants; they broke up, their 'heritage' is adminis- tered by cultural industries and they sold few enough records to distinguish them from mainstream chart music. However, what the sociological perspective cannot answer is the question concerning the preference for certain albums. Why, for instance, does the group favour Revolver above Let it be?

The 'greatest albums' from an aesthetic perspective Judgements on the value of music and the canon that follows from them are con- ditioned by many different social factors, but cannot be fully reduced to them (see, for example, Wolff 1993, p. 84). To give reasons for the esteem in which the acclaimed albums are held, traditional aestheticians would try to present the qualities which they believe to be immanent to the music. Instead, we want to understand which qualities the listeners attribute to their favourite records. To find out, we collected as many reviews concerning the albums in Table 1 as we could find in print and on the Internet, and analysed them in relation to the criteria by which their aesthetic value is understood. The results can be illustrated through case studies of three especially successful records from our list: Revolver (The Beatles, 1966, position 1), Nevermind (Nirvana, 1991, position 3), and Pet Sounds (The Beach Boys, 1966, position 5).

(a) Revolver In their reviews of Revolver many authors point out the innovative character of the album. They look upon the record as an important step for the historical development of popular music, mostly because they consider The Beatles to have been the first to enrich their arrangements with the sound of backward tape and other studio technology ('I'm Only Sleeping', 'Tomorrow Never Knows'), with added samples of noises and voices ('Yellow Submarine'), with Indian instruments ('Love You To'), classical strings ('Eleanor Rigby') or soul-like horn-sections ('Got To Get You Into My Life'). In comparison to earlier releases, they rate the lyrics as more diverse, more serious, and more unusual. This palette of styles with its 'daring sonic adventures' is not only praised for innovation, but also for its versatility. In spite of many surprises, the recipients do not feel the songs to be difficult, but to be formed and kept together




by 'consistently stunning songcraft' (Erlewine [n.d.]A).17 Although the authors do refer to the catchiness, beauty or prettiness of many melodies and harmonies, they do not give more concrete reasons for the compositional qualities they frequently claim. Another aspect they often appreciate is The Beatles' emotional expressiveness both as composers and interpreters: 'it's hard to think of many other bands that could imbue such a song with such emotional power. ["Here, There, And Everywhere"] still sends shivers down my spine [...]. [Revolver] packs far more fun, sadness, love, despair, dreaminess and thoughtfulness into its half hour than the great majority of albums twice its length' (Davidbuttery). Apparently, The Beatles managed to control this versatility and to arrange a coherent and homogeneous album, which is reputed to be highly original with regard to both The Beatles' and other contemporary bands' output: 'Revolver has its own distinct flavour, and it proved that when properly conceived albums could be greater than the sum of their parts' (Jlennonfan4).

(b) Nevermind In the critiques analysed, Nirvana's Nevermind is acknowledged as a prototypical record that stands for the beginning as well as the climax of grunge and through which 'alternative rock' found acclaim in a 'mainstream' audience. As with recordings by The Beatles or The Beach Boys, it is considered an 'essential work' for its influence. Nevermind passes for being innovative, although 'Nirvana isn't onto anything altogether new' (Robbins). Rather than celebrating an approval of diverse 'progres- sive' musical possibilities, the authors appreciate the reduction of the creative means. This can be identified as the innovative combination of hard, punk-influenced stylistic markers ('frenzied screaming and guitar havoc' [Robbins]) with the typical characteristics of pop ('a shiny surface' (Erlewine [n.d.]B) and 'catchy hooks and riffs [that] can easily be loved by anyone with a music taste' (Jeffrey). Those memorable, 'haunting' melodies and easily recognisable formal structures lead to an outstand- ingly positive appraisal of the song writing: 'a dozen great songs, that are fantastic even without so much ragged feedback, for melodies, voice leading and all that crap are argh!, if not even better' (Sikora). While The Beatles and The Beach Boys are admired for compositional complexities, Nirvana's strength is recognised in their simplicity: 'The musicianship of the album isn't complicated for the most part, as "Smells Like Teen Spirit" and "Come As You Are" are typical songs for the early guitarist, but the song writing and arrangements are so well done that the need for anything profound and complex is immediately thrown out' (A music fan from Cleveland). Simplicity is rather considered a requirement for the band's two most essential qualities, expressiveness and authenticity, or 'passion and honesty' (Vascdan). What listeners find conveyed in voice, lyrics, sound and tempo is, above all, 'tremendous, unbridled power' (Erlewine [n.d]B), and 'raw, angst-ridden energy' (Samhot), which is being combined with the expression of negative emotions, with 'anguish' (Erlewine), with 'pain, hurt and misery' (King). This emotionality in the music and the lyrics is felt to be very intense and (knowing the circumstances of the singer's life and death) to be an unalienated, honest reflection of Cobain's personality: 'This album is real. In a world where shallow, factory bands control the air waves, Nirvana was a shining beacon of emotion, angst, and artistic integrity that gave hope to people everywhere' (Redcrosse27). Because of this intimacy, many listeners describe the music as important for their personal life or even for the lives of their




whole generation: 'This is the most influential album of my generation: it [.. .] gave a voice to the frustrations and feelings of all young people' (Redcrosse27).

(c) Pet Sounds

Although it achieved relatively little success at the time of its release, critics and fans nowadays rank Pet Sounds as Brian Wilson's personal masterpiece, as the zenith of The Beach Boys' discography and as an influential milestone in the history of popular music. It is supposed to have been 'way ahead of its time' (Dean M Dent) for its 'daring arrangements' (Opalsuns) using unusual instruments like accordions, bicycle bell, bongos, string quartet, flutes, french horn, harpsichord, theremin and ukulele. 'The group here reached a whole new level in terms of both composition and production, layering tracks upon tracks of vocals and instruments to create a richly symphonic sound' (Unterberger). Along with the idiosyncratic production and some 'brilliant vocal harmonies' (Grandegi), reviewers praise the song writing, referring once again mostly to the melodies: 'a collection of the most beautiful pop music ever assembled on one album. Studio effects add ambience and a slight touch of the avant garde, but the songs themselves are the true gems. "Wouldn't It Be Nice" with its impeccable harmonies and melody is one of the greatest songs ever' (Scott Hedegard); 'it is undeniable that Brian Wilson is among this century's most talented pop songwriters' (Publius). The lyrics, that all deal with the problems of growing up, are regarded as serious, introspective and expressive ('heartfelt'): 'the best representation of troubled late adolescence captured on disc' (Gill). And expressive and moving is what many recipients once again consider the music: 'there is a balance of mood and emotion here that is unsurpassed in rock music' (ibid.); ' "Head On My Shoulder" and "God Only Knows" make me cry' (Lovely).

An aesthetics of rock? To sum up the results, we revealed a network of values, in which the appraisal of innovation, expression, authenticity and song writing are of major significance for the final judgement. Other criteria such as originality, versatility, homogeneity, com- plexity, simplicity, or (the hardly definable) beauty are of further importance, while instrumental virtuosity seems to be an aspect that is neglected. Among these values, a hierarchy of universal validity cannot be found. Authenticity, however, seems to rank as a key factor, one which is decisive in the case of Nevermind's high regard. Reviewers of Revolver and Pet Sounds do not bring it up expressly - they probably take its fulfilment as a given fact, thereby confirming Frith's (1987, p. 137) notion of the 'myth of authenticity' as 'one of rock's own ideological effects'. Musicians who do not create an impression of making music that matters personally to them have no chance to be successful in the lists we document. Among the thirty records in Table 1 there is not a single one that was not written and composed in the main by the musicians themselves.18

Taking into account the aforementioned criteria, the status of our top thirty albums can be fairly well explained, since the people who publish reviews on the Internet are by and large the same as those who take part in making up the lists we compiled. However, these results must not be generalised towards a universal aesthetics of pop and rock music for two reasons. First, (a) a very particular sample that is by no means representative for the common listener has been examined: a




group of people who listen to a lot of music and who engage in spreading their opinions on music via the Internet, be it as a profession or as a leisure pursuit. Second, (b) we collected the valuations in a very particular condition: for pragmatic reasons, the reviews that have been analysed were not historic, but mainly current ones. Thus, the authors were in a situation to already know about the album's standing as a classic and its widespread esteem. Let us look at these factors.

(a) The particularity of the sample Referring to the findings from the sociological perspective it can be assumed that the particular group, whose reviews we have examined, present arguments to prove the artistic value of their favourite records. This explains the weight they lay on the criteria of innovation, influence, compositional quality (song writing) and authenticity, since these criteria can only be judged with corresponding amounts and kinds of background knowledge or cultural capital. Furthermore, these are the qualities traditionally established in evaluating works of art (cf. Regev 1994). The frequent use of terms like 'masterwork', 'milestone', 'genius' or 'true art/artist' indicates such an attitude. It is also likely that authenticity - the impression of a musician's personal investment and self-disclosure in his work, image and career - will be vital to those people who identify and present themselves by way of their music preferences.19

(b) The influence of the particular situation The retrospective reviews of records that are already reputed to be classics rather point to the aforementioned 'artistic values', and are frequently written in a slightly advisory, introductory, opera guide-like tone that tries to show competence. Valuations in everyday situations, though, like rating new releases or recommending commercially successful music on the web pages of online shops are mainly based on more sensuous, therefore, 'aesthetic values' in a narrow sense.20 Reviewing albums like these, listeners care much less about whether the recordings might be of any lasting value. They want to know if they can get a kick out of them right now, what situations they might be suitable for or if they are good for dancing. To point out more distinctly the characteristics of the above-depicted 'aesthetic of the canon', we briefly go into this difference by means of two examples. First, for an album with a large degree of commercial success which many fans have commented on (at www.amazon.com), we can note Come On Over by Canadian-born country-pop singer Shania Twain (see Table 2 for details ).21 Instead of the values that are decisive for the evaluation of Revolver or Nevermind, we find fun, entertainment, emotional as well as physical motivation and attractiveness to be criteria of major significance.

To confirm their appraisal, people refer to personal feelings and experiences: 'The music is uplifting, energetic, and makes people happy (that's what music is supposed to do anyways)' (Richard Kwong);' "That Don't Impress Me Much" has you moving while "Man! I Feel Like A Woman!" just has you rocking and singing to the song' (A music fan from Los Angeles); 'And not only does Shania sing with heart - she sings with fun and joy, and these emotions are clearly evident through all of the songs, helping them become extremely pleasant ear candy. [. . .] Come On Over ranks as one of the most enjoyable and fun albums' (Troy Hartle); 'The music that will sustain forever are songs that are simplistic in meaning, have an uplifting beat, and are positive in nature. Her music shares these characteristics which means that she has




made a permanent place in music history. Other artists catering to the negativity and hatred of life will find their music forgotten. Did I fail to mention that she is absolutely gorgeous also?' (Steve McFalls).

Although these criteria are by and large ignored in the above analysed retrospective reviews of canonic albums, they are applied whenever amateurs judge prototypical pop music. They are also used by professional critics who review current releases by out-and-out rock bands. To verify this, contemporary descriptions of Is This It (2001), The Strokes' highly acclaimed debut album may serve as a second example: 'You'll turn it up as loud as it goes and sing along. You'll think about it and hum the tunes to yourself when you're at work or can't listen to it. You'll scream along to "Take It Or Leave It" - in front of the mirror even, and you'll look forward to the next time you get to hear it again. These are the tell-tale signs that you're listening to a great album. [... .] you won't be able to control yourself when you're under it's spell' (Greenwood); 'Track two is a brilliant song called "The Modern Age" that will have you grinning and bobbing your head along without a second thought' (Desrosiers); 'the music leaves no doubts - more joyful and intense than anything else I've heard this year' (Levy); 'there's a real sense of fun on this album, and whenever I feel the need to smile a little more, it's the first album I reach for' (Finch).

This considerably more widespread aesthetic should not be marked inferior; it is merely less suitable, if you want to distinguish yourself by displaying cultural capital. Arguably, it is close to the core of aesthetic perception as it has been conceived in the European tradition, that is if we understand it as a special kind of perception that we engage in just for the sake of it, and that can reward us with intense encounters with our very presence and the world that surrounds us (see Seel 2002, p. 343). Conversely, the work-based aesthetic which emerges from the analysed reviews of 'classics' is orientated by the discourse of art as elevated symbolic form. As such it rather loses track of the exciting joys of sensuous and bodily experiences.22 Nevertheless, we can surely infer that listeners of Pet Sounds and Nevermind are able (or at least were once able) to enjoy their music just as well in a sensuous way as Shania Twain's fans. The issue here bears on the attenuation of aesthetic experience over time: it seems that the aesthetic thrill offered by albums like Revolver or Nevermind when they were first released cannot be revitalised after hundreds of repeated hearings - and this effect is even reinforced when an album influences many others that, consequently, sound alike. In other words, the subjective appraisal of an aesthetic appeal soon wears off, whereas the evaluation of artistic merit (unlike subjective appraisal always compara- tive and based on steady principles) does not change as quickly (Gracyk 1999, p. 206).23 Interestingly, there is a kind of feedback at work here: by being declared as prototypes, as perfect embodiments of all the ideals, older works set the standard for current releases which can then do hardly anything but fail. In this way, esteem for the masterpieces increases even more.

To sum up, we have seen that listeners of pop and rock music almost exclusively refer to aesthetic and artistic criteria when giving reasons for their estimations and, as a result, their canon. Evidently, social aspects like distinction (and, supposedly, identification) are of major importance - but they are not broached in the public discourse of music criticism. Future research should therefore not focus on sociological aspects alone, but analyse the attribution of aesthetic values and their inner relationships as well (see, on this issue, Kneif 1971; Frith 1987; Wolff 1993). By the same token we would hope that the attempt to show that one (namely one's own) aesthetic is more true or valuable than other aesthetics (see, for example, Scruton 1997,




pp. 497-506) belongs to a declining tradition. No doubt it is this tradition which has been responsible for the minor interest which popular music studies has developed in issues of aesthetics. However, as we have seen, aesthetic theory that is interpreted in a descriptive, rather than in a normative way, can help to understand the processes of evaluation and canonisation.

Conclusion Any kind of canonisation inevitably entails exclusions that can be traced back to the social dispositions of the participants. Accordingly, any canon should be examined and critically questioned as it implies latent claims to power and authority. In the present case, it reduces the unimaginable versatility of popular musics from all over the world to a small collection of albums within very narrow stylistic bounds, and defines pop and rock music by the standards of late 1960s rock. Still, on the other side of the argument, canons may serve well as an orientation within the vast offering of music we are exposed to in our lifetimes, and as a guide for people who wish to understand popular music's history. Admittedly, this guide is biased, partial and middle-of-the-road; but then, which guide is not partial in some way? The task of future research is, hence, to uncover the internal rules and taboos, values and motives, and to impart this knowledge to listeners with the aim of having them reflect upon their 'personal' ideals as well as exclusions, and to let them find their own ways off the beaten track. This requires a position that recognises and analyses any important factor of influence on the resulting judgement. For that purpose, sociological and aesthetical approaches need to be interlocked. As Simon Frith puts it, 'the sociological approach to popular music does not rule out an aesthetic theory but, on the contrary, makes one possible' (Frith 1987: 133). Aesthetic research can help us understand the rewards that listening to music can give, and thus, more concretely, it can show the sensuous and artistic values our estimations are based on. Sociology, on the other hand, throws light on why we follow our particular aesthetic by considering relevant data external to the music. Moreover, results of (social) psychology should be integrated for a more extensive comprehension of the processes described above.

Of course, no matter what transpires in the academy, people will continue making up lists that perpetuate the canon even as they slightly alter it. Based on our results, a future canon might look like this. The Beatles will further extend their standing as 'classics', while Radiohead will keep on moving towards the top as long as they keep up their image as an artistically advanced band. Current musicians who seem to be authentic and suitable for distinction, who produce records that are judged as innovative, original, expressive, diverse but also full of 'well-written songs', will be canonised in about five years (by white males of higher education and income, aged mainly twenty to forty). If a famous musician, for example a Rolling Stone, should die, a media and industrially enforced wave of (re)canonisation will set in which will result in higher sales of 'best of' compilations and higher list positions for the prototypical album. Records by Youssou N'Dour, Faith Hill or Missy Elliott will not enter the 'dominant canon of the dominant' (pace Bourdieu) due to the 'wrong' sex, genre, colour or regional descent of the artists in question. However, it is just possible that by then research in canonisation might have imparted its findings to listeners and, as a result, we might see instead tolerance, plurality and the opening of the canon.




Acknowledgements We are grateful to Daniela and Maryam for their patience and understanding, and are indebted to Sean Albiez, Theodore Gracyk and Kristina Krause for valuable help with some English formulations. Dietrich Helms' critical comments helped to sharpen our argumentation.

Appendix 1. Sources of the analysed lists S. Strajnic (ed.) 2004 Int. Web visitors http://mywebpage.netscape.com/strajnic/list.htm (6 February

2004) Radio 2 2003 NL unknown http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Top100's/2003Radio2.html Studio Brussels 2003 BEL Listeners http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Topl00's/

2003StudioBrussel.html New Musical Express 2003 UK Critics http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Topl00's/2003NME.html Rolling Stone 2003 USA Critics http://www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

2003RollingStone500.html Radio 3FM De Hemelse 2002 NL Listeners http://www.xs4all.nl~ fsgroen/Top100's/

2002Radio3FMhemelsehonderd.html Q 2002 UK Readers http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Top100's/2002Qreaders.html Radio 90.5 The Night 2002 USA Listeners http:/ /www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

2002Radio90,5TheNight.html Rolling Stone 2002 USA Readers www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

2002RollingStoneReaders.html VH 1 2001 USA Critics http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Top100's/

2001VHlMusicRadio.html Radio Max Music 2001 USA unknown http://www.xs4all.nl/~ -fsgroen/Topl00's/

2001RadioMaxMusic.html M. Boeren (ed.) 2001 Int. 50 Web-visitors http:/ /martijn-2000.tripod.com/visitors20thcentury.htm WFPK 2000 USA unknown http://www.xs4all.nl/~ - fsgroen/Top100's/

2000WFPKradioLouisville.html Virgin Megastores 2000 Int. Critics, fans, http://www.rocklist.net/virgin_1000_v3.htm

(ed. C. Larkin) experts Melody Maker 2000 UK unknown http://www.xs4all.nl/~ -fsgroen/Top100's/

2000MelodyMaker.html Spex 1999 D Critics http: / /rz-home.de/~ tommi.s/spex20jh.htm#alben WBER 1999 USA Listeners http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Top100's/1999WBER.html Virgin (ed. C. Larkin) 1998 Int. 'Music http://www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

enthusiasts' 1998VirginColinLarkin.html Studio Brussels 1998 BEL Listeners http://www.xs4all.nl/ -~ fsgroen/Topl00's/

1998StudioBrussels.html BXR 1998 USA unknown http://www.bxr.com/best_index1998.html (not online

anymore) Q 1998 UK Readers http://www.xs4all.nl/ ~ fsgroen/Top100's/1998Qreaders.html Rolling Stone (ger.) 1997 D Critics http://www.rocklist.net/rstone.html#100 Virgin Megastores 1997 UK Customers http://www.rocklist.net/virgin.htm Guardian 1997 UK Critics http://www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

1997Guardian.html Juice 1997 AUS unknown http://www.rocklist.net/juice.html Channel 4/HMV 1997 UK 36.000 http:/ /www.xs4all.nl/~ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

record buyers 1997Channel4HMV.html BXR 1996 USA Listeners http://www.bxr.com/best_index1996.html (not online

anymore) Mojo 1996 UK Readers http:/ /www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

1996MojoReaders.html Mojo 1995 UK Critics http:/ /www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Top100's/1995Mojo.html Guiness, (ed. C. Larkin) 1994 Int. Experts http://www.xs4all.nl/ -fsgroen/Top100's/

1994GuinnessColinLarkin.html New Musical Express 1993 UK Critics http:/ /www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/

1993NMEwriters.html Musikexpress/Sounds 1993 D Critics http://rz-home.de/~ tommi.s/mesl00.htm#100m Times 1993 UK Critics http:/ /www.xs4all.nl/ - fsgroen/Topl00's/1993Times.html Zounds 1992 Int. Critics http: / /rz-home.de/~ tommi.s/zounds.htm Spin 1989 USA unknown http:/ /www.rocklist.net/spin100.html#25



36 Ralf von Appen and Andre Doehring New Musical Express 1988 UK Readers http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Top100's/

1988NMEreaders.html P. Gambaccini (ed.) 1987 Int. Critics http://www.xs4all.nl/ -fsgroen/Top100's/

1987PaulGambaccini.html Sounds 1985 UK unknown http://www.xs4all.nl/~ fsgroen/Top100's/1985Sounds.html

Appendix 2. Sources of the reviews cited (authors' names are often pseudonyms) 'A music fan from Cleveland' (3 October 2002). 'Accept it or not, it moulded the 90's'

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Nevermind, 27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com> 'A music fan from Los Angeles' (10 September 2003). 'Too great!' Amazon.com: Customer

Reviews: Come On Over, 06 May 2004: <http://www.amazon.com> 'Davidbuttery' (06 August 2002): 'Give it a twirl' Dooyoo. Music Records: Revolver, 27 April 2004:

<http:/ /www.dooyoo.co.uk/music/music_records/revolverthe_beatles/_review/385912/> 'Dean M Dent' (2 November 2001). 'Just wasn't made for it's time, but ahead of it' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pet Sounds [Extra Tracks] [Original Recording Remastered], 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

Desrosiers, M. 2001. 'The Strokes. Is This It', Pop Matters, 16 September 2003: <http://www. popmatters.com/music /reviews /s/strokes-isthisit.html>

Erlewine, S. T. [n.d.]A. 'Revolver (U.K.)' All Music Guide, 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.allmusic. com/cg / amg.dll?p = amg&uid = UIDSUB020404271002500473&sql = A2q4tk6dx9krd>

Erlewine, S. T. [n.d.]B. 'Nevermind' All Music Guide, 27 April 2004: <http://www.allmusic. com/cg/amg.dll?p= amg&uid= UIDSUB020404271002500473&sql= A8wa9qj3bojha>

Finch, A. [n.d.]. 'The Strokes. Is This It' Garbled Communications, 16 September 2003: <http:// www.garbledonline.net/thestrokes.html>

Gill, A. [n.d.]. 'Beach Boys. Pet Sounds' Q-Online, 14 December 1999: <http://www.qonline. co.uk/reviews /server/asp?id = 5945&ss = pet + sounds&cs= title&st = cn&stars = 0&cp= 1>

'Grandegi' (21 February 2004). 'A masterpiece, based on vocal harmonies and orchestration' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pet Sounds [Extra Tracks] [Original Recording Remastered], 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

Greenwood, E. (7 October 2001). 'The Strokes. Is This It' Drawer B New Media Reviews, 16 September 2003: <http://www.drawerb.com/01/1002496835.htm>

'Jeffrey' (10 April 2004). 'Defining Album of the 90s, not the defining album of Nirvana' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Nevermind, 27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com>

'Jlennonfan4' (8 April 2004). 'Greatest Album Of All Time By A Mile!' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Revolver, 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

King, S. 1991. 'Nirvana: Nevermind' Q-online, 27 April 2004: <http://www.xs4all.nl/ ~ fsgroen/Albums-N/NirvanaNevermind.htm>

Levy, J. 2001. 'The Strokes. Is This It', Rolling Stone, 879, 16 September 2003: <http://www. rollingstone.com/reviews/cd/review.asp?aid=2043129&cf= >

'Lovely' (10 February 2004). 'One of the best EVER!!' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pet Sounds [Extra Tracks] [Original Recording Remastered, 27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com>

'Opalsuns' (2 March 2004). 'Let's Break it down, coming from a musician ...' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pet Sounds [Extra Tracks] [Original Recording Remastered, 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

'Publius' (28 Febuary 2004). 'One of the very best pop albums' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pet Sounds [Extra Tracks] [Original Recording Remastered], 27 April 2004: <http://www. amazon.com>

'Redcrosse27' (7 April 2004). 'Ten Years and No Replacement ...' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Nevermind, 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

'Richard Kwong' (6 March 2004). 'Now I know who Shania is!!' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Come On Over, 27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com>

Ritchie, A. [n.d.]. 'The Strokes. Is This It' The Daily Page, 16 September 2003: <http:// www.thedailypage.com/going-out/music/cdreviews/managedit.php?intcdrevid=238>

Robbins, I. 1991. 'Nevermind. Nirvana' Rolling Stone, 618, pp.96-8. 'Samhot' (18 February 2002): 'Great Collection!' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Nevermind,

27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com>




'Scott Hedegard' (31 March 2004): 'Brian Wilson's Masterpiece (Until "Smile" is released)' Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Pet Sounds [Extra Tracks] [Original Recording Remastered], 27 April 2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

Sikora, M. 1991. 'Nirvana. Nevermind' Spex, 10, p.43. 'Steve McFalls' (3 August 1999). 'A very dynamic and well recorded CD!' Amazon Amazon.com:

Customer Reviews: Come On Over, 27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com> 'Troy Hartle' (21 April 2003). 'Why Can't More Music Be as Enjoyable as This Album?'

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Come On Over, 27 April 2004: <http://www.amazon.com> Unterberger, R. [n.d.]. 'Pet Sounds' All Music Guide, 27 April 2004: <http://www.allmusic.

com/cg/amg.dll?p= amg&uid= UIDSUB020404271002500473&sql= Ajsrp286c052a> 'Vascdan' (12 April 2004). '90's Masterpiece' Amazon.com: Customer Review: Nevermind, 27 April

2004: <http:/ /www.amazon.com>

Endnotes 1. The exact sources of the rankings, their original

medium (magazine, book, radio, Internet), their country of origin and who has participated (readers, listeners, critics) are listed in Appen- dix 1. In order to be selected, each list had to fulfil several criteria. We only admitted lists that graduated in at least twenty-five hierarchic steps. Lists that were confined to a certain sub- genre (e.g. '100 black metal albums you must hear before you die') or to a single nation (e.g. 'The 100 best Belgian records of all time') were excluded. Albums placed first got twenty-five points, albums placed twenty-fifth got one point. Only lists from the last twenty years were taken into consideration, because the admittance of older lists would have been a preferential treatment of older records. Moreover, because we saw intersubjectivity as a factor likely to boost representativeness, we did not include lists that had been constructed by only one person. We cannot estimate the overall number of participants due to missing information. That said, just one list, that compiled by 'Virgin Megastore/Colin Larkin' (2000, Appendix 1) is said to be based on the votes of more than 200,000 people. Ultimately, we consider that the selected lists are representative of this special form of canonisation in that no further lists could be found which met with our above-mentioned specifications.

2. We counted The Jimi Hendrix Experience (mixed) as American, Fleetwood Mac (mixed) and Van Morrison (Northern Ireland) as be- longing to the UK. U2 constitute the remaining five per cent, as they are Irish.

3. Naturally we did not integrate the NME critics poll into our list due to its age. The results ran as follows: 1. Sgt. Pepper's ..., 2. Blonde on Blonde, 3. Pet Sounds, 4. Revolver, 5. Highway 61 Revisited, 6. Electric Ladyland, 7. Are you experienced?, 8. Abbey Road, 9. Sticky Fingers, 10. Music from Big Pink, Source: 27 April 2004: <http://www.rocklist. net/nme_writers.htm#100_74>

4. Source for the US-figures is the Recording Industry Association of America: 21 July 2005: <www.riaa.com/gp/bestsellers/topalbums. asp> (last update June 2005); source for estimated worldwide figures: 27 April 2004:

<http:/ /top40-charts.com/chart.php?cid= 25&compag=38>. One has to consider that not all American record companies report their sales numbers to the Recording Industry Association of America. The absence of Stevie Wonder, for example, is thus explained. The RIAA counts the sale of a double-LP or CD twice, whereas in column six they are counted as one unit. By taking this into account, the comparatively high figures for double-albums in column five are explained. Accordingly, the best-selling Beatles album would be Sgt. Pepper's ... (eleven million in the USA, estimated thirty-two million worldwide) and 1 (nine million USA, estimated twenty-seven million worldwide). Accurate worldwide sales data seems impossible to come by for the album market. But even if we had official data, it would be meaningless for the Asian markets, considering the high number of bootleg copies traded there. Plausible figures for the UK are listed at <http://www.everyhit.com/recordabl.html>.

5. Source: 27 April 2004: <http://www. rollingstone.com/features/coverstory/ featuregen.asp?pid = 2164>

6. Apart from female band members of Fleetwood Mac and The Velvet Underground.

7. The lists used for the meta-list stem from the western hemisphere. Split up by countries, only small differences emerge. For the UK, a nation- ally favoured artist would be Elvis Costello; for the USA, Bruce Springsteen; or for Belgium, dEUS - in German lists these national particu- larities do not exist.

8. Source: 27 April 2004: <http://www.asymh. de/downloads/Objektprofil_Musik.pdf>

9. For Schulze, the present time is characterised by an over-supply of cultural possibilities with which to define a personal style. Besides, modern society increases the feeling of insecurity for its members due to the level of differentiation and individualisation: 'Unsicherheit erzeugt ein disthetisches Anlehnungsbediirfnis, das sich in Mentalitditen, Gruppenbildungen, typischen Handlungsstrategien und neuen Formen der Offentlichkeit niederschliigt' ['Insecurity calls forth a need for aesthetic orientation, which is reflected in mentalities, the forming of



38 Ralf von Appen and Andred Doehring

groups, typical patterns of behaviour and new forms of public appearances'] (Schulze 1992, p. 62).

10. For example, in the German edition of Rolling Stone magazine, two lists made up by readers and critics are published monthly. The critics' list shows a faster turnover of albums, which is explainable as much by the large amount of music they have to cope with as by the effort expended in establishing their role.

11. Indeed, in one of the compiled lists, compilations were not even admitted for this very reason. 'We do not allow them [compilations] to be counted because the idea is for the album to be a showcase of songs put together by an artist at a particular time' (Source: 27 April 2004: <http://www.rocklist.net/virgin_1000_v3. htm>)

12. We refuse decidedly the thesis according to which the canon could serve as a society's collective memory. Following Hahn (1998, pp. 460-1), in modern societies, consisting of differentiated subsystems, a consensus about the content of such a canon is impossible. Thus, a canon has only sectional validity and its power becomes effective only where it is accepted and meaningfully integrated in practical action (cf. Heydebrand 1998).

13. The death of a musician is an indicator for his forthcoming canonisation. As a consequence, his records are idealised. 'Totsein ilberhaupt ist giunstig. Je toter der Kanon, desto endgiiltiger' ['Generally, being dead is propitious. The more dead the canon gets, the more definitive it is'] (Ullmaier 1997, p. 209).

14. For example, the sales of Never Mind the Bollocks Here's the Sex Pistols, which was released twenty-seven years ago, went up due to former lead-singer Johnny Rotten's swearing on the English TV show, 'I'm a Celebrity - Get Me Out of Here' in 2004. Source: 27 April 2004: <http:// www.intro.de/index.php?nav= 10&con= / news /news&einenews = 1075923600&>

15. Of course, empirical research on these thoughts has to be done, because the influences of the culture industry, their efforts for certain artists, may be largely responsible for their presence in the participants' collective memory. With refer- ence to theories of reception, for example in cultural studies where a one-way-model of top- down-communication is rejected, it may, on the other hand, be doubted that these strategies can be interpreted as the only determinant.

16. 'I have never been convinced by the importance of authenticity. [...] I have always engaged in the idea of an entertainer who performs authenticity. [... .] Yes, I think one cannot be authentic'. David Bowie in Venker (2003, pp. 42-3).

17. For details of Erlewine, and all subsequent reviews, please see Appendix 2.

18. The only objection would be that Tony Asher wrote most of Pet Sounds' lyrics.

19. The authenticity that is demanded here is to be understood in the context of a 'rock sensibility' as Frith (1988) describes it. Musicians like David Bowie or the Pet Shop Boys, who rather follow a 'pop sensibility', for example by bring- ing up the artificiality and the commercial function of their role as stars, cannot be found in our top thirty. They devote themselves to a post- modern aesthetic, which is above all typical of the 1980s and under-represented in our list, not to that romantically influenced rock aesthetic of the late 1960s and early 1990s which dominates in our meta-list (cf. Appen and Doehring 2001).

20. For this distinction, see Gracyk (1999). Of course, some artistic values are based on aesthetic values eventually.

21. 'Country', 'pop', 'female', and 'large commercial success': according to the results of the sociological perspective, these are four weighty reasons which explain why this album does not appear in any of the lists we collected. Further- more, Twain would not be considered authentic by our particular spot-check, as she releases various versions of her albums for different groups of consumers. This is regarded as 'chumming up' and contradicts the idea of the album as a 'work'.

22. This is exactly what Tibor Kneif (1978, pp. 16- 17) reproaches traditional art music with, while acknowledging rock music to be free from such a sterile, cultivated middle-class style attitude.

23. The British novelist and music critic Nick Hornby pleads for the joys of listening to pop music if one can only focus on its presence without making heavy demands on it: 'The song that has been driving me pleasurably potty recently is "I'm Like a Bird" by Nelly Furtado. Only history will judge whether Ms Furtado turns out to be any kind of artist, and though I have my suspicions that she will not change the way we look at the world, I can't say that I'm very both- ered: I will always be grateful to her for creating in me the narcotic need to hear her song again and again. [ .. .] Sure, it will seem thin and stale soon enough. Before very long I will have "solved" "I'm Like a Bird", and I won't want to hear it very much any more - a three-minute pop song can only withhold its mysteries for so long, after all. So, yes, it's disposable, as if that makes any difference to anyone's perceptions of the value of pop music. But then, shouldn't we be sick of "Moonlight" Sonata by now?' (Hornby 2003, pp. 19-20).

References Appen, R.v., and Doehring, A. 2000. 'Kanonisierung in der Pop-/Rockmusik- oder: Warum "Sgt.

Pepper"? Zur disthetischen Beurteilung von Pop-/Rock-LPs in 100er-Listen', in Populiire Musik im kulturwissenschaftlichen Diskurs, ed. H. Rising and T. Phleps (Karben, Coda), pp. 229-49




2001. 'Kiinstlichkeit als Kunst. Fragmente zu einer postmodernen Theorie der Pop- und Rockmusik', in Popullire Musik im kulturwissenschaftlichen Diskurs II, ed. T. Phleps (Karben, Coda), pp. 13-33

Blaukopf, K. 1984. Musik im Wandel der Gesellschaft. Grundziige der Musiksoziologie (Miinchen/Kassel, dtv/Bdirenreiter)

Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press) 1987. Sozialer Sinn. Kritik der theoretischen Vernunft (Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp)

Bryson, B. 1996. '"Anything but Heavy Metal": symbolic exclusion and musical dislikes', American Sociological Review, 61, pp. 884-99

Frith, S. 1987. 'Towards an aesthetic of popular music', in Music and Society. The Politics of Composition, Performance and Reception, ed. S. McClary and R. Leppert (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), pp. 133-49 1988. 'Art ideology and pop practice', in Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture, ed. C. Nelson and L. Grossberg (Houndmills, Macmillan), pp. 461-75 1996. Performing Rites. On the Value of Popular Music (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press)

Gebesmair, A. 2001. Grundziige einer Soziologie des Musikgeschmacks (Wiesbaden, Westdeutscher Verlag) Gracyk, T. 1999. 'Valuing and evaluating popular music', Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 57/2,

pp. 205-20 Hahn, A. 1998. 'Einfiihrung', in Kanon Macht Kultur. Theoretische, historische und soziale Aspekte dsthetischer

Kanonbildungen, ed. R.V. Heydebrand (Stuttgart/Weimar, Metzler), pp. 459-66 Heydebrand, R.V. 1998. 'Kanon Macht Kultur - Versuch einer Zusammenfassung', in Kanon Macht Kultur.

Theoretische, historische und soziale Aspekte iisthetischer Kanonbildungen, ed. R.V. Heydebrand (Stuttgart/ Weimar, Metzler), pp. 612-25

Hornby, N. 2003. 31 Songs (London, Viking) Kneif, T. 1971. 'Musikisthetik', in Einfiihrung in die systematische Musikwissenschaft, ed. C. Dahlhaus

(Laaber, Laaber), pp. 133-69 1978. Sachlexikon Rockmusik. Instrumente, Stile, Techniken, Industrie und Geschichte (Reinbek b. Hamburg, Rowohlt)

Luhmann, N. 1990. Die Wissenschaft der Gesellschaft (Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp) Peterson, R.A. 1992. 'Understanding audience segmentation: from elite and mass to omnivore and univore',

Poetics, 21, pp. 243-58 Regev, M. 1994. 'Producing artistic value: the case of rock and popular music', The Sociological Quarterly,

35/1, pp. 85-102 Schulze, G. 1992. Die Erlebnisgesellschaft. Kultursoziologie der Gegenwart (Frankfurt a. M./New York,

Campus) Scruton, R. 1997. The Aesthetics of Music (New York, Oxford University Press) Seel, M. 2002. 'Ein Schritt in die Asthetik', in Falsche Gegensditze. Zeitgendssische Positionen zur philosophischen

Asthetik, ed. A. Kern and R. Sonderegger (Frankfurt a. M., Suhrkamp), pp. 330-43 Ullmaier, J. 1997. 'Letzter Aufruf nach Walhalla. Bemerkungen zur Popkanongenese im kulturindustriellen

Aquarium', Testcard, 5, pp. 204-18 Venker, T. 2003. Ignoranz und Inszenierung. Schreiben fiber Pop (Mainz, Ventil Verlag) Wolff, J. 1993. Aesthetics and the Sociology of Art, second edition (Houndmills, Macmillan)



Documents

100 Greatest Rock Albums