The Noise of Art

I wonder if a resurrection is in order...

Damned right it's her fault. As is Avril Lavigne.

Before anyone wanders in and turns the lights out, I thought I'd pose a new question:

Lilith Fair.

In some circles (mainly thick-headed classic rock-lovin' critical circles), female artists continue to be seen as a separate and less important entity. Sure, Rolling Stone publishes a "Women in Rock" issue once a year, and VH1 runs countdowns of the 100 female artists OF ALL TIME. But you've never seen a "Men in Rock" issue or the 100 male artists countdown, have you?

Did Sarah McLachlan unwittingly do more harm than good when she founded the Lilith Fair tour in the mid-90s? Sure, the spotlight was focused on women for a short time. Not because of their artistic gifts, mind you, but for their XX chromosomes...further driving a wedge between female artists and the traditional male populated rock community.

Countdowns and special issues of magazines seem less like honest recognition and more like "tossing the ladies a bone." And it's all Sarah McLachlan's fault...

Also: I was only using Pinkerton as an example, but since you just put the idea of Pinkerton vs. Loveless in my head, it occurs to me that I definitely prefer Pinkerton. Why?

Brilliant songs on Pinkerton: "Tired of Sex," "El Scortcho," "The Good Life," "Butterfly," "Why Bother?"
Brilliant songs on Loveless: "Only Shallow," "To Here Knows When," "Sometimes," "Soon"

Loveless is narrowly edged out in terms of the brilliant song count, but you'll never find me happily singing along to a MBV song. Weezer makes me happy, and I value happy music over sad music.

They are both overrated, uneven records as far as I'm concerned.

It Takes A Nation Of Millions To Hold Us Back is more consistent, but hasn't aged very well.

Yeah, Paul got what I was saying. It's not about one record being objectively on the same level as another, it's really just about what records have had an impact on a lot of people, and what those people go on to do. Weezer is an example of a band that ended up being a huge influence on other bands, even though that never seemed likely at the time. Appealing to nerdy people helps - they tend to become writers, etc. This is why it doesn't matter how many people buy a Creed album - no one into that stuff is going to become influential in the critical world (unless they pull a Klosterman), and whoever is artistically influenced by them are likely to be shunned by geeky critics.

There are a lot of Weezer fans (and some non-Weezer fans) out there who would swear Pinkerton to be the greatest album of all time. Their numbers are greater than you think. However, it should be noted that most of these people still await their 25th birthday. Does that mean albums you identify with as a teenager and/or college student are any less important than those receiving the stamp of approval from grizzled rock snobs in their late 20s and early 30s? Nope. My youth was split between listening to The Joshua Tree and Led Zeppelin II—both undeniably canonical albums. Who's to say I wouldn't have been listening to Pinkerton if it had been available in 1987?

Pinkerton?!?! I've always seen that as an album with a hearty cult following, but certainly not one seen as part of the canon alongside It Takes A Nation of Millions To Hold Us Back and Loveless. Defend yourself, Matthew.

I'd suggest that the easy way to get into the canon is to appeal mostly to people in their early 20s. When we talk about a record being influential, it usually means that it made an impression on folks who are just about to become musicians or journalists. Those are the people who get to decide what's 'important' in the long run - this is why Love And Theft doesn't really enter the canon in spite of fawning reviews, but Pinkerton does.

The canon as I understand it is just a concensus of "desert island discs," so it's always going to be a little boring because of that democratic element.

And of course, this is a tricky one, as all four of us occasionally-to-often post on ILM, where I think the idea of "canon" is different than the mainstream-critical model.

To start with your example, Erik, I think Loveless was nearly immediately seen as canonical because it was such a step forward. I mean, really, nothing we'd heard at the time sounded like MBV, much less the wonder that is Loveless. Whereas Daydream Nation, while clearly brilliant, was another step forward for SY in a way that Loveless was not; that was the sound of Shields and company jumping off the cliff, with their amps still plugged in. It took time to hear how large and impressive a step forward Daydream Nation truly was.

I often wish I could jump in Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine to get a read on critical responses to albums before my time, such as The Velvet Underground and Nico. And then there's the whole matter of canonical artists vs. canonical albums. Appetite for Destruction is clearly in the canon, but Guns N' Roses are not. To many, Straight Outta Compton is canonical, but I'd say that N.W.A. obviously isn't.

But I digress. Your question is, at what point is it safe to say an album is "part of the canon"? Who can name a time for something such as that? Apart from those great leaps forward, I think it's impossible to say - and often, those who jump to canonize are proven wrong later (cf. Bummed, I'd say, or I Do Not Want What I Haven't Got). Maybe the Catholic Church has got a point in making people wait decades before canonization; when you let the immediacy of emotion get in the way, it can cloud your judgement.

I'd like to raise this question and add to the pot: what albums/singles since 1990 would you argue are canonical? Nevermind, of course, and Ready to Die. But Enter the Wu-Tang: The 36 Chambers? Homework? Everyone-jumped-over-themselves-to-overpraise-it-at-the-time-but-does-it-belong-now "Love and Theft"? Is it too early to canonize the Dixie Chicks' Home? Take it and go long, boys.

I claim the Hannibal role because, as we all know, "I love it when a plan comes together."

The superb musical brain we know as Matthew (Fluxblog) has joined the par-tay here at The Noise of Art. We're like The A-Team! If, that is, the A-Team were big music geeks, and perhaps a little lacking in the muscles and flair-for-weaponry departments. Welcome, Mr. Perpetua. Care to weigh in on Ms. Spears?

Well, that along with your fervent desire for hot cock.

Touché, Paul, tou-fucking-ché.

I agree with you re: the "pop market" at this moment. There seems to be so little true pop making an impact; it's (almost) all R&B and hip-hop these days. Well, and snoozetastic rock bands like fucking 3 Doors Down.

I don't give chart placings any attention, so I had no idea she's been in a drought since 2000. Why is "Toxic" any different? The pop market is incredibly soft right now and "Toxic" might be one of its last grabs at attention before it crawls back into hibernation for a few years. I think the video has a great deal to do with *this* being the pop song of the moment, rather than any number of other struggling songs with less remarkable videos.

Ladies and gentlemen, the difference between gay men and straight men.

Well, that along with your fervent desire for hot cock.

I prefer "I'm A Slave 4 U," too, but that has nothing to do with Britney; it's all down to the Neptunes (barely) revamping Vanity 6's "Nasty Girl." I think that part of the reason "Toxic" has caught my attention so profoundly - besides the fact that I find it a great single - is because it's halted Brit's U.S. slide. This week, it became her first top 10 single since June 2000, and radio seems to have embraced it, which I find surprising, as she's seemingly been radio poison for the last couple of years. [Even the hotly-hyped "Me Against the Music" couldn't even crack the U.S. top 30.] And I wonder why that is, why suddenly radio's showing her love again; I'm not sure why, though I think it has nothing, honestly, to do with its video. What do y'all think?

I must say, however, that red haired Britney is pretty hot and black haired Britney even more so.

Ladies and gentlemen, the difference between gay men and straight men.

Really, Thomas...Britney Spears? Half of the internet is devoted to following her every misstep already (while the other half belongs, seemingly, to Paris Hilton). "Toxic," as a single, is neither here nor there. Like Erik, I preferred "I'm a Slave 4 U" because of its superior chorus. As a video, however, it's a testament to where most of the money is wasted in the record industry. Missionary Position: Impossible is a more apt title, no? A song as minor as "Toxic" gets pushed into the bigtime with explosions, virtual chases, lazers, and latex bodysuits, yet remains a minor song. It's standard record industry protocol, this sleight of hand.

I must say, however, that red haired Britney is pretty hot and black haired Britney even more so.

"[V]ery catchy little trifle"? Oh, Erik. I know you consider me a "popist" - in fact, you were the first one to refer to me thus, and I wear that mantle with pride - but I find "Toxic" to be so much more than "a good pop song." It's a great pop song, the one that immediately jumped out at me from In The Zone. Catchy, certainly. But it's got a certain jouissance to it that Brit hasn't camptured in a bottle (or single, natch) in quite some time. I'm not surprised that it hit #1 in the UK last week, nor that it's likely to become a globe-striding colossus, as there's so many various and sundry strains, teases of world musics crammed into "Toxic" that it sounds truly global. From the faux-Asian descending keys at 0:11 to the reverbed-up "surf" guitar to its general Indian influence, this is worldpop (I saw one commenter, long ago, refer to it as "Bollywood goes pop" - and while I don't think that's wholly correct, it's not so far off the mark, either). But it doesn't sound cloying and trying-too-hard the way the "blue" disc of Shania's Up! (as delightful as it may be) does; it sounds natural, unforced. And Brit herself sounds naughty, not dirty, which adds to the fun.

Now, the video's another matter. It feels much more smutty than fun, and I worry it's sending Brit down that slippery slope that (if she can't get it up much more than this, commercially) ends in Playboy Oh, and Britney honey? Red is not a good hair color for you. Black is even worse.

Topic 1
Britney's "Toxic": is the song her best single in ages? Is its video the sign of an artist who knows it's her last shot, or a fun, edgy piece of work? Discuss.

So, this is The Noise of Art, a new collaborative blog wherein Paul (The Rub), Erik (late of Erik's Trip) and I (Thomas, Oh, Manchester, So Much To Answer For and Rock Me Tonight, cuz I want to be the girl with the most cake) will attempt to have discussions, discourse, and debate (as the explication says) on various and sundry music-related topics. The thinking is that a couple of times a week, one of us will post a topic or question, and we'll then spend a couple of days on said topic or question. And we've got the capacity to post mp3s of songs we may be discussing, too. Are you ready? Good. Let's dance.