A popular music canon?

In his introduction to Popular Music's special issue on canonisation (Volume 25/1), Regev points out that canon formation has prompted ‘critique and resentment’ in the field (Regev Reference Regev2006, p. 1). Tagg, for example, rejects the concept of the musical ‘work’ in a popular music context due to its association with the canon of classical music (Tagg Reference Tagg and Talbot2000, p. 165), demanding ‘self-reflection and historical awareness’ of popular music scholars so they don’t ‘end up like the rearguard of the old aesthetic [i.e. the classical music] canon, ethnocentrically claiming universal, absolute and other supra-socially transcendent values for one set of musical practices and ignoring the real conditions, functions, contexts and structural complexities of others’ (Tagg Reference Tagg and Talbot2000, p. 167). Moore even tries to ‘subvert the growth of an accepted “canon” of popular music’ because he feels that classical musicology's focus on few canonic composers and dismissal of non-canonic music have fettered the discipline (Moore Reference Moore2001, p. 7). Thus Tagg and Moore concur in identifying the antagonist, i.e. the canon of ‘great’ works by white male composers of Western classical music, and the reasons for their resentment, i.e. this canon's exclusive, elitist claim for cultural hegemony and the negative influence these values have exerted on scholarship. But how can scholars gain the requisite historical awareness to prevent popular music studies from ‘fall[ing] into the same trap’ (Moore Reference Moore2001) as classical musicology? And what is the popular music canon?

Most studies of canon formation in popular music are predicated on the sociological theories of Bourdieu and DiMaggio, which understand canons as cultural capital created as a result of social processes that establish cultural hierarchies through the interaction of multiple agents.Footnote ¹ These are applied to specific stylistic and/or geographic areas of popular music, e.g. popular music in Québec (Ollivier Reference Ollivier2006) and Brazil (Frota Reference Frota2006), b-boy culture (Schloss Reference Schloss2006) and indie guitar rock (Bannister Reference Bannister2006), or the roles of institutions in canonisation, e.g. the National Academy for the Recording Arts and Sciences (Watson and Anand Reference Watson and Anand2006) and American record companies (Skinner Reference Skinner2006). Skinner also makes visible the historicised nature of canonic value criteria. Bohlman's ethnomusicological model, which recognises three types of canon that differ by group size and the canonic repertory's social function within them (Bohlman Reference Bohlmann1988), serves as the basis for Kärjä's (Reference Kärjä2006) model, which distinguishes between different types of knowledge mediation and transmission.Footnote ² The picture emerging from these studies confirms notions of the instability and flexibility of canons and the simultaneous co-existence of a multitude of canons (Bohlman Reference Bohlman1992a, b). However, none of them lay claim to being a generally valid ‘popular music canon’.

A general ‘popular music canon’ is discussed by von Appen and Doehring (Reference von Appen and Doehring2006), based on an analysis of 38 ‘greatest albums’ lists.Footnote ³ Similarly, Wyn Jones bases her The Rock Canon – Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums (Reference Wyn Jones2008) on a selection of 10 albums ‘that have widely been accepted as the greatest in their field’ (Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008, p. 26) and have ranked highly on many ‘greatest albums’ lists (Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008, p. 27). In both cases, terminology presents a problem. Von Appen and Doehring use the terms ‘pop canon’, ‘popular music canon’ and ‘pop-rock canon’ interchangeably, while Wyn Jones settles on ‘rock canon’ despite her list including soul, punk, pop and folk albums. Her justifications are the want of a more suitable term and the circumstance that these albums are ‘judged in popular reception’ by ‘rock values’ (Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008, p. 2), a point also made by von Appen and Doehring (Reference von Appen and Doehring2006, p. 34). However, ‘greatest albums’ lists are generated by ‘predominantly white males from the Western hemisphere, aged between twenty and forty, having a higher educational level’ (von Appen and Doehring Reference von Appen and Doehring2006, p. 26), who ‘regard themselves as ‘experts’ (von Appen and Doehring Reference von Appen and Doehring2006, p. 28)’ and are molded into a musical community by music magazines (Frith Reference Frith1996b, p. 84). In other words, the ‘greatest albums’ canon, too, constitutes the canon of a specific community.

The fact that many of the artists topping ‘greatest albums’ lists also appear in the canon sketched by scholars, which already accepts ‘the Beatles, “punk” and Bob Dylan, at the very least’ (Moore Reference Moore2001, p. 7), might suggest that this canon can be considered to represent ‘the popular music canon’. However, scholars include a much higher percentage of African American artists. For example, Regev (Reference Regev2006, p. 1) cites ‘the Beatles, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, Steve [sic] Wonder’, and Frith mentions ‘The Beatles, Rolling Stones, Bob Dylan, Jimi Hendrix, James Brown, Beach Boys, Motown (“defined generically”), Fairport Convention (“in its various guises”), Led Zeppelin, Paul Simon’, pointing out that this is ‘[n]ot … a critic's canon, but a canon of performers with whom “it would be very odd for someone who systematically wanted to be a rock musician not to be familiar”’ (Davies Reference Davies1995).

Altogether, there are two discrepancies, the first regarding the contents, i.e. the question of whether artists who are commercially successful and/or categorised as ‘the other’ are included or excluded, and the second regarding the group who maintains the canon, i.e. the issue raised by Frith's differentiation between a performers’ and critics’ canon and also Wyn Jones's distinction between ‘“popular” rock music reception and “academic” rock music reception’ (Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008, p. 2). These discrepancies indicate that a universally valid popular music canon does not exist. Not only is there a multitude of canons maintained by different musical communities which derive from size, modes of communication, geographical location or stylistic preferences, as evidenced by studies that are based on the sociological and ethnomusicological models, but there is also a stratification of the canon arising from groups’ different relationships to popular music, since the distinction between mainstream listeners, practitioners, critics and academics arises from the way in which they relate to and deal with music. This is significant because, although approaches to canon formation so far, whether in the social sciences or the humanities,Footnote ⁴ recognise different strata of society as distinct agents in canon formation, they regard the resulting canon as valid for society as a whole.Footnote ⁵

Studies of ‘the popular music canon’ to date have dealt exclusively or primarily with canonisation outside the academic sphere of influence and yield insights that serve to deepen scholars’ historical awareness. However, the scholarly self-reflection demanded by Tagg is contingent upon analysis of canon formation within the field itself. This essay therefore aims at providing insight into canon formation in popular music studies; however, since academic canon formation is subject to outside influences, analysis of the latter will be preceded by discussion of canon formation in the broadly defined mainstream and critical canons as a starting point for further investigation. It should be noted that, just like dealing with ‘the popular music canon’ as one undifferentiated whole, treating the mainstream, critics’ and academic canons as entities can incur the danger of over-generalisation. However, although all canons are stratified themselves,Footnote ⁶ general tendencies within them can be observed.

In the traditional aesthetic canon, three main criteria determine artists’ or works’ inclusion: transcendence of fashions and changes in the socio-cultural framework (commonly referred to as ‘standing the test of time’), historical importance (manifest from their influence on contemporaneous and subsequent artists), and ‘greatness’ (inherent artistic value). Accordingly, canonic status is indicated by artists’ or works’ perpetual presence, continuous generation of secondary materials pertaining to them, and the use of canonic language, i.e. words or phrases that signal fulfilment of the criteria of canonicity such as ‘masterpiece’, ‘genius’, ‘great’, ‘immortal’ and so forth, often by means of superlatives in terms of both content and grammar. Whereas the fulfilment of the first and second criteria can be measured objectively, the third is a matter of value judgment, which makes it more problematic within an academic context than the other two. As will be explored in detail later on, ‘authenticity’ takes the place of ‘greatness’ as a criterion of canonicity in the context of popular music. In order to give a theoretical framework to the complex notion of ‘authenticity’ and distinguish between the ways in which it contributes to canon formation in the mainstream, journalism and academia, the approach outlined by Moore in ‘Authenticity as Authentication’ (Reference Moore2002) and Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song (Reference Moore2012, Chapter 9) will be referred to throughout this article.Footnote ⁷

An example that illustrates both the dissimilarities and interrelations between the academic, critical and mainstream canons particularly clearly is the reception history of Queen (John Deacon, bass; Brian May, guitar; Roger Taylor, drums; Freddie Mercury, vocals), which will therefore be used as a case study. Queen constitute a highly suitable paradigm because the varying criteria for canonic inclusion have resulted in conflicting evaluations of some of the band's most visible features (such as their commercial success, stylistic diversity and the ‘otherness’ arising from Mercury's ambiguous sexuality) and, therefore, differences in status relative to their inclusion in the three canons.

The mainstream canon

The agents who form and maintain the mainstream canon are mass audience listeners, who are defined by their personal, rather than professional, relationship with and use of popular music. These listeners constitute a heterogeneous group whose members range from highly dedicated fans to musical ‘omnivores’ and casual listeners. They contribute to canonisation to varying degrees, depending on the intensity of their interest in their preferred artists and their music, by making consumer decisions that create continuous demand for artist-related materials (e.g. purchasing, perusing and sharing artists’ products, media contents and commercial and non-commercial secondary materials),Footnote ⁸ producing secondary materials themselves (e.g. reviews, blogs, letters to magazines, song transcriptions, photos, videos, fan fiction) and/or by organising fan activities (e.g. fan clubs, competitions, social events and cover bands). The technological developments of the last two decades, particularly widespread access to the Internet, have not only facilitated the production and sharing of secondary materials by mainstream listeners, but have also changed the significance of consumer decisions in that ‘[t]he emergence of social networks transforms each of these everyday acts of consumption, giving them greater public visibility, increasing their social dimensions, and ultimately expanding their economic and cultural impact’ (Green and Jenkins Reference Green, Jenkins and Nightingale2011, p. 111), thus strengthening the mainstream audience's role as canonisers in relationship to the other strata of the canon.

The sum of the mainstream audience's activities results in mainstream canonicity, i.e. artists’ and their music's popularity over long periods of time. Withstanding changes in fashion, this popularity extends beyond the end of artists’ active careers, or the period that is considered their creative peak, until they become established fixtures of popular culture, in especially canonic cases in ways that exceed the artists’ original output or even any musical context. The chief indicators of mainstream canonicity are popular music artists’ market value (reflected by the continuous commercial success of their music as well as the volume of sales and variety of secondary materials produced); continuous visibility, both in contents generated by the media and mainstream listeners; a consistently high level of fan activities; the permeation of artists’ music into the collective memory; and, sometimes, artists’ taking on non-musical functions in society.

Queen exemplify mainstream canonicity. From their international breakthrough in 1976, Queen continually remained one of the best-selling rock acts worldwide beyond Mercury's death in 1991. Their total record sales are estimated at up to 300 million records (BBC 2009), alongside fewer than 10 other popular-music acts that have reportedly sold 300 million or more records, including the Beatles, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson, Madonna, ABBA and Led Zeppelin. On the BBC's 2006 list of the 100 all-time best-selling records in the UK, Queen's Greatest Hits I and Greatest Hits II rank first and seventh respectively (BBC 2006). In the UK, Queen have been in the charts longer than the Beatles (Brown et al., Reference Brown, Kutner and Warwick2002; Gibson Reference Gibson2005). As is typical of mainstream canonic artists (von Appen and Doehring Reference von Appen and Doehring2006; Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008), Queen's audio recordings and music videos have been re-mastered frequently and released in new formats, often in special editions and/or with bonus material in order to encourage collectorship among fans while maintaining a high price level: the 2009 compilation, Absolute Greatest, reached number three in the UK charts. Similarly, from their breakthrough until the end of their touring career in 1986, Queen typically played the largest venues available, selling large numbers of concert tickets. Subsequently, the Queen musical, We Will Rock You, has sold more than 13 million tickets in over 30 productions worldwide as of July 2012 (http://www.wewillrockyou.co.uk/show/facts-and-figures/).

Queen-related commercial secondary materials range widely in type and price category, as well as in the age of their target groups, and comprise band and individual band members’ biographies and photo books, various types of sheet music, merchandising products, art prints and paintings, miniature instruments, toys and games (e.g. action figures, singing stuffed animals, jigsaw puzzles, computer and Playstation games such as Guitar Hero and Rock Band) as well as miscellanea ranging from costumes to dog tags to a We Will Rock You electric toothbrush. Professional musical equipment, such as guitar amplifiers and effect pedals by Vox Amplification, Digitech and other companies, as well as the Brian May Signature Guitar series which is designed to re-create the sound of May's setup, serve a function as collectible items and tools in fans’ musical activities, but are also suitable for use in non-Queen-specific contexts.

At the same time, Queen continue to furnish material for media contents. May and Taylor make frequent appearances on TV, the radio and at public functions, and myriad news articles, features and interviews are published in the press and on the Internet. Queen's music is frequently used in TV programmes: for example, Queen was one of four bands (along with Led Zeppelin, The Who and The Rolling Stones) whose songs provided the episode titles for one season each of Fox's That 70s Show (http://www.that70sshow.com/) and Queen songs are commonly performed on talent and society shows worldwide.Footnote ⁹ While media contents are determined by journalists, ‘consumption communities increasingly work together to identify common interests and exert direct and indirect influence on the kinds of media being produced and distributed’ (Green and Jenkins Reference Green, Jenkins and Nightingale2011, p. 126). Fans’ continuing interest in the band is evident from activities such as the numerous international Queen conventions, participation in the annual Mercury Phoenix Foundation fundraiser ‘Freddie for a Day’, the production of anime videos based on Queen songs (cf. Cook Reference Cook and Walden2013),Footnote ¹⁰ existence of numerous cover bands, and the drawing power of events such as a 2011 exhibition on Queen's early years, which attracted over 20,000 visitors in two weeks (http://www.stormtroopersinstilettos.com/ 2011). The London-based Official International Queen Fan Club is the ‘longest-running rock group fan club’ in the world (Folkard Reference Folkard2004, p. 164).

Moreover, Queen are at the same time an international and quintessentially national band. From 1974, Queen had played with the simultaneous deconstruction and reinforcement of the meaning of the British national anthem in their performance ritual of closing their live concerts worldwide with May's arrangement of ‘God Save the Queen’. May's rendition on the roof of Buckingham Palace at the Golden Jubilee celebrations in 2002 subsequently became an iconic image of Queen's association with a sense of national identity in the UK,Footnote ¹¹ while serving as a paradigm for the wider significance of popular music for national culture. Queen and their songs continue to top polls that connect popular music with national pride, e.g. ‘Greatest British Band of All Times’ (BBC 2007), ‘most patriotic pop song’ (Caroll Reference Caroll2012) and the ‘Nation's Favourite Number 1 Single’ (in the eponymous ITV programme). Although such polls have no scientific authority, media reports about them propagate this association among the mainstream audience. In the Olympic Games 2012 in London, Queen's music was used to exemplify Britishness as well as to create supranational links. While Queen songs constituted an important part of the musical sequences representing Britain both in the opening and closing ceremonies, the reference to the use of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ in the US film, Wayne's World in the former and the strategic placement of Queen's prominent live appearanceFootnote ¹² (connecting the British music segment to the segment illustrating the journey of the Olympic Games between host countries) in the latter signified Britain's connection to the world. Mercury's ‘Barcelona’ with the Spanish soprano Montserrat Caballé had already served as theme song of the 1992 Olympic Games.

The source of the continuing interest in artists and their music that results in mainstream canonicity resides in the nature of mass audience listeners’ relationship to music. Music plays a crucial role in their construction of identity (e.g. Frith Reference Frith and White1987, Reference Frith, Hall and Du Gay1996a) and self-authentication. Moore theorises this relationship as ‘“second person authenticity”, or authenticity of experience, which occurs when a performer succeeds in conveying the impression to a listener that that listener's experience of life is being validated, that the music is “telling it like it is” for them’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, p. 220). Second-person authenticity is independent of the conventional rock–pop divide: ‘every music, and every example, can conceivably be found authentic by a particular group of perceivers’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, p. 220). This relationship between mainstream listeners and their preferred music explains and supports the attribution of Queen's appeal to audiences of various social, geographic and educational backgrounds and age groups to the stylistic diversity of their music (Thompson Reference Thompson2000, p. 116; Bennett Reference Bennett2007, p. 18) since this stylistic diversity enables listeners with a wide range of musical preferences to perceive second-person authenticity in Queen's music. Mass audience perception of second-person authenticity may also contribute to the popularity of Queen songs in karaoke, with ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ at number two of the karaoke charts and ‘Don’t Stop Me Now’ at number 16 in 2009 (Service Reference Service2009).

Another concept that functions as a criterion for the inclusion in the mainstream canon is Moore's ‘first person authenticity’, or authenticity of expression, which ‘arises when an originator (composer, performer) succeeds in conveying the impression that his/her utterance is one of integrity, that it represents an attempt to communicate in an unmediated form with the audience’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, p. 214). Listeners’ perception of first-person authenticity in Queen songs is evident, for example, from their reaction to the lines

from ‘We Are The Champions’ in live performance. The audience's cheers and applause in acknowledgment of the gratitude expressed in the lyrics evinces their interpretation of the song as a personal and artistic statement by the band, especially Mercury, the singer, and an act of direct communication. Songs such as the latter whose lyrics make use of the first person plural, ‘we’, conflate first- and second-person authenticity, since the pronoun can be understood by the listener either in reference to the band or as a collective term in which the audience is included. Queen were among the first bands to establish interactive performance rituals, writing songs with the specific aims of creating a sense of collectivity and enabling audience participation in live concerts (according to May, BBC 2011). ‘We Will Rock You’ constitutes a particularly clear example (cf. Dockwray Reference Dockwray2005).

The elimination of the boundary between first person (artist) and second person (listener), which takes place when the listener becomes the performer, is a prerequisite of songs’ permeation into the collective memory. The fans’ active appropriation of ‘We Will Rock You’, evidence of second-person authenticity, is manifest from the gradual substitution of the original pattern of foot stomps and hand claps by a simpler one. The performance traditions of the latter song and ‘We Are The Champions’ persist in live performances of May and Taylor and other artists’ cover versions. Being among the most popular anthems at sports events worldwide (McLeod Reference McLeod2006), these songs constitute an instance where Queen's music exceeds its original context, as these performances serve to express fans’ affiliation with sports clubs or athletes rather than with the band that wrote and recorded them. First-person authenticity also contributes to artists’ canonisation in that mainstream listeners often extend their perception of artists’ musical integrity to extra-musical contexts, resulting in artists’ taking on non-musical functions in society, as illustrated by Mercury and May. While Mercury is still regarded as a gay icon internationally, May has come to be known both as an astrophysicist and an animal rights activist.Footnote ¹³

The critical canon

A critic is a person with a high degree of expertise in her field who ‘judges the merits of … artistic works, especially one who does so professionally’ (Soanes and Stevenson Reference Soanes and Stevenson2010).Footnote ¹⁴ Music critics prove and continuously re-affirm their expertise, which justifies their function as opinion leaders in matters of musical taste, by dissenting to a recognisable degree, but not entirely, from mainstream opinion and preferences (von Appen and Doehring Reference von Appen and Doehring2006, p. 27, based on Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1984). The use of the first person singular in reviews signals critics’ assertion of their leadership and authority. Nevertheless, the contents of journalistic outputs are influenced by the target group for which they are produced, a circumstance that will be explored below. In arts criticism in general, critics utilise the canonic criteria of transcendence, historical importance and ‘greatness’ as touchstones of artistic merit, in order to demonstrate their expertise and power as holders of cultural capital (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1984).

In popular music criticism, transcendence and historical importance are problematic when dealing with newly created music, as both require the passage of time in order to emerge. Therefore the concept of ‘authenticity’ has become critics’ key criterion in assessing the artistic value of new music. It differs fundamentally from the former two criteria in that ‘authenticity’ can be judged immediately because it ‘is a construction made on the act of listening’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, p. 210). But whereas transcendence and historical importance generate evidence that can be evaluated objectively, ‘authenticity’ is a matter of personal judgement. Being predicated on the same idea as the traditional canon's criterion of ‘greatness’, ‘authenticity’ takes the latter's place within the context of canon formation in popular music. A classical composer's ‘greatness’ is measured by originality, artistic struggle, opposition to the mainstream, purity of style and the notion of art as honest artistic self-expression rather than financial gain. Rock authenticity is measured by the same criteria (Grossberg Reference Grossberg1992; Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008) as rock draws on the same Romantic ideology that underpins the classical canon (Cook Reference Cook1995–1996). The application of these criteria resulted in the exclusion from the classical canon not only of popular music, but also of works by quintessentially canonic composers, e.g. Beethoven's commercially successful orchestral piece, Wellington's Victory, Opus 91 (Cook Reference Cook2003).

However, it is necessary to distinguish between Moore's approach to authenticity and use of the term in journalistic discourse. ‘“[A]uthenticity” is a matter of interpretation that is made and fought for from within a particular cultural and, thus, historicised position. Like all meanings, it is ascribed, not inscribed’ (Moore Reference Moore2012, p. 266). In contrast, the term is used by popular music critics as though ‘authenticity’ were inscribed and absolute. This is evident from the term's application in the description of the rock–pop divide, where rock is characterised as ‘authentic’ and pop as ‘inauthentic’.Footnote ¹⁵ An analysis of the elements that constitute markers of ‘authenticity’ and their application to Queen as a series of historicised positions sheds light on the role of the concept of ‘authenticity’ in canon formation in the critical context, because its use as a canonic criterion is responsible for both Queen's initial rejection and eventual inclusion in the critical canon.

The history of Queen's critical reception can be divided into three main stages. After a debut to mixed reviews in 1973 and an increase in favourable critical reactions until 1975, critical opinion turned largely negative in 1976, the year of Queen's international breakthrough. A critical reassessment began following Mercury's death in 1991, leading to Queen's eventual acceptance into the critical canon. Reactions to Queen's eponymous first album ranged from Fletcher's verdict ‘superb’ (Reference Fletcher1973, Rolling Stone) to Kent's dismissal on account of ‘devastating paucity of originality of vision’ (Reference Kent1974, The New Musical Express). These disparate views arose from critics’ different aesthetic reference points that determined their perception of ‘authenticity’. Whereas Fletcher's review reveals his affinity with the varied soundscapes of progressive rock, that of Kent, who was going to provide guidance to the Sex Pistols as a guitarist and vocalist in 1975 (Savage Reference Savage2005, p. 98), attests to a preference for greater musical simplicity. Critics’ positions are also influenced by the market position of the medium they work for. Kent, for example, was expressly hired by the NME in 1972 because he suited its new profile which was conceived to contrast with that of the market leader, Melody Maker. The NME had been forced into this niche as it had been threatened with termination by its publisher, IPC Media, earlier the same year because of dwindling sales figures (Kent Reference Kent2010, p. 81).Footnote ¹⁶

Queen's increasingly favourable reception in 1974–1975 resulted from conditions that were considered absolute markers of ‘authenticity’. After having initially been rumoured to be a hype, Queen had quickly gathered a following on their UK tours, passing the ‘acid test of authenticity’ (Bennett Reference Bennett2007, p. 19) as live performers. Moreover, financial exploitation by their management and the cancellation of their first US tour in support of Mott the Hoople in 1974 due to May's ill health fit the bill of artistic struggle. This also authenticated the songs dealing with these experiences, ‘Death on two Legs’ (A Night at the Opera, 1975) and ‘Now I’m Here’ (Sheer Heart Attack, 1974), as emotionally honest artistic expression, swaying the judgment of many critics who had previously dismissed Queen as ‘inauthentic’ on account of their strategic career planning, rapid rise to success, extravagant image and musical complexity.

Critical opinion turned against Queen in 1975–1976, years which marked their international breakthrough and the beginning of their large-venue concert successes and mass record sales. ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ from A Night at the Opera became the best-selling single in the UK at that time, aided by its vastly popular video. However, music journalists’ general tendency to be critical of commercially successful artists and Queen's having overcome recent problems do not offer sufficient explanation for the sea change in critical reception illustrated by excerpts from two Rolling Stone reviews:

Categorising the music as heavy rock and commending its complexity, Nicholson detects the rock values of convincing performance and originality and connects May's ‘39’ with an already canonic figure in a way that validates May's performance. In contrast, Marsh categorises Queen's music as pop and describes it in terms that exemplify pop ‘inauthenticity’, i.e. mediocrity of performance and derivativeness of acclaimed artists.

This landslide change of perspective cannot be attributed to qualities that were intrinsic to Queen's music or visual image – none of their albums are as closely connected in contents and presentation as A Night at the Opera and its sequel, A Day at the Races, and Queen's stage image remained consistent. Responsible was a redefinition of what constituted ‘authentic’ rock values that resulted from the changes in the cultural framework brought about by the impact of punk in 1976, the year the Sex Pistols became a headline act, released their first single, ‘Anarchy in the UK’, and made a notorious TV appearance (ironically, filling in for Queen). The uncompromising and intentionally shocking way in which punk bands projected their socio-political and musical ideas made these spread rapidly beyond their fans and promoters.Footnote ¹⁷

This is manifest in Marsh's review, whose criticisms of Queen essentially form a laundry list of punk values. Musical characteristics that had been considered valid means of artistic expression in progressive rock are now described as ‘arrogant’ and summarised as ‘[e]clectic experimentalism that is determinedly middle-class’ (Marsh Reference Marsh1977), revealing Marsh's ideological distrust of ‘the establishment’ and his self-identification with the cause of the working class. This ties in with the remark that Queen had ‘pulled the music furthest from its roots’ (Marsh Reference Marsh1977), i.e. rock's roots in genres such as the blues, which originated in low-class contexts. However, the crux of Marsh's dismissal of Queen is the reproach of ‘selling out’. Marsh contends that among contemporary bands, Queen are ‘the least experimental … probably because their commercial aspirations are the most brazen’ (Marsh Reference Marsh1977). Similarly, contemporary reviews frequently criticised Queen for their avoidance of the pub circuit and underground scene (in which punk originated), since this, too, was interpreted as prioritisation of financial over artistic interests. While the changing premises of rock ‘authenticity’ affected the reception of other bands as well, it was Queen who came to be regarded as the epitome of commercialism and class-based pretension because of the magnitude of their financial success and the unabashed lavishness of their image both on and off stage. The extravagance of the launch party for the 1978 album, Jazz, for example, fell outside the parameters of accepted rock star behaviour and was widely criticised as decadent. This predominantly unfavourable opinion was intensified by Queen's avoidance of journalists. Furthermore, many reviews of the 1970s and 1980s betray critics’ genuine frustration with their inability to influence mainstream opinion about Queen, because, within the socio-political context, popular music journalism was conceived as an ideological battleground: ‘The omnipotence of “Bohemian Rhapsody” made it official: prog rock was still the opium of the masses. … Queen's record shamelessly paraded everything I’d fought against as a rock commentator’ (Kent Reference Kent2010, pp. 249–50).

In the following years, additional political and social issues came into play. Before the backdrop of the Cold War, Marsh's opinion that ‘Queen may be the first truly fascist rock band’, based on his interpretation of ‘We Will Rock You’ from News of the World (1977) as a ‘marching order’ (Marsh Reference Marsh1979), reveals an underlying fear of totalitarianism. Until the mid-1980s, some critics equated Mercury's interaction with stadium audiences with sinister mass manipulation (Testa Reference Testa1978; Quantick Reference Quantick1986). Feeding directly into the view of Queen as excessively money minded, their 1984 concerts in Sun City, South Africa, in spite of anti-apartheid divestment efforts, fuelled journalists’ dislike of the band for years to come because many critics sympathised with Rock Against Racism, which was also supported by many punk groups. The South Africa concerts elicited critical remarks even from journalists who had supported the band since the early 1970s (Sutcliffe Reference Sutcliffe1991). Another significant factor in the critical reception of Queen, though rarely overtly stated, was an undercurrent of homophobia. Hostility towards Mercury's ambiguous and sexually charged image was already evident early in Queen's career,Footnote ¹⁸ but increased when in 1980 Mercury grew a moustache that visually associated him with the New York gay scene. It intensified further because of the general rise of homophobia following the outbreak of AIDS, whose initial impact in the Western world took place within the gay communities. Homophobia also resulted in the censure in the US of the music video for ‘I Want to Break Free’, in which Queen wear drag costumes and, on a larger scale, contributed significantly to the faltering of Queen's career in the US.

Altogether, Queen's loss of authenticity in critics’ eyes was complete, encompassing all three types identified by Moore. Critics’ view of the band's image and music as ‘contrived’ (Genoux Reference Genoux1975), ‘unnatural’ (Salewicz Reference Salewicz1976) and ‘imitative posturing’ (Cohen Reference Cohen1979) ran contrary to first-person authenticity. Queen's ‘high’ art associations and the opulence of their music, videos, stage spectacle and designer costumes, did not induce critics who identified with the underground scene and/or working class, to detect second-person authenticity in Queen; nor, for that matter, ‘third person authenticity’ or ‘authenticity of execution’, which ‘arises when a performer succeeds in conveying the impression of accurately representing the ideas of another, embedded within a tradition of performance’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, p. 218). Queen created their signature style by appropriating features drawn from a wide array of musical styles and integrating them with their own sound profile, a combination of the highly recognisable timbres of Mercury's voice and May's guitar setup with the consistent use of characteristic recording techniques. Their self-confident use of stylistic references and refusal to embed their music within an existing tradition was widely considered pretentious and thus their music and performances were not considered an ‘utterance … of integrity’ (Moore Reference Moore2002, p. 214). According to Cook, the juxtaposition of disparate elements, such as the ‘operatic’ idiom that recalls the operettas of Gilbert and Sullivan and the heavy rock style in ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’, calls

Although critics may not have analysed their reactions in these terms, they perceived such effects as transgression on the ideals of rock as serious and emotionally honest expression and opposition to the mainstream.Footnote ¹⁹

Queen's eventual inclusion in the critical canon is manifest from the reversal of opinion in music criticism indicated by an abundance of media contents that refer to the band by means of canonic language. While the change of view in The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll (Romanowski Reference Romanowski, Warren and Pareles2001) is considerable, the NME's retrospective self-censure in The New Musical Express Rock ’n’ Roll Years (Heslam Reference Heslam1992) amounts to re-writing popular music history. The book aims at presenting ‘the story of rock ’n’ roll in the form of period articles … from the archives of the New Musical Express’ and plunge the reader ‘into the roller-coaster history of rock as it happened’ (Heslam Reference Heslam1992, p. 7). However, the entries pertaining to Queen are carefully selected to portray the band in an unequivocally positive manner, representing their emphasis on studio production as an expression of artistic freedom (Heslam Reference Heslam1992, p. 283) and referring to Mercury as a ‘rock immortal’ alongside Miles Davis and Willie Dixon (Heslam Reference Heslam1992, p. 464). In an almost acrobatic stunt, the volume even manages to mention Queen's 1984 South Africa appearances without a hint of criticism, quoting Queen's press statement (Heslam Reference Heslam1992, p. 413). Despite the cult status of Kent in the 1970s, no trace remains either of his or his like-minded colleagues’ opinions. Similarly, the NME has been referring to Queen by means of canonic expressions such as ‘rock giants’ (NME.com 2011d) on their various platforms, reported on the band's large profits in the year of their 40th anniversary without critical undertones (NME.com 2011b) and shown support for May's animal rights activities (NME.com 2011c, d).

Critical reassessment was set in motion by Mercury's deathFootnote ²⁰ and the 1992 Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert as they signalled Queen's fulfilment of transcendence and historical importance. The former was indicated by the estimated figure of a billion viewers worldwide, and the latter by the illustrious line-up of popular music acts and show business stars (including Robert Plant, Bob Geldof, David Bowie, Seal, George Michael, Elton John, Guns N’ Roses, Metallica, U2, Def Leppard and Extreme, as well as Liza Minelli and Elizabeth Taylor).Footnote ²¹ Subsequently, Queen have been cited as an important influence by artists who have achieved mainstream or critical canonicity themselves or are regarded as eminent representatives of their respective styles (e.g. Nirvana, the Foo Fighters and Metallica) while the wide variety of artists inspired by Queen (e.g. van Halen, Guns N’ Roses, Radiohead, Robbie Williams, George Michael, Muse, Green Day, Katy Perry and Lady Gaga) evinces the wide temporal and stylistic reach of the band's influence. That May has been interviewed for numerous UK television documentaries since his 2002 Golden Jubilee performance also suggests critics’ recognition of Queen's place in British culture.

Moreover, Queen have achieved transcendence and historical importance despite critical opposition. Having been misjudged in historical retrospect serves as evidence of ‘greatness’ of canonic artists in the ‘high’ arts (e.g. van Gogh, the Impressionists) since it is attributed to artists’ vision surpassing the understanding of contemporary critics. By the same token, failing to recognise artistic value questions critical expertise and authority, which offers a partial explanation for the NME's reversal of opinion. Equally importantly, Mercury's death itself, the tribute concert's purpose of establishing an AIDS charity (the Mercury Phoenix Trust) and the support of this project by stars (including the unlikely duo of Axl Rose and Elton John) both endowed Queen with social significance and effected changes in the public perception of AIDS and homosexuality, bringing about the re-evaluation of Queen in terms of ‘authenticity’.

Since then, changes in the socio-political framework have affected critical views on what constitutes ‘authentic’ values. After the end of the cold war, totalitarianism no longer poses an immediate threat; at the same time, popular music has been playing an important role in global youth culture across national, religious and cultural boundaries. Queen, one of the most bootlegged bands worldwide (BBC 2001), have significantly contributed to this development, enjoying international popularity that could not be suppressed even by totalitarian regimes such as Iran's (BBC 2004), invalidating the view of their music as fascist. Furthermore, within the context of economic globalism, critics have come to acknowledge the necessity of popular music artists’ constructive collaboration with the music industries, and many celebrities’ charitable donations and fundraising activities have contributed to a different view on their wealth. In addition, young people in particular increasingly define themselves less through class allegiance than through their aspirations, as is evident from the profusion of talent shows.

Changes have taken place within music criticism as well. The media have become ever more competitive and journalists’ education more structured,Footnote ²² resulting in the disappearance of a negative bias against education in the media. Recent mentions of the university degrees of Queen members, in particular May's PhD in astrophysics, have been positively slanted. More importantly, widespread Internet access has resulted in a greater influence of the mainstream audience on media contents and, effectively, the critical canon; consumer decisions are analysed to enable the media to tailor contents to target groups with the aim of ensuring customer loyalty. While now as ever polls can be subject to manipulation, scenarios such as Melody Maker throwing out readers’ votes for bands they did not endorse (including Queen) in the late 1980s and early 1990s (James Reference James2011) are less likely today, since market research is one of the media's prime tools in competing for market shares. During the last 20 years, Queen have been ranking highly both in mainstream and music media polls, which have proliferated not only in number, but also in type, shifting the emphasis away from the ‘greatest album’ poll, which was less favourable to Queen than more album-oriented bands. In light of these changes, the NME's and Rolling Stone's change of stance towards Queen is not surprising.Footnote ²³ Finally, critics’ awareness of the easy accessibility of their writings over a long period of time afforded by digital technology influences the way in which they discuss musicians: expressions like ‘arrogant brats’ (Marsh Reference Marsh1979) are no longer part of the critical vocabulary as, in historical hindsight, they might invalidate critics’ subsequent verdicts on artists.

The academic canon

Despite resistance, canon formation in popular music studies cannot be avoided because academics ‘are engaged in making choices … thereby establishing authority’; thus hardly any scholarly activities ‘fail to exhibit some investment in canons and canonizing’ (Bohlman Reference Bohlman1992a, pp. 198–9). By making choices, whether in teaching or research, scholars negotiate relationships of authority and power, as authority and power are inherent both in the cultural capital represented by works of art and the possession of knowledge about them (Bourdieu Reference Bourdieu1984). By the same token, ‘some measure of power accrues both to those who advocate central canons and to those who effectively seek to undermine the same canons’ (Bohlmann Reference Bohlman1992a, p. 200), because scholars’ choices simultaneously affect the status of their subject matter relative to the academic canon and their own standing within the academic hierarchy. The latter is largely determined by the evaluation of their research according to quality, relevance, and impact, i.e. standards that are analogous to the canonic criteria. Like artists’ long-term influence, the full impact of research cannot be judged immediately. And like ‘greatness’ and ‘authenticity’, the quality and relevance of scholarship is measured to a great extent by its originality and independence; research for the sake of financial gain (e.g. corporate-funded studies) is often regarded as inherently biased.

Research on canonic artists not only bestows some of the authority and prestige of artists’ canonicity upon the research, but also ensures widespread interest, which partially explains the high number of writings on, for example, The Beatles, Bob Dylan and punk. However, the markers of quality and relevance, and thus scholarship itself, are historicised because they depend on factors (such as taste, social and political values and intellectual currents) that change with the historical context. This is evident from the scarcity of research on artists like Queen, who have been regarded as ‘inauthentic’, but also Guns N’ Roses and The Rolling Stones, whose attitudes are not considered ‘politically correct’ within the current framework. Altogether, the main factors that have been shaping canon formation within popular music studies are the field's historical development, dominant debates and relationship to other disciplines as well as music journalism.

In popular music studies, historical importance has been measured primarily by artists’ socio-political impact and relevance. This criterion, based on the prevalent conceptualisation of popular music history in terms of revolutionary moments, particularly in social history (Negus Reference Negus1996),Footnote ²⁴ emerged early in the development of the field. Within an intellectual climate that harboured aesthetic and ideological biases against popular music, the socio-political impact of bands such as The Beatles and The Rolling Stones was undeniable. Sociological and political approaches thus offered an avenue for the validation of popular music studies as an academic field while serving to deconstruct Adorno's wholesale condemnation of popular music. Queen did not promote any social or political agenda but, on the contrary, came to be regarded as the antithesis of the issues promoted by punk in the mid-1970s. Queen's remaining aloof of the ideology of the very movement with which a majority of popular music scholars have sympathised and consequently regarded as the most politically and socially important of the period has greatly contributed to Queen's virtual exclusion from academic popular music historiography.

Especially in a historiography that foregrounds revolutionary moments, socio-political relevance effectively constitutes an aspect of ‘authenticity’, the most impactful criterion in canon formation in popular music studies. As in music journalism, it has functioned as the equivalent of the classical canon's criterion of ‘greatness’. This is due to a combination of factors. Firstly, the beginnings of popular music studies pre-date the critique of the ‘high’ arts canons in disciplines such as literary studies, sociology and musicology. Early researchers of popular music such as Wilfrid Mellers established a long-standing tradition of popular music analysis that made use of methodologies created in classical musicology to prove the ‘greatness’ of classical worksFootnote ²⁵ because it seemed desirable to prove the artistic quality of popular music by demonstrating that it fulfilled the same merit criteria as classical music. Secondly, ‘authenticity’ seemed to be a suitable academic category because the term was indigenous to popular music, rather than superimposed by academia, and denoted the same qualities as ‘greatness’. At the same time, it served as a value marker also in other academic disciplines, e.g. in ethnomusicology and the context of ‘authentic’ (i.e. historically informed) performance practice of classical music. Thirdly, ‘greatness’ and rock ‘authenticity’ are premissed on the same Romantic ideology (Gracyk Reference Gracyk1993; Regev Reference Regev1994; Cook Reference Cook1995–1996) and, as mentioned previously, popular music has been measured mainly by rock values. The importance of ‘authenticity’ as a value criterion was cemented by its significance as a tool in scholars’ continuous reactions to the Frankfurt School. Proving artists’ and musics’ aesthetic and cultural ‘authenticity’ served to deflect criticism from them while vilifying ‘the music industry’, thus strengthening the association of ‘authenticity’ with punk ideology. Of course, ‘authenticity’ has come to be the subject of debate during the last two decades; nevertheless, an unreflective use of the term that does not acknowledge its historicised quality is not uncommon even in recent publications.Footnote ²⁶

‘Authenticity’ also affects popular music scholars at a personal level. In all disciplines, academics’ personal preferences affect their choices and opinions, but in popular music studies, the relationship between scholars and their subject matter tends to be closer than in the ‘classical’ disciplines. Becoming a popular music scholar is a tripartite process. Scholars start out as mainstream listeners in whose self-authentication and construction of identity their musical preferences play an essential role. Gradually, generally through the perusal of non-scholarly secondary materials and, in some cases, musical training, they acquire the critical skill of evaluating music based on factual knowledge and personal preference, making them critical experts. Finally, they acquire the requisite tools for dealing with popular music with academic neutrality and openness. Superficially, the same could be said for a scholar of classical music. However, children's or young adults’ partiality for rap, metal or pop, for example, is not merely a matter of musical taste, but impacts on their choice of dress, outlook on life, social contacts and so forth. The popular music scholars who have established the field have lived through the era of the Cold War and its various traumas (cf. Grossberg Reference Grossberg1992), whereas Beethoven scholars’ knowledge of the starvation, death and social upheaval brought about by the Napoleonic Wars is mediated by temporal distance and history books. The roles of the mainstream listener and critic remain embedded within popular music scholars; as Moore (Reference Moore2002, p. 210) says, ‘authenticity’ ‘is a construction made on the act of listening’, made instinctively rather than as a result of academic study. Thus the main challenge popular music scholars face in dealing with ‘authenticity’ is that of being aware of the historicised nature of the constructions they make themselves, but also those made by other academics and journalists whose writings they might use as primary or secondary sources, and how these shape their views. Here Moore's approach is a valuable tool as it tackles the issue of ‘how … observers constitute their subjectivity’ (Moore Reference Moore2002). Nevertheless, dealing with the concept in a self-reflective manner remains challenging since its construction is the result of the simultaneous instinctive evaluation of multiple factors.

A transfer of critical opinion into an ostensibly scholarly publication occurs, for example, in Reynold's and Press's (Reference Reynold and Press1995) The Sex Revolts: Gender, Rebellion and Rock ’n’ Roll. Here, the authors categorise Queen as ‘reich ’n’ roll’ and re-arrange the historical chronology in a way that insinuates that Queen's stadium concerts inspired Pink Floyd's Roger Waters to write The Wall, whose protagonist ‘emerges as a twisted rock ’n’ roll Führer who actually incites members of his audience to attack gays and blacks’ (Reynold and Press Reference Reynold and Press1995, pp. 113–14). Not only is this verifiably incorrect,Footnote ²⁷ but it also disregards the circumstance that Queen were negatively affected by homophobia. The circumstance that the authors’ ideas and expressions are drawn almost verbatim from three journalistic articlesFootnote ²⁸ which, unlike other journalistic sources, are not referenced, constitutes either merely inadequate academic practice and background research or an instance of the authors’ inability to disengage from their constructions of ‘authenticity’.

Scholars’ personal connection with popular music, the ongoing academic debate about its artistic value (cf. Regev Reference Regev1994; Wyn Jones Reference Wyn Jones2008) and the field's close connection to music journalism leave more scope for scholars’ expression of personal opinions than in the traditional disciplines. For example, in Reading Rock & Roll: Authenticity, Appropriation, Aesthetics, Dettmar and Richey (Reference Dettmar and Richey1999) announce their ‘attempt to harness the kind of energy found in the best rock journalism, but rarely seen in so-called academic writing’ (Dettmar and Richey Reference Dettmar and Richey1999, p. 9) and proceed to refer to music they dislike, using slang and obscenities such as ‘junk’ (p. 213), ‘schlock’ (p. 312), ‘shit’ (p. 322) and ‘dreck’ (p. 311). Their main musical example is Queen's ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ as used in Penelope Spheeris's Wayne's World alongside other music from the 1970s, ‘this thoroughly forgettable period in rock’n’ roll history’ (Dettmar and Richey Reference Dettmar and Richey1999, pp. 312–13). As in the case of Press and Reynolds, the factual errors brought about by Dettmar's and Richey's reliance on their historicised judgments of ‘authenticity’ prove the conflation of academic work and journalism to be problematic.Footnote ²⁹ While Dettmar's and Richey's approach could be considered experimental, value judgments are not uncommon even in the most reputable popular music scholarship. Frith's comment that Eminem's ‘records provide some of the best popular music of the turn of the century’ (Frith Reference Frith, Washburne and Derno2004, p. 324), which is not supported by analysis of the music, lyrics, performance or production, fits within the field's conventions. With regard to Queen, Frith's rare mentions betray his negative verdict. His comment that ‘the best version of Queen's “Bohemian Rhapsody” … is Fuzzbox's a capella reading, which translates all the instrumental bits into half-heard words too’ (Frith Reference Frith1996b, p. 159) is made more for comic effect than in order to support his argument. Frith is not the only popular music scholar who is also known as a music critic and has authored academic, journalistic and crossover writings.

Frith's passing comments could be dismissed as unimportant if it were not for his seminal role in establishing popular music studies as a discipline and several of its important debates. In addition, Frith has edited widely read surveys and study readers, books that were necessitated by the inclusion of popular music studies in academic curricula and delineate popular music's history, outstanding artists and important academic issues. The inclusions and exclusions made in such books constitute highly influential instances of canonisation as they shape the views of a younger generation of scholars. In The Cambridge Companion to Rock and Pop (2001), edited by Frith, Straw and Street, canonisation is signalled by the use of prototypical canonic expressions such as ‘The Beatles were the most important twentieth-century pop stars’ (Frith et al. Reference Frith, Straw and Street2001, p. 77) and Bob Dylan produced ‘the greatest single body of works in rock's history’ (Frith et al. Reference Frith, Straw and Street2001, p. 79). The criteria of canonicity are also clearly outlined, e.g. changing ‘pop's social and musical meanings and possibilities’ (Frith et al. Reference Frith, Straw and Street2001, p. 64, regarding the Beatles) and influence on later artists (Frith et al. Reference Frith, Straw and Street2001, p. 81, Dylan). In volumes edited by Frith, Queen are only ever mentioned in passing, and rarely in other scholars’ surveys, such as in Covach's What's That Sound? An Introduction to Rock and Its History (Reference Covach2009). Although Covach's account of Queen is neutral in tone, its placement in the section ‘Commercial Rock’ associates the band with the headings’ negative connotation of ‘selling out.’

In contrast, the reasons for Queen's absence in textbooks on popular music styles and analysis are inherent in the band's music. Such books employ a reductionist approach, usually drawing upon representative examples from the output of well-known exponents of particular styles who work within these styles’ parameters. Queen are not well suited to this purpose since their songs often transgress stylistic boundaries, and the band drew on such a diversity of styles that their output as a whole defies stylistic categorisation. This also resulted in their omission from studies dealing with single styles, such as Progressive Rock Reconsidered (Holm-Hudson Reference Holm-Hudson2001), although Queen contributed well-known specimens that match the definition of progressive rock laid out in the book's introduction. The volume focuses on unequivocally representative prog rock bands such as Pink Floyd and King Crimson. Similarly, although Queen, particularly Mercury, might seem a fitting object of discussion for Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music (Auslander Reference Auslander2006), he is only mentioned in passing.

In light of the importance of socio-political issues in popular music studies, the interest in gay studies in other fields and Queen's role relative to HIV and the gay rights movement, it is not surprising that the earliest academic writings to deal with Queen at any length approach them from the vantage point of gay studies. In his articles ‘Bohemian rhapsodies: operatic influences on rock music’ (2001) and ‘“We Are The Champions” – Masculinities, Sports and Popular Music’ (2006), Ken McLeod approaches Queen from the perspective of ‘the transgression of conventional musical boundaries’ which ‘reflect an analogous rejection of traditional cultural boundaries surrounding sexual orientation, gender and class’ (McLeod Reference McLeod2001, p. 189) and the ‘often paradoxical social and sexual codes engendered by the relationship of sports and popular music’ (McLeod Reference McLeod2006, p. 531). McLeod's work, too, suffers from lack of critical distance to personal constructions when he claims that a number of sports anthems, including ‘We Are The Champions’, ‘contain overt lyrical celebrations of homosexuality’ (McLeod Reference McLeod2006, p. 541), although the lyrics make no references to homosexuality whatsoever – McLeod's interpretation is based solely on his conflation of author and music.Footnote ³⁰ Nevertheless, McLeod's articles, Cook's discussion of montage technique in the music and video of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ (Cook Reference Cook, Almén and Pearsall2006, Reference Cook and Walden2013), an article by Bennett (Reference Bennett2007) pointing out the lack of scholarship on Queen and other 1970s artists and styles, as well as Dockwray's (Reference Dockwray2005) PhD thesis, which uses Queen as a case study for the discussion of rock anthems, may be an indication of the beginnings of a re-evaluation similar to that in music journalism that might eventually result in Queen's canonisation in scholarship, too.Footnote ³¹