Discussion about this post

User's avatar
koganbot's avatar

Comment four. I'm going to go sideways to a smaller point, which is that some of what's in the American canon from its era of dominance got there with the help of non-Americans. Which is to say that in the mid '70s when I was discovering the late '50s/early '60s girl groups, I was buying some of their music in oldies stores that had out-of-print records, but was also getting it from regular record-store IMPORT bins, Ronettes and Crystals anthologies compiled and issued (so newly in-print) in places like Germany. And I got the electric mid-'70s Miles Davis records on Japanese imports.

(Wondering about American acts whose careers got started or kept going because of a potential European or Japanese audience. Not just jazz. What about glam?)

To go even more sideways, maybe there's an analogy to the American movie canon, which was fundamentally put together by critics who were auteurist, which is to say owes a lot to the tastes of the Cahiers du Cinema crowd in the French 1950s. (Whatever you think of auteurism as an idea, without it we don't have a sense of the American movies of the past as *art*, nor a way to sort through the past and talk about it.)

Expand full comment
koganbot's avatar

Comment two, which partly undercuts number one, but which – without my having heard Pop Pantheon – I assume nonetheless is a challenge to Pop Pantheon.

Here's the link for my Duncan Watts/Cumulative Advantage piece:

https://lasvegasweekly.com/news/archive/2007/oct/04/the-rules-of-the-game-no-18-the-social-butterfly-e

Watts's argument (or how I've extrapolated it) is that *anything* that's famous is, in part, famous for being famous, and that its fame far exceeds the intrinsic ("intrinsic"?) appeal of its particular attributes. I'm not saying that its fame is *all* luck – in fact, for any particular phenomenon, it's impossible to determine just how much of a role luck plays. But the idea of cumulative advantage partly (underscore *partly*) undercuts the idea that the content, or the promotion, or any particular aspect, somehow *causes* the fame – counters the idea that we can see, in retrospect, an inevitability to a particular phenomenon's stature and dominance. Contra that, there's always an ineradicable randomness – the randomness never total but always there – to which artists and songs make it big and which don't; but also, given cumulative advantage, once something *is* big, its stature can keep it big (to some extent not to all extent) despite what's going on with the content (etc.) and its audience's relation to such content (etc.).

Expand full comment
6 more comments...

No posts