First, you mentioned how in the scale of music in human history, all music came out at practically the same time. Now, while I get what you are coming at, I do still think that music is inherently judged, consciously or subconsciously, by prior works and the time at which it came out. For example, Beethoven's 5th Symphony and Autechre's LP5 came out around 200 years between each other, and by what you are saying, essentially at the same time. But if I went back in time and showed that album to a European aristocrat, would they be able to understand why a lot of people consider it a 'classic'? I'm not asking whether they would enjoy it, because that's subjective. But even if you don't like an album, you can still often recognize why others consider it a classic. Either way, I don't think they would be able to, because they wouldn't have picked up listening in any electronic music either by osmosis or their own procurement.
If I went five years before LP5's release and showed it to someone, they probably could understand why it's considered a classic by a lot of people, and probably hail it as one immediately. It's because it builds on the foundation of electronic music, Kraftwerk and the like, and is radically different from almost any other electronic music. And, just by osmosis, you probably have a decent idea of what most popular electronic sounds, by virtue of living in modern society. So even though these two releases are separated by next to nothing time-wise, by your admission, they still have a distinctly different effect on people depending on when they are listening to it, so I think that music is still pretty timebound and contextual in terms of deeming it a 'classic.' That's why I think people take time into account when judging an album as a 'classic.'
Second, this is more open-ended, but how much do you think timelessness plays a role in something being a 'classic.' I mean, a lot of 80s industrial music sounds pretty dated, but albums released then would still be classics of industrial music. A lot of experimentation in the 60s comes off as pretty dated, but we still call the experimental stuff the Beatles did 'classic.' How much do you think this factors into something being a 'classic?' Also, is there a distinction to you about something being a 'classic of X-genre' and a classic full-stop?
Anyways, keep up the good work. I am now inspired to make my own "Undisputed Classics" list, so thanks for the thought.
Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful response. I don't really have a counterargument, I think you made good points. I think people want "timelessness" to factor in, but I was trying to explain why I no longer think "timelessness" is real. There's also no distinction to me between something being a classic of X-genre and a classic full-stop, because genres are inherently limiting categorizations of something which shouldn't be able to be categorized. Although of course they have historical context. Not sure if this makes any sense. But thanks again.
To play devil's advocate - and I have been known to call some albums an "instant classic" - as shorthand for something that is not only great but has stood the test of time, "classic" is hard to beat. Maybe it's a little like "genius," a word that has gradually lost a distinctive meaning due to overuse.
Fantastic article, I'll try to give my two cents.
First, you mentioned how in the scale of music in human history, all music came out at practically the same time. Now, while I get what you are coming at, I do still think that music is inherently judged, consciously or subconsciously, by prior works and the time at which it came out. For example, Beethoven's 5th Symphony and Autechre's LP5 came out around 200 years between each other, and by what you are saying, essentially at the same time. But if I went back in time and showed that album to a European aristocrat, would they be able to understand why a lot of people consider it a 'classic'? I'm not asking whether they would enjoy it, because that's subjective. But even if you don't like an album, you can still often recognize why others consider it a classic. Either way, I don't think they would be able to, because they wouldn't have picked up listening in any electronic music either by osmosis or their own procurement.
If I went five years before LP5's release and showed it to someone, they probably could understand why it's considered a classic by a lot of people, and probably hail it as one immediately. It's because it builds on the foundation of electronic music, Kraftwerk and the like, and is radically different from almost any other electronic music. And, just by osmosis, you probably have a decent idea of what most popular electronic sounds, by virtue of living in modern society. So even though these two releases are separated by next to nothing time-wise, by your admission, they still have a distinctly different effect on people depending on when they are listening to it, so I think that music is still pretty timebound and contextual in terms of deeming it a 'classic.' That's why I think people take time into account when judging an album as a 'classic.'
Second, this is more open-ended, but how much do you think timelessness plays a role in something being a 'classic.' I mean, a lot of 80s industrial music sounds pretty dated, but albums released then would still be classics of industrial music. A lot of experimentation in the 60s comes off as pretty dated, but we still call the experimental stuff the Beatles did 'classic.' How much do you think this factors into something being a 'classic?' Also, is there a distinction to you about something being a 'classic of X-genre' and a classic full-stop?
Anyways, keep up the good work. I am now inspired to make my own "Undisputed Classics" list, so thanks for the thought.
Thanks for reading and for the thoughtful response. I don't really have a counterargument, I think you made good points. I think people want "timelessness" to factor in, but I was trying to explain why I no longer think "timelessness" is real. There's also no distinction to me between something being a classic of X-genre and a classic full-stop, because genres are inherently limiting categorizations of something which shouldn't be able to be categorized. Although of course they have historical context. Not sure if this makes any sense. But thanks again.
To play devil's advocate - and I have been known to call some albums an "instant classic" - as shorthand for something that is not only great but has stood the test of time, "classic" is hard to beat. Maybe it's a little like "genius," a word that has gradually lost a distinctive meaning due to overuse.
Yes, that makes sense. But can "classics" lose their distinction if time goes on and they no longer pass that test?