Setting The Standard: The Beatles and Constructions of the Popular Music Canon

With the recent release of the Let It Be documentary on Disney Plus, it feels as though the Beatles are more popular than ever. The documentary, produced by Peter Jackson, who also spearheaded the 2021 Get Back film, provides yet another fascinating glimpse into the Beatles' studio sessions as they work on their final album, Let It Be (1970). In what will no doubt prove an emotional viewing for many fans, this film truly captures the beginning of the end for the Beatles, using previously unseen video footage and unheard audio material, it documents the messy break-up of music's greatest band.

Explaining the popularity of the Beatles is no easy task and the attention they continue to receive, almost 55 years on, is quite frankly remarkable. Certainly in academic studies, the canon of popular music has been constructed entirely around them. In no uncertain terms, the Beatles are popular music and popular music is the Beatles; many of the things now taken for granted in the industry are because of them, and yes, it's a cliche as old as time itself, but their sheer dominance of popular music over the last six decades simply cannot be understated.

So, in light of the release of Let It Be, I have attempted go where no scholar or fan has gone before and answer the unanswerable question [sort of]. Just why are the Beatles so popular?

Defining Musical Canon

Musical canon has traditionally been associated with literature on classical and western art music. Despite the relative recency of popular music studies as an accepted branch of musicology, the notion of canon and canon formation has been weaved throughout, becoming integral to the discourse. As such, a collection of popular music artists and works have been curated into a standardized repertoire; to which, the Beatles have been positioned as central. I will explore the multi-faceted processes of popular music canon formation and the role of various canonizers, in order to explain and understand the centrality of the Beatles and their music, measured against a framework of criteria associated with traditional canonic values.

In discussions of musical canon, it is important to define what is understood by the use of this term. David Beard and Kenneth Gloag provide a well-structured definition of canon, to ‘describe a body of musical works and composers accredited with a high level of value and greatness.’ Gloag further notes that the canon in western art music has been constructed around a standard repertoire, predicated upon the ‘primacy’ of certain composers [Bach, Haydn, Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms] and genres [chamber music, symphony]. Canons have therefore become a ‘lightning rod for fierce cultural debate.’

Much of the scholarship surrounding canon in western art music has drawn considerable criticism. William Weber has commented on this:

‘Canon has been so central to musical culture in the modern age that scholars have taken its hierarchies as a given and thought it inappropriate to ask when or why they arose. The failure to inquire into this history has helped reinforce the musical judgments, aesthetic dogma and social ideologies implicit in the canon, and thereby seriously distorted many perspectives of music history.’

Scholars assessing the construction of a standard repertoire, and the canonizers responsible, have often attributed the problems associated with canon as being a result of the process of canon formation. Philip Bohlman notes that at the most basic level, the act of canonizing ‘takes the form of choices: including and excluding.' Moreover, Gloag argues that in formulating a standardized historiography of music, the canon effectively excludes significant areas of musical and cultural activity. It is therefore possible to interpret the canon as an ideologically driven mechanism of exclusion, which predicates itself on upholding a strict set of interrelated qualities: a standard to which all music must aspire.

Popular Music Canon

Whilst canon has become a firmly established concept in studies of western art music, its origins in the discipline of popular music are considerably more recent. A shift in the 1980s and 1990s away from traditional musicology towards new musicology created room for the expansion of academic music studies beyond the western art tradition. Robert Fink pinpoints this shift as having presented the perfect opportunity for scholars to ‘combine new approaches to canonical classical music with interest in various repertoires of popular music, especially post 1955 rock and pop.’ This, he argues, was necessary in order to reassess the methodology and ideology of academic music studies in the wake of new musicology.

At the beginning of the 21st Century the formation of popular music canon received considerable academic attention. Much of the early scholarship was, however, sceptical towards this. Philip Tagg has rejected the concept of a ‘musical work’ within a popular music context, due to the close associations with the western art tradition. Moreover, Alan Moore has tried to ‘subvert the growth of an accepted canon of popular music,’ citing the notion of canon as exclusive and dismissive. The fears held by scholars towards canon in popular music are understandable, certainly when considering the extent to which canon in the classical tradition has constructed and maintained an ideologically driven repertoire of standardized works, wherein perspectives towards music have become distorted and deeply entrenched.

Nevertheless, as has been recognised by a number of scholars, canon formation, to some degree, is inevitably unavoidable in academic studies of music. As Bohlman summarises, ‘musicologists are engaged in making choices…thereby establishing authority.’ If we are to reluctantly accept the canon in popular music, then we can argue, at the very least, that its formation and operation occur on a different scale to that of the western art canon. Much of the reasoning behind this is attributed to the contrast in adapting traditional canonical values to popular music. Firstly, the view of the ‘text’ upon which musicology’s canons are built are understood differently in a popular music context. In the western art tradition, ‘texts are essential to the canonizing process and are largely depicted by musical score,’ unlike popular music, where ‘texts’ take the form of recordings. Secondly, the agents who determine the popular music canon or canonizers are largely separate from those in classical musicology. Bohlman points towards the increasing importance of record companies, music publishers and businesspeople as canonizers. Finally, unlike the firmly established western art repertoire, the genres and styles that fall under ‘popular music’ remain somewhat unclear. Carys Wyn Jones, who adopts the term ‘rock canon,’ notes:

‘[‘Rock Canon’] is indubitably an unsatisfactory term to apply on the whole. Bob Dylan’s music is often characterized as folk, and Nevermind the Bollocks: Here’s the Sex Pistols is regarded as the epitome of punk, while the music of both the Beatles and the Beach Boys is more frequently referred to as ‘pop’ than ‘rock.

Therefore, in our understanding of the ways in which popular music is created, mediated and disseminated, whilst we can accept the existence of the canon, we must remain aware that many elements of its formation and operation do not mirror the canon in western art music.

The Beatles

The popular music canon that was sketched out by early scholarship almost immediately accepted the Beatles as central. The construction of standardized repertoire around their music was initially never questioned, resulting in the well-established notion that the Beatles are essential to the popular music canon. Whilst certainly worthy of further study, my aims are not necessarily to critique or question this position. Rather, I intend to provide a comprehensive explanation of the multi-faceted process that has located the Beatles and their music as central to the popular music canon, in order to assess its construction and continued operation.

This falls into three distinct categories. Firstly, ‘music analysis:’ I will focus on the efforts of theorists to analyse the music of the Beatles. The concept of canon is inextricably linked with aesthetic value. As such, undertaking a theoretical analysis of musical works can be highly indicative of traditional notions of canonic value. Secondly, ‘rating systems:’ I will reflect on a number of studies into the use of rating systems, such as ‘greatest albums’ lists found commonly in popular music publications. As Simon Frith argues, the ultimate value of popular music ‘emerges out of the meeting between music and listener.’ As such the process of ranking and labelling by audiences can act as a key indicator of value. Finally, I will assess the role of ‘cultural capital.’ In popular music studies, cultural capital is understood as depicting value in the context of the socio-cultural perceptions of a musical work. As noted by Anne Desler:

‘Most studies of canon formation in popular music are predicated on the sociological theories of [Pierre] Bourdieu and [Paul] DiMaggio, which understand canons as cultural capital created as a result of social processes that establish cultural hierarchies through the integration of multiple agents.’

The social processes that influence canon formation are so closely intertwined with cultural context, to the extent that cultural capital becomes an incredibly important factor to consider in the choices made by canonizers. Moreover, as a culmination of the elements of aesthetic and sociological value, cultural capital is a unique factor predicated upon the influence and acceptance of agency as necessary within canon formation. I aim to prove these factors as instrumental in explaining and understanding the now well-established position of the Beatles as central to constructions of the popular music canon.

Music Analysis

One of the core elements necessary to constructing a musical canon is concerned with the search for aesthetic value. Many scholars have offered definitions of what this denotes. Gloag, for example, refers to value as ‘organic unity, genius, and the idea of absolute music.’ Analysis has been a central focus of discourse in western art music, and despite conflicting opinions about its methodology and use, has remained prevalent in academic music studies. Don Michael Randel posits the notion of a ‘musicological toolbox,’ in which musical notation and analysis hold great importance as ‘tools of scholarship.’ These, he notes, can act to define and maintain the musical canon. Randel’s argument is highly suggestive of the authority that analysis possesses in formulating canons. Whilst the use of analysis has primarily been explored in the context of the western art tradition, adopting a similar approach to popular music can serve as a useful indicator of the rationale behind canon formation.

In understanding the centrality of the Beatles in constructions of a standard repertoire in popular music, we must look towards the work of musicologist Walter Everett. Primarily a music theorist, Everett is largely responsible for influencing the perceptions of the Beatles as central to the popular music canon. His landmark two-part study The Beatles as Musicians provides a comprehensive traditional musical analysis of the entire Beatles discography. Referring to Bohlman’s statement that ‘musicologists are engaged in making choices,’ Everett’s work is important because it demonstrates the role of agency in canon formation. Everett initially takes a heavily objective stance, noting that one reason for his selection of the Beatles for analysis derives from previous studies into their lyricism. He identifies a gap in the writing, noting that whilst the Beatles’ lyrics have enjoyed considerable attention, the accompanying music has not, even though, he suggests, ‘it is as rich as their lyrics.’ Everett further identifies his second reason behind his selection, stating that:

‘Seldom has an analysis of a Beatles song appeared that can be called in any way thorough. Yet this book suggests that there are many musical reasons worthy of considered speculation that place the Beatles’ work among the most listened-to music of all time.’

This may appear, at first glance, as an effort to use analysis to objectively explain the widely accepted success and popularity of the Beatles. However, if we to thoroughly assess the descriptiveness of the language with which Everett outlines his intentions, the role of personal preference and agency becomes increasingly evident:

‘The fact is that even though these recording artists and their millions of listeners are rarely if ever consciously aware of the structural reasons behind the dynamic energy in “I Saw Her Standing There,” the poignant nostalgia in “Yesterday,” the organized confusion of “A Day in the Life” or the exuberant joy in “Here Comes the Sun,” it is the musical structures themselves…that call forth most of the audience’s intellectual, emotional, and physical responses.’

The notion that personal preference might be allowed to perforate into constructions of a standard repertoire is one of the primary concerns of canon formation. Robert Morgan argues, however, that canonization must be responsive to differences in taste. The issue though, is that canon establishes authority, and so the individual decisions that may define a standardized repertoire seem to possess a great deal of potential power. This authority, according to Bohlman, is ‘understandably attractive’ to those who would wish to ‘discipline music.’ Desler notes, that despite determined efforts of avoidance, scholars’ choices simultaneously affect the status of their subject matter relative to the academic canon and their own standing within the academic hierarchy.’ Everett’s aims and intentions are based around a desire to preserve the use of musical analysis in applying a traditional approach to the modern discourse of popular music studies. His work has, however, resulting in establishing the Beatles as central to the popular music canon, more so, in fact, than any existing scholarship on popular music analysis.

The choices of academics are intrinsically responsible for constructions of a standard repertoire of musical works. This is evidenced by a number of music theorists who, following Everett’s publications, have conducted studies that position the Beatles as the central, standard starting point for popular music analysis. Canonizing in popular music, however, is not limited to the choices and publications of academics.

Rating Systems

Canonic values can extend beyond aesthetics, and the definition of value is often attributed to factors such as authenticity and timelessness. These are still associated somewhat with notions of aesthetic value, yet not necessarily identifiable through traditional musical analysis. Rather, assessing the canon from this viewpoint requires a greater understanding of value judgement, which is a central theme in popular music discourse. Frith refers to value judgements as the ‘common currency’ of popular culture; however, he does identify the considerable methodological problems that preside over our understanding of such value.

The question this raises, therefore, is how might we define non-aesthetic value within the process of canon formation. Roy Shuker posits an answer to this, pinpointing the role of music critics and the music press as ‘major contributors to the construction of a musical canon.’ He suggests that the use of ratings systems, annual ‘best of’ listings and guidebooks can act as key indicators of value in popular music. Desler notes that the use of ‘greatest albums’ in studies on popular music has, in fact, given rise to an additional ‘greatest albums’ canon. She comments:

‘The fact that many of the artists topping ‘greatest albums’ lists also appear in the canon sketched by scholars…might suggest that this canon can be considered to represent the popular music canon.’

Studies into ratings systems are particularly revealing of the fact that much of the data collected and used by scholars strongly reinforces the notion of the Beatles as central to the popular music canon. In a study undertaken by Ralf Von Appen and André Doehring, they compile what they define as the ‘meta-list:’ a survey into the ‘greatest albums’ lists from 38 different publications across magazines, radio stations and the internet, between 1985-2004. The results show the Beatles as having three albums from the top five, namely Revolver (1966), Sgt Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band (1967) and The Beatles (1968), with the addition of Abbey Road (1969) at sixth in the list. It is important to note that whilst this study only covers ranking lists created between 1985-2004, this was a period in which scholarship on popular music began to carve out a standard repertoire. Therefore, despite being slightly dated, the validity of their work has not been significantly compromised from a contemporary perspective. The benefit of studies such as this is in their ability to ultimately gauge the value of popular musical works, as rating systems offer a clear, data driven indicator of such. Moreover, as Shuker notes, rating systems take on a level of importance when attributed to constructions of canon, due primarily to their ability to legitimize particular performers and their work.

Michael R. Fisher assesses the validity of rating systems in his study into online music magazine Pitchfork’s 2017 list of ‘The 200 Best Albums of the 1960s.’ Although only surveying music of the 1960s, he reflects upon preconceived notions of the popular music canon, stating: ‘The Beatles are the rock canon. They set the standard and the limits of the popular music of the sixties and thereafter.’ Fisher’s article reinforces the validity of rating systems by expanding upon the potential limitations of musical analysis as a contrasting factor in canon formation. As he notes, topping Pitchfork’s list was The Beatles (1968) [commonly referred to as the The White Album], despite the fact it has been poorly received by ‘almost every critic who has encountered it.’ As studies show, therefore, the consistently high placing of this album in ranking lists denotes a level of value that clearly does not correspond with its aesthetic qualities. This raises questions towards the limitations of musical analysis and the extent to which aesthetic value contributes towards canon formation.

Interestingly, one final point about the work of Von Appen and Doehring, and Fisher, is that both articles initially set out to question the position of the Beatles in the popular music canon. The resulting conclusions, however, suggest that whilst there is space for the inclusion of a new generation of popular music artists, the Beatles will continue to further extend their standing as ‘classics.’ The data is clear, and it demonstrates that the canon of popular music has evolved with the Beatles as consistently central to the standard repertoire, as reflected in a set of values beyond those found in aesthetics and analysis.

Nevertheless, there are some parallels to be found between rating systems and analysis, notably regarding objectivity and agency. Much in the same way that music theorists are required to make choices in selecting their analytical repertoire, the publications that curate rating systems also do so based upon some degree of choice. This derives, however, not so much from personal preference, rather from sociological value judgements, which scholars and social theorists have referred to as ‘cultural capital.’ An approach that presides at the cross-section of musical analysis and rating systems, the notion of cultural capital not only depicts canonic value as a culmination of aesthetic of sociological value, but also accepts agency as ultimately necessary in the process of canonization, as will now be explored.

Cultural Capital

Socio-cultural perceptions of music are highly influential in constructions of the canon. Leon Botstein notes that much of the scholarship in canon formation, certainly in the western art tradition, was written to evoke a sense of shared cultural heritage and identity. Many scholars have found links between the impact of the socio-cultural perceptions of value and agency in contributions towards constructions of the canon. As Desler notes, ‘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.' In his discussions of cultural capital, Frith echoes sociologist Pierre Bourdieu’s argument; positing that accumulated knowledge through lived experience creates a ‘taste hierarchy’ upon which perceptions of culture are generated. It is from these comparative perceptions of music that canons are able to form, under the influence of agency.

One of the core principles that explains the processes of canon formation is musical language. As suggested by Peter Van Der Merwe, musical language is what truly feeds into socio-cultural perceptions of value, breaking down musical works into what can be defined as ‘good,’ ‘bad,’ and ‘indifferent.’ The exercise of taste and aesthetic discrimination, as Frith suggests, is therefore integral to any discussions of popular music [and thus, canon formation]. In addition to aesthetics, the role of cultural capital can also be used to explain any socio-cultural perceptions of value, in essence, understanding the consistently high placement of the Beatles’ albums in ratings systems. Desler advocates for an expansion beyond aesthetics, noting that ‘historical importance has been measured primarily by artists’ socio-political impact and relevance.’[53] In order to measure these criteria as indicators of canonic value, we must understand the framework within which they operate. As Katherine Skinner suggests, the hierarchical ranking of cultural products only achieves meaning through the ‘active social processes that create, maintain and employ them.’ Applying this framework to the Beatles can shed light on how they have come to possess sociological value. Gary Burns notes:

‘They [the Beatles] were crucial in establishing the importance of rock as a social phenomenon. After the Beatles, rock, whatever its artistic merit, could no longer be viewed as a trivial force in Western culture.'

This demonstrates the operation of a unique relationship; popular music is dependent on societal perceptions to make it ‘popular,’ yet it shapes the very perceptions that prescribe it value. This explains, ultimately, how cultural capital is constructed. The Beatles, therefore, have been positioned as central to the popular music canon due to the value of their cultural capital, which is comprised of a culmination of personal preference, cultural knowledge and lived experience.

In summary, it is not possible for any canonizer, either intentionally or unintentionally, to contribute towards canon formation without some degree of the influence of agency. Such is the extent that value in popular music is predicated upon sociological factors, the explanation of canon formation requires an acceptance of the fact that agency is necessary. Cultural capital, therefore, as a culmination of aesthetic and sociological values determined by agency, is fundamental to our understanding of the popular music canon and the continued centrality of the Beatles within it.

Conclusion

As suggested by Bohlman, ‘very few of musicology’s endeavours fail to exhibit some investment in canons and canonizing.’ This is something that academics in the western art discourse are all too aware of. Having witnessed the numerous issues associated with canon, popular music scholarship initially displayed a determined resistance to construct its own. Despite this, however, scholars have somewhat begrudgingly come to the realisation that canon formation in popular music studies simply cannot be avoided.

It was not my aim to necessarily critique the notions of the popular music canon, rather to explore, within the parameters of a well-established standard repertoire, the position of the Beatles and their music. There is something remarkably symbiotic about the relationship between the constructions of the popular music canon and the Beatles’ centrality to it. The rationale behind this lies in a culmination of the factors that have been outlined throughout.

The resounding conclusion drawn from this, is that the underlying role of agency is ultimately crucial to constructions of canon in academic music discourse. In popular music scholarship it remains true that the Beatles have set the standard. If we now intend to open the discussion up to assess and critique the notions of the canon in popular music, possessing a comprehensive understanding of the multi-faceted process behind this will undoubtedly serve well for endeavours in future study.