Popular Music (2013) Volume 32/3. © Cambridge University Press 2013, pp.

385–405
doi:10.1017/S0261143013000287

History without royalty? Queen

and the strata of the popular
music canon
ANNE DESLER
Department of Drama and Music, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK
E-mail: A.Desler@hull.ac.uk

Abstract
Although canon formation has been discussed in popular music studies for over a decade, the notion
of what constitutes ‘the popular music canon’ is still vague. However, considering that many scholars
resent canon formation due to the negative effects canons have exerted on other academic fields,
analysis of canon formation processes in popular music studies seems desirable: awareness of
these processes can be a valuable tool for scholars’ assessment of how their academic choices contrib-
ute to canon formation. Based on an examination of the reception history of Queen in the popular
mainstream, music criticism and academia, this article argues that a universally valid popular
music canon does not exist and that canon formation in popular music is based on the same criteria
as in the ‘high’ arts, i.e. transcendence, historical importance and ‘greatness’, although the latter is
replaced by ‘authenticity’ in the popular music context. While canons can be theorised in various
ways, a model that distinguishes between canonic strata according to listeners’ relationship to
music is particularly useful as it reveals the relative importance of the three canonic criteria within
different strata and how they are applied.

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 2006, 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 2000, 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
2000, p. 167). Moore even tries to ‘subvert the growth of an accepted “canon” of pop-
ular music’ because he feels that classical musicology’s focus on few canonic compo-
sers and dismissal of non-canonic music have fettered the discipline (Moore 2001,
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
385
386 Anne Desler

scholars gain the requisite historical awareness to prevent popular music studies
from ‘fall[ing] into the same trap’ (Moore 2001) as classical musicology? And what
is the popular music canon?
Most studies of canon formation in popular music are predicated on the socio-
logical 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.1 These are applied to specific stylistic
and/or geographic areas of popular music, e.g. popular music in Québec (Ollivier
2006) and Brazil (Frota 2006), b-boy culture (Schloss 2006) and indie guitar rock
(Bannister 2006), or the roles of institutions in canonisation, e.g. the National
Academy for the Recording Arts and Sciences (Watson and Anand 2006) and
American record companies (Skinner 2006). Skinner also makes visible the histori-
cised 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 1988), serves as the basis for Kärjä’s (2006)
model, which distinguishes between different types of knowledge mediation and
transmission.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 1992a, 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
(2006), based on an analysis of 38 ‘greatest albums’ lists.3 Similarly, Wyn Jones
bases her The Rock Canon – Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums (2008)
on a selection of 10 albums ‘that have widely been accepted as the greatest in their
field’ (Wyn Jones 2008, p. 26) and have ranked highly on many ‘greatest albums’
lists (Wyn Jones 2008, 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 pop-
ular reception’ by ‘rock values’ (Wyn Jones 2008, p. 2), a point also made by von
Appen and Doehring (2006, 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 2006, p. 26),
who ‘regard themselves as ‘experts’ (von Appen and Doehring 2006, p. 28)’ and are
molded into a musical community by music magazines (Frith 1996b, 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 2001, 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 (2006,
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
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 387

be very odd for someone who systematically wanted to be a rock musician not to be
familiar”’ (Davies 1995).
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 main-
tains 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 2008, p. 2). These discre-
pancies 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 ethnomu-
sicological models, but there is also a stratification of the canon arising from groups’
different relationships to popular music, since the distinction between mainstream lis-
teners, 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 for-
mation so far, whether in the social sciences or the humanities,4 recognise different
strata of society as distinct agents in canon formation, they regard the resulting
canon as valid for society as a whole.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 influ-
ences, 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,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 ‘authen-
ticity’ 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’ (2002) and Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting
Recorded Popular Song (2012, Chapter 9) will be referred to throughout this article.7
388 Anne Desler

An example that illustrates both the dissimilarities and interrelations between

the academic, critical and mainstream canons particularly clearly is the reception his-
tory 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 listen-
ers, 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 listen-
ers. 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),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 wide-
spread access to the Internet, have not only facilitated the production and sharing
of secondary materials by mainstream listeners, but have also changed the signifi-
cance 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 cul-
tural impact’ (Green and Jenkins 2011, 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 canoni-
city, 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 fix-
tures 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 cano-
nicity are popular music artists’ market value (reflected by the continuous commer-
cial 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 break-
through in 1976, Queen continually remained one of the best-selling rock acts world-
wide 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
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 389

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., 2002; Gibson 2005). As is typical of
mainstream canonic artists (von Appen and Doehring 2006; Wyn Jones 2008),
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.wewill
rockyou.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 individ-
ual band members’ biographies and photo books, various types of sheet music, mer-
chandising 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 ran-
ging 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 func-
tion 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.9 While media contents are determined by
journalists, ‘consumption communities increasingly work together to identify com-
mon interests and exert direct and indirect influence on the kinds of media being pro-
duced and distributed’ (Green and Jenkins 2011, p. 126). Fans’ continuing interest in
the band is evident from activities such as the numerous international Queen conven-
tions, participation in the annual Mercury Phoenix Foundation fundraiser ‘Freddie
for a Day’, the production of anime videos based on Queen songs (cf. Cook
2013),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 2004, p. 164).
Moreover, Queen are at the same time an international and quintessentially
national band. From 1974, Queen had played with the simultaneous deconstruc-
tion and reinforcement of the meaning of the British national anthem in their per-
formance ritual of closing their live concerts worldwide with May’s arrangement
390 Anne Desler

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,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 2012) 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 audi-
ence. In the Olympic Games 2012 in London, Queen’s music was used to exem-
plify 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 appearance12 (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 1987,
1996a) 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 2002,
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 2002, p. 220). This relationship between main-
stream listeners and their preferred music explains and supports the attribution of
Queen’s appeal to audiences of various social, geographic and educational back-
grounds and age groups to the stylistic diversity of their music (Thompson 2000,
p. 116; Bennett 2007, 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 2009).
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 2002, p. 214). Listeners’ perception of
first-person authenticity in Queen songs is evident, for example, from their reaction
to the lines

You brought me fame and fortune

And everything that goes with it –
I thank you all
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 391

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, writ-
ing songs with the specific aims of creating a sense of collectivity and enabling audi-
ence participation in live concerts (according to May, BBC 2011). ‘We Will Rock You’
constitutes a particularly clear example (cf. Dockwray 2005).
The elimination of the boundary between first person (artist) and second person
(listener), which takes place when the listener becomes the performer, is a prerequi-
site 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 sim-
pler 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
2006), 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.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 2010).14 Music critics prove and continuously re-affirm their expertise,
which justifies their function as opinion leaders in matters of musical taste, by dis-
senting to a recognisable degree, but not entirely, from mainstream opinion and pre-
ferences (von Appen and Doehring 2006, p. 27, based on Bourdieu 1984). 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 tar-
get 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, histori-
cal importance and ‘greatness’ as touchstones of artistic merit, in order to demon-
strate their expertise and power as holders of cultural capital (Bourdieu 1984).
In popular music criticism, transcendence and historical importance are proble-
matic 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 cri-
terion 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 2002, p. 210). But whereas
392 Anne Desler

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 1992; Wyn Jones 2008) as rock draws on the same Romantic ideology
that underpins the classical canon (Cook 1995–1996). 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 suc-
cessful orchestral piece, Wellington’s Victory, Opus 91 (Cook 2003).
However, it is necessary to distinguish between Moore’s approach to authen-
ticity 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
2012, p. 266). In contrast, the term is used by popular music critics as though ‘auth-
enticity’ 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’.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 criti-
cal 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 inter-
national 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’ (1973,
Rolling Stone) to Kent’s dismissal on account of ‘devastating paucity of originality
of vision’ (1974, 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 pro-
gressive rock, that of Kent, who was going to provide guidance to the Sex Pistols
as a guitarist and vocalist in 1975 (Savage 2005, p. 98), attests to a preference for
greater musical simplicity. Critics’ positions are also influenced by the market pos-
ition 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 2010, p. 81).16
Queen’s increasingly favourable reception in 1974–1975 resulted from con-
ditions 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 2007, 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
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 393

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 judg-
ment 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 success-
ful 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:

Guitarist Brian May’s ‘39’ is his best attempt yet at Paul McCartney-style crooning, but it’s on
side two that the vocals really take command. On ‘The Prophet’s Song’, the best track, May’s
powerful guitar perfectly complements the rich, multitracked harmonies of lead singer Freddie
Mercury. Throughout the record, the group makes the most effective use of vocal rounds,
choruses and harmonies in the heavy-rock genre since Argent’s Ring of Hands. (A Night At
The Opera: Nicholson 1976)

Blessed with Freddie Mercury’s passable pop voice and guitarist Brian May, who manages to
fragment and reassemble the guitar styles of Jimmy Page, Jeff Beck and Eric Clapton in
interesting, if pedestrian ways, Queen will probably top the charts until one or the other of
its leaders grows restless and spins off another version. (A Day At The Races: Marsh 1977)

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 per-
formance. In contrast, Marsh categorises Queen’s music as pop and describes it in
terms that exemplify pop ‘inauthenticity’, i.e. mediocrity of performance and deriva-
tiveness 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.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 1977), 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 1977), i.e. rock’s
roots in genres such as the blues, which originated in low-class contexts. However,
394 Anne Desler

the crux of Marsh’s dismissal of Queen is the reproach of ‘selling out’. Marsh con-
tends that among contemporary bands, Queen are ‘the least experimental . . . prob-
ably because their commercial aspirations are the most brazen’ (Marsh 1977).
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 chan-
ging 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 una-
bashed 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 predomi-
nantly 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 2010, 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 1979), reveals an under-
lying fear of totalitarianism. Until the mid-1980s, some critics equated Mercury’s
interaction with stadium audiences with sinister mass manipulation (Testa 1978;
Quantick 1986). 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 jour-
nalists who had supported the band since the early 1970s (Sutcliffe 1991). Another sig-
nificant 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,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, encom-
passing all three types identified by Moore. Critics’ view of the band’s image and
music as ‘contrived’ (Genoux 1975), ‘unnatural’ (Salewicz 1976) and ‘imitative pos-
turing’ (Cohen 1979) 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 perfor-
mer succeeds in conveying the impression of accurately representing the ideas of
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 395

another, embedded within a tradition of performance’ (Moore 2002, 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 2002, 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

perhaps the whole idea of authenticity, into question: the rock vocal style retroactively infects
the operatic vocal style, and vice versa, the collision of two incompatible constructions of vocal
style transforming each into a ‘marked’ term, revealing each not as a natural expression of
passion but as a construction of artifice. (Cook 2006, p. 127)

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.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 2001) is considerable, the NME’s ret-
rospective self-censure in The New Musical Express Rock ’n’ Roll Years (Heslam 1992)
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 1992, p. 7). However, the entries pertaining to Queen are carefully selected
to portray the band in an unequivocally positive manner, representing their empha-
sis on studio production as an expression of artistic freedom (Heslam 1992, p. 283)
and referring to Mercury as a ‘rock immortal’ alongside Miles Davis and Willie
Dixon (Heslam 1992, p. 464). In an almost acrobatic stunt, the volume even manages
to mention Queen’s 1984 South Africa appearances without a hint of criticism, quot-
ing Queen’s press statement (Heslam 1992, 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 death20 and the 1992
Freddie Mercury Tribute Concert as they signalled Queen’s fulfilment of transcen-
dence 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).21
Subsequently, Queen have been cited as an important influence by artists who
396 Anne Desler

have achieved mainstream or critical canonicity themselves or are regarded as emi-

nent 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 docu-
mentaries 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 ques-
tions 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 play-
ing 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 celeb-
rities’ 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,22 result-
ing 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 con-
tents 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 loy-
alty. 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 2011) are less likely today, since mar-
ket 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
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 397

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.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 1979) are no longer part of the critical voca-
bulary 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 auth-
ority’; thus hardly any scholarly activities ‘fail to exhibit some investment in canons
and canonizing’ (Bohlman 1992a, 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 1984). 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 1992a, p. 200),
because scholars’ choices simultaneously affect the status of their subject matter rela-
tive 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 qual-
ity, 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 scholar-
ship 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, par-
ticularly in social history (Negus 1996),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
398 Anne Desler

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 impact-
ful 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 clas-
sical works25 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 con-
text of ‘authentic’ (i.e. historically informed) performance practice of classical music.
Thirdly, ‘greatness’ and rock ‘authenticity’ are premissed on the same Romantic
ideology (Gracyk 1993; Regev 1994; Cook 1995–1996) and, as mentioned previously,
popular music has been measured mainly by rock values. The importance of ‘auth-
enticity’ 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 ideol-
ogy. 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.26
‘Authenticity’ also affects popular music scholars at a personal level. In all dis-
ciplines, 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 aca-
demic 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 1992), whereas Beethoven scholars’ knowledge of the
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 399

starvation, death and social upheaval brought about by the Napoleonic Wars is
mediated by temporal distance and history books. The roles of the mainstream lis-
tener and critic remain embedded within popular music scholars; as Moore (2002,
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 pop-
ular 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 sec-
ondary sources, and how these shape their views. Here Moore’s approach is a valu-
able tool as it tackles the issue of ‘how . . . observers constitute their subjectivity’
(Moore 2002). 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 (1995) 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 1995, pp. 113–14). Not only is this verifiably incor-
rect,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 articles28 which, unlike other journal-
istic sources, are not referenced, constitutes either merely inadequate academic prac-
tice 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 1994; Wyn Jones 2008) 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 (1999) 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 1999, p. 9) and pro-
ceed 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 along-
side other music from the 1970s, ‘this thoroughly forgettable period in rock’n’ roll
history’ (Dettmar and Richey 1999, 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.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 2004, 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 1996b, p. 159) is made more for comic effect
400 Anne Desler

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 con-
stitute 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. 2001, p. 77) and Bob Dylan produced ‘the greatest single body
of works in rock’s history’ (Frith et al. 2001, p. 79). The criteria of canonicity are also
clearly outlined, e.g. changing ‘pop’s social and musical meanings and possibilities’
(Frith et al. 2001, p. 64, regarding the Beatles) and influence on later artists (Frith et al.
2001, 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 (2009). 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 reduction-
ist 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 2001),
although Queen contributed well-known specimens that match the definition of pro-
gressive rock laid out in the book’s introduction. The volume focuses on unequivo-
cally representative prog rock bands such as Pink Floyd and King Crimson.
Similarly, although Queen, particularly Mercury, might seem a fitting object of dis-
cussion for Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music
(Auslander 2006), 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 2001,
p. 189) and the ‘often paradoxical social and sexual codes engendered by the relation-
ship of sports and popular music’ (McLeod 2006, 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
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 401

celebrations of homosexuality’ (McLeod 2006, p. 541), although the lyrics make no

references to homosexuality whatsoever – McLeod’s interpretation is based solely
on his conflation of author and music.30 Nevertheless, McLeod’s articles, Cook’s dis-
cussion of montage technique in the music and video of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ (Cook
2006, 2013), an article by Bennett (2007) pointing out the lack of scholarship on Queen
and other 1970s artists and styles, as well as Dockwray’s (2005) 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.31

Conclusion
The criteria of transcendence, historical importance and ‘authenticity’, the equivalent
of ‘greatness’, contribute to canon formation in all three strata of the popular music
canon discussed here, although to varying degrees. In the mainstream, transcendence
and historical importance impact indirectly on canon formation because, although
mainstream listeners make their musical choices almost entirely based on their
constructions of ‘authenticity’, canonic artists’ lasting popularity continues to make
their music accessible. Canonicity in the popular mainstream may therefore prove
similarly self-perpetuating as it has been in classical music.
In the formation of the critical canon, which essentially replicates the canonisa-
tion processes operative in the ‘high’ arts, transcendence and historical importance
acquire great significance once the passage of time lets them emerge; in the meantime,
constructions of ‘authenticity’ serve as the key criterion for the evaluation of artistic
merit. Whereas in the past, critics’ privileged access to media distribution channels
enabled them to assert themselves as opinion leaders relative to the mainstream audi-
ence and potentially counteract artists’ mainstream popularity, new technologies are
shifting the power relations between critics and audiences. As a result, the mainstream
canon increasingly exerts influence on the critical canon rather than vice versa.
Canon formation in the academic stratum is subject to additional influences,
such as scholarly debates and intellectual currents, but constructions of ‘authenticity’
affect scholars’ choices and thus canonisation. The question remains what to do with
the academic canon. Canon formation itself cannot be prevented. Popular music
canons already exist, even though they are less ossified than those in the ‘classical’
arts, and it does not matter whether a field is concerned with the study of the
‘high’ or popular arts – ‘the annaliste arrogation of everyday life is . . . no less canonic
than any other historian’s attraction to kings and wars’ (Bohlman 1992a, p. 200).
However, the criteria of elitism and reliance on ideological merit Moore criti-
cises in musicology, where ‘the study of European “classical” music has been greatly
hampered by an over-profusion of studies of “the great composers” at the expense of
those whose music is considered self-evidently to be of lesser value’ (Moore 2001,
p. 7) appears to have reached popular music studies already: the application of
punk values made Queen’s music appear commercial and pretentious and ‘conse-
quently of lesser value’. Indeed, Moore and other scholars suggest that not only
may punk’s historical importance be overrated, but that its agenda has been misre-
presented and it has attracted a disproportionate amount of scholarly attention.
Taking into account that classical musicology used to conceptualise classical
music as ‘art music’ and dismiss popular music as ‘commercial music’, it seems ironic
402 Anne Desler

that popular music studies should have adopted the same elitist distinction to differ-
entiate popular music artists and styles, even more so as the underlying ideology
derives from the classical arts. It is perhaps worth remembering that popular
music studies have proved both their own and popular music’s importance; there
is no longer a need to validate either in relationship to the classical arts and disci-
plines and their value criteria. Inasmuch as the latter are inherent in certain popular
musics themselves, it seems necessary to subject their ideology as well as its influence
on popular music scholars’ constructions of artistic merit to closer scrutiny if popular
music studies are to avoid ending up ‘like the rearguard of the old aesthetic canon’
(Tagg 2000, p. 167). In addition, an awareness of the discrepancies between the main-
stream and academic canons may be useful since the field started out with a focus on
the music of the ‘lower’ strata of society rather than that of the cultural elite. Indeed,
the view of music history, whether classical or popular, as a succession of revolution-
ary moments is too narrow – history comprises not only the chronicling of the oppo-
sition to the mainstream, but also that of the mainstream itself.

Endnotes
1. These are succinctly summarised by Skinner
(2006, pp. 58–9).
2. After summarising and critiquing Bohlman’s
model of the small group, mediated and imagin-
ary canons in folk music, Kärjä applies it to pop-
ular music, developing the categories of
alternative, mainstream and prescribed canons.
3. They draw attention to the lack of congruence
between the contents of their meta-list of ‘great-
est albums’ and that of their list of best-selling
albums (von Appen and Doehring 2006, p. 24).
4. In musicology, both Kerman (1983) and Kramer
have pointed out the ‘impressively wide gap
between music as performed and enjoyed . . .
and music as studied’ (Kramer 1994, p. 139), but
refer to the former as ‘the repertory’ and the latter
as ‘the canon’ as their ideas are rooted in the
assumption of a universally valid canon of classi-
cal music. Bohlman (1992a) includes concert-
goers, musicians, conservatories, publishers,
record companies, critics and musicologists
among the canonisers of the ‘musicological
canon’.
5. The most likely reason is that both sociologists
and scholars in the humanities have primarily
dealt with canons in the ‘high’ arts (Skinner
2006, p. 59).
6. Regarding the media, distinctions could be made
between the platforms used (although these are
increasingly blurred) and target groups. This
essay will focus primarily on music magazines.
7. The word ‘authenticity’ will appear in quotation
marks when used to denote a value judgment
and without quotation marks when it refers to
Moore’s concepts.
8. The production and consumption of commercial
products creates interrelations between consu-
mers and the commercial sector beyond the
music industries; their complexities could furnish
the material for a separate study.
9. Such as X Factor, America’s/Britain’s Got Talent,
The Voice and Strictly Come Dancing.
10. A search of http://www.animemusicvideos.org
shows songs by Queen to be extraordinarily pop-
ular in the genre compared to those by other
famous bands.
11. Nine years later, May’s performance was voted
the second favourite live TV moment in a poll
among British viewers, following the kiss of the
bridal couple at the much more recent 2011
Royal Wedding with only a 3% margin (Fox
2011).
12. While most popular music acts performed only a
single number, Queen’s appearance consisted of
the projection of footage of Mercury from the
1986 Wembley Stadium concert, a guitar solo by
Brian May and ‘We Will Rock You’ with guest
singer Jessie J.
13. May, who holds a PhD in astrophysics,
co-authored two books with astrophysicists Sir
Patrick Moore and Chris Lintott, which target a
popular audience. He founded the animal rights
group Save Me in 2010, serves as a vice president
of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty
to Animals (RSPCA) and spearheaded the move-
ment opposing the badger cull in the UK in 2012.
14. While this group includes music journalists as
well as critical listeners, the following section
examines mainly the former as their views are
consistently documented.
15. While critics do use the term ‘authentic’ itself,
more often they refer to the manifold markers
of ‘authenticity’ which are summarised, for
example, in Pop Music – Technology and
Creativity (Warner 2003, p. 4).
16. Kent mentions several other examples of market-
oriented editorial decisions such as his assign-
ment to report on Roxy Music because’[t]he
NME needed them to keep expanding their
weekly sales base’ (Kent 2010, p. 130).
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 403

17. It also resulted in an overemphasis on punk’s
anti-establishment stance and musical simplicity
(Moore 2002, p. 129) at the expense of punk’s
connections to glam, progressive and hard rock
(Bennett 2007, pp. 12–15).
18. For example, Kent’s comment that ‘the band
themselves were hastily trying to drop all the
embarrassingly cloying innuendoes their stupid
name reeked of, like a bucket of stale urine’ in
his review of Queen’s debut album, which
appeared under the heading ‘Glam’s fag end’,
suggests an homophobic attitude (Kent 1974).
19. Kent specifically states that he ‘hate[s]’ A Day at
the Races because ‘a large portion of [his] hostility
went back to childhood and [his] parents who
were undying worshippers at the shrine of
Gilbert and Sullivan and their horrible pickaninny
witty operatics’ (Kent 1976).
20. Although ‘[t]he death of a musician is an indicator
for his forthcoming canonisation’ (von Appen and
Doehring 2006, p. 38, n. 13), additional motiv-
ation was required for a substantial revision of
the critical opinion of Queen.
21. Another significant event was the death of Kurt
Cobain, who wrote in his suicide note that he
‘totally admire[d] and adore[d]’ Freddie Mercury’s
rapport with his audience (Cobain 1994).
22. In contrast, Kent was hired by the NME while
abandoning college during his first year of studies
(Kent 2010) and Marsh dropped out of his first
year of college to co-found and edit Creem
(Rock’s Backpages n.d.).
23. For example, in the 2011 NME ‘Greatest Singers
of All Time’ poll among NME.com users,
Mercury ranked in second place (NME.com
2011a); May ranked as the second-’Greatest
Guitarist of All Time’ in Guitar World’s 2012 poll
(GuitarWorld.com 2012).
24. Chapter 5. Negus describes this view, but does
not subscribe to it.
25. Everett, for example, still applied Schenkerian
analysis to side 2 of the Beatles’ Abbey Road in
1995 (Cook 1995–1996); Schenker developed his
method as a tool for proving the ‘greatness’ of
Beethoven’s symphonies by revealing its compo-
sitional complexity and organicity.
26. For example, Wyn Jones (2008) does not account
for changes in what constitutes ‘authentic’ rock
values.
27. Waters conceived the idea for The Wall when
reflecting on his having spat into a fan’s face
during Pink Floyd’s Montreal concert in July
1977 (Scarfe 2010, p. 211).
28. I.e. Testa’s review of News of the World (1978),
Marsh’s of Jazz (1979) and Quantick’s feature
‘Inside the royal family: Queen in Hungary’
(1986).
29. Dettmar and Richey admit that their impression
that Myers ‘is sending the band [Queen] up’ is
‘a judgment call’ (p. 317), but fail to research
the stance of Myers, whose genuine admiration
of Queen is amply documented. Similarly, their
perception of ‘Bohemian Rhapsody’ as ‘deadly
self-important’ (p. 317) prevents their neutral
evaluation of available evidence.
30. ‘Bohemian rhapsodies: operatic influences on
rock music’ (2001) also suffers from inaccurate
application of musical terminology and faulty
logic, as evidenced by the sentence ‘[o]peratic
techniques such as a homophonic grand chorus,
falsetto singing and distorted operatic phraseol-
ogy further evoke the exotic insanity of this
underworld trial’ (McLeod 2001, p. 194).
31. Interestingly, these scholars differ from those that
have largely dismissed Queen with regard to their
aesthetic and socio-political reference points:
Cook’s and McLeod’s background is in classical
musicology, Bennett’s interest in youth studies
requires research into pop styles and Dockwray
belongs to a younger generation of scholars.

References
Auslander, P. 2006. Performing Glam Rock: Gender and Theatricality in Popular Music (Ann Arbor, University of
Michigan Press)
Bannister, M. 2006. ‘“Loaded”: indie guitar rock, canonism, white masculinities’, Popular Music, 25/1, pp. 77–95
BBC. 2001. ‘Classical bands top net bootleg chart’, BBC News, 22 March. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain-
ment/1235544.stm (accessed 12 July 2011)
BBC. 2004. ‘Queen album brings rock to Iran’, BBC News, 24 August. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/
3593532.stm (accessed 29 June 2011)
BBC. 2006. ‘Queen head all-time sales chart’, BBC News, 16 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain-
ment/6151050.stm (accessed 11 July 2011)
BBC. 2007. ‘Queen declared “top British band”‘, BBC News, 2 January. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertain-
ment/6224235.stm (accessed 12 July 2011)
BBC. 2009. ‘Queen Absolute Greatest’, BBC Breakfast TV, 6 November. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/
breakfast/8346221.stm (accessed 11 July 2011)
BBC. 2011. Secrets of the Pop Song, Part 3/3 ‘Anthem’, BBC2 TV, broadcast 16 July
Bennett, A. 2007. ‘The forgotten decade: rethinking the popular music of the 1970s’, Popular Music History, 2/1,
pp. 5–24
Bohlmann, P. 1988. The Study of Folk Music in the Modern World (Bloomington, University of Indiana Press)
Bohlman, P. 1992a. ‘Epilogue: musics and canons’, in Disciplining Music. Musicology and Its Canons (Chicago
and London, University of Chicago Press), pp. 197–210
404 Anne Desler

Bohlmann, P. 1992b. ‘Ethnomusicology’s challenge to the canon; the canon’s challenge to ethnomusicology’,
Disciplining Music. Musicology and Its Canons (Chicago and London, University of Chicago Press), pp. 116–36
Bourdieu, P. 1984. Distinction. A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste (Harvard, Harvard University Press)
Brown, T., Kutner, J., and Warwick, N. 2002. The Complete Book of the British Charts: Singles & Albums (London,
Omnibus)
Caroll, G. 2012. ‘“We Are The Champions” named most patriotic pop song’, Gigwise, 16 July. http://www.gig-
wise.com/news/74575/we-are-the-champions-named-most-patriotic-pop-song (accessed 18 July 2012)
Cobain, K. 1994. ‘Suicide note’, scanned image. http://kurtcobainssuicidenote.com/kurt_cobains_suicide_no-
te_scan.html (accessed 10 May 2011)
Cohen, M. 1979. ‘Queen: Jazz (Elektra)’, Creem, March 1979. http://www.rocksbackpages.com/article.html?
ArticleID=6132 (accessed 1 June 2011)
Cook, N. 1995–1996. ‘Music minus one: rock, theory and performance’, New Formations, 27, pp. 23–41
Cook, N. 2003. ‘Beethoven: heroism, the canon and the works of 1813–14’, 19th-Century Music, 27/1, pp. 3–24
Cook, N. 2006. ‘Uncanny moments: juxtaposition and the collage principle in music’, Approaches to Meaning in
Music, ed. B. Almén and E. Pearsall (Bloomington, Indiana University Press), pp. 107–34
Cook, N. 2013 ‘Video cultures: “Bohemian Rhapsody”, Wayne’s World, and beyond’, in Representation in
Western Music, ed. J.S. Walden (Cambridge, Cambridge University Press), pp. 79–100
Covach, J. 2009. What’s That Sound? An Introduction to Rock and its History (New York and London, Norton)
Davies, J. 1995. ‘Baroque and roll’, Times Higher Education, 15 December. http://www.timeshighereducation.co.
uk/story.asp?storyCode=96400&sectioncode=26 (accessed 8 July 2011)
Dettmar, K., and Richey W. (eds) 1999. Reading Rock & Roll: Authenticity, Appropriation, Aesthetics (New York,
Columbia University Press)
Dockwray, R. 2005. ‘Deconstructing the rock anthem: textual form, participation and collectivity’, PhD thesis
(Liverpool, University of Liverpool)
Fletcher, G. 1973. ‘Queen’ (album review), Rolling Stone, 12 June
Folkard, C. (ed.) 2004. Guinness World Records 2004 (New York, Bantam)
Fox, E. 2011. ‘Kate and William’s kiss voted favourite TV moment’, The Express, 16 August
Frith, S. 1987. ‘Why do songs have words?’, in Lost in Music. Culture, Style and the Musical Event, ed. A.L. White
(London, Routledge), pp. 77–106
Frith, S. 1996a. ‘Music and identity’, in Questions of Cultural Identity, ed. S. Hall and P. Du Gay (London and
Thousand Oaks, Sage Publications), pp. 108–27
Frith, S. 1996b. Performing Rites. On the Value of Popular Music (Cambridge, Harvard University Press)
Frith, S. 2004. ‘What is bad music?’, in Bad Music. The Music We Love To Hate, ed. C.J. Washburne and
M. Derno (London, Routledge), pp. 15–36
Frith, S., Straw W., and Street J. (eds) 2001. The Cambridge Companion to Rock and Pop (Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press)
Frota, W.N. 2006. ‘The enactment of the field of cultural and artistic production of popular music in Brazil: a
case study of the “ Noel Rosa Generation” in the 1930s’, Popular Music, 25/1, pp. 117–25
Genoux, P. 1975. ‘No justice at Queen’s Court’, Melody Maker. http://www.queenzone.com/articles/
no-justice-at-queen-s-court.aspx (accessed 6 June 2011)
Gibson, O. 2005. ‘Queen most loved band’, The Guardian, 5 July
Gracyk, T. 1993. ‘Romanticising rock’, Journal of Aesthetic Education, 27/2, pp. 43–58
Green, J., and Jenkins, H. 2011. ‘Spreadable media – how audiences create value and meaning in a networked
economy’, in The Handbook of Media Audiences, ed. V. Nightingale (Chichester, Wiley-Blackwell)
Grossberg, L. 1992. We Gotta Get Out of This Place – Popular Conservatism and Postmodern Culture (New York and
London, Routledge)
Guitar World. 2012. Readers [sic] Poll Results: The 100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time. http://www.guitarworld.
com/readers-poll-results-100-greatest-guitarists-all-time
Heslam, D. (ed.) 1992. The NME Rock’n’ Roll Years (London, BCA)
Holm-Hudson, K. 2001. Progressive Rock Reconsidered (London, Routledge)
James, M. 2011. Private e-mail communication, 25 November
Kärjä, A.-V. 2006. ‘A prescribed alternative mainstream: popular music and canon formation’, Popular Music,
25/1, pp. 3–19
Kent, N. 1974. ‘QUEEN – “Queen”’ (album review), NME, 26 January
Kent, N. 1976. ‘A Day at the Races’, NME, 18 December
Kent, N. 2010. Apathy for the Devil (London, Faber & Faber)
Kerman, J. 1983. ‘A few canonic variations’, Critical Inquiry, 10/1, pp. 107–25
Kramer, L. 1994. ‘Charging the canons’, Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 119/1, pp. 130–40
Marsh, D. 1977. A Day at the Races’, Rolling Stone, 24 February
Marsh, D. 1979. ‘Queen’s arrogance, contempt – the first truly fascist rock band’, Rolling Stone, 8 February
McLeod, K. 2001. ‘Bohemian rhapsodies: operatic influences on rock music’, Popular Music, 20/2, pp. 189–203
McLeod, K. 2006. ‘“We are the Champions”: masculinities, sports and popular music’, Popular Music and Society,
29/5, pp. 531–47
Moore, A. 2001. Rock: The Primary Text. Developing a Musicology of Rock (Aldershot, Ashgate)
Moore, A. 2002. ‘Authenticity as authentication’, Popular Music, 21/2, pp. 209–25
 History without royalty? Queen and the popular music canon 405

Moore, A. 2012. Song Means: Analysing and Interpreting Recorded Popular Song (Farnham, Ashgate)
Negus, K. 1996. Popular Music In Theory (Cambridge, Polity Press)
Nicholson, K. 1976. ‘A Night At The Opera’, Rolling Stone, 8 April
NME.com. 2011a. ‘Michael Jackson tops NME’s greatest singer poll’, 21 June. http://www.nme.com/news/
michael-jackson/57469 (accessed 10 Sept 2011)
NME.com. 2011b. ‘Queen pull in huge profit of £44 million’, 30 June. http://www.nme.com/news/queen/57687
(accessed 10 September 2011)
NME.com. 2011c. ‘Queen guitarist Brian May joins protest against golf club after fox attack’, 19 July. http://
www.nme.com/news/queen/58108 (accessed 10 September 2011)
NME.com. 2011d. ‘Queen’s last five studio albums to be reissued’, 27 July. http://www.nme.com/news/queen/
58293 (accessed 9 September 2011)
Ollivier, M. 2006. ‘Snobs and quétaines: prestige and boundaries in popular music in Quebec’, Popular Music,
25/1, pp. 97–116
Quantick, D. 1986. ‘Inside the royal family’, NME, 9 August
Regev, M. 1994. ‘Producing artistic value: the case of rock music’, Sociological Quarterly, 35/1, pp. 85–102
Regev, M. 2006. ‘Introduction’, Popular Music, 25/1, pp. 1–2
Reynold, S., and Press, J. 1995. The Sex Revolts: Gender, Rebellion and Rock’n’ Roll (Cambridge, Harvard
University Press)
Rock’s Backpages. undated. ‘Dave Marsh’ (writer’s biography). http://www.rocksbackpages.com.ezproxy.lib.gla.
ac.uk/writer.html?WriterID=marsh_d (accessed 12 September 2011)
Romanowski, P., Warren, H.G., and Pareles, J. 2001. ‘Queen’, The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock and Roll
(London, Simon and Schuster), also published at http://www.rollingstone.com/music/artists/queen/
biography
Salewicz, C. 1976. ‘Queen: Hammersmith Odeon, London’, New Musical Express, 17 January. http://www.rock-
sbackpages.com/article.html?ArticleID=10194 (accessed 1 June 2011)
Savage, J. 2005. England’s Dreaming (London, Faber & Faber)
Scarfe, G. 2010. The Making of Pink Floyd The Wall. (London, Phoenix Books)
Schloss, J. 2006. ‘“Like old folk songs handed down from generation to generation”: history, canon and com-
munity in B-Boy culture’, Ethnomusicology, 50/3, pp. 411–32
Service, T. 2009. ‘Bohemian Rhapsody: mama, we’ve killed a song’, The Guardian, 8 December
Skinner, K. 2006. ‘“Must be born again”: resurrecting the Anthology of American Folk Music’, Popular Music, 25/1,
pp. 57–75
Soanes, C., and Stevenson, A. 2010. Oxford Dictionary of English, 2nd edition [Kindle Edition] (Oxford, Oxford
University Press)
Sutcliffe, P. 1991 ‘Queen: happy and glorious?’, Q Magazine, March
Tagg, P. 2000. ‘The work: an evaluative charge’, in The Musical Work: Reality Or Invention?, ed. M. Talbot
(Liverpool, Liverpool University Press), pp. 153–67
Testa, B. 1978. ‘News of the World’, Rolling Stone, 9 February
That 70s Show website. undated. ‘Episode guide’. http://www.that70sshow.com/ (accessed 12 May 2011)
Thompson, D. 2000. Glam Rock (Ontario, Collector’s Guide Publishing)
von Appen, R., and Doehring, A. 2006. ‘Nevermind the Beatles, here’s Exile 61 and Nico: “The top 100 records
of all time” – a canon of pop and rock albums from a sociological and an aesthetic perspective’, Popular
Music, 25/1, pp. 21–39
Warner, T. 2003. Pop Music – Technology and Creativity (Aldershot and Burlington, Ashgate)
Watson, M., and Anand, N. 2006. ‘Award ceremony as an arbiter of commerce and canon in the popular music
industry’, Popular Music, 25/1, pp. 41–56
We Will Rock You official website. undated. ‘Facts and figures’. http://www.wewillrockyou.co.uk/show/
facts-and-figures/ (accessed 26 November 2011)
Wyn Jones, C. 2008. The Rock Canon. Canonical Values in the Reception of Rock Albums (Aldershot and Burlington,
Ashgate)

Discography
Queen. Absolute Greatest. Queen Productions Ltd, 50999 30919525. 2009
Queen. A Day at the Races. Parlophone, 077778949329. 1993
Queen. Greatest Hits. EMI, EMTV 30, 1981 (reissued, Parlophone 1994)
Queen. Greatest Hits II. Parlophone, PMTV 2, 1991 (reissued, Parlophone 1994)
Queen. Jazz. Parlophone, EMI, EMA 788, 1978 (reissued, Parlophone 1994)
Queen. News of the World. EMI, EMA 784, 1977 (reissued, Parlophone 1993)
Queen. A Night at the Opera. EMI, EMTC 103, 1975 (reissued as 30th Anniversary Collector's edn., Parlophone
1993)
Queen. Queen. EMI, EMC 3006, 1973 (reissued, Parlophone 1994)
Queen. Sheer Heart Attack. EMI, EMC 3061, 1974 (reissued, Parlophone 1993)
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without
permission.