Reputations

[Richard Barrett]

Do you not think that - with all art - a reliable canon becomes established?

In literature, Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, Tolstoy, Austen...

In Visual art Michelangelo, Goya, Turner, Picasso...

I choose random examples, but I would have thought a canon exists in music, too. Yes, there will be distortions from current culture but time will even those out.

I don't think it does. It seems to me that people in each period have a tendency to think that "their" canon has reached a steady state, with only the inconveniently constant appearance of new work to complicate the picture. There's been a massive amount of time in which to accommodate say Guillaume de Machaut into the "canon" and yet very few would mention his work in the same breath as that of Mozart or Beethoven. Surely the idea of a "reliable canon" itself is an Enlightenment concept, everything in its proper rationally-ordained place and so forth, and as such a historical phenomenon is something subject to change or even demise over the course of time.

[aeolium]

Do you not think that - with all art - a reliable canon becomes established?

In literature, Shakespeare, Dante, Goethe, Tolstoy, Austen...

In Visual art Michelangelo, Goya, Turner, Picasso...

I choose random examples, but I would have thought a canon exists in music, too. Yes, there will be distortions from current culture but time will even those out.

I think the problem with the "canon" is that it obscures how differently the artists placed within it are viewed by different eras. The C19, Wagnerian idea of Beethoven has been completely superseded now and that is reflected in the way his works are performed.

At the same time, the iconic figures can become just that, revered for their reputations, preserved as national institutions. Shakespeare for instance is already being regularly modernised to make it accessible to audiences and it's not hard to imagine the more obscure allusions in the text being phased out or reworked. It is largely the "tradition", the RSC institution and compulsory study of Shakespeare in schools that keeps his work alive as I doubt many people now read him for pleasure. How many now read Dante?

[kernelbogey]

It seems to me that people in each period have a tendency to think that "their" canon has reached a steady state, with only the inconveniently constant appearance of new work to complicate the picture.

Isn't the 'canon' to a large extent established by an elite of some kind, who may have changed through the ages, but including at different eras patrons, other composers, scholars, musicologists? And then we get the influence in the last century of broadcasters, festival organisers and record company managers. So that there is always a kind of official canon; hence my earlier use of 'we'. Beethoven's always there, although maybe the reasons change. It seems that Mozart hasn't always been there. JS Bach was forgotten until Mendelssohn's revival of him. We may have our own private and individual canon, but I think that may be defined in part by variance from some kind of public norm.

[Richard Barrett]

Isn't the 'canon' to a large extent established by an elite of some kind

No doubt.

Perhaps a point is reached where the work of a few "masters" itself provides a criterion for excellence rather than the other way around. I remember reading a book about Haydn in which certain works were criticised for basically not being Mozart (or the "Mozart" of those works admitted into the canon of greatness). And of course this is a particular problem regarding much contemporary music, which regularly receives criticism and even dismissal on the grounds of not conforming to what are supposed to be timeless criteria but which actually derive from the work of specific personalities, usually from the past.

[kernelbogey]

Yes Haydn was in my mind too, Richard. When I first started listening to classical music I think he was regarded as second-rate; it's now clear that he was hugely venerated in his lifetime, and much of his music IMV is superior to some of Mozart....

[aeolium]

Yes Haydn was in my mind too, Richard. When I first started listening to classical music I think he was regarded as second-rate; it's now clear that he was hugely venerated in his lifetime, and much of his music IMV is superior to some of Mozart....

But isn't that just the other side of the coin that RB was describing, where Haydn was judged by virtue of his possession, or lack of possession, of Mozartian qualities? The Haydn v Mozart debates which crop up again and again on these boards to me just illustrate the pointlessness of comparing two quite different composers; in the end someone will come down in favour of the qualities of one of them they prize more highly, but so what? It's like the equally pointless Brahms v Wagner debates in the nineteenth century. The problem with evaluating composers by comparison with the works of others is that the listener will end up looking for qualities in one composer that he values in another rather than trying to assess the individual qualities of each composer (or each work).

[kernelbogey]

But isn't that just the other side of the coin that RB was describing, where Haydn was judged by virtue of his possession, or lack of possession, of Mozartian qualities? The Haydn v Mozart debates which crop up again and again on these boards to me just illustrate the pointlessness of comparing two quite different composers; in the end someone will come down in favour of the qualities of one of them they prize more highly, but so what? It's like the equally pointless Brahms v Wagner debates in the nineteenth century. The problem with evaluating composers by comparison with the works of others is that the listener will end up looking for qualities in one composer that he values in another rather than trying to assess the individual qualities of each composer (or each work).

Agreed. But I then am curious about how I regard my own choices. I quite like George Lloyd's symphonies, but he's not generally regarded as being in the same league as (say) Tippett or Britten. Yet I might enjoy his work more than theirs.

[Richard Barrett]

The problem with evaluating composers by comparison with the works of others is that the listener will end up looking for qualities in one composer that he values in another rather than trying to assess the individual qualities of each composer (or each work).

Exactly.

[Bryn]

How many now read Dante?

Only in the Tom Phillips translation, I must admit.

[MrGongGong]

And of course this is a particular problem regarding much contemporary music, which regularly receives criticism and even dismissal on the grounds of not conforming to what are supposed to be timeless criteria but which actually derive from the work of specific personalities, usually from the past.

I think the comparatively recent history of electroacoustic music is an interesting mirror (or even time compression in a Mantra style?) of longer term things in music. Some works which are regarded as "Classics" and part of a 'canon' haven't lasted well now that the music has escaped from the confines of institutions.

[Richard Barrett]

I think the comparatively recent history of electroacoustic music is an interesting mirror (or even time compression in a Mantra style?) of longer term things in music. Some works which are regarded as "Classics" and part of a 'canon' haven't lasted well now that the music has escaped from the confines of institutions.

What are you thinking of in particular? I have the impression that the "classics" of electroacoustic music (Gesang der Jünglinge, Presque rien, De natura sonorum to name three things I listened to recently) have never been held in such high regard as now.

[MrGongGong]

What are you thinking of in particular? I have the impression that the "classics" of electroacoustic music (Gesang der Jünglinge, Presque rien, De natura sonorum to name three things I listened to recently) have never been held in such high regard as now.

I was thinking about pieces like Artikulation (a piece I love ) which for people who maybe don't understand it's historical significance (like Gesang etc) sounds a bit distorted, blurred and without (in todays terms) 'bass'.
While it's true that many of these are rightly held in high regard these days I sometimes wonder if it's because of their context rather than their sonic properties ? (which IS as much a part of music as anything else).

Maybe the way that this music is less part of an "academic" world (you can now make it without needing a University or Radio studio) is more significant?