# The Canons: A Definitive List



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

For the half year or so that I have participated in this forum, I have regularly been confronted with the notions of both a *Performance Canon* and an *Academic Canon* for Western Art or Classical Music.

To no avail, I have looked on the web for a list of these mythical _über-compositions_ that I must know. some guy says these canons don't exist, if I understood him correctly, but the canon or canons underpin so much of the discussion about classical music, both here on TC and elsewhere, that I feel it to be imperative that we know, once and for all, exactly which compositions are in the Performance Canon and exactly which are in the Academic Canon. Some could be in both.

This thread is to get a definitive list of these 2 canons _on paper_ :devil:, so to speak, so that we will know explicitly which works we are speaking of, when we refer to either of the 2 canons.


----------



## Winterreisender (Jul 13, 2013)

I would have thought that both canons contain pretty much the same pieces, until you get to the early 20th century or so, when the tastes of the public and the tastes of academia seem to wildly diverge.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

You do not. Not in this instance, anyway.

The canons very much do exist. What I have said is that probably ever since the idea of "canon" was first applied to music, there have been people who have questioned the validity of the idea. Composers before the canon managed both to write music perfectly well, and some of that music has been entered into the canon as well. The canon was certainly not essential for producing those works. And, for a long time, not even necessary for listening to and appreciating those works.

I don't approve of canons. That's certainly true. Philosophically, the canon is troublesome. Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ is in it but _L'histoire du Soldat_ is not? What's up with that? Is _Le Sacre_ somehow better, more desirable, more important, more worthy of my attention than _L'histoire?_ I doubt it.

And Bokanowski's _L'étiole absinthe._ What about that? Never in a million years will this enter "the canon" of classical music. But it's one of the coolest pieces I know. It's tremendously important to me.

In any event, what I have found is that I'm much more interested in music than in lists. Some of my favorite pieces show up on every list. Beethoven's ninth, for instance. Bach's St. Matthew Passion. Tchaikovsky's sixth. But for the most part, the music I favor is non-canonical.

In short, I don't need no stinking list.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

I do not think they exist... i.e. Performance Canon and an Academic Canon,. unless the former is like a BBC list of top 100 composers pieces, or some such, and the latter what might be listed in Groves or a Larousse encyclopaedia or similar, and the disparity between those two. What there are, are de facto cumulative lists of works, as 'named' by a smaller group of 'cogonoscenti' and another named by both cognoscenti and 'the folk.' Neither are great, written in stone, but all that does get somehow 'referred to' and becomes a simple and often too simplistic everyone's guide to classical music.

I don't think Ferdi Grofe's _Grand Canyon Suite_ or John Williams' _Suite From Star Wars_ are on any 'academic canon" list, nor are probably the Jean Barraque piano sonata or Carter's Double Concerto on one of the "performance" canon -- more popular -- lists.

From what I recall of what you have posted that you listen to, you have works from the "performance canon", but a helluva lot which would be more on the (Gasp) elitist / "academic canon list" for a card-Carrying member of "I like contemporary classical music." club than not... that is to say if you were looking for responses here as an indirect way to finding some members of that secret society of that 'academic canon' who might "put you up"... -)

The Performance canon can appear, (so and so's guide to classic music) to someone well aware of the literature like a simplified top of the pops top 100 -- _because it is_. There is not enough room on something so abbreviated to list from several hundreds -- and more --years of music most of the Beethoven String quartets, or more than one work of Guillaume de Machaut, (if any de Machaut at all) for example.

The Academic canon (culled works from other guides or music encyclopaedias, etc) can look just as general, passing over or missing much which is valid and important, because those too are generally yet another reduced list of another selected 'top 100.'

Any such lists are the loosest and roughest of guides, not straying far off their individual paths, not taking most of the worthwhile side journeys which exist.

But really exist? From all you might read of the controversy on the merit of the works of Puccini, one would think he would be on the "Performance Canon" list but not anywhere to be seen on an Academic Canon List. I have yet to see a list (from either camp) which omits Puccini ---


----------



## Bulldog (Nov 21, 2013)

Concerning the academic canon, I don't know anything about it and am not interested.

As for the performance canon, I suppose those are the works that are most popular on recordings and in concert. There's likely hundreds of works that are included, too many to prepare a list of them. Besides, I'm concentrating these days on the list of 100 favorite composers.

Most significant, I listen to what I want; the performance canon just doesn't count for much with me.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There wouldn't be a definitive list. It's just a term used as a convenince because "canon" is easier to say and to write than "all of the pieces almost everyone who likes classical music will have heard several times or at least heard mentioned quite a bit."


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

brotagonist said:


> For the half year or so that I have participated in this forum, I have regularly been confronted with the notions of both a *Performance Canon* and an *Academic Canon* for Western Art or Classical Music.
> 
> To no avail, I have looked on the web for a list of these mythical _über-compositions_ that I must know. some guy says these canons don't exist, ........


There are several "TC Recommended" threads for symphonies, chamber works, operas, etc. In addition, there is the ongoing series of threads on the "Classical Music Project" that was initiated some time ago and which is evidently still going.

I don't think you will do much better than these. I would guess that each of these lists is debateable in terms of the exact rank afforded to each specific work, but overall they're more or less in the right ballpark in terms of identifying the main works most worthy of consideration.

As for any distinction between "academic", "performance" and "Western art" canons, I don't think you will find that distinction all that helpful in practice.

It would be virtually impossible to come up with a sensible "performance" canon, as this would be subject to the vagaries of things like the time period under examination and the exact geographical area over which an assessment is made.

I would very much doubt that an "academic canon" exists in the aggregate. You will get any number of conflicting opinions on the subject from different sources, and how they are weighted would drastically affect the overall results. There is no satisfactory way of deciding upon suitable weights among the various opinion makers, and hence the results of any attempt to do so would be unreliable.


----------



## Guest (Jan 24, 2014)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_cannon_by_caliber


----------



## KenOC (Mar 7, 2011)

some guy said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_cannon_by_caliber


An impressive canon of cannons! If we were to sing this, like a round, we could have a canon of canons of cannons.

Added: And, if we were to consider all such rounds currently performed, we'd have...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_cannon_by_caliber


Ka-BOOM! ..............................


----------



## Mandryka (Feb 22, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> For the half year or so that I have participated in this forum, I have regularly been confronted with the notions of both a *Performance Canon* and an *Academic Canon* for Western Art or Classical Music.
> 
> To no avail, I have looked on the web for a list of these mythical _über-compositions_ that I must know. some guy says these canons don't exist, if I understood him correctly, but the canon or canons underpin so much of the discussion about classical music, both here on TC and elsewhere, that I feel it to be imperative that we know, once and for all, exactly which compositions are in the Performance Canon and exactly which are in the Academic Canon. Some could be in both.
> 
> This thread is to get a definitive list of these 2 canons _on paper_ :devil:, so to speak, so that we will know explicitly which works we are speaking of, when we refer to either of the 2 canons.


I think the idea is that there is a critical traditional founded on rational principles which probably starts with Plato and Aquinas, and on through and Hume and Hegel to and Sartre and Foucault and Scruton. And that this tradition has established certain values for appraising works of music. The pieces which are perceived by experts (academics) to exemplify those values make it on to the cannon list.

I suppose that same concept of canon can apply to performances, indeed recorded performances. There's a whole academic industry now which studies recordings.

I don't think it has anything to do with popularity, or with internet polls or lists of favourites or sales or radio playlists. Nothing to do with what's are most liked, most popular, most played, most listened to, most purchased or that sort of thing.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

some guy said:


> The canons very much do exist.





PetrB said:


> I do not think they exist...
> 
> ...if you were looking for responses here as an indirect way to finding some members of that secret society of that 'academic canon'...
> 
> ...





Mandryka said:


> The pieces which are perceived by experts (academics) to exemplify those values make it on to the cannon list.... I don't think it has anything to do with popularity, or with internet polls or lists of favourites or sales or radio playlists. Nothing to do with what's are most liked, most popular, most played, most listened to, most purchased or that sort of thing.


Well, it seems many agree that there indeed is a canon, even PetrB, who first says there isn't, but then defines it as a top of the pops list of sorts. You all seem to know what's in it and what isn't. I am not trying to find members of any "secret society," except to actually _see the list!_ How did all of you find out what's in the canon? I, too, want to have this knowledge. Where do I get it?

FWIW, I like Stravinsky's _Histoire du Soldat_ more than I like his _Sacre du Printemps_ :tiphat:


----------



## Guest (Jan 25, 2014)

You can see any number of variants of the list almost everywhere. Type in "top 100 classical" or "essential classical" at Google. That should get you dozens of hits.

None of which will be at all surprising or unique.

None of which will be any different from similar lists contrived right here at TC.

It's not really knowledge, either. Maybe information. And information can be turned into knowledge if it's worked right.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

some guy said:


> You can see any number of variants of the list almost everywhere. Type in "top 100 classical" or "essential classical" at Google. That should get you dozens of hits.
> 
> None of which will be at all surprising or unique.
> 
> ...


... and those moveable feasts of lists are only rough guides, the other tangential paths pursued of your own investigation and making. The reason I said they do not exist is they are forever mutable, changing with time and general tastes. They exist, but as something real, Deus ex Machina as delivered from some high holy place, all the music loved by the amalgamated souls of the audiences past and present, or ditto the cognoscenti, eh, that is what they are, not deity delivered absolutes burned on stone with the holy electric digits.

People love to affirm, glamorize and canonize themselves, and the same for what other people have made and done which many love and or admire. Some even insist an awarded personal points for merely appreciating the things on those lists... go figure


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

I'm with Bulldog further up. I know what I like and I don't care about such lists. I do my own exploring and research.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

hpowders said:


> I'm with Bulldog further up. I know what I like and I don't care about such lists. I do my own exploring and research.


Same here, but that has nothing to do with this thread. The purpose of this thread is to disclose the compositions that make up the canon, for all to see, but not to dictate to anyone what they must or must not hear. There are many on TC who purport to know what is and what is not in the canon and this thread is here to make this information available to all.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

As some of the previous posters have so aptly put this, I think that the way any of us may "find the canon" {sic} is by our ever expanding listening experiences and keeping an open mind--or ears. We all--in the final analysis--establish our own personal canon, which is of course ever-changing {at least it is for me}, depending on one's current mood/taste.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> Same here, but that has nothing to do with this thread. The purpose of this thread is to disclose the compositions that make up the canon, for all to see, but not to dictate to anyone what they must or must not hear. There are many on TC who purport to know what is and what is not in the canon and this thread is here to make this information available to all.


It almost sounds as if you believe there is some kind of Dan Brown plot here, or that the Illuminati are somehow involved with maintaining and protecting this "secret knowledge". Go with your own feelings and reactions, and establish your own "canon".


----------



## hpowders (Dec 23, 2013)

samurai said:


> It almost sounds as if you believe there is some kind of Dan Brown plot here, or that the Illuminati are somehow involved with maintaining and protecting this "secret knowledge". Go with your own feelings and reactions, and establish your own "canon".


Well said. There is nothing more obnoxious than a self-appointed boss of a thread telling the rest of us what we can post and what we can't as it relates to the given topic.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

samurai said:


> It almost sounds as if you believe there is some kind of Dan Brown plot here, or that the Illuminati are somehow involved with maintaining and protecting this "secret knowledge". Go with your own feelings and reactions, and establish your own "canon".


I've done that years ago and am adding to it constantly.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

hpowders said:


> Well said. There is nothing more obnoxious than a self-appointed boss of a thread telling the rest of us what we can post and what we can't as it relates to the given topic.


Not keeping on topic is called hijacking a thread:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=thread hijacking

It is bad forum behaviour and bad netiquette:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etiquette_(technology)


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Nothing abstract like a "canon of classical music" exists objectively in any ordinary way. It'll be a subtle sort of thing, a class of compositions with no boundary. 

Near its "core" will be the most famous (in a complex sense: fame as popularity averaged over at least three decades, let's say) works - Beethoven's symphonies, Tchaikovsky's ballets, Wagner's operas and so on - and then just a bit further from the core will be less famous things like Monteverdi's madrigals or Schoenberg's string quartets, and then a bit further away will be even less famous things like Boieldieu's harp concerto or Poulenc's chamber music, and then a bit further away even less famous things - we're getting fairly obscure at this point - like Arriaga's string quartets or Facco's violin concertos, and then, without having noticed that we've passed any clear line or anyplace where a clear line could be drawn, we find ourselves clearly outside the canon with works that almost no one has ever heard of, like Schobert's harpsichord sonatas or Szymanowska's Etudes. 

Since it only exists in people's minds, we could never agree (well, in the absence of some powerful agency forcing us to pretend to agree) about how near its center various works are; and if we try to draw a clear line of demarcation around it, we won't agree about that either. In fact, we really shouldn't even expect a single person to agree with herself at two different times of her life. 

Pointing out that a canon is a complicated and fuzzy thing rather than an absolute category with a binary value (either in or out, no ambiguity) could delegitimize a childishly oversimplified model of what a canon is, but of course such business is the heart and soul of online debate and even of a lot of academic debate in a publish or perish world.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brotagonist said:


> The purpose of this thread is to disclose the compositions that make up the canon, for all to see, but not to dictate to anyone what they must or must not hear. There are many on TC who purport to know what is and what is not in the canon and this thread is here to make this information available to all.


I think enough have said there is some basis for what is on those lists, and they are composite results of populist likes and that would include the music professionals as well who add to, or make lists.

I think the notion there is some definitive list is just that, a notion, and gives both 'the people' and 'the cognoscenti' far more credibility, or legitimacy, than they merit.

Look at a lot of those lists, the TC lists; even better, research a few from decades past, the mid 1950's and before if they exist, and see what you find and what you think. I would think that looking at just three or four of those would tell you there is no one official canon, but a number of them, general consensus each and all, and that they vary through time.

I am consistently surprised that many seem to want to readily sign up to be good little soldiers, told what is or is not good, what to look into, or that they seem to want their hands held when checking out what should be, intense or casual, a pleasure. As if any individual could go wrong taking the lists as a mere guide and exploring for themselves, finding what 'resonates' with them.

I've found, via a lot of reading, hearing of works or composers all through my training, and from others who also love music and have investigated their own likes -- all as something invaluable, From those many recommends, each and every did not take. Many which did not still led me to a side-track where I found composers and music I did like -- a lot, so none if it, or almost none, was in any way 'useless.'

If I had given credence to but one of those sources as the end-all and be-all, I think I would be short of at least half the composers and works I know of now.


----------



## Blancrocher (Jul 6, 2013)

brotagonist said:


> Same here, but that has nothing to do with this thread. The purpose of this thread is to disclose the compositions that make up the canon, for all to see, but not to dictate to anyone what they must or must not hear. There are many on TC who purport to know what is and what is not in the canon and this thread is here to make this information available to all.


It just so happens, that there is an ongoing project on the forum providing roughly that.

I believe that the first 1000 or so works are the performance canon, and the subsequent ones are the academic canon.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Yes, PeterB and all the rest of you  I do completely understand that the 'canon' is simply a populist and professional list of favourites. I also understand that the enjoyment of listening comes from discovering for oneself. This is what I have done for decades, since I only really encountered or paid attention to the notion of a canon in the last 6 months.

Yet, time and again, I read comments such as this one from some guy (I'm not picking on anyone, but simply using the comments to point out):

"Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_ is in it but _L'histoire du Soldat_ is not"
"And Bokanowski's _L'étiole absinthe... _Never in a million years will this enter "the canon" of classical music."

Clearly, somebody really does know what is and what is not in it. Where would I go to also obtain this information?

Am I to assume that, were I to scan the top 100 or 1000 classical works as rated by anyone, I would not find _Histoire du Soldat_, but only _Sacre du Printemps_? Or some other works of your choice...?


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

People speak of _the_ canon when really there is no specific thing. Of course there are some general set of works that those adoring classical music are expected to have heard - some later Beethoven symphonies, late Mozart piano concertos, Rite of Spring, etc. Presumably certain works would be on essentially everyone's "canon" while other works might be on many canons.

I have a book called _The Essential Canon of Classical Music_ by David Dubal. It includes works by 263 composers with significantly more from some composers (Bach, Mozart, Stravinsky) than others (Lully, Lortzing, Partch). Dubal says, "listeners wrote or called to request that I write a book that might guide them through the classical music repertoire." He addresses two audiences. "The first is those who are more or less new to classical music. The second is those who are already familiar with it but could use a source that codifies the essential canon and _suggests a lifetime listening plan_."

Both audiences are relatively new to classical music compared to many of us. I have now heard every composer and the vast majority of works in that book, but years ago many of the composers were new to me. I think the important idea of a canon is summarized in Dubal's last phrase, "suggests a lifetime listening plan". If you've been listening for long enough, you probably don't need a canon. If you haven't, a canon may be quite useful as it was to me.


----------



## mmsbls (Mar 6, 2011)

brotagonist said:


> Clearly, somebody really does know what is and what is not in it. Where would I go to also obtain this information?
> 
> Am I to assume that, were I to scan the top 100 or 1000 classical works as rated by anyone, I would not find _Histoire du Soldat_, but only _Sacre du Printemps_? Or some other works of your choice...?


Since every list described as a canon will probably vary from the other such lists at least a bit, it's hard to say which works will be on every canon. Probably the biggest variation between canons is their size. A canon that lists 100 works is rather different from Dubal's canon that lists thousands. I think most people here would believe that you would find _Sacre du Printemps_ on every canon while some canons would omit _Histoire du Soldat_. For what it's worth, the 2 books I have that list "important" classical works both include _Histoire du Soldat_, but they almost certainly list more works by Stravinsky (and other major composers) than many other canons would. Both book list _Sacre du Printemps_ as a "more important" work than _Histoire du Soldat_.


----------



## brotagonist (Jul 11, 2013)

Thanks for all of the comments 

I will see if the aforementioned book, mmsbls, is at the library. I don't actually need such a book, as I have been listening for decades and I also know where to go to expose myself to as yet unheard music (ask here, Naxos Music Library, You Tube, etc.). Still, such books are often interesting reading and might point out some composers or works I would otherwise have overlooked.

Perhaps the 'canon' is of interest to someone here? I think we've learned a lot


----------



## Andreas (Apr 27, 2012)

We might think that a canon would be something for the listeners of classical music. But maybe it's not. Maybe a canon is more relevant for historic or cultural studies. The landmark character of canonic musical works is similar to that of key historic moments or important cultural impacts.

I'd think that anyone interested in the general history of the past 200 years would not only have to look at the political, economic, sociological and philosophical aspects but also at the arts, including music. Even if you did't care much for it, but you'd still have to know the general picture. A canon might be a helpful tool in such a case.


----------

