# THE canon and YOUR canon...



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

So, there's a difference between the two which some people don't understand, or don't want to.

*THE canon* is decided by various people/groups - eg. musicians, scholars, musicologists, writers on writers, listeners - to find consensus or middle ground opinion on what's in the canon of music and what isn't. Of course this changes over time according to factors like what things a society or culture values at a certain point in time. Factors at play are things like technical significance of the piece, historical impact (eg. influence, innovation), popularity over time, level of craftsmanship, artistic worth (eg. imagination, creativity), etc.

*YOUR canon* is what YOU value as an individual listener. Parts of it can overlap with THE canon, but other parts may be vastly different. Eg. you may value certain pieces as great, but they may not really be great according to the consensus I described above. Eg. my favourite of Dvorak's concertos is his one for piano, but I would be hard pressed to argue that it has equal place in the canon as his one for cello in B minor or his one for violin in A minor obviously do. Of course, there are different canons for different genres, eg. concert music, film music, opera both grand and comic, operetta, artsong, electronic or electro-acoustic music, light music, and so on.

So, when you say something is "great," take a while to think whether consensus opinion would agree with you. *What is "great" is decided by BOTH objective AND subjective factors/elements *(I don't want to open that boring debate here, I'm focussing on the canon/s, but it has to be mentioned).

I think that people who are groupies and build monuments to certain composers, esp. obscure ones, are the ones who tend to have a less than satisfactory understanding of the "big picture" or overall sweep of musical history. The same goes for people who think lowly of guys like me who don't worship certain sacred cows basically because I feel little emotional or other connection to their music. Okay I don't like [insert sacred cow composer] GET OVER IT!!!* Neither of people in these two extremes - I'd call them the obscurists and sacred cow worshippers - can see the forest for the trees in some ways.*

*So what are we left with?* The* middle ground, consensus, baseline opinion* which is *flexible to change* as we find out more, both about music of the past and music of the present...

[*EDIT* - This discussion is meant to be similar to what I was aiming at in this thread that I did a few weeks ago but it was locked: http://www.talkclassical.com/15115-making-things-personal.html ...In other words, how I don't like it when people ram things down my throat based on THIER canon, or THIER restricted view of what is or what should be the canon, not necessarily THE canon. I can damn well "understand" Barber's music to some extent based on knowing two of his major works, same with J.S. Bach, with what I know and have heard of his music - & guess what, it doesn't have to be the monumental _Mass in B minor_ - it can be virtually anything the man wrote, or at least any other major work which is to my taste, etc.]...


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

I agree. That is all.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

I'm kinda sick of arguing about taste. This is music. Music is entertainment. There are no "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" in entertainment.

The only thing I really dislike is when people criticize things they don't understand. For example, you have no right to put down the entire baroque period when the only thing you've heard is Pachelbel's _Canon._ Generally, the more one tries to put aside his/her preconceptions of what music should be and the more they listen and read about the background of the music, no matter what period, the more they will come to appreciate it.

It's okay to like anything you want, in music. Criticism, however, must be fully informed.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> For example, you have no right to put down the entire baroque period when the only thing you've heard is Pachelbel's _Canon._


How much does someone have to have listened to in order to have a valid opinion?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Sid's thread title threw me off. For me, THE canon involves rowing a boat. YOUR canon is meaningless, I don't have one. The unmentioned A canon is a music term, e.g. the one involving a boat.

[Had to get that out. The sort of canon Sid is going on about - I never use that word anyway. I got so distracted I lost the thread of Sid's thought there for awhile. When I got it back, I found it is something I don't worry about. People can denigrate my taste in/knowledge of music as much as they want. My opinions are strongly (though not closely) held.]

 > :devil:


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Polednice said:


> How much does someone have to have listened to in order to have a valid opinion?


Well, a period encompasses all the styles of music written in that time. So to criticize the entire baroque period, I think you would have to be at least reasonably familiar with baroque opera, concerti, chamber music, and keyboard music. You don't have to have the entire _Well-Tempered Clavier_ memorized, but you should at least try to familiarize yourself with the major works and composers of the period: Monteverdi, Corelli, Vivaldi, Lully, Frescobaldi, Schutz, J.S. Bach, F. Couperin, Handel, and so on. Also, to have a more intelligent opinion, it would help to be able to read music and be familiar with music theory.


----------



## Polednice (Sep 13, 2009)

Ravellian said:


> Well, a period encompasses all the styles of music written in that time. So to criticize the entire baroque period, I think you would have to be at least reasonably familiar with baroque opera, concerti, chamber music, and keyboard music. You don't have to have the entire _Well-Tempered Clavier_ memorized, but you should at least try to familiarize yourself with the major works and composers of the period: Monteverdi, Corelli, Vivaldi, Lully, Frescobaldi, Schutz, J.S. Bach, F. Couperin, Handel, and so on. Also, to have a more intelligent opinion, it would help to be able to read music and be familiar with music theory.


And reasonably familiar = ?


----------



## superhorn (Mar 23, 2010)

Basically, the "Canon" is just a list of the most popular, frequently performed and recorded, and most admired works by a limited number of undeniably great composers. 
However, the number of works of great quality in existence is much,much larger than this rather arbitrary canon. The concept of the canon leads to the foolish and pernicious notion that these are somehow the only works which deserve to be heard, and that "There are no undiscovered masterpieces", a patently false idea.
In some cases there are works by famous composers which have been undeservedly neglected; in other cases there are composers of genuine stature who are little known to the general classical music audience. Many great composers are known for only a small part of their outputs.


----------



## GoneBaroque (Jun 16, 2011)

It seems to me that everyone has their own list of their Greatest compositions. I for one am not influenced by the opinions of others (experts or average listeners) except where the alert me to music or composers I do have not experienced. I take much pleasure in the music of the Baroque style but must confess the the extremely popular Pachelbels Cannon eludes me. Five minutes after I have heard it I cannot recall what it sounded like. Does this make it bad music? Certainly not.


----------



## samurai (Apr 22, 2011)

GoneBaroque said:


> It seems to me that everyone has their own list of their Greatest compositions. I for one am not influenced by the opinions of others (experts or average listeners) except where the alert me to music or composers I do have not experienced. I take much pleasure in the music of the Baroque style but must confess the the extremely popular Pachelbels Cannon eludes me. Five minutes after I have heard it I cannot recall what it sounded like. Does this make it bad music? Certainly not.


Maybe because so much of it is repetitive and sounds alike, so nothing really stands out about it in your mind when you are reflecting back on what you heard?


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Polednice said:


> How much does someone have to have listened to in order to have a valid opinion?


Valid enough to be critical towards another person about his/her tastes? There is no amount.

But of course, you guys know me and you know that if we do get into a genteel discussion about the value of music, I'll talk your ear off. For me, there's three criteria for me respecting someone's criticism about a composer or a period of music, as opposed to just respecting that person and :tiphat: :

1. That they are aware of the historical context.
2. That they are aware of the music theory.
3. That they are aware of the technical contributions of the piece.


----------



## Lukecash12 (Sep 21, 2009)

Also, why is it that we still care in the first place about what most people think of the musical "canon"? Aren't we classical music fans, after all? Our very interests point out that we probably could care less what some unimaginative, immature, and uneducated goofball thinks of our preferences, so it would behoove us to at least be consistent and scoff at other classical music listeners telling us we are wrong and some holy cow is great. 

What's more, assuming that the general "canon" is an indication of what classical music is good, commits the basic appeal to popularity fallacy. It's a fallacy, because the people are considered an indication of something before the people and their relevant traits are even considered.


----------



## HerlockSholmes (Sep 4, 2011)

And here I got all excited, thinking I'm going to read some thoughtful analysis of canons and counterpoint, and all I get is another discussion on what music is/ought to be.


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

Polednice said:


> And reasonably familiar = ?


There's a lot of laws in the U.S. Constitution that use the term "resonable." Reasonable doubt, reasonably certain, etc. This isn't math. Use common sense. If you haven't heard much of something, don't criticize it.


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

It seems I'm up the creek on this topic. I am both an obscurist (all of you MUST enjoy Berwald, Tournemire, and Rubinstein or you're just not hip, and I don't mean HIP) _and_ a sacred cow worshiper (Beethoven and Bach are so universal, what is wrong with you that you don't get them?). 

But I guess I'm not obscurist to the point of declaring Bubba Fescue, my neighbor down the street, to be the greatest composer of all time, except for the unfortunate fact he was born completely tone deaf and with no musical talent, yet his work still has merit and you should like it, and would if only you listened. Also my sacred cow worship cannot include Beethoven's _Battle Symphony (Wellington's Victory)_ which has no artistic merit whatsoever to my ears.

So maybe I'm in the middle after all. It is only my roving tastes that make me seem at both ends of the spectrum at once.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I think I was ranting & not totally coherent but at least what I said stimulated some discussion.

I like the dialogue between Ravellian & Polednice & the former's "commonsense" argument. An average person doesn't have the time to listen to ALL or even most of say Samuel Barber's or J.S. Bach's works to make up their mind whether they like it or not. The likes of Jtech and Harpsichord Concerto may have the time, energy, enthusiasm & interest but I really don't. I find if I do overkill with a piece or composer, before too long I will begin to get bored and hate it. I go through phases, although chamber music has been a constant. Basically, I have other things on in my life as we all do. I don't only listen to music.

I've always argued I'm a generalist not a specific "expert" on anything. I'm an all-rounder. Is there anything wrong with the fact that I've only heard about 2 Wagner operas in full and thus decided I'm not really into that kind of thing? Is liking his _Siegfried Idyll_, a purely instrumental work, not good enough or something?



Lukecash12 said:


> ...For me, there's three criteria for me respecting someone's criticism about a composer or a period of music, as opposed to just respecting that person and :tiphat: :
> 
> 1. That they are aware of the historical context.
> 2. That they are aware of the music theory.
> 3. That they are aware of the technical contributions of the piece.


Yes, these things are important, and not hard to do. Grab & read a few general books on classical music, listen as widely as you can according to your tastes, interests, preferences, etc. and even do simple things like read the cd notes. You won't be a self-appointed "expert" but you can get a good general grasp of music and the place of each composer or era, style, trend within the "big picture" of the history of music.

Then again, you might wish to listen to dozens of recordings of the same piece, because among some people on these online forums (although TC is not as much like this), that's how we define the "real" or "kosher" classical music listener. If you don't own thousands of recordings, you don't have the chops as a classical listener, you can't really call yourself a classical listener, you're a lightweight and you don't have the right to even utter a single word about Schumann's _Piano Concerto_ unless you've heard at least a dozen recordings of it. No prizes for guessing what I think of this attitude (=bullsh*t)...


----------



## Weston (Jul 11, 2008)

There is another phenomenon that I wonder if Sid James is referring to. It happens sometimes when the entire culture goes mad over some viral event or fad.

For example, back in the mid 1970's there was this new sensational rock group, Bad Company, that everyone was_ supposed_ to like - just because. Their (to my mind rather pedestrian and formulaic) anthemic rock drifted from every dorm room on campus and from every radio station dail. One could not escape them. For a long time I simply hated them because I was supposed to like them, because everyone else did. It wouldn't have mattered if Beethoven himself had joined a reunited Beatles, I wouldn't have liked that kind of exposure and that kind of blind adulation.

With 20/20 hind sight I now see that this Bad Company were a pretty solid band with a great bluesy singer. I "get" it now that the hooplah has died down with the passing decades. They were not all that innovative maybe, but were a solid reliable workhorse of a band, that delivered hit after memorable hit. It was merely feeling forced into it that made me dig in my heels.

I wonder if something similar happens in classical music, but to a lesser extent. It's not like Tchaikovsky is crammed down anyone's throat in day to day life. But certainly the popularity of Pachelbel's Canon with the casual listeners may lessen my already meager appreciation of it.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Weston said:


> There is another phenomenon that I wonder if Sid James is referring to. It happens sometimes when the entire culture goes mad over some viral event or fad...


What I'm saying is based on judging some people over my two years on this forum, and a brief time on another forum I bailed out of due to it not being the right place for me (a waste of time basically due to various highbrow attitudes that I spoke of in my OP).

Basically, if you have a limited scope, you will tend to become a groupie some way or another, esp. of obscure or lesser known (second rank, or however you wish to describe) composers. Eg. if you're only into a certain genre, you will go deeper into that rather than branching out more generally. That's fine, I have no problem with that, unless one of these people is criticising me for not liking say one violin concerto over other violin concerto because they're heard (or think they've heard) all violin concertos. This is absurd. I have a life, or what vaguely resembles one. I don't have time to listen to all violin concertos written since the year dot to decide which ones I like and which one's I don't like and which ones I'm lukewarm on.

The other "type" I'm talking about is the sacred cow worshipper who thinks that if you don't "get," understand, like, etc. a certain "big name" composer, you don't understand anything about classical generally, or maybe about that era or genre of classical. Eg. if you don't like Beethoven's piano concertos you can't understand piano concertos in general, etc. I think this is basically rubbish. All it's exposing is the biases of the sacred cow worshipper, not the selective listener.



> ...
> For example, back in the mid 1970's there was this new sensational rock group, Bad Company, that everyone was_ supposed_ to like - just because...One could not escape them. For a long time I simply hated them because I was supposed to like them, because everyone else did...
> 
> With 20/20 hind sight I now see that this Bad Company were a pretty solid band ... I "get" it now that the hooplah has died down with the passing decades. They were not all that innovative maybe, but were a solid reliable workhorse of a band, that delivered hit after memorable hit. It was merely feeling forced into it that made me dig in my heels.
> ...


I've been guilty of this, not liking things because they're too popular. Eg. Saint-Saens'_ Carnival of the Animals_, I didn't like it until I actually heard it again after many years and ended up liking it a lot. Even heard it live which was a lot of fun. I've kind of grown tired of say Beethoven's _Symphony #5_ or Stravinsky's _Rite of Spring_, but I'd be a fool to say they weren't significant in the history of music or is overrated, etc.

As Ravellian suggested above, judgement of music is basically about some level of experience and commonsense. Using your brain to join the dots, that kind of thing. Also, just enjoying what you want to enjoy...


----------



## science (Oct 14, 2010)

Because of political attacks like the ones in this thread, I take the stance of not giving my own opinion any weight. My only goal is to align more perfectly my tastes with the average of the tastes of knowledgeable people.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ I actually agree with the opinions of experts, but not as unchangeable or inflexible. Certainly, any musicologist worth their salt is flexible to a degree. Their opinion may change with the decades as new information and research comes to light. Nothing is written, as Laurence of Arabia said in the movie.

However, what I'm against is people saying I can't have an opinion on say Wagner after hearing a couple of his operas on full & reading about his life, watching documentaries on him, etc. I mean what am I supposed to do? Spend hours and hours in front of the stereo listening to stuff I don't really like or care for like a masochist?

I'm not against the canon, I'm not against more obscure composers, I'm arguing more about how people use their knowledge of certain things to beat others over the head who they deem inferior or bottom-feeders because they don't share the same interests or have the same level of commitment to certain things, etc.

& actually, most of what I listen to is mainstream, or at least by fairly mainstream composers...


----------



## Air (Jul 19, 2008)

I believe that so-called "experts" do have more credibility in their opinions, but this doesn't necessarily mean that what they have to say always trumps the opinions of those that are less "well-read" or in this case, "well-listened".

Take a Bach fugue for instance. One who knows all the intricacies of the fugue can tell you a lot about the structure of the piece, the mathematics behind certain motives, and the progressive implications of certain harmonies. They can likely point out all the fugue subjects, counter-subjects, inversions, and retrogrades simply by looking at the score. They may even be able to tell you what year the work was written and how the birth or death of so-and-so significant individual in Bach's life influenced or was written into his work. But how much of this is pedantry? Music is ultimately about the sound that reaches ones ears. A less experienced listener still has the ability to feel this very same music in a way no one else can. Their appreciation of a work is a lot purer, a lot less focused on what they _have_ to hear, because at the end, no one is obliged to approach a work and _force_ themselves to hear certain things. To say so, in my opinion, would be detrimental to the idea of music itself. It goes far beyond plain elitism.

But on the other hand, tell me that knowing the inner workings of a Bach fugue doesn't elevate your appreciation of his work to another level. I know it has for me. On a pure aesthetic level, his music does as much for me as Mozart, Schumann, or Wagner do. But academic complexity too, has its own sort of profundity, that adds a different sort of aesthetics that is also appealing. And this is why I tend to revere Bach more than all the others.


----------



## regressivetransphobe (May 16, 2011)

"Pleasure is the law. I love music passionately. And because l love it, I try to free it from barren traditions that stifle it."

I agree with the Frenchman who said this.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ *Debussy *was apparently also a Wagner groupie and obsessive until he kind of grew out of it later. By the time he wrote his only opera _Pelleas & Melisande_, he said he wanted to make that as least like Wagner as possible. He was a Wagnerite but kind of got over it. He had to go beyond the groupie mentality to become individual, to write a unique opera. Of course, I am not denying the huge impact Wagner and others like him had on music of his time and beyond. I'm just saying that making him or others an idol isn't really necessary to give him his due as a great composer. Nor is it necessary to diss people who don't like, get or understand his music...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Air said:


> ...
> 
> But on the other hand, tell me that knowing the inner workings of a Bach fugue doesn't elevate your appreciation of his work to another level. I know it has for me. On a pure aesthetic level, his music does as much for me as Mozart, Schumann, or Wagner do. But academic complexity too, has its own sort of profundity, that adds a different sort of aesthetics that is also appealing. And this is why I tend to revere Bach more than all the others.


I agree that technical knowledge or analysis is important, esp. for & by musicians like yourself. I was talking more about value judgements more than anything else. I'm currently reading one of Aaron Copland's books on music appreciation for lay listeners like myself. In it, he says that composers are the best at understanding music at a very deep, sophisticated level. Of course this is the case, it's their "day job" so to speak. But he says that even some composers, he himself included, often can't put words to things they know or find it difficult to put down on the page the exact sounds they want. It's like a craft, they have to hone this skill over time, within a work and between one work and another. They develop. Of course, we as listeners can develop, can grow in many ways. But it isn't particularly helpful, Copland says (& his writing stimulated this thread in part) if we worship sacred cows or narrow our range of listening to one or a few areas. He says it's better to be broad and get a good overall understanding of the repertoire, as far as you can stretch yourself. My limit is basically opera, I'm not a huge fan of it, probably never will be. But as far as most other things go, I am willing to explore, but I go through phases.

As a listener with a tendency to focus on music after 1800, & esp. after 1900, I would highly encourage every listener to get to know the "big guns" of classical music at some point in time. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to get into classical, it depends upon the individual listener. Certainly listening to say Bach's preludes and fugues or other works of the "three B's" as well as seminal figures like Mozart, Handel, Haydn, Liszt, Wagner, Stravinsky, Bartok, Schoenberg, and so on is important to understanding the basics of music. But is it necessary to idolise them and to shut those out who don't want to idolise them? By the same token, is it necessary to poo-poo them as too mainstream and only for the great unwashed masses and only listen to more obscure or lesser known composers? I just think it's best to be balanced, that's what I'm trying to say...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Air said:


> I believe that so-called "experts" do have more credibility in their opinions, but this doesn't necessarily mean that what they have to say always trumps the opinions of those that are less "well-read" or in this case, "well-listened".
> ...


I must emphasise what I think is that whether we're talking about beginner, intermediate or advanced listeners, laymen or musician level, an important thing to me on our interactions on this forum is ATTITUDE. That's very important, imo, it can make or break the situation. It's not good communication to totally invalidate another person's opinion, whatever it's based on. A better & smarter way to go is to meet them halfway if it is possible. Flexibility has little to do with what music a person listens to and is mainly about their attitude to music & things in general, imo...


----------



## Andy Loochazee (Aug 2, 2007)

I don’t get all this “the canon” and “your canon”. I have a hazy idea of what constitutes “the canon”, but “your canon” seems like a contradiction in terms to me. 

It would seem that this bogus terminology of "your canon" may have been dreamed up in an attempt to hit back at a few unnamed members of this another music Forum who have made comments over which the OP has taken personal offence.

As for the idea that's been floated that all musical opinions are valid regardless of experience, I’m far more likely to take note of opinions on classical music from those few members who have a demonstrably superior knowledge than others. It’s generally quite easy to tell who they are, as they are usually well-versed in all the works of the composers they talk about, and they don’t generally engage in casting negative opinion on other composers whom they may like rather less. 

On the other hand, the type of member who expresses negative opinions about great composers, or styles or genres of music, based on a very limited familiarity with their works, whether these opinions are from young and inexperienced noobs, or from slightly older members who clearly still not yet had sufficient time to know all that much, is an all too common one. Some of them can also be very boring as they write lots of pathetic, long-winded explanations of how their lack of experience shouldn’t be held against them.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^ Yes, it was a bit of a rant, and I tried to edit some of my posts from today to make them more relevant a bit.



Andy Loochazee said:


> ...It's generally quite easy to tell who they are, as they are usually well-versed in all the works of the composers they talk about, and they don't generally engage in casting negative opinion on other composers whom they may like rather less...


I agree that balance, neutrality, positive attitude are good, better than partisanship or taking sides.



Andy Loochazee said:


> ..."your canon" seems like a contradiction in terms to me...


I'm saying that everyone has their own personal canon (maybe without realising or admitting it). What you think is great or significant (or even your favourite). This is what I call YOUR canon. Everyone seems to construct their own canons, and of course this depends on things like what we know & what we've been exposed to. What I don't like is people putting their canons or priorities, etc. above other people's canons for whatever reason.

Then there's the canon of expert/listener consensus, etc. I'd say that the lists of "100 best operas" and the like on this forum constitute a type of canon for the members here who contributed to making them.

YOUR canon is more subjective/individual, THE canon is more objective/collective, but in reality both are a mixture of subjective and objective factors. & as I said, at times the two may coincide or correspond with eachother.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

How much does someone have to have listened to in order to have a valid opinion?

A good question. If I have only listened once or twice to a mediocre recording of Brahms' symphonies is my opinion that Brahms is a second-rate composer in comparison to Mahler and Wagner of much value? It would seem that everyone is entitled to their opinion... and as individuals our opinion... what we like or dislike... is the ultimate measure. But when it comes to putting forth one's opinion as something more objective... as fact... it would seem logical that some opinions are better than others.

By the way... currently listening to Brahms choral works performed by John Eliot Gardiner. Too bad Brahms didn't compose more major choral works.


----------



## StlukesguildOhio (Dec 25, 2006)

I've always argued I'm a generalist not a specific "expert" on anything. I'm an all-rounder. Is there anything wrong with the fact that I've only heard about 2 Wagner operas in full and thus decided I'm not really into that kind of thing? Is liking his Siegfried Idyll, a purely instrumental work, not good enough or something?

having heard only two Wagner operas complete (and undoubtedly a good amount of "highlights) as well as Siegrfried Idyll is certainly enough for you to decide that you personally aren't interested in hearing more. I haven't heard a lot of Chinese opera, but what I have heard was enough to convince me that I don't want to hear more... that it is unlikely that the effort to come to terms with this music is not likely to reward me with a great enough degree of pleasure. But in either instance do we have enough experience to make a valid judgment as to the comparative merits of Wagner or Chinese opera in contrast to another composer or composers that we do like and do have a good deal of experience with? That is surely debatable. How much merit is the opinion of Beethoven "fanboys" dismissing Mozart and Schubert when they admit to little experience with these composer's vocal works (opera, masses, lieder...) which are really central to their entire oeuvres? How much merit is there to dismissing Mozart as "lightweight" because he is not Beethoven? Is Beethoven... or any other composer... the ideal that all composers are striving for? How much merit is there to someone declaring that Black Sabbath is greater than the whole of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart? Even the "experts" (critics, composers, musicians, highly experienced music lovers) have their disagreements (Bach vs Beethoven? Wagner vs Brahms) and when they make what strikes me as an absurd blanket statement I take that with as much of a large grain of salt as I do the proclamations by the inexperienced who has just recently discovered Mahler and thinks that he is the end all and be all.

What you call the "canon" is simply that which has survived and continued to remain relevant as the result of a sort of collective opinion of musicians, composers, critics, and educated music lovers. I have no problem in accepting that all of these composers are likely "great" in the sense that they have certainly spoken to and inspired a large body of educated music lovers. I don't have the need (like egocentric teenager) to imagine that everything I like is "great" and everything I dislike "sucks". At the same time, I am confident enough in my own tastes to admit that I like some music that might actually be "lightweight" and I am not particularly fond of some music that might actually be very very good.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...It would seem that everyone is entitled to their opinion... and as individuals our opinion... what we like or dislike... is the ultimate measure...


I agree. We all have our own tastes, preferences, interests, passions, etc. & are informed by these things. Call them biases or whatever but they are there, they govern how we approach & think about music.



> ...But when it comes to putting forth one's opinion as something more objective... as fact... it would seem logical that some opinions are better than others...


I'm splitting hairs here, but I wouldn't say that "some opinions are better than others" but maybe more commensense, middleground, baseline, reasonable, etc. These "better" opinions you talk of incorporate many criteria, not just one or two things, but many (as I've alluded to above). Eg. composers understand composition at the highest level, incl. things like orchestration, harmony, counterpoint, the various forms, etc. If I diss some composer for not being good at these, I have to come up with solid reasons why (& it's hard because I'm not musically trained). But on the other hand if I say I don't like to listen to a certain composer's music because of certain things within a layman's (my) grasp or certain preferences that's okay.



StlukesguildOhio said:


> ...
> ...How much merit is the opinion of Beethoven "fanboys" dismissing Mozart and Schubert when they admit to little experience with these composer's vocal works (opera, masses, lieder...) which are really central to their entire oeuvres? How much merit is there to dismissing Mozart as "lightweight" because he is not Beethoven? Is Beethoven... or any other composer... the ideal that all composers are striving for?...


That's kind of what I'm saying, at least in terms of your reference to "fanboys." I also call them groupies or people who are part of certain cliques. As I said earlier about Aaron Copland's opinions, some people who only focus on one or a couple of areas or composers or whatever develop a kind of attachment to these things. They cannot approach music without constantly comparing it to these things. It kind of becomes a restraining device on their fuller development of a broad range of what the musical arts have to offer. In other words, these people develop their own canon. & I've been at the recieving end of a number of people on these forums who, esp. when they feel "cornered" in an argument - often about something totally different - lash out at you with their own canon. They blame you for now having the same canon as them. Which is patently absurd, imo.



> ...How much merit is there to someone declaring that Black Sabbath is greater than the whole of Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart?


I don't think there's any merit in comparing them in the first place, they're totally different in many ways - historical period, genre, purpose of their music, audience, instruments they're writing for, etc. etc.



> ...
> Even the "experts" (critics, composers, musicians, highly experienced music lovers) have their disagreements (Bach vs Beethoven? Wagner vs Brahms) and when they make what strikes me as an absurd blanket statement I take that with as much of a large grain of salt as I do the proclamations by the inexperienced who has just recently discovered Mahler and thinks that he is the end all and be all...


Yes, there are disagreements about the details, but obviously all of those composers are firmly in the canon. Even composers who've got a small foothold in the repertoire for just one work are in the canon (or mainstream, whatever you want to label it as). Eg. Rodrigo with his _Guitar Concierto de Aranjuez_, or Mascagni or Leoncavallo with their famous "single-serve" operas, or others like that. That's THE canon, it's flexible to change, it's open. But I wouldn't argue, even though I quite like the _Aranjuez_, that everything by Rodrigo has canonical value at this point in time, or that if you don't understand or like his music, you don't know anything about classical music, or the neo-classical style, or c20th music, or whatever.



> ...
> ...I don't have the need (like egocentric teenager) to imagine that everything I like is "great" and everything I dislike "sucks"...


Problem is that it's not only "egocentric teenagers" out there who have a tendency to confuse THE canon with THEIR personal canon. On the other classical online forum I was at, there were loads of these kinds of people who were mature and experienced classical music listeners and did this as an art form (eg. rubbishing certain major figures of music as "outdated" or whatever, similar to what Boulez said about Shostakovich being a poor Mahler rehash in the 1960's, that kind of outdated rubbish ideology). In other words, it doesn't depend on age whether you limit yourself and correspondingly try to limit others. It's a matter of attitude first and foremost, imo.



> ...At the same time, I am confident enough in my own tastes to admit that I like some music that might actually be "lightweight" and I am not particularly fond of some music that might actually be very very good.


This kind of balance is what I'm talking about here.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

So there is *THE canon*, *YOUR canon, * Pachelbel's *Canon in D* & (according to the ads on the banner above now), *CANON brand printers and ink cartridges* :lol: ...


----------



## Couchie (Dec 9, 2010)

Sid James said:


> I've always argued I'm a generalist not a specific "expert" on anything. I'm an all-rounder. Is there anything wrong with the fact that I've only heard about 2 Wagner operas in full and thus decided I'm not really into that kind of thing? Is liking his _Siegfried Idyll_, a purely instrumental work, not good enough or something?


I'm glad you asked. Answer: yes.

I use _my_ canon to ZERSTÖREN DIE HÄUSER VON MENSCHEN, DIE WAGNERS GESAMTKUNSTWERK ABNEIGUNG!!!!


----------



## Ravellian (Aug 17, 2009)

_I've always argued I'm a generalist not a specific "expert" on anything. I'm an all-rounder. Is there anything wrong with the fact that I've only heard about 2 Wagner operas in full and thus decided I'm not really into that kind of thing? Is liking his Siegfried Idyll, a purely instrumental work, not good enough or something?_

If you've taken the time to listen to 2 full operas by Wagner, then yes you have the right to that opinion. (just curious, which 2 were they? I think if they were _Tristan_ and _Die Walkure_ your opinion just might be different. )


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

Couchie said:


> I'm glad you asked. Answer: yes...


Well fair enough. Short and to the point (unlike I often am, long-winded). As for the bit in German - you Wagnerites, you have your own bloody language, lowly plebs like myself don't understand it! :lol:



Ravellian said:


> ...
> If you've taken the time to listen to 2 full operas by Wagner, then yes you have the right to that opinion...


Thanks for that, whether you're a Wagnerite or not, you're not forcing "your" canon on me.



> ...(just curious, which 2 were they? I think if they were _Tristan_ and _Die Walkure_ your opinion just might be different. )


They were _Lohengrin_ & _Gotterdammerung_. I liked _Lohengrin_ more, it has more "big tunes" that the non-opera listener can kind of hang onto. His other earlier pre-_Ring_ operas may be of interest to me - eg._ Rienzi _or _The Flying Dutchman _- but opera is not my forte, so it's not a huge priority. Naturally, I like_ Siegfried Idyll _because my favourite area is chamber & instrumental music. & I do have the famous_ Liebestod _duet from _Tristan_, it is wonderful I must admit. As for _Walkure_, I haven't heard it, probably not any of it except the famous _Ride of the Valkyries _bit...


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

I'm reading a book on musicology now, and HERE is the entry on "the canon," in it, which is the subject of this thread.

The author says that there are* three basic types of musical canon*, or three ways of splitting up the canon -

*Musicology & music historiography* - Eg. historical context of a work, it's innovations, setting trends, technical attributes, etc.

*Pedagogical *- Involving the teaching of music, what is the core of what is taught in each area of music, etc.

*Performance* - Basically what is part of the core repertoire, in terms of performance and recording. This is "part of the public face of music."

There is also discussion of the negative aspects of the canon, eg. that it marginalises or shuts out certain things. Some theorists are dead set against the canon, or they think our concept of it should be overhauled (eg. to include more recent music, incl. popular musics).

I still stand by my homespun "theory" that we all have our own canons, some more than others. It is apparent to me that some people on these forums have a quite outdated view of what is the canon, eg. they can't accept that it isn't necessarily fixed, it's always changing. These are not only those that glorify sacred cows of the past but also "hard core" modernists, who both seem to have a view somewhat related to the canon, or their idea of it, related to their values of tradition or progress, conservatism or discourses of 'the future' of music, etc. Both lead to lack of balance and a quite jaundiced view of the types of music that these people don't like, they rationalise why they don't like or value these things based on their restricted view of the canon (of course, they rarely if ever admit it)...


----------



## Rapide (Oct 11, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I'm reading a book on musicology now, and HERE is the entry on "the canon," in it, which is the subject of this thread.
> 
> The author says that there are* three basic types of musical canon*, or three ways of splitting up the canon -
> 
> ...


yes i can agree too with the three "canons" and seems to make sense from musicicans, students and listeners.



Sid James said:


> There is also discussion of the negative aspects of the canon, eg. that it marginalises or shuts out certain things. Some theorists are dead set against the canon, or they think our concept of it should be overhauled (eg. to include more recent music, incl. popular musics).
> 
> I still stand by my homespun "theory" that we all have our own canons, some more than others. It is apparent to me that some people on these forums have a quite outdated view of what is the canon, eg. they can't accept that it isn't necessarily fixed, it's always changing. These are not only those that glorify sacred cows of the past but also "hard core" modernists, who both seem to have a view somewhat related to the canon, or their idea of it, related to their values of tradition or progress, conservatism or discourses of 'the future' of music, etc. Both lead to lack of balance and a quite jaundiced view of the types of music that these people don't like, they rationalise why they don't like or value these things based on their restricted view of the canon (of course, they rarely if ever admit it)...


hmmm. im not so shure of this. You seem to take a very high horse approach to judge too many people here. Abit arrogant if I many say so. and why does it matter to u if people might lack balance? it doesnt stop u from enjoying music yourself shurely? I think it is no different to thepeople who judge music, only here u are judging people/listeners.


----------



## Sid James (Feb 7, 2009)

^^Thanks for reading, Rapide -


Rapide said:


> ...
> hmmm. im not so shure of this. You seem to take a very high horse approach to judge too many people here. Abit arrogant if I many say so...


I don't know if arrogant is the word, maybe it's a kind of familiarity with certain typical ways of thinking about music that I don't think is really helpful (after a long time on this forum). I'm focussing here on thinking about music, not necessarily what a person listens to, which seems to be the obsession of some people who are critical of others for listening to (or not listening to) what they see as the "right" things. That's their canon, in other words, their construct.



> ...and why does it matter to u if people might lack balance? it doesnt stop u from enjoying music yourself shurely? I think it is no different to thepeople who judge music, only here u are judging people/listeners.


That is true, even if certain people here are not happy with me enjoying certain things they don't, I can enjoy it anyway regardless. & they are free to enjoy what they like & think as they do. I think it's just a good idea to discuss these ideas behind people's opinions on music. What lies beneath kind of thing. & of course, my own opinions are open to scrutiny just as much as the next person's here...


----------



## Elgarian (Jul 30, 2008)

Polednice said:


> How much does someone have to have listened to in order to have a valid opinion?


You have to have at least _touched_ the CD. It's not enough just to look at it on the shelf.


----------



## jdavid (Oct 4, 2011)

Ravellian said:


> I'm kinda sick of arguing about taste. This is music. Music is entertainment. There are no "shoulds" and "shouldn'ts" in entertainment.


I suppose it is a matter of semantics, but for me, music is a necessity for my well-being - I hope it never comes to this, but I would give up sight before I would give up hearing and without a second thought. When I think of entertainment, I think of SEINFELD, I think of Eddie Izzard, I think of Antiques Road Show and car auctions...and entertainment is something I need in my life, as much as anybody, but music is different...it is so penetrating, so life-changing, that I cannot listen to music that is shallow (and I'm not implying at all that you do). I think we are probably on the same page, and i don't mean anything in a critical way toward your statement. And, yes, those who criticize what they have not investigated to any real degree make me slip toward the margins of conversation.


----------



## presto (Jun 17, 2011)

GoneBaroque said:


> I take much pleasure in the music of the Baroque style but must confess the the extremely popular Pachelbels Cannon eludes me. Five minutes after I have heard it I cannot recall what it sounded like. Does this make it bad music? Certainly not.


I agree there are bigger, better and more complex cannons out there but I wouldn't dismiss Pachelbels.
I have a Treble Recorder version of it and for me it's still a very ingenious and enjoyable piece to play and I would imagine it's been the piece that's introduced lot of people to the glories of the Baroque.


----------



## sospiro (Apr 3, 2010)

Elgarian said:


> You have to have at least _touched_ the CD. It's not enough just to look at it on the shelf.


Does it count if you like the box?


----------



## brianwalker (Dec 9, 2011)

Sid James said:


> I still stand by my homespun "theory" that we all have our own canons, some more than others. It is apparent to me that some people on these forums have a quite outdated view of what is the canon, eg. they can't accept that it isn't necessarily fixed, it's always changing. These are not only those that glorify sacred cows of the past but also "hard core" modernists, who both seem to have a view somewhat related to the canon, or their idea of it, related to their values of tradition or progress, conservatism or discourses of 'the future' of music, etc. Both lead to lack of balance and a quite jaundiced view of the types of music that these people don't like, they rationalise why they don't like or value these things based on their restricted view of the canon (of course, they rarely if ever admit it)...


The canon is what the present most influential writers, musicians, concertgoers, etc, people in power and people out of power but with voting power i.e. the concertgoers decide it is. Of course the canon is malleable.

The people who criticize modernism simply mean that modernism is a fad and that it shouldn't be in the canon, there's nothing wrong with that.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ravellian said:


> Well, a period encompasses all the styles of music written in that time. So to criticize the entire baroque period, I think you would have to be at least reasonably familiar with baroque opera, concerti, chamber music, and keyboard music. You don't have to have the entire _Well-Tempered Clavier_ memorized, but you should at least try to familiarize yourself with the major works and composers of the period: Monteverdi, Corelli, Vivaldi, Lully, Frescobaldi, Schutz, J.S. Bach, F. Couperin, Handel, and so on. Also, to have a more intelligent opinion, it would help to be able to read music and be familiar with music theory.


LOL. I think the "requirement" of being able to read music and know some music theory is not only a bit much -- it is actually wildly much -- to ask of the general listening public. Besides, _theory & composition are related, but neither one is the other._ (Those self-taught composers who do think theory is composition usually write music which is demonstrable proof that _theory is not composition_ 

It also overlooks the fact that any listener can build up enough listening experience and cognizance of what the music is far beyond merely "what floats their boat."

You see similar put-downs or arguments using that lack of technical knowledge about someone who criticizes a pianist -- you know, that retort that "you may not play at all or nearly as well, how can you judge that pianist?" Well, it is about what you hear and being able to discriminate about the quality of what you hear, not if you can play at all like or better. Ditto for theory and composition.

While knowing a bit or more than a little of the technical aspects can give one more of an understanding and appreciation of what is involved in the making of a piece of music, it does not go hand in hand that a critical faculty for discerning the measure of the quality of that music automatically accompanies that knowledge.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

brianwalker said:


> The canon is what the present most influential writers, musicians, concertgoers, etc, people in power and people out of power but with voting power i.e. the concertgoers decide it is. Of course the canon is malleable.
> 
> The people who criticize modernism simply mean that modernism is a fad and that it shouldn't be in the canon, there's nothing wrong with that.


Beethoven's modernism was a fad until it happened to linger on... there is the flaw in your citing modernism as a fad. All music, when contemporary, was modern:: Modernism has always been "the fad."


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Couchie said:


> I'm glad you asked. Answer: yes.
> 
> I use _my_ canon to ZERSTÖREN DIE HÄUSER VON MENSCHEN, DIE WAGNERS GESAMTKUNSTWERK ABNEIGUNG!!!!


Was that a Google translation?


----------



## HaydnBearstheClock (Jul 6, 2013)

Does a musical piece always have to set trends to be good? Haydn's humour wasn't applied in romanticism much, but does that mean that it's not enjoyable?


----------

