Canon (iii).

A term used to describe a list of composers or works assigned value and greatness by
consensus. The derivation is ecclesiastical, referring to those biblical books and patristic
writings deemed worthy of preservation in that they express the fundamental truths of
Christianity. Some connotative values associated with this derivation, notably claims for
ethical qualities and a universal status, occasionally cling to the term in its aesthetic
applications.
Music sociologists such as Walter Wiora have demonstrated that certain differentiations
and hierarchies are common to the musical cultures of virtually all social communities; in
short, such concepts as Ars Nova, Ars Subtilior and Ars Classica are by no means
unique to western European traditions. Perhaps the most extreme formulation of an Ars
Classica would be the small handful of pieces comprising the traditional solo shakuhachi
repertory of Japan, where the canon stands as an image of timeless perfection in sharp
contrast to the contemporary world. But even in performance- and genre-orientated
musical cultures such as those of sub-Saharan Africa, or the sub- and counter-cultures of
North American and British teenagers since the 1960s, there has been a tendency to
privilege particular repertories as canonic. Embedded in this privilege is a sense of the
ahistorical, and essentially disinterested, qualities of these repertories, as against their
more temporal, functional and contingent qualities. A canon, in other words, tends to
promote the autonomy character, rather than the commodity character, of musical works.
For some critics, the very existence of canons – their independence from changing
fashions – is enough to demonstrate that aesthetic value can only be understood in an
essentialist way, something we perceive intuitively, but (since it transcends conceptual
thought) are unable to explain or even describe.
It is above all within the traditions of western European music that a sense of the canonic
has been built centrally and formally into an unfolding history of music. A newly
consolidated bourgeois class began to define itself artistically in the late 18th century,
institutionalizing its musical life in a manner independent of sacred and courtly life. It
established its principal ceremony – the public concert – in the major cities of England,
France and central Europe, and it began to create a repertory of classical music, with
related concert rituals, to confirm and authenticate the new status quo. By the mid-19th
century it had already established much of the core repertory of the modern canon, in the
process giving itself cultural roots, ‘inventing’ tradition and creating a fetishism of the
great work which is still with us today. This process of canon formation was aided,
moreover, by taste-creating institutions such as journals and publishing houses. The
history of the Revue et gazette musicale is indicative. So too is the series of collected
editions produced by Breitkopf & Härtel in the late 19th century. These editions further
illustrate the integral link between canon formation and the construction of national
identities. The rise of the canon was by no means unique to Germany (indeed it began in
England and France rather earlier), but it was above all in Germany that it became
associated with a dominant national culture, perceived as both specifically German and
at the same time representative of universal values, a paradox in tune with German
classical art and the new philology.
The practical and ideological force of the canon, the German canon in particular, was
already apparent in the 19th century. Practically, it allowed the significant to push into
obscurity the only marginally less significant (the Brahms symphony obscures the Bruch
symphony), and this authoritarian quality became increasingly pronounced in the early
20th century, as ‘classical’ repertories were placed in a polarized relation to avant-garde
and commercial repertories. (The institutionalization of musical scholarship did much to
reinforce this separation.) Ideologically, it manipulated an innocent repertory to confirm
the social position of a dominant group in society. It is this ideological quality, the
‘constructedness’ of the canon, that has especially interested critics in recent years. The
canon has been viewed increasingly as an instrument of exclusion, one which legitimates
and reinforces the identities and values of those who exercise cultural power. In
particular, challenges have issued from Marxist, feminist and post-colonial approaches to
art, where it is argued that class, gender and race have been factors in the inclusion of
some and the marginalization of others.
In a postmodern age, an age determined to expose the ideological and political character
of all discourses, the authority of the canon as a measurement of quality in some
absolute sense has proved increasingly difficult to sustain. It is threatened above all by a
growing sense (it may be disillusioning or cathartic) that any notion of a single culture, of
which the canon might be regarded as the finest expression, is no longer viable. Hence
the democratic embrace by scholarship of the non-canonic repertories of a
consumer-orientated and media-conscious society. Hence, too, the acceptance that
disparate musics can apparently co-exist without antinomies or forcefields, that nothing
need be peripheral. Despite these challenges, the canon has not been at all anxious to
lie down and die in the interests of cultural democracy. For many critics, notably Harold
Bloom and George Steiner, its continuing value to our culture lies in its celebration of
those qualities (of the work and of the art) which refuse to yield to contingent explanation,
which take their stand, in other words, on presence and greatness. Yet one may argue,
with Steiner, that ‘a canon, a syllabus, sifts and winnows so as to direct our time and
resources of sensibility towards certified, plainly-lit excellence’, while at the same time
recognizing that projects of greatness are themselves historically produced. It is this
recognition above all which gives the canon new significance in a postmodern world –
less a self-confirming demonstration of universal value (if not truth) than a model of the
privilege attaching to one corner only of a plural cultural field.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
W. Wiora: Die vier Weltalter der Musik (Stuttgart, 1961, 2/1988; Eng. trans., 1965)
W. Wiora, ed.: Die Ausbreitung des Historismus über die Musik: Aufsätze und Diskussionen (Regensburg, 1969)
A. Savile: The Test of Time (Oxford, 1982)
J.-F. Lyotard: La condition postmoderne: rapport sur le savoir (Paris, 1979; Eng. trans., 1984)
F. Kermode: Forms of Attention (Chicago, 1985)
G. Steiner: Real Presences (London and Boston, 1989)
T. Eagleton: The Ideology of the Aesthetic (Oxford, 1990)
H. Felperin: The Uses of Canon: Elizabethan Literature and Contemporary Theory (Oxford, 1990)
J.A. Winders: Gender, theory and the canon (Madison, WI, 1991)
L. Goehr: The Imaginary Museum of Musical Works (Oxford, 1992)
W. Weber: The Rise of Musical Classics in Eighteenth-Century England: a Study in Canon, Ritual, and Ideology
(Oxford, 1992)
M.J. Citron: Gender and the Musical Canon (Cambridge, 1993)
H. Bloom: The Western Canon: the Books and School of the Ages (London, 1995)
K. Ellis: Music Criticism in Nineteenth-Century France: La revue et gazette musicale de Paris, 1834–1880 (Cambridge,
1995)

JIM SAMSON