I notice that my blog-writing friends are not writing much these days. Some are busy with work, some have crisis situations to deal with, and I imagine that some are not motivated. I haven't had any blog-inspiring musical experiences lately.
This might be a little interesting:
I have 84 Music Appreciation students divided into three sections. We have been studying the concept of canon as it relates to classical music. As part of this study, each of the three groups constructed its own canon of 20 works. They were free to choose from any style, era, genre, artist, etc.
The only classical work to even be considered was Pachelbel's Canon. It made it onto one of the group's canons with 9 votes.
The only other works that belonged to any sort of remotely classical genre were Carol of the Bells as performed by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra and the Star-Spangled Banner.
I wonder if the classical repertoire will consist primarily of Pachelbel's Canon and a few other favorites in a few hundred years.
2 comments:
Redtanager,
You make an interesting point. It would make sense to have some music from Ancient Greece in the Western Canon. However, the remaining examples are fragmentary, and we're not exactly sure how to read them. The reason for these facts seems to be all the civilization-disrupting history between that time and ours.
The oldest stuff in our canon is still viable because people have preserved both the music and the knowledge that is needed to perform it.
Of course, until the last century or so, there was relatively very little music available to most people, and those who studied music at any depth focused on the classical and/or the religious. Today, music of various styles is readily available--and often invades our space as well.
Also, until the last century or so, there was much greater connection to the past, or the roots, than we see today. Families stayed together in the same places and throughout generations, immigrants brought with them "old country" sensibilities and 'canon', etc.
Therefore, most people wouldn't have considered "modern" music as canonical--even though modern music might have been their preference. The question is, what will the plethora of musical options and exposures, and the lack of connection to the past, do to our sense of "the great".
The easy comparison is the literary, I think--folks have been able to read widely for a significant time (longer than varied music has been as easily available), folks have had their favorites that didn't stand the test of being 'literature', but the 'canon' of accepted great works still includes Shakespeare, as the prime example, and some even older works (there's your Ancient Greek connection)--their importance and quality have stood and will stand the test of time. A few might be added, but very few are removed from generation to generation.
The qualities that made Shakespeare great will continue to do so--although many may not choose Shakespeare as their "favorite". Lots of folks like to read Grisham more than Shakespeare, but most understand the difference in quality--they just don't want to work hard enough to enjoy 'Hamlet', in the same way that they might not want to work hard enough to enjoy Bach. But they still understand which belongs in 'the canon'.
My sense is that 'canon' as determined by broad ranges of society (and not just 18-22 year olds) will continue to represent what is great, not just what is recent or easy. But if there is any generation that might lose that sense, it is probably the present one.
I am curious, however--what music did make 'the canon' for your students?
Post a Comment