A Grove of Ashes and Aspens

Now Playing: Incantations by Elvenking

So I’ve talked about how there’s some elitism in Western classical music in the past. (Go read that mini rant here.) Now, I stand by that. There’s potential for elitism and racism basically everywhere in Western classical music, because a lot of the composers that we play and study were from white majority countries in a time when slavery was legal. Many of them would also benefit, whether directly or indirectly, from slavery and racism.

But what does this have to do with Western classical music being a myth? One simple reason: the same reason I specify it to be Western classical music. What “classical music” looks like will depend on their cultural background, and in some cases in the Americas, Australia, and the Pacific Islands, their status as Indigenous. (Someone’s status as Indigenous will give them a different cultural outlook than someone of a different ethnic background.) What “classical music” means to someone from France will be completely different to what it means to someone from Iran will be completely different to what it means to someone from India. And yet they’re all classical music.

So how do we go about studying classical music in an academic context when there are so many differences like that? The same way we approach history and the other humanities and soft sciences: with nuance and a specific focus on one aspect, whether that be the classical music of one cultural context at large, or some aspect of an individual culture’s concept of classical music.

Most people who study classical music in the Western world will be studying Western classical music, because that’s the cultural context they have. But if their cultural background is from Iran, for example, they might want to study Iranian classical music instead. That different cultural background and context within the study of music will mean that this person will have a different system of notation to study, as well as different composers with different sociopolitical climates at the time they were alive, compared to what was happening in Europe at the same time.

This, however, is not a bad thing. Despite any elitism that may get brought up, Western classical music is not inherently “better” or “more correct” than what other cultures have as their classical music. Even within Europe and what we consider to be “Western classical music” will have a lot of nuance, depending on where you go in Europe, and even in the Americas and Australia. So even classifying all Western classical music as the same is disingenuous.

But then, if that’s true, what’s the point of continuing to use this term? Simple: it’s one of those limitations of language I was talking about recently. We don’t have a better way of conceptualising it, because the language has already been developed in the way it is now. It’s easier to keep the same language surrounding a concept, especially when discussing something that spans across so much of history and so many different cultures. Trying to do anything else would, at this point, be near impossible and not very helpful.

The institution still deserves criticism and has much capacity for change, though. Specific changes being unhelpful at best doesn’t mean that other changes are equally unhelpful. Studying various composers and considering the sociopolitical and socioeconomic influences of the time, especially when studying Western classical music in the 1600s, and criticising specific factors that may have influenced specific composers will never be a bad thing. Criticising practices of colonialism and slavery that many composers would benefit from in the past doesn’t mean their music is suddenly invalid. But that doesn’t mean we can just suddenly ignore anything that was bad at the time, as understanding the complete historical context of the piece means that there’s more of an understanding of what was intended in the performance of the piece, and what each composer may have seen as “normal” or “standard” when it comes to composition and performance.

This whole topic leads into a larger discussion of whether or not to separate the art from the artist. And to an extent, especially with composers long dead, that can be done. However, someone’s cultural upbringing will always influence their art. What they consider to be the “standard” will look different depending on the culture in which they were raised. So is it possible to solely judge a work of art based on its individual merit as a work of art? Yes, but that takes away so much of the context on why that piece is the way it is, and why the artist made it that way. This ties into the whole art being inherently political discussion. (See this post I made a while back on this topic if you want a more in depth take on that.)

In short, the study of music is never just the study of music. It’s the study of people, their tastes, and their understanding of the world. It’s a study of politics, economics, history, and sociology, disguised as something that sounds cool. Being able to recognise that is something that should be more widely understood and accepted.