Summary of Gender and the Musical Canon by Marcia J. Citron
Gender and the Musical Canon is a timely and engaging read, and was one of the publications which at their time were a sign of profound and welcome change within the field of musicology. Before this time, American musicology had not been concerned with issues of signification, and rarely were questions about the relationship of music with gender of society asked. There was a void as far as matters of relationship of music with gender, sexuality, or other categories of cultural analysis were concerned, as music was basically analyzed using primarily positivist methods.
Hence, this time was a pivotal one in American musicology, which was willing now to communicate with other academic disciplines, to listen to critical voices and to pursue new schools of thought that existed. The discourse of musicology was now on the path to enrichment and transformation ands Marcia J. Citron’s attempt at inquiring into the relationship between music and gender in the context of the canon was an example of the few works which gave scholars a fresh approach to the practice of musicology.
This study by Citron focuses on the complex issue of the “classical music canon” in the academy. Her premise as articulated by her in the book’s introduction is why does musicology neglect the vital question of why we continue to valorize such a small body of music composed by persons of one gender belonging to a specific part of the world during a comparatively short period of time. She presents a feminist analysis of canon formation in music and while her book does not regard gender in the most inclusive meaning of the term, as it deals with the works and experiences of both sexes, the central focus is on why the works of women fail to occupy important positions in musical canons and what changes need to occur for women to attain better representation.
In her book, Citron proposes a multitude of reasons to which we can attribute the absence of women composers from the canon, as she explores the issue within the broad categories of “creativity”, “professionalism” and “reception”, which together are three chapters out of six in all. The introductory chapter is “Canonic Issues” and the two remaining chapters are “Music as a
gendered discourse,” (which proposes the possibility of interpreting “masculine” and “feminine” elements in a tonal sonata) and “The canon in practice” (which provides a general account of the features of the previous chapters as well as some useful comments on, as she sees it, the much needed restructuring of the university music-history curriculum).
In her first chapter, the author talks about “Canonic Issues”. Although a canon is generally defined as a “specified group of related works”, its etymological root, “kanon” means ruler, standard, or model. Canons persist through time, and can have moral or ethical meanings. They are established by professors; who are generally white males, by publishers of books, recordings, and periodicals; by intentions and attitudes of composers, conductors and performers; and to some extent, by the public. Additionally, canon formation is a process deeply rooted in a system of values. Canons are widely determined by social and historical contexts and have cultural connotations which change with time. All that said, the contents of canons are still assumed to be universal, neutral, and immutable.
However, these age-old assumptions are now being contested by women, Blacks and Native Americans, but challenges to the musical canon in the context of gender had not yet had a significant impact on music texts and anthologies. The author quotes books which have tried to include women such as Marie Stolba’s The Deuelopment of Western Music: A History,R. Larry Todd’s The Musical Art: An Introduction and Robert Winter’s Music for Our Time.
However, the core problem remains. The author discusses and agrees with the analysis of Karin Pendle, editor of Women and Music: A History when the latter suggests that women are included in the texts and anthologies often to “add and stir”, which means that they are added to old arrangements without significantly having an impact on them. Hence, according to Citron, this is a shortcoming derived from inadequate historical and cultural research, which has failed to truly award women a significant place in musical canons.
Introduction
In this paper, we attempt to discuss how three prominent writers have drawn the connection between culture and music in their respective works. All three have focused on different cultural aspects: William Weber discusses the origins of the musical canon, Marcia J. Citron’s talks about the relationship between gender and music in a historical context and Joseph Kerman views the canon in terms of the various intellectual ideologies which prevailed in musical history. Nevertheless, culture is a vital part of their analysis, and in this paper, we will integrate their respective viewpoints to better understand the relationship between music and culture.
Joseph Kerman’s a Few Canonic Variations
In his article, he presents a detailed account of how the notion of canon in music came into being, and the reader can find a number of cultural factors which contributed to this development in the history of music. For one, he mentions the 19th century as being one of the most important periods when the nature of the Western art music tradition changed in significant ways. 15th century repertories consisted of music of that generation and barely one or two generations earlier; but towards the early 19th century, when new music entered the repertory, it did not replace old music. This led to the adding of a historical dimension to music.
Kerman attributes this new longevity of repertories to the “new social configuration formed for music in the nineteenth century.” Factors responsible for the extension of repertories were “the concert series and the virtuoso, the bourgeois as audience and amateur, the freelance composer and critic.” He also believes that “the canon was one of music’s legacies from early Romanticism”, a claim which Weber in his article The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Musical Canon refutes by saying “the musical canon has been shaped first and foremost not by literary movements such as Romanticism, but by a complex variety of forces, ideas and social rituals that grew out of musical culture” (Kerman, 1983; Weber, 1989).
Kerman also mentioned how the Romantics thought differently than the ethnomusicologists found today. While for the latter, the most important aspect of music is the social activity of the performance, the Romantics were “idealists enough to see musical scores as primary texts of which performances, or “readings,” were successively imperfect representations.” However, as times changed, society’s mindset changed along with it, and an anti-Romantic movement emerged in the twentieth century. It was a statement against the “anacondalike hold” and the dominance which nineteenth century music has on even the repertory of present times.
It stemmed from the anti-Romantic sentiment which prevailed after World War I as people rejected the emotionality and sententiousness which was the very hallmark of Romantic music. Another outcome of this change of mindset was an interest in older, pre-Bach music which became stronger in the post World War II period (Kerman, 1983).
The author states that the tradition of music has changed in two essential ways: the music played and listened to, as well as the social conditions in which this playing and listening occurs. The development of new forms of musical records has changed the landscape of musical life and records have facilitated canonization in ways the previous generation of composers and critics could not have possibly foreseen.
But one of the disadvantages of this according to Kerman is that this has led to standardization: loss of spontaneity for the performer and lack of variety for the listener. However, these technological changes have possibly created a void for new paradigm of music, “one centered on the activity-or, if you prefer, the passivity-of listening to music on tapes and records”. By this, the author shows how cultural changes alter the very meaning of music: where earlier the paradigm of literacy prevailed, where music started with the composer, the modern paradigm starts with the listener but also involves the performer and the composer (Kerman, 1983).
The key area where Kerman differs from Weber’s approach to describing the canon is that, as will be seen in the following part of the paper, Kerman attributed the evolution of the musical canon primarily to literary movements such as Romanticism, while Weber emphasized a distinct mix of forces, ideas, customs and other cultural variables as having played a key role.
William Weber’s The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Musical Canon
In his article, The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Musical Canon, William Weber discusses his viewpoint about the origin of the musical canon, which according to him, emerged “quietly and inconspicuously”, out of the practices and customs of musical convention. It had a very strong background comprising of cultural and socio-political events, but not any literary movement or intellectual philosophy.
While talking of the relationship between music and culture, and this article pertains specifically to the origins of the canon, the writer discusses the impact of customs such as the persistence of older music and the stature awarded to older musicians in many ways, the most prominent being the prestige they were awarded in musical study, church music and pedagogy. Slowly, old practices started becoming more common as they took on significant roles in musical spheres and started being appreciated “on their own terms.” Other social, political and intellectual factors also influenced this extension of earlier practices- capital cities bloomed and concerts started becoming a welcome norm, the opera assumed bureaucratic tendencies, the Classical tradition in literature changed. These changes all facilitated the expansion of early music.
The cultural significance of the English cathedrals and their impact on the formation of canons can not be ignored in early times. Famous cathedrals such as the Chapel Royal were all involved in copying old anthems and services as they constructed an almost new repertory of church music.
As Weber puts it, “In copying the old works, the men of the Chapel Royal were consolidating a new tradition, attempting to honour their masters and define their own roles in an increasingly insecure political situation” and later, ” The extraordinary professionalism in the Chapel Royal and leading cathedral choirs, as is found in Durham [Cathedral] so clearly, played an important role in perpetuating the music as a way of honouring master composers” (Weber, 1989).
The relationship between music and culture is further described when Weber describes how the Civil War and period of Restoration helped to reform attitudes and instill a sense of sacredness in old works, which led to a more conscious effort to preserve them. He mentions the names of Rev. J. C. Clifford and Thomas Tomkins as having made immense contributions to the task of helping to revive anthems and services from the past in a systematic way. Such socio political factors ensured that the music assumed a historical importance that it had not been attributed before (Weber, 1989).
The turn of the 18th century led to the appearance of the term ‘ancient music’ and soon after, music started assuming a national and artistic meaning above political divisions. With the formation of the Academy of Vocal Music and then later the Concerts of Ancient Music, without the latter’s restricted number of members, ancient music was popularized and accepted by a larger public. The tradition of festival performance of an old work, which originated with the Purcell Te deum was also a solid example of how cultural factors intersected with musical history. The festival tradition was very much responsible for providing the old repertory with a solid social foundation, and this way, provided the musical canon the wide social outreach it lacked (Weber, 1989).
Marcia Citron’s Gender and the Musical Canon
In his article, A Few Canonic Variations, Kerman states, “A canon is an idea; a repertory is a program of action” and that “repertories are determined by performers, canons by critics.” While Citron appreciates and agrees with this definition to some extent, she doesn’t follow it in her book as she feels in a lot of situations the line demarcating repertory from canon becomes meaningless, and in cultural discourse, “canon” is often used as a broad term for repertoire, or a canon as per Kerman’s definition, or a paradigm or ideal “(Citron, 1993).
The focal point of the book is the argument that “Western women individually and collectively intersect with canonicity from different cultural perspectives from men” (Citron, 1993, p. 192). The author specifies that one of the hindrances women composers face is an “anxiety of authorship”. She quotes from renowned feminist literary critics as well as women composers to further reiterate her thesis and women’s feelings about the act of composing as it relates to their sex.
To stress upon the historical and cultural differences in the attitudes of women and men composers, she describes specific occasions in which men actively discouraged women’s compositional efforts, and says, “… I would suspect that social conditioning may make it easier for a man to let his piece go. Indeed, he may be eager to have the work enter the public’s consciousness.
This can increase the chances for canonicity and a secure place in history. Men, after all, generally feel more centered in history than women and see themselves as a natural part of historical succession. They will be more comfortable seeing their creative progeny go into the world as a published work”(Citron, 1993, p. 112). However, such a statement must be interpreted critically for two reasons. For one, this is personal speculation at the part of the author and second, would all men feel “centered in history”, even the men of color and the postcolonial men?
Citron also shows in her book the Judeo-Christian cultural facets which have forced women to acquire the status of a reproducer rather than a producer, with the male being the creator. She also discusses the history of how this culture has placed utmost importance on professionalism, a “male” domain, rather than the multi-skilled lives which most women have juggled since age infinity. Towards the end of the book, she provides detailed and convincing evidence as to how women’s music has been vulnerable on two accounts simultaneously: criticism of excessive virility and of excessive femininity (Citron, 1993).
Citron’s book focuses primarily, but not exclusively, on 19th century middle-class Europe, which was culturally speaking, a very inequitable time for women composers. This is also one of the criticisms of the book: that it focused on a time which was not typical in its selection of a time period. A discussion including Aristocratic women in the late Renaissance or orphans in 17th century Venice, or even women composers in British television and radio today or, focusing wholly on the environment which her main examples Clara Schumann, Fanny Mendelssohn, and Cecile Chaminade would have allowed this book to have a narrower cultural scope, leading to more valuable conclusions (Citron, 1993).
However, this book, Gender and the Musical Canon draws valuable insights about the relationship between music and culture. It talks about the conventional associations which men have had: with creation, culture and rationality; and which women have had: with reproduction, nature, and the physical and emotional. And society has always awarded a higher privilege to the former than the latter. Gendered metaphors have been used to reiterate the point that culture has the power to tame or dominate nature.
The history of music is replete with examples of these tendencies to suppress what is regarded as feminine. Citron cites examples via analyzing Mozart operas to show how a desire to dominate or diminish women may be realized musically, a possible reason for this being the male fear of female creativity. All of these are cultural nuances which can be felt in the history of music.
According to Citron, a problem which women have suffered as composers, attributed to the cultural mindset, is a lack of emphasis in upbringing on ego, courage, and independence. She provides evidence of this statement of hers in the form of several passages she cites of Fanny Mendelssohn Hensel, Clara Schumann, Elisabeth Schroter, and Maria Theresia von Paradis all of which document the low self-image they had, at least with respect to composition. Their creativity was often hindered because of the opposition their parents had to the fact that their daughters were interested in composing, even brothers discouraged their sisters.
However, mothers played a great supporting role for Mendelssohn Hensel, Schumann, and Edith Borroff. The concept of female compositional mentors was also present in the culture of that time, which facilitated the development of Ethel Smythe, Anna Ferguson Lockwood, and Margaret Bonds. From this, Citron draws out her desire for there to be a female tradition which can serve as a ground and a center for encouragement and support for aspiring female composers (Citron, 1993).
A very important point that this book makes is that the inclusion of masterworks in a canon is usually determined by factors other than the inherent “greatness” of those works. Rather, according to Citron, “[c]anons embody the value systems of a dominant cultural group that is creating or perpetuating the repertoire” “(Citron, 1993, p. 20). This means that since traditionally, it has always been the male scholars who have selected the ones eligible for the canon’s membership, the selection of male composers should not be perceived as a coincidence. This has important cultural implications since it talks of an exclusionist mindset which has prevailed since time immemorial and which has propagated the favor of men by men, simply on the basis of gender, rather than true merit (Citron, 1993).
A major part of Citron’s book has focused on examining the special problems which women who have aspired to have a career in music have faced historically. It is not that music is the only cultural aspect where women have met resistance. But, unlike other fields such as literature, music warrants exhaustive years of professional training: lessons in harmony, counterpoint, and orchestration, that can be achieved only by attending designated institutions.
The problem however was that these institutions were exclusive to men. Even after a piece is composed, it must be programmed by a major performing organization, if the composer is to acquire fame. As a consequence of these hurdles, many women composers have chosen smaller genres-songs, piano or chamber pieces-that can be performed by the composer, her acquaintances, and a large community of women who make music in the home. If the cultural assumption that women who perform on stage for money are prostitutes is considered, it is a remarkable feat for the few women who managed to become professionals (Citron, 1993).
Another example which Citron presents of the impact of culture on musical tradition is when she agrees with Kerman on how “the recording has replaced the live performance as the principal performing medium for many pieces of new music. The effect of this has been that the recording, which was a tangible, physical object, has been substituted by the more fleeting, phenomenological impact of the live experience” (Citron, 1993, p. 24).
Conclusion
Three writers have presented three distinct theses relating to the canon but there has been one common thread which runs in all three works: culture. Whether directly or indirectly, instances and events have been mentioned either in the process of tracing the history of the musical canon or discussing the relation of gender with canon, which document how the powerful concept of canonicity in particular, and music in general, has been influenced by a vast variety of cultural and historical factors.
References
Citron, M. J. (1993). Gender and the Canon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hisama, E. (1994). Reviewed Work(s): Gender and the Musical Canon by Marcia J. Citron. The Journal of Musicology, 12(2), 219-232.
Kerman, J. (1983). A Few Canonic Variations. Critical Inquiry, 10(1) 107-125.
Lorraine, R. C. (1994). Reviewed Work(s): Gender and the Musical Canon by Marcia J. Citron. Notes, 2nd Ser. 51(2), 550-555.
Weber, W. (1989). The Eighteenth-Century Origins of the Musical Canon. Journal of the Royal Musical Association, 114(1), 6-17.