Elitism in music criticism and the analyst’s ‘responsibility’

Sir Peter Maxwell Davies, “The Queen’s official composer”, has in a recent article in the Telegraph, suggested “youngsters are ignorant of classical music because of ‘elitist’ attitudes”. This after Nicola Benedetti, “the acclaimed violinist”, calls for more attention to be paid in schools to the formal details of the ‘great works’, listed as the symphonies of Beethoven, Mahler, Sibelius and Dvorak. A lack of knowledge about Dickens and Shakespeare is also symptomatic of a dysfunctional educational system, and something needs to be done to counteract the view that music is an ‘elitist fringe activity’. Great. On the surface.
If you look ever-so-slightly deeper, however, the article indicates everything that is wrong with the conception of elitism in music criticism, and to an extent “high” culture more generally.
In the first place, talking about elitism through the views of “The Queen’s Official Composer” may not be the best place to start, though let’s put this aside as a superficial criticism. The problem with this article, then, is not in the already troubling idea that classical music (or “high culture” more generally invoked through the reference to Dickens and Shakespeare) is inaccessible, it is that it perpetuates elitist value judgements in itself. Elevating the ‘great’ classical works as (the only?) things that allow us to “understand humanity” (whether we believe they do or not) against ‘popular’ works, quite explicitly associated with the “disgrace” of music teaching in British schools, as “inane and vacuous”, doesn’t seem in-keeping with “the ethos of widening music across all social classes”. But, says Sir Peter, with so much media focus on “pop” singers, “we are in grave danger of losing – through not learning or experiencing – centuries of a wealth of wisdom and works.” It is, of course, elitist attitudes keeping youngsters from learning about classical music, though, isn’t it? Naturally.
Anyone who knows me at all will see I’m merely playing devils advocate here; I’m not Miley Cyrus’s biggest fan, heaven knows I can’t stand Lorde, and a recurring joke that ‘if it’s much past the nineteenth century, I’m not interested’ seems to come up in conversation at least twice a day, however the contradictions in this article cannot go unnoticed. Read between the lines (or even just read the lines) and you have an elitist article blaming elitism for the crisis in musical education.

These attitudes towards elitism stretch further than primary or secondary musical education, into musical research on a professional academic level.
In an analysis seminar this morning, we were talking about postmodern critiques of music theory in response to the somewhat provocative question: ‘What is wrong with formalist modes of analysis?’ We moved through issues of context versus content, of the positivist object versus abstract subject, and of intra- and extra-musical value and meaning, before we eventually fell onto the topic of the purpose of musical analysis.
Interestingly, discussion oscillated around the concepts of ‘responsibility’, ‘communication’, and ‘enjoyment’. “It is an analyst’s responsibility to…” was a constant refrain, often followed with some reference to improving communication of a works ‘meaning’ in order to enhance ‘enjoyment’ of another’s listening experience. This is all very well and good; for me, analysis enhances understanding of a musical work in ways that make it so much more exciting to listen to on repeat, and it does make me feel as if I’m unlocking some sort of secret I can then share with someone, somewhere, at some point. But, introduce the notion of ‘purpose’ (or as it is known in bureaucratic circles, ‘impact’), and you have a whole different ball game.

Should an attempt be made to ‘enlighten’ others, to ‘enrich’ musical experience via cultural and/or musical critique, or to fit analysis to a predefined mould of any or all of these things? If the answer to these questions is “yes”, as it is often assumed to be, then who should analysis communicate to? Who should it enlighten? In the current climate of ‘academic open-access outreach’, the apparent answer is everyone, anyone. This is problematic at best. Does it matter if something is lost through the restrictive models of analytic inclusivity? I guess you’re currently rolling your eyes, thinking “look who’s being horribly elitist now”, or assuming I’m trying to enter the wrong ‘business’ in not wishing to accept an institutionalised purpose for my work. But hear me out.

I don’t really like the word ‘responsibility’ used alongside ‘analyst’ in the context of ‘purpose’. I don’t like the idea that theory should be forced to say anything at all for the benefit of statistical output. I don’t like the fact that aspects of research may be stifled for fear of seeming inaccessible. I like to believe that an analyst could use Schenkerian models, or Fortean PC Set Theory, or Rétian motivic analysis to say what they wish, if they wish, and I like to believe that what they say could influence anyone’s understanding on some level. The problem is not the complexity of the research, how formalist the analysis is, or how challenging it may be to read that renders it inaccessible, the problem is the attitude surrounding the research, equating this difficulty with elitism in the first place, an attitude that is perpetuated by governmental pressures to make academic work more ‘accessible’. Is it not already accessible in many ways? Would I have been able to come through the state education system condemned by Sir Peter Maxwell Davies et al. with a deep interest in Sonata Theory if it weren’t accessible in at least some way?

I suppose what I am trying to say, then, is if music (analysis) is to become more accessible, it is not the music (analysis) that has to change. Attitudes projected onto musicology and school musical education from governmental schemes of inclusivity are responsible for perpetuating the idea of elitism, a quality that is not inherent to the discipline itself as assumption dictates. The last thing I want to suggest, of course, is that there is no crisis in school musical education, and that we should make no effort to widen music across social circles, but forcing school children to appreciate ‘great’ works through detailed formal analysis, or at the opposite end of the spectrum, forcing academics to simplify critique for the sake of accessibility surely isn’t the answer? The first thing that needs to change is the incessant perpetuation of this negative conception of elitism.

So what is a musicologist’s ‘responsibility’?
Simply to contribute to research (preferably in ways unhampered by notions of ‘impact’ or ‘accessibility’) in order to continue to inspire those for whom musicology is, or could become, a means of unlocking a secret that can be shared with someone, somewhere, at some point, a secret that, most importantly, is already accessible to anyone, and that promises a way out of this elitist claptrap.