Denis Fodor:

>The Received Canon in classical music is at most only as exclusive as
>is the canon of the bible.  You're free to listen and enjoy Nono just as
>you're free to read the Apocrypha--or John leCarre.  But if you want to
>know the Christian or Jewish scriptures you're really obliged to get to
>know the canon.

Where this analogy falls down is, first, in the assumption (from the
meaning of "canon") that non-RC music is not REALLY classical music, or
not just as classical as the standard repertoire.  But surely Dittersdorf,
Krommer and Stoelzel, Shapero, Thomson and Thompson, for instance, are
classical composers (Shapero's Symphony for Classical Orchestra is even
Classical with a capital C), but none of these has ever quite made it into
the RC, I think.  All wrote wonderful music, though.  Second, the notion
that one is "obliged" to get to know ALL (presumably) of the RC before
venturing beyond it is troubling in more ways than one.  It is as if
someone told you that you couldn't possibly have fallen in love at first
sight; you must be mistaken about this; you need to meet everyone the
matchmaker brings you before making any rash decisions.  Music appreciation
is like love in that it typically is a form of intimate and passionate
acquaintance--with specific music with specific delightful characteristics.
There is no obligation to make the acquaintance of any piece or to love any
piece, and certainly not as a precondition for knowing any other piece.

There are many listeners--even musicians-- who know only the RC, if we must
call it that.  It is theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, that
there are listeners--not musicians--who don't know any of the RC works but
who know hundreds or even thousands of non-RC works.  Just suppose for the
sake of discussion that there is such a person.  Can one really say that
she is worse off than the more typical listener? How would one know?

Jim Tobin