Two The Canons in the Musicological Toolbox Don Michael Randel Inthe het tome ied sid ants: alam an, copied by Apple Computer Ine a ection ofthe ist chapters headed The Toolbox fan Other High-Level Software,” and it begins 3 follows “The Macintosh User Interface Tolbox provides a simple means bt constructing aplication programe that conform tothe sa dard Macintosh user itrface. By offering common st ofr tines that every application calls to implement the wer inertace, the Totbox no only ensues faut al couse for user but also helps reduce the applistions cae sie an devel- ‘opment time. (Apple Computer 1983.19), ‘We could perhaps tanspose dhs tothe domain of musiolgy solos ‘The Musiolgl’sTolbox proviesameans fconsrucing ds Sertations and schol ales that conform tothe standard Maniclogical interface. By olleing a common set of techniques that every dlssenaion and scholarly artice employs to imple ‘ment the Musicological interac. the Toolbox not only ensies familioty and conssency forthe scholar bt als helps rece the ime and effort equlted to rode the scholey produ. Each of us shows up for wok hugging ooo. an the contents ofthis toolbax have great dal oda with what Kind of work wean do and what the work wl lok tke when we are finshed. Apple Compute, Inc de- signed and made avalable thet Toolbox presets at ene that pro- Ths ape daw together and expands on omar made ate al meting of "98 welasinaecre ge forthe Soy oh mais st Corel Uae Syn 94a an abeucy pblsed andl 1987 ‘roms writen for the Macatsh by anyone and everyone would 100k tention an riendly”to the user (vith pull-down mens, eons, clicking inate rest We olen engage in a similar enterprise in out taching— ‘Shen we aim to provide our stents with de asic tools scholarship’ ‘We end to constrain not only how things canbe studled bu what can be dhudied otal We somtimes give the impression that other hings are not ren worthy of study “The Musiolgia! Toolbox developed inthe context of certain canon of works, Once developed it began to act just as surely define and maintain ‘hac canon. By canon I mean primarily the canon of acceptable dsertaion topics. This not the same a fhe Canon ofthe Repertory or the Standard Reperiory in general by which we might mean the works peserved and transite by istiuions of high culture, such as concert halls nd opera houses The muscologial canon i forthe most para subset of this ager ‘anon, though the tlaionshlp between the ro has changed considerably inthe ast few decades andthe een them snow mich beter than st ‘nas even just emt fe oF 50 Yeas go. Henry Lous Gate, e, vies the relationship of Afo-American Iter tute tothe iterary anon and es aul de Man's prae resatew Ui ty” (Gates 198687234546: de Man 1982). This phrase seems to me to ‘sonal in our profession in ways that neither Gates or de Man will ave Fo mind but that neverless capa much of what I at Issue hee ‘What it about the Musicological Toofbox that has made i sch a powerful foace in Keeping certain subjects ot including a times subjects that have the atusof high ar in ur awn culture? Or, what cabot the theoretical Frame of msiology that has made so many subject resstancto i? Here we ‘nay think both ofthe theory of musicology 28 discipline and of misc theory in the mote usual sense in which we recognize itasan important tol ‘of musiology. The resistance to theory of so much music has too often seemed ikea fol ofthe music fstead, we perhaps ought so think about the possible limitations in our theory inboth senses. Asthe Spanish proverb says. "ifabookstrikesone inthe head and itmakesa hollow sound it isnot sways the fault of he book Ofallof our tools, rnsial notation surely anks stn importance anit is central to much of ur theory Indeed, shas often Been the basis forthe inl sorting ofall possible musics: All of musi i divided into wo pars— ‘wien actions anor aons The profesional study of music isthen ‘Similarly divide. Writen mos, eich tes ut tobe principally Westernart mi, is studied by musiologits, Everything else i tude by eth romusiologss. Notation alto provides the principal foundation fr two of ‘ur favorite concepts: the work self and the individual composer, ‘Much ofthe energy of musicology has gone into denying, fixing, pre Serving, and studying “the work tselC” And, ofcourse, our bli n such a ‘hing as "the work sel ts what makes possible the creation ofthe lst of| such things that make up the canon. But notation snot scent for a df nition ofthe work sel" Indeed, notation simply not self-suffent all. must always be decoded by an informed reader whobringsto beat on it his orher own experince. And that experiences the product of a parallel oral tation, This interdependence of writen and ofl tations characterizes rotation in the twentieth century just a5 surely as ie characterizes non diastematic notations ofthe Mile Ages. n consequence, the status of “the vworkitse”assomething fixed in notation oral ime. is serous under mined and witht many of ox traditional dsiplinary and methodologieal boundaries. Musicology and ethnomusiclogy begin 10 look a great deal more alike when we recognize tha there sno such thing as@ work without the supposed “work ue” fs product oft at af ecoxing—that. scadng or Iitening—sos the compose asa relive force. Our image othe ‘composer a a creator emerges only fom our reading of fisting to his or ‘her works This decoding makes our relationship tothe composer rather di ferent from the traditional one in which the composers viewed asa Romar licgenius who dispenses immutable worksforalloftie. And itmight make us question the importance of the Figure ofthe composer aa fore in the formation af our canons. Anonymity has mostofen made us ather uncom= fortable when it comes to musieal works. Anonymous works constitute & problem and ae likely 1obe thought not worthy of stady fr their on sake. Even when theres no hope of denying asingle composer asin some ‘Tere is one more set of tools that deserves menton here because of is widespread use in ou thinking about most everything and because ofthe particular marks that thas lef on our wtting about history. Ths isthe tehole set of binary oppostionsin which we frame so much ofour discourse: high culture and popular culture, sacred and secular. consent and fee om. Thelistsvey ong. Ofthese. constraint and freedom is surely the op postion at the heart ofthe master trope of musichisiorcal writing— the tropein tems of which we have rewritten ever story inistory isthe tory of freedom won through thrving of the constants (or worse) ofthe s- ‘red, dhe cour. of some form or gene, of convention, tonality the arin, ‘the work sell. And the feedom won by one generation quickly becomes ‘he constrain against which the next generation wl stugge to win ts own fessor, “This oppsition i just another version ofthe opposition Between good and evil. And it, as Fredric Jameson observes inthe wake of Niewsche, ‘ooted in tm in the opposition between the sif and the Other: “Whats 00d &s what Belongs 10 me. what Is bad s what belongs 10 the Other” {ameson 1981-238). In the Wester democracies since the ate eahteenth century but parculaly inthe United States othe wrentethcentury—the ‘erin that oppose freedom to constant has diem to unequaled sats ‘And we occupy the pole ofso-ale freedom. Our study of history is then a Search for people like oanelves—peope define in the sragge freedom ‘gainst constraint, good against el the self gaint the Other. This the Sry in tems ofwhich we have fashioned our period abe for “perio for ‘mutations always secredy imply ox projet nartativesor'sories (bid) ‘The Rensinsance sony the mow sikng case of 2 period defined as being inhabited by people who were in cena esental Ways lke us. The same ‘ory can betold intone way or another for what marks the end ofthe Rens sence. orf the Romantic period, or atthe level of generations or genes or individual composes How does this narative device affect what westudy or how we sudy itor whats admited to our eanons? It functions by Hdentiying certain periods ‘composers and works (notalaysthesame ones, dependingon te partic larstory being told) with constrain, ev. the Other while identifying thes, ‘vith eedom, good, the (ourself. Andas Dertda shows, inal ich oppos- ‘ons, one ter isthe dominant one, the other marginalized: “In 2 adi ‘onal philosophical opposition we have not a peace coexistence of facing terms but a violent hierarchy. One of the terms dominates the ober (as JolopcallyInieally et) erp the commanding position” (quoted InCcuer 198285; se ab Js 1981114), Our ay is hs ramen teem that undermined meat by whith wea Yate at res theabjectve dspassionatesiaiy othe evidence” Wesson ur ‘aluecenain pein composer and works bape oer because of she very natu ofthe concept an arate nt at 6 PR Temi be sep tt ou foal as wl eve ws: Somer ote vein ansiet tothe nos, and thoy ae ot so cosy mae fae Bat the anger in cating our oral analyses to wien fora onc arate hottnaitmay werkt ater at such maneuver wil aay Work ‘The formals aalss wl sl aay bend othe native sate that meats tthe wis fn cern ne eve and ens nari ‘il alnay saceced uns the deck outage staked (ur rarratie ols elyng as they doom ean binary oppsitons fe Pesan oe) nay be the mest power ores at work hen me 5 Instron onset the canon Freda hat won 93 rm ese ce wll rut the unmuing the sping oppositon—the reverse : Ase me rt we esta emake them. Recent shake seen the remaking of good many chobrly ons and he ging of ome ‘new ones Thos of uswho hove parte inet op a Uneasy. To the exen sat or pia succes n defining and descr ‘usec and the meth by which our depen tao oe us {ects itis ike to became another ane of thse ous ht ints sje or Fuute stay and consainsthe ways which the subjects wl este. Ether that ort wl coninaly hesten ound tesla ha we tls tokrow by questioning the bases on which we claim oki oe {nde cancniyhope obehene nour xcountoftccons ofthe as anole ores that crested and natin them without here Seti expasion inthe hte Notes Saar eee cena cee ah woman are (3a wy hres mv dda ein des ea nd ch sel inne ura the os at by Hees ptt a TaARivir cris manera pcarsey “Teagetnco frextha ns inposie speak of asc andere ny earingat Sle ne ovat asp styl ake of Mey toe te in pin oe Src oy yes of a {ence andy scning to ede a ab ray ory ace {5 inne sve al eso or soa om esc ca ‘Biocon an rep ee serenity we “Tetok eins cram. ato iment wht ‘SEpeccuesfeompns sepshoteaem eric se comp seseraonef me srs adc anaes isan fe Extrusion fic mesporcal scone spr tbe exter othe Site. bro snide cc masa hh he concept re Prods fk sunt err wh 9 ae ol sen eer Wonks Cirep ‘Aope Comper ne. 1985 mide Maint Wl, sa Reading. Ma ‘don ay PAE on Mh ere Unie Mes Fee Rt Ran 198, Bed fon Are Femi Lara a el Charge Cambs, Ma Haman Unversity re ah imo 90, Tana Arete of Popa Mus” m Richard Lepper te ston acl eh Me nd Sg 13999. canbee: Cand (Gt Hey Lon 1984-87, “Wharton Gott Do wih 1 Cal Theo top sn hk m= No ray Hay 135-82 amen Feo 9817 Pl Dnas Nara oly Stee At Sn oer 9K, of ek Rept. east Baht Mi oes hn Hahn 965g Bay: onan an UNOGHANOINE heft 1983, 9p. 31~77 anil Don Mh 087s ae” Ao 8-75-66,1985 The New mink rn: Eon Momo. Lerten Th \weclon his 1967 mit Prac and traci Thy Oxo 8 THREE Sophie Drinker’s History Ruth A. Solie owl as very way of accumulating no plas wheres ih ety pee >My endeavor here isa medaton on the question of in what circum- stancesanalremative may aie othe hstoriographlcpradigm current ine {siptine 1m paula 1 want to ak what would teke-—how canoe Practices and values would havo be diferent~in order for he paps: ‘on and experience of women to appesin the history of Western music My ‘xerese focuses on Muse and Homer. published in 1948 by Sophie H Drinker as an exemplar of such an altemative practice. The Book proves 'snocasionforasing both “What shitry?” and. morespecicly, "What 'smusic histor?” During the period as writing as ithappens. these were ‘questions that much occupied pratoners ofboth disciplines. What sonsof ‘questions sould history ask, whatareits data, how doest propel condut lsreseareh? The Drinker name i familar to most msiclogsts from acquaimance with Sophie’ husband, Henry. a lawyer and passionate amateur musician who became known forhis English anslationsof cantata and led tessa ‘Ths sai deat Vernon D. Gots. oud kexts my ete {0D ery Drinker et rtampron, Masachust for ecg wih scopy of ‘is uondmotbersunpubshed mena to Susan Gagan the sata the Sophia Ssh Cleon (smth Cale) an wo Eve Mosley ofthe Stenger Utay (dele Clee fr te assance woking with Sophie Driers apes. set tes tna ethernet rn pean