Even as a 'mere historian' you are allowed to raise a hand for Purcell,
but the question related to England's demise as a creative musical force
SINCE Purcell UP TO the emergence of Elgar - that's about 200 years. I am
not sure that musical 'genius' is a function of anything at all. It surely
depends on how you define it, and who defines it. By 'genius' do we mean
'originality'? A faculty possessed by those capable of transcending, or
at least appearing to transcend the limits of convention? In which case
Mozart was not really a genius. Or do we mean the faculty possessed by
someone able to articulate some sort of 'meaning' which transcends the
form in which it is expressed, in which case Mozart was a genius. In
those terms can we say that genius is a function of nationalism? Prof.
Weber's construct of the canon as a quasi-political instrument of
national prestige should not be confused with any idea about the nature
of 'genius', even when the two appear to be synonymous, particularly when
the two appear to be synonymous. Britain's supposed invention of the
canon may have a lot to do with images of 'nation', but not a lot to do
with genius - at least as far as I can see. Unless its power to operate
as a mediator of musical culture effectively blocked the pathways by
which 'genius' usually makes its way into social prominence. But just
between one 'mere historian' and another, I admit to being very puzzled
indeed about the whole question of music in English/British culture.
Ann Beedell
Humanities
Griffith University, Q. Australia 4111
A.Beedell@hum.gu.edu.au