A while back, in December of last year, it was reported in the news that a Tory peer, Lord Moylan, had described BBC Radio 3 as being 'infected by a sort of relentless wokeness'. I read a write up of this in The Telegraph and I have to say, I have a lot of thoughts. It raises a lot of questions regarding the promotion of marginalised composers, as well as what makes particular composers "great" or certain music "special".
The above quote is a citation of a quote found in an article in The Telegraph. The original article can be found below - I would absolutely recommend reading it.
Lord Moylan is quoted as going on to say that BBC Radio 3 has been the mainstay of his life for 50 years, but he has recently found it to be infected by a sort of "wokeness", which is becoming a tendency of public broadcasting. He then goes on to single out Amy Beach, an American female composer who was active in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. He said that he was sure she 'was a charming lady', but questions if she really deserves 'similar exposure to Beethoven or Bach because she's a female composer?'.
Above. Amy Beach (1867 - 1944), the American
composer who Lord Moylan has decided is
underserving of the attention she's been
given on BBC Radio 3.
As though he is aware of the polarising nature of his previous statement, he then somewhat backpedals, going on to say that he does not at all mean to be rude about Mrs. Beach and her music (even though he already has been) and that he is not against Radio 3 playing works by female composers (although this is what previous statements suggest). What he is against is celebrating composers for their diversity and not their musical quality, and has commented on the vast number of ignored male composers.
There is a lot to unpack here and I have decided to focus on three particular ideas.
1. I used to think similarly to Lord Moylan
If you had spoken to me two to three years ago about my thoughts on female composers, my opinion was, in fact, rather aligned with that of Lord Moylan. I used to be a firm believer that the reason female composers were unknown because there were very few of them and their music - put simply - just wasn't as good.
When people would discuss female composers and the need to showcase their works, it honestly used to annoy me. I felt as though concerts which highlighted music by women were all part of an agenda and that the composers were celebrated because they were women and not for their actual music.
My change of heart came about during my third year of university. I had decided that I broadly wanted the topic of my dissertation to be about the subject of neglected and/or obscure composers and the issues with the classical music canon. Originally, I wanted to look at the issues faced by the often neglected virtuosi-performer composers, such as Joseph Hummel, and also Jewish composers, such as Ignaz Moscheles (Felix Mendelssohn being another obvious example). My supervisor instead encouraged me to look into using a female composer as a case study, to explore the issues of gender and the musical canon, to which I obliged, whilst quietly chuntering.
What happened next was that a found myself falling down an enormous rabbit hole. I discovered what must have been hundreds of female composers, from all different countries, backgrounds and time periods. It occurred to me, surely there must be another reason for their neglect? It can't be that all these female composers are unknown just because they didn't write "great" music.
Eventually, I decided to focus on the composer Alice May Smith (married name Meadows White) for my dissertation. If you are a keen reader of my blog, this name may be familiar, as she was the subject of my very first blog post! I found numerous write-ups of her music in nineteenth century music journals and newspaper articles, which were predominantly very positive and complimentary. She was, on more than one occasion, described as the best British female composer, however today is is almost completely unknown.
I then realised that Smith, as with many other female composers, struggled to get her compositions published. The consequences of this are far reaching and I only have time to mention them briefly here. Firstly, if a composer is unable to publish their works, they are reliant on performances of their works to establish their status as a composer and their music. Secondly, this means that it is almost impossible to organise performances of their music posthumously - especially if the work hasn't been established into any kind of repertory. Thirdly, this means that the composers will have little to no published scores left behind. The nineteenth century "work-concept" led to an ever increasing emphasis on the score and musical works were evaluated via the field of analysis. Women whose musical works were never published, then, could never be considered.
Therefore, it would be logical to argue that the reason for the decline and neglect of most female composers has nothing to do with their musical quality. Given that they are so unknown, then, the only way to attempt to establish them in any kind of repertory does mean that we need to highlight their works and performances of these piece.
2. Do BBC Radio 3 actually play music by female composers all the time?
I wanted to take a look at Moylan's claim that Radio 3 are always playing works by female composers. I, myself, am also a frequent listener of Radio 3 like Lord Moylan. My particular favourite programmes include Essential Classics with Suzy Klein and Composer of the Week with Donald Macleod.
While Suzy Klein in particular does make it her mission to include female composers in her programme, it is only usually one or two pieces out of about thirty. However, I would argue that presenters like Klein are not just trying to showcase women, but also marginalised composers from other groups, including the unknown male composers that Moylan mentioned. Examples from her programme last week would be Camargo Guarnieri, a twentieth century Brazilian composer, and Samuel Coleridge-Taylor, a mixed-race British composer from the late nineteenth/early twentieth century.
Last week, Klein has played 144 different pieces of music on her programme across five days. Pretty much all the classics are there: there are two or three examples of Beethoven, in addition to works by Mozart, Brahms, Haydn and Tchaikovsky. However, there are a number of works by more obscure composers, both male and female. Examples include Cesar Franck (a nineteenth century composer who also held posts at the prestigious Paris Conservatoire and originally from Liège), Josef Suk (a Czech composer and violinist who was also the son-in-law of Antonín Dvořák), Dora Pejačević (a nineteenth century Croatian composer from a noble family) and Hildegard of Bingen (a 12th-century Benedictine abbess, who was a writer, composer and philosopher). Note the distinct lack of Amy Beach.
I would also like to point out that, of all the times I have listened to BBC Radio 3, I have probably only heard works by Beach played two or possibly three times. She certainly doesn't seem to be as pervasive as Moylan makes out.
In the original article in The Telegraph, a representative from the BBC commented that on the afternoon Lord Moylan made this speech, Radio 3 were in fact broadcasting music by classics such as Schumann, Grieg, Dvořák and Strauss, in addition to lesser known composers such as George Benjamin and Janacek.
Furthermore, the German classics are still very much a staple of Radio 3. Recent composers featured on Donald Macleod's Composer of the Week have included Johannes Brahms and Felix Mendelssohn. Last year, I distinctly remember feeling dismayed to discover on several occasions, that once again Beethoven was the "Composer of the Week". It is understandable, given that 2020 was his 250th birthday. But I have to admit, I found myself thinking is there really anything else left to discover about Beethoven and his music? Does he need to be continued to be put so centrally in the spotlight? I listen to Composer of the Week to discover new composers and music, to broaden my horizons. Another week of programmes on Beethoven is not really going to do that...
While I do believe that Radio 3 are definitely trying to push works by women composers, possibly as part of an agenda, I do think that Moylan's assertion is somewhat unfair. While I can recognise that my sample size provided above is rather small, I would argue it shows that Radio 3 are actually trying to be more balanced in the music and composers that they highlight, trying to include the classics as well as the more obscure. It is incredibly difficult to get such a balance right, but I do think they deserve credit for what they have achieved thus far.
3. What is "musical quality"?
It seems to me, that Lord Moylan's comments indicate that he does not believe Amy Beach to be "worthy" and that her music is not as good as the likes of Beethoven and Bach. This raises the question - what is "musical quality"? What is it that makes Bach and Beethoven's works "great"?
It is not in doubt, that both Beethoven and Bach are considered classics and their works "great". This is how they are first presented to us in music lessons at school and they are frequently programmed in concert halls. As I mentioned earlier, traditionally works and composers were considered for entry into the musical canon by analysis of their works. Another key factor was the idea of originality. However, if a composer is unable to publish their music (which is often true of composers from marginalised backgrounds), then their work cannot be analysed and any so-called original aspects of the work will most likely be over looked, as it could not be studied.
But why, in a time when we are able to now access these "new" works, do we continue to perpetuate beliefs that such music simply isn't as good? It is clear that these works need to be re-assessed, both in regards to the tradition of musicology as well as by the general public. Especially in the field of musicology, I believe that we need to be much more self-critical and acknowledge that the way in which we still engage with music now is very much influenced by the writings and ideologies from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.
I remember during a concert in my second year of university, I was introduced to the First Symphony of the French composer Louise Farrenc. Not only did I love the piece, but I was struck by how quintessentially Romantic it was. It could have easily been a work by a German composer such as Beethoven. I later listened to her other two symphonies; I had particularly similar sentiments regarding her Third Symphony. This perhaps best illustrates the redundancy of Lord Moylan's opinion of musical quality. If a composer who wrote in his preferred style of music during a similar period - Beethovenian and Romantic - but still has not been recognised, then isn't it time to admit that it isn't "musical quality" which is really at play here. It is a much more complex story that reflects that difficulties certain marginalised groups faced in society during the nineteenth, twentieth centuries and earlier.
To assume that previously well-known works by well-known composers are somehow inherently better, I believe, is somewhat offence and completely disregards the hard work and craft put in by these composers from marginalised backgrounds. Not everyone has to love Amy Beach, or every composer from a marginalised background - and I am certainly not trying to discredit Beethoven and the classics either - but I would argue that it is time to just listen and give these "new" composers a chance. You never know, you may find - as have I - a few new favourite composers and works to save on your playlists. And if you want to only listen to Beethoven, that's perfectly fine to - but perhaps the best way to achieve this would be to play a CD of his works instead.
All quotes and citations have been taken from the original article in The Telegraph, the link to which can be found below.
Comments