What about the epistemic situatedness? Why do we teach what we teach? Ontological issues arise. Where do we situate music – what is the work, where does it reside? In the score, the performance or independent of these? Or is it related to place and time? Platonism, Aristotelianism, Nominalism, Idealism all emerge as responses to these questions. This is not the place to delve into the intricacies of these ontologies, it is however, essential when considering our current position, to look at how we got here. 

As earlier noted, the notion of Werktreue which originated in the early 19th century, contributes to our understanding of the process whereby the composer became seen as separate from the performer. Not only is the composer elevated in position but also the ‘work’ becomes an important focus, and the publishing and performing ofcompositions from earlier era’s also supports this development. The idea of a canon of works comes into being.

How do we understand this canon now?

Another ontological position can be grouped under the heading of Contextualism, or historicism, and relates to the ideas of Lydia Goehr and Stephen Davies. These theorists suggest that ‘musical works are cultural entities, and thus the methodology appropriate to uncovering their ontological status might be quite different from that of general metaphysics’.¹ This leads to questions of how a musical work should be defined. I would like to suggest that it might be fruitful to refer to musical activities or practices rather than works, as this offers the possibility of including elements that traditionally may not be considered to be part of the ‘work’. As Davies points out, ‘unless we are revisionists about the nature of musical works, our ontology can be tested against and should be consistent with musical practice and talk’.² In light of this, I propose that the score, performance, recording (whether audio-only or audio-visual), programme notes and review are all potentially part of the composition, and furthermore that the sociohistorical context is also significant. 

This, I suspect, is a wider ontological net than Goehr and Davies cast, but one that resonates with my interest in creating an environment where the canon can be recognised as a complex and diverse ‘feeding ground’.

Although contextualism may be very useful in re-assessing how we think, play and present music of the past it may not be adequate when we think towards the future. Process Philosophy—as presented by Isabelle Stengers and Brian Massumi among others—may be a useful framework.³ They embrace a recognition that relationships are dynamic. The focus is on what something is ‘becoming’ rather than what something is already ‘being’. This allows for a more flexible understanding towards for instance the role of the score, the composer, the performer, the audience, and the space to name but a few. I propose that a process-based approach may be useful both as we examine the forming and re-forming of the curriculum and also as we consider how we teach music. An ontology favouring contextualism and process has consequences not only for what and how we teach but also for what we understand knowledge to be.