None of the different branches assigned to culture or science, to every aspect of human life even, is free from the influence from us humans themselves - we are the ones describing the world and our own life, depicting it in the depth we are able to perceive it, explaining it to the limited extent we are able to understand it. The means we use for that process of visualization are the means any human being possesses: We are all but limited in our judgement to our very own perspective.
But this perspective is not even our very own: Too dependent are we on our surroundings, too dependent on our childhood, education, relatives, acquaintances, teachers, friends, completely strangers; but not only merely on persons we actually encounter: We also are influenced by writings, by actors, by human art which has already lost their 'creator'. Our influences further are constituted by customs, traditions, history, humanity in general, nature, and, finally, to what transcends earthly matters.
With all this seemingly endless influx, we are struggling to maintain, even to create a certain individuality; we seek to differenciate us from others while at the same time we are looking for the necessary conformity to be able to lead a life. The judgements and estimates we make on our earthly journey materialize into our sayings and writings, into our whole life; based upon what we have perceived and what we anticipate for the future, based upon what we think is right or wrong. Agendas develop, always of course based upon the notion that our position would be the right one.
The result of such natural and not really to influence processes are always classifications and canonizations; both to be found firstly in the matter to be depicted (as those matters would again be influenced by tradition et cetera) and, secondly, in the depiction itself. No such description or catalogization can really lack any tendency or estimate: The selection itself, the decision what to include and what not, what to highlight and what to diminish - all those actions are part of every piece of thought.
Id est that what has been established above, the infamous table of mine showing a selection of composers, is a very example of personal preferences: Of course I have included those composers which I have come to consider as major, both because of my education and personal listening and observation. There is but another form of canon to be found: There are no female composers to be found; not that I would want them excluded, on the contrary, but there is but such a little amount of them, and if there is a female composer, like for instance Clara Schumann, sister of Robert Schumann, her influence had not grown as much as the influence of male composers. With popular music of a non-classical style this is different; but even today, as classical style music is written mainly for motion pictures and musicals, the vast majority of composers is male. Canonization in the depicted matter and in the depiction itself. So any kind of such description should be deconstructed as what it is: Personal opinion, more or less reflecting what is understood as reality.
December 14th, 1998