It always starts with Bach, but should it?

Our music curriculum more or less grows out of a Bach framework. Johann Sebastian Bach, often regarded as one of the greatest of composers, set the standard whereby we tend to judge music and how we reference foundational knowledge. We have arbitrarily chosen a single composer and his music to dictate or at least be the springboard for all of music knowledge. In a way, this is not unlike drama where Shakespeare reigns supreme or art where DaVinci seems to own the medium, but is it entirely fair or right? Is excellence in art and music not a compendium of determined quality over a period of time, an amalgamation of styles, expert opinion, public demand, and respect for variety?

As an aside, my love for the music of Bach is difficult to express. Through brilliant crafting of musical line, harmony, complexity, balance, and emotional depth, Bach's music demonstrates unequaled beauty and form. It is certainly understandable why trained musicians would gravitate toward the music of Bach and use his craft as a model example of music excellence. This makes logical sense as well to point to one of the finest historical composers who has made and continues to make an impact on the musical world.

Yet there are problems with these assumptions. No doubt there is a place for Bach in our music curriculum, but should Bach's music be the absolute? Have we fallen into a trap of treating his music as the end rather than the journey?

What would happen if we landed on the music of Stephen Foster instead? Using his melodies, his lyrics, and his musical form as a springboard and model example for excellence, could we trace the lines leading to his music onward to music of today? Or would this, God forbid, take us on a pathway to popular and commercial music? Or were we to build our music foundation on the sounds of folk music of the past or perhaps give a nod to the past and land on the music of Aaron Copland, George Gershwin, Leonard Bernstein. Maybe a radical departure from art music and use the Beatles as the model. Or embrace the philosophy of the juice of life through sound and use Far Eastern music as the almost mystical example.

The central problem of relying on the music of Bach as the model for excellence and the catapult for all of music training, is that only a small sliver of the population looks to Bach for musical meaning. Maybe it smacks of a populist position, but should not the masses have a right to determine quality in the arts? Do we as trained academic musicians retain the sole rights to decide what kind of music is to be studied and what kind of music should be foundational? Granted, we trained musicians would like to be respected for our ability and our knowledge, but by the same token, should we in turn respect those without the skill or training, at least to an extent.

We must be mindful about the problems of denigrating artistic taste since our own artistic taste would then deserve the same treatment. Therein lies the problem of starting music training based on the music of Bach. Are we in fact preparing our students for a world that does not really exist except for in a small sliver of the population? Frightening thought.