On page 67 of Music Matters, David Elliott is discussing two broad categories of music, “work-centered concept” and “contextual-social” (or “praxial concept”.) His aim is to discredit the work-concept of music in order to later promote his praxial arguments.
According to Elliott, “…the work-concept assumes that music = musical products (e.g., composed works, improvisations)”. Within this view, music is simply a combination of musical elements (melody, harmony, rhythm, etc.) and that any value lies in “how these elements are organized or formed.” Elliott goes on to connect the work-centered concept with the “aesthetic concept” of music, where listeners approach listening by blocking out “extra-musical” considerations and only focus in a “distant” or “disinterested” way.
In my opinion, Elliott misrepresents (or perhaps simply ignores) some of the merits of the work-centered concept by relating the work-centered concept directly to the aesthetic concept and by placing too much emphasis on extra-musical elements. Consider any piece of programmatic, classical music. If you were to listen to it without knowing the program could you still find enjoyment in it? I’d argue yes.
Elliott takes the argument too far – by saying that extra-musical attributes are necessary for understanding undermines the importance of quality music. What I’m not advocating is for a purely aesthetic experience, but a listener can experience feelings that are unrelated to a work’s societal, historical, or political influences. Extra-musical elements are not needed in order to enjoy music. They can help, but they are not required.
With an increased emphasis on music’s context, are students given enough space and opportunities to explore less concrete aspects of music such as what makes a piece of music good? Many pieces of music were created under similar circumstances, be it spiritual, economical, social, etc.; but no one would argue that they’re all equally great. There’s no formula or correct answer when it comes to determining what makes a piece of music great, but if teachers blindly follow Elliott and his idea that “the work-concept of music and its aesthetic corollaries fail to provide a board, open-ended, and logical foundation for understanding the natures and values of musics in the world,” we are going to find ourselves increasingly removed from the art that we originally set out to teach.