Classical music is in crisis. Those who should be promoting it seem embarrassed to do so; some universities are closing music departments; and Alexandra Wilson and Ian Pace fear that it is being sidelined because of concerns about elitism and its associations with colonialism.

The latter, however, puzzles me. Classical music can be seen not as the ally of imperialism and capitalism but as its antithesis. Marx himself regarded it as an example of free, unalienated labour. And in the 50s and 60s its devotees thought it a pure art form in contrast to commercialized and capitalistic pop music. Anthony Burgess (himself a
composer as well as author) spoke for many when he said that pop songs were "foisted on [young people] by middle-aged entrepreneurs and exploiters who should know better."

Some of its supporters have also argued that classical music is democratic. Whereas a successful pop career often (but not always) requires the backing of a big record company, anyone can make their own classical music. In the liner notes to Bach Trios by Yo-Yo Ma, Chris Thile
and Edgar Meyer, Timo Andres writes of Bach's music:

That everyone has access to this trove - and can, with a little experience, will these same creations into being - is one of the most profoundly democratic facts I know of, and stands as a great equalizer in an unequal world.

Of course, it is not often seen this way. One reason for this is that state schools do not inculcate that experience, preferring to be mere ideological state apparatuses preparing us for the world of drudgery. It is for this reason that pop music, like classical (pdf), has a problem with its performers coming from a narrow demographic : as the Sutton Trust points out, pop stars are disproportionately privately educated, as it is private schools where are more likely to provide a musical education. The fault here, though, is not with the music but with our class-scarred society.

In this context, it shouldn't be surprising that many leftists have loved classical music. One of the most interesting of these was Lenin. You would expect him of all people to be alert to music being tainted by capitalism and imperialism. For him, however, the problem was the exact opposite - not that it was associated with a brutal system but rather that it was too humanizing. Here's Georg Lukacs:

Gorky recorded Lenin's very characteristic words spoken after he listened to Beethoven's Appassionata sonata: "I know the Appassionata inside out and yet I am willing to listen to it every day. It is wonderful, ethereal music. On hearing it I proudly, maybe somewhat naively, think: See! people are able to produce such marvels!" He then winked, laughed and added sadly: "I'm often unable to listen to music, it gets on my nerves, I would like to stroke my fellow beings and whisper sweet nothings in their ears for being able to produce such beautiful things in spite of the abominable hell they are living in. However, today one shouldn't caress anybody - for people will only bite off your hand; strike, without pity, although theoretically we are against any kind of violence. Umph, it is, in fact, an infernally difficult task!"

Lenin's fears have of course since been refuted. The fact that Nazis murdered millions whilst listening to Schumann and Mozart showed that classical music does not humanize people. That was Burgess's point in having Alex listen to "Ludwig Van" whilst fantasizing about murder.

It's unsurprising, then, that fans of classical music are often racists, sexists and snobs, as evidenced in the risible Michael Henderson's objection to any northerners appearing on Radio 3. Such bigotry is merely highlighted by the tendency of some listeners to use it to press for their own moral superiority: "Look at ME emoting to this. Don't I have such sophisticated sensibilities?"

What we say of football, however, is also true of classical music: it has a racism problem because society has a racist problem.

It's in this context that we should interpret the claim that classical music is associated with colonialism. It could not be otherwise. Some of it, most famously Rule Brittania, is an outright celebration of that. Others are part of that mindset, such as Saint-Saens
use of African rhythms or Bartok and Vaughan Williams's "cultural appropriation" of folk music. And of course, music was disproportionately written and performed by affluent white men simply because it was they who had disproprtionate access to time and opportunities.

But, but, but. When Marx said "the mode of production of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life" he did not add "except for the stuff you like." Yes, a lot of classical music arose from imperialist societies, but so too does modern music arise from neoliberal ones. Quite a bit of it celebrates hyper-individualized consumer capitalism; Beyonce
advertising Lexus is perhaps not the worst example of this. If we're going to find Beethoven guilty by association with capitalism, we must also find Nicki Minaj so. Or, of course, we could just lighten up.

This does, not, however, mean we should "cancel" (ugh) it. As Edward Said noted in Culture and Imperialism (pdf), recognising that culture is "manifestly and unconcealedly a part" of the imperial process does not mean we should reject its artefacts. Instead, he said, appreciating the connections "actually and truly enhances our reading and understanding of them." You can both deplore imperialism and at the same time celebrate the greater achievements of western culture, as indeed C.L.R. James did. And we can do this whilst recognizing that these achievements are not confined to dead white men. The better talk of "decolonizing music" is merely about recognising that classical music does not have a monopoly of great music - which is surely obviously true.

Here, I'll make a personal point. I came to classical music late in life. I didn't hear it at home and school was a Gradgrindian ideological state apparatus relieved only by the incompetence that caused it to employ one or two inspirational teachers. Instead, I discovered it after I started playing the guitar, and when, to improve that playing, I learned music theory. For me, the gateways to classical music were Barrios and Villa-Lobos. This means that I don't associate the music with nostalgia, and am left cold by a lot of emoting about it: for me, music is a technical process.

It also means that I can't see a clear distinction between classical and non-classical music: I'm not sure there's an iron curtain between Max Richter and Low or Brian Eno, for example. Better men than I share this view: Chris Thile plays
Bach sonatas alongside bluegrass and Richard Thompson has played Henry
Purcell and Britney
Spears on the same album.

Which is why I'm saying all this - because it is not often said anywhere else. There are perspectives on classical music which are neither white liberal guilt nor facile snobbery.