Meaning: The quote by Brian Ferneyhough speaks to the development of the Western musical canon, emphasizing that it was not solely a result of accumulation, but also a product of opposition and subversion. This understanding sheds light on the complex and often contentious history of Western classical music. To unpack Ferneyhough's statement, it is essential to delve into the historical and cultural context of the Western musical tradition and the forces that have shaped its evolution.

The Western musical canon refers to a body of musical works that are considered to be of enduring value and form the core repertoire of classical music. This canon encompasses compositions from various historical periods and genres, including symphonies, operas, chamber music, and solo works. The formation of this canon was influenced by a multitude of factors, such as patronage, cultural norms, technological advancements, and the creative impulses of composers.

Ferneyhough's assertion that the musical canon emerged through opposition and subversion underscores the idea that the development of this tradition was not a linear or harmonious process. Rather, it was marked by conflicts, challenges, and divergent artistic expressions. Composers, as Ferneyhough suggests, often found themselves in opposition to ruling powers, including institutions, patrons, and political authorities, who held sway over the dissemination and reception of their music. This dynamic reflects the intricate relationship between art and power, where creators navigate the demands and constraints imposed by those in positions of influence.

Moreover, the notion of subversion in the formation of the musical canon highlights the role of rebellion and innovation in challenging established norms and conventions. Composers throughout history have sought to push the boundaries of musical expression, experimenting with new forms, harmonies, and techniques that defied traditional expectations. This spirit of subversion not only propelled the evolution of musical styles but also created rifts within the musical community, as proponents of different aesthetic ideologies clashed over the direction of musical innovation.

In addition to opposition to ruling powers, Ferneyhough's statement alludes to the antagonistic relationship between Western classical music and other musical traditions. The Western musical canon, with its origins in Europe, has often been viewed as a dominant and hegemonic force that marginalized and overshadowed non-Western musical cultures. This hegemony has provoked resistance and critique from scholars and musicians who advocate for the recognition and inclusion of diverse musical heritages within the broader musical discourse.

Ferneyhough's perspective invites us to critically examine the construction of the Western musical canon, prompting us to consider the power dynamics, cultural biases, and historical contingencies that have shaped its contours. His assertion compels us to recognize that the musical canon is not a static or uncontested entity but a product of complex interactions, negotiations, and contestations. By acknowledging the role of opposition and subversion in its formation, we gain a deeper understanding of the multifaceted forces that have shaped the development of Western classical music.

In conclusion, Brian Ferneyhough's quote encapsulates the intricate dynamics that have contributed to the emergence of the Western musical canon. It illuminates the role of opposition and subversion in shaping this tradition, highlighting the tensions between composers and ruling powers, as well as the contestations within and beyond the Western classical music tradition. By unpacking Ferneyhough's statement, we gain insights into the complex and multifaceted nature of the musical canon, prompting us to critically engage with its historical, cultural, and ideological dimensions.