Autonomy

Taruskin thinks he is against something called "aesthetic autonomy," but really he sees any kind of link between music and almost any kind of ideology as a taint. So he defends the cancellation of an opera in the wake of 9/11, on the grounds that the libretto might be offensive (too sympathetic to Palestinian terrorists). He is against the use of the principle of autonomy to defend the opera, but his own objection is to the libretto, not the music. The same goes for his discussions of works by Bach and Stravinsky with anti-semitic texts. He thinks it is fine to change the words to save the music. But why is the music worth saving, but for the principle of autonomy? The value that the music has as music?  He is perfectly right in denouncing the defense of the text itself under the principle of "autonomy," since the autonomy of the music does not save the text from its anti-semitism.   

He is really opposed to the use of music in the cold war for propagandistic reasons, on both sides. He is an expert on Russian music and spent time the USSR. So what he really prefers is music that is not propaganda, in other words, aesthetic autonomy. His work as a sociologist of music is devoted to denouncing bad faith uses of the principle of autonomy, but his heart as a musician is with Roger Sessions admiration for "the medium itself." He waxes eloquent every time he quotes this passage from Sessions.