Thanks Richard - and sorry CD! We were at cross purposes I think - I missed your point somewhat didn't I? (Forget the Bach - it can be taken up on another thread if people want to).

I personally have no difficulty with Contemporary Music (as I hope you might have inferred - even though I launched into some of the loose ends thrown up by arguments going on here). So it would not really be very productive to isolate an individual example. I suspect in any case that whatever difficulty you have with the Schubert piece is likely to be one in which it is difficult to relate it to its historical/aesthetic context in some way (as mine is with the Bach example).

With Contemporary Music the situation is different, since everything one hears seems (for obvious reason) to have been in some way "new" or "original" (and, as you have said, something of a novel learning experience for its composer).

I went to a bmic Cutting Edge concert some time ago - in 2004 (later broadcast on R3). The programme was this:

Ian Willcock
'Book of Maps' (13'52")
asamisimasa

Michael Finnissy
'Greatest hits of all time' (13'49")
Ensemble Exposé
Roger Redgate (conductor)
Christopher Redgate (oboe)

Ross Lorraine
'within what changelessness' (18'16")
World Premiere
Ensemble Exposé
Roger Redgate (conductor)
Soloists: Sarah Leonard (soprano), Christopher Redgate (oboe), Caroline Balding (violin)

Joanna Bailie
'Waning' (7'30")
UK Premiere
Ensemble Exposé
Roger Redgate (conductor)


James Saunders
'081104' (9'15")
World Premiere
asamisimasa


James Dillon
'Vernal Showers' (14'54")
1. Philomena's Song
2. Shifting Elements
Ensemble Exposé
Roger Redgate (conductor)
Caroline Balding (violin)


Michael Finnissy
'L'Herbe' (13'00")
UK Premiere
asamisimasa

All I would say is this: 2hours of "New Complexity" was - for me anyway - just too long. But I was out of tune with the rest of the audience, most of whom were visibly getting more from the experience than I was. After a time (and having studied such scores) I became distracted by trying in my mind to explain why the composers should have spent so much time putting together such complex scores, only for the performed results continually to offer sounds that seemed (obviously through compositional intention) quite random. Was it simply the composer's wish a) to remain in absolute control over the players, and/or b) for the players to be enslaved by the notational complexities? It seemed throughout that the musical intention was to evince a sense of "controlled randomness" (which, to add to my distraction, I found difficult to understand, since - unlike some earlier examples of "controlled aleatoricism" I had heard - these seemed almost apologetic in some way). But there was no doubt in my mind that what I heard was what the composers had intended, especially since the quality of the performance and ensemble was so high.

So, I seldom, if ever, find myself being surprised by the unexpected - because I fully expect it! At the same time, however, I sometimes wonder whether the composers have spent a little too much effort in putting together pieces that in the event make only a slight impact. I am sometimes worried that some Contemporary Music is, if anything, a little too easy to listen to - perhaps presenting to the listener only a marginal challenge (compared with, say, the music of Beethoven or other earlier giants). This worries me a little.

Ooh, peas! I love 'em, fresh or frozen. 

Ena, et al, very interesting points. I'll try to come back with some considered thoughts later.

Might it be that the musical cult occasionally sustains and satisfies you, and that, despite its inconsistencies, you can still believe in its future?

I have never written a string quartet for public consideration. That obviously takes me out of the running for being considered a serious composer.

Well, I have done so - but I'm by no means sure that this puts me IN the running with Member Grew for being considered anything at all, really, even though any perceived bizarrerie in its title is specifically confined to the fact of it being "String Quartet No. 1" when there are in fact no others yet...

Best,

Alistair

I suppose it might be, but without having heard more than a couple of the works listed, I wouldn't presume to make such an uninformed generalisation lest I be regarded as a jackanapes.

Absolutely right - although "absolute" in the musical sense might seem to be implicit in the partisan-like context of Member Grew's use of the word "proper". Whilst "Sonata in E flat" might reasonably be expected to connote a work possessed of at least some tonal content, "we" might wonder whether Member Grew would consider Vers la Flamme a legitimate title as the piece of music bearing it is by Scryabine (or however he spells him these days) whereas he'd reject Waning because it is by Joanna Bailie (perhaps he will tell us); I would in any case have thought that Waning is the least unusual-sounding title on that programme and, if Member Grew disagrees, I shudder to imagine how trenchantly he might be disposed to berate Schumann for some of the titles of his piano miniatures!

Best,

Alistair