If we're to go down the Cathedrals analogy route, then perhaps we should consider Liverpool. Two twentieth century cathedrals: one staunchly and massively traditional, the other unashamedly radical in design and construction. I happily accept they are both cathedrals, and that the modernity of one might affront traditionalists, but there's no doubt at all in my mind which I find the most inspiring.

(And it's not the Anglican, for all its size....)

While accepting Comrade Grew's superior knowledge in almost all things pertaining to the decline of the art of music since the notorious interstellar dust episode of 1908, I think it is perhaps pertinent to add that there is also the possibility of doing something in order to find out what it is, that is to say composition as an act of discovery, and the communication of that sense of discovery through the resulting music, given that the listener also is interested in discovering, that is to say in listening as active rather than passive, or to put it another way (as PW did) challenging rather than just reinforcing. So: no, for myself I freely admit that I don't "know what I'm doing"; it seems to me that as one's "knowledge" increases so does one's awareness of the vast unknown around it.

Perhaps our hairnetted friend didn't notice that actually Baziron's question was answered fairly early on in this thread, and the answers discussed in a friendly and mutually supportive spirit for some while before the aforementioned "simple-minded coot" chimed in with his familiar obtuse litany (assuming we're talking about the same coot, of course). It's clear to most of us that such interventions are directed more towards dragging the discussion onto the subject of the intervener's own sterile opinions than with furthering it in any way.

Contemporary music might be imagined to have some characteristics in common with a religious cult: a relatively small following, a "hard core" of highly partisan enthusiasts, a jargon which is sometimes misused in order to mystify and exclude, and so on; but the same could be said about many other areas of music and indeed human activity in general. I think the mistake is to treat "contemporary music" as some kind of separate category after the fashion of stylistic labels like "country & western". It isn't a genre, it's a direction in thinking about music which can give rise to vastly diverse results; it isn't defined by a particular set of limitations but by the absence of limitations, so that what seems like a "small" phenomenon is actually in at least this sense larger than the musical world around it.

It's a shame though that Baziron himself has bowed out of the proceedings, given that he was fulfilling so well the role of intelligent doubter, asking questions instead of mindlessly heckling. Perhaps he'll be back at some point.

Alistair, I'm not saying that one doesn't learn anything, just that one thing one does learn is that there's always more to learn than one thought...

The Bb example was to make the point that one can't expect composers to talk about their own music in a specific way by first asking whether they are members of a cult. No individual feels addressed by that remark, and since it isn't asked with respect to my compositions specifically, I don't feel the need to ramble about what I do on this thread. I'd rather do so in a context where musical topics are discussed.

I don't think Richard is speaking for all of us, nor did he claim to, but I'd agree with most of what he says. The music does not represent the process of finding an identity, it does represent the articulation and assertion of identity -- but that identity is shaped by the process of composition as well, and a composer is well-advised, if she wants her music to 'evolve' and 'grow', to be open to these shaping forces.

This is not different from other periods of music-making, but it is relatively rare for a musician to admit that their creative process shapes them. We are accustomed to thinking of composers as genial entities who already know everything and seek to pass it along to the rest of us. Then we resent not 'understanding' something that in its most sublime manifestations doesn't admit 'understanding' but something more elusive, such as 'kinship' or whatever less hallowed-sounding word one might have in mind.

Richard, it seems to me that Baziron made a particularly streetwise decision to bow out.

No, you have misunderstood me. I just mean that I don't take every imaginable opportunity to talk about my music on these boards. I only bring up my own work when the discussion at a given moment intersects with my musical concerns. Since my musical concerns have nothing to do with cult, I don't bring them up. We are, after all, discussing a more universal issue than my music is meant to address.

I didn't say 'true' identity (that's a little too cult-ish for me). And I don't see the contradiction, either. The shape and character of a composition evolves in the process of composition. The end result may well different from the premises by which the work is originally inspired. But this is not to say that the evolution of the idea is itself an audible topic of the work. The work does not, for example, contain ideas worthy of rejection solely for the sake of revealing some evolutionary process, a path strewn with 'dead ends,' 'roads less travelled', etc.. Call it refinement rather than evolution, and I think we're a little closer to understanding each other, though refinement is a sub-category of evolution and doesn't adequately suggest all the kinds of transformations a basic musical material can undergo in the compositional process.


The composer does not give him/herself any credentials. Those are bestowed by a society, essentially, that deigns to give the composer in question a forum to present his/her music. The situation you describe differs from today's situation only by degree: a composer applies all his/her competences to the work, but feels the obligation to push the boundaries of old ideas. Trouble is, the listener may not be familiar with the specific old ideas in question. This is not the composer's, nor the listener's, fault. It is a fact of contemporary life that not all people have the same background and knowledge.

Name me one composer who knows everything there is to know about his/her work. I certainly know everything that I know about my work, as tautologous as that sounds. But I cannot possibly know what you or anyone else hears in it. Isn't that an interesting and absorbing situation? Why pretend that there is a sensus communis if there isn't one?

I didn't say contemporary music, I think it's true of all music in its sublimest form that we don't 'understand' it. When people use the word 'understand', they more often than not are conflating it with 'find pleasant' -- i.e., "I understand this music" = "I enjoy this music"
If you 'understand' the music of, e.g., Schubert, then please, enlighten me. I love it, I feel a kinship with Schubert -- but I don't claim to understand it. Even in the highest echelons of musical discourse, Schubert hermeneutics is a dizzying whirlwind of speculation, because we don't live in turn-of-the-19th-century Vienna. If we could teleport back to that time, who knows if we'd have any better luck?

That certainly isn't perfect, but perhaps it's progress. Or is this still a bunch of nonsense? If so, then I am afraid we have to adjourn until a more concrete example is presented. Name a work you heard recently that baffles you. Can you say why it baffles you, and what expectations it did not fulfill?

Do that, and I'll give you an example of a Schubert work that baffles me. A grand time will be had by all.

Really? 'Appen at least 'e knew where 'E were going then! (Was 'e 'appen a composer?)