I've often wondered just what the fascination is with 'young' composers, as opposed to 'new' composers. If there is one institution in the new music world that truly irritates me, it is the composer competition with an (upper) age limit - something that seems to be becoming increasingly popular.
Of course, there is the converse of this, that (very many) young composers have to make do in a world that has "expectations" of them as "young composers". The composer competition doesn't sound like a terribly fun game to me!
Speaking as a "young composer," it is indeed a weird thing. Not that I haven't benefitted from it - a good deal of the institutional recognition I have gotten in the form of prizes etc. has been young composer this, student composer that, so I can't complain too much about the emphasis; but it is quite obviously and stiflingly artificial, so that when I am lucky enough to come across a performer or ensemble that is genuinely interested in my work rather than in the relation of my work to that of others my age, or whatnot, it is quite refreshing.
It's also fascinating to me how widely the definition of "young" can vary. I've seen it defined as under 25 through under 50 or so, and the adjective turns up as a descriptor in some very unexpected places (I saw Rebecca Saunders described as an "emerging composer" recently...)
But, after all that, I think it's also important to be a bit realistic and realize that, while "composition competitions" and such are clearly artificial and a bit pathological in that artificiality, that the career of the composer, most particularly the unknown composer,
is in many ways a competition. The main difference may be whether the expenses come in the form of entry fees or of postage and out-of-pocket travel!
