That piece is cited as an early example of postmodernism in a great many of the various writings on the subject; composers such as Rochberg, Schnittke, Zorn and others are also frequently enlisted into a postmodernist 'canon'. Oddly, few such writings seem to consider the later works of B.A. Zimmermann which sometimes feature a high degree of quoted material, though not quite on the scale of the Berio work. Perhaps simply because Zimmermann's music is less well-known in the English-speaking world (from where a lot of stuff on 'postmodernism' in music emerges, though from what I know of German theorising on the same subject, the same sort of 'canon' is used, though those writers may simply be taking their cue from their Anglo-American counterparts)?

That does touch upon a wider point, whereby positive reactions on the parts of audiences on critics to various new music can be found to be in direct proportion to the extent to which the music in question incorporates the tried and tested, the 'already-known', eliciting the comfort of the familiar (works incorporating quotations or stylistic allusions in particular can exhibit such qualities to a large degree, though it depends how the quotations/allusions are configured and contextualised). Sometimes, when reading reviews or appreciations, this becomes so transparent to me that I wonder why the listeners/critics in question are even interested in hearing anything new at all? The same applies to performance ('makes it sound like a real piece of music', etc., etc., usually referring to a significant downplaying of anything that might give a piece a more individuated and unique quality, so as to assimilate it into an ossified idea of 'tradition' more readily). It's a deeply reactionary position, though quite widespread, and fundamentally anti-creative. Yet plenty of composers and performers know the benefits to them of cynically pandering to such expectations.

I for one do appreciate your healthy cynicism (and also the fact that you don't neglect the economic side of all this)! As far as that conception of what makes a 'real composer', might it vary somewhat from country to country? In the US, where subscription orchestra series have an extremely high prestige value that significantly dwarfs anything in the way of contemporary music making from smaller groups, I imagine this is true to a large extent (hence the category I hear many talk of in the US, the 'orchestra composers'); to a slightly lesser degree this is also the case in Britain, and less still (but still significantly) in other Western European countries? As far as the situation in Eastern Europe or elsewhere is concerned, I'm not sure to what extent such a perception applies - can anyone enlighten on this (t-p? Reiner?)?

Well, the question of whether 'postmodern' music is a meaningful or useful concept seems a rather more complex issue, but which would be highly tangential to this thread. Anyone likely to be interested in contributing if I were to start a new thread on the subject?

Well they aren't, always, I can assure you. And there are plenty of fine composers around who have written orchestral music without a commission. And there are plenty who have never written orchestral music and aren't interested in doing so. And plenty who aren't much concerned whether they are perceived (by whom, anyway?) as "real composers" or not. And there's the question of whether it actually makes any difference in terms of how much one is paid per hour, as Martle points out.

Does a crappy day really need to be a cynicism-inducing one? Alluding to the economic realities of life is one thing, but imputing mercenary motivations to your colleagues is another.

Well, there is a lot of truth in that - but isn't there a danger that it establishes a norm of "I would never join a club which would accept me as a member", and an expectation that any work that is enjoyed by audiences is some kind of cop-out or soft option?   There's a real risk that public approbation could/has become the "kiss of death" for any serious work.

It was the use of the term 'the masses' in Msg 71, apparently without irony (but happy to be corrected if I misunderstood the tone), that caused me to raise an eyebrow. That's two eyebrows raised on this thread within ten minutes: how Ian can continue to accuse the British of being emotionally stunted in the face of that sort of dionysiac display I just don't know.