O.K. John, I should come clean. On reading Matthew's flier, I suggested he might like to mention the project here, on the M&S board and at r.m.c.c.  For some strange reason I though some here might be both adveturous and supportive enough to engage positively with what he was attempting. Instead he's discovered our grumpy old duo.

Er, Bryn... 

Anyway, come on Matthew! Let's hear your rationale. I'm genuinely interested.

As for grant applications - Matthew, Baz has helped out with a rather good format. Use it, and good luck!

Well, Matthew may still be an undergrad., but he's obviously already mastered the secret of getting himself talked about, which is a useful ability for anyone involved in the arts. Furthermore, he's able to polarise opinion, which guarantees that the talk will rattle on, as it has here already.

Nobody is being forced to take part in the material building exercise, but I can see that a wider cross-section of participants could be in the creator's interests: it makes demands that some will find challenging, but I don't doubt for a moment that he will find volunteers. Who knows what will come of it? Thinking outside the box of music per se and experimenting within the field of performance art certainly isn't going to appeal directly to everybody, but that in itself is not necessarily at cross-purposes with the later creation of music-theatre pieces which work very successfully: I'm thinking particularly of the work of Heiner Goebbels here; the premises behind some of his works may sound convoluted, but when the texts and his music - music which even gained a plaudit from S_S, it should be noted - come together in the conditions he has devised, the cumulative effect is stunning.

For an artist to discuss work in progress is always to court danger, but when a project needs external input, there's no real choice. People are of course at perfect liberty to find the methods by which the creator intends to proceed bizarre: nevertheless, however outlandish the premise may seem at this point, judgement should properly be suspended until there is a product to discuss. To do otherwise would surely be, in the purest sense of the word, prejudice.

Fair enough Bryn and Ron, thanks for not discovering a grumpy trio,

I'm not being grumpy and not being prejudiced, just critical/disappointed with the structure or framework of the composition method which has been tried before and clearly, from the responses here, runs the risk that it may not appeal to examiners. Matthew may have had his method 'approved' by the examiners who are keenly waiting to see what he can make of it, if so fair enough. Matthew should know I have little or no musical credentials, not an examiner, but I'm just someone who enjoys music that can be listened to more than once  

And yet to question it without understanding its purpose or intention is tantamount to prejudice?

Questioning something is not tantamount to prejudice - it is merely questioning it. Answers have still not been given to any of the questions (is Matthew asleep or something?).

Baz