OK, fair comment; I understand that now.

Then you need tire no more, as I do not, in principle, "have a problem" with it in any case! I agree that it seems to be, as you describe it "an admirable bit of optimism to attribute that sophistication to the working class" and, like you, one could well "applaud it and wish them well in their efforts to make this type of conversation available to that readership" - especially since, as others (notably Ian) have pointed out, this kind of discussion is not to be encountered elsewhere in the musical journals where one might more reasonably expect to find it; I just wonder about the extent to which that optimism is unfounded in that some of the WW readership may find themselves largely non-plussed by much of these discussions, since even their espousal of Marxist dialectic and principle might not in itself help them to figure out a specific and definable (to them) relationship between it and the kinds of musical issue discussed within the framework of this ongoing exchange.

Best,

Alistair

I think he would deny or not realize that the performer is the medium, but as I said I suspect Ian will have something more rich to say about that.

a modernist position, or one that is consistent with modernism.

As I think I've previously implied, I find this vocabulary of "command", "control" and "verification" in itself highly problematic. Even leaving performers out of the equation (which is a nonsensical thing to do when you're writing instrumental music, but which as CD says Downie is probably doing), looking at things this way seems to me a strange way to look at music (though not perhaps a strange way to look at designing functional machinery or computer programs). Firstly there are the rather macho/militaristic connotations, and secondly there's the reality that to create a situation in which one is in "total control", the number and nature of its variables must be simplified to the point of tautology (which may be the intention, as for example in the work of Tom Johnson, but I doubt Downie would align himself with TJ's way of doing things). And that's before all the variables of performance come crowding back in.

I also somewhat distrust Downie's use of the word "modernism" as seemingly analogous to "Marxism", that is to say denoting a set of coherent and explicable principles. Isn't this tantamount to fetishising modernism?

I like this "if I'm trying to think atomically". It isn't necessary to become an exclusive adherent of musical atomism in order to find it an appropriate way (among others) to frame (certain kinds of) musical ideas.

I'm sure Downie is aware that atoms are made up of even smaller particles (he doesn't seem interested in writing music "neutronically" or "charmed-baryonically"), but you wouldn't know it from his rhetoric. The conventional musical "atoms" to which I assume Downie refers are reducible to smaller and smaller dimensions; of course, so are the "human atoms" of physical gesture around which one critique of Downie seems to be centered. To "think atomically" as a composer means first deciding what the atom is, and  if this is simply something one can decide (rather than observe or deduce), maybe you should be a little circumspect about declaring on your web site that such an approach is the only way to write music.

He certainly may–but the idea of "unsplittability" is as problematic in music as it is in the physical sciences.

In terms of Downie's relationship with performers (this should perhaps be in a separate Downie thread, though?); well I've played all three of his piano pieces (and am playing the fourth one in a few weeks), also in various chamber, ensemble, orchestral pieces (all of which I highly recommend to all, if you get the chance to hear them), and I know if you asked him he would say that he is interested in performers as pure technicians (and he makes some claims of this type with respect to conductors in Stockhausen's Gruppen in this article (don't bother too much with my response, far too much sitting on the fence there, would hopefully write something more incisive these days)). However, in my experience of working with him, he has certainly been very open to my own perspectives on things (especially with respect to the issue of mode of attack, timbre, key noise, etc., on the piano, given that he seeks to neutralise or at least have played neutrally this parameter, which I believe is impossible). As to the question of why he writes for live musicians rather than electronics, I've hinted at that question to him on some occasions, but am still not sure what his answer is.

In terms of his music, I'd recommend above all the orchestral piece forms 6: event aggregates, which has been recorded by BBC NOW, but not yet broadcast, I think - if anyone wants to hear it, let me know. Gripping stuff. Also, I would point that I engage with his music on a human level (both for myself and in terms of perceiving the human subjectivity behind it), which I know is not how he conceives it, but I don't see why composerly intention should necessarily circumscribe one's listening habits.....

Just to follow up on Richard's point about the implicit equation of modernism with Marxism in some of the Downie articles - that is certainly an extremely problematic assumption, and one that is taken up by Wieland when pointing out that some modernist pledge allegiance to the politics of the right rather than the left. Also, there have been more than a few leftist (or even liberal) thinkers who have attacked high modernism in grounds of social and political disengagement (I'm not saying I agree with them necessarily, just that this is a well-established position). This is a wider issue - wondered if anyone thought whether a serious 'Politics of Modernism' thread might be in order? I'd be really interested in what RB, qt, AC, CD, CH, EJ, DC, autoharp, Bryn, t-i-n, George, and various others would have to say about this in the context of a wider conception of modernism than that adhered to by Downie.