I'd venture to suggest that Postmodernism is a trait discernible across a wide gamut of the arts, and not only music. Although it may have happened, it's not a prerequisite that there was "modernism" in music prior to "post-modernism".  The post-modern ethic may have cross-pollinated into music from the other arts without a chronological  identifiable precursor in the art-form of music itself.  I feel this is important to say at the outset,  otherwise it risks becoming a man-trap into which the rest of the discussion falls.

I ought to disclose an interest in the topic, since I have been labelled as a "postmodernist" (twice, in fact - I don't think it was intended as a compliment either time),  although I have never sought such a label or used it about myself.

I understand postmodernism in a general sense as meaning the death of the big narratives (Christianity, liberalism) and their replacement by an ethos of picking and mixing from experience by the individual to form a world view.  Experience is no longer ordered by reference to these big sets of ideas - we channel-surf instead.  Postmodernism is thus presented as a force for liberation, reflecting an age where perceptions are undermined and re-ordered by technical advance.

This seems to me to be a problematic view - the "pick and mix" approach seems awfully like the ethos of free-market consumer capitalism, which looks very much to me like the big governing narrative of our day. Conservative critics see post-modernism as a ducking of issues, a sort of obscurantism and a failing of creativity.  My own view (trying hard not to get drawn into the sort of political debate that has caused problems on this board in the past!) is that in many ways postmodernism is a deeply reactionary doctrine, encompassing smug banalities about the end of history, but others will no doubt take a different view.

To start addressing Ian's questions, I suppose the postmodernist view for music is about the fact that - in the West anyway - we have moved away from a canonical approach to music to something that is much more eclectic.  This in itself reflects that music is much more generally available, especially through the technical advance of recording; so art music (if one can use that phrase) can draw on a much wider range of influences.  We are also aware of music from non-Western cultures to a much greater extent than ever before. There is the influence of popular music, which is ubiquitous in a way which has not been the case in the past (although I would argue that this is partly a function of the power of the capitalist narrative I have mentioned above).  I think there is also a perception that modern art-music has become ultra-aesthetic and remote (although I don't think this is really the case), and that a more eclectic approach, taking on board the ethos of popular music, is somehow more democratic and less elitist.

I actually don't think this is true, and I would agree that while a study of what post-modernism means can tell us something about the society we live in - and the music it generally produces - it isn't really anything new or terribly meaningful.  I suspect that hindsight will reveal it as simply another narrative.

Jameson's essay (and the larger book Postmodernism, or, the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism) have become something of the standard anti-postmodernist text. His arguments are very sound in a wider intellectual/political context, I feel, though (as some have commented) he doesn't really seem sufficiently interested in various art for his views to be more incisive there (and especially not in music). The various books/texts by Harvey, Eagleton, Callinicos, Norris, Habermas, Bauman, are all interesting, I find, but not so directly applicable to music (the proponents of postmodernism in music tend to transplant intellectual paradigms from other fields to music rather unthinkingly, also). Very much agree with most of your [matticus's] post, though.

This is implying that theorists have nothing to contribute outside of their capacity as "historians", isn't it? Boooo.  Kittens cry whenever you say such terribly hurtful things about theorists, I've been told.  Of course, it all depends on the quality of the theory in the field you're working in as well, I guess : )

I'm going to take the description of making reference to various, diversely-picked subjects at face value, and ask if this doesn't make things much less accessible in the one concert listening, unless they are well-known?  Is there some generally-accepted suggestion that hints that artists should really try to pick subjects that the viewers are likely to recognise?  Or, if one is picking alien subjects, then to what extent should one value their importance as individual references? Musically, what sorts of subjects might one pick?  In terms of cage's music (of which his prepared piano pieces are all I am properly familiar with) what works of his would have this post-modernist dimension?

(questions questions questions, I know; but I would very much be interested in hearing responses (or any further discussion, really))

These are very interesting questions. If one picks sources that aren't likely to be recognisable to everyone (some of the sources Berio uses in the famous 3rd movement of Sinfonia come to mind), how much scope does this kind of strategy have for communicating with people? Even some of the "well-known" pieces that Finnissy uses in his work along these lines are ones that I don't recognise, and I'm a (classical) musician -- the parts of the repertoire he's referencing often just aren't in my frame of interest. Of course, with these composers the ideas of cut-up and collage go right through to the deeper structures of the works, so it isn't necessarily so important.

However, when these collage ideas are merely on the surface of the music, the need to use widely recognisable materials or styles and reliance on surface novelty might diminish the scope for originality in works in this vein, it might be suggested (I'm thinking of Adams. Daugherty etc here).

The relevant Cage pieces would be anything after the prepared piano works (more specifically, stuff like Music of Changes, One or One5). I imagine Music of Changes is what Jameson was talking about.

Well, in the case of Finnissy, I would say that in many cases the references are means to ends rather than ends in themselves (though this does vary to an extent) - in many cases it is the sonic and other musical properties bequeathed by the references (usually configured so as to be practically unrecognisable) that count rather than apprehension of those references, in the sense of being able to name them. With a few iconic materials the situation is different, but for the most part what I describe is true. Finnissy himself often can't remember what all of them are; I've been playing the History of Photography in Sound ever since the first chapter was completed ten years ago, and spent the last four years writing a book on it, and there are still some bits where I haven't been able to find what the references are (there's one section in North American Spirituals that has bugged me for a long time; I've searched high and low in all the likely sources, inverted, retrograded, etc., these in the hope of finding from where it comes from, but no joy). Uncovering the references is of more interest in terms of situating the work in a wider musical history, and examining Finnissy's compositional techniques (in terms of how he treats, distorts, develops his sources). I certainly don't see it fundamentally as 'meta-music'.

At the risk of inviting contempt from certain quarters (a risk that I am obviously willing to take, otherwise I would not be writing what I am about to write), Ifind the entire notion of "postmodernism" in music or anything else to be a curious but unedifying mix of uneducative and depressing. For anything to have credibility in being regarded as "postmodern", there has, as a corollary, to be something called "pre-modernism". Well, there is, of course - but, unlike the much-vaunted "post-modernism", it is clearly not just the products of one single era or set or artistic persuasions. What makes matters worse, to my mind, is the very concept of "modernism", around which the entire suspect edifices of "pre-" and "post-" "modernism" must by definitation rotate. What is it that is so "modern" about, say, Gruppen and Le Marteau sans Maître or, more recently, Carter's Third String Quartet or, more recently again, Opus Contra Naturam? (examples admittedly picked out entirely at random); is it not the case that these pieces represent and present what they do in their own right, rather than aiming (for the sake of it) to represent some commentator's personal idea of "modernism"? It's the entirety of this label-manufacturing business that elicits my greatest suspicion here; Ian has often lashed out against what he appositely terms the "commodification" of music and, to my mind, this kind of knee-jerk terminological obsession is a classic example of the very kind of thing against which, in principle, Ian seem to be reacting (and quite rightly). I may be misinterpreting him here but, it seems to me, there is little material diffeence between this kind of classification and codification - or pigeon-holing, if you will - and the kind of "commodification" of which Ian has often written; it all seems to me to be a case of the overbearing musicologist saying to us all that he/she can define everything, therefore he/she can coin or reproduce terms that will serve a universally acceptable defioning purpose. All this is doubtelss fine for the musicologists of certain persuasions, but it doesn't even sink my boat, let alone float it.

Sorry, folks - on this subject, I only ever rented, not actually owned, any brownie (not Gordon Brownie and still less Gordon Downie) points that may ever have stuck to me by some oversight, so I do at least recognise that I didn't really deserve them in the first place...

In conclusion, no, it is not at all meaningful or useful to talk of this concept beyond consideration of the mere labelling issue - i.e. one could shoehorn certain kinds of musical works into the "post-modernist" category if one has nothing better to do, but that would not tell us very much that would be useful about the works themselves in terms of the particular motivations of their various composers in writing them...

OK - I'll shut up now...

Best,

Alistair