Oops, John, sorry for the ambiguity there. Well, you could certainly show most of us a thing or two about putting a quiz together, that's for sure.

That's true, Roslyn, but I'm also often irked by a complimentary tendency wherein the music is presented in a patronising and hyperbolic way like the SPNM's "Riot" concert (qv) which as riots go wouldn't ruffle anyone's blue rinse. I think the answer is (as indeed it used to be) not to hive contemporary composition off into a ghetto but to present it unapologetically in the context of its cultural environment, as in the Proms, or indeed the recital programming of musicians like Ian when he has the opportunity.

I thought we'd sort of agreed that we actually agree on such matters, hadn't we? Now that I've let go of the wrong end of the proverbial stick, that is.

Like Evan Parker, you mean? Seriously, though, I think it would be interesting to explore what kind of biodiversity goes under the name of "composer". I'm frequently brought up short by the fact that there are people out there (thousands!) who have the same "job description" as I do but whose activities I don't recognise as having anything in common with my own apart from resulting in some kind of audible stuff. Maybe the word "composer" is where the problem lies.

I think one should be looking for reasons to include people, not to exclude them. No selection is going in the end to embody an objective decision-making procedure - choosing a group of interviewees is after all a process of "com-position" which says much about the interviewer and his/her priorities. What we're all talking about here is how each one of us might approach the issue. My model, by the way, would be the novelist Alan Burns' book of interviews with his contemporaries (published in 1981, but containing material from some time earlier like the interview with BS Johnson), The Imagination on Trial.

Since when did you worry about objections being raised to your opinions and choices, Mr Pace? ? ? ? ?

... and what relevance does this "classical field" have anyway?

Not claiming any a priori relevance for it, just trying to see how such a list can be manageable and varied. The list I did provide certainly isn't merely made up of my own favourites, as should be clear! I suppose I think that if such a book was to be created, there is a certain responsibility to show even-handedness. But I like your idea of a book akin to the Alan Burns one, though (The Musical Imagination on Trial?). Great book for those who don't know it (if you can find it, it's very rare now).

Alas not, never owned a copy (read it at the house of one RB). But I see that actually there are quite a few reasonably priced copies on Amazon (just ordered it for £6) - simply search for it there and you'll find it.

in response to an earlier point- -i think Dai Fujikura would be allowed in (the one who writes rather arch programme notes)as he's went to secondary school over here.
Ian Pace -i'm interested to hear some Wieland Hoban.
Time is Now- not sure about that sturdy modernist with the same surname as a harpsichordist.Not much 'lift off' as yet.
For me,Michael Bearkley would be in there for his great work at Cheltenam festival.Judith Weir,as well.

That's assuming that the intention was to ruffle, rather than to pose some questions about the possible relationship between what's happening in the world and what a composer does.

Judge for yourself: http://furtlogic.com/no.html - this is the full version which was slightly cut for the actual programme.

Of course not - that's the whole problem with trying to be aware of such matters in one's composing; a piece of classical music heard by very few people will do nothing to change practical circumstances. Richard obviously knows that, but one could equally argue that it won't do anything to change people's perceptions either. Unless the work is as confrontational or provocative as its title, which I don't think it is.