Well, considering that this is in the second sentence of the first paragraph of this site:
I'd suggest that his activities are fairly well known, at least to the Canadian Music Centre even if not so to Mr Sandall.

I couldn't for the life of me see the logic behind the programming in that concert. It was like one of those pizzas with lots of things all piled on with no concern for how well they mix. I like quite a bit of Luke's music and have played several of the piano pieces (Magenta Cuts and ...pour les cinq doigts are particularly fine) but I couldn't take that piece. I didn't hear the prog-rock aspect in it, but a lot of it seemed based on Chicago funk, specifically that from George Clinton (him of Parliament, Funkadelic fame). The latter is fabulous stuff, but getting the London Sinfonietta to try and play like a funk band from South Side Chicago - well. let's not even go there. Plus, the quotation from the Grange Hill signature tune......

Yes funk not prog. I can't remember too much about it, except I thought the funk ws not v 'funky' at all.

The only other piece I can think of that is in a similar ballpark, but ws probably more successful, is "Relations" by Clarence Barlow.

"I couldn't for the life of me see the logic behind the programming in that concert."

I agree that there wasn't any logic, as in these pieces don't really go together. I suppose it can look as if its a bad joke. Although, at the time, I thought that Lachenmann and Stoneham represented two ends of new music that I suppose don't 'talk' to each other so surely the point ws to get ppl who might only want to hear Lachenmann-type stuff to hear Luke and vice-versa (ppl who are more into composers who makes pieces with popular music in mind so that they can hear the other end) (?)

Luke Stoneham is only a name to me, so I can't explain the discrepancy in titles here, although there may be a very good explanation; but there is this:

In many instances the construction of artificial or equivocal sexualities may have a strong homosexual charge--as in the counter-tenor Oberon of Britten's A Midsummer Night's Dream (1960), or the principal character of The Intelligence Park (1981-8) by Gerald Barry (b. 1952), or the Joan of Arc, again a counter-tenor role, in Arms and the Maid (1993) by Luke Stoneham--but the possibility of such characters seems to be in the nature of the art as much as in that of the composer.

(p. 250)

So there is something, although of course there are absolutely no claims involved about the interest or quality of the music, only of the casting of a male in a diegetically female part.  Seems more the result of a good publicist than anything else!

There is indeed in this edition an entry in the index for "Stoneham, Luke: 250".  It's not clear to me whether or not this is a new edition of "Modern Music and After"; it's a 2002 reprint of a (c) 1995 text, for what that's worth. 

And I'm not sure I'd say that Stoneham is a name in a broader sense in the States, although my "British connections" are notional at best, being invariably either secondhand, exclusively cyber-, or the result of temporary intercontinental dislocation on the part either of me or the British subject in question. I've never been to Britain myself.  Probably the only reason I've ever heard of Stoneham is that, being in the US, I am starved for intelligent English-language discussion of intelligent music, which is not to be found here, or the dissemination of that music beyond the VERY occasional concert at universities or in large cities. Hence my presence on these boards, hence my patronage of H&N, and hence, I'm sure, my having heard (however vaguely) of Stoneham.  I'm sure the vast majority of even contemporary-music types over here have never heard of him.

If there was any justice in the world, there would be big presentations of the work of both Aaron and Evan in major festivals around the US. To anyone reading here - make a point of looking out for anything by either of them - some of the few really intelligent and interesting voices in a musical culture where commercialism and careerism has almost squashed everything else.

There's a lack of any new music festival, other than the excellent June in Buffalo, that has both an international standing and serves as a place of focus for really radical and individual composition (I don't count Tanglewood). It seems very hard for composers to make a showing outside of the universities there (unless they turn into the usual type of 'orchestra'-composers, or become boppy minimalists), though there are some good things that have happened in New York and Chicago and a few other places, inevitably surviving on pitiful budgets, though. But E & A could certainly say more about all of this.

I listened to this broadcast yesterday afternoon, having been interested by what I had read about Plunderphonics.
I have to say that I was disappointed.
It all seemed quite conventional if I'm completely honest. There are people out there making better montage than this.

Concerto for Conductor and Orchestra lacked a certain something in broadcast. It was difficult to discern what was triggered by the conductor's gesture and differentiate it from the live orchestra. There were the beginnings of some interesting ideas (a flavour of Hymnen at times) but it didn't last long enough to really cohere (IMO). I also found exclusive reliance on the 'popular classics' slightly tedious.

Ariature was pretty, but it didn't really work formally for me. The final section with the piano section was great but seemed tagged on to the (more conventional) first section.

Debizet was OK but it seemed to promise much and deliver less. To a certain extent it didn't really get beyond the opening premise.
The same could be said for Idyllilly, which I have to say I found completely tedious.

All the works seem to suffer from a real problem with dealing with pacing and form.
I tried to relax and listen in a Cageian manner, but I became even more convinced that this is not how he wants us to hear the work (or more exactly, how the work wishes to be heard).
I've never heard the original pop Plunderphonics, so I'd like to know if it's any better than this.

The Chris Cutler improvisation didn't really grab me either. It seemed that there were certain ideas that had real promise, and had been designed as such, but due to the manner in which the piece was constructed, they never really had a chance to do anything. The fact that the source materials for the piece were largely the same pieces that had been used in the earlier Oswald Concerto didn't really help matters - there were too many sources to be obsessive, but not enough to disorientate. What was it trying to do? It seemed formally limp (and limping).
The balance between the trio and the orchestra seemed off. How was this when it was broadcast? The trio was over-amplified (or the mics were in the wrong place).

Having said all of this, it was great to hear something different, and to hear the BBCSO doing something different.
I've not been terribly inspired by H&N recently but there were links to my own music and thoughts about music in a way that there haven't been in recent shows.

Are we going to get Mr Worby over here at some point?