What about Cheltenham eh?

[MrGongGong]

"most new music" is written by teenagers in bands
and far from the "Hear and Now aesthetic"

[Ian]

"most new music" is written by teenagers in bands
and far from the "Hear and Now aesthetic"

That could well be true, although I'm not sure what your point is. Aren't those teenagers entitled to consider their music contemporary?

[french frank]

To label such music 'contemporary' with the view/implication of excluding new music that happens not to fit in with the Hear and Now aesthetic (which is most new music) seems to me to be a damned cheek!

I'm not sure that I understand the first part of the sentence. As for the second, well, the messageboards are mainly built round specific Radio 3 programmes and what is heard on Radio 3. If new/contemporary music is played on other programmes (say, Classical Collection, Afternoon on 3 or Performance on 3) then there are messageboards where they can be discussed. The questions to ask are, surely, 'Who listens to Hear and Now? and What kind of music do they want to listen to on the programme? - 'the Hear and Now aesthetic' as you put it. And, yes, it is unlikely to be Einaudi, Jenkins or John Williams.

[ahinton]

What I'm having some trouble with is the matter of the apparent need to "define" what this messageboard is "about" or what Hear & Now is "about" in the context of questioning how (or even whether / when) to label different types of recent music; don't they have to define themselves but, in so doing, not necessarily define per se any recent music by applying to it terms such as "cutting edge" or "avant-garde" or whatever else? In other words, aren't we discussing two things here - the messageboard and that programme series on the one hand and the question of appropriate terminology to describe different kinds of recently composed music on the other? In any case, this entire messageboard isn't just "about" new music of any kind, is it? Perhaps "this thread" rather than "this messageboard" was what was meant - unless I am being particularly dim and am missing something...

In any case, I would have thought that the Hear & Now agenda might in principle be somewhat more fluid than seems to have been implied here; however much exposure of "cutting edge" music might be expected from the series on the basis of past evidence, were they do do a portrait programme of, say, Anthony Payne or David Matthews, I for one would not be especially surprised, nor would I be persuaded to assume that the series was seeking to change direction (even if only momentarily).

[french frank]

I agree completely with your second paragraph, Alistair. I'm all for fuzzy edges - or a sort of 'tag cloud' of ideas. Having set up the MB, the idea was provide a place for fellow enthusiasts to discuss their varying degrees of musical enthusiasms, while recognising that each member will have interests which spread out in different directions.

It may be that seeking for 'definitions' - however vaguely expressed - is a matter of little interest to others. But I am interested in why the music of Eliott Carter seems to me like, erm, New Music, and Sibelius, Strauss and Stravinsky don't. It can't be because he's still alive (at this moment of writing!) because I would include Cage and Stockhausen along with him.

To me, categorising is about knowledge and understanding (like taxonomy) and by no means a process to be dismissed, as seems fashionable.

[Ian]

I think it’s a bit greedy (a bit of a cheek) to expect that the terms ‘contemporary’, or ‘new‘ for that matter, should only apply to recent music that lies within the stylistic boundaries of ‘Hear and Now‘.

[french frank]

I think it’s a bit greedy (a bit of a cheek) to expect that the terms ‘contemporary’, or ‘new‘ for that matter, should only apply to recent music that lies within the stylistic boundaries of ‘Hear and Now‘.

But the discussion is about what 'contemporary classical music of the kind that might be heard on Hear and Now' might more conveniently be called in order that people understand what's being talked about in a particular context. No one wants to appropriate a term which might be confusing - or inaccurate.

[Bryn]

To me, categorising is about knowledge and understanding (like taxonomy) and by no means a process to be dismissed, as seems fashionable.

Or:

When things had been classified in organic categories, knowledge moved towards fulfilment

As Ezra Pound's translaton of the Confucian classic "The Great Digest" would have it, and just to make it clear that this is not an off topic message, the first performance Paragraph 1 of Cardew's The Great Digest (later retitled The Great Learning, due partly to problems with Pound's estate) took place at the 1968 Cheltenham Festival:

At a performance of the first paragraph of The Great Learning[sic] at the Cheltenham Festival in 1968 the audience split into two factions, one supporting and one opposing the music, which because of the uproar could hardly be heard. In the artists' room after the concert an elderly gentleman, who looked like a retired colonel, pushed through the crowd to confront the composer; he grabbed Cardew's hand and said: 'Thank you Mr Cardew, what a relief to hear your music after all this horrible modern stuff!'"

John Tilbury, "Cornelius Cardew", Contact / 26 (1983)

[Ian]

I think labels are important in as much they condition thought processes and confer or diminish prestige. I'm sure most people with a wide knowledge of music would find 'Radio 3 friendly new music' more precise than 'contemporary' music. But I'm also equally sure that practitioners of R3FNM would much prefer to hog the label 'contemporary'.

[MrGongGong]

Of course one could simply make up a new word for it !
So there is a strong case for calling it Sonic Art (with thanks to Trevor !) which I sometimes use to avoid the "its not music" brigade
or taking a leaf from "popular" music we could use a genre that already exists and apply it to this music.....

R&B isn't Rhythm and Blues

[Ian]

But the discussion is about what 'contemporary classical music of the kind that might be heard on Hear and Now' might more conveniently be called in order that people understand what's being talked about in a particular context. No one wants to appropriate a term which might be confusing - or inaccurate.

So what is wrong with 'R3 friendly new music'. Or 'Hear and Now friendly music' for that matter?'

[MrGongGong]

"Friendly Music" ?

like this you mean ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnG6EHh1N4

[Ian]

"Friendly Music" ?

like this you mean ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnG6EHh1N4

Good gosh, takes me back to the sixth-form common room. (That was in the 70s, in case you're wondering)

[french frank]

So what is wrong with 'R3 friendly new music'. Or 'Hear and Now friendly music' for that matter?'

We-e-e-ell ...

I wonder, when did the concept of 'avant garde' begin? And having posed the question, I've just checked the OED. The first recorded (English) use was in 1910. What relevance does that have? Well, I suppose it would start a bit of a hare running by suggesting that '(Classical) New Music'/'Hear and Now friendly music' began with the Second Viennese School and one might timidly hope that knowledgeable discussion here might stretch back that far... 'One lives in hope and one hopes to learn.'

[Ian]

I wonder to what extent labels, including ‘avant garde’ should be considered marketing labels. I do feel, however, there is a ‘mode of thinking’, that perhaps established itself with Schoenberg in particular (Does any know ‘To Boulez and Beyond’ by Joan Peyser), central to which is the approval of an ‘elite’ peer group. (I think Peyser related this to the supremacy of German music thingy)

The marketing dept. of this movement, however, did succeed (within the world of classical music) in establishing the terms modern(ist), new, contemporary, in our time, etc. as applying exclusively to this strand of music. Consequently, for the practitioners, ‘being new‘, became the most important, if not sole, criterion.

The legacy has been to complicate simple non-value laden terms like ‘contemporary’ and ‘new’ by adding superfluous baggage, of which, confusingly, only some people are now aware.