What about Cheltenham eh?

[french frank]

so if it chose to focus on recently composed music I'm not so sure that the programme title would necessarily be undermined as a consequence.

Yes, but in that case you have already defined its brief (rightly in my view) as "cutting edge". While that does indicate a wide stylistic divergence, it also excludes certain styles - even though you said that 'the style/s involved' shouldn't be a deciding factor.

So is all important new music 'cutting edge'? Or where would new music not defined as 'cutting edge' be played? If it's not an indelicate question, would you describe your own music as 'cutting edge'?

[ahinton]

Yes, but in that case you have already defined its brief (rightly in my view) as "cutting edge". While that does indicate a wide stylistic divergence, it also excludes certain styles - even though you said that 'the style/s involved' shouldn't be a deciding factor.

Well, it is rather more the producers of the series that have defined its brief rather than me; all that I've done is note that this is indeed the case as a rule (albeit not exceusively so). For the sake of clarity, I should have presaged my statement that the style/s should not be a deciding factor with something along the lines of "were I the series producer" which, of course, I am not, so the repertoire decisions are up to whoever the producer is.

So is all important new music 'cutting edge'?

I don't see that it is so, nor do I believe that it should necessarily be so; were Hear & Now series being broadcast during Mozart's time, for example, listeners might not be led to expecet to hear any Bach, as his work (such as it was even known at that time) would probably not be generally thought of as "cutting edge".

Or where would new music not defined as 'cutting edge' be played?

Since we're specifically discussing Hear & Now here (and now!), I think that we're placing more emphasis on where such music might be broadcast rather than performed live; many Hear & Now broadcasts do, of course, include ample material from live performances, but the decision as to what kind of new music is performed where is in each case that of the festivals, etc., in which they are played (e.g. HCMF) rather than that of BBC R3's Hear & Now producers. I do not mean to sound pedantic in so saying, nor do I seek to provide "politicians' answers" to your questions, but what does concern me is the potential for ghettoisation of music, including but not necesarily limited to "cutting edge" new music, be in in live performances or in broadcasts; there's nothing wrong in principle with a "contemporary music festival" or a programme series like Hear & Now, of course, but I do not think that it would do any "cutting edge" music any favours if it got habitually syphoned off from the performance and broadcast of other kinds of music. So, in answer to this question, I would say that new music, whether or not definable as "cutting edge", ought not of itself even presume the question of whether or not it should be played in this festival or broadcast in that programme. Imagine, for example, a programme of music by Michael Finnissy and Colin Matthews (each born in 1946) or, to give a more extreme example, David Matthews, Robin Holloway and Brian Ferneyhough (each dating from 1943); I see no reason for that not to happen.

If it's not an indelicate question, would you describe your own music as 'cutting edge'?

As Sorabji once said, "questions are never indelicate; answers sometimes are". Mine, however, will hopefully not be! I would try to avoid describing my music at all, if I'm honest but, if forced at gunpoint to answer your question here (not that you're doing that, of course!), I would have to say that I would not but, in so doing, I would hope that this was not taken to mean that it would better be performed or broadcast in programmes that eschew any new music that might be seen as falling within that description.

[3rd Viennese School]

I’ve got it!

Contemporary Music is all that Hear and Now stuff.

New Music is that plus Karl Jenkins, Frederik Stocken and Radio 6.

3VS

[ahinton]

I’ve got it!

Contemporary Music is all that Hear and Now stuff.

New Music is that plus Karl Jenkins, Frederik Stocken and Radio, 6.

On that basis, I shudder to imagine what it is that you've "got" but I'm sure that there must be a curative treatment for it...

[french frank]

On that basis, I shudder to imagine what it is that you've "got" but I'm sure that there must be a curative treatment for it...

Well, we've generated another term (besides 'New' and 'contemporary'), that is 'cutting edge'. What about 'avant garde'? At any given moment the two terms may refer to the same works, though I would say (possibly correctly, possibly not) that 'cutting edge' only ever refers to the avant garde of here and now, whereas 'avant garde' can also be historical.

Splitting hairs, but I'm still trying to work out exactly how to define the coverage of this new messageboard ...

[ahinton]

Well, we've generated another term (besides 'New' and 'contemporary'), that is 'cutting edge'. What about 'avant garde'? At any given moment the two terms may refer to the same works, though I would say (possibly correctly, possibly not) that 'cutting edge' only ever refers to the avant garde of here and now, whereas 'avant garde' can also be historical.

Splitting hairs, but I'm still trying to work out exactly how to define the coverage of this new messageboard ...

The problem with trying to determine the appropriateness or otherwise of all such terms when writing of recently composed music of any style is that "cutting edge" and "avant-garde" might well be suggestive of evidence of new musical trends in the content, whereas both "new" and "contemporary" cover any kind of recently composed music; furthermore, both "cutting edge" and "avant-garde" can be used in historical contexts, provided that such context is clarified!

[Bryn]

Cutting Edge is old hat now. It went when the BMIC was absorbed into Sound and Music.

[french frank]

Cutting Edge is old hat now. It went when the BMIC was absorbed into Sound and Music.

At the heart of it, I suppose, is not what term you use but what you intend to convey by it.

SAM seems to favour 'contemporary music and sound art'...

[Ian]

So that would make Einaudi (penny in the bad taste box !) "Contemporary" but not "New" music ?

If Einaudi's music is not new, what old music does his sound like?

[french frank]

If Einaudi's music is not new, what old music does his sound like?

Something about like Procol Harum vintage? Or Rick Wakeman?

[Ian]

Something about like Procol Harum vintage? Or Rick Wakeman?

Gosh, can't hear that, (not that I know much Harum or Wakeman) Anything in mind? In any case, by 'classical' standards, doesn't late 20C popular music count as contemporary?

[MrGongGong]

Gosh, can't hear that, (not that I know much Harum or Wakeman) Anything in mind? In any case, by 'classical' standards, doesn't late 20C popular music count as contemporary?

In some places the term "Contemporary Music" does refer to Current music played by Bands. A couple of years ago I was excited to discover the "London Centre for Contemporary music" but then disappointed to find that far from it being a centre for Composition and Live Electronics that it was a "Rock School" ..........

sorry to bring up the dreaded Einaudi (who was taught by Berio !!!!! , BERIO FFS who must be spinning in his grave) , I'd much rather have REAL Philip Glass,in the same way that i'd much rather have REAL Puccini than the fake stuff that a certain Lord who writes musicals (and is probably very litigious !) writes.

[french frank]

Gosh, can't hear that, (not that I know much Harum or Wakeman) Anything in mind? In any case, by 'classical' standards, doesn't late 20C popular music count as contemporary?

I just looked in on YouTube. Really, I was thinking of the popular musicians who play keyboard and compose things which sound quite pleasant, without a strong beat, like a sort of reflective noodling. I don't know Einaudi's orchestral work at all and it's only my assumption that it sounds like the piano works, orchestrated.

But your point is valid when you say 'doesn't late 20c popular music count as contemporary?' Well, yes, in a dictionary definition. Which is surely why one needs something different to define what Hear and Now and this messageboard are about? Or do we have to fall back on 'contemporary classical'?

MrGG - remember the Radio 1 slogan from not long ago: "In New Music We Trust"?

[MrGongGong]

"In New Music We Trust"

Some of us still do ! (and I bet the soup is good as well)

http://thisrecording.squarespace.com/storage/cage.jpg?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1244388361259

[Ian]

I just looked in on YouTube. Really, I was thinking of the popular musicians who play keyboard and compose things which sound quite pleasant, without a strong beat, like a sort of reflective noodling. I don't know Einaudi's orchestral work at all and it's only my assumption that it sounds like the piano works, orchestrated.

But your point is valid when you say 'doesn't late 20c popular music count as contemporary?' Well, yes, in a dictionary definition. Which is surely why one needs something different to define what Hear and Now and this messageboard are about? Or do we have to fall back on 'contemporary classical'?

MrGG - remember the Radio 1 slogan from not long ago: "In New Music We Trust"?

The music you typically hear on Hear and Now I would call Radio 3-friendly music, or, possibly (in a literal sense) 'academic' music. 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!