View Full Version : What about Cheltenham eh?
Sydney Grew
22-01-11, 06:35
In the "Radio 3" introduction to last week's "Hear and Now" we are presented with the following bit of babble: "Huddersfield Contemporary Music Festival is the largest festival of its type in the UK, a truly international focus on the best in contemporary and new music."
The first question which at once arises in our mind is, "What about Cheltenham?" Is that not an altogether superior sort of locality?
And a second question is, "What is this claimed difference between 'contemporary' and 'new' music?" We are at a loss there and no distinction is evident.
MrGongGong
22-01-11, 08:45
What about Cheltenham ?
Nothing wrong with it
but its not the same sort of festival as Huddersfield
which (quite rightly IMV) has a huge international reputation (a few years ago i was working in Japan and one of the people i was with asked me where i was off to next , "HCMF" i replied to which the response was "wonderful, i've always wanted to go to Huddersfield" )
:biggrin:
maestro267
24-01-11, 09:55
"What is this claimed difference between 'contemporary' and 'new' music?"
Personally I think the two terms are interchangeable. Maybe 'new' music is music that is being composed now, (in which case a piece can only be classed as 'new music' until after its first performance), and 'contemporary' music can encompass the music composed during one's lifetime.
french frank
24-01-11, 11:45
And a second question is, "What is this claimed difference between 'contemporary' and 'new' music?" We are at a loss there and no distinction is evident.Hmmm, well, I'm not being flippant in saying 'It's what the person who uses it intends it to mean.' Not helpful, but merely indicating something of a difficulty in finding terminology which is generally used, understood and approved of.
My own use is for 'contemporary' to mean the work of living composers, perhaps over recent decades; and for New Music to be an umbrella term for, broadly speaking, post war work including experimental, electronic, and excluding anything written in traditional tonal styles.
It satisfies me but will probably incite hordes of objectors :smiley:
If pressed, I would think that new music implies something more experimental, Musique concrète types and contemporary music refers to the music composed by (largely) living composers and mostly irrespective of their composing styles. Would you call, for example, James MacMillan a composer of new music?
I have got my coat ready. :smiley:
Personally I think the two terms are interchangeable. Maybe 'new' music is music that is being composed now, (in which case a piece can only be classed as 'new music' until after its first performance), and 'contemporary' music can encompass the music composed during one's lifetime.
I would find it hard to agree with this, given that it would identify the definition of "contemporary" music as personal to whoever might define it, which would effectively mean that, to Elliott Carter, Florent Schmitt's Piano Quintet, Delius's In a Summer Garden, Rachmaninov's Second Symphony and Mahler's Das Lied von der Erde all fall under that category since they were completed in the year of his birth, which would surely be rather ridiculous to most of us!
Alain Bashung
24-01-11, 12:13
I'd agree completely with you, FF - except exactly the other way round!
french frank
24-01-11, 13:52
I'd agree completely with you, FF - except exactly the other way round!I think that might be progress!
The problem with your interpretation (well, and mine too, when I think about it) is that it would be hard to deny that Karl Jenkins, Nigel Hess and Patrick Hawes were 'contemporary' composers. But the meaning of the word clearly has a chronological implication, 'those who are composing at the same time' - either the same time as each other or at the same time as us, their audience.
MrGongGong
24-01-11, 14:08
So that would make Einaudi (penny in the bad taste box !) "Contemporary" but not "New" music ?
french frank
24-01-11, 14:17
So that would make Einaudi (penny in the bad taste box !) "Contemporary" but not "New" music ?I knew the name but not the music. Having listened to a few YouTubes, I'd say he wasn't 'contemporary' under my definition because he goes with Karl Jenkins, Nigel Hess and Patrick Hawes. In an etymological sense, of course he's contemporary. But stylistically he sounds more like certain pop musicians who aim at mass audiences. If you include both strands of development, the term seems meaningless.
Not wanting to name specific individuals here, I would nevertheless opine that "new" music and "contemporary" music are one and the same thing at any given time, since the epithet "new" could reasonably be expected to apply to music that has not been written before by its composers; I don't think that the style/s involved or the extent to which any music has, or is perceived to have, recourse to music that is not new/contemporary can be a deciding factor.
MrGongGong
24-01-11, 15:34
I knew the name but not the music.
lucky you
and to think who his teacher was !!!!
:doh:
french frank
24-01-11, 16:12
I don't think that the style/s involved or the extent to which any music has, or is perceived to have, recourse to music that is not new/contemporary can be a deciding factor.So would you consider that Hear & Now should be focusing on recently composed music, regardless of the "style" in which it's composed? (And I do mean "regardless")
But do we actually talk about ‘new music’ to mean a newly composed work? I have an impression that the term ‘New music’ came about to refer to the music that had particular characteristics other than simply being a chronological reference.
So would you consider that Hear & Now should be focusing on recently composed music, regardless of the "style" in which it's composed? (And I do mean "regardless")
I would consider that Hear & Now's brief is and indeed should be whatever its producer/s believe/s that it should be; if its chosen brief is principally to promote and disseminate what it might consider to be "cutting edge" work, that's fine, although it has to be said that there is already quite a wide stylistic divergence between the various works that have been featured on it to date, 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.
french frank
25-01-11, 15:20
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'?
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
26-01-11, 13:25
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
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
26-01-11, 14:56
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...:smiley:
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 ... :erm:
:smiley:
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 ... :erm:
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!
Cutting Edge (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/hearandnow/pip/jvu35/) is old hat now. It went when the BMIC was absorbed into Sound and Music (http://www.soundandmusic.org/).
french frank
26-01-11, 17:23
Cutting Edge (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio3/hearandnow/pip/jvu35/) is old hat now. It went when the BMIC was absorbed into Sound and Music (http://www.soundandmusic.org/).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'...
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
26-01-11, 21:41
If Einaudi's music is not new, what old music does his sound like?Something about like Procol Harum vintage? Or Rick Wakeman?
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
27-01-11, 10:12
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
27-01-11, 10:24
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'? :smiley:
MrGG - remember the Radio 1 slogan from not long ago: "In New Music We Trust"? :erm:
MrGongGong
27-01-11, 10:30
"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
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'? :smiley:
MrGG - remember the Radio 1 slogan from not long ago: "In New Music We Trust"? :erm:
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!
MrGongGong
27-01-11, 11:16
"most new music" is written by teenagers in bands
and far from the "Hear and Now aesthetic"
"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
27-01-11, 11:31
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.
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
27-01-11, 12:02
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.
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
27-01-11, 12:15
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.
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)
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
27-01-11, 12:23
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
:winkeye:
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
27-01-11, 12:28
"Friendly Music" ?
like this you mean ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnG6EHh1N4
:smiley:
"Friendly Music" ?
like this you mean ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vtnG6EHh1N4
:smiley:
Good gosh, takes me back to the sixth-form common room. (That was in the 70s, in case you're wondering)
french frank
27-01-11, 12:41
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.'
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.
MrGongGong
27-01-11, 15:41
We could have
"music for people who have read Adorno" ?
:biggrin:
The extent of my readin of Adorno is on a par with Peter Sellers's singing of George Gershwin. :whistle:
french frank
27-01-11, 16:21
The extent of my readin of Adorno is on a par with Peter Sellers's singing of George Gershwin. :whistle:We could start here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodor_W._Adorno), Bryn :biggrin: - or is this on a par with Sellers/Gershwin?
Peter Sellers sings George Gershwin (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afr4bIAkF5M).
french frank
27-01-11, 16:44
Well that was quite painless :smiley:
Othewise I never bothered to venture beyond the Verso "Aesthetics and Politics". It just seemed so much more interesting to listen to music, even his string quartet works (Op. 2 Pieces, the String Quartet, and the 6 Studies).
3rd Viennese School
27-01-11, 17:00
Come to think of it, Hear and Now sometimes has a whole programme of more commercial type music, so my answer may not be entirely correct.
Contemporary actually means stuff people have written at round about the same time. (You lot knew that!)
There is no one correct answer. As they say about Sibelius Symphonies.
3VS
We could have
"music for people who have read Adorno" ?
:biggrin:
Or perhaps "music for people who think Adorno has got something useful to say"
MrGongGong
27-01-11, 20:04
though its a long time since I did read Adorno
I do remember that he (along with Dahlhaus and Benjamin) had much to say
though "useful" is an odd way of judging the value of aesthetics
though its a long time since I did read Adorno
I do remember that he (along with Dahlhaus and Benjamin) had much to say
though "useful" is an odd way of judging the value of aesthetics
No judgement offered.
Would you call, for example, James MacMillan a composer of new music?
I have got my coat ready. :smiley:I wouldn't call him a composer of ANY music ...
Ian, I usued to live in Penarth!! Lovely place.
All this navel gazing when after all it is all just music. Doesn't matter if its new, old, or in between. It's either good or bad.
It's either good or bad.
Why would anyone write bad music?
Why would anyone write bad music?
Who knows? - but someone with whom I studied briefly some years ago told me that Milhaud (with whom he had himself studied) once told him that one mark of a good composer is the abilty to write bad music really well; make what you can (or can't) of that, if you will (or won't)...
I guess it's a bit like my comment, which sort of wonders what makes music 'bad', or 'good' for that matter.
french frank
30-01-11, 23:34
I aways find the old chestnut (attributed to many musical sages) about music being either good or bad very puzzling. There is really such a rigid distinction? Would there be general agreement about whether a particular piece of music should be assigned to Basket A (Good Music) or Basket B (Bad Music)?
I aways find the old chestnut (attributed to many musical sages) about music being either good or bad very puzzling. There is really such a rigid distinction? Would there be general agreement about whether a particular piece of music should be assigned to Basket A (Good Music) or Basket B (Bad Music)?
Fair comment as far as it is capable of going, but then does it not illustrate / parallel the very problem of how to categorise relatively recently composed/improvised music and why? How good, bad, avant-garde, non-"cutting-edge" and all the rest is any of it in terms of the potential or actual responses or otherwise of its infinite variety of listeners?
french frank
31-01-11, 00:04
the potential or actual responses or otherwise of its infinite variety of listeners?One might even wonder whether the more valid starting point is the individual listener rather than the piece of music. Good and bad depend(s) on the myriad expectations, preferences and attitudes (musical and non musical) of that listener.
Fair comment as far as it is capable of going, but then does it not illustrate / parallel the very problem of how to categorise relatively recently composed/improvised music and why?
I think the 'why' is to do with marketing, which, in turn is often to do with which door the music comes out of. Even music, which, relatively speaking, is broadly similar, can be judged to be be at opposite ends of the 'value' scale depending on which sector of the market the music emerges - or is seen to be intended for.
I think the 'why' is to do with marketing, which, in turn is often to do with which door the music comes out of. Even music, which, relatively speaking, is broadly similar, can be judged to be be at opposite ends of the 'value' scale depending on which sector of the market the music emerges - or is seen to be intended for.
I think that you're right about this - but then so much seems now to depend upon marketing, PR and the like and, as what I suppose must be an inevitable consequence in the present context, "convenience" labelling occurs which at times is prone to causing confusion rather than providing informative illustration.
3rd Viennese School
31-01-11, 12:26
I’ve heard pieces in my time and thought “He’s either a genius and we aren’t getting it, or it’s complete cxxx.”
Such as Ives Symphony no.4 first time round. (And second!)
3VS
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.