I agree

You know Ryan, I agree with you. There is something too exclusive about the term CREATIVE concert music. We discussed on the phone a few weeks back that a depth of engagement seems to be important to us. This concept of not merely repeating, but engaging material from many aspects, and connecting with it as a means to create something relevant. As I reflect, I have found a few interesting points. It seems that we really are supporting more than one thing, and that giving a single name might not work. Even though 'new' and 'contemporary' have become dated terms, they are still referring to something which we are supporting - a movement of composers to expand the possibilities of music beyond the pre-20C models. Furthermore, there is a spectrum of how far composers push. Some revolutionize, others continue the evolution of the tradition, while others arguably do both. There is also this aspect of supporting music that is on the cutting edge of the present - recently finished, in progress, improvised, or not even thought of yet.

I have no ambition to present or support a unified new music aesthetic. You are onto something with this idea of 'music of the last 100 years'. One could say that we are supporting music from the 20C to the present, and leave it to our discretion after that. I feel that if we start getting too specific, we'll not only alienate others, but probably alienate ourselves. I would much rather be a little too inclusive than exclusive.

C.