Mandate Questions

Craig,
Okay, let's kick off this discussion. Here's the email I sent you the other day:

Something I've been meaning to ask you regarding the blog... what's our cutoff point for what constitutes "new music"? It doesn't have to be absolutely rigid, but we should probably at least discuss it a bit.
My suggestion is: music written by a composer who wrote most of their music after 1900. If anyone falls on the cusp, we use our judgement. So technically Richard Strauss and Bartok fall under this definition, but no - they're pretty mainstream (not that there's anything wrong with that). I wasn't sure about including Webern, like I think I mentioned, but it's still challenging enough to the modern ear that I wanted to go for it, even though he was only 10 years younger than Strauss.
Do you have any thoughts on this? I just added a concert that's gonna have some Healy Willan on it. Willan's solidly in the 20th-century (in time if not in style), plus he's Canadian (which has nothing to do with the blog per se, but I have a soft spot for local boys). His music is pretty neo-rom though. I'm on the fence about it.
R.

Here's your reply:

Well, I think that we have to decide if we're supporting 20C+ music, 'new' music or contemporary music, which, are kind of all different things. 20C+ music is easy: written in 20thC and later. New music is tough, but it generally gives the aesthetic of post-tonal to me. Yet, that isn't rigid. Verklarte Nacht is still pretty romantic. For me, contemporary music deals with the present. Things that are going on now. But, I think that post 1900 is a good start, with the cusp being judgement. Webern was not a bad decision. It's tough. --->in many cases 'new' music is something that challenges the mainstream model of what music is accepted to me <--- Plus, this is Ottawa! Right now there is still only a small amount going on, that I feel it better to include a broad range, rather than try to pigeon hole to one single aesthetic. I also know that the electronic field festival is pushing it. It deals largely with Djs. but it also deals with experimental electronics.

And here's my reply to your reply:
Right. We're not exactly awash in contemporary, paradigm-challenging sounds here, although compiling events on the calendar has really opened my eyes to how much there is going on; I doubt I'd have even found out about half this stuff otherwise. But I digress. With the relative scarcity of modern music being performed in the Ottawa area, we would do well to be inclusive rather than exclusive at this point in time. If we find, later, that our target is too large and we're listing all sorts of events that have no connection to, as you say, "things that are going on now", we can adjust our sights accordingly.
I'd never thought of "new music" as being post-tonal, but maybe you're right. The problem is in the semantics - something can only be "new" for a while, and it's a completely relative and subjective term. I mean, hell, 'new music' ought perhaps to include Coca-cola jingles and sitcom theme songs as well, but we have to draw the line somewhere.
So clearly, 'new music' doesn't refer to any music that is newly-composed. Maybe it should be defined as music composed recently that deals with modern ideas. But then, we don't always know the works in question, or even some of the composers, so we're assuming based on dates of composition that the music fits our parameters.
Will a time come when Webern is no longer challenging to most listener's ears? And if so, do we then shift him out of our invented categories of 'new' or 'modern' music? I think we're just going to have to define our parameters as we go along. We seem to agree on a starting point, though, so that's good.
R.