Talk:New Complexity

Article Problems

This article suffers from a largely unencyclopedic style and ta raft of unsourced statements that in the aggregate suggest WP:POV and WP:OR problems. I sugges it be rewritten in a more neutral tone, discounting the internal polemics (noted below). Basically, we need to know what it is, who is associated with it, and its influence and context within the larger world of classical, especially contemporary music. This sounds like it was written by an apologist and that is not what an encyclopedia article should be about. Eusebeus 13:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, a few key citations are missing. Ferneyhough and Finnissy can be easily cited from their published writings. But I don't sense any trouble in the tone. It has already been commented that the article reads well, and is extremely concise. After a fairly straightforward description of the notation, the article moves to the aesthetic question at hand--problematizing the execution and interpretation of prescriptive musical notation. Aside from the obvious need to find sources, the biggest problem with this article may actually be the "Origins and Influences" section. It seems that this section has grown into a slightly boring and over detailed account of internal relations that don't belong on wikipedia (probably a WP:POV problem). Couldn't we do without these needless details, which threaten to grow longer than the main sections of the article? Finally, at long last, is it possible to do away with the standard claim that no composer fully espouses the term "new complexity?" This criticism is so commonplace, i'm not sure its worth stating again. 216.165.95.5 21:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Another suggestion: a score image would clarify the style a lot.216.165.95.5 23:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of this article would strike me as being, at the very least, contentious. Can you support your claim that this article is contentious? Since the term, "new complexity" itself, is contentious anyway, right? It seems to me that either "new complexity" be defined only according to the bare facts of the composers involved (which would probably make it uninteresting), or that it be given a strong aesthetic defense, at the risk of being contentious. It seems that the latter has been done, right? It reads quite well, with minor revisions.24.45.14.239 06:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I'd further add that the revision claiming this music somehow "forces performers" to do anything completely misunderstands the basic aesthetic laid out in the preceeding paragraphs. I will suggest deletion, unless someone strongly disagrees?24.45.14.239 06:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

What is contentious about this article

Although there are many excellent points to this article, I find this sentence contentious: "Others have suggested, more radically, that the demands of "New Complexity" scores celebrate the relationship between composer and performer as fully sado-masochistic; the composer is sadist, the performer, masochist."

Although some performers and commentators on new complexity have indeed used the terms such as "sado-masochistic" to describe the encounter with new complexity music, this is not really a serious criticism, but is rather a somewhat adolescent remark. This criticism is certainly not "radical": how can it get to the root (=radical) of an issue if it misses the point? No new complexity composer I have known over the last two decades is possessed of the sort of control mania with regard to performers that composers such as Stockhausen, numerous academic Modernists, and even some Minimalists (for example, Steve Reich) have exhibited. The musical tasks may be terrifying for performers, and the experience hearing of microtones, noises, etc. may be extremely unpleasant for some listeners; however, I doubt very much that the composers aimed to cause suffering. Rather, I would suggest that some performers/listeners have projected their reactions onto new complexity composers' intentions.

This projection mechanism has been seen before in musical history; one need only scan through Slonimsky's Lexicon of Musical Invective to find similar charges hurled at composers over the last two centuries who offended listeners' sensibilities.

I would suggest a more nuanced and well-informed presentation the topic of the relationship between new complexity composers and their performers/listeners.

Hagar333 07:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a bit of your point, but I would still defend the use of the term "sadomasochism" or "sado-masochism" since it goes directly to the question of power relation (or politics), embodied in new complexity scores. It is a question that Ferneyhough's Time and Motion Studies explicitly asks us: who is really doing the "expressing" when such highly specified notation puts the performer in a situation where they must navigate physical "impossibilities"? Further, it is important, in an entry such as this, to state the matter as directly as possible, sharply distinguishing the new complexity from other "atonal" or "avant garde" aesthetic positions that could sound indistinguishable to listeners, if it weren't for the very unique traits clearly explained in this article. Concretely, this question and concern over "power" is not shared, really, by most spectral composers, and certainly not by the serialists, just to pick a couple of examples.

Finally, sado-masochism never claims to speak for the intention of any party involved, and is not related to attacks on composers who just want considerable control over the performance. Even in the realm of sexual practices, most BDSM practices are very consensual. It may be helpful to think about how such practices focus on role-playing power relations, rather than simply actualizing them. I have edited the sentence to clarify this problem.

Does this make sense? 216.165.95.5 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are claiming that BDSM sexual practices are consensual, loving, caring, etc., then how can you claim that "sadomasochism...goes directly to the question of power relation[s] (or politics)?" This is equivocation.

What is more, I have heard this term used as a sort of slur by critics and some performers who simply didn't want to listen to or perform the music, which is why I mentioned the notion of projection and the Slonimsky quotes above.

If you were to speak to a wide range of people who advocate and perform this music, you would find most would be offended by the "sadomasochistic" term. It does not correspond to reality and it is degrading. The very notion of equating artistic performance--requiring endless hours of diligent preparation and intellectual commitment--with alternate sexual practices is inappropriate.

I think you misunderstand what detailed notational specification can and cannot accomplish. Even the finest degree of specification has a range of possible realizations, unless one is committed to a one-to-one relationship between written indication and aural result. New Complexity composers tend not to believe in this remnant of post-war scientism, and they tend to accept the active role elicited from performers in making spur of the moment decisions and considered interpretations on the basis of highly detailed scores. In many cases, not all of the notated specifications can be realized in any one performance, even though one must practice them all and attempt to realize as many as possible. But there can be no "perfect" performance of most pieces of New Complexity music.

To repeat, the question of maintaining monolithic control over an interpretation is not at the forefront of the concerns of any New Complexity composer I know. However, it has been at the forefront of the concern of serialists such as Stockhausen, early Boulez, Babbitt, and others. It has been at the forefront of Steve Reich's relationships with performers. It is at the forefront over many Spectralists' relationships with their performers. All of these groups tend to favor the one-to-one relationship between notated written indication and aural result. This is where the question of power becomes troublesome, because the power relationship doesn't actually appear on the surface of the score, but is rather embedded in the assumptions of many postwar avant-garde styles.Hagar333 03:56, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

June 2010. Although this article has been markedly improved since 2007, unfortunately one sees the clear impact of British bias on the part of one or more editors. As but one example, numerous non-British composers were removed from the list of composers associated with the New Complexity, leaving almost no composers who are not British or working in Britain. This is clear chauvinism and indefensible on any level.

Secondly, a British composer who has never been considered a composer of New Complexity, Christopher Fox, has been granted more space than all the non-British composers combined who have composed works of New Complexity. How can one justify this?

To the British contributors to this entry: please accept that New Complexity no longer belongs wholly to the UK. To the editors of Wikipedia: please prevent nationalist bias from distorting this entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 09:35, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

As evidence of my previous criticism, the former heading for this article read: In music, the New Complexity is a term dating from the 1980s, principally applied to British composers seeking a "complex, multi-layered interplay of evolutionary processes occurring simultaneously within every dimension of the musical material" (Fox 2001).

The citation may be accurate, but at this point of time--2010--the content is demonstrably incorrect. Incorrect information should not appear as the heading of an article in an encyclopedia. Therefore, I have removed the British bias appearing in this heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 09:43, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

You have done an admirable job of establishing in the article itself the position that the New Complexity is not exclusively British property and, notwithstanding the fact that the original lede qualified the British connection with the word "principally", it is clearly best to remove the specific reference in the lede. However, this does raise a problem that crops up with some regularity on Wikipedia (especially for contemporary topics), and that is that reliable sources often lag behind the times. The second edition of New Grove (in which the "New Complexity" article appears) was published nine years ago now, and yet remains a standard reference. This might not matter very much for topics such as medieval music or the theory of tonality, but currently evolving trends do quickly outrun such sources. This may also apply to the issue of notability. I have just removed several redlinked names from the list of "notable" New Complexity composers, most of whom were not British. If these names were all your additions, you may view this as a setback, but the solution is straightforward: first write articles that demonstrate the notability of these composers, and then add the names back to the list, where they will appear as bluelinks.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:54, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Further to the above: Having revisited Christopher Fox's article, I see that it emphatically rejects the notion that the New Complexity is a British movement in anything except the initiatives of Ferneyhough and Finnissy. I have amended the main text to reflect this fact. I also notice that a critical note has been added in the Further reading list casting aspersions on Jim Boros's collection of essays in Perspectives of New Music, without, however, offering any proof or even documentation of rumours that the Editorial Board of that journal (of which I was a member at the time) had anything at all to do with selection or rejection of the content of that collection. In fact, the Editorial Board as a body was never consulted in such a capacity on any subject whatever but, if someone has made this claim in a verifiable source, then by all means let us bring this to light. Otherwise, I suggest the claim be removed.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:19, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl, I was in touch with James Boros at the time of the "Complexity Forum", and he communicated his dissatisfaction with the results in no uncertain terms. Richard Barrett in a published interview alluded to this affair, believing the rejection of his article was owing to bias. What is more, practically no major younger figures of the New Complexity were included among the published articles, whereas, for instance, Erik Ulman, who is a very fine composer but not a New Complexity composer, was included. Whatever the reasons for the choice of articles, the failure to include major younger figures associated with the New Complexity seriously skewed this entire "Forum."

Secondly, I would beg you to not play childish games by removing composers I have posted. You have done fine work on Stockhausen, but you are by no means an expert on the subject of New Complexity. I have not seen a single article of yours focusing on this subject. I have never seen you at any of the festivals in which numerous works of younger composers associated with the New Complexity were performed, such as the bludenzer tage of the 1990's of the Züricher Tage of the early 1990's. Why would you dare to remove Wolfram Schurig, co-editor of the primary book series focused on the New Complexity, leader of the bludenzer tage in its most daring period, and composer commissioned by leading ensembles throughout Europe? If you don't know anything about him, this reflects badly on your claim to be an expert in this field. Why would you remove Klaus K. Hübler, whose influence on New Complexity composers is clearly stated in multiple articles in the New Music and Aesthetics in the 21st Century series? Marc André has received numerous prestigious awards and commissions, and his work has also been closely associated with New Complexity over an extended period; one need only read his articles appearing in the New Music and Aesthetics series to find support for this assertion.

I would strongly suggest that you do your homework in this field before you go about arbitrarily altering the contributions of others. You could begin by going through the first six volumes of the New Music and Aesthetics series, then read numerous articles in Musik & Âsthetik (several references to this journal that I had entered previously have been removed, even though these are directly relevant to the subject) and works by Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf and others. Then visit several dozen festivals in Europe over an extended period. Then do some score study, perhaps beginning with the composers whose names you have removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 20:41, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hagar333. Since you appear to know of an article by Richard Barrett in which he alleges bias on the part of either Jim Boros or the Editorial Board or someone else connected with Perspectives of New Music at the time of publication of the Complexity in Music forum, it would be more productive if you would please add it to the claim made in the article, rather than complain about it here on the talk page. As for the reason for removal of those names from the list (and, contrary to your belief, I am perfectly aware of the credentials of most of them), it is simple, and I already stated it in my edit summary: they were what are called "redlinks", which means there are no Wikipedia articles on these people. This suggests (though certainly does not prove) that they are not really "notable". The recommended procedure (which I also mentioned in my edit summary) is first to create articles on these people, and then restore their names to the list, so they will show as "bluelinks". Certainly an editor with your apparent expertise in this area should not find this difficult to do, particularly as such articles do not need to be extensive—only just sufficiently documented so as to demonstrate the notability of their subjects. Other hands may later expand and improve these articles.

I can see that you are new to editing on Wikipedia, and something you apparently do not yet understand is that no one here is an "authority" or an "expert"—every editor is, in theory, anonymous (and this can take some getting used to, especially for editors accustomed to publishing in traditional media). This requires that all claims that might be contested (such as "PNM trashes articles because of bias") must be supported by reliable, third-party sources. You may regard this as childish, but it happens to be a part of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. It is not good enough that you or I know who Klaus K. Hübler is—it is necessary that we demonstrate to the reader who he is, complete with references by which that reader can confirm that it is so. This is the "homework" that must be done by every editor working on Wikipedia: The burden of proof is on the editor adding material. When this is not done, then it is not only the right but the duty of other editors to challenge and remove such material.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl,

Please return the citations for New Music and Aesthetics in the 21st Century to their original form. Claus-Steffen Mahnkopf, Frank Cox, and Wolfram Schurig are co-editors of the entire series. When Mr. Mahnkopf's name appears as the sole editor, this is because he is the primary editor of this volume. However, all three editors are closely involved in editing every volume. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 20:56, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

OCLC did not confirm this but they are not entirely reliable in such matters so, in the present case, I am willing to take your word for it that their names actually appear as series editors in all six volumes. I shall make the corresponding change.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl,

An encyclopedia should present reasonably reliable information about the real world. What you are insisting upon is that a composer for whom there is not entry in the Wiki world is not notable in the Wiki world. Although this is true in a trivial sense, it undermines Wikipedia's claim to be an encyclopedia.

There are various means for verifying the "notability" of composers in the real world beyond checking to see if they already appear in the Wiki world. I offered three reasons for Wolfram Schurig: he is a prominent composer, as demonstrated by his awards and compositions in the real world; he is a co-editor of the main book series existing in the real world largely focused on the subject of New Complexity, and he was the leader of a notable real-world festival that focused on the music of the New Complexity. I will add a fourth reason: he recently was awarded an Ernst von Siemens prize (in 2009). Similar justifications can be provided for Klaus K. Hübler and Marc André, both of whom have, I believe, been awarded a Siemens prize, both of whom have received notable awards and commissions (Hübler the top composition award at the Darmstadt Festival, for example), and so on and so forth.

I don not have time at the moment to create Wiki entries for these composers so that they will formally exist in the Wiki world. However, there has to be a more reasonable means of connecting encyclopedic information about a subject with the real world than checking whether an entry on a given composer already exists somewhere else in the encyclopedia.

Again, please return the names of the composers you have removed. If you fail to do so, you will be acting more as a censor than as a serious scholar.Hagar333 (talk) 00:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I am reluctantly acting as a "censor" every day—as are hundreds of other Wikipedia editors, with equal reluctance, I am sure. You would not believe the number of malicious or frivolous edits that occur here, and somebody has got to weed out the doubtful or potentially libelous claims. The way one "checks in the real world" for notability is in no way different from the way it is done on Wikipedia. The only difference here is that, once having found the evidence, it needs to be written down where everyone can see it (not just the chosen elite endowed with special powers). It is all too easy to claim someone has won a distinction (not long ago a self-promoting composer was caught falsely claiming he had won the Pulitzer Prize, for example), but it is not usually much more difficult to demonstrate a fact. I am sorry you do not have the time to perform this service for composers you so clearly believe to be notable, and I hope that someone else soon will be able to do so. Perhaps I shall myself, if I can find the time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 01:22, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl,

Confronted with a mass of fairly detailed evidence such as I have provided, it seems that any reasonable scholar would err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion, or at least check on a few facts him/herself. Why haven't you checked any of the articles in the New Music and Aesthetics in the 21st Century series to confirm that authors such as André, Hübler, and Schurig (as well as others) are represented there? Or why didn't you go to the Ernst von Siemanns Prize page to confirm that Marc André and Wolfram Schurig have indeed won the composer prize:

2002 - Marc André, Jan Müller-Wieland and Charlotte Seither 2008 - Dieter Ammann, Márton Illés and Wolfram Schurig

Klaus K. Hübler won the Förderpreis of the city of Stuttgart and the Kranichsteiner Preis from the Darmstad Ferienkürse. You should be able to confirm this on the Grove Online entry for him.

Now can we please come to a close with this foolishness? Please restore the names you have deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

These are promising claims but, with respect, until verified they are not "evidence". Evidence is found in provided citations. Pointing to Grove Online for an article on Hübler is a start in the right direction. Unfortunately, the Grove Online search engine finds him only in a passing mention in Christopher Fox's article on the New Complexity. The list of Ernst Siemens Prize winners on Wikipedia cannot itself be used as a source (see Wikipedia:Verification#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it), but the sources cited therein can be. On the other hand, demonstrating that André, Hübler, and Schuring are authors of articles means nothing about their notability as composers. You might just as well insist that Pierre Boulez should be included in a list of famous brain surgeons, on grounds that he is a world-famous conductor. As a matter of interest, why are you in such a hurry about all this? I cannot understand why a day or two assembling some evidence and creating some articles seems to be unacceptable to you.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 05:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl,

Perhaps the Grove online article on Hübler is not yet released; it is in preparation, though.

Your point about the Siemens prize escapes me. You had earlier mentioned a composer claiming to have won the Pulitzer prize, so I assumed you were throwing doubt on my claim that these composers had won the Siemens prize. If a Wikipedia article on a composer can serve as a legitimation of a composer that is superior to the prizes and commissions he or she has attained in the real world (think about that for a moment––a Wikipedia article treated as a standard of truth???), then surely a Wikipedia entry listing a composer as the winner of a prize can serve to support the claim that the composer has won the prize.

Your point concerning the relationship between these composers having written articles and being notable composers is tendentious and trivial. Boulez never wrote articles about brain surgery, so nobody would mistake him for being a brain surgeon. The composers under discussion wrote articles in a series entitled New Music and Aesthetics in the 21st Century, not a journal about brain surgery. Moreover, they were selected for inclusion by the editors precisely because they were notable composers. They all wrote articles in this series about their own music. Do your homework.

I'm in a hurry because I am a college professor trying to maintain about three careers at once. This sort of stubbornness on your part does nothing but waste my time. You maintain that you are simply weeding out doubtful claims, but in fact you are damming-up any progress on improving this article. The burden of proof does not lie on me to demonstrate that they are New Complexity composers of some recognition; you are simply refusing to acknowledge the recognition they have received, and it appears you are simply uninterested in looking at the scores and articles by these composers yourself. This is irresponsible behavior on the part of someone who claims to be a scholar.Hagar333 (talk) 05:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

I look forward to seeing the Grove Online article on Hübler when it appears. In the meantime, we shall have to seek other sources to establish notability. It should not be difficult since, as you say, he is quite well-known—at least within certain circles.

My point about the Siemens Prize was simply that you do not yet understand that Wikipedia cannot be used as a source for itself. Apparently you have not taken the trouble to check out the links I have been liberally supplying for your benefit, so I will quote from Wikipedia:Verification#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it: "Articles on Wikipedia, or on websites that mirror its content, should not be used as sources, because this would amount to self-reference. Similarly, editors should not use sources that present material originating from Wikipedia to support that same material in Wikipedia, as this would create circular sourcing—Wikipedia citing a source that derives its material from Wikipedia." As I said, this does not prevent us from using that Wikipedia article to discover the sources it cites, and then use those. In the case of the false Pulitzer claim, the Wikipedia article listing Pulitzer-Prize winners was the first red flag, since the false claimant was not found there.

As for doing homework, I am surprised that you are not aware that authors often write on subjects in which they are not themselves notable, or even active at all. In musical circles, for example, there are musicologists who write about composers and performers, without themselves being either one. In the particular case of the book series by Mahnkopf et al., it may very well be true that the authors were all chosen because they are prominent composers. If this is stated in the foreword to each volume, then this may be cited as evidence that they are notable as composers; otherwise, the content of an article by one writer describing someone else's work as notable is good evidence.

I can only presume that your academic career is in its early stages, and I wish you all the best success. However, unless you have very different expectations for the academic world than you do for Wikipedia, you will be very upset to discover peer-reviewed conferences (AMS, SMT,etc.) and journals (such as Perspectives of New Music, Journal of the American Musicological Association, or the Journal of Musicology). These are, by the way, the first choice as verifiable, third-party sources on Wikipedia. Citing from Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Some_types_of_sources, "Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. Academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources when available." If an article you submit to such a journal happens to be rejected, please do not be too quick to assume it is because of bias against you personally (unlikely when submissions are juried anonymously, as all respectable journals do) or against your subject. Difficult though it may be to believe, it may just be possible that your draft article is short on substance, clarity, or proper citations of verifiable sources. I have seen one or two cases in my time.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:38, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Kohl,

I am very much aware of the standards of the peer-review process, being the co-editor of a peer-reviewed publication. However, the peer-review process is not a guarantee of reliability or quality, above all in the arts and humanities, and a blind trust in the mechanism of this process has led to several notable scandals. Your statement, for example, that "all respectable journals" are "juried anonymously" is demonstrably incorrect. This is a clear case of an opinion masquerading as a fact, and should be formulated in the following form: "All journals that I and people in the professional community who agree with me consider respectable are juried anonymously." Unfortunately, in the humanities, the peer-review process all too often spirals downward into this sort of groupthink. Peer-review may be considered in the same light as Churchill viewed Democracy: the worst possible system, excepting all the other systems that have ever been invented. But that doesn't make it intrinsically reliable. Good scholarship involves much more than blind trust in the mechanism of the peer-review process. And yes, knowing something about your subject is an important component of good scholarship. If a senior professor such as yourself doesn't grasp this, I despair at the state of higher education.

What is more, I don't know how you can have the boldness to move to a claim that "If an article you submit to such a journal happens to be rejected, please do not be too quick to assume it is because of bias against you personally." Where, in this overly lengthy discussion, can you find a claim that I have claimed personal bias? You are simply projecting your assumptions onto me.

This entire discussion is tiresome. You have brought forth a series of irrelevant and trivial claims, imputations, and projections, every one of which I have answered. According to current Wikipedia rules, you do have the right to reject information that, although relevant to the topic, does not have requisite documentation. But your reasoning is perverse; you keep on insisting that I dot every "i" without noticing that the article was fundamentally flawed before the changes I suggested last week, and at present still presents a fundamentally skewed sample of New Complexity composers. You seem happier to maintain this skewed representation than to accept emendations for which I have provided reasonable justifications. Your attitude toward the evidence I have presented is fundamentally hostile: you are challenging every bit of evidence I present, even though this keeps getting you caught up in absurdities (the "brain surgeon" claim, for example).

If I have time, I will attempt to provide biographies of the composers I've mentioned, but this whole enterprise is beginning to appear to be a game of three-card monte. I hope I may assume that they don't all have to be in English. I suppose I could get an official confirmation from the Siemans foundation that Andre and Schurig have won the Förderpreis, but it is much easier to check the list of prize winners sent out online to various foundations and publicity agencies. It is somewhat absurd to assume that all of these identical lists of prize winners are based on fraudulent information.

I just discovered that Andre does have a Wikipedia entry: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Andre. Hübler is published by Breitkopf and Härtel; I hope this counts as "notable" in your universe. A festival was largely dedicated to his music, several New Complexity composers have in articles described that impact his music had on theirs, his music has been recorded by leading new music performers, and so on and so forth. Hagar333 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Hagar333 (talk) 19:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Hagar333;

I would have translated my statement about anonyous peer-review a little differently, but I was trying not to be overly blunt: the respectability of journals whose jurying process is not anonymous cannot be as high as ones that do. You are right, of course, that respectability depends on more than this.

FWIW, I am not a professor, senior or otherwise, though I have been around the academic block a few times, yes. You ask "Where … can you find a claim that I have claimed personal bias?", and I admit this is an assumption based on your readiness to accuse Perspectives of New Music's Editorial Board (and by inclusion, myself) of bias in the case of a collection of articles whose editor apparently rejected one or more submissions ("numerous leading figures of the New Complexity" were, I believe, your words). And all this without offering any documentation of the charge or even, I might add, noticing that the collection was not restricted to music falling under the New Complexity umbrella.

The Siemens Prize lists available from the foundation's website are of course precisely what I was referring to when I said the Wikipedia article cannot itself be used as a source, but the sources cited in it can be. The German Wikipedia article on Mark André contains a useful summary of information, but I cannot help noticing it is entirely unsourced. (German Wikipedia lags behind the English Wikipedia in insisting on verification, but they are catching up. Other Wikipedias that I regularly read have much further to go, which creates certain difficulties when preparing English versions based upon them). The articles by other composers, etc., that you mention are of course just the sort of thing that I have been describing as useful to support notability, but you and I knowing between us that they are out there is not sufficient documentation.

Although I have occasionally seen editors on the English Wikipedia object to foreign-language external links being included with English articles, I have never seen complaints about citation of foreign-language sources, though I believe that English sources are preferred when available.

I agree that this is all very tedious, but I have been regularly editing on Wikipedia for four years now, and have learned to be patient, as well as not taking it personally when someone doubts the truth of something I have added to or changed in an article. Assuming a constructive intent on the part of other editors is not only the most productive course, but it is also explicitly set forth in Wikipedia guidelines and even policy. I hope you will be able to find time in your crowded schedule to continue to edit on Wikipedia, and bring your expertise and knowledge to bear in creating and improving the articles we are discussing here.

Dear Mr. Kohl,

I apologize for believing you were a senior professor; the tone of your advice to me gave me that impression.

I still believe you are so obsessed with the mechanics of the review process that you that you are missing the big picture. Although it is encouraging that Wikipedia is attempting to improve the reliability of the information presented in its entries, it is nevertheless still a long way from qualifying as a reliable source. And the standards you are insisting upon--–ignoring real-world facts and insisting on Wiki-world regulations--–in fact deprive Wikipedia of one of its most valuable functions, namely sharing fairly reliable information. If I want to go to as much effort verifying every line, dot, and comma in my editorial contributions as you are insisting upon, I will put that effort into publishing an article in a serious academic journal or book. These count, Wikipedia entries don't.

The information that I have been attempting to add to this entry is easily available in books, journals, and online, but you are preventing it from appearing on Wikipedia until I jump through certain hoops. I have provided abundant real-world proof of the notability of the composers I have mentioned, but you keep insisting on Wiki-world justifications. Do you doubt that Hübler is published by Breitkopf & Härtel? Do you doubt that a Züricher Tage festival was largely dedicated to his music? That the Arditti Quartet performed his string quartet, that members of the Trio Recherche performed his music, that he won the Kranichsteiner prize? All of these assertions can be quickly verified, but you keep insisting that a Wiki-world article be written about the composer in question before any facts can be acknowledged.

My earlier criticism about the Perspectives "Complexity" forum had to do its skewed focus and contained no allegation of personal bias. There are other sorts of bias than personal bias––for instance, ideological bias, methodological bias, or even stylistic bias. I believe that what Barrett was referring to was ideological bias. I don't know the specifics about his article, not having seen it. However, I have seen enough peer-reviews of colleagues' articles conduced by Perspectives to lose faith in the objectivity and fairness of some of its reviewers.

I don't really have the time to continue this discussion, which, as I said, appears to me to be a sort of three-card monte game. You ignored real-world evidence and insisted on a Wikipedia article for the authors I mentioned; I provided one, and now you doubt its reliability. This sort of game has been going on for a couple of days now. As I said earlier, I have provided abundant evidence of the notability of the composers I attempted to add to this entry, and I object in the strongest possible terms to your removal of those names. I believe that this is a highly skewed entry, and I object to it in its present form. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hagar333 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Prof. Hagar:

I, too, am getting tired of repeating myself, but I will try one last time: It is not a question of "knowing" that sources exist, somewhere, but rather a matter of stating in writing what they are. I do not doubt any of those things about Hübler (I take your word as a scholar and a gentleman), nor that they can quickly be verified, but the sources are as yet not presented where anyone at all reading this article can learn where they can go to verify them. You have "presented abundant evidence" that you think you know where the evidence can be found, but I have not as yet seen any of this data inserted in this or any other article.

Regarding your aspersions about the peer-review process at Perspectives, I can only take offense on my own behalf (assuming you are referring to submissions from more than seven or eight years ago) and on behalf of my colleagues of that time. Individual readers of course have their own individual points of view, which is why multiple jurors are always sought (and frequently disagree with one another). If authors' feelings (and the feelings of their friends) are hurt by honest criticism, that is unfortunate, but polite, uncritical murmurs accomplish nothing toward trying to maintain the academic standards of a journal.

Indeed you are correct that, in academia, Wikipedia contributions count for nothing, and you and I both can more profitably spend our time writing articles for publication in serious academic journals and books. I hope that other hands will be keeping track of all this, so that this presently objectionable article can be improved to a standard of which both of us can approve.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Dear Mr Kohl,

Regarding your statement, "the respectability of journals whose jurying process is not anonymous cannot be as high as ones that do," I would request that you give an assessment of the respectability of the Harvard Business Review.

There are numerous other top-level journals that rely on editorial review rather than anonymous peer review. Sometimes the reasons for this are quite good.

Hagar333 (talk) 01:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

What an extraordinary request! Asking me to assess the Harvard Business Review is closely akin to asking Pierre Boulez to do brain surgery. So far as I am aware, the Harvard Business Review has never published an article within my field of competence, and I have no capability at all of comprehending the sort of thing that I imagine they must publish. They certainly have no reputation at all in the areas of music theory and musicology. Absolute zero. I am touched by your faith in my abilities, and more than a little tempted to offer you the opportunity to purchase a very desirable New York property with an incomparable view of the East River ;-) Seriously, though, do tell me of any respectable music journals that rely on editorial rather than peer review. I'm sure they must exist.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:36, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mr. Kohl,

You have apparently missed my point. The Harvard Business Review is a highly respected journal, in fact one of the most respected ones in the field. It is not peer reviewed; it uses editorial review (as many of the leading journals have throughout history). Therefore the statement you made is incorrect.

Most Continental European musical journals I know do not follow American-style peer review processes. Highly reliable, high-level research appears in the best of these journals. Some of this research, especially in musicology, puts the American journals caught up in pie-fights about this or that composer's sexuality to shame. Another example might be the wildly inaccurate claims about Adorno's philosophy commonly published in American peer-reviewed publications: many German scholars are shocked at the sloppiness of journals that would publish this sort of material. Assuring them that the journals are peer-reviewed simply lowers the legitimacy of the peer-review process in their eyes.

Blind peer-review is often blindly considered the "gold-standard" of academic reliability in the United States. It is a valuable process, but serious errors can creep in when too much reliance is placed on the mechanisms of a process and too little on how the process is actually functioning and what its results are. There are numerous cases of fraudulent articles and information sailing through the peer review process, and numerous cases of publication of innovative discoveries being delayed years or even decades owing to resistance in the peer community. An interesting review of some of the errors that can creep in can be found in "Peer Review as it Stands Today--Part 2," by Juan Miguel Campanario (originally published in the March 1998 Science Communication Volume 19, No. 3); over the last decade a flood of new cases has led many scholars to re-think unthinking faith in the peer-review process. Blind faith may move mountains, but it doesn't guarantee accuracy.

Of course there are worse processes, but even the most perfectly-designed process can be misused. Humans are endlessly inventive creatures.

You apparently believe strongly in the reliability of "Perspectives of New Music," citing it as "the first choice as verifiable, third-party sources on Wikipedia." Of course, as a former member of the editorial board of the journal, you have the right to be proud of your work for this journal. But it does seem to be stretching pride a bit to serve as editor of the Wikipedia pages and insist that the journal on whose editorial board you served is one of the top sources for information appearing in Wikipedia. Perhaps a bit more "perspective" might be in order, if I may be so bold---perhaps a disclaimer of some sort?

Concerning the Perspectives reviews, I am talking about reviews I have seen stretching back 15 years or so; many of these reviews are recent as well. I am sorry that you take offense at my statements; however, I am deeply disturbed by what I have seen, especially as regards the tone and the arbitrary nature of some of the reviews. I have also seen demonstrably incorrect and/or unreliable statements made by reviewers as grounds for criticizing authors. I have also seen reviewers insisting that the authors should be referring to one of the other of the reviewer's favored composers or theorists. One result of the reputation that some reviewers for Perspectives have gained is that quite a few promising composers don't even bother submitting articles to Perspectives; rather, they focus on publishing their work in other journals.

But a more central problem here is that you appear to be confusing your justifications for the value of Perspectives with its legitimacy, to use an Arendtian distinction. You can offer all the justifications you please for the value of the journal, and the journal still possesses a fair amount of legitimacy in the academic community (although I must say that it has taken quite a hit owing to issues such as the one dedicated to Ben Boretz--I wonder how all the personal emails included in it passed the peer-review process). However, if innovative younger composers by and large cease submitting work to the journal, this doesn't say much for its legitimacy in that community, which was at one time an important constituency for the journal, in fact an important reason for the journal to exist in the first place.

With regard to your other comments, I'm at a bit of a loss to know what precisely you want. Do you want a link to the Breitkopf and Härtel webpage? Does publication by this firm qualify Hübler as "notable" in your eyes? If not, why not? Do the references to his work by other composers qualify him as notable? Does his winning the Kranichsteiner prize qualify him as notable? There is no point in my providing references if goalposts are going to keep moving about. If I prove to you that Schurig and Andre were awarded Siemens Förderpreise, will that qualify them as notable in your eyes? How many performances and/or major commissions would qualify them as notable in your eyes? How many articles about their music would qualify them?

If you could provide me with specific information, then I will know where to begin.

By the way, I just looked over the Wikipedia page for Roger Redgate, and it appears to contain no more information verifiable by your high standards than the page on Marc Andre. Yet you have no problem accepting Redgate as a New Complexity composer. Very odd. Hagar333 (talk) 06:14, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for calling my attention to this egregious example. I am as guilty as many other Wikipedia editors for assuming that a bluelink automatically signifies notability. I have flagged this article for review.Jerome Kohl (talk) 07:57, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

The Barrett article was "Tracts for Our Times?" The Musical Times, Vol. 139, No. 1864 (Autumn, 1998), pp. 21-24 Hagar333 (talk) 06:43, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for restoring Marc Andre's name. Hagar333 (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is heavily biased towards the 'Ferneyhough school' of New Complexity, with almost nothing on the very wide influence of Finnissy upon a large number of British and other composers, many of whom were his students, and surely qualify as much as 'New Complexity' as do Joel-Francois Durand or James Clarke. The description of Ferneyhough's Etudes Transcendentales may be decent in and of itself, but in no sense can be counted as emblematic of the movement, simply defined in terms of the composers linked to here. Available published sources are patchy and often very dated. A forthcoming doctoral dissertation by Roddy Hawkins should give a much clearer perspective on the origins of the term and its critical employment. There is also nothing about critiques, actual or potential, of the movement. Overall it reads like a typical 'insider's account' such as remain prevalent within the cloistered world of new music. In need of significant expansion and modification. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.225.202 (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Need image

Can we get permission from Brian Ferneyhough's publisher to reprint a short score excerpt that is extraordinarily complex (rhythmically and otherwise)? Badagnani (talk) 04:34, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's get to work on this. Badagnani (talk) 19:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's do this. Badagnani (talk) 08:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How about File:Ferneyhough Etudes Transcendantales measure 1.png under fair use instead? Hyacinth (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thoughts on the current state of this article

Everything in it rings true to me, although as others have said above it definitely reads like an insider's account. I've tried to get rid of the most egregious claims in the article, particularly ones that seem impossible to source. I think where it needs to head is more info about how other people use the term and less info about how nobody really knows what it means. A search for album and concert reviews using the term from any number of sources might even help to source some of these claims, particularly about the ensembles and performers. Brian heim composer (talk) 13:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete or Change Second Paragraph in International Spread?

Hello! I noticed there was a bit of discussion in on this in one of the other sections already, but it was from several years ago when the article was quite a bit different and also didn't stay much on topic, so I wanted to create a new section to ask this. The information in the second paragraph of the International Spread section is not mentioned in any of the cited sources and when I tried to do research to confirm the information in this paragraph, I found very little (I can't find confirmation that the festival invited those specific composers from North America, for example). Furthermore, I wonder if the information in this paragraph is notable enough to mention since, while the Bludenzer Tage zeitgemäßer Musik is a notable music contemporary festival, it doesn't seem to play an exceptionally significant role in the history of New Complexity. Many scholarly articles on New Complexity mention the Darmstädter Ferienkurse, for example, but I have yet to find one that mentions Bludenzer Tage. I would edit or delete this section myself, but as I'm pretty new to editing and to the world of New Complexity I wanted to see if anyone with more experience had suggestions in how to improve this before doing so. It seems like at the moment, the secondary sources that do exist are not sufficient to justify the inclusion of this paragraph in its current form. Thank you! Gvarab (talk) 19:07, 9 December 2021 (UTC)