As I age, my perspective continues to change. The question of the day must therefore be, what defines art music? The term, as we have progressed over the past century, has been applied in a consistently expansive fashion. Many years ago, I thought this could only ever be a Good Thing. I now find myself torn, however, or at least reconsidering the notion. What constitutes art music? What are the criteria to be utilized? Is it intent? Surely not. Complexity? Also an unacceptable marker, to myself and many. It would seem that currently the only criterion is that the composer has been classically trained. Is this the standard? If so, is it enough?

This weekend alone, I have listened to the music of perhaps one dozen composers—typically young composers who are quickly establishing themselves and earning the trappings of such establishment: commissions, fellowships, awards, high-profile performances, CD releases—whose music I would consider contemporary art music only when the broadest of definitions has been applied. I find a thought strolling through my brain after hearing each new work: either I am completely out of the loop (there is no denying this) or things have gone horribly wrong over the past ten years (also a distinct possibility).

I have no desire to publicly slight my peers, but I am simply at a loss as to how what might have been a 15-minute (maximum) experiment that yields a five-minute work qualifies one for a three-week residency in an artists’ colony. Any ideas?