Talk:Brian Ferneyhough

twice

could be "selected works" and "complete works" is the same?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.58.250.219 (talk) 22:30, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Open questions for Brian Ferneyhough (also applicable to other composers of our day)

(The aim of these questions is to cause the reader to think critically about the various aspects of Ferneyhough's (and other composer's) music. Hopefully Ferneyhough will not take offense.)

• 1) When composing, do you know what your music will sound like? (To what extent?)
  • Yes. Completely.
• 2) How often do you listen to recordings of your own works, esp. in the comfort of your own room/house?
  • Ten times when first recorded. Infrequently thereafter.
• 3) Which recording have you been listening to recently? Which recording is in (next to) your CD player right now?
  • My latest recorded pieces.
• 4) When do you listen to your own works?
  • When the recordings first arrive.
• 5) Can you follow you scores, when hearing them performed?
  • Yes.
• 6) Can you tell to what extent Steven Schick's video-recorded performance of Bone Alphabet is following the score (especially rhythmically)?
  • I haven't heard/seen it.
• 7) Can you tell, if a performer makes mistakes (e.g. rhythmically) when performing your works? Do these mistakes worry you?
  • Mistakes are bad. Flexibility is good.
• 8) Would you notice if a performer plays something different, than written on the score (especially deliberately), but in "Ferneyhough-style"?
  • Yes, even assuming that 'Ferneyhough-style' is as easy to imitate as you seem to think. .
• 9) Would it worry you, if a performer tests you, by deliberately playing things differently than written on the score? Consider especially a pemiere of a work, where the performer starts improvising in a "Ferneyhough-style".
  • No it happens all the time that you need to prove yourself to performers intent on 'testing' you.
• 10) Is every aspect of your music important to a performance? What if a performer plays something completely different?
  • he shouldn't be paid.
• 11) Do you perform your own works? When last did you perform one of your own works?
  • I have not performed publicly for 30 years, since I am a clinical narcoleptic. I used to enjoy it though.
• 12) Do you believe it is more difficult to compose the works that you do; or to compose music in a more traditional style with the aim of tradition listener's responses?
  • One writes what one can, within the realm of what one believes in.
• 13) Would you believe that I can compose in "Ferneyhough-style", even if I admit that I would very unlikely be able to compose music in the style of say Mozart of Schubert?
  • 'Style' also includes criteria of quality. Would your imitation?
• 14) When last have you composed in a more traditional style? Do you believe you could compose in a more tradition style?
  • About 40 years ago. Depends on the style. But: why bother?
• 15) Do you believe you notation for rhythm, allows one to express every smallest possible nuance?
  • Who decides what a nuance is?
• 16) Where do you get the motivation to write new works?
  • Can't seem to stop doing it.
• 17) What are your works about?
  • Life.
• 18) Do you want the performers and listeners of your works, to have the same understanding of the works that you have, or do you want them to make up their own mind completely?
  • Some aspects of listening are communal, some individual.
• 19) Are your works calculated or do they occur to you naturally?
  • The question is so far from my experience, I can't answer it.
• 20a) Have you ever composed a work where a note has a duration, which is not a rational factor of the duration of another note?
  • Yes.
• 20b) Why, why not? Did this question cause you to think about, or alter an answer to a previous question?
  • Notation is an important aspect of composition. The choice of notation automatically guides the mind to certain sorts of solutions. Not all notations are adequate representations of all sorts of imagined musical contexts. As to the last point: no.
• 21) Are your works an experiment? (When does the experiment succeed/fail? Has it succeeded/failed?)
  • Is your life an experiment? If so, who runs the laboratory?
• 22) Which or your works is your favorite?
  • The most recent.
• 23) Would you ever stop composing?
  • Not if I were still mentally capable.
• 24) Do you compose works for yourself, or for the listener, or the performer?
  • Works are themselves. They must decide on their own targets.
• 25) What would you do, if no one would ever want to perform your works again or listen to any of them?
  • Carry on exactly as before.
• 26) What would cause you to become unmotivated to compose new works?
  • No one can predict the future. best not to provoke it.
• 27) What ideas generate the score -> is it the sound? or do you map something else to sound?
  • Both.
• 28) Would you listen to computer versions of your works?
  • Not unless there were a computer-generated aspect to the work.
• 29) Do these questions worry you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlonsoAlfons (talk • contribs) 00:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Does my music worry you?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.164.154 (talk) 01:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

More open questions for Brian Ferneyhough (also applicable to other composers of our day)

• 30) What music, other than your own, do you listen to?
  • It varies continually. Probably I listen to music less often than most people, since I cannot stand ambient music whilst doing something else.
• 31) Which music, by composers since 1900, other than your own do you listen to?
  How do you decide on its quality?
  • Anything I am not familiar with. I continually scour stores and record libraries for odd things. Sometimes one is disappointed; at other times single works catch one's fancy. 'Quality' is only one word, but stands for many subcategories. One would have to refer to specific pieces and how they stand with respect to national or historical tendencies. The flow of styles across national borders in the Renaissance is fascinating, for example.
• 32) Do you compose with a musical instrument or computer directly at your side (perhaps to get immediate feedback)?
  • I have never used an instrument while composing, other than the flute, when working on details of some of my flute compositions.
• 33) Do you hear the sound "in your mind's ear" when composing without a musical instrument or computer at your side? Or do you work out the score first and then listen to the result? (Perhaps a bit of both? Any elaboration?) (ref. 1 above)
  • One scarcely ever listens to single sounds; much more often it will be a group of sounds already clustered in a musical context. Idea and sonic result are inextricably intertwinged in the compositional act.
• 34) Do your works have variations of some sort (perhaps some changing of previous material)? Are they generated mathematically?
  • 'Variations' is a species of form; 'variation' is a manner of working. Surely all music deals with the latter. Likewise mathematics (except that most music probably deals with a sort of elevated arithmetic).
• 35) Did you ever study math or science?
  • Not willingly. I did study mathematical logic for a brief period back in the 60s, but never systematically.
• 36) Is math or science important when performing or listening to your works?
  • No, except sometimes as helpful metaphor. .
• 37) How important do you consider it, that people listen to your works?
  • Nice when it happens.
• 38) Whom would you like to have, listen to your works?
  • Variable sub-categories of human being.
• 39) Are you proud of your works? (If so, what is the source of pride.)
  • I would rather hope that my works were proud of me.
• 40) Is it important to listen to your works, within a specific context? (e.g. an understanding of something that you try to put to music.) What is the context?
  • It is helpful to have some background, even when one can of course be immediately seduced by unfamiliar sounds. It helps, for instance, to understand the different texts and their relationship in a 13th C. motet, since key words are often superposed.
• 41) (ref. 13 above) Do your pieces have some 'style'? Do they have some quality? (if so, which criteria of quality can be identified?)
  • Yes - their own. What is 'quality'? I hope that they are interesting.
• 42) (ref. 12 above) How important is belief for you? Do performers have to "believe" in your works? What about the audience?
  • All art requires, in some sense, suspension of disbelief. It's up to the performer to appreciate and mediate this to the listener.
• 43) Did your music and composing change how you listen and/or respond to traditional music (baroque, etc.)? If yes, then in what way?
  • I think that increasing age brings greater tolerance and insight into the problems and rewards of specific historical styles. Early on I think that the development and occupation with one's own problems hinders or distorts this empathy in some respects.
• 44) (Almost) All tradition musical styles have some recognizable patterns! On the one hand we recognize the style of a piece of music (e.g. baroque, classical), even if it is a piece that we have never heard before (taking into account that we have heard some "baroque" and "classical").
  On the other hand we often now what is going to happen next with some melody, or some chordal structure (resolution, etc.)
  
  These patterns are so inherent in the (traditional) music, that our brain is able to recognize the patterns JUST BY LISTENING (i.e. even without an analysis of the score).
  
  Now my questions: does your music have patterns in the sense just described (EITHER recognizable general style "Ferneyhough-stye?" OR "ability to know/predict what comes next")?
  I would say that your music does not have these features, because if some musicians require more than half a year to learn the music, there seem to be no patterns to guide the musician. Perhaps there are other patterns, that do emerge when one analyzes the score? Which would those be? Are there patterns unique to each score, or are there patterns to be found in all your pieces (which could represent style, or maby not?)?
  • Your statement about (almost) all traditional styles seems to leave out a fearful lot of music! Before the invention of the water clock time was not parsed into equal slices as it has been now for centuries. Some music works that way, some not. The perception of significant events is surely important. They might be patterns in the sense of obvious iteration or not, depending. What we need is enough 'velcro-effect' to stick things to each other in our minds. Music needs to be sticky, not necessarily repetitive.
• 44b) Perhaps the "brains of children that are still learning" and incredibly receptive, would be able to find patterns in your music by just *listening to it*? Do you think this would be the case? Would you think it would be a positive experience for children to listen to your music? Would you recommend it?
  • Sure, lock the mites in a sensory-deprivation chamber with Bose headphones for an hour a night!
    Magic happens when it happens, otherwise not. As a child I gravitated to wind instruments partly because of the glitter of their mechanisms under the lights. Violins were dull brown, and there were too many of them for my ego to properly unfold. When music was still a serious school subject in Britain 7-year-olds were encouraged to participate in the performance of pedagogically conceived 'modern' pieces, some of them conceptually quite stimulating. A great pity that all that has gone the way of the dodo. Participation and collaboration are nine-tenths of the law.
• 45) What is the "container" and what is the "content" in your music?
  In traditional music, the musical sound (when performed) is the "container". This stimulates our brains and creates a response, which can be seen as the "content" (or purpose, if you like). Compare with the written words on paper (container), and our response and understanding when reading it (content).
  
  e.g. in 4'33 by Cage, the time-span (and what happens during the timespan) can be seen as the content, while the container is everything that has an audible (...) effect during this timespan. The true content is whatever happens.
  At least, this is my version of a popular description of what 4'33 is about.
  • And the piece is only a piece because a publisher collects performing rights for it. Your question recuperates the old German distinction between 'Inhalt' and 'Gehalt'. It doesn't sound very natural in English, does it? I find your question over-simplifies the issues involved. All answers would, in effect, be wrong.
    
    
• 45cont.) You say your works are about life. (ref. 17 above)
  Do your works describe life and aspects of life, or are your works about life in the sense that it's life, when one performs it. (compare with Cage)
  Is the piece and the sound the content, or is the struggle of the performer to play the piece the content?
  • See my answer to your earlier 'content' question. But no, seriously, what IS this 'content'? When are you, as a listener, satisfied that you have absorbed enough content to throw the CD out of the window? If I were to compose a piece according to an AMTRAK timetable, could the piece be more efficiently replaced by the timetable itself? In any case, if you were not about to plan a journey, how would the timetable (or piece) provide you with satisfactory life-enhancing information?
• 46) I don't understand your answer 19 above. Would you like to elaborate?
  • Neither of the alternates you offer fill the bill. What does 'naturally' mean? Is calculation 'unnatural', or only unnatural when we choose to do things with it? Much calculation goes on outside the realm of our immediate consciousness - binocular vision leading to depth effect, for instance. The same is probably true for music. Art is, in part, an attempt to overcome the hoary old 'intuition/cerebration' dichotomy, so composers can hardly be faulted for avoiding questions couched in those terms.
• 47) (ref. 24 above) Do you create your own works? Or do you mean that they are created through you? Is there a randomness aspect in your music?
  • No ectoplasm-enshrouded voices from the beyond, you mean? Sadly not, in my case. Perhaps I'll come back later to help out coming generations if the waiting list on the other side is not too long.
    As to random: all decision making (I believe) has random elements. These can be constrained in various ways. It is the constraint system which transmits a sense of order. There are computer programs which can rapidly write you a symphony in the style of Mozart: what they are patently unable to do is come up with the flashes of perverse insight which makes a piece REALLY Mozartian. The Imp of the Perverse is our true spirit guide.
• 48) (ref. 27 above) What do you map to sound?
  Do you ever map things to sound, that have nothing (directly) to do with sound, e.g. mathematical formulas, statistical distributions, chemical characteristics of materials, transcendental numbers (pi, or golden ration, etc.), DNA, etc.?
  What would you think about mapping these things to sound?
  Would you say that such mappings could be important to music, considering the rather negative reasoning that "these things are actually unrelated to sound and music".
  • Composers are magpies. Anything that glitters is grist for their nest-building. It is not important that it be understood as a professional scientist would understand it; it is the process of sensual mediation that counts. Number series are sometimes useful, in that they afford distributions that are of compositional interest. Visual images have set pieces in motion as home oracles. You just have to be sceptical as to the predictions offered.
• 49) Steven Schick's video performance can be seen here:
  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3907771827954373959 Can you now answer question 6 above?
  • I still haven't seen it.
• 50) Which other questions would you ask yourself, or would you like to be asked? (How would you answer?)—Preceding unsigned comment added by AlonsoAlfons (talk • contribs) 23:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • As long as someone asks something we should be grateful - it can occasionally lead to a more precise reckoning with missed cues.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 171.66.164.177 (talk) 00:44, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I interviewed Ferneyhough by mail:

• 51) I followed the explanations of Klaus Lippe in his article " 'Pitch Systems' im Vierten Streichquartett von Brian Ferneyhough ". I made a pre-composition, quite exactly like Klaus Hippe explained. How can I translate my precompositon into a score? I analyzed your score, found some facts from your precompositon, but the way to translate it into the real score is not descriped, so I cannot imitate it. How do you do it?
  • The structure of the background material is not 'translated' directly: the entire point of these preparations was that there would then be a high degree of flexibility in their working out in the piece. The most important thing is that the resultant hexachords are not considered as linear objects but as unordered sets. Thus, the degree of explicitness with which the linear order of the component trichords is maintained is an important feature. If you look at the long quartet passage at the beginning of the 4th movement you might be able to distinguish some specific cases. This is not a serial work; the 'method' is not a 'system'.
• 52) I read that you use a 2 display system: one for "Finale" and one for your calculations. You used "PatchWork" and "open Music". Do you use Max/MSP right now or still these old programs? How do you transfer the calculations into Finale?
  • I do not use Max/MSP but OpenMusic and the Patchwork successor PWGL. I need to transfer PWGL information to OpenMusic in order to make a direct transfer to Finale.
• 53) Concerning your articles about form, figure, style & gestures: I feel a big difference btw listening and reading your compositions. After reading your articles and explanations of your thoughts about form etc., I try to hear it in your pieces. My way of listening changed, but do I really require to read your articles to understand your music? I know, you said before, that there are only 2 different types of listeners. the ones who like and the ones you don´t like your music. But aren´t there ones who can learn to like by reading articles and essays?
  • Music is a widespread art form and thus has many available approaches to its conventions and challenges. Although some of my writings were made in order to clarify to myself some important issues, many were aimed at underlining the fact that art of any sort is closely and inextricably linked to conceptualization. Art cannot (probably) be 'explained' through language, but language is a valuable adjunct to the location of aesthetic perception in the ongoing discourse of understanding who we are.
• 54) Concerning Bone-Alphabet: Steven Schick wrote an essay about learning the piece and talked about the indeterminacy of the 7 percussion-instruments (in: the percussionist´s art, university of rochester press, 2006). Compared to your comment in the interview with James Boros (1992) you said you both agreed using only 7 instruments. That means he already knew it before.
  • I think you misunderstand the initial challenge. Although I specified that only 7 instruments are to be used, I did NOT define what those instruments were to be, even though I DID offer some rules about the way they may be compbined in a register and colour gamut. In all cases, performers of this piece select their own personal group of instruments. (YouTube contains videos of several such).
• 55) He also explains that this piece is more a theater piece than music.
  • There is an undeniable physical component in any percussion performance. I simply make more specific, in musical terms, some of the categories of physicality demanded. Steve is a very physical performer: at the same time I would contest and approach which suggested that the theatrical dimension was more important - on the contrary, it only gains significance when filtered through the specifically musical contexts defined in the score.
• 56) What would you say? and compared to musical-theater-pieces by John Cage: what do you think is the major difference?
  • The concept of 'piece' in Cage needs to be examined carefully. There is a lot of literature on that. I compose closed-form works with no scope for re-ordering the elements.
• 57) Cage eliminated the subjective musical expression by using indeterminacy, you do this by using complicated notation. What do you think is the difference in the result?
  • I disagree with your conclusion. The entire point of my notation is to activate interpretational speculation in the mind of the performer. We no longer have such a thing as a common 'performative tradition' in contemporary music. Thus, each piece needs, to some extent, to suggest a 'tradition' appropriate to it. I attempt to do this via notation. Subjective expression is very much intended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.14.153 (talk) 15:45, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Acceptable Sources

Despite the fact that some excerpts from "The Collected Writings of Brian Ferneyhough" and "Ferneyhough on Ferneyhough" are available online (as they are assigned readings in most schools of composition), I hesitate to include direct links as the publications are most certainly "not free" as sources.

If any senior members of Wikipedia could possibly shed light on whether or not links to "technically illegal but widespread enough in academia for anyone to actually sue" pdfs of such publications ought to be avoided, as the current Wikipedia:SOURCES#Reliable_sources article does very little to remedy my confusion. If, perchance, I have missed the source of such information, I humbly apologize in advance. (Naturally, I only ask as I believe that some of this reading could benefit any visitor to this page.) MarioColbert (talk) 17:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Exposing Brian Ferneyhough's ummm... "writing"

For those who did not know this...

A favourite pastime of some people seems to be... taking passages from Ferneyhough's writings (primarily from The Collected Writings of Brian Ferneyhough) that they consider to be obfuscated, deceiving, obscure, insincere, confusing, unhelpful, incoherent academic-speak .... and providing them at Internet Quote pages.

Just stumbled across it. Brilliant. Just google Brian Ferneyhough Quotes and enjoy the incoherence!

Oh Ferneyhough... what insightful writing. Or is it rather... pseudo-intellectual posturing? I suppose that's his secret to keep, unless perhaps ... he's so convincing, that he's convinced even himself. ;) Easy tup (talk) 01:46, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Just to respond to this, I am not sure what YOU are talking about. I dont think it is pseudo-intellectual posturing. I am afraid these quotes do actually make sense to me (and I am in no way a fan of Ferneyhough's music). If you are not willing to think something through or consider the kinds of conceptual modelling Ferneyhough uses to attempt to explain his processes then it matters little, they are clearly no use for you, that is fine but it does not necessarily mean that they mean nothing. Horatiu Radulescu is another composer who skirts the boundaries of obfusification, but again, what is behind the written or spoken thought material is not all that incoherent if you are willing to consider it for more than a moment. The material of the movement of sound is one of the most difficult of phenomena to describe, as are the processes of creation. What you are snorting at here is not 'academic speak' (there is plenty of that sort of nonsense where I could agree with you), maybe more an example of somebody stretching the boundaries between areas of thought/research/creativity. Calling him 'insincere' and 'deceiving' is ignorant,perhaps cruel, and certainly wrong (or perhaps you are just quoting a sequence of terms from a handy thesaurus web site, well done.) But if you want to criticise Ferneyhough's intellectualism, choosing to make an opera on Walter Benjamin with a libretto that includes such as the following would suffice for ridiculousness: Benjamin: Language as such, that is the text / That we interpret / And that interprets us Gershom Scholem: Are you ready to be the new Rashi / Raising commentary to new heights / So that the art of criticism / Becomes a sacred process / Releasing the sparks inside the words? Benjamin: Critique cannot confine itself to letters / But must also confront / That which animates the letters —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.146.228.232 (talk) 12:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

On Ferneyhough's writing, you can find people using the following descriptions:

• "jargon, wordiness, vague abstractions, and pretentious prose"
• "mish-mash of structuralist theory"
• "He sounded either delusional or extremely pretentious"
• "His programme notes suggested that he might even have forgotten his mother tongue."
• "Bafflement refused to give way to any enlightenment"

Additionally, check what Ferneyhough himself has to say on the matter (admitting that his texts seek to strategically disorientate):

• Ferneyhough: "Another possibility I have sometimes made use of has been to generate a text utilizing identical techniques to those employed in the piece ifself, without necessarily making these techniques objects of discussion as such."
• Ferneyhough: "My texts are certainly not setting out to baffle, as you put it, but, rather to strategically disorientate [...]"

QED
Easy tup (talk) 07:36, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

The "reviews" section

Am I alone in finding that... somewhat short of NPOV? Do we waive that particular policy in the case of "criticism" subheadings? Temevorn 01:43, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Well... failing to present neutrality, would be if the article fails to mention that Ferneyhough is actually a highly controversial and often critically or even negatively regarded composer. Currently the only place that shows this (or rather: hints at it) is the "reviews" section. But I suppose you're right... it's heading could be changed to "criticism", or something similar. Easy tup (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Quote of Naomi Cumming not appropriate for the lead.

Hi! The quote of Naomi Cumming in the lead paragraph, is highly inappropriate. Reason: it is just Cumming's view; and furthermore - it is not even directly about Ferneyhough, but more of a speculation on the rationale of "such composers". Heck... "Ferneyhough" does not even appear on/near the page, from which the quote is taken. check. Hence removed. Easy tup (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

You are wrong about one thing: Ferneyhough's name appears not only on the same page, but at the end of the sentence immediately preceding the quotation: "… the school of complexity represented by Brian Ferneyhough. Such composers deliberately draw attention …". Cumming plainly means her remarks to apply to Ferneyhough, though you are correct that they are not exclusively addressed to him. The question of quoting an opinion is easily dismissed, since that is all that we can do in cases like this, and Cumming's opinion is certainly respectable, with more authority behind it than most. However, I will not suggest the quotation be restored, but for a reason you do not mention: such material really does not belong in a lede paragraph, which should only summarize the article content. The introduction in the lede of a quotation of this nature is therefore premature, though it may well find a place later on.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 16:00, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. Easy tup (talk) 09:23, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Ferneyhough's quotations and general article clean-up

I've removed the section of Ferneyhough's quotes. It seems that they are intentionally taken out of context in an attempt to project an untrue and exaggerated image of him. This article has degenerated into such a poor state that I'd actually suggest a revert to an earlier version. If that isn't considered suitable, then I will attempt to undertake a rewrite, and reorganisation, of the article into a suitable format. My biggest concern is the reception section. In no way, shape, or form, can pasting a bunch of unrelated quotes from various forms of literature (with inconsistent citation styles!) be considered a section on reception. Some of them are plainly misinterpreted. The case of Peter Franklin is nearly certainly misunderstood. He is in my faculty, and I will be asking him to clarify. Furthermore, since when was reception interested in positive and negative comments? Jabbercat (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

(Applause.) If you read between the lines of some of the discussion above, you will probably see how this deplorable situation came about. Some individuals (maybe just one individual, who I have encountered on one or two other articles as well) adopted the mistaken position of equating "criticism" with "invective", and I am afraid I am guilty of having merely offered contrary quotations, instead of deleting the whole mess and starting over, which is what you propose doing. I look forward to the results of your efforts.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Four months further on, I see no improvement yet to this situation. Furthermore, an unregistered editor has just restored the two quotations you removed. I have removed them again, but reproduce them here:

==Quotations by Ferneyhough==

Yes, I do regard this software as something important to my work. I don't, however, use it always in relationship to everything that happens in the piece, but I do tend to use it in terms of the rhythmic structure––how the size of a measure reacts to the sort of material that was placed in it. If-then procedures are very important. For instance, if you have a certain measure length, it can only be followed by one of three other measure lengths; the next measure reads that and decides one of two measure lengths. So, on the large-scale, you see a certain evolution of consistencies, of tendencies, but on the local scale, it's very much a sort of mechanistic procedure.<ref>[http://www.searchnewmusic.org/ferneyhough_interview.pdf An Interview with Brian Ferneyhough] by Felipe Ribeiro, James Correa, Catarina Domenici ([http://www.searchnewmusic.org/index5.html Search Journal for New Music and Culture; Summer 2009])</ref>

Oh, I don't like listening to my music, not even new pieces. Generally they sound pretty much like I expected them to sound, so it's what I wanted and that's it.<ref>''Brian Ferneyhough: Collected Writings''; edited by James Boros and Richard Toop; p. 271</ref>

As Jabbercat rightly points out, both of these quotations suffer seriously from a lack of context. The one about "software" is particularly problematic, since it does not give any idea what software is under discussion. If these quotations are to be of any value to the article, they should be integrated into the prose at an appropriate point, where they can contribute to understanding something about Ferneyhough's music, philosophy, or biography generally.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:01, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Alas, I've had no time or opportunity to work any further on this article (being a post-graduate is rather time consuming it seems!). I do however want to spend time on it in the near future. I am still of the opinion that we should entirely scrap this makeshift reception section and try and utilise a more scholarly approach, while not ignore some of the criticisms that have been directed at him. I suggest replacing the quotations section with some information on his musical and academic achievements, while expanding the stylistic information to include details of his writings and philosophical ideas. In order to be balanced, I think we should include scholarly criticisms in this section. Thoughts? Jabbercat —Preceding undated comment added 08:40, 2 April 2012 (UTC).

Reception theory certainly demands a great deal more than citing newspaper reviews (it could be said with justice that journalism ranks near the bottom of the feeding chain in discussions of reception). In all fairness, when it comes to new music, critics are often asked to make instantaneous judgments about pieces they have never before heard, and often do not have the time or opportunity of even attending rehearsals beforehand. Combine this with an almost irresistible urge for entertaining readers with a bon mot (or "cheap shot", depending on your point of view), and the reason for this low ranking becomes plain. What is most urgently needed here is an account of some deeper levels of thinking, not only from the music community, but from other fields such as philosophy, political science, and sociology. Ideally, a diachronic view should also be attempted, though this is unlikely to be very meaningful for at least another 50 years.

As far as these two particular quotations from Ferneyhough are concerned, they have little or nothing to do with reception, but might be useful to illustrate points within the main text. This is the context they so sorely lack. We might as well supplement them with equally meaningless, out-of-context quotations, such as "Again, it's partly a question of familiarity", "Things in the present-day world surely move rather quickly", "It's interesting that Stockhausen takes that particular stance", or "That's right" (the first two on p. 10, the others on pp. 18 and 19 of "Shattering the Vessels of Received Wisdom", PNM 28/2).—Jerome Kohl (talk) 15:38, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Ferneyhough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706125229/http://www.sospeso.com/contents/20022003/ferneyhough_solo.html to http://www.sospeso.com/contents/20022003/ferneyhough_solo.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 01:27, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just added archive links to one external link on Brian Ferneyhough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110620004648/http://music.acadiau.ca/shatteringthesilence/nmf2009bio1.htm to http://music.acadiau.ca/shatteringthesilence/nmf2009bio1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:37, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 2 external links on Brian Ferneyhough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101191354/http://www.artescienza.info/asnew/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54%3Abrian-ferneyhough&catid=43%3Aautori&Itemid=54&lang=en to http://www.artescienza.info/asnew/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=54%3Abrian-ferneyhough&catid=43%3Aautori&Itemid=54&lang=en
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721014850/http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/ferneyhough_p1.html to http://www.sospeso.com/contents/articles/ferneyhough_p1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}). This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 3 external links on Brian Ferneyhough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706125229/http://www.sospeso.com/contents/20022003/ferneyhough_solo.html to http://www.sospeso.com/contents/20022003/ferneyhough_solo.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124922/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/6634w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/6634w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714173919/https://www.evs-musikstiftung.ch/en/01_stiftung/pressem.html to https://www.evs-musikstiftung.ch/en/01_stiftung/pressem.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:11, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified 10 external links on Brian Ferneyhough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100505005627/http://iowapublicradio.org/dictionary/F.PDF to http://iowapublicradio.org/dictionary/F.PDF
• Added archive https://archive.is/20130215131132/http://www.anniedgordon.com/1/post/2012/11/brian-ferneyhoughs-cassandras-dream-song-1975.html to http://www.anniedgordon.com/1/post/2012/11/brian-ferneyhoughs-cassandras-dream-song-1975.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120321020546/http://www.mondayeveningconcerts.org/bios/ferneyhough.html to http://www.mondayeveningconcerts.org/bios/ferneyhough.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124945/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/27246w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/27246w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727125059/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/32789w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/32789w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727124902/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/6620w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/6620w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727125010/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/28724w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/28724w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110727125139/http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/33841w.pdf to http://soundandmusic.org/thecollection/files/scores/33841w.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181720/http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=4344 to http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=4344
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110823191839/http://opticnerve.co.uk/Electricchair.htm to http://opticnerve.co.uk/Electricchair.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:55, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians, I have just modified one external link on Brian Ferneyhough. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://apps.appl.cuny.edu:83/F/?func=find-e&adjacent=N&find_scan_code=FIND_WRD&request=Bortz%2C+Braziela.&Search=+Search+&local_base=U-CUN01
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120220081058/http://www.editionpeters.com/london/modern.php?composer=FERNEYHOUGH&modern=1 to http://www.editionpeters.com/london/modern.php?composer=FERNEYHOUGH&modern=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:59, 29 November 2017 (UTC)