Successful labeling is by no means always a voluntary activity. The Middle Ages didn't asked to be so named - it was a retrospective label. Equally, "new" doesn't always mean "novelty, or innovative variant". It's also used for revivalist movement. By this logic, neoclassical things should be simply classed as classical; they're continuing an earlier tradition, albeit with some variations. Labeling isn't always fair, no, but in this case, I couldn't figure out what the downside was to it.
I may have felt ornery about the labeling comments, but in general, it was an excellent interview.* The interviewer asked interesting questions and gave the interviewee lots of room to answer. There were moments of particular vividness in the interview: the formative moment in the author's childhood when a wall was literally build down the middle of her school - playground, classrooms, kitchen, everything - and it was divided into two different ones, two different faiths, two different scholastic achivement levels, where the year before it had been all one space.
* And I could even hear pretty much all of it! Even though I'm temporarily deaf in one ear!
