Pay to Play

The recent surge of comments over at Sequenza21 prompted by a composition competition (since recalled for revision) being held by the new music ensemble eighth blackbird brought about a host of mostly critical comments. This is to be expected as finding something to raise an eyebrow over with this competition was something like shooting fish in a barrel—the original version of the rules detailed a whopping fifty-dollar entry fee, something that is more in line with application fees for huge fellowships like the Rome Prize and a bit of a shocker for score cattle-calls. Especially since eighth blackbird is an ensemble that is heavily involved in the commissioning of new music through other grants and private donors, the single day of rehearsal allotted made the jackpot of the competition seem like a booby prize.

You’ll find no argument from me to challenge the proposition that these were perhaps not the best entry guidelines, and the ensemble very publicly and laudably admitted as much when they made the decision to postpone the competition until the rules could be revised. All in all, eighth blackbird has shown remarkable sensitivity to what after all was an error of degree: the fee was out of line with comparable calls for scores. But after reading through many of the comments it occurred to me that a large portion of respondents took issue not only with hefty entry fee, but also with the practicing of levying any meaningful fee at all for such competitions.

At this point, it might be helpful to consider the plight of our non-composing instrumentalist brethren. Among several options that are available to them, a position in a professional band or orchestra remains highly coveted. That is because they are one of the few non-academic positions for performers that provide benefits and a typically 1-3 year tenure process that most academics would probably titter at. Thus competition is fierce, and aspiring orchestral players might typically try for two or three job openings in a given year until they are successful or shift attentions elsewhere. Except in very rare cases, the auditioners must foot all of the bill for travel and hotel expenses depending on how long the prelims, semifinals, and finals stretch out across the week. If they play timpani or double bass they can expect to pay an astronomical fee in transporting their instruments.

This is a pretty raw deal—in many ways, much worse than that of the composer’s completely optional competitions and such. It’s a game played under bizarre and often unreasonable rules, and that’s why many performers choose to make their careers elsewhere—in teaching, gigging, concert-promoting, or any number of other rewarding areas. For some, the game may be worth playing; for others, not. But as orchestra auditions are already an expensive ordeal for the hosting organization, the lack of support for auditoners leads to some degree of self-censorship: there’s no point in buying a ticket to take the Cleveland Orchestra’s concertmaster audition if you’ve never had any section experience.

While our jobs as composers certainly aren’t easy, many of the grants or opportunities we sometimes apply for require comparatively less investment than, say, planning and paying for an entire trip and then performing in a series of ever-more-competitive rounds. Considering the challenge we face in trying to create our own opportunities as composers, composer competitions (even nearly-worthless, silly ones) are really icing-on-the-cake freebies—not anything to count on or to pursue with seriousness, but nothing to get indignant about either.

No matter the faults or motivations behind any composer competition, and no matter how many apt criticisms may arise, I’ve always been uneasy to join in the chorus of complaint each time some sketchy or merely poorly-structured opportunity comes under the microscope—not out of any misplaced respect for the completion-holders, but because after a certain basic point I can’t justify putting any energy into griping about a manufactured opportunity not being a better fit for my needs when I might better spend that time putting together a real opportunity built around those same needs—and in doing so cultivate a face-to-face relationship with other musicians right from the start.

Maybe it’s just me, but the last time I checked we composers aren’t entitled to a nice spread of useful, reasonably-priced opportunities. That said, it’s truly surprising how many composer opportunities fitting that description actually exist. I can certainly understand (an in fact, encourage) passing up opportunities that force the composer to take a losing gamble, but it strikes me as more than a bit entitled to expect the external world to provide a stream of convenient opportunities just for us. I’m not suggesting that criticism should be muffled, just that our criticisms of opportunities should be coupled with and balanced by an appreciation of just how complicated and expensive it can be to set one up. Otherwise, it’s a little like finding fault with everyone else’s contribution to a pot-luck dinner without having bothered to bring anything to the table ourselves.

4 thoughts on “Pay to Play

  1. jonrussell20

    Amen! I’d never really thought about it that way, but you make a great point. I also think it’s worth considering how much time and money one invests in applying for these competitions, and think about whether it would be better invested in other ways – by, for example, contacting groups and players directly, sending them scores and recordings, going to concerts and meeting performers, spending more time/money on your website, etc. I used to apply for all the competitions, but now apply only if a) I have a piece that really really REALLY fits what they seem to be looking for AND b) it won’t take that much time to apply. Otherwise my time, energy, and money is better spent in other ways.

    Reply
  2. philmusic

    True true, I do agree with John and you. I myself got tired of rejection and simply returned to my roots and started performing again. Started an ensemble as well.

    On the other hand…

    “… last time I checked we composers aren’t entitled to a nice spread of useful, reasonably-priced opportunities.”

    Composers, as people, face the world with a sliding scale of moxie, money, position, and “shmoozzability” (not to mention talent). My opinion, or yours, has no bearing at all on the feelings of the composers who must address this issue everyday.

    This is why organizations like AMC and the ACF and others exist.

    Phil Fried Yet another Phil page

    Reply
  3. estem

    It seems to me that composers understand that competitions exist as a means to an end (e.g. getting more name recognition or improving one’s resume) and that the real end goal is to find a scenerio where one’s work is valued and championed by performers who see their music as an honor to play, rather than a bankrolling opportunity. So, if that mindset remains, I don’t think these kinds of competitions are necesarily negative, simply because they require fees for entry.

    However, in the world of competitions, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for composers to express criticism when fees test the bounds of mutual, professional respect. If criticism like this doesn’t happen, then, what would stop the next group from charging, say $75 or $100 per submission? Are you a famous performer and need a new car? Hold a composition competition! I’m exaggerating, of course, but, you see where this can lead. Also, I might add that when a composer submits, say, a 10 minute chamber piece to a competition with a $50 entry fee, the investment is more like $150 to $300 (for the score and production of a MIDI arrangement) + $50 + postal fees + time putting the application together, etc. So, it’s nice when competitions are sensitive to this fact. On that note, eighth blackbird should be applauded for doing the right thing in revising their guidelines. Good for them.

    E. Stem

    Reply
  4. Chris Becker

    “However, in the world of competitions, I don’t think it’s a bad thing for composers to express criticism when fees test the bounds of mutual, professional respect.”

    I agree. I think 8th Blackbird learned something from the string of comments on Sequenza 21 – mostl of which came from composers who are very active as performers and/or advocates of contemporary music. These composers were speaking from experience producing music – not from a sense of isolation and frustration (Well, most of them anyway…).

    And 8th Blackbird recognized this and accordingly will make some changes.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Conversation and respectful debate is vital to the NewMusicBox community. However, please remember to keep comments constructive and on-topic. Avoid personal attacks and defamatory language. We reserve the right to remove any comment that the community reports as abusive or that the staff determines is inappropriate.