Laughing at Ourselves

We are a serious bunch, here in the community of composers and performers of new music. We did not arrive at our place in the world by accident. Years of study and practice, pain and suffering, fighting the good fight in the face of derision and confusion by most in the traditional music community, and ignorance among the general public has forced us to put up a united front of strength; our music is hard, our music is smart, our music is not for the faint of heart or the brief of attention span. Our styles may differ—we may call for extended techniques or groove-based looping technologies or derive our material from plainsong or hipster bands or the spectral analysis of the lowest note of a bassoon—and yet no matter what niche we find ourselves in, you can be damned sure that we are serious about it…because we are a serious bunch.

It was this über-seriousness that Los Angeles-based composer/percussionist Benjamin Phelps decided to poke fun at in a blog posting this past week entitled “How to win composing.” Coming more or less out of the blue (since Phelps seems to only post every six months or so on his personal blog), the post lays into one of the biggest and most satisfying of piñatas within our community—the composition competition—with no mercy. Outlining a step-by-step approach to (supposedly) winning composition contests, Phelps systematically skewers a handful of issues with which anyone with a smattering of experience within the world of composition competitions (either entering them, judging them, or performing the selected works) would be familiar.

Compared to mainstream attempts at finding humor in the new music community, Phelps deals less with stereotypes than with funny-but-true aspects of being a composer in today’s art vs. career world through the lens of competitions. From obnoxious titles and nested tuplets to the overuse of crotales and triangles, he calls out some of the more obvious (and no less funny) characteristics of much of today’s new works. Of course he’s generalizing, but these things do carry baggage with them; if one compares a work with simple rhythms to a score full of nested tuplets, it’s an easy knee-jerk reaction to assume that the latter is not only more complex but took more time to write and exhibits more attention to detail, thereby increasing the “seriousness” of the work and the composer, no matter the reality of the situation.

Phelps precedes these characteristics with two other items that have more to do with the judging process in competitions but could be extrapolated out to the entire new music industry. His first “step” deals with success begetting success:

The first thing (step 1) that will really help you win competitions is to have won a lot of competitions already. This is very important. Many committees don’t want to go out on a limb and decide that something is good for themselves—they feel much more comfortable selecting winners that other committees have already put their stamp of approval on. You will find that a small number of contestants tend to win the majority of competitions. This is not only because they are the best composers, but because they have a proven track record of success and so must be the best.

The tone may be tongue-in-cheek, but if one considers how composers are selected for performances, residencies, and various other opportunities, the reality (or at least the perceived reality) isn’t that far off. With so many composers to choose from, it is natural for many in the selection process to pick composers who are known—either by reputation or through personal experience—to them in some form rather than someone who is unknown and therefore riskier. Is that inherently wrong? Not necessarily, but care should be given to ensure that familiarity not be the only driving force behind such decisions, and composers should be aware of the ramifications of a reclusive, anti-social lifestyle.

His second “step” is a bit more dicey, but no less telling:

If step 1 proves problematic for you, I suggest applying to competitions where your teacher sits on the judging panel (step 2). Often the most prestigious competitions are reviewed by panels of older, respected composers who themselves have won many competitions and most likely teach at prestigious universities. This makes sense because who is better at judging hot new trends in music than old people? Study with them. Many of them will want to secure their own legacy as important composers and teachers by demonstrating that their students are very prolific competition winners, who themselves will one day make excellent competition judges. Take advantage of this.

Again, looking past the character that permeates the post, Phelps is touching one of the unspoken third rails of new music—the perceived notion that the playing field upon which awards, residencies, prizes, etc. are given is not level and that the relationship between the contestants and the judges (through either direct or indirect experience) has a strong bearing on who is chosen. The fact that these prizes and residencies can have an immense impact on future opportunities for a composer, especially at the outset of their career, makes this issue that much more delicate. No one except those on the selection panels can know what all goes into the decision process of this or that award, but it does the entire community little good when winners of awards and prizes turn out to be studying with one of the judges. It’s always perplexed me why this issue could not be avoided. We have such a rich supply of talented top-shelf composers in this country, and yet so often we do see the same names being asked to oversee these important opportunities. Food for thought…

In addition to being a serious lot, composers tend to be both competitive (as the lifeblood of our art—performances—are of a limited supply) and not a little sensitive about their own self-perceived flaws. Humor, therefore, is a rare bird for the most part—not only amongst the ranks of composers but in concert music in general (Matthew Guerrieri, Tone Deaf Comics, and “Who’s Minding the Score?” from Adaptistration.com are a few illustrated exceptions). While humor can be a devastating instrument if not used with care, the occasional parody such as Phelps’s blog post can not only entertain but generate discussion (and perhaps even change) as well.

15 thoughts on “Laughing at Ourselves

    1. Philipp Blume

      While I’m at it, I have a more general gripe: I don’t think bloggers, especially those in a highly visible place like NewMusicBox, do the ’cause’ of contemporary music any favors by conferring attributes to the entire cadre of composers as if we were all shaped by the same motivations. This isn’t a zoological study.

      Whenever Rob uses the word ‘we’ as in sentences like ‘composers tend to be… competitive’ or even ‘We are a serious bunch’, I find myself thinking ‘Speak for yourself.’ I rarely recognize myself in your idea of ‘We’.

      Reply
      1. Elaine

        I would “we” myself with you in this case, but I have found that there is very little “we” when it comes to talking about composers, unless they (or we?) are part of a movement. And there is really no singular movement anymore. Most of “us” work in isolation.

        Reply
  1. Phil Fried

    I don’t find this funny for several reasons. Politics are certainly funny but politics are not the exclusive preview of music composition. For example; Old people are funny and old people choosing the “hot new trends” are funny. Yet we are to understand that besides the moniker “hot new trends” that the “hot new trends” are deadly serious.

    This is not humor but an exercise in the straw man argument. That is the humor is based on choosing a stylistic side.

    As for the politics of grants the truth isn’t always funny.

    Reply
  2. Scott

    I definitely think the article is hilarious. So glad to have read it! But I also think composers, on the whole, are excellent at the sort of self-deprecating, turn-your-insecurities-into-a-joke, pretend-you-don’t-care humor at which this article excels. Most composers I know are very quick to make fun of their fellow composers, and poke fun at themselves (but not TOO much) while they’re at it.

    Reply
    1. Phil Fried

      “Most composers I know are very quick to make fun of their fellow composers,”

      That’s the point you see “fellow composers” are not being made fun of here its the folks in power. That makes this political humor or college humor. Now if it were set to music….

      Reply
  3. Brighton

    1. cynical humor like this is actually a passive-aggressive way of protesting an unfair situation.
    2. that doesn’t make it less funny.
    3. that doesn’t make the protest less serious. It is not unfair to expect society to recognize and encourage the vast amounts of hard work that go into serious music composition. That they do this by way of contests infected with petty bullshit is insulting and ineffective. If Microsoft developed software by holding a contest where only the winner got paid a few thousand bucks, yet everyone else had to put in 50-100 hours of time, and Microsoft got to keep the rights to the product, nobody would enter. That’s an insane business model, yet that’s what we put up with.

    Reply
  4. Phil Fried

    I don’t mind cynical humor. My point, if I remember, was that I did not find the post funny. Even if I did I don’t see this as composer humor or composers making fun of themselves just the typical uptown/downtown intramural in the guise of telling truth to power.

    I have to say to expect anything from society for ones art, well, that is funny.

    Reply
  5. Puiu

    I know some composers, but i don’t think any one of them is funny. Some aren’t very sociable so they tend to only speak about the things they understand or some are just too serious and lack humor.

    Reply
  6. Pingback: composer’s lament | Square Fruits!

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.