More ideas from other folks about competitions

Interesting further discussion about the appropriateness of entry fees and composition competitions. This came up recently with Octarium and their director Krista Lang Blackwood, and the discussion continues with Grant Charles Chaput's blog linked below, where he tends to disagree with the thought processes of Krista, myself, and Paul Crabtree. That's fine with me, I think it's great we are having this discussion and that people are reading about it and having a response to it!

As you read Chaput's blog you'll find easy links to the related blogposts by me, Krista, and also Eric Whitacre chiming in.


http://killingclassicalmusic.com/

Bravo to Octarium and Krista Blackwood

Krista Blackwood and Octarium get it right in regard to composer competitions! Here is Octarium's blog about the issue, which I have spoken out about in my own blog:


Composition Competition, not Cash Cow

by Krista Blackwood

We are in our third year of sponsoring a composition competition. Our first winner, Steve Danyew, is a composer with all of the regular accolades on his resume; a B.M. from Frost School of Music at the University of Miami, an M.M. and Certificate in Arts Leadership from Eastman and time as a composer fellow at Yale. This year’s winner, Brad Kemp, has gone a slightly different route, studying at Columbia College Chicago and serving as assistant musical director at PH Productions, an improv troupe in Chicago.

Both have written music worthy of notice. Danyew’s winning piece, “On Green Mountains,” is featured on our 2009 release Modern Masters and was hailed by arts critic Paul Horsley as “fully worthy to appear on a program of the best living American choral composers.” Kemp’s piece, an arrangement of Debussy’s “La fille aux cheveux de lin,” will receive its world premiere at our February 19th “Listener’s Choice” concert and will be featured on our Should Have Been Choral recording, scheduled for release in 2012.

While I am sure that winning our small competition does not single-handedly pave the way into the successful future for these composers, it does give them a good performance of their piece, possibly a good recording and, perhaps, more exposure than they would have gotten otherwise. They get a small $500 prize. Octarium pays for them to come hear the premiere and spend a weekend enjoying Kansas City. They might go home with some good press in their back pocket to use as they market themselves in the future.

This is why Octarium sponsors the competition; to help young composers find an audience. To help worthy music find an audience. To further the choral art.

So imagine my shock when I got taken to the mat in a conversation with a colleague about not charging an entry fee for composition submissions. In this colleague’s opinion I was lessening the vocal art by not putting a price on the luxury being allowed to enter. Another colleague shared with me her pleasant surprise at the discovery that a composition competition could become a hefty source of cash flow; a cash cow.

So, yet again, I am doing things “wrong.” I am again causing a controversy because I do things that seem logical whether or not they have solid precedent in the music business.

I have been sternly lectured to change my structure and charge a fee for entry but this quid pro quo seems backwards to me. You give us money and we’ll sing your music? Maybe? Well, actually, it’s kind of a long shot that we’ll ever sing your piece. But give us your money anyway.

Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Shouldn’t choirs support composers with commissions and competitions that don’t require a financial investment from a group of artists whose struggle is as epic as our struggle?

We are all struggling artists, true. I guess I understand charging a small fee to pay someone to administer the competition fairly. However, Octarium chooses to build the competition costs into our regular budget and fundraise through our regular channels to cover those costs. We all know that raising funds for arts nonprofits is a mine field in this current economy and, certainly, twenty-five bucks a pop for the 250 or so entries we’ve received in the two years we’ve sponsored the competition would be extremely helpful to our budgetary bottom line.

But that’s not why we do this. It’s a composition competition, not a cash cow to help us pay our bills.

This is yet another way Octarium is turning the business of choral business on its head. Composers like Eric Whitacre and Paul Carey have written in their blogs about competitions and entry fees and, being composers, they fall in line with my opinion on how things should be done.

We will not charge an entry fee for our competition. Ever. It’s part of our mission and vision to support choral music, choral artists and composers. Our competition is one small way we do that.

Interested in entering? You can find information here.

posted by Krista Lang Blackwood, artistic director

Art imitates life:The winners get the losers money

Is art a competitive sport? Or, why music composition competitions can be unhealthy and unfair.

Well, my title certainly tells part one of this blog entry- since when did art have to become a competition? And what are the motivations for competitions and what positive and negative messages do they send us?


Let’s look at this from each side of the equation:

Party of the first part, the composition competition creator:

I think there can be two motivating factors in play here- one would be a simple desire to find new heroic talent by throwing competitors into the Coliseum pit and see who emerges bloodied yet triumphant. Okay, I guess that could work. But for every single “winner” there are far more losers and some of these may be folks whose fragile artistic, sensitive egos may be totally shredded by not winning. So is having one glorious winner worth all this? And, anyway, can we really judge art objectively enough to warrant this kind of general abuse of all the entrants?

Motivation number two for the organizers- lots of public relations attention, a new angle for selling tickets, maybe some cash profit.

Let’s look at the entrants’ motivation:

Well, to win may be prestigious, and the winner probably hopes that wining one or two of these things will build a reputation, open doors, look good on a resume, etc. But once again, do composers need to be judged in this manner, in hand to hand battle with each other? It just seems so unhealthy. And honestly, from my perspective, winning some of these competitions does not really enhance ones career much at all. In the long run, your reputation as a composer will be based (and justifiably so) on your work over a period of time, say at the very least ten or twenty years filled with successful compositions, successful collaborations with great directors and quality publishers, and so on.

Here’s my own history in this area- having not composed for a long time, I felt the need to catch up to some of my age peers who hadn’t stopped composing. So I entered some competitions and won two of them awhile back. After awhile, though, I did see that despite the fact that they looked good on my resume they really weren’t opening too many important doors, and I did start disliking and disapproving this competitiveness in the arts. So I stopped competing in these things and concentrated on only positive things, like writing good music and finding cool people to work with.

So… here is where I am going next: recently a very talented composer and teacher who you may know, Paul Crabtree, felt outraged by details a of a composition competition. The gist of the details was this: the choir’s website plainly stated that all the entry fees from the composers entering (ie, the sweet income pile of cash coming from composers) would be pooled and 50% of that money would be awarded to the “winner”. Paul was outraged that this was stated out loud so blatantly, and when he told this group how he felt, their response was that they thought it was a good thing that this (possibly) big pile of moolah could grow and grow and the happy winning composer would have a great windfall. Apparently the group made no effort on their own part to raise any money to fund a prize! AND this also begs AT LEAST one question… what is the group doing with the other 50% of the money? And in Paul Crabtree’s mind, isn’t this just becoming a lottery of sorts? And doesn’t it seem patently unfair to fund the “winner”’ on the backs of the losers?

In fact, let’s look at the math of a typical choral composition competition:

One Grand Prize: $1,000
Composer entry fee: $25
Break-even point for organization: 40 entries

My example shows that once there are over forty entries there are actually two winners- the organization and the grand prize winner, and 39 losers who are funding the lucky ones. Isn’t there something wrong with this picture?

And truthfully, there are a number of these competitions where the prize is only $300 or $500, not $1,000 or over, and where the winner is expected to find their own way to finance attending the premiere. And here is a real kick in the teeth, and this one is so offensive I am happy to name names: the Music Teachers National Association (MTNA) holds a composition competition which encourages entrants as young as five years old, the entry fee is $100(!) AND if you win and cannot attend the premiere performance your prize is rescinded (gee thanks MTNA for treating children like this). Let’s look at the math there:

MTNA Elementary Composition Competition (5-10 year olds)
First prize $500, second prize $250
Entry fee: $100
break-even point for MTNA: 8 entrants!

Now what would some of these organization say in defense of their competitions and their entry fees? They would probably cite the clerical time/expense involved with the event, or perhaps the hiring of experts to judge the entries. But really, does a group doling out a modest $300 prize really need to hire people to adjudicate the entries-- why not trust that your own musical staff or some volunteer judges could do a good job?

Do I think there should be an entry fee for these competitions? Honestly, I think not. But I think someone could argue that a small fee is not totally out of line, something like $10, just to help defray expenses a bit. But I certainly don’t think that composer entry fees should ever be expected to fund the winner's prize. It just isn’t right and I think is abusive to turn a group a profit from the composers, none of whom, I am sure, are rolling in cash.

I will now cite some great examples of groups and individuals who are supporting new music in a big way and without expecting composers entry fees to fund these prizes:The Cambridge Chamber Singers based in Cambridge, MA run a competition yearly. I won that competition in 2003, the first year that they threw out their entry fee and were bombarded with hundred of entries from around the world. The folks there, including director Ray Fahrner, a great supporter of composers, were thrilled with that massive response, and sifted through all those scores gladly. They made no money off of the composers and have continued to this day in running this event without a composer entry fee, bravo, Ray!

A very large competition, the Barlow Prize, awards a $12,000 prize and a number of $7,000 commissions as well. There is no entry fee.

The New York composer/conductor group C4 is currently holding a competition with healthy prizes and no entry fee. You read about it here recently in a guest blog by C4 member Jon David.

Here is my bottom line opinion, followed by an alternate to the competition and composer fee mentality:if you want to run one of these composer competitions for your musical group, please stop and truly examine your motivations. Is this really about finding new talent and nurturing it, or is it about the PR and entry fee money you are hoping to bring to your group? And how will you feel as a group or a board of directors if your winner can’t afford to get to your city for the premiere? Will you find a way to get them there or will you penalize them? And don’t be so crass as to fund your “prize” on the backs of losing composers . Almost anyone’s gut feeling is that this is just not right.

Here is my alternative: find money to fund a no entry fee competition, or even better, do some homework and find a worthy composer, young or old, and commission them to write a piece for your choir. This is a far more respectful way to treat a creative artist and make them feel valued and wanted, and not just an athlete with a number on their back.

If this blog post changes any group’s mind about their approach to composer competitions, commissions and the like and helps them move toward a healthier approach, I will be pretty happy with my lil’ ole self.

[UPDATE from since I first started drafting this blog: the competition which Paul Crabtree found offensive announced a winner, and also brags that there were over 100 entrants. They also have told me that the 50% of the composer's money they pocketed went into their general operating funds and they do not agree with Mr. Crabtree and myself that this is in any way unethical or "not right". So, there you go composers-- you just funded a choir whether you knew it or not, gave them plenty of PR, and all you got out of it was some more rejection of your art- what a pretty picture, eh? Maybe your entry fee could be written off as a charitable donation?]