Investigating what it means to be an original artist brings up many of the fundamental recurring debates within aesthetics: tradition vs. innovation, craft vs. experimentation, conservativism vs. iconoclasm. These became pressing spheres of contention within artistic discourse when the ‘cult of originality’ emerged at the same time as the figure of the heroic artist and the idea of autonomous art. This conception is tremendously powerful, transcending the border between the apparent oppositions of romanticism and modernism. The voices of the romantics, such as Coleridge, Schlegel and Shelley,Footnote 1 who emphasise the unique creative force of ‘great’ artists, blend harmoniously with the early modernist avant-garde of Schoenberg and Malevich,Footnote 2 when they assert the power of originary expression of self. Often this narrative is shaped by creators as much as theorists, the former of whom have a stake in not only claiming that unique practice is important but that their own work is a prime example thereof. Scholars such as Rosalind Krauss, Georgina Born and Richard Taruskin have attempted to break through this rhetoric of creation: Krauss pointing to the ubiquity of ‘the grid’ in visual art that claims to be expressing a new paradigm;Footnote 3 Born and Taruskin arguing that the radical breaks claimed by modernism are often overblown.Footnote 4 Krauss also argues that a changing conception of originality is a key constituent of the postmodern, which wears its historical precedents openly – though this relies on a rather narrow version of aesthetic modernism.
No attempt will be made to here to provide a comprehensive definition or set of criteria for original art, which would likely fall somewhere between the rock of inaccurate prediction and the hard place of useless generality. Rather, the relationship between a given time and the idea of originality in defining the understanding of art in play – the ‘distribution of the sensible’ in the parlance of Jacques RancièreFootnote 5 – will be discussed. While criticisms such as those of Krauss and Taruskin have problematised any absolute originality claimed by modernists or anyone else, originality is still a powerful narrative in the reception of art, as is the fascination with the figure of the artist, both among the public and within art criticism. Study of the role of individual expression can give important perspectives on the status of art within a society, and the particular values that are present within the art world. It is for this reason that it has been selected as a tool to understand contemporary art, and in this case, contemporary music.
The current climate for young composers of contemporary classical music will be the focus of this article, which approaches this issue through a study of competitions. Hettie Malcomson, whose article focuses on ‘New Voices’Footnote 6 composers based primarily around London, states that ‘It is striking how little attention has been paid to lesser-known composers, particularly given the cultural turn in musicology in recent years’.Footnote 7 Such a study can provide important insight into the values of the current British compositional ‘establishment’ by the very fact that it provides the space to hear from those who ‘fail’ to receive more high-profile levels of institutional validation. Our study includes those who have been successful in these competitions, as well as those who have not – something that distinguishes our sample from Malcomson's to a significant degree.
Originality and technical competence are often assumed to be the primary categories on which the judgement of such competitions should rest. Yet, as discussed below, there is a tension between originality and success for our composers and, as some of the wider literature suggests, in the decision-making processes of judgement panels. The story of the relationship between originality and competition is far more complex than one of simple promotion. This article will plot this relationship, using a set of survey responses from 47 emerging composers to come to a richer understanding of the role of these opportunities in encouraging aesthetic innovation, and whether there might be lessons that can be learned to make such schemes a more transparent and creative space.
The Composition Opportunity
The epithet ‘emerging composer’, which describes individuals who are supposedly on the cusp of a professional career, has received quick acceptance into artistic vocabulary, in part due to its adoption by organisations specifically seeking to support this demographic. Support in this context regularly involves competitive calls for bursaries, commissions, residencies and workshops. ‘Emerging composer’ is not a synonym for ‘composition student’, though the two certainly overlap. The majority of the former are highly-trained, multi-degree-holding individuals, usually between their early twenties and early thirties (though sometimes older), with extensive experience of performance and, often, a significant track record of working with professionals. The sphere of these opportunities is a clear arena in which emerging composers seek to gain ‘professional’ experience and to distinguish themselves from their fellows. They are seen as an important part of a composer's transition to professional life,Footnote 8 meaning there is a strong link between competition and composition education in the United Kingdom. Increasingly, they are also seen as a means of encouraging diversity in contemporary and classical music more widely, with more focus on gender and ethnic diversity in particular.Footnote 9
The survey we conducted centred around the concept of these composition ‘opportunities’.Footnote 10 Competitions, workshops, masterclasses and performances promise prospective candidates a chance to expand their practice and widen their professional networks. In offering such schemes an organisation hopes to both educate a new generation of professional composers, and to encourage a wider new music ecosystem. The opportunities themselves vary in their exact form. Sound and Music, the national new music charity that seeks to support emerging composers in the UK more than any other, offers a variety of schemes with the aid of partner organisations, from a chance to be ‘embedded’ in Birmingham Contemporary Music Group, Quatuor Bozzini, BBC Radio 3 or the British Music Collection, to collaborations with the British Paraorchestra, the London Graduate Orchestra or Japanese No musicians. There are other schemes, too, from various ensembles, orchestras and organisations looking to promote new music, such as London Sinfonietta's ‘Writing the Future’ scheme, the Royal Philharmonic Society's Composition Prize, Britten Sinfonia's OPUS scheme or the Royal Scottish National Orchestra's more recent Composers’ Hub. One of the authors of this article is a new music composer and has taken part in several opportunities, including Making Music's ‘Adopt a Composer’ Scheme, in which an amateur ensemble ‘adopts’ an emerging composer, and contemporary music group Psappha's ‘Composing for …’ series, which allows a group of composers to write for one specific instrument. Demand hugely outstrips supply in the vast majority of these projects, with applications regularly numbering in the hundreds to fill a handful of places. In many cases, five to ten composers are shortlisted and the final composers, or composer, are chosen after interview. The necessity of personal strategies to deal with regular rejection was an important theme that composers discussed in our data.Footnote 11
The survey contained questions regarding applications and interviews; positive and negative experiences of opportunities; the types of opportunities that have been useful and why; how being selected/not selected for opportunities affected composers’ confidence and sense of professional identity; and demographic questions about participants. While previous studies such as the Incorporated Society of Musicians’ Composers report (2016),Footnote 12 and the Sound and Music Commission Reports (2014 and 2015),Footnote 13 have had a very large number of responses on specific matters – commissions in particular – this project's sample of 47 makes it the largest in-depth survey study of how new music composers make sense of their work within the current artistic climate, and we believe the resulting sample provides a reasonable cross-section of British new music.Footnote 14 The empirical research was carried out in late 2016/early 2017. The survey method allows our data a much wider reach than would have otherwise been the case, as well as encouraging participants’ honest assessment of these opportunities regarding their artistic practice and the effectiveness of selection processes. Such questions have the potential to be sensitive, especially within a small music scene. We were hoping for answers that were honest and open about success, failure, and process and therefore felt the more anonymous survey method suited our purposes best.Footnote 15
Being ‘a bit original’
A notable tension emerges when comparing the reasons composers give for their failure and success in these opportunities. When describing their strategies for success, the narrative of original and unique artistic contribution is still very much present: participant 24 describes their ‘unique practice’ in which they offer ‘ideas which hadn't been seen before’; participant 1 recommends having a ‘unique portfolio of works’; and participant 16 cites simply ‘originality’ as a reason for their being selected. Clearly the idea of the original artist is still a powerful – perhaps the most powerful – narrative in positive examples of artistic practice. Though some put it all down to ‘the luck of the draw’, they were more likely to focus on luck to make sense of being overlooked rather than being chosen; ‘luck’ indeed, as we explore elsewhere, does not explain fully why certain individuals appear to have had disproportionate levels of success or failure.Footnote 16 The composers involved in our study cite a wide range of influences and have very different reactions (both very positive and very negative) to what they describe as the avant-garde: though they were not asked to provide examples of their music, it is likely it would provide an eclectic mix. Yet, originality cut across these stylistic bounds as an artistic goal that transcends the subgenres of contemporary classical music.
The image of the artist as singularly creative, and always original and unique in their practice, remains powerful – an image towards which our participants aspire. Without this uniqueness, their credentials as an artist may be open to question. For those in our survey, ‘emerging’ into the established world of new music composition, it is crucial to display this originality to confirm the right to be thought of, and think of themselves, as an artist. As participant 22 wrote, having one's skills and originality confirmed through external success made them more ‘aware of [their] worth as an artist’. However, their comments can also be read in a more instrumental light regarding what composers expect opportunities to be looking for, while their strategies for success can involve dressing up their work in ways they believe will be more attractive to the panel. Composers may highlight originality because they believe it is an important criterion of those making the selection. Participant 23 describes this as ‘Avoiding generic statements and emphasising the most idiosyncratic aspects of my practice’. Emerging composers want to stand out from their peers – and competitors – by consciously highlighting their originality; they also expect the panel to only consider them worthy of selection if their work can be considered unique.
These sets of ideas that see originality as a prime reason for success come into sharp conflict with the belief, expressed by many participants, that opportunities were prefigured to a significant degree in terms of the type of music they were likely to support. Participant 21 states that ‘most competitions know what they want at the beginning and if you're not that then you won't win’; participant 26 states that failure often rests on having written ‘the “wrong” sort of music’; participant 42 thought that their music was not ‘appropriate’ for certain opportunities; and participant 9 considers that ‘Certain opportunities seem to like certain kinds of music so trying to appeal to a certain panel is often on my mind’. The ‘taste of the panel’ (participant 35) is seen as vital by composers in determining the type of music that is chosen, leading some not to even apply based on previous winners and the makeup of the jury. As participant 31 states ‘I only send applications to projects or ensembles that I think can be interested in my work, therefore I only try to work with like-minded ensembles or soloists’. Such a state of affairs is obviously incompatible with the narrative of unique artistic practice, as some opportunities appear engaged in promoting self-similar types of music. Originality as striking aesthetic innovation – the type of originality so prized by modernistsFootnote 17 – is not perceived by our composers as a top priority in selection for many schemes.
Evidently there is a contradiction between composers who believe their being original, or at least describing themselves as original, is a vital part of their success and those who believe competitions are only interested in a narrow aesthetic bandwidth: different participants ascribe both success and failure to their own originality. This can be taken as an indication of the self-belief necessary to continue in a field characterised by so much rejection, as well as perhaps the sense of ‘paranoia’ that proliferates in such a field.Footnote 18 However, it is also important to point out the ‘logics of power that traverse the new music network’,Footnote 19 and the wider neoliberal context, in which structural elements are masked in order to ascribe failure (and success) purely to individuals and their own personalities and merit. As Malcomson argues, a small number of people make decisions in this world and therefore power accrues to them.Footnote 20 It should be stated, too, that the composition opportunity is a term that describes many different schemes run by a diverse range of organisations, all of which have their own stylistic preferences. Individual composers from our survey complain that certain opportunities favour ‘avant-garde musical styles’ (participant 26), while another believes that such schemes are judged too conservatively. A chief reason for lack of success, then, is what participant 25 describes as ‘incompatibilities between my practice and that of the musicians or institution organising the opportunity’. That this might be for the protection of the composer as much as the organisation is explored further below: there are a number of intersecting ‘logics of power’ at play.
Emerging composers must negotiate the tensions embodied in the concept of originality within artistic practice. The appearance of originality is still highly prized, yet in reality this must meet the particular restrictions of opportunities to be validated by organisations within the music world. Participant 21 points to this reality in saying that being ‘a bit original’ is a reason for their success. One such restriction is likely to be the aesthetic boundaries within opportunities that many of our participants identify. Such development within genre boundaries is no minor point regarding the modernist heritage of new music, which has often sought to distinguish itself from the popular by citing its focus on innovation. For our composers, radical experimentation with aesthetic norms and public success via the composition opportunity appear very difficult to reconcile.
A Chance to Experiment?
These composition opportunities are also intended to offer the time, materials and collaborators to allow emerging composers to create new and exciting work. Unique practice is here encouraged by a singular meeting of performers and composer who mould an original contribution through exploration and exchange. Such schemes should act as a development opportunity, both in terms of creating networks with professionals and in expanding musical practice. The varied benefits that these schemes can, in theory, provide are summed up well by participant 23:
Developing technique, networking, gaining experience working with professional ensembles and conductors, getting used to taking harsh criticism graciously, getting more exposure, having my work performed in prestigious venues to large audiences, radio broadcasts, recordings.
Whether these benefits consistently materialise is another matter, as we explore elsewhere, yet the value of the collaborative and experimental side of the opportunity is clear: participant 35 states that they ‘gave me the time and space to try something new and have audience feedback’; participant 14 describes the ‘best’ experience of an opportunity in which they ‘had time to experiment with several different ideas’; while participant 5 states that opportunities can have ‘lasting impact, offering new perspectives, returning to ideas and thoughts created during the opportunity for months/years after’.
However, this idyllic image of artistic freedom is not reflected in the majority of the data. Only 18% of participants considered ‘experimenting with new ideas’ one of their top three reasons for applying for opportunities, in comparison to the 69% who wanted a performance by a professional group, and the 54% who wanted to expand their professional networks. Similarly, 17% thought that having ‘radical ideas’ was one of three most important reasons for success when being interviewed for these schemes, in comparison with the 67% who believed ‘matching the opportunity brief’ was vital. Again, this points to a more instrumental view of the opportunity from the side of the composers. Their emphasis appears to be more on promotion, professional networks and performances (which are by no means always positively described), than truly experimenting. Indeed, that opportunities provide a rare chance to reach a wider audience and be performed by professionals may make them particularly unsuited to ‘risky’ aesthetic development as the stakes are potentially too high.
This concern around potential risk in terms of experimentation can be seen reflected in who is chosen for these schemes. Our participants argue that those with previous experience of similar performances were often given opportunities, even when these were ostensibly for expanding compositional practice. These composers were proven to be capable of delivering a piece of a particular style or for specific forces. The organisation running the opportunity therefore had a strong sense of what they would be getting – a perhaps understandable desire to ensure the selected piece will appeal to performers and audience, will be delivered, and will be a work that the institution can endorse and in which it can see itself reflected. As Malcomson argues, ‘individuality [has] to be tempered, structured, and embedded in the social norms of … artistic production’.Footnote 21
With this issue in mind, participant 45 considers what constitutes an emerging composer, stating that ‘I see people getting things with greater performance profiles who stand to benefit a lot less from them than me (or others like me) would – even when the opportunity is explicitly about giving people a foot up’. Participant 8 writes that ‘I think it's important to be able to get some projects under your belt to build experience and a credible portfolio of projects. But it's hard to take the first steps as lack of previous projects is a reason given for rejections – vicious circle’. Participant 15 states that they lack a ‘public profile’, pointing to the very specific space that emerging composers need to inhabit: on the cusp of ‘professionalism’ but not professional – unpublished and ‘undiscovered’ – yet with significant experience and success. The difficulty of such a space is identified by participant 2 when they write that
I applied for an opportunity that involved dance. I have not so far had the opportunity to write music for dance and therefore this project would have truly been a learning curve for me. The person selected had a wealth of experience in writing for dance already. I have to say I felt frustrated at this, as often these opportunities are presented as giving opportunities to people who have not already had experience in that field and yet most of the time these opportunities can often be given to people who already have experience in that particular area.
When presented with so many applications, experience appears to become an important criterion for selection. Yet this works against the stated aim of composers being thrown into new contexts to expand their practice and being given some important experience that will help to drive their career forward towards professional status. Evidently, the panel judgement process is hugely important here and in the general organization and execution of these schemes. This is something our data discusses only tangentially, when our composers had personal experience of judging other opportunities. Certainly, this is an important area for future research. However, the thoughts of the composers in our study certainly do reflect current debates on this issue within wider musicological and artistic research and will be the focus of the final section.
Judgement
It is improbable that this apparent conformity is a conscious goal of those involved in judging these opportunities. More likely it is a combination of the unavoidable personal preference of jurors – often, though not always, professionals in their field – and a result of ‘decision by committee’ process. To take the latter point first, in a recent TEMPO editorial Christopher Fox related his experience of how a group can tend towards compromise and, presumably, conservatism in panels for art prizes:
Prizewinners are normally selected by panels of experts and the people selecting the experts who will make up the panels are careful to make sure that they are broadly representative. Person A, who has a history of being interested in this sort of music, is balanced by Person B, who is interested in that sort of music, and so on. The consequence is that sometimes the prizewinning work, although excellent – how else would it have reached the panel in the first place? – represents the music that the fewest members of the panel dislike. I have seen this happen at first hand, seen one composer win because the other possible, and more strikingly original, contenders divided the jury; worse, I have been on a jury that awarded a really rather significant prize to a work which it was clear many of the jury had not heard. These are probably exceptions to the blamelessly objective selections made by most juries, but it is a truth universally acknowledged that a roomful of people in search of a decision will seek a compromise, and compromise and art should be kept apart.Footnote 22
The need for consensus, then, can work against the more ‘strikingly original’ candidates. Magali Sarfattie Larson also identifies a similar trend at play in the decision-making process of architectural competitions:
… we know that collective decisions, as a rule, involve compromise and tend toward safety. Competitions whose results represent ‘a watershed between old and new’ are therefore less common than those with an architecturally ‘safe’ first prize and avant-garde runners-up. The historical record indicates that the ‘anti-establishment’ potential of competitions is more ideology than fact.Footnote 23
The ‘anti-establishment potential’ identified here is an implicit ideal in all competitive artistic opportunities: that, in this case, a composer without institutional backing or significant track record should be able to rise to prominence because of their original voice. Though composers, unlike architects, appear not to need the backing of a large firm – indeed need only a pencil, paper and, increasingly, a computer – our data show that an impressive track record and, crucially, high quality recordings of professional performances – i.e. some degree of institutional backing – make a huge difference. This is a different model from that identified by Malcomson amongst the composers she studies, who interact with, but are not one of, a group of ‘established’ composers.Footnote 24 She stresses a culture of exchange, but while this is likely to play a part once composers have reached a certain level of exposure, our data suggests a unidirectional relationship between opportunities and the composers they intend to encourage, one compounded by a startling lack of feedback given to those who apply – almost 88% stated they had received no feedback on any of their applications.
In choosing a ‘best fit’ solution, however, panels may not only be protecting their organisations from unconventional approaches but the composers themselves. A number of participants described negative experiences in which ensembles and management appeared uninterested in their work, making this clear during rehearsals or performances. When there is a disconnect between a composer's practice and the organisation, the negative effects are obviously felt on both sides. In this way, the panel can be seen as truly representing both their ensemble institutions and the composers they select. While this certainly has logic to it, it is another factor that compounds the sense that such opportunities provide a self-perpetuating aesthetic space, unsuited to experimentation.
The dynamics of selection are particularly important when considering who populates such panels. For composition opportunities this is usually a mixture of external ‘experts’ in the field, representatives from partner organisations (whether administrative or artistic), and staff from the organisation running the opportunity. Innovation is by no means top of the agenda for such figures. Even the experts – usually established composers – may struggle to encourage a diverse range of aesthetic appreciation as their own proclivities, and personal relationships, will certainly come into play. Here, as in other music competitions,Footnote 25 rotation of the panel members in annual competitions is vital in ensuring such diversity – something that is difficult to plot for all opportunities, as many do not make their juries public.
Concluding Thoughts
Though this article has taken a critical stance regarding composition opportunities and their relationship with the narrative of original artistic practice, it should not be underestimated how valuable composers find these schemes when given the chance to participate. Only one participant had found none of the opportunities helpful or fulfilling, while 41% found more than three had made a positive contribution to their practice and 50% stated that a large proportion of the opportunities in which they had taken part had been musically fulfilling and important. Participant 7 writes that they ‘wouldn't be enjoying a successful career without these early (and ongoing) opportunities’.
Yet, there is a strong case to made from the data that these opportunities contain within them some striking tensions in relation to the character of new music – and some important realisations regarding how composition receives institutional validation in this country. First, though originality is one of the most highly prized attributes by composers – and a reason given for their success – the composition opportunity is not a sphere that lends itself well to radical aesthetic innovation. Composers tend to view these opportunities more instrumentally as ‘being involved in schemes, often regardless of musical outcome, is fantastic for your CV’ (participant 11). Second, experience and public profile are seen by composers as important factors contributing to selection, i.e. success breeds success. A proven track record and high-quality recordings from professional groups are bound to make a good impression on a jury. Choice of institution is very important here, too, as a recently formed collaboration between the City of Birmingham Symphony Orchestra and the University of Cambridge shows.Footnote 26 Finally, these juries have a number of stakeholders to consider, leading to a tendency to pick more familiar options.
The picture this paints of the current state of British contemporary music is largely in keeping with other observations of British musical culture.Footnote 27 Though chances to expand practice and to experiment are seen as an important part of the composition opportunity, there are aesthetic boundaries within which this occurs. Composers looking for alternative paths will have to seek success outside the bounds of the composition opportunity (which itself is not a guarantee of professional success), or further afield – 80% of our composers had taken part in an opportunity outside of the UK. The opportunity acts, therefore, as an important filter for a ‘mainstream’ of British contemporary music. We recognise that what has been discussed here is the view of one set of composers who have a particular relationship with new music in this country. Professional ‘paranoia’ is indeed part of any art world, yet composers are also the best placed group to assess the state of these opportunities: they are the group that spends most time engaging with the application process; the group with experience of the most diverse range of composition opportunities; they are invested in the scene and passionate about the judgement process; and they are knowledgeable about current debates and important figures.
Improving this process is far from easy, though where exploitative financial practices are still in place the first step is a very straightforward one. The personal preferences of the panel are unavoidable, yet that is no reason to give up on diverse selection altogether. Firstly, there could be increased transparency regarding who is on the panels, meaning that composers have a clear idea of the likely aesthetic direction they will take. Secondly, the criteria for selection could be made clearer in application materials and jury members made aware that a breadth of aesthetic directions is sought. Finally, if diverse voices are an aim of opportunities, they should seek to continually change the makeup of their panels in a substantial fashion. More than anything, however, is the message that there is at present a chronic shortage of opportunity for emerging and early-career composers that will encourage experimentation as well as increasing exposure. There is a danger that an elite group of emerging composers receive a disproportionate number of opportunities due to the snow-balling of their success. It is little wonder, then, that Sound and Music has increasingly focused on giving composers the skills to create their own events rather than rely on external input – a practical solution, certainly, but one that does deal with the systemic features of the current situation. The precious nature of each opportunity also emphasises the ethical case for increased transparency in schemes that already exist: if they are to reflect the diversity of musical practice in this country they must take risks on untried artists and reflect on their own processes.
