The Value of Composition Competitions

It is difficult for composers to have their work performed. It is more difficult for it to be well recorded. And it is even more difficult for composers to receive meaningful compensation for their work. One solution to this problem is the composition competition, in which an ensemble or organization invites composers to submit specific types of works for review and possible selection as the “winning” piece. It most all cases, the piece receives a performance, it may be recorded, and sometimes the composer is awarded a cash prize. By entering composition competitions composers give themselves an opportunity to get those three things are so elusive: performances, recordings, and pay. But some competitions ask for entry fees along with the submissions, which some composers and other interested parties find abhorrent.

Recently, Krista Lang Blackwood, artistic director of the choral ensemble Octarium that brought us this video, wrote a post on the group’s blog that raised the issue. Octarium hosts an annual composition competition and has never charged an entry fee. According to Blackwood’s post, when other interested parties apparently thought that doing so might be a good idea, she resisted because Octarium sponsors its competition “to help composers find an audience. To help worthy music find an audience. To further the choral art.” And she is not alone is opposing entry fees for composition coompetitions. She cites composer Eric Whitacre, who while referencing ASCAP executive Fran Richards says, “Don’t ever pay to be a part of one of these competitions; they are lucky to be getting an application from you.” Blackwood further cites composer Paul Carey who seems to see no value in composition contests, and closes his post on the matter with this update: “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?” After being cross posted at the ChoralNet.org blog, this issue has received even more comment. Take, for instance, Paul Crabtree who suggests that “there are competitions that deserve to be investigated at the State level”

As a composer, I happen to rarely – if ever – enter a competition with an entry fee. But that doesn’t mean I have some blanket policy against it. From an organizational perspective, I can easily see why a group would want to avoid entry fees. But I can also easily see how and why the can make sense.

The thoughts on entry fees offered up by the musicians listed above are each a bit misleading. None of them is really attacking the entry fees per se. Rather they are using the idea of an entry fee as a foil against some other enemy. In reality, entry fees have no inherent value, either positive of negative. Just like any price, a number on its own is entirely neutral. If I said something costs $1,700.00, you would immediately ask what it is so you could give context, and thus meaning, to the price. The key is determining value; price (i.e. an entry fee) is only important relative to the value in exchange. Even something that has a $0.00 price tag (i.e. no entry fee) may not represent a good value. Just think about all the “free if you move it” items available on Craigslist. Hosting a composition competition without an entry fee does not make the competition better (or worse) than a competition with an entry fee. My point is this: Attacking entry fees in a vacuum without regard to value is meaningless. As a result, people complain about something different in order to express what they think is their distaste for entry fees.

Take Paul Carey, for instance. Upon reading his post on composition competitions and entry fees, one finds that his real problem is that he thinks such competitions have no value for composers. So for him, entry fees are bad. And he’s right – though he is engaged in question begging. If something has zero or negative value, charging (or paying) for it is bad. However, it is an open question whether or not composition competition do have value to composers (and it’s a secondary question of whether or not their value is accurately reflected by possible entry fees). If Carey saw value in a competition, I imagine he would have little problem with an entry fee that appropriately reflected that value.

In the case of Paul Crabtree – whose thoughts on this subject considered for this post are limited to a blog comment, and thus his position may potentially be more nuanced that it seems – the argument is not against entry fees, but against corruption. I doubt anyone – except, of course, the corrupt – would agree that an entry fee is OK when a competition is not run “impartially” or displays “transparently ethically corrupt” motives and/or behavior. But this is also a question of value; the fee is not OK, because a biased jury does not provide participating composers a valuable opportunity. It is not that charging a fee for something and delivering it per the agreement between “buyer” and “seller” is somehow corrupt. So, if Crabtree wants to police composition competitions for corruption, fine. But that is entirely different than making a reasonable argument against fees and the value of these ccompetitions.

Furthermore, Crabtree suggests that, “If the true goal of the competition were to stimulate new music by young composers, any entrance fee should be minimal, or financed by a grant, and the sponsoring organization should end up with a positive balance of $0.” This is why Krista Lang Blackwood will not charge a fee for her ensemble’s composition competition. While Blackwood’s position is laudable – offering the opportunities attendant to a good composition competition for free is a great thing – it is entirely unclear how charging an entry fee (and even retaining a positive balance) is inconsistent with, in Crabtree’s words, “stimulating[ing] new music by young composers.” Indeed, if the mere presence of an entry fee makes such a goal impossible or untrue, then American colleges and universities, the Metropolitan Opera’s National Council Auditions, and many other organizations are in the same boat. I cannot imagine that Crabtree and/or Blackwood would argue that, in the absence of other funding, no opportunity is a better way to “help composers find an audience” than an opportunity with a fee attached to it. With that in mind, I would also point out that there is nothing inherently wrong in running a composition competition with the express intent of generating revenue, and merely furthering an art form as an ancillary benefit. These goals are not mutually exclusive.

As the final example, Eric Whitacre’s thoughts on entry fees bring us back to the notion of value. It is a nice and motivating thought for us composers to believe that “[competitions] are lucky to be getting an application from [us].” However, in the context of entry fees this though just states that the value proposition of composition competitions is inverted. In this mindset, it is the competition sponsors and organizers who benefit from the competition and not the composers. While these parties may indeed benefit from the composition competitions they organize, it seems very difficult to argue the composers do not. And of course, if a composer believes he/she receives no value from entering a competition then even the time it takes to print scores and submit them is too much. If, however, the composers too are lucky – in that they have an opportunity to get the three things most find so elusive – then it is not unreasonable to value and put a price on it. The question is not whether entry fees are acceptable, it is whether or not the composer knows a competition’s value to him/her and whether or not he/she determines the entry fee accurately reflects that value.

As I have tried to make clear, there is nothing wrong – or right – with entry fees when we consider them in a vacuum; it is only when the value that paying them provides is inadequate that they are a problem. What I have not yet argued, however, is that entry fees may be a positive thing. Let me do so now.

Speaking as a composer, I recognize my dependence on the community of performers. Without them, my music is not music at all, but rather mere dots on a page shoved into a desk drawer. As a result of this dependence, I want ensembles to be in positive financial positions. Every time an ensemble goes out of existence due to financial hardship, the opportunities for my music to come to life are diminished. I thus feel it is important for composers to support ensembles and others in the community of performers. Naturally, I feel most inclined to support those groups that are most likely to perform my music. Entry fees for a compeition are a way to provide this support. It seems mad for composers not to want performance organizations to make the money they need to survive. (Actually, the video by Octarium linked to above points out the absurdity of this quite nicely.) In short, if entry fees for a composition competition help support an ensemble financially they are a good thing.

While I would love for the composition competition to be obsolete because every ensemble commissions a new work from a new composer at high rates every year anyway, I recognize that this is not a reality. Composition competitions – entry fees or not – provide an important alternative. They also provide an opportunity for otherwise unconnected composers to join the ranks of those who might receive the commissions we all wish existed.

We should move beyond complaining that entry fees are somehow inherently problematic – they are not – and start talking about the value of composition competitions. Regardless of fees, our community should strive to host and participate in competitions that provide real value to as many parties as possible. Competition organizers should be more thoughtful and creative about what their contests do for composers, their ensembles, and their bottom lines. Composers should be more thoughtful about which competitions they apply to, weighing the costs, the benefits, and the fit for who they are as a composer and where they are in their development.

Eliminating entry fees will not increase the value of composition competitions, and only entering contests without entry fees will not ensure composers are participating in worthwhile competitions. As long as we are confusing fees with value, we won’t be able to think in the critical and creative ways necessary to create composition competitions that support the creation of new music and the classical music community as a whole. Whether entry fees are charged or not, such broad support should be the goal.

If you liked this post, please subscribe to the RSS feed here. You can also follow me on Twitter here, or like KillingClassicalMusic on Facebook here.