by Piers Hellawell
The processes and priorities of commissioning have to be
a leading concern of today's new music practitioners in the UK. Yet the
perennial, important hunt for increased resources has meant that shortcomings
in deploying those resources - the flawed realities of commissioning -
have gone unaddressed. It is time to consider that much better use might
be made of what we have - and a better case made for more - if thought
and channelled communication were brought to bear on some perennial problems.
Commissioning of new work is important, being the very lifeblood of composers,
not only through fees but through access to concert platforms. Yet the
dash for commissions has become an orthodoxy, with all the dangers that
orthodoxies entail; the result has been the easy assumption that commissioning
and premiering a new work is the beginning and end of the task. Can the
box showing 'support for new work' be safely ticked after a solitary performance?
The legion voices now raised against isolated premieres say it cannot!
Frankly, in no other business would even established figures work for
6 or 9 months toward an outcome of a single performance of less than 30
minutes, often with no written guarantee of other performances or recording.
While composers with major representation might have consigned such conditions
to distant memory, others still have to sustain self-belief in just this
There is much lateral thinking to be done in pursuit of joined-up commissioning.
The assumption that composers need only a supply of commissions, for example,
is a damaging one. Certainly all composers, young ones especially, do
need them; yet for more established figures it may also be pressing to
get works into the repertoire - new works, rather than New Works. Is it
possible for an orchestra to precede the premiere by programming a short
recent piece by the same composer? If not, then composers could be asked
whether they would prefer a commission or a recorded performance of an
existing work, which might cost the orchestra the same or considerably
less. Every composer I know nurses some unperformed work from the shipwreck
of an earlier commission.
Joined-up commissioning requires, secondly, a realistic view of the context
in which a new work appears. How many organisations, for example, have
really taken on board that a central outcome for a composer is the recording?
Many of us have had large-scale premieres, even multiple performances
that may involve London orchestras, only to emerge with no recorded outcome
at the end. As a result, the composer has no promotional tool and the
work becomes a memory before its composer can assimilate its realities.
Often this is for contractual reasons, and only a powerful will to succeed
is going to overcome these hurdles - but a powerful will is what is needed,
if the status of the recorded archive is to be brought into line with
its actual prominence today. Such a sea-change could involve, simply,
widespread acceptance of a standard document restricting the composer
to non-commercial distribution, or the setting up of technical support
for recording by arrangement with the nearest Music Technology course.
Some orchestras do this - so it is not impossible. Too often, though,
a tussle ensues, as if a recording is an unreasonable aspiration by the
composer or worse, the fantasy goes, a plot to smuggle the performance
into broadcast or commercial domain by some back door (is there a single
instance of this happening?). The joined-up commissioners, by contrast,
are the organisations who set out to facilitate, instead of appearing
to erect defences against, reasonable outcomes such as this; the spnm
has for years had the will to ensure recordings of every performance -
so why is this still the exception?
Consideration of time-scale is equally important - not just for the composer,
but also so that all parties involved can develop a sense of ownership
for a new work. Not least of the aspects needing time is the contractual
agreement, along with which composers have traditionally received half
the fee on agreement - 'up front' as it were. Next time you run into composers,
ask them when they last received a contract before writing a piece, together
with first instalment of a fee. The chances are that it will have been
a BBC commission, for the Corporation seems to be in a minority today
in sticking resolutely to traditional practice. Could approaches to funding
bodies not be made sufficiently early so that proper contractual agreement
really does precede the composer's starting work? All composers know that
in practice the glacial speed of funding applications can mean the composer
finally being allowed to 'begin' the new work at the time as it is due
for delivery - as if. Composers can, and do, wearily take the floor for
this typically British quadrille, but it is by no means a harmless set
of steps; for no funding body - least of all the Lottery - will pay invoices
until the contract is settled, and the composer's 'first instalment' is
frequently a last-minute arrival before the premiere ('first' only in
preceding the rest) or else so late that it joins the balance of the fee,
as happened to me recently.
It is hard not to feel in all this an element of the old view of the composer
as the driven artist, who would welcome payment but doesn't 'do it for
the money'. When composers and their publishers still have to write in
complaint to organisations after a successful premiere in order to extract
the commission, something is wrong, if not with attitudes then with mechanisms.
When young composers with no clout have to smuggle mini-discs into rehearsals
(sorry folks, but we have to go public to sort this out) or borrow money
for their travel costs, we are not seeing joined-up commissioning.
In this and every musical nation, those involved in new art music surely
constitute a united force, even a community (if that is the right term?
Nowadays every group is a 'community' - I even heard a newsreader refer
to 'the arms-dealing community'). Community or no, we must be able to
evolve a better joined-up commissioning approach than has pertained in
the UK. While the highest-profile commissions no doubt have such outcomes
in place, the sheer variability in relations between composers and music
organisations shows just how much joining up there is still to be done.
Composer Piers Hellawell is Gresham Professor of Music and is Reader in
Composition at The Queen's University of Belfast.
What do you think?
We would welcome any responses to the articles featured
in new notes. Click here
to read what other people have thought about recent cover articles.
The monthly listings magazine new
notes is essential reading for composers, performers, and everyone
interested in what's new in new music. In its printed version new notes
reaches over 5,000 contemporary music enthusiasts in the UK and around
If you promote new music events you should advertise them in new notes.
Single concert listings are just £50+VAT. The magazine also features
ads for festivals, composer competitions, recordings and more.
new notes also features
monthly articles on issues at the forefront of new music
special offers on CDs, tickets, scores and books for spnm members
information about forthcoming spnm events
a free classified section for spnm members' non-trade ads.
For full details on advertising or inserting leaflets in new notes
please contact the Editor: John Fosbrook
Event listings for this
Promotion and Profitability
the World to the Warehouse
price new music?
from start to finish
challenge from Michael Oliva
the next century...
obsessed with consuming?
welcomes Joanna MacGregor.
Spectrum 2 - miniatures for
Hoxton Hall New Music Days.
Bath International Music Festival is 50.
Who is Georges Aperghis?
On frost, birth and death
Now that's what I call contemporary!