As I grow frustrated working on my latest piece, I receive yet another email advertising a "Call for Scores." For those unfamiliar, a call for scores is the process by which a musical ensemble solicits composers for new works by sending out a message to the public. Many composers send in their pieces (along with an entry fee), and the ensemble chooses one piece and gives it a performance and perhaps a cash prize. However--
A "call for scores" may as well be read as a "call for entry fees." Why should a composer have to pay a fee--even a nominal one--to enter a lottery where, for most, the only winnings are the privilege of having a piece viewed and disposed of by a panel of judges? Only in the arts does the backward notion that the producer of a work should spend money to have his product viewed, let alone consumed, exist. Can you imagine if a Christmas tree farmer, after growing and maintaining a field of fir trees for three years, paid you for the privilege of having you display their product in your window at the end of December? The vacuum of demand for new music and the means to pay for it where it does exist, are, for a composer, discouraging at best.
And yet, I constantly hear musicians and audiences alike complain that there is not enough good new music. Maybe this is true. But the problem isn't that there aren't good composers. The problem is that the relationship between composer, performer, and audience is terribly broken. The cost of creating music is far too high at the source.
