http://www.meetthecomposer.org/node/95

Of course, MTC’s list is just a point of departure, in both directions. If a composer who’s starting out has only written three notable pieces, while he or she should never be discouraged from asking for top professional fees, it’s a little less likely that those numbers will reflect the reality of the first handful of catalog-establishing commissions. But as we all know, once things really get cooking in a career, the numbers can be whatever one declares they should be.

Particularly in commercial music, the fact that composers have no union representation and thus no protective bottom line for fees has been, to say the least, less than ideal. This is why I believe it’s so important to create some semblance of a self-regulating community among working composers. Sharing information with our friendly colleagues about what the going rates are for various projects is one significant way we can accomplish this sort of protection.

You’re totally correct as usual, especially about this discussion being on a silly scale. I think it’s silly season in the new music world. Who’da guessed it? Thanks for chiming in with your usual wisdom and common sense.

Listen, we all know that it’s just fine if people choose not to make money, much less a living, from their art. And we all know that it’s just fine if people choose to make money and yes, even a living, from their art. For creators, copyright can protect those who choose to benefit from it. And if there are creators who choose to ignore those benefits, that’s fine too. It’s their choice.

Although tagged for game play in this round a few posts back by my old Juilliard Pre-College schoolmate David Toub (betcha none of you knew that conservatories were such great training grounds for ob-gyns, huh? Heck, I coulda gotten a Pap smear along with my species counterpoint lessons), as he knows, my own art/professional leanings are slanted toward commerce. I like Jonathan Newman’s approach of selling his wares but using some of them as loss leaders, the way other businesses give something away to entice more traffic. An oldie but goodie. As Newman explains, it’s a matter of defining what it is that we’re willing to think of as promotional expenses rather than remunerated work. This concept is a little challenging for composers still mired in precious 19th-century arteeste-mentality, but that’s rapidly changing and most of us know that– if we do wish to make money from our art– we are in fact running an art business. There is nothing wrong with that: neither art, nor music, nor money are four-letter words. 

For those of you who have tuned into Kyle Gann’s recent post on the subject ( http://www.artsjournal.com/postclassic/2010/03/keeping_the_score.html ), I agree with his point, echoed by David, that in the case of score purchases and performances, it’s highly unlikely that professional ensembles are making their programming choices based on whether they’re out $35 bucks for the score and parts or can snag them for free. It’s all chump change. The reason each of us is an art music composer is because if we’re any good at it, we all sound unique. Our music is usually chosen because it speaks to the condition of the musicians, not because it’s a bargain. So I don’t believe that composers like me who earn money from our scores are in any way undercut by those like Kyle and David whose equally viable scores are offered for free.

That being said, I want to point out two things. First: this discussion is on a very small, niche, micro, introverted, self-referential, and frankly silly scale: no one makes a notable income from the sale of three contrabass clarinet sonatas. Sorry to burst that bubble. No, we make it from the sale of hundreds, or thousands of them. Volume! That’s why distribution deals are important for independent publishers like many of us. So in the concert music world, and specifically the small ensemble corner of it, there is little real loss in giving a score away here and there, and probably much to be gained in terms of promotion, should the piece get recorded well. But as Kyle notes, he hangs on to a score that does indeed have potential in terms of volume– a choral work. Same thing would go for a wind band piece, as John Mackey illustrates above. It’s important to be aware of the distinctions.

Second: the concept of undercutting is more of a threat when it telegraphs the philosophy of our business to others. A problem that I do deem to be real, is when professional composers at a viable point in their career do not ask for a decent commission fee. Not unlike the damage that has been done in the world of mid-level scoring work in Hollywood, if we agree to compose a significant work for little or no remuneration for a gig on which everyone else is being paid, then not only are we cheating ourselves, but we are telling the benefactors of this new work that a composer’s time, much less his or her output, is not worth anything. Our behavior does indeed have a ripple effect on the perception of our art and our business. Beware. We should be good musical citizens and realize that each of us has the power to be a standard bearer, and to improve conditions for our peers.

Some of you may have seen an article I wrote in January for NewMusicBox titled “The Economy of Exposure,” in which I explored the unsettling concepts of our new digital reality as it pertains to copyright (  http://www.newmusicbox.org/article.nmbx?id=6253 ). See what you think. I’m just a messenger…