A hot topic continues

A working composers viewpoint on Getting New Zealand Music Heard,

(Canzona 2006) with responses

84 | CANZONA2007

FROM THOMAS GOSS

006 Canzonas Hot Topic presented a cautious proposal by Anthony Ritchie of an audience-conscious
path for young New Zealand composers toward the
greater goal of getting new works a better hearing on the
New Zealand concert music stage. I was rather surprised
if not stunned to read the pitch and tone of opposition to
his somewhat apologetic suggestions. I was also a bit saddened at the personal nature of a few of the retorts, directed more at the speaker than at his notions. As a relative
newcomer (since 2000) to the NZ composer community,
I have always found dialogue and debate between us to be
fair and considerate. This was the first example that Ive
experienced to the contrary.
The approach to contradiction seemed to be to blow
everything stated by Ritchie out of proportion. His arguments were easily summed up as: make friends with your
performers, reach out to your audience, and be aware that
complex styles of music may create extra work in getting
an audience. I found that several of the responses by Sam
Holloway and Alexandra Hay were reacting to non-existent concerns. For instance, in no place does Ritchie refer
to the audience as a market or as consumers, and yet
he is taken to task for this by both writers. At one point,
Holloway states, In Ritchies world, it seems that is what
is most valuable is what sells. Despite Holloways quotation marks, though, nowhere does Ritchie place a comparative value on any type of expression. Nor does he in any
way propose a national review of musical aesthetics, as
Hay claims. Perhaps the most regrettable rebuttal is how
Ritchies whole creative life is analysed and held up to
judgment by Holloway, rather than his points being accurately and systematically addressed. This is very close to
an ad hominem argument, if we take it as a given that Holloway feels that intentional accessibility of music equals
weakness of character.
There was also a sense of, well, navet in some of the
acerbic commentstake for example Holloways statement schmoozing (as Ritchie politely calls it; I have
another name for it) Well, I too have another name for
it: networking. It is a simple fact of a professional composers life that they must make and keep contacts with
everyone involved in the business. Perhaps a composer
who expects to go directly into university instruction
and grant-driven commissions as a way of life can disregard this step.* But a composer who feeds his children and
pays his mortgage with his earnings writing works for the
concert hall, stage, screen, and dance floor probably has a
vast network of friends and colleagues, many of whom are
strong supporters of his efforts. To suggest that there is
anything unseemly about cultivating these relationships
is simply ignorant.
Holloway expresses fear at Ritchies vision of a diverse
raft of composers with the popularity and profile of Farr &
*But of course we know that they cantthere is yet another
category of contacts to maintain.

Psathas. Yet he seems to see nothing chilling in his own

conclusion, that when freelance composing perpetuates a
cycle in which opportunities are only given to those that
indulge in musical sycophancy, it should not be encouraged. What I would like to know is, who decides what is
musical sycophancy? Is Holloway suggesting that there
be an arbiter of musical taste, that determines who will
get the next commission from NZSO or Footnote Dance?
Is he suggesting that support from New Zealand composer
institutions be withdrawn from freelancers whose efforts
are too commercial, or that composition students not be
allowed to study big band charts or film composition? How
far does not encouraging go?
I was more than a little disturbed by the consensus
amongst all three composers that a composers freedom
of self-expression is more important than an audiences
needs. With all due respect to my colleagues, especially
Anthony whom I admire greatly as a composer and educator, this statement is simply not in touch with the facts
of show business. Perhaps on some theoretical plane, you
might argue that the composer is the paramount artistic
current in concert music. But in the practical world, the
composer had better get ready for a reality check. Orchestras dont need us. They are struggling desperately to stay
afloat, and the last thing they want to hear is that the composition is more important than attendance. Find a composer amongst those who have had over twenty hours of
orchestral music performed, and ask them how often their
personal needs were placed higher than those of the paying
audience of a professional orchestra.
As one of that number, I find that my own self-expression
is constantly being asked to shape itself to the needs of the
performers, and through them, their audience. This process seems so fundamental that I am astonished that there
should be anything controversial about it. Oddly enough,
many composers who are regarded today with reverence
for their originality, such as J.S. Bach and Stravinsky, were
exceptionally involved in this same way of working. If they
could come up with something brilliant within those supposed limitations, why cant we? Are we really so precious?
Must every premiere be a testament to our genius? God, I
hope not!
In short, we are selfish. We always want it both waysto
write whatever we like, and then to be indulged in our quest
for recognition. And we are encouraged in this delusion by
the sense of entitlement thats programmed into us: that
the concertgoer that has been carefully cultivated by centuries of hard work by music institutions is automatically
our property upon receiving a degree in composition; that
we naturally deserve a piece of that pie as part of our birthright. Paradoxically, those of us who do become successful
with that audience are naturally suspected of selling out.
Is it in any way possible that those who are doing well right
now earned their place honestly, by writing works that
were needed by the institutions that commissioned them?

CANZONA2007 | 85

And that the audience that reacted with enthusiasm did so

because it felt inspired by what it heard?
Lets be honest about it: this is a small (and beautiful)
country, with extraordinarily rich resources of creativity
and ingenuity. There are at least four regional orchestras,
and one national symphony. While all arts organizations
are struggling, many are surviving and programming new
music as well. There is an abundance of opportunity to
collaborate and find a voice for even a more moderately
motivated composer. Nevertheless, I believe the scene
might burst with exhaustion were it to attempt to provide
more than a small handful of composers with the notoriety
that has been the due of John and Gareth. Society itself
would have to change, and we as a group are not the ones
to change it if we are still arguing over whether we exist for
the audiences benefit, or vice-versa.
In closing, I would like to take issue with the notion
that there is a line between audience and composer. No,
composers are part of the audience. We saturate ourselves
with music, listening, attending concerts, sharing ideas,
and providing part of the mass that supports the art of performance. The moment that we step away from that simple
truth and pretend that we are the anointed gatekeepers of
some special mystery, is the moment that we toss away our
unity with the audience, and often shirk the sacred duty
thrust upon us by our talent: to entertain and delight. And
if we are very lucky, to uplift and enlighten our comrades in
n
this passion we call music.
I passed on Thomass response to Alexandra and Samuel to
respond to, and received the following responses (Ed.):

FROM ALEXANDRA HAY

I have decided at this point not to respond other than to say
that Im glad Thomas felt strongly, and that he wrote, and
that he took the opportunity to reflect on his practice as a
working composer. What I began to realise while reading his response was that I feel this apparently healthy
debate actually distracts from the real burning issues.
Why, for example, is arts funding so unevenly distributed?
Why does the Arts Council pay you to leave the country
more readily than they pay you to stay? Why is there no
standardisation or certification process for itinerant music teachers? What does this mean for music education in
this country? Why will the NZSO and NZ Opera never be
challenged, recession or no recession? Why is their funding only notionally contingent on any new New Zealand
music being programmed? Why are there are so few quality New Zealand music events in the NEW ZEALAND international arts festival? Even better, we could talk about
what we are actually writing, and why its so important to
us. To summarise: I could spend time penning a lengthy
n
response, but Ive got music to compose.

86 | CANZONA2007

FROM SAMUEL HOLLOWAY

My original response to Anthony Ritchie was a reaction to
his claim that one of the most pressing issues facing New
Zealand composers at present is getting more performances and recordings of their work, and to his ideas for addressing this. Contrary to Thomas Gosss claim, I accepted
the validity of Ritchies practical suggestions insofar as
they might help a composer to secure more performances
and recordings, and to increase her or his reputation; but I
rejected the notion that popularity and profile are of central importance.
In my response, I outlined a vision that values a diverse
range of work, composed for more reason than to get more
performances, commissions, etc. This was in contrast to
Ritchies vision, which places the public and what they
like (both wanting definition) at the centre of composition,
and which focuses on composing as a career. My response
acknowledged the basis for Ritchies comments, but found
them unsatisfactory as advice for young composers.
In claiming that Alexandra and I reacted to non-existent
concerns, Goss ignores the wider implications of Ritchies
cautious proposal (Gosss expression). That Ritchie avoids
using the words market or consumer does not alter the
fact that his approach is essentially market-oriented. Goss
ostensibly endorses the approach (his term networking
is straight out of the marketers handbook), and he makes
some of the ideas presented by Ritchie more explicit. For
Goss, composition is show business and its main purpose
to entertain and delight the paying audience.
There are some remarkable assertions in Gosss response. When he says that we always want it both ways
to write whatever we like, and then to be indulged in our
quest for recognition, for whom does he speak? Somewhat
ironically, Goss seems to be shadowboxing throughout.
Included in his response is a dressing down of composers
who have lifestyles in which creation is less constrained by
economic demands, and by which they can avoid compromising their artistic ideals and impulses. Surely, instead of
condescending to this other type of working composer,
we should recognize the benefits of the way of being and
should encourage others to consider it for themselves.
I recognise that New Zealand composers write music
for a variety of reasons, including to feed their children and
to pay their mortgages; however, I continue to find myself
considerably more interested by the work of composers
who arent attempting to satisfy the needs or desires presumed of the public. Where composers encourage listeners to experience actively is where the most interesting art
takes place. And that, at the end of the day, is what is really
n
important.