| 85CANZONA2007
FROM THOMAS GOSS
2006 Canzonas Hot Topic presented a cautious pro-posal 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 sad-dened
at the personal nature of a few of the retorts, direct-ed 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 argu-ments 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-exist-ent 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 quota-tion marks, though, nowhere
does Ritchie place a compar-ative 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 accu-rately and
systematically addressed. This is very close to an ad hominem
argument, if we take it as a given that Hol-loway 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 state-ment 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 com-posers 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 disre-gard 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 &
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 encour-aged. 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 edu-cator, 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. Orches-tras dont need us. They are
struggling desperately to stay afloat, and the last thing they want
to hear is that the com-position is more important than attendance.
Find a com-poser 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 proc-ess 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 sup-posed 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 cen-turies 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 birth-right. 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?
*But of course we know that they cantthere is yet another
category of contacts to maintain.
86 | CANZONA2007
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 per-formance. 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 this
passion we call music. n
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 read-ing 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 mu-sic
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 fund-ing only notionally contingent on any
new New Zealand music being programmed? Why are there are so few
qual-ity New Zealand music events in the NEW ZEALAND in-ternational
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 response, but Ive got music to
compose. n
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 perform-ances and recordings
of their work, and to his ideas for ad-dressing 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
cen-tral 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 re-sponse. When he
says that we always want it both waysto 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 compro-mising 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 pre-sumed of the public. Where composers
encourage listen-ers to experience actively is where the most
interesting art takes place. And that, at the end of the day, is
what is really important. n
