David Dean Mendoza

Recently I have seen a disturbing trend in academia.  There have been and continue to be composers of little talent or skill getting accepted into PhD and DMA programs.  Not only do they get in, but some have gotten full funding.  What is the criteria of calling these composers talent-less or unqualified? 

First, they do nothave many works.  By many, I mean,some only have three.  Anything fewer than ten is worrisome in my opinion.  Through the bachelors and masters degree program, only to have three or four works hardly qualifies anyone as being a composer worthy of advancement.  Also, many do not belong to any sort of composer organization.  Some do not even perform their own music in any way to say nothing of their teaching ability.  What will happen to these composers?  Do they really get jobs?  Will they have access to resources that more talented composers wish they had?  Probably yes, but will they know what to do with them?  They probably will not.  It shocks me to think how talent-less even Ivy League composers are. 

The only reason I can think of explaining these unjust actions is politics.  Yes, sad but true.  I call them unjust because many well-qualified composers apply to Ivy League schools, and don’t get in.  It’s not a matter of not being qualified,but rather a matter of not impressing the right people, or writing the “right kind of music” Still, I am confident, and optimistic that good composers will raise to the top no matter how difficult the road may be.  Good music is good music no matter what the circumstances.  With technology the playing field is level to some degree, and no matter what academia does,you can’t put lipstick on a pig. 

Tom Service explains perfectly in his article So long, and thanks for all the noise: 2010 and the end of musical history.  But, while I agree with Milton Babbit's idea presented in Who Cares if You Listen, I also agree with Service's opionins as well.

Poor composers. They're damned to prestigious but virtually assured anonymity if they succeed within the rules of the club – whichever particular compositional club they belong to – and they're damned to exclusion from the game if they try and do anything genuinely different and shocking for their respective style-police.

Every composer is indebted, somewhere along the line, to the establishment, to systems of organised cultural power. And accepting their money as your lifeblood somewhat pollutes any notions of idealistic purity.

Universities have their part to play too, in giving jobs that allow composers to compose for themselves – and if their students and their communities are lucky, for them too. Things aren't as bad here as they are in America, where contemporary music is a ghettoised competition for tenure, and where there's no pretence to even try to make 'new music' appeal to a wider cross-section of the population than a coterie of students and professors – that's Milton Babbitt's dream come true, for those of you who have read his notorious article, 'who cares if you listen?' (even if the title wasn't his!) – which basically says that only an elite can understand this stuff, so only an elite will ever be able to access it, so it doesn't matter if nobody else hears it apart from your doctoral students and fellow professors.

None of which makes it exactly an attractive proposition, being a young composer. One thing is for sure: the old model of getting a high-profile commission from a leading orchestra or ensemble, getting a few good reviews, maybe even a recording, and then a publisher to look after your interests in perpetuity – makes no sense at all any more. Publishers are struggling with the transition from being bearers of the printed score to owners and negotiators of composers' rights and intellectual property, and the idea of achieving notoriety or even fame through a well-placed commission is well-high impossible any more.

Things are chainging for sure.