Commissioning in the 90's: Comsortiums
by Dr. Robert J. Frank
Composer,
Central Washington University
Ellensburg, WA
How many times have you heard someone tell you that he or she would love to commission a new work from you, but doesn't have the money? Since artists of all types are usually in the same economic boat, this is more common than not. Tightening university budgets are reducing the amount of faculty research grants, which in many cases no longer cover the full cost of a commission. Charitable grants are rarely awarded to composers for commissions from individuals, and the NEA, regardless of it's survival, has eliminated this practice for composers altogether. Recent economic trends seem to indicate that this won't get any better soon. So how can composers continue to make a living writing music for performers who want to play it?
While one person may not be able to come up with $2,500, there is a much better chance that five people could each come up with $500, or find someone who could. If several performers/organizations all wish to commission the same composer, foundations and agencies are usually more likely to provide matching support. This philosophy is becoming more common both at the individual and organizational level. In an age of mega-mergers and multinational conglomerates, where success is measured on a scale of millions, the arts are following the survival plan of corporate America: pooling of resources. A recent article (Chester Lake, "Consorting for New Music." Symphony, Jan/Feb. 1996) reports that more and more orchestras are forming consortiums to commission new works, as evidenced by the final round of "Meet the Composer" commissions. The recent change in the Barlow Foundation Award to a commission by a consortium of performing ensembles also following this trend. Consortiums benefit both performers and the composer. Performers are able to commission a work that they would otherwise be unable to afford; the composer gets several performances in different geographic areas by different performers.
There are, however, some daunting problems that face the instigating composer/performer in setting up a consortium. The first is coming up with enough other performers willing to chip in to support the composer during the time needed to write the work. Here is where both the composer and the performer need to identify and approach prospective members. If too many performers are in the same geographic area, the effectiveness of a "premiere" is lost. Tapes of other works by the composer can help the prospective consortium members decide if they want to be a part of the project, but enthusiasm is perhaps the greatest factor. When people are excited about a project, others will want to be a part of it. One person needs to act as the chair, coordinating the paperwork and scheduling of performances. Who gets the first performance? Who writes the check? To whom do you apply for additional funds? These are matters that one person needs to be accountable for, or else the project may never move forward.
This is the point where a Catch-22 exists: foundations, organizations, corporations, and charitable individuals can and do often provide support for the commissioning of new music, but only receive tax benefits from donations to non-profit organizations. Very few groups or individuals will write a check to an individual performer or composer. So composers are often forced to incorporate as a professional non-profit organization or to direct their funds through an existing non-profit organization to obtain the grants and funding. Incorporating requires a good deal of research, cost and time, and for single projects is not practical. Assisting in the commissioning of new works should be a vital function of all performer and composer organizations, since it not only provides a service to the members but also identifies groups most likely to contribute additional funds in later campaigns. Writing a clear proposal of the project, indicating the budget, dates and schedules, and submitting it to the organization will increase chances for success. Vague proposals get vague results.
A commissioning agreement is a necessity. Ask any experienced composer and you will most likely hear horror stories about "orally commissioned" works that were never performed or paid for. In addition to the commission, the agreement should include other composer costs: copying, personal appearances, and travel expenses for the premiere. It should also specify who is involved in the consortium, how much each member is responsible for financially, when payment(s) will be made, when the work will be completed and delivered, and a window of time during which each member will give the work the required number of performances. The agreement should outline what rights are granted the perform-ers and supporting contributors, (first performance, credit on all future scores, published or not, etc.) and should include a statement reserving all non-specified rights to the composer. Even among friends, a written agreement will clarify possible misunderstandings and reaffirm the commitment of each member. It also provides performers with a physical realization of the commission until the final music arrives to help them feel that they really will be getting something for the money they are investing.
For performers, patrons and composers alike this can also be an exciting event: the first commission of a new work! This is the attitude to which composer's should approach prosepctive performers and commissioners. Commissioning new music is a one of the best ways someone can affect contribute and directly shape the future of music.
copyright (c) 1996 by Robert J. Frank
