“How much?” A guide for commissioners and composers

Posted on by

How much? A guide for commissioners and composers

I am often asked how much a commissioner should expect to pay a composer for a new piece of music.

For example, a recent email:

“Dear Matthew,

I was wondering if you happened to have a copy of the current Australia Council suggested commissioning rates?  I am looking at launching a Commissioning Project for our Centenary and need to pull together a budget for the Executive.”

A few of things about this. First (& most important) it’s wonderful that this organization wants to commission new music to commemorate their centenary. There are many reasons as to why this is a good thing – though of course I would say that.

Second, there is the reference to the “Australia Council suggested commissioning rates.” Back in the day, the Music Board of the Australia Council for the Arts had a guideline of what composers should charge per minute of music. This was dependent upon how many ‘lines’ of music were used in the piece. So a string quartet would have 4 lines, and an orchestra might have 24 lines. More lines = higher rate per minute.

There are problems with this, particularly that it was largely irrelevant to genres of music outside the Classical/Art Music and Jazz idioms – and even then, the improvisation side of things was problematic. Also, it was a pretty blunt instrument in terms of who it was targeting. For some composers, the rates were too low. For others, they were very generous.

So during my time as the Chair of the Music Board, the suggested rates moved from being a quasi-Award Rate to instead the maximum amount that the Australia Council would contribute towards a grant application.

In other words, the “Australia Council suggested commissioning rates” ceased to exist some years ago. Any rates that are published or available are now often misunderstood as to their purpose because of this history.

Third, as my colleague Paul Stanhope has rightly pointed out, there are many reasons for a composer writing a piece: the money on offer isn’t necessarily going to be the driving force. The artistic rationale is often even more important. What a good thing!

So where are we at today?

The rule is that everything is up for negotiation. This is a good thing in my opinion.

In lieu of any other further concrete information, here are my suggestions.

The rate for a commission is dependent on several factors:

  1. The status and experience of the composer in question;
  2. What they are asked to write for, i.e. the complexity or otherwise of the brief;
  3. The financial resources of the commissioner;
  4. How much the composer needs the money;
  5. The interest of the composer in writing the proposed piece of music in question and/or how available they are, together with what is on offer beyond writing the piece itself.

The status and experience of the composer.

There are three main categories for consideration.

Premium composers. These are very established composers who are regularly commissioned, performed and recorded by the best and most prestigious music organizations in the country and internationally. They may have an international publisher.  They may be the rarest of breed: a freelance composer, though more likely, like everyone else these days, have a portfolio career. Typically they are booked up a few years in advance.

The starting point for these composers I would estimate at about $2000 a minute.  They have a lot more competition for their limited time, and/or they are doing it for their living in a lot of cases.  There is little point haggling for less than this unless they want to do you a favour. The idea is that there will be prestige for you in commissioning them. Such commissions in theory have a better chance of having a ‘life’ (repeat performances) due to the track record of the composer.

The $2000/minute of music figure probably won’t vary that much despite the size of the ensemble and/or size of the ensemble for whom it’s being written. For less you might get an arrangement of an existing piece, which isn’t a bad thing in itself.

Established composers. These are again composers who are regularly commissioned, performed and recorded by high standard music ensembles, though possibly not as often. They probably will not have as much work booked into the future as the Premium composers – meaning that there may be increased availability, though very often pretty busy.

I would budget for around $1000/minute in general.  There is room for negotiation here. Start at the $1000/minute and work up or down.  These composers may well be very busy doing a range of things but may have time here and there, and/or university jobs meaning that they are willing to do something they are interested in for a bit less.

Emerging composers. The Australia Council defines an emerging artist as someone in their first 5 years of professional practice. This doesn’t work for composers as it typically takes a great deal longer to become established. I would state that composers who aren’t regularly commissioned or performed by the top-notch ensembles would fall into this category, and typically they may be in the process of developing a personal and distinctively recognizable style or voice at this stage.

Here I would suggest between $200/minute (for someone still at or just out of Uni) to about $500/minute.  The size of the ensemble here will make a big difference.

You don’t want to rip such composers off. However in reality, they need you more than you need them. The prestige of a commission, the standard of performers and the potential audience listening to the performance matters a great deal here in terms of the negotiations. And hence there may be flexibility.

What they are asked to write for, and the complexity of the brief

It stands to reason that a 90 minute chamber opera with multiple collaborators should demand a lot more money than a 10 minute vocal sextet. A desire by the commissioner or composer to approach new forms of music making, to extend the discipline, to write a piece that could be seen as falling within the string quartet canon, for example, may require a lot more time, effort and brain power than a miniature to celebrate a birthday. And hence more money.

(Note that the added complexity will NOT ensure a higher standard piece. In fact, often quite the opposite.)

The financial resources of the commissioner

There are corporate organizations who don’t sneeze at spending $100k on their end of year Christmas functions. There are others who sell raffle tickets to raise money for new commissions.

If an organization can’t afford the going rate for a composer, they can negotiate, but if they can’t afford it in the end, there are many other composers who may be able to do it. And do a good job.

Note that if the commission is tax deductible, some commissioners are much more inclined to take it on, particularly if it they are in the top tax bracket.

How much the composer needs the money

Supply and demand works here too, just as in every other field of endeavor.

The interest of the composer in writing the piece of music

When I needed a roof repair done, it was fairly obvious that the roofing contractor giving a quote wasn’t that interested in doing the job, as he quoted $12000 for something that would take 2 days.

A composer’s interest in doing a commission can be piqued further by raising the commission rate – especially if he or she is busy. A higher commission rate may result in other commissions being delayed to make way for this one.

The performers, recordings and so forth aligned to the commission will affect the willingness of the composer to take it on. I ensure that all my commissions will be recorded, and I will be furnished a copy of the recording. Otherwise there is little point in me spending months writing it.

A composer may be particularly interested in writing for a particular ensemble. For example, I am always down to write new works for string instruments, even if the money on offer isn’t what I would usually charge.

It is often worth the commissioner discussing with the composer what sort of piece the composer wants to write, rather than come with a pre-conceived idea. Personally I find this more challenging, preferring more information and restrictions up front – the more parameters are given, the easier the piece is to write! But composers vary in this regard.

Additional costs

The commission fee to the composer isn’t necessarily the end of the matter. Typically, the following should be budgeted for:

Production of parts

For a large ensemble such as an orchestra or wind symphony, someone has to prepare the parts. It could be the composer or it could be someone else. Then they have to be manufactured. This can cost a fair amount of money.

Hire fees

It is usual for some published works to be hired out to performers. Performers pay a set rate per performance. This may or may not include the commissioned work’s premiere. In the UK, commissioners pay double the standard hire fees for the privilege of giving the premiere performance, in addition to the commission fee for the music itself. This is much more negotiable in Australia, in general. Often the hire fees are included in the commission.

Attending rehearsals, giving workshops etc.

Some composers want to be paid for attending rehearsals and performances of their music. Some don’t want to be. There may be costs involved. It is a good thing to get the composer to the work’s premiere if possible, and thus pay airfare and accommodation costs if they are not local, and particularly if it is a prestigious commission. These should be negotiated.

For educational institutions such as schools, composers should be paid if they are giving workshops to students or the like, just as any teacher is paid for doing so.

Negotiating

It may be tempting to ‘go in hard’, and try to get a bargain rate for a commission.

In most cases, this is false economy. There is little value in the end in not paying the composer what they’re worth. I have heard the results of this first-hand, in a situation in which a composer was insulted by the amount offered, decided to do it anyway and obviously tossed off the quickest piece they possibly could to fulfill the brief. No-one wins in this situation. Certainly not the audience or the commissioner. It is highly unlikely that pieces such as this will go on to have a life beyond the first performance.

So what do I charge?

Contact me and find out. 🙂

 

See also the following articles:

https://partialdurations.com/2015/06/01/how-much-does-it-cost-a-guide-to-commissioning-new-music-in-australia/

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/01/06/1073268021582.html

http://www.newmusicbox.org/articles/commissioning-music-and-stuff/

The 5 Cs of (arts) grant applications

Posted on by

GrantApplicationDummyImage1

From 2009-2013, in my role as Chair of the Music Board of the Australia Council for the Arts, I assessed over 2000 grant applications. This included reading thousands of pages and listening to countless hours of support materials – which was a rare privilege, and extremely illuminating re. the vast range of musical activity occurring around Australia.

Based on this experience, many people have asked general advice as to how to write grant applications. There is no magic bullet. However, the following points should be borne in mind: what I call the “5 Cs”.

  1.  Clear

Ensure that your written text is to the point. The entire proposal should be easily understandable to a musician from a genre or background unrelated to your own. Or even better, to a member of the general public. Avoid technical jargon as much as possible. If assessors can’t understand the written application, will they be likely to support your project in the meeting?

  1. Concise

There is nothing wrong with information presented in a matter-of-fact, readable manner. More words does not equal a better application.

I recall one round that had 1200+ pages of applications to read. In addition there were hours and hours of support material to listen to. So: avoid waffle – assessors may not have time to appreciate it.

  1. Comprehensive

As an assessor, it’s pretty easy to tell a project that is well considered and of an overall excellent (i.e. fundable) standard. It will typically be achievable rather than speculative. All information necessary to make the project achievable will be included. If there are parts of the application that are vague and/or missing, it’s not helpful to the proposal’s chances.

It is worth trying to imagine the sort of questions you would have about a project if you were an assessor: for example, “who is going to do the arrangement of the string parts”, “who are these ‘Musicians TBC’ and how do we know they will be of an excellent standard”, “what is the recording venue for the project and why is it a good choice for this proposal.”

Budgets are a good way to ensure that you have covered all relevant details necessary for the project to be viable. (And they should be balanced).

Confirmations are important. While it’s often difficult to have venues, artists etc. confirmed when the application is due, another application in the same round probably will. So they will score higher on the Planning criteria, thereby putting your application at a disadvantage. And therefore you will be less likely to be funded.

  1. Criteria

The criteria are always published prior to the grant round closing. Peers are instructed in and before the meeting to assess applications according to the criteria. So, in essence, the funding body is telling you what they are looking for.

Ensure that your application addresses the criteria in a clear and convincing manner. There is no harm in being obvious in this. Use the other questions in the grant application to address the criteria. For example, if you are asked to name the artists you are working with, and one of the assessment criteria is “Quality of key personnel”, explain why these artists are the best people for the project in addition to saying who they are.

(And in case you were wondering, “quality of written expression in application” was never on the list of criteria. So we never funded an application on the English language skills of the applicant.)

  1. Convincing

Typically, grant rounds will be extraordinarily competitive. You may have a fantastic project being proposed – but so will the majority of other applicants. So it is worth making the value of your proposal obvious and explicit. Why is this project worth funding? What is valuable about the proposal in the broader context? (i.e. beyond that you want to do it). Modesty is not necessarily a virtue in grant applications.

If something you are applying for is extremely important, convince the assessors that it is so. Otherwise they will fund something else.

And don’t presume that all assessors will automatically be familiar with the importance of the proposal you are submitting, nor with your history. Don’t take anything for granted.

 

There are a lot of other suggestions I could make:

  • this is hugely important – ensure that your support material is of the highest quality and is relevant to the proposal;
  • talk through the application with the staff prior to submission to ensure it’s all going to be fundable according to published guidelines;
  • see what has been funded in the past including amounts funded;
  • register to be a peer so you can have first hand-experience of what happens in assessment meetings, and get personal experience of the process (and other applications);
  • if not successful the first time, try again after taking any feedback into account and changing the application if necessary.

Please note: these opinions are purely my own, and do not represent any sort of official Australia Council policy or official direction on how to write grant applications.

Thank you, Peter Sculthorpe (1929-2014)

Posted on by

Peter Sculthorpe was my teacher, mentor and friend since I started learning with him in 1987. In addition he is without doubt one of the most original and unique composers that Australia has ever had. The following is the text of a speech given at him memorial service at the Sydney Conservatorium of Music, 29 October 2014.

Just like so many attendees here tonight, I got to know Peter via being a student at the Music Department at the University of Sydney. As a young high school student I took the leap into the risky unknown – taking a music degree rather than computer science in my case – and when deciding where to go, the achievements of Peter Sculthorpe, combined with the reputation of the University of Sydney, made the choice pretty clear.

I imagine that this progression into the world of music was pretty typical for the majority of my fellow students who studied with Peter.

And I’m sure that for this majority, their time with Peter similarly changed their life, for the better.

As a teacher, Peter was so much more than a ‘do this, do that’, technical sort of person. He wasn’t shy to give advice and suggestions when needed, but much of the time, lessons with Peter were wide-ranging discussions on an immense variety of topics, on everything from music and culture, to Australian and international society, through to the workings of his brother’s gun shop.

What Peter was really doing for us in our interactions was setting up a framework. He was setting out for us what it was like to be a composer, not just thinking about the notes on the page. It was the framework of responsibility that we had as budding and emerging artists to Australian, and artistic, cultures.

It may seem self-evident in retrospect, but Peter was showing us that, just like almost everything in life, when it comes to writing music, having both a brain AND a heart is the most important thing. It is about being honest and true to oneself. It is about demonstrating respect and a desire to understand the work of others, even if it comes from places or approaches that initially seemed strange. It is inherently about recognizing honesty.

Back in the 80s and 90s, we need to remember that this was a somewhat radical response. My own recollections at the time were that continuing the latest musical trends from Europe, for example, were what was important, and anything else was old hat, or not worth consideration.

Peter’s desire was not for us to blindly follow trends or aesthetics, but instead to find what was in ourselves. To find our own unique voice, and to develop our skills to allow this uniqueness to flourish and find our own place in the world.

Don’t just do something because it’s trendy, or the ‘done thing’ – do everything because it’s important to you, because it comes from your heart, find your own way.

What an important lesson this was. It is THE most important lesson of all.

I know I wasn’t alone in receiving such generous and optimistic advice from Peter. How do I know this? Well, it’s all around us.

Australian music now, I believe, in a better place than ever before. Certainly the standard of works by Australian composers is consistently outstanding. Australian performers play increasing amounts of Australian music. OUR music. Audiences, both in Australia and internationally, are responding to Australian music. It is intrinsically linked to an increased sense of self-confidence about our unique place in the world: that, musically at least, we are not an outpost of Old Europe or a little cousin to the USA – unless we want to be.

Peter is intrinsic to this. Not just through the music, but in his influence, his foresight, his generosity and wisdom that has been taken up by so many with whom he came into contact. For example, arts organizations like the Australia Council, ABC Classic FM, the symphony orchestras and Musica Viva Australia all bear marks of his indelible influence, even if he wasn’t immediately associated with them – because of his vast range of students and Peter’s philosophy.

And not just organizations associated with Western classical music. When discussing my interest in electronic dance music with Peter, he was really excited and talked about how he would love to make a techno piece one day. What a surprise! But not really. As Peter said, there is room enough for all of us in Australia, and for a generosity of spirit and approach.

Can we imagine a successful musical Australia without that which Peter Sculthorpe brought to it? No, it’s pretty much inconceivable – it would be just so different.

Peter was indeed a musical giant – not just through his own music, but on the effects he had upon others. It will continue to resonate into the future. On behalf of all your past students, Peter, and all of those Australian composers still to come, I salute you.

Photo of Peter and I, ca. 2008, by Adrienne Sach.

Photo of Peter and I, ca. 2008, by Adrienne Sach.