By now, my readers should know that the one thing I like to do more than write words is write music. At heart, I am a composer. Unfortunately, it’s because I write words that I’m somewhat hamstrung in writing music. Thus, I am a staunch advocate for those composition competitions that are conducted anonymously. Anonymity eliminates any bias the jury might have towards the composer’s identity. The composer’s submitted work is judged on the one thing that matters: its merit.

Because The Spectator Australia is an off-shoot of The Spectator, I thought I might bring attention to one particularly horrifying composition competition currently being run by the London Philharmonic Orchestra (LPO). The LPO, founded in 1932 as the baby of Beecham and Sargent, is one of the world’s greatest orchestras. It is great because its legacy is one of quality and innovation. Its musicians perform to an impeccable standard. Its chief conductors have included Boult, Haitink, Solti, and Tennstedt. It recorded the soundtracks to Laurence of Arabia and Lord of the Rings. It is, by all accounts, a high achievement in the history of Western music.

It is also, I am disgusted to write, run by some truly reprehensible administrators – that is, if the application process for its Young Composers program is anything to judge by. This program offers composers the opportunity to have their music, a new work for chamber orchestra, performed by LPO musicians. Needless to say, I was raring to apply. But, after perusing the information I was required to submit, I resolved that this competition was nothing I wanted to be a part of.

Composition competitions usually require applicants to include scores of previous work, sometimes complemented by recordings or MIDI realisations, as well as some basic biographical information. Applicants are sometimes also asked to respond to certain prompts. How will he, the composer, benefit from the offered opportunity? What kind of piece will he write if his application proves successful? I am far more interested in replying to the first question than I am the second. As far as I can tell, the contemporary program note is largely a crutch for poor composers and lazy audiences.

Occasionally, competitions ask for additional biographic information, for statistical and reporting purposes only. There are those Australian music institutions that revel in declaring, ‘We commissioned this many number of [insert irrelevant identity trait here] composers.’ And those institutions are often required to broadcast such so as to complete the acquittal process of the government-funded grants they were awarded. It really is all very pernicious if, like me, you are a musician who only takes an interest in music.

The LPO’s Young Composers program first raises alarm bells when its application form, which you can view here, states: ‘The assessors may not listen to the entire duration of your works, especially if including longer pieces.’ This clause refers to the two scores of previous work that applicants are required to submit. How assessors can gauge the nuance of a composer’s abilities without totally consuming the work they submit, I don’t know. It’s a big slap in the face. Thousands of hours can be spent by a composer on an orchestral score of worth, and yet the modern judging panel refuses to dedicate more than five minutes of analysis to it. You’ll also notice the emphasis placed on listening to the ‘duration of your works’ – that is, the recording. Once upon a time, the notes on the page were viewed as the better reflection a work’s true craft and style than those performing them. Colleagues assure me that scores are seldom read if juries have the simpler option of an aural analysis.

And then we arrive at the section of the LPO’s form entitled ‘Personal Background’. These are the questions this section asks, all of which are compulsory to answer:

‘Do you have any accessibility, communication, or learning requirements for involvement in any of the activities involved or for the selection process?’

‘Which gender identity do you most identify?’ (8 pre-written answers are offered.) ‘If you prefer to self-describe your gender identity, please do so below.’

‘Which is your age category?’

‘Which is your nationality?’

‘What is your ethnicity?’ (21 pre-written answers are offered, including categories as preposterous as ‘Mixed: White and Black British’.)

‘Which of the following best describes your sexual orientation?’ (5 pre-written answers are offered.) ‘If you prefer to self-describe your gender identity, please do so below.’

‘Do you consider yourself to have a disability, impairment, health condition or learning difference? If yes, please tell us more.’

‘Which statement best describes your family education background?’

‘What type of school did you mainly attend between the ages of 11 and 16?’

And, finally, the kicker:

‘Please think about the parent or other caregiver who was the highest income earner in your house when you were around 14 years old. What kind of work did they do? Please select the closest fit. If this question does not apply to you (because for example, you were in care at this time), you can indicate this below.’

There is no fine print within the application form that states this line of intrusive questioning is merely for statistical or reporting purposes, meaning that, incredibly, something like a parent’s past household income is theoretically being used to determine which composers shall succeed in competitive opportunities and which shall not. This is completely ludicrous.

The LPO should be ashamed of itself, if only for debasing its very proud and respected legacy. All applicants to this competition should have their applications voided, and the competition should issue new forms that require relevant responses only.

Australian artists should condemn this egregious behaviour by our British brethren. We must realise that if we do not begin to defend ourselves against those entrenched, ideologically-motivated bureaucrats who occupy powerful offices within our cultural institutions, this form – which I am relatively confident fails all four of Australia’s antidiscrimination laws – will become the new norm in our own country.

Alexander Voltz is a composer. He is a member of the Liberal Party.

Get 10 issues for just $10

Subscribe to The Spectator Australia today for the next 10 magazine issues, plus full online access, for just $10.

SUBSCRIBE 10 issues for $10 REGISTER 3 articles a month

Already a subscriber? Log in