Call for Scores Winners (process and other info)

2010 Dana Wilson (NY, USA)  Howling at the Moon

2009 Massimo Lauricella (Italy)  Eco di un tempo perduto

 

Because the members of RAM are all composers themselves, and we have each received our own share of rejection letters, we understand how disappointed all the non-winning applicants are. It is our experience that receiving a “form” rejection letter from a committee is often the most disappointing and frustrating aspect of participating in a contest or call for scores. With this in mind, we’re posting information about our process so that our applicants can know more about why their pieces may or may not have been selected.

 

For each call, RAM receives hundreds of works from composers across the globe. In the first round of judging, every submitted work is examined by at least two judges. These judges are all composer-members of RAM:

 

David Fetherolf (New Works and Premieres Editor, Schirmer Music Publishing)

Jonathan Pieslak (Professor of Theory and Composition, City College at City University of New York)

Erin Rogers (Editor, Peer/Southern Music Publishing)

Allen Schulz (consulting Editor, Schirmer Music)

Stefan Weisman (Instructor of Theory and Music Composition, City University of New York)

Andrew McKenna Lee (Composer and Guitarist)

 

Judges meet in small groups, assign a marker to each submission, and then open each submission. Each team of judges examines the scores. Some scores are disqualified before examination for various reasons. The reasons for disqualification are based on our printed guidelines for submission. The following disqualifications have occured:

• instrumentation outside the guidelines (substituting a piccolo for a flute, for example)
• length (some submissions were almost twice as long as the guidelines stipulated)
• notation (some works, for example, had extended techniques that were notated with non-standard notations, but those notations were not explained–the problem is both in judging the quality of the composition and also that such problems will waste the ensemble’s precious rehearsal time)

We recommend that all composers read the guidelines for submissions very closely. Do not submit works that do not fit the guidelines. It only annoys the judges and wastes your time and effort. While it is tempting to think that small things like replacing the piano with a celesta is no big deal compositionally, it is a big deal practically. What if our pianist doesn’t own a celesta? The cost of renting a celesta is no small matter. The problem of transporting the celesta to rehearsal locations causes problems, too. If you’re submitting a score to a group with vast financial and organizational resources, this is probably a picayune problem. But, most ensembles are usually cash-strapped, and they’re doing a call for scores, because they love new music and want to promote contemporary composers. This is a matter that is often over-looked or completely ingored by inexperienced and young composers who are used to working in an academic setting where resources to perform (new) music are substantially greater than in most non-academic settings.

 

If your work is too long to fit the suggested guidelines, please do not submit the piece with a note saying that the judges may cut certain sections or movements. Again, this only annoys the judges. How is a judge supposed to know which section to cut or movement to omit? If such revisions to your work are possible, then create a score that omits the sections you find acceptable to cut and then submit that score. Typically, a judge can only spend 10-15 minutes examining your score when he orshe has 120 other scores to go through, too. If the judge is spending 10 minutes to figure out which movement he or she thinks outght to be cut to make the work fit the guidelines, that’s 10 minutes the judge is not using to examine the artistic quality of the work. It’s not worth the judge’s time. And, even if the judge does decide to give your work a full appraisal after deciding which movement/section to cut, the composer has created a situation where the judge is pre-disposed to have negative feelings about the work.

 

Remember that the judges’ task of selecting a winner is difficult. They will likely spend many hours selecting works and listening and examining printed scores. Scores should be clean, legible, and well-edited. Some notation software does not add cautionary accidentals by default, for example. While this is not typically a problem that would hurt a submission, it is highly likely that the 3 or 4 minutes spent by a judge trying to figure out a set of pitches means that he or she will spend 3 or 4 fewer minutes examining the whole of your work. (And will probably be looking for more pitch “problems” than actually reading your work!)

 

After examining all the scores, each team of judges culls the field down to their favorite submissions. These submissions are then given further examination and are discussed. Each team of judges then chooses two or three works to submit to the entire panel of judges. These “finalists” are then judged by the entire panel. All submissions remain anonymous throughout this entire process.

 

 

Finalists remain anonymous and are ranked in order of preference by each individual judge. A first place ranking receiving one point, second place receiving two points, and so on. The points are totaled, and the work with the lowest score is the winner. Only at that time do we reveal the name and origin of the composer.

 

The members of RAM are proud to offer a chance for so many composers to share their works with their peers and colleagues.

 

Thank you all for your submissions

 

David Fetherolf

Jonathan Pieslak

Erin Rogers

Manly Romero

Allen Schulz

Stefan Weisman

Andrew McKenna Lee