It’s an increasingly popular method for improving diversity in music – but sector bodies say anonymised selection is ineffective.
Anonymised selection processes are harming efforts to increase the diversity of composers, a coalition of music organisations says.
The PRS Foundation, disabled musicians’ network Drake Music Scotland, Welsh recording studio Tŷ Cerdd and leading UK concert halls such as Snape Maltings and Sage Gateshead are among the partners on a set of ‘Fair Access Principles’ launched by charity Sound and Music.
Amid an increasing trend towards using blind auditions to improve diversity in orchestras, Sound and Music Co-Head of Artistic Development Hannah Bujic says the opposite is needed for composers.
READ MORE:
“In a blind audition scenario you’re listening for a sound that’s going to blend in with the whole ensemble – you know when you’ve heard it. You’re not selecting them based on where they might be in a year’s time.
“If you’re anonymising all selections it’s making an assumption that all applicants start from the same point,” Bujic told ArtsProfessional.
“It’s not enough as an organisation to say ‘we want to increase the diversity of our composers’ without engaging meaningfully about ways to make that happen.”
The Fair Access Principles, intended as a guide to best practice, also call for the reimbursement of travel expenses for composers and the rotation of selection panellists and chairs to improve the inclusivity of recruitment, competitions and artist development programmes.
Slow progress
While there is only anecdotal evidence to suggest blind selection processes are hampering diversity in composing, statistics about female composers suggests a slow pace of change.
Women represent just 20% of composers globally, men dominate higher education music courses (the gender gap becomes more pronounced with each level of study) and progress towards a 50/50 gender split among working composers has faltered: “We seem to have reached a ceiling there,” Bujic says.
Even if candidates are shortlisted beforehand, the industry is small and individual composers are often recognisable by their styles alone. Bujic called the notion that anonymised selection ensures the best candidate “a spurious argument”.
“It’s impossible to create a level playing field and it’s also impossible to strip out unconscious bias.”
Composer Supriya Nagarajan says diverse applicants will be selected if they’re the best candidates – but they must be given the opportunity in the first place.
Current recruitment and competition practices lock out diverse talent because they prioritise known composers and established sources. Ending anonymised selection is a “necessity,” Nagarajan said.
“The last 10 years haven’t contributed to narrowing the gap – quite the opposite.”
Divided opinion
Joanna Ward is a composer who completed a research dissertation on inclusivity in composing. She says anonymised selection, “by virtue of not taking into account socio-economic factors, maintains the status quo”.
But her research also highlighted a disparity between the views of composers and non-composers working in the music industry. Non-composers were more outspoken in their support for measures to improve diversity, while many composers felt they lacked the expertise or experience to say what changes are needed.
“The prevailing discourse [among composers] is about good music and it is really hard to acknowledge that socio-economic factors are entrenched,” Ward says, noting composers exhibit a “slight fear” of speaking out or causing controversy.
“I think it’s hard, especially for women, to perceive that they are being treated unfairly.”