Is your music diverse enough for Oxford to publish
NewsNew guidelines have been issued by the unblinkingly woke Oxford University Press:
Sheet Music Submissions
Oxford University Press is one of the longest-established and most respected music publishers in the world, with a distinguished heritage that began in 1923. Eminent composers published in those early days included William Walton, Ralph Vaughan Williams, and Constant Lambert. Today, OUP builds on this and is proud to publish world-renowned composers including Bob Chilcott, Gabriel Jackson, Cecilia McDowall, Sarah Quartel, John Rutter, Howard Skempton, and Mack Wilberg.
We publish quality music that educates, that inspires, that has a global voice and that brings communities together. It is our role as a publisher to share that music widely, enabling it to be performed by musicians and heard by audiences around the world.
Oxford University Press is committed to promoting and maintaining a culture of equality, diversity, and inclusion, and acting upon issues of diversity and inclusion is vitally important to fulfilling our mission. We recognize that many groups are currently under-represented in our music catalogue, and we are committed to changing and rapidly improving this through future publishing. As part of this commitment, we are currently accepting submissions from composers who:
• live with a disability; and/or
• are women; and/or
• identify on the broader spectrum of gender; and/or
• are from under-represented ethnic groups; and/or
• are from a lower socio-economic group
We encourage composers from these groups to submit their music for review
“identify on the broader spectrum of gender”
Eh..?
One of the great scams of progressive ideology. Just remember that in 2000 years when archaeologists dig up your body, you’re either male or female.
Ah yes, when we dug up the dinosaur bones we knew immediately that they were male or female
When you hear the word “Oxford” or “Cambridge” today, expect to be entertained by unintentional Hollywoke comedy.
You seem to be reading in an “only” which is not written. Has OUP explicitly said they are not publishing music by composers not in these categories?
No, but how would OUP know whether previously successful submissions came from composers in these categories anyway? I’m sure they must already be represented, albeit with OUP’s reviewers’ ignorance of said ‘characteristics’.
I’ll identify as a black woman and supply Debussy’s “Le petit nègre”. Given the abysmal lack of talent and intellect in this text I’m pretty sure the oxfordians never heard it and it will make their heads rotate like circus carousel.
“We are currently accepting…” Very strange drafting.
Two possibilities (apologies to Get Smart.)
1. “We may discontinue such acceptance at some point in the future”, or
2. “We are not currently accepting” from outside this list.
Either way indicates discrimination. They should always be accepting from both within and outside this list.
The final sentence gets it right. It is quite appropriate to encourage these groups, but their traditional base should not be driven away.
I guess I should have expected strange drafting from an organisation which has pronounced that ‘literally’ no longer means ‘literally’ literally.
The OED has been, from its inception, a descriptive and prescriptive dictionary. Since most people regularly use “literally” to mean “figuratively”, the OED has no choice but to report that usage.
Have they reported that almost everyone now uses “lay” (properly a transitive verb: “I lay the book down”) to mean “lie” (properly intransitive: “I lie down”)? I’m afraid that they should, since this change in usage is not going to be reversed.
Thank you for writing the only sane comment I see here. As soon as I saw the articles I immediately feared the comments would range from “Eww, trans people!” to “Diversity is evil and a disease,” to “They’re discriminating against white people!” (As they are)
What they are implying is: if you are a white male oxbridge- English-public-school-educated composer, don’t bother to send in your composition. This is discrimination.
How many times do we have to go through this.
A world in which almost all composers you hear are straight white able-bodied men from middle or upper class backgrounds is a world that is selecting by race, gender, class, (dis)ability and sexuality, and not by talent – because that’s the only way you end up with almost all composers sharing a specific list of characteristics.
A world in which anyone is encouraged to submit their music and in which increasingly you hear music by women, people of colour, disabled people and LGBTQ+ people *as well as* those white male etc composers is a world that is (at least trying to) select by talent and not by those certain irrelevant characteristics.
Thank you for having the patience to try to explain this. The problem is that straight white middle-class European men struggling to understand and accept that other people also exist in the world.
Is it discrimination to not invite submissions by the most boring demographic on planet earth?
“We are now accepting submissions from (insert group(s) here)” does not mean “We no longer accept from (insert group(s) here)”
If anything, it implies the opposite: “We are now accepting from..” implies they didn’t before and may not in the future, and/or that they don’t accept on the basis of good music and instead previously accepted from the group you stated exclusively. It does indeed imply discrimination, against the very people to whom they’re half-heartedly trying to award recognition, not against the “white male, public-school educated composer.”
The problem is that this article is framed in a way (and directed to a demographic audience, frankly) that guarantees the reaction “Wokeism strikes again!1!” rather than highlighting the insincerity towards the groups they want (or purport) to help. Your reaction appeals too much to pathos and fails to recognize that these initiatives harm the aforementioned minorities more than “white male[s]”
It’s not “we are now…” but rather “we are currently…”. This implies some temporary aspect to the acceptance.
Furthermore “we are now…” would imply they had not previously been accepting such submissions. That would be an earth-shaking admission.
The statement is very badly drafted. I am convinced that their attempt to encourage such submissions is in all good faith, with no discrimination against the traditional sources, but they have done themselves no favours with the wording.
Apart from the fact that the name of the individual submitting the piece would usually reveal their sex, none of these other characteristics would be evident (unless the composer were already known to the reviewers). I would have though, in any case, that consideration for publication would be ‘blind’, in that only the anonymous score would be examined. (Or is this too much to expect?)
Diversity is the death of everything. That’s what it is. It’s a mind virus that will slowly, but surely, walk through every single thing and destroy it. Reject “inclusion”. Embrace excellence.
“Embrace excellence.”
So if these under represented composers submit “excellent” scores you will graciously support them being published?
Of course! That’s the whole point. What a stupid question. Do you only accept them because they’re not white?
Thank you. I wasn’t entirely clear on your perspective.
More like reject modernity, embrace tradition, am I right?
How about “we welcome excellent compositions, from anyone, anywhere, of any background, and will not discriminate against you on any criteria other than if we think your work is not excellent.”
Because there is historic under-representation to address. A world which *claims* not to discriminate usually does because of unconscious assumptions about superiority.
That’s a great card to play isn’t it? You just go round telling everyone they have unconscious assumptions and no one can disprove it because, er…it’s ‘unconscious’. It’s like the greatest ever insurance policy for the ego against failure.
“….unblinkingly woke” ????
Well, we certainly now know where Norman Lebrecht stands on the political spectrum.
The word “woke” is used (in the US, anyway) by right-wingers to demonstrate their disdain for progressive, scientifically informed, and socially compassionate ideas.
Per the Oxford University Press: “….we are currently accepting submissions from composers who:
• live with a disability; and/or
• are women; and/or
• identify on the broader spectrum of gender; and/or
• are from under-represented ethnic groups; and/or
• are from a lower socio-economic group”.
There is no mention whatsoever of excluding any individuals or groups.
What in heaven’s name would anyone in his/her right mind find problematic with this?
Exactly! Yes, the use of the word ‘woke’ as a term of abuse identifies the writer as a conservative prejudiced against open thinking and an acceptance of others.
And who would object? Anybody who has never come to terms with the idea that straight white men do not have god-given right to rule the world.
Well fine, but what happens to the people who don’t fit in to those criteria? Are OUP saying that no-one else fits in and will not be published? That counts as discrimination, surely….
Why a story about Oxford University Press’ recent activity, and an illustration of the unrelated Merton College a century ago ?
I’d like to hear the music of anyone who can meet ALL five of the criteria.
Exactly. Presumably it must be unimaginably brilliant.
The “and/or”s are unnecessary; “or” would do fine. Nobody would interpret it to mean that if you are both disabled and a woman you don’t qualify.
Mediocrity’s dream – equality of outcome.
Shouldn’t they be accepting based on the quality of the music itself?
If certain groups are under-represented, maybe it’s because so far no one from any of those groups has produced good enough material recently?
On the other hand, it’s not as if disabled composers NEVER make the grade, as it were: one thinks of Maria Theresia von Paradis, Beethoven, Delius, Ray Charles, Stevie Wonder, et al.
Haha, do you think that’s likely? How odd that the majority of music over the centuries has been produced by men, mostly straight white men. Now: is that bias, or is that about the innate superiority of straight white men?
“is that bias, or is that about the innate superiority of straight white men?”
Neither, it’s about the fact that classical music is essentially European, so the consequences are hardly surprising.
The practitioners of traditional Chinese opera are overwhelmingly Chinese. Weird, that.
I recommend, “Why Have There Been No Great Women Artists?,” by Linda Nochlin. She concedes that there largely have not been any but explains it in terms of the lack of opportunity and discrimination they faced. So you might both be right. Composers other than straight white men might not have produced much great music, but that’s not because they are innately inferior.
These aren’t “guidelines”. It’s an invitation.
Perhaps they would have done better to use the phrase “currently welcoming” or “currently receiving”, but reading their “currently accepting” (a pretty standard idiom that does not imply exclusivity) to mean something it doesn’t won’t help anyone.
Oxford University marks its students’ exam scripts anonymously. The intention is to remove/reduce bias for or against any particular individual. Students can submit extenuating circumstances to be taken into consideration. There is a wide range of examples but only the first bulleted item above would qualify – disability. I do not believe the others would be seriously considered.
Why not make all music submissions for publication anonymous? The composition could then be judged on its merits (a pretty risky business anyway).
This bullshit is so tiresome. Encourage and search out excellence.
I identify a a woman with physical disability
desiring to submit for publishing consideration
an Easter chorale, Worthy Is Our Living Savior, for stringed
quartet or orchestra with harp
and an Easter hymn for choir or congregation, By Costly Love,
both with text and music composed by me and arranged
professionally.
I am a resident of Nashville, TN in USA composing in 4 part
harmony for churches which still use organ or piano
hymns and anthems and add orchestra members during
holidays.