The state of composing

Reflections on the financial realities of composition, the next steps beyond “emerging”, and building a more equitable sector

written by Ben Lunn, composer

We need a vision that sees us, as an industrial sector, thinking together to shape our sector in a way which allows us to thrive — which in turn would make us a genuine “meritocracy”, and not just a playground for upper classes.

Ben Lunn

“Competitions are for horses,” Bela Bartók famously said. 

This is true, in a sense. Throughout history, the composers we remember and enjoy, we enjoy for the music they write — how it inspires and impacts us — and we rarely care if they were lauded in their lifetime. Similarly, I know many would also point out competitions aren’t necessarily good for the horses either; but that is a separate discussion.

Living nearly a century after Bartók’s assertion, the landscape is quite different for composers. Composers have never really been in a position of wealth — though obviously some individuals have either come from inherited wealth or, through their talents, were lucky to become internationally famous. Around the time the austerity measures of the Tory-Lib-Dem Coalition were introduced, around 2010, I remember as a young student in Wales seeing my tutor, Peter Reynolds, giggling that “these cuts were horrendous — we composers are having to cut £0 by 10%!”.

Arts funding has been in a difficult position for a long period, and pretty much everything I mention impacts all artists — although this article will focus on specifics affecting composers. In real terms, the arts have struggled to increase their funds, and since 2008 arts spending is far below inflation. This combined with the outgoing Keir Starmer’s promise of increasing military spending at the cost of 20,000 infrastructure jobs and a further 1% cut of all government departments, means the scraps composers are fighting over are getting thinner.

Because of this, opportunities for commissions are fewer and further between; and orchestras and ensembles are in the tricky position of greater financial risk, as an unsuccessful commission could cripple an organiser desperate to stay afloat.

This being said, “emerging composer opportunities” still manage to exist. These are vital for a composer’s development to learn skills and to find their feet in the professional sense, free from an educational institution. However, what is becoming increasingly apparent is the number applying for these opportunities are rising — which impacts competition — but also, the individuals fighting for these opportunities in many cases should have progressed further, but lack the opportunities to fully move past “emerging” opportunities, through circumstances outside of their control.

This has a multitude of implications. Firstly, the entry level to these schemes is becoming harder to attain, meaning many young composers graduating from studies simply can’t get in. Secondly, though through no fault of the composers in question, commission opportunities continue to further stagnate — as, from a purely economic point of view, it is cheaper to have five young composers on an emerging opportunity to write ten minutes of music each, than to commission one composer for a fifteen minute work. 

Because this system is so institutionally embedded, it’s no wonder composers have to run the gauntlet in the hope of finally escaping this samsara wheel of composition opportunities and calls. Even wealthy individuals have to run through this process, the key difference being they can afford to bide their time — making the wheel of samsara feel more like a roundabout in comparison.

That being said, composers have escaped this wheel. All is not completely lost. There are composers being commissioned — though partly because of the financial risks previously mentioned, composers who escape the previous bracket are more likely to bounce from commission to commission. Organisations often feel more secure choosing to commission a composer if their friends at orchestra x already successfully commissioned them, or they were part of the prestigious emerging composer scheme by ensemble y during their younger days. Of course, the composer’s own talent is still part of the decision — however we can’t ignore that financial instability actively discourages organisations from taking risks.

So how are composers to show they are “less risky”? This is where emerging composer schemes, and awards such as the Royal Philharmonic Society (RPS) or Ivors Composer Awards, come in. If the RPS or the Ivors have given you an award, you are treated more seriously — and while you don’t necessarily automatically get financial stability, your chances of being commissioned do increase, as you are considered less risky.

Therein lies the rub.

The recent debacle surrounding the Ivors Academy — which saw them asking entrants to pay £100, or join the Ivors for £179 — was met with incredible ire that saw 150 sign the open letter I drafted. This did see the organisation back down and announce a “bursary” to cover the costs. This was lauded as merely miscommunication, and not a change of tactic following the growing PR disaster. Without wanting to dwell on this issue, it shows quite nakedly the imbalance that composers are having to contend with just to merely get “seen”.

Despite Bartók’s memorable quote, sadly it increasingly feels like “competitions are for composers, not horses”. Competitions, schemes, and awards are an industrial issue, because without them composers will now struggle to make a living — as previously mentioned, without them a composer is simply a greater financial risk. This in turn highlights just how fees for competitions hinder professional development. If you are trying to earn your way as a composer, a competition with an entry fee simply means you need money before you can earn money; and even then, it is paying money in the hope of potentially getting money.  

This has many effects on who we get to hear, what kind of music we get to hear, and what kinds of topics music is composed in response to. Works composed on potentially controversial topics are going to get heard less, as orchestras won’t want to risk it — especially in a time of social media backlash.

Similarly, if there is a demand for a certain level of personal capital, that means many working class individuals simply are not in a position to maintain themselves within this industry. This also doesn’t even consider the impact on cuts to local music education provision, music services, free spaces, small music venues, and local funding — which is the foundation for many young people to learn and fall in love with this craft. 

This in turn means we are more likely to hear music composed by individuals who went to private schools, which means life experiences are going to be different to a working class composer — as very few private school graduates know what it is like to be referred to a food bank, or fight the current infrastructure around universal credit. This is not to say only those from have dealt with these life experiences should be composers — but moreso, we have to appreciate that what inspires and compels us to compose is often from what we encounter in life, be it what art or ideas we engage with, or upbringing, or the state of the world.

A recent study by Equity found that approximately 10% of those working in the culture sector come from working class backgrounds, and the Musicians’ Union’s own research on musicians’ income found the average income for musicians in Britain is £20,700 — those with protected characteristics (as described in the Equality Act 2010) often fall as much as £4,000 below that. With the knowledge of the latter, the former is simply unsurprising. Given the uphill struggle, and the simple fact that children of wealthier parents have an easier time due to access to opportunities, and the simple luxury of affording time in many ways, I am surprised the number is around 10%.

In turn this has an impact on the diversity of composers as well. Women juggling the additional labour of childcare, or disabled people having to navigate their own health — to give two very basic examples — will have an even harder time to survive in the sector. Though it needs emphasising, class is the root of the problem; as in many instances, simply having enough money frees up time to be creative.

Obviously, the sector as a whole needs to change.

The Employment Rights Act 2025 is a positive step — though there were many elements which could have benefited composers and musicians more, but were lost in the process of passing the bill. Similarly, I have been lucky to be privy to discussions between the MU and Arts Council England which suggests positive shifts for composers specifically (though I’m not in a position to divulge specifics, the conversations were positive). Alongside this, there have been growing discussions about the potential benefits of a guaranteed income for artists, especially following the recent trial in Ireland. But without a specific vision of the sector, and how composers fit into it, these elements will miss the wood for the trees.

For composers, in its simplest terms, we need organisations (both big and small) to be stable enough to commission new work, and perform our existing pieces. But just chucking money at an organisation doesn’t necessarily remedy the issue — as an ensemble could prioritise composers already being performed a lot, or perform works by international superstars.

Education and opportunities for emerging composers obviously need greater investment and support, but with the clear understanding this is a ledge to get from A to B, and not an ensemble’s “contemporary music remit”. I’d go as far to even suggest that for every composer selected for an emerging opportunity, a commission is also given to an “emerged” composer — as this would avoid exploiting developing composers, allow for real career progression, and ensure organisations truly are doing more for composers.

Similarly, if an ensemble/festival had a quota for contemporary music to be in line with the demographic of the UK — or weighted in favour of the region they are in — that would not only see more composers getting commissioned, but also vary the composers included in repertoire. London is approximately 10% of the British population, but is vastly overrepresented in terms of composers commissioned (though I appreciate this is partly the result of many composers moving to London in the hope of work). Imagine what the BBC Proms would look like if one third of commissioned composers were from the North of England; alternatively, imagine if the Royal Scottish National Orchestra or the BBC National Orchestra of Wales had to make their repertoire 40% committed to Scotland and Wales respectively. This can coincide with work already being done to address gender inequality, or the racial inequality of our sector.

As it stands, our industry is currently in a creative wasteland, because our sector is underappreciated and composers are a lower rung of the proverbial ladder. This is in no way a reflection of the creativity of people trying to make it, but more an issue of how the balance of forces means that we are fighting to survive, and not thrive.

I appreciate my suggestions above maybe fanciful, or only partly baked; but realistically, we need a vision that sees us, as an industrial sector, thinking together to shape our sector in a way which allows us to thrive — which in turn would make us a genuine “meritocracy”, and not just a playground for upper classes. This in turn would ensure the ground floor is actually on the ground; and that the metaphorical stairs of career progression are stable enough for us all to ascend — regardless of background or circumstance — instead of three really good steps followed by a gaping hole.

–

References:

• ‘What did the 2025 Autumn Budget mean for the arts?’ (2025), Campaign for the Arts
• Berny Torre, ‘Labour’s £15bn military splurge could cost 20,000 jobs, research finds’ (2026), Morning Star
• Ben Lunn, ‘Pricing composers out of their own awards’ (2026), Morning Star
• ‘Working class creatives at ‘lowest level in a decade’’ (2024), Equity
• ‘First Ever UK Musicians’ Census Provides Unparalleled Insight into the Careers of the UK’s Musicians and Music Creators’ (2023), Musicians’ Union
• Employment Rights Act 2025, UK Government
• Basic Income for the Arts (BIA) Pilot Scheme, Citizens Information Ireland

–

‘BEN LUNN puts his beloved birthplace Sunderland on the musical map’ – Linton Stephens, BBC Radio 3

‘His work extends the palette of sounds that can be brought into contemporary classical music, redefining both modern composition and concert-hall inclusion.’ – Alan Morrison, Rhinegold.co.uk

Ben Lunn has forged himself a unique position within the new music landscape. As a composer, Lunn’s music reflects the material world around him, connecting to his North-Eastern heritage or how disability impacts the world around him or his working-class upbringing. Alongside this, he has become renowned for his championship of others, which have seen him creating unique collaborations with musicians from across the globe and developing unique concert experiences and opportunities for others.