Composer organizations are created to support composers. Until recently such support was often interpreted to mean the presentation of concerts of new works, without much thought to ensuring a lasting effect on the public after a concert. Recently, composers have begun to work more fully in their communities, assisted by programs developed by national organizations such as the American Composers Forum, American Music Center, and Meet The Composer. Composer residencies, school visits, community commissions, and a focus on outreach, have put the composer at work for the public while still attempting to create a work of art that remains viable beyond the immediate social context.

It is a good time to ask what the role of the composer organization should be, when composers find commercial opportunities unsatisfying, that is, when our working lives are not spent in making the music we must create to live fully. That composer organizations do not ensure the creation of great art, or even create an intellectually stimulating environment, should surprise no one. I believe we even lose the rough certainty of our own aesthetic beliefs when they rub against those of other composers. Perhaps a kind of personal erosion is the result.

Composer organizations can offer what many cultural organizations offer, such as a sense of community, networking possibilities, and of course opportunities for performance. As was mentioned, recent efforts have focused on creating a bond between a composer and a community that will outlast specific projects. It should be asked what effect that has on a composerŐs work. To what detriment does composing for amateur performers on behalf of an amateur audience, because that is what the community requires, affect the composerŐs self-testing art? Similarly, most public grants require that funded composer projects achieve more commanding results in outreach and education than in artistic excellence.

Clearly a composer needs a variety of opportunities to thrive, which can be provided by composer organizations. But there also must exist a context for the artistic success and public appreciation of a new work. Such a context must include a vibrant arts press with resources to preview, promote, and review both the work and the arts scene, presenting organizations to assemble performances, acoustically excellent venues, an educated audience, and performers willing to sensitively present new work next to other repertoire on a concert program.

Composer organizations, then, must not only provide opportunities for performance, but also be full partners in the creation of a supportive community that includes an expanded definition of music comprising many different repertoires, performance practices, and traditions. A composer joins an organization at the risk of having aesthetic values challenged, and even risking the appearance of granting assent to the mediocre results of oneŐs colleagues. For some it may not be worth such dangers. We all have to think and work alone. But our music only succeeds in others. So if we consent to the compromise of personal integrity as a necessary requirement to working together, we must then agree on what results will achieve community goals while sustaining our individual ambitions.

The rest of the paper will include a comparison of the direction toward outreach and community relations undertaken by large composer organizations, in contrast to the concert-focused approach of many small ones. Several historical examples will be presented. The paper will also conjecture how the developments in self-publishing and promotion will change the need for composer organizations.