The future of Unsung Composers

[Mark Thomas]

Giles wrote:

is it the intention that USC will be the place to go for info. about classical, romantic and post romantic music?

I guess my second paragraph answers your question as far as the immediate future is concerned. The idea (if it could be made to work) is to overcome the limitations of the forum software by duplicating the reference and downloads content onto more easily editable parts of an expanded site, always assuming there will be volunteers to do that work; which issue is really at the heart of my answer to your wider question of whether I see UC developing into a "portal" site:

Thanks for your kind words about Alan and I. We do spend a fair amount of time between us administering and moderating the site most of which effort isn't, and shouldn't be, visible to the average member. We don't want to spend more time than we currently do running the site and so to significantly expand it would mean bring more people into the "team" and, as owner of the site, to be honest at best I'm equivocal about that. Alan and I have known each other in the "real world" for quite a few years now and are on the same wavelength, both musically and when it comes to running UC. Although I hope we'd get willing volunteers to help in the work when or if the time comes, expanding the team is a very big step and one fraught with pitfalls.

The second, admittedly purely personal issue, is that UC was set up to replace the old forum on the Raff web site which was hacked to death. I set it up as a forum to discuss the music which I am interested in and enjoy: music by unsung composers of the romantic era (broadly that between the Napoleonic and First World Wars). In the last couple of years members have widened that chronological scope to include music from the 20th and 21st centuries, as long as it is broadly tonal, although to my 19th century ears some of the music available for download stretches that definition to the limit. I've gone along with that, because it's what members appear to want. I'm happy to be selfless up to a point but I do this for pleasure and it seems to me that, as 20th century music has expanded on the site, discussion about and uploads of 19th century music has declined. To put it bluntly, and speaking purely for myself, I often feel that I'm not getting as much back from the site as once I was. So I can't say that I find much attraction in the substantial work involved in expanding the site into areas which would hold no interest for me.

I'm in a bit of black mood today, though, so maybe if you'd asked the question tomorrow you'd have got a more upbeat response.

I'll leave Alan to speak for himself.

[Alan Howe]

Unsurprisingly, I'd have to concur with Mark. The simple issue is that the vast majority of works uploaded/discussed are of very little interest to me at all - the occasional discovery notwithstanding. Frankly, from my perspective too much of this music is of very little permanent value. However, as Mark has said, I am willing to continue co-moderating the forum in the form it has at the moment. Anything beyond that would be several bridges too far.

I think Mark has really said it all...

[giles.enders]

It is good to hear your views which happily coincide with mine.  Perhaps there needs to be a cut off date for composers or a restriction about tonality.  I realise the site has left poor old Raff a little on the sidelines.  My own interest is from the early piano concertos to about 1948. though some of the post 1914 music is hard to take. 

[Jimfin]

It's quite hard, I mean many people on here find even some living composers like David Matthews or Arthur Butterworth  enjoyable, and Malcolm Arnold is also quite "romantic" in some ways, though he lived into this century. Personally I should be sorry to see some of the more recent stuff go, though I am saying this quite selfishly as someone who is not involved in administration. I also have a dislike of fixed cut-off dates and regulations, unless they are really needed

[Mark Thomas]

Oh, I'm not concerned about Raff. By the time the hackers killed off the Raff Forum his music was only discussed in a small minority of posts. I wasn't mooting any change of policy at UC either, just explaining why I wasn't attracted to the thought of widening the franchise.

[Alan Howe]

I mean many people on here find even some living composers like David Matthews or Arthur Butterworth  enjoyable

As do I. It's the mountains of dry-as-dust modernism that bore me to tears. What I have always looked for is music of real quality, whenever it was written. Thus, while attracted most of all to music of the period that Mark has mentioned, I have learned (I think) to appreciate works which lie outside that time-frame. The point, though, is that some music is actually justifiably unsung! If I had one major gripe, it would be this: don't simply upload music without comment. I'd like to hear why a piece was being uploaded - in other words, I'd like to know what might commend it to my attention. Perhaps if uploads weren't permitted without an accompanying commentary there would be less rubbish in our archive!

[TerraEpon]

It is good to hear your views which happily coincide with mine.  Perhaps there needs to be a cut off date for composers or a restriction about tonality.  I realise the site has left poor old Raff a little on the sidelines.  My own interest is from the early piano concertos to about 1948. though some of the post 1914 music is hard to take. 

Well it's weird because some people hear different composers in different ways. Kapustin, for instance, is completely tonal but is is almost entirely jazz-sound based and thus doesn't sound anything like Romaticism. Compared to, say, someone like Corigliano who has a lot of 'edgy' music yet also quite often writes in a very post-Romantic way.

I remember, in fact, the very first thread I posted in on the old board -- it was a discussion on Finnish composer and jazzman Iiro Rantala. There was much discussion if his music was appropriate for the board, because though it's fully tonal it's also very 20th(/21st) century as it also (unsurprisingly) has a lot of jazz and pop elements to it. Considering all that's been posted I doubt his music would be shunned (were there any to post) but it's also very much not in the late romantic tradition that seems to have been the original concept.

I dunno where I'm going with this. It does seem to have changed from "unsung romantics" to "unsung composers of 1800 and later who write in at least a partially accessible style".

Obviously the mods can go with that or start to enforce something stricter, it's their choice. But I would say I think the 'damage' is done as it were, and after all the board has become far far more popular than it was when it began.

[Alan Howe]

But I would say I think the 'damage' is done as it were, and after all the board has become far far more popular than it was when it began.

Of course, it's almost inevitable that, with a wider permitted remit, any forum will become more popular. However, more popular doesn't necessarily mean better...

[Mark Thomas]

I don't want to set up opposing camps here and I don't want to alienate all those who frequent UC whose interest is mainly in the more modern repertoire. Maybe I'm being naive, but there should be room for everybody. What does seem to have happened, though, is that those members whose interest is, like mine, primarily in 19th century romantic music have somehow adopted a lower profile than their modernist confrères. This is particularly noticeable in the Downloads board where the number of 19th century works posted has been comparatively few in the last few months in comparison with those from the 20th.

Recently I have been uploading quite a lot of music either from the 19th century, or written in that idiom. My fairly transparent aim was to encourage others to do the same but, with a few notable exceptions, that hasn't happened. To be sure, I've had many emails and PMs thanking me profusely, asking me for more and bemoaning what Alan has just called the "mountains of dry as dust modernism". Well, I don't mind that mountain being there as long as there is an equivalent peak made of lush romantic era music but, not only is there little more than a foothill, those private emails and PMs haven't even been replicated in many public posts. Not, I hasten to add, that I want thanks because I was being quite self serving, but I just don't understand why so many members appear to be almost ashamed of enjoying 19th century repertoire to the extent that they dare not say so in a public post on UC, even though they're happy to write to me privately.

Is it as simple as saying that those longer standing members, who were posting when UC's focus was almost entirely 19th century music, now feel that they don't belong? That they feel crowded out by newer members who have pushed UC's ill-defined boundaries further than they are comfortable with? And if that is the case, what would they like us to do about it?

I'd appreciate some debate, but constructive debate, please.

[thalbergmad]

Is it as simple as saying that those longer standing members, who were posting when UC's focus was almost entirely 19th century music, now feel that they don't belong?

Hopefully nobody will be offended if I stick my neck out and say I preferred the forum when I first joined and 19th century music was in most of the conversations.

I have but a little interest with the "modernists" myself and it was pleasing to find a place which was dedicated to the only era in which I had any knowledge and was able to take part. A year or more ago, this forum was unique, but now it seems to have lost that.

I am of the impression that a new thread by a obscure romantic composer would attract precious little activity, if any.

Sorry if this all seems a little dire, but honesty is the best policy.

Thal

[Alan Howe]

I agree, Thal.

[Mark Thomas]

Hopefully nobody will be offended if I stick my neck out and say I preferred the forum when I first joined and 19th century music was in most of the conversations.

Thal, this is exactly the sort of honest feedback that I was hoping for and I'm grateful to you for it. Alan and I would welcome a wider debate on this issue which I have felt for some time now is critical to the future of this forum.

[Alan Howe]

Yes: this discussion is long overdue...

[JimL]

Just to put my 2¢ worth in as a devil's advocate, a lot of works are being archived here that may not be particularly Romantic (or Post-Romantic) in style, but may, nonetheless be of historical importance.  I don't mind Neoclassical or even jazz/classical fusion myself.  Where do we draw the line?  There are "Romantic" sounding dodecaphonic composers, e.g. Berg.  I think we're doing just fine as we are.  To be blunt, if it isn't your cup of tea, don't listen to it.  On the other hand, I DO think we could do more with 19th Century composers than we have been ever since the big "membership drive" began, and should try to get back to that.  For a while, at least.

[Peter1953]

Thal, I fully agree with you. I've been posting very little over the past few weeks because I feel that I'm loosing interest.
Having said that, this UC forum has given me so much pleasure over the past years and thanks to that my collection of unsung romantic music has grown tremendously. It has definitely broadened my knowledge and enjoyment of classical music. I'm very grateful to Mark and Alan for all the work they are doing. However, I hope someday a better balance between modern composers and romantic composers will be realized.