The future of Unsung Composers

[Greg K]

My own thought concerning this issue is simply to suggest that some individual (or duo) be engaged
to administer and monitor the "Downloads" section of the forum (most substantively the Downloads and Discussion components there), and thereby free Mark & Alan from day to day oversight in the area where almost all the great explosion of activity and expansion of content here over the last year has occurred, and the direction of which has evoked so much of their antipathy.

In fact, I wonder how problematic (if at all) the interactive parts of the "Music" section of the forum (essentially the Composers and Music & New Recordings components)  as they presently function are to them, and whether any really substantial changes there need even be contemplated (?).  While 20th century composers (and repertoire) are often presented, my impression has been when this happens they are almost exclusively on the conservative end of the spectrum and largely in continuity with the original "romantic" focus of the forum which Mark & Alan wish to preserve.
I'd say if it ain't broke don't fix it.

The more modernist 20th century composers and repertoire almost always are raised in the Downloads section in association with the posted recordings, and limited to the Discussion threads there. This could be formalized as a requirement, so as not to intrude on the more traditionalist "Music" section content.

Besides appointing Dundonnell to manage the Downloads section (his composer catalog archive should just about be reaching completion in the coming weeks and he will need some alternative activity to occupy him) I'd also consider segregating the romantic and modernist repertoire uploaded there into their own discrete sub-topics (organized by country as presently).

Fragmented and undeveloped as my ideas might be I envision some outcome whereby the "old guard" members of the forum and "new traditionalists" who might join in can navigate and utilize its resources according to their interests while avoiding if they choose any upset provoked by the modernist cohort and its own enthusiasms, and also allow Mark and Alan to relax more, and be compelled to preoccupation with only those dimensions here that truly engage them.


There you have it.
         

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Greg. Your views are appreciated.

[Alan Howe]

Once again, thanks very much, Lee, for your helpful suggestions.

[Dundonnell]

Quote:

Besides appointing Dundonnell to manage the Downloads section (his composer catalog archive should just about be reaching completion in the coming weeks and he will need some alternative activity to occupy him)

(Greg K)

Since my name has been mentioned     I do accept that, being retired, I do have more time at my disposal than other busy members

This is, emphatically, NOT my site. It belongs to Alan and Mark. They are the Administrators. They have that charge and that responsibility. I have expressed my willingness to help in any way I can....but under their direction and with their agreement.

I volunteered to maintain the Index of American Downloads and keep it up to date regularly (just as Elroel is doing for the French and the Geram downloads, SydneyGrew is doing for the Czech downloads and Albion has been doing-quite superbly, I know that we all agree-for the British and Irish downloads). I offered, previously, to take responsibility for indexing the Scandinavian Downloads. I index the Composer Catalogues.

All this was a small attempt to make life just that little bit easier for the Administrators and to "give something back" to a site which has so manifestly and profoundly enriched our lives.

If there is anything further I can do then I am more than willing to give any suggestion my earnest consideration. As Greg has implied, the Composer Catalogues will not last for ever. My intention-reinforced by many messages of support from members- was to move on to cover some German composers and pick up on some others whose omission has been kindly pointed out to me by other members but, as I am well aware, most of the Eastern Europeans will be too problematic to attempt (for reasons of language, for one thing ).

All I can reiterate is that if there is ANY WAY in which I can help to reduce the burden on Alan and Mark or to assume some limited and directed responsibility I am more than happy to consider any such proposal.

[Alan Howe]

That's very generous of you, Colin. I'm sure that Mark will be looking in on the forum as and when he has the opportunity and will greatly appreciate your expression of support. He and I will remain in touch with each other over the next few weeks while he is away and I am sure that, as we mull things over, a solution acceptable to all will be worked out. Once again, many thanks.

[Steve B]

Its true the membership of this forum has changed immensely since I joined it in 2004. Most of this would be, I should say, to people just having other priorities.
This is talking generally; but for me personally,as well as the above point, I have found there to be less wideranging debate on Romantic era(ie.c 1820-c.1900) composers than there used to be on the days of The Raff Forum and the earlier days of UC.

That said, I cannot criticise-only applaud-Mark and Alan- for making the site so vast in its scope(which I know is part of the moderation problem, as expressed), with the downloads in particular being very useful(though I too would appreciate a brief , albeit necessarily subjective, spiel re why that particular download was chosen, because I find enthusiasm infectious,subjective or not!:)

I also second what many others have already said; this is one of the politest and most respectful classical music debate fora on the net;in the old Raff Forum days there was one member who repeatedly started what are termed "flame wars", deliberate arguments, but the issue was successfully dealt with; and , apart from that, there has been, to my knowledge , no similar issues! So that is a great testament to Mark and Alan and all the forum participants.:)Thanks
I advocate "junior" moderators, for seperate sections, but Mark , you seem not to favour that idea in any large sense(other than for  individual download sections).

I am sorry I cannot come up with any more solutions at present; but would appreciate Mark and Alan's OWN input about what ideas THEY have for change or no change.

Thanks for starting this open debate, Mark and Alan:)And nice to know total loss off UC is not an option!
Steve Benson

[oldman]

There is no way that express how grateful I am for this site. Allan and Marks work has paid dividends to all who love music and have provided me with my major source of new music to listen to these part few years.

Most of what I could say has already be said multiple times by the posters to this thread. The one thing that I can add is to say that whatever mark and Allan decide, I for one will be grateful for whatever direction that they feel that this site goes in, so long as it stays alive.

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Steve and oldman. Much appreciated.

[patmos.beje]

I have accessed this post from my work and do not have time to make a detailed or constructive contribution.

I would wish to say that the site has brought considerable pleasure to me since I discovered it through a Google search - I cannot recall what I had googled - and I access it almost every time I go on the internet which is almost daily.

Unsung Composers has enabled me to hear, principally through the BMB, music that I have wanted to hear for years but doubted that I would ever hear.  For all involved in making this possible - devoting their time and energy - I say a 'big' thank you.

Whilst not all of the music that is discussed on the site is necessarily to my taste, I do enjoy reading about other people's enthusiasm for particular composers and particular pieces.  Such enthusiasm often motivates me to discover the music for myself by purchasing a CD which has been the subject matter of discussion.

My personal tastes in classical music encompass several music periods, including the romantic era and post-romantic 20th century works.  In my opinion, the site is enriched by its inclusiveness albeit that it may have developed beyond its original scope.  I think it would be a great pity if the site split up.  If there is a particular post that does not interest me I do no look at it.  However, at a later date my interest may have been engendered by something I have heard or seen elsewhere and I would then come back to a post previously ignored.

As I am not involved in the effort and hard work in administering this site I do not feel it is my place to seek to influence others.  I would wish to conclude with reiterating my thanks for all whose efforts and contributions have made the site a joy to be part of.

[Elroel]

First of all, Mark and Alan should be very proud that their site seems to have grown into a "portal" for unsung composers. But that is not what they had in mind when they started this: unsung romantics.
We, especially many new members, see this site as a carriage way to promote (do we?), at least on a member-to-member basis, all unsung composers. Unsungs from  a later period as well. Mark and Alan were to polite to stop us in posting also (more) modern works.
On the one hand it is simple to resolve: only unsung romantic composers are allowed in the future.
But on the other hand it is far too easy to do so, simply because of the value of this great site. Mark and Alan are aware of that, otherwise they would have simply gone back to the start.
Although Mark doesn't like the idea of more moderators (for the sake of legal matters mostly, I think) that is in my opinion the way to go, if the style of UC as it is now, is to be maintained.

Where all over the internet, you have to pay for almost anything, this site is free of that. Only it costs Mark some money and Mark and Alan quite a bit of time they really like to spent on their love: fishing in the sea of music history for composers and their creations, so badly treated by the music ndustry on all facets, and not in the last place: to share it with others, as well as sharing their music.

Creating a sister-site, or even more of that kind, for non/late/neo-romantics is a possibility, as other members already suggested.

The sister-sites could be maintained by other moderators, but as a whole there should be a connection between the sites. A kind of umbrella where you can see what's posted where. A little in manner we do now with the indexes. And not to forget: keeping the same standards high!!
You could choose names for those sister-sites as Unsung composers Romantic Period, Unsung Composers Since 1890 or so.
This umbrella doesn't cost the moderators time or money I think, but it will, with the right method, help all of us in choosing. Though, I'm certain that I'll eat from both/all walls, as my interest lies in the music from Beethoven upto many to-days composers.
A moderator must have the power to replace a post if necessary. (but that's not new).


I like to help if I may and can.

It's a bit little exaggerated, I know, but I  can't do without UC in the near future.

Regards to all of you,

Roelof

[Alan Howe]

Thanks, Roelof. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

[jowcol]

Sorry not to jump on this sooner-- we've had our power out for several days during a record heat wave...

A:  I tremendously value this site, and what Mark and ALan have done.  To a large degree, this  is the site I've been looking for for years!  My tastes are pretty wide ranging. (That may be an understatement, if you know me .)  I also feel a need to help preserve music that I am not necessarily fond of, if there is a chance someone down the road will like. So I personally tend to be of the "anything goes" camp, BUT--

B:  As I've told some of the admins when I may have strayed into more modern areas in postings,  I fully acknowledge that they are the ones investing the time and responsibility, they should have full control over the type  of material they  wish to be responsible for.  And I am EXTREMELY grateful for what they've done so far.  I'm happiest with the "mostly tonal" 20th century works, but I do like to wander.


I like the way Paul has tried to break down the issues here.   I'll try something similar.


Responsibility for Copyrighted content:
Mark has mentioned about as owner, he has responsibilities for what is posted here.  Technically, all of the uploads are not hosted on his site-, only the links.  I'm familiar with other sites that address this problem by making it clear that any music is not posted on this site, and that the owner would gladly remove any links about questionable material upon request.   A similar disclaimer here would help, no doubt, but I doubt that Mark would want to open the floodgates and then spend more time reacting to requests to remove links, or, it if is egregrious, getting cease and desist orders, which may have no legal standing, but would not be a good thing to read with your morning coffee.   I'd only recommend this as a starting point.

I've changed my signature block to make a statement that, for all posts, I'm unaware of any ciommercial digital release, and have asked that anyone who knows differently to let me or an admin know, so the link can be removed.  If it is not part of the "contract" for members, I'd suggest we make it so, so that nobody has any reason to raise objections if a link is removed.  But that still doesn't reduced the admin burden on Mark and Alan.

Prescreening:
One thing that I have noticed is that we have several dedicated members here that have identified potential copyright conflicts that a simple google search did not pick up.  (And also, whether or not a particularly performance has been posted before- thank you Colin!)  What may be a viable approach is to set up a "pre-screening" process where before posting, a person will indicate in a "Prescreening folder what they plan on posting, what they know about the source, and hopefully we can have some of the high powered scholars address these issues.   At least one other member would need to reply, saying that they've investigated the proposed  posting, and found it viable.  Any posted download would also need to include a link to the post  prescreening folder, showing that the source has been screened/approved by at least one other member.   This would make the Moderator's work a bit easier, in that they would onlly need to make sure that the poster and some other forum member have already researched the recording.   With this approach, we can avoid giving moderator admin rights to too many people, still keep up the exemplary care I've seen demonstrated on this site, and hopefully let our admins work a little less hard.   

Tagging:
Paul is correct that, sooner or later, tagging will be the best form of allowing people to navigate, since no hierarchical structure can cover everything without a lot of duplication. (For Czech composers, do we then split into time periods? SYmphonic, Concerti, Chamber?)  We also ahve some composers whose nationalities are debateable. 

By tagging, we could associate a composer with more than one nationality, assign works to  one ore more categories like choral, orchestral, symphony, chamber, and even add flags for sound quality or accessiblity.  So, if you wanted to find all german, turn of the e century concerti, for instance, you could create a query for justthat.  It would no longer be necessary to create/maintain the indexes (which I am very grateful for.

Before committing to this path, we'd probably need to develop a form for uploading-- Simple Machines supports these.  But How effective the tagging may be in Simple Machines is something we'd also want to test before committing-- I've done some research in the past, and saw mixed reactions.   the biggest concern is that tagging the existing archive will be a MAJOR undertaking.  But the benefits would be astronomical.


Tagging Lite:
Going forward, I like the idea of people describing works a bit more, to help others decide if its worth a download.  I've also tried, using a method I call "scrapbooking" to help pass  on a little information about the composer along with the work. 


Quick fix for Download structure:
There is a command for Simple Machines that allows a given part of a post to be hidden form people  that are not in the appropriate group.  If this was used for inserting links, we could hide them form guests, and no longer need a separate download and discussion page.  Guests won't see the links if they are posted properly.


Devil's Music:
I'm not a hard core modernist, but I appreciate some modern works, and I'm fond of minimalism done well.  But I do have some works I'm not posting here since I think they'd be too far out for the majority here.   Since the Avante Garge project seems to be defunct,  I've considered a Free wiki site (there will  be advertisements) to post them,  If there is similar interest, LMK.  I don't want Mark and Alan to be responsible for stuff they don't enjoy, or at least see some value in preserving.  It seems that a few others have been willing to go down this path as well.


Summary:
I guess my dream resolution here would be to keep the same general mix (I don't mind the more out-there stuff being discouraged), but to harness some of the dedicated scholars we have here to help validate proposed posting in advance, so that Mark and Alan don't need to spend as much time validating uploads.  We have some AWESOME scholars/researchers on this site, and I've always been amazed on how much info I've gotten when I've asked for help. (Or corrections when I've messed up).  And, for stuff that may be too far out, a sister site would be good.  There is some modern works that I feel belong here -- the Swayne Symphony I posted recently was tonal to the point of modal, and very melodic.  If we set ranges by dates or "types of composers" a work like that may slip through the cracks.

Some of the otehr issues for making the site easier to manage may depended on if the SImple MAchines features /add ons I've looked at work as advertised.  (Anybody in the IT business will tell you to test BEFORE you commit to something),  It may be helpful to set up a "sandbox" set of folders and a group to let some of the more adventurous test out some ideas before we make any commitments.


I would like to help to some degree, but I don't want to offer time I can't deliver.  In addition to the whole family/career thing, I'm spending a lot of time providing technical support to two groups reporting war crimes within Syria, and the demand for help there is constantly increasing.  I assure you, the music is much more fun, and I'm grateful that Karl has let me help share some of his collection here, since I can't download without wanting to give anything back.  But in terms of need, and with all of the TERRIBLE things happening in Syria right now, I need to make that the primary cause for any volunteer work I'm doing.
(If any of you are interested in the latter, you can send me an IM-- I don't want to occupy this forum with those issues. ) 

Oh-- final words-- Let me quote Elroel-- "I can't do without UC in the near future".   This site has brought me so much joy, and  although  yes, some works may have been too dry or too sappy for my personal tastes, I've found several works that have changed my life.  You can't put a price on that.

The Site's Scope


The Site's structure

There is also the seemingly unrelated point that splitting 'Composer Reference' from 'Composers and Music' exposes an unhelpful inconsistency in board structure which would probably not have arisen had Composer Reference been created in the beginning. We really could do with separating these into two boards but how we could now get there seems a tall order. (There may also be other board structural changes needing to be addressed either now or at a later point.)

Active Tagging

How, then, might changes in scope and structure be facilitated? A possible solution is compulsory tagging, to be entered when starting a new post, that might identify easily and simply say: (a) Composer / General and (b) the Era (with 2 or maybe 3 time ranges).

Such functional Active Tags across all boards would also secure the benefit of making it much easier to locate material (if Search could find within the tags field) as well as enabling the Scoping problem to be tackled (whether partially or fully in this round of change or at any later point).

[Alan Howe]

Once again, may I express our thanks to you, jowcol, for spending so much time trying to get to grips with the issues at stake here? We really are extremely grateful and I am sure that Mark and I will be giving due consideration to all the possibilities which you have raised.

[Paul Barasi]

It's great to see that we all seem to be of one mind on this: that we really can't thank Mark and Alan enough.

It was a good move to set up a temp board on the site's future. Whilst I always get into trouble summarising someone else's position, theirs is what I call a 'presidential approach' – taking the fullest account of members' views and needs in an inclusive democratic way before rightly making the final decisions themselves. If there remain one or two key issues still to be clarified, then I wonder whether perhaps it is nearing the time to split these in separate posts.

Good to see some support for what tagging could do.

In response to the copyright point raised that using links is not an infringement, isn't that precisely the core issue in the legal case against Richard O'Dwyer? (You know, the Brit who faces extradition to US and whose petition http://chn.ge/MRM2Gm started last week already tops 200,000 signatures.)

[jowcol]

Not familiar with that case--  on others, the main problem was to refuse to take down links upon request by the copyright owners, but I may be missing something.

Frankly, I've never seen a sharing site/community or group go to the care this one does, and given the limited number of people who love this material (as opposed to the popular stuff with is shameless circulated in violation of copyright), I'm not sure how much this site is likely to draw the attention that took down Megaupload. (Which was brazen)  Have Alan or Mark received any formal complaints?  (I'm not trying to be criticial-- I admire your stance on copyrighted materiel.