Unsung Composers

Giles wrote:

Quoteis 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.

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...

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. 

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

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.

Quote from: Jimfin on Saturday 30 June 2012, 14:13
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!

Quote from: giles.enders on Saturday 30 June 2012, 11:32
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.

Quote from: TerraEpon on Saturday 30 June 2012, 17:33
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...

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.

Quote from: Mark Thomas on Saturday 30 June 2012, 19:02
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

I agree, Thal.

QuoteHopefully 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.

Yes: this discussion is long overdue...

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.

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.

ThanK you, Peter. That's helpful but how do you think the balance might be redressed?

I suggest that all the entries in the Composer Reference section be re-designated with the name of the composer only. That way, additions detailing other aspects of a composer's oeuvre (chamber music, songs, etc.) can be posted without causing confusion. All it needs is a willing pair of hands. Dundonnell?

Quote from: JimL on Saturday 30 June 2012, 21:54
since the big "membership drive" began

There has never been such a drive. It has just happened as the remit of the forum has reached the current - in my view unsustainable - position.

I know that!  ;D  I just can't think of any other term for the sudden jump in new members (entirely unsolicited) that resulted in a huge influx of music outside of the original parameters.  What are we going to do, ask our members who've contributed so many downloads of avant-garde racket to take it all down?

Quote from: JimL on Saturday 30 June 2012, 23:51
What are we going to do, ask our members who've contributed so many downloads of avant-garde racket to take it all down?

Well, things certainly can't go on as they are if the forum is not to become a quite different animal. So, what more positive suggestion can you come up with?

Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 30 June 2012, 17:14Perhaps if uploads weren't permitted without an accompanying commentary there would be less rubbish in our archive!

Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 30 June 2012, 18:05with a wider permitted remit, any forum will become more popular. However, more popular doesn't necessarily mean better...

Well, there's a slap in the face (or rather on the back of the legs) for those whose enthusiasms are now revealed as patent dross.

???

Quote from: Peter1953 on Saturday 30 June 2012, 21:58I hope someday a better balance between modern composers and romantic composers will be realized.

Would that more off-air recordings existed, and would that those members who take the time and trouble to upload files had access to them. Certainly, in terms of British music (the only area where I can claim some meagre knowledge) broadcasts (or LPs) of nineteenth-century (or 'romantic') repertoire, broadly beyond what is already covered in the archive, simply do not exist. Perhaps the situation is different with other nationalities, but clearly the 'balance' can only be addressed (a) if relevant works have been recorded and (b) if members have copies. Likewise in terms of discussion, if members are discussing works and composers outside the strictly 'Romantic' remit, should this be so openly deprecated? Members will discuss what interests them, and will post in topics where they feel able to contribute. If these topics and discussions are not welcome, and a proscriptive ethos is the way forward, I would suggest that those members engaged in such discussions seriously consider whether or not they can remain as part of the forum.

Quote from: Alan Howe on Saturday 30 June 2012, 23:39the remit of the forum has reached the current - in my view unsustainable - position.

Unfortunately, judging solely from the tenor of this thread, this appears to be the case.

Quote from: Albion on Sunday 01 July 2012, 00:06
Members will discuss what interests them, and will post in topics where they feel able to contribute.

This was always going to be problematic, but my point is that increasingly over time, there is less and less that I can contribute to as the vast majority of discussions are outside my area of knowledge and outside the initial purpose of the forum.

For me personally, I feel that I have been made redundant and I have considerable sympathy for the founders who have to police a forum which over time appears to be becoming of less interest to them. It would be a bit like me having to moderate a forum on medieval brass rubbings.

I am damned if I know the answer to all of this, but as you say, I expect that some will employ their efforts elsewhere which would be a shame.

Perhaps this is one situation where Apartheid might work.

Thal

The achievement of Alan and Mark, from the site's inception right through to now, is truly remarkable. The site now contains a vast amount of information in one place, albeit some of it ephemeral discussion and answers, and some of it useful permanently as an accessible resource bank (Composer Reference forming part but by no means all of this). Yet, as I predicted, the site has become a victim of its success and there are clearly issues of scope, scale and the organisation of material.

Yes, there is a tension between the site's purpose and the breadth of members' interests. I think that membership growth is a good thing (even if it isn't the fruit of a membership drive) as it brings in more people to share what they know and love.  However, it is surely less a case of not wanting to set up two rival camps and more a case of recognising that is just what we now have. The logical solution is for there to be two sites, were it not for the likely lack of an organiser for another one.

It would be reasonable anyway to stick to our remit but circumstances seem to make this all the more necessary.
We should cover roughly 1800-1918. Making this a hard and fast rule doesn't make much sense (for instance, Alan's posting on the contemporary Samuragochi Symphony No.1 rightly drew considerable interest – the point often made is one of tonality) but this should undoubtedly be the mainstay of what the site is about. The other obvious focus is on unsung and I think we do pretty well on maintaining this.

The growth in the site's scale and the speed of its activity obviously makes ever greater demands on administration (evidently way beyond what was envisaged) and capacity is stretched (which would be frustrating to an administrator of any site). Composer Reference, having been split off as a new category, continues to expand rapidly. Search has improved. Other ideas have been generated. It may not yet be entirely obvious where we go from here but I reckon we would all agree that we must keep going and look for how best to make further progress. 

Quote from: Mark Thomas on Saturday 30 June 2012, 19:02This 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.

As implied above, this is more a matter of availability. A LOT of those 20th century works are recorded from premieres, etc. Commissions happened, LPs got released with backing by the composer, etc. so there's simply an larger trove of works available for posting in this direction.

Paul, I am tremendously grateful for your thoughtful and temperate post. I do urge everyone to discuss this important issue in a similarly considered manner and I'll endeavour to do so myself.

In giving voice to my frustrations the other day I suppose I was quite consciously opening a Pandora's box, or at least pointing out that there is indeed an elephant in our room. UC is now much more than I originally imagined it could be and its growth has almost always been an organic thing - the Downloads board was established because members started posting downloads, Composer Reference was started because of the number of catalogues being posted, and so on. That's all good and something of which we should be proud. The preponderance of recordings of music from after WWII which are uploaded is, as Albion has pointed out, no doubt due to broadcasters focussing on these works and, in the old Eastern Block, state-sponsored recording activity. There's no doubt, though, that this development has had the effect of shifting the focus of the forum to such a degree that some (many?) members now feel that it is no longer primarily about music of the romantic era and that they are marginalised. I have noticed that some old-established members haven't posted for some time and others post must less frequently. As owner of this site what I am struggling with, admittedly not in a totally un-partisan way, is what I do about that....

Paul's comments hit the nail squarely on the head and open up some intriguing possibilities which clearly need to be pursued. As Mark has indicated, the site is now far wider in scope and ambition than I had originally envisaged, something that has just happened through the sheer weight of the 20th-century repertoire and the availability of recordings, whether commercial or off-air, which have been preserved by interested individuals (with whom I have no quarrel but whose passions I simply don't share on any consistent basis). So, remaining with the status quo is likely not to be a viable option - after all, Mark and I administer the site - and therefore a workable solution has got to be found. Paul has hit upon one particular possibility, so I too would greatly welcome comments from other members.

Hello again, and sorry for my absence from the forum the last month. It's not because I've lost interest that's for sure!
When I became a member of the forum I didn't know the old "Raff-forum" and it's unfortunate destiny. So when I entered here for the first time, my impression was that this was a forum discussing unsung composers from the romantic era, but also music from the 20th century that is clearly tonal. And that's the "problem"; where to draw the line? Paul wrote that the forum roughly should cover roughly 1800-1918. I agree that could be an option, but this excludes many composers that wrote what I would call romantic music decades later. For example Kurt Atteberg, who wrote his 9th symphony in 1956. It's late-romantic, OK, but taking a wild guess it could have been composed in 1910. This is just one example of thousands.
There's many members of UC, so there are many dividing opinions out there about what's suitable to post and what's not. It's an almost impossible task to moderate all posts according to roughly 1800-1918.
And I'm sad to read that some of our senior members are losing interest. Your contributions are vital, and a reason for me to return to UC over and over again. It's a good thing that you are taking this discussion, Mark and Alan!
Maybe a clearer presentation of the forum and it's purpose to new members could help?


Morten

I had a number of concerns when I raised this topic. 

1. It would become so large and all embracing that some like myself would not spend their limited time scrutinising it.

2. The site would become unmanageable

3.  What I have valued is the expertise among the members on this site.  As well as asking questions I have also posted some pretty obscure stuff which may not immediately attract people but in the long run will attract researchers and as recently happened, a discovery of a piano concerto thought lost. 

4.  I feel that it is my/our duty to encourage the exploration of some of the lesser known composers.  If you think that only twenty five years ago Hummel was almost forgotten and Dohnanyi was dismissed as an also ran.

5.  I think that it might be the time to split the forum so that the post romantic music is catered for on another part of it.

I know from my own web site that people are out there researching and still emailing me with information to questions posed seven years ago. 
As individuals we are isolated in that we live in different parts of the country/world but as a forum we are a pretty powerful group. 

I can only salute Alan and Mark for all their work and commitment

Quote from: Albion on Sunday 01 July 2012, 00:06
Well, there's a slap in the face (or rather on the back of the legs) for those whose enthusiasms are now revealed as patent dross.

On the contrary, I'm simply being honest about some of the music that has been uploaded. I've often said that some unsung music - of any period - actually deserves to stay that way (although I'm thinking primarily of the many examples of dry-as-dust, often ex-Eastern Bloc compositions that we seem to have acquired). By contrast the British and Irish Music Archive, for example, contains a vast treasury of valuable material for which I am extremely grateful to you, John, for gathering together in one place.

It's probably not really fair for me to jump in as one of those shying away from the modern stuff, since as I've said in the past, my ears often have difficulty handling music from even the 1830s and 1840s. "Mostly-tonal" music from the 20th century usually begins to cause me a headache within about 60 seconds (and that's not an exaggeration or a joke).  But I've never thought anything wrong with people liking and talking about it.  I have barely participated lately, though, because when I've sampled the music mostly being discussed lately, it's just.... I can't take it.  I don't want to rub anybody the wrong way, so I won't go into any detail about some of my reactions.

But despite where you'd clearly guess my sympathies lie on this discussion, I wanted to say that I'd also be a bit nervous about locking down things based around a year (ie. 1918).  I just downloaded this really pleasant Piano Quartet #3 in F minor by Ladislav Kupkovic, which was from 1989!  This to me sounds more truly Romantic than another example piece that springs to my mind, and that is Sommervell's Violin Concerto of 1930.  Sommervell's VC is chronologically closer to the Romantic period, but for the most part sounds even more modern, and yet it does feel almost like it could have been written around 1900.  But then, there we go, that's opinion.  I'm so excited today by learning about Kupkovic, and if there were a solid break on the forums at a defined year, this terrific discovery would have been lost to me, probably forever.  Leaving eras/times out of it, getting to experience works like this Kupkovic PQ are what I love most about this site.

I begin by writing that I know nothing about the Raff Forum or the history of this site, how it came to be or what it was hoped that it would become. I came to it by accident having been prompted by an old friend in the UK to see if, somewhere, there was available a recording of a particular Catoire piece. A long poking about in the internet's thickets led me here, to this site.

The Catoire problem was solved but I found two things here for which I had been seeking for a long time. First, a site that had posted a great many pieces that interested me for one reason or another - a second a venue where it would be possible to share some of the fruits of my own collecting since the late 1950s, a point by which I imagine some of the members had not yet been born.

It had long been a source of frustration for me that while I had literally thousands of recordings in my collection I knew of no way to share them with people who might be interested in them absent knowing them personally. I trade with no more than a half dozen collectors, some of whom have become close friends of forty-plus years.

As for my own preferences I am comfortable with most of the music of the last two centuries, roughly, with the exception of vocal music in which I have little interest and what for want of a better term I'll call the Post Webern bunch. I'd much rather have Reinecke than Haubenstock-Ramati. But then, as I read these postings, the problem is apparently that I choose Gardner Read over Reinecke and if I upload Read Reinecke's admirers may drift away. I'm not sure what I can do about that except to continue to share what I've got and hope for the best. I'm not sure what I might do differently other than to enjoy most everything that comes my way between Louis Spohr and Humphrey Searle.

I upload music for which I do not especially care, a pair of symphonies by Heimo Erbse being a case in point. But even so I'm eager to hear the rest of them, no more and no less so than a string quartet by Anton Rubinstein.

The work that must fall to our moderators and encouragers is probably more than we know, and we owe them a great deal. If they lose interest because of what I upload then that is a problem. One that I have no idea how to remedy.

I have tended to avoid the discussions because I hope that aside from some fundamental details what you hear should hold its own. I am not much interested to read that someone prefers Joe's 8th to his 5th. That isn't going to do me much good nor, I think, that I prefer his 5th to his 8th is going to do someone else any good.

But it seems to me that this is a case of if it ain't broke don't fix it. Unsung Composers is an unbelievable resource. It will flourish only to the extent that we contribute some of our time and energy to it.

Put me down as naive if you like but there you have my opinion.

Best to all from Philadelphia in its third day of being poached.

Shamokin88

Thanks both Josh and Shamokin - just the sort of contributions which I was hoping for.

I found this wonderful forum whilst trawling the internet trying to find a CD recording of a piece of music I wanted to hear - I forget what. When I opened up this treasure chest for the first time, I was incredibly excited - what an extraordinary store of music, covering almost 200 years from dozens of countries. I'm afraid reading this thread is the first I knew about the old Raff forum and even, I'm apologetic to say, the actual remit of the current forum.

I don't post much here for two reasons - I have no recordings to add (my collection consists of CDs and downloads from this site) and, to be honest, I don't feel qualified to say much. There are some incredibly musical and knowledgable people on this forum and I value their thoughts very much (I read the forum several times per day and thoroughly enjoy it), but my simply saying 'I like this too' wouldn't add anything, so I tend to keep quiet.

I am so very grateful for all those who put in their hard work turning old lps etc into mp3s, uploading them, and of course, moderating this forum.

As for the music - I have to agree, quite a lot of the music I have downloaded, I will never listen to again, but the interest and excitement is in the discovery. Whether it was written in 1820 or 1980, if I like it (and I can cope with some fairly noisy stuff in the right mood), I will want to go and read up on the composer and listen to more - this forum has truly opened my eyes to the treasures that are out there.

I wonder if the recent reduced uploads of 19th century music might be because of the lack of recordings? I am guessing, so please correct me. It seems that from the 1940s to the 1980s, approx, the national institutions of most 'westernised' countries did their utmost to record and promote their own 'new' music, on the radio and on LP, which is why there are so many recordings around compared to the romantics. Just a thought, but one which makes sense to me.

My first thought on reading this thread was one of alarm - I love the way the forum is at the moment. I like the music, the work lists, the discussion. For me, it would be a great tragedy to see it change. Having looked after various websites and things in the past, I can understand Alan and Mark's frustrations if they are enjoying it less, but I genuinely believe that there cannot be a date limit put on the site. There is still warm neo-Romantic music being written today, and there is difficult 'avant-garde' music from 100 years ago or more (thinking of Cowell, Varese, Stravinsky, Ornstein amongst many others). Where would one put the limits? Nor could there be a style one - that is so personal as to be unworkable. Perhaps the moderators could listen to each piece before it is posted, so make sure it is not too avant-garde, but that seem ridiculous even as I type it.

I don't think restricting the forum will prompt more posts of Romantic music - I don't know a music lover who prefers 'crackly-bang' music (as a friend of mine calls it) over Romantic stuff and I'm sure if it were out there, the Romantic music would make it to the forum.

Perhaps one option is to engage another moderator or two, and break the top level of the forum into two or three parts - perhaps they could be by date? Members would then have a clear place to post music from pre-1918, members who were not interested in much later music could avoid all the other stuff, and once members have listened, perhaps they could post something along the lines of "Incidentally, there is a lovely neo-Romantic symphony in the 20th-century section, by xxxx".

If it were my choice (and I believe, because I am, as I explained above, a bit of a lurker, I don't have much of a vote), I would keep the forum exactly as it is. There is a lot of 20th century music and if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it. Having said that, I am acutely aware that I am not the one giving up my time to moderate it.

Sorry - that was rather a rambling stream of conciousness. In summary, I love this forum, am very grateful to the moderators and would hate to see it change.

If you made it this far, thanks for reading!
Lee

Quote from: Leea25 on Sunday 01 July 2012, 17:46
There is a lot of 20th century music and if you don't like it, you don't have to listen to it. Having said that, I am acutely aware that I am not the one giving up my time to moderate it.

Thanks very much for your heartfelt thoughts. The presenting problem is precisely as you have stated it...

I'll chip in here, on a rather warm summer's day up in Westchester County, New York, about 50 miles NNE of the Big Apple.

I own about 3,000 CDs.  Most of these are of music composed by the so-called "unsungs."  Yes, naturally, I have a lot of Beethoven, Brahms, and you-name-the-famous-ones.  But I rarely purchase anymore of these - I gravitate towards the enterprising labels and new repertoire from, often, previously (for me) unknown composers.

My listening choices usually focus on the late-18th through the mid-20th century.  I do however, from time to time, like to hear some modern music - the "thorny" stuff, I call it, which clears out the brain's audio cells and makes me sit up and think hard about what's coming out of my speakers.

What does not interest me are the downloads.  As enticing as some of them are, and especially those which otherwise are unavailable on commercial recordings, I never download.  When I am hearing something new I like to have the CD booklet in my hands and enjoy reading the descriptive notes.  The whole "package" of the production is a big part of the attraction for me, and to own simply the music without the (admittedly commercial) trimmings is not what I want.

And, while I appreciate the comprehensive lists of composers' works, and the effort to produce them, they are too much to get my head around.  I'll keep watching the label websites, and this forum, for interesting new releases.  I rarely search out any specific composition from the lists posted here. 

PS - I heartily support this exceedingly well-managed forum and have learned much from the knowledgeable posters hereon.  The moderators should be congratulated for their maintaining a civil decorum - which is a priceless commodity on the Internet. 

Organisms have to evolve to survive - that UC is an evolving entity is clear. The last thing anybody wants is an atrophying old boy's club where the last conscious member turns out the light at the end of a quiet evening leaving those already comatose slumped snoring in comfortably-worn leather chairs. We all want new members to join and share their enthusiasms with us, but it clearly cannot be the case that we all care for music by the same (unsung) composers. Having said that - who knows, some of us may find their enthusiasm infectious.

;)

If change must come, it surely must not be at the expense of the current vibrancy of discussion - no other forum that I know of discusses the composers covered here in such depth and with such generosity. From work-lists to discographies, from original research to advance notification of new recordings, members continually pool their resources for the benefit of others.

:)

If moderation (approval) of the downloads, and the time commitment which it involves, is one of the key issues I strongly suspect that there are several members who have expertise in various national schools and a comprehensive knowledge of what is and isn't commercially available.

I have to say I ws a little bit surprised by some comments about english music vs the eastern one or music before 1918 vs music of the 20th century, one reason I like music so much is because it doesn't know any physical or time borders : Gesualdo is a modern composer harmonically speaking and George Lloyd is among the most romantic ones.

Regarding music sharing, I would say that a couple years ago I didn't own any LP's : I bought them recently and it costs a lot of money, it takes also a lot of time to digitize and clean them up, not to mention the uploading and posting work.

To be constructive I would say that the forum is probably the only one to offer so much hard to find music by neglected composers, of course a large part of the material posted here is not memorable (no matter it's from 19th or 20th century) but this overwhelming amount of music changes our way of  listening : it's now possible to be aware of this endless network of composers, some sharing strange similarities with others while separated by time or space (Gomshiksula and VW), some others forming a group or a school influencing each other and generating new forms consciously or not, it's like an organic development and an overview of the evolution of the composing process all around the world that only the internet and a forum like this one can offer.

I may resume uploading upon a decision of  the admninistrators regarding the direction they want for this website.

Quote from: Sicmu on Sunday 01 July 2012, 21:02
I may resume uploading upon a decision of  the admninistrators regarding the direction they want for this website.

What direction would you like the site to take if maintenance of the status quo is not an option?

Can I just echo what Sicmu said about this forum filling in the cracks. It fills out the picture of western music in the most wonderful way, enlarging and enriching a 'classical' music that is largely represented today by a tiny percentage of the work and composers there actually are.

Alan, perhaps you would be kind enough to give us some options. If you are not happy maintain the status quo, what would you be prepared to do? If you were not a considerate person who is asking people's opinions, what would you do with the site?

Losing any of the uploads here would be a tragedy - it is an invaluable resource for music lovers of any period, everywhere, and all the contributors and moderators should be very proud.

Lee

Hi Alan and Mark,
I would also be interested to know what options you are considering. Let me thank you both again for all of your efforts on this site. It has immeasurably enriched my musical experiences. My own musical interests parallel yours, particularly Alan's (classical, romantic, and late-romantic chamber music especially), but I find some interest in exploring the 20th century composers presented here. I have found a few treasures that way. My thoughts are to leave as is if at all possible, or perhaps engaging others to help with moderation/site maintenance.

I commiserate with your concerns - this site (at first) propelled me to purchase almost all available Raff... , though I never posted on the old site. However, it would be a delicate (impossible?) task to separate romantic, post-romantic, 20th century tonal, atonal, and others from each other as so many grade. A end-date (1918) wouldn't work so well either, since there are many tonal/romantic works that post-date this - including Atterberg (mentioned above), Alfven, Bantock, Bischoff, Blumenfeld, Borresen, Bowen, Bridge, Chadwick, Cowen, d'Albert, Delius, D'Indy, Ducasse, and that's just the A-Ds.

One alternative is having a separate section for obviously modernist composers, moderated by another individual.

Balapoel

Quote from: Leea25 on Sunday 01 July 2012, 21:27
Alan, perhaps you would be kind enough to give us some options. If you are not happy maintain the status quo, what would you be prepared to do? If you were not a considerate person who is asking people's opinions, what would you do with the site?

The first thing to say is that members shouldn't worry about the continuing availability of uploads, catalogues, etc. Beyond that, rather than revealing any particular thoughts or plans of our own, we would much prefer to hear suggestions from members themselves. In particular, we need to know what possibilities there might be if the current status quo is impossible to maintain - which, I must reiterate, is how we see things at present.

Thanks, Balapoel, for your thoughts. Of course, all the composers you mentioned could still be discussed to some extent with a 1918 cut-off date.

I've been away from the debate for a few hours but its good to see that it's carried on in such a positive manner. I just want to underline what Alan has said above: whatever we decide to do, it won't in any way affect the availability of all the posts or download links currently available at UC. It's far too valuable a resource to be lost.

To pick up on Belapoel's question, I guess that it doesn't take too much thought to come up with a number of scenarios: we could add more moderators or administrators to the team, or have dedicated areas for discussion about and/or downloads of different eras of music, we could be much more prescriptive about the type of music covered in UC, we could hive off a "19th century" or "20th century" forum or I could simply hand UC over to someone else altogether and let them worry about it.

Someone has said "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". Well, UC may not be broken, but it is showing signs of strain and I'd rather carry out preventative maintenance than a roadside repair.

Alan and I, as ever, are working together on this issue to come up with an appropriate and effective solution, but I especially want to reassure those of you who are 20th century music enthusiasts that, although neither of us are very excited by much of the music written after WWII, it's important to us that no one group of members is favoured over another in whatever we come up with. After all, we are all here to promote the music of unsung composers, whenever and wherever they lived.

I know Avrohom is a Raff specialist, but he is also a "modern" composer.  He is well versed in "avant garde" music and techniques.  I don't know the current state of his health, but I do know he just completed his 9th symphony and may have some time on his hands if he isn't working on his 10th (or some other new work).  Do you think...?

I've only been on here a few months, and was quite ignorant of the group's raffish past.

I was trying to remember what brought me here, and I feel sure it was because I was looking for some Eastern European or Russian nationalist composers of the 20th century. I'm no great lover of the post-Webern school but then again no new school of any genre of music has ever stopped composers and practitioners of older schools from getting on with what they love.

My interests run from the Renaissance up to today, navigating my own eclectic path back and forwards. Through UC I've discovered some great new works and composers, plus new online sources. I've been pointed to some real finds on Toccata and Dutton-Vocalion in particular ( and may have bought on some other labels but they seem to be mostly focussed on US markets and don't sell digitally to the world - I'll leave them to moan about their sales figures).

I think there may be less getting posted in the central Romantic period simply because recording artists are mining that content more and more to differentiate themselves, and there is less to discover. On the other hand, there still seems to be much to discover of richly inventive melodic Western music in nationalist traditions with a poor recorded legacy. If it weren't for off-air recordings I would know nothing of some of my favourite composers who are unsung outside their native lands.

As far as navigating this forum goes, it does not seem unbearably painful to me to subscribe to threads of continuing interest, to scan new the titles of new threads on occasion, and to otherwise use keyword search to catch specific items I've missed. Everything else I simply ignore and don't feel compelled to keep up with.

The only thing I might ask is that when a new work is introduced in a themed thread, is that a few broad adjectival brushes or apt comparisons are applied to sell me or allow me to move on quickly.

I do agree that it would be quite a chore for the current moderators to curate a site that has expanded beyond what they intended.  The time may have come for a split into "Romantic" and "Avant-garde" sections, with a separate curator for the latter.

I agree with so much of what has been said here. This site has been the most wonderful discovery for me, and I have repeatedly expressed my gratitude to those generous people who upload music I would never otherwise hear.  :)

Thinking about the problems which have developed, I think the only options are:

1)   re-focus the forum on the music for which it was created (and which interests the administrators) – this would help ensure their continuation in this role, solve the problem of unsustainable growth, and ease the task of administration;
2)   appoint additional administrators, one managing the downloads section, another the discussions, and so on;
3)   create an additional separate forum, with its own administrators, to accommodate topics falling outside the scope of the existing forum.

Clearly, solutions 1 and 3 could work together. I am sure none of these solutions would be easy to adopt, but it is a case of grasping the nettle, and I think it's a choice the administrators must make.

As to setting the boundaries for forums/sections, I think some guidelines are essential  even though we know that music crosses boundaries – date of composition is no guarantee of style, nor is the identity of the composer, nor the purpose or place of composition, and even the labels we use (such as "late romantic") are applied differently by different people. If there are some simple guidelines, I don't think most of us would usually have a problem knowing to which forum or section we should be posting.

I applaud Mark and Alan for sharing in their deliberations, and I hope that they can decide on a course of action which makes their task a satisfying one rather than a burden, but which sustains the exciting and informative forum which we have come to know.  :)

I shall, perhaps belatedly, join the discussion :)

For four years, from 2007 to 2011, I was a pretty active member of another online music forum, although my contributions were mainly restricted to the 'Composers Section' of that forum. I posted regularly and many of those posts were about less well-known ("unsung") composers and their compositions. Through membership there I made a number of friends with whom I have had the enormous pleasure of not only remaining in regular touch but have now met in person on a number of occasions.

What finally drove me away from that other forum was the increasing realisation that, apparently, very few other members shared my enthusiasms and, more importantly, that those who did not regularly resorted to verbal abuse of my tastes and quite vicious criticism of the views I expressed.

Just under a year ago I discovered 'Unsung Composers'. That discovery literally changed my life. I found a site whose members are invariably not only well-informed but who conduct their discussion in a civilised, well-mannered and courteous fashion. This is no small measure a tribute to the very high standards expected of members by the Administrators but also, of course, to the innate nature of our members. Members here are genuine music-lovers. They are here to share their love of music and their enthusiasms rather than to try to score points off each other. That alone makes this site a pleasure to belong to.

But there is much more than that. I found a site from which I could download vast quantities of music I had never dreamt I would ever get to hear.....and this flow of music continues on a daily basis. The archives of music now accumulated here makes this site-as others have said-of incredible importance as a repository of music. Recordings held by a handful of real enthusiasts, scattered across the world, have made available to a wider audience. That is a miracle....a testimony to the power of the internet and an everlasting tribute to the extraordinary generosity of music-lovers.

The incredible joy of gaining access to so much music impelled me to try to give something back to those whose generosity has so enriched my musical life. That was why over a period of three months last year I digitised my collection of reel-to-reel tapes and shared so much (mainly British) music on here. That is why I have posted my (limited) catalogues of the orchestral music of composers in whose music I am interested-in the hope that at least some members would find them of some use.

I download virtually all the orchestral music posted by others. My catalogue of these downloads is now well past 300 pages in length. There have been a few pieces which I found too "modern" for my tastes and which I have then deleted. The important thing for me though was that I had the opportunity to actually hear the music and decide for myself whether or not to keep the pieces in question.

l am interested in all orchestral and choral music written between (let's arbitrarily say) 1850 and the present day. I infinitely prefer "tonal music" to atonality but I can respect some of the "tougher" orchestral music written by those who stretched tonality. Thus, in British music I can go as far as composers like Benjamin Frankel and, just, Humphrey Searle and Peter Maxwell Davies whilst recoiling from Harrison Birtwistle. I can admire and respect (but not love) Roger Sessions but cannot take Elliott Carter, let alone the Webern and post-Webern school. The "avant-garde" of people like Berio, Nono, Stockhausen is alien territory to me.

There have been a couple of occasions(as Mark will recall) when I felt that particular members were stretching the boundaries of 'Unsung Composers' to breaking-point but my concern was to try to prevent these members spending their own very precious time in digitising and uploading music which I thought was outside our range here. Because, as others will know too, it takes a huge amount of effort, patience and time to prepare music for download and the commitment shown by those who do this for the benefit of others should never be forgotten.

Unsung Composers is a site of enormous importance and significance. It has evolved and, clearly. it has changed. That is the nature of internet websites. The interests and enthusiasms of members take it in ways not planned, envisaged or (perhaps) hoped for.

If, as Alan and Mark clearly feel, the current situation is "unsustainable" then that is their perspective-to which they are fully entitled. A number of the "older" members appear to think that the site has developed in a way in which they find themselves not entirely comfortable. That is, to say the least, unfortunate.

Others-whose contributions to this thread have been characterised by immense good sense and measured wisdom-have given some thought to possible solutions. I can add little to those suggestions except to repeat this. There are many members of Unsung Composers who have given and are giving huge quantities of their time to this site and to whom the site is of immense importance in their lives. Many of these members ae still in possession of very substantial amounts of music which they are willing and anxious to share with others. It would be an unspeakable tragedy if that music was "lost" to a wider audience. This has proved to be THE opportunity to preserve that music, this is what has made UC the fantastically important site it is.

Whatever is done 'Unsung Composers' MUST survive, it must continue!!!!!!

I absolutely second Dundonnell's comments. This site is a daily cause of joy to me. I think one of the reasons for the 'stretching' of the definition of the site is that the name of the site stresses the 'unsungness' of the composers, whereas only the description mentions the romantic period. It is, of course very hard to know where to put any 'cut off point': people have continued to composer romantic music up to the present, and yet some composers working as early as 1900 were decidedly post-romantic. It is interesting that there has been little or no stretching in the other direction, towards the Classical period, probably because a lot of people do love both the romantic and the modern. Anyway, as Dundonnell says, UC must go on with its noble work!

Shamokin88 back with this conundrum to consider: What direction would you like the site to take if maintenance of the status quo is not an option? That is a quote.

I'm not going to play games with words - what does Romantic mean for example. Some years back we had on our Supreme Court a justice by the name of Potter Stewart. He and his colleagues were rassling with a question in which pornography was snarled up with our First Amendment "free speech" guarantees. Mr Justice Stewart suggested that while he was unable to define pornography he surely recognized it when he saw it.

Some of that thinking pervades our desire to capture the meaning of Romantic. Let me posit that Alban Berg's opus three String Quartet is Romantic in the full measure of my - perhaps faulty - Hegelian understanding of the word. [That, by the way, is my opinion of the piece.]

But my intelligent and sympathetic friend complains that the Berg is horror piled upon horror, beyond his ken and has  spoiled his day utterly. I'll say just you wait until judgment day, Ducky, when they'll play Stefan Wolpe's [in my opinion] masterful Quartet for you, or even a certain seven-movement quartet in c# minor that offered up the world anew when it was new.

I am unable to imagine the substance of this site bifurcated, before and after something. I can, barely, imagine it divided into three parts, however - from roughly the post-Napoleonic period and the deaths of Beethoven and Schubert forward to the full maturity of the masterpieces of Bruckner, Brahms and Dvorak, say about 1815 to the late 1870s or early 1880s. Then comes a period of transition, one of ferment and pushing the envelope: Strauss, Mahler, Reger, Debussy, Scriabin into the harsh world of the 1920s and beyond - Hindemith, Stravinsky, Tansman, Szymanowski, Toch - perhaps music composed between 1875 and 1950. And then we enter into a new world, one that extends up to the present, one of integration and cross-fertilization.

I think such a division into three parts would better reflect the kind of understanding to which Mr Justice Stewart gave voice rather than a procrustean division into two parts.

Each period might employ its own curatorial attendants and moderators, and with the good will and decorum that seems to be the norm for this site perhaps there could be a happy outcome. It wouldn't be easy, either.

As for the Forum itself I must ask myself if that is the point of all this. I delight in reading many of the contributions, considering some to have gotten it just right about something and that someone else may have a loose screw somewhere. But that is my private opinion, not a law laid down. It happens that I am a member of the Religious Society of Friends - Quakers - and it is not incumbent upon us to speak in Meeting every time what seems like a good idea comes by.

One other thought. It just may be that there are fewer recordings of, say, Brüll, Rufinatscha or little known Max Bruch pieces that we can upload as opposed to postwar symphonies. But that is a guess.

Best to every blessed one of you from Shamokin88.

Thank you all for your valuable overnight (in he UK) contributions to this debate. Unfortunately, I shall shortly be largely absent from UC for three weeks but Alan will keep this topic ticking over whilst I am gone....

I'll try my best. But please remember: the bottom line is that the current situation is not sustainable and that therefore we are seeking positive solutions as to how to move on...

Alan/Mark,

As a junior member for about a year or so (since Giles first gave me a heads up on the existence of this site), I've been fascinated by the richness of the works available in the downloads section and the depth of knowledge displayed (and made available to the rest of us) by the senior members.

Like others with a CD-only collection, I can't unfortunately contribute to the downloads section and as an 'amateur' I don't have any expert knowledge to contribute either.  All I can add is my enthusiasm for the site!

As a confirmed 'romantic period' enthusiast, with a fair liking for some 'late classical' (I thought it honest to nail my own personal colours to the mast upfront!),  I can very much sympathise with the two main issues you have identified with UC as it is:-

(i) the frustration at the shift in content to 20th century (I was tempted to say 'post-romantic' period) when your own preference, and the reason as I understand it the site was started, is the 'romantic' period - UC has now become a very broad church (and no reason in theory it shouldn't be - tolerance of others likes whilst having our own declared preferences is part of a civilised society, but that doesn't help you cope with the workload!!

(ii) the sheer workload in managing a rapidly expanding site.

One of the problems is that any attempt at hard-line categorisation will undoubtedly lead to some anomalies (but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be done!).  The other is that we, as simple 'users' of the site, have no idea what effort any particular aspect or suggestion might entail, so we cannot properly weight our ideas.

One possible option is to split the site into say three sub-sites, corresponding to the periods of
(i) pre-romantic,
(ii) romantic and
(iii) post-romantic,
using either the dates above or similar. 

However, this might lead to a composer, such as Beethoven or Rachmaninov, getting split across more than one category, so perhaps a revised set of dates, based on year of composer's birth, might suffice instead and avoid that particular ambiguity, in terms of material for download , composer references and discussions (except where this last cross 'date' boundaries - e.g. commenting  on a new CD that is say a compilation of more than one composer - as often happens when an 'unsung' is coupled with an old warhorse to get some sales!.

This would than mean that Mark and Alan could continue to (i) take the lead in overall 'commonality' (look and feel, standards, referencing etc.), co-ordination, policy and structure across all three sub-sites and (ii) provide their own personal thrust for the 'romantic' period, once suitable colleagues have been recruited to look after the other two  embryonic daughter sites.

If a work is posted or thought relevant to another sub-site, then that can be put in a notice board area - for example, to let 'romantic' enthusiasts know about a 20th century concerto in romantic style (e.g. Andre Matthieu?)

I know, Alan and Mark, you have expressed some reservations about increasing the team of administrators, so perhaps the suggested 'federal' approach above might help without encroaching on your core reservations?

Anyway, one more idea for the melting pot!

Best wishes

Richard

PS And again many thanks (i) for the current good work done by yourselves and 'the experts' and (ii) for the reassurances about finding a viable future so we  don't lose 'UC'

Oh dear! This is not the kind of situation that I would either have liked or expected to encounter here at Unsung Composers. Personally, I do find the partial catalogues to be of interest but would perhaps not unnaturally prefer to be able to peruse complete ones, either with the whole output in chronological order of composition or split into categories each in choronological order of composition. I realise and appreciate that this would take a lot more time to prepare, of course. The partial catalogues that have so far been posted here have rather more often than not been of a composer's orchestral output; helpful as these undoubtedly are, the extent of their usefulness might in some sense be argued to depend upon the overall proportion of a particular composer's output that is devoted to orchestral music and, obviously, that is far greater in some composers' cases than it is in others.

Quoteso we  don't lose 'UC'

We won't lose UC.

Quote from: Richard Moss on Monday 02 July 2012, 10:28
As a confirmed 'romantic period' enthusiast, with a fair liking for some 'late classical' (I thought it honest to nail my own personal colours to the mast upfront!),  I can very much sympathise with the two main issues you have identified with UC as it is:-

(i) the frustration at the shift in content to 20th century (I was tempted to say 'post-romantic' period) when your own preference, and the reason as I understand it the site was started, is the 'romantic' period - UC has now become a very broad church (and no reason in theory it shouldn't be - tolerance of others likes whilst having our own declared preferences is part of a civilised society, but that doesn't help you cope with the workload!!

(ii) the sheer workload in managing a rapidly expanding site.

One of the problems is that any attempt at hard-line categorisation will undoubtedly lead to some anomalies (but that doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't be done!).  The other is that we, as simple 'users' of the site, have no idea what effort any particular aspect or suggestion might entail, so we cannot properly weight our ideas.

One possible option is to split the site into say three sub-sites, corresponding to the periods of
(i) pre-romantic,
(ii) romantic and
(iii) post-romantic,
using either the dates above or similar. 

However, this might lead to a composer, such as Beethoven or Rachmaninov, getting split across more than one category, so perhaps a revised set of dates, based on year of composer's birth, might suffice instead and avoid that particular ambiguity, in terms of material for download , composer references and discussions (except where this last cross 'date' boundaries - e.g. commenting  on a new CD that is say a compilation of more than one composer - as often happens when an 'unsung' is coupled with an old warhorse to get some sales!

Some good ideas here but some argue with themselves, I fear! I think that, once the attempted shoehorning of a particular composer into a genre-based category might begin to determine which unsung composers are and which are not deemed eligible for discussion, cataloguing or otherwise here, we get into potential difficulties, the overlapping issue being just one particularly potent illustration of this problem. It might be argued, for example, that, in today's world of easily obtainable recordings of many previously unrecorded works, "unsung" status for recent and living composers might reasonably be expected to be a less likely situation, but it's clearly by no means that simple. The sheer diversity of style and approach between composers today also seems (to me, at least) to suggest that categorisation of composers as any kind of determining factor in terms of what gets aired here is maybe not the most welcome idea.

But that's just my two pennarth!

Quote from: Mark Thomas on Monday 02 July 2012, 10:38

Quoteso we  don't lose 'UC'

We won't lose UC.

Thanks heavens for that!

Hope members will excuse me taking a quick second bite at the cherry!

One point mentioned earlier was the lack of available recordings of say obscure (i.e. unsung) British romantic works.  what has puzzled me is that, taking the BBC as an example (and I'm sure those in the know can point to many continental examples too), the amount of stuff broadcast each week over the years (say just in 'composer of the week') that contains original performances of otherwise unheard works) itself would fill UC many times over.

Is this archive (excluding broadcasts of commercially recorded stuff) not available to us in some way - after all, our taxes have paid for it??!

Just a thought!

Richard

Actually, Albion's tremendous collection here has a very good representation of romantic music I always think. But let's not stray from the point too far....

Quote from: Richard Moss on Monday 02 July 2012, 10:42
Is this archive (excluding broadcasts of commercially recorded stuff) not available to us in some way - after all, our taxes have paid for it??!

There's a lot of Brit-centric assumption to many of these discussions.

For those of us outside the UK who contribute non-UK broadcasts or aren't so familiar with many less-sung British composers (better known to ex-choristers and Radio 3 listeners), there is a different perspective to the music.

It's not clear to me what the specific new issues in managing this forum are. I've managed or moderated some huge lists in my time (and still do), so it would help to know exactly what's taking the time.

The other thing I've noticed, and correct me if any think I'm wrong, is that some want every single composer or work offered here to be something they like, and it's causing them pain by not finding this to be so. I don't bump into much that offends my musical sensibilities here, but that's because I pick my threads before diving in. It's a bit like being in a gigantic book or record store - I'm so busy looking in the sections I know work for me that I scarcely notice the rest.

I take your point, but only up to a point.  To be entirely selfish for a moment the issue which affects me, and need not affect Alan, is that I actually own the site. I pay for it and, much more to the point, I am held responsible in law for everything which is posted here. So it's incumbent on me to read every single post whether it looks likely to be of interest to me or not. As it happens Alan, who is the most conscientious of people, does the same. I'm not going to rehearse the frustrations and irritations of being a moderator even on this, the most well-behaved of forums, because you obviously know them well. You'll also know that we have tried set a tone of well-mannered debate and make sure that it's maintained. That policing often happens "behind the scenes". I'm not bemoaning our lot, most of the time it's a pleasure, but for me the pleasure has reduced because, in common with many of our original members, I am just not interested in a significant proportion of the music which now features here. And yes, I have allowed that situation to develop, I freely acknowledge.

Yes, I understand those frustrations well! It sometimes takes the wisdom and even-handedness of Solomon to cut through some "debate".

I know we need a holiday from even the things we love, so perhaps it is time to apprentice some new admins.

In terms of cutting down the breadth of the forum, does the site offer a way for you to check thread stats to see where the interest lies? The downloads aren't hosted here but do you get figures for clicks on links that would similarly help?

I would say don't be afraid to prune if it allows you to focus and get more pleasure from the site. I may miss some of the prunings, but I'll get over it in about ten minutes. If others are more upset, then it's a stimulus for them to launch cousin sites for them to bear the moderation burdens and hosting costs.

I wish you well whatever you choose.

Thanks for your support, Mike. Much appreciated, as are all the supportive posts (and questioning!) posts here.

The Site's Scope

Any decision on limiting the site's scope to say 1800-1918 (with or without stretching to post-romantic era tonals) would surely still need to recognise that the existing 'modern' material on the site does have value – surely those firmly in the Romantics-only camp would agree.

Limiting the site to romantics is not only controversial but also presents a big site management challenge. This seems so whether the full-blown option is taken to have 2 sites or the existing modern stuff is held on its own board within our site. It seems true even if we just put a stop to non-romantic posts. Unless, that is, we leave ourselves with a messy Before and After arrangement – which is probably fine for looking at new posts but would fail the purpose of the site in also being an accessible resource bank. 

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).

Although where posts belong would be obvious from many of the post titles, it isn't on for Administrators to have go through the whole existing collection (on top of all else they do and will also need to do on site modification). But it could be done for all new posts, plus encouraging members to revisit their own old posts if they wish and flagging them for relocation.

• Do we think active tagging would be a good idea?

• If so, is it a practical possibility?

Thanks for this very helpful contribution, Paul. I'm about to go on holiday for a few weeks and I'll be chewing over all these issues whilst I'm away, ready to return with renewed vigour (I hope) and some decisions towards the end of the month.

Thanks, Paul, for all your helpful thoughts. We'll consider them together with all the other options proposed. Please do keep them coming...

Well, another point is about who Unsung Composers is for (not forgetting that it could be our mission to promote unsung composers to the world!) and maybe too we should appreciate that the constituencies of this site are not equal. Apart from guests who eventually join, there are both occasional and regular guests who never do. They can't really be represented (although their views and needs might be second-guessed). Whilst they must matter as site users who draw some of the point and value from the site, it remains unclear just how important they are thought to be. Then there are the totally or virtually silent members who read and download but seldom contribute and at the other end are those who are regularly active right across the boards. Finally, there are those who do the work for and own the site.

Decisions are made by those who turn up and have their say: these constituencies are intrinsically unequal but whether we need to address and balance them with those whose voices shout loudest is a question – as is whether or not it would make sense to using the polling facility on proposals for helping to resolve Key Issues.

Thanks yet again, Paul. This may not be the most democratic statement I'm ever going to make but the bottom line is that nothing is going to change unless I'm happy with it. Now. let me now hedge that around with some caveats: from the inception of the Raff Forum and now UC we have always tried to take into account the views of all the site's stakeholders - not just those who, as you say, talk the loudest (although they're stakeholders too). The number of posts and replies give an idea of member activity and topic and board view statistics give us a rough idea of what they and lurkers like and what is less popular, but in the case of downloads we have no statistics unfortunately. Almost without exception the changes to the site over the years have all been driven by member demand, and mostly they've worked well. That's why we have opened things up for debate on this issue too, rather than just imposing changes. Quite rightly, it's usually important to no one, including me, that the site actually has an owner and is not a co-operative but ultimately nothing ever happens without me being happy that it should happen, and this issue is no exception.

Just an apology really for not having contributed so far to this very important debate. It's not that I'm not interested; it's that I fully appreciate the problem - but I can't, at least at present, offer any constructive solution.  I'm not particularly interested in atonal music, as both Mark and Alan Know, nor in some of the, to my ears, frankly  turgid neo-romantic Soviet output, but I suspect that some of the 20th century British music about which I am passionate might not fall within the scope of the "romantic" ethos that originally characterised (and lies at the heart of) this forum. So I'm not ignoring this issue. I'm just keeping quiet until I can think of something useful to say - other than that Mark and Alan have my complete support and total respect for the work they do (and have done) to create and control this unique and very special resource.

Were I as eloquent as Gareth I should have expressed my own position in identical terms.

Thanks, Gareth and Lionel. We're working on a solution to satisfy as many people as possible.

I must admit that I'm not a huge fan of music that has no obvious root in tonally intuitive or emotive expression. I love Penderecki - but then , he was always a closet romantic, as was Ligeti. I'm afraid that most of the conjecture of the past century leaves me cold. Love exploring it, but seldom return for a second helping. Personally, I would give a hundred eastern bloc symphonies for a revival of Spontini's Nurmahal, or Lemoyne's Electra.

I guess I can offer no practical advice... but I can thank you for your work in bringing this site/forum to us music lovers, and for making available much beautiful music...

Thanks. We trust that we will continue to be able to delight you...

These posts make fascinating and stimulating reading - please can I second most of what Dundonell and some others have said - far more eloquently that I have been rambling.

There seems to be (if I haven't missed the gist) a broadly general feeling that people like the site as it is... (I say 'people' - there have only been a few posters so far - I would encourage any others to come out of the woodwork and speak up if they value the site as much as I and others do).

This situation, however, is not fully acceptable to the owner/moderators, Alan and Mark. I don't see how many of the suggestions so far voiced will either change the work Alan and Mark do, to something they enjoy more or, if it is work (and it is work) they don't enjoy, reduce that work load. I have to admit, I don't really have a good idea what to suggest. Iy didn't really occur to me just how much work and exactly what they do until it was discussed in this post, for which I apologise to them both.

The best I can do is to second the suggestion that an additional moderator, with a keen interest in the spikier end of mid- to late-20th century music, might lighten the load. I can only imagine that both of you, Alan and Mark, having such a depth of musical knowledge, would be able to take a reasonable stab, at a glance, at the approximate style of a piece of music, just from the country of origin, date and composer's name, perhaps helped out in your assesment by a quick google search - this/these suggested additional moderator(s) could then take on the challenge of dealing with anything outside of your prefered remit. Any pieces which ended up with 'the wrong moderator' would probably be few and not a big burden.

Forgive me if this misses some vital aspect of running a site like this, and please, everyone, suggest alternatives. I wonder, though, if the best solution might be to find a way to keep the site running as it is, to Alan's satisfaction, and not a way to change it? Just my tuppence-worth. Ramble over.

Lee

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.
         

Thanks, Greg. Your views are appreciated.

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

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 ;D    I do accept that, being retired, I do have more time at my disposal than other busy members ;D

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.

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.

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

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.

Thanks, Steve and oldman. Much appreciated.

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.

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

Thanks, Roelof. Your thoughts are greatly appreciated.

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.

Quote from: Paul Barasi on Monday 02 July 2012, 15:03
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).

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.

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.)

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.

So far we seem to have avoided any complaints by being extremely careful what we allow to be uploaded. In this constant vigilance is required - which is why we have a policy of prior approval. Again thanks, gentlemen, for your thoughts - greatly appreciated.

Please forgive my late arrival to this very important discussion. It is not for lack of interest. I've been traveling and have not been able to visit the site in recent days.

First, I must join the chorus of appreciation to Mark and Alan. I was never a participant in the Raff forum, but I've been around for awhile. I will say simply that this is my favorite site on the Internet. Period.

Second, the challenge of monitoring and moderating the site has grown burdensome to Mark and Alan. If it were only due to increased volume of use, that would be enough. But since it also derives from the site taking flight into pastures far afield from the original intent, the burden is exacerbated.

Third, there are legal issues involved. Many of us wish they did not exist, yet all of us recognize the importance of conforming to them. And this occupies the energy and time of Mark, Alan, Albion and others.

Finally, there is a core of members whose knowledge, erudition and commitment to meaningful contribution to the site serve as a congregation of expertise on the topics pertaining to unsung composers that could never be found elsewhere, even in the halls of the finest schools of music.

All of us benefit from this amazing intellectual resource called Unsung Composers.

Personally, I have zero interest and patience for a large portion of music composed in the modern era. That said, I am reluctant to use dates as a means for conscribing discussion and downloads. And the reason is because there are composers who wrote tonal music well into the 20th century and even today. I need only mention Kabalevsky, Gliere, York Bowen, Howard Hanson and Myaskovsky, whose music is imminently romantic in spirit and execution.

Adding to that complexity is the whole notion of tonality. Much of Mahler's later music, for example, is atonal and yet remains competely accessible to those who enjoy romantic era music.

So, to me, it would be a mistake to demark the interests of the board by date.

Yet, there is no doubt that a large amount of modernist music that is of no interest to me and well beyond the scope of the board, has begun to supplant the original purpose of the site. Personally, I am not happy when I download something that (to me) is not only a waste of time but a noxious dose of abrasive sound that I cannot even classify as music.

Mark and Alan have not said, but I suspect most of their burden and concern derives from the Downloads and Downloads Discussion forums.

I'm going to make a modest proposal, which may not be what is sought, but may be a point for discussion.

There is a core of posters who contribute the bulk of the Downloads. I count myself among them, but I am the bottom of the list of contributors. Esteemed members like britishcomposer, Albion, A.S., Dundonell, Shamokin, Mark, Thalberg and many many others have enriched the lives of all of us by offering us so much music to enjoy.

Those who do not contribute to the downloads contribute to the site in other ways.

My modest proposal is this:

First, that those of us who contribute to Downloads police ourselves, offering only music that is truly encompassed within the spirit of the site.

Second, that a corps of volunteers be identified who can assist with checking to assure that uploads are not available commercially, thus reducing the burden of this activity from Mark and Alan.

Third, that the site be renamed Unsung Romantics to more clearly define the scope of interest to which the site is dedicated. and to clearly communicate that goal to all who seek to become members.

Lastly, let me say that, my own commitment to the efforts of this site to recognize, document, celebrate and preserve the music of unsung romantics increases daily. If I ever am able to retire, I have every intention of undertaking a project that will complement the remarkable achievements of this site and hopefully, enhance for everyone the realm of music we all love.

Mark and Alan have created one of the remarkable and valuable resources in music. This site represents the very best of what the Internet can offer to the world. It is my privilege to be a small part of the great resource that is available here, and an even greater privilege to share in the conversation of so many knowledgeable people.

My thanks to Mark and Alan. My salute to one and all.

Amphissa has expressed many of my own views better than I could. Among my "seconds":

• "I must join the chorus of appreciation to Mark and Alan."
• "...this is my favorite site on the Internet. Period."
• "All of us benefit from this amazing [communal] intellectual resource called Unsung Composers."
• "[Let us upload] only music that is truly encompassed within the [Romantic] spirit of the site."
• "If I ever am able to retire, I have every intention of undertaking a project" that would, I hope, contribute to the richness and original intent of this site.

Every movement begins with a vision. With success comes dilution, or in some cases hijacking, of that vision by others with their own strong convictions. Such persons mean well but often lack, for whatever reason, the external or internal wherewithal to start their own movement from scratch.

I feel strongly about this because it cost my father his life. And before that it cost him his family life. Which I would never want to happen to two of my favorite benefactors, Mark and Alan.

So my vote is to slow this site down. And my suggestion on how to do so is to consider splitting off the upload part of Unsung Composers entirely. It too is a unique treasure on the internet, and I have been thrilled to be able to download things I had given up hope of ever hearing. But if traffic to Unsung Composers has dilated because of downloads, and if with dilation has come a type of member who might not be sympathetic to the original vision for this site -- specifically, thoughtful discussion of unsung Romantics -- then the digital medium's technological message needs to step away from the microphone and give it back to us "simpler" symbol-processing carbon-based beings.

first of all I agree with...
• Romantic,late romantic, and early 20th century neo classic music is my life and blood
•"...this is my favorite site on the Internet. Period."
•"All of us benefit from this amazing communal intellectual resource
•".I personally start the day reading the news, Our Relevent news here in UC.. on my phone every day

Yet, This will probably be way out there, but an Idea none the less for this thread,...how about  placing this site or a portion of it (for testing purposes. maybe to start) on Facebook  to make workload simpler? since it helps organize, save time and delete stuff you don't want. plus a cool feature is just clicking on "like" to diffrent comments that others have posted which one agrees on quicker without having to commenting unless your compelled to .. but, jus saying  ;) 
 
Ps: I am a loyal follower of our movement.. so if there is anything i can look into or help do , I'd be glad to do so.. live in San Francisco California

Quote from: izdawiz on Thursday 05 July 2012, 03:00
Yet, This will probably be way out there, but an Idea none the less for this thread,...how about  placing this site or a portion of it (for testing purposes. maybe to start) on Facebook  to make workload simpler? since it helps organize, save time and delete stuff you don't want. plus a cool feature is just clicking on "like" to diffrent comments that others have posted which one agrees on quicker without having to commenting unless your compelled to .. but, jus saying  ;) 

I understand your sentiments, but I, for one, loathe the idea and ideals of Facebook, and what it has done to society at large, at least here in the U.S. Other suggestions, like additional moderators and tagging, seem more realistic and controllable by Mark and Alan directly, and less likely to fundamentally alter the current framework of Unsung Composers.

Well I started one post and lost it due to stupidity.  And it's probably just as well.

Let me just say thanks to Alan and Mark for all they do and all they have made of this great forum.  I find myself less and less interested; having to plow through the unread posts trying to find something of interest to my narrow, romantic, tonal tastes.  Perhaps I now read one in ten instead of vice versa.

So just let me say this, if Corigliano is OK, why not Haydn?   Nobody tries to post Bach or Buxtehude here.  But perhaps we should start creeping backwards as well.   That way we'd appeal to even more people and the moderators could make this a full time charity.

I say let's get back to the original purpose.  If someone wants to have a Modern Music forum, let them start one and see for themselves how much fun they can have. 

And I'm not trying to be sarcastic or nasty here.   We have strayed far, far from the original goal and prupose and I sympathize completely with our founding fathers. 

Jerry

Quote from: jerfilm on Thursday 05 July 2012, 03:18
So just let me say this, if Corigliano is OK, why not Haydn?   Nobody tries to post Bach or Buxtehude here.  But perhaps we should start creeping backwards as well.   That way we'd appeal to even more people and the moderators could make this a full time charity.

I cringe to even say this, but this exact sentiment has almost come off my fingers many times over the last few months.  And, as jerfilm said, there's no anger or malevolent intent in it.  But in all honesty, I feel that composers like Méhul are closer to Romanticism than the vast majority of the 20th century composers posted and talked about here lately.  And yet, I restrain myself from talking about Méhul, who wrote what I consider one of the greatest symphonies ever written (his 2nd).  Not because I don't like him, and don't want to talk about him, but because I have read the description of the message board and try to stick within those guidelines.

But then, are we back to using a year at each end to arbitrarily cut things off, like 1830-1910 or something?  I'm thinking Somervell's 1930 Violin Concerto and getting a sinking feeling.  I don't know if there even is a good answer to all this.  The bad part is that there probably isn't.  I'd almost rather it just go on as it is, just to avoid upsetting all the contributions/uploads, if it didn't bother Mark and Alan.  I mean, I admit that it's cut my postings almost to nil, and I've basically stopped sampling anything, but a lot of people are really getting into this, and I think it's a really positive thing.  I feel like it would be a shame to destroy so much enthusiasm for unsung music, whether I happen to like that music or not.  I wish there were some way to channel it without cutting it off cold.

Thanks to all of you for such articulate and helpful responses. We'll be sure to take them all on board.

I would not recommend moving any aspect of this board to Facebook.

I do think it would be option worth considering to separate the discussion board from the downloads, and to have downloads operate separately, with a different team of moderators. That would return UC to its original form and purpose, which would be more manageable for Mark and Alan.

The concern I have about that is this:

At present, we have a site that offers downloads within the context of informed discussion and education. Since educational purpose in a defines community fits within the parameters of copyright "fair use," and since the types of downloads are limited to public broadcast, public domain and old LPs, it reduces the legal risk to the site owner.

If you completely divorce the downloads from the discussion site, the "fair use" argument is diluted. This is not a killer. There are boards that offer nothing but downloads and they've been operating for years with minimal hassle. But the scope of source recordings is more limited, in part because they cannot make that argument of being a site dedicated to education, knowledge and collegial discussion.

A great concern of mine, when considering moving to Facebook or any other social networking platform, or moving to a much higher traffic area of the web like Yahoo Groups or Google Groups, is that the user population explodes due to increased visibility, and you are suddenly on the radar of those who monitor downloading. It is much better to keep a low profile in order to retain the essential character of being a tight-knit community of knowledgeable people engaged in informed conversation.

I wonder if, in our enthusiasm for sharing our recordings, we have lost sight of the true purpose of the site. I would hope that we could rein-in our excess of off-topic downloads to reassert the true purpose of our community here.

On the other hand, some of the downloads here (or maybe the majority, at this point) are an important archive of LPs of works that may not be everyone's cup of tea, but are nonetheless valuable for being the only recorded versions of works that are (deservedly or not) unsung, whatever their style.  Don't forget that neo-Classical is also tonal, albeit sometimes polytonal or otherwise dissonant.  Are we to exclude compositions composed post 1920 because of that, but include more Romantic-style compositions from those same years?

Quote from: JimL on Thursday 05 July 2012, 15:13
Are we to exclude compositions composed post 1920 because of that, but include more Romantic-style compositions from those same years?

That's the debate, whatever date is chosen...

Also, I have concerns because only a handful of uploaders have been posting the music in question, and I don't want to alienate them, or make them feel their contributions have been inappropriate or otherwise unwelcome.  After all, we haven't really been that explicit about the parameters of the music discussed here (it's not that obvious.  We have a footnote instead of a billboard).  Splitting the forum along stylistic lines makes sense to me.  That way the more avant-garde amongst us can still participate as full equals.  Of course, that division would have to have separate moderation, if not administration.

You can draw a date-based line in the sand, but I predict it will never be possible to draw an unambiguous style-based line in the sand.

One date-based line in the sand would be a birthdate line. Setting it at 1875, for example, would eliminate many of the transitional modernists (Bloch, Enescu, Stravinsky, etc) while keeping Strauss, Schmitt, Schmidt (and, yes, Schoenberg -- no system is perfect).

Yes, the birth date line probably makes as much sense as anything we're seen so far.   For my old ears, a pretty high percentage of composers after 1880 are not to my taste.  However, one thing I do appreciate immensely, is a note on the composition date.  Also when someone sez that a piece is strictly in the romantic vein, I will always download it and give it a try.

Jerry

Shamokin back once more on what will prove to be another wretchedly hot day in Philadelphia.

I would like to discourage any connection with Facebook or like sites. I don't think it is useful that someone in Senegal might learn that I just finished brushing my teeth or that I might learn the same about them. And the participants in these social networks are not really people being served, they are people being sold. My opinion.

Yesterday I uploaded a Viola Concerto by a young American composer, Amanda Harberg. The day before, I confess, I had never heard of her. Her concerto fits within my notion of what constitutes a good piece and more broadly, an appropriate piece for UC. I'd welcome opinions in this respect because her concerto emerges from the place, you might say, where I "am" or, better, a space within which I am comfortable. My comfort zone, in other words.

Were we to "police" ourselves - and goodness knows we could do that, we have the discernment for that - her concerto would probably not appear on this site, not yesterday, not today nor any other day.

If her concerto ought not to be here - and I can remove it in the twinkling of an eye - the self-censorship implied in taking it down suggests that there is not a great deal more that I could offer UC - my collection is heavily weighted in the direction of more Amanda Harbergs. For every Edgar Stillman Kelly Piano Quintet that I upload I have twenty five quintets that would possibly send Kelly spinning in his grave. I know that no one blames me for this, they just wish it might be the other way 'round.

Self-censorship will likely keep you out of trouble but - fill in the blanks. History offers many options here.

I was struck by the idea that we might have a sharper demarcation between the uploads, on one hand, and the discussions, on the other. I'm not sure what that would mean other than different emphases in moderating and monitoring what comes in.

Anyway, as ever, peace linked to purpose to all from Shamokin88.

Quote from: chill319 on Thursday 05 July 2012, 16:08
One date-based line in the sand would be a birthdate line. Setting it at 1875, for example, would eliminate many of the transitional modernists (Bloch, Enescu, Stravinsky, etc) while keeping Strauss, Schmitt, Schmidt (and, yes, Schoenberg -- no system is perfect).

A death-date line might be another alternative.  Chill319's example of a birthdate line of 1875 would exclude Hurlstone, for example who only lived to 30 and was exclusively Romantic in style. Although to argue against myself, a death-date line of, say 1950 would exclude York Bowen, which would be equally unsatisfactory.  Indeed, no system is perfect.  I'm sure glad this isn't my decision.  :-\

Whatever criteria are eventually adopted, there could be an exception, or "honorary composers," list maintained by the moderators.

The list could go both ways, permitting (potentially) a Dussek op9/2 discussion as well as (potentially) a Bax "Spring Fire" discussion.

Again, may I express our sincere appreciation for all these contributions and the spirit in which they are offered? If I refrain from giving any direct or more detailed response, it's simply that Mark and I are not currently in a position to do the requisite work in coming up with a solution. However, do rest assured that we will be letting you know as soon as possible what we propose to do about the issues we have raised.

Yes, and I guess the 'exception or honorary composers' list need not be a 'once and for all' list but members could be allowed to suggest to the moderators names which might be deemed suitable for addition to it. 

Arbitrary birth, death and composition dates I would suggest are simply unworkable as tight boundaries and exceptions would quickly disintegrate such an approach. If the main thrust of the forum is to limit itself to Romanticism (with a capital R) the only criterion which can even tentatively be applied is patently one of idiom (which is itself subject to myriad personal interpretations). The concern must surely be that by actively discouraging members from contributing, we not only limit the possibilities of our own musical exploration but those of other members yet unknown, effectively setting ourselves up as arbiters of taste.

Members may (or may not) be pleased to learn that I shall not be removing any items from the British and Irish archive as this is my personal collection very kindly augmented by friends and colleagues. Whilst I may not choose to listen to some of it's contents very often if at all, these recordings collectively stand (and hopefully will continue to stand) as an enormously valuable resource for listeners and researchers, not only for the intrinsic value of the music itself but as a testament to a long-gone golden age of adventurous broadcasting. Furthermore, members with important material of whatever character should definitely not hesitate in contacting me if they wish to add items to this particular archive in the future, whatever restrictions are implemented elsewhere.

I should make it clear that, as an honorary moderator, I only deal with the (loosely-termed) British section and have no remit whatsoever in other areas.

:)

Thanks, John, for that clear contribution. All I would say is that, by excluding the avant-garde, we have already set ourselves up as arbiters of taste. In other words, even in its current state, the forum already has boundaries which discourage the contributions of all manner of folk who would be proponents of an even wider stylistic net. Unless we allow anything and everything to be posted, a line has to be drawn somewhere. All Mark and I are saying is that, for us, it's now in the wrong place (or whatever metaphor you care to use) and that we feel we must do something about it for own sanity.

This site is incredibly important for the purpose of cultural memory.  How many creations (and creators) of culture have been and are consigned to the wastebin of history by contemporary popularity?  We provide an opportunity for the entire world to REMEMBER and reconsider.

Members have made a lot of very valuable and viable comments.  However, one aspect occurs to me - until Mark & Alan have the opportunity to decide whether (or not!) to sub-divide the site into sub-sections (e.g. pre-romantic, romantic, post-romantic) with additional administrators and the means to look across the whole (e.g. to peruse all 'Czech' music), much of the discussion is of necessity not in focus.  any such sub-division would need to be unambiguous so all sections, when placed next to each other, can form a continuous spectrum in time, space and genre.

If the decision is to say sub-divide the whole UC area (I don't use the word split as we all feel a need to retain a holistic view, I think),  thereby enabling it to cater for all tastes and to recruit further administrator capacity to deal with say non-romantic areas, then we can focus on HOW to make that sub-division work whilst retaining, as members comments clearly indicate they wish to do, a holistic capabilty across the whole UC 'domain (e.g. via tagging/common indexing).

If however for whatever reasons, Mark and Alan cannot see a way to clearly do this on a satisfactory basis, then our considerations can concentrate on HOW to live within 'acceptable' restrictions Mark and Alan have had to place on the site (and still serve the needs of most members).

Hope this helps a focus so all the ideas are relevant to the chosen way forward.

Best wishes

Richard

Dear all,

I am late in this discussion for several reasons: I felt quite drained lately and I have no idea about the direction to which UC may move. However, I trust in the good sense and enthusiasm of our moderators and founder members Mark and Alan. Moreover, what is left to say after all those dedicated and thoughtful posts?  :)

My 'problem' with UC is that I am 'potentially' interested in every bit of music which is uploaded and discussed. Therefore I download nearly every piece and read every post. I suppose I have become an UC addict over the last year. I don't have the time to listen to even a minimum percentage of the pieces which I download but - well, it's nice to have them. Who knows!  ;)
Sometimes I spend more than an hour downloading and converting music. I actually do not have the time, so in the end I sleep less and less.
I have contemplated leaving UC several times because I let myself become absorbed too much. It's hard to say: okay, I will download this and pass over this. Or upload this and not that...
Yes I know, it's my private madness, but my reason for telling you about this is to demonstrate that if I, a 'normal' UC member, gets so much absorbed by UC, how much time and energy may it cost the moderators?!
Mark and Alan, I wish you all the best and I am happy to agree to every decision, even if it may be hard for some of us.

A thought about the Downloads Section - maybe somewhat absurd: some time ago an avant-garde composer whom I know has posted links to several download-databases of new music on his blog. He commented that the internet will become the 'total archive' and had a lot of praise for all the people who spend time uploading music and sharing it with a worldwide community. According to him this means an important step in the direction of democratization of education. However, he lamented the fact that so many people upload music to so many different spaces that it is impossible to avoid scattering of information. He proposes instead to use youtube as the sole medium for uploading music. The idea make sense to me. Youtube is perhaps as popular as wikipedia. Google for a certain unsung composer and with a bit luck you will immediately find a youtube-link. But you have to convert your music into a video-file before you can upload it. Honestly, I would never have uploaded any music if it had been necessary to convert it first. And it would be a radical decision to close the Downloads Section and invite our members to start uploading to youtube...

Sorry for the confused ramble. I think I should stop now; Sir Charles is wating with the tea. ;) ;D

All the best,
Mathias

Thanks, Mathias. I can assure that your post was most definitely not a ramble!

Thanks also to Jim and Richard for your helpful contributions.

[sorry for poor english]
First of all I have to thank creators of this site for their work, since unsungcomposer among with musicweb-international are, no doubt, two best internet sites devoted to classical music. I am glad that romantic music is a prime focus of this forum, since I, personally, can't even stand late of works of Scriabin\Nielsen\Sibelius\Voughan-Williams and everything more avant-garde is nothing but a cacophony to my ears.
BUT, if you are to draw a line it shoud be 1800 (first Beethoven's symphony) - 1950 (Braga Santos' fourth, which for me always sounded like a solemn funeral march for old music) or even 1955. I've studied history of music of this particular period along with repertoire of orchestras and I have to say that up to the end of WWII non-avantgarde composers were still a leading force (and far outnumbered those who composed avant-garde music) practically in all regions of the world (except for Germany, Vienna, Moscow and Leningrad). Not only in the 'old musical' countries there were dozens of late romantic composers who composed highly attractive romantic music (from Rachmaninov and Atterberg to Ropartz and Joseph Marx), but it was also a time when a lot of new composers schools were emerged all over the world - from Japan and Australia to Argentina and Chlie. These 'new musical' countries gave us literally hundreds of non-avantgarde composers (for example: André Mathieu from Canada ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDb7XAfoTfc&feature=my_favorites&list=FLD2YIXGM8G9j4yCtKiNVRwg ), Arthur Lemba from Estonia ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_B_x1gv2_BY&feature=my_favorites&list=FLD2YIXGM8G9j4yCtKiNVRwg ), Fikret Amirov from Azerbaijan ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PaKSX0N6GCk ) to name just a few). Rarelly their music were heard outside their native countries but today, in the age of CD and internet, it is not a problem anymore. Even in 60s and 70s there were still romantic works, especially in soviet conuntries (Svetlanov's wonderful PC for example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ymu_V1LHRTQ ). I have a statistics that clearly shows that even in USA among ~110 composers whose works were published during 50s and 60s about 2\3 composed tonal works (although most of them probably were more or less avant-garde, but still). So I think it is rather unnecessary to exclude innerwar period, because the amount of great romantic music comosed during this time is just too huge to ignore. I also think it is necessary to oblige all uploaders to write short description of music they share, because among romantic works there were a lot of different styles and there are not that much people who have eclectic taste and love them all.

No need for any apologies. You have made your point very clearly, for which I am very grateful.

I have followed the discussion from the sidelines these past few days and have thought about it.

I wasn't there in the beginning (though I did lurk when I first heard about Rufinatscha), but UC has grown into something much bigger than was either meant or expected. It is now a unique internet location where an enormous amount of music and information is coming together about unsung (undersung) composers from the past two centuries. Personally, I would be very sorry to see UC shoehorned within its original borders again. It would stifle the enthusiasm of contributing members, it would stall all momentum. A site is an organism, too. Is UC as a broad church possible? I really hope so, though I get the sense that some of the older members feel UC slipping away and becoming a different and strange place. This development must be galling. It is not as if all music uploaded is to my taste, either. As some have suggested, it would be better if all this unknown music would come with tags and a description, so that members know what sort of style they can expect.

How much does UC cost? If people are serious about it, why not contribute financially? I am an active member of the GMG Classical Music Forum, too, and I pay a small amount every month. Would it make a difference if people put money where their mouths are? Would they be allowed to do so? And would it make a difference if people offered to help out? I sincerely hope a viable way forward can be found, and that UC will remain a place where unsung-music lovers of diverse plumage can feel at home.

Thanks, J.Z. I understand your position and we'll try to ensure that birds of varying plumages are catered for - somehow.

Thanks, Alan. And for ease of use - it's Johan...

After reading the many thoughtful comments, I have nothing much to add, only giving my most heartfelt thanks to Mark and Alan as creators and administrators of this wonderful site!.
Personally, I would prefer to have a clear set of rules (any set, arbitrary or not) that will help me to decide which music we are asked to upload, so I will not felt guilty for adding to the site music which is of little or no interest to the majority of the members.

Having read the 122 posts on this topic, it would appear that it is the down loads which are the principal cause of the current problems. I would urge a tighter policy which would apply only to this particular area.  With the other areas on the forum, we all stray a little and it does not seem to cause any problems.  I would hate to lose the expertise for the slightly earlier and later composers which we know is available on this site. 

I just have two thoughts to add. Firstly, that I too, would be happy to pay a small amount to be a member of the site - I know it is not being asked for, but I just wanted to mention it.

Secondly, so far as the 1950/55 date mentioned, when I'm downloading or listening on eclassical, emusic, unsungcomposers, youtube etc, I download anything written before 1945 without batting an eye-lid (there is almost nothing, possibly excepting Webern, I find I can't listen to in that period). However, I tend to find that from roughly 1948-1950, the proportion of 'difficult' music (to my ears) compared to 'approachable', goes up considerably, with the 1960s and 1970s taking some very careful picking thorugh. So, if it were my choice (which it isn't, or course) to put some sort of blanket date on the site, it would probably be 1945. I am aware that I am missing pieces like Prokofiev's 7th and lovely cello sonata and Miaskovsky's 27th, amongst many others, but I think that would be a very 'safe' date. For me personally, 1918, as mentioned some posts ago, misses out most of my favourite pieces! I couldn't live without Shostakovich 5, hackneyed as it may be!  :D

Lee

There's something to be said for a 1955 cut-off, so long as when the member who suggested it is asked to stand up everyone doesn't say "I'm Spartacus". (Alan may transfer this to the hidden board on jokes.)

Thanks, gentlemen, for these further thoughts. The issue is actually wider than the Downloads section, although it's more obvious there, I think.

So much has now been said by so many members. Their contributions have been distinguished by thoughfulness, courtesy and that inherent love of music which marks this site out as a beacon of good sense and good taste.

I am in agreement with very much of what has been written, especially, in the early hours of this morning, by Johan Herrenberg.

But I also find myself agreeing with one of our 'senior' members JimL. His wise words from yesterday regarding the importance of this site represent a view which has now been voiced by a succession of posters.

I suspect that my own personal tastes and those of JimL may differ-although not nearly as much as either of us may fear-but I have the utmost respect for those who cannot share all of my tastes in music and I would be more than happy to continue to belong to and contribute to a site which can encompass any of such differences of musical perspective.

I recall both JimL and I listening in growing astonishment (certainly on my part) to the Violin Concerto written in 1986 by the French composer Yvon Bourrel(born in 1932) and posted by jowcol back in February. This is the most gloriously, beautiful, Romantic violin concerto I had heard for many a long year. To have "lost" the opportunity to make this work's acquaintance as the result of the imposition of some date limitation would have been simply tragic :(

Similarly, the Joep Franssens "Bridge of Dawn", written in 2006 by a composer born in 1955, was a revelation :) Here was a work of such incandescent beauty, so reminiscent of the Mahler 5th Adagietto, that it brought tears to my eyes.

To take any action which could, conceivably, mean that such works were not continuing to be shared with music-lovers in every country, on every continent, throughout the world through the wonders of the internet and the extraordinary kindness and unbelievable generosity of other music-lovers would-quite frankly and without hyperbole-break my heart.

As Alan and Mark have mentioned, the difficulty resides not only with the Downloads section, but throughout the site. Although they have not gone into specifics, they have alluded to the problem of having to read every single post that people make in every thread on every forum. This daunting task, moderating the entire site as it has grown, surely presents a challenge. And since the content of the voluminous posts often drifts far from the interests of our two founders, I must empathize with their labors.

There are legal issues involved for the owner which is a concern. And I am also aware that, as the site has grown and taken a life of its own, it has become something different that they had in mind at the outset.

I'm going to make a suggestion that I expect to be unpopular, but I think it should be considered.

There has been an influx of new members who have joined the UC as members for no other apparent reason than to download music. They do not participate in the discussion forums or interact with other members in any way.

I am going to suggest that the membership policy of the site be re-considered. Allowing people to become members and download simply because they ask to join increases the risks tremendously. One board has recently had to purge a large percentage of its members and relaunch because they were there only to download and were contributing nothing. Then it was discovered that some of those who were downloading were turning around and commercializing the music (selling the recordings).

Briefly -- IMO, membership at UC should be a privilege, not a right, and should be reserved for those who are actually interested in being a member of the UC community.

I am going to make the unpopular recommendation that people not be allowed to download until they have become contributors to the discussion forums, perhaps with a specific time they must participate as well.

Secondly, I would recommend that members who do not participate in the discussion forums be purged from the membership. If they are sufficiently interested in the conversations of UC, they can contribute and later re-apply for member status.

The logistics of the membership process could easily be handed off to a couple of volunteers.

This would reduce the legal concerns, reduce the volume of traffic in the Downloads section, and re-focus the UC community on its original purpose, which was discussion about unsung composers.

Doing this, in combination with clearly stating the interest of the community on romanticism in music, would (I think) help conscribe some of the issues that concern Mark and Alan.

To those who might think this creates a stuffy old club, reserved for a few pompous eggheads -- well, so be it. The original goal of Mark and Alan was never to create a music download site. It was to offer a forum for conversation among those who share in the love of unsung romantic composers.

Okay, I've said my piece. I've put on my asbestos briefs and tinfoil hat. Let the flaming begin!

Quote from: Dundonnell on Friday 06 July 2012, 18:23
I recall both JimL and I listening in growing astonishment (certainly on my part) to the Violin Concerto written in 1986 by the French composer Yvon Bourrel(born in 1932) and posted by jowcol back in February. This is the most gloriously, beautiful, Romantic violin concerto I had heard for many a long year. To have "lost" the opportunity to make this work's acquaintance as the result of the imposition of some date limitation would have been simply tragic.

Well, I simply can't share your enthusiasm for that attractive, but rambling piece and I certainly wouldn't regard it as a great tragedy if any site I was moderating did not carry it. However, I do realise how hard this issue is, because if ever a piece really did measure up to your enthusiasm it would be John Veale's VC, and that was first performed in the same year (1986) as the Bourrel appears to have been written. Nevertheless, these are very much the exceptions; for Mark and me they are buried among great heaps of music which do not interest us in the slightest.

Thanks, Dave, for your clearly articulated thoughts. All I would say is that the problem affects the entire site and that, I suspect, a more thoroughgoing revision is going to be needed.

Quote from: Amphissa on Friday 06 July 2012, 20:41Okay, I've said my piece. I've put on my asbestos briefs and tinfoil hat. Let the flaming begin!

Tinfoil hats?  Aren't those only to be used to prevent the CIA from reading your mind with lasers?  ;D

On a more topical note, there is merit to much of what you say.  However, I thought we already had some sort of safeguard in place where the administrators would check to see if there were parties registered who didn't contribute and excise them from the rolls after a requisite period of time.

If carried out Dave's suggestion might well result in a large number of "pseudo-posters" contaminating the site, and ultimately making its purpose even more problematic.

Mark does conduct culls of members - that's why we have 500 members but the latest membership ID no. is 3000+!

As for qualifying as members by posting a certain number of contributions, this may simply result in people putting up a load of "I agree" posts and qualifying that way.

I certainly understand the reservations about limiting membership, but I was not suggesting that we count posts. I think the notion of participating in the community involves more than a batch of "me too" posts.

That said, I knew it would not be a popular suggestion. I just thought it needed to be out there.

As for tinfoil hats, they are also useful against the rays used by aliens as they fly over in their UFOs. If you don't know about those aliens, I fear it is too late. They've already used their rays on you.

;D

If they work on the lasers used by the CIA they'll work on the alien rays too.  After all, that's where the CIA gets their technology. ;)

I think we've got to stop this. ::)

I feel rather sad at the suggestion that we should be expelled if we don't contribute enough to discussions. I must admit that I hadn't altogether taken on board that the forum was supposed to be about 19th century music, or realised how far it had diverged from its original purpose, probably because I became aware of it while searching for obscure early 20th century British composers.  I joined the forum about 18 months ago because it's a wonderful repository of musical knowledge and, as others have said, almost entirely without the unpleasantness seen on so many other forums. I enjoy reading and learning, but rarely know enough to contribute myself. I have particularly enjoyed watching Albion's wonderful British music broadcast section grow, (thanks, Albion!) and downloading what interests me, without realising that that was providing extra headaches for Alan and Mark.

I have no particular solution to suggest, other than saying that, like others here, I'd be prepared to pay a subscription, if that would help. And I'd like to add my thanks to Mark and Alan for everything they've done - it's a great achievement.

I'm afraid I have to disagree with Amphissa's suggestion. I think it would actually create more work. I honestly really dislike the whole idea (largely because I would be booted out!), but even if it were implemented, I think it would mean more things to do. If it were not a simple, 'x number of posts and you're in' system, which as you say, could be easily circumvented by a lot of 'yes, what a lovely idea' posts, then it would mean moderators would have to look at each individual's posts and make judgements on the merits of those posts - another job to do, and perhaps not a terribly pleasant one.

It is the nature of all boards like this that the majority of members are 'lurkers'. Admitedly, some of them are just there to grab the downloads (and I was horrified to read that some dishonest people had been selling downloads from another forum!), but most people join because they are interested. I spend hours every week reading this forum, but as I mentioned earlier, unfortunately contribute little.

Lee

Thanks to the two last posters - and rest assured it is precisely folk such as yourselves that we are privileged to welcome to this site.

Thank you Alan  :)

I always -- always -- hated any forum that required contribution of some sort. Not everyone has something new to put on the table or is even comfortable making a public post (for whatever reason). Certainly the requirement to register to DL is fine, but forcing contribution? /Especially/ so-called 'meaningful'? It's something that's an incredibly uncomfortable idea.

In view of the large number of replies in this section of UC, the following suggestion may have been made by another member so apologies in advance for any duplication of ideas.

I would suggest that rather than posting material straight to the Downloads Section, potential contributors write to say which work(s) they are prepared to upload with reasons for their choice. The level of interest can then be gauged by the number of positive replies. If more than, say, 5 members request the upload and it is approved by Mark & Alan, then it can be uploaded to the relevant Country Section. If only one or two members express an interest then some private arrangements can be made via the Message Section.

The same system can be used with Download Requests: the work can be offered as a UC Download if enough members want it or simply sent to the requestor by private arrangements.

All I can say for this method is : it has worked well for me!

Thanks, Alan, it's reassuring that you don't plan to expel lurkers like Lee and myself (and many others) who rarely post but who always appreciate others' posts.

Quote from: mikehopf on Saturday 07 July 2012, 08:34
I would suggest that rather than posting material straight to the Downloads Section, potential contributors write to say which work(s) they are prepared to upload with reasons for their choice. The level of interest can then be gauged by the number of positive replies. If more than, say, 5 members request the upload and it is approved by Mark & Alan, then it can be uploaded to the relevant Country Section. If only one or two members express an interest then some private arrangements can be made via the Message Section.

Mike, I had the same idea but did not post it here because I have reservations about it: there may be just three or four members who are interested TODAY but a few weeks later new members may have joined UC and be very much interested. They may not find the posting because it is buried among so many other similar postings and therefore cannot joing the ranks of supporters of an upload. Anyway: is it actually a waste of time and energy to upload a piece if there is just ONE person on this planet interested in it?  :)
But, as Alan said before, it's the whole site, not just the downloads section which needs a major recast.

Thanks to you all for your many helpful suggestions. Mark and I have decided to close this thread now as we think it has probably served its purpose. Of course, any members who come up with some spiffing new idea are welcome to send a message via the site or to email us privately. We'll let you all know in due course what our preferred solution is going to be.

Thanks to everybody for contributing to this debate. I've reinstated this temporary board, not for a continuation of the discussion but to make a statement:

I've had a good opportunity to think about the future of UnsungComposers whilst on holiday and Alan and I have also discussed the issue fully in the last few weeks. Much as we would like to, it seems to us both that it would be selfish of us to attempt to return UnsungComposers to its original remit as a forum solely for discussion of the music of the romantic era. The changing membership and growth in the forum's features (particularly the Downloads board) have dictated the direction which the forum has taken, a direction which unfortunately has diluted our own interest in some of its content. Added to which, to be honest we are both weary of the job of administering UC. I have been doing it since I launched the Raff Forum almost a decade ago and Alan has been sharing the job, and shouldering much of the burden, since UnsungComposers itself was launched. Trying to maintain a high and civil standard of discussion, keeping threads on track and relevant and ensuring that downloads offered keep to our guidelines turns out to be a surprisingly time-consuming job. We are extremely grateful for all the messages of support which we've received recently but we agree that it's time for us to pass UnsungComposers on to other hands to look after.

As I own the site, I'm legally responsible for what goes on here and so it will not only be necessary to find new moderators/administrators, I need to transfer ownership to someone else. I don't want paying for the site but obviously the new owner will be responsible for the running costs, which are modest: currently they stand at about £125/$195 a year. There may be some charges involved in the transfer of ownership of domain names and web hosting account; they must also be met by the new owner but I don't anticipate them to be a large sum. If it's needed, I'll be happy to give some short term initial guidance for using the site's software and web hosting set up.

So, we are now looking for expressions of interest from members in taking over the ownership and management of UnsungComposers. Because we want to make sure that the site continues to be well and responsibly run, we expect to see teams of at least two people put forward; we'd like to know who the owner will be, who the moderators/administrators would be and any ideas the new team may have for developing the site. This isn't an appropriate issue for public posts, so EMAILS ONLY, NOT PERSONAL MESSAGES VIA THE WEBSITE to me (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1) please, with a copy to Alan (http://www.unsungcomposers.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=2). The deadline will be Monday 13 August.

Needless to say Alan and I will remain active and enthusiastic members of the forum.