The future of Unsung Composers

[Mark Thomas]

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

[Alan Howe]

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?

[Alan Howe]

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.

[JimL]

I know that!    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?

[Alan Howe]

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?

[albion]

Perhaps if uploads weren't permitted without an accompanying commentary there would be less rubbish in our archive!

with 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.

I 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.

the 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.

[thalbergmad]

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

[Paul Barasi]

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. 

[TerraEpon]

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.

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.

[Mark Thomas]

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....

[Alan Howe]

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.

[M. Henriksen]

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

[giles.enders]

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

[Alan Howe]

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.

[Josh]

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.