The future of Unsung Composers

[JimL]

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.

[semloh]

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. 

[Dundonnell]

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!!!!!!

[Jimfin]

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]

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.

[Mark Thomas]

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....

[Alan Howe]

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...

[Richard Moss]

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'

[ahinton]

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.

[Mark Thomas]

so we  don't lose 'UC'

We won't lose UC.

[ahinton]

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!

[ahinton]

so we  don't lose 'UC'

We won't lose UC.

Thanks heavens for that!

[Richard Moss]

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

[Mark Thomas]

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....

[MikeW]

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.