The future of Unsung Composers

[MikeW]

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.

[Mark Thomas]

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.

[MikeW]

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.

[Mark Thomas]

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

[Paul Barasi]

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?

[Mark Thomas]

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.

[Alan Howe]

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

[Paul Barasi]

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.

[Mark Thomas]

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.

[Gareth Vaughan]

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.

[Lionel Harrsion]

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

[Alan Howe]

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

[kolaboy]

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...

[Alan Howe]

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

[Leea25]

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