The future of Unsung Composers

[Alan Howe]

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.

[Amphissa]

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.

[chill319]

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.

[izdawiz]

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

[Balapoel]

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.

[jerfilm]

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

[Josh]

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.

[Alan Howe]

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

[Amphissa]

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.

[JimL]

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?

[Alan Howe]

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...

[JimL]

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.

[chill319]

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).

[jerfilm]

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

[shamokin88]

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.