I have posted in the "Action taken by Administrators" thread in the Announcements section.

I appreciate that is a "closed thread" to which members cannot reply. As I have said several times recently members who wish to communicate their views can do so by posting publicly or by private message to me as "Dundonnell" or as "Administrator" or to Maris (Latvian) equally in either capacity.

After a week away from home and a week of enforced absence from this forum I would hope to see it return to its focus on the music in which we are interested and the music to which we may wish to draw the attention of others.

I understand the nature and content of the views expressed above regarding You Tube videos. My task now will be to correctly identify those which are copied directly from commercial cds and to take appropriate action.

If I delete these-in line with what I believe to be a general consensus amongst the membership and within the spirit of this forum's policy and accepted practice over many years-then that will mean the deletion of the entire thread and the lengthy, thoughtful comments made above. To lose these comments would be painful (to me as well as, obviously, their authors!). I cannot simply delete the first post. Ideally I would like to move all the comments into a new thread. This would retain all the benefits of the insights of the members who posted.

As ever, I would appreciate any observations members might wish to make.

Dave (dhibberd) is absolutely correct in both of his posts.......although I think that we have got beyond "getting silly", very sadly.

Maris (Latvian) has posted elsewhere:

http://artmusic.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,6616.msg33465/topicseen.html#msg33465

The administrators will now discuss this further. Clearly the current situation cannot be allowed to continue.

In the meantime this thread too will be locked, although, as I have said several times, Maris (Latvian) and/or I can be contacted directly by private message by any members who wishes to express their views.

I too have ordered the new double cd and am looking forward to listening to the works again (and to reading the accompanying cd booklet notes )

I too am excited about this new Ondine release!

Eller has been comparatively neglected on cd and it is great to see the Symphony No.2 (which I had thought was "unfinished") and the Violin Concerto getting the exposure they richly deserve.

(How nice it is to be back to discussing music!)

You will not be surprised to hear that I too am very concerned about the promised Daniel Jones cycle! I have had it in mind for several weeks to email Paul Conway (who writes all the booklet notes for Lyrita). Paul is sworn to secrecy about future Lyrita releases but it would d no harm to try to get some indication from him!

Thank you. This forum will "not go to hell" if the current administrators can prevent that.....as we are determined to do!!

(Continued):

3) Sydney writes that he "let" this situation continue until I "began arbirtrarily to threaten the deletion of posts by all and sundry for incomprehensible reasons". This is nothing short of a travesty of the truth. I have already explained that only four posts have been deleted over the past seven months and explained the reasons why this was done. The only posts which Maris and I were and are agreed would be subject to deletion were those three or four which clearly infringed copyright because the posted content consist of You Tube videos copied directly from commercially available cds. We have carefully explained our rationale for this. That rationale is hardly "incomprehensible". Only one member-Sydney himself-has posted such videos. One member (earlier today) very promptly deleted his own links to music which has now been issued commercially on a Lyrita cd following a polite request to do so.

3) Sydney says that he had decided that I was "not suitable for the administrative task" and that "I was dismissed as administrator on September 28th". This is all news to me! No such communication of my "unsuitability" was made to me either publicly or privately, nor was my "dismissal". I can only assume from what Sydney has written that Maris too is "unsuitable" and that he too has been "dismissed".

4) I am again described as or alleged to be in some way in league with a "hacker". I am described as someone with "no legitimate administrative role".

As I wrote in a previous post this forum is not my personal property. But neither does it belong to Sydney to hire and fire administrators. The forum is freely hosted and "belongs" to the membership. From the content, tone and tenor of the comments already posted by other members the current administration has their confidence to carry out their duties with due regard to their legal obligations and their ethical responsibilities as they see them and in line with agreed forum policies. If the current administrators fail in these responsibilities we would expect to be told so.........by the membership itself collectively.

With genuine sadness I have to say that Sydney's latest post is, at best, misleading and inaccurate.

With considerable reluctance I am locking this thread to prevent an ongoing and unseemly "squabble" running on interminably with little chance of resolution. I repeat however and stress that any member who wishes to communicate their views can do so by private message directly to me or to Maris (Latvian) or to us both (as The Administration).

For avoidance of any confusion I am posting this under my own name. However I want to emphasise that everything I have written over the past ten days or so has been agreed in full with Maris (Latvian) with whom I have been in constant communication.

This is and continues to be a very sad situation. It is not (as Neil wrote very recently) what members joined this forum to read about. It is both distasteful and unpleasant.

However there are aspects of Sydney Grew's post which require a response, particularly since he writes that "I solemnly affirm the truth of every word I have written in this posting".

1) Sydney writes that he approached members about six months to indicate that he wished to hand over the administrative tasks, that each of them refused to take up the task, giving various reasons for this.

Sydney sent a private message to selected members on 9th March informing them that for reasons of advancing age and deteriorating eyesight he wished to give up the role of administrator. In that message he handed over the administrator password.

I did not "refuse to take up the task". In a private message to Sydney sent on the same day I wrote "As the most frequent poster on this site I feel that I have an obligation to put my name forward to take some responsibility".  I made it a condition of taking on the role that "I would require the co-operation of others in order to read/monitor the posts and thereby preserve the principles and high standards of civility which you, quite correctly, insisted upon from members".

I received no reply to that message or indeed any further correspondence with Sydney. There was an exchange of private messages between members, some of whom explained why they did not wish any additional responsibilities. Some were kind enough to urge me to take on the duties of administrator.

Since I had the password I duly notified the membership of the change of administration. Maris (Latvian) also requested the password and I was obviously delighted that my "condition" of acceptance had been met, that the administration would-as I had wished-be shared.

The change of administration took effect in March and has continued harmoniously since then.

2) Sydney says that he was "nevertheless obliged to give up active administration for a short time". This apparent "temporary" nature of his retirement was not mentioned in his private message of March 9th, nor was it communicated to the membership. I would never have agreed to assume my current duties, nor would Maris, had we understood that it was only on a "temporary" basis.

My thanks to both Maris and Neil for their supportive posts and kind comments!

I want to put on record that it speaks volumes about the integrity and decency of Maris (Latvian) that at a time when he is experiencing very serious domestic issues involving his mother's health that he should have found time to post on here.

Unfortunately there is a new post from Sydney Grew entitled "Questions for Mr. Dundonnell" which has been located in the thread "Links to videos of compositions  by little known composers".

This post alleges that "some hacker's tool" has been used to "steal" the username and change the password of the administrator. These are very serious allegations. They are also both offensive and totally lacking in any foundation in fact.

The current administrators have-as I have now said repeatedly-been "in post" since March. They took on their current duties and responsibilities in partnership after the previous administrator resigned. Changing passwords is a practice which is recommended to all internet users on a regular basis to protect their own security and integrity.

To, apparently publicly, publish the password (as Sydney Grew demands) would be a ridiculous act. It would expose this site to infiltration by real hackers who could steal member's identities (as has happened recently on Facebook).

Sydney Grew has also threatened a member of the Administration.

As Neil has said members did not join this forum in order to witness this "sad charade". New or prospective members will not wish to join or participate in such a forum. Existing members will be bemused and, quite properly, horrified.

With considerable reluctance I am therefore temporarily locking that thread. The ugly, unnecessary and increasingly abusive nature of the contributions from the member in question cannot be allowed to bring the forum into potential disrepute.

Members have had over a week of this and that is more than enough! Any member can, of course, communicate with either Maris (Latvian) or myself by private message. This applies to members who agree with the position and statement of forum policy already clearly outlined and equally to those who do not.

Clearly members can continue to have their say publicly by posting here or elsewhere. We have absolutely no wish to inhibit or restrict comment. All I would ask is that this is done in the normal way for this forum-with courtesy and respect.

Thank you for your supportive comments!

I have just spoken to a friend of mine who is a lawyer. He pointed out the possibility-and he readily conceded that it is a VERY remote possibility-that a record company, unwilling or unable to "take on" You Tube, might be less inhibited in at the very least pointing out to us that such reposting of their commercially recorded cds is both unacceptable and illegal.
As an Administrator of this Forum I would be deemed to have a responsibility in law in this regard.

Whilst this is almost certainly an extremely unlikely scenario it is not one that I am prepared to ignore.

I shall await a comment from my fellow Administrators but I give fair warning that it is now very probable that I shall remove the Dohnanyi, Enescu and Alfano threads (each of which contains commercial recordings). I shall examine the Rosenberg thread carefully since I suspect that it includes some non-commercial recordings.

Members have the opportunity to respond with their own thoughts on this matter and I would not wish to pre-empt any discussion. On the other hand, the longer this material remains online on this forum the greater the risk run.

I am extremely unhappy to find these two Alfano symphonies here!

The You Tube performances are taken directly from the CPO cd which is still commercially available.

As I said in relation to the Hilding Rosenberg Symphony No.3 I do NOT think that we should be "hosting" these here.

My inclination as an Administrator is to take these down. I am extremely sorry that this will no doubt upset the former administrator who posted them.

I shall consult my fellow Administrator, Maris.

In the meantime any comments by members would be very much appreciated!!

Hmmm!

Whatever the actual truth of the matter is I must confess to being uncomfortable with the sharing of You Tube music on this forum IF the performance in question is taken from a commercial cd currently available to purchase.

Such practice runs counter to our long-established and accepted standards. We do not permit the downloading from this site of music which is on a cd. Should we be effectively advertising the music as available on You Tube??

I would very much welcome the comments of other members!

I do not criticise Sydney in the slightest degree! Indeed I am delighted to find anyone who appreciates the music of this seriously neglected and exceptionally fine Swedish composer and publicises his work.

I note however that the Symphony No.3 is from the BIS cd still currently available to purchase. On You Tube it states that the recording has been made available by "Naxos of America".

What is actually going on here? Has BIS licensed Naxos to put one of their recordings onto You Tube? A recording which can be downloaded free of cost? That would seem to me a strange commercial decision!!

It is an equally fair point that Toby makes.

Members, or at least members who have been here for some time, will probably take into consideration the 'reputation' of the member posting the link.

And all we are asking is that something along the lines of the first sentence in the previous post is added by the member who posts the link. This should absolve others from any need to study the link in detail.