The Art-Music Forum
December 16, 2017, 09:04:47 am
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length
News: Here you may discover hundreds of little-known composers, hear thousands of long-forgotten compositions, contribute your own rare (non-copyright) recordings, and discuss all the Arts in an erudite and decorous atmosphere full of freedom and delight. To participate, simply log in or register.
 
  Home Help Search Gallery Staff List Login Register  

Truly Bizarre behavior at Unsung Composers


Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
  Print  
Author Topic: Truly Bizarre behavior at Unsung Composers  (Read 2396 times)
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 25
Offline Offline

Posts: 846


View Profile WWW
« Reply #45 on: June 23, 2017, 09:29:14 pm »

Thank you
That site does indeed behave most peculiarly; I'd give it a wide berth if I were you. I remain a member of it but have nether contributed to it nor even read others' contributions to it in a long time now, precisely because of this strange conduct.
Report Spam   Logged
BigEdLB
Level 2
**

Times thanked: 4
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


View Profile WWW
« Reply #46 on: June 23, 2017, 09:38:47 pm »

I lurk occasionally, but don't participate
Report Spam   Logged
Latvian
Level 4
****

Times thanked: 28
Offline Offline

Posts: 480



View Profile WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 10, 2017, 12:21:50 am »

A couple of years ago, I had the temerity to mention Skalkottas in passing in the context of a larger discussion. I was immediately informed that any discussion of Skalkottas was forbidden. When I made a sarcastic response about censorship, the response was "there's no censorship here." I've posted nothing since. Like others here, I retain my membership for the sake of the occasional interesting download.

A sad, sad place.
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 11
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #48 on: August 10, 2017, 11:58:48 am »

I note one of the posts by one of the moderators there, informing members that if they are unsure whether a piece of music meets their remit,they should pass it onto them so that (in their words) "the music in question can be sampled and (if) it accords with our guidelines, then it is a legitimate subject for debate here"!! In a thread releating to the Cpo release of Louis Glass' Symphony No 5 & Fantasie op 47,it's suitability is weighed in the balance.......being,"written in 1920.. which is clearly outside the barrier of 1918"! In a following post this inoffensive symphony by Louis Glass gets the all clear! "Yes,but it's also clearly written in a romantic style. So, no problem". Thank goodness for that,then!! Grin I wonder if his Sixth symphony will meet their "remit",when Cpo get to it (and hopefully,they will!)?!

It's like something out of Monty Python!! Huh Grin
Report Spam   Logged
Dundonnell
Level 8
********

Times thanked: 88
Offline Offline

Posts: 3754


View Profile WWW
« Reply #49 on: August 10, 2017, 01:21:24 pm »

I have my own views on this subject; the product of bitter personal experience. Those views (and indeed that experience) have been recounted here too many times. They would bore, although just possibly appall
those who have not heard me before.

What genuinely puzzles me however is that so many people, including those who have been members "over there" for some considerable time still seem surprised at the "eccentricities" of the owners. Surely by now it is reasonably clear what sort of site they wish to run? Although I certainly do not support censorship I wonder why we continue to waste our time giving them any publicity- good or bad?

I have never denied the people who own the site to exercise their rights in the choice of music they wish to see discussed. That choice may appear bizarre or inconsistent or ludicrous (depending on your point of view). What I cannot accept, what was and is unforgivable and what still hurts me deeply everytime I am forced to think about them is the utterly contemptible way they treated those members who they decided were "unsuitable". And those members included our own Albion (John) who worked tirelessly in setting up our own British Music Archive- one of the most significant collections in existence. No doubt most of my own composer catalogues (hundreds of them) are still archived on their site.

Unlike others here I cannot take any "advantage" of membership since I am banned for life. My contributions to the Art Music Forum are no different in subject, content or mode of expression. If any of you think that makes me "unsuitable" or "undesirable" as a member then please let me know (with reasons).

This is the LAST time I shall say anything about UC! If I break that promise please remind me and tell me to shut up!!
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 11
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #50 on: August 10, 2017, 01:57:19 pm »

I note one of the posts by one of the moderators there, informing members that if they are unsure whether a piece of music meets their remit,they should pass it onto them so that (in their words) "the music in question can be sampled and (if) it accords with our guidelines, then it is a legitimate subject for debate here"!! In a thread releating to the Cpo release of Louis Glass' Symphony No 5 & Fantasie op 47,it's suitability is weighed in the balance.......being,"written in 1920.. which is clearly outside the barrier of 1918"! In a following post this inoffensive symphony by Louis Glass gets the all clear! "Yes,but it's also clearly written in a romantic style. So, no problem". Thank goodness for that,then!! Grin I wonder if his Sixth symphony will meet their "remit",when Cpo get to it (and hopefully,they will!)?!

It's like something out of Monty Python!! Huh Grin
What they do or say doesn't bother me,particularly.After all,it's their forum! It's just interesting behaviour. It reminds me a bit of that psychiatrist at the end of a certain episode of Fawlty Towers. "There's enough material here for an entire case conference!" I'm not suggesting anything,I should point out! Grin On a more positive angle;they've obviously done allot of sterling work on behalf of Raff;and some of the posts,that meet "their remit";are very interesting indeed. They also like allot of music by Spohr,Rubinsten,and the,aforementioned,Raff!! Smiley I don't really understand how they could possibly fall out with someone so genial,good humoured and diplomatic as Dundonnell,though?!
Report Spam   Logged
Neil McGowan
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 69
Offline Offline

Posts: 1246



View Profile
« Reply #51 on: August 10, 2017, 03:05:16 pm »


It's like something out of Monty Python!! Huh

I find the entrenched fanaticism of UC woefully unamusing, sadly.  However, it is far from the only classical music forum on the internet to embrace tub-thumping bigotry - and at least it restricts its mind-boggling twaddle to opinions within the sphere of music that do not break the law.  There are other sites which regularly publish tosh that's not only deleterious, but very possible actionable in law. One such site has a (non-humorous) online poll (which is, I believe, still open) as to whether Maria Callas was "the wailing banshee of Hades"; another site boots-off members who fail to post fawning praise of every performance of Gustavo Dudamel (since they are, it seems, vicious heel-clicking racist fascists); a very well-known site run by a former BBC broadcaster, aided and abetted by the so-called critic David Nice - which ambushes the reputations of Russian opera performers (such as an obituary, published on the day of the death of a legendary mezzo-soprano - which called her 'a talentless and vile-tempered imposter' - of a lady whose Will left a substantial bursary to nurture young performers...) - and also lobbied to have a Russian singer spiked from a Bayreuth cast, on the basis of empty tittle-tattle; not to mention another site which has largely abandoned musical discussion in favour of word puzzles.

I certainly don't like UC, and never use it.  But frankly it is mild compared to those found running and participating in other sites :-((((

« Last Edit: August 11, 2017, 12:06:40 pm by the Administration » Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 25
Offline Offline

Posts: 846


View Profile WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 10, 2017, 05:38:56 pm »

I note one of the posts by one of the moderators there, informing members that if they are unsure whether a piece of music meets their remit,they should pass it onto them so that (in their words) "the music in question can be sampled and (if) it accords with our guidelines, then it is a legitimate subject for debate here"!! In a thread releating to the Cpo release of Louis Glass' Symphony No 5 & Fantasie op 47,it's suitability is weighed in the balance.......being,"written in 1920.. which is clearly outside the barrier of 1918"! In a following post this inoffensive symphony by Louis Glass gets the all clear! "Yes,but it's also clearly written in a romantic style. So, no problem". Thank goodness for that,then!! Grin I wonder if his Sixth symphony will meet their "remit",when Cpo get to it (and hopefully,they will!)?!

It's like something out of Monty Python!! Huh Grin
It isn't. Monty Python was funny. It sported a Ministry of Silly Walks whereas the best up with which Unsnug Con-poseurs can come is a Ministry of Silly Talks.
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 11
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #53 on: August 10, 2017, 07:07:35 pm »

Oh dear,I didn't mean that to be taken literally! Huh Roll Eyes I was merely alluding to the surreal nature of their decision making process over whether a particular composition,or composer,meets their "remit"! It really does strike me,as being like,something out of a wierd comedy sketch! That doesn't mean that I actually find the people who run that forum,or post there particularly funny. Not after the way they treated Dundonnell,anyway! I might add,that I don't actually find Monty Python very funny,either;but that's beside the point!

Oh,well! We're all one,big,happy family here! Smiley
Report Spam   Logged
cilgwyn
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 11
Offline Offline

Posts: 757



View Profile
« Reply #54 on: August 10, 2017, 07:43:03 pm »

The Ministry of Silly Talks,though? I like that!! Grin
Report Spam   Logged
dhibbard
Level 7
*******

Times thanked: 40
Offline Offline

Posts: 1878


View Profile
« Reply #55 on: August 10, 2017, 08:34:12 pm »

yes.. already chastised about the "1918 Rule"   ... if the composition was written after 1918, then we don't want any threads about it, unless "we" determine that the style is romantic.   The term "we" are certain moderators that will exclusively determine if the composition is romantic.    How silly.
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 25
Offline Offline

Posts: 846


View Profile WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 10, 2017, 09:23:22 pm »

yes.. already chastised about the "1918 Rule"   ... if the composition was written after 1918, then we don't want any threads about it, unless "we" determine that the style is romantic.   The term "we" are certain moderators that will exclusively determine if the composition is romantic.    How silly.
Indeed; is it, for example, my fault that I was born so very long after 1918?...
Report Spam   Logged
BigEdLB
Level 2
**

Times thanked: 4
Offline Offline

Posts: 57


View Profile WWW
« Reply #57 on: September 05, 2017, 08:08:17 am »

yes.. already chastised about the "1918 Rule"   ... if the composition was written after 1918, then we don't want any threads about it, unless "we" determine that the style is romantic.   The term "we" are certain moderators that will exclusively determine if the composition is romantic.    How silly.

Obviously in invoking of the royal "we",  in anticipation of Will & Kate's #3 to be born early next year...
Report Spam   Logged
ahinton
Level 6
******

Times thanked: 25
Offline Offline

Posts: 846


View Profile WWW
« Reply #58 on: September 05, 2017, 09:12:58 am »

yes.. already chastised about the "1918 Rule"   ... if the composition was written after 1918, then we don't want any threads about it, unless "we" determine that the style is romantic.   The term "we" are certain moderators that will exclusively determine if the composition is romantic.    How silly.

Obviously in invoking of the royal "we",  in anticipation of Will & Kate's #3 to be born early next year...
Oh, I don't think so (not that it would be remotely excusable if it were so). Prince William and his wife's forthcoming third child has no conceivable (sorry!) connection with the bizarre antics at UC, including the immoderate conduct of its "moderators". What's sadly long since been cast into oblivion there is the name of the forum; "unsung" means "unsung", not "post-whenever pre-1918 Romantic-if-"we"-decide-that-it-is".
Report Spam   Logged

Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by EzPortal
Bookmark this site! | Upgrade This Forum
SMF For Free - Create your own Forum

Buy traffic for your forum/website
traffic-masters
Powered by SMF | SMF © 2016, Simple Machines