Fellow members,

I have now consulted a friend of mine (not a member of this forum) and asked him for an opinion. He has had a look at the site and has clicked on the various links mentioned in the posts above.

For what it is worth:

He points out that the forum is hosted by a free site provider. We do not pay any rental fee to the host (I pay an annual rental fee to the company which hosts my own personal website).

There is therefore the distinct possibility, indeed probability, that our host provider will allow Ads to appear on our site. This will be how the host makes some income, since it is not from us!

This is not something we can simply wish away in the sense that the Administrators can "remove" these Ads. What members can do is to installl Ad-Blockers on their own devices. These MIGHT work but there is no guarantee of this. Members can be advised NOT to click on ANY link when there is the slightest doubt in their minds about these links.
You Tube links SHOULD be ok and those who have clicked on the link which started the present concerns have reported no "ill effects". Members are also-of course-advised to have anti-virus and anti-malware software installed on their devices.

I appreciate that the large "Banner Ad" at the top of each page with "Download" and "Play Now" is annoying in the extreme. I certainly cannot remove it.

As I said in my previous post I am open to any and all advice, guidance, suggestions that other members may have.

(From Dundonnell):

I am extremely sorry for my belated intervention in this thread. I was away from home on both Thursday and Friday evenings attending concerts at the Edinburgh Festival and only had a look at this particular thread when I noticed the number of posts it had attracted.

I wish I could express anything other than total helplessness.

When I accepted a role as an administrator I did try to explain that I had received absolutely no guidance or advice on "how the site worked". It was therefore inevitable that if anything "went wrong" (in the technical sense) I would prove completely and utterly useless to members. I have absolutely no technical knowledge, let alone expertise. I have to admit that honestly and candidly.

Latvian-one of my fellow administrators- MAY be able to help. I have messaged him as a matter of urgency. His knowledge and experience can only, however slightly, be greater than mine!!

I feel acutely embarrassed to be in this position but I honestly have no idea what I can do to help resolve the situation (apart from a somewhat pathetic appeal to members to try to keep calm and continue to treat each other with respect- in normal circumstances I would of course have deleted the extremely angry second post in this thread but these are not normal circumstances, I understand the reasons for the anger and I will let it stand).

If any member feels that he (or she?) has any possible technical solutions or strategies for tackling the problems described in the posts above then I am more than ready to offer whatever is required (eg administrator rights) if that would help.

I wish that I were able to point to a way forward but I am afraid that I cannot. Maybe Latvian (Maris) can?

My (ashamed) apologies!

Ok. This is a final warning! You post sporadically but almost always to decry the music of a particular composer. Repeatedly you use words like "redundant" or "relevant".
This has annoyed other members who have asked you to explain what you mean by "relevant". You have never done so. In fact the concept of relevance to music written in 1945 (the Ruth Gipps Symphony No.2) is meaningless. The suspicion must be that you continue to use this "means of attack" because you know how annoying it is to others.

You are fully entitled to expressing a musical opinion but when it is couched in the same terms over and over again that expression becomes both tedious to read and of zero value.

If you continue with your approach I shall simply delete the offending posts.

The last post from member Expi was removed.

This was not, primarily, because he informed us that he would not be buying this new cd: although that in itself can be of little interest to others, and certainly not because he considers Braunfels "over-rated": which is a legitimate view to hold.

The post was deleted because of the use of foul language which will NEVER be tolerated on this website. It was not acceptable under the previous administration. It is not under the new administration.

Funnily enough I was just about to post on a new topic when I read your comments :)  Never mind, I can so I shall............ ;D

Please remember our second rule and stick to Martinů, about whose music it is assuredly possible to say a great deal more. Thank you members.

They are allowed, but in moderation, because he is certainly not "unsung" is he. What are not allowed are copyright recordings of performances of his works. Personally I cannot abide any of his wearisome stuff, but that is beside the point.

Just a reminder to members: please don't forget our rule 2:

"No discussion of the personal characteristics or motives of fellow members - courtesy must come first."

As is stated on our home page, this forum is devoted to little-known composers, long-forgotten compositions, rare non-copyright recordings, and discussions of the arts.

The man Shostocovitch does not really qualify.

Would all members kindly double-check the spelling of the titles they give to any new threads they begin? This is because any errors will be copied into subsequent replies, and sooner or later corrections will have to be made to all the posts in the thread. There are many reference sites on-line where checks can be made; http://en.wikipedia.org is perhaps the best place to start. Thank you!

Thanks for pointing that out JR. I have inserted a note to that effect in the Austrian music department.

Six further works of Johann Nepomuk David were posted in the German music thread at:

    http://artmusic.smfforfree.com/index.php/topic,618.msg3377.html#msg3377

They are:

- Symphony No. 2 Opus 20 (1938)
- Symphony No. 3 Opus 28 (1941)
- Symphony No. 4 Opus 39 (1948)
- Symphony No. 7
- Symphony No. 8, op. 59 (1964-5)
and
- Sinfonia Breve Opus 46 (1955)

Precisely . . . so I've changed the name to "miscellany."

True. And now it is!

In view of our rule number two, I would like to ask Members contributing to this thread in future to refrain from using the words "you," "your," "yours" and "yourself." Doesn't the House of Commons have something similar? I count no fewer than sixteen instances in the preceding post!! I hope it can be edited. Thanks. . . . And let's all warmly welcome our new Member!