Major Works forum: open floor for discussion

[Mike]

Over the last few days, I've been conversing via PM with a member who harbours numerous serious reservations about the way in which we handle Major Works submissions. I won't go into detail regarding the exact nature of the reservations, or reveal who the member is, but they noted along the way that certain others also share their concerns.

I would like to get those concerns from said others out into the open, and I believe posting a thread publicly is the only conceivable way in which to go about arranging that, since the member with which I was engaged in PM discussion refused to elucidate on the concerns of others or name names, and has now opted to agree to disagree, thereby cutting contact.

As always, our ears are open to all suggestions and concerns. Based on dialogue with the aforementioned individual, it seems to me that common issues may centre around misunderstandings, misconstruings or miscommunications (perhaps all three), and I wish for clarity to be afforded to anyone who has a complaint.

This has all been posted in good faith, with the sole objective of resolving any existing conflicts and misunderstandings. If you feel the need to speak out, please do so.

[nikolas]

Well, firstmost.

Is there a reason for the "major works" forum to exist? It seems somehow... racist (in lack of a better word, from my behalf and I apologize about that).

Although, to be honest, the "best" works are gathered there, and that forum is moving slowly in terms of new threads, thus everything seems to be not about popularity but about the works, which does make sense.

I don't know who is checking that the rules of the major works are followed before posting, but if I recall correctly QC is one and Mike is another (all reviewers are, I guess?), in which case I place my trust 100% on them, to make the right judgement. A little moderation and a little control is not bad at 1 forum of this whole board, is it?

split personalities syndrome: Examplified best at this post.

Now try and see if you can understand what I'm talking about regarding major works...

[Mike]

Here's some light reading material. :thumbsup:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/forum-just-not-same-625.html?highlight=major+works#post6120

It goes back a rather long way, as you can see, to the time after which the site was rejuvenated.

Decisions are made by whichever moderators/reviewers are online at the time - essentially, any staff member (minus editors) has the authority. A consensus of three staff members in favour of acceptance or denial is required in order for a piece to be accepted or rejected. This usually takes 1-3 days.

[robinjessome]

I don't see any problem with Major Works.

Perhaps it's a bit elitist, but, to be honest, some works are to be taken more seriously than others. The upload forums are where you guys hone your craft, and then, when the time comes, you'll have developed sufficiently for something to be considered Major.

It's a place for composer's with greater experience, and a higher calibre output to showcase performance-ready works; works self-sustaining enough to be capable of standing alongside pieces by established pros/masters.

[Will Kirk]

Perhaps the member whom you've been conversing with Mike is feeling as though the other works are being called bad since their not in the "best" pieces section?

[Dirk Gently]

I see the Major Works forum as it is described, a place for longer and more substantial works. Meaning if there's a work that you have spent less time on, and is likely much shorter, it doesn't go there. Perhaps those complaining don't understand that. Also, because the pieces are "major" works there are fewer (harder to write, with more time and pages to write) and the forum doesn't get cluttered. I think it works quite nicely, actually.

[Nightfly]

As a non-frequent user of this forum, I see no problem with the major works section. It shouldn't be seen as a separation of experienced composers and less experienced composers. It should be there so people can post their most proud of and bigger pieces.

If Beethoven was using this forum he would not post his Fur Elise to the major works, but he would his 9th symphony now wouldn't he ? So it shouldn't be seen as racist.

[Dirk Gently]

Partially because it does not depend on one's skill as a composer, but mainly because this has nothing at all to do with "race" :).

[Nightfly]

I said racist partly because I liked when Nikolas used it and partly because I sympathize with him as English is also not my first language.

[Dirk Gently]

Yeah, I know, I understand what was being said, just pointing out that the word racist isn't exactly appropriate and joking as to exactly why the forum is not racist :).

[CaltechViolist]

As the person most responsible for the initial creation of the Major Works forum as well as the one who wrote most of the rules, I'd like to again reiterate that I am not preoccupied with quality. The purpose was to keep the most ambitious projects from being buried, regardless of their quality or lack thereof. When I evaluate a submission, it is purely for the level of ambition shown. While most of the large-scale projects are written by more experienced composers, it's only a tendency. If someone relatively new to composing attempts a 30-minute symphony, I think it clearly belongs in Major Works, even if it's badly written. And if Beethoven himself were to show up and submit F

[Saiming]

Well, I do understand why people are against having the Major Works, because it makes the forum somehow segregated (?) Since something major for one person can be something completely different to someone else. I also understand the purpose of having the Major Works it is to refine the works in difference categories, because on this forum there is a big difference of music quality here; it is nothing wrong - just shows that we have many newcomers who come here and seek to improve. I somehow feel that the Major Works maybe 'glorify' the better composers and then a group of elitists have arisen .

[Will Kirk]

I'd say Major works (for lack of a better term) seperates the men from the boys on this forum

[piano_player18]

I think people get too offended too quickly...and they judge too quickly.

I think there should be a major works forum. I mean...not all compositions of mine are major. I enjoying writing small pieces and such that I can put in the other forums.

But when someone works REALLY HARD on something and they want it seriously taken a look then that is why it's a great idea to have the major works forum.

[Mark]

I disagree with all the ideas of segregation, I think major works is exactly what Andrew described it as, and that it serves its purpose excellently.

[CaltechViolist]

Well, I do understand why people are against having the Major Works, because it makes the forum somehow segregated (?) Since something major for one person can be something completely different to someone else. I also understand the purpose of having the Major Works it is to refine the works in difference categories, because on this forum there is a big difference of music quality here; it is nothing wrong - just shows that we have many newcomers who come here and seek to improve. I somehow feel that the Major Works maybe 'glorify' the better composers and then a group of elitists have arisen .

And I do think a recalibration of people's expectations may be in order. What I hope the term "Major Works" says to the listener is: Bring a long attention span when you listen, and don't expect to be done listening and commenting on the piece within a few minutes. One comment that I'm happy to report is rarely seen in Major Works is "too long" - this is in contrast to many other composing forums I've seen, where people start complaining about length when a piece runs over 5 minutes or so. In that regard, I think it is serving its purpose fairly well.

[Euler]

... I somehow feel that the Major Works maybe 'glorify' the better composers and then a group of elitists have arisen .

I think the above clearly expresses the "danger" and possible downside of the Major Works thread. In practice, it seems the standard is more about length of the composition and the intent of the composer to create an ambitious work, and this seems a valid approach. I find it useful to listen to the major works and study the comments made by the reviewer.

What I notice as a recent YC joiner is that shorter works sometimes never get a serious review at all. I wonder if some type of credit for reviewing others' shorter works might not be implemented so that one could, having accumulated sufficient credits, ask for one's own shorter piece to be reviewed by one of the Major Works reviewers - I mean a shorter piece of say at least 3 minutes that is fully finished and properly scored and not one of the "Hi, guys, here's something I spent 5 minutes writing, what do you think?" efforts. Such a credit system might lead to more good reviewing by the general membership. A simple way to award such credits would be that the composer of a shorter piece decides if a comment/review was useful or not - so short comments of the "I liked it" or "I hated it" variety don't earn credits. This paragraph has wandered off the current topic - I will repost it to a new thread.

[Saiming]

What I hope the term "Major Works" says to the listener is: Bring a long attention span when you listen, and don't expect to be done listening and commenting on the piece within a few minutes.

Yes, I never said that it was bad but I did however see the Major Works from another perspective - the negative side of the subforum. I mean Major Works are great works which have to be handled with respect; giving a solid review and opinion. The Major Works also, if a score is attached, teaches the more inexperienced composers - since it is often a work of a more accomplished composer. It is a good way of learning, but the side-effect makes the other pieces less visible.

What I notice as a recent YC joiner is that shorter works sometimes never get a serious review at all. I wonder if some type of credit for reviewing others' shorter works might not be implemented so that one could, having accumulated sufficient credits, ask for one's own shorter piece to be reviewed by one of the Major Works reviewers - I mean a shorter piece of say at least 3 minutes that is fully finished and properly scored and not one of the "Hi, guys, here's something I spent 5 minutes writing, what do you think?" efforts. Such a credit system might lead to more good reviewing by the general membership. A simple way to award such credits would be that the composer of a shorter piece decides if a comment/review was useful or not - so short comments of the "I liked it" or "I hated it" variety don't earn credits. This paragraph has wandered off the current topic - I will repost it to a new thread.

Perhaps there should be some standard reviewing template that each comment should folllow. Why should the composer of the work have to follow the template whilst the reviewer doesn't have any to follow.

[KSP]

I personally don't have any issues with Major Works.

I initially had a piece posted when I first joined the forum, and by far, it's not the best piece I have written. However, the judges do look at the effort and time spent on a piece. I see Major Works as a place where people post their most ambitious pieces. To this day, I'm still working on the piece (needs quite a bit of work), something which I ususally don't do on any piece for more than three days.

The selection process and reviewers allow the piece to receive some special attention, and critiques to help the composer along. If all works were allowed into Major Works without any reviews beforehand then it is very likely that each piece would not get the attention that it would have, if the Major Works had a submission process. There is nothing wrong with pieces in other subforums, but sometimes a piece needs a very detailed review.

[Mike]

At this point, the main issue would appear to be staff placing slightly too great an emphasis on merit as opposed to ambitiousness. Obviously, the former quality is subjective, and the latter not always straightforward for us to quantify, but we try very hard to inject as much objectivity into the process as possible.

As CaltechViolist rightly stated, Major Works exists to separate pieces which have involved a great deal of effort from "run of the mill" output. The latter term is not intended to be degrading, rather designed to refer to pieces which have taken a few hours or days to create as opposed to weeks or months. (Generally, we would expect the time taken to write a piece submitted to MW to run into months, not weeks; although a piece which has taken weeks to create may be considered "major" in some cases)

So, having admitted a lapse may have taken place in terms of skewed priorities, it is my duty to apologise for this, and to invite anyone with a query regarding a past rejected submission of theirs to take it up with us. I can't promise subsequent acceptance, of course, but I can promise to discuss the issue with you in a public setting, for transparency's sake.

[nikolas]

After what CaltechViolist stated, I'm fine with the major works forum, all the way! :)

[Euler]

As CaltechViolist rightly stated, Major Works exists to separate pieces which have involved a great deal of effort from "run of the mill" output. The latter term is not intended to be degrading, rather designed to refer to pieces which have taken a few hours or days to create as opposed to weeks or months. (Generally, we would expect the time taken to write a piece submitted to MW to run into months, not weeks; although a piece which has taken weeks to create may be considered "major" in some cases)

I don't have any disagreement with the above policy but the definition of time taken seems a bit vague. One person might work 12 hours a day and another only 1 hour a day, so the first might not qualify for the MW thread?

Suppose one creates an 8 min piece in 4/4 with average tempo q = 120. That works out to 8x120/4 = 240 measures. If that is done over 4 months, say 120 days for simplicity, that works out to an average rate of 2 measures per day. Again, suppose there are 3 such movements to make a symphony of 24 min which would surely qualify as a major work - that is still just 6 measures per day on average over the 120 days.

So a MW is then a long work which was created at a rate not exceeding a few measures a day !?! I think some consideration has to be given to how many hours a day a composer worked on a piece during its creation, and not just the over all elapsed time.

[Guest QcCowboy]

I think that's where the consideration of complexity comes into play.

surely a work of all whole notes might be viewed a little differently from rhythmically complex counterpoint by the reviewing staff?

[manossg]

I am with Corbin. I feel that works belonging in the MW forum obviously belong there. Not for duration/counterpoint/no. of measures!

[Guest QcCowboy]

the problem with the "no ifs, ands, or buts" approach is that EVERY person will insist that every one of their works belongs in the MW forum.