Young Composers Site Name

Haven't you said before that "Young" didn't necessarily mean age?

You could spin that into meaning unmatured, seeking aid and education to reach maturity. Or just that it refers to time. Or whatever. All you need is a change in definition in the search summary.

Plus, young is relative. I find being out of college puts me at the top 30% of range, but not necessarily distribution. That late high school through college is the most might tell more than anything else -- young ain't that young.

As to the distribution above, you've also got to factor in the older generations relative lack of use of facebook, though that's disappearing.

Here's an interesting link, that I'm sure you've seen before: youngcomposers.com - Traffic Details from Alexa

I don't think being the 50,000 placed website in the US is so terrible.

There are a bunch of things to read into that stuff though...

I wouldn't worry about that right now.

EDIT: i saw this later

The capability to expand beyond Classical music....with our current name, this may be tough. I want the focus of the site to remain being the analysis of music, and primarily focus on art music. Commercial music will be the "addon" in the future. Again, this may be tough given our current name.

So start threads. You'd have to change a lot of minds on the forum before that'd be possible.

Encourage professional composers/performers to join in given time.

We've had a few. We actually have more here that are pros in popular music...

Connect creators and performers of music into their own networks, and help them publish/sell their music/performances.

Marketing, marketing, marketing. And a lot of innovation. But you'd have to sweeten the pot a lot, basically become a label, to do so.

How about gathering suggestions for a new name before deciding that it's worth changing? The matter of the name "Young Composers" has been discussed a multitude of times. Before we even think of changing it, I think we should compare the alternatives.

I think this is something that the community is closed off from, name or not. There just really isn't a good place for intelligent discussion for composers of commercial (or any kind of non-art music). I think a "re-branding" would be key in encouraging this development.

This can be changed with our name. Rebranding will not only preserve our current community, it will open the doors for new opportunities.

Plus, young is relative. I find being out of college puts me at the top 30% of range, but not necessarily distribution. That late high school through college is the most might tell more than anything else -- young ain't that young.

I just don't know if I can be successful in portraying our definition of young, at a larger scale. I am not sure if I want to take that risk.

How about gathering suggestions for a new name before deciding that it's worth changing? The matter of the name "Young Composers" has been discussed a multitude of times. Before we even think of changing it, I think we should compare the alternatives.

So let's do it. I'm accepting brand suggestions. Perhaps our brand shouldn't be so descriptive, and be a coined phrase. I think we have a large enough community here, as to get away with this moving forward.

I honestly dont see a problem with the site name actually. To be honest, most - if not all - the composers on this site are relatively young (10 - 35 age range). So the name is definitely fitting for the site on many aspects.

I honestly dont see a problem with the site name actually. To be honest, most - if not all - the composers on this site are relatively young (10 - 35 age range). So the name is definitely fitting for the site on many aspects.

Yes, our site name surely reflects the demographics here, this isn't the question being raised. The question is, are we limiting our potential to increase our composer member base, with our current brand? I think the answer is yes, unfortunately. And my goals here, are to expand beyond "young composers". My goals are to provide an outlet for composers and musicians of all ages and experiences. We have a very small percentage of the music population on YC right now. Granted, that small percentage is a great asset because we are focused, and intelligent. This current group can help us rebrand a "coined name brand" since we have an established community already. If we did not have this community, a coined name brand would be nearly impossible with my limited budget. However, the price I pay for a rebrand, would be a sacrifice of the brand Young Composers....a very tough decision.

What I propose, is to rebrand the site when we launch the network, take this community with us, and grow our current community in harmony with other music communities. We can keep Young Composers still, perhaps the off topic will stay, but the main parts of the site, such as the music uploads, other music related forums, and the network can be moved to our new brand.

YC has a reputation?

Do tell.

Hm.

Many competitions for "young" composers state their age limit as 35 years. Some go as high as 45.

Just something to consider.

I don't know what to think, ... but I like James idea, post possible names and we'll see if one of those give us an inspiration ....

I know some YC regulars are upset with this idea of "merging", so here is what I propose which actually may be a better idea anyway:

My plan is to keep our community here with a few crucial changes. Essentially, instead of killing this group by merging it with a new group, YC will continue the way it is regarding off topic discussion, and some music discussion. YC will not benefit from the network though. If you want to benefit from the network, you would have to participate on the main concept site. The main site, will not have an off topic, and will strictly be music discussion only. YC will remain the lax environment it has been. Essentially, my aspirations to grow YC into a very large music network, have been shifted into creating a new branded site, in which I will grow the music network there. I think this is a more successful approach to connect composers and musicians at a larger scale, and at the same time, not destroying the community we have here. Although there will have to be some changes to YC if we are to grow the newer concept site. I am open to suggestions.

Actually it would be more like a "father" site. YC would be just one tiny portion of the whole. My concern, is if I keep this site exactly the same, no one from this site would participate on the new concept site. I would like one hub where composers can upload music, but I don't want us to be isolated from the rest of the talent out there. The network won't be on Young Composers, however I shouldn't have a problem integrating your existing usernames so that you will automatically be registered at our network at whatever the new site would be. So I can have a link on YC pointing to the network.

Think of YC as a super group. Instead of creating a group on the network called "Young Composers", we have a complete website dedicated for this group.

The change would have to be that we eliminate some forums on YC because I don't want to overlap information between the two sites (we can always create new forums on YC, and we can figure out which forum goes on which site). One thing for sure, is that the upload forums will have to go. However, since the new site will be linked to YC, this shouldn't be much of a problem.

What I could so is block users from directly signing up on Young Composers. The main site will host the sign ups. Then I could ask my developers if there is a way to "join the YC group" so we don't have two separate sign in pages. We don't necessarily want someone who joins the concept site, to automatically be signed up on YC, otherwise, what would be the point of Young Composers? The point is to keep all the Young Composers in their own group. The people from our current group in Young Composers will automatically be a part of the main site, however when someone signs up on the main site, they will not be a part of YC unless they indicate they want to be.

Am I getting somewhere with this?

What I could so is block users from directly signing up on Young Composers. The main site will host the sign ups. Then I could ask my developers if there is a way to "join the YC group" so we don't have two separate sign in pages. We don't necessarily want someone who joins the concept site, to automatically be signed up on YC, otherwise, what would be the point of Young Composers? The point is to keep all the Young Composers in their own group. The people from our current group in Young Composers will automatically be a part of the main site, however when someone signs up on the main site, they will not be a part of YC unless they indicate they want to be.

Am I getting somewhere with this?

I'm not really sure... :dunno:

I don't know about having another site with YC. Isn't 1 enough? Hmm...But if we ever happened to encounter a problem, maybe having a backup site is helpful....

Your choice :closedeyes:

I will figure something out, but we are going to keep the Young Composers domain, and figure out a way to integrate it with the main site.

Let's start thinking of site names for the concept site. Please start writing down your suggestions!

My only concern is that this forum attracts hobbyist and day one beginners, so I'm just a bit concerned about the intimidation factor. With this non-professional group, we still have people who are a bit wary of showing their work because they feel they don't compare.

Interesting concept choppy. We could even completely eliminate the "old YC" if it turns out that everyone ends up using the new site. I'm just afraid I have a hard time imagining how the two sites will work together and how they will be separated. Two different domains? Two different boards? One has a social network, store, and wiki, the other just has the forums? One for advancing composers and the other a smaller society for younger composers? The problem I see here is that younger/inexperienced composers will experience less contact with the more experienced ones and may not benefit as much. To those members that endeavour to help out the youngin's, now they have two separate sites to keep track of and offer advice on. Not everything is in one place anymore.

Brainstorming... how about managed groups? People sign up as beginner composers. If they choose to submit a composition to the new major works forum or "quality works" or whatever we call it... they may then be added to a "advanced composers" group, and perhaps have access to extra forums. Members would strive to be inoculated into the stream of "better" composers, and will have have a drive to better themselves. Whether they get into the group is determined by whether any of their works have been accepted into the "advanced" or "quality" or "featured works" section. The reviewers will be responsible for determining who gets their works in there. Then perhaps we could have a third, final group, for professionals or most advanced composers. The teachers, anybody the comes on the site that has a (good) reputation. Say, if somebody Eric Whitacre joined the site. (hypothetically). I just think that having two separate sites is a little too discriminate unless I just don't understand the connection you have in store between the sites.

Brainstorming... how about managed groups? People sign up as beginner composers. If they choose to submit a composition to the new major works forum or "quality works" or whatever we call it... they may then be added to a "advanced composers" group, and perhaps have access to extra forums. Members would strive to be inoculated into the stream of "better" composers, and will have have a drive to better themselves. Whether they get into the group is determined by whether any of their works have been accepted into the "advanced" or "quality" or "featured works" section. The reviewers will be responsible for determining who gets their works in there. Then perhaps we could have a third, final group, for professionals or most advanced composers. The teachers, anybody the comes on the site that has a (good) reputation. Say, if somebody Eric Whitacre joined the site. (hypothetically). I just think that having two separate sites is a little too discriminate unless I just don't understand the connection you have in store between the sites.

This.

Is.

Gold. :D

I think the name doesn't matter as much as the actual community and gardener already said pretty much the main thing: The whole site hangs on the contributions of members of the community that are NOT just amateurs or whatever, otherwise it's simply not better than, say, posting pieces to youtube.

If the site fails to attract that crowd, then basically the community stagnates as it pretty much has. I mean not even mentioning the "discussions," look at the so-called reviews themselves. How many pieces DO actually get reviewed? And then, how many from those amount to MORE than what is practically slightly better than a typical youtube comment?

I mean, really I can pick out just any random thread, like this one:

http://www.youngcomposers.com/forum/another-dream-thing-22114.html

So the excuse is, what, again? Sure the person commenting may not know much, or may not know how to go about saying what he wants to say or how he feels about the piece. But this is precisely why there needs to be a more experienced crowd around, people learn by example.

This is the reason that (me being the idiot that I always am contributing to a seemingly hopeless cause) I wrote things like this:

Guide to presenting a piece

It's obvious that there should be standards to anyone presenting anything. Those standards need to be ENFORCED. Either you raise the level, or you allow examples like the above thread to become the norm, which it pretty much is right now. If someone comes to the site and thinks it's too much of a bother to learn how to approach topics properly and coherently, does the site really need them? If someone can't be bothered to say more than TWO WORDS about their own goddamned work, all that person is doing is bringing the level down and setting an example that you can just be lazy and it's OK cuz that's how it works in this site.

Having said all that, a name change is the last thing this site needs. Though I have to say I never really liked the current name but I'm afraid it may end up being worse if anyone changes it.

It's also way too much work. Music uploads are going to be automated, and the less involvement from staff, the better.

If the site fails to attract that crowd, then basically the community stagnates as it pretty much has. I mean not even mentioning the "discussions," look at the so-called reviews themselves. How many pieces DO actually get reviewed? And then, how many from those amount to MORE than what is practically slightly better than a typical youtube comment?

I always thought one of our strong points was that we excelled with our reviews compared to most sites. I think the examples you state are cases in which there just is not much to really say. An example is someone posting a small piece that may be 1 minute long. What kind of analysis is really possible for a piece like that? Sometimes the only comments can be short opinions. But in cases where a superb piece warrants an extensive review, I feel that we do a good job outlining the pros/cons of a work. Does anyone disagree?

Having said all that, a name change is the last thing this site needs. Though I have to say I never really liked the current name but I'm afraid it may end up being worse if anyone changes it.

You contradict yourself here. You say that a name change is the last thing we need, but you never liked the name. Can you tell me why you dislike the current name? I am straining my brain right now trying to think of a catchy cool name for the concept site. This is certainly not easy.

(goes to buy composerforums.com domain)

There's a site I'm on that is geared towards talking about physics math and engineering. I've been on that forum since my days in high school. May years later, I'm still on it, but out of all the members, all the mods, all the past and current people there, there are only 5 professional mathematicians and physicist including myself. The 5 that are there are only there to answer hard questions no one else seems to be able too. The majority of the people on that forum simply are undergraduate students, eager high school students, and they are lead my graduate students.

The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what you do, I don't think you can really do anything to attract professionals, besides the ones that just have an interest in helping people out.

On that forum I mentioned, there's a section for posting your own work, and like our major work section, the work in question must be approved. Yet, none of the professional or even grad students post their ideas there. Simply because it isn't needed. We're professionals and we have professional people to look at our work.

This is just my 2 cents about the 2nd bullet you made in post 21.

I think you got lofty goals, I personally don't believe a name change will really have that great of impact on who comes here and who doesn't. I think that factor is mainly decided by who is already here.

Something needs to be done cause all the reviews I see on this board are, well, not constructive. Instead of real mentorship or guidance I just see posts like, "This music makes me feel fuzzy inside!! Band ten-hut!" And then people go off to college after somehow getting into a music school and come on here and post about how no one is stroking them or "teaching me what I want". Honestly, something needs to be done, I see this way too much. Whenever constructive posts are made no one knows how to reply to them because 95% of the people literally have no knowledge, nor do they wish to possess any.

The point I'm trying to make is that no matter what you do, I don't think you can really do anything to attract professionals, besides the ones that just have an interest in helping people out......I think you got lofty goals, I personally don't believe a name change will really have that great of impact on who comes here and who doesn't. I think that factor is mainly decided by who is already here.

You don't think professionals would want to network with other professionals? Maybe not, I don't know myself, which is why we always start out small. Don't get me wrong, the new site will welcome everyone, it will essentially be a musician networking site. You are right, a simple name change wont mean anything, it will be the functionality of the site, and branding will have to be done. I figured if I promote the new site with the network, this could help mesh everyone together, and not leave out the older members (not even necessarily professionals, there are older amateurs, or hobbyists). Perhaps the two sites will have different designs (maybe I can design YC so that it has a more teen-like theme, and the new site will have a professional theme).

Something needs to be done cause all the reviews I see on this board are, well, not constructive. Instead of real mentorship or guidance I just see posts like, "This music makes me feel fuzzy inside!! Band ten-hut!" And then people go off to college after somehow getting into a music school and come on here and post about how no one is stroking them or "teaching me what I want". Honestly, something needs to be done, I see this way too much. Whenever constructive posts are made no one knows how to reply to them because 95% of the people literally have no knowledge, nor do they wish to possess any.

I am not quite sure what we can do about this problem, unless maybe we can standardize our review process somehow.

On that forum I mentioned, there's a section for posting your own work, and like our major work section, the work in question must be approved. Yet, none of the professional or even grad students post their ideas there. Simply because it isn't needed. We're professionals and we have professional people to look at our work.

Hmm, that is a very good point. If you have any suggestions on how I can address those who do not wish to have reviews but only wish to showcase their works, let me know. An idea off the top of my head; during the upload process, I could implement a radio box that defaults to "reviews" or the other option would be "comments". When checking on "reviews" a template will be presented, asking the reviewer certain questions about the piece so we can standardize reviews. Upon clicking comments, just a standard box will be presented....

I don't know...even people who are not professionals don't necessarily want reviews, they just want to share their music and get it out to the world. This isn't a 100% review based website, it is also a music sharing website, we have to keep that in mind.

Chopin, I'll help you with market research... It sounds like you're more at that stage from the questions you're asking...

Also, what you're seeming to say is that you'll nerf this site and do all the upgrades to the other site, which may alienate more members than it placates.

Chopin,

Just remember this from the link you posted a few pages back...

"11. Don't expect unanimity. In the first few weeks following introduction, there is often a lot of discussion and publicity about a new name. Familiarity breeds comfort. As people become more familiar with the name, they will become more comfortable with it."

This speaks volumes about your plans and the obvious disdain for them. In the end, the new site and the ultimate decision will become easier and easier to handle.

This is more or less venting IMO. The decision has been made to 1: Come up with a good name and 2: Bring this site into a larger network. As for the naming bit, why not start a thread and allow for anonymous submissions for ideas since the discussion is over? I feel that it would create an unbiased voting base. That is, if you would want to go that route and then let the final decision be yours after the majority has spoken. Any further debating is pointless now.

Regardless, no matter what name and what changes come, there will be people that object. It will pass in time.

Also, what you're seeming to say is that you'll nerf this site and do all the upgrades to the other site, which may alienate more members than it placates.

Actually I was thinking about sharing the network between this site, and the new site. I also am considering a professional design for this site, to have a more teen-like appeal. Furthermore, I may even make Young Composers a private network so that only those who are members can communicate with other members from YC, while the new site will be public.

Still not sure yet, but I will think of something.

Why not start a thread and allow for anonymous submissions for ideas?

Good idea.