Hi all - Just thought it was interesting to point out the actual text of the Subito grant introduction, which I found a bit ironic given the meeting and subsequent email:
The Philadelphia Chapter is dedicated to serving the needs of composers and performers of new music in the Philadelphia area. Subito will encourage and fund creative ideas by these composers and performers. Subito honors artists' self-determination, is local and personal, and offers *an inclusive approach to all kinds of composers and performers* who need $500 to $3,000 to take the next step in their careers. Subito *encourages risk-taking* among its grantees. Thus Subito is expected to be: responsive, quick, equally accessible, and flexible to reward good ideas that *stretch both the artist and the art form*.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Text Size
Recommendations to the ACF
Group Option
Admins
Members
Group Information
Category:
Name:
Recommendations to the ACF
Created:
Thursday, 01 October 2009
Creator:
Description
On September 30 2009, ACF Philadelphia held its first member meeting in several years, and many important issues were raised. This group will serve as an online forum for posting constructive suggestions on how ACF Philadelphia may improve its quality, accessibility, and usefulness to the Philadelphia composer community.Announcements
No bulletin added yet
Photo Albums
No album created yet.
Wall
Hey all - for those that didn't see, the ACF is indeed overhauling their grant review process. details here:
http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=1693a2c97eef9e8ebeed16067&id=f5a9a1bc7e&e=1b456c3b03
"Grant applications will be reviewed by an independent panel of local experts. ACF Board members will not participate in the panel review meetings."
They are also soliciting suggestions for panel members, if anyone is interested.
-Jesse
http://us1.campaign-archive.com/?u=1693a2c97eef9e8ebeed16067&id=f5a9a1bc7e&e=1b456c3b03
"Grant applications will be reviewed by an independent panel of local experts. ACF Board members will not participate in the panel review meetings."
They are also soliciting suggestions for panel members, if anyone is interested.
-Jesse
Tuesday, 20 October 2009 18:49
Hello,
I was not able to attend the ACF meeting but would like to respond to Paul's comment. Under Katie Clark we did have meetings and I moderated a few. The purpose of the meetings was to create a more cohesive community of composers. I enjoyed talking about ideas and getting to know people. I feel we should be working toward understanding and appreciating each others music no matter what genre.
One thing that Katie was great at was finding new ways to create opportunities for composers (composer talks at the PSO, talks with filmmakers), and many of the programs in place are ones she started. She was resourceful and was out taking to the larger creative community about the role of the composer. This is advocacy work that we don't have time to do! I let my membership lapse because I don't see the commitment to the larger mission of enriching the lives of composers. Please tell me I am wrong and I will rejoin.
I was not able to attend the ACF meeting but would like to respond to Paul's comment. Under Katie Clark we did have meetings and I moderated a few. The purpose of the meetings was to create a more cohesive community of composers. I enjoyed talking about ideas and getting to know people. I feel we should be working toward understanding and appreciating each others music no matter what genre.
One thing that Katie was great at was finding new ways to create opportunities for composers (composer talks at the PSO, talks with filmmakers), and many of the programs in place are ones she started. She was resourceful and was out taking to the larger creative community about the role of the composer. This is advocacy work that we don't have time to do! I let my membership lapse because I don't see the commitment to the larger mission of enriching the lives of composers. Please tell me I am wrong and I will rejoin.
Monday, 12 October 2009 08:46
Hello All,
After having experienced such a bizarre ACF meeting the other night, I feel compelled, having stuck my neck way out at that meeting, to outline my feelings about the organization. Several issues seem apparent to me.
In speaking with Chuck Butler after the fractious meeting - who was gracious enough to want to talk after my own unfortunate rudeness, for which I apologized - he asked me at that conversation's conclusion if I still felt he should resign. I replied to the effect that if 85 percent of the membership thought the chapter was doing a good job with him as chief board member, then of course he should stay on (!)
But this brings up two fundamental points:
1) Chuck Butler, as he pointed out to me himself, was asked to join the ACF organization; the problems he's emblematic of are obviously, to some extent systemic - who asked him on?
2) Who are the folks who Chuck cite as the satisfied 85 percent? We saw very few of them at he meeting (!)
If ACF is to be tenable to those of us that voiced our frustrations at the meeting, the structure of the "review panels" has to change. The org needs to take seriously the excellent suggestions made in that last few days by Jeremy Gill and Jesse Kudler addressing the review process and other points made above. (All of these and this letter also are posted on the Camerata website. )
One of the points bought up in their letters concerned Butler's reply when several of us volunteered to serve on rotating review boards or as board members. We were admonished that we would be making a commitment that would require presence at board meetings etc. Well, where were the other board members at this very important (and rare) meeting? There was one, but I wasn't aware of others.
ACF really needs to decide what it's role is to be; if it's going to continue in the direction it has been, which is awarding opportunities to a wide range of composers regardless of whether some of these composers even represent commonly accepted definitions of that word, then at least steps need to be taken to make sure apples aren't competing with oranges! One of my chief gripes has been submitting things that I'd like to think are unique but are firmly rooted in the classical tradition - only to find out that the works awarded were not even close to that tradition. When I submit a string quartet I don't expect to be competing with a salsa band! It seems to me that, if the chapter is going to continue to be committed to this model it should have categories that address this problem - ie , Jazz, "Free" music,
Electronic, Classical, etc.
Personally, I feel several of these genres would be better represented by a separate organization - say a Singer-songwriter Forum for example - step up Gene Shay!
In closing I think the org needs to soberly address the irony of one of the words that title the org - "forum" . Several years ago the chapter under Katie Clark hosted what could have been an actual realization of that word; a get-together where we played CDs of our work for one another, prefacing each listen with whom our main influences were etc. Unfortunately there was very little feedback beyond the perfunctory "nice piece" - in fact even these bromides only occurred informally after the event - not in direct comments after each piece. It begs the question of to what purpose that meeting? - and even more fundamentally - ACF.
Sincerely,
-Paul di Francesco
After having experienced such a bizarre ACF meeting the other night, I feel compelled, having stuck my neck way out at that meeting, to outline my feelings about the organization. Several issues seem apparent to me.
In speaking with Chuck Butler after the fractious meeting - who was gracious enough to want to talk after my own unfortunate rudeness, for which I apologized - he asked me at that conversation's conclusion if I still felt he should resign. I replied to the effect that if 85 percent of the membership thought the chapter was doing a good job with him as chief board member, then of course he should stay on (!)
But this brings up two fundamental points:
1) Chuck Butler, as he pointed out to me himself, was asked to join the ACF organization; the problems he's emblematic of are obviously, to some extent systemic - who asked him on?
2) Who are the folks who Chuck cite as the satisfied 85 percent? We saw very few of them at he meeting (!)
If ACF is to be tenable to those of us that voiced our frustrations at the meeting, the structure of the "review panels" has to change. The org needs to take seriously the excellent suggestions made in that last few days by Jeremy Gill and Jesse Kudler addressing the review process and other points made above. (All of these and this letter also are posted on the Camerata website. )
One of the points bought up in their letters concerned Butler's reply when several of us volunteered to serve on rotating review boards or as board members. We were admonished that we would be making a commitment that would require presence at board meetings etc. Well, where were the other board members at this very important (and rare) meeting? There was one, but I wasn't aware of others.
ACF really needs to decide what it's role is to be; if it's going to continue in the direction it has been, which is awarding opportunities to a wide range of composers regardless of whether some of these composers even represent commonly accepted definitions of that word, then at least steps need to be taken to make sure apples aren't competing with oranges! One of my chief gripes has been submitting things that I'd like to think are unique but are firmly rooted in the classical tradition - only to find out that the works awarded were not even close to that tradition. When I submit a string quartet I don't expect to be competing with a salsa band! It seems to me that, if the chapter is going to continue to be committed to this model it should have categories that address this problem - ie , Jazz, "Free" music,
Electronic, Classical, etc.
Personally, I feel several of these genres would be better represented by a separate organization - say a Singer-songwriter Forum for example - step up Gene Shay!
In closing I think the org needs to soberly address the irony of one of the words that title the org - "forum" . Several years ago the chapter under Katie Clark hosted what could have been an actual realization of that word; a get-together where we played CDs of our work for one another, prefacing each listen with whom our main influences were etc. Unfortunately there was very little feedback beyond the perfunctory "nice piece" - in fact even these bromides only occurred informally after the event - not in direct comments after each piece. It begs the question of to what purpose that meeting? - and even more fundamentally - ACF.
Sincerely,
-Paul di Francesco
Monday, 05 October 2009 07:22
hi all -
first by way of brief introduction, let me say that when chuck talked about "weird sound art" and mentioned specifics of some of the farther out applications ACF has received, he literally could have been talking about my work. i'm obviously accustomed to these sorts of reactions and to some degree even comfortable with it, but i do want to mention it here just to say i am personally and directly affected by something like the change in subito guidelines or the categorical refusal to fund, apparently, the kind of work i do.
in any case, i just wrote a long-ish email to chuck, jim falconi, and denise buczko, with several other people from the meeting cc'd. i also made the same or similar recommendations as jeremy, which are really exceedingly reasonable. to chuck's concern that people won't want to sit on committees because they will have to give up the opportunity to apply, i suggested that committees be drawn from past grant recipients. i believe they are ineligible to apply again for a year anyway, so this obviates that concern while at the same time still allowing some institutional continuity.
jeremy, thank you for opening this discussion here and hosting it. i very much respect your even keel and pragmatic approach. i want to emulate that and avoid over-opining, but i can't help but say i think it's an unfortunate situation when committees judging grants represent a relatively narrow slice of aesthetics, and particularly when they come from backgrounds tangential to or even wholly ignorant of many contemporary music trends.
thanks. my email is pasted below.
-jesse
****
Hello Denise, Jim, and Chuck (I've also cc'd Jeremy, Ron, Paul, Gene, and Dustin - a few of the more vocal people from the meeting whose emails I was able to obtain - please excuse being included unsolicited):
I wanted to follow up, as a past ACF member and potential future one, on some of what was discussed Wednesday. Much of what was brought up certainly gibes with feelings I've had in the past regarding ACF Philadelphia. I've been hesitant to voice my concerns in the past for sundry reasons: obviously, as a grant applicant, I am in a necessarily supplicant position; I also haven't had a huge investment in ACF in the past where I felt I had "earned" the right to criticize; and I wasn't sure if my concerns were shared. However, last night's meeting has convinced me that not only are they very much shared, but that the board and staff of ACF would be receptive to suggestions. I am hoping others cc'd here will chime in as well.
There are a few basic things that could and really should be done to increase confidence in the granting process. I am aware that things like deadlines are being publicized better, and that full lists of recipients are being posted online. These are great first steps. I also, in a sort of grudging and judgmental way, appreciate that Chuck was at least forthcoming in his concerns about what is and is not music and what ACF can comfortably fund. I also noted last night that the wording of the Subito guidelines has changed. While it should be implicit that I question the wisdom of such restrictions, it is at least honest to say up front that certain kinds of work is not, in fact, welcome. I'll try and resist the urge to editorialize further beyond saying that this seems to run counter to the otherwise stated interest in broadening ACF's constituency, and it also alienates a large portion of potential members, including many younger composers with a lot of energy and excitement.
That said, all levels of grant-making could benefit from far greater transparency. The precise make up of committees should be publicized, as should the process for selecting committees. Many organizations use rotating membership, drawn from volunteers from the arts profession: writers, curators, musicians, academics, etc. This ensures breadth of interest, helps to prevent institutional inertia, and helps mitigate any appearances of conflict of interest. I don't understand at all why Chuck said that this committee would have to attend board meetings or otherwise have major time commitments; as was pointed out last night, such an arrangement would be highly unusual. It's very standard in grant-making to bring a committee in for one or a few meetings to review applications and to then have no further organizational commitments. This is done for practical time reasons as well as to, again, create the appearance of a disinterested committee of professionals. As to drawing from ACF's membership or having someone else serve as the composer representative to the board, I think there is a simple way to get around the issue of these people not being able to apply for funding: why not invite recent grant recipients who are ineligible to apply again until the next year to serve? That way, nobody misses out on a chance to apply for funding that they would have been eligible to apply for otherwise, there is some institutional continuity, and the committee's membership remains dynamic.
ACF needs to really do more to dispel any appearances of conflicts of interest. As I suggested above, many of the practices of ACF's grant selection do little to engender confidence in the process. Firstly, all applications really should be anonymous. As a technical matter, applications can either be solicited in "anonymized" form, or they can simply have copies made with all names blocked out. This is not hard to do, and is, again, very standard practice. I don't mean to suggest that anything untoward is going on, but as it stands now, it is troubling to hear Chuck talk about his friend Evan Solot who got him involved in ACF and has had a lot of past involvement with ACF and then to see Solot winning the first edition of the CP Film Composers grant. Subito grants have gone to projects involving ACF board members and administrators as well. Obviously, Philadelphia has a small music community, and these sorts of things will happen, but having an anonymous application process would go a long way towards dispelling reservations that people might have when such an award is made.
Again, let me make clear that many of the recent initiatives have made things much more clear and greatly increased ACF's transparency (a better and more frequently updated website, better email communication, the very welcome member meeting, the full posting of grant recipients, etc.). But I still think more can be done, as was evidenced by some of the frustration on display last night. Much of that, of course, is because of past issues, and I am aware that current leadership is to some extent the victim of legacy frustration, but the onus is still on ACF to convince people that those policies and practices are being discarded and a better day is dawning. Many musicians and composers feel a strong investment in ACF because it is a unique organization, and Philadelphia has very few institutions that make direct grants to composers to realize projects. This is a valuable resource.
I hope these suggestions are welcome and are received in good faith. Apologies for my forthrightness, but I wanted to capitalize on the momentum from Wednesday's meeting.
Thank you,
Jesse Kudler
first by way of brief introduction, let me say that when chuck talked about "weird sound art" and mentioned specifics of some of the farther out applications ACF has received, he literally could have been talking about my work. i'm obviously accustomed to these sorts of reactions and to some degree even comfortable with it, but i do want to mention it here just to say i am personally and directly affected by something like the change in subito guidelines or the categorical refusal to fund, apparently, the kind of work i do.
in any case, i just wrote a long-ish email to chuck, jim falconi, and denise buczko, with several other people from the meeting cc'd. i also made the same or similar recommendations as jeremy, which are really exceedingly reasonable. to chuck's concern that people won't want to sit on committees because they will have to give up the opportunity to apply, i suggested that committees be drawn from past grant recipients. i believe they are ineligible to apply again for a year anyway, so this obviates that concern while at the same time still allowing some institutional continuity.
jeremy, thank you for opening this discussion here and hosting it. i very much respect your even keel and pragmatic approach. i want to emulate that and avoid over-opining, but i can't help but say i think it's an unfortunate situation when committees judging grants represent a relatively narrow slice of aesthetics, and particularly when they come from backgrounds tangential to or even wholly ignorant of many contemporary music trends.
thanks. my email is pasted below.
-jesse
****
Hello Denise, Jim, and Chuck (I've also cc'd Jeremy, Ron, Paul, Gene, and Dustin - a few of the more vocal people from the meeting whose emails I was able to obtain - please excuse being included unsolicited):
I wanted to follow up, as a past ACF member and potential future one, on some of what was discussed Wednesday. Much of what was brought up certainly gibes with feelings I've had in the past regarding ACF Philadelphia. I've been hesitant to voice my concerns in the past for sundry reasons: obviously, as a grant applicant, I am in a necessarily supplicant position; I also haven't had a huge investment in ACF in the past where I felt I had "earned" the right to criticize; and I wasn't sure if my concerns were shared. However, last night's meeting has convinced me that not only are they very much shared, but that the board and staff of ACF would be receptive to suggestions. I am hoping others cc'd here will chime in as well.
There are a few basic things that could and really should be done to increase confidence in the granting process. I am aware that things like deadlines are being publicized better, and that full lists of recipients are being posted online. These are great first steps. I also, in a sort of grudging and judgmental way, appreciate that Chuck was at least forthcoming in his concerns about what is and is not music and what ACF can comfortably fund. I also noted last night that the wording of the Subito guidelines has changed. While it should be implicit that I question the wisdom of such restrictions, it is at least honest to say up front that certain kinds of work is not, in fact, welcome. I'll try and resist the urge to editorialize further beyond saying that this seems to run counter to the otherwise stated interest in broadening ACF's constituency, and it also alienates a large portion of potential members, including many younger composers with a lot of energy and excitement.
That said, all levels of grant-making could benefit from far greater transparency. The precise make up of committees should be publicized, as should the process for selecting committees. Many organizations use rotating membership, drawn from volunteers from the arts profession: writers, curators, musicians, academics, etc. This ensures breadth of interest, helps to prevent institutional inertia, and helps mitigate any appearances of conflict of interest. I don't understand at all why Chuck said that this committee would have to attend board meetings or otherwise have major time commitments; as was pointed out last night, such an arrangement would be highly unusual. It's very standard in grant-making to bring a committee in for one or a few meetings to review applications and to then have no further organizational commitments. This is done for practical time reasons as well as to, again, create the appearance of a disinterested committee of professionals. As to drawing from ACF's membership or having someone else serve as the composer representative to the board, I think there is a simple way to get around the issue of these people not being able to apply for funding: why not invite recent grant recipients who are ineligible to apply again until the next year to serve? That way, nobody misses out on a chance to apply for funding that they would have been eligible to apply for otherwise, there is some institutional continuity, and the committee's membership remains dynamic.
ACF needs to really do more to dispel any appearances of conflicts of interest. As I suggested above, many of the practices of ACF's grant selection do little to engender confidence in the process. Firstly, all applications really should be anonymous. As a technical matter, applications can either be solicited in "anonymized" form, or they can simply have copies made with all names blocked out. This is not hard to do, and is, again, very standard practice. I don't mean to suggest that anything untoward is going on, but as it stands now, it is troubling to hear Chuck talk about his friend Evan Solot who got him involved in ACF and has had a lot of past involvement with ACF and then to see Solot winning the first edition of the CP Film Composers grant. Subito grants have gone to projects involving ACF board members and administrators as well. Obviously, Philadelphia has a small music community, and these sorts of things will happen, but having an anonymous application process would go a long way towards dispelling reservations that people might have when such an award is made.
Again, let me make clear that many of the recent initiatives have made things much more clear and greatly increased ACF's transparency (a better and more frequently updated website, better email communication, the very welcome member meeting, the full posting of grant recipients, etc.). But I still think more can be done, as was evidenced by some of the frustration on display last night. Much of that, of course, is because of past issues, and I am aware that current leadership is to some extent the victim of legacy frustration, but the onus is still on ACF to convince people that those policies and practices are being discarded and a better day is dawning. Many musicians and composers feel a strong investment in ACF because it is a unique organization, and Philadelphia has very few institutions that make direct grants to composers to realize projects. This is a valuable resource.
I hope these suggestions are welcome and are received in good faith. Apologies for my forthrightness, but I wanted to capitalize on the momentum from Wednesday's meeting.
Thank you,
Jesse Kudler
Friday, 02 October 2009 09:58
I think it is a great idea. A few composers seemed disgruntled yesterday, because they felt that their role in the Philadelphia music community has been ignored by ACF over the years. With an ever changing panel of judges,there is a greater chance of projects being funded that perhaps had not been considered the previous years.
By the way, this was the first ACF meeting I attended and I must say I was a bit turned off by the discussion that ensued after the presentation. I understand people want to voice their concerns, and that is what the meetings are for, but I felt some of the negativity was uncalled for, and it turned the presenters into fair game. Perhaps we could consider a moderator for these discussions for the next meeting? Someone (not on the board) who leads the discussion a little and cuts in when the discussion becomes stale, redundant or turns into mudslinging...
I know we are not hosting a political debate here, but when money and grants are at stake things have a tendency to become political anyway.
By the way, this was the first ACF meeting I attended and I must say I was a bit turned off by the discussion that ensued after the presentation. I understand people want to voice their concerns, and that is what the meetings are for, but I felt some of the negativity was uncalled for, and it turned the presenters into fair game. Perhaps we could consider a moderator for these discussions for the next meeting? Someone (not on the board) who leads the discussion a little and cuts in when the discussion becomes stale, redundant or turns into mudslinging...
I know we are not hosting a political debate here, but when money and grants are at stake things have a tendency to become political anyway.
Thursday, 01 October 2009 16:40
One of the topics that came up in last night's meeting and which, given the response on the part of the composers present, needs to be reconsidered, is how grantees are chosen and by whom.
I am of the opinion that every individual is by nature prejudiced in favor of or against any number of things and any attempts to create a completely impartial jury panel will fail. The solution to the problem is to spread the decision making process around.
I recommend that the ACF Philadelphia create a new granting review process that includes as many composers as possible in order to broaden the pool of composers served by the organization. ACF Philadelphia can solicit volunteer composers to serve on a rotating basis on these panels and establish limits regarding how many panels per year each composer may sit. Composers of various aesthetic persuasions should be mixed per panel, and each panel should consist of at least three composers.
I personally feel that it is not necessary for these composers to be sitting board members, and that it is, in fact, better if they serve as extrinsic specialists without excessive knowledge concerning donor preferences. Their collective job would be to recommend the best and most compelling work for funding; from that pool of recommended composers a grantee or grantees may be chosen by the ACF proper.
I, for one, would be happy to volunteer my time to sit on such a panel, and urge ACF Philadelphia to make every effort to find out how many other composers would volunteer for such service to test the feasibility of this proposal.
I am of the opinion that every individual is by nature prejudiced in favor of or against any number of things and any attempts to create a completely impartial jury panel will fail. The solution to the problem is to spread the decision making process around.
I recommend that the ACF Philadelphia create a new granting review process that includes as many composers as possible in order to broaden the pool of composers served by the organization. ACF Philadelphia can solicit volunteer composers to serve on a rotating basis on these panels and establish limits regarding how many panels per year each composer may sit. Composers of various aesthetic persuasions should be mixed per panel, and each panel should consist of at least three composers.
I personally feel that it is not necessary for these composers to be sitting board members, and that it is, in fact, better if they serve as extrinsic specialists without excessive knowledge concerning donor preferences. Their collective job would be to recommend the best and most compelling work for funding; from that pool of recommended composers a grantee or grantees may be chosen by the ACF proper.
I, for one, would be happy to volunteer my time to sit on such a panel, and urge ACF Philadelphia to make every effort to find out how many other composers would volunteer for such service to test the feasibility of this proposal.
Thursday, 01 October 2009 15:10