[A note from 2023 Eris: As my writing about the Institute for Composer Diversity (unfortunately) continues to expand, I’ve given up and created an entire blog category for these analyses. You can now find all my posts focusing on ICD by clicking here. Posts that mention them in passing but do not focus on their actions specifically will still be tagged, but you’ll need to search “ICD” in the bar at the bottom of the page—and likely scroll a little—to find those. Thanks!]
Greetings, one and all, and welcome back to our multi-day escapade through the ICD internal review. If you’re new here, fear not! You can go back and read Part 1 to catch up on what we’ve discussed previously. Today, we’re finishing our look at ICD’s communications breakdown; we’ll also discuss ICD’s impact on composers, touch briefly on tokenism, and begin the long slog through the leadership review. I can’t say any one part of the report is the review’s darkest hour, but today’s chunk is certainly a contender. Let’s dive in.
- Click here for an unmarked, unedited PDF of the review as it was published on January 29, 2021.
- My introduction, ICD’s introduction, and Points 1-14: see Part 1
- Section 2 (cont.): Communication
- Section 3: Composer Assistance/Role of ICD for Composers
- Point 20: Relationships with Living Composers? What are Thoooooose?
- Point 21: ICD Misconstrues My Writing
- Point 22: ICD Listings Don’t Benefit Composers
- Point 23: Welcome to the ICD Plagiarizes Trade Winds Section
- Point 24: Composer Funding (Where’s JW Pepper?)
- Point 25: Poorly Paraphrasing the Trade Winds Post
- Section 4: Education/Tokenism
- Section 5: Feedback on Rob Deemer and ICD Leadership
- Points 31-39, other major concerns, and works cited: see Part 3
