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
  • Point 15: The ICD Financial Report: Coming Soon to a Home Theater Near You
  • Point 16: ICD Sucks at Apologizing
  • Point 17: ICD Lied About Representing Disabled Composers
  • Point 18: ICD Ignores Social Media Criticism
  • Point 19: Consent Is Important.
• 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
  • Point 26: Educate Your Users
• Section 5: Feedback on Rob Deemer and ICD Leadership
  • Point 27: Rob Ignores Others and Makes Unilateral Decisions
  • Point 28: ICD is about Rob
  • Point 29: Consequences for the Executive Advisory Council?
  • Point 30: White Saviorism: The Musical
• Points 31-39, other major concerns, and works cited: see Part 3