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
