Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    I'm more interested in "computer music" than electronic music.
    My musical talent begins (and ends) at programming a sequencer.
    I was disappointed that so many of the COMMUSIC submissions were
    not played by a computer.
        John Sauter

    
    Although my tastes run both ways, I was under the impression that
    this notesfile addressed actual computer-generated (i.e. MIDI, FM
    synthesis, sampling, etc, etc) topics. I consider those all computer
    music. The musicianship is another issue (wait before you flame
    at me)!!! This is an arguable point; it takes a musician to make
    music, however. I have not heard any of the commusic tapes; the
    reviews indicated that much acoustic material was present on them.
    I didn't offer anything because I didn't know about it soon enough
    (just a latecomer yaknow)... In any case, it's difficult to separate
    the acoustic from the computer. It's all music, isn't it? At least
    in my perception it is.
    
    I do think that this notesfile should scope itself as "electronic
    music" or something inane like that since that's really what we
    are discussing - or are we? When you talk about miking acoustic
    instruments is it electronic or acoustic? Is digital signal processing
    a qualified computer music topic? Jeez. I dunno, but I'm still
    interested in reading about it. If whoever moderates this jumble
    of opinions likes it too, great.
    
    My apologies for the verbal diarrhea.
    
    /pjh
        

    COMMUSIC rollllls off the tongue well.  And, with my synths and
    such, I count at least 4 microprocessors sitting on the table.
    So, most of the stuff qualifies as computer music as far as I'm
    concerned.  I figure that what separates this notes file is the
    technical nature of the topics, in general.  But, the feeling aspect
    of the topics seems to add the high-touch needed when music is
    discussed.  I'm in favor of keeping the name and the relatively
    free/biased-toward-technical format.
    
    Steve

    This may cause me some heat, but actually, I *like* the idea of
    being a little obscure as it seems to help avoid a lot of "Can
    you help me pick a $200 keyboard?" -type notes. (My apologies
    to Dave Blickstein who inevitably gets the notes written in MUSIC.)
    
    One thing that impresses me about COMMUSIC is the amount of 
    *knowledge* that the contributors have and the lack of wannabees
    coming in and offering nothing other than to tell everyone that
    such-and-such from Today's Hottest Band is an 'awesome' keyboard
    player.
    
    Despite the above, I know, I'm usually the first to give someone
    a pointer to this file....
    
    Edd

RE < Note 1049.4 by JAWS::COTE "Symbolic stack dump follows..." >

	Edd brings up a good point.  This conference is unique.  Perhaps
some level of obscurity does it good.

	I have talked to people outside of dec from time to time about this
conference and they are usually visibly envious.  I have spoken with people
that started into MIDI long before me that seem to still have not caught on
all that well.  This conference is a gold-mine of information, learning,
and just plain good fun and humor.  I hope it never changes.  Here's to all
of you that ignored my initial inquiry about MIDI software for a Robin, but
have taught me so much since then.  I am indebted to you all...

	Dan

    
   	COMMUSIC, tho' as stated before, is somewhat 'obscure' for a
    	name, but indeed, DOES 'roll' easily off the tongue.
    
    	I would 'second' leaving the name as is... 
    
    							Rich

Right.  Ditto.  Don't change nothin!

This conference is a winner.  It is inherently self managed (just who is
the moderator anyway? 8^).  The noters have unmatched_in_any_other_conference
class.  There is a very high information_content-to-text ratio.

This conference is informative and also artistic.  Let's not commercialize 
it.  You know what happens to art when commercialization factors into
its development.

.0 had a good thought, but after careful evaluation I vote not to change
a thing...

Todd.

The name is inaccurate, but I'd say leave it the way it is.  It is inaccurate
because it is too narrow.

I don't consider the fact that my synth has a computer inside it to be at
all significant.  My microwave oven has a computer too, and so does my car
and my camera, but I don't go around calling what I do with these items
"computerized cooking", "computerized driving", or "computerized photography".

When I use my Mac to edit music and to control the synth, then maybe that
is "computer music", but really it is "computer-performed music".  When
I first heard the name COMMUSIC I thought it would be about things like
the "Illiac Suite" (which was composed partly by a computer.  Really awful
for the most part.)

Really what is discussed for the most part here is the mechanics of music
production, especially using electronic equipment for all or part of the
job.  It could fit within the agenda of MUSIC.NOTE, and MUSIC does have
topics on the technology and technique of music composition and performance.
But it also has a great deal of discussion from the listener's point of
view (the "awesome keyboardist" kind of thing).

NOTES files evolve over time, and the names become outdated.  If we had
it to do all over again we would probably set up one conference for "music
appreciation" and the other for "music production technology", as that is
the main distinction between the two files.  Maybe a formal announcement
of a clarification of agenda could be done at the next file roll-over, when
old files get archived.

Or not.

1. The name is not important. The content is. If it ain't broke don't fix it.

2. The moderator can be determined by typing "show moderator".

May Santa bring your *MORE* music toys,

Dave

    I love this conference the way it currently is.  I don't care what
    you call it.
    
    I do express my sympathy for the true computer music afficionados
    who have had their conference hijacked in some sense.  Perhaps they
    should create a new Commusic conference and we should rename this
    one to something like "MUSIC_TOYS".
    
    	db

    well, if you want obscure and accurate, how about
    
    
             {CLUSTER/TER/TER}::MIDI

    re: .10--Thanks for your sympathy, but I appear to be distinctly
    in the minority as far as being a "true computer music" person.
    I'm afraid I would be the only contributor to a separate conference
    on such a narrow topic.
        John Sauter

    re: .12
    
    I think "true computer music" is a broader topic than you might
    think and that there would be quite a few people participating in
    that conference.
        
	db

    re: .13
    	Me for example.  And we could probably torment Tom Janzen into
    it.
    
    	Eirikur
    

    As stated previously - this is not a pure computer music notes file
    as the name would lead one to think.  I have always been interested
    in finding a music_makers note, but this seems the closest.  There
    is bound to be overlap between CDS, RECDORDS, GUITAR, MUSIC and
    so on.  No nice way to avoid it.  As far as I have found this seems
    to be the closest thing to a music_makers note file.  At the same
    time I get to read about all this high-touch synth stuff that is beyond
    my means (smile).  Also, there is almost no way to make a music_makers
    note that would not have commusic type stuff in it and the other
    way around.  Maybe we need some more keywords like REAL_COMMUSIC
    and FAKE_COMMUSIC to be applied (Big smile).  For instance, when
    putting in a note about programming a patch for a synth you use
    REAL_COMMUSIC and then when trying to synch the synth with a recording
    deck you use FAKE_COMMUSIC (bigger smile).  Or maybe we need shades
    of grey?  COMMUSIC_RELEVENCE_1 through COMMUSIC_RELEVENCE_10...
    
    To be serious, I guess it boils down to you cannot have a music_makers
    notes file without commusic in it.  Therefore, as somebody said, this
    has actually evolved that way... 
    
    Tim

    Only a fanatical purist would argue that this conference has wandered
    astray from its original intent.  I'd argue that COMputer MUSIC
    has always been a misnomer, because the thing that unites the noters
    in this conference is not computers so much as it is *any* form
    of technology that abets our musical aspirations.  So we feel
    comfortable talking about computers, synthesizer architectures,
    sequencing technology, sampling, recording, mixing, etc.  I suppose
    you could say we should rename the conference MUSIC TECHNOLOGY or
    something equally ponderous, but COMMUSIC does have a nice lilt
    to it.
    
    len.
     

    >-< Suppose We Were A Magazine - What Would Our Name Be? >-
    
    MAD???
    
    Alfred E. Cote

    
    unites?
    
    

    COM_ROCK