Conference napalm::commusic_v1

    Computer music is music made for computers to listen to.
    Tom

    RE: .1
    
    Well, I guess that just about says it all.
    
    Next topic ...
    

    No, no, no ...
    
    Computer music is music made with a something that has digital
    electronics on board.  Ideally, it should not be ideal, 'cause then
    it would lack sensitivity.  And, it's better if it's an analog
    computer with no digital electronics.  And, the listener doesn't
    *have* to be a computer, but the ability to count on one's fingers
    *is* requisite even if it's only one finger ...
    
    Steve

Well then, my tape deck has a microprocessor controller inside, and my tuner
does too (LCD readout and everything).  I guess anything I produce with them is
"computer music".  How about if I write the score on my Mac, does that count
too?

Here's a tricky one, as I plan to do exactly this:  what if I use a
sequencer-driven synth to lay down scratch tracks which are one-by-one
replaced with acoustic performances of the same material?  The sequencer and
synth sure had a major part in the production, even though you don't hear them
directly in the final product.

	Re: .-1

	Computer-assisted Music Production?

    If you'd asked what "electronic music" was, I think I could answer
    that one. My definition would be any music that utilizes
    electronic instruments/methods, and couldn't be made with
    "traditional" instruments. This includes tape manipulation (loops,
    musique concrete), and much of the music made with the original
    analog synths (Buchla, ARP 2500, early Moogs). Listeners
    unfamiliar with this kind of stuff (and probably a lot who are 8^)) 
    Would probably consider much of it "noise". Personally, I like a
    lot of the early experimental electronic music. I also tend to
    associate a lot of what I would call "space music" (Tangerine Dream,
    Kraftwerk) in this general category. Much of what I play and like
    to listen to has it's roots (or some kind of connection) here.

    Following that line of thought, "computer music" would be anything
    that's created with a computer, and couldn't be made any other way. It
    seems to me that very little of what's created by the people in this
    conference would fit into this definition. Generally what I've heard on
    the tapes (and also based on reviews of tapes I haven't heard) uses the
    latest/greatest technology to allow a "one-man-band" to realize their
    compositions/songs. The technology is very seductive in this way, as I
    find myself (and the group I play with) sometimes sounding like a rock
    band or a jazz band, or using a lot of preset patches that sound like
    standard instruments, even though we consider ourselves progressive,
    experimental or whatever. 

    This is in no way meant as a put-down of this kind of "computer
    music". In fact it's become incredibly popular, and I'm sure that
    most of the synths, drum machines, and recording equipment that
    are sold are used in this way. A friend of mine is a writer, and
    is supposedly working on an article about how many people are
    using synths computers, etc. in this way. I told him about the
    notes file here and maybe we can contribute some of our collective
    wisdom. 8^)

    Rob

    Computer Music is music in which a computer is used to do one or
    more of the following:
    1. calculate the sounds.
    2. compose the music.
    3. there is no number 3.
        Tom

    
    I like .5 -- Computer Aided Music Production
    
    		 -- CAMP for short.
    
    Carry on camping.
    
    Richard.

	re: Tom

	No, I think that's the major part of it. Which means by definition
	most of what gets on our tapes isn't computer music. But much of it is
	electronic music.

	/pjh

    Well, harriman, you're confusing the several separate trends of
    expressionism, aleatoric music, computer composition, layering
    techniques, mass techniques (of thousands of similar by asynchronous
    events in scores of tracks) with a realization technique (computer).
    It's pointless to exclude computer-made rock from computer-music
    just because of a history of listening to academic expressionists.
    Computer music is like violin music; music made3 with computer or
    with violin, respectively.  Violin music can be Baroque, or
    expressionistic, or improvised atonal, or jazzy, or noisy.
    On the other hand, a computer can play all the same pieces as a
    violin; it is then computer music.  If you transcribe Bach's G major
    cello suite for trombone, it is now trombone music, no longer 'cello
    music.  For sound realization, the computer is just an instrument.
     If the computer is used to compose, that is a separate activity
    from the sound realization, even if it is done at the same time.
    Sound creation and composition, and compositional style are all
    orthogonal.
    
    Now that I have amiga basic accessing midi, I see how I can finallyh
    do the theory behind a piano piece I wrote in 1977 correctly; it
    was really about computer music problems.  I can tell the program
    to vary overall volume, pitch, and speed by slowly changing curves
    .  I had to calculate everything by hand in 1977; now I can automate
    the whole thing.
    Also, the amiga can play a prime-number frequency scale I am making up.

    My definition was correct, but you didn't offer one.
    Tom

    
    > On the other hand, a computer can play all the same pieces as a       
    > violin; it is then computer music.  
    
    Hate to disagree, but how do you KNOW they're 'the same pieces'?
    
    I guarantee they won't sound the same.
    
    Richard.

It is often said of Bach's music that it sounds good no matter what instruments
are playing it.  Are you saying we can't be sure it is the same music if the
original instrumentation is not used?

Computer composition: If I use a music editor on my Mac as a tool for writing
music, is that "computer composed"?  I think not.  The "Illiac Suite", now, is
mostly computer composed, for string quartet.

	Yo, Janzen, who (other than you) said I was confused? 

	I was just trying to get you to come out and actually make a 
	statement on what computer music is.

	I don't disagree with your statements, except this:

>  Computer music is like violin music; music made3 with computer or
>    with violin, respectively.  Violin music can be Baroque, or
>    expressionistic, or improvised atonal, or jazzy, or noisy.
>    On the other hand, a computer can play all the same pieces as a
>    violin; it is then computer music.  If you transcribe Bach's G major
>    cello suite for trombone, it is now trombone music, no longer 'cello
>    music.  For sound realization, the computer is just an instrument.
  	
	But define a computer here. If my sampler plays a violin, is it
	sampler music, computer music, or violin music?

	just being difficult

	/pjh

    
    	May this almighty Rathole get settled here. I get a 'bit
    disturbed reading reviews which say "this is not computer music"
    or any comment even relatively close since no one (other than tom)
    has a firm definition. 
    
    	Also, and I believe this was raised already, quite a bit of
    discussion takes place here about recording techniques, computer
    aided or otherwise. Music engineering almost seems a more appropriate
    conference title.
    
    	I also believe the notion serves no real purpose. I believe
    Dan Eaton may deserve a big gold star on the forehead, just by
    the virtue of having a review of material done so well, you can't
    hear the computer. Sort of like not leaving hammer marks in the
    woodwork - an indication of skill.
    
    Computer assisted is as close as you can come to what goes on here.
    Otherwise, Tom's original definition - music for computers is
    the only one that makes sense.  
    
    	At anyrate, those of you who are real hung up on the issue,
    I hope you'll conduct the debate here, and keep it from the
    reviews. The reviews i think are quite important to the contributers.
    I'd love to have some of my own reviewed, but i already know there
    is so little computer in my music that I'd be deprived of getting
    inputs on my engineering and my art.

    
    bs

    I know what computer music sounds like. It's simple, take a Computer
    CD (like one of the ones that DEC puts out for software) throw it in
    your CD player & turn it up full blast & listen to it.

    So far (I haven't got my COMMUSIC tape copy yet either), from what I've
    been able to tell, if you are using any form of computerized gear while
    generating your music (be it a simple drum machine or a MIDI synth
    set up), you qualify as a COMMUSIC Computer Music submitter. Even if
    you don't use it on every song that you do. I accept this as a good
    way to express what you are doing musically. I find that all of us have
    different approaches to what we are doing & in a sense, all of us are
    doing the the right thing.


    My original version of my submission was once done with all 'real live
    people', and was re-done with only a Drum Machine, and me playing the
    rest of the instruments, the next stpe was the one on the Current
    Commusic tape. It's already been re-worked (has been over the last 3
    months) on my Sequencer further. It's getting further and further from
    real Live performances, but, I want it to sound more like a Live one.
    To me the goal is to sound the way you want to, using the tools
    available. It just happens that some of the gear is computerized in some
    manner. The more live or real it sounds, the better. Eventually, you
    won't be able to tell the sequenced stuff from the live in most cases.
    In fact, many people already can't.
    
    								Jens
    

    If in doubt, just move a MicroVAX into your studio and be sure to
    record the cooling fan in the mix ...  An', if you *really* want
    to get high-tech, have it do a dump to tape and record the disks
    and tape drive sounds.  An alternative might be to dial in to a
    big computer and have the scream of the phone lines eminate from
    a speaker phone.  Broadcast some trivial message to everybody on
    a cluster.  Then, you could put something on the credits like:
    
    	Recorded using the raw computing power of 4 clustered VAX 8800s,
        8 clustered VAXstations, and 2 clustered VAX 11/780s.
    
    Steve

    For me, the use of computers in the COMMUSIC tapes is completely
    irrelevant.  It is a tape of music.  The classical conference doesn't
    exchange recordings.  We're showing each other our music.
    
    Yes, if you play a sound on a computer-controlled sampling synth
    it is computer music, if it is music and not diddling.
    Tom

    
      Dan Eaton may deserve a big gold star on the forehead, just by        
      the virtue of having a review of material done so well, you can't     
      hear the computer. Sort of like not leaving hammer marks in the       
      woodwork - an indication of skill.                                    
    
    Tom also deserves a peanut for the complimentary reason, i.e. his
    music constantly reminds you that it IS produced by a computer (running
    software by Bach et al).
    
    Richard.

    
    	re: -2 - Gee, i could just leave the waxmate on all night and
    tape the meltdown in the morning :-)
    
    	The only prejudice I have against using more computers in music
    these days is purely financial. I kind of casually mentioned to
    my wife last night if i stumble across 800 bucks or so i just might
    buy a "real synth". I got a not so casual, "do what you'd like".
    So, doing my best William Bendix i said, "But alissa(daughter) would
    love to have a better playing piano!". (Let's avoid the synth <>
    piano rathole).  I think i'm gonna have to work this angle with
    a bit more finesse...
    
    	The other misfortunate incident was we went to a bar where a
    midi-duet were entertaining. I enthusiatically pointed out all the
    neat advantages etc (see a sequencer bla bla bla...). Regretfully,
    she was most unimpressed with the band and issued a "You ain't
    spending our bucks to make crap like that!".  So for now it looks
    as if the odds are slightly better playing mega-bucks, but we'll
    keep tryin...
    
    
    bs

An aside:  I read once in a conference that at some announcement they
had a TU78 hooked upt to an DAC and into an amplifier and played Wagner
or something similar that had previously been digitally recorded off of
magtape all controlled by 780 power.

Chad

I wonder what it sounded like on error when the tape backed up and reread :-)?

	re. the last 18 or so replies,

	I've been a reader and infrequent contributer of the notes conference
	for the last year or so.  The one thing that has always bothered me
	is the name: COMMUSIC, short for 'Computer Music'.

	Based on what I've seen in here for the last year, I'd have to say that
	'Electronic Music' or 'MIDI' better describes what is being discussed.
	To me, 'Computer Music' means strictly having a particular computer 
	generating audio signals.

	If the conference were renamed to 'Electronic Music' or 'MIDI' (since
	99% of the participants use MIDI) then I think a lot of these
	digressions such as 'What is Computer Music' would be avoided.

	Just my HO,

	Dan (formerly ZEKE::GOSSELIN)

    ...much as I enjoy this conference (and I've been here since note
    146), -.1 touched on the only thing that has ever aggravated me
    in this file. The "it's not the right name" argument comes up like
    flowers in the spring; dependably. Frankly, and with all due respect
    to those who may disagree, who cares what it's called? It was orignally
    named COMMUSIC and evolved into the place where the technical aspects
    of music are discussed. Those looking for this type of discussion
    always get pointed in this direction from other conferences and
    once they get here, the point is moot.
    
    For the life of me, I can't see what the issue is over the name.
    
    Edd

    Keep the name, just change what it stands for:
    
    	commie music?
    	commando music?
    	cr** or my music?  (as in, 'Would you rather listen to ...')
        copies of my music? (as in, 'I would sure like to become rich
			     selling ...')
        commercial music?  (unless I can think of something that takes
    			    more than 30 seconds ...)
        check out my music? 
    	check our message music?  (for those who have to explain the
    				   lyrics or make other excuses before you 
    				   hear it)
    	credit over maximum music? (needs no explanation)
	crazy over MIDI music?    
	computers ousting musicians music?
    
    Steve

    re .22 - right on Edd, what I was gonna say if you hadn't beat me
    to it.
    
    re .17 - right on Tom, what this conference is really about is music
    technology (in all its forms) and how we use it.
    
    re .13 - how about "computer-sampled violin music"?
                             
    len.