danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee) (06/11/91)
What has happened to this newsgroup? Has comp.music.theory been created without my noticing? Where are you Eliot Handelman and Stephen Smoliar? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Danny Yee - danny@cs.su.oz.au Who doesn't own a PC and couldn't distinguish MIDI data and APL code -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) (06/11/91)
In article <2503@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee) writes: > What has happened to this newsgroup? > Has comp.music.theory been created without my noticing? > > Where are you Eliot Handelman and Stephen Smoliar? Funny, I think someone once asked "What has happened to this newsgroup?" when Eliot Handelman and Stephen Smoliar *were* posting. :-) You can find their contributions with frequency on rec.music.classical now. Comp.music, I believe (and I'm no official representative), is nominally devoted to matters pertaining to research involving both computers and music. Some of the subjects which get posted here are about synthesis algorithms, non-commercial software synthesis packages, music notation software, online musical databases, research in music cognition, music & auditory perception. (Questions about commercial music software and hardware are more appropriate on rec.music.synth, but sadly, many people post here on this subject anyway.) One category of discussion that goes on here from time to time are debates about the musical-philosophical implications of these subjects, and this was much of the bread and butter of EH's and SS's postings. For the time being they seem to be using rec.music.classical as a forum for this, which I think is a good choice since it fits in with so much else going on there, and they get alot more interaction from other readers (whereas on comp.music the dialogue tended to be limited to about three people). -- Greg Sandell sandell@ils.nwu.edu
lwyse@copley.bu.edu (Lonce LaMar Wyse) (06/12/91)
danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee) writes: > What has happened to this newsgroup? > Has comp.music.theory been created without my noticing? I don't think so, but good idea! This group seems to have become a redundant path for rec.music.synth. - lonce
ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) (06/12/91)
In article <2055@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) writes: >In article <2503@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>, danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee) >writes: >> What has happened to this newsgroup? >> Has comp.music.theory been created without my noticing? >> >> Where are you Eliot Handelman and Stephen Smoliar? > >Funny, I think someone once asked "What has happened to this newsgroup?" when >Eliot Handelman and Stephen Smoliar *were* posting. :-) You >can find their contributions with frequency on rec.music.classical >now. > Actually, I have been pretty quiet on rec.music.classical since my change of address. For one thing my resources have not yet caught up with me, and for another the conversation has been relatively dull. Eliot seems to have restricted himself to a few amusing pot-shots, and I have been desperately trying to catch up on the opera scene in London. Eliot appears to be more active on sci.virtual-worlds, which I have just started to read since we are doing some of that work here in Singapore. >Comp.music, I believe (and I'm no official representative), is nominally >devoted to matters pertaining to research involving both computers and music. >Some of the subjects which get posted here are about synthesis >algorithms, non-commercial software synthesis packages, music notation >software, online musical databases, research in music cognition, >music & auditory perception. (Questions about commercial >music software and hardware are more appropriate on rec.music.synth, >but sadly, many people post here on this subject anyway.) This always seems to have been the case. It may be that there are readers who do not have access to rec.music.synth. It may be that many readers do not KNOW about rec.music.synth. When you have anarchy, it is hard to implement very much control (not that I am at all disposed to giving up the anarchy, which, all things considered, tends to take care of itself quite nicely). > One category >of discussion that goes on here from time to time are debates about >the musical-philosophical implications of these subjects, and >this was much of the bread and butter of EH's and SS's postings. >For the time being they seem to be using rec.music.classical as a >forum for this, which I think is a good choice since it fits in >with so much else going on there, and they get alot more interaction >from other readers (whereas on comp.music the dialogue tended to >be limited to about three people). > As I said, the dialog has pretty much died out for now. comp.music would certainly be the better forum, since contributions to rec.music.classical do not get incorporated into the Music-Research Digest, thus allowing other contributors to enter the fray (which was what happened during the last rather contentious round until the Digest editor decided that enough was enough . . . probably with some justification). Meanwhile, I do not think that comp.music.theory will solve the problem. The Society for Music Theory has now tried to initiate its own (members only) mailing lists; and the traffic has been pretty light. Until more people who are serious about music theory realize the power of electronic mail and bulletin boards, we can probably expect computer discussions to focus more of technical computer questions than on broader musical ones. (Shall I put on my flame suit now?) =============================================================================== Stephen W. Smoliar Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge SINGAPORE 0511 BITNET: ISSSSM@NUSVM "He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson
pirk@dev0d.mdcbbs.com (06/13/91)
In article <LWYSE.91Jun11144651@copley.bu.edu>, lwyse@copley.bu.edu (Lonce LaMar Wyse) writes: > > danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee) writes: > > > What has happened to this newsgroup? > > Has comp.music.theory been created without my noticing? > > > I don't think so, but good idea! This group seems to have become a > redundant path for rec.music.synth. > > - lonce > For me, this is the only access I have to this type of subject matter. The NEWS system here is limited in disk space, and a request to get a feed for rec.music.synth has been in for about 3 months. Until we get it, I plan to enjoy some of the discussions and comments made here. The field of computer/electronic music seems to broad to limit to just two(2) newsgroups. Steve -- .Steve Pirk.......midit.....Voice: (714) 952-5516......................... ..McDonnell Douglas M&E..Internet: pirk@dev0d.mdcbbs.com.................. ...5701 Katella Ave..........UUCP: uunet!mdcbbs!dev0d.mdcbbs!pirk......... ....Cypress, CA. 90630........PSI: PSI%31060099980019::DEV0D::PIRK........ -------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The opinions expressed herein, are probably not those of MDC, and I'm not sure if I can even call them mine......."
sdpage@prg.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Page) (06/14/91)
In article <9106120249.AA20142@lilac.berkeley.edu> ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) writes: > When you have anarchy, it is hard to implement very >much control. Yes, indeed, the Usenet community is ungovernable, especially when it comes to any suggestion about which is the most appropriate newsgroup for articles on "hobby" topics. It has always completely astounded me how people can honestly submit articles on amplifiers for sale (etc) to a newsgroup about music RESEARCH... > comp.music would >certainly be the better forum, since contributions to rec.music.classical >do not get incorporated into the Music-Research Digest, thus allowing other >contributors to enter the fray... Yes, there are a very large number of people who receive the Digest, and only comp.music is passed on to these readers. However, I would add that I am thinking of turning off this gateway, as I am getting very fed up with throwing out messages on synthesizers. What has happened to all the good people who promised summaries of articles they had read, conference discussions, etc., on the original aims? Stephen Page Moderator, Music-Research Digest (and co-originator of this newsgroup)
sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) (06/14/91)
In article <1871@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk>, sdpage@prg.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Page) writes: > However, I would add that I am thinking of turning off this gateway, as > I am getting very fed up with throwing out messages on synthesizers. > Sigh. It would be very sad if this newsgroup went away, especially due to the traffic from synth-heads. I'm giving some thought to some grass-roots action here. Every synth posting I see (that doesn't belong under this group's charter), I write back and ask them to post on rec.music.synth instead, and if their site doesn't have it, complain to their SysAdmin! Anyone want to join me? > What has happened to all the good people who promised summaries of articles > they had read, conference discussions, etc., on the original aims? It's ironic. You set up a newsgroup for researchers, but researchers don't have a whole lot of time for the net. I'll bet alot of us read comp.music and have ideas but are too busy composing, experimenting, doing DSP or whatever to draft a thoughtful posting. Every day I see something I'd love to followup on, but if I want to get my dissertation done by December... -- Greg Sandell sandell@ils.nwu.edu
ISSSSM@NUSVM.BITNET (Stephen Smoliar) (06/15/91)
In article <2100@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) writes: >In article <1871@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk>, sdpage@prg.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Page) >writes: > >> What has happened to all the good people who promised summaries of articles >> they had read, conference discussions, etc., on the original aims? > >It's ironic. You set up a newsgroup for researchers, but researchers >don't have a whole lot of time for the net. I'll bet alot of us read >comp.music and have ideas but are too busy composing, experimenting, doing >DSP or whatever to draft a thoughtful posting. Every day I see something >I'd love to followup on, but if I want to get my dissertation done by >December... Nevertheless, there are some of us out here who occasionally try to use the bulletin board as a way to get things going on a topic for a paper or discover that their contributions to a discussion might turn into such a paper. Readers of rec.music.classical know that a really fine discussion on issues of aesthetics, general culture, and individual perception of "great music" was flourishing there throughout a good piece of March and April. Much of that material deserves to find its way into the scholarly literature some day. So one answer to your question, Stephen, is that you are reading the wrong bulletin board! There is, however, another answer which you might not like so much. That is the reminder that we have HAD such discussions on recent articles by Otto Laske and Mira Balaban. These discussions were made rather colorful by the particular approach taken by Eliot Handelman; but I, for one, do my best not to let the color of personal style interfere with the content. (Eliot approaches with a sinister look in his eye. Smoliar holds up a mezuzzah surrounded by a wreath of garlic shouting, "Back, Eliot! Back! Back!) There are really only two things which bothered me about that whole affair now that I can look back on it with a bit of perspective. One was that Laske simply pulled out of the argument in what looked like a fit of pique. I think that, ultimately, this reflected more poorly on him than it did on Eliot; and I was fortunate enough to have the opportunity to convey this impression to Otto in a face-to-face conversation. The other was that Balaban never participated in all that argument about her own paper! Given that she has an active BITNET address, there was no reason for her to remain "on the outside." My attempts to question her on this matter never led to any satisfactory response. One final response, Stephen, is that many of those "good people" you would like to have as contributors do not always have the computer availability which seems to come so readily to the community of synthesizer hackers. The Society for Music Theory has instituted its own "members only" ListServer; and both the traffic and the overall population have been very low. (Personally, I am opposed to this effort to be so exclusive. I realize it makes for an added benefit for members, but the mass is still too low to be critical. I would rather see them pool forces with the appropriate material which shows up on comp.music and rec.music.classical until the volume level starts to get a bit more impressive.) I also heard a report from the United Kingdom to the effect that many scholars there are still not using computers for ANY purposes and remain wedded to pen and ink as their primary tools even when the best of computer facilities are available to them. I guess I would summarize my advice as follows: Do not set your expectations too high because not everyone is as receptive to the new age of computers as you are. Nevertheless, there is plenty of good material out there, provided you widen your search space a bit. Finally, do not worry so much about matters of "good taste," because people you use this particular medium of communication tend to learn pretty quickly how to look out for themselves. =============================================================================== Stephen W. Smoliar Institute of Systems Science National University of Singapore Heng Mui Keng Terrace, Kent Ridge SINGAPORE 0511 BITNET: ISSSSM@NUSVM "He was of Lord Essex's opinion, 'rather to go an hundred miles to speak with one wise man, than five miles to see a fair town.'"--Boswell on Johnson
whitcomb@aurs01.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) (06/15/91)
The answer to that question is that the group has gotten more interesting because of it's diversity. In article <2100@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) writes: >In article <1871@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk>, sdpage@prg.ox.ac.uk (Stephen Page) writes: >> However, I would add that I am thinking of turning off this gateway, as >> I am getting very fed up with throwing out messages on synthesizers. After all, hitting the "n" key is so very time consuming! >Sigh. It would be very sad if this newsgroup went away, especially due >to the traffic from synth-heads. I'm giving some thought to some grass-roots >action here. Every synth posting I see (that doesn't belong under this >group's charter), I write back and ask them to post on rec.music.synth >instead, and if their site doesn't have it, complain to their SysAdmin! >Anyone want to join me? Well, perhaps if you posted the charter regularly people would stay closer to your original intent. As it stands, a newcomer sees a group called "comp.music", which would seem to invite discussion on all topics concerning computers and music. Synthesis is certainly one of them. Discussion of the best computer platforms for music software and commercial music software packages would seem very logical to someone who hasn't seen a charter to tell him otherwise. >> What has happened to all the good people who promised summaries of articles >> they had read, conference discussions, etc., on the original aims? This sounds dangerously like a value judgement about the quality of people who post about different subjects. "Good people" post about the mythical "original aims" and "Synth heads" are trespassing with their discussion. Folks, this is not a heavily posted group! With between 10 and 25 postings a day, it really doesn't take much time to weed out the articles that don't interest you. I didn't see any complaints about the perpetual "perfect pitch" thread (which quickly degraded into a bragging session) that had nothing to do with computers and music after the first few postings. It seems that only certain topics are offensive to you. If it really is so important to have an exclusive topic, than why not start up a new, moderated group with a name that more accurately reflects your interests? Synthesizers are tools that allow people to explore computer generated music at it's most intimate level. Sure, folks might start out just playing back the preset sounds, but tools such as patch editors allow them to learn about waveforms and envelopes and all of the basic building blocks of computer generated music. Many sequencer programs also include tools that invite experimentation with algorithmic composition. Perhaps by allowing the "synth heads" to partake in the discussions, they will become interested in some of the more "serious" topics that you are interested in, and perhaps even you might learn how these tools can help you experiment with your interests. >It's ironic. You set up a newsgroup for researchers, but researchers >don't have a whole lot of time for the net. I'll bet alot of us read >comp.music and have ideas but are too busy composing, experimenting, doing >DSP or whatever to draft a thoughtful posting. Every day I see something >I'd love to followup on, but if I want to get my dissertation done by >December... Are you saying that you'd rather see no postings at all rather than postings you're not interested in? When the traffic starts to get out of control, you might have a beef, but for now it sounds mostly like non-constructive, petty territorial griping. Computers and music encompass a wide area. By naming the group comp.music you implicitly invited a wide range of discussion. Why not learn to appreciate and enjoy more of the aspects this involves rather than get yourself all worked up about having your private party crashed. ********************************************************************** Jonathan Whitcomb UUCP: <whitcomb%aurgate@mcnc.org> Alcatel Network Systems, Raleigh, NC Delphi: JBWHIT
sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell) (06/17/91)
In article <59924@aurs01.UUCP>, whitcomb@aurs01.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) writes: > > Well, perhaps if you posted the charter regularly people would stay > closer to your original intent. As it stands, a newcomer sees a I think this would be a good idea. A monthly "welcome to comp.music" posting would be in line with what alot of other newsgroups do. In any case, Stephen Page, if you're reading out there, would you care to post the charter for us all to read again? > This sounds dangerously like a value judgement about the quality of > people who post about different subjects. "Good people" post about > the mythical "original aims" and "Synth heads" are trespassing with > their discussion. > for now it sounds > mostly like non-constructive, petty territorial griping. > > rather than get yourself all worked up about having your private > party crashed. I can see how this discussion may have touched a nerve. rec.music.synth has the word "rec" in it, while comp.music touts itself as a "research" forum, the implication being that one's for kids, the other for adults. One's serious, the other's not. I assure you that I have no such class distinction in mind. Maybe the names of *both* groups need changing! Rec.music.synth is a fine group. If I could afford the MIDI gear right now, I would become a synth-head too (I'm sorry if you think I use that term derogatorily), and I'd go right to rec.music.synth to ask my questions about sequencer packages, MIDI programming and so on. It's a great group for that kind of thing. But then when I wanted to read about announcements of conferences and descriptions of other people's research, I'd go to comp.music...and I would still be annoyed when traffic that looked just like rec.music.synth stuff appeared there. What's wrong with defining boundaries? Another thing: just because the matter hasn't "gotten out of hand" yet doesn't mean it doesn't merit criticism. Last week a friend of mine said he quit reading comp.music because of the reasons discussed so far. So if some readership is being lost, that's a good reason to complain. -- Greg Sandell sandell@ils.nwu.edu
danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee) (06/17/91)
[Stephen Smoliar] |Meanwhile, I do |not think that comp.music.theory will solve the problem. The Society |for Music Theory has now tried to initiate its own (members only) mailing |lists; and the traffic has been pretty light. Until more people who are |serious about music theory realize the power of electronic mail and bulletin |boards, we can probably expect computer discussions to focus more of technical |computer questions than on broader musical ones. (Shall I put on my flame suit |now?) I am not a musician and have done no academic study of music - I am just an interested person, who probably wouldn't be admitted to the Society for Music Theory. Comp.music is/was my only access to discussion in the area, as the music and CS departments here at Sydney don't seem to know of each others existence. As for rec.music.classical, the computer-ai-philisophical stuff does seem to be distinct enough to warrant its own newsgroup. Also the volume in rec.music.classical is such as to make FINDING the stuff difficult. I agree that it would be good if those seriously involved in music theory took part in comp.music; not just because it would help them, but because it would give the 'uninitiated' a chance to listen, to learn, and maybe to join in. [Greg Sandell] |Sigh. It would be very sad if this newsgroup went away, especially due |to the traffic from synth-heads. I'm giving some thought to some grass-roots |action here. Every synth posting I see (that doesn't belong under this |group's charter), I write back and ask them to post on rec.music.synth |instead, and if their site doesn't have it, complain to their SysAdmin! |Anyone want to join me? There would seem to be two ways to go about 'reviving' comp.music. One is moving the synth people to rec.music.synth. I suspect that they will resurface later - I suspect that the problem is that the name 'comp.music' is giving the wrong impression to people (I mean if comp.music isn't for discussion of synthesisers then what on earth _is_ it for? :-). The alternative would be the creation of comp.music.theory. I am prepared to help with either but would prefer the latter. There might not be much traffic in such a group, but at least when it did come I might notice it! Perhaps the Society for Music Theory would be willing to feed us their mailing list? [Stephen Page] |What has happened to all the good people who promised summaries of articles |they had read, conference discussions, etc., on the original aims? Maybe they got scared away by all the hardware talk? P.S. I don't have a copy of the comp.music charter could someone send me one? P.P.S. I know nothing about creating new newsgroups either. ----- Danny@cs.su.oz.au - Danny Yee likes music, likes thinking -> reads comp.music