EMUSIC-L Digest Volume 20, Number 3 This issue's topic: Whither EMUSIC-L? Administrivia A really unpleasant proposal (4 messages) Cut the newsfeed Cutting the newsfeed The feed Large agreement to unpleasant proposal (9 messages) SOLUTIONS TO EMUSIC WOES The Anti-USEnet Witch Hunt (from the guy who started it) (4 messages) The feed, the tape, etc. Usenet cut and related subjects What then? Your EMUSIC-L Digest moderator is Joe McMahon . You may subscribe to EMUSIC-L by sending mail to listserv@american.edu with the line "SUB EMUSIC-L your name" as the text. The EMUSIC-L archive is a service of SunSite (sunsite.unc.edu) at the University of North Carolina. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 22 Aug 90 09:23:13 EDT From: Joe McMahon Subject: Administrivia Due to the proliferation of Usenet feeds to our list, I'm going to try to codify what I see as our unstated rules and regulations for this list. 1) Ads are strictly not allowed by BITNet rules. No ads. None. Nada. Advising someone as to whether they are getting ripped off *if they ask the list* is permissible; otherwise, use private mail. Requests for addresses of mail-order firms, etc. are OK. Mentioning prices published elsewhere is OK. Cutting deals on your own personal equipment is not OK. If you must, do it privately. 2) Discussions as to the relative merits of hardware/software/etc. are permissible, as long as the reviewers state evidence supporting their opinions. Ad hominem attacks will not be tolerated. Arguments based solely on personal taste are not acceptable. 3) Beginners will be treated with kindness and respect. There is no such thing as a dumb question. If you can answer, answer, and be nice about it. Otherwise, say nothing. 4) EMUSIC-L is meant to be for the discussion of electronic music, in the studio, the classroom, in performance, and on recordings, including techniques, resources, user reviews and experiences, and speculation on futures. Some divagations will be tolerated; however, the list owner maintains final say as to the subject matter on the list and will move to terminate off-topic and (especially) rancorous discussions. 5) Usenet access to the list poses a problem. There is only a single path to the list from multiple Usenet users. If a particular user on Usenet causes trouble, the only way to remove this person is to close Usenet access. It behooves all Usenet users to make sure that these guidelines are followed. If Usenet access is closed, you will still be able to read the list via netnews, but you will have to post by mailing to EMUSIC-L@AUVM.BITNET. This would be inconvenient for everyone, and we'd like to avoid it. 6) Please refrain from adding to the noise level by commenting about accidental private posts to the list or the accidental sendings of SUBSCRIBE requests or suchlike to the list. That's my job. If you must pour out your wounded feelings ;-), use private mail. 7) The listowner (namely me) is permitted to be as arbitrary as he or she pleases. I've never had to take action against a member of the list for breaking these rules, even when they hadn't been stated. I will notify offenders via private mail and I will wait for a response. But I don't have time to play Politeness Monitor. I will cut feeds and remove users from the list only if I must. But be assured that I will if the quality of this list starts to suffer. If you have problems with any of this, talk to me privately. Now, let's get back to e-music! --- Joe M. ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 11:11:00 EDT From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: A really unpleasant proposal At the risk of taking considerable heat, both from people whose opinions mean nothing to me and from people about whom I care a great deal, I would like to propose something to the older membership (i.e. prior to two weeks ago) of EMUSIC-L. I think we should ask Joe McMahon to cut the USEnet feed. I am sick and tired of discussing the merits of XYZ vs. ABC with respect to price, bells'n'whistles, or one's self-image. I want to get back to discussing musical techniques, philosophies, and approaches to composition and sound development. We aren't going to be crippling these people by cutting them off; in most cases, any node that accepts a group like bitnet.listserv.emusic-l will also be able to receive rec.music.synth, and for those nodes which can't get rec. groups at all, well, I'm sorry. I'm not a TOTAL snob. I don't mind helping novices, and I don't mind getting information disseminated on the latest gear... but NOT in this mailing list! It wasn't designed for it, it can't handle the traffic, and it's BORING ME. There is a place for discussing the latest toys, and it's accessible to almost anyone with a USEnet feed, by definition. Let them use it! They'll be more than welcome there, and get tons of good discussion from a lot of intelligent and experienced readers, many of whom ALSO read this List. But I, and probably they, would like to choose the level of sophistication at which a discussion progresses, by choosing which group to read. Before I left Tennessee, I was a well-known poster on rec.music.synth, and generated more than my share of bandwidth. That's what it was for. But I do not want EMUSIC-L to turn into a r.m.s clone. I'm calling for discussion on the subject. There will NOT be a vote; the feed is in Joe's hands, and the decision is his, legally and practically, to make. But he needs to see what people have to say, and he's going to be looking for REASONED arguments in both directions. Mine are based on the intended audience of the List and on the availability of a non-moderated USEnet group fro techno-toy flamewars. If you're a USEnet reader and you really desperately WANT to stay on this list, SUBSCRIBE! It's your right, and it doesn't cost anything, and the worst thing that happens is that (a) you have to read the posts as mail, which will explain why the rest of us want to see bandwidth controlled, and (b) if you persist in dragging inappropriate subject matter into the discussions, Joe now has the power to cut you off, which he admittedly DOESN'T have with the USEnet feed. No loss to you-- IF you're reading this List for its intended purpose! So there's my opinion: weed out the casuals by killing the feed. Others? metlay ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 09:25:23 -0700 From: PMY@VIRGINIA.BITNET Subject: Re: A really unpleasant proposal >So there's my opinion: weed out the casuals by killing the feed. Yep. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 14:49:23 EDT From: Dean Swan Subject: Re: A really unpleasant proposal I tend to agree with Mike on this one. This list does generate an awful lot of mail that amounts to gear-head talk. -Dean ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 18:05:58 HST From: Mike 'IR' Ressler Subject: A really unpleasant proposal I tried posting this from usenet - it obviously didn't work. This is in reply to Metlay's "really unpleasant proposal". Hang on a second, please. I'm not sure this post will make it to all you "official" emusic-l types because I read it from usenet and I don't know if the typical followup will work; I'm an astronomer and music hacker, not a computer guru. Even though I've never posted on emusic-l, I've been reading it ever since our site got usenet access about nine months ago and it has been quite interesting (in spite of the xyz vs. abc flames). I suppose I should become an official subscriber, but frankly, I don't have a clue as to how to actually do it - I found bit.listserv.emusic-l in my .newsrc file one day and said "oh, that looks interesting" and I was right. While I agree that there is a non-negligible amount of noise contributed by my usenet brethren, I suspect that there are others like me who never would have found out about emusic-l without the usenet feed (and thus would never have had the pleasure of reading Metlay's inspired postings ;-) actually, I really did enjoy them; good food for thought). So please, before you get too serious about cutting off usenet, consider whether it is worse to put up with extra noise or to lose potentially interesting discussion from people who wouldn't otherwise find out about emusic-l. Sorry for lowering the S/N even further. Mike P.S. Could some kind soul please tell me how to officially subscribe? ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 09:38:01 MDT From: Adam Schabtach Subject: Cut the newsfeed I have to agree with Metlay's proposal to cut the feed. This list is becoming more and more like rec.music.synth, i.e. less and less useful. I think cutting the feed would help bring emusic-l back to a more concentrated and useful discussion group. If I want to read/write chatter about new gear (and I do, often) I can do that on rec.music.synth. --Adam P.S. It occured to me that this message was a contribution to the noise level we're objecting to. However, since I hope Joe will base his decision partly on the number of votes he reads, I wanted to cast my vote. ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 13:13:00 EDT From: CHRIS@FANDMA.BITNET Subject: RE: cutting the newsfeed I would be in favor of such a move. I've been a subscriber quite a while and can remember when this list was discussing subjects like the creation of a cross-platform language for describing synthesized sounds, and other heady stuff. I even used to contribute! Now I find myself deleting most of the mail I get from E-music unread. I think that those who really are interested in this list should subscribe to it and be accountable. As for the state of the close-knit "family", it's still here, I think. The family has grown considerably, but still feels like family to me. I'm glad to be a part of it. Now if we can just conserve our most precious resource - BANDWIDTH - I think we'll be OK... -chris ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 12:30:17 BST From: "Benjamin M. J. Ellis :->" Subject: Feed. Hi! I've been reading this list for quite a while now (over 1 1/2 years I think...), I'm also not a major contributor, being a naturally quiet person 8-) Although the list has been of great interrested to me, and also an invaluable source of information, and research data. I can safely say, that up until recently, I have been interested in about 90% of the messages, unfortunately 'now the percentage isdown to about 10%... and the traffic is just blocking up my mail box. Where's the family gone??? And where is the inspiration for my next piece of music? where are all the nice ideas and useful hints??? I don'T want to know how much better a XYZ is than a PPX, 'cos I can'T afford one, and more than likely, I won'T WANT ONE! So... when is normality going to be restored, and what happened to compilation tape 2??? - Benjamin M. J. Ellis University of Kent @ Canterbury England P.S. Anyone know what's the best (well, cheapest) keyboard controller I can get??? (full size keys, pref. velocity sensitive) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 10:55:00 MET From: Robert Belleman Subject: Re: large agreement to unpleasant proposal I'm not a new member (I've been reading this list for over a year now) and have always been sort of 'passive'. One of my opinions about lists like E-MUSIC is that you should only contribute to a discussion when you REALLY have something to say (in my case, that's not often). The reason why I have fallen in love with E-MUSIC is just this. Until recently, E-MUSIC was the list with the highest signal/noise ratio ever, anywhere, but now it is coming near to the s/nr of I-AMIGA or lists like the newsgroups on USEnet. If this is what E-MUSIC is going to be like, I'm going to unsubscribe, and probably a lot of others with me. I agree with Metlay. I think E-MUSIC should return to the nice close familly it was before The Feed. Like Metlay said; there's nothing lost about this, people who really want to contribute can always subscribe. Joe, you're probably still on your holiday right now, but I hope you will agree and cut of The Feed ... -- Rob Robert Belleman, system-manager, the Netherlands Cancer Institute Amsterdam. Internet / PMDF : ROBBEL@VAXH.NKI.NL X.25 : PSI%02041291011::ROBBEL Surfnet : ROBBEL%NKIVXH.SURFNET ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 13:01:32 EDT From: "Daniel B. Singer" Subject: large agreement to unpleasant proposal I, too (a relatively new member--1 month), have already grown tired of machine comparisons and would like to see the discussions proceed as metlay suggested. DBS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel B. Singer -- "This Space Intentionally Left Blank" Return addresses: dbs4@lehigh.bitnet ////// dbs4@ns.cc.lehigh.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 10:18:57 PDT From: "Don Johnson x2908 ms:c3-40 Pole: F7" Subject: RE: large agreement to unpleasant proposal I'll add to this discussion. I'm a new member, and I'd hate to see this group disappear just after it started. I'd like to see the discussions go towards technique and methods and far, FAR away from "Gee, that's a great XYZ!" repeated over and over. But rather than kill the cat, I think a gentle (OK, maybe not so gentle) reminder of what this group is about and what Is and Isn't welcome is sufficient. DJ ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 31 Aug 90 13:54:00 EDT From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: Re: large agreement to unpleasant proposal From "Don Johnson x2908 ms:c3-40 Pole: F7" : >I'll add to this discussion. I'm a new member, and I'd hate to >see this group disappear just after it started. I'd like to see the >discussions go towards technique and methods and far, FAR away from >"Gee, that's a great XYZ!" repeated over and over. Well and good. But.... >But rather than kill the cat, I think a gentle (OK, maybe not so gentle) >reminder of what this group is about and what Is and Isn't welcome is >sufficient. > > DJ Indeed? What was Joe's recent letter, which accomplished nothing? How often must such a reminder be made? Once a month, as they do it on comp.sys.*? Once a week? And what happens when people protest the guidelines and precipitate flamefests? These problems are NOT restricted to USEnet readers, but a List with registered readers alone is much easier to police. And before anyone dumps any bull on me about First Amendment Rights, I have to point out that posting on this List is a PRIVILEGE, NOT a right. (And the Supreme Court backs me up on this principle, with a recent court decision.) If you truly LIKE what we're aiming for, then subscribe. If you truly want to restrict dialogue to topics other than reading spec sheets, then you have nothing to fear. Simple, no? (Besides, I HATE cats. |-> ) metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 07:30:16 EDT From: Lee Calhoun Subject: Re: large agreement to unpleasant proposal >Until recently, E-MUSIC was the list with the highest signal/noise ratio ever, >anywhere, but now it is coming near to the s/nr of I-AMIGA or lists like the >newsgroups on USEnet. If this is what E-MUSIC is going to be like, I'm going to >unsubscribe, and probably a lot of others with me. > ...and I am one of them. I am also a 'passive' member who has got a lot from this list in the past. Add my voice to those who would like to see the s/n ratio raised-- if cutting the Feed will help, so be it. Lee Calhoun (*subscriber*) Center for Computing Activities Columbia University ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 11:18:00 EDT From: "William R(ay) Brohinsky" Subject: Re: large agreement to unpleasant proposal So how do I tell if I am crossfeed (and therefore noise) or not (and thus, by definition, signal, and allowed to continue to belong to this list!)? It's not that I disagree with Metlay's proposal, but I do wonder if the persons on the far side of the feed could be encouraged not to be noisey into this band, rather than all of them cut off. Is the cross feed a two way street? a somewhat confused, even worried, raybro ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 18:58:00 EDT From: Brad Miller Subject: Re: large agreement to unpleasant proposal Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 10:55:00 MET From: Robert Belleman Same situation here, and I agree completely. I don't need crap in my mailbox, I need useful information. Cut the link! ---- Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept. miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 09:30:59 EDT From: Patrick Robinson Subject: RE: large agreement to unpleasant proposal On Fri, 31 Aug 90 10:18:57 PDT Don Johnson x2908 ms:c3-40 Pole: F7 said: >I'll add to this discussion. I'm a new member, and I'd hate to >see this group disappear just after it started. The group is not going to disappear. It didn't just start. >But rather than kill the cat, I think a gentle (OK, maybe not so gentle) >reminder of what this group is about and what Is and Isn't welcome is >sufficient. I'm not a TOTAL snob, either, but my perception from reading USEnet news for the last year or so is that reminders, gentle or otherwise, don't accomplish diddly. Its a free-for-all. I agree wholeheartedly with Metlay's proposal. What's the point of EMUSIC-L if it degenerates into a clone of r.m.s? What's the problem with getting EMUSIC-L postings as mail? That's how it works for the rest of us. If there is a concern about folks being AWARE of this group, a notice of some sort could be posted to r.m.s regarding what the group is about, and how to go about subscribing. > DJ -Patrick ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 7 Sep 90 10:51:06 EDT From: "Michael Lehnertz (Drummer)" Subject: Re: large agreement to unpleasant proposal Cutting the Feed? What is this "Feed" anyway? What most of you feel is "noise" may NOT be noise to some other people. My mentioning of the Roland R-8 (and I am sure this is one of the drum machines you are complaining about) I think helped a lot of people. It is going to be THE best drum machine for studio work, for the price. So, what is the problem with that? Some of us ARE drummers. Also, I was led to believe that EMUSIC was not limited only to recording. - Drummer - ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 09:27:22 EDT From: "ISA-HRDD Robert N. Muth" Subject: SOLUTIONS TO EMUSIC WOES I have read about 15 messages, most of which roughly read, "cut the feed; I'm tired of the junk". I see the rationale in doing this. It's a way to keep everybody contributing to the list accountable. Unfortunately, all of the junk isn't coming from the feed. I've been a subscriber to emusic-l for about 9 months. Alot of the drum machine diarrhea from about 2 weeks ago came from me. After thinking about what I had written, I realized that maybe one of my messages was partially pertinent, and that the remainder were just banter. Unfortunately, I do not see the subject material as being a waste of time for this list. It is just that specs and such are being treated the wrong way on this list. When I first joined this list, I was amazed as to the amount of educated insight that was present on it. Insight on everything from product information to methods of synthesis and so on and so on. Also, when I first regularly read the list, MANY people were beaming about the bells of XYZ and what catchword ABC was sporting. I feel that we've had this problem of some 'junk' on the list for much longer than anyone wants to admit. I also feel we already have a solution to this dilemma. A) Make the readership accountable and B) Direct the trivial questions directly to the resources that may have the answers. For example, if someone is new and asks, "what is XYZ and what can it do?", don't castrate him. Rather, inform him to get the rolodex file from the listserv and tell him to contact people that have the same item. Or if you choose, answer his questions IN A PRIVATE POSTING. This will limit the noise considerably, without having to sacrifice some of the value of the readership's knowledge that this list has to offer. Let's face it; some people on this list are ones that are trying to learn as much as possible. I'm definitely one of them. Although I may not be able to contribute much now, if my brain soaks up enough of what is being discussed on this list (or what info I have been sent to), then maybe I'll be able to start some serious discussions. Regardless, I'm still grateful that something like this is available, even if I can't contribute much. Let's keep emusic-l a place for ALL type of subjects of electronic music, even if it involves questions of products. As long as we treat the answers right, we'll keep the noise down and the old guard content. |=============================================================================| | Robert N. Muth Internet: rmuth@cor1.pica.army.mil | | Coop Student/EE u92_rmuth@vaxc.stevens-tech.edu | | Stevens Tech/Picatinny Arsenal BITNET: U92_RMUTH@SITVXC | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:30:00 EDT From: METLAY@PITTVMS.BITNET Subject: The Anti-USEnet Witch Hunt (from the guy who started it) It's beginning to look as if I've created a monster here. We've had some problems recently with what's now being referred to as The Great Drumbox Debate, and hints at other gosh-wow threads concerning the latest gear in the stores. The post in which I proposed cutting off the USEnet feed was an attempt to deal with this sudden influx of new and (to the established population) dull babble, by getting USEnet posters to EMUSIC-L to realize that this is not "just another USEnet newsgroup" and encouraging the established population to articulate the boundaries we are attempting to enforce. The resulting clamor has not been precisely what I wanted: on EMUSIC-L, there has been an almost unanimous groundswell of support for the cutting off of the feed, with a great deal of cameraderie, mutual backslapping, and a general closing of ranks among all concerned, and I have received a number of timid "what have I done wrong?" letters and one or two actual reasoned protests-- IN PRIVATE MAIL! The people who are most threatened by the cutoff are so cowed by the hatred they feel from our "friendly little family" that they're afraid to post their protests! I started this business, I believe in it, but I have very little need for the ego-stroking that comes with rallying supporters to one's cause. I don't want supporters; I want to do the right thing, for EMUSIC-L and for the USEnet community. And all the words of encouragement in the world don't help me in that as much as Eric and Raybro's quiet protests did: they made me stop and think about the frenzy I was whipping up. I'm not playing Devil's Advocate here-- I want EMUSIC-L's readership to stop and answer a very important question for me, one that's at the centre of this whole issue: What do we hope to accomplish through EMUSIC-L? I know what we DON'T want here; Joe has spelled that out very nicely already, and we all can agree to it-- we don't want to waste our time reading spec sheets and macho posturings about whose electronic phallic symbols are the most intimidating, or wading through the telecommunications equivalent of a Jerusalem street bazaar, with everyone haggling and yelling at each other about the best new/used gear prices. We understand (at least I hope we do) that there's a rowdy, high-bandwidth, friendly USEnet discussion group for those very purposes already OUT there, and that cutting off the USEnet feed will remove no one from access to that other forum, while it will also discourage casual postings from the usual USEnet bandwidth mongers. Fine. We also understand that for someone who knows where to look, it's actually EASIER to subscribe to EMUSIC-L than it is to read it as a newsgroup: all one needs is a mail address, not a USEnet feed. So anyone who IS cut off can get right back on-- AS LONG AS THEY SUBSCRIBE, and put their name on the line as being accountable for what they say here. Well and good. But those are NEGATIVE limits: "Thou shalt not." Where are the POSITIVE limits, the ones that encourage postings and dialogue of a sort we're all looking for? We can't expect to get it if we don't know what it is! I can make suggestions: EMUSIC-L, in MY mind, is an academically based mailing list for the discussion of electronic music, and that means that the topics raised tend to be the more mind-stretching ones, the ones that go beyond the mundanities of the newest toys except in those cases where the toys open new vistas of thought. (A good example would be the breath controller discussion; the Yamaha BC's are items which allow exploration of the realm of breath control of any sort in a cheap and sturdy manner, and they serve as a basis for kits, existing gear, and software modifications that help us enter this realm...hence, talking about them here is appropriate.) We discuss computer languages in musical composition, the guts of algorithmic composition or the newest synth philosophies rather than the toys that finally make last year's new ideas marketable, the description of (or inability to describe) musical tone in codified notation/language, and so on. We strive to open each others' eyes to the new and the different, and leave the mundanities of pricing and specs to other places and times. Anyone can think or question others' thoughts, it seems to me; you don't need a university studio, or a PhD in psychoacoustics, or even a 1990-model-year synth workstation, to have a worthwhile thought. So we should open our doors to anyone who wishes to share their thoughts with us. The justification behind the cutting off of the USEnet feed, then, is straightforward: anyone who likes such discussions enough to be willing to "sign" his or her name to a SUBSCRIBE order will stay with us, but the access for the net.bored who search around for new places to generate wind will be cut off, leaving us to chat with one another in peace. There are flaws in this vision. The charter of EMUSIC-L says nothing, absolutely NOTHING about subject matter restrictions, other than to forbid the sale or trade of equipment. Therefore, my view of EMUSIC-L is wishful thinking, a utopian view, that could be flouted by anyone with the persistence to do so. It would be well to remember this: my opinions are respected by most of you, and my voice is very, VERY loud, but I do not make the rules regarding this List. We ALL must agree upon those. All that we will accomplish by cutting off the feed is to assure that anyone who posts to the List may be ultimately held accountable for his or her words, and be removed if they sufficiently hinder the flow of information here or become obnoxious or abusive. We must not seize upon the USEnet feed as the scapegoat for our own abuses of EMUSIC-L; most or all of us have posted about new gear at one time or another, myself included. We will be disappointed if we expect our woes to vanish with the USEnet feed! We should also address the reverse of this problem, one raised to me by a poster to whom I could not return mail: that of getting USEnet feeds for people here on the List who cannot access USEnet, and hence attempt to make EMUSIC-L do for ALL of their synthesis-related correspondence. Does anyone know of a gateway for accessing USEnet from machines with no feeds, perhaps as a mailing list? There are those who'd like to be able to reach the USEnet world as well, who cannot. The votes are coming in, and they are almost unanimous as of now: if Joe follows the request of the majority, then soon we will see bitnet.listserv. emusic-l vanish from the .newsrc files of USEnet newsfeeds everywhere, and breathe a sigh of relief. The question I now pose is, what shall we do then? metlay ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 19:52:00 EDT From: Brad Miller Subject: Re: The Anti-USEnet Witch Hunt (from the guy who started it) Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 17:30:00 EDT From: METLAY%PITTVMS.BITNET@pucc.PRINCETON.EDU We should also address the reverse of this problem, one raised to me by a poster to whom I could not return mail: that of getting USEnet feeds for people here on the List who cannot access USEnet, and hence attempt to make EMUSIC-L do for ALL of their synthesis-related correspondence. Does anyone know of a gateway for accessing USEnet from machines with no feeds, perhaps as a mailing list? There are those who'd like to be able to reach the USEnet world as well, who cannot. In the usa, at least, there is a company "PSINet" that sells INTERNET access for a pretty minor fee (if you are a company)... something like $50./mo. That can get you USENET access as well, but more importantly ftp to all those INTERNET sites... Sorry, I don't have an address, but they have local feeds in at least Boston, NYC, DC, Rochester... (and if they're in Rochester, they must be EVERYWHERE :-) ---- Brad Miller U. Rochester Comp Sci Dept. miller@cs.rochester.edu {...allegra!rochester!miller} ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 10:34:55 bst From: Nick Rothwell Subject: The Anti-USEnet Witch Hunt (from the guy who started it) >What do we hope to accomplish through EMUSIC-L? Perhaps there's a middle ground as well. At one end of the spectrum, we have the "Hey, Guitar Center is blowing out RX577a's for $199, and these machines really kick ass!" rubbish. At the other end of the spectrum, we have the discussions about, say, "new directions", emusic research, description languages, academic work, and so on. rec.music.synth caters for the first lot. EMUSIC-L caters for the second. The rec.music.synth stuff is of some limited interest to me, since the occasional poster will engage his/her brain before posting an article, and there are some good threads from time to time. The "academic" side of EMUSIC-L is also of interest, but again limited (for my purposes). I have no criticism of it at all, but I'm just a computer professional by day and a synth fanatic at evenings and weekends. My main hobby is programming and playing synthesisers for the purposes of composing and recording music. The synths and gear I use is 99% off-the-shelf stuff. There's a lot I'm happy to talk about here. I'm starting to plan out an extremely long and detailed article going over the whole experience we've had taking two sets of sequenced music material and two independent home studios, and getting everything ready for a concert appearance several hundred miles away. I thought it might be of interest, and there are lots of spin-off topics about software design in current instruments, the flexibility (or lack thereof) in current sequencer technology, the facilities needed to learn, rehearse, and organise live playing, the arrangement of the music, and so on. So: where do I post? Is anyone interested in this? Or is it just tech-head trivia? I'm too close to this project at the moment to decide. Nick. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 5 Sep 90 19:36:20 EDT From: Dean Swan Subject: Re: The Anti-USEnet Witch Hunt (from the guy who started it) I'd like to add a few things to Metlay's list of things that, ostensibly, *are* appropriate topics for discussion here. I think that sythesis techniques, and technology are appropriate (in a scientific/academic sense, rather than a how synth XYZ works sense.) Also, I didn't mind the virtual reality discussion. Things like that are worth learning about, as well as the mic-ing techniques, or tricks- with-a-four-track type discussions. What I don't like to see, and I think the only thing I ever complained about is requests for FTP sites for gobs of free shit that you probably don't really nead, and aren't related to any current (or recent) topics of discussions. Just my opinion..... -Dean Swan dean@sun.soe.clarkson.edu ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 3 Sep 90 18:04:54 EDT From: ronin Subject: the feed, the tape, etc i, too, had noticed that the recent discussions were tending toward redundancy. not having kept tabs on the sending addresses, i'm not entirely certain that this is due to the list's accessibility through The Feed. if there *is* a direct correlation, then i'm probably for cutting it off, as well. one thing, though... let's not forget that ignorance is not a crime. i, for one, will never tire of answering sincere questions from those willing to learn. part of this, of course, is that that's my job. i teach this subject. but i also like to interact with the learning *process*, if you know what i mean. on the other hand, i am in total agrrement that this beating of trivialities like which drum machine is 'the coolest', or whatever, into the ground, is driving me bugshit. the Sound Description Language, for those of you who brought it up, died. i couldn't do it alone. it was a vaguely formed idea (that is still cogitate on, and still think has applications), that i just don't have the skills to generate on my own. if anyone wants to talk about it... get in touch. about that tape.. does anyone have a copy of Edition 1? i never got one. as for #2, if there is enough interest here, i am currently in a position to pull together such a project. get in touch... if there's a small groudswell, then i'll do it. now... will someone please answer my questions regarding K/S and Granular synthesis? ----------< Extremism In The Pursuit Of Good Noise Is No Vice >---------- Eric Harnden (Ronin) | V.P., Chief Engineer | Transmedia Music, inc. The American University Physics Dept.| (202) 347-8050 Washington, D.C | ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 20:45:10 -0400 From: "Jerry A. Jelinek" Subject: Usenet cut and related subjects I have contributed some postings to this discussion list. I have requested information on techo gear related stuff, and up until this usenet beef, I never been asked to stifle my postings. When I subscribed some 2-3 months ago, there was never any mention of what subjects were or were not appropriate for discussion. I felt at a loss when people began to question the subjects that were being discussed. I am a new member to internet and bitnet discussions and ENJOY them very much. Please forgive the uniformed members of this list and please be more FORGIVING of our mistakes. I will continue to use emusic and look forward to future discussions , but please dont wave a axe over my head for opening my BIG MOUTH to discussions which you feel are unappropriate. I now have a clearer idea of what emusic is and is not and will judge my postings accordingly. Jerry ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Sep 90 20:45:29 EDT From: "Daniel B. Singer" Subject: What then? I know "what then" : We bring the discussion back to interesting things like the musical qualities of rotating speakers, emusic curricula, relative merits of particular techniques for creating sound, special configurations of equipment for producing unusual effects with usual sounds.... things of that nature. That's EMUSIC-L's purpose, in my humble opinion. We should concentrate on making music with the electronic media and on the discussion of what constitutes music these days. . . . DBS ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Daniel B. Singer -- "This Space Intentionally Left Blank" Return addresses: dbs4@lehigh.bitnet ////// dbs4@ns.cc.lehigh.edu ------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------------ End of EMUSIC-L digest ******************************