🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1299@artsnet.UUCP> mgresham@artsnet.UUCP (Mark Gresham) writes:
>In article <152033.16945@timbuk.cray.com> dpm@hickory07.cray.com (Donald P. Maghrak) writes:
>>what to do?
>>
>>1) rename this group comp.music.theory 
>>2) form a new group comp.music.technical
>>3) use rec.music.synth for technical/hardware topics.
>
>Door number three.  But not all.  What bothers comp.music
>hardliners is the 'should I buy a [Brand X] or a [Brand Y]
>synth?' or 'I think [computer X] is better for synth sequencing than
>[computer Y] because [computer X] brand stuff is cool.'
>
>Technical discussions of 'are there reasonable alternatives to
>[transformation X] methods which produce [Y] without [Z]
>problems?' are probably right down the line of comp.music intent.


I was distressed by this thread when it appeared; I was afraid I'd have
to go to me Friendly Neighborhood University and buy an MMus in order to
be allowed to continue to read this group.

"comp.music" is for the discussion of computing related to music. In order
to argue that synth users should not post here, you'd have to argue that
a digital synth is not a computer. Tough sledding, if you ask me.

Nor am I convinced that "comp.music.theory" is properly descriptive; there
are people asking apparently legitimate questions here that have to
do with applications rather than theory, such as "Which scoring program
should I buy?", or "How do I report a bug in program X?".

I think that what you have in mind is probably better described by
"comp.music.experimental" or "comp.music.academic".



-- 
Jeff Carroll		carroll@ssc-vax.boeing.com