🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4188@ssc-bee.ssc-vax.UUCP> carroll@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jeff Carroll) writes:
>"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.

It's snowing in June.  If a synth is always to be considered a
computer, then so should be most microwave ovens.  Both are appliances
that happen to use computers internally.

Actually, I see absolutely no reason why synth users shouldn't post
questions/comments/ideas about synth algorithms, programming, and
other computationally-related questions.

>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?".

These probably should go in rec.music.synth.  They seem to get better
answers there, anyhow.  Of course, rec.music.synth is loaded with
instant experts and folks who regularly post just to see their own
words written in phosphor.  I unsubscribed some months ago because
of the high mis-information content and frequent pissing contests.

I think the original complaint was one of "Where's the beef?"--i.e.
why are there no technical discussions here, or discusions on the
aesthetics of computer-generated sound?  I have the same feeling of
despair every time I see a "Does anyone know if NoteWacker III, with
All New 1/f Fractal Energizer, works on an Amiga with one disk
drive?"-type question.  Perhaps the question is a legitimate one, but
to some of use it merely reminds us of what this group isn't, but
could become: an intelligent forum on the computer as it relates to
music.

		-Ed Hall
		edhall@rand.org