🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <132393@sun.Eng.Sun.COM> music-research writes:
>Music-Research Digest       Thu,  1 Mar 90       Volume 5 : Issue  21 
> 
>How much of the traditional music curriculum (theory, history,
>keyboard proficiency) should be maintained in an electronic and
>computer music degree?

It is important for a computer music composer to have a rapport
with compositional collegues and antecedents.  The importance lies
in the potential benefit that can occur with the exchange of musical
ideas.  To establish such a relationship, a computer music composer 
should have a means of communicating musical ideas.  The academic 
community has and still highly values traditional music notation
as an avenue of musical communication.  The possibilities of
computer music, however, are not bounded as stringently as the
possibilities of traditional notated music.  The form and function
of instrumentation and pitch can change radically.  To force a
composer to ignore these new possibilities in favor of rehashing 
a hackneyed past is a grave travesty.  Because computer music
affords such possibility,  I find it unnecessary for composers of
computer music to adhere to rigid music history and theory
curricula.  They should be required to understand basic theory 
to the extent that they can communicate with their collegues but
they should be given the freedom to apply their own musical knowledge
toward personally defined musical goals.  The imposition of a
theoretical agenda can distract composers in a host of different ways.
I can expand on these distractions if you have a couple days.

Christopher Penrose
penrose@do.ucsd.edu