Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!batcomputer!munnari.oz.au!metro!cluster!moria!danny
From: danny@moria.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: What has happened to this newsgroup?
Message-ID: <2513@cluster.cs.su.oz.au>
Date: 17 Jun 91 06:15:44 GMT
Sender: news@cluster.cs.su.oz.au
Reply-To: danny@basser.cs.su.OZ.AU (Danny Yee)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Lines: 60


[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