Hello Jamie,

> While I'm ranting :-)....In my academic experience, it's often frowned

> upon to use other's patches in your own compositions because it seems

> that the patches themselves are the work of art; and it's almost as if

> this is considered plagiarism.

>I don't know what your academic experience is, but there is a lot of

>evidence to suggest the opposite of what you are saying.

Then I attended an institution whose policies are different than the others.

> I think academia needs to recognize that there are many composers who

> use computers as a means to an end;

>I find this patronising, almost offensive.

Why so overly sensitive? This wasn't an attack on anyone. It is an opinion, not an accusation. Did you not see the smiley faces? Smile :-)

>Do you have any examples of

>academics who don't recognise this?

I won't name anyone. One example: I had 'programming' classes where I had to create compositions with Max/MSP and Csound. Instead of using shared patches/orch files we had to build and use extremely basic instruments; rarely anything more than an oscillator, filter and an LFO. So, instead of being encouraged to use shared instruments which would result in having a composition with some 'character', I have a couple semesters’ worth of compositions full of bloops, beeps and sirens. No offense to bloops, beeps and siren lovers :-) I just don't find it aesthetically interesting. I would have loved if we had fewer assignments so we could have the time to build our own more interesting sound generators to include in our compositions. Or, we should have been allowed to pick and choose between the plethoras of shared instruments.

Another example would be that in my 'non-programming' composition courses, we had to use Logic and its native instruments/samplers to create our pieces. Why not use Max/MSP and Csound for our composition classes? If we were allowed to use 'pre-built' instruments that come with Logic, why can't we use pre-built patches/orch files?

>Even if you do, you shouldn't make

>generalisations about an entire community based on a few personal

>examples.

So if someone finds, what they believe to be, something missing from a system, they shouldn't speak about it? That's rather dangerous censorship, I believe.

> who make music with the AID of

> computers; not to make music WITH computers.

>Could you explain the difference?

I already have in previous responses to this thread. It's rather self explanatory anyway ;-)

> There is still a rigid

> line that separates the composer and the programmer.

>Where is this rigid line? Do you have any evidence for it? As far as I

>can tell there exists a continuum like this:

> composer <-> composer/programmer <-> programmer

Do you see that slash that you've put between composer and programmer? That's the rigid line. Do you notice how the composer and programmer on opposite sides of the spectrum? That's the rigid line. My (uneducated :-)) guess would be that %99 of the world's musicians don't need to program a single line of code to create a music composition.

> Most Music

> curriculums are still classically based. Most Music Technology

> curriculums are programming based.

>I'm not sure if this is true or not, but if it were, it might be because

>there is 'most' demand for classically-based music courses and

>'programming-based' music technology courses...

Therein lays the rigidity. Who forms this 'demand'? Is this the demand because these are the only two options available? I believe that today's generation of music students would be more interested in grey, not black and white.

>.....as well as music technology courses that contain

no programming elements at all....>

Please let me know of such courses. I'm not being facetious...this is the type of program that I am interested in.

>There are also hybrid 'Sonic Art'

>courses that bring in elements from the visual arts, music and

>information technology.

I've found that the 'Sonic Arts' courses are heavily rooted in DSP and programming.

> What about today's composers who are

> interested in classical compositional techniques and forms, but who are,

> at heart, electronic music composers and want to apply these classical

> techniques and forms to their electronic compositions with the AID of

> technology, yet have no interest in programming?

>They should use software that doesn't require any programming. I would

>suggest something like Beast (http://beast.gtk.org) if they are Linux,

>Bidule (http://www.plogue.com/) if they are on Mac OS, Audiomulch

>(http://www.audiomulch.com/) if they are on Windows.

I'm glad you mentioned those programs...I wonder why aren't they more utilized throughout academia? I would have loved to be able to use Bidule and Audiomulch for my compositions.

Take care, Jamie.