CMJ Editor's Notes

In the first two editorials of this series, I presented Computer Music Journal readers with my two largest dilemmas that relate to the relationship of our field to the rest of contemporary art music. This editorial is about the "big question," the definition of our art form. I would contend that calling computer music "computer music," or calling electroacoustic music "electroacoustic music" is as meaningless as calling rock and roll "electric guitar music."

The definitional issues for me are caught up in defining what aspects of our community better define our sociology, our rituals, and our recorded and published literatures than the technology we use. What communities are we when seen in terms of our interfaces to other artistic and scientific networks? Is there a style associated with "computer music" that is distinct from "academic music" or "that modern ugly stuff?"

If we as a community are indeed only held together by the fact that we all use instruments with microprocessors in them, then how do we differentiate ourselves (if at all), from the rest of the users of MIDI synthesizers and music software? Are we simply "MIDI users who studied harmony and counterpoint?"

I would propose that there is a special "computer music" style; it is evident (say I), when one listens to the Wergo, CDCM or UNESCO computer music CD series. This is a style that is distinctly different than contemporary orchestra music, new romanticism, minimalism, new jazz, or pop/rock. Are we denying this fact when we identify ourselves by the technology we use? Is there a diversity within our field that I'm missing?

A related issue (thought I'm not willing to make any statement about the strength of the relationship), is that of the fora we use to disseminate our works. Is the field of computer music being defined by the juries and selection committees for the ICMC conferences, the Bourges competitions, and the CD series mentioned above? There are certainly many composers and performers that use the same technology (be it MIDI or non-real-time sound synthesis and processing), to create musical works that fall easily into other categories, such as pop/rock or jazz.

In terms of my own music, I have tried in the past few years not to use the words "computer music" at all in describing my works (partially in the interest of selling concert tickets, I must admit). I relate to the sociological situation of the works and call it "new ritual music" as my recent works are text-based spiritual rituals where the musical performance is accompanied by a ritual performance. Would it not be useful for more of us to find more descriptive terms to speak about our production?

There are certainly instruments that are strongly linked with musical styles. The organ and the banjo come to mind here. But is the link between "organ music" and "spiritual music" as strong as that between the computer and our musics? The diversity of uses of the technology that we feel we own if evidence that the strong link is not there.

Well, the "big question" is, just what is "computer music" anyway, and why do we not have a better word for what we do (or do we?).

	Vol. 16 Issue 1 Editor's Notes	CMJ Library >
	For Lack of a Better Word by any Other Name
	Stephen Travis Pope Computer Music Journal In the first two editorials of this series, I presented Computer Music Journal readers with my two largest dilemmas that relate to the relationship of our field to the rest of contemporary art music. This editorial is about the "big question," the definition of our art form. I would contend that calling computer music "computer music," or calling electroacoustic music "electroacoustic music" is as meaningless as calling rock and roll "electric guitar music." The definitional issues for me are caught up in defining what aspects of our community better define our sociology, our rituals, and our recorded and published literatures than the technology we use. What communities are we when seen in terms of our interfaces to other artistic and scientific networks? Is there a style associated with "computer music" that is distinct from "academic music" or "that modern ugly stuff?" If we as a community are indeed only held together by the fact that we all use instruments with microprocessors in them, then how do we differentiate ourselves (if at all), from the rest of the users of MIDI synthesizers and music software? Are we simply "MIDI users who studied harmony and counterpoint?" I would propose that there is a special "computer music" style; it is evident (say I), when one listens to the Wergo, CDCM or UNESCO computer music CD series. This is a style that is distinctly different than contemporary orchestra music, new romanticism, minimalism, new jazz, or pop/rock. Are we denying this fact when we identify ourselves by the technology we use? Is there a diversity within our field that I'm missing? A related issue (thought I'm not willing to make any statement about the strength of the relationship), is that of the fora we use to disseminate our works. Is the field of computer music being defined by the juries and selection committees for the ICMC conferences, the Bourges competitions, and the CD series mentioned above? There are certainly many composers and performers that use the same technology (be it MIDI or non-real-time sound synthesis and processing), to create musical works that fall easily into other categories, such as pop/rock or jazz. In terms of my own music, I have tried in the past few years not to use the words "computer music" at all in describing my works (partially in the interest of selling concert tickets, I must admit). I relate to the sociological situation of the works and call it "new ritual music" as my recent works are text-based spiritual rituals where the musical performance is accompanied by a ritual performance. Would it not be useful for more of us to find more descriptive terms to speak about our production? There are certainly instruments that are strongly linked with musical styles. The organ and the banjo come to mind here. But is the link between "organ music" and "spiritual music" as strong as that between the computer and our musics? The diversity of uses of the technology that we feel we own if evidence that the strong link is not there. Well, the "big question" is, just what is "computer music" anyway, and why do we not have a better word for what we do (or do we?).