Maybe looking at how a "neighbor" is dealing with the issue may provide some insight. "Computer music" has dealt with similar questions for quite a while. The first (analog) "interactive systems" were developed in the 1920's - like the Theremin a touch-free 'controller'. First hybrid (i.e. analog/digital) interactive systems were developed in the 1960's by Mathews and Moore at Bell Labs. And ever since, issues have been discussed in this field which are very similar to what is discussed here this month. Up to seventies and eighties (until MIDI arrived and real-time systems which were not totally prohibitive as far as price goes), there were different camps discussing what "computer music" might mean - is it comparable to a violin concerto, a symphony (of the 17th or of the 19th century????), to a string quartet or orchestra - is it comparable to counter point or thorough bass - is it a tool, an instrument (in technical and musical sense) or the "final solution" to all musical desires - do algorithmic approaches create new paradigms - is it true (like some said) that algorithmic music will "hold all music of the future" ... The discussion on taxonomy was focused by Stephen Pope in 1994 in the Computer Music Journal. Below I quoted his editorial on the subject (I could have just listed the link - but I think sometimes we like to have things in one place). I think that "media art" as "time based" art can benefit from looking at the performing arts (which have always been time-based) and specifically at music since music and technology have been wed for around 130 years (first "point to point connection" for remote transmission of a media event (musical performance) back then (in stereo ... two telephones ...) - first all electrical synthesizer and "music on demand" by Thaddeus Cahill in New York City at the beginning of the 20th century - first music compiler in 1956/57 ... etc.) Johannes http://mitpress2.mit.edu/e-journals/Computer-Music-Journal/cmjlib/editor s-notes/18-1.html A Taxonomy of Computer Music Stephen Travis Pope Computer Music Journal I have prepared a series of reference documents for the field of computer music, including a bibliography, a diskography, a taxonomy, and a list or electronic network resources. These have appeared over the last year as Editor's Notes in Computer Music Journal. The note below is a "rough cut" at a comprehensive taxonomy of the field. It appeared in Computer Music Journal 18:1 (Spring, 1994) along with several of the responses printed below. All four of these reference documents are to be viewed as "works in progress" or--more correctly--as on-going community discussions taking place in letters to the editor of Computer Music Journal. The documents are also available in electronic form by Internet ftp file transfer from the server computer MITPress.MIT.edu in the directory pub/computer-music-journal. There are various reasons for wanting a formal taxonomy of a field such as computer music. First, as it is rapidly developing and evolving, a taxonomy always represents a relatively subjective weighting of the sub-fields at one point in time. This is appearent in the taxonomy that will be introduced below. Secondly, the process of development forces one to focus on the subtle differences between the defining keywords of the field, and may help to clarify their usage. Lastly, of course, having such a taxonomy can be useful for categorizing work in the field, although projects and publications very rarely fit "neatly" into exactly one category. More often, they are described by a set of two or three topics, so such a taxonomy cannot be consdered strict or binding. There are several sources for a possible taxonomy of computer music (Pope 1993). These include the tables of contents of the Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conferences and the excellent bibliography Computer Applications in Music, by Deta S. Davis. Three of the central contributors to the field--Roger Dannenberg, D. Gareth Loy, and Bruce Pennycook--have also at various times prepared subject keyword lists or taxonomies. These will all be presented and discussed below, and a new multi-layered taxonomy of keywords will be proposed. The top "layer" of Roger Dannenberg's informal taxonomy (which he derived by hand from his library), presents perhaps the tersest list of high-level categories for work in our field (Dannenberg 1993). His items reflect the differences between the different types of software systems used in computer music, and include single topics for music understanding and music composition. It is also interesting to note that he separates human computer interaction from music representation and real-time systems. Music understanding Signal processing Music representation Music composition Real-time systems Human computer interaction Acoustics Education Miscellaneous Figure 1: Top-level topics of Roger Dannenberg's 1993 taxonomy Dannenberg's hierarchy continues to a finer level of detail, with subtopics representing the most important keywords found in any abstract in our literature. D. Gareth Loy derived a list of keywords from his database of the Proceedings of the International Computer Music Conferences as part of a report for the board of the International Computer Music Association (Loy 1993). Musical topics are more finely delineated in the topics composition research, music languages and notation, music theory and analysis, and performance research. Signal processing is also differentiated from synthesis techniques, and music printing from music notation. Acoustics and psychoacoustics Composition research Computer-aided music instruction Music languages and notation Music networking Music printing Music theory and analysis Performance interfaces Performance research Real-time interactive composition and performance systems Signal processing Studio report Synthesis hardware design Synthesis techniques Tutorials Figure 2: D. Gareth Loy's 1993 keyword list The chapter outline of Computer Applications in Music: A Bibliography (in two volumes) by Deta S. Davis introduces a medium-grained topic list, which further subdivides the topics related to sound synthesis and generation, and aesthetics and composition (Davis 1988, 1992). The topic of digital audio appears and musicological applications are mentioned for the first time. Aesthetics is included, and composition separated from compositions, but sociology and performance practice are not present. Aesthetics Composition Compositions Computers in Music Education Conferences Digital audio Digital Signal Processing Electronic and Pipe organs Micro- and mini-computers MIDI Music industry Music printing and transcription Musical instruments Musicological and analytic applications Programming languages and software systems Psychology and psychoacoustics Reference, music library applications Sound generation hardware Sound generation software Sound synthesis techniques Sound generation in real time Spatial simulation and room acoustics Speech Studios General Figure 3: Chapter outline of Deta Davis's "Computer Applications in Music" As part of Bruce Pennycook's recent database of the ICMC Proceedings, the following comprehensive topic list emerged (Pennycook 1993). Several important but unclear issues come up here, including artificial intelligence and music, and the history of electroacoustic music. Diffusion is associated with sonorization (sonification), and interactive performance systems differentiated from real-time hardware and software (and from MIDI applications). Artificial intelligence in music Aesthetics, philosophy and criticism Acoustics of musical instruments and voice Audio analysis and re-synthesis Audio hardware design Audio signal processing techniques Composition systems and techniques Diffusion, sonorization History of electroacoustic music Interactive performance systems Machine recognition of audio signals Machine recognition of music data MIDI applications Miscellaneous Music analysis Music data structures and representations Music education Music grammars Music and graphics Music languages Music printing Music workstations Optical music recognition Performance interfaces Psychoacoustics, perception, cognition Real-time hardware Real-time software Room acoustics Sound synthesis languages Sound synthesis methods Studio report Figure 4: Keywords used in Bruce Pennycook's database of the ICMC Proceedings In preparing a hierarchical taxonomy from these lists, several main topics suggest themselves as the highest-level categories. The first level of the list should reflect the spectrum ranging from music theory, through psychology, to computer music engineering. 1. Music theory, composition, and performance 2. Musical acoustics, (psychoacoustics,) perception, and cognition 3. Musical (signal and event) representation and notation 4. Digital (control and sound) signal synthesis and processing 5. Hardware for computer music (instruments and tools) 6. Computers in music education, and computer music education 7. Computer music literature, history, and sources Figure 5: Proposed top-level topics for a taxonomy of computer music Expanding this one more level to map the major topics from the other lists discussed above might result in an outline that subdivides these items as shown next. 1. Music theory, composition, and performance 1.1. Music theory, sociology, and aesthetics 1.2. Composition of electroacoustic music 1.3. Algorithmic and computer-aided composition 1.4. Performance situations and interfaces 2. Musical acoustics, psychoacoustics, perception, and cognition 2.1. Musical acoustics and psychoacoustics 2.2. Music perception and psychology 2.3. Music understanding and cognition 3. Musical signal and event representation and notation 3.1. Models of signals and events 3.2. Musical event description languages 3.3. Musical signal description languages 3.4. Music notation and printing tools 4. Digital control and sound signal synthesis and processing 4.1. Sound synthesis methods 4.2. Time- and frequency-domain signal processing 4.3. Sound spatialization and localization 4.4. Machine recognition of signals and events 4.5. Real-time processing and scheduling 4.6. MIDI and control processing 5. Hardware support for computer music instruments and tools 5.1. Hardware for DSP and digital audio 5.2. Computer music workstations 5.2. Input/Output devices for music 6. Computers in music education, and computer music education 6.1. Computers in music education 6.2. Computer music education 7. Computer music literature, history, and sources 7.1. Bibliographies/diskographies 7.2. Studio reports 7.3. Descriptions of compositions 7.4. History of electroacoustic music Figure 6: Extension of the proposed taxonomy to two levels The most extensive taxonomy includes almost all of the topics from all four authors' lists. Its "weighting" or "focus" reflects the average of four current views of the most important facets of the computer music literature. 1. Music theory, composition, and performance 1.1. Music theory, sociology, and aesthetics 1.1.1. Music theory and analysis 1.1.2. Temperament and tuning systems 1.1.3. New musical aesthetics and sociologies 1.2. Composition of electroacoustic music 1.2.1. Sound and composition models and notations 1.2.2. Models of the composition and performance processes 1.2.3. Sound design and processing 1.2.4. Realization and production techniques 1.2.5. "Aural rendering" or "sonification" of scientific data 1.3. Algorithmic and computer-aided composition 1.3.1. Compositional algorithms and languages 1.3.2. Composition systems for score or sound synthesis 1.3.3. Artificial Intelligence and composition 1.4. Performance situations and interfaces 1.4.1. Performing and conducting 1.4.2. Gesture recognition and interfaces 1.4.3. Score following in performance 1.4.4. Expression representation and analysis 2. Musical acoustics, psychoacoustics, perception, and cognition 2.1. Musical acoustics and psychoacoustics 2.1.1. Acoustics of musical instruments and voice 2.1.2. Psychoacoustics 2.1.3. Room and spatial acoustics 2.2. Music perception 2.2.1. Physiology of hearing 2.2.2. Pitch identification 2.2.3. Rhythm identification 2.2.4. Timbre perception 2.3. Music understanding and cognition 2.3.1. Rhythm understanding 2.3.2. Key and scale recognition 2.3.3. Higher-level structures 3. Musical signal and event representation and notation 3.1. Models of signals and events 3.1.1. Language systems 3.1.2. Encodings and file formats 3.1.3. Graphical notation systems 3.2. Musical event description languages 3.2.1. Note-list formats 3.2.2. Music input languages 3.2.3. Music programming languages 3.3. Musical signal description languages 3.3.1. Signal models and descriptions 3.3.2. Software synthesis languages 3.4. Music notation and printing tools 3.4.1. Transcription or performance 3.4.2. Optical recognition of scores 4. Digital control and sound signal synthesis and processing 4.1. Sound synthesis methods 4.1.1. Additive sound synthesis methods 4.1.2. Subtractive sound synthesis methods 4.1.3. Nonlinear sound synthesis methods 4.1.4. Physical models of acoustical systems 4.1.4.X. Various types of physical models 4.1.5. Other synthesis methods 4.1.6. Analysis and resynthesis systems 4.2. Time- and frequency-domain signal processing 4.2.1. Software architecture 4.2.2. Time domain model synthesis 4.2.3. Frequency domain model synthesis 4.2.4. Ad hoc synthesis techniques 4.2.5. Effects and filters 4.3. Sound spatialization and localization 4.4. Machine recognition of signals and events 4.5. Real-time processing and scheduling 4.5.1. Real-time scheduling 4.5.2. Real-time languages 4.5.3. Hardware architectures 4.6. MIDI and control processing 5. Hardware support for computer music 5.1. Hardware for DSP and digital audio 5.2. Computer music workstations 5.2. Input/Output devices for music 6. Computers in music education and computer music education 6.1. Computers in music education 6.2. Computer music education 7. Computer music literature and sources 7.1. Bibliographies/diskographies 7.2. Studio reports 7.3. Descriptions of compositions 7.4. History of electroacoustic music Figure 7: A taxonomy that encompasses all of the keywords presented in the discussion The note above was circulated via electronic networks In December 1993; several of the responses are included below. References Dannenberg, R. B. 1993. Private email communication of 9 August, 1993. Davis, D. 1988. Computer Applications in Music: A Bibliography (with 1992 supplement). Madison, Wisconsin: A-R Editions. Loy, D. G. 1993. Private email communication of 28 January, 1993. Pennycook, B. R. 1993. Private email communication of 21 October, 1993. Pope, S. T. 1993. "A Computer Music Library." Computer Music Journal 17(3): 3-6. Responses One observation I made was that many papers span more than one topic, so I question the effort to produce a fine-grained taxonomy. I think the one-level list of topics that Bruce Pennycook and the ICMA have generated is a good one, although not fixed in stone. I have the concern that there are already too many lists. I would be much happier to go along with the ICMA scheme. For this reason, I did not submit my taxonomy article for publication, and I plan to arrange my personal library to match the ICMA taxonomy. I think the ICMA scheme, if adopted by others, will be of great benefit. Roger Dannenberg Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania USA One question I would ask is, what is the intended purpose of this taxonomy, as this is not stated in the proposal? It seems to me that the stated form of organization would serve admirably as the basis for a curriculum on computer music. Given the current explosion of interest in using personal computers as musical instruments, such a contribution is timely. Further, the hierarchical organization is a good starting point for identifying areas where further research is most needed. One area which I am not yet convinced is best served by this taxonomy is the composition aspect of computer music. I have developed numerous taxonomies and systematic organizations of various aspects of the field, and have always been overwhelmed by the complexity of possible interrelationships, often quite idiosyncratic, such that I ultimately find myself mapping out my own intuitions - an act which is accomplished much more efficiently and gratifyingly through the compositional act itself. This is no more than my personal experience; I do not expect it to be universal. Indeed I am curious and interested to hear of the successes of other musicians and composers who have incorporated systematic studies of computer music into their compositional cosmologies. I have one other apprehension about the proposed organization. Theoretical work can have a drastic impact on the practice of an art. Consider the impact of temperment theory on the evolution of tonality. Consider how sequencer programs have shaped various forms of popular music. One danger I see in the proposed taxonomy is that we may assume a false sense of the degree of integration in computer music. Surely there is much more conceptual overlap between species counterpoint and Indian classical music than between the sociology of computer music and digital filter design theory. This is not a flippant remark. There is a tendency in universities to treat the humanities as second class citizens: the sciences are rigorous, hard (well funded); the arts are intuitive and soft. Of course we know better than to adopt such gross generalizations. But if the field of computer music is to develop as a hybrid, with aspects of both humanistic and scientific thought, there is a significant possibility that the humanistic side will insensibly be moved to a backseat role, given its locus in academia. This would be unfortunate as there are many pressing aesthetic and sociological (dare I say political?) issues which need to be addressed if computer music is to fulfill its destiny in the information age of enhancing the lives of a great many people participating actively, rather than to remain the preserve of the few, as a sterile, "Fourth Viennese" school with little interest or appeal to non-specialists. Eric Lyon Keio, Japan I saw the Editor's Note you prepared for Computer Music Journal 18:1 on electronic mail news. Such taxonomies are bound to serve a purpose only temporarily and tend to make the field seem more conservative than necessary, I feel. Nevertheless it always is appealing to be able to take a look at a field and be able to classify all of its activities, and I guess computer music needs this. Axel Mulder Burnaby, British Columbia Canada I see three areas in which the proposed taxonomy needs work: collaboration (and networking), and physical and mathematical underpinnings. The taxonomy seems to tacitly assume (particularly in sections 1, 4, and 7) that computer music is a field generally populated with individuals working by themselves, using tools that stand by themselves. I suppose this reflects the current literature (which is, after all, the taxonomy's purpose); if so, it indicates to me a gap that needs to be addressed. Perhaps this taxonomy might serve not only as a guide to the conceptual space explored thus far, but also to indicate new areas of (published) exploration. Section 2.1 would benefit from explicit inclusion of sonic physics in general, not just as it applies to the most common contemporary musical sources, media, and targets of sound. Section 3 could use a section to specifically address algorithms and their mathematical foundations. Other sections might benefit from explicit mention of algorithmic and mathematical considerations (efficiency, tractability), in the design of formats, models, languages, etc., again in different domains (performance, analysis, etc.). Specifically, I might re-factor your taxonomy to end up with a hierarchy more like the following. 1. Music theory, composition, and performance . . . 1.3. Collaborative composition 1.3.1. Inter-human, algorithmic, and computer-aided composition 1.3.1.1. --in non-real-time (as an activity distinct from performance) 1.3.1.2. --in real-time (e.g., improvisation) [Algorithmic and computer-aided composition may be considered "collaborating with computers", if you will. ] . . . 2. Musical acoustics, psychoacoustics, perception, and cognition 2.1. Musical acoustics and psychoacoustics 2.1.1. The physics of sound 2.1.1.1. Acoustics of musical instruments and voice . . . 3. Musical signal and event representation and notation 3.1. Algorithmic and mathematical considerations . . . [insertion renumbering] 4. Digital control and sound signal synthesis and processing . . . 4.6. Music networking 4.6.1. MIDI and control processing technologies 4.6.2. Compositional and performing considerations . . . 7. Computer music literature and sources 7.1. Archives (particularly on-line archives) 7.1.1. Bibliographies/diskographies 7.1.2. Sources . . . As with most structurings of conceptual space, it's challenging to find a "maximally orthogonal" (not to mention "culturally appropriate") mapping; the space is large and diverse, the importance (and existence!) of each segment varies with each practitioner, and links between segments abound. I think the proposed taxonomy does a good job. Craig Latta Sunnyvale, California USA Generations of practitioners and many years of specialization have been directed towards the creation of a viable field of computer music, representing enormous human resources. Devising a comprehensive taxonomy of computer music is problematic because of the tendency to view the totality as a sum of independent fields, and to express relationships and process in static representations. Stephen Pope's "A Taxonomy of Computer Music" reveals a great deal as a representation of a diverse constellation of fields and interests. In addition to his effort to view the music technology field in its entirety, Mr. Pope approaches the development of a taxonomy as a process. A brief survey of the top levels of the topic lists developed by D. Gareth Loy, Roger Dannenberg, Deta Davis and Bruce Pennycook reveals the wide scope of the computer music field. At this level it is easy to appreciate the characteristics that distinguish the categories. Distinction among aesthetics, hardware design, and representation flow naturally enough to create a reasonable system of classification and orientation. As one expands from the flat to the hierarchical representation, the connections among the fields and categories become more evident. The lattice of relationships in the second level of the hierarchical model can be seen in just a few examples. (A) (2.2) Music perception and psychology, under musical acoustics, psychoacoustics, perception, and cognition is closely related to (1.1) music theory, sociology and aesthetics, under music theory, composition and performance. (B) (4.6) MIDI and control processing, under digital control and sound signal synthesis and processing has some obvious overlap with (3.2) musical event description languages, under musical signal and event representation and notation. (C) (1.2) Composition of electroacoustic music, under music theory, composition and performance sounds very similar to (7.3) descriptions of compositions, under computer music literature, history and sources. Expansion to the third level invites one to traverse a variety of threads through the field, reinforcing the lattice of connections which cross structural divisions in the hierarchy. This suggests that one develop a global perspective which links new musical aesthetics and sociologies (1.1.3) with timbre perception (2.2.4), or software synthesis languages (3.3.2) and computers in music education (6.2), for none of these categories exist or evolve independently. One might further wonder what the taxonomy would look like if it were to be reconstructed on different terms. For example, it would be particularly revealing to examine category (4) Hardware for computer music (instruments and tools) as a function of category (1) music theory, composition and performance, and not as an independent topic, sharing the same degree position in the hierarchy. One might gain further valuable insights by traversing the hierarchy in the other direction, viewing the flat top level as a reflection of categories within some broader perspective, perhaps music, creativity, communication or philosophy. This exercise is not designed to contest the specific categorization represented in this taxonomy, or to refute its relevance in the field. The intention is to demonstrate that a taxonomy that encapsulates complex issues in a static, linear structure does not offer the lattice of connectivity that is fundamental to developing a comprehensive understanding of the topics. During this century in music Edgar Varese, Harry Partch, Gyorgi Ligeti, John Cage, Iannis Xenakis, Karlheinz Stockhausen, and many others challenged world views--not simply musical views. Their work points toward a sonic realm and an expressive language that we have yet to address in a comprehensive and integrated fashion. The development of an historical perspective of computer music is particularly meaningful in the context of the evolution of music, incorporating the development of music's instruments and creative resources within the larger domain. The perspective gained reveals an evolution that links technological development directly with communication and human expression, leaving artifacts that embody the views of the society. An aesthetics or sociology sub-topic in a hierarchical representation fails to establish the activity as a product of music making or self expression within the society. Performance practice, education, input/output, composition, and theoretical analysis do not exist independently, and cannot effectively be represented in isolation. Instrument development does not take place outside of consideration for compositional processes, performance practice and economics. The instruments and musical characteristics that evolve in a society are intricately integrated into its world view, a fact which becomes evident in exploring the music of different cultures and the instruments designed to create it. A comparison of the instruments and music of Bali, India and Europe provides support for this view. A "world view" permeates the hierarchy of the taxonomy. I envision a top level in the "Taxonomy of Computer Music" that reflects world view, and a multi-dimensional and configurable modeling resource that facilitates navigation among multiple world views. The taxonomy becomes a dynamic, interactive world view, supported by technological resources that reflect the orientation which governs the development and application of the technology supporting creative expression. Readers with comments, suggestions, pointers to resources of the kind described, or an interest in working on the taxonomy are invited to respond to me at [log in to unmask] and to Stephen Travis Pope at [log in to unmask] Craig R. Harris San Francisco, California USA