(sorry to pull you in a bit late on the discussion 'microsound', but i 
thought it would be worthwhile to get any input you list members may 
have before the site launches... you should be able to catch on just 
fine)

After much contemplation as to exactly how this site should work, I 
think I've got it down, save a few minor issues (which hopefully I can 
get some suggestions on).

The site will be open to all "computer artists who create music via 
unconventional means". Now in my opinion, anyone who creates music 
largely via algorithmic or generative means would fit in this category. 
Yes, I realize some algorithmic techniques can be considered 
conventional if you're talking to the right group of people (such as 
us, perhaps), but generally speaking, most people do not even know it 
exists. This would also include people involved with databending, and a 
large portion of microsound composers (many of course which use algo 
techniques). It could also include people using traditional tools in 
unconventional ways (a bit more on the last one in a sec).

By admitting music based solely on the method, there's little 
possibility that you could claim you were rejected unfairly. Its most 
likely that upwards of 95% of "applications" would be accepted, as if 
you can read the text on the site, you'll know exactly what's admitted 
and what isn't. There's a bit of a grey line with using traditional 
tools to make unconventional music. While I'm not going to actively 
promote the site as a platform for such a thing, as it would increase 
people eligible for submissions by ten-fold, I'd still likely have no 
problem admitting it should someone choose to submit it. I'll have to 
make a judgment call in that situation, but I feel that's better than 
being completely closed to it.

So yes, there will be a screening process. The purpose is only to make 
sure that your methods are suitable for the site. It will also make 
sure you have a proper artistic statement, list of software used, etc. 
Again, I'm not "judging" the music, just more so making sure its not 
Redrum beats that would offend Jair-Rohm.

Now I think its nice to allow users of the site to know what's great 
stuff so they don't miss out... which is hard when you accept almost 
everything. So what I'm proposing is that anyone can write a review of 
an album (album?, I'll get to that in a second), and email it to me. 
I'll check it to make sure its positive, and then stick it on the front 
page of the site. Old reviews will rotate off and into the archive. The 
reason for screening the reviews is to make sure they're largely 
positive. The purpose of the site is to promote artists and increase 
exposure. There's little reason to post a review bashing an artist's 
work. I don't really care how long the review is, or how great your 
grammar is. Of course, you'll be credited if you submit a review. 
Hopefully there won't be a big problem getting people to submit, as its 
a nice way to promote artists you like, and also a good way to thank 
them for providing their music to the community free of charge. But 
yes, I think this will be a good way of featuring artists without any 
one person being in control of what's good, while keeping the 
atmosphere strictly positive. As long as a few people are willing to 
write a couple paragraphs every few weeks, it should work out just 
fine.

Back to the album thing. It's much easier to write a review for a group 
of works from an artist than it is to write a general opinion of an 
artist. It also more useful... as an artist's work may change 
drastically from album to album. While I understand some people may 
think its silly to group songs into albums when we're using a virtual 
medium, I think its a good idea so people can write reviews easier. It 
also lets users know more easily which songs they have by an artist. 
Comparing a few albums to their iTunes library is much easier than 
checking 50 songs to see which ones they've missed. It also opens up 
the possibility of downloading an album as a .zip file, saving the user 
a lot of clicking. It lets artists make a statement to go with specific 
groups of works... allows artists to differentiate works that may be 
"live" or collaborations with someone else more elegantly, etc. I hope 
there's no problem with this.

As for submitting, .zip files containing tagged mp3s of the appropriate 
bitrate are optimal. Toss me a link, and I'll download it. Mailing a CD 
with the mp3s would be the next best (better to save the plastic and 
postage I suspect). An audio CD is doable, but a last resort. I don't 
mind ripping it myself, but tagging the mp3 files will become tedious 
all too quickly.

A few of the small issues now. Is it alright if we go with mp3s? I 
realize the format is a little "shady" according to some ogg 
proponents, but many people don't even know what ogg is, or if they do, 
they don't have a player for it. I'd rather not have the site make a 
cyber-political statement (as much fun as that is) and just release 
mp3s. Does everyone feel that's fair? Secondly, what bit rate should we 
use? I think for compatibility purposes, we need to use standard 
fixed-rate mp3. That means no VBR or AAC. Personally, I'm fine with 
128kbps (especially since we're using servers to host them that we're 
not paying for, which while not by any means slow, rarely will give you 
300k/sec rates). Does anyone think its necessary to go higher? I feel 
guilty about taxing the servers anymore than we absolutely have to. I'd 
rather the extra bandwidth go to more downloads than less slightly 
higher quality downloads.

Other than that, that's about it. Once the submission format is 
settled, I'd like if people could begin sending me links/CDs, so when 
the site launches, it will already have a good amount of material on 
it. If you need my address (I'm in New York), drop me an email 
off-list. And please, do not email me .mp3 files as attachments. I 
won't get them. If you are mailing a CD, please email the required 
info, as I can't be typing in pages of text if you send it to me on 
paper. ;-) For suggested info, I suppose we'll be doing the following 
(if anyone has any additions or suggestions, now is the time):
- name and/or pseudonym
- bio (just freeform, include or exclude anything you like (age, 
location, etc))
- artistic statement (again, i don't care if its ASCII art, but do try 
;-))
- methods employed (entertain the other artists by revealing (at least 
some of) your techniques)
- softwares used (just a list, possibly so people can sort by 
softwares, etc)
- a link to your site

The name, softwares used, and artistic statement are required. 
Providing people with a list of links isn't terribly useful (and its 
also terribly boring). The bio is optional, as is the method and link, 
but I strongly urge you to give me what you can. After all, your 
friends will be doing it, and you don't want to be uncool. Submission 
are, of course, entirely non-exclusive, and can be pulled whenever you 
like.

There's one issue left actually... we need a name for this site. :-) 
I'm open to suggestions. Hopefully the site will be up in less than a 
month.

- John

_______________________________________________
csoundtekno mailing list
csoundtekno-N4abDuUB7xo@public.gmane.org

Subscribe, unsubscribe, change mailing list options: