> I think there is an important distinction to be made between music and
"ear candy". The latter might
> bring "instant gratification", but in the long run, one grows tired of
the empty calories and
> longs for something that "sticks to the ribs". For my money, there's no
substitute for a great melody
> line, played with feeling, or intricate, complex rhythms that dance on
the edge of notateability.
> Striking that perfect balance between change and continuity, the proper
relationship between
> time and materials, etc.  Coaxing these out of a machine is damn hard
work, and computational methods are 
> severely handicapped in this area.
> 
> Tools like CSound offer so much signal processing power that one is
tempted to focus on timbre to the
> exclusion of all else. The problem with CSound, and with most electronic
music, is that it lacks
> the dynamic interaction between composer, performer, instrument, and
audience that gives traditional music
> its expressive power. IMO, the really hard, truly interesting problems of
computer music are not in
> how to produce beautiful sounds, but how to imbue the computer with the
musical "common sense" that
> made the careers of Mozart, Beethoven and Stravinsky possible.

Yes. Those who strive for the ultimate imitation of natural music by
computers are losers. Music
is something spiritual IN THE FIRST PLACE. It cannot be replaced by a set
of digital chips producing
a stream of numbers based on algorithms. True music is always a FYSICAL
interaction between
the player and it's instrument(s). 

David.