Talk:Process music

It's Gonna Rain
Is It ' s Gonna Rain process music? I don't agree with that assertion...Process music more for Reich was starting something and then letting the resultant effects create the music... Dysprosia 23:16, 15 Oct 2003 (UTC)


 * Yah, exactly, line the tapes up and let them go. Phase is the process.Hyacinth


 * Yeah, but It's Gonna Rain is a bit more complicated than just that, isn't it? I mean, there's quite a lot of cuts in it, no? I'd say Come Out is a better example of process music - even better are Piano Phase, Clapping Music, or (best) Pendulum Music. That's a really clear example - you can see as well as hear the process. I'll substitute Pendulum Music for It's Gonna Rain in the article. Hope that's OK with all. --Camembert

where is "music as a gradual process"
HELP! i cant find the essay steve reich wrote, "music as a gradual process" and im really interseted in reading it email me at blue_friday@snowboard.com if you have any reasouces of where i can find this essay

Systems music
Systems music seems to have a separate definition as a British type of minimalist music. (However, I have only heard the term once myself, and was told it just meant 'minimalism'.) It seems two or three of these articles should be combined. Ben Finn 17:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Ben Finn, you have a point. There's nothing in the Systems music article that would preclude its all falling under the rubric of "Process music", even if the composers themselves never applied that term. yoyo (talk) 13:22, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Refimprove?
I notice that Hyacinth has added a "Refimprove" banner to the section "Notable works". Heaven knows this section could be improved, but I'm uncertain whether this call is meant to ask for a reference to be added to each entry and, if so, whether the matter at issue is the notability of the examples, or whether and by which definition they qualify as "process music".—Jerome Kohl (talk) 22:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Context
I removed the above since there isn't only one process and only one way of making processes audible.
 * "doesn't actually explain what the process is or how it is made audible"

However, why, what, and how does the introduction to this article provide insufficient context for those unfamiliar with the subject and what should be done about it? Hyacinth (talk) 20:06, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Even written as, "doesn't actually explain what the processes are or how they are made audible," this explanation would belong in the body of the article and not in the introduction. Hyacinth (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agree absolutely. I've made a start. Perhaps once the body of the article has got better definitions in it, the lede can be expanded a bit, too.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Insufficient context
Why and where does this article lack sufficient context? How should it be cleaned up? Hyacinth (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've made some progress in this direction since this question was last raised nearly a year ago. I'm not sure whether this yet provides sufficient context, and would like to hear specific criticisms and suggestions for further improvement along these lines.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 18:07, 8 June 2012 (UTC)