[net.audio] Request for net.music.classical news group

jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (04/27/84)

This is a request to net.news.group for the formation of new
subgroup - net.music.classical.  The purpose of this group
is to discuss various aspects of classical music.  The
broad interpretation of term "classical music" should apply
for this proposed news group.  Specifically, the group will
not bind itself to the more restrictive technical definition 
of classical music, which is associated with the time of
Hayden, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.  Medieval, renaissance, and so on
are fine.

The main reasons for this request are:
1. Some netters who appreciate classical music don't feel at home 
in net.music, and do not post articles.  The new group may increase
the number of classical posting.

2. There is little classical music information in net.music.
Many classical music lovers are tired to hit the 'n' key, or
read information that has no meaning for them.

3. People who are interested in classical music as well as other
forms of music can subscribe to both net.music and net.classical.music,
but those who don't care for rock, pop, etc.  should have the choice
to subscribe to their preferred group.

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW to PROCEED from HERE?
What are the requirements for establishing a new group?
-- 

Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho

jgpo@iwu1c.UUCP (John, KA9MNK) (04/27/84)

I second the motion for a classical music newsgroup.  I don't subscribe
to net.music because it contains little of interest to me.  I'm sure
there are many other classical music enthusiasts out there who feel the
same way.  This would be the ideal place for technical discussions of
musicological topics.  How many other netters are there who had to face
the agonizing decision of whether to major in music or computer science?
Probably a whole lot more than you would think.  With a separate newsgroup,
the classical enthusiasts wouldn't have to wear out their 'n' fingers, and
the more mainstream net.music readers wouldn't have to be bothered by our
discussions.

All in all, I think it's a good idea.  And, by all means, define "classical"
*loosely*.



	John Opalko
	AT&T Bell Laboratories
	Naperville, IL


P.S.

I really think the net.music readership would be bored to tears by a bunch
of organists discussing the pros and cons of classical voicing, unnicked
pipes, low wind pressure, and tracker action, even though I personally
consider the subject exciting.

hrs@houxb.UUCP (H.SILBIGER) (04/27/84)

I'll support that!
I quit net.music and net.records since all the articles were
about rock, and not about music.
Go for baroque!

Herman Silbiger CGE (Certified Golden Ears)

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/28/84)

> I second the motion for a classical music newsgroup.  I don't subscribe
> to net.music because it contains little of interest to me.  I'm sure
> there are many other classical music enthusiasts out there who feel the
> same way.  This would be the ideal place for technical discussions of
> musicological topics.

First off, I resent the notion that musicological topics are only of relevance
to classical (whatever that is) music lovers.

Second, about the above paragraph.  I agree completely with most of it.
I agree that net.music contains little of interest to this person.  I
agree that there are many others who feel the same way.  And I have absolutely
no sympathy for their plight.

Why?  Because they bring it on themselves.  All these classical music lovers
and hardly any contributions to net.music?  If you're going to be netnews
voyeurs (auyeurs??) and expect other people to submit all the articles, then
you're missing the point of the group.  It's a *participatory* medium!
The content and character of a newsgroup is determined by what articles get
contributed to it.  Even a request for information would be nice.  We've
been through this mill too often before (and net.records is somehow still
around despite a unversal agreement on that part of the issue??), and
I'm sure there are more than a few people out there who don't want to bring
it up again.

So, you want to see classical music articles, you've got to submit them.
We're not hiring creative authors from the outside.  *WE* are the authors
of the articles.

By the way, in case you haven't noticed, there is a very interesting
ongoing discussion concerning modern minimalism in this very newsgroup
right before your very noses!  Imagine that!  Discussion of classical
music in net.music!  And there were those who said it couldn't be done...

P.S.  About that minimalism discussion re John Cage.  Cage is one of
the biggest artistic charlatans of our age, who has made the resulting
sensual result of the artist's work less important than the "artist's
conception and ideas".  Utter poppycock!!  There, more discussion of
classical music!!  (Well, of a supposed classical musician, anyway...)

-- 
Never ASSUME, because when you ASSUME, you make an ASS out of U and ME...
					Rich Rosen   pyuxn!rlr

jeff@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Jeff Bishop) (04/28/84)

I think having a classical music group is a great idea.  I often 
don't read what's in net.music but would love a classical news
group.

    			Go for it!

					Jeff Bishop

jho@ihuxn.UUCP (Yosi Hoshen) (04/28/84)

> I second the motion for a classical music newsgroup.  I don't subscribe
> to net.music because it contains little of interest to me.  I'm sure
> there are many other classical music enthusiasts out there who feel the
> same way.  This would be the ideal place for technical discussions of
> musicological topics.

To which Rich Rosen replied:

>>First off, I resent the notion that musicological topics are only of relevance
>>to classical (whatever that is) music lovers.

>>Second, about the above paragraph.  I agree completely with most of it.
>>I agree that net.music contains little of interest to this person.  I
>>agree that there are many others who feel the same way.  And I have absolutely
>>no sympathy for their plight.

I agree.  We don't need Rich Rosen's sympathy. We need net.music.classical!!!!
-- 

Yosi Hoshen
Bell Laboratories
Naperville, Illinois
(312)-979-7321
Mail: ihnp4!ihuxn!jho

rosul@nmtvax.UUCP (04/28/84)

   Might as well let there be a net.classical. Can't do no harm!

     Ronald "Not quite all here" Rosul@nmtvax

New Mexico Tech, Socorro, New Mexico

dep@allegra.UUCP (Dewayne E. Perry) (04/28/84)

AMEN!!  My "n" key is worn out.

ken@ihuxq.UUCP (ken perlow) (04/28/84)

--
Yet another yes.  And yes, Rich Rosen, even if it only gets
one posting every other month!  But then, most rock enthusiasts
have so blown their ears out with N-chord harmonies at M db,
where N < 4, M > 100 (conjecture: N+M=k), that they cannot be
expected to appreciate the subtleties of silence.

Of course, I consider music written after 1750 "modern", and the
sound of a Baroque lute "loud".
-- 
                    *** ***
JE MAINTIENDRAI   ***** *****
                 ****** ******    28 Apr 84 [9 Floreal An CXCII]
ken perlow       *****   *****
(312)979-7261     ** ** ** **
..ihnp4!ihuxq!ken   *** ***

glc@akgua.UUCP (G.L. Cleveland [Lindsay]) (04/28/84)

May I add my vote to the request for net.music.classical.
Long ago I unsubscribed to net.music specifically because it
had so little classical music items and so many other types.
I'm certainly not knocking non-classical music, but I don't
want to read about it on the net.

The other side of requesting/creating a new news group is the
amount of activity.  If there was little classical music activity
on net.music, will there be more if it has a group of its own?

Cheers,
  Lindsay

Lindsay Cleveland  (...{ihnp4|mhux?|clyde}!akgua!glc)
AT&T Technologies/Bell Laboratories ... Atlanta, Ga
(404) 447-3909 ...  Cornet 583-3909

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/29/84)

From Yosi Hoshen:
-----------------
> I second the motion for a classical music newsgroup.  I don't subscribe
> to net.music because it contains little of interest to me.  I'm sure
> there are many other classical music enthusiasts out there who feel the
> same way.  This would be the ideal place for technical discussions of
> musicological topics.

To which Rich Rosen replied:

>>First off, I resent the notion that musicological topics are only of relevance
>>to classical (whatever that is) music lovers.

>>Second, about the above paragraph.  I agree completely with most of it.
>>I agree that net.music contains little of interest to this person.  I
>>agree that there are many others who feel the same way.  And I have absolutely
>>no sympathy for their plight.

I agree.  We don't need Rich Rosen's sympathy. We need net.music.classical!!!!
---------

I'd like to publicly thank Mr. Hoshen for his well-thought-out statement.
I'd also like to thank him for misrepresenting me by selecting portions of
my original article out of context (without explaining why I have no
sympathy, e.g.).  My original article states my position.  Please read IT
and not Mr. Hoshen's slanderous excerption.  You don't need net.music.anything!
What you need is more articles on a wider variety of topics in net.music!!
(You think *I* like sifting through "Reasons to Hate Michael Jackson, Part 3"
and its hundred-and-one followups??)
-- 
You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.
				Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (04/29/84)

> Yet another yes.  And yes, Rich Rosen, even if it only gets
> one posting every other month!  But then, most rock enthusiasts
> have so blown their ears out with N-chord harmonies at M db,
> where N < 4, M > 100 (conjecture: N+M=k), that they cannot be
> expected to appreciate the subtleties of silence.
> Of course, I consider music written after 1750 "modern", and the
> sound of a Baroque lute "loud".

Chalk up one more for those who claim that the reason for net.music.classical
has nothing to do with the snobbishness of its proponents.  I guess *they*
haven't yet seen ongoing classical music discussions in net.music because
they don't subscribe.
-- 
"I'm not dead yet!"
"Oh, don't be such a baby!"	Rich Rosen    pyuxn!rlr

peters@cubsvax.UUCP (04/30/84)

This time around (as opposed to last) I'm really in favor of 
net.music.*.  Lately all I've seen in net.music is *zillions*
of articles about groups like "Yes" (who are they, anyway?).
I don't want to unsubscribe to the newsgroup, because about
one out of fifty submissions is interesting to me, but it takes
a huge amount of time just to pass over the ones that are not.
This is all the truer because sometimes the subject isn't clear
from the title, and I have to look at the article first.

But please, let's *not* just have net.music.rock and net.music.classical.
Let's make sure we also have net.music.misc, for things like folk,
jazz, country, which also need a home, and also net.music.d for
discussions about music in general.

{philabs,cmcl2!rocky2}!cubsvax!peters            Dr. Peter S. Shenkin 
Dept of Biol. Sci.;  Columbia Univ.;  New York, N. Y.  10027;  212-280-5517

yee@ucbvax.UUCP (Peter E. Yee) (04/30/84)

Aye vote here for net.music.classical.  Finally, something worth reading,
instead of countless rock articles.

					Peter Yee
					yee@Berkeley.arpa
					..ucbvax!yee

citrin@ucbvax.UUCP (Wayne Citrin) (04/30/84)

>Aye vote here for net.music.classical.  Finally, something worth reading,
>instead of countless rock articles.
>
>					Peter Yee
>					yee@Berkeley.arpa
>					..ucbvax!yee

Come on!  Do you think that these classical music articles are going to 
magically appear once this new group is established?  What makes you think 
that any more people are going to submit articles to the new group than to the 
old group? Establish a REAL need first,  THEN start the group.  And if you 
think that there aren't enough classical music articles in net.music, why don't
you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read?

Wayne Citrin
(ucbvax!citrin)

nxs@fluke.UUCP (Bruce Golub) (04/30/84)

ith non-musical postings. If you want
to rant and rave and generally act like a spoiled child, do so in
net.general or net.newsgroups (though I don't beleive they'll be more
tolerent).

We went through this discussion several months ago. The onus is on you to
do something about it. If you want a seperate news group, go ahead, I don't
give a shit, but DON'T clutter up this newsgroup with this discussion again.


whew...

Bruce Golub
John-boy Mfg. Co., Inc.

yee@ucbvax.UUCP (Peter E. Yee) (04/30/84)

>Come on!  Do you think that these classical music articles are going to 
>magically appear once this new group is established?  What makes you think 
>that any more people are going to submit articles to the new group than to the 
>old group? Establish a REAL need first,  THEN start the group.  And if you 
>think that there aren't enough classical music articles in net.music, why don't
>you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read?
>
>Wayne Citrin
>(ucbvax!citrin)

Yes, I think classical music articles are going to appear!  Maybe not "magical-
ly", but for those of us who pass over net.music because of all the other
material in the group, there will be a reason to read the a music group, and
perhaps post some articles.  I for one skip net.music because I don't have
the time to hit 'n' for all the articles I don't care to read.  I have a feel-
ing that there are others who feel this way.


					Peter Yee
					yee@Berkeley.arpa
					..ucbvax!yee

whp4@flairvax.UUCP (Bill Palmer) (05/01/84)

>>Aye vote here for net.music.classical.  Finally, something worth reading,
>>instead of countless rock articles.
>>
>>					Peter Yee
>>					yee@Berkeley.arpa
>>					..ucbvax!yee
>
>Come on!  Do you think that these classical music articles are going to 
>magically appear once this new group is established?  What makes you think 
>that any more people are going to submit articles to the new group than to the 
>old group? Establish a REAL need first,  THEN start the group.  And if you 
>think that there aren't enough classical music articles in net.music, why don't
>you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read?
>
>Wayne Citrin
>(ucbvax!citrin)


Well, the group has been established, and the articles *have* "magically"
appeared.  

					Bill Palmer
					arpa: whp4@sri-kl
					uucp: ihnp4!hplabs!flairvax!whp4

mat@hou5d.UUCP (05/01/84)

==

The fact that this topic won't die indicates that the group is called
for. Why aren't there classical music articles on net.music?  Because
no one feels comfortable posting the article there!  Why?  Because there
are so many articles on rock!

We do need a new group.  On the other hand, I would like to see jazz
(Monk, Mingus, MJQ, and Wyndam Hill recordings) discussed too.  my vote
goes out for

		net.music.nonrock
-- 

					from Mole End
					Mark Terribile
		     (scrape..dig)	hou5d!mat
    ,..      .,,       ,,,   ..,***_*.

gam@proper.UUCP (Gordon Moffett) (05/02/84)

#
So where is this plethora of classical music articles demanding
their own newsgroup to call home?

This argument always generates more articles than the newsgroup
would seem to have.

Oh, and of course it brings out that cultural snobbery of "Oh,
dear, we couldn't POSSIBLY post articles about OUR kind of music
in that icky, rock-filled net.music."  Why not?  net.music is
`filled' with articles about Rock and Punk by default, because
YOU (yes, you, right there behind the asparagus fern) didn't
bother to post any about music you like.

Well, it has worked before.  People have had quite interesting
discussions on classical music in net.music.  I see no reason
why this cannot continue.

rfg@hound.UUCP (R.GRANTGES) (05/02/84)

Here's another yes vote for a new group, but I do think you folks have
the whole situation backwards. THe new group should not be called
net.music.classical, it should be called just plain net.music.  The
<old> group should be called net.music.rock, or net.music.junk, or
something else appropriate to its highly restricted view of the musical
universe. Spare the flames, please, serious proposal. Dick Grantges
hound!rfg

ron@brl-vgr.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) (05/03/84)

FOO.  The most ignorant people in this group are the ones who send
all the letters saying that any one particular form of music holds
all the virtues or any one particular form hold all the negative
aspects.

-Ron