msl@bu-cs.UUCP (Melissa Leffler) (05/05/85)
Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone else? Melissa Leffler UUCP: ...!harvard!bu-cs!msl ARPA: msl%bu-cs.csnet@csnet-relay.ARPA BITNET: stdtmsl@bostonu
mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) (05/06/85)
>/* msl@bu-cs.UUCP (Melissa Leffler) / 8:09 pm May 4, 1985 */ >Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned >in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone >else? > > Melissa Leffler Yes, definitely!! Mike Sykora
rlm@lanl.ARPA (05/06/85)
> Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup?
Count me in as a subscriber. Personally, I would like to
see Blues included in that newsgroup - what do others think?
(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)wjhe@hlexa.UUCP (Bill Hery) (05/07/85)
> Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned > in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone > else? > Definitely. I get tired of n-ing through all the rock items that dominate this newsgroup, particularly when I'm out of touch for a few days. Bill Hery
PAWKA@nosc-tecr.ARPA (Pawka) (05/07/85)
> > > Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? > > Count me in as a subscriber. Personally, I would like to > see Blues included in that newsgroup - what do others think? > I wouldn't like to see net.music.jazz unless it gets gated into INFO-MUSIC, otherwise like with net.music.gdead, those of us on ARPA wouldn't get much more Jazz news. Otherwise, GREAT!! and I hope blues would be included. Mike ------
edward@ukma.UUCP (Edward C. Bennett) (05/08/85)
In article <380@bu-cs.UUCP>, msl@bu-cs.UUCP (Melissa Leffler) writes: > Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned > in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone > else? Absolutely!! Having just recently discovered KKGO (Los Angeles, America's jazz station) on my FM cable, I'm hooked on jazz. Rock 'n Roll, never touch the stuff, stains my speakers ;-) jazzaholic, -- edward {ucbvax,unmvax,boulder,research}!anlams! -| {mcvax!qtlon,vax135,mddc}!qusavx! -|--> ukma!edward {decvax,ihnp4,mhuxt,clyde,osu-eddie,ulysses}!cbosgd! -| "Well, what's on the television then?" "Looks like a penguin."
Wenner.es@XEROX.ARPA (05/08/85)
RE: Music sub-groups. It is logical to try and divide the general music interest group into sub-distributions, in an attempt to cut down on the large volume of wide-ranging topics, many of which are not of interest to a good deal of the recipients. There are, however, two arguments AGAINST this trend in use-net : 1. By creating "jazz", "blues", "rock and roll", "grateful dead", etc., lists, the same trap is created that is inherent to almost all radio formats and record stores' organization today: The black-and-white "categorizing" of music, with rigid rules against mixing of styles. In the relaxed atmosphere of this informal, entertainment distribution on the net, this means that those of us who like jazz, classical, ragtime, or whatever else must obviously be on the related list, even if we really don't KNOW we do until we hear the discussion. If a "new" mix of styles emerges, then where do you best talk about it? This is theoretical, of course; my main point is that I feel music "categorization" is not a good idea for this medium, which I use primarily to find out about musical topics I knew nothing of before. 2. Creating subgroups dooms many of us, who receive net.music via redistribution to lose out completely on those specific subject discussions. For example, I am receiving net.music indirectly on the Xerox Internet, via "Info-Music" from BRL.ARPA. The new net.music.gdead is NOT redistributed, so I have lost out on maintaining communication with others on that interest list. Big deal, say most of you. But a net.music.jazz or net.music.blues will take these more general topics away as well, of which I have great interest. In short, I submit one vote, to whoever's counting, to keep net.music a GENERAL (read all-encompassing) music interest distribution list. Nix on the spinoffs. Thanks to ALL for putting up with this non-music subject; let's hear more about the blues! Jim Wenner <Wenner.es@XEROX.ARPA> Xerox Microelectronics Center, El Segundo, CA (213)-536-9582
dmm@browngr.UUCP (David Margolis) (05/08/85)
Summary: Expires: Sender: Followup-To: Distribution: Keywords: I second the formation of net.music.jazz. Way overdue, in fact, especially for those of us that aren't much interested in wading through the vast amount of postings not particularly of interest to us just to find the odd jazz posting.
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/09/85)
> > Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? > > Count me in as a subscriber. Personally, I would like to > see Blues included in that newsgroup - what do others think? Hell, no! The group hasn't even formed yet and I'm already tired of hitting my 'n' key to get by all of those boring jazz articles (jazz stains my speakers, a nice shade of mahogany I might add) to get to the blues articles. To prepare for the inevitable future, I propose we make net.music.jazz.blues first, or net.music.blues.jazz, depending on your point of view. [NOTE: Satire follows.] [Sorry, that last message came in about a paragraph too late.] P.S. Do you really think I care how finely you split up newsgroups anymore? Coming soon: net.site.user-id -- soon everyone will have a newsgroup devoted to their own taste, and will never need to worry about being exposed to other points of view. P.P.S. "I saw a Deadhead sticker on a Cadillac. I said don't look back." -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (05/09/85)
>Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned >in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone >else? > > Melissa Leffler In my opinion, the best way to get a jazz subgroup is to flood net.music with jazz articles. That way the rock people will be tired of hearing about it and let us for a jazz sub group (:- :- :-) Seriously, there is so little jazz activity in net.music right now that it would be hard to justify a separate jazz sub group. All us jazz fans are going to have to post some articles. I am sure there are a lot of jazz subjects worth posting some articles about..... Marcel Simon
wfi@unc.UUCP (William F. Ingogly) (05/10/85)
Here we go again: > ... my main point is that I feel music > "categorization" is not a good idea for this medium, which I use > ... Creating subgroups dooms many of us, who receive net.music via > redistribution to lose out completely on those specific subject > discussions. ... > Nix on the spinoffs... I agree, I agree, I agree. Now we'll have to go through two months' worth of argument back and forth over whether there should be a new newsgroup or not. A new group will be created, which will inconvenience some people as the above poster has pointed out. And Moe, Larry, and Curley will start cross-posting like crazy ("let's see, this article oughta go in net.music.jazz AND net.music.folk because jazz is kinda like a type of folk music, sorta; and while I'm at it why don't I send a copy to the folks at net.music too..."), and then those of us who subscribe to ALL music subgroups will have to wear our poor index fingers out skipping over the multiple postings... I vote NO. -- Bill Ingogly
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/10/85)
> It is logical to try and divide the general music interest group into > sub-distributions, in an attempt to cut down on the large volume of > wide-ranging topics, many of which are not of interest to a good deal of > the recipients. There are, however, two arguments AGAINST this trend in > use-net : > > 1. By creating "jazz", "blues", "rock and roll", "grateful dead", > etc., lists, the same trap is created that is inherent to almost all > radio formats and record stores' organization today: The > black-and-white "categorizing" of music, with rigid rules against mixing > of styles. In the relaxed atmosphere of this informal, entertainment > distribution on the net, this means that those of us who like jazz, > classical, ragtime, or whatever else must obviously be on the related > list, even if we really don't KNOW we do until we hear the discussion. > If a "new" mix of styles emerges, then where do you best talk about it? > > 2. Creating subgroups dooms many of us, who receive net.music via > redistribution to lose out completely on those specific subject > discussions. For example, I am receiving net.music indirectly on the > Xerox Internet, via "Info-Music" from BRL.ARPA. The new net.music.gdead > is NOT redistributed, so I have lost out on maintaining communication > with others on that interest list. Big deal, say most of you. But a > net.music.jazz or net.music.blues will take these more general topics > away as well, of which I have great interest. > > In short, I submit one vote, to whoever's counting, to keep net.music a > GENERAL (read all-encompassing) music interest distribution list. Nix > on the spinoffs. Thanks to ALL for putting up with this non-music > subject; let's hear more about the blues! Here, here! Well spoken, Jim Wenner! Which is probably why it will fly past the minds of those bent on isolationism. Here comes net.site.user-id... -- "to be nobody but yourself in a world which is doing its best night and day to make you like everybody else means to fight the hardest battle any human being can fight and never stop fighting." - e. e. cummings Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Arthur Pewtey) (05/10/85)
> >Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned > >in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone > >else? > > > > Melissa Leffler > > In my opinion, the best way to get a jazz subgroup is to flood net.music > with jazz articles. That way the rock people will be tired of hearing about it > and let us for a jazz sub group (:- :- :-) > > Seriously, there is so little jazz activity in net.music right now > that it would be hard to justify a separate jazz sub group. All us > jazz fans are going to have to post some articles. I am sure there are > a lot of jazz subjects worth posting some articles about..... [MARCEL SIMON] If you post articles on music you like to net.music, and others follow suit, there would be no need for subgroups. I hope that's not too logical an answer. (I know it has been in the past...) Any idea where the discussion on Gong should go? Any rigid classifications you might want to put on their music so it can fit into one of your cubbyholes? (Given the tolerance level of people who say things like "I never listen to anything since 1957", or "rock n' roll stains my speakers", I'm not surprised that there's a movement afoot for isolationism, and the aforementioned reasons stand as evidence once and for all that it is rooted in elitism and anything else (like "too many articles to wade through") second. -- "Ya dee apockety, rum fing f'doo. Ni, ni, ni, YOWWWWWWWWWW!" Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr
ryan@fremen.DEC (Mike Ryan DTN 264-8280 MK01-2/H32) (05/10/85)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 7-MAY-1985 17:28--------------------- >Posted by: decwrl!decvax!genrad!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!Wenner.es@XEROX.ARPA >RE: Music sub-groups. >It is logical to try and divide the general music interest group into >sub-distributions, in an attempt to cut down on the large volume of >wide-ranging topics, many of which are not of interest to a good deal of >the recipients. There are, however, two arguments AGAINST this trend in >use-net : >1. Over-categorizing... >Jim Wenner <Wenner.es@XEROX.ARPA> >Xerox Microelectronics Center, El Segundo, CA >(213)-536-9582 > I have to agree with Jim - it's bad enough that there's a separate net.music.classical and net.music.folk. Discussions of one type of music can often branch off and involve others, perhaps drawing the interest of people interested in those other kinds of music (and making converts). And some of use do like more than one kind of music, you know... For example, I dislike country music in general, and would not bother with a net.music.country. However, I like some folk artists and bluegrass music which bridge the gap towards country enough that I would fear I might be missing something in that subgroup. Mike Ryan
youngm@utecfa.UUCP (Michael Young) (05/15/85)
Please find enclosed one vote in favour of net.music.jazz !!! -- Michael Young University of Toronto ..!decvax!utcsri!utecfa!youngm
cuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick "Coosh" Cuccia) (05/17/85)
In article <1150027@acf4.UUCP> mms1646@acf4.UUCP (Michael M. Sykora) writes: > >>/* msl@bu-cs.UUCP (Melissa Leffler) / 8:09 pm May 4, 1985 */ >>Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned >>in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone >>else? >> >> Melissa Leffler > >Yes, definitely!! > > Mike Sykora Add another affirmative to net.music.jazz. I suggested this idea a while back, and I'm sure that I'm not the first...
cuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick "Coosh" Cuccia) (05/21/85)
In article <380@bu-cs.UUCP> msl@bu-cs.UUCP (Melissa Leffler) writes: >Is there any interest in a net.music.jazz newsgroup? It was mentioned >in net.music.classical, and I would definitely be interested. Anyone >else? > > Melissa Leffler I'm also interested in net.music.jazz being set up, as long as there is a way to gateway it to the ARPANET music list. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Why do most recordings of Beethoven's Ninth sound like MMOs with the Choral tenor part missing? ---- /\ \ --Nick "Coosh" Cuccia / \ \ --{...}!ucbvax!cuccia (USENET) / /\ \ --cuccia%ucbmiro@Berkeley (Arpanet) /___/ \___\ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^