weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (01/29/86)
[This has been cross posted for your amusement only.] >> I vote yes! Lets have a net.music.classical.cd. [GENE WARD SMITH] > >Sure, those kids who listen to rock in net.music don't listen to any music >meriting CD's, so who cares about them? Obviously the only people with >concerns and interests about CD's are a subset of classical music listeners. >This sort of snobbery makes me puke. [GUESS WHO] What sort of mental midgetry is this? Classical music listeners who would be interested in CD's might not want to wade through rock music CD postings. I see no implication here regarding "those kids". Indeed, why SHOULD Gene Smith and others on net.music.classical care about "those kids"? 5 points to the first person who identifies our mystery poster. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
jwg@galbp.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) (01/30/86)
Why create a new group? To clutter the news databases? If you want to discuss the technical points of CD's, there is already a discussion in net.audio which noone there objects to, so why move it? If you want to discuss the content of CD's, you can use net.music or net.music.classical, depending on the kind of music. I can't think of anything else to discuss about CD's; please enlighten me if you can. I'll bet I can find another group in which to discuss it. Viva status quo!
danb@tesla.UUCP (Dan Blumenthal) (02/03/86)
In article <> jwg@galbp.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) writes: >Why create a new group? To clutter the news databases? If you want to >discuss the technical points of CD's, there is already a discussion in >net.audio which noone there objects to, so why move it? If you want to >discuss the content of CD's, you can use net.music or net.music.classical, >depending on the kind of music. I can't think of anything else to discuss >about CD's; please enlighten me if you can. I'll bet I can find another >group in which to discuss it. > >Viva status quo! Boo Hiss! I would LOVE to see a CD group, not devoted to the technical points, but to reviews of individual CD's. CD's cost alot of money, and since the quality of these (re-)recordings varies greatly, I'd like to know about them before I shell out the bucks. Things like hearing that the Aqualung CD sounds worse than the LP and that Rumours sounds much better. I think this kinda thing would be very worthwhile, and I don't see what all this argument is about other than to rank again on Allen and Grantges :-) Dan
dturner@imagen.UUCP (Alai) (02/08/86)
> Why create a new group? To clutter the news databases? If you want to > discuss the technical points of CD's, there is already a discussion in > net.audio which noone there objects to, so why move it? If you want to > discuss the content of CD's, you can use net.music or net.music.classical, > depending on the kind of music. I can't think of anything else to discuss > about CD's; please enlighten me if you can. I'll bet I can find another > group in which to discuss it. > > Viva status quo! so sorry to clutter up the place but i have one question : why was this on net.jokes or net.religion ? (dose god have a cd :-) just wondering. sorry if i intreuped your reading ttfn the 12'th docotr -- If you push somthing hard enough it will fall over -fud's first law . Name: David Turner Mail: 6259 Rainbow dr. San Jose , Ca 95129 AT&T: (408) 725-1974 UUCP: ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!imagen!dturner
kalpin@utecfc.UUCP (Jordan E Kalpin) (02/11/86)
In article <274@galbp.UUCP> jwg@galbp.UUCP (Joe Guthridge) writes: >Why create a new group? To clutter the news databases? If you want to >discuss the technical points of CD's, there is already a discussion in >net.audio which noone there objects to, so why move it? If you want to >discuss the content of CD's, you can use net.music or net.music.classical, >depending on the kind of music. I can't think of anything else to discuss >about CD's; please enlighten me if you can. I'll bet I can find another >group in which to discuss it. > >Viva status quo! I think you are missing the point entirely. Us fortunate people who own CD players feel a definate need to review the quality of various CD recordings (After all, each one only costs $20.00 CAN). Whether or not I should buy any one of a number of recordings might not interest those people who do not own CD players. The other day I bought a copy of Beethoven's ninth and was somewhat dissappointed by the quality of the CD Since people who don't own CD's can't get anywhere near the quality of a CD, they would not benefit from a review. CD's are generally rated in terms of performance quality and recording quality. These types of specs are not useful to non CD owners. Net.audio is for equipment discussions, and therefore doesn't help me in choosing a good CD recording. The kind of discussions I would like to see in net.classical.cd are those which review the latest recordings of a particular piece of music. If someone bought a super recording of Rhapsody in Blue, I would like to hear about it. Why those people in net.classical would be interested in this type of talk ........ unless they bought a CD player!!!!! Have some compassion for those who get shivers up there spine when listening to a first rate CD. In fact, why not go listen to one for a little while. Jordan Kalpin Mechanical Engineering University of Toronto kalpin@utecfc.UUCP
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (02/19/86)
WARNING! This article is a response to an incredibly asinine flame you probably couldn't read without vomiting. Strong language and vituperative sarcasm are present, but NO smiley faces. There is probably nothing intelligent here. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. I crossposted to net.religion since they will probably recognize the mystery flamer and can witness yet another example of his miraculous posting style. I crossposted to net.politics since it will raise the general quality of discussion there by comparison. Also there are some of the strangest comments about South Africa I have ever seen. I crossposted to net.jokes because it IS funny. I hope the powers-the-be are sufficiently irritated by the mystery poster. He is a complete fucking asshole, and has the brains to match. In some article somebody writes: >>>> I vote yes! Lets have a net.music.classical.cd. [GENE WARD SMITH] > >>> Sure, those kids who listen to rock in net.music don't listen to any music >>> meriting CD's, so who cares about them? Obviously the only people with >>> concerns and interests about CD's are a subset of classical music listeners. >>> This sort of snobbery makes me puke. [GUESS WHO] > >> Upon reading this posting, I'm really at a loss as to what goes through >> peoples minds ( if anything ) when posting to the net. I see NO implied >> snobbery in the statement by Mr. Smith. My self I could care less about >> 99% of contemporary pop music be it on CD or vinyl. > >Is it any wonder a snobbish statement like this followed a previous statement >indicating that a music newsgroup about CD's should be called >"net.music.classical.cd"? Let me make this clear for those who don't >understand (and that is apparently only a very small number, since there >have been a LARGE number of postings since this time saying EXACTLY what >I said: that if there is to be a CD newsgroup it should be net.music.cd!). So what? What makes the fact that a small number of net.music.classical readers were asking themselves about forming net.music.classical.cd relevant to anything? You certainly have NOT made clear where you get off on gratu- itously calling them snobbish. Or is that what you call ALL your superiors? > If >some new topic of religious interest came up (say, the discovery of a universal >phenomenon "bilofreg" which may prove the existence of god), and a round >of discussion went on for a time in which the possibility of a new newsgroup >for it, what would be your reaction if someone then said "Great, now >let's form net.religion.christian.bilofreg!"? A little selfcentered, wouldn't >you say? (Unless you're an absolutist Christian, of course.) My reaction would be a complete NOTHING. And I am not an absolutist Christian. > Same thing >applies to the notion of a net.music.classical.cd! It's that simple. Right. Still nothing. Either the group forms or it doesn't. > To >claim that discussion on a topic of more universal interest belongs in a >subgroup devoted to one subtaste of the general topic area can be interpreted >as NOTHING but snobbery. [GUESS WHO] Bullshit. It can be interpreted as complete disinterest. It can be inter- preted as ignorance. It can be interpreted as answering the immediate question. But who the fuck needs to interpret it anyway? That is, who the fuck with any intelligence? And besides, EVEN IF IT IS SNOBBERY, WHAT'S THE BIG FUCKING DEAL!? I have no idea as to how to interpret Mr WHO's inability to come up with any intelligence. If only he would leave us a clue. >> This is precisely >> the reason that I choose to read net.music.classical and ignore net.music >> entirely. I presume that there are others of like mind hence the existance >> of net.m*.classical in the first place. If a CD group is to come into >> existance, to me at least, it is important that this separation between >> pop and classical be preserved. > >Are you by any chance from South Africa? Your reasoning sounds an awful lot >like the powers that be down there. God forbid you should get contaminated. > [GUESS WHO] Are you by any chance retarded? Your reasoning sounds an awful lot like you are. God forbid you should get contaminated with intelligence. >> And in saying this perhaps I don't perceive myself as a snob; > >Good for you. I'll bet those supporting apartheid don't perceive themselves >as anti-black either. [GUESS WHO] And you'll bet those playing tiddley winks don't think of themselves as anti-chess? By the way, since you seem to be suggesting (I can't really tell as your remarks don't seem to be attached to any real referrants) that those in favor of net.music.classical.cd are anti-net.music.other?? If so, what's the big fucking deal? Who cares if they are anti-net.music.other? If you want to equate that with racism, go ahead, but you've got a real flippant attitude towards the sufferings of black South Africa. I'll give you a hint: SA blacks are not particularly worried about whether to form net.music.classical.cd or net.music.cd. It runs a little bit deeper than that. Or so I've heard. Or maybe you mean to imply those in favor of net.music.classical.cd are actively supporting apartheid? It's hard to tell with such strongly retarded reasoning. >> taste in music is a very subjective issue and everybody is entitiled to >> their own opinion whether ones interest is in classical or pop or both. > >Isn't it amazing how the world divides so neatly into two pieces in the minds >of the simpleminded? Sorry, bud, but the world DOESN'T divide itself quite >so neatly as you might like to believe. Where does Philip Glass fit? >Or Vangelis Papathanassiou? Or Glenn Branca? ("My god, a classical composer >who uses electric guitars! What WILL we do? Where WILL we put him?") I >always liked the idea of crossfertilization and harmony (get it, a musical >"pun" of sorts), and most of the music I listen to doesn't fit well into >either side of your clear cut dichotomy. [GUESS WHO] Who the fuck cares how neatly the world divides or doesn't divide? Ever try cross posting? But wait--YOU DO cross post a lot! And you didn't even think of it just now? Maybe, just maybe, you are retarded. >> Perhaps, in defending Mr Smith, I have ironically presented an argument >> against a CD group as it appears to entail the creation of two groups - >> "net.music.cd" and "net.music.classical.cd". > >We couldn't POSSIBLY all share a CD newsgroup if it were decided that there >was going to be one, now, could we? That would be awful? Why, we'd have >to wade through things we DON'T LIKE! Hey, maybe you aren't so retarded. Let's form a net.everything newsgroup once and for all. Then nobody would ever complain ever again. > I have to wonder: do these people >really want a world in which they don't have to be faced with those things >they don't like right in front of them? Maybe they don't. Why should they? Why is it any of your business? What other great ideas do you have in mind, by the way? Sending discussions of _Pink Flamingos_ over to net.micro.trs-80. Or perhaps _Caligula_ over to net.tv.drwho? > Is net.shasta.stevens the only >type of group that would satisfy some people? [GUESS WHO] If enough people were interested in forming net.shasta.stevens, then I would hope the newsgroup would be formed. Ever here of democracy? The United States of America? Truth, Justice and the American Way? But I keep forgetting you might be retarded. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720