mfs@mhuxr.UUCP (SIMON) (01/22/85)
I think it is a good idea to have net.music sub-groups. Music is so wide and diverse that to compress it all in one group produces a certain crowding out, so thata few related subjects dominate at the exclusion of others. So as a demand evolves for them, net.music subgroups can be a good idea, as is being demonstrated by folk and classical. A subgroup I see a demand for right now is synth, which would be dedicated to the instrumentation segment of electronic music, sort of a cross between music and audio. This would not include electronic music discussion per se, except for such discussion involving instrumentation, e.g. Tangerine Dream using this synth vs that synth and how it affects their sound. This does not, however, include a jazz subgroup, simply becasue there has not, in the last several months, been the traffic to support a separate group. Recently there has been a debate on the role of jazz in US society, a mini discussion of Pat Metheny and a few isolated articles that have not led to followups. I see no need for a net.music.jazz if it will only have ten articles in six months. The same can be said about a bluegrass subgroup. Marcel Simon ..!mhuxr!mfs
jim@hpfloat.UUCP (jim) (02/15/85)
I would realy like to see a jazz notes group. Over 95% of the notes under music are not of interest to me, and it takes me a long time to wade through it all. I think that jazz traffic would increase if we had a separate group. Jim Tear Ft. Collins, Co
esk@wucs.UUCP (Eric Kaylor) (02/28/85)
[eat'cha heart out, line-eater!] I agree, whole-heartedly! While some of the disussion of other forms of music has its interest, I dislike wading through 100 articles to read 5 or 10 that may be jazz related. Jason Zions ...ihnp4!wucs!wucec1!jdz6539 or jdz6539@wucec1