jeffw@tekecs.UUCP (Jeff Winslow) (12/31/84)
And someone even wants net.records back! Remember when it was deleted
because all of the articles on it were appearing on net.music too?
Remember the searching questions - "If you want this group, please
reply or it will go away?" Remember all the ruckus about net.music.classical?
Everyone was so tired out from that that net.music.folk hardly created a
ripple - even Rich Rosen only managed a token objection. He's probably
spinning on his keyboard now - hope he's got n-key rollover.
Well, once you've got one splinter group, how ya gonna keep 'em down on
the farm? Net administrators, my sympathies are with you.
crying and laughing in my New Year beer...
Jeff Winslowrlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (01/02/85)
> And someone even wants net.records back! Remember when it was deleted > because all of the articles on it were appearing on net.music too? > Remember the searching questions - "If you want this group, please > reply or it will go away?" Remember all the ruckus about net.music.classical? > Everyone was so tired out from that that net.music.folk hardly created a > ripple - even Rich Rosen only managed a token objection. He's probably > spinning on his keyboard now - hope he's got n-key rollover. [WINSLOW] You won't even hear a "token objection" this time around. And this is because I've come to an important realization: that those who complain and propose the isolationist subgroups wouldn't WANT to contribute to a community of diverse music lovers in a newsgroup called net.music: they'd only feel "comfortable" contributing to a newsgroup devoted to their specific tastes. Many people have always contributed a wide variety of articles to net.music, including those on the subject of classical music [prior to net.music.classical!], folk music, jazz [remember the bozo who tried to define only music HE liked as jazz, with "counterfeit non-musicians" like Miles Davis and Ornette Coleman EXCLUDED, and the discussion that followed], and electronic music [MIDI, latest keyboard innovations, studio equipment discussions, etc.]. However, there are apparently enough people 1) who won't/don't read net.music because it's "dominated" by talk of so-called popular music (how they "know" this if they don't read it is beyond me) and 2) who won't contribute articles to net.music on music that THEY like, thus changing the balance of articles in that newsgroup to cover a wide variety of topics, preferring instead to propose a SEPARATE newsgroup for their taste. Which is fine, because we've seen that it *does* bring people "out of the closet" and into the netstream, resulting in flurries of articles on these topics that COULD have just as easily been posted to net.music . But what do we lose by doing this? A posts an article: ... Of course, there's also a performance of the works of XXXX-style composer Luigi Vercotti as done by Pesmard Sarjhansen, whom I've never heard of, so I can't vouch for its quality. B writes a letter to A: Do you mean the famous YYYY-style performer Pesmard Sarjhansen? It would be very helpful if you sent me information on this, since I have liked most of his work, and though I have never really been exposed to XXXX-style music, it might be interesting to listen to this. A replies to B: Sorry, I couldn't possibly do that. You see, the article I wrote above was posted to net.music.XXXX, and not to either net.music or to the group you might read, net.music.YYYY, and thus you could never have seen my original article, so you must be a figment of your own imagination, since you couldn't possibly be replying to an article that you couldn't possibly have seen. B vanishes in a puff of logic... > Well, once you've got one splinter group, how ya gonna keep 'em down on > the farm? Net administrators, my sympathies are with you. Agreed. One thing I'd hate to see is the default newsgroup (net.music) somehow "defaulting" to rock or pop or some other ridiculous categorization. If you're going to have a bunch of subgroups for particular tastes, the main group should be devoted to general questions/topics and not to some particular taste that gets to be the "default". In which case, there should probably be a subgroup net.music.undef [-ined] or net.music.eclectic or something like that, to discuss those artists/styles that refuse to be as sheep-like as others. (Or maybe that could all go in net.music?) And if you thought I was going to get sarcastic and propose net.music.jazz.swing.bennygoodman.quartet or net.music.rock.heavymetal.australian ("Hey, man, there's too much of that wimpy 'new wave' music being discussed here, let's have ..."), you were wrong. That'll happen all by itself without any prodding from me. :-? Enjoy. -- BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are all individuals!" CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxd!rlr
gtaylor@lasspvax.UUCP (Greg Taylor) (01/03/85)
Go back and read Rosens's article (referenced above) again. He's right on the money. I, of course, will continue to subscribe to *all* of them. For those of you with the firmly held conviction that *all* music is worthy of a good listen, Here are the addresses of the people who are picking up where OP magazine left off: OPtion (bimonthly) Sonic Options Network PO Box 491034 Lost Angels, California 90049 Sound Choice (bimonthly) Audio Evolution Network PO Box 1251 Ojai, California 93023 It's too early to tell who has the sharper program, but hey...why not a second opinion? Luister Op, Greg
riddle@ut-sally.UUCP (Prentiss Riddle) (01/08/85)
I'm another of those who ranted a bit (although, I hope, not to the point of
flaming) against the splitup of net.music. Now that it's happened, though,
I'd just as soon see it carried to a (reasonable) conclusion. I must say
that I'm pleased to see how well net.music.classical and net.music.folk have
done since their creation -- it is apparent that there are people out there
who won't even read a general net.music but are more than happy to write
good articles for one aligned to their particular tastes.
Here's one more person who'd like to see net.music.jazz and net.music.synth.
(Did anyone but me notice, by the way, that s i x t y people responded to
Chuqui's net.singles poll saying that they liked jazz?)
--- Prentiss Riddle ("Aprendiz de todo, maestro de nada.")
--- {ihnp4,harvard,seismo,gatech,ctvax}!ut-sally!riddlecuccia@ucbvax.ARPA (Nick Cuccia) (01/14/85)
If I may respond to Rich Rosen's earlier comments about people
being open-minded wrt musik, the desire by some of us for grps
such as net.music.{folk, classical, jazz} does not mean that
we are elitist snobs. In my own case, I subscribe to all of
the music groups, and find something I'm interested in in all
of them. But, at the same time, most of what interests me in
net.music is what has to do with jazz and electronic music. I
don't like Greatful Dead, Twisted Sister, or much of the dreck
that lives on the top 40/AOR stations. And I don't much like
weeding through hundreds of postings to find something of
interest to me.
--Nick Cuccia
--ucbvax!cuccia
--cuccia%ucbmiro@Berkeleysteiny@scc.UUCP (Don Steiny) (01/15/85)
** I vote for "net.music.bluegrass", and "net.music.jazz". I don't think "elite" is a useful way to look at the separation. People have different tastes. -- scc!steiny Don Steiny - Personetics @ (408) 425-0382 109 Torrey Pine Terr. Santa Cruz, Calif. 95060 ihnp4!pesnta -\ fortune!idsvax -> scc!steiny ucbvax!twg -/