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 Bishopjho@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
mr@isrnix.UUCP (Michael Regoli) (04/28/84)
RE: Advocates of net.music.classical
LET THOSE PEOPLE GO!!
THEN, no one will worry about the ages of net.music's contributors.
THEN, no one will discuss the insignificance of ALL those articles.
THEN, no one will tell you to get your bicycle out of the driveway.
THEN, no one will tell you it's "Time for bed...please log off."
And...net.music will live happily ever after.
--
mr
age 3
No flames, please. I can't read.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 Mexicodep@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 583-3909rlr@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; 212-280-5517yee@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
matt@oddjob.UChicago.UUCP (Matt Crawford) (05/01/84)
>< >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? As you can see by now (if you have AUTONEWNG), it did work that way. net.music.classical is full of traffic of sorts I never saw before in net.music. This is an interesting case which will probably be cited another time somebody wants to create a new newsgroup.
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.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (05/02/84)
>>> Aye vote here for net.music.classical. Finally, something worth reading, >>> instead of countless rock articles. >> 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 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 articles in net.music, why don't >> you start writing some instead of complaining that there are none to read? > Well, the group has been established, and the articles *have* "magically" > appeared. So, tell me, oh wise one. Why didn't all of you "magicians" submit all of these articles to net.music in the first place????? (I guess they felt so uncomfortable conversing with us common people. Jeeves, fetch the Rolls.) -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
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
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (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 Mr. Grantges' view of the musical universe is, of course, not quite so highly restricted. *He* likes ALL real music, whatever he doesn't like is thus clearly defined as junk. Which is why no one should get to do the sort of broad bogus classifying he proposes. (Snobs? We're not snobs. Ugggh, Hector, a rock musician!! Call the police!) (Who then say: "Doan stann so close to me!") (Note that I've removed net.audio from the list of groups to which this is sent, while adding net.music.classical; after all if the proponents of a split can fill up net.music...) -- Pardon me for ... oh, never mind!! Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
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