peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/18/89)
In article <177@scorn.sco.COM> davidbe@sco.COM (The Cat in the Hat) writes: > But there's no way to determine a good name. I don't see why not. "rock" is a good term for contemporary popular music. I know this has been brought up before, with people summoning the spectre of... > "that doesn't belong here" flames. but I don't believe in them. If people can post questions on IBM-PC interrupt vectors to comp.lang.c and get answers then they can post questions about Elvis Presley and Elvis Costello equally well to the rock group. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "You can tell when a USENET discussion is getting old when one of the 'U` participants drags out Hitler and the Nazis" -- Richard Sexton
gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) (10/20/89)
When there have been votes on rec.music.rock in the past they have always failed because the resulting group would be no different from the present rec.music.misc. If there is going to be a change to rec.music.* it should be a radical change, with lots of new groups each catering to a particular type of music. If there is overlap between them, that's no problem - just crosspost. The volume in each new group would still be at an acceptable level compared to the current volume in rec.music.misc. To make this work, as many new groups as possible need to be created, ideally 10 to 20. Here are some suggestions: rec.music.artrock rec.music.charthits rec.music.dance rec.music.disco rec.music.elevator rec.music.fifties rec.music.funk rec.music.hardrock rec.music.indie rec.music.instrumental rec.music.metal rec.music.newage rec.music.progrock rec.music.rap rec.music.rock-n-roll rec.music.sixties rec.music.soul rec.music.soundtracks rec.music.thrash I would really like to see this happen. My KILL file for rec.music.misc is now over 400 lines, and becoming a royal pain in the arse. -- Geoff Clare, UniSoft Limited, Saunderson House, Hayne Street, London EC1A 9HH gwc@root.co.uk (Dumb mailers: ...!uunet!root.co.uk!gwc) Tel: +44-1-315-6600
rang@cs.wisc.edu (Anton Rang) (10/21/89)
In article <1035@root44.co.uk> gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) writes: >When there have been votes on rec.music.rock in the past they have >always failed because the resulting group would be no different >from the present rec.music.misc. True...then again, it would leave rec.music.misc to develop into something new. Still, I agree that we could use a lot of new groups in the rec.music domain...even if the definitions aren't always as clear as they could be, I feel a consensus would develop. >To make this work, as many new groups as possible need to be >created, ideally 10 to 20. Here are some suggestions: > > [ deleted, see <1035@root44.co.uk> ] > rec.music.newage Already have this one. > rec.music.rock-n-roll Could be renamed from alt.rock-n-roll. >I would really like to see this happen. My KILL file for rec.music.misc >is now over 400 lines, and becoming a royal pain in the arse. I agree. I rarely have the time to go through 1500 articles in r.m.misc to find the 20-100 which are interesting to me.... Anton +----------------------------------+------------------+ | Anton Rang (grad student) | rang@cs.wisc.edu | | University of Wisconsin--Madison | | +----------------------------------+------------------+
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/22/89)
> When there have been votes on rec.music.rock in the past they have > always failed because the resulting group would be no different > from the present rec.music.misc. This is the best reason in the world to create rec.music.rock: excessive volume in a misc group. I can not conceive of anyone honestly holding an informed opinion that rec.music.rock should not be created. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "ERROR: trust not in UUCP routing tables" 'U` -- MAILER-DAEMON@mcsun.EU.net
sommar@enea.se (Erland Sommarskog) (10/22/89)
Geoff Clare (gwc@root.co.uk) writes: >To make this work, as many new groups as possible need to be >created, ideally 10 to 20. Here are some suggestions: > > rec.music.artrock > rec.music.charthits > rec.music.dance > rec.music.disco > rec.music.elevator > rec.music.fifties > rec.music.funk > rec.music.hardrock > rec.music.indie > rec.music.instrumental > rec.music.metal > rec.music.newage > rec.music.progrock > rec.music.rap > rec.music.rock-n-roll > rec.music.sixties > rec.music.soul > rec.music.soundtracks > rec.music.thrash AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARGH! Where the hell do I post my Gensis query? To artrock or to progrock? Or since I'm curious about some newer material maybe I should try with charthits. Come on, the rec.music space is not like comp.lang.*. There are no sharp boundaries, haven't been and never will. And even worse, some of those damned musicians insist on sometimes doing this, sometimes doing that. Should I carefully think "let's see in which newsgroup does this Joe Jackson album fit?" Easiest thing must be to cross-post to them all. >I would really like to see this happen. My KILL file for rec.music.misc >is now over 400 lines, and becoming a royal pain in the arse. Seems overkill to me. Must be quicker to have no kill file, and then kill each uninteresting topic with the "k" key. I do that and it works fine. (And despite the fact I'm a regular contributor I kill about 25-40% of the articles.) Rec.music.misc is a high-volume group, and that's what I like about it. You may be reading about Yes in one moment, to be thrown to Madonna in the next, then moving over to Sex Pistols and then something new again. What do you want? American commercial radio? -- Erland Sommarskog - ENEA Data, Stockholm - sommar@enea.se "My baby's a 26. On a scale from one to ten, my baby's a 26." - Chic
" Maynard) (10/22/89)
In article <6620@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >This is the best reason in the world to create rec.music.rock: excessive >volume in a misc group. Amen to that. Rec.music.rock has been needed for years. The last time it was proposed, though, it was flamed to ashes and died. >I can not conceive of anyone honestly holding an informed opinion that >rec.music.rock should not be created. Erland, this is your cue... -- Jay Maynard, EMT-P, K5ZC, PP-ASEL | Never ascribe to malice that which can jay@splut.conmicro.com (eieio)| adequately be explained by stupidity. {attctc,bellcore}!texbell!splut!jay +---------------------------------------- Send richard@gryphon.com your NO vote on sci.aquaria; it belongs in rec.
pv@tut.fi (Vuorimaa Petri Kalevi) (10/23/89)
I have an idea. What if we made some kind of recommendation for use of keywords. For example, if I write something about Soul, I would put that as one of the keywords. That way we could have rec.music.misc as it is and at the same time I could read articles only about Soul, if wanted. What do you think? -- Petri Vuorimaa Tampere University of Technology / Signal Processing Lab pv@tut.fi PO. BOX. 527, 33101 Tampere, Finland NOTICE: My employer doesn't necessarily believe in what I say!
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (10/23/89)
In article <1035@root44.co.uk> gwc@root.co.uk (Geoff Clare) writes: >To make this work, as many new groups as possible need to be >created, ideally 10 to 20. Here are some suggestions: > > rec.music.dance > rec.music.disco >... > rec.music.fifties > rec.music.hardrock > rec.music.progrock > rec.music.rock-n-roll > rec.music.sixties >... Imagine the amount of cross-posting this would generate. You'd never know where to post, so you'd pick five groups, say, and post there. Overlapping groups are a bad idea. I'm all in favor of a rec.music.rock, with "rock" meaning "Chuck Berry and offsprings". Let's create one group and see what happens. If it gets overflown by Heavy Metal freaks we can consider a rec.music.metal, etc. /Lars -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Seek error on /dev/brain (core dumped). CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | -- (null)
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (10/23/89)
In article <6620@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >This is the best reason in the world to create rec.music.rock: excessive >volume in a misc group. Agreed. A .misc group should be for things that wouldn't fit anywhere else. High volume topics should have a group on their own. -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Seek error on /dev/brain (core dumped). CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | -- (null)
fischer@iesd.auc.dk (Lars P. Fischer) (10/23/89)
In article <PV.89Oct22233555@korppi.tut.fi> pv@tut.fi (Vuorimaa Petri Kalevi) writes: > What if we made some kind of recommendation for use >of keywords. For example, if I write something about Soul, I would >put that as one of the keywords. Take a look at comp.sys.mac. They can't even stick to specific Subject lines, making it next to impossible to use kill files. The idea is OK. It just wouldn't work. And anyway, if all that these keywords do is tell what type of *rock* is being discussed, then it still belongs in sci.music.rock (:-). -- Lars Fischer, fischer@iesd.auc.dk | Seek error on /dev/brain (core dumped). CS Dept., Univ. of Aalborg, DENMARK. | -- (null)
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/23/89)
In article <PV.89Oct22233555@korppi.tut.fi> pv@tut.fi (Vuorimaa Petri Kalevi) writes: > I have an idea. What if we made some kind of recommendation for use > of keywords. You can't get people to use keywords. Hell, you can't even get people to use Summaries. -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "I feared that the committee would decide to go with their previous 'U` decision unless I credibly pulled a full tantrum." -- dmr@alice.UUCP
ebm@ibmarc.uucp (Eli Messinger) (10/25/89)
Peter da Silva... > I can not conceive of anyone honestly holding an informed opinion that > rec.music.rock should not be created. Then your powers of conception are very very limited. I enjoy the variety and volume of r.m.misc. My (honest) opinion is informed by 7 or 8 years active participation in net.music/r.m.misc, countless rehashes of the "split" discussion, 12 years in alternative radio broadcasting, more years than that of music collecting... Widen your view and you'll see that there are still a few of us out here who like to think of music as music, and not as a bunch of genres strung together end-to-end. -- "The real test of an artist, of course, is not whether you can see each blade of grass, but whether the eyes follow you across the room." --Stewart Evans CSNET: ebm@ibm.com / UUCP: ...!uunet!ibmarc!ebm / BITNET: ebm@almvma.bitnet
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (10/25/89)
In article <1159@ks.UUCP> ebm@ibmarc.UUCP (Eli Messinger) writes: > Widen your view and you'll see that there are still a few of us out here who > like to think of music as music, and not as a bunch of genres strung together > end-to-end. Yes, I'm one of them. But when one genre overwhelmes the others, it's time to make some more room... knock this wall down (unh) (hand me that hammer). (there we go, the rec.music.rock room). If you seriously hold this opinion, and you think that somehow rec.music. rock would somehow tarnish the purity of this art form, how can you stand all the *other* subgroups of rec.music? -- Peter da Silva, *NIX support guy @ Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Biz: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. Fun: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' "That particular mistake will not be repeated. There are plenty of 'U` mistakes left that have not yet been used." -- Andy Tanenbaum (ast@cs.vu.nl)