stewart@harpo.UUCP (stewart wiener) (01/22/84)
I'm a regular reader of net.music and net.records, and I suppose the
merger is a reasonable sort of thing, as the distinction has been lost
lately.
One distinction, though, that would be valuable is in the KIND of music.
Most readers, I think, segregate themselves into classical or rock people,
and skip over everything in the other category. I propose the following:
net.music.rock - Broadly defined to include pop, new wave, funk & soul,
reggae, top 40, and anything else submitted to it.
net.music.classical - Classical, baroque, choral music, 20th century
modern classical, et cetera.
net.music - The parent group would take articles of general interest, plus
those categories of music not covered above: jazz, country,
Broadway show music, bluegrass, and so forth.
Any comments? I'd be happy to warm my frozen hands in your flames.
Stewart Wiener
{allegra,eagle,harpo}!princeton!flakey!stewartwoods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) (01/22/84)
This subject (whether we should have subgroups of net.music) is another one
of those that seems to come up again and again, when (apparently) new netters
who have joined the network since the last time this came up suggest it yet
again. The consensus has always been that people do not want to split up
net.music. Why, I don't know. I have always been an advocate of net.music.rock
and net.music.classical, at least, since the fans of those types of music look
at music totally differently (music serves a different purpose in their lives).
I also agree that the subjects discussed in net.music and net.records are not
sufficiently different to justify two distinct groups. Therefore I think
current discussion in net.records should go in net.music, and net.music should
be split into classical and rock groups to start, with optionally more later
if it seems to be warranted (if the punkers get tired of the Deadheads, etc.).
I'm sure subroups of net.music will be voted down again, but I'm stubborn: I
thought it was a good idea before, and I still think so. I really do hate the
"your kind of music sucks" articles. Surely at least classical and rock
discussions could be segregated. There are a lot of classical articles, and
my "n" key is wearing out. (I don't dislike classical, I just don't know
enough about it to discuss it intelligently).
One vote for net.music.rock and net.music.classical, and getting rid of
net.records .
GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno}
!hao!woodsdbb@fluke.UUCP (01/23/84)
I like the idea of net.music, net.music.rock and net.music.classical,
although I would read all three.
--
Dave Bartley
John Fluke Mfg Co, Inc
M/S 245F; PO Box C9090; Everett, WA 98206
sb1 allegra ihnp4!uw-beaver \
uw-beaver decvax!microsoft > !fluke!dbb
sun ssc-vax ucbvax!lbl-csam /rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (01/23/84)
re: "I propose the following: net.music.rock, net.music.jazz (for those offended by "rock" in a music newsgroup), net.music.classical (for those offended by "rock" and "jazz" in a music newsgroup), net.music.jazz.swing (for those offended by the inclusion of electronic performers in a jazz newsgroup), net.music.classical.serious (for those who want to discuss serious music without being bothered by questions like "What's that, like, ya know, classical piece at the start of the movie "Abbott & Costello Meet the Swamp Thing"??)..." NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO!NO! Haven't we gone through this bullshit enough times in the past? (Sorry to flame at netnovices, but still...) net.music: For discussion of music. Period. If you don't see enough articles on classical/jazz/kazoo music/etc. in the newsgroup, then submit some!!!! Creating net.music.kazoo is not going to cause a flurry of kazoo articles to appear where once there were none!! The net is only as good as its contributors! -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr
lat@stcvax.UUCP (01/23/84)
I read just about everything in net.records and net.music
and (personally, of course) don't see much reason why
net.music shouldn't absorb net.records. I don't remember
SIGNIFICANT discussion in the last two months of non-music
(humor, etc.) in net.records.
It also seems VERY reasonable to me that net.music can have
two subgroups for `rock' and `classical'.
--
Larry Tepper - Storage Technology (disk division)
uucp: { decvax, hao}!stcvax!lat
{ allegra, amd70, ucbvax }!nbires!stcvax!lat
USnail: Storage Technology Corp - MD 3T / Louisville, CO / 80028
DDD: (303) 673-5435geoff@proper.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) (02/06/84)
Re the proposed separation of net.music into classical and rock subgroups: hear, hear! I unsubscribed to net.music because I don't have time to wade through endless comments about Michael Jackson and various other people/groups I've never heard/heard of, but I would really like to stay in touch with the few comments that are made about "classical" music. You might want to go a bit further, though, and subdivide the rock category--there are a lot of postings in that newsgroup and it seems to me that the Jackson lovers probably don't want to hear much about the Beatles, and vice versa...