randy@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/12/83)
I'd like to propose a new group called net.music.jazz to discuss items of interest to jazz lovers. This would include new talent, old masters, albums, etc. After suggesting the idea a while ago on net.music I got a healthy response (all but one respondent was in favor of the idea). Many of us are not interested in the rock/new-wave/punk articles that tend to dominate that group, but we stay tuned hoping something interesting will come along. I can guarantee at least 6 to 8 people will get on it at the start. I was told that in order to cut down needless newsgroup proliferation, I should put the idea up for discussion here first. Then, when the powers that be agree, we'll get it. So, discuss already! - Randy -- Randy Trigg ...!seismo!umcp-cs!randy (Usenet) randy.umcp-cs@udel-relay (Arpanet)
noel@cubsvax.UUCP (08/15/83)
I like jazz, blues, progressive jazz, and all sorts of esoteric ethnic music. Has anyone heard any recent Joe Sample? I just got one of his albums and he is a great upbeat swing/blues musician. Yes to a subgroup net.music.jazz, widely interpreted!!! -- Noel Kropf harpo!rocky2!cubsvax!noel 1002 Fairchild philabs!cmcl2!rocky2!cubsvax!noel Columbia University New York NY 10027 212-280-5517
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (08/16/83)
What's wrong with jazz aficionados submitting articles to net.music for other jazz aficionados to read and respond to?? It is a group for discussion of music, no? The only reason I can think of for a subgroup is that some people are afraid they might catch some disease if they converse in a newsgroup where (heaven forfend) rock music is discussed. To all jazz buffs: THE REASON THAT ROCK ORIENTED ARTICLES GREATLY OUTNUMBER ARTICLES ON JAZZ IS BECAUSE *YOU* ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING ARTICLES! (Rock fans may be greater in number and somewhat more vociferous [louder], but that's no excuse.) Those who like classical music continue to contribute, without feeling the need to split off. It is the contributions of readers that mold the shape of a newsgroup. So get off your duffs (what an expression!) and post jazz articles, O.K.? Rich
filed01@abnjh.UUCP (H. Silbiger) (08/16/83)
I vote for the creation of net.music.rock, net.music.jazz and net.music.folk, leaving net.music for music. Herman Silbiger ATTIS Morristown
randy@umcp-cs.UUCP (08/16/83)
Hey gang! Is there really a disagreement about whether there should be net subgroups? Though my response on net.music.jazz has been mostly in favor, the two or three flamers seem to be against subgroups in general. I'm surprised. I had thought that groups like net.sport.baseball, etc. were working fine and accomplishing exactly what they set out to do. If there is really a problem here, I think we should hash it out now. For starters, I'm very much in favor of news subgroups. Suppose the only sport I'm interested in reading about is baseball and I'm one of many with that preference. Then a net.sport.baseball allows me to indulge my interest without having to wade through soccer, bowling, or whatever articles are appearing in net.sport. Exactly the same argument holds for net.music.jazz and any other proposed subgroup. If I can show that there are enough people who agree with my preferences, then the new group should be created. From pyusn!rlr: To all jazz buffs: THE REASON THAT ROCK ORIENTED ARTICLES GREATLY OUTNUMBER ARTICLES ON JAZZ IS BECAUSE *YOU* ARE NOT CONTRIBUTING ARTICLES! It is the contributions of readers that mold the shape of a newsgroup. My purpose in participating in such news groups is to find people with similar interests and exchange information and ideas. I am *not* interested in forcing my preferences on others or "molding" the shape of a newsgroup by flooding it with my articles. The reason that rock oriented articles outnumber jazz articles is very simply because there are more rock lovers. This is fine. Rock lovers are free to subscribe to net.music.jazz and see the same total set of articles they are reading now. The only difference is that jazz lovers don't have to see the rock articles. Incidentally the voting on net.music.jazz is now about 8 to 3. What is considered sufficient? -- Randy Trigg ...!seismo!umcp-cs!randy (Usenet) randy.umcp-cs@udel-relay (Arpanet)
joe@cvl.UUCP (Joseph I. Pallas) (08/17/83)
I cast my vote in the affirmative.
rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (08/17/83)
Writing articles to net.music is NOT cramming your ideas and tastes down
somebody's throat. The newsgroup is a forum for ALL people who are
interested in music. I repeat what I said in my last note: If there aren't
enough jazz articles in net.music, it's because not enough people are
contributing such articles. The existence of/desire for hundreds of
sub-sub-subgroups on the net is an indication of snobbishness, polarization,
and elitism. Nothing more. What other purpose could there be for having a
subgroup when there is already a newsgroup for such discussion? ("I'm
sick of having to wade through all those 'y' articles in net.x . Since I'm
an advocate of 'z' myself, and consider all 'x's other than 'z' to be
repugnant, I suggest we form net.x.z where we can rid ourselves of the human
scum who like 'y'.")
For those of you who miss my point, I hereby propose a new newsgroup called
net.music.jazz.swing.bennygoodman.1920s . Since net.music.jazz.swing.benny-
goodman is currently filled with articles about Benny Goodman's music during
the '30s and '40s (which I am not interested in), I think that there should
be a place where there can be discussion among lovers of the music that
Goodman made in the '20s.
Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr