Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!mhuxj!mhuxr!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music Subject: Re: Recent requests for splinter groups of net.music Message-ID: <347@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Wed, 2-Jan-85 11:39:49 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.347 Posted: Wed Jan 2 11:39:49 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 3-Jan-85 07:31:38 EST References: <4241@tekecs.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 74 > 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