Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site decwrl.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!daemon
From: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.news.group
Subject: net.music.* groups
Message-ID: <5484@decwrl.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 08:03:44 EST
Article-I.D.: decwrl.5484
Posted: Tue Feb  7 08:03:44 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 21:59:47 EST
Sender: daemon@decwrl.UUCP
Organization: DEC Western Research Lab, Los Altos, CA
Lines: 26

From: akov68::boyajian


	I certainly favor the elimination of net.records and the formation of
music subgroups, with one suggestion:

	I may be burned as a heretic for suggesting this, but maybe some of these
hurt feelings of the part of jazz, blues, or folk music lovers could be soothed
by having the non-classical subgroup be called net.music.popular. I know that
"pop" has negative connotations for a lot of music lovers, but looking at it
objectively, "popular" *is* a good generic term. I have at least one friend who
abhors "classical" used as a generic term for "longhair" [boy, is that an obsolete
term!] music, seeing how it is a specific style of music (exemplified by Mozart).
Strictly speaking, baroque, romantic, etc. music is *not* classical, yet it is
called such.

N.B. Please don't interpret the comment about soothing the hurt feelings of
jazz, blues, and folk fans as being patronizing --- I enjoy all of those genres
of music, as well as rock and classical.


				  --- jayembee
				      (Jerry Boyajian, DEC Maynard)
				UUCP: (decvax!decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian)
				ARPA: (decwrl!rhea!akov68!boyajian@Shasta)