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.music Subject: net.music.* groups Message-ID: <5485@decwrl.UUCP> Date: Tue, 7-Feb-84 08:03:46 EST Article-I.D.: decwrl.5485 Posted: Tue Feb 7 08:03:46 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 22:00:31 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)