Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!mhuxm!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.music,net.records,net.news.group Subject: Re: Fate of net.music,net.records Message-ID: <441@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Mon, 6-Feb-84 10:25:09 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxn.441 Posted: Mon Feb 6 10:25:09 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 9-Feb-84 02:42:22 EST References: <821@hao.UUCP> Organization: Central Services Org., Piscataway N.J. Lines: 58 Greg Woods seems to forget all the discussions we've had on net.music.bossa- nova and net.music.washboard type subgroups, and so he asks again what are the "general principles" on which I (and apparently many others) oppose the creation of net.music subgroups. 1) Greg says he is offended by the "looking-down-your-nose-at-other-musics" syndrome. The notion of subgroups only serves to perpetuate that syndrome, not to alleviate it. When people create net.music.x because they're sick of all the 'y' music articles in net.music, that promotes snobbishness and divisiveness. After net.music.rock, and net.music.jazz and net.music.classical, what then? The notion of net.music.classical.pre-20th-century (only "real" music in this newsgroup, none of that atonal crap) and net.music.rock.heavy (none of that new wave shit in MY newsgroup) is not that farfetched. After all the same motivations that caused splitoffs in net.music will still exist in the subgroups. 2) Call me a sentimental old fool, but I have higher ideals for the net then just the creation of net.music.jazz.swing.bennygoodman.quartet type subgroups. If there can't be a newsgroup where you can discuss MUSIC without having to pick a subgroup to post to, then what's the point of having net.music at all? Why not just change the whole newsgroup structure to look like net.site-id.user-id; that way only topics of interest to YOU will be posted to YOUR newsgroup. Isn't that what you're gearing up for? you're gearing up for? If you can't have the crossfertilization of ideas that the net promises from its variety of users, then it's sort of pointless. Let's all just form clubs with people who think alike and mumble and nod to each other all day. 3) Alternately we hear the arguments for "splitting off" the "high traffic" subjects into subgroups and for "splitting off" the subjects that aren't getting any attention in the parent newsgroup. So which is the reason? Are we forming net.music.rock because there's so much rock in net.music? Or are we forming net.music.classical/jazz because those subjects haven't seen as many articles? As I've already said, the very notion of splitting off is snotty, but assuming that a sudden flurry of interest will give rise to thousands of articles just because there's now a subgroup is just plain dumb. If you want to see more articles about YOUR type of music in the group, submit some, or at least submit an "Anybody interested in..." article. But the answer is NOT subgroups. 4) The other reason some people seem to want subgroups is self-legitimacy. If there is a net.music.rock, then that makes rock a "legitimate" topic. Similarly, there are those who would want to legitimize their own particular tastes with "net.music.dead" or "net.gdead" newsgroups. Why one particular taste merits its own newsgroup is beyond me. Music is music, and net.music is for discussing it, but don't hide behind "splitting off" your discussion from the mainstream of net.music, when all you're really saying by asking for a subgroup is and elitist and isolationist diatribe. Please submit comments to net.news.group, and flames to net.pyuxn.rlr... (or net.hao.woods for that matter) -- Pardon me for breathing... Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlr