GREG
--
{ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!stcvax}
!hao!woods
I think it's a damn good idea, and high time it was done...
net.music.flames
net.music.classical
net.music.chr ( contemporary hit radio )
dya
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