--
============================================================================
Jeffrey Glen Jackson _|_Satan jeered, "You're dead meat Jesus, I'm gonna
j...@ssd.csd.harris.com | bust you up tonight."
x5120 | Jesus said, "Go ahead, make my day."
~~~~~~~~~ -- Carman, "The Champion"
Because we'll vote against it, stoopid.
What's the most important factor which distinguishes contemporary Christian
music from any other type of music? Is it the fact that it's contemporary?
No. Is it the fact that it's to do with the Christian religion? Yup...
talk.religion.christian.music it is, then...
mathew
--
Ron Anderson "It is a fearful thing to fall
ro...@videovax.tv.Tek.com into the hands of the living God." Heb 10:31
What's going to be mainly discussed in the new group?
Christian religion? No.
Christian music? Yup...
rec.music.christian it is, then...
Scott D. Coulter "Nose against the grindstone,
sc...@cc.gatech.edu it feels real good; watch out!
Georgia Tech Software Research Center it's Dog Eat Dog..." Weird Al
Dunno! The timing on this has been mucho poor!!
Folks, you're gonna lose your audience without a CFV REAL SOON!
I've got a hymnal project to work on.......
--
============================================================================
| Help stamp out stupid .signature files! Gerry Swetsky WB9EBO |
| vpnet - Public access Unix and Usenet |
| Home (708)833-8122 vpnet (708)833-8126 lis...@vpnet.chi.il.us |
============================================================================
what? You just said "what...distinguishes contemporary Christian music from
any other type of music?" Then you determine that "it is the fact that it's
to do with the Christian religion." From this, you have shown that it is
music, separated by other music types because it's Christian-based. This
shows that it should be something.music.christian -
not something.christian.music
And why should it be talk.religion when it would be discussing music and music-
related stuff (like concerts, addresses, such)? Sounds like a rec.music
area to me. I think rec.music.christian is dandy.
--
But what do I know? I'm just a...
************************==============================================\
* l oo oo F * Terry Leifeste / Engineering Co-op Student |\
* l o o o o FFF * P.O. Box 8998 -/- College Station, TX 77844 | \
* l oo oo F *---------------/------------------------------| /
* l FFFFF * <neat quote> / TLEI...@CCFVAX.CCF.SWRI.EDU |/
************************==============================================/
I believe that the CFV is awaiting conclusion of a discussion period of
the proper length. Since the "official" CFD actually ended up being
issued well after (2.5 weeks at least) the "unofficial" discussion started,
it just seems like this is taking a long time. The "official CFD" was
issued only about 3-3.5 weeks ago. I may be wrong, but I thought a
discussion period of a month was standard. If this is true, then a CFV
should be forthcoming soon, although since Caleb Cohen volunteered to run
the vote, it is up to him exactly when the CFV is issued.
JST
>I believe that the CFV is awaiting conclusion of a discussion period of
>the proper length.
Well, just for comparison the CFD for sci.geo.meteorology started
after this one and it's already into its second day of voting.
Basically, what I'm trying to say is I don't normally read
news.groups. I'm checking here daily now so I can vote FOR r.m.c
if and when the time comes. If there's not going to be a vote, I
can unsubscribe to news.groups. I assume there's others in the
same boat.
Caleb, where are you? Timing is critical on these issues.
>what? You just said "what...distinguishes contemporary Christian music from
>any other type of music?" Then you determine that "it is the fact that it's
>to do with the Christian religion." From this, you have shown that it is
>music, separated by other music types because it's Christian-based. This
>shows that it should be something.music.christian -
> not something.christian.music
No, you've missed the point. If its difference from other forms of music
were musical -- choice of instruments, tempo, scansion, syncopation, etc. --
then it would be a different type of music, and a candidate for a different
subgroup under rec.music.
It is precisely the fact that its difference from other contemporary music
*is not a musical difference* that it does not belong as a category of music.
Dave
By my count, the discussion of rec.music.christian has now substantially
exceeded the 30 day limit. Interested parties should now follow the guidlines
and take the discussion back into email until a more viable proposal emerges.
Perhaps that has already happened. Or, perhaps the proponents are finding that
the extant mailing list is serving their needs adequately.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
#\ o O \/ /\ University of Miami
#/ /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ / 4600 Rickenbacker Cwsy.
/ / o O \/ Miami, FL 33149 USA
Phone: (305) 361-4762 INTERNET: mil...@rcf.rsmas.miami.edu
Oh, I see. So, if a discussion starts without a proper CFD in the moderated
`announce' group, and the proponents try to hold a vote, they'll get told
that they can't, because there wasn't a CFD.
However, if they then attempt to follow the guidelines by posting an
official CFD before holding a vote, they'll be told that their 30 day limit
is up, because the 30 days started to be counted at the beginning of the
unofficial discussion period!
This newsgroup continually gives exciting new meanings to the phrase
"Damned if you do, and damned if you don't"
Let me remind you of a few facts:
1) The aborted vote was properly cancelled because the guidlines were not
followed. A belated CFD was forthcoming.
2) Discussion of rec.music.christian has been going on for more than 1.5
months.
3) The number of articles posted on the subject has dropped off
substantially in the past week.
4) Several folks have posted "why aren't we voting yet?" queries to which
there has been no reply from Mr. cohen who had agreed to run the
vote.
It seems to me that the discussion has effectively been over for several days
now. That is not to say that all issues have been resolved; rather, folks
simply aren't discussing them (at least not in news.groups) anymore. IMHO,
there are still several aspects of the proposal which are troubling (I won't
go into them here, having done so already in previous articles). Since the
discussion (both "official" and unofficial) has lasted so long that it is now
dying, it's time to do something - either vote or regroup. I don't think a
vote is the right course of action at present since there are still
substantial unresolved issues about the proposed group. So, it's time to take
it to email.
>I would agree. The fact is that CCM is not so much music for music's
>sake, but a form of worship unto the LORD. In this same line of
>thought, the name should reflect the fact that it is Christian music,
>any Christian music should be able to be discussed, not just CCM.
>The implication seems to be soc.religion.christian.music is appropriate.
>Bill G.
Not at all! Not all CCM is worship music! There is a distinction to
be drawn here. Most CCM is not *worshipping* the LORD, but is *about* the
LORD, or about the Christian life. Just listen to almost any CCM album. Now,
a sub-category of CCM *is* worship music. Such music is called praise music.
Also, there is Christian music that is written for music's sake--Phil Keaggy
has put out several instrumental albums, and he is not the only one to do that.
- Mattox
bec...@cs.uiuc.edu
><> IXOYE
Ps: I am not saying we should have a rec.music.christian.praise, the
proposed charter deals with both praise and non-praise music. (Praise music
When are we going to have the CFV?
It seems there's a problem getting on the mailing list....8-(
--
N. Keith Drake (205) 730-5515 |House of glass,crystal cathedral,
dra...@infonode.ingr.com or |But a positive mind will just make your heart
!uunet!ingr!b25!rd3537!keith |blind,your still lost. Easy to fall when your
Opinions are mine |out on a limb. Bloodgood
Ahh, Jerry, that's just your opinion (as you clearly labeled it!). Just
send in your vote like the rest of us civilians ;-}. 8-)
dan
--
<>< "Surrender the hunger to say you must know, |
<>< Have the courage to say I believe, ==+==
<>< For the power of paradox opens your eyes, |
<>< And blinds those who say they can see." -- Michael Card |
I would agree. The fact is that CCM is not so much music for music's
[Please correct me if I am reading your message the wrong way.]
It appears to me that you are discounting vocals and lyrics as being
a component of the music. I believe that a lot of writers and singers
might take issue with that stance.
[By way of analogy...] Would you then also object to the creation
of a rec.music.instrumental since its only difference would be
one of lyrical/vocal content (or lack thereof) ?
[No flames intended]
--
-----------
Art Mulder, McMaster University a...@maccs.DCSS.mcmaster.ca
Hamilton, Ont, Canada ...!uunet!utai!utgpu!maccs!art
In article <A0b3...@mwowm.mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk writes:
]In <24...@hydra.gatech.EDU>, Scott Coulter writes:
]]In article <DVR6y1...@mantis.co.uk> mat...@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
]]]sc...@kong.gatech.edu (Scott Coulter) writes:
]]]] What's going to be mainly discussed in the new group?
]]]] Christian religion? No. Christian music? Yup...
]]]] rec.music.christian it is, then...
]]]
]]]Spurious. The main subject of discussion in comp.sys.mac is the Mac, but that
]]]doesn't mean the newsgroup should really be called comp.mac.sys.
]]
]]Ah, but you're arguing for my side. The Mac is a kind of 'comp.sys,' hence
]]'comp.sys.mac.' Christian Music is a kind of 'rec.music,' hence
]]'rec.music.christian.' Makes perfect sense to me...
]
]But it ISN'T a kind of rec.music; Christian music isn't a musical genre, it's
]a medium of Christian expression.
]
Music is a medium of expression in general. It has the ability to convey mood
as well as meaning. Just because someone happens to be a Christian, he/she is
not allowed to make music?
]The difference between Christian music and other sorts of music is that the
]lyrics espouse a particular opinion. That is not a musical difference. All
]of the other rec.music subdivisions are divisions based on musical
]differences.
Oftentimes the lyrics espouse several differing opinions. There is such a
thing as "political correctness" in evangelical circles as well. People whose
messages go against the mainstream are often subjected to vicious attacks by
other intolerant people.
]]]Do you listen to Christian music because it sounds good, and then say "Hey,
]]]wow, it happens to be Christian as well"? Don't make me laugh.
]]
]]Yes, I do. I certainly don't listen to Christian music that doesn't
]]sound good!
]
]Sorry, but that's not the same thing. Of _course_ you wouldn't listen to it
]if it didn't sound good. What I was asking was: Do you listen to a piece of
]music, ignoring the message in the lyrics, and decide whether you like it
]purely because of the musical style -- and then and ONLY THEN notice that
]most of the music which you like the sound of JUST SO HAPPENS to have a
]Christian message?
Sometimes that happens. The Call is an example of a Christian group played
on a local commercial radio station here whose songs have excellent melody,
etc... and it was only later that i noticed that they were Christian in orien-
tation.
]If you say you do, well, I find it hard to believe. See, I disregard the
]content of the lyrics when listening to music for the first time; in fact, I
]listen to quite a bit of music with lyrics in German, Russian, and other
]languages which I don't speak. I find that as a result, the music I am
]interested in ranges over an incredibly wide spectrum of expressed opinions.
]From New Age religion and "Activation Meditation" by Steve Hillage to
]"Religious Vomit" by Dead Kennedys; from OMD's "Joan of Arc (Maid of
]Orleans)" to Negativland's "Christianity is Stupid"; from the Beach Boys'
]"God Only Knows" to Depeche Mode's "World Full of Nothing".
]
]Now, if all the rec.music.christian proponents were _really_ interested in
]music and not dogma, I would expect them to have similarly wide-ranging
]tastes (at least with regard to lyrical content, if not musical style). My
]complaint about rec.music.misc is that it _isn't_diverse_enough_!
Mine are. i usually listen to anything from blues to classical to punk music.
i don't actually listen to much ccm because, usually, it is much too bland for
me musically (especially the "praise" music. Kinda reminds one of Tapioca
pudding :-). However, i love old hymns, especially ones written by the Wesley
brothers.
]Instead, we see that the rec.music.christian folk aren't willing to use
]rec.music.misc. They aren't interested in anything which doesn't conform to
]their narrow mindset. They resent the intrusion of differing opinions. They
]want their own private newsgroup for people who think like them but who like
]all kinds of musical styles; no musical genre -- a rec.music.misc.christian,
]in fact.
Uh, i haven't seen that at all in postings to news.groups.
]Now, I think that's wrong. If you wanted a newsgroup for discussing a
]particular musical genre then I would have no trouble with the proposal; I
]have no intention of objecting to rec.music.funky or rec.music.rap, even
]though I can't bear (c)rap music. As it is, though, you want a newsgroup
]for people of a particular _religious_ opinion. You should therefore be
]honest about your motivations, and call it talk.religion.christian.music.
It is a proposal for discussing a particular musical genre. i do listen to
various types of ccm (at least once :-). i think the problem here is that you
(and Jerry Miller) are just opposed to the creation of this newsgroup in
general, and have posted previously with that intimation. There is no problem
in letting the proponents of the group have the group created. There have been
enough postings (IMNSHO) to warrant it. There have also been enough postings
in support of "rec.music.christian" as the name to make that one the name of
the proposed newsgroup. Objections to the group on the basis of its name are
more than a little silly.
]] I'm sorry if you find this hard to believe, but the biased
]]tone of your posting leads me to believe you probably haven't listened to
]]much Christian music.
]
]I haven't listened to much which calls itself Christian Music, no; because
]by and large its purpose is devotional, and I'm not a Christian. I also tend
]to find that the Christian music I've heard which seeks to convert is far
]too heavy-handed and generally nauseating, without the musical interest to
]make it compelling.
Some of it is used to send a message (pointing out hypocracy in the church is
one example) as well as commenting on the sorry state of the world at large
(tm).
]I do, however, listen to music which has a Christian or other theistic
]or religious message. I listen to such songs because they happen to be on
]albums which I have bought for their musical merit. If I restricted myself
]to music the message of which agreed with my own beliefs, I wouldn't have
]much to listen to.
]
]]]If that were
]]]really the case, Christian music would have a non-Christian following.
It does. The Call get regular airplay around here as well as U2, the Alarm and
some others.
]]I happen to think it should. People are missing out on some really
]]good music because of their anti-Christian biases.
]
]I have a rule when selecting music: I'll listen to anything once. Anyone who
]wants to try introducing me to some Christian music which actually has musical
]merit is welcome to do so; I'll even make it easy by giving you a list of the
]artists in my CD collection so that you can match up musical styles.
]
]In fact, anyone who wants to try to introduce me to ANY sort of music is
]welcome to do so. I'll even give (c)rap another chance.
ok. try Steve Taylor, Undercover, early U2, The Call, The Alarm.
]Well, the vote has started. We'll see if anyone else agrees with me.
i do about rap music.
>mathew
df
The above opinions are mine only.
"Dylan may be fillin' the puddle they designed. Is it gonna take a miracle to
make up his mind?" -- Steve Taylor, Meltdown at Madame Tussaud's
>In article <1991Apr4.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>,
> eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov (Ronald E. Graham) writes:
>>If you were really giving them the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Miller, you would
>>have taken several mailing list samples, instead of just "at one point." For
>>crying out loud, the first hundred articles in a new newsgroup are sometimes
>>unfocused and outside of the original charter of the group (I have seen this
>>myself), until the group settles in.
>I "sampled" at one point in time - that sample covered quite a long time and
>consisted of dozens of articles which, BTW, were not from early in the life of
>the mailing list. Your point is simply not valid.
Yeah it is. Today is still "early in the life of the mailing list." Now,
if you wanted to say, "the mailing list should be allowed time to mature
before a new group is formed," I would go along with that. But that's not
what you've been saying here. What you've been saying is, since r.m.c folks
will not post to r.m.m, they should form a talk group, if any group at all.
This is still doublethink.
>> This is the sort of behavior you see
>> from those few folks who have posted to news.groups on the subject, the ones
>> you use as evidence. Once they understand the nature of the charter, that
>> would take care of itself, for the most part.
>This is ludicrous. The time to understand a charter is *prior* to voting for or
>against a group - not after its creation. That's why we have a discussion
>period!!! I suspect that folks who post articles which are "unfocused and
>outside of the original charter of" a new group are people who are completely
>new to the group after its creation - not those who were involved in the
>pre-vote discussion.
This is *not* ludicrous, either. Since when have the majority of voters really
allowed themselves to understand a charter for *anything* during the CfD
period? The folks I mentioned that have been doing unfocused postings have
been doing them right here, in news.groups, and you brought them up, not me.
The postings have been of the "me too" nature, and you objected to those folks
purely based on the religious content of their postings, nothing else. You
have assumed that, because they make that mistake once, they will continue
to do it into perpetuity.
>> I have also been monitoring the mailing list for some time, and I find the
>> discussions raging there to be almost exclusively limited to music issues
>> (except for a few .sig files). I *am* giving these folks the "benefit of
>> the doubt."
>I have not seen every article. I did see what I am sure is a representative
>sample. I wholeheartedly disagree with your conclusion that the discussion is
>limited to music. Period.
If you disagree with my conclusion, than I doubt the validity of your
observation. Period.
>>Side note on this point: who was going to create talk.religion.christian,
>>to serve as the "parent" group for mr. mathew's talk.religion.christian.
>>music? Not me, man. And I'll bet not you either.
>As evidenced by creation of narrowly focussed groups in other hierarchies, it
>is not necessary for such a parent group to exist. Usual, but not necessary.
It was necessary for "sci.engr.elec.pwrtrans," even according to you, if I
remember right. You'd vote no for this r.m.c no matter where it goes, I'd
be willing to bet.
>>The Usenet Guidelines for New Group Creation, which
>>you seem to study continually, state explicitly that these basic questions
>>are to be resolved *among the proponents* prior to conducting a vote. You
>>(and mr. mathew) are not among the proponents, never have been, never even
>>pretended to be. There is nothing in the Guidelines that states that Mr.
>>Cohen and the others have to wait even a single minute for your concurrence.
>If the voices of opponents are irrelevant during the discussion period, then
>why do we even have a discussion? For that matter, why do we even have a "no"
>category in the voting process?
That's a good question (the first one, that is). Maybe you should propose
that the Guidelines be changed to allow for *all* voices to decide on group
names. That would sure-as-heck extend a lot of CfD periods, though :-(.
It's my opinion that your naming convention was chosen by a minority. A
big minority. And the CfD period justly ended anyway, without your having
been satisfied.
And, regarding a straw poll for the name,
>>You're right: it is too bad that one of these was never conducted. I'll
>>have to remember that as a future tool myself.
>At last, something we agree on.
Sigh. How soon we forget. Because I disagree with you on this group, you
sound like I have never agreed with you, and never will. Shame on you.
RG
"At Parbar westward, four at the causeway and two at Parbar." I Chronicles
26:18, King James Version %-)
Since I argued against the name rec.music.christian earlier on, using
arguments similar to mathew's, I must be an anti-Christian bigot as
well. If I had been invented by Hofstadter, I'd have said "POOOOFFF" by
now. See, a Christian who is also an anti-Christian bigot ...
Of course, I shouldn't get so mad. There are so many paranoiacs who
occasionally need to show their high moral standards ...
Anyway, the name "rec.music.christian" is still wrong. Like probably many of
the other "anti-Christian bigots" in this discussion, I'd have no
problem with talk.religion.christian.music or rec.music.ccm. But I don't
suppose I could get that into the heads of people like this Tim McGuire.
Of course, I shouldn't get so mad. There are so many Christians who
would like to be martyrs ...
--
Eerke ("ayrker"? Who cares?)
I hope there's no more .signatures after this!
> No joke! There is a new age religion. It is based on many
> ideas found in eastern religions. It is connected to newage music (as
> far as I can tell) in that newage music is good to meditate by....
> but since I do not belong to the new age religion, I don't know too
> much about that.
And Christian people wonder why so many others treat them like idiots?
Pinhead.
Lazlo (la...@triton.unm.edu)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must disengage your recreational music.
>gp...@cs.vu.nl (Gerben 'P' Vos) writes:
> Why? New Age music is bit more clearly defined as
> a musical genre than Contemporary Christian music.
> Or are you implying that newage is a religion?
> In that case, I guess I am member of the Church
> of Perpetual Jazz Solos.
> Oh! It was a joke...I get it. ha.
No joke! There is a new age religion. It is based on many
ideas found in eastern religions. It is connected to newage music (as
far as I can tell) in that newage music is good to meditate by....
but since I do not belong to the new age religion, I don't know too
much about that.
- Mattox
><> IXOYE
>mike
>--
>"Big banks have more money"
> - Eddie of Eddie Idle and the Idlers, originator of the phrase
> "I'll let my music speak for me"
>...!apple!mas1!rizzi /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ mas1!ri...@apple.com
Not true (at least for me). I was as willing to consider this group as any
other when the discussion first started. Events since then have convinced me
otherwise.
> There is no problem
> in letting the proponents of the group have the group created. There have been
> enough postings (IMNSHO) to warrant it. There have also been enough postings
> in support of "rec.music.christian" as the name to make that one the name of
> the proposed newsgroup. Objections to the group on the basis of its name are
> more than a little silly.
I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
expect to see music articles, not religion.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry L. Miller /\ Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science
Uhmmmmm... These examples hurt your case. The important distinction in both
groups is one of musical genres, not lyrical content (there is almost never
*any* lyrical content in New Age music). Both newsgroups cover types of
music based upon the musical styles and techniques, not on the lyrical
content.
--Dave
--
Dave Weinstein Internet: dwei...@isis.cs.du.edu
Disclaimer: You aren't serious, are you? dwei...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
In the beginning, there was nothing. And God said, "Let there be Light."
And there was still nothing. But, you could see it.
Well, I can see that we are never going to agree on this one.... we both have
seen "evidence" relevant to rec.music.christian and have come to opposite
conclusions regarding creation of the group. I will agree to disagree if you
will (after all, the vote is underway so the matter is now largely out of our
hands).
I do want to address one point though - that of my supposedly engaging
in "doublethink". It is true that my position re rec.music.christian has
evolved over time. At first, I was ambivalent - willing to be swayed either
way. Then, as the discussion cranked up, I became skeptical and asked for
more info (history of or present evidence of posts to rec.music.misc, the
officially sanctioned place for incipient rec.music groups). The proponents
argued they were not welcome in r.m.m and created a mailing list instead. I
thought, well ok - lets see how it goes. With continued articles from
proponents being posted to news.groups and to the mailing list, i began to
develop a feel for the type of subject matter the proponents wish to discuss.
My conclusion was that it was more religion-oriented than music-oriented; thus,
my decision to oppose the group. So, at no point in time was I "double
thinking". At present, if they were to propose a talk.religion.christian.music
or some such, i would support it without reservation because i believe such a
group i would be in the right hierarchy for the dominant subject matter.
>>As evidenced by creation of narrowly focussed groups in other hierarchies, it
>>is not necessary for such a parent group to exist. Usual, but not necessary.
>
> It was necessary for "sci.engr.elec.pwrtrans," even according to you, if I
> remember right.
Is this a joke? I don't recall anything about this group. i supported sci.engr
but haven't been involved in that part of the sci.hierarchy since. BTW, i led
the sci.geo.fluids drive when there was no extant sci.geo.
>>At last, something we agree on. [= straw poll]
>
> Sigh. How soon we forget. Because I disagree with you on this group, you
> sound like I have never agreed with you, and never will. Shame on you.
Sorry, i don't keep tabs on who has agreed or disagreed with me on past issues.
Yes, I recall discussing other issues with you ( that is, I recall your name
but not your positions) and will no doubt enjoy doing so again.
Regards,
The dreadful americanism `get a life' comes to mind. The only
interesting questions are
a) is there traffic
b) does the name say unambiguously what it is about.
c) is it a name someone would think of when wondering
where to post/read about X.
All this semantic hair splitting is pointless.
(I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
fit better in another group and (b) since we can guarantee
arguments about what is `christian' music, but the name
question is trivial).
--
r...@cstr.ed.ac.uk Test cases: My God by Jethro Tull
Spanish Train by Chris De Burgh
Planned Obsolescence by 10,000 Maniacs
Any Random piece of Bach
That pretty well sums up rec.music.christian, as well as alt.religion...
>I beg to differ. The name should match the content of the group. It is apparent
>to me from the articles posted here and on the mailing list that while music is
>discussed, it is not the primary focus of the discussion. Therefore, the group
>does not belong in the rec.music hierarchy. When I scan rec.music groups, i
>expect to see music articles, not religion.
What mailing list have you been reading...?
I have yet to see any articles that are about apologetics or the trinity, or
any other discussion along those lines.....Instead, what I have seen
is a lot of messages concerning new releases, trivia, and the like....
If you were discussing REM, and the topic of politics came up and how REM
was trying to make its point, there would be no problem.....
But now that somebody wants to talk about music that has a Christian
content, it now belongs it soc.religion......
I don't mind a rational viewpoint towards the subject, if the person has
thought it through and has come to a valid conclusion, but let's drop
the double-standard. Intellectual arguments are wonderful, but unwarranted
bias is nothing to be proud of......
tim
----
--
engi...@buhub.bradley.edu
am...@cleveland.freenet.edu
<><
>Ok, so now I have an irrational viewpoint because I happen to have reached a
>different conclusion from yours. And, of course, your conclusion is the only
>valid one. Give me a break!!!! And speaking of bias....better put your own
>house in order before accusing others.
I was not saying that your viewpoint is wrong......
If you read it again it says a valid conclusion, not necessarily my conclusion..
I respect your viewpoint, I just don't agree with judging mainstream music
newsgroups with different criteria than one with "religious" content...
After all we have a new age music newsgroup, and although new age music is
only loosely related to the religion, there's no problem there.....
I apologize if I angered you, I wasn't attacking you personally. I just
wanted to ask that we all try to remove our blinders from "both" sides
of the issue....
Nobody's perspective will ever be perfect, but we should all try to see
both sides of the issue.....
I can understand why many people would be against another "Christian" group
on the net, but philosophy aside, we should be looking at this by USENET
criteria......
If you still disagree with where the newsgroup should go, that's fine.
If I'm out of line, which is entirely possible, I apologize, I just happen to
not see a difference between a music group on jazz(r.m.bluenote), country
(r.m.country&western), or others, as compared to a music group on Christian
music....
There are several publications that deal with Christian music, and they all
treat it as one genre, not divided into traditional, contemporary, alternative,
etc..., etc.... CCM magazine, IM magazine, and the WORD cd and tape club,
to name a few.
Thanks,
tim
--
engi...@buhub.bradley.edu
am...@cleveland.freenet.edu
<><
Ok, so now I have an irrational viewpoint because I happen to have reached a
different conclusion from yours. And, of course, your conclusion is the only
valid one. Give me a break!!!! And speaking of bias....better put your own
house in order before accusing others.
>In article <1991Apr5.0...@bradley.bradley.edu>,
> engi...@buhub.bradley.edu (Aslan) writes:
>> What mailing list have you been reading...?
>I have read a random sampling of the same one you refer to, plus the
>articles posted here re formation of this group.
>> But now that somebody wants to talk about music that has a Christian
>> content, it now belongs it soc.religion......
>If the focus were on *music* then I'd have no problem with the proposed group.
>I simply feel that I have seen and heard enough evidence to the contrary that
>I should oppose this group.
>> I don't mind a rational viewpoint towards the subject, if the person has
>> thought it through and has come to a valid conclusion, but let's drop
>> the double-standard. Intellectual arguments are wonderful, but unwarranted
>> bias is nothing to be proud of......
>Ok, so now I have an irrational viewpoint because I happen to have reached a
>different conclusion from yours. And, of course, your conclusion is the only
>valid one. Give me a break!!!! And speaking of bias....better put your own
>house in order before accusing others.
Now I'm on your side, Mr. Miller. (See ;-)?) Although we came to differing
conclusions on the newsgroup itself, I can't accuse you of not taking a look
at the issues involved. And I'm not certain how anyone else can, either. And
the charge of "unwarranted bias" leveled against you here is IMPO itself
unwarranted. (And, I might add, a very good way to swing votes the other way.)
Hmmm. Too many sentences starting with "and" here. Hurry up, misc.writing,
I need the help %-)!!!
RG
"Vive le sous-vetements qu'on puisse manger." The slogan adopted by our
fraternity the day after our weekly Bible study was interrupted by a visit
from an unsuspecting salesman of "edible underwear." Pardon our French ;-).
If you take a single statement conveniently out of context, as you have
done here. You had a notion of r.m.c going into this discussion, and you
took two lines out of a 90-line posting, out of a discussion that consisted
of about 10-12 postings, and use that to make your case. Nice going.
RG
"You don't do your homework, you don't got a ticket to watch the show."
- Edward James Olmos, as Jaime Escalante, in "Stand and Deliver"
I'm sure to get flamed for this...but, many Christians feel that
the "new age" movement, (which has a lot of links to various
occultic practices) is, in fact, a "religion".
I guess I also question the statement that newage music
is a more clearly defined musical genre.
S
I checked the context before slashing. He said his observations led him to
disagree with your conclusion, and you replied with the above. What other
context is there? The rest of your arguments were perhaps valid, but none
were really related to this one stupid statement. Now I know why some people
quote the whole post instead of saving bandwidth...
Face it, your statement is a perfect summation of religion (of any sort, not
picking on Christians here), which is why I thought it worth requoting.
Oh yes, are we to infer from your post that you don't have a notion of r.m.c,
that you're completely unbiased?
PLEASE! Just another mis-named group... too late now tho.
>> Why? New Age music is bit more clearly defined as
>> a musical genre than Contemporary Christian music.
>> Or are you implying that newage is a religion?
> I'm sure to get flamed for this...but, many Christians feel that
> the "new age" movement, (which has a lot of links to various
> occultic practices) is, in fact, a "religion".
The "new age" movement IS a religion. BUT I found my copy of that
'newage' artist Kerry Livgren's "One of Several Possible Musiks' in a
Christian bookstore! {As for the () stuff, Christianity is a cult
too... [flames on this subject gleefully ignored so don't bother
posting them, you can mail me but I'll ignore that too]}
> I guess I also question the statement that newage music
> is a more clearly defined musical genre.
>S
Agreed, New Age religion is a religion, New Age Music is a marketing
term.
What is being termed "new age" music is SOMETIMES related to the
religious "new age" beliefs. About 90% of the musicians that are being
stuck into this vague category have publically stated the equivelent of
"I am not a newage musician" (I happen to listen to many musicians who
have had the bad fortune to fit into the "it isn't rock, it isn't
vocal, it isn't *, so let's put it in the NEWAGE bin") THAT is what
so-called 'new-age-music' is. "mostly instrumental music that doesn't
fit anywhere else."
I HATE 'newage' music. I hate 'pop' music, I hate 'industrial'... I
hate categorizations of music. I don't CARE what you label "your"
music, I like some songs/pieces & not others.
Is 'The Sisters of Mercy' Christian? I dunno, sounds good to me!
Is 'Kansas' Christian? NAH!
(buckets of water on hand...)
--
-Dave da...@vacs.uwp.edu [....uwm!uwpvacs!datta] The moon goes around in
orbit. It's the only place the moon does go. The moon only makes left
turns. To get anywhere else you have to get off. WANT TO GET OFF?
No, you're still missing the point. The presence or absence of vocals is a
musical difference. Whether those vocals espouse a particular opinion is NOT
a musical difference.
Rec.music.christian is wrong because the thing which distinguishes "Christian
music" from other forms of music is that the vocals express a particular
religious viewpoint. That is not a musical distinction.
Rec.music.democrat or rec.music.feminist would be wrong for exactly the same
reason.
mathew
--
"These kinds of remarks are wholly inappropriate and are the mark of a
bigot." -- Theodore A. Kaldis <kal...@remus.rutgers.edu>
When the CFV was posted, a list of the discussion topics of the proposed newsgroup
was given. (I've included that list below.) That list makes it clear that
religion should only be a topic when in conjunction with Christian music and/or
artists. If it isn't the primary focus of a discussion thread, I wouldn't call
it the fault of the newsgroup name.
>When I scan rec.music groups, i expect to see music articles, not religion.
I'd hope you WOULD... I haven't had the opportunity to listen in on mailing
lists like some of you, but if their primary focus of discussion wasn't
Christian music, then I'd HOPE they wouldn't post their discussions in a group
about Christian music.
If the group is created, I am pretty sure that some articles with a "religious"
bent will show up; it is CHRISTIAN music we're talking about. However, if people
start posting whole threads along that line, they will be directed to
soc.religion.christian.
it, because I am interested in discussing contemporary Christian music as listed
in the CFV posting; If the name were, say, "talk.religion.christian.music", which
implies talking about religion with an emphasis on music, I wouldn't even
subscribe. I'm sure the majority of proponents have the same intention for this
group (don't they?).
[FROM ORIGINAL CALL FOR VOTE POSTING:]
* Subject matter:
* 1. primarily contemporary christian music, and its
* a. artists
* b. concerts
* c. books, magazines, TV and radio shows and other mass media which
* cover ccm including its music videos and the shows they are
* carried on
* d. affect on secular music, media, and worship
* 2. and not excluding any christian music not considered contemporary,such as:
* a. traditional christian music such as hymns, etc.
* b. heavy metal, rock, pop, inspirational, etc.
* c. Hosanna-type worship, etc.
* 3. but excluding subjects such as
* a. politics
* b. abortion
* c. discussions about christian doctrine
* except as they relate to specific artists and songs. All
* threads that diverge to these subjects should be cross-posted
* to the appropriate group (talk.abortion,
* soc.religion.christian, etc.).
>Jerry L. Miller
Jerry, would you agree to the group if it actually acted as described above?
That's the group I voted for (and expect to help populate) if it starts up.
--------------------
Steve Sanford Jr.
stesan%auto...@sunpeaks.Central.Sun.COM
>In article <1991Apr5.1...@eagle.lerc.nasa.gov>
eca...@venus.lerc.nasa.gov writes:
>>If you take a single statement conveniently out of context, as you have
>>done here. You had a notion of r.m.c going into this discussion, and you
>>took two lines out of a 90-line posting, out of a discussion that consisted
>>of about 10-12 postings, and use that to make your case. Nice going.
>I checked the context before slashing. He said his observations led him to
>disagree with your conclusion, and you replied with the above. What other
>context is there? The rest of your arguments were perhaps valid, but none
>were really related to this one stupid statement. Now I know why some people
>quote the whole post instead of saving bandwidth...
The rest of my arguments were perhaps valid? Hmph. This tells me you did
not look at the context in the least. You have decided one statement was
stupid. Let me tell you something: I was responding in kind. That's all.
Kind of like what I'm doing now. If you are willing to concede that any of
my previous arguments may have had validity, then you have no reason to
blow up at one statement. Unless, of course, you have been waiting for an
excuse to grind an axe at religion, as you do here:
>Face it, your statement is a perfect summation of religion (of any sort, not
>picking on Christians here), which is why I thought it worth requoting.
>Oh yes, are we to infer from your post that you don't have a notion of r.m.c,
>that you're completely unbiased?
I don't lump the world's masses into two lines, so I must be a half-game or
so ahead of *you* in the un-bias standings. But I digress. I think the
notion of r.m.c is valid, and I think its potential readership has been
adequately represented here, and in its mailing list. If you dispute this,
bring your evidence to the table, and leave your accusations at home.
RG
>vocal, it isn't *, so let's put it in the NEWAGE bin") THAT is what
>so-called 'new-age-music' is. "mostly instrumental music that doesn't
>fit anywhere else."
>I HATE 'newage' music. I hate 'pop' music, I hate 'industrial'... I
>hate categorizations of music. I don't CARE what you label "your"
>music, I like some songs/pieces & not others.
I am of this view as well -- I almost evy those who aren't -- they should
have no trouble finding the music they like. Those of us who may
actually be eclectics don't know what to look for.
Serching through the new-age bin, there is a wide variety of styles and sounds,
all I can go by is hearing recordings by an artist and reading the
cover. The former is little help as more and more info is being put inside
the package and less and less on the box/cover.
This is not something I lose sleep over -- just a mild annoyance.
When I go to the record store, I can pick out a new age
record just by the cover art. Betcha can't do that with
Contemporary Christian Music. Hence, newage is more
clearly defined. QED.
:-) for the humor impaired.
mike
--
"The FCC does not prohibit humor on public radio (although sometimes you
wouldn't know it)."
- The Public Radio Legal Handbook, pp. III-14
...!apple!mas1!rizzi /\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\ mas1!ri...@apple.com
I'm almost positive there would be, from my personal correspondence
with others on the net. While I do not profess to be a Christian,
I do like some groups that play "contemporary Christian" music, and
have noticed that I am not alone. The only reason why you won't
see any articles on Petra, Crumbacher, Amy Grant, or Michael W. Smith
in rec.music.misc is because the people who listen to that stuff have
better things to do than dispute the integrity of Rush.
> b) does the name say unambiguously what it is about.
Well, you've to your rec.music, so my guess is it's about music of
some sort. Then it's followed by this "ambiguous" word, "Christian".
Hmmm... Maybe it's a group to discuss different brands of coffee. :-)
> c) is it a name someone would think of when wondering
> where to post/read about X.
In this group I think people would know what to expect. You won't
read a posting about Depeche Mode, then have the next article discuss
the last Megadeth concert.
>All this semantic hair splitting is pointless.
>
>(I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
> fit better in another group and (b) since we can guarantee
> arguments about what is `christian' music, but the name
> question is trivial).
I was confused at the slant of this post. It sounds pretty positive
to me. Oh, know! My follow-up shares the "NO" heading! Aggggh.
l8r
-Tony
--
-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-
"If you drive, don't drink." -- Tony Chung
quay...@cynic.wimsey.bc.ca quay...@arkham.wimsey.bc.ca
> (I think it falls down on (a), there is no traffic which does not
> fit better in another group
Traffic in mailing lists count. In fact it's the cost of mailing lists
that led to the "100 vote minimum" rule in the first place.
--
(pe...@taronga.uucp.ferranti.com)
`-_-'
'U`
So, what have you read in this discussion, Jerry? I support the creation of the group.
I wnat to be able to ask things like when a group's next release is due, when a certain
band are going to be touring, who was doing the backing vocals on a track. Is that musical
enough for you?
Steve Elliott
s...@uk.ac.lancs.comp
Department of Computing, Engineering Building,
University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
PHONE: +44 524 65201 ext 3783.
--
s...@uk.ac.lancs.comp
Department of Computing, Engineering Building,
University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
PHONE: +44 524 65201 ext 3783.
"New age" music is a perfectly good musical genre, comprising anything that is
instrumental, soft, tedious and repetitive :-). I doubt that you could define
"christian" music (with a small c) in the same way.
The label "new age" was initially used as a promotional device, and IMHO it had
a most devastating effect on the musicians to whom it was applied (some of whom
I even liked :-( ). But now it's history, anyway.
Paulo da Costa
dac...@prl.philips.nl
The BMG compact disc catalog acknowleges a musical distinction with the
"sacred/inspirational" category. So do the local record/tape/cd stores.
Seems Mathew needs to educate the music retailing industry and the buying
public about the absolute truth he's discovered in musical distinctions.
I say let the usenet serve the needs of the users, in the way they are
used to finding info. Rec.music.christian is a user-friendly name and
categorization. It maps quite naturally to where sacred/inspirational
music buyers find their music in the real world.
Sincerely,
Leo
The "new age" movement IS a religion. BUT I found my copy of that
'newage' artist Kerry Livgren's "One of Several Possible Musiks' in a
Christian bookstore! {As for the () stuff, Christianity is a cult
Kerry Livgren is a Christian nowadays, that's probably why. His new
group AD has some real good songs.
Is 'Kansas' Christian? NAH!
No, but Livgren says that "Dust In The Wind" has probably made more
people think about godly things than most of his Christian songs.
--
**************************************************************************
* Janne Salmi / "Money, I need more money, just a *
* / little more money, yeah, I need more *
* Email:jan...@niksula.hut.fi / money" -Extreme *
**************************************************************************