subgroups within jazz

[jordan haber]

Wouldn't the interests of those who are interested in Jazz be
better served if this group were divided into the subgroups that reflect
the more finite subjects?

For example:
1) rec music bluenote jazz bigband
2) rec music bluenote jazz female singers
3) rec music bluenote jazz male singers
4) rec music bluenote jazz new artists
5) rec music bluenote jazz piano
6) etc. etc

If there is an desire to persue this, would someone with
expertise in dealing with usegroup administrators follow up.

Thanks

[Fabio Rojas]

I'd have to disagree. A group should be split up only if wildly unrelated
threads are in the same group or there are so many threads that
readers would be unable to sift through them.

So far, rmb gets , on a good day, between 200-300 messages. This isn't
too bad. Furthermore, most threads are pretty jazz related.

There is a big band group, but I don't think it gets too many
posts. I think things on rmb are fine.

An example of a topic that should be broken up is politics because
EVERYONE wants to say something and it is possible to get
some pretty unrelated threads. Music is already broken up
into a whole bunch of small groups, one of which is rmb.

Fabio

[H. Loess]

jordan haber <jha...@li.net> wrote:

A few questions:

1) Would the recent thread on Ellington piano trios and solos go to
(5) above, while queries on the London Jazz Composers Orchestra would
go to (1)?

2) Would discussion of Sam Woodyard's guest appearance on Steve Lacy's
septet arrangement of "Virgin Jungle" be considered inappropriate on
(1)? If not, would discussing other tracks from this album ("The
Door") at the same time make it so?

3) Do male-female vocal duos alternate quarterly between (2) and (3)?

4) What is the cutoff point for 'new artists'? How strictly will it be
enforced?

5) Doesn't the proposed hierarchy still leave Marcus Roberts and Cecil
Taylor devotees sharing a newsgroup? :-)

6) Is it possible that for every current post questioning the
appropriateness of a given subject on r.m.b., there will be one such
post on each of the subgroups? Will we end up with "This is
<rec.music.bluenote.coltrane.atlantic>. Kindly take that 'funny stuff'
to <rec.music.bluenote.coltrane.impulse.late>!"?

7) I understand that the matter of needless extra work for those of us
interested in most of the above (and so much more) is a non-issue, as
the above proposal seems to assume that there should be fewer of us,
and might help realize that end; what I'm wondering is, where would
one go to ask what the music on that Infiniti commercial was?

--
Henry L.
hlo...@pipeline.com

[Boerge Soleng]

>jordan haber <jha...@li.net> wrote:

>>Wouldn't the interests of those who are interested in Jazz be
>>better served if this group were divided into the subgroups that reflect
>>the more finite subjects?

>> For example:
>> 1) rec music bluenote jazz bigband
>> 2) rec music bluenote jazz female singers
>> 3) rec music bluenote jazz male singers
>> 4) rec music bluenote jazz new artists
>> 5) rec music bluenote jazz piano
>> 6) etc. etc

No, I don't think so. Why ruin one of the newsgroups that really works?

Boerge Soleng, bor...@fiskforsk.norut.no
__________________________________________________________________
"Nice touch!" (Miles Davis about Herbie Hancock)

[Bryan Stewart]

jordan haber wrote:
>
> Wouldn't the interests of those who are interested in Jazz be
> better served if this group were divided into the subgroups that reflect
> the more finite subjects?
>
> For example:
> 1) rec music bluenote jazz bigband
> 2) rec music bluenote jazz female singers
> 3) rec music bluenote jazz male singers
> 4) rec music bluenote jazz new artists
> 5) rec music bluenote jazz piano
> 6) etc. etc
>

Hey how about:

7) rec music bluenote Wynton

Now we really need one of those....(laughs)

[Charles Day]

In article <324F34...@li.net>, jordan haber <jha...@li.net> wrote:

> Wouldn't the interests of those who are interested in Jazz be
> better served if this group were divided into the subgroups that reflect
> the more finite subjects?

I don't think so, Jordan. Your fragmented set-up would greatly reduce
the chances of making serendipitous discoveries while browsing the threads.

Moreover, some workplaces - including mine - will not add new newsgroups
unless they're related to work.

I like the generous definition of jazz used by Cook and Morton, authors
of the Penguin Guide. Like RMB, you can find Louis Armstrong and AMM but
not Kenny G.

Charles

[tomb...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu]

In article <324F34...@li.net> jordan haber <jha...@li.net> writes:
>Wouldn't the interests of those who are interested in Jazz be
>better served if this group were divided into the subgroups that reflect
>the more finite subjects?
>

> For example:
> 1) rec music bluenote jazz bigband
> 2) rec music bluenote jazz female singers
> 3) rec music bluenote jazz male singers
> 4) rec music bluenote jazz new artists
> 5) rec music bluenote jazz piano
> 6) etc. etc

You forgot rec.music.jazz.lumpers and rec.music.jazz.splitters.

[Ton Maas]

I just attended a small festival devoted to music from the Canterbury Scene
(Soft Machine, Caravan, Hatfield & The North etc.). Richard Sinclair and
Hugh Hopper performed with their current line-ups (mostly jazz-rock
oriented) but the biggest surprize for me was Tony Coe, whom I had been
introduced to a long time ago, by his playing on John Martyn's "Solid Air".
Coe carried only his clarinet, which I didn't mind at all, since it is
probably my favorite jazz instrument, and he was absolutely wonderful. Part
of the festival took place in the old protestant church of Harlingen, where
Coe performed a duet with Dave Rees Williams on church organ. It was an
incredible experience to hear some beautiful jazz in that setting.

Ton Maas, Amsterdam NL

[Nils G. Jacobson]

jordan haber (jha...@li.net) wrote:
: Wouldn't the interests of those who are interested in Jazz be

: better served if this group were divided into the subgroups that reflect
: the more finite subjects?

Absolutely not. Closedmindedness breeds closedmindedness.

-Nils