Apyuxjj.170
net.news.group
utzoo!decvax!harpo!eagle!mhuxt!pyuxjj!rlr
Mon Apr 26 16:32:57 1982
net.music vs. net.records: FEEDBACK DIGEST
R--------------------------------------------------------------------------
PLEASE stop submitting to both net.records and net.music!!!!!
When these groups were started I believe that net.records was for
all the things you are now submitting to both groups, and net.music
was for the discussion of computers and music.  Maybe I'm wrong, but
I'll bet that no one will miss anything if you only submit to
net.records and let net.music die a natural death or come back
as it was.
?----------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that it would be helpful for there to be a very easily
accessible directory to newsgroups.  One with a one line description
of what each group is about.  As new people join the net it is
natural that some boundaries get unclear...
?-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like you, I am disturbed by the attempt to place a boundary between net
(records, music).  However, I am not conta subgroups.  This could mean
a collapse of net.records into net.music or net.music into net.records.
I think net.music is the larger group, but there are problems with
the fact that everything on records is not music.  This whole thing
could lead to an internminable debate (ycch!).
B----------------------------------------------------------------------
I have been posting news about musicians and electronic music to net.music,
and news specifically about music media in net.records.
If you look at my articles, you may find some variance, but I tried.
??--------------------------------------------------------------------
Why do you post to both.  Not much reason they both should exist actually.
M----------------------------------------------------------------------
I would like to see a net.music for any music items of interest, and
a net.rock for those of us who get a little queasy at the thought of
disco. I think net.records is a waste because on my system, most letters
to net.records wind up in net.music.
M-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is there anyone out there who would subscribe to only one of
net.records and net.music?  Why are there two groups to this?
Let's get rid of net.records.  I listen to most of my music
on tape anyway, and I think I am smart enough to figure out
that not everything in net.music is strictly music.  As far as
I can remember, though, the only thing in net.records that was
not *strictly* music was Tom Lehrer, and even he sings (if you
can call it singing!)  (no flaming replies about Tom, please,
I own all of his albums and love them, honest!)  PLEASE, only
submit to net.music.
B----------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some thoughts on net.music and net.records usage.  If people like them
as guidelines, that's fine, but don't think I'm trying to cram something
arbitrary down your throats.
I think articles on the following topics should be submitted to net.records:
       a.  What records by ________ are available.
       b.  Who has hard to find records.
       c.  Reviews of the performance quality of a recorded number.
       d.  Reviews of the musical quality of a recorded number ONLY
           if records are the artist's (or group's) primary medium.
           Use your own judgement here.
       e.  Discussions of recording industry issues (royalties, ethics
           of taping, etc.).
       f.  Discussions of recording technology.
Articles on the following topics should be submitted to net.music:
       a.  Musical/performance reviews of live concerts.
       b.  Musical reviews of pieces that may have been recorded, but
           are more intended for live performace.  Notice the mushy
           boundry between this item and item (d) above.  Once again,
           use your own judgement.
       c.  Comments about individual musicians or groups.
       d.  Discussions about music theory.
       e.  Information about instruments, both acoustic and electronic.
       f.  Comuputer music information.
       g.  Discussions of music industry issues (excluding recording issues).
       h.  Humorous music-related discussions.  (If you object to this type
           of discussion, you better gripe about net.jokes, etc., first.)
Obviously, some articles will fall into never-never land between the two
groups.  In such cases, I would suggest posting the complete article in one
group, and posting a small announcement about the article in the other group.
B----------------------------------------------------------------------
It seems that half the items to net.music and net.records are the same
item, ie. they are posted to two groups.  This will befine when B news gets the bug fixed
regarding keeping track of inodes, but until then, and as
a general policy, I suggest that net.music and net.records be split as follows:
       net.music - general discussion about music (most of what is going on)
       net.music.records (recording)
       net.music.listen (listening)
with perhaps net.music.computer if people are keen on that too.
It makes things so much simpler.
B----------------------------------------------------------------
You're probably right: we need both net.music and net.records.
I suggest that there is no very reasonable dividing line between the two, but
that it can be artificially induced by confining discussion in net.music
to 'deeper' things, such as technical points of a piece, the aesthetics
of a piece (e.g. is it minimalist, or is it really jazz, etc.),
and so forth.  That way, net.records can be used for things like record
recommendations.
B------------------------------------------------------------------------
net.music - about music in abstract or performance.
net.records - about music, spoken word, books, etc. that are available on
               recorded media (tapes, disks, holograms, etc.).
M-------------------------------------------------------------------------
You raise a good point about duplication of information in both newsgroups.
It seems to be standard practice to post news items to both net.records
and net.music. I believe that anybody that subscribes to net.music also
subscribes to net.records (and vice versa), so what seems to be happening
is that everybody on the net gets to read every net.(music,records) article
twice.
In light of this, I would like to suggest that net.records should go away.
There are two major reasons:
1. There is not enough traffic to justify two newsgroups that could easily
be consolidated.  Look at the nature of the current submissions; most of
them are duplicates, submitted to both newsgroups.  Cut down on the duplicates,
and you'll cut way down on the amount of news items in both groups.  Also
consider what happened to net.cooks.  At first it got lots of news, and
people clamored to create separate newsgroups (like net.wines).  Now
net.cooks has slowed, and net.wines hasn't been posted to for weeks.
People on the net have a small attention span.  Soon nobody will be
posting much of anything to net.music or net.records.
2. The distinction between net.records (discuss only recorded material)
and net.music (discuss music in general) is artificial.  The discussions
in net.records usually concern artists and their output, with references
to individual works to illustrate the point.  I can't remember a single
article concerning non-musical recordings.  Even reviews of individual
albums would easily fit into net.music--music is music regardless of its
media.  People looking for old Lenny Bruce albums can ask around in
net.misc.
B---------------------------------------------------------------------
Here are some possible descriptions for the newsgroups net.records
and net.music.  The division is roughly that between the content of
High Fidelity magazine (net.records) and its Musical America "insert"
(net.music).  I would also propose several subgroups, and the creation
of net.stereo (see below).
If you would like me to send this to the net rather than just to you,
let me know and I'll post it.
   net.records
           Information about recorded music, primarily reviews of
           records.  May also include information on record stores,
           requests to find copies of hard-to-find records, etc.
           This list is primarily of interest to the music *listener*
           and may include discussions of musical groups, styles, etc.
           Reviews of concerts would also be an appropriate topic for
           this list.
           I would like to suggest two sub-groups, since I'd rather
           not read most of what seems to be submitted to the list
           at present:
       net.records.classical
           Reviews of classical music recordings and other information
           of interest to the classical music listener.
       net.records.jazz
           Reviews of jazz recordings and other information of interest
           to the jazz listener.
   net.music
           Articles about music, musical instruments, composers, music
           festivals, etc.  This list is primarily of interest to composers
           and performers.  Information on upcoming music festivals and
           workshops should appear on net.music as should questions about
           instruments, synthesizers, etc.
           Announcements intended for the *audience* at a music festival
           or reviews of live concerts should be sent to net.records.
           [I would like to see a net.music.classical and net.music.jazz,
           too, if the interest in this area is sufficiently high.  At the
           moment, I suspect that the volume wouldn't warrant it.]
   net.stereo
           Comments about stereo equipment, including both reproduction
           and recording systems.  Inquiries about what to buy, how to cure
           problems, etc.
M----------------------------------------------------------------------
I always thought that net.records should be eliminated.
I haven't seen anyone on net.records (or anywhere else
for that matter) discuss anything besides music, and
certainly anything that comes on record comes on tape.
Also records has other meanings (like keeping tax records, etc)
besides music.  We are all discussing music, why not change
the name to reflect that?

-----------------------------------------------------------------
gopher://quux.org/ conversion by John Goerzen <[email protected]>
of http://communication.ucsd.edu/A-News/


This Usenet Oldnews Archive
article may be copied and distributed freely, provided:

1. There is no money collected for the text(s) of the articles.

2. The following notice remains appended to each copy:

The Usenet Oldnews Archive: Compilation Copyright (C) 1981, 1996
Bruce Jones, Henry Spencer, David Wiseman.

You are viewing proxied material from gopher.quux.org. The copyright of proxied material belongs to its original authors. Any comments or complaints in relation to proxied material should be directed to the original authors of the content concerned. Please see the disclaimer for more details.