Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!ils.nwu.edu!sandell
From: sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell)
Newsgroups: comp.music
Subject: Re: WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO THIS NEWSGROUP?
Message-ID: <2125@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 17 Jun 91 00:33:31 GMT
References: <9106120249.AA20142@lilac.berkeley.edu> <1871@culhua.prg.ox.ac.uk> <2100@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> <59924@aurs01.UUCP>
Sender: news@ils.nwu.edu
Reply-To: sandell@ils.nwu.edu (Greg Sandell)
Distribution: world
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Lines: 46

In article <59924@aurs01.UUCP>, whitcomb@aurs01.UUCP (Jonathan Whitcomb) writes:
> 
> Well, perhaps if you posted the charter regularly people would stay
> closer to your original intent.  As it stands, a newcomer sees a

I think this would be a good idea.  A monthly "welcome to comp.music"
posting would be in line with what alot of other newsgroups do.  In
any case, Stephen Page, if you're reading out there, would you care
to post the charter for us all to read again?

> This sounds dangerously like a value judgement about the quality of
> people who post about different subjects.  "Good people" post about
> the mythical "original aims" and "Synth heads" are trespassing with
> their discussion.

> for now it sounds
> mostly like non-constructive, petty territorial griping.
> 
> rather than get yourself all worked up about having your private
> party crashed.

I can see how this discussion may have touched a nerve.  rec.music.synth
has the word "rec" in it, while comp.music touts itself as a "research"
forum, the implication being that one's for kids, the other for adults.  
One's serious, the other's not.  I assure you that I have no such class
distinction in mind.   Maybe the names of *both* groups need changing!

Rec.music.synth is a fine group.  If I could afford the MIDI gear right
now, I would become a synth-head too (I'm sorry if you think I use that
term derogatorily), and I'd go right to rec.music.synth to ask my
questions about sequencer packages, MIDI programming and so on.  It's
a great group for that kind of thing.  But then when I wanted to
read about announcements of conferences and descriptions of other 
people's research, I'd go to comp.music...and I would still
be annoyed when traffic that looked just like rec.music.synth stuff
appeared there.  What's wrong with defining boundaries?

Another thing:  just because the matter hasn't "gotten out of hand"
yet doesn't mean it doesn't merit criticism.  Last week a friend of
mine said he quit reading comp.music because of the reasons discussed
so far.  So if some readership is being lost, that's a good reason
to complain.

-- 
Greg Sandell
sandell@ils.nwu.edu