Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 6/7/83; site hao.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!hao!woods From: woods@hao.UUCP (Greg Woods) Newsgroups: net.news.group,net.music Subject: Re: merger of net.music/net.records Message-ID: <797@hao.UUCP> Date: Sun, 22-Jan-84 14:45:16 EST Article-I.D.: hao.797 Posted: Sun Jan 22 14:45:16 1984 Date-Received: Mon, 23-Jan-84 04:40:55 EST References: <2203@harpo.UUCP> Organization: High Altitude Obs./NCAR, Boulder CO Lines: 26 This subject (whether we should have subgroups of net.music) is another one of those that seems to come up again and again, when (apparently) new netters who have joined the network since the last time this came up suggest it yet again. The consensus has always been that people do not want to split up net.music. Why, I don't know. I have always been an advocate of net.music.rock and net.music.classical, at least, since the fans of those types of music look at music totally differently (music serves a different purpose in their lives). I also agree that the subjects discussed in net.music and net.records are not sufficiently different to justify two distinct groups. Therefore I think current discussion in net.records should go in net.music, and net.music should be split into classical and rock groups to start, with optionally more later if it seems to be warranted (if the punkers get tired of the Deadheads, etc.). I'm sure subroups of net.music will be voted down again, but I'm stubborn: I thought it was a good idea before, and I still think so. I really do hate the "your kind of music sucks" articles. Surely at least classical and rock discussions could be segregated. There are a lot of classical articles, and my "n" key is wearing out. (I don't dislike classical, I just don't know enough about it to discuss it intelligently). One vote for net.music.rock and net.music.classical, and getting rid of net.records . GREG -- {ucbvax!hplabs | allegra!nbires | decvax!kpno | harpo!seismo | ihnp4!kpno} !hao!woods