Date: 29 Sep 1992 20:59 -0700 (PDT) From: Philip Harriman Subject: rec.music.bluenote thread To: kirshenblatt@ACFcluster.NYU.EDU -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: heidelj@alleg.edu (Jason Heideloff) Subject: RFD: rec.music.jazz Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 13:08:54 GMT CALL FOR DISCUSSION rec.music.jazz Discussion of jazz in all forms. (unmoderated) There is currently a group entitled rec.music.bluenote. Although this may be the closest thing to a jazz group, it tends to have more discussions pertaining to blues than jazz. Discussion of jazz could include topics such as styles of the old and the new musicians of jazz. Discussions of the musicians themselves (Benny Goodman, Ella Fitzgerald, Artie Shaw, Bobby McFerrin, Nat "King" Cole, Pat Metheny, The Manhatten Transfer, Miles Daves, etc....) would be a large portion of the group. If you would like to support or refute this suggestion, please carry on discussions in news.gruops. -- Jason Heideloff heidelj@alleg.edu -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: rwd4f@poe.acc.Virginia.EDU (Rob Dobson) Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.jazz Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 14:02:03 GMT In article heidelj@alleg.edu (Jason Heideloff) writes: > CALL FOR DISCUSSION > >rec.music.jazz Discussion of jazz in all forms. >(unmoderated) > >There is currently a group entitled rec.music.bluenote. Although this may >be the closest thing to a jazz group, it tends to have more discussions >pertaining to blues than jazz. NONONONONO! this is complete b.s. Just three weeks ago, blues fans were complaining that there is too much jazz on r.m.b and not enough blues. Even after a rash of blues postings, there is still much more jazz on r.m.b than blues. We had this discussion several months ago. Splitting music groups too much tens to result in lots of cross-posts, mis-directed posts, etc. Which group would you ask about Bessie Smith? What about Mingus' Three or Four Shades of Blue? Etc. etc. Jazz and blues are too linked to have separate groups. ANY music group could probably be split several times over, but for what? There are already 1000s of froups out there... VOTE NO -rob -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz) Date: 25 Sep 92 10:37:47 In article heidelj@alleg.edu (Jason Heideloff) writes: rec.music.jazz Discussion of jazz in all forms. (unmoderated) There is currently a group entitled rec.music.bluenote. Although this may be the closest thing to a jazz group, it tends to have more discussions pertaining to blues than jazz. Since r.m.bluenote is chartered to cover both jazz and blues, I think you need to rephrase this rfd. It should be a discussion about reorganizing rec.music.bluenote into two new groups: r.m.jazz and r.m.blues. Just creating r.m.jazz doesn't make any sense otherwise. Given this, I'm 100% in support of the proposal. There is no special musical relationship between jazz and blues (ie as opposed to, say, the relationship between rock and blues, which is at least as close); the current group includes both for purely historical reasons. Plus, the name has clearly been shown to be confusing -- repeatedly, we see queries on r.m.misc about jazz and blues, because novices simply haven't a clue that "bluenote" is supposed to cover both (or either) of these. And most important: THERE IS NO CROSS DISCUSSION on r.m.bluenote between the jazz articles and the blues articles. It's simply two distinct newsgroups with one name. People who like both genres could just as easily read two groups, and *nothing whatsoever* would be lost. Those who are only interested in one of the two genres, on the other hand, wouldn't have to wade through articles of no interest. Judging by the names I see attached to blues postings and jazz postings, I'd have to say that a majority of the people who post to r.m.bluenote fall into the second category (ie interested in either jazz or blues, but not both). Whether this is true of the broader readership of r.m.bluenote is hard to say. But even if it isn't, it doesn't really matter: the discussions are totally distinct even if the sets of interested readers aren't. In short, I see no reason other than inertia for preserving r.m.bluenote as a single group. Unfortunately, there are a lot of politics here: the creators of r.m.bluenote have successfully shot down every previous attempt at a reorganization before any of them even reached the stage of a formal rfd. But enough already; time to let the Usenet community as a whole decide this issue. >If you would like to support or refute this suggestion, please carry on >discussions in news.gruops. Since we're talking about a reorganization of r.m.bluenote, I've cross posted there. For now, at least, I think the discussion should occur in both news.groups and r.m.bluenote. rs -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 15:17:51 GMT In article rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Sha piro) writes: >Given this, I'm 100% in support of the proposal. There is no special >musical relationship between jazz and blues You're joking, right? >Plus, >the name has clearly been shown to be confusing -- repeatedly, we see >queries on r.m.misc about jazz and blues, because novices simply >haven't a clue that "bluenote" is supposed to cover both (or either) >of these. That "bluenote" is a misleading name is a good point. However, I don't think that this proposal will really help. >And most important: THERE IS NO CROSS DISCUSSION on >r.m.bluenote between the jazz articles and the blues articles. I don't think that's the point -- rather, there are many artists who could easily be classified either as "jazz" or "blues," and having two seperate newsgroups for the two topics would lead to confusion on that end. -- ____ Tim Pierce / "You are just naive and repressed because \ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / penis envy is here and it's now and it's \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / all around you." -- Neal C. Wickham -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- From: gidi@Hilbert.Stanford.EDU (Gidi Avrahami) Subject: Re: r.m.bluenote --> r.m.jazz + r.m.blues (was: rec.music.jazz) Date: Fri, 25 Sep 1992 16:09:01 GMT rshapiro@bbn.com (Richard Shapiro) writes: >There is no special >musical relationship between jazz and blues FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME FLAME So, is this the most inane statement ever on RMB, or does "Kenny G is the greatest saxophone player in the world" still hold? --Gidi