From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups,news.admin.misc
Subject: Short comments, plus long rec.music.makers.* pre-vote discussion
Keywords: music, makers, synth, flame war, vote, rfd, cfv
Date: 18 Nov 92 16:11:13 GMT
Followup-To: news.groups
Organization: GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team

Folks, I'm really sorry that this has turned into such an argument.  It
was never my intent to cause this, which is why I tried really hard to run
the whole process by meeting or exceeding the guidelines at each step.
While what I did wasn't perfect by a long shot, and could easily be
improved on, I think it was legitimate, and I stand by it.  I *hope*
that what comes out of this are some changes to the way that we govern
ourselves which will alleviate the problems we've found. 

I also tried to pull together a lot of disparate opinions, a process
which I'll readily admit is subject to errors in judgement.  (But
unless everyone agrees on a proposal, it's necessary.)  I may be
wrong about this, but I regard the vote which follows a discussion
like this as a referendum on whether or not the proposer has
actually managed to formulate a consensus.

Speaking of which, I would like to express my thanks to everyone
who participated in the discussion and the vote; your participation,
in whatever form, helped to make this better than it would have been
without your contribution.  I don't think of this as something *I* did;
I think of it as something that nearly 300 people did.

Finally, It was never my intent to disenfranchise anyone; as a
musician, the last thing I'd want to do is to make life more difficult
for my fellow players.  My motivation for doing this is the same as my
motivation for posting the "List of Open Jam Sesssions" and "Music
Equipment mail/phone List": to contribute a little bit back to Usenet,
in particular to the musicians on it.  I'm sorry if some people did
not participate in the process, whether by choice or by accident;
I wanted your participation, and I tried hard to get it.  My hope is
that we'll figure out a way to increase participation the next time
around, whenever that is.

	----------------------------------------------------

Well, I promised I'd send this out, so here it is.  Enclosed below is a shell
archive with a single file, "record", which contains as much of the record of
the pre-vote discussion as I can get my hands on.  (I didn't save every
outbound letter that I sent in response to a posting or letter, which was an
oversight.)  News articles can be distinguished from mail messages by looking
at the headers; in particular, the presence of a "To:" header probably
indicates that it's a mail message.  All mail messages reproduced here are
included with the kind permission of their authors.  In cases where I
couldn't contact the authors or they declined permission, I included an
unattributed summary of what they had to say, as best as I understood it.
A couple of the articles here escaped my attention the first time around,
but I managed to come up with them by scrounging backups and other sites.

I've stripped most of the superfluous headers as well as signatures to try to
keep this short, but it's still ~100k.  Still, if you'd like to see where
the discussion started, and where it went, and why, you might want to
read through this.  In particular, I think it's interesting to note that
the original proposal looks a lot different than the final one (the
first draft really didn't have anything to do with rec.music.makers *or*
rec.music.synth.)

---Rsk

#	This is a shell archive.
#	Remove everything above and including the cut line.
#	Then run the rest of the file through sh.
#----cut here-----cut here-----cut here-----cut here----#
#!/bin/sh
# shar:	Shell Archiver
#	Run the following text with /bin/sh to create:
#	record
# This archive created: Wed Nov 18 10:35:02 1992
# By:	Rich Kulawiec (GSP Whitewater Slalom Racing Team)
cat << \SHAR_EOF > record
From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.misc,rec.music.makers,alt.guitar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
Subject: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 03:59:17 GMT

Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
these groups to rec.music, and possibly to create another group or two
at the same time.

Proposal A: Create rec.music.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.

Rec.music.guitar would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement of alt.guitar;
perhaps its charter would be "Discussion of electric and acoustic guitar
techniques and equipment".

Proposal B: Create rec.music.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.

Rec.music.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement of
alt.guitar.bass; perhaps its charter would be "Discussion of electric
and acoustic bass guitar techniques and equipment".

Proposal C: Create rec.music.drums.

Rec.music.drums would be an unmoderated group for the discussion of drums
and related percussion instruments.  Perhaps its charter would be "Discussion
of drums and percussion instrument techniques and equipment".

Proposal D: Created rec.music.tablature, rec.music.tablature.d and remove
	alt.guitar.tab.

These two groups would be used for posting lyrics, chords, tablature, sheet
music, and the discussion thereof.  Their charters might be something like:

rec.music.tablature: Lyrics, chords, and tablature posting ONLY.
rec.music.tablature.d: Lyrics, chords, and tablature discussion and requests.

Discussion:

A, B and D are designed to shift existing traffic to the main hierarchy;
it is hoped that this will make the relevant articles available to
a larger community.

C is designed to meet a need which seems to arise from time to time; I'm
unsure whether there are really enough people interested in this, but I
suppose this is one way to find out.

I'm not sure I like the name "tablature" for D; but I couldn't think
of a better alternative. ("rec.music.words-and-music"?)  I do think
that the traffic which shows up in the current alt.guitar.tab is only
partially guitar-specific, and that a general newsgroup which facilitates
the exchange of lyrics and music among all musicians might be in order.
I also wonder whether the rec.music.tablature.d newsgroup would be
effective vis-a-vis keeping extraneous traffic out of rec.music.tablature,
or whether it might be necessary to find a moderator.

If all four proposals are approved, five newsgroups will be created
and three will be deleted.

[[ Note that the two groups in D would have to be voted on separately.
   -- tale ]]


From: ctuel@zeus.calpoly.edu (Cliff Tuel)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 05:39:29 GMT

rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) said...
|Proposal B: Create rec.music.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
|
|Rec.music.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement of
|alt.guitar.bass; perhaps its charter would be "Discussion of electric
|and acoustic bass guitar techniques and equipment".

How about rec.music.bass-guitar?  Your name isn't specific enough;
you might get discussion about bass drums, or which brand of woofer
gives the most bump for rap music.


From: mece1xg@Elroy.UH.EDU (purna)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: instrument-specific groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 13:09:14 GMT

In article <Bt7pr0.3G7@uunet.uu.net>, rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
>are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
>in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
>rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
>these groups to rec.music, and possibly to create another group or two
>at the same time.
>
>Proposal A: Create rec.music.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
>Proposal B: Create rec.music.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>Proposal C: Create rec.music.drums.
>Proposal D: Created rec.music.tablature, rec.music.tablature.d and remove
>	alt.guitar.tab.
>
> [...stuff deleted, including descriptions for above...]

ALSO-----

In article <Bt7pq2.3EA@uunet.uu.net>,davidc@brahms.udel.edu (David Casper) writes:
>This is a Request For Discussion for "rec.music.classical.guitar"
>
> [...stuff, including charter, etc., deleted....]
>
>The only newsgroup that I have been able to subscribe to is
>"alt.guitar" which is dominated (if not entirely comprised of) by
>the electric guitar.  I love the sound of the electric guitar.  I
>love the sound of the classical guitar.  They ARE NOT the same,
>however.  This is why I feel that a separate newsgroup,
>"rec.music.classical.guitar", is needed.
>
> [...stuff deleted...]
>
>This discussion period will take place for one month from the
>posting date of this RFD...a CFV will follow.
>
> [...more stuff deleted...]

hi!

i think all of these ideas are good, but i feel they can be combined
into a better hierarchy.  perhaps something like:

rec.music.guitar
rec.music.guitar.bass
rec.music.guitar.classical
rec.music.guitar.tab

as far as rec.music.drums(??) goes, i guess it would have it's own
group.  also, as a guitarist, i see tablature as natural for guitar
"sheet" music, but not really for other instruments.  do other instrument
players besides guitarists use tab notation?  if so, maybe *.tab should
be put as rec.music.tab.

oh well, just my thoughts...


From: timv@ccad.uiowa.edu (Timothy VanFosson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 14:11:33 GMT

>From article <Bt7pr0.3G7@uunet.uu.net>, by rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec):
> 
> Proposal A: Create rec.music.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
> 
> Rec.music.guitar would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement of alt.guitar;
> perhaps its charter would be "Discussion of electric and acoustic guitar
> techniques and equipment".

This sounds ok to me.

> 
> Proposal B: Create rec.music.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
> 
> Rec.music.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement of
> alt.guitar.bass; perhaps its charter would be "Discussion of electric
> and acoustic bass guitar techniques and equipment".
> 

I would prefer rec.music.guitar.bass since it is about bass guitars.
Also, it follows the current name more closely.

> Proposal C: Create rec.music.drums.
> 
> Rec.music.drums would be an unmoderated group for the discussion of drums
> and related percussion instruments.  Perhaps its charter would be "Discussion
> of drums and percussion instrument techniques and equipment".
> 

Or, rec.music.percussion (just a thought).

> Proposal D: Created rec.music.tablature, rec.music.tablature.d and remove
> 	alt.guitar.tab.
> 
> These two groups would be used for posting lyrics, chords, tablature, sheet
> music, and the discussion thereof.  Their charters might be something like:
> rec.music.tablature: Lyrics, chords, and tablature posting ONLY.
> rec.music.tablature.d: Lyrics, chords, and tablature discussion and requests.
> 

I think this should be one group: rec.music.guitar.tab.  Adding more
groups in rec.music (as above) would tend to reduce the amount of
competing traffic in the group so I think it could tolerate both
tab postings and discussion.  If it is really a big problem the
discussion group could be created later.  My guess is that most of
the discussion would be either requests or corrections, and corrections
should be made to the postings group, shouldn't they.

As for the name, I think that the traffic only warrants a group about
guitar (including bass guitar) tab, and so it should be in the rm.guitar
hierarchy.

As a final note, I would really like to see these groups created (and
will read them regardless of their names).


From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 18:18:16 GMT

>Or, rec.music.percussion (just a thought).

I agree with this.

What about adding a "rec.music.piano", for us piano players out there?


From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 20:29:34 GMT

In article <Bt7pr0.3G7@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Proposal C: Create rec.music.drums.
>
>Rec.music.drums would be an unmoderated group for the discussion of drums
>and related percussion instruments.  Perhaps its charter would be "Discussion
>of drums and percussion instrument techniques and equipment".

Probably with little coincidence, the recently started drums mailing list
got off to a grand start, then promptly got bogged down in discussion
about shifting to a digest format or creating a newsgroup instead.

>C is designed to meet a need which seems to arise from time to time; I'm
>unsure whether there are really enough people interested in this, but I
>suppose this is one way to find out.

The drums mailing list is currently undergoing new list euphoria, so it's
too early to tell, but daily traffic of actual drum items (not the above-
mentioned meta-discussions) seems to be averaging 5 - 10 items a day, with
peaks of 15 or so, enough to 'cause unrest to those with over-busy mailboxes.
The list maintainer hasn't had a chance to set up something like listserv yet,
so it's unclear whether optional digestifying would settle that problem.

I would concur with the other fellow, that a better name would be
rec.music.percussion (then it could subsume rec.music.piano ;-) ),
although I don't imagine a name of rec.music.drums would dissuade any
percussionist from participating (after all, we all just like to beat on
things ;-) ).

>Proposal D: Created rec.music.tablature, rec.music.tablature.d and remove
>	alt.guitar.tab.
>

If I could, I'd start a mini-revolution to eliminate over-zealous abbreviation.
(I refer to the `.d' suffix for `discuss').  Actually, I don't see why
discussion can't be held in the `tab' group - is `tab' traffic actually that
high and the discussion sufficiently diverse to merit a separate newsgroup?

>I'm not sure I like the name "tablature" for D; but I couldn't think
>of a better alternative. ("rec.music.words-and-music"?)

Or, more briefly, just `rec.music.music'.  At first the name sounded silly,
but it seems less silly to me the more I look at it.

--Jeff


From: "Joshua Loftus" <Joshua.Loftus@forsythe.stanford.edu>
To: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 92 14:59:00 PDT
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups


I have recently started reading rec.music.makers and I love it.  I'm
a bass player, and I'd love rec.music.bass even better!

Joshua Loftus
Stanford University



From: johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 19 Aug 92 23:20:59 GMT

In article <Bt7pr0.3G7@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
|Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
|are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
|in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
|rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
|these groups to rec.music, and possibly to create another group or two
|at the same time.
|
|Proposal A: Create rec.music.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.

[rest of article deleted]

If you continue to pursue this I'd recommend a slight change.  Rather than
put these groups directly under the rec.music hierarchy, put them under
rec.music.makers and then move rec.music.synth there as well.



From: boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:43:45 GMT

 Lets go on:

 rec.music.sax         |
 rec.music.trumpet     | rec.music.wind-instruments
 rec.music.flute       |
 rec.music...          |

 rec.music.drums       |
 rec.music.percussions | rec.music.rythm-instruments
 rec.music.maracas :-) |
 rec.music.triangle:-) |
 rec.music...          |

 rec.music.keyboard.piano
 rec.music.keyboard.synth

 rec.music.violin

 and so on...



From: weisbr@ipfc.bau-verm.uni-karlsruhe.de (Werner Weisbrich Tel 0721 608 2317)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: instrument-specific groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 07:53:38 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.130914.14320@menudo.uh.edu> mece1xg@Elroy.UH.EDU writes:
>
> <stuff deleted>
>
>i think all of these ideas are good, but i feel they can be combined
>into a better hierarchy.  perhaps something like:
>
>rec.music.guitar
>rec.music.guitar.bass
>rec.music.guitar.classical
>rec.music.guitar.tab
>
this is the best idea i've read
and also something like this:

rec.music.<instrument>."x"."y"

where <instrument> is guitar, drums, keyboard, piano etc.
		"x" is the first following extension, like rec.music.guitar.tab
		"y" is the second extension, if needed.


>as far as rec.music.drums(??) goes, i guess it would have it's own
>group.  also, as a guitarist, i see tablature as natural for guitar
>"sheet" music, but not really for other instruments.  do other instrument
>players besides guitarists use tab notation?  if so, maybe *.tab should
>be put as rec.music.tab.
>

Also if other musicians use tabs (for ohter instruments) 
the tabs are not equal to the tabs of guitar. You can't compare
tabs of guitar with tabs of banjo etc.



From: jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre')
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 11:18:26 GMT

rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes [edited for brevity - JE]:

> Proposal A: Create rec.music.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.

> Proposal B: Create rec.music.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
> 
> Rec.music.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement of
> alt.guitar.bass; perhaps its charter would be "Discussion of electric
> and acoustic bass guitar techniques and equipment".

"Rec.music.bass" would *definitely* imply that articles about the instrument 
known as "double bass", "upright bass" or "bass fiddle" were welcome.  
It could also be misinterpreted as an appropriate place to post articles 
about bass singers and "bass-heavy" music in general.

I suggest that "rec.music.bass-guitar" or "rec.music.guitar.bass" would be 
a much better name for your stated intentions.

> Proposal C: Create rec.music.drums.

> Proposal D: Created rec.music.tablature, rec.music.tablature.d and remove
> 	alt.guitar.tab.
> 
> These two groups would be used for posting lyrics, chords, tablature, sheet
> music, and the discussion thereof.  Their charters might be something like:
> 
> rec.music.tablature: Lyrics, chords, and tablature posting ONLY.
> rec.music.tablature.d: Lyrics, chords, and tablature discussion and requests.

"Tablature" is an obscure word to anybody who does not play guitar or bass
guitar (even to many other musicians).  You might find that 
"What style of music do Tablature play, and what albums have they released?"
would become a frequently asked question in "rec.music.tablature".

"Rec.music.guitar.tablature" would be a lot clearer; it would also limit the
discussion to guitar music, but I have a hunch that music for other
instruments cannot be conveniently posted in ASCII anyway.  A group for all
instruments is, as you say, hard to find a good name for; I suggest 
"rec.music.transcripts", "rec.music.makers.transcripts",
"rec.music.sheet-music" or "rec.music.makers.sheet-music".

I am very skeptical of the idea that people will keep "chatter" to a ".d" 
group (unless the "main" group is moderated).

                                    -o-O-o-

Someone else has suggested putting everything under "rec.music.makers";
while this would be tidy, I can't help feeling that names such as 
"rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature" and "rec.music.makers.guitar.classical"
would be unnecessarily long.


From grego@bit.UUCP (Greg Sanguinetti)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 14:17:10 GMT

In article <Bt7pr0.3G7@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>
>Proposal B: Create rec.music.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>
YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES, YES,

I know there are a lot of folks out there that, like myself, cannot
get alt.guitar.bass. It's always a mystery which alt.* groups our
newsfeed carries. I guess they figure alt.sex.beastiality is more
mainstream than alt.guitar* !!!??? But hey, at least I get a newsfeed!


From: dsf@nocmpc.csg.gss.mot.com (Scott Freemire)
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 92 13:15:32 -0500
To: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups

As a guitarist who's newsfeed does not carry the alt. newsgroups;
I wholeheartedly approve of these proposals, a and d in particular of course.


From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 20:40:16 GMT

johnf@Auspex.COM (John Fereira) writes:
>If you continue to pursue this I'd recommend a slight change.  Rather than
>put these groups directly under the rec.music hierarchy, put them under
>rec.music.makers and then move rec.music.synth there as well.

Agreed! I second this...as it makes much more sense. In fact:

rec.music.makers.guitar
rec.music.makers.bass	(not just electric players but string bass too)
rec.music.makers.keys
rec.music.makers.percussion
rec.music.makers.wind

...etc...


From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:11:38 GMT

boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker) writes:

>  rec.music.sax         |
>  rec.music.trumpet     | rec.music.wind-instruments
>  rec.music.flute       |
>  rec.music...          |

>  rec.music.drums       |
>  rec.music.percussions | rec.music.rythm-instruments
>  rec.music.maracas :-) |
>  rec.music.triangle:-) |
>  rec.music...          |

>  rec.music.keyboard.piano
>  rec.music.keyboard.synth

>  rec.music.violin

Perhaps, there should be winds, strings, and keyboard in addition
to guitar.*, but there isn't traffic to justify these.  Whatever is
done, they should probably be consolidated into a new hierarchy --
rec.music.instument.* -- or under rec.music.makers.


From: tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 20 Aug 92 21:19:35 GMT

dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes) writes:

> rec.music.makers.guitar
> rec.music.makers.bass	(not just electric players but string bass too)

How 'bout rec.music.makers.guitar.bass (Hellish, isn't it), and have
rec.music.makers.strings for non-guitar string instruments.  (Your
groups cover everything from pipe-organ to tuba, but leave out most
of the classical strings -- violin, viola, cello.

> rec.music.makers.keys

This should be .keyboard, to avoid confusion with any aspect of music theory.

> rec.music.makers.percussion
> rec.music.makers.wind

I'm not entirely sure there is enough traffic for a winds group.  As a 
wind player, I watch rec.music.makers sometimes, and see almost no 
discussion of wind instruments.  Perhaps it occurs elsewhere.


From: dave@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Dave Hayes)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 21 Aug 92 00:08:18 GMT

tinsel@uiuc.edu (Thomas Aaron Insel) writes:

>> rec.music.makers.bass	(not just electric players but string bass too)
>How 'bout rec.music.makers.guitar.bass (Hellish, isn't it), and have
>rec.music.makers.strings for non-guitar string instruments.  (Your
>groups cover everything from pipe-organ to tuba, but leave out most
>of the classical strings -- violin, viola, cello.

Hmmm....I was thinking that the difference between "electric bass" and
"string bass" might not be enough to justify different groups...as for
some musics the techniques and theory are similar. 

Either way. Perhaps you'd do better to do:

rec.music.makers.electric.guitar
rec.music.makers.electric.bass
rec.music.makers.strings

Which is another thought. 

>> rec.music.makers.keys
>This should be .keyboard, to avoid confusion with any aspect of music theory.

Ok. Just as long as a vote goes out for this too. There are some of us
keyboard players on the net that would like to talk about playing.
(And I don't mean a type-4...)

>> rec.music.makers.wind
>I'm not entirely sure there is enough traffic for a winds group.  As a 
>wind player, I watch rec.music.makers sometimes, and see almost no 
>discussion of wind instruments.  Perhaps it occurs elsewhere.

Perhaps it might occur if there was a group there. The point being to 
try and cover most of the general instrument groups, without being
too discriminatory. 


[ One mail message omitted at this point, because I do not
have permission to use it.  The correspondent seemed to be
suggesting "guitarists" and "drummers" in preference to
"guitar" and "drums", although it's hard to tell. ---Rsk ]


From: jimlynch@netcom.com (Jim Lynch)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 21 Aug 92 08:36:12 GMT

Should also be a keyboard group and a horns group.


From: edwardsc@dcs.glasgow.ac.uk (Chris Edwards)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups
Date: 21 Aug 92 10:39:16 GMT

jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:

>I would concur with the other fellow, that a better name would be
>rec.music.percussion (then it could subsume rec.music.piano ;-) ),
>although I don't imagine a name of rec.music.drums would dissuade any
>percussionist from participating (after all, we all just like to beat on
>things ;-) ).

I agree - either would be fine, but r.m.percussion might be slightly less likely 
to dissuade mallet players, for example.  Conversely, no drummer would be 
dissuaded by the name percussion. 



[ Another mail message omitted because I don't have permission to use it.
The correspondent indicates being in favor of A & B, ambivalent on C,
suggests that the *.tab.d group might not be necessary, and also suggests
the use of "tab" over "tablature" for brevity. ---Rsk ]


[ Another mail messages omitted; person expresses the view that the
proposals are a good idea but wasn't sure where to vote. ---Rsk ]

[ Another mail message omitted; person suggests that the various
newsgroups be created as subgroups of rec.music.makers; and also
suggests renaming rec.music.makers to rec.music.makers.misc. ---Rsk ]


From: lgold@cadence.com (Lynn Gold)
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 92 13:28:09 -0700
To: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Subject: RFD: several instrument-specific rec.music groups

You might want to make alt.guitar.bass into rec.music.guitar.bass.

Bass violin players might object to it being "rec.music.bass," because
there ARE classical music devotees on the net.

It's also more accurate.


[ I've deleted traffic between myself and davidc@brahms.udel.edu,
where we talked about whether or not we should combine our proposals.
(He was working on rec.music.classical.guitar at the time.)  We mutually
agreed that our goals were different enough to merit keeping them
separate. ---Rsk ]

From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,alt.guitar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
Subject: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:09:29 GMT

Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
an existing group.

Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
Charter: "Electric and acoustic guitar techniques and equipment"

	Rec.music.makers.guitar would be a one-for-one unmoderated
	replacement of alt.guitar.

Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
Charter: "Upright bass and bass guitar techniques and equipment"

	Rec.music.makers.guitar.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated
	replacement of alt.guitar.bass.

Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, and remove alt.guitar.tab.
Charter: "Guitar tablature/chords, associated discussion and requests".
 
	This group would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement
	of alt.guitar.tab.

Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
Charter: "Percussion (including drums) techniques and equipment"

	Rec.music.makers.percussion would be an unmoderated group for the
	discussion of drums and related percussion instruments.
	(There is an existing recently-formed mailing list for drummers;
	there has been discussion there about forming a newsgroup.)

Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.keyboards
Charter: "Synthesizer, sampler, and other keyboard techniques and equipment"

	There are two reasons for this.  The reason for moving the group
	is to place it under rec.music.makers, along with all of the
	other newsgroups specifically designed for the discussion of
	instruments and techniques.  The reason for renaming the group
	is to reflect the change in its contents: when rec.music.synth
	was created, the focus was nearly exclusively on synthesizers.
	The discussion has now broadened to include samplers, organs,
	pianos, and other keyboard instruments.

Discussion:

A, B and C are designed to shift existing traffic to the main hierarchy;
it is hoped that this will make the relevant articles available to
a larger community.  D is a new group; E is a renaming.

If all proposals are approved, four newsgroups will be created;
three will be deleted; and one will be renamed.  Of course, each
proposal must be voted on separately.

Question and answer time:

Why not rec.music.makers.bass-guitar?

	It seems better to create the hierarchy with
	rec.music.makers.guitar at the top; this allows for
	some easy extensions, such as the rec.music.makers.guitar.bass
	newsgroup proposed here.  Perhaps some future expansion will
	add rec.music.makers.guitar.effects, for another example.

Why not a a group dedicate to piano, e.g. rec.music.makers.piano?

	I don't think there's enough traffic for it.  My impression
	is that most of the keyboard players now found in rec.music.synth
	are multi-instrumentalists.  Purists might want to use
	rec.music.makers.percussion. :-)

Aren't these names getting a bit long?

	Yes, they are; but I'm not sure that any of the solutions
	I've thought of or other people have suggested are really better.
	"Tablature" in place of "tab" is admittedly slightly verbose, but
	the hope is that it will be clear even to those who choose
	not to read the list of newsgroup charters in news.announce.newusers.

How about groups for wind instruments/brass/etc.?

	My personal view is that I don't see enough existing traffic
	to warrant groups for these.  If someone else would like to
	propose them, conduct a vote, etc., that'd be just fine with
	me.  I'd suggest though, that anybody contemplating that
	wait to see how this discussion ends up before starting.

Why did the tablature group move to rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature
(and not rec.music.makers.tablature, as originally proposed)?

	As a number of folks have pointed out, the form of tablature
	used for guitar differs from that used for other instruments.
	(This had not occured to me; I play keyboard and guitar, and
	routinely read guitar tab while playing a keyboard.  Sorry.)

Why isn't a group related to classical guitar included here, instead
of in a separate proposal?

	Well, I've talked this over with David Casper (who sent in
	the classical guitar proposal just about the same time I sent
	in the original draft of this...must be some sort of Usenet
	synchronicity at work), and I think we mutually agree that
	to put the classical guitar group here wouldn't be the best thing.
	The focus of the group that he's proposing is such that it
	would be better named rec.music.classical.guitar than
	rec.music.makers.guitar.classical.  (For the exact details,
	see his proposal; I don't want to accidentally mis-state
	what he has in mind.)


From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 28 Aug 92 18:57:40 GMT

In article <BtpH40.2Mx@uunet.uu.net> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Question and answer time:
>
>Why not rec.music.makers.bass-guitar?

This question was raised when alt.guitar.bass was formed. The answer
is that upright bass, which is about half the players reading the newsgroup,
is in no way descended from guitar, and a bass guitar is descended more
directly from an upright bass than an electric guitar.
Putting bass guitar under guitar is not really any more sensible than
putting cellos under violins.

We proposed alt.bass for the alt group, but it was thought that name
was too short and might cause some confusion with other meanings
of the word "bass".

PROPOSAL: Call it rec.music.makers.bass. That shortens the name too.
I'm a bass player, so this is the group I care about...
>
>Aren't these names getting a bit long?
>
Is there a good reason that these have to go under rec.music.makers?
I presume there is, but I think that that's the part of the names that
people are seeing as excessive length.


From: barrett@snoopy.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:45:57 GMT

In article <BtpH40.2Mx@uunet.uu.net> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
[Some interesting ideas for new music newsgroups.]

But then...
>Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.keyboards
>Charter: "Synthesizer, sampler, and other keyboard techniques and equipment"

	I strongly disagree with this idea.

	A synthesizer is not a "keyboard."  It's a synthesizer.  There are
dozens of models of synthesizer that do not have a keyboard attached.  There
are thousands of musicians who play synthesizers without keyboards:
percussionists, guitarists, wind instrument players, people using
sequencers, and people doing direct-digital synthesis, to name a few.

	In addition, many topics discussed in rec.music.synth are not
"keyboard" issues:  MIDI, sequencers, synthesis methods, sampling, etc.
They are music-data communication and synthesis issues.

>The discussion has now broadened to include samplers, organs,
>pianos, and other keyboard instruments.

	Samplers are not keyboards.  They are samplers.  Just ask anyone
using a rackmount sampler, or a PC add-on card that does sampling.

	IMHO, this name change would not "broaden" the discussion -- it
would change it, or even narrow it, to keyboard-related issues.
Furthermore, even if the name change did not affect the discussion in any
negative way, it would still reinforce the (popular but false) idea that
the words "keyboard" and "synthesizer" are equivalent.

	Finally, in the past 7 years of reading rec.music.synth, I have seen
virtually no discussion of pianos and organs, except occasionally the
Hammond B-3 (and even then, in the context of Keith Emerson), or "Hey, dood,
anybody got a great piano patch for my synth?"

	I will agree that "rec.music.synth" is perhaps not the ideal
name for the newsgroup.  But "rec.music.makers.keyboard" is not an
appropriate name for r.m.s's subject matter.  I wouldn't mind if a
new, separate newsgroup emerged for the discussion of pianos, organs,
and keyboard performance technique.

	I did like some of the other proposed newsgroups, though.

                                                        Dan



From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 28 Aug 92 19:48:33 GMT

As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
any existing or proposed subgroups.  This would shorten the names some --
a definite consideration when we're talking about groups with names like
rec.music.makers.guitar.tabulature.


From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:45:25 GMT

In article <1992Aug28.185740.28330@leland.Stanford.EDU> whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt) writes:
>This question was raised when alt.guitar.bass was formed. The answer
>is that upright bass, which is about half the players reading the newsgroup,
>is in no way descended from guitar [...]

Alright, I'll buy that, and modify the proposal accordingly.  I was
unaware of the larger contingent of upright bass players -- my error.
(This also slightly decreases the extent of the long-names problem;
see below.)

>Is there a good reason that these have to go under rec.music.makers?
>I presume there is, but I think that that's the part of the names that
>people are seeing as excessive length.

Yes, I do think there is a good reason for putting these under
rec.music.makers, to wit: grouping together those groups that are
concerned with instrumental music-making under one heading that
makes it clear (by virtue of its name).   This solves two problems:
first, it brings all the groups together in one convenient place;
second, it avoids -- to some extent -- possible misinterpretations
of the names.  (E.g. "rec.music.guitar" might be construed to be
about music featuring the guitar, rather than guitar technique, equipment,
and so on.)


From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 28 Aug 92 20:47:04 GMT

In article <w1dnn=d@lynx.unm.edu> lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble) writes:
>As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
>rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
>any existing or proposed subgroups.

My inclination is not to do this, because it creates two subhierarchies
for music: rec.music.*, and rec.musicians.*.  I think that we're better
off with one hierarchy, even if that means that some of the names wind
up a bit longer than we'd like.


From: jamesb@nevada.edu (James Bender)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 29 Aug 92 00:31:19 GMT


	I think we should leave well enough alone.



From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 29 Aug 92 03:42:34 GMT

Lazlo sed:
>As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
>rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
>any existing or proposed subgroups.

and Rich grepped:
>My inclination is not to do this, because it creates two subhierarchies
>for music: rec.music.*, and rec.musicians.*.  I think that we're better
>off with one hierarchy, even if that means that some of the names wind
>up a bit longer than we'd like.

Actually, I think Lazlo's idea is the best I've seen yet.  There is a fairly
natural dichotomy between those who mainly appreciate music and those who
mainly perform music.  I think reflecting that in a dual hierarchy is
an excellant idea, and avoids the obvious problem with the rec.music.makers
hierarchy that the name `rec.music.makers.guitar' seems to imply someone who
makes *guitars*, not music.  Also, the whole `makers' hierarchy gets very
clumsy very quickly.  This also provides a better name for rec.music.makers
itself, a name I've always thought ungraceful: rename it to rec.musicians.misc
(we'd have all those specific groups, so it should become a `misc').


From: nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 29 Aug 92 06:25:26 GMT

In article <BtpH40.2Mx@uunet.uu.net> rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
>are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
>in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
>rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
>these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
>an existing group.
[ ... ]
>Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.keyboards
>Charter: "Synthesizer, sampler, and other keyboard techniques and equipment"
>
>	There are two reasons for this.  The reason for moving the group
>	is to place it under rec.music.makers, along with all of the
>	other newsgroups specifically designed for the discussion of
>	instruments and techniques.  The reason for renaming the group
>	is to reflect the change in its contents: when rec.music.synth
>	was created, the focus was nearly exclusively on synthesizers.
>	The discussion has now broadened to include samplers, organs,
>	pianos, and other keyboard instruments.

I have no problem moving the group under the rec.music.makers hierarchy,
but I see no reason to rename from .synth to .keyboards.  In fact, the
discussion routinely includes much more than keyboards.  All manner of musical
electronics and synthesis are covered, including computers and software,
electronic drums, guitar synthesis, alternate controllers, etc.  I think
that while .synth might not be the perfect name, it captures the essence of
the group much better than .keyboards.

I also wonder if this is the right time to again bring up the idea of a
.marketplace group, presumably rec.music.makers.marketplace.  When the
r.m.m hierarchy expands (assuming the proposals pass), it will start to
get confusing where "forsale" posts should go.  I think the idea for this
group has been rejected in the past, but what the heck.



From: lazlo@triton.unm.edu (Lazlo Nibble)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 29 Aug 92 22:57:19 GMT

nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes:

> I also wonder if this is the right time to again bring up the idea of a
> .marketplace group, presumably rec.music.makers.marketplace.  When the
> r.m.m hierarchy expands (assuming the proposals pass), it will start to
> get confusing where "forsale" posts should go.

Although I didn't specifically intend it that way when I proposed the
group, rec.music.marketplace seems to have become the home for equipment
sales as well as the rest of the CD/LP/tape material.  The posts are
welcome there, so if you don't feel a specific need to split the hardware
out, the problem's already got a solution. 



From: frankc@faatcrl.UUCP (Frank Coffman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 31 Aug 92 14:40:06 GMT

rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
>Charter: "Electric and acoustic guitar techniques and equipment"

>	Rec.music.makers.guitar would be a one-for-one unmoderated
>	replacement of alt.guitar.

	Agree

>Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>Charter: "Electric and acoustic bass guitar techniques and equipment"

>	Rec.music.makers.guitar.bass would be a one-for-one unmoderated
>	replacement of alt.guitar.bass.

	Agree


>Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, and remove alt.guitar.tab.
>Charter: "Guitar tablature/chords, associated discussion and requests".
> 
>	This group would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement
>	of alt.guitar.tab.

	Agree	

>Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
>Charter: "Percussion (including drums) techniques and equipment"

>	Rec.music.makers.percussion would be an unmoderated group for the
>	discussion of drums and related percussion instruments.
>	(There is an existing recently-formed mailing list for drummers;
>	there has been discussion there about forming a newsgroup.)

	no opinion

>Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.keyboards
>Charter: "Synthesizer, sampler, and other keyboard techniques and equipment"

	Strongly disagree - Synths need not be controlled by keyboards.

I also think the groups would better be named rec.music.* That way the
hierarchy would be just as clear, and for that matter rec.music.makers
could remain as a forum for non-instrumental discussions of musicians, 
with topics such as agents, taxes, demo productions, cover vs. original
performance, and other music community issues.  (Don't know what the
traffic level would be, but I'd subscribe.)



[ One letter deleted.  Correspondent proposes rec.music.makers.bass,
and provides some arguments for it.  ---Rsk ]


From: dsf@NOCMPC.csg.gss.mot.com (Scott Freemire)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: guitar,music
Date: 1 Sep 92 19:14:56 GMT

As a guitarist whose news feed does not receive the alt.* groups;
I heartily approve of all of the referenced proposals, and specifically
proposals A,B,and C.

In addition to bringing the folks with similar interests together, the
addition of .tab to rec.* will give us all a place to "play".


From: wes@ice.stx.com (John Shepherd)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: music
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:14:32 GMT

I'd like to express support of the proposals for instrument specific 
groups. Just a few opinions:

  I like the idea of naming the groups rec.musicians.* . As Jeff Lewis 
pointed out, there is a difference between musicians and music fans. 
This can be seen now by comparing rec.music.makers to most of the rest 
of the rec.music groups. While posts on .makers seem to be centered on 
passing on technical and professional information, posts in most of the 
other groups seem to focus on fans opinions of artists, tour schedules, 
favorite recordings, etc.

  As for .keyboards vs. .synth, these should be established as separate 
groups. One for keyboard techniques and the other for all types of 
synthesizers.

  I specifically support the formation of rec.musicians.percussion (or 
rec.music.makers.percussion if you insist). The mailing list is quite 
active and, as a subscriber, I'm  receiving way too much mail. One of 
the current threads is about this very proposal, and although I don't 
believe anyone's taken a poll yet, I think the majority favor the proposal 
and are waiting for the call for votes.

   

From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 1 Sep 92 22:29:03 GMT

a short while back, Lazlo sed:
>As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
>rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
>any existing or proposed subgroups.

To make this idea a little more concrete, and get some feedback, here's what
I'd propose that a `rec.musicians' hierarchy look like:

    rec.musicians.misc
    rec.musicians.guitar
    rec.musicians.guitar.bass -or- rec.musicians.bass-guitar
    rec.musicians.guitar.tablature
    rec.musicians.percussion
    rec.musicians.keyboards
    rec.musicians.synth
    rec.musicians.marketplace

`Rec.musicians.misc' would replace `rec.music.makers'.  From discussion,
`Synth' and `keyboards' seem to relatively dissociated anymore.  What to do
with bass guitar is still problematic, I guess - a related question worth
asking is "where should tablature for bass guitar go?"  `Rec.musicians.
marketplace' would be the obvious analogue to `rec.music.marketplace' for
sales/trading of equipment.

Some interesting further possibilities might be the creation of genre
specific groups, such as:

    rec.musicians.rock
    rec.musicians.jazz
    rec.musicians.classical
    etc...

although I have no idea if they'd be useful.  It seems that current discussion
in rec.music.makers is largely rock/popular music oriented, although I have
a feeling that this is simply because jazz and classical (etc) musician
discussions are carried on in the bluenote and classical groups, respectively.


From: boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 2 Sep 92 11:49:25 GMT


In article <42244@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
|> a short while back, Lazlo sed:
|> >As an aside to this RFD, I'd like to suggest that it might be time to move
|> >rec.music.makers.* up to rec.musicians.*, with appropriate name changes for
|> >any existing or proposed subgroups.
|> 
|> To make this idea a little more concrete, and get some feedback, here's what
|> I'd propose that a `rec.musicians' hierarchy look like:
|> 
|>     rec.musicians.misc
       OK but will it be a group for misc discussions about
       music making or a group for discussions on instruments
       not in others groups (for example i play sax where do i
       have to post an article about sax, here or in another group
       (to define: rec.musicians.misc-instruments?) ??).
|>     rec.musicians.guitar
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.guitar.bass -or- rec.musicians.bass-guitar
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.guitar.tablature
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.percussion
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.keyboards
       OK
|>     rec.musicians.synth
       I'm not really sure that 'synth' is the good name for
       that group (what about samplers, expanders, ... are their
       synth or something more global , for almost people synth
       are principaly keyboards).
|>     rec.musicians.marketplace
       OK very good , sales annouces will not pollute others
       groups anymore.
|> 
|> [ some stuff about previous groups deleted ]
|> 
|> Some interesting further possibilities might be the creation of genre
|> specific groups, such as:
|> 
|>     rec.musicians.rock
|>     rec.musicians.jazz
|>     rec.musicians.classical
|>     etc...
|> 
|> although I have no idea if they'd be useful.  It seems that current discussion
|> in rec.music.makers is largely rock/popular music oriented, although I have
|> a feeling that this is simply because jazz and classical (etc) musician
|> discussions are carried on in the bluenote and classical groups, respectively.

   I like the idea it could be places where people could ask questions like
   "I would like to know the chords of [my favourite song of the moment]" or
   "I terminate all unfinished classicals symphonies and i release them to
    the public domain , who want the sheet music or midi files of them?" ...


From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 2 Sep 92 17:00:09 GMT

In article <1992Sep2.114925.23781@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr> boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker) writes:
>
>In article <42244@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
>|> here's what I'd propose that a `rec.musicians' hierarchy look like:
>|>     rec.musicians.misc
>       OK but will it be a group for misc discussions about
>       music making or a group for discussions on instruments
>       not in others groups (for example i play sax where do i
>       have to post an article about sax, here or in another group
>       (to define: rec.musicians.misc-instruments?) ??).

You have a good point - that group is ill-defined.  It should definately be
for discussion of general issues relevant to musicians, but what to do for
misc instruments is unclear.  I'm afraid the first thing that comes to
mind is to create a subhierarchy - rec.musicians.instruments, and tuck
guitar, percussion, etc under it.  Then, rec.musicians.instruments.misc would
work just fine for sax, etc.  Of course, this would only be reasonable if
it was agreed that rec.musicians.rock, etc, were also wanted.  Backstepping
a bit, the `instruments' hierarchy could also fit under rec.music quite
reasonably, if the genre specific groups weren't wanted.

>|>     rec.musicians.synth
>       I'm not really sure that 'synth' is the good name for
>       that group

I agree - perhaps `.electronic'?


From: horeff@cirrus.com (Steve Horeff)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: music
Date: 2 Sep 92 18:33:29 GMT

In <1992Sep1.221432.11665@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wes@ice.stx.com (John 
Shepherd) writes:

>I'd like to express support of the proposals for instrument specific 
>groups. Just a few opinions:

>  I specifically support the formation of rec.musicians.percussion (or 
>rec.music.makers.percussion if you insist). The mailing list is quite 
>active and, as a subscriber, I'm  receiving way too much mail. One of 
>the current threads is about this very proposal, and although I don't 
>believe anyone's taken a poll yet, I think the majority favor the proposal 
>and are waiting for the call for votes.

I would also like to express my support for a percussion/drum newsgroup.  I am 
also on the drum mailing list and I get at least 20 new mail articles a day!  
The volume alone from the drum mailgroup warrants its own newgroup.  I'm sure 
the other people in the drum mailgroup would agree.  Let me/us know how and 
when to vote for this.



From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 2 Sep 92 23:30:15 GMT

OK - here's a brief list of the schemes mentioned so far (plus a couple
variations) of how to name the instrument/musician specific newsgroups.
I'm concentrating on the overall scheme, not the specifics like what
to call the group for bass guitar, so that we can get infrastructure
discussions out of the way first, and get moving on the non-controversial
instrument specific groups.  Note that the genre specific groups aren't
very well hashed out yet, but the idea seems to have some support.

A:  Create rec.musicians.misc for misc musician discussion
    Create rec.musicians.{rock,jazz,classical} for genre specific
      musician discussion
    Create rec.musicians.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
    Create rec.musicians.misc-instruments
    Create rec.musicians.marketplace

Variations on a theme:
B:  rec.musicians.misc
    rec.musicians.{rock,jazz,classical}
    rec.musicians.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
    rec.musicians.instruments.misc
    rec.musicians.marketplace

Variations on a theme:
C:  rec.music.makers
    rec.music.makers.{rock,jazz,classical}
    rec.music.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
    rec.music.instruments.misc
    rec.music.instruments.marketplace

As per current RFD:
D:  Use rec.music.makers for misc discussion
    Overload rec.music.{classical,bluenote,etc} for genre specific
      musician discussion
    Create rec.music.makers.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
    Overload rec.music.marketplace for instruments as well
      (or create rec.music.makers.marketplace)

Minimal change:
E:  Same as D, but create rec.music.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
      instead.

BTW, I use `overload' in the technical sense - I don't mean to imply that
the overloading is necessarily a `bad thing'.

Feedback?


From: pstevens@Metaphor.COM (Paul Stevens)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 3 Sep 92 20:43:20 GMT

In article <42319@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
|> OK - here's a brief list of the schemes mentioned so far (plus a couple
|> variations) of how to name the instrument/musician specific newsgroups.
|> 
|> A:  Create rec.musicians.misc for misc musician discussion
|>     Create rec.musicians.{rock,jazz,classical} for genre specific
|>       musician discussion
|>     Create rec.musicians.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     Create rec.musicians.misc-instruments
|>     Create rec.musicians.marketplace
|> 

I think this approach is fine.

|> Variations on a theme:
|> B:  rec.musicians.misc
|>     rec.musicians.{rock,jazz,classical}
|>     rec.musicians.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     rec.musicians.instruments.misc
|>     rec.musicians.marketplace
|> 

The inclusion of "instruments" before the specific areas seems artificial.
It also seems to imply that the discussion is about the instruments these
musicians play rather than a general place that all percussionists can gather
to talk about whatever they wish.

|> Variations on a theme:
|> C:  rec.music.makers
|>     rec.music.makers.{rock,jazz,classical}
|>     rec.music.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     rec.music.instruments.misc
|>     rec.music.instruments.marketplace
|> 

I don't like this for the same reason as B.

|> As per current RFD:
|> D:  Use rec.music.makers for misc discussion
|>     Overload rec.music.{classical,bluenote,etc} for genre specific
|>       musician discussion
|>     Create rec.music.makers.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     Overload rec.music.marketplace for instruments as well
|>       (or create rec.music.makers.marketplace)
|> 

This also seems fine to me.

|> Minimal change:
|> E:  Same as D, but create rec.music.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>       instead.
|> 

I don't like this because the name seems to imply discussions of guitar
*music* rather than of issues of interest to guitarists.


From: wes@ian.stx.com (John S.)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 3 Sep 92 21:56:18 GMT

In article <42319@ogicse.ogi.edu> jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
>OK - here's a brief list of the schemes mentioned so far (plus a couple

>A:  Create rec.musicians.misc for misc musician discussion
>    Create rec.musicians.{rock,jazz,classical} for genre specific
>      musician discussion
[see below]
>    Create rec.musicians.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
>    Create rec.musicians.misc-instruments
>    Create rec.musicians.marketplace
>

>Feedback?
>
>--Jeff

This would probably be my first choice. It's not full of sub-sub-sub-
sub-categories. Call it snobbery, but I like having 'musicians' in
there. 

   I'm not certain that there's a need for genre specific groups
for musicians separate from the existing rec.music.{insert-genre-here} 
groups, though. Musicians are already frequenting these groups (I've
received an invitation to jam through one group.) Besides, if you're a
musician, what better way to get to know your audience? 

   

From: boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 4 Sep 92 12:11:58 GMT


In article <42319@ogicse.ogi.edu>, jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
|> 
|> [ A & B deleted ]
|> 
|> Variations on a theme:
|> C:  rec.music.makers
|>     rec.music.makers.{rock,jazz,classical}
|>     rec.music.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     rec.music.instruments.misc
|>     rec.music.instruments.marketplace
|> 
   That's my favourite variation :
   1/ IMHO rec.music.* seems to be a better organisation than rec.musicians.* 
      ( A & B ) because it's not 'close' to non musicians:
      - rec.musicians.instruments.* look like places for discussions of 
        musicians about their instruments.
      - rec.music.instruments.* look like places for discussions for 
        everybody loving music about some specific instruments.
   2/ rec.music.* hierarchy already exists and it is perhaps unnecessary
      to create a parallel hierarchy only for musicians:
      It could be a (little) humility lesson for musicians to share
      something about music with non-musicians ;-J 

   My only remark will be about rec.music.instruments.marketplace :
   what about selling things like sound-effects, trackers, ... a better
   hierarchy could be:
   rec.music.marketplace.material (from jack to full recording studio)&
   rec.music.marketplace.misc (for collectors, books , concert ...)


From: latta@scam.berkeley.edu (Craig R. Latta)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
In-reply-to: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu's message of 2 Sep 92 23:30:15 GMT


	Jeff Lewis (jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu) writes:

> [a bunch of rec.music*.* schemes]

	I prefer this a combination of C, and D, which I will call X
(just to avoid the obvious... and conflicts):

Variations on a theme:
X:	rec.music.makers for general musician discussion
	rec.music.makers.<genre> for genre-based musician discussion
		(I doubt there would be sufficient traffic to sustain
		these groups, however)
	rec.music.<genre> for genre-based discussion (as it is now.
		Genre-based discussion shouldn't be assumed to be
		conducted by musicians only!). Note that
		"rec.music.synth" would be used for discussion of
		synth-based music, not so much for discussion of the
		synths themselves.
	rec.music.instruments.<instrument>, including
		rec.music.instruments.synth, for discussion of
			*synths* (sound and sound data generators),
			not so much for discussion of synth
			*interfaces*, like keyboard controllers.
		rec.music.instruments.controllers
		rec.music.instruments.controllers.keyboard
		rec.music.instruments.controllers.guitar
	rec.music.instruments.misc
	rec.music.instruments.marketplace


	Obviously discussions will have significant (but less, and
hopefully minimal) overlap. This is a Good Thing.

	I'd like to point out that "synth" is used as an umbrella term
for many kinds of controllers, not just keyboards (and rarely for mere
sound generators!). I think it would be a mistake to marginalize
non-keyboard synth controllers by turning rec.music.synth into
rec.music.keyboard, etc., or by discussion of dumping non-keyboard
controllers into rec.music.synth.alternate or somesuch.

	In general, I think newsgroups are better grouped by subject
matter, not by categorizing the participants. One of the greatest
things about USENET is that it allows very different people to
associate via their *interests*. So the "rec.musician" groupname
element turns me off, and it also conflicts with the
"rec.music.makers" (by duplicating "music-").

	And I don't have any aesthetic problem with long heirarchical
names, as long as they are the shortest *appropriate* names.

	Finally, the current configuration doesn't really pain me. I'm
not expecting a whole lot of people to want to change anything, except
perhaps to make the traditional move of the established alt groups out
of alt and into the "real" part of the namespace.



From: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: music
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:13:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep1.221432.11665@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wes@ice.stx.com writes:
>  As for .keyboards vs. .synth, these should be established as separate 
>groups. One for keyboard techniques and the other for all types of 
>synthesizers.

	Is there a sizable group of people who discuss keyboard techniques
on the Net?  If so, where are they discussing it now?  I don't see it in
r.m.synth at all.  If not, then I'd say "don't bother."



From: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:16:22 GMT

In article <42304@ogicse.ogi.edu> jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis) writes:
>>|>     rec.musicians.synth
>>       I'm not really sure that 'synth' is the good name for
>>       that group
>
>I agree - perhaps `.electronic'?

	My gut reaction was "no" -- but the more I think about it, the
more I like this name.  rec.musicians.electronic.  It appears to encompass
synthesis, alternate controllers & performance, MIDI, computers, etc.,
without ambiguity.

	I like it.


From: barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 5 Sep 92 03:18:15 GMT

In article <LATTA.92Sep4185528@scam.berkeley.edu> latta@scam.berkeley.edu (Craig R. Latta) writes:
>	rec.music.instruments.<instrument>, including
>		rec.music.instruments.synth, for discussion of
>			*synths* (sound and sound data generators),
>			not so much for discussion of synth
>			*interfaces*, like keyboard controllers.
>		rec.music.instruments.controllers
>		rec.music.instruments.controllers.keyboard

	I think you'd see a lot of crossposting among these groups, since
the general population equates "keyboard" and "synth".


From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: music
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:08:29 GMT

barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett) writes:

>In article <1992Sep1.221432.11665@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wes@ice.stx.com writes:
>>  As for .keyboards vs. .synth, these should be established as separate 
>>groups. One for keyboard techniques and the other for all types of 
>>synthesizers.
>
>	Is there a sizable group of people who discuss keyboard techniques
>on the Net?  If so, where are they discussing it now?  I don't see it in
>r.m.synth at all.  If not, then I'd say "don't bother."

If they're not discussing it in r.m.synth then they discuss it in
r.m.makers at the moment.  On the other hand, I don't see many keyboardists
discussing technique like guitarists or bassists or drummers do, so even if
one group isn't enough, I don't think a keyboard technique group would have
any traffic anyway.


From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 5 Sep 92 04:16:32 GMT

>|> As per current RFD:
>|> D:  Use rec.music.makers for misc discussion
>|>     Overload rec.music.{classical,bluenote,etc} for genre specific
>|>       musician discussion
>|>     Create rec.music.makers.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
>|>     Overload rec.music.marketplace for instruments as well
>|>       (or create rec.music.makers.marketplace)

To me, this proposal seems to be the most reasonable.  It utilizes existing
hierarchies while creating the newsgroups most necessary, those being the
instrument-specific groups under r.m.makers.  rec.music.synth could simply
be renamed rec.music.makers.synth, for instance.

I do think it would make the most sense to retain the label 'synth' rather
than keyboards, since it would not preclude discussion of alternative
controllers (which I've seen quite a bit of discussion on), and the number
of people who play other keyboard instruments (piano, organ, harpsicord)
but not synths is fairly small.  

I would certainly vote yes on a call for votes on a proposal like the
above.  It's efficient and makes sense.



From: jonathan@mantis.co.uk (Jonathan Egre')
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 6 Sep 92 17:04:00 GMT

latta@scam.berkeley.edu (Craig R. Latta) writes:

> 	In general, I think newsgroups are better grouped by subject
> matter, not by categorizing the participants. One of the greatest
> things about USENET is that it allows very different people to
> associate via their *interests*. So the "rec.musician" groupname
> element turns me off, and it also conflicts with the
> "rec.music.makers" (by duplicating "music-").

Are you trying to say that the word "musician" would imply a newsgroup 
strictly for professional musicians?  I don't see it as any more elitist
than "music.makers". 

I'm certainly not a professional musician, but I would not even have
*suspected* that postings concerning my hobby of playing the guitar would
be unwelcome in "rec.musicians.guitar".  Amateur musicians and beginners
are still "musicians" in my view.


From: smithj@hpsad.sad.hp.com (Jim Smith)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 6 Sep 92 20:39:44 GMT

I think that two hierarchies for music is appropriate.  
rec.musician.* for those CREATING music,
and rec.music.* for other musical topics.

In addition, cast my vote for keeping a rec.*.synth group seperate
from rec.*.keyboards, for reasons already given.  A synth may HAVE a 
keyboard, but not necessarily.  In addition, the few keyboard issues
that come up, such as organs and pianos, often have some relevance to
synthesis topics, ie, my postings on Hammond B3 drawbar settings were more
for the benefit of those doing imitative synthesis of B3's, than for 
B3 owners.



From: david@roth-music.com (David A. Roth)
Newsgroups: rec.music.synth,news.groups
Subject: Re: rec.music.synth renaming discussion in news.groups
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:00:27 GMT


In article <1992Sep4.212946.8390@cbnewsm.cb.att.com> (rec.music.synth), nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock) writes:
> 
> There is currently a discussion underway in news.groups to reorganize the
> rec.music.makers hierarchy.  Among the newsgroups under discussion is
> rec.music.synth.  The name "synth" is being questioned ("electronic" has
> been suggested as an alternative), as is the possibility of splitting into
> "synth" and "keyboard" groups (they seem to have been talked out of renaming
> "synth" to "keyboard" for now.)
> 
> Anyway, I suggest that those who have an interest in this should go check
> it out.
> 
>                                 - Neil
No more discussion is needed on it.  Leave rec.music.synth the way
it is and tell the net nerds to mind their own business.



From: boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 7 Sep 92 09:17:25 GMT


|> Variations on a theme:
|> C:  rec.music.makers
|>     rec.music.makers.{rock,jazz,classical}
|>     rec.music.instruments.{guitar,percussion,keyboards,etc}
|>     rec.music.instruments.misc
|>     rec.music.instruments.marketplace
|> 

   That's my favourite variation :
   1/ IMHO rec.music.* seems to be a better organisation than rec.musicians.* 
      ( A & B ) because it's not 'close' to non musicians:
      - rec.musicians.instruments.* look like places for discussions of 
        musicians about their instruments.
      - rec.music.instruments.* look like places for discussions for 
        everybody loving music about some specific instruments.
   2/ rec.music.* hierarchy already exists and it is perhaps unnecessary
      to create a parallel hierarchy only for musicians:
      It could be a (little) humility lesson for musicians to share
      something about music with non-musicians ;-J 

   My only remark will be about rec.music.instruments.marketplace :
   what about selling things like sound-effects, trackers, ... a better
   hierarchy could be:
   rec.music.marketplace.material (from jack to full recording studio)&
   rec.music.marketplace.misc (for collectors, books , concert ...)

 Here is my proposal:

 o rec.music.maker         
   ( general discussions )
 o rec.music.maker.<genre> 
   ( discussions on making music for a specific genre )
                   pop-rock
                   bluenote ( jazz , blues )
                   classical
                   world    ( musics from India , Africa , Orient ...)
 o rec.music.instruments
   ( general discussions )
 o rec.music.instruments.<instrument>
   ( discussions on a specific instrument )
                         guitars ( remark the 's': guitar and bass-guitar )
                         keyboards
                         electronics ( midi , samples ... )
                         misc ( others instruments )
 o rec.music.marketplace.material
                        .misc
 o remove rec.music.synth .



From: mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Michael R. Kesti)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 8 Sep 92 16:39:46 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.091725.2487@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr>
                       boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker) writes:
>|> Variations on a theme:

>   That's my favourite variation :

> Here is my proposal:


The thing I just don't understand is what we are trying to fix with all
these variations and proposals.  I honestly don't see that there is much,
if anything, to be fixed in the musicians' groups, but perhaps if those
who do could state the problem(s) to be solved, the solutions might become
more obvious.  From my point of view, however, it looks like most of the
proponents of this restructuring want to change things for the sake of
changing them.  Please enlighten me.


From: plate@cdsmn.mn.org (Doug Plate)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Keywords: music
Date: 8 Sep 92 17:04:30 GMT

In article <1992Sep5.040829.24193@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>barrett@gleep.cs.umass.edu (Daniel Barrett) writes:
>
>>In article <1992Sep1.221432.11665@nsisrv.gsfc.nasa.gov> wes@ice.stx.com writes:
>>>  As for .keyboards vs. .synth, these should be established as separate 
>>>groups. One for keyboard techniques and the other for all types of 
>>>synthesizers.
>>
>>	Is there a sizable group of people who discuss keyboard techniques
>>on the Net?  If so, where are they discussing it now?  I don't see it in
>>r.m.synth at all.  If not, then I'd say "don't bother."
>
>If they're not discussing it in r.m.synth then they discuss it in
>r.m.makers at the moment.  On the other hand, I don't see many keyboardists
>discussing technique like guitarists or bassists or drummers do, so even if
>one group isn't enough, I don't think a keyboard technique group would have
>any traffic anyway.

I don't see a need for a keyboard group either.  I also like the name synth
rather than "electronic" because I'd hate to see a lot of soundblaster type
postings start to take over (maybe I'm paranoid).

Regards,
Doug Plate


From: latta@scam.berkeley.edu (Craig R. Latta)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 8 Sep 92 18:31:09 GMT
In-reply-to: jonathan@mantis.co.uk's message of 6 Sep 92 17:04:00 GMT



	Jonathan Egre' (jonathan@mantis.co.uk) writes:

>    latta@scam.berkeley.edu (Craig R. Latta) writes:
> 
>    > 	In general, I think newsgroups are better grouped by subject
>    > matter, not by categorizing the participants. One of the greatest
>    > things about USENET is that it allows very different people to
>    > associate via their *interests*. So the "rec.musician" groupname
>    > element turns me off, and it also conflicts with the
>    > "rec.music.makers" (by duplicating "music-").
> 
>    Are you trying to say that the word "musician" would imply a newsgroup 
>    strictly for professional musicians?  I don't see it as any more elitist
>    than "music.makers". 
> 
>    I'm certainly not a professional musician, but I would not even have
>    *suspected* that postings concerning my hobby of playing the guitar would
>    be unwelcome in "rec.musicians.guitar".  Amateur musicians and beginners
>    are still "musicians" in my view.

	Of course. I was complaining about renaming, for example,
rec.music.classical to rec.musicians.classical. Some people are
listeners and not musicians.



From: nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 8 Sep 92 22:33:40 GMT

In article <1992Sep7.091725.2487@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr> boubaker@cenatls.cena.dgac.fr (Heddy Boubaker) writes:
[ ... ]
>   My only remark will be about rec.music.instruments.marketplace :
>   what about selling things like sound-effects, trackers, ... a better
>   hierarchy could be:
>   rec.music.marketplace.material (from jack to full recording studio)&
>   rec.music.marketplace.misc (for collectors, books , concert ...)

That's why rec.music.makers.marketplace seems to make the most sense to me,
since it perfectly conveys that anything involved in the creation of music
is fair game, while pretty clearly excluding selling CDs, concert tickets, etc.


[ One mail message deleted.  Correspondent strongly disagrees with the
proposed renaming of rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.keyboards. --Rsk ]

From: jlewis@ogicse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 9 Sep 92 16:44:02 GMT

Two recent comments:

Michael R. Kesti writes:
>The thing I just don't understand is what we are trying to fix with all
>these variations and proposals.  I honestly don't see that there is much,
>if anything, to be fixed in the musicians' groups, but perhaps if those
>who do could state the problem(s) to be solved, the solutions might become
>more obvious.  From my point of view, however, it looks like most of the
>proponents of this restructuring want to change things for the sake of
>changing them.  Please enlighten me.

Craig R. Latta writes:
> 	Of course. I was complaining about renaming, for example,
> rec.music.classical to rec.musicians.classical. Some people are
> listeners and not musicians.

Somehow some people have gotten the idea that a restructuring of rec.music is
being proposed.  The only restructuring that I suggested was the possible
renaming of rec.music.makers to rec.musicians.misc (given that a rec.musicians
hierarchy was going to be created).  The proposals being discussed are for
the *additional* instrument/musician related groups.  No-one is suggesting,
for example, that rec.music.classical be renamed to rec.musicians.classical -
rec.musicians.classical was a proposed *new* group that specifically addressed
classical musicians (not classical music listeners).

Michael wonders what needs to be fixed in the musicians' groups.  My first
response is - what musicians groups?  All we have is rec.music.makers (and
rec.music.synth I suppose).  (No - alt.guitar, etc don't count.)  That's why
we're proposing more groups - there's good evidence that there's plenty of
interest in groups specifically for guiters, percussion, etc.  There's also
the suggestion that maybe genre specific groups for *musicians* might be
useful.  What's being debated is what's the best way to structure these
proposed groups.

Are we clear on this now?

--Jeff


From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Newsgroups: news.announce.newgroups,news.groups,rec.music.makers,rec.music.synth,alt.guitar,alt.guitar.bass,alt.guitar.tab
Subject: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:26:19 GMT

Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
an existing group.

Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
Charter: "Electric and acoustic guitar techniques and equipment"

	Rec.music.makers.guitar would be a one-for-one unmoderated
	replacement of alt.guitar.

Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
Charter: "Upright bass and bass guitar techniques and equipment"

	Rec.music.makers.bass would be a bit more than a one-for-one
	unmoderated replacement of alt.guitar.bass, since its scope
	would be slightly broader.  Considerable discussion seems to
	indicate that bass guitarists and upright bass players might
	be able to share this group -- for a while, at least.

Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, and remove alt.guitar.tab.
Charter: "Guitar tablature/chords, associated discussion and requests".
 
	This group would be a one-for-one unmoderated replacement
	of alt.guitar.tab.

Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
Charter: "Percussion (including drums) techniques and equipment"

	Rec.music.makers.percussion would be an unmoderated group for the
	discussion of drums and related percussion instruments.
	(There is an existing recently-formed mailing list for drummers;
	there has been discussion there about forming a newsgroup.)

Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth
Charter: "Synthesizers and computer music"  [UNCHANGED FROM CURRENT]

	The rationale for moving the group is to place it with
	other newsgroups specifically designed for the discussion of
	instruments and techniques.  While discussion in this group
	also covers samplers, organs, pianos, MIDI devices, etc.,
	it does not seem appropriate to make a possible subdivision
	and/or renaming of this group part of this proposal.

Discussion:

A, B and C are designed to shift existing traffic to the main hierarchy;
it is hoped that this will make the relevant articles available to
a larger community.  D is a new group; E is a renaming.

If all proposals are approved, four newsgroups will be created;
three will be deleted; and one will be renamed.  Of course, each
proposal must be voted on separately.

I have read all the traffic posted to news.groups and/or received in my
mailbox a couple of times before formulating this, which I intend to be
the final draft of this proposal.  I recognize that it does not please
everyone; I hope the gentle reader will recognize it as an attempt to
reflect as much of the consensus as possible.


From: dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:06:01 GMT

rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
>Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, and remove alt.guitar.tab.
>Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
>Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth

I find this a logical, well-thought-out, efficient way of restructuring the
rec.music.makers situation.

I whole-heartedly endorse this set of proposals (for whatever that's worth =-)
and would likely vote yes on all the above proposals.  A well-done job.



From: whale@leland.Stanford.EDU (Stephen Schmidt)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:07:31 GMT

In article <BuBy7w.C0C@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:

>Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>Charter: "Upright bass and bass guitar techniques and equipment"
>
>	Rec.music.makers.bass would be a bit more than a one-for-one
>	unmoderated replacement of alt.guitar.bass, since its scope
>	would be slightly broader.  Considerable discussion seems to
>	indicate that bass guitarists and upright bass players might
>	be able to share this group -- for a while, at least.
>
In fact, alt.guitar.bass is actually serving the upright bass community
as well as the electric bass guitar folks despite the impresssion the
name gives. Upright bass people and electric bass people are, in a good
50% of the cases, the same people, so I think that they'll be able to
share the newsgroup very comfortably. We can always skip over a few
articles; it's much easier than coping with two newsgroups with very
similar threads.
Alt.guitar.bass has both a charter, which is essentially the one given
above though somewhat more verbose, and a FAQ which was last posted on
9-3-92. It was not crossposted to news.answers for the simple reason that
I don't know how to do that... If you can get alt.guitar.bass you can
still dig it out, or if enough people can't do that I can post it to
news.answers on request.
I support all of the proposed changes, especially proposal B (since I'm
a bass player: upright and electric both).


From: xrjdm@twinpeaks.gsfc.nasa.gov (Joseph D. McMahon)
Newsgroups: news.groups,rec.music.synth
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 9 Sep 92 22:14:03 GMT

In article <BuBy7w.C0C@uunet.uu.net>, rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
> 
> Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth
> Charter: "Synthesizers and computer music"  [UNCHANGED FROM CURRENT]
> 
> 	The rationale for moving the group is to place it with
> 	other newsgroups specifically designed for the discussion of
> 	instruments and techniques.  While discussion in this group
> 	also covers samplers, organs, pianos, MIDI devices, etc.,
> 	it does not seem appropriate to make a possible subdivision
> 	and/or renaming of this group part of this proposal.
> 
Rich, this will totally trash my Usenet-to-BITNet gateway and make many people
very ticked. It is not so simple for a robot to decide to read different news-
groupsi -  I handle my mailing list from a remote site which is kind enough to
provide this service; I'd prefer not to have to keep watching for it to break 
and then beg the remote administrator to fix it for me (I can't - I have no
access to the remote system other than as listowner).

I have added rec.music.synth to the "Newsgroups:" so that folks who	
use my mailing list can affirm that this would disrupt their only means of
access to rec.music.synth. Please leave it alone.


From: jlewis@cse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 15:20 PDT
To: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups

Hi Rich!

You said:
> I have read all the traffic posted to news.groups and/or received in my
> mailbox a couple of times before formulating this, which I intend to be
> the final draft of this proposal.  I recognize that it does not please
> everyone; I hope the gentle reader will recognize it as an attempt to
> reflect as much of the consensus as possible.

Perhaps your mailbox reflects a different set of opinions, but a quick scan
of the discussion on this matter yields 1 1/2 people explicitly supporting
rec.music.makers, 2 people explicitly supporting rec.music.instruments, and
4 1/2 people explicitly supporting rec.musicians.  I didn't include either me
or you in that tally.  Personally, I think rec.music.instruments is best
(even though I strongly seconded the rec.musicians suggestion).  So, is the
discussion running stronly in favor of rec.music.makers in your mailbox?


From: till%acid-rain@lucid.com (Don Tillman)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 17:03:55 PDT
To: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu
Subject: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups

   Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 21:26:19 GMT
   From: rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
   Subject: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
   Organization: Cardiothoracic Imaging Research Center

   Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
   are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
   in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
   rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
   these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
   an existing group.

Great!  My only quibbles are that the "makers" in rec.music.makers.mumble
is redundant and the "tab" group contains chords which are also for
keyboards and lyrics which are for voices (meaning it shouldn't be under
guitars). 

Howzabout this:

  rec.music.guitar 
    replaces alt.guitar      (guitarists; electric, acoustic, lutes, etc.)

  rec.music.bass
    replaces alt.guitar.bass (bassists; upright, electric, tuba, sousaphone)

  rec.music.percussion
    new                      (drums and cymbals, folks who hit things)

  rec.music.sheet
    new                      (tab, lyrics, chords, postscript sheet music)

  rec.music.synth
    unchanged                (synths, pianos, organs, clavichords, etc.)

  rec.music.makers 
    unchanged                (players in general, music theory, etc.)

  -- Don



From: frankc@faatcrl.UUCP (Frank Coffman)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 10 Sep 92 01:52:16 GMT

mrk@gvgspd.GVG.TEK.COM (Michael R. Kesti) writes:

>The thing I just don't understand is what we are trying to fix with all
>these variations and proposals.  I honestly don't see that there is much,
>if anything, to be fixed in the musicians' groups, but perhaps if those
>who do could state the problem(s) to be solved, the solutions might become
>more obvious.  From my point of view, however, it looks like most of the
>proponents of this restructuring want to change things for the sake of
>changing them.  Please enlighten me.

If one thing deserves to be changed, there should be a rec.music.guitar
(or rec.musician.guitar or rec.music.musician.guitar or whatever)
due to the high volume of traffic in alt.guitar not reaching those
sites that get rec.* but not alt.*.



From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
To: jlewis@cse.ogi.edu (Jeff Lewis)
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:29:14 EDT

>> I have read all the traffic posted to news.groups and/or received in my
>> mailbox a couple of times before formulating this, which I intend to be
>> the final draft of this proposal.  I recognize that it does not please
>> everyone; I hope the gentle reader will recognize it as an attempt to
>> reflect as much of the consensus as possible.
>
>Perhaps your mailbox reflects a different set of opinions, but a quick scan
>of the discussion on this matter yields 1 1/2 people explicitly supporting
>rec.music.makers, 2 people explicitly supporting rec.music.instruments, and
>4 1/2 people explicitly supporting rec.musicians.  I didn't include either me
>or you in that tally.  Personally, I think rec.music.instruments is best
>(even though I strongly seconded the rec.musicians suggestion).  So, is the
>discussion running stronly in favor of rec.music.makers in your mailbox?

The discussion, as best as I can tell, isn't running strongly in favor
of anything. :-)  Opinions are so varied and split that it took me quite
a while to boil it all down to what I sent out.  Really, the only
points that nearly everyone seems to agree on are the ones involving
moving the alt.whatever groups into the main Usenet hierarchy.  Most of
the mail I've gotten falls into two categories: (1) good idea, do it;
or (2) leave the newsgroup <X> alone.  Very little of it suggests either
the rec.musicians.* or rec.music.<instruments> approach.

Anyway, after wading through all of it, I was unable to piece together
an argument that convinced me that it would be a good idea--at this time,
in this proposal--to abandon the rec.music.makers.* structure.  I think
that it might very well be a viable thing to do in the future, but it's
really beyond the scope of what I set out to do, and I didn't want to
make this such a far-ranging proposal that my initial goals got lost.
I have a hunch that if this proposal passes, and we sit back and wait
a year or so to see how things work out, that we'll all be in a much
better position to figure out what the next move should be.

---Rsk


From: rsk@gynko.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec)
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
To: till@lucid.com
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 92 22:38:24 EDT

>Great!  My only quibbles are that the "makers" in rec.music.makers.mumble
>is redundant and the "tab" group contains chords which are also for
>keyboards and lyrics which are for voices (meaning it shouldn't be under
>guitars). 

First quibble first: there's been considerable discussion about that,
and there are actually two reasons for keeping the "makers" part.
First, the rec.music.makers group was originally set up partially
in order to serve as the anchor point for a possible future subhierarchy
of groups specific to different kinds of music-making.   Well, maybe
we've gotten to the point.  Second, the "makers" in the name helps
remind people what the group is about.  For instance, "rec.music.guitar"
might be about guitar music -- at least to someone who didn't read
the newsgroup charters, and unfortunately a lot of folks don't.

Second quibble: we sorta went through that, too; the problem is that we
don't necessarily need separate groups for guitar tab, bass tab, keyboard
chords, etc.; but these things probably should be separated.  The idea
of this proposal is just to get the existing group moved into the main
Usenet hierarchy and out of "alt.*".  It's entirely possible that it
will be further split -- or moved -- again in the future, but it's such
a young group that it's hard to tell which direction it's eventually
going to go.  (I proposed something like a rec.music.makers.<words-and-music>
but that did not seem to over very well, so I backed off and just went
for the shift.)

---Rsk


From: jamesb@nevada.edu (James Bender)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 10 Sep 92 15:18:10 GMT

In article <BuBy7w.C0C@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
>are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
>in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
>rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
>these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
>an existing group.

	I think we should just leave well enough alone. If it aint broke, 
don't fix it.


From: timv@ccad.uiowa.edu (Timothy VanFosson)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 10 Sep 92 16:28:52 GMT

>From article <1992Sep10.151810.18609@nevada.edu>, by jamesb@nevada.edu (James Bender):
> In article <BuBy7w.C0C@uunet.uu.net> rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>>Introduction: There are several newsgroups in the alt.* hierarchy which
>>are utilized for the discussion of various musical instruments.  The traffic
>>in these groups and the degree of participation from posters to the
>>rec.music.* groups indicate that it might be time to consider shifting
>>these groups to rec.music.makers, creating another group, and renaming
>>an existing group.
> 
> 	I think we should just leave well enough alone. If it aint broke, 
> don't fix it.

>From my perspective, since we don't get the alt.* tree, it is "broke",
so let's fix it.


From: nsw@cbnewsm.cb.att.com (Neil Weinstock)
Newsgroups: news.groups
Subject: Re: 3rd RFD: rec.music.makers.* groups
Date: 10 Sep 92 21:16:21 GMT

In article <1992Sep9.220601.23014@bradley.bradley.edu> dave@bradley.bradley.edu (David Vessell) writes:
>rsk@aspen.circ.upenn.edu (Rich Kulawiec) writes:
>
>>Proposal A: Create rec.music.makers.guitar, and remove alt.guitar.
>>Proposal B: Create rec.music.makers.bass, and remove alt.guitar.bass.
>>Proposal C: Create rec.music.makers.guitar.tablature, and remove alt.guitar.tab.
>>Proposal D: Create rec.music.makers.percussion.
>>Proposal E: Rename rec.music.synth to rec.music.makers.synth
>
>I find this a logical, well-thought-out, efficient way of restructuring the
>rec.music.makers situation.

I like it too, though I'd still like to see rec.music.makers.marketplace
thrown in there.


SHAR_EOF
#	End of shell archive
exit 0