Newsgroup: it.arti.musica.classica
Titolo: rec.music.early

Ai primordi della mia vita su Internet (1995/1996) ero uso frequentare il
gruppo rec.music.early. Non ero molto soddisfatto del livello della
discussione, visto che i thread vertevano soprattutto sulle cantate di
Handel e la ricerca musicisti per il coro tizio o caio. Noto da qualche mese
che il gruppo e' praticamente morto, con pochissime discussioni, nessuna di
qualche interesse e qualche spam. Peccato.
Mi sono quindi chiesto se non valesse la pena di organizzare una "task
force" di cultori del genere (e qui su IAMC ce ne sono tanti!) per procedere
alla rivitalizzazione del gruppo. E vedere poi cosa succede. Ovviamente ho
bisogno di complici. Che ne dite?
Ciao
Mario

bisogno di complici. Che ne dite?
Puo' servire un portaborraccia?
Saluti!
Giamber
giamber AT tin DOT it
punto e virgola trattino chiusa parentesi

 bisogno di complici. Che ne dite?
With great pleasure!!!!!
Che si fa? (adesso devi dare indicazioni tu...)
Ciao
Alessandra

 bisogno di complici. Che ne dite?
volentieri : però non chiedetemi di disquisire
sul cromorno ... che sembra l'argomento
preferito in questi giorni. Potremmo trapiantare
là la diatriba su Ciaccone e Passacaglie ;-))
--
----------------------------------------
carlo gerelli : 
sof...@libero.it
----------------------------------------
"Nella Ciaccona sta il segreto della Vita Bona"
Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra

La mia proposta e' che ciascuno dei "congiurati" lanci *almeno* un thread
originale (magari di taglio IAMC) su rec.music.early ogni due o tre giorni
fino al 15 giugno. Il 16 facciamo il punto e vediamo cosa e' successo. Ok?
Io comincero' oggi pomeriggio.
Ciao
Mario
PS: cercate di evitare Ciaccone e Passacaglie ... :-(

And I had thought your question was an original one. Which means I spent time 
and effort on it because I had thought your concern was real. Rec.music.early 
is a fairly professional board which yes, has its lot of spam, but you can 
filter that (I do not see ANY spam on this newsgroup anymore). No need to 
give us extra work which is not really needed, by giving fake questions just 
to live up the board. I will never again answer any questions of yours.
Michael
--
Posted from 
imo-r16.mx.aol.com
 [152.163.225.70] 
via Mailgate.ORG Server - 
http://www.Mailgate.ORG

to live up the board.
The question is a real one, as on it.arti.musica.classica it's REALLY going
on a discussion on this topic. Anybbody who reads a little bit of Italian
can have a look at it. A discussion which I launched, but which at a certain
point in time created some confusion in my belief as well. If I did not
follow-up to the first post on rec.music.early, it is because I had no time
to open my newsreader in the last two days, and I was going to answer soon.
Hope this clarifies my position, including apologises for any occurred
misunderstanding. I also hope that the "pasdaran" of the netiquette will
refrain from starting a flame on this story.
Mario

<<About spam, this is the first time in my life that somebody named me "a
spammer"! >>
I was not accusing you of spam, I was simply referring to one of the earlier 
posts in this NG about rec.music.early.
<<where everybody could read the Chaconne/Passacaille>>
Yes, I read the thread, and it clearly shows that you covered everything 
(including page-long citations from references). And therefore, your taking 
the question over to rme just to stimulate some activity, while you had 
already covered every conceivable angle, was infuriating. 
Michael, who like any decent German, has a rudimentary understanding of 
Italian
--
Posted from 
imo-r15.mx.aol.com
 [152.163.225.69] 


already covered every conceivable angle, was infuriating.
I could not report all citations of the IAMC thread in a new posting! I
think that the mentioning that a thread was "going on" on IAMC could be
sufficient for stimulating a new discussion. And, especially, the citations
reported in IAMC were not risolutive (and IMHO rather misleading) as they
all conclude (roughly) that Chaconne and Passacaille were at the same time
two different things and the same thing! Also people reporting the quotes
from different sources conclude the postings stating that same. So I was
genuinely looking for a totally new perspective to the discussion when
posting on RME. To this extent, your first contribution and today's
contribution by Virginia looks worth
some further comments and consideration. IMHO.
Regards
Mario