| Re: Attn: Spidey, Chapel, GeneKelly and group -yEnc "Please download both parts (of this post) - then read, listen and reply - thanks.rar" (00/13) |
|
| Spidey (Hannah_Qe@hotmail.com) |
2016/11/04 18:35 |
Hi,
Those charters you speak of made sense out of what could have been
chaos. However, having separate groups for requests, reposts, etc.,
etc. is no longer are very relevant. There are so few people posting
to Usenet, a long list of rules and regulations seems to be overkill
(and maybe even downright unfriendly).
You might be overthinking the issue a bit. The decades groups have
nothing to do with genre. The "GI Blues" you posted probably belongs
in a.b.s.m.soundtracks. If I was posting it, and wanted to also share
in the decades groups, I'd probably choose the 50s, because it is a
50s tune.
Similarly, I'd post Rockabilly in the 50s if they were playing 50s
songs - otherwise in the era in which the recordings were made.
The "nmr" disclaimer has become "Please don't ask me for a re-rip or
the album art. I don't have the original media".
You bring up interesting issues, but they seem way out of time. People
posting in the wrong group isn't an issue, so much as very, very few
people posting at all. The reason might be RIAA, but I think the real
reason is that people are now used to pressing a button and getting
whatever they want, so nobody wants to exert the effort that posting
requires.
What sustains Usenet now is movies & TV shows. and with more and more
folks torrenting, the profit model for the maintainers of Usenet
services is slipping fast.
Thanks for posting the tune and for the interesting questions - more
fun than I've had here in a long time!
Spidey
On Fri, 04 Nov 2016 15:31:38 -0500, TMD@ozone.com (TMD) wrote:
>
>Hey Guys (and/or gals?)... I'd really appreciate some feedback and/or
>opinions on this subject.
>
>Most folks on Usenet these days can't comprehend that fact that it did not
>always exist (as it does now). In fact, back in the late 80s and early 90s
>(after the transition from ArpaNet) there were only a few hundred groups
>and we used to search for things using ridiculously named commands such
>as "Archie", "Veronica" and others. It was slow, cumbersome, frustrating
>and rarely rewarding... but it was fun.
>
>Anyway... back then (with the arrival of Windoze and compression codecs
>resulting in smaller files than WAVs) a few of us old farts ended up (for
>reasons which escape me) being responsible for establishing and writing
>the charters for a lot of the groups we still use today (such as this one).
>I doubt most people know that there really are "charters" (re: rules,
>specifications, etc) for most all "legitimate" groups.
>
>But I digress...
>
>Whether some of you remember me (as TMD, The Mad Doctor or as
>DrJack) is not important. Suffice it to say I've been around for a while but I
>had to (for the most part) cease posting activities about 10 years ago due
>to some of my clientele finding participation in Usenet (which they viewed
>as a source of porn and other sinful things) not acceptable.
>
>My questions is: While charters (for groups) had to be reasonably specific
>(in regards to content) we all knew that the "intent" was broader. After a
>while oversight (of said groups) became lax and many [groups] morphed
>into things that were never in the charter nor intended.
>
>The 40s, 50's and 60s groups come to mind as well as (for example) the
>Big Bands group.
>
>We were all both naive and myopic. At the time "Big Bands" meant (to
>those concerned) Goodman, Miller, Dorsey, etc... those bands of an "era".
>Aarrgghh!... would that concept of an "era" come back and haunt everyone
>involved :(
>
>As time went by questions and challenges would arise (and rarely be
>permanently solved) such as what determines that a band is "big"?. What
>about later day and/or "cover" bands playing the music of that "era"?. Did
>recordings of Souza's band fit in?
>
>Groups like this one (decade groups) are more confusing! This and the
> 50s group have pretty much morphed into "oldies" groups (which seems to
>work) but... is it only for music recorded/released in the 60s? If Carl
>Perkins had re-recorded his records in 1980 would they still get posted in
>the 50s group ??? Setzer and the Stray Cats produced some very good
>rock-a-billy in the 70s and 80's but, since they sounded like they came
>from that "era" (which they were supposed to) would they get posted to the
> 50s group? Hell... I have not a doubt that a flood of Norman Snabernacle
>Choir records (made in 1965) would draw some very snide, trollish
>comments if posted to this group. <grin>
>
>The other day I ran into some reasonably good Rock-A-Billy (recently
>recorded)... do I post em to the 50s group ??
>
>I've posted, with this request for input, a "rock & roll" tune with only a title
>(with all other ID tags intentionally removed).... plz listen to it then tell me
>into what group it should be posted !!!!! ???????
>
>Good Gawd! We won't even try to get into "genre" and "style" tags :( What
>a nightmare this had all become.
>
>Lookin' forward to some feedback.
>
>TMD
>
>
>Oh yeah... one other thing: back in the day when ripping/posting was a little
>more involved, time consuming, etc than it is these days it might have made
>sense but... is the "nmr" disclaimer in a header still needed? Does anyone
>really care?
>
|
|
|