Conference mr1pst::music

From my perspective, having two notes to discuss one artist is silly and
wasteful. I think that there should be just one note to discuss an each
act/artist. I'd like to believe that we are all mature enough that we
can discuss an artist's virutes and shortcomings, without the need to insult
either the artist or each other. And even though some topics are started
by "fans" by the band, I think that they should be able to withstand some
"bashing" of the favorite act, as long as the "bashing" isn't malicious
and senseless.

In the HEAVY_METAL conference, where I'm a moderator, we've long-ago adopted 
rules that say you're not allowed to enter notes saying just "So-and-So S*cks". 
These notes are usually deleted immediately - they don't add anything to the 
discussion, and they don't serve any purpose other than to agitate other 
noters. If someone wants to enter a note saying WHY they don't like a band, 
and/or give an honest review of the music, then that is more than welcome 
(in fact, encouraged!).

I think that as long as we are all a bit tolerant of each other's tastes,
and respect each other's opinions, then there won't be any problems....

alan

    I disagree.
    
    First:
    
    >I'd like to believe that we are all mature enough that we can discuss
    >an artist's virutes and shortcomings, without the need to insult either
    >the artist or each other.
    
    This "belief" has already been amply disproven by the "Stink" topic
    which includes clear insults to the artist.
    
    Second, I think it is easily observable that topics end up having a
    bandwidth of one line of discussion.  It's hard to talk about the
    cuts on a particular album when three or four noters are rapidly
    generating notes trying to determine whether or not a particular
    artist "sucks" or not (a noble effort of course).
    
    The bashing notes clearly provoke that kind of discussion.  And there
    is nothing wrong with that kind of discussion other than it almost
    always drives people who have no interest in that away.  And if there's
    only one topic they have no place to go.
    
    In fact, the "separate bashing topic" policy was something I instituted
    in response to a large number of complaints from people who felt there
    was no place for them to have a non-bashing discussion.  
    
    That seems incredibly unfortunate and unnecessary.  Imagine: someone
    comes in here, wanting to talk about artist X, sees a big "he sucks/
    no he doesn't battle" and says "forget this".
    
    I see it as less necessary to have the bashing in the main topic.  
    What is being compromised by asking that?  Is at that people who want
    to bash insist on doing their bashing in the face of fans?
    
    I think the separate topic is a good compromise that accomodates both
    bashers and non-bashers.   I find it hard to understand why bashers
    won't compromise even that much to make other noters happy.
    

    
> I see it as less necessary to have the bashing in the main topic. What is 
> being compromised by asking that?  Is at that people who want to bash 
> insist on doing their bashing in the face of fans?

Because when discussing something as subjective as an artist, I don't always
want to talk to the converted (or unconverted, as the case may be). 

Theoretically speaking here, let's say I don't like the new Paul McCartney
album. After a few listens to it, I decide to write a negative review to post
in the MUSIC notesfile.

Does this mean I have to post my review in the "McCartney S*cks" topic? And 
if there is such a topic, isn't it probably going to be avoided by McCartney 
fans, who might never get to read my review, even though it might be of 
interest to them if they knew it was there?

I just think that by creating two topics for each artist - one for fans and
one for non-fans, we aren't inviting or promoting the discussion of music; 
we're just allowing everyone a pulpit to spew their opinions from, with no 
one learning or being informed of much of anything.

Just being an idealist, I guess....

alan

>Theoretically speaking here, let's say I don't like the new Paul McCartney
>album. After a few listens to it, I decide to write a negative review to post
>in the MUSIC notesfile.

>Does this mean I have to post my review in the "McCartney S*cks" topic? 
    
    Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    I think you've missed some of the discussion (which has been scattered
    across about 5 notes now).
    
    No one seems to have a problem with "negative reviews".   What people
    have a problem with is "bashing" which I think is clearly something
    else.
    
    Look at the Michael Jackson topic (last couple of notes).   The Sting
    topic also contains "negative" comments that no one has any problem
    with.
    
    	db

  If we're registering "votes", I agree with Alan in .1 .
  
  1 topic per artist, everyone lighten up, less is more, it's only notes,
  life is short, laissez faire, keep it simple, who's to judge, etc.
     JBC

I agree with .5.

1 topic per artist, everyone lighten up, less is more, it's only notes, 
life is short, laissez faire, keep it simple, who's to judge, etc.
    SPD

    I agree with .1, .5, .6    
    
    1 topic should cover it, less can be more, just like music, and for a
    company not doing so well, some people seem to have a lot of time to
    argue/discuss a lot of hot air in here...
    
    are there any music FANS out there ??
    
    Wes   who enjoys discussion about MUSIC, not an artists political
    stance, or the endless discussions that go down rat-holes that noone
    can crawl out of...

    
    1 topic. 

    1 topic
    
    

    1 topic

re: db

>> Does this mean I have to post my review in the "McCartney S*cks" topic? 
>    Absolutely NOT!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>    I think you've missed some of the discussion (which has been scattered
>    across about 5 notes now).

Yes, I have missed those notes - I didn't feel any need to read any of these
"bash" topics, as they didn't seem to serve any purpose or give any real
information. So it could be that I'm speaking more idealistically than 
realistically....

alan

    If we have just 1 topic per artist, then as Alan suggests in .1 the
    moderators will need to immediately zap the content-free "foo s*cks"
    notes and the repetitive notes from the same noter which simply repeat
    for the 1000th time the analytical reasons why "foo is suboptimal".
    Both methods have been commonly used to derail discussion of unpopular
    or untrendy artists and genres.

    That would eliminate the overall amount of totally negative notes in the
    conference, which would probably be a good thing.

    In this case, having a separate "Bash" note for all bashes of no
    socially redeeming value might be helpful then for letting off steam
    and perhaps adding humor without derailing discussion.  Then you just
    have to "next unseen" over one bashing note, not lots of them.

    The goals that Dave mentions in .2 are good and important, but maybe
    it's time to try another method to achieve them.

    >  everyone lighten up, less is more, it's only notes,
    
    I'm not sure if this entreaty is addressed to bashers or people who
    avoid the topics with bashing in them (or both).
    
    It certainly does not seem to apply to the latter because those people
    aren't angered or upset by the bashing notes, they simply feel its
    not interesting reading and just stop reading.  My point however, is
    that their interests in the conference (which I believe are valid
    and should be encouraged) are not served.  They are driven out
    by drivel.
    
    I am also not sure whether all the votes for 1 note per artist
    are with the provision that bashing ("____ stinks", and name-calling
    like "Stink") is allowed or disallowed.

    
    I agree with -.2 (?) or so
    
    	one note for generic bashing will let people blow off steam, by
    writing 'Artist X is an ignorant twit, period!'.  Other noters who are
    turned off by that type of negativity can just avoid the one topic.
    
    	'honest' criticism, ie. 'Artist X is an ignorant twit because
    he/she sings off-key, plays badly and write uninspired tripe' should be
    allowed under the Artist X base note.  
    
    	seems like an equitable solution, all 'round.
    
    						-Jimbo

>                          -< Who is to "lighten up"? >-

  Speaking strictly for myself: well, I did say "everyone".  But given that
  we're talking about "Bashers", sure, them, and people provoked by them
  too.  (And if they don't -- just keep walking.)
  
  Counting myself occasionally in both those categories.  I usually delete
  my occasional stoop to bashing within 5 minutes after I file it.  Never
  worth it.  And I'm never all that confident that I've correctly
  interpreted someone else's bash.

  Case in point: At least 3 of Mr. Parmenter's replies that apparently
  provoked some folks clearly, to me, had humorous intent -- the initial
  "Sting Stinks", the "notes police", the "everyone's beautiful".  I was
  chuckling, at least.  Obviously not everyone saw it that way.  When in
  doubt (...the walking thing).
  
  I also have a working theory: any reply (of mine, at least) that exceeds 3
  paragraphs is extremely likely to be full of...   Never mind.  - Jay

    re: .16
    
    Jay,
    
    Maybe I'm reading your message wrong, but it sounds like "if they are 
    offended by bashing they can always 'walk'".
    
    Sure, they can do that.  The issue is NOT that they are somehow
    forced to read stuff they don't want to see.  
    
    The issue is that MUSIC doesn't provide them the opportunity for
    a reasonable discussion of the artist.  
    
    The only issue for me is not driving people away.
    
    I think the separate topic is a reasonable compromise, but I'm open
    to other possibilities.

>    Maybe I'm reading your message wrong, but it sounds like "if they are 
>    offended by bashing they can always 'walk'".

  I just meant NEXT or NEXT UNSEEN.  Moving along, as it were.
  
  BTW, I'm co-moderator for some technical conferences, and part of "keep it
  simple" in my reply was from a moderator's perspective...  Perhaps a
  (single) separate "blow off" topic would require the least moderator
  intervention overall.  - Jay

	Another vote for one topic.

    >  I just meant NEXT or NEXT UNSEEN.  Moving along, as it were.
    
    That's what I thought you meant:
    
    > Sure, they can do that.  The issue is NOT that they are somehow
    > forced to read stuff they don't want to see.  
    
    Understand that the issue is that the bashing keeps them from
    participating in the kind of discussion that most artists topics
    provide.

    I find the fawning, "Foo walks on water" drivel far more boring
    than the bashing notes...
    
    ...boy, am I weird...
                             
    Carl

    go check out the GUITAR conference and see how a plethera of mature,
    non-egotistical, civil, human beings handle bashing topics.  See, in
    particular, the Eric Clapton bashing note.  It's a fine example......
    
    8^)
    
    Steve (as guilty as all the rest.....)
    

    
    Yup, ::GUITAR's Clapton Bashing Topic is about what I expected it
    would be...  I personally think the topic itself is blasphemous. 8)
    
    I gather from the replies to this topic that a singular Bashing Topic
    will work as a place to vent.  Noters who wish to discuss the
    "virtues" of an artist without anti-fans interjecting can do so in
    designated topics.  All "bashing" will take place in the... 
    
                  OFFICIAL BASHING TOPIC  Note 26
    
    Let's try to be civil in our tongue er... text and refrain from 
    targeting authors within this conference.  In all instances the
    Moderator [that's me] will be the final judge.
    
    Have at it!
    
    Tim