|
27 Jan 02 - 09:37 AM (#636568) Subject: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,I'm from Venus & Mudcat is from Mars? While reading through the "bitter" babble, I got to thinking again about what Mudcat has become in more recent times. I am on the side of those with long experience here. Until recently, I had been a lurker for years, but never became a member. I choose not to join because I opposed the member/guest "solution" as too divisive and clannish, which is exactly what I think Mudcat has become. It seems to me, the reason for so much bitterness is the above mentioned solution, and the fact there isn't a happy balance between posters of off-topic chatter, and posters in music discussions. I have seen a very real decline in the overall courteousness of the forum, especially since those bitter rows about a year ago (which good Mudcatters now apparently won't discuss, just like the member/guest log-in). I say this with one finger pointing at the forum, and four back at me of course. So, my question now is, is it futile (as in pissing into the wind futile) to honestly discuss forum problems with the intention of helping now? I am very bitter about this place because it seems that a certain group of members become more and more entrenched every day, and non-members and members who complain of the plethora of problems which some of us feel are the result of sustained warfare mentalites of the entrenched membership, just get shouted down by the majority of posters who come here almost exclusively for the non-music "feel good" chat. I go back to the earliest days of this forum as a frequent lurker. I come for discussion of music and loosely related chat. While I have long enjoyed the narrower music-only focus of rec.music.folk, I'm beginning to realize the reason why I prefer that forum more and more, is because of the bitter and obnoxious tone here. Yes, Internet forums do reflect "real life". I think that just as in "real life" it is significant that many former posters to Mudcat voted with their feet and left, when the member/guest log-in and the witch hunts began here. In real life, I don't spend much time in places with elitist membership rules and clannish witch hunt behaviour. I have spent time posting rather than lurking here in the past six or so months. Initially, I began posting to try and point out the negativity which seemed so prevalent last summer about virtually everything. When that was shouted down, I did become quite bitter. Since I've seen no positive change in the forum dynamics, and I see no hope of the forum dynamic changing any time in the future (especially with the "privleged" log-in system), I thought I'd at least ask people here if they think it futile to bother with Mudcat reforms at this point, or whether it really is time for those of us with a different vision of what Mudcat could be to just fade away? |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:03 AM (#636573) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario rec folk music - 100 threads takes one back to the 12th of January. Over two weeks. Mudcat. 100 threads takes one back slightly over 24 hours. Face it - the volume of traffic on the 'cat is what causes some people problems. It's a lot easier to overlook an off topic discussion if it is the only one you see for days. But with a hundred threads in 15 days - I see rec.music.folk as a "play by mail" chess game more then any kind of forum. the mudcat, on the other hand, frequently approaches realtime communication. My opinions.
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:08 AM (#636576) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,in the Mudcat Observatory Tower My own theory is that Max Spiegel rather enjoys all the guest/member fights that have become the most constant feature of Mudcat in the past year or two. Almost all member-based forum on the Internet require a registration process before someone can post. Mudcat Cafe, home of constant battles over the issue, does not. Max could fix that in an instant. He CHOOSES not to. Hence my theory that he enjoys watching the battles and the constant praising of Mudcat as "the greatest website since Al Gore invented the Internet" that ensues.
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:11 AM (#636577) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus MMario, I mentioned rec.music.folk because it is the only other discussion forum on-line I am aware of that doesn't have a specific ethnic focus, and which welcomes posters from many different backgrounds. I compare that (slow as it might be for some) to what seems to be an increasingly narrow music focus here. I'm not trying to quibble, as your opinions are every bit as worthy as mine, but clarify my comparison between Mudcat and rec.music.folk. I'm trying to use it as an apples and apples analogy. For me, it seems easier than dragging in the oranges to prove the apples are right! |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:22 AM (#636581) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,Don Meixner There are some areas of discussion that can't be broached with out hitting someones hot buttons pretty hard. Generally speaking they are politics and religion. And we meet at a rather large and diverse table where the after dinner comversation is going to cover potlitics and religion and countless other sources of irritation. There is alot to be considered with this thread you have posted Names: If I have a thread on any topic going in this forum and there are ten people contributing, five have creen names and five are in simply as Guest, and each of the guests is showing different opinions and styles of writing, How does one reply to one Guest with out offending four others? Or all five for that matter. I think a clear identification is essential. I always avoid "Guest" when i see that name in the threads because of the vitriol the name suggests. How many good and interesting topics have I missed I wonder? And is the trip back looking for Guest in archive worth the mileage? The bitterness that I hear mentioned frequently is there. Saddly a lack of tolerance from the self proclaimed sophisticates towards Newbies and poorly stated questions. ( 53- BOB asked some pretty unusual question but didn't deserve the treatment he was handed by many of us. When he left the thread appoligies were give by several people. Hopefully he has heard them.) Bitterness is here in the threads. Created by abuse and feed by people with an agenda I have yet to name or really discover. There is the clique question. Is there one? How can there be when there is no place to gather or a means by which separtion and segregation are possible. If it is assumed that every post except those with obvious personal ridicule agendas sees the light of print then everyone is allowed in to the talk. By virtue of time on task by some of the posters here shouldn't cause anyone to think there is a clique. Just people with time to burn. There is certainly too much for me to cover and discover on Sunday morning. I'm looking forward to this discussion. Don
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:26 AM (#636584) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST FWIW, it isn't necessary to log-in to post to Usenet discussion groups, just private discussion forums hosted on websites, like Mudcat. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:31 AM (#636586) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Allan C. There is hardly any hide left on this dead horse, my friend. The only way to bring about positive change is to act positively! Sure, there are some folks who seem to have a way of subverting even the best of the music threads; but most of the time the good stuff is gleaned easily enough. There are still many positive threads to be posted. For many of us who have been here for a long time, a lot of the discussions that aligned with our interests are now part of the Mudcat history. It seems that we have already discussed the majority of the songs that are dear to us. Even the non-musical threads are often not as stimulating as they once were. This is because a lot of the responses are not only predictable but are also often only re-runs of previous discussions. As an illustration of something I have said before in the threads, I will say that one of my favorite quotations defines fishing as: "the ever constant renewal of hope". That is to say that the next cast might be the one that catches the fish you've been wanting. It is with that same kind of hope that I come back here hour after hour, day after day. Yes. I am here almost all the time; but it is not often anymore that I find something to which I have anything (new) to add. I know there have been some fabulous friendships that have formed by way of the forum. I know how important that has been for me. I have seen the spirit of the Mudcat in many more manifestations than are obvious to the casual visitor. That spirit still remains here even though it might be buried at times under some of the vitriol and shallowness that some folks bring to the forum. I still see that spirit. I still feel it. I continue to experience it through the music shared, through the friendships and camaraderie, and through the incredible hospitality to which I feel quite qualified to attest. Yes, the forum has changed in some ways. It is not unlike some rivers I have fished. People would tell me, "You should have been here yesterday. The fish were almost jumping into the creels!" Maybe my experience today will not be the same as it was yesterday; but the river is still beautiful. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:36 AM (#636590) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Bat Goddess It seems to me that any "cliques" on Mudcat are just frequent posters who, well, "play well with others." It doesn't take a long time spent reading posts to discover which Mudcatters are generous with useful information and opinions. (And the time spent searching for information!) That's what identifies the "inner clique" to me, at least. Linn |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:45 AM (#636594) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus I agree Allan C, that there is little hide left on the dead horse, which is why I'm asking if it is futile to dredge this subject up yet again. I am pleased for you that you have so much hope about Mudcat. But what I am asking--or is it who I am asking for--is those of us who have lost hope for Mudcat being the kind of on-line folk music community we are seeking. For me, it has strayed very, very far from what I once thought was going to be the best on-line folk music forum on the Internet. I wish I did share in your hope and vision for Mudcat, but now, I'm just feeling defeated and bitter about it. But perhaps that means it is time for those of us who feel that way to create a totally new forum for folk music, and no I don't mean Jon's annexe, well-intentioned as it is. That is what I'm feeling at this point, and am wondering if others have reached that point of impasse here as well. Maybe it is time for a totally new folk music forum, where we can learn from the mistakes and shortcomings of Usenet, the folk music mailing lists, and Mudcat. It seems to me, that maybe Mudcat is trying too hard to be more than it really can be. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:55 AM (#636597) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Maybe you are right Venus but for my part, I'd rather wait and see what the new Mudcat changes bring. Re: the Annexe, it is NOT my attempt at a folk forum - in fact I specifically exclude conversation on that subject so as not to run against Mudcat. The well intentioned but largely ill received attempt of mine was to provide more space for non-music in a vain hope that it may help Mudcat gain a little more music focus while allowing a community. Jon |
|
27 Jan 02 - 11:24 AM (#636605) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Jon, I wasn't trying to suggest that you had created another music forum, and hope my remarks don't get contrued that way. I appreciate what you tried to do for the music. But that said, I also don't feel a strong sense of allegiance to Mudcat or Max. I deeply appreciate what Max and Dick Greenhaus have accomplished with Digital Tradition--it is a great resource. But to be brutally honest, I don't appreciate what Max has accomplished with the forum. Far from it. I don't wish to seem ungrateful, though. I'm no more or less grateful for Mudcat than I am the free Usenet music newsgroups and the free music mailing lists I've participated in over the years. You get what you pay for, especially on-line. My gut feeling is, it is time for a new private mailing list for those of us folk music fans who are disillusioned both with Mudcat and rec.music.folk. If that means a new forum will be viewed contempuously as a threat to Mudcat's survival by many Mudcatters, I don't think that would necessarily be such a bad thing at all. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 11:59 AM (#636622) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Allegence and loyalty are funny things Venus and I can't explain them. It is quite weird sitting where I am and realising some time ago, there were problems here and also realising that some new music thing was an option. It is perhaps even wierder that although I became argumentative and bitter, my attempts were to try to help this place and "community members" but at least to get some recognition of problems to enable what I percieved as "forward movement". Overall, my gut feeling is that the so called "inner clique" will never look at themselves and will only be interested in occupying a form of "centre stage" in a community that they to some degree hijacked - I think the Annexe proved that to some degree... If there ever is a split, I will be sad but feel that perhaps it was something that needed to happen as (what I think are) maybe your feelings that my ideals over comminity and music could never be achieved are right. What will sadden me most is that the so called "inner clique" members, the ones who supposedly are interested in community can only look at thier "fun" rather than a more complete picture and other alternatives were never given a chance because of their desire to be "centre of attention", etc. I hold out for now but maybe, in time, I'd like to join a list if it started or alternatavely, if you wished, you can have my software for free to operate on your terms of memberhip and to tailor as you want (and their are plenty of other good free options). It would be a sad day for me if it ever happened but as time goes on, I seem to become more and more distant from the community I care about. Jon |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:02 PM (#636624) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 "My gut feeling is, it is time for a new private mailing list for those of us folk music fans who are disillusioned both with Mudcat and rec.music.folk. If that means a new forum will be viewed contempuously as a threat to Mudcat's survival by many Mudcatters, I don't think that would necessarily be such a bad thing at all." Why not go ahead and do it? This keeps coming up by some and it's as if Max might be hurt or some of us would be pissed or something..........What's the big deal besides doing it.....Go ahead!! I can't imagine Max giving much thought to it or actually caring at all. Why keep harping on the need for something else? Just do it if you want. Don't be blaming the "not doing" on some kind of respect or lack of it for Max or anyone else. It's a big net...Have at it! Spaw |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:07 PM (#636625) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario venus - why not just bring the conversations you want HERE? What topics do you want to see? Start a few threads. Yes, there is a lot of side chatter and off topic discussion. But there is also an incredible volume of musical information flowing through here. Or start a project of some sort that is music based and which can either be added to the DT or maybe a seperate page for itself. there are a number of songbooks that have entered the public domain that could be indexed and the tunes posted. There are numberous threads that could be indexed and linked. There are still over 1900 tunes "missing" from the Oct. 1999 version of the DT. There is a thread on unanswered requests that has led to answers. Some of the personal remininsces of posters have been incredible. (And I'm talking about the music related ones) One of the problems with "members only" forums is that you miss out on the visitor who contributes gems; e-mail lists likewise.
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:12 PM (#636628) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Pterry Well,I'm what you people call a 'newby'. I had been lurking for some months before I decided to become a member; largley because I felt I was intruding. Truth is ,I have little musical interest but you people seem like nice folks and you have some really interesting convesations. So here I am!!! |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:13 PM (#636630) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Steve in Idaho I agree with Spaw here. It's like the music on Paltalk. There were a lot of folks that made comments about how it wasn't happening and that they couldn't find it, it wasn't this and it wasn't that (me included). So someone stepped forward and did something about it. Actually several someones. This has been so hammered that it is beyond redundant. Even the government couldn't beat this horse anymore than it has. If it isn't working for some - make the change and if it flies it was a real issue. If it doesn't - then it was only the problem of a few. Steve |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:18 PM (#636635) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Naemanson The Mudcat is a community. Just as in a real community there are some people who get along and become very good friends and those who irritate each other. Once upon a time we had two people in our office who just could not get along. They couldn't be in the same room together. Each of them individually were great people but together the chemistry was all wrong. We have the same problem here. So quit worrying about fights and cynicism. If you see a thread developing along those lines just ignore it. Some people just don't get along. Now, I believe that those people could meet, face to face, over a beer, they would change their tunes (Does this make it a musical thread now?). But that won't happen too quickly. Let those who want to argue alone and let them spend their energies without upsetting the rest of us. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:34 PM (#636646) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster *sigh* are we still on this? NEWS FLASH: DATELINE - INTERNET Mudcat is not something made by the people, for the people. Its made by a man, Max, for his love of music, and the chance to meet and talk to people of the same love of music. This is his place. I liken it to a house party. You wouldn't go to somebody's place and walk in and say the drapes suck and start changing everything, its not your place. Since this is Max's place, if Max feels he wants to change it, he will change it. Perhaps he really likes those drapes. So at the end of the day, I will answer your question. YES ITS FUTILE. If you don't like the tone or the direction of the Cat, build your own website with what you want on it. I am in total agreement with Spaw. Stop whining here and do something about it. I personally like it here. I enjoy it. If I don't want to read something, I don't. If someone flames me, who gives a f***! I've been called worse by better. And to all the other members of Mudcat, just because a few people whine and bitch, does not mean we have to start looking for a problem with the way we do things. Perhaps, just perhaps, the problem is with the whiner, not the others or the Mudcat in general. People we are given a free service here. Don't kick a gift horse in the mouth. Steve |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:37 PM (#636647) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman steve, you are quite wrong over Paltalk, it was happening. Historically, a group of people decided to push for a Member only room, there were rows and those like myself who favoured open rooms went elsewhere while the usage of the only remaining Mudcat room dissapeared to almost nothing. What your proposals and actions appear to be doing is restoring what once (and you have a long way to go to keep it open for as many hrs per week as it was) was but with a fresh face. It is easy for people to accept your lead and pretend it is something new but rather difficult for people to admit that the closed room and the way it was achieved ended up removing lots of hrs of a folk/blues room always admined by a 'catter being availible. Jon |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:53 PM (#636657) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,Don Meixner I don't particularily want to see a members only room. What I would like is to able to identify, by name at least, whoever it is I am replying to. Topic and conversation are less important than being able to address an individual directly. Not for purposes of starting flames, but because it's simple good manners. We can't recognize each others voices so a screen name is all that we have to know who is talking. I've always viewed the Mudcat forum as a wide open space to view all types of music and opinions and interests. Particularily I like the technical questions that help performers to perform better. I can learn stage craft from a gothic rocker just as easily as I can from a folk singer. All levels of performer and skill should be given the same weight of importance. To exclude beginners because they have beginners questions denies the availability of a wealth of knowledge that can be found only in a forum like Mudcat. This may sound off the mark regarding this thread, but if you look back to where all the argument and bitterness seems to arise, it appears to come from some people not wanting to deal with questions and opinions they believe to be amatueristic and simple. Don Meixner |
|
27 Jan 02 - 12:53 PM (#636658) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg I see this as the continuing struggle human beings have with control issues. I'll use myself as an example. Once upon a time I discovered Mudcat. At the time, I was a relatively new folk performer and a longtime lover of folk music of many sorts. I found Mudcat looking for blues sites for my husband, to surprise him when he came back from out of town. I posted some lyric requests and looked around. I liked what I saw and I started posting. I was brand new to the internet too, and I didn't even know that longtime users were kind of clannish about net users in general. I didn't know there were dues to pay, see? So I was coming out of my way of relating to people, in a setting where "how it's done" is that each one took their turn to say what they thought, and others said what they thought, and people just heard each other out, and took whatever was useful from what they heard and left the rest. At the time I was directing a local unit of a large and prominent non-profit. That job put me in a position where I had surrendered my free speech in favor of the neutrality that the organization chooses as a higher value. It is a small town. Speaking my mind "on my own time" was a practical impossibility... wherever we go in this place, we are "working." Well, things I wanted to discuss and share had gotten bottled up. They found an outlet here. In the meantime I was learning more about my new craft-- music. Some people-- a LOT of people-- immediatately assigned a perceived agenda to me, because of my posts, that had nothing to do with me, my values, my goals. They attributed to me an intentionality that was entirely lacking. I was just.... discovering Mudcat, and, in the process, a lot of what I thought and felt about a lot of things. I also, however, shared the little I DID know, about music, when I saw a place where that made sense. And very early on as a Mudcatter, I welcomed a lot of newcomers, because where I come from (ALL the places I come from), newcomers are valued very highly, and I am good at incorporating them in whatever venture is at hand. Guess this comes from years, as a child, of moving into new towns every October or so and having to be the new kid on the block-- and learning the things that help, and the things that hurt. So to "give back" for what I was receiving, I started looking out for newbies. Well I had no idea that "more members" was exactly what some longtime members LEAST wanted. I also did not know that certain wounds had been dealt people here, by other members who might have seemed to wear the same face I showed here most readily. I ALSO didn't know that I had just joined the most "unhealed" commiunity I have ever encountered-- one that had had much hurt in its own internal relationships and had not moved past them. The only people who tried to tell me about it did it in terms of trying to control what I posted-- they never had any actual information, and when I asked I didn't get very far. So this was not terribly helpful. It also didn't help that at the time, there was no document that said what was usual around here. There was never a message, for instance, that said, "Hi, my name is so and so, and my job around here is such and such, and please be aware that such and such is not done, and so forth." Just what seemed to be vague mutterings about "don't do this or else because I know why you're doing it;" or "Oh please don't do this, it's too scary to say why, just take my word for it that you'll be sorry... I can't TALK about it, etc etc...." Things quickly got out of hand, for me-- I became quite a target, from a number of different quarters. People who DID have an agenda decided they were entitled to try to control what they had chosen to perceive as mine. Others who have problems themselves with control issues decided that it would be sensible to accuse me of trying to control things. It's funny because in real life, what I am known for is helping to move things forward so that EVERYONE'S goals are addressed... and what is often the result is the empowerment of the very people who had been left out of the process. Another funny thing that happened was that a lot of people ascribed ALL of my posts, feelings, goals, opinions, etc.-- to one single thing they had identified about me. I had said I was a Christian, and I contributed to threads from that view some of the time. But people never seemed to realize that some-- a lot-- of my experience was being shared from my times as a pretty radical secular homeschooler... or from time spent as a peer counselor who led liberation support groups.... or from a single mom (unwed!!!! oh my! and unapolgetic about it!!!) who has stood by friends and strangers making tough dscisions about pregnancy... In other words, because people tend to see others pretty one-dimensionally, they had "pegged" me and they read the urge to proselytize into just about everything I said. And yet if you look at these old posts, I don't think you can find anywhere that I say or imply that people oughtta get saved. This is because I believe deeply that people have to decide those things for themselves, and I put that belief into action. We do another funny thing around here. Sometimes we say, "Post what you think, from your own experience. Use I-messages." Well, around here, when you do that you also open yourself up to accusations of self-aggrandizement, and so there really is no way to "win." You have to decide, I think, that it isn't about winning at all, it's about doing the best you can in any given moment, to live by what you believe, and to extend yourself from what you know into what you don't know quite yet. You learn that it helps to see everyone being in a process of doing that, and you see that people give each other a hand where that seems to make sense, and you do that too, as you can, and you let the rest float along. But human beings find it so much easier to point to someone else and say what THEY oughtta be doing. To do this you have to be trying to control them so they can either do what you want, or-- even better!!-- NOT do it, so that you can keep looking at theat failure instead of at your own failure to live by your own beliefs. That's why I think Mudcat periodically goes sour. I think it's because enough people at one time are stuck in that spot where they are uncomfortable with the way their lives are working, and it's easier to expect someone else to deal with that, than to deal with one's own need to keep growing. ~Susan |
|
27 Jan 02 - 01:00 PM (#636662) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman spaw, what I feel you underestimate (or perhaps are well aware of and view as a strong point) is the power of the dt in Mudcat. Mudcat is a major collection point for new lyrics, a major (the best) resource for finding lyrics and a forum where many people come in search for lyrics. If it wasn't for the dt, with the attitudes that previal from certain "clique" members, Mudcat would have lost any musical meaning long ago. That is perhaps the biggest reason (apart from loyalty issues) that people are reluctant to move into new musical territories. Jon |
|
27 Jan 02 - 01:42 PM (#636683) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Ebbie Susan, when I write something that people misconstrue, I have to accept that I did not communicate properly. I cannot blame others for what I failed to get across. IMO. That said, I assure you that I enjoy the 'new' Susan a great deal. I don't think you changed, I feel you simply are communicating better. As for Mudcat not meeting everyone's needs, we come here, imo, for different, non-competing things. The DT is of immediate and continuing importance to some, for others it is the chatter that is their main connection to Mudcat. I fail to see that there is a major conflict in the two aims. If I am looking for lyrics, or want to post lyrics for others, surely that is important. If the chatter, music-related or not, is what I resonate to, then it is valuable to me. It is my own decision as to which venue I frequent. It seems to me that the flamers/whiners/trollers are people who simply are not comfortable in a non-controlled environment. (And, Jon, I am not including you or others like you in the 'whiners' label. I think people trying to make something better are valuable.) This is all my own opinion, of course- but it works for me. Ebbie |
|
27 Jan 02 - 01:49 PM (#636686) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Certainly you're right on the DT Jon. Now we seem to have two kind of intertwined threads going now also and on the other I read from you: Mudcat is overall a friendly place but that does not mean it couldn't be better and that issues don't exist. The real question to me is "Can the 'core' members recognise this and try to help become part of a bigger and greater Mudcat than before or are they going to continue to argue that everything in the garden is rosey?" Alright.........First, who exactly are the "core" members you reference? Then, what is it exactly that you expect the core members to do to improve things? I'm not being flippant or sarcastic Jon, but I am asking specifically what is expected and of whom. As far as the "rosey".........Lenny Bruce delivered one of my favorite lines: "There is only what is; what should be never existed." Thinking about that, Max started this about Blues and Folk Music and the folk took over from just about day one........probably not what he had in mind either, but he went with it. A lot of folks just kinda' roll with it around here now besides Max. The place has changed and continues to change through the dynamic of the group that's here. Now if that group has gotten too far afield for some, then what is it that's supposed to happen? And......Do you have any reason to believe it will? If not, then why do we (not you Jon....no accusation, I'm on this thread too as are a lot of others and we keep the things alive...not accusatory of you) keep harping on it as though it will or won't or whatever. Spaw
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 02:26 PM (#636703) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman spaw, for the purposes of this discusssion, I will define the 'core' members as those of us who do use Mudcat as a community gathering point and those of us how perhaps "shout" loudest or more often than others. That could include both of us... The real question to me is can we try to recognise that at times there can be some degree of validity (although frequently overblown) in some feelings or perhaps recognise that a certain musical area of memberhip does diminish over time? I guess my big one is to ask people to question and to be imaginative rather than have the repeated accusation/denial and people leaving situation. So here's a question: I don't believe Mudcat has reached its full potential and that it may be possible for both community and music to expand. How can we help other people, all with differing needs and ideals get the best they can out of Mudcat while still enjoying it ourselves? Jon |
|
27 Jan 02 - 03:00 PM (#636711) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Rolfyboy6 Having read all the above posts I am reminded of these songs:
TRY A LITTLE TENDERNESS
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 03:42 PM (#636728) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: nutty I've heard all this before and till now have refrained from commenting but..... I run a folk song weekend ....It is something I started because I wanted to get singers together....I do all the organising and correspondence. I put up my own money to make sure it happens and that everyone is happy and well looked after yet every year there are one or two people who try to tell me how the weekend should be run. Like Max, I'm very polite and ignore the comments but privately I am very irritated by what I consider to be appalling bad manners. Amazingly, these people expect to be invited back. My feeling is that when I am invited to an event that they run then I may feel that I need to listen to what they are saying but one day I might just tell them to find somewhere else to go.
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 03:46 PM (#636733) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Amos Ain't that the truth! And here's another wee thought, guys: all you ever see on the 'Cat is derived from individuals. Each person on the board is communicating from a single point of view, and likewise Max' contribution is his own. The design and architecture of the site -- how messages and threads work and what colors things are and the scripts that get called -- is all Max' baby, with a lot of help. Everything else can be traced to other individuals. Your challenge, if you find yourself discontented with things, is to determine the exact source of your difficulty and imagine and propose a remedy thereto. For example, you could tell Spaw to jump off a tall building, or you could suggest to Max that he require 76.5% of all threads begun be about music; or you could try to persuade our deep expert geniuses on various subjects to write more. The minimalist design imposed by the site architect means you have to exert your best influence in the best possible way and that means being specific and clear in your requirements, not whinging about atmosphere. There is no "atmosphere". It is a composite of individual communications with which you may or may not wish to take issue. If you can't identify the real issue you want to address, moaning will not further your cause. A. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 04:01 PM (#636742) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: little john cameron Ah'm still at a loss tae figure oot why anybody wid read a post that disnae interest them an' then complain.Tae me it is like gaun tae a resturant an' eatin the meal then complainin aboot it efter it's bee eaten. ljc |
|
27 Jan 02 - 04:36 PM (#636760) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri "I thought I'd at least ask people here if they think it futile to bother with Mudcat reforms at this point, or whether it really is time for those of us with a different vision of what Mudcat could be to just fade away?" I assume you're talking about the way people behave here? You'll have to get enough people to agree there is a problem. You'll have to determine what the specific problem/problems is/are. You'll have to get a majority to determine what behavioral changes are necessary to fix the problem. You'll have to convince all (or most) posters, members and guests alike, to behave the way the majority believes they should. You'll need some way to enforce these rules. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't see any problem with starting another folk forum or e-mail list. If you really dislike it so much here, creating your own forum or list would make you a lot happier, and that's what it's all about, isn't it? If you hang around someplace you dislike, you'll wind up just getting more miserable. If you start a private list, you may have to think about whether it may be perceived as being even more elitist than a forum anyone can join. You probably won't have to deal with any complaints, though, since the complaintants won't be able to read or post messages. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 06:11 PM (#636783) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 I dunno'..........Jeri's last two paragraphs pretty well summed it up. Yeah, I admit that the focus has changed and continues to change, but I really don't see a way of correcting that if in fact it needs corrected. I don't want to say "If you don't like it, go away, but going on and on over the same issues isn't helping anything either is it? Max is making some structural changes that we may see in a few months and that will probably please some.....or not. Sure, some have left......I didn't tell them to go and maybe the place had changed from something they liked to something they didn't. Others will leave in the future for the same reason. I'm just not real sure you can get all these folks to agree. Not even a majority on a majority most of the time. The place is what it is and unless Max is willing to bring in serious structure and a full time moderator, it will be what it becomes. That's not saying it's bad now or that everything is rosey. I'm willing to acknowledge some are unhappy....bitter even. What can be done about that short of saying, okay, it's your way.......or putting in fulltime moderators and a lot of rules. I swore I wasn't going to get involved in any more of these discussions as they have no end and no tangible solution. Why doesn't one of you who hates the joint so badly, open up a website and announce what your intent is and post it? Start small and grow and build what you want. Keep out the riffraff like myself and some others and make your world better. Go for it. I guarantee nobody would censor any thread started to announce another forum as long as it didn't say "Fuck Mudcat" or something....but saying an alternative and new music lover's only forum would be no cause for censorship or any concern. Just do it. Mudcat may have been a place to discuss music, but now it's place for music lover's to discuss whatever. I can think of no simple way to bring back the past and I really don't care to as it suits me fine now. But if there is a way to satisfy everyone, I'll roll with that too. Spaw |
|
27 Jan 02 - 06:15 PM (#636790) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Amos There is no way to bring back the past, except to try and live in it, not a recommended solution. You can, however, flood the forum with the kinds of dialogue you most want to see. Get real, get responsible, communicate with clear intent instead of murky discontent, and you'll get somewhere closer to your desire... A |
|
27 Jan 02 - 06:34 PM (#636795) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Cobble Folk music is life, yesterday, today and tomorrow. The lyrics of folk music are all around, what people say and do, the issues of the day. This is a marvellous site to pick up all these things, so stop talking BLOODY CRAP. Cobble. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 07:13 PM (#636805) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen I'm still new to Mudcat, so I'll just pose a question. Do you have any suggestions what personal (not enforced) guidelines should be between posting messages in threads, sending messages to Personal Pages, or e-mailing? In the short time I've been here, I've found myself wanting to discuss things further that seem too unrelated to a question raised in a thread, and didn't feel a new thread was necessary. If there's someone I want to carry on a further discussion with, I post a message for the person on their Personal Page. If that evolves into a more long-term conversation, it seems dumb to just keep sending messages back and forth through the Personal Pages, and I exchange e-mails and don't go through Mudcat at all. Is that the way you suggest people do it? There are times when conversations wander so far off the original topic of a thread, and seem to become a personal conversation with one or two people that I wonder why the people don't just carry it on through Personal Pages, or e-mail. Not a major irritant, but there are times when a thread I was initially interested in wanders so far off the subject, or becomes a personal exchange between two or three people that I wander away myself. That's all right, too. I'd rather have threads wander, I'd rather have the occasional over-the edge insult than to have this place heavily structured. Maybe I'll feel differently after a year. But I kinda doubt it.
So far, for the length of this thread, the only suggestions I've heard seem to be to start a new site, or pretty much keep going on the way that it is, with more and more people becoming disattisfied. Like a variant on "My country, love it or leave it." :-) Remember that one?
So c'mon "Inner Core Group," you have been at this a lot longer... any suggestions about when to post and when to e-mail, guidelines about common courtesy in exchanging posts? I've really enjoyed meeting the people I have since I came on, and expect that I'll meet more. I can also see why someone new would think that there is a clique of "inner core members." When you're new, you often feel that way. You're the outsider. Witty interchanges don't include you because people don't know you. No reason to feel that you're an outsider. Everyone started out as an outsider.
It just seems a shame to have this site so pre-occupied with wounded feelings and bitterness. Jerry |
|
27 Jan 02 - 07:23 PM (#636811) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman ah but spaw, Max did post:
Subject: RE: BS: What annoys me about mudcat From: Max Date: 12-Jan-02 - 08:28 PM Shop: Anyhow We've been toiling with the issue of topic here for a while. We are a folk/blues/traditional/historical/folklore Web site, but to try to control it manually is an endless if not impossible task. I keep hearing the members-only recommendation, but am not comfortable with that. The fact that long-time core members, who seem to have the most to offer us, are visiting less often bothers me even more. That post clearly illustrates that the management does recognise differences amongst people here - it goes as far as to talk in terms of 1%ers and 99%ers. It also details concern over losses of people here and of the planned implentementation of features that look to try to address some problems. Seems to me that Max is trying to analyse and work out problems while you remain telling people (sort of) "if you don't like it - fuck off... Is Max right in trying spaw or are you right in your negativity? Jon
|
|
27 Jan 02 - 07:44 PM (#636827) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Jerry, some interesting thoughts and here's why..... I didn't say love it or leave it.....I did say that if you can't roll with it, I don't have too many ideas to help you. Max has "rolled with it" since about day one and I have no ideas on how to do otherwise. I'm glad you're "rolling with it" because a big chunk of what you said is in fact the major irritant. You wrote, "There are times when conversations wander so far off the original topic of a thread, and seem to become a personal conversation with one or two people that I wonder why the people don't just carry it on through Personal Pages, or e-mail. Not a major irritant, but there are times when a thread I was initially interested in wanders so far off the subject, or becomes a personal exchange between two or three people that I wander away myself. That's all right, too. I'd rather have threads wander, I'd rather have the occasional over-the edge insult than to have this place heavily structured. Maybe I'll feel differently after a year. But I kinda doubt it." For you, at this time, it's not a major irritant. For others it is one of the biggest. To me, one of the best things about this format is the almost instantaneous responses and at times that leads to two-way conversations......However, those conversation can be a side bar to the actual topic and there might be three or four in one thread. Anyone can join in on those though or return to the main topic. Happens all the time and often someone else enters that part of the conversation with new info that a PM/e-mail would never have garnered since it IS only between two people. There are times that I take it to PM's or e-mails if it's personal or distinctly limited, but wnen it's on the thread, it's like hearing a conversation in a bar and jumping in saying, "Pardon me, but I might have something on that that might interest you." Sometimes I read threads where two people are going back and forth on a subject that they could have taken to PM's and I am glad as hell they didn't because I'm learning a ton just listening! I can't add, but I sure do enjoy the info! And if it was in PM's I'd have missed it. All good stuff you wrote there Jerry, just didn't want you to think I meant love it or leave it as I too remember that one all too well. But in the final analysis, all of those kind of situations get down to that point don't they? Perhaps a bit of more moderate language like roll with it or adjust, but if you can't stand it, what else can you do after you've bitched for years? Well the answer to that are these kind of threads. "I'm still here and I don't like the way it's gone or is going, so I'm going to continue to bitch about it and I ain't leaving!" And ya' know....that's fine! Just so it doesn't get personal and become a flame war. These BPM threads are running pretty regular anymore and I read them and have tried to avoid posting them for awhile, but I guess this time it just intrigued me again. Spaw |
|
27 Jan 02 - 07:47 PM (#636833) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Jon. I acknowledged Max and read that very thing and said he was adding some features that will please some....but they won't please all because they never do. I'm not negative at all Jon.....just read the last post for an answer on your "love it or leave it" question.....And you ought to know better than to think in the negative ain't me.....but to try to acknowledge reality ain't a bad idea. Spaw |
|
27 Jan 02 - 07:49 PM (#636835) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri Jerry, as to "love it or leave it," it's probably easier to change a country than Mudcat. People can elect new leaders and pass legislation. People can lobby and the majority decides what rules about right and wrong will be and they'll be enforced. Mudcat doesn't really have leaders, and there are few laws. Majority decisions won't stop the minority from doing as they will, but consensus is the only thing I see that even has a chance. I don't think it's impossible, just improbable. Hardly anyone seems willing to modify their behavior because others ask them nicely...not that many people ask nicely. As for me, I'll consider whether it's a reasonable request. I'm probably not going to change what I do because one person who isn't directly affected by it is upset. I might, if I think that one person's right. I don't think I post enough to be part of the "core group," but I sure have enough opinions! As to threads, I think if more than two people are involved in an off topic (for that thread) discussion, the best thing would be to start a new thread. It may look like only several people are interested, but perhaps quite a few more are reading. Just my opinion. |
|
27 Jan 02 - 09:00 PM (#636873) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster Acutally JonFreeman, are you right in your negativity? You and a few guests, are the ones that constantly msg about what Mudcat has become and how its not what it used to be. You have on numerous occasions, mentioned that you and you alone, according to your posts, don't like the way the forum is. You also said that you have offered suggestions, ideas, and in the end, an alternative, which was faced with mudcat being unable or unwilling to implement You like asking questions, so I pose to you: When you, as you put it, feel the mudcat has been 'hijacked' by an 'inner clique' that must be 'centre stage', describe for me please what you are doing? You constantly talk about how 'you' want it different. You complained about Max not doing anything, until you read his post about filtering. You easily offer that to Spaw, and yet in another post you had to mention that although Max is working on filtering, it was not the way you would have done it. Why did you have to mention that? You say that there is a bitterness. I read bitterness in alot of your messages. You admit to being the biggest critic. Is it possible that you contribute to this bitterness you complain about? My biggest question is, why do 'you' think the Mudcat HAS to be changed? You've said in msgs that you believe the end result will be you leaving. If you do, it will be of your own valition, my friend, not because of what someone said. You have always had the ability to say what you want, without ever being cut off from Mudcat. People like Max who have put in time of their own to make this site what it is, FOR FREE, probably do not enjoy your constant criticism. I know if I was Max I wouldn't. But I'm not. I'm here because I enjoy music in all its forms, listening, playing, learning etc. I also enjoy the msg forum. If there is something I don't want to read or respond, I don't. Voila! - filtering. When anyone says they leave Mudcat because of someone else, that is total horseshit. People leave of their own choice, their decision. If a member says he/she is leaving because what Spaw said,(just an example spaw) it is their inability to deal with or ignore Spaw that is the reason. No one forces these people to leave. If you decide to leave, realize that life will still go on here. It will not change, a few people will msg saying 'sorry you gotta go' and such and then like every other thread, it will drop off the bottom. At the end of the day, its Max's site. His rules. If he doesn't want to implement changes you'd like, or does something you don't like, its his decision on something he owns. Steve |
|
27 Jan 02 - 09:29 PM (#636893) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Actually Devilmaster, you will find that the change I'd hope for and argued over is pretty much (I think) along the lines of the advanced filtering system that Max is talking in terms of introducing - just a different implementation. My complaints were not getting a reply of any sort from Max which is why I argued the points in the forum and not via PM. Those issues with Max are over and in this thread if you take the trouble to READ, you will find I'm supporting, not argueing with Max's moves. Jon |
|
27 Jan 02 - 09:36 PM (#636899) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster I did take the trouble to read, Jon, I clicked on your name and read alot of your msgs. I wouldn't restrict myself to one thread, but do proper research and all my comments came from your former posts. You're supporting Max in this instance, i agree. Now waiting patiently on all other of my questions comments. Steve |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:03 PM (#636913) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen Hey, Spaw: I never thought that you were saying "Love it or leave it." I thought that your remarks were very measured and not confrontational. You are right of course. If someone is really dissatisfied with something, whether it's a job, a church, mudcat, a musical group... you name it, there comes a point where it's best for all concerned if they do leave. I've seen too many people in churches who hate everything about the service and half the people there, and when I ask them why they keep coming if they're so miserable and make everyone else miserable they say, "I've been coming here for years, and this is where all my friends are." Deliver me from those kind of friends. Mudcat can't be all things to all cats. Sometimes, it IS best to move on. Not suggesting that anyone do that. That's their decision. I like it here. I only wish that I had been free enough to come here sooner. That's not saying, "love it or leave it." There are some on Mudcat who have reached a point of irritation where they'd say that, and I guess I wouldn't criticize them for that. I don't really know what's going on yet, to criticize anyone. Jerry |
|
27 Jan 02 - 10:11 PM (#636917) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman OK. When you, as you put it, feel the mudcat has been 'hijacked' by an 'inner clique' that must be 'centre stage', describe for me please what you are doing? The hijacking refers to history here: what was a music forum changing. All my arguing has been to try to get people at least to consider methods of a better fit here for everyone. And I have posted in threads where questions have been asked by others - I hardly consider trying to offer my view in threads started by others discussing Mudcat hijacking. You constantly talk about how 'you' want it different. You complained about Max not doing anything, until you read his post about filtering. You easily offer that to Spaw, and yet in another post you had to mention that although Max is working on filtering, it was not the way you would have done it. Why did you have to mention that? To try to show those that have accused me of setting design terms, etc. that I am in fact flexible in my outlook and what I support is the idea rather than a specific implementation. You say that there is a bitterness. I read bitterness in alot of your messages. You admit to being the biggest critic. Is it possible that you contribute to this bitterness you complain about? My bitterness has been that few have been willing to even give me a hearing. I did admit to being one of Max's biggest critics in a post where I also wished him well. I can't prove it but he sent me a PM after that, in which he said something along the lines of criticism can be healthy and called me a useful member. Is it perhaps possible that even though I went about matters wrongly that Max does respect honestey and realises that no ideas can come from mere sycophancy? My biggest question is, why do 'you' think the Mudcat HAS to be changed? It doesn't HAVE to be changed but I have witnessesd a course over a couple of years, a course that appears to have been acknowledged by Max... maybe I was right! Jon |
|
28 Jan 02 - 06:42 AM (#637065) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Perhaps Jon and Steve could take this to private mail or PM? I agree that people who are unhappy with the forum should leave. The reason why so many of us stay is because there are only a few alternatives to Mudcat. Re: rec.music.folk There are reasons why I don't like that alternative either. The advertising. The spam. The lack of knowledgeable people, although like Mudcat, there is a handful of truly knowledgeable people there too. Re: Folk Alliance mailing list I'm a member of this one too. The focus of that list seems pretty narrow, and the content controlled too much by list owners. For me, the happy medium would be a forum, whether mailing list, moderated newsgroup, or website forum, which has all posters accessing the forum in the same way (ie no member/guest thing, which just creates unnecessary problems, IMO). I don't share the sentiments of some who feel a private mailing list is elitist. Between Mudcat and rec.music.folk, newbies are pretty well served in the public Internet realm. But for those of us with a more serious interest in discussing music, especially to have more scholarly, learned discussions of music without the BS, without the spam, without the advertising, without the domination of the performance questions (there are usenet forums for the instrument players for that purpose), without having to define folk music again and again and again ad nauseum, etc I think the best alternative is to look at beginning discussions about creating another forum. For me, it isn't just about bitching and whining. I am still willing to give Mudcat a chance once the advance filtering system is brought in. But I still don't know how much that will improve the problem of thread hijacking. And what I mean by thread hijacking, is what was mentioned in regards to the History of Irish Traditional Music thread. I'm sure others can provide many examples of music threads getting hijacked by the BSers. Who I see are largely staying out of this conversation.
|
|
28 Jan 02 - 07:35 AM (#637084) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 RE: Thread Hijacking About three years ago there was a general agreement that the research/"serious" music threads would be off limits to that sort of thing. In the huge majority and I mean HUGE, that has been the case since. Perhaps this can serve as a reminder to that "agreement" and all, but you're harping on one specific example. It just isn't the case on a general basis.....not at all. So let's agree to do that again, remind a few people and let the new folks know....and drop it. It's a self policing action and it has worked quite well. Let's NOT try to take this up as your latest grievance. It doesn't wash. Spaw |
|
28 Jan 02 - 07:43 AM (#637086) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Yes Spaw, since you were guilty of thread hijacking in that specific instance, you do need to police yourself. But don't expect the rest of us who believe thread hijacking is a much larger problem than the hijackers are willing to admit, to exonerate you. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 07:46 AM (#637087) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 What specific instance? Spaw |
|
28 Jan 02 - 07:53 AM (#637088) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST The History of Irish Music thread. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 07:57 AM (#637089) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Sorry. I don't see that at all. Spaw |
|
28 Jan 02 - 08:01 AM (#637090) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST And that is what makes you an example of the many problems with the Mudcat regulars. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 08:03 AM (#637091) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Giac In the middle of all this, we had a new member say, "Here I am ..." If anybody said, "Hi," back, I didn't see it, so Hi, pterry, glad you're here! Mary |
|
28 Jan 02 - 08:13 AM (#637093) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Good point Mary! Hi pterry and welcome to the 'Cat. We have some folks who are never satisfied....Not to worry! Enjoy yourself, it's still a great place to be! And Guest.......I find it to be an example of nothing. Read Larry's first post in response. How the hell can you say I hijacked the thread? Hell, I wasn't even the first to respond to Larry! I can see that this issue is going nowhere. Sorry. Spaw |
|
28 Jan 02 - 08:16 AM (#637095) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Venus, the filtering could not possibly deal with "thread hijacking". On an open system such as this, the only possible approach involves self policing and understanding. I'm inclined to agree with spaw (it happens sometimes!) on this one and I believe agreements could be reached. I do however have one question: By hijacking, do me mean jokes, side issuses taking over, etc. or the fact that some of us, certainly including me, can not provide the degree of scholarly input that may be desired even though genuine attempts at providing on-topic information are made? If it is the latter, although I (and I'm sure others) are willing to learn and listen to polite guidance, I see little chance of Mudcat providing a solution to your needs. Jon |
|
28 Jan 02 - 09:03 AM (#637108) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Jon, I agree there is no way a filtering system can root out thread hijacking, which is why I don't hold out much hope for my continued participation here, and I've said that. But the reason for Mudcat not meeting my needs isn't just technological at all. It is because the BSers have been allowed to hijack the forum by the site owner. Filtering, ending the member/guest log-in (ie either make it all member only or guest only to stop the incessant bickering between the two groups), would certainly solve a lot of what makes me unhappy here. But unless and until Max makes Mudcat a music-only discussion forum, even those badly needed tech solutions won't solve the problems for me with Mudcat. In the event that Mudcat were made a music-only forum, I think over time the word would get out, and some of the knowledgeable people who left would return. I think it would attract a much higher caliber of poster than we are currently seeing in Mudcat. Someone mentioned earlier that what we have here now is a large group of people spouting opinions. Well, to me there is a marked difference between people with expertise sharing knowledge, and people with little knowledge and/or interest in learning about the subject at hand expressing ignorant, poorly informed opinions, just to get attention. One of the greatest problems with the public internet forums is the real lack of respect shown to the most knowledgeable people. To me, that is what was at the heart of the Bruce Olson witch hunt. It is true, I am seeking a folk music forum for people with advanced knowledge, not a newbie forum. I am seeking a forum which likely would be moderated, to keep the riff raff out, and the tone civil, without censoring the exchange of contentious and conflicting ideas. I appreciate that we need both newbie and advanced types of forums to support people's folk music interests. I have no problem with Max providing a newbie forum. But it does mean that those of us who are ready for the advanced forum with better defined and policed rules of engagement, need to become proactive, and get out of Mudcat. And yes, this thread has helped me come to the realization that the time has come for those of us with an interest in advancing our knowledge of the music and it's social, cultural, and historic contexts on-line, to create a new forum. And no, I don't think it is appropriate to discuss the creation of a new forum here. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 10:22 AM (#637123) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: JudeL Guest from venus, please by all means create your highly regulated, restrictive, elitist forusm for only the truly serious. It will only be open to those whom you deem worthy and therefore by it's very nature exclude any who you believe do not measure up to your own individually concieved standard. It must be very comforting for you to be so certain that you know so much that you know in advance who and where a useful piece of information or a learning opportunity may come from. And of course if it was not pre-determined by you, nothing would have any value. Bitter - only when people try to throw out the baby with the bathwater. It is the diverse nature of the posters that makes this forum. We all have something to share. I admit I'm a relative newcomer, about a year, and I have oodles of stuff to learn, but don't discount me or anyone else cos I enjoy the bs threads as well as using the dt & the music threads. I may not post to the music threads that often but please don't assume I don't read them, or learn from them, and please don't assume that I or anyone else has nothing to contribute. A few months ago, someone put up the two out of three rule, for should I say it Is it kind? Is it true? Is it neccessary? Whilst I'd rather not tell you what to do, what I would suggest that if you feel that strongly that there is a need for a different kind of forum, instead of complaining that this isn't meeting your needs, why don't you go ahead and start it. It may or may not work but at least you'll have had a go and that in itself may relieve some of the frustration that things aren't going according to how you think they should. Jude |
|
28 Jan 02 - 11:18 AM (#637129) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA To GUEST from Venus (re your post of 28-Jan-02 09:03 AM): I assume that by referring to Mudcat as a "newbie forum" you mean to say it's a site for the folk-music newbie. Yes, there are plenty of folk-music newbies here, but surely you must be aware that many others here are "people with advanced knowledge" who interact not only with the folk-music newbies but with each other. Catspaw is one. What's to keep these people from joining your "advanced forum" and cracking wise there as well as here? Do you see the elimination of humor from said forum one of the "rules of engagement" that would be "policed"? Or would people who have displayed a sense of humor at Mudcat be barred from entering this "advanced forum" as hijackers? In fact, some knowledgable people – even the humorless ones – would be considered "riff raff" by others in the 3D world. For folk and blues musicians, it comes with the territory. I'm not sure though, where we musicians are expected to draw the line within our own ranks as to who is "riff raff" to be "kept out" of an "advanced forum". For my own part, I don't like the idea of excluding from a conversation a person who is knowledgable on the subject of that particular talk but doesn't possess a sufficiently advanced level of general knowledge of music to be allowed to enter the forum at all. But even if you do create this "advanced forum", why does it mean that those who join "need" to "get out of Mudcat"? Why hoard your knowledge amongst yourselves instead of sharing it and allowing others to learn from it? I understand the desire to have a conversation on a certain level without interruption – as sometimes a kid wants to hang out with friends his own age, without his little brother tagging along – but I don't understand abandoning that little brother forever. Why not start your "advanced forum" while continuing to post to Mudcat threads that interest you? One of the things I like best about Mudcat is the relaxed atmosphere in which music is discussed, without "policing" and with banter. My feeling is that if a person (with advanced knowledge or not) wishes to start a thread to discuss a particular topic, and does not wish that thread to be "hijacked", then one should state in one's initial post the "rules" for that thread, and continue to "police" that thread to keep it on topic. However, I suppose that those who have "voted with their feet" and left Mudcat would have found the police-your-own-topic solution too tedious. Of course it's easier to have someone else do the policing for you, and much easier to complain when one feels that someone else's policing is inadequate. But bear in mind that if you start your own forum, anyone who "votes with his feet" to join it is going to have his own ideas of how it should be run...... so...... don't be surprised when those people start complaining and start walking out on you! Sharon |
|
28 Jan 02 - 11:20 AM (#637131) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Charlie Baum Historical note: In the original days of Mudcat, ou had to fill in the "from:" line every time. I forgot to do so about half the time, as did many others, but most folks back then got into the habit of signing their contribution at the end, so that even the posts without any "from" in them had an attribution. A post without any "from" in it would today come off as being from a "GUEST" with no further description. After a few months, Max devised a way for the "From " line to be automatically filled out by anyone who would accept a cookie placed on his/her machine, and membership was invented. Membership was simply a way of having a cookie automatically identify all posts by a single poster by filling out the "from" line. Any further data collected was and still is kept confidential. And folks who object to giving confidential data can always do what I do when I don't want to divulge such information: I fill in the data carelessly, if not falsely. (My data at Mudcat are actually correct.) --Charlie Baum, signing at the end in a habit dating from before the "from" line was cookiefied. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 12:48 PM (#637171) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: katlaughing Charlie, thanks for the explanation, much appreciated. I always thought it was just the polite thing to do, signing one's post, esp. a long one, so that people didn't have to scroll back up to remind themselves of whom they just read. Also, I have done it since I came here, because I saw those who'd been here longer did it. ****************************************** It was someone who stole my identity which prompted Max to add the GUEST tag to anyone posting without a cookie. Since then, the guest appellation has been abused mightily, including by Bruce Olson, who used it in some really nasty flaming before he decided to leave. This discussion reminds me of a group of musicologists we met once in Hartford, CT. They were the biggest bunch of elitist snobs I'd ever met, even to one who was much more knowledgable and credentialed than themselves. Everyone who comes to the Mudcat comes first and foremost for the music. For anyone who wants to define it more narrowly, I think their own forum would be a good solution. If I had the time, I would research just how many of these threads we have had, started by so-called music-only folks; why don't they start the kinds of threads they want to see, instead of contributing more of what they claim to hate? Another thing some seem to have conveniently forgotten. Use of the BS tag was supposed to solve a lot of the problem, but it hasn't, mainly, imo, because the only-music folks come in to bitch about them. The new filter options will alleviate a lot of what people complain about. Max had already offered a no BS filtered Mudcat before. Has anyone used it? Also, threads are not hijacked...we have thread drift...terrorists hijack...raconteurs/musicians drift...
Pterry, welcome to the Mudcat!! If you have any questions or need any help, please feel free to holler!
kat |
|
28 Jan 02 - 02:54 PM (#637255) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST For those of you wondering how it all works--it depends on the type of forum you choose. Moderated newsgroups and many website forums like this can be read by everyone, but only those posts which comply with the sites' FAQ make it past the moderator onto the newsgroup/website forum. That is how you control problem posters. Each post is either reviewed by the moderator before it goes out "at large" and/or the problem poster's email/IP (whatever filtering system gets used) gets blocked by the software used to run the forum. Second, there would be no need to exclude current Mudcatters. Last time I checked, no one was holding guns to the heads of Mudcat members, telling them they couldn't read and contribute to other on-line folk music forums. Thirdly, as to the elitism charge, it isn't a concern of mine. People asking beginner level questions can be politely referred to the FAQ, and the beginner forums on-line, or answered in the advanced forum where appropriate. It seems that some of you aren't very familiar with how other Internet discussion forums are run? With a moderated newsgroup, no one will be denied access to the expertise found in an advanced level group, because it can be read by anyone with Internet access. They just can't post potty humor, name calling, and personal attack messages. If people don't like being held accountable to a certain adult standard of behavior, then they wouldn't have to contribute in the policed forum. They could keep posting at Mudcat, where the forum standards are more for Internet pedestrian foot traffic, than for a specialized shop. If people think that is elitist, so be it. I am suggesting it be done to get people like me out of Mudcat, and people like the Mudcat chatters out of my way of discussing more advanced music topics in a polite and decent way. No one need take offence over it, especially if they aren't going to do the work to create a new forum. This forum runs the way Max chooses to run it. I don't like the way he runs it, I find another place to hang my hat. If that place doesn't exist, I get together with some other like minded folk, and create it. It really is that simple. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 03:12 PM (#637270) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen Guests are from Venus? Or just one? Reading the proposed new and improved Knowledgeable folks only proposal, count me out. I've been performing for forty years now, have a pretty decent collection of folk music and books, ran a concert series for 27 years and am pleased to count many, many folkies as personal friends. Every one of us started out as "newbies." Folk music will DIE if we look down upon "newbies." One of the biggest problems that we have is that younger musicians who might be attracted to folk music are sometimes not encouraged enough. My suspicion is that there are areas of folk music where you are one of them dreaded "newbies." I know I am, and always will be. I am amazed and delighted at the breadth of knowledge on Mudcat, and find threads asking about how to sing into a mike, or cut your own CD equally entertaining. When I have something that I think I can offer, I'm happy to. Knowledge is something to share. I give thanks to all those who have helped me to grow, musically and as a human being, all these years. Mudcat suits me fine. I'll stay right here, thank you. If you don't find that it fits your needs, start your own campfire. I wish you well. Sounds like it's time... Jerry |
|
28 Jan 02 - 04:23 PM (#637328) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA The GUEST who posted at 28-Jan-02 02:54 PM (is this "from Venus"?) says, "With a moderated newsgroup, no one will be denied access to the expertise found in an advanced level group, because it can be read by anyone with Internet access. They just can't post potty humor, name calling, and personal attack messages." But according to the GUEST "from Venus" post of 28-Jan-02 09:03 AM, there would be certain people who wouldn't be able or allowed to post anything, including "people with little knowledge... about the subject at hand expressing ignorant, poorly informed opinions" ....in other words, folk-music newbies or at least newbies to the particular topic of discussion. The GUEST "from Venus" supposes that these people are out to get attention, but I assert that a number of them are out to learn something or are at least willing to have their opinions challenged and refuted. The forum that GUEST envisions would have the un-knowledgable person read the posts of the so-called experts without interacting, without challenging or refuting their opinions. If such a person had the audacity to post to the "advanced forum", he would instead be "politely referred to the FAQ, and the beginner forums on-line, or answered in the advanced forum where appropriate." I read this as meaning that he would either be told he doesn't belong there, degraded or otherwise treated in a condescending manner. He might be answered, but he wouldn't be invited to participate in a discussion of the subject, but to sit mutely and listen to the wisdom of the "experts" falling from on high. Please correct me if I'm mistaken, GUEST, but your concept does indeed sound elitist to me. By all means the participants in any forum should ascribe to certain standards of behavior; but it's the "standard" of "expertise", and the exclusionary attitude toward those who are not up to that standard, that leave me cold. But if you know "some other like minded folk" who are willing to participate in a closed discussion of this kind, by all means create the forum you envision... and you'll have yet another "narrow" website such as the ones you find unsatisfactory. Besides, if you eliminate "potty humor", you'd be eliminating any number of folk songs themselves along with discussions about their subject matter, wouldn't you? *G* Sharon |
|
28 Jan 02 - 04:32 PM (#637335) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Jerry, I'm not saying that Mudcat should be changed. I'm saying that a new forum should be created, and people can read and post wherever they want. I am not looking down on newbies at all. There are ways to cater to their needs, without limiting the discussion of advanced topics, or having to wade through huge volumes of BS threads. The beginner/advanced emphasis isn't a mutually exclusive thing, unless the reader/poster chooses to see it that way. Just as there is a mode of decorum to be observed when it comes to treating one's elders with respect, so too should we treat those with greater knowledge who wish to share it with others, with that same decorum. That is pathetically lacking here at Mudcat, IMO and that fact disturbs me deeply. However, a new forum could build that sort of thing into the gestalt of the new group. There aren't any traditional cultures I am aware of that allows idiots to shoot off their mouths anywhere, anytime, at any one, especially not the elders and more knowledgeable people within that social group, with impunity like people do here on a daily basis. And these types of posts (ie from Jerry, SharonA) are the very reason why I don't think a new forum should be discussed here in Mudcat. So that's all I'll have to say about a new forum here. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 04:55 PM (#637353) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 I'm not saying that Mudcat should be changed. I'm saying that a new forum should be created, and people can read and post wherever they want. Good to know. Then can I assume you are finished complaining about the Mudcat that "is" and explaining all the things you think should be changed? I wish you much luck on your new forum and hope things go the way you want them to there. Please put up a non-BS notice or PM any members you wish to attract from here when you are ready to start. Rest assured I will not be there to foul you up or create any unneeded problems for you. Best Regards, Spaw
|
|
28 Jan 02 - 05:01 PM (#637356) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Crane Driver I agree with Jerry's last (er, that should be latest) post - I've been committed to folk music since ... oh God, it was 1967!!! And I'm a new boy here. And I really like it. I'd personally hate the sort of introverted music-theory-only exclude-the-riffraff forum being suggested, but hey, don't let me put you off! You want it, do it. You wouldn't want me in it, because I personally prefer to try and encourage anyone with an interest in this music to stick with it and learn, and I'll wilingly hand over any of the experience I've picked up to anyone who asks - or even who doesn't. But academic theory? Don't ask me, I just push the buttons. Without the newbies, what happens when we oldies (oldbies? whatever) fall off the perch, as we will, even those of us from Venus. (signed) Permanent Riff-Raff, Andrew (from Pluto) |
|
28 Jan 02 - 05:15 PM (#637364) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus Can someone point out where I said that I think we should limit discussion of folk music to academic theory, or that Mudcat was lacking because it wasn't academic enough? I never said such a thing, yet that hasn't stopped anyone from accusing me of it. That said, is there some reason why academics shouldn't be included in music discussion forums? Or people with a more scholarly bent shouldn't be included in music discussion forums? Or people with a lifetime of knowledge and expertise shouldn't be included in music discussion forums? How many academics exactly, have been preventing people from enjoying their music discussions in ANY folk music forums on the Internet?
|
|
28 Jan 02 - 05:19 PM (#637366) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 That said, is there some reason why academics shouldn't be included in music discussion forums?--NO Or people with a more scholarly bent shouldn't be included in music discussion forums? --NO Or people with a lifetime of knowledge and expertise shouldn't be included in music discussion forums?--NO What's your point? Spaw |
|
28 Jan 02 - 05:35 PM (#637376) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,From Venus The point is, why are people casting questionable and nasty aspersions on people who want to discuss folk music seriously? To justify the current status quo of "I like it my way at Mudcat?" I've said my piece, and now I'd like to just leave it at that. Anymore go round would be beating the dead horse, and that isn't my intention. Winning and/or being right wasn't my intention or purpose in posting this thread. Communicating and being heard was. I've accomplished that, so I'll leave the rest of you to it. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 05:42 PM (#637381) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen Seems like the question you're raising, Venus (remember the old Frankie Avalon hit?)is not whether more scholarly types can post their thoughts on Mudcat, it's whether you want a forum where us un-scholarly folks can express ours. I like Mudcat because as you put it, it "caters" to those less knowledgeable than you. That doesn't mean it excludes you. Jerry |
|
28 Jan 02 - 06:16 PM (#637399) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA I'd have to disagree with that, Jerry; I don't think this site "caters" to anyone. It includes everyone – the academic as well as the riff-raff. The scholarly types are as welcome to post their thoughts here as the potty-mouths are to pooh-pooh those thoughts. Seems as if "from Venus" wants a forum with more decorum and more respect, both admirable goals. Again, I agree that a higher level of decorum – a higher standard of adult behavior – would be nice to see here at Mudcat. But respect for one's elders? How is anyone to know the age or expertise of an unregistered GUEST? Only those members who have shared their life stories and the stories of their experience with music have any level of credence at all. Only those members have a reason to receive any higher level of respect for their knowledge than is offered anyone else here, IMO. You'll notice I didn't say that they have a reason to expect more deference. It's my observation that those who don't expect to be treated differently than anyone else at Mudcat are the ones who are happy here, regardless of their level of expertise in the field of music or in any other field. Sharon |
|
28 Jan 02 - 06:19 PM (#637400) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: sophocleese Guest from venus if you don't want to discuss the possibility of another forum that's fine. But could you please let me know when/if you get such a forum up and running? I'll read far more than I'll post. |
|
28 Jan 02 - 07:53 PM (#637450) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Rustic Rebel Venus,It seems to me like this is one of those "un-related to music" threads going on right now. I hear where you are coming from,and your dishearten concern for mudcat, but if you want to talk music, why not just talk music? |
|
28 Jan 02 - 08:13 PM (#637469) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Peg didn't someone at one point suggest having two "chat" forums; one based on music and one for BS and off-topic stuff? A lot of discussion boards sort their forums by topic...
|
|
28 Jan 02 - 08:47 PM (#637496) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg I REALLY wish I had come to this realization before Guest From Venus left the discussion. It's pretty simple: Hey, how was your trip from Venus? Welcome! This here is Earth. Welcome!! It does tend to be a bit untidy what with all the human beans running around! Mind where you step foot! ~Susan |
|
29 Jan 02 - 02:53 AM (#637655) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Rolfyboy6 Thanks Susan, Best note on the whole thread on what's underlying the whole discussion. Now if all folk music was just tidier we could have a well regulated system. And not have to deal with people. ~Rolf |
|
29 Jan 02 - 07:24 AM (#637739) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST The idea that you can't have a fun discussion forum that is limited in focus and moderate in terms of rude Internet chatter is pure, unqualified BULLSHIT. (A bit more BS for all you BS chat lovers). There are many folk music discussion forums on the Internet. The tone and off-topic BS level here is the worst I've ever seen. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 08:13 AM (#637761) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen You're right, Susan. I should have either phrased my sentence better or used a :-). I find the term "cater" condescending. It's not a word I associate with respect or equality. It's an "us and them" word. I don't think that Mudcat "caters" to anyone. Jerry |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:13 AM (#637815) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario the tone and the off-topic BS level is the worst I've ever seen if this is true - then I suggest you have had a limited experience. I know of several MODERATED forums where the general level of conduct and amount of off topic discussion are FAR worse then this forum. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:27 AM (#637835) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST So name the names of the folk music forums you find FAR worse than this one, by all means MMario. Enquiring minds want to know. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:37 AM (#637844) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario You first - lets see the examples that you find so much better. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:38 AM (#637846) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA Funny, isn't it, that those people who talk about "how much better other forums are" seldom if ever provide the names of the sites they have in mind, or links to them. Disgruntled GUESTs, if you really want us to see how well So-and-so does it, please give us So-and-so's address so we can go look! |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:47 AM (#637848) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,Paul M Interestingly a search on Google (which ranks via the number of other webpages that link to a site, and hence popularity) for: folk music forum has Mudcat as the top 3 results... Can't be doing everything wrong... Paul |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:49 AM (#637850) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Yer a real chicken shit, ain't ya? rec.music.bluegrass & BGRASS-L Arlo's website rec.music folk uk.music.folk The folkmusic.org lists ballad-l mailing list For singer-songwriter stuff - FOLK_MUSIC GOSPEL-L rec.music.country.old-time Folk Scare Discussion Board And yours were what again now MMario?
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:50 AM (#637851) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: MMario BTW - I did not specify that the other forums I knew of were folk forums. I do check the usenet folk forums on google about once a month or every six weeks - and about the same for two other web based folk forums - there isn't enough traffic at all of them combined to bother with more often. Between the six I check I might find one post of interest.
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:54 AM (#637853) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST I called off my google search using "folk music discussion groups" after six pages without a single mention of Mudcat. There are several more pages of hits beyond it as well. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:55 AM (#637854) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman Peg, using 2 formus has been discussed here a few times. The main problem and reason for 2 forums being suggested has been complaints over the level of BS threads. I believe that the advanced filtering system when introduced should provide an alternative workable solution to this problem. Jon |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:55 AM (#637855) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg Kinda silly to compare on that level, I think-- the thing to think about is, how many songs are there posted in these "corrupted" threads? Anywhere else have that degree of participation resulting in that level of contributions? What if this degree of zaniness is simply the byproduct (or attractant) you should expect when you get this many creative people thinking fast enough to process the mental songlists that make Mudcat the resource it is? What if the level of BS is simply what Mudcat has instead of the pop-up ads I can't seem to get rid of, everywhere else I look? See, Earth is EARTHY! I think if you look at each species of BS that flies through the air here, you would see that no single species is any more pronounced here than anywhere else people interact freely with other people-- and I think far LESS. The TOTAL effect is pretty extreme, but that's because the diversity means there is always SOMETHING flying around. This week it's this thread, which serves some and irritates some, next week it will be anti-religion posts and that serve some and irritate some, and then the next week, it will be prayer requests. Is it all off-topic? I don't know, but I do know that the bitching, anti-religion, and prayer requests here are LESS prevalent and less pernicious than what I see IRL and elsewhere on the Net. We don't self-police-- we do something BETTER. We interact and we cooperate, to an amazing extent, to be here at all! Some people have a hard time getting with that program. It IS a challenge. ~Susan ~Susan |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:56 AM (#637857) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,PaulM GUEST, Nearly everything you've listed is either an email listserv or a usenet newsgroup. They are not web forums. Learn the difference. Paul
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:56 AM (#637858) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Really lame answer, MMario. Really lame. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:02 AM (#637865) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA GUEST: Please provide complete website addresses to which one can link, for all examples of web forums. For instance, "Arlo's website" isn't helping me to find it. Thanks. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:03 AM (#637867) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST I know the technical differences. But you haven't explained why they matter to a folk music lover, who can easily access any of them? A forum for discussing folk music is just that, regardless of whether it is a web forum, a listserv, or a newsgroup. BTW, there are so many errors in the Digital Tradition, I wouldn't consider it to be quite as valuable a resource as some make it out to be, particularly when there are so many much better quality sites with lyrics. Would anyone like me to list some of those too? |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:09 AM (#637874) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,PaulM GUEST I mentioned the technical differences because I believe they alter the way in which people interact. As (I think) someone said above, mudcat often becomes almost real time - as indeed this thread is right now. Obviously that creates a totally different group dynamic than usenet or listservs which are by their nature asynchronous. Hope that explains Paul If you could list some better sites for folk lyrics, yes, I'd be interested |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:11 AM (#637876) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg Yup, scroll up and see what I said as we all cross-posted. ~S~ |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:16 AM (#637880) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jon Freeman I think most people do acknowledge that the dt has its shortcommings. On the other hand, it is by far the most comprehensive collection of lyrics, many with MIDIs, that I'm aware of on the Internet - I can't think of another resource that comes close. Jon |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:17 AM (#637882) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Steve in Idaho What continually baffles me is this inane bantering. If this place is so bad and uncouth why are you here? You didn't use those words but that is the implication. Why do you continue to post? What is the purpose? Spaw - we've been trolled - Guest from whatever/wherever - you are all the same to me - though you keep the forum intriguing at times the incessant sameness is just weird. Steve |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:18 AM (#637883) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Well, here are a few. But I suggest if it really matters to you, you get off your lazy arses and at the very least, use the Mudcat Links button at the top of the page. Some are lyrics links pages, some direct links to lyrics. Take your pick. http://home.earthlink.net/~jmak/Music/Lyrics.html http://www.acronet.net/~robokopp/folkindx.htm http://www.contemplator.com/folk.html http://www.folklib.net/index/lyrics/ Bluegrass Song Book: http://www.nsknet.or.jp/~motoya/
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:21 AM (#637887) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST I'm haunting you Norton1. With glee. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:25 AM (#637890) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA GUEST: I, for one, have no idea how to access the sites you listed. PaulM says nearly every one of them is an email listserv or a usenet newsgroup, and I as a person relatively new to the internet do not even know what that means, let alone what all I'd have to do to join those discussions. However, to access the Mudcat Forum, all anyone has to do is know one website address, click on one menu item, and he's there. Once there, he can post to any Forum thread without registering any information beforehand. Sorry, but that's "easier". |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:29 AM (#637892) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,PaulM GUEST, I know the majority of those sites. I'm curious as to why you consider them better? As Jon Freeman says, yes there are mistakes, but if you include stuff posted on the forum, there are probably 10000 more songs here than anywhere else Paul |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:32 AM (#637895) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST PaulM, and of course, it takes about 10,000 times as long to wade through the BS to find the songs. SharonA, it is true, one must be willing to learn how to post to newsgroups and mailing lists, but it isn't hard at all. Until then, you could stick with Mudcat--sort of the Internet Folk Music Forum for Dummies. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:35 AM (#637897) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Obviously Steve. Also as obviously, Guest hasn't been to some of the places listed. Are you aware at all of what's happened at Arlonet? And talk about unhelpful and nasty? See some of the responses to newbies at Bluegrass. Everybody has problems and Guest, you have one too. I thought you were finished here and off to start a new forum. Oh well........Keep carping by all means. Nobody really gives a damn about what you're saying at this point, so have at it. Spaw |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:37 AM (#637899) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,PaulM GUEST If you search the DT directly (or download a copy) I don't think that you'll find any BS. Your arguements don't make any sense Paul |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:40 AM (#637901) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Kim C Ohferheavenssakes. Mark Twain once said that everybody complains about the weather but nobody does anything about it. Those of you who think there aren't enough musical discussions - start some. See how easy that is? But now here's the other side of the coin. Whenever I have a question, I look in the SuperSearch first. Lots of times, the discussion has already been had, and I find what I'm looking for there, so I don't start a new thread on it. Discussions I might have started, didn't get started, because they'd already been started by someone else. Everybody can't be happy all the time. That's just the yin/yang of the universe. I have never been part of any group that did not have "core members" - the people who come to every meeting, participate in planning, events, etc. It's not that they're a "clique," it's just that they're the ones willing and able to put in the time and the effort. And those core members do rotate and change from time to time. It's not good or bad, it just Is. Can we be done with this now? |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:41 AM (#637902) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Oh yeah Spaw, nobody gives a damn what I say--they just keep posting responses because what I say doesn't matter. Mmmmhmmmm--sure. I didn't say there was never any controversy in other folk music forums. But they blow over, people move on. Not the case here, where there is a perpetual motion machine of flaming guests/members who post BS we don't like/prayer threads/word of the day, and on and on and on like the Duracell bunny. Anyone up for another round of kick the anon guest? |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:47 AM (#637908) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Here they come: http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame69.html Watch the butterfly fly away |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:55 AM (#637914) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: katlaughing Is that what it takes for you to get your jollies off? By all means, let us oblige....WHACK! YOU are perpetual motion machine of flaming guests/members and you've gone round the bend. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:58 AM (#637915) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA GUEST: As for learning how to post to newsgroups and mailing lists, I'm willing to learn but not from someone who is less willing to teach me than to insult me! Aren't you the GUEST who was complaining about the "tone" on this Forum a few minutes ago? If so, please practice what you preach, and stop setting the "tone" you profess to detest. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 10:58 AM (#637916) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Here is what the English folk and traditional music on the Internet page has to say about the Digital Tradition. Note that the page says it is the biggest, not the best, and that the collection is limited to Anglo-American folk song. DT is definitely the biggest site, but it is cumbersome and difficult to navigate, particularly when compared to Lesley Nelson's lyric site. Songs The biggest online collection of Anglo-American folk song is the Digital Tradition database; the latest (Fall 1999) version contains 8024 entries, some with music There are fewer distinct songs as some variants have separate entries (eg there are five versions of Barbara Allen). It can be searched online, or downloaded for use offline in DOS interface, which as an infrequent user I find unintuitive to use. Jim Lawton has written a Windows 95/NT interface which is a easier to use (though without all the functionality of the DOS interface); this can be downloaded from his DonkeyWork site. In both cases, searching is possible on both words from the texts and on assigned keywords (which are available as a browsable list). |
|
29 Jan 02 - 11:00 AM (#637921) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST When in Rome SharonA, I do as the Romans do. Why, it helps me to fit right in! |
|
29 Jan 02 - 11:08 AM (#637927) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,PaulM This will be my last message to this thread, I'm getting really bored with you. Your "quote" seems to say that the DT is really very good. Lesley's Child site has about 200 lyrics max. I use her site, but personally don't like being forced to listen to MIDI files, so it gets a point down in my book. That is of course subjective. None of the other sites you mention are a patch on mudcat. Besides, if you want to do serious work, you'll use multiple sources. What you are saying has no point at all Paul PS The fact that you didn't mention the Bodlean Ballad site betrays how little you actually know |
|
29 Jan 02 - 11:14 AM (#637933) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: SharonA Poor GUEST. You don't realize that you are the Roman. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 11:17 AM (#637938) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Well, PaulM, it seems you were able to scroll down and discover the Bodlean Ballad site link on the English folk and traditional music on the Internet page I mentioned. Congratulations. I do serious work, which is why I never use Mudcat as a legitimate source. Its too amateur and riddled with mistakes to be taken seriously. Because it is big hardly recommends it as to quality and navigibility. And if what I am saying has no point at all, why do you keep responding, hmmmmm? Kiss, kiss--bye bye PaulM! |
|
29 Jan 02 - 11:22 AM (#637942) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,joe clone A reminder of Joe's advice in the Newcomer's Guide: I've said it before, and I'm sure I'll say it many times more: the best way to deal with both flamers and trolls is to ignore them. Give them silence, and they'll go away. They feed on attention - don't give it to them. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 02:28 PM (#638076) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Bill D .......I just opened this thread for the first time, and read all 112 messages..(maybe there are 3 more while I'm typing).... Some people just don't get it.....THIS IS LIFE! It is EXACTLY like having a festival, or a party, or a church, or driving on the highway, or going to the beach, or doing almost anything that is mostly open to the general public: that is, you get all kinds of people behaving in all kinds of ways, like.....well....like people! OF COURSE it will not please everyone all the time! Yes, there is off-topic banter sometimes, and often the same folks are at the center of it...just like at your office, or at meetings you have attended...(and just like at MOST of the 'public' singing sessions I have attended!!) You get several choices if you don't like it...1)don't go there any more, 2)try to find one (or start one) that is rigidly controlled (perhaps by YOU)...3) yell and complain 4)shut up and join in as best you can. (yeah..there is 'sort of' a 5th choice of politely, but firmly, raising your hand and making suggestions ..i.e., complaining to the management..but this assumes the management is taking suggestions.)Ask yourself honestly which one you use. I have been here since almost the beginning, and early on, I was well-known for complaining that "folk" music was being too broadly defined...I still believe that, but *shrug*...I can't win that one..(though I have influenced a few)...So I largely shut up about how I'd like it to be, and fit in "as best I can". The neat thing is....in this forum, I **CAN** not open a thread..or immediately close it if I don't like it...and...even in threads that are hi-jacked...I can do like I do with the comic strips in the paper..I IGNORE the ones that I choose..(Rex Morgan?, Mary Worth? Spiderman?...haven't read them in years!).....I'm so VERY sorry if you cant do the same. Perhaps options 1 & 2 are your best choices. I do know one thing...despite all the BS and banter and silliness that goes on (which I even contribute to at times)...if I have a music question, it GETS answered! Sometimes it is answered by the likes of a Malcolm Douglas or Gene or Bruce Olson who "almost" never partake of BS threads...and sometimes it is answered by Catspaw or MMario or others who may be in 47 threads simultaneously...but almost NO music question gets ignored or missed! The only way, my friends, to deal with a place that is big and complex, is to develop filters! If Max can help even more than he has...fine, but each person has to apply his/her own filter system too. (how many remember this link? which gives you the forum will all threads titled BS already filtered?) If you cannot either ignore the parts you don't like, or endure them, then simply give up! You all know that line about "not trying to teach a pig to sing, because it wastes your time, and annoys the pig"?....it applies to Mudcats 'as a group', too......
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 03:48 PM (#638116) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg Bill, THIS BS FILTER LINK works better, because the colon keeps it from filtering out folk cluBS and GiBSon guitars. ~Susan |
|
29 Jan 02 - 03:55 PM (#638121) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,JJ Susan, It does of course assume that the nonsense threads always have a 'BS' prefix, which of course is far from true JJ |
|
29 Jan 02 - 05:00 PM (#638172) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg No, "it" does not assume that. That's a whole separate issue. My contention is that we can choose to use these tools or not-- Max made it that way. This applies equally to the thread-namer and the thread-reader, though, neither of whom can accurately expect to dictate what the other will do. We each are responsible for doing what WE can do. Past that... it's disappointed wishes, and blame directed outward instead of responsibility exercised inward. ~Susan |
|
29 Jan 02 - 05:17 PM (#638183) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Bill D "We each are responsible for doing what WE can do" that's exactly the point...which leads me to the sad conclusion that the best some can do is anonymous complaining and trolling... durn, Susan...what an unlikely team we are!..(do you suppose we're BOTH part of the *inner clique* and don't even know it?)....I don't have my decoder ring, so I have only decyphered half the posts in this thread for messages ....funny, most of the 'guest' ones seem circular....or maybe it's my head spinning... |
|
29 Jan 02 - 05:36 PM (#638187) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri Bill I was sort of expecting this to happen now that serious discussion seems to be winding down. We have a guest who says they're serious about folk music and dislike BS, but they're in this BS thread...a lot. They're not serious about folk music, and they obviously don't hate it enough to think about the folks who do. They're serious about trolling. I think we were having a reasonably polite and sensible discussion. No problem with starting another internet folk thing, obviously Mudcat isn't going to change to suit one guest. That was the problem, though - hardly anyone was getting pissed off. So guest introduces the "sacred cow" - the forum again, but this time with the DT added. A discussion of "my forum's better than yours" follows. Aha! NOW people are starting to get pissed off! If I'm wrong about this being just another troll, I have a serious question. Guest, you seem to dislike the forum and the people, and it doesn't seem very likely any of that will change. Why are you here? |
|
29 Jan 02 - 05:59 PM (#638201) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Jeri, et al smugly and self-righteously ask: "Why are you here?" Answer: To help make Mudcat a better music forum for all who wish to benefit from it. I trust some of you don't agree with the ways I'm going about it? That's fine. I don't like the way you all are going about it either. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:05 PM (#638207) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST,PaulM I don't like the way you all are going about it either. Fuck off then Sorry, I've probably fallen into the trap, but I had to say it. Apologies Paul |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:11 PM (#638214) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Ah, there's a good boy now Paul. Back again already, and with your foot in your mouth over declaring your leaving the thread, too. There is no trap that I'm setting. I'm imply speaking my mind here. The fact that you and the other regulars get obnoxious and hurl expletives at me because you don't like my opinion reflects on the lot of you, not me. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:13 PM (#638216) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri Er...sure. Jeri, Smug, self-righteous, but a little bit smarter than the fuzzy pink stuff in my fridge. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:16 PM (#638219) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Jeri, I'll wait and reserve judgment on the level of your intelligence until the fuzzy pink stuff in your fridge completes the IQ test. Love you too. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:17 PM (#638220) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jeri Hey lookie here - I can make this thread disappear: Chatter thread filter |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:21 PM (#638223) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Classic trolling isn't it Jeri. Yeah, we all know not to play with the trolls, but sometimes it's just fun and some excellent posts have been made on this thread (and the other) by quite a few people and it's obvious that the 'Cat is pretty satisfactory to most and where it isn't we adjust. But our common troll here just plays the same game where the subject changes to suit his needs and prolong the discussion. We shouldn't play because it's a waste, but most of us have quit playing lately so this is a kick! Now he say he's here to help Mudcat be a better music forum. But he also seems to think it's too late. I know some ways to help the troll to attain a perfect forum: Send Max about 10 grand and he'll fix you up I'm sure. You can have a Nazi-moderated forum focusing only on your definitions and you can use the DT, keep out the riff-raff, and everything. Max would go for it I think. If not, at least offer Max a blow job which he'd probably appreciate to help relieve a lot of the stress he's got right now. I don't think that would enlist his aid, but what the hell........It would be a nice gesture on your part. Spaw |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:28 PM (#638227) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST And I can make it miraculously reappear on a different server! WOW! Aren't we impressed! Now if we could just get the BS and the BSers to disappear along with this thread, Mudcat would be safe again for the discussion of music, rather than just the lowest common denominator of hurling insults and expletives you all stoop to the minute someone offers some legitimate criticism of Mudcat. And isn't this entertaining Spaw? Insulting people you disagree with because you have no rational, thoughtful, reasonable response to them just shows how really witty and clever you all are--I'm terribly impressed. Awed. Totally humbled.
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:41 PM (#638236) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: catspaw49 Hey, we've already tried being rational, thoughtful, and reasonable.........Since that went nowhere with you, it's down to blow jobs. That was a serious suggestion on getting Max to fix you up with the perfect site. He and Jeff can probably accomodate you and you'd have everything you wanted. Why not negotiate a deal with him? Now if it's too expensive and you can do it yourself for less or whatever, quit wasting your time pissing around here where things will never be to your liking and create what you want? Mudcat is never going to suit you and will never change to your way of.....I hesitate to use this word......."thinking." Or is it that we are all correct in assuming that you are simply a common troll? If so, that's okay. We're all in a pretty good mood and will continue to play along if you want.....just say so and we can trade insults and all of that stuff for the next few hours/days/whatever. Spaw Spaw |
|
29 Jan 02 - 06:46 PM (#638243) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Jerry Rasmussen In summary, you said it, Spaw. Now, can we all get on with life? Jerry |
|
29 Jan 02 - 07:19 PM (#638268) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Yes Jerry, as usual Spaw said it all. Again. Just like he said it yesterday, today, and will say it tomorrow. I don't know how many times Spaw needs to say "blow job" to make himself feel better. But until he finishes up with himself, the short answer to your "can we all get on with life" appears to be "apparently not."
|
|
29 Jan 02 - 07:43 PM (#638295) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: wysiwyg Spaw, I had a different vision, Chicago-style. Very simple, too. Anyone who wants to start a thread pays a thug (person with edit button) for protection. Break the knees (delete the post) of any interloping miscreants. Enterpreneurial moderators. No more volunteer, helpful, friendly JoeClones. Nuh uh. Or you could see it kind of as "be my punk bitch" like in prison. Max could authorize (cookie) people to keep order that way, too. Cuz folkies is... BAADDDDD. ~Susan |
|
29 Jan 02 - 08:16 PM (#638321) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Bill D "make this a better music site".............I am a bit slow, I know...but Max, the ONLY high Muckety-Muck I know of here, has SAID he is not interested in trying make this just a music site!!!!!!! If it IS his, and HE allows silly chatter, why are you various anonymous trolls and guests trying to get all the rest of us to march to your drummer? ...Sort of like herding cats.....(and, as aforesaid, teaching pigs to sing) |
|
29 Jan 02 - 08:23 PM (#638330) Subject: Spaw: Thanks for the suggestion From: GUEST Spaw, Thanks for the suggestion about giving Max a blow job. Until your suggestion, I never even realized that Max was gay. |
|
29 Jan 02 - 08:26 PM (#638334) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Sorcha YAWWWWN |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:04 PM (#638362) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Herga Kitty FWIW I just looked up "Guest" in my dictionary (Chambers): "A visitor received and entertained gratuitously or for payment. A person visting one's home by invitation, to stay, for a meal etc; a person paying for accommodation in a hotel etc; a person honoured with hospitality by a government, organization etc; an animal inhabiting or breeding in another's nest (zool). Not a regular member of a company etc or not regularly appearing on a programme, but taking part on a special occasion". |
|
29 Jan 02 - 09:14 PM (#638367) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Pterry Wow, this must be a really special occasion. |
|
30 Jan 02 - 09:14 AM (#638613) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Big Mick Just thought I would pop in and see what was up. I have been gone a bit. I see you folks still like playing with slugs who enjoy getting a rise out of you. Glad to see you are keeping yourselves busy. Oh.......yeah.......I also noticed that despite all these threads for the 4 or 5 years I have been around ............... well, ..........they haven't caused Max to change the place one bit. Get it? To my friends, keep having fun. To the low life slugs, you still are so easy to figure out. Well, back to the struggle. Mick |
|
30 Jan 02 - 03:08 PM (#638824) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Want to know what wrong with Mudcat? MEMBERS who post shit like this: Ekh. What a load. Just when I thought I couldn't hate America any more... Seriously, someone from a good country: Adopt me. ----Lepus Rex
|
|
30 Jan 02 - 03:41 PM (#638846) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Devilmaster Wow, Guest...... you could post the exact same msg to two different threads..... Did you use the right mouse button and copy it all by yourself? I'll do it too and copy the two msgs replying from the other thread, cause I'm such a nice guy, and to make sure you didn't miss it, buddy. Subject: RE: Why is this place so bitter? From: Blackcatter Date: 30-Jan-02 - 03:18 PM Ummm... If you check the thread, you'll see the post was posted by GUEST. As for the signature "Lepus Rex" I don't reckognize the name as a member, and the Latin term means "Hare King" which doesn't help much in the identification. And to be honest, I don't even know what that thread means. For all I know GUEST - it could have been you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Post - Top - Forum Home - Translate -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Subject: RE: Why is this place so bitter? From: Giok Date: 30-Jan-02 - 03:30 PM And you're really gullible enough to take that seriously? Is it because it mentions America? Perhaps if someone said it about Britain, or Portugal, or Greece you wouldn't be bothered. Do you perhaps lack the ability to laugh at yourself, or your country, or is it rather a case of "Me, guest right or wrong"? Therapy....Giok |
|
31 Jan 02 - 09:34 PM (#639711) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST Devilmaster, If you don't from Lepus Rex, YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE! |
|
31 Jan 02 - 09:56 PM (#639732) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: Lepus Rex Yeah. From me, baby, from me. Whatever that means. :) ---Lepus Rex |
|
01 Feb 02 - 11:35 AM (#640054) Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat Chatter From: GUEST I always thought Jeri was the smart Mudcatter. I couldn't have posted my trolls without her links. |