New Administrators!

[Craig in Indy]

Boy I turn away for just a minute, and I come back to find a bunch of malcontents and ne'er-do-wells have been put in charge.

I'm just kidding my old pals, of course. I'm really happy to see you don those admin robes. One of the reasons I haven't yet been as active here as I was at our old haunts is I haven't felt exactly settled in yet. Seeing you guys in charge will go a long, long way toward making me (and others, too, I'm sure) much more comfy and at home.

Congrats, guys!

Oh, and as far as suggestions go, all I'd offer is that we add content for folk and classical, but then that's not exactly Classic Rock, is it? But geez, all I really want is for the place to be tailored to me. Is that too much to ask?

 

[CP/M User]

Magic wrote:

I was just doing a spelling **** check......

I thought they spelt everything with a "z" on the end!

 

[Magic]

Oh, and as far as suggestions go, all I'd offer is that we add content for folk and classical, but then that's not exactly Classic Rock, is it? But geez, all I really want is for the place to be tailored to me. Is that too much to ask?

This is in the works, Craig. Folk and Classical are definitely part of the classic rock era......We are just giving all the major changes we have already made time to mellow in, let people get use to seeing the new stuff.

 

[CP/M User]

Magic wrote:

This is in the works, Craig. Folk and Classical are definitely part of the classic rock era......We are just giving all the major changes we have already made time to mellow in, let people get use to seeing the new stuff.

I just would have assumed that things like Folk would go under Folk-Rock and could be discussed in their rightful areas - Simon & Garfunkel for example being a 60s Duo so are allowed. Gene Clark is perhaps a different kettle of fish and can only be discussed in the Other Section - so many Genres happening it's too fiddly to sort out! Perhaps the rule should be based on when the Group or Solo Artist got established - is where discussions about them need to be put into the forum? So if you say REM was around in the early 80s then it should be in the 80s Section?

 

[Shaggy]

Magic wrote:

This is in the works, Craig. Folk and Classical are definitely part of the classic rock era......We are just giving all the major changes we have already made time to mellow in, let people get use to seeing the new stuff.

I just would have assumed that things like Folk would go under Folk-Rock and could be discussed in their rightful areas - Simon & Garfunkel for example being a 60s Duo so are allowed. Gene Clark is perhaps a different kettle of fish and can only be discussed in the Other Section - so many Genres happening it's too fiddly to sort out! Perhaps the rule should be based on when the Group or Solo Artist got established - is where discussions about them need to be put into the forum? So if you say REM was around in the early 80s then it should be in the 80s Section?

Not a bad idea for now. So you are saying stick with the years they came out?

 

[Alocer]

I agree with CPM, otherwise you could make comments about artists who started in the 80's and then got to the 90's forum and post stuff about what they did in the 90's...sounds too confusing and messy as well as a headache for anyone trying to mod or admin... And change always takes time....Good or bad...and only through time can you figure out if something doesn't work right or if its spot on (sorry, old brit term).

My compliments to the admins and mods!

 

[CP/M User]

Shaggy wrote:

Not a bad idea for now. So you are saying stick with the years they came out?

Yeah pretty much - I guess there could be some tricky ones to sort out for example I'm listening to Yusuf Islam at the moment - which was once performed in the 60s and 70s as Cat Stevens. And then some people might get touchy as to when groups became legendary and argue they belong in the period they retain that status e.g. Pink Floyd!

I just think it's easier to put a group categorically based on when they were formed. Though it's not always easy to know which decade a group was formed - but I've found Wikipedia a useful tool when it comes to which decade a group was formed.

 

[Shaggy]

Thats where it gets tricky. Not sure how you could handle that. Just maybe those put into the genre.

 

[CP/M User]

Shaggy wrote:

Thats where it gets tricky. Not sure how you could handle that. Just maybe those put into the genre.

Come to think about it, yeah it's tricky when you think about groups like Fleetwood Mac cause most people will say their a 70s group! How wrong would they be!

It's categories like this on Wikipedia which make it clearer, but it's not always complete!

 

[Gearjammer]

Does it really matter though?

My thought is, as a poster, you are going to post in the era relative to the content of your post. For example, if I am going to post about Fleetwood Mac, and I wanted to discuss Peter Green era Mac, I would post in the 60's section, while if I wanted to discuss Rumors, I would post in the 70's, and yet further, if I wanted to know if anyone liked Mirage, I would post in the 80's. And if I want to post about Mac and cheese, I will post in off topic lounge.

I think sometimes people worry too much about where a particular subject is posted. As a rule of thumb, I browse all areas with fresh posts, because you never know what is there that might be of interest. And it saves on a lot of unneccesary policing of threads.