On 1/27/02, roud wrote:

[ ... ]

>Back to the idea of renaming the list - so far most answers have been in
>favour, I believe, with only one definitely against - but only a small
>percentage of subscribers have yet voiced an opinion. Does silence mean
>assent, or dissent?

I haven't spoken up because I've always had a bit of a problem
with this list. Or with Ballad-L, except that it was there first.
I personally think they should be merged. It's not like the level
of traffic on either is so high that it would interfere with
anyone's life! And often we see people asking the same messages
of both lists. It's a silly distinction. Merge them and have done.

But with that said, if people *don't* want to merge them, I
I think renaming the list is a reasonable idea, assuming the
"technical difficulties" of fixing links, etc. aren't too large
(though I suspect they may be). Restricting ourselves to ballads
has two problems: It forces a definition of "ballads," and it
also means that, since nearly every fan of ballads is also a
fan of other traditional music, the discussion *will* go
off-course. Might as well make the name fit the topic. :-)

Defining "traditional song" is perhaps problematic -- but I
think it's easier to define than "ballad." At least, if you
hauled out a dozen people on this list and asked them if
twenty assorted songs were ballads, they'd disagree regularly,
but they'd agree more regularly on what is traditional.

At least as long as none of them are bluegrassers. :-)

--
Bob Waltz
[log in to unmask]

"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."