On Fri, 9 May 2008 15:24:51 -0400, "Tom K." <tkorth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>
>"Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>news:h0%Uj.1720$5Y1.120@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "Danny Schorr" <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:kbd7241s8dkq2u92v2ujblbpv9cg98tabr@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>>>
>>> Is that true? I have never qualifiers such as +1.
>>>
>>> I guess Bach's prelude in E major from the third partita would be +2,
>>> since it suggest three separate strands?
>>> 1 ( melody) + 2 ... what? Threads?
>>> Seems unnecessarily terminological to me.
>>> Compound melody seems to be enough to denote what's going on.
>>>
>>> Danny
>>
>> "+1" is net speak for "that's another vote for..." - compound melody in
>> this case.
>>
>
>Steve, from what I've observed, the confusion might have been avoided by
>quoting the post which said "compound melody" and then simply saying +1
in
>your post.
>
>But then again, this is RMT & without some "confusement" (Prof.
Longhair's
>wonderful term), where would we be?
>Tom K.
I didn't grok that he was "upmodding" your post.
Ok - so, Reddit style comments have made their way to RMT.
Ain't no big deal.
<yawn>
Carry on.
D.
|
