by Danny Schorr <.@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
May 9, 2008 at 08:58 PM
On Fri, 9 May 2008 21:48:20 +0200, "Alain Naigeon" <anaigeon@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>"Tom K." <tkorth1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> a écrit dans le message de news:
>2I2dnZw6vdPNObnVnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>> "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.
>
>+1 [ !! :-) ]
-1
