On May 9, 3:24 pm, "Tom K." <tkor...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Steve Latham" <llat...@[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.
So the proper term is "Compound Melody For the Win LOL", then. The
internet comes through for me again!
-Kevin
|
