back to list

post totals for month to date

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

2/5/2002 2:26:17 PM

tuning-math: 169
tuning: 151
metatuning: 92 (well, now 93)
makemicromusic: 10

have we got our priorities mixed-up? :) :) :)

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

2/5/2002 4:40:02 PM

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_1681.html#1681

> tuning-math: 169
> tuning: 151
> metatuning: 92 (well, now 93)
> makemicromusic: 10
>
> have we got our priorities mixed-up? :) :) :)

****Well, I was just thinking, Paul, of how valuable this list is
right now since we seem to be discussing music and composers that
are, not necessarily, xenharmonic.

Maybe we'll see a day when *xenharmonic* composers are just "mixed
in" like everything else!

JP

🔗jonszanto <JSZANTO@...>

2/5/2002 5:46:38 PM

Paul,

--- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> tuning-math: 169
> tuning: 151
> metatuning: 92 (well, now 93)
> makemicromusic: 10
>
> have we got our priorities mixed-up? :) :) :)

No, Paul, not at all. The tuning lists are supposed to look exactly
like that.

Jon

🔗jpehrson2 <jpehrson@...>

2/5/2002 6:27:14 PM

--- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:

/metatuning/topicId_1681.html#1693

> Paul,
>
> --- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > tuning-math: 169
> > tuning: 151
> > metatuning: 92 (well, now 93)
> > makemicromusic: 10
> >
> > have we got our priorities mixed-up? :) :) :)
>
> No, Paul, not at all. The tuning lists are supposed to look exactly
> like that.
>
> Jon

***Jon is right on this... After all, there shouldn't be all that
much *talk* on MakeMicroMusic... it's all done on the *outside!*

In fact, back to it right now... but this was a fun "break..."

JP

🔗paulerlich <paul@...>

2/5/2002 6:37:01 PM

--- In metatuning@y..., "jpehrson2" <jpehrson@r...> wrote:
> --- In metatuning@y..., "jonszanto" <JSZANTO@A...> wrote:
>
> /metatuning/topicId_1681.html#1693
>
> > Paul,
> >
> > --- In metatuning@y..., "paulerlich" <paul@s...> wrote:
> > > tuning-math: 169
> > > tuning: 151
> > > metatuning: 92 (well, now 93)
> > > makemicromusic: 10
> > >
> > > have we got our priorities mixed-up? :) :) :)
> >
> > No, Paul, not at all. The tuning lists are supposed to look
exactly
> > like that.
> >
> > Jon
>
> ***Jon is right on this... After all, there shouldn't be all that
> much *talk* on MakeMicroMusic... it's all done on the *outside!*
>
> In fact, back to it right now... but this was a fun "break..."
>
> JP

note the smileys, folks.