49/32

In einer Nachricht vom 7/20/99 3:59:46 PM (MEZ) - Mitteleurop.
Sommerzeischreibt ppagano@bellsouth.net:

<<
gents
i think that we need to differentiate sometimes because some folks are more
interested in chords and some in melodies but i will say that the 49/32 is
an
interval i have been using alot lately and it is viable in both terms
and sounds nice in the chord 147/128-49/32-441/256
ciao
Pat >>

That's just a 1:9:3 triad. Divide each of your numerators by 49.

oops sorry Dan
it sounds nice in that triad

DWolf77309@cs.com wrote:

> From: DWolf77309@cs.com
>
> In einer Nachricht vom 7/20/99 3:59:46 PM (MEZ) - Mitteleurop.
> Sommerzeischreibt ppagano@bellsouth.net:
>
> <<
> gents
> i think that we need to differentiate sometimes because some folks are more
> interested in chords and some in melodies but i will say that the 49/32 is
> an
> interval i have been using alot lately and it is viable in both terms
> and sounds nice in the chord 147/128-49/32-441/256
> ciao
> Pat >>
>
> That's just a 1:9:3 triad. Divide each of your numerators by 49.
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> Congratulations SAYNO2DRUGS. Our latest ONElist of the week.
> http://www.onelist.com
> How is ONElist changing YOUR life? Visit our homepage and let us know!
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

Patrick Pagano wrote,

>>> i think that we need to differentiate sometimes because some folks are
more
>>> interested in chords and some in melodies but i will say that the
49/32 is
>>> an
>>> interval i have been using alot lately and it is viable in both terms
>>> and sounds nice in the chord 147/128-49/32-441/256
>>> ciao
>>> Pat

Daniel Wolf wrote,

>> That's just a 1:9:3 triad. Divide each of your numerators by 49.

Patrick Pagano wrote,

>oops sorry Dan

which was appropriate, but then he repeated,

>it sounds nice in that triad

And pi sounds nice in the triad pi : 3*pi : 9*pi. So what?

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> Patrick Pagano wrote,
>
> >it sounds nice in that triad
>
> And pi sounds nice in the triad pi : 3*pi : 9*pi. So what?

And tell us why this bothers you Paul. What'sthe problem Pat saying that?

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

>> Patrick Pagano wrote,
>>
>> >it sounds nice in that triad
>>
>> And pi sounds nice in the triad pi : 3*pi : 9*pi. So what?

>And tell us why this bothers you Paul. What'sthe problem Pat saying that?

We were discussing the _interval_ 49/32. The chord that Pat mentioned used
the _pitch_ 49/32 but the only _intervals_ in the chord were 1:3 and 1:9. My
point was that the pleasantness of Pat's chord didn't say anything about
49/32 -- Daniel Wolf tried to make the same point but I thought I'd
reiterate in case anyone didn't get it.

Paul H. Erlich wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> >> Patrick Pagano wrote,
> >>
> >> >it sounds nice in that triad

> >> And pi sounds nice in the triad pi : 3*pi : 9*pi. So what?
>
> >And tell us why this bothers you Paul. What'sthe problem Pat saying that?
>
> We were discussing the _interval_ 49/32. The chord that Pat mentioned used
> the _pitch_ 49/32 but the only _intervals_ in the chord were 1:3 and 1:9. My
> point was that the pleasantness of Pat's chord didn't say anything about
> 49/32 -- Daniel Wolf tried to make the same point but I thought I'd
> reiterate in case anyone didn't get it.

Got it.

--
* D a v i d B e a r d s l e y
* xouoxno@virtulink.com
*
* J u x t a p o s i t i o n E z i n e
* M E L A v i r t u a l d r e a m house monitor
*
* http://www.virtulink.com/immp/lookhere.htm

I forwarded that entire post to David since his name was included.

At Fri, 30 Jul 1999 12:44:46 -0400, you wrote:
>
>Yes it is very bad manners to be posting private e-mail. I forwarded that
>comment to Pat and told him I didn't agree with it. Apparantly Pat felt a
>need to share it with David. If your intent, David, was to send a communiqu�
>back to the original writer, that could have been arranged through me.
>Although it was questionable judgment on my part to be forwarding that in
>the first place. I was really just making a point to Pat that at least one
>person though of my post as a useful attempt to make a clarification, while
>Pat was very offended by it.
>
>I hope Pat also forwarded my comment on the comment to David.
>
>
>

Patrick Pagano posted a private e-mail of mine whose first line happened to
be, "Yes it is very bad manners to be posting private e-mail." This came
after a private e-mail from him to me that said, "No hard feelings." Such
underhanded hostility can only be taken as a declaration of war. I am not
interested in fighting. I could retaliate be posting Pat's original, private
e-mail to me which contained foul language and started this whole thing. But
why?

> Patrick Pagano posted a private e-mail of mine whose first line happened to
> be, "Yes it is very bad manners to be posting private e-mail."
>
I did not post that to the list Beardsley did because he was a bit peeved. I
posted Pauls message to David because it included his name. I have no hard
feelings for Paul or Dave Keenan for what he said

> This came
> after a private e-mail from him to me that said, "No hard feelings."
>
I meant what i said No hard feelings~

> Such
> underhanded hostility can only be taken as a declaration of war.
>
But since I did not post it to the list Your beef is with David, and since he
was responding to your original private post I think you fellas are even in your
bad manners

> I am not
> interested in fighting.
>
Niether am I

sorry for the misunderstandings and to all out there who have had to endure
this.
Sincerely
Pat

>
>
>

I wrote,

>> Patrick Pagano posted a private e-mail of mine whose first line happened
to
>> be, "Yes it is very bad manners to be posting private e-mail."

Patrick Pagano wrote,

>I did not post that to the list Beardsley did because he was a bit peeved.

>> Such
>> underhanded hostility can only be taken as a declaration of war.
>
>But since I did not post it to the list Your beef is with David

TD 265 Message #4 clearly has YOUR name on it, Pat!

Yes Paul my name is on it but David posted that I do not get it in Digest form
but the sender should be visible. For the last time all i did was send your
email to David because he was included with me as lost causes~I made no
comments said no hard feelings before you posted your lost causes Keenan
comment to me. Enough is enough. You are still trying to pin this on me after
you supposedly apologized to the list RE (I'm Sorry). You started out with a
nasty So what which started this whole thing Paul. Let it go. I forgive you, we
all get excited, email David or me privately this is way OT at this point.

"Paul H. Erlich" wrote:

> From: "Paul H. Erlich" <PErlich@Acadian-Asset.com>
>
> I wrote,
>
> >> Patrick Pagano posted a private e-mail of mine whose first line happened
> to
> >> be, "Yes it is very bad manners to be posting private e-mail."
>
> Patrick Pagano wrote,
>
> >I did not post that to the list Beardsley did because he was a bit peeved.
>
> >> Such
> >> underhanded hostility can only be taken as a declaration of war.
> >
> >But since I did not post it to the list Your beef is with David
>
> TD 265 Message #4 clearly has YOUR name on it, Pat!
>
> --------------------------- ONElist Sponsor ----------------------------
>
> ONElist members are using Shared Files in great ways!
> http://www.onelist.com
> Are you? If not, see our homepage for details.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> You do not need web access to participate. You may subscribe through
> email. Send an empty email to one of these addresses:
> tuning-subscribe@onelist.com - subscribe to the tuning list.
> tuning-unsubscribe@onelist.com - unsubscribe from the tuning list.
> tuning-digest@onelist.com - switch your subscription to digest mode.
> tuning-normal@onelist.com - switch your subscription to normal mode.

Well if your'e server was down
maybe you did not see the posts that i was simply qouting. It was already posted to
the list. And my response was to another message ON THE LIST.

> the quoted stuff was a private message from Paul E. to you,
>
No it was not it was a message from Paul to Beardsley and I was simply stating to
Paul E. Why i had sent his message to David~. That's all.
Your wrong Paul H. There were three or four messages that day that you obviously did
not get.

> I can't say for sure about that, as my email server was down for several
> days.
>
Well I can say for sure that I said already ten times I posted only what had already
recieved via the list. End of the story. That is the crucial point you are now
missing.
Paul E begins with rudeness, backs it up with insults from Keenan and now you are
defending their impropriety or lack of netiquette by saying i posted something i
only qouted from list posts i recieved.

ciao folks
may the wind be at yr backs

>