Michael's bait

In msg 96274 Michael said:

<John Sullivan said he hated the 22/15 diminished fifth, but put 13/9 on his top interval list.>

What I said (in msg 96251) was <I tested 22/15 and it seems quite dissonant to me and is not very near a *good* interval> I never said I "hated" it.

Also (in msg 96246) I said <Intervals with a negative value are, IMO, dissonant> Then in my list, in the same message, I give 13/9 a negative value of -1.1591.

I suspect that Michael knows full well that I gave 13/9 a negative value. In his message (msg 96266) he attributes a bunch of crap to me that I never said or implied.

Suspecting that this was bait I ignored his message.

I've had my doubts about Michael for some time now.

John.

John>"What I said (in msg 96251) was <I tested 22/15 and it seems quite dissonant to me "

   Well, you're right, you never said you hated 22/15...but you did say it was very dissonant, so I interpretted that honestly as you at least disfavored, if not hated it.

>"I suspect that Michael knows full well that I gave 13/9 a negative value."

  Yes, but you listed 13/9 as one of your least negative values and 22/15 was listed nowhere (fair to guess it was "under the bottom" of your list.  In other words your point through your data/list of intervals and about 22/15, though not stated, that you prefer 13/9 to 22/15.

  Now if that's not true...please tell me...and, in the case it's not true, the idea of using 13/9 as a preferred alternative fifth would become my "discovery", not yours.  But I did presume the idea of preferring 13/9 was yours and was honestly just trying to give you credit.... :-S

>"Suspecting that this was bait I ignored his message. I've had my doubts about Michael for some time now."

   Look...you are being a flaming...  Seriously.  INSTEAD of taking your comment about 22/15 being bad and hissing at you, I TOOK YOU SERIOUSLY and not only tested 13/9 on my own ears, but made an ENTIRE SCALE to test it plus a MELODIC EXAMPLE. 

   And the thanks you give me...is passively calling me a troll saying my honest work toward taking what I honestly perceived your theory seriously. 

   If you don't want credit toward inspiring me to make this scale, fine, stay the *(& away from me.  This is the last time I will attempt to give you credit for inspiring me...since everytime I try to give you credit you find a way to misconstrue my credit to you as being "troll bait".  Give me a break!

--- On Sun, 2/13/11, john777music <jfos777@...> wrote:

From: john777music <jfos777@...>
Subject: [tuning] Michael's bait
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, February 13, 2011, 2:04 PM

In msg 96274 Michael said:

<John Sullivan said he hated the 22/15 diminished fifth, but put 13/9 on his top interval list.>

What I said (in msg 96251) was <I tested 22/15 and it seems quite dissonant to me and is not very near a *good* interval> I never said I "hated" it.

Also (in msg 96246) I said <Intervals with a negative value are, IMO, dissonant> Then in my list, in the same message, I give 13/9 a negative value of -1.1591.

I suspect that Michael knows full well that I gave 13/9 a negative value. In his message (msg 96266) he attributes a bunch of crap to me that I never said or implied.

Suspecting that this was bait I ignored his message.

I've had my doubts about Michael for some time now.

John.