Return-Path: <> Received: from dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com [206.214.98.3]) by ixmail7.ix.netcom.com (8.8.7-s-4/8.8.7/(NETCOM v1.01)) with ESMTP id JAA01576; for ; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:36:25 -0700 (PDT) Received: from localhost (localhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) with internal id LAA06485; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:36:19 -0500 (CDT) Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:36:19 -0500 (CDT) From: Mail Delivery Subsystem To: Subject: Returned mail: User unknown Auto-Submitted: auto-generated (failure)
The original message was received at Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:35:08 -0500 (CDT) from sm~ocalhost
----- The following addresses had permanent fatal errors -----
----- Transcript of session follows ----- ... while talking to ixmail7.ix.netcom.com.: >>> RCPT To: <<< 550 ... User unknown 550 ... User unknown
----- Original message follows -----
Return-Path: Received: (from sm~ocalhost) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com (8.8.4/8.8.4) id LAA06450; Tue, 13 Oct 1998 11:35:08 -0500 (CDT) Received: from phn-az13-49.ix.netcom.com(207.223.186.241) by dfw-ix3.ix.netcom.com via smap (V1.3) id rma006413; Tue Oct 13 11:34:53 1998 Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 09:32:05 -0700 From: Alan Schackner X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.05 [en] (Win95; I) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: jgord~ogether.net, harp-lafoo.garply.c~x.netcom.com Subject: diplomacy at its' best
Jimmy, Jimmy, Jimmy..You are a superb diplomat ...And as such you certainly join the ranks as an expert!! I could not have said it better! Bobbie G. is a wonderful, nice lady who goes out of her way to help everybody...And when she said I was mistaken about shimming a reed to lower it...It was like an arrow thru' my heart!!! (:-) I love that girl...But she did mis-interpret my intent...And your post cleared it up marvelously well...You said we were BOTH right...That's the epitome of expert diplomacy...and you hit the nail on the head...On re-reading my post, I could see where it might have been mis-understood....So now I include you in that category..The THREE of us are correct! Thank you...
All the best, Blackie
From: Jimmy Gordon Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1998 00:28:00 -0700 Subject: Re:270 Chromatic Sliders
Hi Bobbie G!
How about that Blackie,Douglas,and Seigfreid?Haha.
Those guys couldn't start an argument between the _three_ of them! <:)
I guess that's the problem with having correct information,all the experts already agree with you. <:)
I hope you don't mind,but I noticed a "communication discrepancy" in the
following and hope I can shed light on it, diplomatically.
Bobbie Giordano wrote:
> Then, BTW, Blackie wrote:
> > You can also lower a reed by inserting a shim (between reedplate and
> reed) > > and pushing it gently toward the rivet pad...This extends the > fulcrum > > slightly, (the exact point from where the reed vibrates) ergo, a > lower > > pitch! (Thanks for that one John Infande!)
> > This is a way I would think one might experiment with altered > tunings.... > EXCEPT for one thing. What Blackie describes actually raises NOT > lowers the > pitch. Extending "the fulcrum" essentially SHORTENS the reed, > therefore, > making it's predominant natural pitch higher, not lower.
Blackie is correct,as are you,although a misunderstanding occurred here.
Although it was not specifically stated(there was a "..."),the "shim" (stock,j.g.) is to be removed after lengthening the distance from the "fulcrum" to the _free end_ of the reed,thus lowering the pitch,as stated by Blackie,with credit to J. Infande.
If what you thought was being said described the insertion of a shim which was then left near the root of the reed,and that the distance increase discussed was from _rivet_ to the "fulcrum" then,as you said it
would certainly effectively shorten the reed,and thus raise pitch.
As long as everybody is in such agreement,I thought I would ask of the four of you,Blackie,Douglas,Seigfreid,or Bobbie,which one told me that if you tune your harmonica sharp and bent a note, your slide would be flat? <:)
