Re: Seventh Mode of Harmonc Minor

On May 2, 1:11 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On May 2, 12:54 am, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 1, 9:23 pm, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On May 1, 8:22 pm, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I'll say one thing though.

Your thinking that you studied with Nadia Boulanger because you
studied with someone who studied with her, is like Antal thinking he
studied with Pat Metheny because he's studying with someone who
studied with him.
I.e. It's pure delusion.

Again you have made up your own version of my post. Never have I said
that I studied with Nadia.

"My
approach was *taught to me by Nadia Boulanger* through one of her
teachers Gretchen McGee."

That's what you said.
If that's not what you meant to say then you should have said
something else, the first time.

That is beyond funny. Its really sad! I see your quotation marks that
isolate the statement. BUT LOOK! You forgot to Clip the modifying
clause that clearly says THROUGH ONE OF HER TEACHERS! If you had
remembered to clip that, your statement would be correct if it wasn't
a lie! You have posted the statement that actually SAYS I have studied
her approach, which became my approach as I could see her wisdom, by
way of one of her trusted teachers! Do you routinely isolate PARTS of
sentences and clip out the modifiers in your citations? This is one of
the most ridiculous citations that you have ever made!



Don't attribute your own lies to me, *liar*.

I have always carefully pointed out that
our teacher taught with her.

The immediately above statement is false. And the above quote is
proof.

Proof that I said I learned from her second hand! Just as I have
always said. And, Its proof that you don't understand what you read
and say! Can you honestly be that unable to comprehend the language?



I know you've got a *VERY* high opinion of yourself and of your
musical training, but it's totally unwarranted, as far as I can see.

That's right. As far as YOU can see.

I'd guess that most folks here would agree with me, or they wouldn't
always being trying to explain to you how wrong you are all the time.
Get over yourself.

That's funny. You have statistics on that?

Anybody can read the archive. It's all there.

Apparently you can't! Again with no documentation, just your fantasy.
Can't you even rearrange a few words and sentences to support this
empty statement?




Somewhere in there you talked about how making music was the most
important thing. Well where's your music Mr. Schenck?
Totally irrelevant.

No. It isn't.
I agree with *you* that being able to make music is important, even
for a "theorist". A music theorist who has made no music is not likely
to know much about music at all.

I
rarely play any more. Mostly for my own amusement. I have had a great
career for over 35 years and I keep my feet wet, but I have other
things that I have to do now. I might play again after my house is
rebuilt. I am involved in other things.

Fine. Then post a link to some music you made 35 years ago or at any
time between then and now.
Or post a link to some sort of reference to some music you were
involved in making anytime over those years.

Oh. And what instrument were you playing in the band that played
behind the strippers? Violin? Must have been a pretty classy strip
joint. Or maybe it never happened?

That, however, has nothing to do with theory.

It has to do with *you* and your credibility as a *musician*.
You have none, as far as I'm concerned at this point. None.
If your ideas made sense, that would be enough for me. But they don't.
So in lieu of that, in an effort to understand where you're coming
from, I'd like to hear some of your music, please.

No it doesn't. It has nothing to do with theory. They are not
connected. Its like saying that You can't play the guitar because you
can fix aircraft problems. They just aren't related. I don't need your
acceptance. After all, you are rude, and you don't understand
classical theory. You twist posts, you are dishonest and even if you
were a guitar legend, it wold not have anything to do with your
ability, or lack of ability to analyze music.Its just another of your
diversions to NOT speak about theory. I wouldn't go to the guitar
group and say that you didn't know theory, but this is the THEORY
group. When I post about playing music on a performance group, then I
might consider your obsession relevant.



If I claimed to be a great touring soloist, or a Grammy winner, or
even that I was a Professor at various colleges! I have never claimed
that.




You've claimed that making music is important.

One very true statement.


Let's hear some.

Listen to the radio and CD's There is music all around. Just listen.
Plenty of music by plenty of composers. I can hear it all and analyze
it. Playing it, of course is totally independent of this. It has no
relevance.





I don't subscribe to rec.music.performance. This is Music
Theory. This is listening, analyzing, and studying and experimenting.
That is another thing that you don't understand, and (Why yes it is!)
this is another example of your "lying" in you posts.

You're the liar here.

You say that but you never back it up. That stupid reply above only
shows one of your techniques of avoiding the truth.



If I played the
guitar and you liked the way I play, I suppose that then you would
believe me when I say that a Cadential 6/4 chord does not function as
tonic.

I never argued that a cadential 6/4 chord could function as a tonic.
That is a simple topic that is taught in the 1st half of most legit
theory books. It's you who doesn't understand *why* the chord is
treated that way, even though *everybody* here tried very patiently to
explain it to you over several days.

Yes, you did. You were insisting that it was tonic because it had all
the tonic notes in it. The discussion was that it was really more of a
dominant but with suspensions. Again, rearranging the phrases to CYA.


You never understood what I was actually talking about in that thread
(let alone Steve or Tom or Dave or Hans), and you still don't. And I
won't go over it again with you. Read the archive.



Ha! lol, Right. What didn't I understand? After Steve explained to
you what I meant, you still disagreed with him! You were at odds with
everyone!



Every paragraph above was an example of how
you make things up and then attack only what you have made up!

No. It isn't.

That is
quite a skill Joey. I assume that is what has made you what you are
today.

What I am today is someone who *makes music*. It's not great music,
but it's music nonetheless.
What are you?

I am a theorist in this group. Someone that knows and can analyze
great music when he encounters it. And you are correct. Your music is
not great! But that doesn't matter. I have never pointed out that you
music isn't great and it doesn't matter if your music is great or not.
I have only pointed out that your classical theory is faulty. And it
is! It has nothing to do, however, with performance. I think your
playing is fine. Its very professional. I wouldn't accuse you of
playing poorly because you were playing less than great music. The
performance and the music have nothing to do with each other. They are
two separate things. I have heard absolutely horrid performances of
West Side Story. That doesn't make the music bad, only the
performance.





But even you say
that you don't understand classical theory, and you are correct, you
don't!

Yet I always seem to understand it better than you.
Weird, eh?

Not weird, just a fantasy. If it were real, you wold be able to cite
examples and back them up. But you always stop at that point. Usually
that is where the profanity comes in. You have learned to control that
somewhat! That is one thing.


But you still keep insisting that I am always wrong.

You are.

Joey, by
your own words, HOW would you know?

I know, because I *have studied* the stupid little simple things
within standard Tonal theory that you have tried to demonstrate your
knowledge of here. And you've been wrong, consistently, almost every
time.

Apparently, you haven't studied enough. When anyone talks beyond the
definition, you suddenly become lost and change the subject. All these
"little simple things" are not a simple as you see them. They are
basic principles that have specific reasons for being there and have
very strong underlying influences on the music. And the same little
thing has different implications in different circumstances. You know
the definitions of these "little simple things" but you don't really
understand how they can have different meanings in different contexts.
Yes you know the definitions, but when you learn their implications,
then you begin to know what they are really about.


When I don't know something about legit theory I ask Steve or Matt or
somebody who demonstrably knows what I don't know. They demonstrate
this with the strength of their ideas. I don't know Steve's
credentials but I don't question them either because his ideas are
sound. Matt Fields claims to have a Ph.d in music theory, but the only
reason I believe him is because his ideas are consistently sound, and
I've seen and heard some of his music.

Yes, I have read a lot of those. You ask on practically every topic.
Problem is you ask AFTER you have made erroneous conclusions about the
topic. Maybe if you did more of that, you wouldn't come off as so lame
on classical theory and you would learn how to see the things that I
point out. You are, (I don't think that you realize it) however,
following my advice here. I am not a false prophet. I encourage you to
seek the help of Steve and Matt (and you would do well to ask many
other people as well) and anyone for their opinions. When I read these
posts, I see that they take different approaches to explaining things
to you. They may fit your learning style better than I do. This is
something that I tell all that I encounter. Don't believe anyone! The
thing is, (as I have followed most of these lessons on line that you
are talking about) you don't seem to accept what they say either. The
explain the same thing, you change the context and then they bow out
by agreeing to what you said. Never mind that by that time, you are
talking about something different. Those are the ones that are not
just endless discussions about the various semantic meanings of the
terms being used.

When these same people deal with *you* they spend a few posts trying
to straighten you out and then they rightfully tire of you and leave
you wallowing in your own mental vomit. You can't see this because you
can't see *anything*. You're the one caught up in his own head, unable
to learn anything new (or old).

Again, empty words with no examples.


I have no doubts that you have been around some very good musicians
and teachers. But nearly every word you type here leads me inescapably
to conclude that you've misunderstood nearly everything you've tried
to learn from them. So why not try music instead of words? Let's hear
some of your musical "knowledge" expressed in music.

Lets see you fly the plane! Or show me the your proof of the theory of
relativity! These are just as related as what you are asking. It just
isn't a factor. Maybe you don't know what theory is all about! A
theorist does not have to be a performer or a composer. He analyzes
things. I wonder if all the members of this group that are not
professional musicians realize that you are saying that they have no
credibility with any of their posts as they are not performers or
composers! Joey, get a grip. Try to stay with one thought for more
than a sentence of two.



I am not embarrassed for my self,

You should be.

except maybe for entertaining your
absurd posts.

You don't entertain them. You provoke them.

I see. Now you are saying that it is my questioning of your absurd
posts that provoke you into making them! You really should work on
your self control.


Why do you keep talking me when you know I've kill-filed you?

LOL, that's a typical example of Joey Logic! If you really kill filed
me, then HOW is it that you can respond to my posts! lol. Please, you
are making me hurt from laughing!


I've been patiently trying to avoid you for months now, but you keep
talking about me negatively in your responses to other people here.
You've taken to attacking my students now too, just because they study
with me. What a supreme *** you are.
What am I supposed to do besides answering like with like?
What did you expect me to do?

Talk about trolling,

Talk about calling the kettle black.

and an overly high opinion of one's
self. If you are not embarrassed then you don't really understand what
reality is.

Pure projection.

How can you reply so quickly anyway? I thought you had Killed my File?

It's a secret, like your musical abilities.
And I haven't "killed your file" dumb-ass.
I've created a kill-file for you.
It's how the Internet, which is a series of tubes btw, happens to
work.

Even that was a lie? Really,

No. You're just too stupid to figure it out.

No Joey, you forget that you even said that you check on my posts by
going to Google Groups. The stupid thing is to kill file someone and
then go to the extra work of looking up my posts! Maybe you should
rethink your logic there! Something seems to not quite add up.

But this sends us right back to the profanity and the name calling and
the slurs. Your real strong point.
This is going no place. If you refuse to say anything truthful or
pertinent there is no use to wast any more time with this nonsense.
Like John has said (if you think he is credible enough, I think he is
a scientist, I don't know if he plays or composes so you may not
listen to him. I do.) lets get on to talking about music issues. So
unless you come up with something factual, I have no more time for
your absurdities. People can read the posts for themselves.
LJS

.

Loading