Re: Seventh Mode of Harmonc Minor

On May 2, 10:27 am, LJS <ljsche...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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:


"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!

No I didn't, liar. It's right there, in the quote above.
What I'm commenting on is the extreme hubris of your statement.
But of course, you don't 'get' that, because you're clueless, as
always.

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,

You said this "approach was taught to me by Nadia Boulanger".
If that's not what you meant to say you could have said something
else. You're just full of yourself and deluded, as well as being a
liar and a charlatan.

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 everything to do with your credibility as a practitioner of
music whether you be a performer or a composer.
Nobody can be a "musician" without being proficient in either one of
those two areas of music-making.
*Every* respected music theorist that I've ever read about (don't know
much about Pythagoras' music-making activities though) has been a
competent musician.
If you are music theorist and you can't make music then you are a
charlatan.

It has nothing to do with theory. They are not
connected.

Evidently, because you have no music to show for yourself after a
lifetime posing as a "theorist", you'd like to believe that.

Its like saying that You can't play the guitar because you
can fix aircraft problems.

No. It's not like saying that at all.
It's like saying that you don't understand music because you can't
make any.

They just aren't related. I don't need your
acceptance. After all, you are rude,

Kettle black.
You just refrain from using profanity while I welcome it.
But you're the most rude person I've ever encountered on usenet.

and you don't understand
classical theory.

I understand it better than you.

You twist posts,

I talk to people from my own point of view.
Because you don't understand what I'm saying you think I'm twisting
things.
This is partly because the things I tend to talk about involve more
recent developments in music making than what you studied in the 40s
and partly because you're just daft. I'm the one with the new
approaches here, not you. Sheesh.

you are dishonest

You're the one who keeps lying.
You're the one who won't tell us what instrument he plays.
You're the charlatan music "theorist" who doesn't have any music.

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.

Sorry. This is music, not physics. Making music is *all* that matters.

Its just another of your
diversions to NOT speak about theory.

You're the jerk who has derailed this entire thread away from talking
about music.
You've made it about me.
Now it's about you.

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.

It makes you a charlatan. A vapid poser.
An irrelevant troll.

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.

Go read the archive. You've got my position all wrong.

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!

Steve and I (and several, if not most, others here) agreed that the
reason that 6/4 major triads were treated as containing a dissonance
by CPP composers had to do with style and convention alone. *You* kept
trying to say that it was because of the overtone series. *You* were
and are wrong about this and continue to not understand why.

I was at odds with Steve about other things within that thread. I am
often at odds with him. I don't blindly accept everything he says on
faith. I read what he writes and then I make up my own mind. Of course
when he tells me how a particular device would be analyzed in a CPP-
oriented analysis I listen.
When and if I read what *you* write (assuming it's less than 5000
words) I just laugh because it's so vague, logically inconsistent,
wrong, and full of unwarranted hubris.

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.

lol
You're the resident goof-ball troll.

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.

If I change the subject it's because I think it's important that some
other facet of the concepts being discussed needs to be understood
before the concept itself can be understood. This always throws *you*
for a loop because you don't understand any of it.

All these
"little simple things" are not a simple as you see them.

The way that 6/4 chords and +6 chords were treated in CPP harmony are
indeed simple matters, at least for me they are. Sorry you still seem
have so much trouble with them.

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.

*You* should ask more often.

Problem is you ask AFTER you have made erroneous conclusions about the
topic.

If I've already made my conclusions, then why would I be asking
anything?

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.

I'm less lame on classical theory than you are.

You are, (I don't think that you realize it) however,
following my advice here. I am not a false prophet.

So now you're a prophet. I see.

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.

Sometimes I don't. Sometimes they're wrong. Or sometimes their views
are irrelevant for my own music *making* endeavors.

The
explain the same thing, you change the context and then they bow out
by agreeing to what you said.

There you go. They "agree" with me and then bow out. Why would they
continue arguing with me if they agree with me?
Lots of times we don't agree and one of us still bows out.

But *nobody* here ever seems to agree with you very often at all, and
it's not because you've got some new approach to music theory. It's
because you've totally misunderstood the old approaches that your
teachers tried to teach you.

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.

If only you could understand those terms too. Then you might feel part
of the conversation.

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.

Read the archive. They're easy to find.
Nearly every single thread you join in on results with one or more
members of the group trying to straighten you out.

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.

Musicians make music, period.
You can not be a music theorist without being a musician as well,
unless perhaps you're a physicist first, like Helmholtz. But people
like him, unless they are also musicians, should refrain about making
assumptions about music-making based on their scientific inquiries,
IMO.

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.

Yes. He does.

He analyzes
things.

From what perspective?

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!

I never said that about them. I'm saying it about you.
And most of these people, although not professionals, are involved in
*music-making* of some kind.
Let's hear some of your music.

Joey, get a grip. Try to stay with one thought for more
than a sentence of two.

Stop writing such enormous deluges of vacuous sentences then.

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.

No. This time it was your absurd attack on one of my students.

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!

I first came upon your latest negative comments about me by reading
Antal's posts.
I tried to avoid responding to you through several rounds of this but
you kept escalating the rhetoric. So I've been using GoogleGroups to
reply in kind.
Couldn't figure that out yourself? Too hard?

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.

The stupid thing is that you keep making posts here about me when I've
been trying to avoid you.
Hell you keep making whole threads about me. You're obsessed with me.

But this sends us right back to the profanity and the name calling and
the slurs. Your real strong point.

You are totally deserving of anything and everything I can muster up
to dish out at you.

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.

So stop.

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.)

John should *** out of things that don't concern him, or he should
have made a post about the musical ideas that we were previously
discussing. So should you.

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.

OK. Let's see your next profound statement about music.
What concept could you possibly mangle now that you haven't already
previously done so to?

.

Loading