Discussion:
Harmony Analysis
(too old to reply)
Michael
2004-09-14 16:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.

Thank you very much,
Michael
Steve Latham
2004-09-14 16:48:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Not really. Traditional naming practice calculates the identity of a chord
from its Root (the lowet note when the chord is stacked up in thirds.

SO, given the notes G C and E, your first step in identifying it is to put
it inot thirds (every other letter).

C-E-G (from low to high) is the result.

This is "some type of" C Chord.

So are C-G-E, E-C-G, E-G-C, G-C-E, E-E-E-E-E-E-E-G-G-C, etc. (Ok, the last
is unlikely :-), but duplicates do not change anything).

The notes C, E, and G are called the Root, third, and fifth of the chord
repectively.

Then you must determine the quality of the chord (wheter it is major, minor,
diminished, or so on) based on the interval content (distance from the root
to the third, and third to the fifth). This is a while lot more involved and
probably deserves attention in its own post.

So, chords have two part to the name, the Root (letter) and quality (Major,
minor, etc.).
To determine the Root, you have to stack them up in thirds (every other
letter)

The pattern A-C-E-G-B-D-F-A is handy to learn, because wach group of three A
C E, C E G, E G B, etc. spells triads (three note chords) from the root. It
also spells 7th chords adn larger as well, so it's a real good thing to
know.

You should note that, these kinds of chords make up the bulk of Western
music, or can be applied to it, but there is music that doesn't use chords
at all, or doesn't use them in this particular sense (and thus the naming
system doesn't apply).

There are also some forms of music that you CAN simply look at the lowest
note and that will give you the root of the chord. Most of the Rock music I
grew up playing from Elvis to the present (and especially in certain
generes, and certain groups) does in fact only "root postion" chords where
the root is the lowest note. THere are songs where this is true for the
entire song. But, using this as a rule will only work in a small portion of
chordal music.

Now go and figure out what the roots of all those chords are! :-)

Best,
Steve
Post by Michael
Thank you very much,
Michael
Albert Silverman
2004-09-14 17:34:55 UTC
Permalink
On 2004-09-14, Steve Latham <***@verizon.net> wrote lots of things
which are very poor advice for one who is trying to learn how to construct
chords!

Instead, Michael, you should learn to construct ALL chords *from the major
scale based upon the ROOT-TONE*. Each and every chord has a "formula" for
its construction in this manner.

For example, a major triad is constructed from the first, third, and fifth
degrees of the major scale (remember, the *major* scale, with appropriate
"chromatic" alterations as necessary, is used for the construction of ALL
chords, whether they are called "major" or "minor" chords). The C-major
scale is composed of the following tones: CDEFGAB. The first, third, and
fifth tones of this scale are CEG. Therefore, a C-major triad contains
tones CEG. Simple.

Not quite as simple is a C-minor triad, whose construction formula is the
first, *lowered* third, and fifth degrees of the C-MAJOR scale. The
lowered third degree of the C-major scale is tone Eb, one half-tone lowere
than the unaltered third degree, tone E. Therefore, a C-minor triad
contains the three tones CEbG. Simple, with a little twist, since this
chord was also constructed from the C-MAJOR scale.

And so it goes, for all sorts of chords. Same idea. All that you have to
know is the "construction formula", which I can supply, and which is very
simple to use, no matter what the chord.

The best way to start is with the *four basic chords*, which I name below,
without (at this time) supplying their construction formulas. These chords
are:

(1) minor triad
(2) major triad
(3) minor tetrad (also known as "minor 7th")
(4) major tetrad (also known simply as "7th" or dominant 7th)

If you listen to *anyone else* around here, you will *not* get any simple
and straightforward answers, for reasons which will only complicate my
current post. Suffice it to say that I have posted these reasons countless
times in the past, as well as posting extensive discussions of chords,
chord-based music, chord construction, etc., etc.

For the moment, see if you can construct the following major triads:

F,G,Bb,D#,B

Do it using the construction formula [1,3,5], which I explained above for
the C-major triad.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
SA
2004-09-18 23:03:25 UTC
Permalink
Also, aren't there cases where you have to analyze the chord number? For
example M1 M4 M5 m6 m4 M5 M1. This is, by the way, my favorite chord
progression.
Post by Steve Latham
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Not really. Traditional naming practice calculates the identity of a chord
from its Root (the lowet note when the chord is stacked up in thirds.
SO, given the notes G C and E, your first step in identifying it is to put
it inot thirds (every other letter).
C-E-G (from low to high) is the result.
This is "some type of" C Chord.
So are C-G-E, E-C-G, E-G-C, G-C-E, E-E-E-E-E-E-E-G-G-C, etc. (Ok, the last
is unlikely :-), but duplicates do not change anything).
The notes C, E, and G are called the Root, third, and fifth of the chord
repectively.
Then you must determine the quality of the chord (wheter it is major,
minor, diminished, or so on) based on the interval content (distance from
the root to the third, and third to the fifth). This is a while lot more
involved and probably deserves attention in its own post.
So, chords have two part to the name, the Root (letter) and quality
(Major, minor, etc.).
To determine the Root, you have to stack them up in thirds (every other
letter)
The pattern A-C-E-G-B-D-F-A is handy to learn, because wach group of three
A C E, C E G, E G B, etc. spells triads (three note chords) from the root.
It also spells 7th chords adn larger as well, so it's a real good thing to
know.
You should note that, these kinds of chords make up the bulk of Western
music, or can be applied to it, but there is music that doesn't use chords
at all, or doesn't use them in this particular sense (and thus the naming
system doesn't apply).
There are also some forms of music that you CAN simply look at the lowest
note and that will give you the root of the chord. Most of the Rock music
I grew up playing from Elvis to the present (and especially in certain
generes, and certain groups) does in fact only "root postion" chords where
the root is the lowest note. THere are songs where this is true for the
entire song. But, using this as a rule will only work in a small portion
of chordal music.
Now go and figure out what the roots of all those chords are! :-)
Best,
Steve
Post by Michael
Thank you very much,
Michael
Steve Latham
2004-09-19 18:31:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by SA
Also, aren't there cases where you have to analyze the chord number? For
example M1 M4 M5 m6 m4 M5 M1. This is, by the way, my favorite chord
progression.
Michael,
I'm not sure what you're getting at....

Yes, you do typically analyze the chord number. There are various systems
for various styles. For instance, in traditional tonal theory, applying to
music form roughly the 1700s through the 1900s (and beyond), we use

I ii iii IV V vi viio - the capital Roman Numerals denote Major chords, the
lower case are minor, the "o" on vii is diminished (should be superscript).

minor keys are typically

i iio III iv V VI viio (there are alternate versions of some of the chords:
III+, v, IV, #vio, etc,)

Some texts and theorists use all UC Roman numerals, and expect you to know
which should be major or minor in a key:

I II III IV V VI VII - if major, you would know that ii, iii, and vi are
minor in major keys.

Jazz and Rock players typically read charts using a letter system - G7,
dm7b5, etc. However, they will still use terms like "one" and "four" to
describe the chords.
(and you'll see them written, as in the "classical" tradition).

You also hear terms like Tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant,
submediant, leading tone (sub tonic) applied to the notes, or chords within
a key (that's 1 - 7 in order, with two versions of 7).

There's also Nashville numbering which usually writes Arabic numerals (1, 2,
3, etc.), and of course speaks "one", etc.

Most people tend to adhere to the Roman Numerals for analysis.
For reading, you're usually going to get chord names.

If I were to "analyze" you progression above, in the key of C Major, I'd say
it is:
I IV V vi iv V I (the iv chord is called a borrowed chord or an
example of mode mixture in this case)

For those that use the all caps system, it would be:
I IV V VI (IV) V I Where the quality (M/m) is understood, and they
have various methods of defining the quality of the chord if it's out of the
ordinary - (m, or b (flat) or b3), etc. - I don't know this system well
enough to speak from experience - this is just what I've picked up.

But if you wrote out the chords, you'd write:
C F G am fm G C
(jazz players often use dashes instead of the m sign: a-, f- - but I've
noticed people are getting away from this as the dash can sometimes look
like a stray mark on the page). Also, I use UC/LC if the chord is M/m - many
people do not (but it helps to reinforce the quality).

Now all of this has nothing to do with inversions. The chords you give above
could all be in root position, or some or all could be inverted. That makes
for a different bass line in each case, but the Name and quality (with the
exception of the part that tells you the inversion) of the chords will not
change. If, for instance, the minor iv chord were in first inversion (3rd of
the chord in the bass), you would have:
iv6 (the six would be superscript - denotes the inversion)
or
fm/Ab - where the part to the left tells you the chord and quality, and the
part to the right tells you the bass note (ergo inversion).

You may have confused "third" of a chord, with "third note of the scale" or
"chord built on the third scale degree". It is confusing. Often people will
say "chordal third" or "third of the chord" to distinguish it from other
uses of the word. Others assume you know what it means based on context.
Since we were talking about chords, and I mentioned Root Third and Fifth - I
assumed you knew I meant the members of the chord, and not necessarily the
notes of the scale.

Hope that helps a little,
Steve
David Kotschessa
2004-09-19 18:39:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by SA
Also, aren't there cases where you have to analyze the chord number? For
example M1 M4 M5 m6 m4 M5 M1. This is, by the way, my favorite chord
progression.
Michael,
I'm not sure what you're getting at....
Yes, you do typically analyze the chord number. There are various systems
for various styles.
Anybody know what Silverman uses? Maybe he names them after cartoon
characters...





For instance, in traditional tonal theory, applying to
Post by Albert Silverman
music form roughly the 1700s through the 1900s (and beyond), we use
I ii iii IV V vi viio - the capital Roman Numerals denote Major chords, the
lower case are minor, the "o" on vii is diminished (should be superscript).
minor keys are typically
III+, v, IV, #vio, etc,)
Some texts and theorists use all UC Roman numerals, and expect you to know
I II III IV V VI VII - if major, you would know that ii, iii, and vi are
minor in major keys.
Jazz and Rock players typically read charts using a letter system - G7,
dm7b5, etc. However, they will still use terms like "one" and "four" to
describe the chords.
(and you'll see them written, as in the "classical" tradition).
You also hear terms like Tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant,
submediant, leading tone (sub tonic) applied to the notes, or chords within
a key (that's 1 - 7 in order, with two versions of 7).
There's also Nashville numbering which usually writes Arabic numerals (1, 2,
3, etc.), and of course speaks "one", etc.
Most people tend to adhere to the Roman Numerals for analysis.
For reading, you're usually going to get chord names.
If I were to "analyze" you progression above, in the key of C Major, I'd say
I IV V vi iv V I (the iv chord is called a borrowed chord or an
example of mode mixture in this case)
I IV V VI (IV) V I Where the quality (M/m) is understood, and they
have various methods of defining the quality of the chord if it's out of the
ordinary - (m, or b (flat) or b3), etc. - I don't know this system well
enough to speak from experience - this is just what I've picked up.
C F G am fm G C
(jazz players often use dashes instead of the m sign: a-, f- - but I've
noticed people are getting away from this as the dash can sometimes look
like a stray mark on the page). Also, I use UC/LC if the chord is M/m - many
people do not (but it helps to reinforce the quality).
Now all of this has nothing to do with inversions. The chords you give above
could all be in root position, or some or all could be inverted. That makes
for a different bass line in each case, but the Name and quality (with the
exception of the part that tells you the inversion) of the chords will not
change. If, for instance, the minor iv chord were in first inversion (3rd of
iv6 (the six would be superscript - denotes the inversion)
or
fm/Ab - where the part to the left tells you the chord and quality, and the
part to the right tells you the bass note (ergo inversion).
You may have confused "third" of a chord, with "third note of the scale" or
"chord built on the third scale degree". It is confusing. Often people will
say "chordal third" or "third of the chord" to distinguish it from other
uses of the word. Others assume you know what it means based on context.
Since we were talking about chords, and I mentioned Root Third and Fifth - I
assumed you knew I meant the members of the chord, and not necessarily the
notes of the scale.
Hope that helps a little,
Steve
Albert Silverman
2004-09-14 17:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note?
No it wouldn't, since a chord may be *inverted*; i.e., its tones may be
rearranged (after it is constructed by some standardized procedure) with
*any* tone being the "lowest" note, which is referred to as the "bass"
tone.

For example, a C-major triad contains the tones CEG, with tone C (the tone
after which the chord is named) being the lowest tone when the chord is
constructed in standardized (so-called "root") position. These three tones
may then be rearranged with either tone E or tone G as the lowest tone,
commonly referred to as the tone of lowest pitch.

This chord with either tone E or tone G as the tone of lowest pitch is
referred to as an "inverted" C-major triad.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by Michael
I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
This is hardly a crime!
Post by Michael
Thank you very much,
Michael
David Kotschessa
2004-09-14 17:30:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note?
No it wouldn't, since a chord may be *inverted*; i.e., its tones may be
rearranged (after it is constructed by some standardized procedure) with
*any* tone being the "lowest" note, which is referred to as the "bass"
tone.
For example, a C-major triad contains the tones CEG, with tone C (the tone
after which the chord is named) being the lowest tone when the chord is
constructed in standardized (so-called "root") position. These three tones
may then be rearranged with either tone E or tone G as the lowest tone,
commonly referred to as the tone of lowest pitch.
This chord with either tone E or tone G as the tone of lowest pitch is
referred to as an "inverted" C-major triad.
Holy fucking jesus fucking christ!

Aside from the fact that he put the terms in quotes and referred to them
as "so-called," to put a safe distance between him and the terminology
that post actually contained an actual understanding of theory.

Are you ok Al?
Albert Silverman
2004-09-14 18:51:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note?
No it wouldn't, since a chord may be *inverted*; i.e., its tones may be
rearranged (after it is constructed by some standardized procedure) with
*any* tone being the "lowest" note, which is referred to as the "bass"
tone.
For example, a C-major triad contains the tones CEG, with tone C (the tone
after which the chord is named) being the lowest tone when the chord is
constructed in standardized (so-called "root") position. These three tones
may then be rearranged with either tone E or tone G as the lowest tone,
commonly referred to as the tone of lowest pitch.
This chord with either tone E or tone G as the tone of lowest pitch is
referred to as an "inverted" C-major triad.
Holy fucking jesus fucking christ!
Aside from the fact that he put the terms in quotes and referred to them
as "so-called," to put a safe distance between him and the terminology
that post actually contained an actual understanding of theory.
Are you ok Al?
Will Wonders never cease?
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-15 07:57:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Kotschessa
Are you ok Al?
Will Wonders never cease?
Who is this Will Wonders?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Webber
2004-09-15 08:55:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Will Wonders never cease?
Who is this Will Wonders?
I think it is actually a collection of two or more indefatigable
people (or more likely Duracell Bunnies) who never cease. Albert
Silverman is probably a nom-de-plume of one of them, as he clearly
should have ceased, but hasn't.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Dr.Matt
2004-09-15 12:32:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Will Wonders never cease?
Who is this Will Wonders?
I think it is actually a collection of two or more indefatigable
people (or more likely Duracell Bunnies) who never cease. Albert
Silverman is probably a nom-de-plume of one of them, as he clearly
should have ceased, but hasn't.
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
I think Will Wonders is related to Bill Posters, the guy who is not
allowed to hang on walls in certain places....
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Dr.Matt
2004-09-14 20:11:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note?
No it wouldn't, since a chord may be *inverted*; i.e., its tones may be
rearranged (after it is constructed by some standardized procedure) with
*any* tone being the "lowest" note, which is referred to as the "bass"
tone.
For example, a C-major triad contains the tones CEG, with tone C (the tone
after which the chord is named) being the lowest tone when the chord is
constructed in standardized (so-called "root") position. These three tones
may then be rearranged with either tone E or tone G as the lowest tone,
commonly referred to as the tone of lowest pitch.
This chord with either tone E or tone G as the tone of lowest pitch is
referred to as an "inverted" C-major triad.
Holy fucking jesus fucking christ!
Aside from the fact that he put the terms in quotes and referred to them
as "so-called," to put a safe distance between him and the terminology
that post actually contained an actual understanding of theory.
Indeed, by the time he reached 80, we'd expect him to FINALLY have
metabolized the first chapter of Piston.
Post by David Kotschessa
Are you ok Al?
He's his usual self.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
J R Laredo
2004-09-14 20:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
No.
Peter T. Daniels
2004-09-14 21:25:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
No.
Probably a more helpful answer than the essay that tried to repeat
everything the guy didn't pay attention to his professor telling him in
class the other day ...
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
J R Laredo
2004-09-15 18:37:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
No.
Probably a more helpful answer than the essay that tried to repeat
everything the guy didn't pay attention to his professor telling him in
class the other day ...
--
With a quick question I pressumed he wanted an answer at least as quick.
Laurence Payne
2004-09-14 21:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Quick answer - no.

The long answer is VERY long. I expect someone will attempt it :-)
David Webber
2004-09-14 21:39:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
To get you thinking one step further than just a "no", let me ask
you consider the notes C E G which form a chord of C-major. It is
a chord of C major no matter which is the lowest note: they are
said to be different "inversions" of the chord.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Terry Simmons
2004-09-16 02:13:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Michael
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
To get you thinking one step further than just a "no", let me ask
you consider the notes C E G which form a chord of C-major. It is
a chord of C major no matter which is the lowest note: they are
said to be different "inversions" of the chord.
Dave
I presumed the "no" was a refusal to bare, due to the current spell of very cold
weather.
--
Cheers!

Terry
Samuel Vriezen
2004-09-14 22:00:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental. Try to
rewrite the notes of the chord as a stack of thirds. Get the lowest note
of your stack of thirds. That's the fundamental. The actual lowest note
is called the bass. (If you can't whip the notes into
thirds-stack-shape, maybe some note or other is not a structural note)
--
samuel
concerten.free.fr
http://composers21.com/compdocs/vriezens.htm
Albert Silverman
2004-09-15 03:10:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.

Try to
Post by Samuel Vriezen
rewrite the notes of the chord as a stack of thirds.
Do *not* do this--under any circumstances. It will only confuse the hell
out of you and destroy what I believe that you should accomplish, using
the chord construction method which I described.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant


Get the lowest note
Post by Samuel Vriezen
of your stack of thirds. That's the fundamental. The actual lowest note
is called the bass. (If you can't whip the notes into
thirds-stack-shape, maybe some note or other is not a structural note)
Dr.Matt
2004-09-15 12:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.
Try to
Post by Samuel Vriezen
rewrite the notes of the chord as a stack of thirds.
Do *not* do this--under any circumstances. It will only confuse the hell
out of you and destroy what I believe that you should accomplish, using
the chord construction method which I described.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Get the lowest note
Post by Samuel Vriezen
of your stack of thirds. That's the fundamental. The actual lowest note
is called the bass. (If you can't whip the notes into
thirds-stack-shape, maybe some note or other is not a structural note)
Albert Silverman is a contrarian and has publicly changed his views
on this precise matter just to make them contrary to those of others.
He's also the winner of Kook of the Month and Golden Killfile
for September 1995, The Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award
for June 1998, The Six of Spades of the Kook Kard Deck, and a special
place in the heart of Usenet readers on many assorted newsgroups
(see http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html and
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/kards.html for more information).
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2004-09-15 16:33:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.
Try to
Post by Samuel Vriezen
rewrite the notes of the chord as a stack of thirds.
Do *not* do this--under any circumstances. It will only confuse the hell
out of you and destroy what I believe that you should accomplish, using
the chord construction method which I described.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Get the lowest note
Post by Samuel Vriezen
of your stack of thirds. That's the fundamental. The actual lowest note
is called the bass. (If you can't whip the notes into
thirds-stack-shape, maybe some note or other is not a structural note)
Albert Silverman is a contrarian and has publicly changed his views
on this precise matter just to make them contrary to those of others.
He's also the winner of Kook of the Month and Golden Killfile
for September 1995, The Victor Von Frankenstein Weird Science Award
for June 1998, The Six of Spades of the Kook Kard Deck, and a special
place in the heart of Usenet readers on many assorted newsgroups
(see http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/whiners.html and
http://www.insurgent.org/~kook-faq/kards.html for more information).
You sound just like a famous politician that we all know, Old "Doctor"
Strangelogic. Your tactics are identical.

Unable to argue the issues at question, he resorts to questioning
the source instead of addressing the issues, in an attempt to divert
attention from an embarrassing deficiency. Needless to say, "doctor,"
you have a great number of these. If I knew as little about the
suject at hand as you do, I would be content to remain in that safe
haven--the woodwork, where Bugs like you make their home.

Of course, "Doctor," we who have been around here any significant length
of time all know that you know absolutely *nothing* about chords and
chord-based music. Therefore, your reluctance to discuss the *relevant*
issues, which those in the *real* world are attempting to address, is
predictable.

Perhaps you would like to give us a lecture on those Strange Groups which
you regularly frequent (such as alt.usenet.kooks, where you are an
honorary member). Or is that "ornery"?

Would anyone like to see a list of these groups, in order to confirm the
nature of the Wondrous egomaniacal individual around these parts who calls
himself "doctor."

ROTFL!!

Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where you can't tell the doctors from the patients
don groves
2004-09-15 18:14:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.
Albert, please explain the difference between Samuel's
"fundamental" and your "root-tone". It seems to me they
both refer to the same thing, just by a different name.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Albert Silverman
2004-09-16 00:51:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by don groves
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.
Albert, please explain the difference between Samuel's
"fundamental" and your "root-tone". It seems to me they
both refer to the same thing, just by a different name.
They do not, and here is the reason why.

Any periodic waveform (i.e., repeating indefinitely in time) can be
decomposed into component sine waves by a mathematical Fourier Series
Analysis. The sine wave of lowest pitch in decomposition is referred to as
the "fundamental" frequency. The remaining frequencies are integral
multiples of this fundamental frequency; not all multiples are
represented, depending upon the nature of the waveform.

These multiples of the fundamental are commonly referred to as "harmonics"
or "partials" or "overtones." This series of overtones contains pitch
levels which correspond with the tones of a *major* triad (but not a
*minor* triad). Due to this correspondence between the overtone series and
the tones of a major triad, there have been misguided (but necessarily
futile) attempts to link chord construction with this acoustic phenomenon.
Due to this link between the tones of a *major* triad and the overtone
series, one regularly finds reference to the major triad as the
"chord of nature," etc. There is also an implication in this reasoning
that the construction of *other* chords can somehow be linked, in
*relevant* fashion, to the overtone series, with its FUNDAMENTAL
frequency as the frequency of lowest pitch. This implication is
blatantly false.

While indeed interesting, chord construction in general *lacks any
meaningful correlation with the acoustic overtone series*. That is, the
concept of a "fundamental" tone with accompanying overtones cannot
generally be applied to chord construction. Hence it is a mistake to claim
that the tone of lowest pitch in a chord is somehow to be referred to as
the FUNDAMENTAL tone.

Rather, the tone which serves as the *reference for chord construction* is
properly referred to as the "constructional reference tone." However,
recognizing that the word "root" (in relation to chord construction) is
firmly entrenched in traditional terminology, I use the word "root-TONE"
to refer to the constructional reference tone, which is also the *first
degree of the major diatonic scale* that I use as the starting point for
ALL chord construction. This does *not* means that all chord tones are
selected from this scale, since certain tones (depending upon the
particular type of chord) are raised or lowered by one semi-tone.

Those who are indoctrinated with the Ancient "tertiary" method of chord
construction cannot seem to accept my method of chord construction which
is based upon a *major* diatonic scale plus "chromatic alteration" of
certain tones. The reason for chord construction in this manner will
hopefully be evident in future discussion, if there *is* any future
discussion. But it has been my past experience that this concept is so
foreign to traditional "thinking" (note the quotes!) that things generally
fall apart at this point. Conformance with Authority, of course.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
and "fundamentals" are Out!
Post by don groves
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
don groves
2004-09-16 05:48:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by don groves
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.
Albert, please explain the difference between Samuel's
"fundamental" and your "root-tone". It seems to me they
both refer to the same thing, just by a different name.
They do not, and here is the reason why.
... basic physics of sound lecture deleted...
Post by Albert Silverman
While indeed interesting, chord construction in general *lacks any
meaningful correlation with the acoustic overtone series*. That is, the
concept of a "fundamental" tone with accompanying overtones cannot
generally be applied to chord construction. Hence it is a mistake to claim
that the tone of lowest pitch in a chord is somehow to be referred to as
the FUNDAMENTAL tone.
So your objection is based on the erroneous use of the term
"fundamental". It still seems that if a different term had been
used instead of "fundamental", you and Samuel are saying the same
thing. He was (correct me if I'm wrong, Samuel) using
"fundamental" to mean the same thing you mean by "root tone",
that is, the root of CEG, EGC, and GCE is C.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Albert Silverman
2004-09-16 16:41:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by don groves
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by don groves
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Samuel Vriezen
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
It's part of it, but you also need to identify the fundamental.
No you do *not*. What you *do* need to do is to identify the
constructional *root-tone*. This is done by knowing the *interval pattern*
which relates the various tones of the chord. This pattern is revealed by
the constructional formula, to which I referred in a previous post.
Albert, please explain the difference between Samuel's
"fundamental" and your "root-tone". It seems to me they
both refer to the same thing, just by a different name.
They do not, and here is the reason why.
... basic physics of sound lecture deleted...
Post by Albert Silverman
While indeed interesting, chord construction in general *lacks any
meaningful correlation with the acoustic overtone series*. That is, the
concept of a "fundamental" tone with accompanying overtones cannot
generally be applied to chord construction. Hence it is a mistake to claim
that the tone of lowest pitch in a chord is somehow to be referred to as
the FUNDAMENTAL tone.
So your objection is based on the erroneous use of the term
"fundamental".
If this is *all* that there is to it, then I would agree with you.
However, as is frequently the case, the careless use of terminology causes
untold confusion. The reason that I object vigorously to the use of the
term "fundamental" *with reference to chord construction* is the common
effort made by a certain group of individuals to attempt to use acoustic
principles (involving the overtone series) to describe certain chord
properties. Hence the use of the discredited "acoustic root" concept and
all of the irrelevant nonsense which goes along with it.

There is *no need whatsoever* to bring the overtone series into chord
construction and application. Doing so only muddies the water and prevents
certain basic concepts from being properly understood. By eliminating the
word "fundamental" from the chord construction vocabulary, the temptation
to bring acoustics into an arena where it does not belong is greatly
reduced.

In short, the terminology used is *very* important, at every step of the
way, in order to avoid unnecessary confusion and diversion of attention to
*irrelevant* matters.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by don groves
It still seems that if a different term had been
used instead of "fundamental", you and Samuel are saying the same
thing. He was (correct me if I'm wrong, Samuel) using
"fundamental" to mean the same thing you mean by "root tone",
that is, the root of CEG, EGC, and GCE is C.
--
dg (domain=ccwebster)
Paul Ilechko
2004-09-14 22:05:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
I hope you mean "bear" ...
Dr.Matt
2004-09-14 23:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Ilechko
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
I hope you mean "bear" ...
Indeed, his name is Michael, not Monty!
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Daniel Kolle
2004-09-15 00:20:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
I do not follow. Anyway, the root of the chord (the lowest note) is
what you call the chord.
Post by Michael
Thank you very much,
Michael
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
I HAVE YO-YO MA TICKETS AND YOU DO NOT!
Michael Schaffer
2004-09-15 02:54:50 UTC
Permalink
But don't confuse the root with the lowest SOUDING note in the bass. If you
have c-e-g, that's C major, e-g-c is still C major, not e minor.
Post by Daniel Kolle
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
I do not follow. Anyway, the root of the chord (the lowest note) is
what you call the chord.
Post by Michael
Thank you very much,
Michael
--
-Daniel "Mr. Brevity" Kolle; 16 A.A. #2035
Koji Kondo, Yo-Yo Ma, Gustav Mahler, Krzysztof Penderecki, and Geirr Tveitt are my Gods.
I HAVE YO-YO MA TICKETS AND YOU DO NOT!
Christopher Eva
2004-09-16 09:31:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.

Best wishes,
Christopher Eva
Albert Silverman
2004-09-16 16:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
Best wishes,
Christopher Eva
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.

Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Nightingale
2004-09-16 19:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
I found that book very helpful when I was studying for my exam in the
summer.
Post by Albert Silverman
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
LOL! I learned a lot, and passed the exam. Not sure about the sanity ;-)
Albert Silverman
2004-09-16 23:40:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Post by Albert Silverman
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
I found that book very helpful when I was studying for my exam in the
summer.
I don't doubt that in the least.

While studying this book may indeed help you pass the exam, this does
*not* mean that it teaches you musical principles (aka "theory"). This is
the problem with music "education" in America. The teaching of
*irrelevance* in the name of "theory"! What you have learned is Ancient
Musical History, not musical principles. But you probably don't realize
this.
Post by Nightingale
Post by Albert Silverman
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
LOL! I learned a lot, and passed the exam. Not sure about the sanity ;-)
Are you the next "Doctor" StrangeLogic?



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Nightingale
2004-09-17 04:11:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Nightingale
Post by Albert Silverman
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
I found that book very helpful when I was studying for my exam in the
summer.
I don't doubt that in the least.
While studying this book may indeed help you pass the exam, this does
*not* mean that it teaches you musical principles (aka "theory").
So how would you define theory, and does there exist a book that you
approve of?

Interesting quote from the preface to a very old edition of Byrd's
"Cantiones Sacrae", written by W Horsley.

"In all the arts there are fundamental principles which can never be
affected by time or circumstance; though from ignorance, or from a
morbid desire for novelty, they may be neglected. Correctness of
outline, beauty of form, light and shade, are objects of the highest
importance to the Sculptor and the Painter; though Caricature exists,
and rudeness and deformity have often been exhibited. In like manner,
purity of Harmony must ever be of the greatest consequence to the
accomplished Musician, though it may be decried by the idle and the
ill-informed. Purity of Harmony consists in grateful combination, and in
melodious progression. An union, then, of graceful melodies
constitutes find Harmony; for where the melody, or, in other words, the
progression of any single part is irregular, the effect of the whole is
injured. These principles are applicable to the Harmony of every age
and country. Neither time, nor fashion, nor caprice can affect them;
for they have their foundation in Nature, and, when they are
disregarded, we look in vain for the beautiful and the true.
Tried by these principles, the following Compositions will appear
very defective; whether we consider the combinations, or progressions,
which are frequently found in them."

Interesting argument, but he is quite wrong.
Post by Albert Silverman
This is
the problem with music "education" in America.
Piston is used in other countries as well - I'm in Canada.
Post by Albert Silverman
The teaching of
*irrelevance* in the name of "theory"!
Depends on what you're trying to learn - it's not irrelevant for
classical music, which is something I'm interested in.
Post by Albert Silverman
What you have learned is Ancient
Musical History, not musical principles. But you probably don't realize
this.
Actually, what I have covered in my harmony studies so far is relatively
recent. Check out some earlier books, for example "Gradus ad Parnassus"
by Fux or "Plaine and Easie Introduction to Practicall Musicke" by
Thomas Morley.
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Nightingale
Post by Albert Silverman
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
LOL! I learned a lot, and passed the exam. Not sure about the sanity ;-)
Are you the next "Doctor" StrangeLogic?
Unlikely. I'm just starting my undergrad degree, and only able to
attend school part time, so it will take me a while - I'm doing the last
of my first year courses and some second year courses this year.
Post by Albert Silverman
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.

Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.

-William Byrd
paramucho
2004-09-17 00:38:25 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:50:06 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
Best wishes,
Christopher Eva
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
So, which book would you recommend?
Albert Silverman
2004-09-17 05:48:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:50:06 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
Best wishes,
Christopher Eva
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner.

This does not mean that reading (or even studying, for that matter) such
fictional material is not interesting and (in small part) even useful.
Just don't expect to learn anything *relevant* from this exercise, unless
your interest is Musical History.

"Vocationally-oriented" material, while telling the reader *how to do it*,
does not provide any understanding of the underlying theory. However, I
would certainly *never, ever, ever* recommend Piston as the lesser of
several evils. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest of several evils--even
though it may help the hapless student pass his/her university exam.

But without any understanding of the basic principles involved.....




Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
paramucho
2004-09-17 06:58:47 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:48:01 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:50:06 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
Best wishes,
Christopher Eva
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner.
This does not mean that reading (or even studying, for that matter) such
fictional material is not interesting and (in small part) even useful.
Just don't expect to learn anything *relevant* from this exercise, unless
your interest is Musical History.
"Vocationally-oriented" material, while telling the reader *how to do it*,
does not provide any understanding of the underlying theory. However, I
would certainly *never, ever, ever* recommend Piston as the lesser of
several evils. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest of several evils--even
though it may help the hapless student pass his/her university exam.
But without any understanding of the basic principles involved.....
So, basically, you're saying the music students shouldn't read
anything to help them learn about music.
Dr.Matt
2004-09-17 12:15:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 05:48:01 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 16:50:06 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
Best wishes,
Christopher Eva
I would not suggest, but *urge* you NOT to do any such thing! Piston is
the standard bearer for "traditional" harmony, which makes one Royal Mess
of the whole subject.
Don't even *dream* about consulting this monstrosity (Ancient Academic
Authority) if you want to retain your sanity!
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner.
This does not mean that reading (or even studying, for that matter) such
fictional material is not interesting and (in small part) even useful.
Just don't expect to learn anything *relevant* from this exercise, unless
your interest is Musical History.
"Vocationally-oriented" material, while telling the reader *how to do it*,
does not provide any understanding of the underlying theory. However, I
would certainly *never, ever, ever* recommend Piston as the lesser of
several evils. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest of several evils--even
though it may help the hapless student pass his/her university exam.
But without any understanding of the basic principles involved.....
So, basically, you're saying the music students shouldn't read
anything to help them learn about music.
Indeed, his whole thesis is that music students should come to him,
and him alone, and shall have no gods...er teachers before him.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2004-09-17 16:43:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Indeed, his whole thesis is that music students should come to him,
and him alone, and shall have no gods...er teachers before him.
And what material of *relevance* to the real world of music did these
Ancient Authoritative Artifacts teach *you*, "doctor"?

You still don't know anything about chords, chord-based theory, etc. What
you *do* know is a glut of *irrelevant* trivia about Musical History,
which you somehow or other seem to believe is "theory." What Strange
Logic, "doctor"!



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Dr.Matt
2004-09-17 17:03:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Dr.Matt
Indeed, his whole thesis is that music students should come to him,
and him alone, and shall have no gods...er teachers before him.
And what material of *relevance* to the real world of music did these
Ancient Authoritative Artifacts teach *you*, "doctor"?
You still don't know anything about chords, chord-based theory, etc. What
you *do* know is a glut of *irrelevant* trivia about Musical History,
which you somehow or other seem to believe is "theory." What Strange
Logic, "doctor"!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
If this question is addressed at me, then I suggest you analyze the
chords in my 1995 setting of Shakespeare's 18th Sonnet (big hint: it's
already available on the web--in Audio so you don't even need to learn
to read music!), and show some of your own musicmaking. Where's your
music, Albert?
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
David Webber
2004-09-17 11:10:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic
Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner....
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".

He asked "Which book would you recommend?"

People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the question.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Albert Silverman
2004-09-18 03:19:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic
Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner....
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".
He asked "Which book would you recommend?"
People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the question.
Which people? Those (like yourself) who are satisfied with the Ancient
package that Musical Authority has furnished to The Masses, or those who
are struggling to make any sense (quite impossible, of course) of this
package, and its glorious Ancient Gibberish?

Let them speak up.

Are "people" *you*?

Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by David Webber
Dave
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 04:25:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic
Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner....
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".
He asked "Which book would you recommend?"
People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the question.
Which people? Those (like yourself) who are satisfied with the Ancient
package that Musical Authority has furnished to The Masses, or those who
are struggling to make any sense (quite impossible, of course) of this
package, and its glorious Ancient Gibberish?
Let them speak up.
Are "people" *you*?
How about just me, then? Which book would you recommend? To me.
Just to me.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Webber
2004-09-18 07:28:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".
He asked "Which book would you recommend?"
People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the
question.
Which people?
Well start with the guy who asked the question - Senor Paramucho -
...
Post by Albert Silverman
Those (like yourself) who are satisfied with the Ancient
package that Musical Authority has furnished to The Masses, or
those who
are struggling to make any sense (quite impossible, of course) of this
package, and its glorious Ancient Gibberish?
Let them speak up.
...as he has already spoken up. Go on then - give *me* a
recommended book which will help me revise my ideas. It seems Jerry
is interested too.

[ If there were people present here (heaven forefend) of a cynical
nature, they might interpret your hesitancy in recommending a book
as conclusive evidence that there isn't one. So go on: recommend
one! ]

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Dr.Matt
2004-09-18 11:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic
Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner....
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".
He asked "Which book would you recommend?"
People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the question.
Which people? Those (like yourself) who are satisfied with the Ancient
package that Musical Authority has furnished to The Masses, or those who
are struggling to make any sense (quite impossible, of course) of this
package, and its glorious Ancient Gibberish?
Let them speak up.
Are "people" *you*?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by David Webber
Dave
Answer the question, Albert.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2004-09-18 16:51:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic
Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner....
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".
He asked "Which book would you recommend?"
People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the question.
Which people? Those (like yourself) who are satisfied with the Ancient
package that Musical Authority has furnished to The Masses, or those who
are struggling to make any sense (quite impossible, of course) of this
package, and its glorious Ancient Gibberish?
Let them speak up.
Are "people" *you*?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by David Webber
Dave
Answer the question, Albert.
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?

It is clear that *you* have certainly not learned these principles, given
the tools that Ancient Academic Authority (AAA, in some sort of
Strange Logic!) has provided you. Therefore, you will just have to
continue struggling along to comprehend those things which are *missing*
from The Doctrine which you wholeheartedly support.

I am not responsible for this dearth of *relevant* material within the
Authoritarian establishment. Hence there is of course no reason for *me*
to answer this silly and all-too-obvious question. Direct your query to
the Authority which filled your head with all of this trivia, confusion,
and conflicting thoughts, with which you continue the residents of our
Wonderful community.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where you can't tell the "doctors" from the patients
David Webber
2004-09-18 17:24:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable
textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?

So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?

That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?

Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?

Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?

I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
David Kotschessa
2004-09-18 18:08:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable
textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
Albert Silverman
2004-09-18 20:37:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of.
*What* questions?

Oh, you mean a question like: "What is your theory about"?

(answer in 25 words or less)


ROTFL!


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant

I mean I really
Post by David Kotschessa
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory
But you do not understand Ancient theory, so what good would it do to
explain what is wrong with it?


, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
Post by David Kotschessa
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
The solution is very simple.

Tell us what you understand about Ancient theory.

In 25 words or less.......
David Kotschessa
2004-09-18 21:09:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of.
*What* questions?
Oh, you mean a question like: "What is your theory about"?
(answer in 25 words or less)
No, I want the whole thing. I want you to tell me exactly what it is you
find *fundamentally* wrong with traditional theory and I want to see your
ideas fully explained. I want something better then "You won't
understand it." Because if nobody understands it, what is the point to
having it in the first place? I will even read it. We have something in
common which is that we obviously have lots of spare time and no life.

And let me tell you WHY I want to see it. Because all we can see from
your posts is that you are just a dumb punk with a chip on his shoulder.
Are you frustrated with academia? Yes? Well then we have something else
in common. But it is not merely enough to *say* that they've all have
been breathing academic air for too long, you have to provide something
substantive. All you do is throw stones... You never get anywhere.
Post by Albert Silverman
I mean I really
Post by David Kotschessa
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory
But you do not understand Ancient theory, so what good would it do to
explain what is wrong with it?
See, now there you go. How the fuck would you know that? You have no way
of knowing how much I know or don't know about theory. So what you are
doing again is throwing stones. You still haven't said anything. C'mon
Al!!!
Post by Albert Silverman
, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
Post by David Kotschessa
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
The solution is very simple.
Tell us what you understand about Ancient theory.
In 25 words or less.......
Why don't you just go read about it? Open a theory book. What you see
there is what I agree with. It's the best we've got. Show me something
better.

-D
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 20:43:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
From what little of it he has let slip so far, I'm becoming increasingly
convinced it is more or less the equivalent of Anne Elk's Theory of the
Brontosaurus, in the well-known Monty Python sketch.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Kotschessa
2004-09-18 21:10:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
From what little of it he has let slip so far, I'm becoming increasingly
convinced it is more or less the equivalent of Anne Elk's Theory of the
Brontosaurus, in the well-known Monty Python sketch.
Gotta love the internet.

http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/anne_elk_brontosaurus.html
Post by Jerry Kohl
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 22:45:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
From what little of it he has let slip so far, I'm becoming increasingly
convinced it is more or less the equivalent of Anne Elk's Theory of the
Brontosaurus, in the well-known Monty Python sketch.
Gotta love the internet.
http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/anne_elk_brontosaurus.html
Yep, that's the one. You could almost imagine the sketch was modeled
on AS's postings, if it didn't date back to November of 1972.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2004-09-20 14:18:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
From what little of it he has let slip so far, I'm becoming increasingly
convinced it is more or less the equivalent of Anne Elk's Theory of the
Brontosaurus, in the well-known Monty Python sketch.
Gotta love the internet.
http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/anne_elk_brontosaurus.html
Yep, that's the one. You could almost imagine the sketch was modeled
on AS's postings, if it didn't date back to November of 1972.
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Al is old enough to have carried on in exactly this way since 1935.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-20 16:55:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
From what little of it he has let slip so far, I'm becoming increasingly
convinced it is more or less the equivalent of Anne Elk's Theory of the
Brontosaurus, in the well-known Monty Python sketch.
Gotta love the internet.
http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/anne_elk_brontosaurus.html
Yep, that's the one. You could almost imagine the sketch was modeled
on AS's postings, if it didn't date back to November of 1972.
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Al is old enough to have carried on in exactly this way since 1935.
Sure, but not on the internet, I think.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Kotschessa
2004-09-20 17:03:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Kotschessa
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve? In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path? That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
Really mind blowing isn't it? And the thing is he won't even answer
questions with regards to what his "theory" consists of. I mean I really
want to know the fundamental differences between his "updated" theory and
the so-called Ancient theory, but he won't even tell us what it is! All
he'll do is post his little snippets here and there, and tell us how
stupid we are. I've seen a lot of trolls on usenet but he is certainly
one of the most frustrating.
From what little of it he has let slip so far, I'm becoming increasingly
convinced it is more or less the equivalent of Anne Elk's Theory of the
Brontosaurus, in the well-known Monty Python sketch.
Gotta love the internet.
http://www.geocities.com/fang_club/anne_elk_brontosaurus.html
Yep, that's the one. You could almost imagine the sketch was modeled
on AS's postings, if it didn't date back to November of 1972.
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Al is old enough to have carried on in exactly this way since 1935.
Sure, but not on the internet, I think.
--
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Wow, I had him pegged for a teenager.
Albert Silverman
2004-09-18 20:30:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable
textbooks on
the principles of music?..
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text book
of which you can approve?
Why is that important to you?

What *should* be, but is not, important is *your* knowledge of musical
principles.
Post by David Webber
In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
Gets it right?

What is "it"?

Is "it" *everything*?

Answer the question.
Post by David Webber
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path?
Nothing could set you on the right path, because you are indoctrinated
with Ancient Garbage, camouflaged as "theory".
Post by David Webber
That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
What is "it"?
Post by David Webber
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
What do you mean by "enlightenment"?
Post by David Webber
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which will
back you up?
Ancient Academic Authority would never permit it.
Post by David Webber
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a composition
of your own illustratng these principles?
What does a composition of *my own* have to do with it? I have presented
these principles many times in the past. The principle is what counts,
*not* the source of the music. This is evident, yet you cannot seem to
understand it.

Just as you obviously don't understand the fact that an English teacher
can teach English grammar without using *his own* book to explain
grammatical principles.

Strange Logic!

Nor an analysis of your
Post by David Webber
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
Where have you been for the last several years, as I have discussed these
principles and analyzed several works to explain them. Perhaps you do not
approve of the works that I chose to do so.

That is *your* problem, not mine.
Post by David Webber
I hadn't until now grasped the enormity of the concept.
It is not the only thing that you have failed to grasp.


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by David Webber
Dave
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 22:49:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
Where have you been for the last several years, as I have discussed these
principles and analyzed several works to explain them. Perhaps you do not
approve of the works that I chose to do so.
I can't speak for David, but I myself have only been reading this newgroup
for about two years now. In that amount of time, I have scarcely seen you
even mention the title of a musical work, and there certainly have been no
analyses in that time. Dr Matt has asserted on severa occasions that he has
been reading this group for considerably longer than that, and has yet to
see an analysis from your fair hand.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Webber
2004-09-19 17:05:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Albert Silverman
Where have you been for the last several years, as I have
discussed these
principles and analyzed several works to explain them. Perhaps you do not
approve of the works that I chose to do so.
I can't speak for David, but I myself have only been reading this newgroup
for about two years now. In that amount of time, I have scarcely seen you
even mention the title of a musical work, and there certainly have been no
analyses in that time.
I think, in this at least, you *can* speak for me.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
David Webber
2004-09-19 17:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
So, you're saying that absolutely *no-one* has written a text
book
of which you can approve?
Why is that important to you?
Well, had there been such a book I could have read it to escape the
abyss of indoctrination in Ancient Theory which you say I am in. As
there is not, then I can't.
Post by Albert Silverman
What *should* be, but is not, important is *your* knowledge of
musical
principles.
Well it is of some importance to me...
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
In all the vast literature on music
theory, not one book has ever been written which gets it right
according to the principles you are promoting?
Gets it right?
What is "it"?
I'll give you a clue: it is neither a brontosaurus nor an elk.
Rather, it is a cunning construct in the Englisg language called a
"pronoun" (to wit something which stands in place of a noun). These
are commonnly used after a noun concept has appeared in a sentence,
in the above example "music theory", to refer back to that
immediately preceding noun concept. (I nearly said "it" there
instead of "that immediately preceding noun concept" but I can see
what confusion the use of a pronoun would have caused.) It (that
is to say use of a pronoun to refer back to that immediately
preceding noun concept) is not a new idea, nor one of my own
invention.
Post by Albert Silverman
Answer the question.
I hope my answer is detailed enough to reassure you.
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
So, when you are berating Matt, me, everyone for adhering to
outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one
book we could read which would set us on the right path?
Nothing could set you on the right path, because you are
indoctrinated
with Ancient Garbage, camouflaged as "theory".
I see. In that case it would appear that everyone here is in the
same position, and I am now struggling to divine your purpose in
promoting your ideas.
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
That in
fact absolutely everyone (except you) has it completely wrong - and
always has had?
What is "it"?
Sometimes pronouns, especially by repetition, can acquire a longer
range and refer back to a noun concept as far away as a previous
sentence. They're cunning little buggers and I think you'll have
great fun mastering them.

Exercise 1: what to I mean by "they" and "them" in the previous
sentence?
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
That the *only* path to true enlightenment is through what you tell
us here?
What do you mean by "enlightenment"?
I'm sorry I sometimes forget that I have the advantage of using my
native tongue, and that I should make allowances for those who are
not.

"Enlightenment": the philosphical movment originating in France in
the 18th century promoting (and this is the good bit) belief in
reason and the questioning of tradition and authority.
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Despite the fact that there is not one published source which
will
back you up?
Ancient Academic Authority would never permit it.
What? A conspiracy by musical academia world wide to prevent the
publication of dissenting views? I hadn't realised it was that bad.
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a
composition
of your own illustratng these principles?
What does a composition of *my own* have to do with it?
Everything. For many of us, the entire point in understanding music
theory is that it helps us actually compose, arrange, and improvise
music, which is performed for the enjoyment of others. In as much
as I find some of the traditional ideas useful in this respect, then
I'll accept them. I have no other reason to do so, other than the
fact that they work. Had your ideas had any merit, they may have
allowed you too to compose or arrange music, but not to worry.
Post by Albert Silverman
I have presented
these principles many times in the past. The principle is what
counts,
*not* the source of the music. This is evident, yet you cannot
seem to
understand it.
Just as you obviously don't understand the fact that an English teacher
can teach English grammar without using *his own* book to explain
grammatical principles.
Well the paragraph of mine actually said:

"Despite the fact that you have never presented us with a
composition
of your own illustratng these principles? Nor an analysis of your
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?"

So it would in fact apear that in order to maintain that I don't
understand something you first have to cut out all of my statements
which make it clear that I do.

In fact there are many books on English grammar in my house. I
particularly like the works of David Crystal, and were I in the
business of teaching English grammar (as my wife in fact is), I
would not hesitate to use his books.

If, on the other hand, I were in the busiess of teaching music
theory, I could even contemplate using one which you approve of
because none exists.
Post by Albert Silverman
Strange Logic!
Nor an analysis of your
Post by David Webber
own (using your principles) of anyone else's work?
Where have you been for the last several years, as I have
discussed these
principles and analyzed several works to explain them. Perhaps you do not
approve of the works that I chose to do so.
I haven't seen one. If there was one, then I must have fallen
asleep in all the junk about tortoises before I got to it. Go on
then, give an analysis of something and show us where your theory
does better than the standard approach.
Post by Albert Silverman
That is *your* problem, not mine.
I see that. There are in fact two sets of people, neither of which
can communicate with the other.

Set 1: Albert Silverman
Set 2: The rest of the world.

I seem to have this awful problem that I belong to, and can only
communicate with, Set 2. And all the unfortunate people in Set 2
seem to have the same problem. Furthermore, as you have said, there
is absolutely nothing which can be done about it. Woe, woe, and
thrice woe. :-(

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-19 18:39:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
There are in fact two sets of people, neither of which
can communicate with the other.
Set 1: Albert Silverman
Set 2: The rest of the world.
I seem to have this awful problem that I belong to, and can only
communicate with, Set 2. And all the unfortunate people in Set 2
seem to have the same problem.
Sad, isn't it, how we all seem to be out of step with poor Al.
Post by David Webber
Furthermore, as you have said, there
is absolutely nothing which can be done about it. Woe, woe, and
thrice woe. :-(
A tragedy, indeed, that either (1) we are all of us so dim that we
cannot
understand "the truth" or (2) that Al is so incoherent that he can't
make
himself understood to us.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Webber
2004-09-19 20:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
A tragedy, indeed, that either (1) we are all of us so dim that we
cannot understand "the truth" or (2) that Al is so incoherent that
he can't
make himself understood to us.
Al seems to have realised that everyone apart from him is completely
incapable of understanding him, and furthermore that no matter what
happens he knows everyone will stay that way.

It is clear then: Al is the only one who is "normal", and everyone
else is an aberration. I can see why we all have problems now.
But there's nothing that can be done about it. No matter how much
Al explains things none of us will ever understand. Admit it.
It's the truth. And because it's the truth, he's right that there
is absolutely no point in him trying to say anything.

His only recourse is to leave this newsgroup forever and let the
rest of us wallow in our ignorance - he knows there is absolutely no
point in interrupting us. None.

And of course he must always be looking over his shoulder for the
Guardians of the Ancient Garbage, who have so successfully prevented
anyone form publishing the Truth about music theory, in any book
which he could recommend. They really can't be far behind him, and
if he posts here too often they'll obviously catch up with him and
make sure he can no longer be the lone voice of sanity on this
planet of misguided brainwashed followers of the Ancient Theorist.

Everything points to it. He will have to leave. Otherwise they
will catch him and put him through their machine so that he comes
out the other side reciting "I love the Neapolitan sixth.
Secondary dominants are wonderful. The concept of 'key' is the key
to everything. I am a tortoise. Matt was right about everything."
[Shudder.]

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Dr.Matt
2004-09-20 14:17:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by David Webber
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
*None* of the textbooks which are approved by the Academic
Establishment.
These are all based upon an Archaic approach whose sole purpose
to avoid any "revision" of Musical History. These texts do not, and cannot
by their very premise, present "chord-based" theory in any useful and
meaningful manner....
He didn't ask "Which textbook which is approved by the Academic
Establishment would you recommend".
He asked "Which book would you recommend?"
People are seeking enlightenment here. Please answer the question.
Which people? Those (like yourself) who are satisfied with the Ancient
package that Musical Authority has furnished to The Masses, or those who
are struggling to make any sense (quite impossible, of course) of this
package, and its glorious Ancient Gibberish?
Let them speak up.
Are "people" *you*?
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Post by David Webber
Dave
Answer the question, Albert.
The only question to be answered here, "doctor," is why, after all of
these years, are you now concerned about the lack of suitable textbooks on
the principles of music?
It is clear that *you* have certainly not learned these principles, given
the tools that Ancient Academic Authority (AAA, in some sort of
Strange Logic!) has provided you. Therefore, you will just have to
continue struggling along to comprehend those things which are *missing*
from The Doctrine which you wholeheartedly support.
I am not responsible for this dearth of *relevant* material within the
Authoritarian establishment. Hence there is of course no reason for *me*
to answer this silly and all-too-obvious question. Direct your query to
the Authority which filled your head with all of this trivia, confusion,
and conflicting thoughts, with which you continue the residents of our
Wonderful community.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where you can't tell the "doctors" from the patients
Answer the question, Albert.


And meanwhile, where's your analysis
of the chords in my setting of Shakespeare's 18th Sonnet? Where's
the analysis of Schubert's Erlkoenig which you promised Usenet more
than ten years ago?

Answer the question, Albert.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Nightingale
2004-09-20 14:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
And meanwhile, where's your analysis
of the chords in my setting of Shakespeare's 18th Sonnet? Where's
the analysis of Schubert's Erlkoenig which you promised Usenet more
than ten years ago?
Answer the question, Albert.
Does he ever actually answer questions?
Nightingale
2004-09-18 23:22:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
<snip stuff>
Post by Albert Silverman
"Vocationally-oriented" material, while telling the reader *how to do it*,
does not provide any understanding of the underlying theory. However, I
would certainly *never, ever, ever* recommend Piston as the lesser of
several evils. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest of several evils--even
though it may help the hapless student pass his/her university exam.
But without any understanding of the basic principles involved.....
So, which book would you recommend?
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.

Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.

-William Byrd
Dr.Matt
2004-09-20 14:24:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by paramucho
So, which book would you recommend?
<snip stuff>
Post by Albert Silverman
"Vocationally-oriented" material, while telling the reader *how to do it*,
does not provide any understanding of the underlying theory. However, I
would certainly *never, ever, ever* recommend Piston as the lesser of
several evils. Indeed, it is perhaps the greatest of several evils--even
though it may help the hapless student pass his/her university exam.
But without any understanding of the basic principles involved.....
So, which book would you recommend?
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.
Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.
-William Byrd
I should just point out here that Albert's allusion to this "how to do
it vs. the underlying principles" runs directly counter to his claim,
frequently presented on these many newsgroups, that he and he alone
makes the one true music, i.e. piano improvisation in the manner of
Tin Pan Alley. That he actually carries this out in practice is
doubtable, considering the number of offers people have made over the
years to come and hear and/or record him actually doing it. The bulk
of evidence supports my contrary assertion that he has never made
music in any capacity whatsoever, and his "underlying principles" have
nothing to do with music, being rooted strictly in his own imagination
and not in the actual music which he supposes to denigrate as
"vocational".
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
David Webber
2004-09-20 15:22:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
I should just point out here that Albert's allusion to this "how to do
it vs. the underlying principles" runs directly counter to his
claim,
frequently presented on these many newsgroups, that he and he
alone
makes the one true music, i.e. piano improvisation in the manner of
Tin Pan Alley....
I actually *like* piano music "in the manner of Tin Pan Alley" and
feel that it is often generally underrated as an art form. I have
seen no reason to believe that Al's theories have any more
application there than than they have to the Ring Cycle. Or indeed
to a biCycle.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Peter T. Daniels
2004-09-16 23:50:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
Nightingale
2004-09-16 23:54:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-17 00:20:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
Second-"had" books? How very non-PC! I believe the preferred
term these day's is "pre-read books" ;-)

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Nightingale
2004-09-17 03:42:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
Second-"had" books?
Spell cheque helps, but their are some things it just doesn't sea.
Post by Jerry Kohl
How very non-PC! I believe the preferred
term these day's is "pre-read books" ;-)
LOL!
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.

Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.

-William Byrd
David Webber
2004-09-17 11:12:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Nightingale
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
Second-"had" books? How very non-PC! I believe the preferred
term these day's is "pre-read books" ;-)
No it's different. They sell books which people have *had* for a
*second*. No longer. Certainly not long enough to read them :-)

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-17 16:52:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by Nightingale
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
Second-"had" books? How very non-PC! I believe the preferred
term these day's is "pre-read books" ;-)
No it's different. They sell books which people have *had* for a
*second*. No longer. Certainly not long enough to read them :-)
LOL! Of course! How silly of me not to have understood!

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Webber
2004-09-18 07:30:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Webber
No it's different. They sell books which people have *had* for a
*second*. No longer. Certainly not long enough to read them :-)
LOL! Of course! How silly of me not to have understood!
Silly? No. I'm sure you once had a book explaining it, but failed
to retain it long enough to read it. :-)

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 20:45:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by David Webber
Post by Jerry Kohl
Post by David Webber
No it's different. They sell books which people have *had* for a
*second*. No longer. Certainly not long enough to read them :-)
LOL! Of course! How silly of me not to have understood!
Silly? No. I'm sure you once had a book explaining it, but failed
to retain it long enough to read it. :-)
I'm sure you're right. But this reminds me: we see second-hand
bookshops everywhere, but where are the minute-hand and
hour-hand bookstores?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
David Webber
2004-09-19 17:11:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jerry Kohl
I'm sure you're right. But this reminds me: we see second-hand
bookshops everywhere, but where are the minute-hand and
hour-hand bookstores?
The minute ones tend to be so small you overlook them.

The hour-hand book shops move much more slowly than the second-hand
bookshops. So whereas a second-hand bookshops come and go
regularly, and you notice their passing, the turnover of the others
is barely perceptible. In fact they may be mistaken for coffee bars
these days.

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Eric Fretheim
2004-09-20 01:27:15 UTC
Permalink
Kind of sad to think that Digital clocks will render jokes like
this completely incomprehensible some day, isn't it. Like how I
once had to explain to my kid what it was that I meant when I
told him he sounded like a broken record...
--
Regards,
Eric Fretheim
Post by David Webber
Post by Jerry Kohl
I'm sure you're right. But this reminds me: we see second-hand
bookshops everywhere, but where are the minute-hand and
hour-hand bookstores?
The minute ones tend to be so small you overlook them.
The hour-hand book shops move much more slowly than the second-hand
bookshops. So whereas a second-hand bookshops come and go
regularly, and you notice their passing, the turnover of the others
is barely perceptible. In fact they may be mistaken for coffee bars
these days.
Dave
David Webber
2004-09-20 06:20:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Eric Fretheim
Kind of sad to think that Digital clocks will render jokes like
this completely incomprehensible some day, isn't it.
I think you may have missed that day.

This week BBC radio is putting out a new series of "Hitchhikers
Guide to the Galaxy" to mark the 25th anniversary of the original,
in which, IIRC, Earth was described as a planet so primitive that
the inhabitants still thought digital watches were a pretty neat
idea!

Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
paramucho
2004-09-17 00:37:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
www.bookfinder.com has at least one 1978 edition for about $26.00
Peter T. Daniels
2004-09-17 02:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
www.bookfinder.com has at least one 1978 edition for about $26.00
That's awfully high for a superseded textbook. (There are new editions.)
--
Peter T. Daniels ***@att.net
paramucho
2004-09-17 02:56:45 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:07:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by paramucho
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
www.bookfinder.com has at least one 1978 edition for about $26.00
That's awfully high for a superseded textbook. (There are new editions.)
It's a matter of supply and demand (I guess the book is being used in
uni course). The new editions cost at least twice the price.
Chris Mullin
2004-09-17 03:26:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by paramucho
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 02:07:54 GMT, "Peter T. Daniels"
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by paramucho
Post by Nightingale
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
I love second had bookstores - my copy was not very expensive.
www.bookfinder.com has at least one 1978 edition for about $26.00
That's awfully high for a superseded textbook. (There are new editions.)
It's a matter of supply and demand (I guess the book is being used in
uni course). The new editions cost at least twice the price.
I picked mine [latest version - 1] from EBay. It was about $5 + $4 s/h.
Check it out. Not many bidders on them when they come up.

Chris
Colin Reed
2004-09-17 20:26:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
--
I got a used copy of Piston revised Ed 1991 quite cheaply through Amazon.

Colin
Albert Silverman
2004-09-18 03:36:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Colin Reed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
--
I got a used copy of Piston revised Ed 1991 quite cheaply through Amazon.
Colin
Any price paid for Piston makes it too expensive, unless it is for your
*entertainment*--a few hearty laughs are certainly worth something!



Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 04:25:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Colin Reed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
--
I got a used copy of Piston revised Ed 1991 quite cheaply through Amazon.
Colin
Any price paid for Piston makes it too expensive, unless it is for your
*entertainment*--a few hearty laughs are certainly worth something!
He was a first-class composer--you've got to admit that, at least.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Dr.Matt
2004-09-18 11:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Colin Reed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
--
I got a used copy of Piston revised Ed 1991 quite cheaply through Amazon.
Colin
Any price paid for Piston makes it too expensive, unless it is for your
*entertainment*--a few hearty laughs are certainly worth something!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
We know quite well that you did not understand it, Albert, but that's
just because you have never participated in music.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Albert Silverman
2004-09-18 17:40:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
We know quite well that you did not understand it, Albert, but that's
just because you have never participated in music.
Your problem, "doctor," is that not only do you "understand"(!) it,
but also *believe* it, convinced that, somehow or other, it is an
explanation of musical principles. This false belief is responsible for
your current state of abject confusion in theoretical matters. Of
course, as I have previously stated, this Ancient nonsense is really
an unfolding of Ancient Musical History, but has nothing to do with
musical principles (theory).

Contrary to your claim, I also understand this convoluted Ancient
"thinking" (the nicest thing that can be said about it). But unlike you,
I am able to see this nonsense for exactly what it is. In other words,
"doctor," *I don't buy this Ancient Snake Oil* for even one second.

The result of *your* understanding is clear for all to see; you lack a
knowledge of certain very important musical principles (chords and
chord-based music). The result of *my* understanding of this nonsense is
that I have been forced (by this indigestible Snake Oil) to formulate a
realistic statement of the principles which underlie such
music. These are principles which actually *relate* to this music and the
way that it is *HEARD* (heaven forbid!).

So it's truly amazing what an "understanding" of Ancient Snake Oil
can produce in two individuals, isn't it, "doctor"? Strange Logic versus
Clear Thinking.


Above all else:

*RELEVANCE*

Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 20:48:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Dr.Matt
We know quite well that you did not understand it, Albert, but that's
just because you have never participated in music.
Your problem, "doctor," is that not only do you "understand"(!) it,
but also *believe* it, convinced that, somehow or other, it is an
explanation of musical principles. This false belief is responsible for
your current state of abject confusion in theoretical matters. Of
course, as I have previously stated, this Ancient nonsense is really
an unfolding of Ancient Musical History, but has nothing to do with
musical principles (theory).
Contrary to your claim, I also understand this convoluted Ancient
"thinking" (the nicest thing that can be said about it). But unlike you,
I am able to see this nonsense for exactly what it is. In other words,
"doctor," *I don't buy this Ancient Snake Oil* for even one second.
The result of *your* understanding is clear for all to see; you lack a
knowledge of certain very important musical principles (chords and
chord-based music). The result of *my* understanding of this nonsense is
that I have been forced (by this indigestible Snake Oil) to formulate a
realistic statement of the principles which underlie such
music. These are principles which actually *relate* to this music and the
way that it is *HEARD* (heaven forbid!).
So it's truly amazing what an "understanding" of Ancient Snake Oil
can produce in two individuals, isn't it, "doctor"? Strange Logic versus
Clear Thinking.
*RELEVANCE*
Isn't it about time for you to wind up this ten-year-long prologue and
get down to explaining something about your alleged theory, Albert?

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Nightingale
2004-09-18 23:15:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Your problem, "doctor," is that not only do you "understand"(!) it,
but also *believe* it, convinced that, somehow or other, it is an
explanation of musical principles. This false belief is responsible for
your current state of abject confusion in theoretical matters. Of
course, as I have previously stated, this Ancient nonsense is really
an unfolding of Ancient Musical History, but has nothing to do with
musical principles (theory).
Is there a good book that does explain musical principles?
Post by Albert Silverman
Contrary to your claim, I also understand this convoluted Ancient
"thinking" (the nicest thing that can be said about it). But unlike you,
I am able to see this nonsense for exactly what it is. In other words,
"doctor," *I don't buy this Ancient Snake Oil* for even one second.
The result of *your* understanding is clear for all to see; you lack a
knowledge of certain very important musical principles (chords and
chord-based music).
So your theory is not any kind of fundamental principles, but just
relating to a particular type of music. How do you define chord-based
music? What are the principles & theory of this type of music?
Post by Albert Silverman
The result of *my* understanding of this nonsense is
that I have been forced (by this indigestible Snake Oil) to formulate a
realistic statement of the principles which underlie such
music. These are principles which actually *relate* to this music and the
way that it is *HEARD* (heaven forbid!).
So how is it heard? Would this not depend, at least in part, on the
experience & knowledge of the listener.
Post by Albert Silverman
So it's truly amazing what an "understanding" of Ancient Snake Oil
can produce in two individuals, isn't it, "doctor"? Strange Logic versus
Clear Thinking.
So what has your understanding helped you to produce? Is your theory
published? Do you write, or a least perform, any music?
Post by Albert Silverman
*RELEVANCE*
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.

Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.

-William Byrd
Dr.Matt
2004-09-20 14:26:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nightingale
Post by Albert Silverman
Your problem, "doctor," is that not only do you "understand"(!) it,
but also *believe* it, convinced that, somehow or other, it is an
explanation of musical principles. This false belief is responsible for
your current state of abject confusion in theoretical matters. Of
course, as I have previously stated, this Ancient nonsense is really
an unfolding of Ancient Musical History, but has nothing to do with
musical principles (theory).
Is there a good book that does explain musical principles?
Post by Albert Silverman
Contrary to your claim, I also understand this convoluted Ancient
"thinking" (the nicest thing that can be said about it). But unlike you,
I am able to see this nonsense for exactly what it is. In other words,
"doctor," *I don't buy this Ancient Snake Oil* for even one second.
The result of *your* understanding is clear for all to see; you lack a
knowledge of certain very important musical principles (chords and
chord-based music).
So your theory is not any kind of fundamental principles, but just
relating to a particular type of music. How do you define chord-based
music? What are the principles & theory of this type of music?
Post by Albert Silverman
The result of *my* understanding of this nonsense is
that I have been forced (by this indigestible Snake Oil) to formulate a
realistic statement of the principles which underlie such
music. These are principles which actually *relate* to this music and the
way that it is *HEARD* (heaven forbid!).
So how is it heard? Would this not depend, at least in part, on the
experience & knowledge of the listener.
Post by Albert Silverman
So it's truly amazing what an "understanding" of Ancient Snake Oil
can produce in two individuals, isn't it, "doctor"? Strange Logic versus
Clear Thinking.
So what has your understanding helped you to produce? Is your theory
published? Do you write, or a least perform, any music?
Post by Albert Silverman
*RELEVANCE*
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
--
The better the voyce is, the meeter it is to honour and
serve God there-with: and the voyce of man is chiefely
to be imployed to that ende.
Omnis spiritus laudet Dominum.
-William Byrd
Alas, these are useless questions. Albert Silverman shows no signs
of having ever heard music. Even the kids at Gallaudet University
(http://www.gallaudet.edu) show more awareness of it than he does.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Nightingale
2004-09-20 14:41:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Alas, these are useless questions. Albert Silverman shows no signs
of having ever heard music. Even the kids at Gallaudet University
(http://www.gallaudet.edu) show more awareness of it than he does.
LOL!
Jerry Kohl
2004-09-18 20:46:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dr.Matt
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Colin Reed
Post by Peter T. Daniels
Post by Christopher Eva
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
Suggest you refer to chapter 2 of "Harmony" by Walter Piston (4th ed.
revised by Mark Devoto, 1978), where you will find a straightforward
explanation of Chord factors, Inversions, Kinds of Triads, Doubling,
The Leading-Tone Triad, Spacing, Close and Open Position, and
Notation.
I've recently glanced at the prices of some of Piston's classic
textbooks. Extended referring could be problematic.
--
I got a used copy of Piston revised Ed 1991 quite cheaply through Amazon.
Colin
Any price paid for Piston makes it too expensive, unless it is for your
*entertainment*--a few hearty laughs are certainly worth something!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
We know quite well that you did not understand it, Albert, but that's
just because you have never participated in music.
Plus he was holding the book upside-down when he tried to read it.

--
Jerry Kohl <***@comcast.net>
"Légpárnás hajóm tele van angolnákkal."
Keith
2004-10-14 11:09:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
often, yes

if the chord is a simple major or minor triad in the root position then the
lowest not is also the name of the chord

so C E G = C ("major" - because C E is a "major" third)
and A C E =A "(minor" - because A C is a "minor" third)

if there are added notes (not part of the triad) the chord is often
described by including the added note

so C E G B=C major-7th ("7th" because the B is the 7 steps away from the C..
it's quite a sweet dischord because the C and B are at a distance)

lots of variations on this naming convention... here is a :13th
A C E G B D (a cloudy sort of sound - and not too discordant as there are no
violent clashes)


but if the chord is not in root position you have to look a little more
carefully to name the chord
C E G
E G C
G C E
are all variant of the chord C major


enough? :-)
Bob Pease
2004-10-14 16:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith
Post by Michael
Hi,
I have a quick question, maybe a dumb question: if I wanted to
determine the harmony of a chord, would it be reasonable to simply
judge by looking at the lowest note? I'm very new to this, please bare
with me.
Thank you very much,
Michael
often, yes
if the chord is a simple major or minor triad in the root position then the
lowest not is also the name of the chord
so C E G = C ("major" - because C E is a "major" third)
and A C E =A "(minor" - because A C is a "minor" third)
if there are added notes (not part of the triad) the chord is often
described by including the added note
so C E G B=C major-7th ("7th" because the B is the 7 steps away from the C..
it's quite a sweet dischord because the C and B are at a distance)
lots of variations on this naming convention... here is a :13th
A C E G B D (a cloudy sort of sound - and not too discordant as there are no
violent clashes)
but if the chord is not in root position you have to look a little more
carefully to name the chord
C E G
E G C
G C E
are all variant of the chord C major
enough? :-)
IMO the best interactive program at a beginner to Intermediate level is
Band-in-a Box
by PG Music

It centers around performance practice for jazz players , but has much,much
more

Specifically, you can play in a chord and get several different names for
it.
It also gives you chords in three different notation schemes



You need a MIDI keyboard and a sound card
Some sound cards have a graphic substitute for a MIDI keyboard,

Lots of luck

Have fun with your music

Bob Pease


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.740 / Virus Database: 494 - Release Date: 8/16/04
Albert Silverman
2004-10-14 16:55:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Keith
enough? :-)
Not quite.

Why are you calling this a "harmony" analysis, when what you are talking
about here (and quite correctly, for the most part) is chords and matters
of chord construction?

A harmony analysis, on the other hand, deals with *chord relationships*
(chord progression, etc.). It is very important not to confuse *acoustic*
matters with chord relationships, even if only in informal discussion.

Incidentally, I applaud your straightforward approach to matters which
need continual attention for newcomers to Wonderland!


Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Matthew Fields
2004-10-14 20:32:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Albert Silverman
Post by Keith
enough? :-)
Not quite.
Why are you calling this a "harmony" analysis, when what you are talking
about here (and quite correctly, for the most part) is chords and matters
of chord construction?
A harmony analysis, on the other hand, deals with *chord relationships*
(chord progression, etc.). It is very important not to confuse *acoustic*
matters with chord relationships, even if only in informal discussion.
Incidentally, I applaud your straightforward approach to matters which
need continual attention for newcomers to Wonderland!
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
where relevance is irrelevant
Where's your music?
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do things better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Richard White
2004-10-14 20:55:15 UTC
Permalink
In article <tnBbd.188$***@news.itd.umich.edu>, "Matthew Fields"
<***@uce.gov> wrote:
<snip>
Post by Matthew Fields
Where's your music?
Maybe you could set this mantra to music? It's going nowhere as is.

Richard White
--
http://www.whitcopress.com Newly Updated
New photos, scores, mp3's of Organ, Guitar, and new Piano Rags
Hear Linda Ronstadt sing Richard White on
'A Merry Little Christmas' Elektra 62572-2
just another
2004-10-14 22:14:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard White
<snip>
Post by Matthew Fields
Where's your music?
Maybe you could set this mantra to music? It's going nowhere as is.
Richard White
You never heard Handel's "Where's Yer Music?" chorus?

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...