Post by Albert SilvermanPost by David WebberSo, 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 SilvermanWhat *should* be, but is not, important is *your* knowledge of
musical
principles.
Well it is of some importance to me...
Post by Albert SilvermanPost by David WebberIn 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.
I hope my answer is detailed enough to reassure you.
Post by Albert SilvermanPost by David WebberSo, 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outdated and wrong principles, you are saying that there is not one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 SilvermanPost by David WebberThat 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 SilvermanPost by David WebberThat 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 SilvermanPost by David WebberDespite 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 SilvermanPost by David WebberDespite 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 SilvermanI 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 SilvermanStrange Logic!
Nor an analysis of your
Post by David Webberown (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 SilvermanThat 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