Re: What's the relation****p between scales and chords?

On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 09:35:00 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljschenck@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:

>I clipped the above because no matter how much we go back and forth,
>this is certainly not a list of STANDARD theory books by any stretch
>of the imagination. Standard books would be used to teach beginning
>theory and analysis to freshmen students in accredited universities.
>There may be a few places that have their own agenda, but by an large
>(by a big margin) everyone teaches the basics in the UC/LC manner. The
>Shenkerian books you referenced (all my notations were taken by the
>authors from the preface or introduction of the specified volume or by
>reviews of books (as noted) by reputable organizations dedicated to
>reviewing published music books as to what they claim and what they
>actully do. The modern book that is there, as I think I noted, seems
>to be basically an outline of the Piston method and that would not
>make it wrong, but also does not make it the standard. I do realize
>that

I snipped the remainder of your post because it added nothing to your
previous reply, in which you blissfully missunderstand the books I
cited based on your wishful reading of some on-line comments as
against my intimate knowledge of the books, and where you also gaily
insisted, repeatedly, that some of the books were older than the "20
years" TomK cited but where Tomk actually cited "forty years". You
also blissfully ignore my repeatedly made point that the books I cited
were not intended to *establish* a standard but rather to show whether
a standard was in effect by *following* such a standard. 

The standard you refer to does not exist. You are again, I note,
arguing a total non-issue.