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

On Feb 28, 8:13 am, i...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
 (paramucho) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 05:11:26 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 27, 7:08 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >You could do this, but wait! You say that this author gave you non
> >standard information, you understood it at the time, but later it
> >somehow seemed convoluted and yet, because there were little gems in
> >it that things are not as standardized as I think? I think your
> >convolution is still hanging around. The point of the whole thing is
> >that your quoted book by Delamont is NOT standard. It is a flawed and
> >incomplete approach. Was this a book used in your school? or did you
> >stumble on it thumbing through the library? You got started with a non
> >standard book! you just explained this to us? Now this is a valid
> >reason to say that the basic method taught in most every music theory
> >class in good schools is NOT standard?
>
> What *are* you going on about, really? It's clear to me, and to anyone
> who can understand simple English, that the poster understands with
> utter clarity the difference between Delamont and the subsquent texts
> he encountered. You're imagining things.
>
> >  Joey, you are so close. Too
> >bad if you can't make that last little jump to understand the truth of
> >the matter. I hope that you can see it, you seem to actually try, but
> >early misconceptions are really hard to ignore.
>
> You can get really patronising and condescending when you think you're
> on top. And you're the bloke who likes to pontificate about newsgroup
> behavior. It's not a good look. It's the worst of all possible sins:
> nagging. Stock STANDARD nagging.

Yes I can. Especially when some one is trying to pass off things as
truth when they are not. I did think that Joey was capable of
defending himself (I am sure that he will!) so NAGGING, YES. And I
will continue to do so when things like his citations of those books
as standard and your sample of Shankerian theory from your library as
being the standard setting is being used. IT just isn't so! Those
citations would not even last very long on Wiki before they would be
removed. Personally, I find it very condescending whey people try to
pass off such poor examples as fact to me or to anyone else. How is
THAT not condescending. I have opinions, and I state facts. I at least
try to point out the differences as I state them. If I ever state
opinion as fact I would hope that I am called on it! The biggest
disservice that one can do to someone is to let them get away with
stating unsubstantiated opinion as fact. That is what has gotten my
country into the mess we are in today! IF I ever do that kind of
writing, PLEASE point it out to me. BUT on the other hand, check your
sources and facts before you try to pass off the conventions of a
small group of musicians as the universal standard for the best way to
do something and then give bogus ( and as seems to be) and unread
examples to prove one's random thoughts.

Random thoughts and personal preferences are fine, but not if they are
stated to be universal truths. If you want me to stop nagging, give me
some real information to back up your facts or express your opinions
as what they are, opinions. That seems simple enough.
LJS