Professor Goldstein
Joey Goldstein
horrible scam artist...
I never made claims that I was a full professor at a college or a
university.
What he keeps going on about is related my comments, sometime last year
I believe, about how I get a kick out of the fact that they happen to
call me a professor on my contract at Mohawk College.
Here's a link to a pdf of the contract:
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/MohawkContract.pdf>
Now, I certainly don't think of myself as a "professor" in the classic
academic sense (although I do go on the Internet and profess that I know
know certain things, some of which I should probably not be professing
about).
But one of the colleges where I happen to teach at still insists on
calling me a professor on their contracts. That's all.
So, I have never built up my academic qualifications any higher than
reality allows. I don't come out here pretending to be a scholar, like
he does.
If he's a scholar than he gives scholars a bad name.
This business of him trying to shame me about calling myself a professor
is shameful. He should apologize, and then he should fuck off and die.
With regards to his other comments today:
a. He should offer us his own "analysis" of this tune or shut the fuck up.
b. He has no idea what goes on at Berklee, so he should shut the fuck up
about it.
c. Nobody here likes him. Most of us wish he'd go away. He's ruined this
newsgroup.
With regards to his comments on November 8:
1. If it's a cover band and you cover the solo then there is no need to
talk about an harmonic analysis or how to improvise on the tune.
2. He knows nothing about how to improvise on a progression like this.
I do. He should be listening to me. He might learn something.
3. He knows nothing about what jazz players do or don't do. He's proven
this time and time again here. He should shut up already.
This could be forgiven if his comments on classical music were not so
full of errors, but they are.
4. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
As he noted. I am 'correct' and I did answer Jon's question in the
context in which it was asked.
So why is he even in this thread?
He is contributing nothing.
I.e. Piss off, dirt bag.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
LJS
> To the boob known as LJS who continues his attempts to paint me as some
> horrible scam artist...
No. I said nothing of the sort. You are a phoney. You did claim to be
a Professor in spite of my defining what your really do there. The
same thing that I did. Associates, as I pointed out then, are not full
professors. That requires degrees etc. You are once again making up
statements based on your paranoia and for getting about the truth.
>
> I never made claims that I was a full professor at a college or a
> university.
> What he keeps going on about is related my comments, sometime last year
> I believe, about how I get a kick out of the fact that they happen to
> call me a professor on my contract at Mohawk College.
>
> Here's a link to a pdf of the contract:
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/MohawkContract.pdf>
>
> Now, I certainly don't think of myself as a "professor" in the classic
> academic sense (although I do go on the Internet and profess that I know
> know certain things, some of which I should probably not be professing
> about).
> But one of the colleges where I happen to teach at still insists on
> calling me a professor on their contracts. That's all.
Spin, spin and more spin. I know this to be true. But you seem to be
rather overly defending yourself against things that I have never
said. Why is that?
>
> So, I have never built up my academic qualifications any higher than
> reality allows. I don't come out here pretending to be a scholar, like
> he does.
> If he's a scholar than he gives scholars a bad name.
> This business of him trying to shame me about calling myself a professor
> is shameful. He should apologize, and then he should fuck off and die.
The fact that you consider me to be a scholar is laughable. It is
never a claim that I have made. I have been very specific and clear
with my background. If this what you call scholarly, that is your
problem. Your conclusions do not support the facts.
>
> With regards to his other comments today:
>
> a. He should offer us his own "analysis" of this tune or shut the fuck up.
> b. He has no idea what goes on at Berklee, so he should shut the fuck up
> about it.
Back to the profanity. Are you claiming that YOU are the expert on
what Berkley is? You are an example of their finished product? Maybe
so. I really could care less. They sell their own theory. You bought
it and try to profess it. Unfortunately, it does not qualify one to
make the statements that come out of your posts. The very idea of
naming those walkdown chords in the manner that you did says it all!
> c. Nobody here likes him. Most of us wish he'd go away. He's ruined this
> newsgroup.
Lol Tell us about the cadential 6/4 Joey. And you don't see so many
of those "logic" students trying to troll the group any more either do
you? lol
>
> With regards to his comments on November 8:
>
> 1. If it's a cover band and you cover the solo then there is no need to
> talk about an harmonic analysis or how to improvise on the tune.
>
> 2. He knows nothing about how to improvise on a progression like this.
> I do. He should be listening to me. He might learn something.
>
> 3. He knows nothing about what jazz players do or don't do. He's proven
> this time and time again here. He should shut up already.
> This could be forgiven if his comments on classical music were not so
> full of errors, but they are.
>
> 4. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> As he noted. I am 'correct' and I did answer Jon's question in the
> context in which it was asked.
> So why is he even in this thread?
> He is contributing nothing.
> I.e. Piss off, dirt bag.
That about says if for your scholarly aptitude. No information but
lots of profanity. And, (lol) you are right! I did say admit that you
were right! lol. (It also says a lot about your actually reading the
posts! and your ability to understand what is being talked about.
Think about it Joey. If you understood what I said, why would you be
bothered with the comments? Don't you get the feeling that you might
be missing something?
And you are correct. There are some here that don't like the fact that
I keep them honest and challenge their parameters. BUt if you read the
posts more carefully, you would see that it is not quite as many as
you suspect!.
Carry on, Joey, you always do. On and on and on.
LJS
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca (I never use my yahoo email account)
> On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > To the boob known as LJS who continues his attempts to paint me as some
> > horrible scam artist...
>
> No. I said nothing of the sort. You are a phoney. You did claim to be
> a Professor in spite of my defining what your really do there.
I claimed the exact same thing this time here that I always claimed,
which is not a claim, it's a fact.
Look at the contract. *They* call me a professor. I don't call myself
a professor. The fact that the word "professor" is even in that
contract is a joke to me.
> The
> same thing that I did.
Any post secondary school that has you teaching there is run by fools.
> Associates, as I pointed out then, are not full
> professors. That requires degrees etc. You are once again making up
> statements based on your paranoia and for getting about the truth.
I am re-stating the truth about this. It's the same story every time I
tell it.
You can try to spin it as if I'm a phony but everyone here knows that
it's you who is the phony poser.
> > I never made claims that I was a full professor at a college or a
> > university.
> > What he keeps going on about is related my comments, sometime last year
> > I believe, about how I get a kick out of the fact that they happen to
> > call me a professor on my contract at Mohawk College.
>
> > Here's a link to a pdf of the contract:
> > <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/MohawkContract.pdf>
>
> > Now, I certainly don't think of myself as a "professor" in the classic
> > academic sense (although I do go on the Internet and profess that I know
> > know certain things, some of which I should probably not be professing
> > about).
> > But one of the colleges where I happen to teach at still insists on
> > calling me a professor on their contracts. That's all.
>
> Spin, spin and more spin.
How is this "spin"?
> I know this to be true.
Then shut the fuck up asshole.
> > So, I have never built up my academic qualifications any higher than
> > reality allows. I don't come out here pretending to be a scholar, like
> > he does.
> > If he's a scholar than he gives scholars a bad name.
> > This business of him trying to shame me about calling myself a professor
> > is shameful. He should apologize, and then he should fuck off and die.
>
> The fact that you consider me to be a scholar is laughable.
Read it again, idiot. I *don't* think you're a scholar. lol
> > With regards to his other comments today:
>
> > a. He should offer us his own "analysis" of this tune or shut the fuck up.
> > b. He has no idea what goes on at Berklee, so he should shut the fuck up
> > about it.
>
> Back to the profanity.
Back to talking about stuff about which you know nothing, and being an
all-round dick.
> Are you claiming that YOU are the expert on
> what Berkley is?
I know more about what happens at Berklee than you do, obviously. (I
even know how to spell it.)
Maybe you shouldn't talk about what you know nothing about?
> The very idea of
> naming those walkdown chords in the manner that you did says it all!
The fact that you don't recognize the names of those chords, which you
will find in any published version of this tune that uses chord-symbol
notation, just means that you have no experience with this type of
music or with the concepts that musicians who do play this type of
music are involved with.
So maybe you should just stick to talking about classical music here?
Oh, but you always get your facts wrong in that arena too. Almost
forgot.
> > c. Nobody here likes him. Most of us wish he'd go away. He's ruined this
> > newsgroup.
>
> Lol Tell us about the cadential 6/4 Joey.
It is the height of delusion for you to repeatedly throw that
discussion of 2nd inversion chords up as some kind of proof that I
don't know what I'm talking about when it was you whose every comment
in that thread was totally confused.
> > With regards to his comments on November 8:
>
> > 1. If it's a cover band and you cover the solo then there is no need to
> > talk about an harmonic analysis or how to improvise on the tune.
>
> > 2. He knows nothing about how to improvise on a progression like this.
> > I do. He should be listening to me. He might learn something.
>
> > 3. He knows nothing about what jazz players do or don't do. He's proven
> > this time and time again here. He should shut up already.
> > This could be forgiven if his comments on classical music were not so
> > full of errors, but they are.
>
> > 4. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> > As he noted. I am 'correct' and I did answer Jon's question in the
> > context in which it was asked.
> > So why is he even in this thread?
> > He is contributing nothing.
> > I.e. Piss off, dirt bag.
>
> That about says if for your scholarly aptitude.
Right. You're the wannabe scholar here.
> And you are correct. There are some here that don't like the fact that
> I keep them honest and challenge their parameters.
That's not what they don't like.
What they don't like is *you*.
> BUt if you read the
> posts more carefully, you would see that it is not quite as many as
> you suspect!.
You're totally delusional.
What level of Bloom is that?
LJS
use my yahoo email account)" <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:01 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > > To the boob known as LJS who continues his attempts to paint me as some
> > > horrible scam artist...
>
> > No. I said nothing of the sort. You are a phoney. You did claim to be
> > a Professor in spite of my defining what your really do there.
>
> I claimed the exact same thing this time here that I always claimed,
> which is not a claim, it's a fact.
> Look at the contract. *They* call me a professor. I don't call myself
> a professor. The fact that the word "professor" is even in that
> contract is a joke to me.
That was not the conversation I am talking about and you know it! I
don't even remember that conversation in this group. Maybe in your
guitar group, but not one that I read. I refer to one several years
ago when you were challenging the credentials that you attributed to
me as you tried to get personal information out of me. You know that.
Man up! Nice cover though. I would agree that you are a self
proclaimed professor of spin and misinformation.
>
> > The
> > same thing that I did.
>
> Any post secondary school that has you teaching there is run by fools.
Good spin. Now you are making up more claims that I have never stated.
And your school yard statements is about as deep as you can get into
any subject.
>
> > Associates, as I pointed out then, are not full
> > professors. That requires degrees etc. You are once again making up
> > statements based on your paranoia and for getting about the truth.
In our previous exchange, it was I that said you needed degrees etc,
and it was then you that started the profanity. Its all part of your
phony package.
>
> I am re-stating the truth about this. It's the same story every time I
> tell it.
> You can try to spin it as if I'm a phony but everyone here knows that
> it's you who is the phony poser.
A phony will make claims like "the dominant has to be a 7th chord" and
"you won't find that kind of example in the CPP" and then make claims
about the traditional functional theory as if it was fact. If you ever
took the time to look at the music you were claiming to know about,
there is no way that you could possibly make those statements.
>
>
>
> > > I never made claims that I was a full professor at a college or a
> > > university.
> > > What he keeps going on about is related my comments, sometime last year
> > > I believe, about how I get a kick out of the fact that they happen to
> > > call me a professor on my contract at Mohawk College.
No that was not it. I never even saw that. I think it was in another
group that you may have said that or maybe you just made that up as
well. Joey, if you yelled fire, I would not even blink unless I
smelled smoke and felt the heat.
\
>
> > > Here's a link to a pdf of the contract:
> > > <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/MohawkContract.pdf>
A good diversion but totally unrelated to the entire picture. Why
would you be so silly as to post something like that?
>
> > > Now, I certainly don't think of myself as a "professor" in the classic
> > > academic sense (although I do go on the Internet and profess that I know
> > > know certain things, some of which I should probably not be professing
> > > about).
> > > But one of the colleges where I happen to teach at still insists on
> > > calling me a professor on their contracts. That's all.
>
> > Spin, spin and more spin.
>
> How is this "spin"?
>
> > I know this to be true.
>
> Then shut the fuck up asshole.
you just can't control yourself can you? Forget the profanity, try
stating some relevant music facts and opinions. That is all I ever
talk about and what I never get in an answer from you.
>
> > > So, I have never built up my academic qualifications any higher than
> > > reality allows. I don't come out here pretending to be a scholar, like
> > > he does.
> > > If he's a scholar than he gives scholars a bad name.
> > > This business of him trying to shame me about calling myself a professor
> > > is shameful. He should apologize, and then he should fuck off and die.
>
> > The fact that you consider me to be a scholar is laughable.
>
> Read it again, idiot. I *don't* think you're a scholar. lol
Name calling. You attack me as if I were a scholar. You attack lots of
things on a personal level. And then show these crocodile tears of how
I am picking on you. Why don't you ever talk about music? why don't
you ever come back with facts or good logic to back up your
statements? The reason is that you can't. That is why you reply only
on a school yard personal level with name calling and profanity. You
can't back up your statements! Yet you continue to make them and then
cry when you are exposed.
>
> > > With regards to his other comments today:
>
> > > a. He should offer us his own "analysis" of this tune or shut the fuck up.
> > > b. He has no idea what goes on at Berklee, so he should shut the fuck up
> > > about it.
>
> > Back to the profanity.
>
> Back to talking about stuff about which you know nothing, and being an
> all-round dick.
More name calling. But nothing about what are the musical comments
that you are talking about? Notice, you never mention the true topic.
>
> > Are you claiming that YOU are the expert on
> > what Berkley is?
>
> I know more about what happens at Berklee than you do, obviously. (I
> even know how to spell it.)
> Maybe you shouldn't talk about what you know nothing about?
>
> > The very idea of
> > naming those walkdown chords in the manner that you did says it all!
>
> The fact that you don't recognize the names of those chords, which you
> will find in any published version of this tune that uses chord-symbol
> notation, just means that you have no experience with this type of
> music or with the concepts that musicians who do play this type of
> music are involved with.
> So maybe you should just stick to talking about classical music here?
> Oh, but you always get your facts wrong in that arena too. Almost
> forgot.
Joey, I recognize the names of the chords and in some instances they
may be useful. (Lord knows that you never put these two factors
together in one instance) and this again shows that you miss the
point. Yes they are valid names for the chords. BUT they are not
appropriate in the context you use them and they tell you nothing but
spelling the chords. No functional use, no relation to the music, just
a "cool" way to spell something that is irrelevant. Notice that you
say I am wrong but you never, repeat NEVER back it up with facts. Go
back and read things you said about the C overtone and its influence
on the Cadential 6/4 chord! Or re read your statements about how you
never knew that Baroque composers did not always use V7 chords. Its
just stupid comments because you insist on talking about things that
you don't understand.
>
> > > c. Nobody here likes him. Most of us wish he'd go away. He's ruined this
> > > newsgroup.
>
> > Lol Tell us about the cadential 6/4 Joey.
>
> It is the height of delusion for you to repeatedly throw that
> discussion of 2nd inversion chords up as some kind of proof that I
> don't know what I'm talking about when it was you whose every comment
> in that thread was totally confused.
You still don't have anything correct to say about that? Even when
Steve explained it to you you never bothered to try to see how far off
you were! Sure, that's a good example to show your depth of
knowledge.
>
>
>
> > > With regards to his comments on November 8:
>
> > > 1. If it's a cover band and you cover the solo then there is no need to
> > > talk about an harmonic analysis or how to improvise on the tune.
>
> > > 2. He knows nothing about how to improvise on a progression like this.
> > > I do. He should be listening to me. He might learn something.
Look up the definition of cover band.
>
> > > 3. He knows nothing about what jazz players do or don't do. He's proven
> > > this time and time again here. He should shut up already.
> > > This could be forgiven if his comments on classical music were not so
> > > full of errors, but they are.
But never any facts or examples of any of them! NEVER!
>
> > > 4. He doesn't know what he's talking about.
>
> > > As he noted. I am 'correct' and I did answer Jon's question in the
> > > context in which it was asked.
> > > So why is he even in this thread?
> > > He is contributing nothing.
> > > I.e. Piss off, dirt bag.
>
> > That about says if for your scholarly aptitude.
>
> Right. You're the wannabe scholar here.
I don't wannabe anything. I have never claimed to want to be a
scholar. I don't have to. Notice I never attack your right to be what
you want to be. YOU want to be a scholar and you pretend to be one but
you NEVER back up your opinions. You always change the subject and
then rant and rave.
>
> > And you are correct. There are some here that don't like the fact that
> > I keep them honest and challenge their parameters.
>
> That's not what they don't like.
> What they don't like is *you*.
Ooh, bad man doesn't like "me". I am so torn up.
I am not in a popularity contest. I back up what I say. You don't.
This should be evident even to you Joey.
>
> > BUt if you read the
> > posts more carefully, you would see that it is not quite as many as
> > you suspect!.
>
> You're totally delusional.
> What level of Bloom is that?
Look it up! You still haven't done it have you? lol
Afraid of what you will find out about yourself?
LJS
Jon Slaughter
Jesus christ guys... can you act any more immature? Isn't it time to get off
the playground and into the classroom?
tom_k
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:6ef63$4af8c58c$d8fed59c$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
> To the boob known as LJS who continues his attempts to paint me as some
> horrible scam artist...
>
> I never made claims that I was a full professor at a college or a
> university.
> What he keeps going on about is related my comments, sometime last year I
> believe, about how I get a kick out of the fact that they happen to call
> me a professor on my contract at Mohawk College.
>
> Here's a link to a pdf of the contract:
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/MohawkContract.pdf>
>
Joey, I'd be curious to know if that is common in Canada - to describe a
part-time (college) position as "Professor".
In the U.S., the norm is to label part time teachers as either "adjunct
faculty" or (more often) "Lecturers". A "Lecturer" is generally a non
tenure track, year by year appointment, but adding to the confusion is that
it may be either full or part-time.
The "pre-tenure" positions are usually "Instructor" or "Assistant Professor"
and the tenured positions are generally "Associate Professor" and (full)
"Professor". Faculty holding any of the latter three positions are
customarily addressed as "Professor".
And, of course the pianists providing music in New Orleans' "houses of ill
repute" were also called "Professor".
And naturally, it is not uncommon in either academia or Usenet to call folks
many things - professor being one of the more complimentary appellations!
Tom
LJS
use my yahoo email account)" <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 10, 12:01 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
Here is the beginning of the conversation I was referring to
concerning your claim of professorship. I don't kinow where the posts
are that you are talking about. But after this, I explain to you what
Tom is not asking you and you continued to insist that you were a
professor. You even go on to say that practically everyone at Mohawk
does not have a degree including the head of your department and that
you expected to take that position eventually and maybe even at a
music department of a major university.
There is nothing wrong with your ambition. I wish you the best. This
whole side issue is really only a diversion of yours to once again
avoid talking about music and backing up your ideas of theory. It just
never happens that you can stay on the subject of music very long
before you start your process.
>> --
>> Joey Goldstein
>> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
>> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
>> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
> Your level of research
"Research"?
Lol. Why would I "research" *you*?
I Googled your email address. Once.
Sheesh. You really think you're something, don't you?
> is a good indication that you did better with
> private lessons than you would have done in the academic environment.
I've been a professor of jazz guitar for over 22 years at Mohawk
College.
******
Then you start with more profanity etc, etc, and eventually continue
with your claim of being a professor even after I pointed out the
difference. And that is exactly what I am saying now and it was the
truth then and it is still true today. You are what we call an
"Adjunct Professor" or "Instructor" of "Artist in Residence" and you
may have the word "Professor" in your contract but you were not then
nor are you now, a "Professor" as I pointed out what the term
"professor" means in University Language. Sure, students call you
"prof" and you don't object. That's one thing. To try to spin your
position into a real "Professorship" is something else.
So.
What purpose is served by calling an Amin chord with a dtls walk down
in the bass to D maj the chord names that you did? and how does this
either analyze the music or tell the poster something that will help
him to solo over the progression?
LJS
btw, "googling" someone is research. And then going to the links you
mention is more research. And then you stopped and asked questions
about the teachers there and commented on how you never heard of them
(lol, I am not sure you have heard of some of the recognized Baroque
composers after your comments about there needing to have a m7 on the
major chord to be a Dominant and that you didn't know that any
composers wrote without using the 7th.
I guess that the name, the school and that is about it is reflective
of your depth of looking at something. I was surprised that the
profanity came rather early in the Tibetan thread and I am not sure
how you got from that to my personal information and they you started
the pissing contest. Never did say much to back up your comments
about the Tibetan music did you?
Jack Campin - bogus address
> To the boob known as LJS who continues his attempts to paint me
> as some
> He is contributing nothing.
> I.e. Piss off, dirt bag.
And the really satisfying thing about delivering a rant like that
at LJS is that you know he's going to quote EVERY SINGLE WORD OF
IT in his reply without even thinking what it makes him look like.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l: j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin * 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mob 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Joey Goldstein
I don't really know what's common up here in this regard.
I just know what I see on my contract.
Joey Goldstein
Yep. Besides his being wrong most of the time as well as arrogant and
foolish, the main reason I kill-filed him was that his posts are so long
winded - which makes them not worth the effort of reading.
It's like you read through all that crap and then 2 hours later you
realize he's said virtually nothing and the stuff he actually has said
was wrong.
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 10, 12:34 am, "Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca (I never
> use my yahoo email account)" <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 10, 12:01 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 9, 7:44 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> I've been a professor of jazz guitar for over 22 years at Mohawk
> College.
You're right. I've searched the archive, as hard as Google has made
that to be nowadays, and I did indeed say those exact words without
qualifying them that particular time. I guess i just wanted to try the
professorial mantle on for a bit.
But I've qualified the terms of and the type of professorship I hold
many many times since then. Yet you keep going on and on about it as
if I never have.
You should stop. You're making a fool of yourself. Every day you look
worse and worse to more and more people.
> Then you start with more profanity etc, etc, and eventually continue
> with your claim of being a professor even
See? There you go again.
> after I pointed out the
> difference. And that is exactly what I am saying now and it was the
> truth then and it is still true today. You are what we call an
> "Adjunct Professor" or "Instructor" of "Artist in Residence" and you
> may have the word "Professor" in your contract but you were not then
> nor are you now, a "Professor" as I pointed out what the term
> "professor" means in University Language. Sure, students call you
> "prof" and you don't object. That's one thing. To try to spin your
> position into a real "Professorship" is something else.
I have never tried to spin it that way. That's what you're doing. lol
> What purpose is served by calling an Amin chord with a dtls walk down
> in the bass to D maj the chord names that you did? and how does this
> either analyze the music or tell the poster something that will help
> him to solo over the progression?
I'm happy to discuss music here with anybody, except you.
LJS
lol, I would be happy just to get a real answer to the musical parts
of the thread. Btw, I thought you "killed" the google reader posts?
LJS
lol, are you talking about Canada or the "Common" practice period? I
will agree on the CPP, and I can assure you that any professor would
know the requirements of being a professor. It is rather a big thing.
LJS
LJS
lol Yes, with anyone that agrees with you! that really hurts! lol
WeReo_ScoTTy
news:6ef63$4af8c58c$d8fed59c$12...@PRIMUS.CA...
work either. Not suprising.
WeReo_ScoTTy
news:hdc42d$fur$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
WeReo_ScoTTy
message
news:36ab968b-64ce-469e...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
I don't need to hear about your 'music.'
LJS
<scottamer...@ixpres.com.no_spamm84037uj> wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca" <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> messagenews:36ab968b-64ce-469e...@e34g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
Hard to do? I put in Professor and your name and it popped right up.
Several threads even. I think it took me all of 3 or 4 minutes to find
it and post it.
LJS
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 10, 8:40 pm, Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> > I'm happy to discuss music here with anybody, except you.
>
> lol Yes, with anyone that agrees with you! that really hurts! lol
Over the next few days I'll make an attempt to discuss music with even
you, even though I know it's a total waste of time.
So, what's on your mind?
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 10, 8:05 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > I don't really know what's common up here in this regard.
> > I just know what I see on my contract.
> any professor would
> know the requirements of being a professor. It is rather a big thing.
It's not a bog thing to me.
I've never aspired towards being a professor.
Looks like it's a big thing to you though.
Joey Goldstein joegold AT primus DOT ca
> On Nov 10, 6:22 pm, Jack Campin - bogus address
> > And the really satisfying thing about delivering a rant like that
> > at LJS is that you know he's going to quote EVERY SINGLE WORD OF
> > IT in his reply without even thinking what it makes him look like.
> lol, I would be happy just to get a real answer to the musical parts
> of the thread. Btw, I thought you "killed" the google reader posts?
What "musical parts" are you talking about?
Ask me a musical question and I'll try to give you a musical answer
based on my experience and knowledge.
But you have to actually read what I write and make a bigger attempt
at comprehension - which always seems to allude you.
I'm not used to the needs of you Special Ed students.
BTW
You still haven't figured out the way usenet or GoogleGroups or kill
files happen to work, eh?
iL_weReo
I just signed a major film distribution contract with one of the
biggest film companies in the world. It's better than anything
"Professor Goldstein" can accomplish.
Just one thing on the films is world exclusive footage of the stage
the Beatles played off 1964. Same stage for Janis, Jimi, Momas &
Popas, Doors, Who, Dylan, Sinatra, Lil' Stevie and awl the ancients
you can shake a stick at.
WeReo_ScoTTy
news:f74f0abe-169c-486b...@15g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
LJS
I'm still the only one who matters in music. For instance, I did a concert
bigger and better than Woodstock in the 1970s and that's not even my BIGGEST
musical! lol.
LJS
This is why you can't be taken seriously. There are requirements for
President of the US. You are not the president. If you claimed to be
the president and I pointed out that you were misrepresenting yourself
would that logically say that it was a big thing for me to want to be
president? How can someone using this logic to say that I want to be
a college professor. If you can figure out how to research out that
the complicated Google search of the newsgroup, you will see a post
where I replied to you that I actually took steps to preclude my being
a college professor. It is a nice job for some, but it was never my
ambition. I respect true professors and I do not respect the "passe
profs". But your fantasy of me is stronger than logic so why should I
have expected more.
LJS
LJS
Gee willikers Mr. Goldstein. My heart is all a flutter!
lol
Joey Goldstein
Why do you keep going on and on about professors then?
Daniel Schorr
may be useful. (Lord knows that you never put these two factors
together in one instance) and this again shows that you miss the
point. Yes they are valid names for the chords. BUT they are not
appropriate in the context you use them and they tell you nothing but
spelling the chords. No functional use, no relation to the music,
just
a "cool" way to spell something that is irrelevant.
This is what has been bugging me the whole time, and whatever wrath I
draw, I draw -so be it.
How in THE HELL could someone think that the last half of measure 2 in
Stairway to Heaven is some kind of m7b5 chord. Jesus F'ing christ -
everyone has heard the song so much it doesn't matter how long it's
been since you've last heard it - you hear it you KNOW it.Case
closed.
How could any experienced musician really think that it SOUNDS like an
m7b5? I don't care what the spelling is - the fact that it doesn't
sound like one should be a red alert that the notes assumed MUST BE
WRONG. You'd have to have your head up your ass to think otherwise.
Joey Goldstein
I always used to play it that way.
F# C E A.
That's how I can hear it that way.
I haven't owned that record since I was 15 years old.
In my opinion, F#m7b5 sounds better there anyway.
Functionally speaking they're not all that dissimilar either.
Most progressions involving this minor chord clich� end on VIm7b5 anyway.
So sue me.
And you have to have *your* head up your ass for questioning my musical
experience or ability this way.
Do you have any clips of your music posted anywhere on line that I can
listen to?
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
LJS
>
> So sue me.
>
> And you have to have *your* head up your ass for questioning my musical
> experience or ability this way.
> Do you have any clips of your music posted anywhere on line that I can
> listen to?
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
lol Now I understand. Your conception of analysis is to change the
music to fit your way of thinking! Wow. Now that is innovative
thinking!
Oh, by the way, how did your re-release of the cut do? It must have
become a real hit after you made the corrections.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Look. I made a mistake.
I admitted it and I corrected it in my analysis.
I'm sure you'll try to use this to spin some tale of me over the years
as being an evil incompetent, just like you've used the professor bit.
But everyone here knows what you're doing.
It's interesting to me that of the two posts I made last night you
decided to respond to this one with another personal attack rather
than the other one where the actual musical discussion is occurring.
LJS
>
> So sue me.
>
> And you have to have *your* head up your ass for questioning my musical
> experience or ability this way.
> Do you have any clips of your music posted anywhere on line that I can
> listen to?
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT primus DOT ca
That is a really no information, mixed context reply if there ever was
one.
So "Sue me"? really Joey
Don't you realize that every time you play (or post for that matter)
that anyone in range has the right and yes, even the obligation, to
question everything that they hear (or read). And then there is your
stupid retort. How does the way Danny play affect your analysis? If he
is a world class player or a rank beginner has nothing to do with your
analysis! This is that context thing. Just like your use of theory
knowledge, these two things have no relationship to each other. IF
Danny were the worst player in the world, he still can hear things and
has a right to comment. And then you state something like this as if
his ability to play has ANYTHING to do with your analysis!!
Re read this post. It is so blatant that even you must see that there
is no relationship to these two things. Its not a case of apples and
oranges, it is more a case of apples and the statement "I think I'll
have a drink after dinner".
Do you tell your audience and students that they have their "head up
their ass" if they dare to ask a question or to question your opinion
or not happen to like something you played? Everyone questions the
musician every time they play. If the audience doesn't like the
answer, they don't listen. Are the record sales doing better than the
book?
LJS
LJS
Did you not read my post. I think I said I am not concerned with that
mistake as it had been addressed. My post has nothing to do with your
"mistake" in the analysis. I realize that typos happen.
My comment was in regard to YOUR reply to Danny. See my previous post
about context. You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping things
straight when it comes to context. That is the main problem with your
theory posts and replies. You use an orange to try to justify an
apple. And then you even try to change the context of the answers. You
just can't seem to stay on topic!
LJS
Joey Goldstein
But at least it's not 17 paragraphs long.
Thanks.
LJS
Two things more on this.
If you read the entirety of my posts you will see that YOU are the
only one that is saying you are incompetent. You can make me out the
evil one if you like. It is another way of hiding your head in the
sand. I have constantly pointed out your strengths. I also point out
your weaknesses. It is when you start in on functional analysis and
any factual information about classical music that you get into
trouble. You don't have the background. That is your choice. Ignorance
is curable, all you have to do is learn what you don't know. But to
hide and try to convince people that your wrong information is correct
IS stupid. Still not incompetent. Incompetent would be if you tried to
see what I am saying and see how it might be applied to functional
analysis and then NOT be able to understand or use it. I personally
think that you are capable of learning. You certainly have learned a
lot about jazz on your own. If you were not so prejudicial in nature,
you would have already had a good grasp of classical theory. But until
you make an effort, it is ignorance rather than stupidity or
incompetence. And I am not the only one that has unsuccessfully tried
to point out your mistakes. It is a pattern that you perpetuate by
trying to be something you are not INSTEAD of trying to learn what you
missed and use it in your life and music.
The other thing is the post you say I avoided.
Joey, it starts out with your saying I write too much and then you go
into a tirade that is twice as long as my post! And it is so full of
out of context statements, fabricated information (advertently or
inadvertently) that I just don't have the time to address it all or
even to read it all at present. (some of us do try to reply to what is
said after reading it and not just make up things that the poster
said!)
After I read it, I will decide if it is worth answering or not. I am
not a slave to your rantings and ravings. You are not putting out bad
music information at present (you are not putting out much music
information at all!) and if there are legitimate music issues in that
post, I will get around to it. If not, then I won't. As long as you
are focusing on me and not professing any misinformation, then I
really don't consider your views (such as they are) to be very
relevant to anything in my life. I will decide when and if it is
worthy of a response.
LJS
LJS
BTW, was that musical post of yours under this topic? or another one?
I can't seem to find it right now.
LJS
Jon Slaughter
Just curious... are you guys married? I mean, to each other?
Orangeboxman
practically never log in.
Maybe you guys would enjoy "Troll vs. Troll" over at Tribe.net.
-Joshua C. Broyles, M.A., fast food cashier
LJS
wrote:
lol,,
He does nag me as if he was my wife, but my wife sticks to things that
she can back up when she speaks. I like that in a person. He would
have to do a lot of changing to have any chance with me at all! lol
LJS
There is only one thing happening in this group right now and that is
me and Joey. There is another sometimes thread about charting tunings
on a wheel and not much else at the moment. Did you just log on and
read through Joey's thread? It should have only taken a few posts to
see that there is no musical information or discussion on music in the
Joey/LJS thread. (well not unless you really search for the few lines
that occasionally are not profanity, context changing, misinformation
and spinning.
Why would you blame "everyone" for this? Or are you just advertising
for your Troll newsgroup?
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 12, 10:11 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 7:01 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 2:22 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > lol Now I understand. Your conception of analysis is to change the
> > > music to fit your way of thinking! Wow. Now that is innovative
> > > thinking!
>
> > > Oh, by the way, how did your re-release of the cut do? It must have
> > > become a real hit after you made the corrections.
>
> > > LJS
>
> > Look. I made a mistake.
> > I admitted it and I corrected it in my analysis.
> > I'm sure you'll try to use this to spin some tale of me over the years
> > as being an evil incompetent, just like you've used the professor bit.
> > But everyone here knows what you're doing.
>
> > It's interesting to me that of the two posts I made last night you
> > decided to respond to this one with another personal attack rather
> > than the other one where the actual musical discussion is occurring.
>
> Did you not read my post.
Yes I did.
> I think I said I am not concerned with that
> mistake as it had been addressed.
I saw no such statement.
> My post has nothing to do with your
> "mistake" in the analysis.
Yes it does. It has everything to do with that and with your attempt
to spin this into something bigger than it actually is.
> I realize that typos happen.
There was no typo.
There was a mistake.
Oh my. you probably really don't even know what we're actually talking
about, even here.
> My comment was in regard to YOUR reply to Danny.
Your comment was about trying to use my mistake as an excuse to cut me
down.
Just admit it, and move on.
I do the same thing to you every chance I get. Fortunately, you make a
lot more of those mistakes than I do.
But *you* never admit to them.
> See my previous post
> about context. You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping things
> straight when it comes to context.
Kettle black.
> That is the main problem with your
> theory posts and replies.
The main problem with your theory posts and replies is that you don't
know what you're talking about and you're wrong about your facts. Add
not being able to stay on context or follow the discussion and it gets
unbearable. Most folks here don't bother responding to you at all.
*My* main problem is that I do.
> You use an orange to try to justify an
> apple. And then you even try to change the context of the answers. You
> just can't seem to stay on topic!
Actually, I tend to use different types of apples to make different
types of points. But you're not familiar with the various species so
you see them as oranges.
Joey Goldstein
Sorry. That's the best I could come up with under the circumstances.
> Don't you realize that every time you play (or post for that matter)
> that anyone in range has the right and yes, even the obligation, to
> question everything that they hear (or read).
I don't know about being obligated, but sure, anyone can question what
I say and should question it if they either disagree or don't
understand it.
Danny is free to disagree with me, and I'm glad he corrected my
mistake in that other thread. I've already thanked him and Steve for
that.
But that doesn't mean that I'll grant him licence to trash my
abilities as a musician in a public forum, especially when my musical
abilities are on a fairly high level compared to most people like you,
for instance, and probably him.
> And then there is your
> stupid retort. How does the way Danny play affect your analysis? If he
> is a world class player or a rank beginner has nothing to do with your
> analysis!
His comment to me had nothing to do with analysis. It was an insult
plain and simple.
If he's a hack, like I'm guessing he is, then his arrogance is even
more unwarranted.
If he's a good musician I might decide to cut him a bit more slack.
> This is that context thing.
No. it isn't.
*This* is an example of you butting your nose in where it doesn't
belong.
> IF
> Danny were the worst player in the world, he still can hear things and
> has a right to comment.
He's got every right to comment, but no right to insult and insinuate.
> And then you state something like this as if
> his ability to play has ANYTHING to do with your analysis!!
WTF is with you?
His comment has nothing to do with my 'analysis'.
If the chord in question had been identified correctly by me in the
1st place, then my analysis of it would have been fine.
I corrected my mistake and I corrected my analysis of the actual
chord.
There was never anything wrong with my analysis.
He's not insulting me about my analysis.
He's trying to insult my musical abilities.
Don't you 'get' *anything*?
> Re read this post.
No. You re-read it fool.
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 12, 10:11 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 7:01 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 2:22 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> > > lol Now I understand. Your conception of analysis is to change the
> > > music to fit your way of thinking! Wow. Now that is innovative
> > > thinking!
>
> > > Oh, by the way, how did your re-release of the cut do? It must have
> > > become a real hit after you made the corrections.
>
> > > LJS
>
> > Look. I made a mistake.
> > I admitted it and I corrected it in my analysis.
> > I'm sure you'll try to use this to spin some tale of me over the years
> > as being an evil incompetent, just like you've used the professor bit.
> > But everyone here knows what you're doing.
>
> > It's interesting to me that of the two posts I made last night you
> > decided to respond to this one with another personal attack rather
> > than the other one where the actual musical discussion is occurring.
>
> Two things more on this.
Thrill me.
> If you read the entirety of my posts you will see that YOU are the
> only one that is saying you are incompetent.
How exactly is it that I say this about me during *your* posts?
> You can make me out the
> evil one if you like.
You're not evil. I've never made you out to be evil. That's how you
try to paint me.
You're a fool and you're a poser who doesn't know wtf is going on in
the world of music but pretends that he does.
You have an unearned overly high regard for your musical understanding
that is delusional. You're arrogant, which could be forgiven if you
had the stuff to back it up, but you don't. And you seem to have some
rather quirky problems with comprehension, possibly due to some sort
of brain damage.
> It is another way of hiding your head in the
> sand. I have constantly pointed out your strengths.
I would point out your strengths too, if I was aware that you had any.
But I'm still looking for them.
You're very good at writing long-winded posts that say nothing? Is
that a strength in your eyes?
> I also point out
> your weaknesses.
Except that when you do that you're always wrong.
I've got tons of actual weaknesses, but you never get to those.
> It is when you start in on functional analysis and
> any factual information about classical music that you get into
> trouble.
Any troubles I have with the facts of classical theory are quickly
pointed out by knowledgeable people here like Steve Latham.
Assuming that I understand his comments, and most times I do, I then
have a choice to refine my viewpoint or continue to disagree with him
and/or the entire classical musical establishment. I.e. just because I
understand a theoretical idea does not mean that i have to agree with
it.
You, on the other hand, understand nothing in either your own supposed
area of expertise or the jazz world.
Since you've been here you've said things that are just simply
ignorant about augmented 6th chords, the role of the OTS in the maj/
min key system, the role of the OTS in the way that CPP composers
handled 2nd inversion major and minor chords, and a host of other
things. And this is the stuff that you claim to have studied
seriously.
Then you start blabbing about jazz and *every single word* is wrong.
Get a grip dude. You're living in a fantasy world.
> You don't have the background.
I know. You do have the background, yet you're still clueless. It's
quite odd that I should know more about that stuff than you do.
It's like you took all these courses and just accepted all the
bullshit they were telling you without thinking about it, and now when
you go to regurgitate it here it all comes out wrong.
> That is your choice. Ignorance
> is curable, all you have to do is learn what you don't know.
Right. But the thing with you is that you don't even know how ignorant
you are.
> But to
> hide and try to convince people that your wrong information is correct
> IS stupid.
What wrong information have i provided here that has gone uncorrected?
(Corrected by actual people please. Not by you.)
You, on the other hand, have gone on and on about this fantasy world
you've imagined where jazz musicians don't need to play off of the
chords. You made some inane proclamation about jazz articulations and
rhythmic timing and when politely corrected you when on and on about
it still for days and days.
Honestly, you know *nothing* about jazz music and should not even
attempt to participate in discussion here about it, certainly not as a
teacher.
On and on you go, year after year, spouting off more and more nonsense
in voluminous post after delusional narcissistic post, all the while
proclaiming that it's the rest of us who are wrong, not you.
And when I post something that is actually relevant, factual and
helpful, you jump all over me with nonsensical critiques filled with
personal insults and ruin the thread.
> Still not incompetent. Incompetent would be if you tried to
> see what I am saying and see how it might be applied to functional
> analysis and then NOT be able to understand or use it.
I guess that makes me incompetent then, because nothing you say here
ever makes any sense, to me or anybody else.
I guess we're all incompetent then. lol
Meanwhile we're all still waiting for your 'analysis' of STH.
I'm sure it will put mine to shame.
> I personally
> think that you are capable of learning.
i don't think that you are capable of learning.
I think you would have demonstrated that by now.
> You certainly have learned a
> lot about jazz on your own. If you were not so prejudicial in nature,
> you would have already had a good grasp of classical theory.
Why should I seriously study music that is of no interest to me?
I already have a basic understanding of a typical classical freshman
harmony course.
At the moment that's all I'm interested in as far as that tradition is
concerned, although there are certain aspects of 20th Century harmony
that interest me as far as jazz playing is concerned.
This isn't prejudice. It's personal taste.
You actually have learned the same elementary stuff, but you don't
understand it and you get its details wrong every time you try to
discuss it. And then you try to lord your 'superior knowledge' of it
over me. It's ridiculous. You're ridiculous.
> The other thing is the post you say I avoided.
>
> Joey, it starts out with your saying I write too much and then you go
> into a tirade that is twice as long as my post!
Write shorter posts and my detailed responses to them will be shorter.
Now, if you want to actually talk about music, rather than me, it
might be more enjoyable for the other folks reading the newsgroup. You
might even learn something if you stop blathering on and on about
nothing.
But it you want to just talk about me some more, which seems to be
what you want to do, then I'll just keep talking about you.
LJS
Yes, there was a mistake. You are right there. But I only copied and
pasted your "analysis" of the song verbatim. My reference as a typo
was trying to avoid mention of your "mistake". Your paranoia is
responsible for anything beyond that. What the correct chord was or
wasn't had absolutely nothing to do with the "mistake". What ever the
chord would happen to be, this was not about that. It was about your
trying to pass off the spelling of the walk down as functional chords.
They are not. Then you added the part about how Danny's ability to
play has something to do with his right to think that you should have
known better about the tune and your dismissing someone and
challenging his right to criticize you. I noticed one comment in your
"ignored" post that I will comment on when I have time, but you are
just so far out of the box that I don't know if any more than simply
pointing out your mistakes will be worth my time. Without your "IEP" I
have just about run out of ways to show you the things that you simply
don't understand. Even with my SpEd kids, it is necessary that they
have a desire to learn. Once a student thinks that he knows everything
about something, there is no way that you can get him to learn more.
They can be educated to be functional in society, but true knowledge
will will not be a part of their world. Sorry that I can not get
through to you.
> Oh my. you probably really don't even know what we're actually talking
> about, even here.
>
> > My comment was in regard to YOUR reply to Danny.
>
> Your comment was about trying to use my mistake as an excuse to cut me
> down.
> Just admit it, and move on.
> I do the same thing to you every chance I get. Fortunately, you make a
> lot more of those mistakes than I do.
> But *you* never admit to them.
>
> > See my previous post
> > about context. You seem to have a lot of trouble keeping things
> > straight when it comes to context.
>
> Kettle black.
>
> > That is the main problem with your
> > theory posts and replies.
>
> The main problem with your theory posts and replies is that you don't
> know what you're talking about and you're wrong about your facts. Add
> not being able to stay on context or follow the discussion and it gets
> unbearable. Most folks here don't bother responding to you at all.
> *My* main problem is that I do.
Really Joey. How many time can you say that without EVER explaining
exactly what your are talking about. Complaints without solutions are
rather useless. If you can't explain what I don't know then you don't
then you must not know it either! Be specific! or just stop making
stupid comments like that.
I simply say that your analysis of he walk down is totally irrelevant
and useless. You say that it isn't. Well, how does it help anyone
about anything. There is only one function in that part and that is
the function of the Amin chord. The bass line has nothing to do with
anything except that it is a walk down. The idea of naming them in the
manner that you did serves no purpose. You can call it a i-IV and
that pretty much says it. If you notate a 7-b7-6 etc bass line, fine,
it is totally done. To assign those extensions on this is simply not
part of an analysis.
People don't respond to many things because, quite frankly, they don't
understand much more than the functional way that they deal with
musical analysis. That is evident by some of their inability to keep
things in proper context. Hey, there is a lot of truth in your
statement that your problem is that you DO. The only thing is that
when challenged, you start to get personal and derail the thread into
your school yard tactics and misquoting.
It is interesting in this thread how many times you have "corrected"
your mistakes. You know that you make them. You just can't seem to
admit that the implications of those mistakes are symptoms of large
holes in your education. I think you are somewhat younger than I and I
am still learning things from practically everyone that is not afraid
to express their opinions. Yes, even and maybe especially you! I have
learned a lot about the vertical approach of guitar players. It has
always been a puzzle to me about how they could improvise the chord
voicing as they go along. You have cleared that up for me rather
convincingly. You have also taught me a lot more than I knew about the
theory approach taken by Berklee. So far as I can see, you have not
learned very much from me or anyone else that does not agree with your
conclusions. Too bad. You have learned a lot over the years. The
problem is you don't seem to think that there can possibly be any
other way to see things than your own and if you don't understand
something, then it MUST be wrong. But you never are quite able to see
that there are many ways to skin that old cat and your way is NOT the
ONLY way and when you get into classical theory, this is a problem
with most ALL of the approaches to music that is not guitar based.
>
> > You use an orange to try to justify an
> > apple. And then you even try to change the context of the answers. You
> > just can't seem to stay on topic!
>
> Actually, I tend to use different types of apples to make different
> types of points. But you're not familiar with the various species so
> you see them as oranges.
Quite simply, no you don't. You take a different types of citrus and
try to substitute an orange for the lemon and you try to make lemonade
with salt instead of sugar.. (they are both white substances) and then
you try to sell it as a logical substitution of contexts. I wish is
was not so, but you will not see that until you take some time and sit
down at a piano and learn about counterpoint, voice leading and the
broader picture and stop looking at each and every chord as the main
focus of your analysis. and theory.
LJS
Orangeboxman
You are correct, and I am sorry.
LJS
> >Why would you blame "everyone" for this?
>
> You are correct, and I am sorry.
apology accepted
LJS
LJS
If you knew what context meant, you would see the absurdity of that
statement. But then you wold see the absurdity of most of your
statements as well. So, lotsa luck in getting through to your thick
head.
>
> > IF
> > Danny were the worst player in the world, he still can hear things and
> > has a right to comment.
>
> He's got every right to comment, but no right to insult and insinuate.
You did actually not take the time to play the chord before you shot
your mouth off. That was a mistake, or are you admitting that you did
play it and still did not notice that the chord was wrong? It is
rather obvious if you listen. IF you thought about your analysis, you
should have noticed it. If pointing out your error is insulting, so be
it. I am not sure what he insinuated, all I heard was a slight blunt
description of what he, or most people would have done if they cared
about accuracy.He might also have been influenced with the abusive
tone and insulting comments that you routinely make in this thread. If
you dish it out, Instant Karma's gonna get you! (I think you often use
the term the Pot calling the Kettle black. Well maybe it just came
back to haunt you.
If you don't have the time to check your analysis, don't do it at
all. And if you still do it, well, you just have to take your lumps. I
have noticed that in Danny's posts, he usually takes the time to check
his facts and if he does make a mistake, he "mans up".
>
> > And then you state something like this as if
> > his ability to play has ANYTHING to do with your analysis!!
>
> WTF is with you?
Glad to see that I am having at least a small effect on your public
profanity. You are insulted by criticism. Some of us are insulted by
your gutter talk in the public news group. ANd coming from a part-time
contracted professor to boot! At least the abbreviations soften your
rudeness by an iota or two.
> His comment has nothing to do with my 'analysis'.
> If the chord in question had been identified correctly by me in the
> 1st place, then my analysis of it would have been fine.
> I corrected my mistake and I corrected my analysis of the actual
> chord.
> There was never anything wrong with my analysis.
If, if if. If the number of times you fly off the handle put money in
our pockets we all would be rich! .When you used the wrong chord, you
had no analysis! . Its all related Joey. IF you understood, you would
see this. IF you had the right chord, THEN maybe you would not have
made your comments about the CHORD that you listed. It is the CHORD
that you LISTED that was functionally wrong. IF,if, if. And consider
how long you defended it! After all the talk you NEVER bothered to
listen to it? And you admit your analysis was WRONG because you used
the WRONG chord. ALL of the comments against your post was in regard
to YOUR choice of chords to analyze. Maybe IF you had been more
careful all of this BS could have been avoided. IN my posts, for
example, I was talking about other things other than the actual chord.
I noticed that there was a mistake in the chords but thought it was a
typo and I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but all of my comments
are about your use of those stupid extensions on that particular
example that YOU claim to have analyzed. Right chord, wrong chord, it
doesn't matter in the CONTEXT of my responses. I have problems with
your insistence that your chordal approach to improvising is the ONLY
or best way does not work in this instance. It is a WALK DOWN! It is
not any series of extended chord symbols. THAT is the real problem
with your analysis. The fact that you can't remember the tune and
picked the wrong chords IS indicative of musicianship. There is no way
to hide it. It was a very popular song. IF you are going to analyze
it, you should have, as a musician, checked. There is no more polite
way to say that.
You were in error there, and you are in error in many other instances
that are just as obvious. If you refuse to take the time to check your
facts and rethink your logic, you ARE showing signs of carelessness or
incompetence. I don't know which one is actually correct. I like to
give one the benefit of the doubt, but you are really starting to make
a strong case for both! Its up to you which will prevail. OR you can
try to listen, think, ask real questions, control your temper and try
to learn something. (hnm, I restrained from adding a ROTFLOL. I hope
you don't make me regret it. LOL)
> He's not insulting me about my analysis.
> He's trying to insult my musical abilities.
> Don't you 'get' *anything*?
Yes Joey. And while we are at it, You are always questioning peoples
ability to play in order to have any validity for talking about
theory. What exactly are your theory credentials? where did you study
theory? where did you get your degree? how much post graduate work
have you done in theory? You ask everyone else, what about you?
>
> > Re read this post.
>
> No. You re-read it fool.
No you re-read it.
Then Joey replies "No you read it"
Well, it was worth a try.
Why don't you find someone in the English department at Mohawk or some
place and ask them what some of these posts say and what is not said.
Maybe you will be surprised by their being silly and foolish an no
nothing as well! Ask them about context while you are at it.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 12, 8:09 pm, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 12, 12:05 pm, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 12, 10:11 am, Joey Goldstein <joeg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 12, 7:01 am, LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > My post has nothing to do with your
> > > "mistake" in the analysis.
>
> > Yes it does. It has everything to do with that and with your attempt
> > to spin this into something bigger than it actually is.
>
> > > I realize that typos happen.
>
> > There was no typo.
> > There was a mistake.
>
> Yes, there was a mistake. You are right there. But I only copied and
> pasted your "analysis" of the song verbatim.
I have no idea of which post of yours you are referring to where you
copied and pasted my analysis.
So here it is again, with the correct chord now at the end of measure
2 (It looks like GoogleGroups doesn't offer the option to view this ng
using a fixed font anymore. I've tried to line things up with the GG
default font but it might not look to good on everybody else's
system):
a:
T SD
SD T
Im IV
bVI Im
Am / Am9(maj7)/G# / |Am7/G / D/F# / |Fmaj7 / / / |Am / / / / | X2
T SD SD T T D SD
bIII IV bVI Im bIII bVII IV
C / D / |Fmaj7 / Am / |C / G / |D / / / | X2
[Meanwhile, I'm tempted to call the 1st chord of bar 2 C/G (bIII) but
don't want to cause you all to freak out and start another mega-
idiotic thread.]
> My reference as a typo
> was trying to avoid mention of your "mistake".
There's no need to avoid mentioning my mistake. It was a simple
mistake. Contrary to what Daniel Shorr believes, some of us haven't
been listening to this tune very often over the last 35 years. I
learned it incorrectly when I was young and that's the way I still
heard it at the time I did that analysis. I'm glad I've been
corrected. It's no big deal. I'm not likely to have to play this tune
using that arrangement anytime soon, but now I'm ready. lol
And I still like my version better. It's avoids the awkward voice
leading of the original as well as the awkward melodic leap from C
down to F#. Still, a hit is a hit.
> Your paranoia is
> responsible for anything beyond that.
My paranoia is responsible for any "what" beyond "what"?
> What the correct chord was or
> wasn't had absolutely nothing to do with the "mistake".
Of course it did. My analysis was and is correct. The chord in
question was incorrect but I still had the correct analysis of the
wrong chord. Then I corrected the chord and gave the correct analysis
of it as well.
> What ever the
> chord would happen to be, this was not about that.
Then I guess you're just going on and on and on psychotically about
absolutely nothing.
[I can't believe that a simple analysis of such a simple tine is
giving you so much trouble and that we're still talking about this.
It's really quite idiotic.]
> It was about your
> trying to pass off the spelling of the walk down as functional chords.
> They are not.
I never assigned any functions to those chords.
You seem to be confusing the chord symbols with the functional
analysis. They are not the same thing.
My functional analysis, with the chord symbols omitted, would be this
- if it makes it simpler for you:
a:
T SD SD T
Im | IV | bVI Im |X 2
T SD SD T T D SD
bIII IV | bVI Im | bIII bVII | IV |X 2
Meanwhile, we're all still waiting with bated breath for your own
analysis of these chords which is purportedly so much better than
mine.
I guess you just don't have time for that, what with all the other
huge vacuous posts you're making lately.
> Then you added the part about how Danny's ability to
> play has something to do with his right to think that you should have
> known better about the tune and your dismissing someone and
> challenging his right to criticize you.
That's not the way that went down, and you know it.
And *you* accuse me of spinning things. Geez.
BTW Do you have any clips of any music you've been involved with out
on the web that I can listen to?
Is there any evidence at all in the World, anywhere at all, that you
are an actual musician?
I'm starting to think that you might actually be a Turing test.
You're kinda convincing as a basic AI program. All the trappings of a
human but without any understanding.
> I noticed one comment in your
> "ignored" post that I will comment on when I have time, but you are
> just so far out of the box that I don't know if any more than simply
> pointing out your mistakes will be worth my time.
Good luck.
I can't wait for you to try to tell me how jazz is studied and played
again.
> Without your "IEP" I
> have just about run out of ways to show you the things that you simply
> don't understand. Even with my SpEd kids, it is necessary that they
> have a desire to learn.
Where do you "teach"?
Who would let you do that to their kids?
> Once a student thinks that he knows everything
> about something, there is no way that you can get him to learn more.
You should work on that because *you* think you know everything, and
you actually don't know anything.
> They can be educated to be functional in society, but true knowledge
> will will not be a part of their world. Sorry that I can not get
> through to you.
I have my doubts as to whether you function in society.
> > > That is the main problem with your
> > > theory posts and replies.
>
> > The main problem with your theory posts and replies is that you don't
> > know what you're talking about and you're wrong about your facts. Add
> > not being able to stay on context or follow the discussion and it gets
> > unbearable. Most folks here don't bother responding to you at all.
> > *My* main problem is that I do.
>
> Really Joey. How many time can you say that without EVER explaining
> exactly what your are talking about.
This needs no explanation. Everyone here has experienced it.
> Complaints without solutions are
> rather useless. If you can't explain what I don't know then you don't
> then you must not know it either! Be specific! or just stop making
> stupid comments like that.
You don't know how jazz is conceptualized, notated, played or taught.
[Yet you go on and on and on as if you know more about it than anybody
else here does. That could be forgiven if you admitted it when shown
to be wrong. But you're incapable of that.]
You don't know the role of the OTS in the maj/min key system or in the
traditional handling of 2nd inversion chords, the correct spelling of
aug 6th chords, or virtually any other thing you've tried to post
about here in this newsgroup. [And this simple freshman college course
stuff is supposed to be your area of expertise.]
> I simply say that your analysis of he walk down is totally irrelevant
> and useless.
I never 'analyzed' the 'walk down'.
*You* are irrelevant and useless.
> You say that it isn't. Well, how does it help anyone
> about anything. There is only one function in that part and that is
> the function of the Amin chord. The bass line has nothing to do with
> anything except that it is a walk down. The idea of naming them in the
> manner that you did serves no purpose.
Naming them is a different thing from analyzing them.
Labeling them with chord symbols serves all sorts of purposes for us
folks who actually use chord symbols as part of our music-making
process.
This is something that you don't understand because you are not
involved in this type of music, and because you're an idiot.
If you can't figure out how an improviser might make use of these
types of chord symbols on your own then there is nothing more I can do
to help you with the concept.
But that won't stop you from going on and on about all this stuff that
you are absolutely and categorically clueless about.
> You can call it a i-IV and
> that pretty much says it.
That's what I did call it. Sheesh.
Is that what this is all about? That you don't know the difference
between a chord chart and an harmonic analysis?
Holy shit. What a waste of my time.
> If you notate a 7-b7-6 etc bass line, fine,
> it is totally done. To assign those extensions on this is simply not
> part of an analysis.
What 'extensions' did I 'assign' and where did I do this?
> People don't respond to many things because, quite frankly, they don't
> understand much more than the functional way that they deal with
> musical analysis.
People don't respond to you because you're a drag, and you don't know
what the hell you're talking about, and your posts are too long and
you don't 'get' anything that's ever said to you.
> That is evident by some of their inability to keep
> things in proper context.
But most people other than yourself actually know what the context is.
> Hey, there is a lot of truth in your
> statement that your problem is that you DO.
What statement are you referring to?
And what is it that I 'DO'?
> The only thing is that
> when challenged, you start to get personal and derail the thread into
> your school yard tactics and misquoting.
I'm fine when I'm simply challenged. I enjoy being challenged.
But *you* do it in a condescending patronizing and insulting way that
you have not earned the right to.
If you knew half as much about music as you claim to I'd be kissing
your ass, like I do with folks like Matt and Steve. They've all proven
that their competence with every word they post.
I give respect where respect is due. And *you* deserve the opposite of
respect.
> It is interesting in this thread how many times you have "corrected"
> your mistakes.
How so?
What 'mistakes' have I corrected, other than that chord in STH?
> You know that you make them.
Evidently not.
What mistakes are you referring to?
> You just can't seem to
> admit that the implications of those mistakes are symptoms of large
> holes in your education.
I know about the holes in my education.
*You* think you understand what you learned in school, but you really
don't. Your symptoms are all the symptoms of delusion.
> I think you are somewhat younger than I
I just turned 56.
> and I
> am still learning things from practically everyone that is not afraid
> to express their opinions.
> Yes, even and maybe especially you!
Ummm. No you're not.
Eg. I've tried to teach you something about how jazz is made but you
think you already know it all and are on some mission from God to show
me up as a charlatan.
And you're *totally clueless* about jazz. You don't even have the
broad strokes.
> I have
> learned a lot about the vertical approach of guitar players.
"The vertical approach of guitar players". What, pray tell, is that?
> It has
> always been a puzzle to me about how they could improvise the chord
> voicing as they go along.
"Improvise the chord voicing as they go along".
What does that mean? And what does this have to do with guitar players
as opposed to the players of other chordal instruments like piano,
vibes, or accordion?
> You have cleared that up for me rather
> convincingly.
That's funny, because I don't know what you're talking about.
But you're welcome. lol
> You have also taught me a lot more than I knew about the
> theory approach taken by Berklee.
I've tried to teach you, but you have not understood a single word.
> So far as I can see, you have not
> learned very much from me
That's an understatement.
> or anyone else that does not agree with your
> conclusions.
*That's* simply not true.
Why even recently I've learned what the 2nd chord in bar 2 of STY
really is.
I guess that makes you a liar.
> Too bad. You have learned a lot over the years.
??? Make up your mind. you just finished saying that I had not learned
anything.
I guess that makes you cuckoo.
> The
> problem is you don't seem to think that there can possibly be any
> other way to see things than your own
> and if you don't understand
> something, then it MUST be wrong.
There's lots of ways to see things other than my own ways.
That doesn't make my way of seeing things wrong.
If you had ever offered up some sort of coherent alternative to
anything that I have posted about I would have welcomed it with open
arms. Not now of course, because I automatically discount *everything*
you say.
> But you never are quite able to see
> that there are many ways to skin that old cat and your way is NOT the
> ONLY way
Bullshit.
It's *your way* that is always the problem, because you're always
wrong.
[Actually, I did notice something the other day in another thread that
may not have been completely wrong. Way to go!]
> and when you get into classical theory, this is a problem
> with most ALL of the approaches to music that is not guitar based.
Again with the guitar. Oy.
> > > You use an orange to try to justify an
> > > apple. And then you even try to change the context of the answers. You
> > > just can't seem to stay on topic!
>
> > Actually, I tend to use different types of apples to make different
> > types of points. But you're not familiar with the various species so
> > you see them as oranges.
>
> Quite simply, no you don't. You take a different types of citrus and
> try to substitute an orange for the lemon and you try to make lemonade
> with salt instead of sugar.. (they are both white substances) and then
> you try to sell it as a logical substitution of contexts. I wish is
> was not so, but you will not see that until you take some time and sit
> down at a piano and learn about counterpoint, voice leading and the
> broader picture and stop looking at each and every chord as the main
> focus of your analysis. and theory.
You will never learn anything about jazz music until you stop trying
to see it through the distorted view you have of classical music.
You will never understand your beloved classical music either unless
you take some time to re-examine what you think you know about it,
because you don't know what you think you know about it. But even that
probably won't help you. You're too old and too forgone in your errant
thinking. And you're too attached to thinking that you're right all
the time.
Are we done yet?
Joey Goldstein
OMG
The dreaded GoogleGroups word wrap!
Let's try that again...
> So here it is again, with the correct chord now at the end of measure
> 2 (It looks like GoogleGroups doesn't offer the option to view this ng
> using a fixed font anymore. I've tried to line things up with the GG
> default font but it might not look to good on everybody else's
> system):
a:
T SD
Im IV
Am / Am9(maj7)/G# / |Am7/G / D/F# /
SD T
bVI Im
Daniel Schorr
having problems with google groups
Daniel Schorr
they haven't been showing up here- I'm forced to switch to Google
groups because Verizon dropped newsgroups.Sorry for posting out of
context - if someone can help me out whether I am supposed to hit
reply to author or just reply mid-thread please messaqge me
privately.Thanks. Also do the Captchs go away?
-------------------
Anyway....From what I remember I need to respond to in Joeys post:
F#, C, E, A spells an F#m7-b, but obviously it isnt from the context.
It could also be thought of as an incmplete D9th chord, if one wants
to broaden their thinking a little. But, that's probably not the best
choice. Sorry you took offense to my statement joey, and felt that it
was an affront to your whole standing as a musician and a teacher, but
that says more about you than me. And you overlooked the fact that the
acoustical root of that structureis indeed A.
(Oh noes, but it's the soprano!!!!)
Sorry again you took offense, but really - how many m7b5's have you
heard in your life? enough to know that it isn't one, I'd say. And
functionally, the D/F#is practically equivilent to F#-7b5 in function?
I'd expect the F# to lead to some sort of B as a 'rule' of sorts,
maybe I am missing something. And if I haven't heard a record in 35
years, I'll make sure, after this thread, to give it a re-listen
before I try to counsel anyone about it. So, this has been helpful to
me, so I don't make that mistake myself.
Do I have music online? I might....but before I submit it to you for
the right to comment, I need a reference from you an your right to
judge artisti merit. I'll just say the guitar is my only source of
income these days. That's good enough for me. It would be funny if I
was a hack - I'd still be just as right...
I guess that's it...something tells me there was one other thing but
it's late.Sorry for the out of context replies, but Ifollowing the
digests on my phone and didn't want to give the impression I am
avoiding the topic. Again if anyone can help me sort out the posting
problems here, just shoot me an e-mail. Thanks
LJS
> test ignore
> having problems with google groups
This one shows up fine. I have he logged in on 5:14am Nov 14 on google
groups.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> Anyway....From what I remember I need to respond to in Joeys post:
>
> F#, C, E, A spells an F#m7-b,
Right. F# C E A spells F#m7b5.
> but obviously it isnt from the context.
I don't know what that means.
> It could also be thought of as an incmplete D9th chord,
Yes it could. The acoustical root of that chord is D, which I've stated
several times now I believe.
But typically, if the D is not present it is called F#m7b5 or Am/F# via
chord symbol notation and VIm7b5 in a RN analysis (at least in jazz
circles that's what we label it as in our analyses).
> if one wants
> to broaden their thinking a little.
That has nothing to do with "broadening ones thinking".
> But, that's probably not the best
> choice.
Right. That's why I didn't use it.
> Sorry you took offense to my statement joey, and felt that it
> was an affront to your whole standing as a musician and a teacher, but
> that says more about you than me.
It was an affront and it says more about you that you don't realize
this. You must still have your head up your ass.
> And you overlooked the fact that the
> acoustical root of that structureis indeed A.
>
> (Oh noes, but it's the soprano!!!!)
The acoustical root of F# C E A is D, not A.
You evidently don't know what is meant by the term acoustical root.
> Sorry again you took offense,
I'm not sure I believe you, but OK.
> but really - how many m7b5's have you
> heard in your life?
Probably more than you based on what you've written here lately.
> nough to know that it isn't one, I'd say.
Like I said, to me, F#m7b5 sounds better there.
In most instances in popular music when this particular "walk-down", aka
a minor chord clich�, occurs on Am - the chord with the F# in the bass
would be Am/F# aka F#m7b5.
> And
> functionally, the D/F#is practically equivilent to F#-7b5 in function?
In my original analysis I called the F#m7b5 a tonic function chord and I
called the D/F# a subdominant function chord in my corrected analysis,
which would seem to have me disagreeing with myself.
But the trouble is that in minor keys there is so much harmonic variety
due to the musica ficta notes that assigning a completely unambiguous
harmonic function to many chords is not really possible.
VIm7b5 is kind of in a netherworld where it can sound very much like a
tonic chord or very much like a subdominant chord depending on context.
This is one such context. When the subdominant tone of the key is not
actually present on VIm7b5 (in the guise of Tb13) I tend to hear it as a
tonic function chord.
In the common Im VIm7b5 IIm7b5 V7 progression, the VIm7b5 most certainly
has T function, for example.
Even a IV chord can have T funct within a minor key given the right
circumstances. Jazz players are know to end minor key tunes on
IV13(#11), for example.
The most potent indicator of SD funct in minor keys is actually scale
degree b6, which both of these chords (VIm7b5 and IV, that is) obviously
do not have present.
In STH the only place with a true SD funct chord is when the Fmaj7 chord
occurs.
But as far as STH is concerned if you use F#m7b5 on the last 1/2 of bar
2 there is no real change to the progression, just a slight change of
colour compared to the original chord, a change for the better IMO.
I'm guessing that Jimmy Page as not spent a lot of hours thinking about
voice leading, or m7b5 chords.
> I'd expect the F# to lead to some sort of B as a 'rule' of sorts,
Mn7b5 chord do not always function as IIm7b5.
Only an inexperienced musician would suggest that this was the case.
> maybe I am missing something.
Probably.
You say you're a guitar player. Have you tried playing STH yet my way?
Do you really find it all that different sounding? I sure don't.
> And if I haven't heard a record in 35
> years, I'll make sure, after this thread, to give it a re-listen
> before I try to counsel anyone about it. So, this has been helpful to
> me, so I don't make that mistake myself.
I really don't know what you're talking about above or how it relates to
the sentence(s) above that.
> Do I have music online? I might....but before I submit it to you for
> the right to comment, I need a reference from you an your right to
> judge artisti merit.
You gave me the right by saying that I'd have to be an inferior musician
myself to have thought that there was an F#m7b5 chord there.
You judged me first. Now it's your turn.
> I'll just say the guitar is my only source of
> income these days. That's good enough for me. It would be funny if I
> was a hack - I'd still be just as right...
You'd still be right about the chord and you'd still be a dick about the
insult.
Daniel Schorr
> Daniel Schorr wrote:
> > Anyway....From what I remember I need to respond to in Joeys post:
>
> > F#, C, E, A spells an F#m7-b,
>
> Right. F# C E A spells F#m7b5.
>
> > but obviously it isnt from the context.
>
> I don't know what that means.
Really? You talk about context downstream in this post. So, hmmmm
>
> > It could also be thought of as an incmplete D9th chord,
>
> Yes it could. The acoustical root of that chord is D, which I've stated
> several times now I believe.
> But typically, if the D is not present it is called F#m7b5 or Am/F# via
> chord symbol notation and VIm7b5 in a RN analysis (at least in jazz
> circles that's what we label it as in our analyses).
Even though we are talking about a chord that doesn't exist in the
song, I'll go with this.
Why MUST it be F#-7b5 in jazz circles. I believe Am/F# would be a
valid interpretation, also. If not, why?
>
> > if one wants
> > to broaden their thinking a little.
>
> That has nothing to do with "broadening ones thinking".
>
> > But, that's probably not the best
> > choice.
>
> Right. That's why I didn't use it.
>
> > Sorry you took offense to my statement joey, and felt that it
> > was an affront to your whole standing as a musician and a teacher, but
> > that says more about you than me.
>
> It was an affront and it says more about you that you don't realize
> this. You must still have your head up your ass.
Sorry you are still taking this as solely directed at you. In truth,
it was directed at the whole "guitar player theory" mentality that
I've seen with regard to the notating of this intro since my time on
the internet ( like 9 years or something now). The whole "alt.guitar"
approach to music theory [ i.e. the idea that spelling = theory] that
doesn't include any of the "broadening of thinking" we disagree about.
>
> > And you overlooked the fact that the
> > acoustical root of that structureis indeed A.
>
> > (Oh noes, but it's the soprano!!!!)
>
> The acoustical root of F# C E A is D, not A.
> You evidently don't know what is meant by the term acoustical root.
I know what it means, and I know how to reckon it. It seems that we
disagree on which interval has the higher priority: I believe it is
the p4, you seeem to think it's the M3. I believe that the p4 is
higher, but I haven't double-checked that yet.
>
> > Sorry again you took offense,
>
> I'm not sure I believe you, but OK.
OK
>
> > but really - how many m7b5's have you
> > heard in your life?
>
> Probably more than you based on what you've written here lately.
In a jazz context, you are right. I'd say I've heard just as many same
structures studying and playing Bach, but they mostly wouldn't be
considered 4 note chords per se.
>
> > nough to know that it isn't one, I'd say.
>
> Like I said, to me, F#m7b5 sounds better there.
> In most instances in popular music when this particular "walk-down", aka
> a minor chord cliché, occurs on Am - the chord with the F# in the bass
> would be Am/F# aka F#m7b5.
OK - this is the one that I forgot to add. The "better" statement.
Look, I think it's perfectly fine for you as an artist to like that
sound more. From my perspective the D/F# - Fmaj7 reminds me of an
implied IV - iv, and I happen to like THAT a lot. But it's not
"better" in the context of STH. if you are going to say it's better,
then you have tyo be able to answer the question, "Better for what?"
You can come up with a lot of answers, but none will mean " It's
better for the original composition STH". The composition stands as a
thing in itself, presented as the composer finished it. Someone else
could say it would be better with bongos in it. Doesn't make it so.
>
> > And
> > functionally, the D/F#is practically equivilent to F#-7b5 in function?
>
> In my original analysis I called the F#m7b5 a tonic function chord and I
> called the D/F# a subdominant function chord in my corrected analysis,
> which would seem to have me disagreeing with myself.
Yeah, that and the fact that down below you say that the SD isn't
reached until the Fmaj7 ( which is horseshit, no offense).
> But the trouble is that in minor keys there is so much harmonic variety
> due to the musica ficta notes that assigning a completely unambiguous
> harmonic function to many chords is not really possible.
>
> VIm7b5 is kind of in a netherworld where it can sound very much like a
> tonic chord or very much like a subdominant chord depending on context.
> This is one such context. When the subdominant tone of the key is not
> actually present on VIm7b5 (in the guise of Tb13) I tend to hear it as a
> tonic function chord.
> In the common Im VIm7b5 IIm7b5 V7 progression, the VIm7b5 most certainly
> has T function, for example.
> Even a IV chord can have T funct within a minor key given the right
> circumstances. Jazz players are know to end minor key tunes on
> IV13(#11), for example.
> The most potent indicator of SD funct in minor keys is actually scale
> degree b6, which both of these chords (VIm7b5 and IV, that is) obviously
> do not have present.
IDK - most of that sems irrelevant to this discussion.If someone
wanted to do a jazz arrangement of the tune and solo, I'm sure it
would be helpful ( No sarcasm intended)
> In STH the only place with a true SD funct chord is when the Fmaj7 chord
> occurs.
Justify this. The D/F# sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck....
>
> But as far as STH is concerned if you use F#m7b5 on the last 1/2 of bar
> 2 there is no real change to the progression, just a slight change of
> colour compared to the original chord, a change for the better IMO.
> I'm guessing that Jimmy Page as not spent a lot of hours thinking about
> voice leading, or m7b5 chords.
That's too badf you would make that assumption...you just want to
paint the composer as a retarted rock guy, when you have no idea what
he knows and doesn't know. If you listen to his music, it's obvious
that he knows about voice leading and m7b5 chords.
>
> > I'd expect the F# to lead to some sort of B as a 'rule' of sorts,
>
> Mn7b5 chord do not always function as IIm7b5.
> Only an inexperienced musician would suggest that this was the case.
LOL - And when's the last time I beat my wife, right? Seriously, "rule
of thumb of sorts" is the same as "do not always. We agree here.
I don't agree that the m7b5 most oftentimes has the same function as a
first inversion IV chord though
>
> > maybe I am missing something.
>
> Probably.
> You say you're a guitar player. Have you tried playing STH yet my way?
Yes. I have a guitar right next to my desk. I also experimented with
my IV - iv substitution.
> Do you really find it all that different sounding? I sure don't.
Yes, mostly. Compared to the original arrangent, I do.
>
> > And if I haven't heard a record in 35
> > years, I'll make sure, after this thread, to give it a re-listen
> > before I try to counsel anyone about it. So, this has been helpful to
> > me, so I don't make that mistake myself.
>
> I really don't know what you're talking about above or how it relates to
> the sentence(s) above that.
Fair enough.
>
> > Do I have music online? I might....but before I submit it to you for
> > the right to comment, I need a reference from you an your right to
> > judge artisti merit.
>
> You gave me the right by saying that I'd have to be an inferior musician
> myself to have thought that there was an F#m7b5 chord there.
No - I never said that - you inferred something I didn't mean. It's
more related to the not having listened closely to it for 35 years. I
just assumed you had the sound of the record in your head, and was
baffled how you could hear that as F#m7b5.
> You judged me first. Now it's your turn.
See above.
>
> > I'll just say the guitar is my only source of
> > income these days. That's good enough for me. It would be funny if I
> > was a hack - I'd still be just as right...
>
> You'd still be right about the chord and you'd still be a dick about the
> insult.
Hey, it happens..you should know that ;-).
Sorry
>
PS: Thanx to the reader who help with Google Groups. Let's hope this
post makes it. I've copypasta'd it just in case.
Daniel Schorr
>
> Why MUST it be F#-7b5 in jazz circles. I believe Am/F# would be a
> valid interpretation, also. If not, why?
You did answer this, and I missed it. Sorry
>
> No - I never said that - you inferred something I didn't mean. It's
> more related to the not having listened closely to it for 35 years. I
> just assumed you had the sound of the record in your head, and was
> baffled how you could hear that as F#m7b5.
Also, this, again, really isn't totally directed at you personally,
but more towards the whole guitarist mentality that I've seen over the
years of labeling those first 4 chords the way they do based on
spelling, and not on what is really going on there.
Danny
PS- Google Groups really sucks. Damn you, Verizon...
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 14, 12:16 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Daniel Schorr wrote:
>>> Anyway....From what I remember I need to respond to in Joeys post:
>>> F#, C, E, A spells an F#m7-b,
>> Right. F# C E A spells F#m7b5.
>>
>>> but obviously it isnt from the context.
>> I don't know what that means.
>
> Really? You talk about context downstream in this post.
Not me. That's LJS's fetish.
> So, hmmmm
>>> It could also be thought of as an incmplete D9th chord,
>> Yes it could. The acoustical root of that chord is D, which I've stated
>> several times now I believe.
>> But typically, if the D is not present it is called F#m7b5 or Am/F# via
>> chord symbol notation and VIm7b5 in a RN analysis (at least in jazz
>> circles that's what we label it as in our analyses).
> Even though we are talking about a chord that doesn't exist in the
> song, I'll go with this.
>
> Why MUST it be F#-7b5 in jazz circles. I believe Am/F# would be a
> valid interpretation, also. If not, why?
Well, generally it's just a bit simpler.
In the jazz oriented harmonic analysis techniques that I am familiar
with, and that I use, there is no system for indicating an inversion
within the harmonic analysis. Eg. D/F# is just analyzed as IV.
Since the analysis is almost always accompanied by the chord symbols,
which is what is being analyzed, any inversions are indicated only by
the chord symbols.
But I could have labelled it Im6 as well.
Essentially Im6 and VIm7b5 are the same chord, which is why they both
usually have T function in the key.
>>> if one wants
>>> to broaden their thinking a little.
>> That has nothing to do with "broadening ones thinking".
>>
>>> But, that's probably not the best
>>> choice.
>> Right. That's why I didn't use it.
>>
>>> Sorry you took offense to my statement joey, and felt that it
>>> was an affront to your whole standing as a musician and a teacher, but
>>> that says more about you than me.
>> It was an affront and it says more about you that you don't realize
>> this. You must still have your head up your ass.
>
> Sorry you are still taking this as solely directed at you.
Sorry you still don't see it.
> In truth,
> it was directed at the whole "guitar player theory" mentality that
> I've seen with regard to the notating of this intro since my time on
> the internet ( like 9 years or something now). The whole "alt.guitar"
> approach to music theory [ i.e. the idea that spelling = theory]
I don't frequent that newsgroup very often. I haven't been there in at
least 9 years. Only someone with their 'head up their ass' would lump me
in with that crowd. Sorry, that's not a dis at you, because obviously
you wouldn't do that. lol
> that
> doesn't include any of the "broadening of thinking" we disagree about.
What is this "broadening of thinking" you keep referring to and how is
it relevant to this discussion?
>>> And you overlooked the fact that the
>>> acoustical root of that structureis indeed A.
>>> (Oh noes, but it's the soprano!!!!)
>> The acoustical root of F# C E A is D, not A.
>> You evidently don't know what is meant by the term acoustical root.
>
>
> I know what it means, and I know how to reckon it.
Based on what you say below, I don't think so.
> It seems that we
> disagree on which interval has the higher priority: I believe it is
> the p4, you seeem to think it's the M3. I believe that the p4 is
> higher, but I haven't double-checked that yet.
I don't know what you're going on about there but it looks like it has
nothing to do with acoustical roots.
The acoustical root of F#m7b5 is D because the overtone series of D
contains all of the notes of F#m7b5. D is the only tone whose OTS
contains those notes within the first 9 partials.
In a close voiced F#m7b5 chord (i.e. F# A C E) they are partials 5 6 7
and 9 of the OTS of D.
In the voicing in question (F# C E A) the partial numbers would be 5 7 9
and 12.
>>> Sorry again you took offense,
>> I'm not sure I believe you, but OK.
>
> OK
>>> but really - how many m7b5's have you
>>> heard in your life?
>> Probably more than you based on what you've written here lately.
>
> In a jazz context, you are right. I'd say I've heard just as many same
> structures studying and playing Bach, but they mostly wouldn't be
> considered 4 note chords per se.
>>> nough to know that it isn't one, I'd say.
>> Like I said, to me, F#m7b5 sounds better there.
>> In most instances in popular music when this particular "walk-down", aka
>> a minor chord clich�, occurs on Am - the chord with the F# in the bass
>> would be Am/F# aka F#m7b5.
>
> OK - this is the one that I forgot to add. The "better" statement.
> Look, I think it's perfectly fine for you as an artist to like that
> sound more. From my perspective the D/F# - Fmaj7 reminds me of an
> implied IV - iv,
VIm7b5 to bVI has the same effect, although it may be a bit less pronounced.
> and I happen to like THAT a lot. But it's not
> "better" in the context of STH. if you are going to say it's better,
> then you have tyo be able to answer the question, "Better for what?"
All I said is that I like it better. You can try to keep arguing with
that, but why would you?
I happen to think it's a more sophisticated sound and has voice leading
that I find less awkward than the original. But it probably does take
away from the original spirit and texture of the tune.
But I personally haven't been concerned with playing note-for-note cover
versions of *any* tune in a very very very long time, if ever.
> You can come up with a lot of answers, but none will mean " It's
> better for the original composition STH". The composition stands as a
> thing in itself, presented as the composer finished it. Someone else
> could say it would be better with bongos in it. Doesn't make it so.
>>> And
>>> functionally, the D/F#is practically equivilent to F#-7b5 in function?
>> In my original analysis I called the F#m7b5 a tonic function chord and I
>> called the D/F# a subdominant function chord in my corrected analysis,
>> which would seem to have me disagreeing with myself.
>
> Yeah, that and the fact that down below you say that the SD isn't
> reached until the Fmaj7 ( which is horseshit, no offense).
I guess you don't understand SD funct in minor keys then. No offence.
>> But the trouble is that in minor keys there is so much harmonic variety
>> due to the musica ficta notes that assigning a completely unambiguous
>> harmonic function to many chords is not really possible.
>>
>> VIm7b5 is kind of in a netherworld where it can sound very much like a
>> tonic chord or very much like a subdominant chord depending on context.
>> This is one such context. When the subdominant tone of the key is not
>> actually present on VIm7b5 (in the guise of Tb13) I tend to hear it as a
>> tonic function chord.
>> In the common Im VIm7b5 IIm7b5 V7 progression, the VIm7b5 most certainly
>> has T function, for example.
>> Even a IV chord can have T funct within a minor key given the right
>> circumstances. Jazz players are know to end minor key tunes on
>> IV13(#11), for example.
>> The most potent indicator of SD funct in minor keys is actually scale
>> degree b6, which both of these chords (VIm7b5 and IV, that is) obviously
>> do not have present.
>
> IDK - most of that sems irrelevant to this discussion.
That was me trying to explain to you how SD funct works in minor keys.
It's hardly irrelevant. You had challenged me on the validity of that
aspect of my analysis and now I've explained it to you. It's not my
fault if you don't understand it, but it's completely relevant.
> If someone
> wanted to do a jazz arrangement of the tune and solo, I'm sure it
> would be helpful ( No sarcasm intended)
Scale degree b6 is the prime indicator SD funct in minor key harmony no
matter what the style is.
Chords that contain Sb6 (and do not contain the leading tone) are pretty
much always SD funct chords. As a matter of fact it's impossible to have
a T funct chord if Sb6 is present in the chord. Any other tone from the
minor scales can be added to a Im chord without it affecting the T
function of the chord. This includes the subdominant (S4) as well as the
leading tone. I.e. In minor keys Sb6 is the sole destroyer of T function.
That's why the correct analysis of the function of chords like VIm7b5
and IV, which both contain S6 rather than Sb6, can be extremely
ambiguous or even meaningless within minor keys.
In major keys it's S4 that is the destroyer of T function and is the
most active tone in the key.
In minor keys it's Sb6 that has that role, not S4.
>> In STH the only place with a true SD funct chord is when the Fmaj7 chord
>> occurs.
>
> Justify this. The D/F# sounds like a duck, quacks like a duck....
See above.
>> But as far as STH is concerned if you use F#m7b5 on the last 1/2 of bar
>> 2 there is no real change to the progression, just a slight change of
>> colour compared to the original chord, a change for the better IMO.
>> I'm guessing that Jimmy Page as not spent a lot of hours thinking about
>> voice leading, or m7b5 chords.
>
>
> That's too badf you would make that assumption...you just want to
> paint the composer as a retarted rock guy,
Not really.
The blues rock movement in the 60's involved a conscious departure away
from the harmonic sophistication of modern jazz, which was the popular
music of the times. Part of that departure involved paring things down
to basic chords, like triads and power chords, and the subtleties of
voice leading were rarely an issue to be considered. And this was done
on purpose IMO. I.e. Lack of harmonic sophistication was an element of
the style and was pursued on purpose.
> when you have no idea what
> he knows and doesn't know. If you listen to his music, it's obvious
> that he knows about voice leading and m7b5 chords.
Jimmy Page is a brilliant rock guitarist and Led Zeppelin is a brilliant
band. But their brilliance is not based on harmonic sophistication or
the subtleties of voice leading. Some of their brilliance lies in not
pursuing those aesthetics.
>>> I'd expect the F# to lead to some sort of B as a 'rule' of sorts,
>> Mn7b5 chord do not always function as IIm7b5.
>> Only an inexperienced musician would suggest that this was the case.
>
> LOL - And when's the last time I beat my wife, right? Seriously, "rule
> of thumb of sorts" is the same as "do not always. We agree here.
> I don't agree that the m7b5 most oftentimes has the same function as a
> first inversion IV chord though
I never said it did.
What I said is that it usually has the function of a min6 chord in 3rd
inversion.
It's acoustical root is another matter entirely.
>>> maybe I am missing something.
>> Probably.
>> You say you're a guitar player. Have you tried playing STH yet my way?
>
> Yes. I have a guitar right next to my desk. I also experimented with
> my IV - iv substitution.
>
>> Do you really find it all that different sounding? I sure don't.
>
> Yes, mostly. Compared to the original arrangent, I do.
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree then.
>>> And if I haven't heard a record in 35
>>> years, I'll make sure, after this thread, to give it a re-listen
>>> before I try to counsel anyone about it. So, this has been helpful to
>>> me, so I don't make that mistake myself.
>> I really don't know what you're talking about above or how it relates to
>> the sentence(s) above that.
>
> Fair enough.
>>> Do I have music online? I might....but before I submit it to you for
>>> the right to comment, I need a reference from you an your right to
>>> judge artisti merit.
>> You gave me the right by saying that I'd have to be an inferior musician
>> myself to have thought that there was an F#m7b5 chord there.
>
> No - I never said that - you inferred something I didn't mean.
Well perhaps you could choose your words more carefully in the future then.
Joey Goldstein
>> Why MUST it be F#-7b5 in jazz circles. I believe Am/F# would be a
>> valid interpretation, also. If not, why?
>
> You did answer this, and I missed it. Sorry
No, I hadn't.
But I just did in my reply to your other post.
>> No - I never said that - you inferred something I didn't mean. It's
>> more related to the not having listened closely to it for 35 years. I
>> just assumed you had the sound of the record in your head, and was
>> baffled how you could hear that as F#m7b5.
>
> Also, this, again, really isn't totally directed at you personally,
> but more towards the whole guitarist mentality that I've seen over the
> years of labeling those first 4 chords the way they do based on
> spelling, and not on what is really going on there.
Are you trying to say that you disagree with calling the 2nd chord
Am(maj9)/G#?
If so, then what would you call it if you had to write a chord chart for
this tune without any standard notation of the original arrangement?
Joey Goldstein
> As a matter of fact it's impossible to have
> a T funct chord if Sb6 is present in the chord.
Actually, "impossible" is a little bit too strong a word there.
I'm sure someone has already come up with or will eventually come up
with an exception to this. But the type of music that this exception
will be operastive in will not be Tonal music in the CPP sense.
There are already examples in modern jazz of a minor chord with added b6
that serves as a modal (aeolian) type of tonal centre.
But it's a rather unsettled type of tonal centre, totally atypical from
CPP notions of a tonic minor chord.
Hell, we've even used dim chords as a type of I chord in jazz, as
unsettled as they are.
> In major keys it's S4 that is the destroyer of T function and is the
> most active tone in the key.
And exceptions to this also exist within modern jazz.
There are blues based tunes that use a I7sus4 chord, and it feels
perfectly suitable as a home chord.
But within typical notions of maj key tonality S4 can not normally be
present on a chord that is intended to have T function.
> In minor keys it's Sb6 that has that role, not S4.
--
LJS
lol,
like so many things in life, it takes some getting used to! I can say
that it has been (touch wood) extremely reliable for a long time with
me and in all kinds of conditions all over the world and I have never
had any problems finding things in the archive once I remember a few
key words. I know there is a lot of prejudice towards Google, but they
have so much free stuff that works really well and a very good record
of reliability. I tried some other readers and they were not nearly as
simple.
LJS
LJS
Err. NO! They don't. When you mention that they have the same function
in the key, you are totally off. In the key of Cmin, the i6 would be
an ending chord in a cadence but the chord is analyzed as a vi7-5 it
is likely to go to a Dominant chord as a 2nd class chord (SD to you)
or to a ii7-5 chord.
You never did understand the RN and how it relates to function. The
way you name the chord is based upon the function. If you analyze it
as a vi and it is at the end of a tune for example, you would be
wrong. In a functional analysis it would be a tonic chord. If you
wrote it as an i6 and it was a chord going to a ii or a V, then it
would most likely be incorrect as in FUNCTIONAL analysis, the RN name
tells you HOW the chord is functioning. This is one of the problems
with the Alpha notation that passes as analysis in some guitar
circles. It has no provision to show function by the symbol. That and
the other limitation you mentioned with not being able to show the
inversions could be worked out and what about that slash notation?
Doesn't that show the inversion? You just have to make a note that it
is a bass and not a polychord ( if the polychord is possible in the
context of the tune)
LJS
Joey Goldstein
You are stuck in your old-school CPP analysis techniques and concepts.
Those techniques are great for analyzing pre-composed music written in
the CPP style but that way of thinking and those analysis techniques are
of little use to an improviser who must improvise over a given harmonic
sketch.
If you want to understand the way this stuff is thought about in the
jazz community I suggest that you purchase and read this book: The
Chord-Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony, by Nettles and Graff, Advance Music
publisher.
Until you do this you will never understand the types of harmonic
analyses that I do here and you will always be talking out of your ass
when you talk about the way that jazz musicians conceive of things, like
you're doing now.
Daniel Schorr
>
> Are you trying to say that you disagree with calling the 2nd chord
> Am(maj9)/G#?
If you have to make a chord diagram and need a name for the
fingering, then no, not at all. that clearly shows what is going on
and doesn't interfere with anything. It's the ones that call it some
kind of E chord which I don't like.
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 15, 2:22 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>> Are you trying to say that you disagree with calling the 2nd chord
>> Am(maj9)/G#?
>
> If you have to make a chord diagram and need a name for the
> fingering, then no, not at all. that clearly shows what is going on
> and doesn't interfere with anything. It's the ones that call it some
> kind of E chord which I don't like.
Well the only person here making the case for that was Jon and he's been
corrected on that score several times now.
What I was talking about in that regard had to do with the notion that
an improviser could choose to play off of that chord *as if* it was E
chord of some sort and that doing so might produce some interesting and
unexpected sounds that are really not all that off-the-wall at all.
And I also pointed out that the acoustical root of that chord is
actually E, which helps to justify the approach suggested above.
But I'd never expect to see a chord chart for this tune with that chord
labelled as an E chord.
On the other hand, if these chords were used on a different tune with a
different harmonic rhythm, where the chord in question lasted for a
significantly longer duration, then the chord symbol E+(add12)/G# [or
G#+(add#9)] might actually make sense. But even then, it might not make
all that much sense. lol
Jazz players often try to look at chords from different spellings to see
if there's another way to approach soloing over it.
By noticing that chord "a" has some characteristics in common with chord
"b" we sometimes try playing on chord "a" as if it's really chord "b",
and sometimes this results in some interesting effects. Sometimes we
just do it by accident and happen to like the result.
Sometimes these effects become popular and become a part of the jazz
language.
I can't vouch for the historical/musicological correctness of what I'm
about to say, but it's possible that the common device known as the
tritone substitute dominant chord and the manner in which jazz musicians
use this device may have arisen by just such a process.
Eg. We noticed that G7 and Db7 had certain similarities. Somebody
somewhere started improvising over G7 as if it was really Db7 and it
happened to catch on within the jazz community. The rest is history.
I think that much of the harmonic complexity we hear around ourselves
today came into being along similar lines.
Daniel Schorr
>
> > Why MUST it be F#-7b5 in jazz circles. I believe Am/F# would be a
> > valid interpretation, also. If not, why?
>
> Well, generally it's just a bit simpler.
> In the jazz oriented harmonic analysis techniques that I am familiar
> with, and that I use, there is no system for indicating an inversion
> within the harmonic analysis. Eg. D/F# is just analyzed as IV.
> Since the analysis is almost always accompanied by the chord symbols,
> which is what is being analyzed, any inversions are indicated only by
> the chord symbols.
> But I could have labelled it Im6 as well.
> Essentially Im6 and VIm7b5 are the same chord, which is why they both
> usually have T function in the key.
It's simple. Given:
Am - Am(maj7) - Am7 - _____ D/F# - F Maj7
which one fits better - Am6 or F#m7b5 ?
What is this "broadening of thinking" you keep referring to and how
is
> it relevant to this discussion?
>
> >>> Sorry you took offense to my statement joey, and felt that it
> >>> was an affront to your whole standing as a musician and a teacher, but
> >>> that says more about you than me.
> >> It was an affront and it says more about you that you don't realize
> >> this. You must still have your head up your ass.
>
> > Sorry you are still taking this as solely directed at you.
>
> Sorry you still don't see it.
>
> > In truth,
> > it was directed at the whole "guitar player theory" mentality that
> > I've seen with regard to the notating of this intro since my time on
> > the internet ( like 9 years or something now). The whole "alt.guitar"
> > approach to music theory [ i.e. the idea that spelling = theory]
>
> I don't frequent that newsgroup very often. I haven't been there in at
> least 9 years. Only someone with their 'head up their ass' would lump me
> in with that crowd. Sorry, that's not a dis at you, because obviously
> you wouldn't do that. lol
>
lol - you won't let this NOT be about you
>
>
>
> >>> And you overlooked the fact that the
> >>> acoustical root of that structureis indeed A.
> >>> (Oh noes, but it's the soprano!!!!)
> >> The acoustical root of F# C E A is D, not A.
> >> You evidently don't know what is meant by the term acoustical root.
>
> > I know what it means, and I know how to reckon it.
>
> Based on what you say below, I don't think so.
>
> > It seems that we
> > disagree on which interval has the higher priority: I believe it is
> > the p4, you seeem to think it's the M3. I believe that the p4 is
> > higher, but I haven't double-checked that yet.
>
> I don't know what you're going on about there but it looks like it has
> nothing to do with acoustical roots.
This is Hindemith's method for determining roots. it is based on
difference tones. In this system, intervals have roots. The intervals
are classified in order of significance: p4ths are higher than M3rds
harmonically;since that interval has the higher note as it's root,
and the 4th is the 'best' interval in this system, the root is
determined to be A.
> The acoustical root of F#m7b5 is D because the overtone series of D
> contains all of the notes of F#m7b5. D is the only tone whose OTS
> contains those notes within the first 9 partials.
> In a close voiced F#m7b5 chord (i.e. F# A C E) they are partials 5 6 7
> and 9 of the OTS of D.
> In the voicing in question (F# C E A) the partial numbers would be 5 7 9
> and 12.
Does this system have a name that I can google, an author associated
with it, or something else I can use to research this on the net?
>
> >>> And
> >>> functionally, the D/F#is practically equivilent to F#-7b5 in function?
> >> In my original analysis I called the F#m7b5 a tonic function chord and I
> >> called the D/F# a subdominant function chord in my corrected analysis,
> >> which would seem to have me disagreeing with myself.
>
> > Yeah, that and the fact that down below you say that the SD isn't
> > reached until the Fmaj7 ( which is horseshit, no offense).
>
> I guess you don't understand SD funct in minor keys then. No offence.
Look six lines up - You said "D/F# is a subdominant function chord in
my correct analysis".
Then you said " The SD function chord is not truly reached until the F
Maj 7".
Then below you tell me It's not your fault if I don't understand it.
Is this how you teach your students?
>
> >> But the trouble is that in minor keys there is so much harmonic variety
> >> due to the musica ficta notes that assigning a completely unambiguous
> >> harmonic function to many chords is not really possible.
>
> >> VIm7b5 is kind of in a netherworld where it can sound very much like a
> >> tonic chord or very much like a subdominant chord depending on context.
> >> This is one such context. When the subdominant tone of the key is not
> >> actually present on VIm7b5 (in the guise of Tb13) I tend to hear it as a
> >> tonic function chord.
> >> In the common Im VIm7b5 IIm7b5 V7 progression, the VIm7b5 most certainly
> >> has T function, for example.
> >> Even a IV chord can . Jazz players are know to end minor key tunes on
> >> IV13(#11), for example.
Now you are going on about an F#-7b5 which isn't even in the tune and
is only in the discussion because you have been playing the wrong
chord for years.
> >> The most potent indicator of SD funct in minor keys is actually scale
> >> degree b6, which both of these chords (VIm7b5 and IV, that is) obviously
> >> do not have present.
Thus finishing up a discussion about jazz which we are talking
about....why? because you like jazz.<shrug> OK
The IV in stairway to heaven is not "hav(ing) T funct within a minor
key given the right
circumstances".
>
> > IDK - most of that sems irrelevant to this discussion.
>
> That was me trying to explain to you how SD funct works in minor keys.
> It's hardly irrelevant. You had challenged me on the validity of that
> aspect of my analysis and now I've explained it to you. It's not my
> fault if you don't understand it, but it's completely relevant.
>
> Scale degree b6 is the prime indicator SD funct in minor key harmony no
> matter what the style is.
> Chords that contain Sb6 (and do not contain the leading tone) are pretty
> much always SD funct chords.
Sounds like that Fmaj7 then is a CONTINUATION of the SD function
started by the D/F# - pretty much like the IV-iv I am fond of.
>
> >> In STH the only place with a true SD funct chord is when the Fmaj7 chord
> >> occurs.
Who's theory is this?Specifically what theorist or school or whatever.
I think I have an idea who but will wait to see if the person you
mention is the same one.
[snip history lesson I don't need]
>
> Jimmy Page is a brilliant rock guitarist and Led Zeppelin is a brilliant
> band. But their brilliance is not based on harmonic sophistication or
> the subtleties of voice leading. Some of their brilliance lies in not
> pursuing those aesthetics.
Your approach to this song is so confused you can't even see the
simple voice leading right in front of your eyes in this intro.
If you'd like to hear a more sophisticated approach taken by him
concerning voice-leading, have a listen to "The Rain Song"
>
> >>> I'd expect the F# to lead to some sort of B as a 'rule' of sorts,
> >> Mn7b5 chord do not always function as IIm7b5.
> >> Only an inexperienced musician would suggest that this was the case.
>
> > LOL - And when's the last time I beat my wife, right? Seriously, "rule
> > of thumb of sorts" is the same as "do not always. We agree here.
> > I don't agree that the m7b5 most oftentimes has the same function as a
> > first inversion IV chord though
>
> I never said it did.
> What I said is that it usually has the function of a min6 chord in 3rd
> inversion.
Good. Than we can fill in that blank with Am6 and call it a day.
> It's acoustical root is another matter entirely.
I wouldn't mind reading more about that method.
Daniel Schorr
difference tones. In this system, intervals have roots. The intervals
are classified in order of significance: p4ths are higher than M3rds
harmonically;since that interval has the higher note as it's root,
and the 4th is the 'best' interval in this system, the root is
determined to be A.
That last sentence would be more accurate if I had said either " The
p5th is considered the best interval in this system" or "The p4th is
the best interval in this CHORD".
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 15, 2:19 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>>> Why MUST it be F#-7b5 in jazz circles. I believe Am/F# would be a
>>> valid interpretation, also. If not, why?
>> Well, generally it's just a bit simpler.
>> In the jazz oriented harmonic analysis techniques that I am familiar
>> with, and that I use, there is no system for indicating an inversion
>> within the harmonic analysis. Eg. D/F# is just analyzed as IV.
>> Since the analysis is almost always accompanied by the chord symbols,
>> which is what is being analyzed, any inversions are indicated only by
>> the chord symbols.
>> But I could have labelled it Im6 as well.
>> Essentially Im6 and VIm7b5 are the same chord, which is why they both
>> usually have T function in the key.
>
> It's simple. Given:
>
> Am - Am(maj7) - Am7 - _____ D/F# - F Maj7
>
> which one fits better - Am6 or F#m7b5 ?
Either one (i.e. Am/F# or F#m7b5) works fine.
> What is this "broadening of thinking" you keep referring to and how
> is
>> it relevant to this discussion?
>
>>>>> Sorry you took offense to my statement joey, and felt that it
>>>>> was an affront to your whole standing as a musician and a teacher, but
>>>>> that says more about you than me.
>>>> It was an affront and it says more about you that you don't realize
>>>> this. You must still have your head up your ass.
>>> Sorry you are still taking this as solely directed at you.
>> Sorry you still don't see it.
>
>
>>> In truth,
>>> it was directed at the whole "guitar player theory" mentality that
>>> I've seen with regard to the notating of this intro since my time on
>>> the internet ( like 9 years or something now). The whole "alt.guitar"
>>> approach to music theory [ i.e. the idea that spelling = theory]
>> I don't frequent that newsgroup very often. I haven't been there in at
>> least 9 years. Only someone with their 'head up their ass' would lump me
>> in with that crowd. Sorry, that's not a dis at you, because obviously
>> you wouldn't do that. lol
>
> lol - you won't let this NOT be about you
Only because you keep trying to make it about me.
>>
>>
>>>>> And you overlooked the fact that the
>>>>> acoustical root of that structureis indeed A.
>>>>> (Oh noes, but it's the soprano!!!!)
>>>> The acoustical root of F# C E A is D, not A.
>>>> You evidently don't know what is meant by the term acoustical root.
>>> I know what it means, and I know how to reckon it.
>> Based on what you say below, I don't think so.
>>
>>> It seems that we
>>> disagree on which interval has the higher priority: I believe it is
>>> the p4, you seeem to think it's the M3. I believe that the p4 is
>>> higher, but I haven't double-checked that yet.
>> I don't know what you're going on about there but it looks like it has
>> nothing to do with acoustical roots.
>
> This is Hindemith's method for determining roots. it is based on
> difference tones.
Well we seem to be talking about the same concept.
But with all due respect you don't seem to understand it very well.
> In this system, intervals have roots. The intervals
> are classified in order of significance: p4ths are higher than M3rds
> harmonically;since that interval has the higher note as it's root,
> and the 4th is the 'best' interval in this system, the root is
> determined to be A.
You are correct that the individual intervals have roots and you have
correctly identified the roots of the individual intervals.
But you have not accounted for how these intervals are spaced within the
entire chord voicing.
Your idea of 'best' interval is all mixed up in particular.
You have correctly identified the intervals that individually have the
strongest sense of root when played as intervals, but you have not
accounted for how those intervals occur within the actual chord voicing.
One aspect of the the theory involves the idea that the strongest
intervals (i.e. the intervals with the lowest partial numbers) within a
chord voicing will influence the ear as to which of the potential
acoustical roots (if there is any ambiguity) is the most persuasive.
Eg. A P5h in the *lower regions* of a chord voicing will almost always
influence the ear that the lower note comprising the 5th is the overall
root of the entire chord, no matter how complex the freq ratios for the
intervals above the P5th.
But we also have to take into account the way that the other tones that
are present in the chord fit, or don't fit, into the OTS of the tone
that we imagine as being the acoustiucal root of the chord.
In the chord F# A C E if we look at the ac roots of each individual
interval we see that:
The ac rt of F#-A is D - because min 3rds first appear in the OTS
between partials 5 and 6, and the tone D is the only tone whose 5th and
6th partials sound anything like F# and A.
The ac rt of F#-C is also D because these tones appear as the 5th and
7th partials of D.
The ac rt of F#-E is actually F# because the min 7th interval first
appears in the OTS between partials 4 and 7. F#-E occurs in the OTS of
F# at the 4th and 7th partials.
The ac rt of A-C is F - because these notes occur as partials 5 and 6 of
the OTS of F.
The ac rt of A-E is A - because these two notes occur as partials 2 and
3 of the OTS of A.
The ac rt of C-E is C - because these two notes occur as partials 4 and
5 of the OTS of C.
So in this voicing we appear to have 5 different ac roots fighting each
other for prominence in the ear as the ac rt of the entire chord voicing.
By your accounting method we'd have to say that the root of the chord is
A because the simplest interval within the entire chord is the P5th
between A and E.
But if A is to be seen as the ac rt *of the entire chord voicing* we now
have to account for how the other notes in this chord would fit, or not
fit, into the OTS of A.
If A is the ac root, then the F# has to be seen as either a distorted
version of the 7th partial or as the 13th partial. In order to keep the
partial numbers low, and to give your view a fighting chance, lets go
with a distorted 7th partial.
This makes the A above F# the 8th partial, the C above that a distorted
10th partial, and the E on top the 12th partial.
I.e. If A is the ac rt of this chord the partial numbers are being
experienced as 7*:8*;10:12. [The asterisk is being used to denote a
distorted partial.]
If we look at C as the ac rt *of the entire chord voicing*, then the
partial numbers would be: 11:13:16:30 [Remember that F# first appears in
the OTS of C at the 11th partial.]
If F# is the ac rt of the chord, then the partial numbers would be:
4:5*:6*:7.
These partial numbers are very low, the lowest yet, which accounts for
why this chord is so often heard as having F# as its root. But there are
2 distorted partials at important locations in the series.
To make a long story short, the tone whose OTS has the notes of this
voicing occurring at the lowest partials with the least number of
distorted partials, is D.
With D as the ac rt, we can see the partials as being: 5:6:7:9.
Note that this chord is acoustically pure in that there are no distorted
partials and the partial numbers are relatively low.
Now, here are the partial numbers with the various candidates for ac rt
of the actual voicing that I was using, F# C E A.
If D is the act rt then the partials are: 5:7:9:12. (No distorted
partials; relatively low partial numbers.)
If F# is the ac rt then the partial numbers are: 4:6*:7:10*. (Low
partial numbers, but two distorted partials.)
If A is the ac rt the partials are: 7*:10*:12:16. (High partial numbers
and 2 distorted partials.)
If C is the ac rt the partials are: 11:16:20:26.
(No distorted partials, but the partial numbers are very high.)
So, while you have correctly accounted for the ac roots of the
individual intervals and you have correctly identified the
simplest/strongest/'best' of these intervals as far as their own ac
roots are concerned, you have not accounted for the ac rt of the entire
chord voicing.
>> The acoustical root of F#m7b5 is D because the overtone series of D
>> contains all of the notes of F#m7b5. D is the only tone whose OTS
>> contains those notes within the first 9 partials.
>> In a close voiced F#m7b5 chord (i.e. F# A C E) they are partials 5 6 7
>> and 9 of the OTS of D.
>> In the voicing in question (F# C E A) the partial numbers would be 5 7 9
>> and 12.
>
> Does this system have a name that I can google, an author associated
> with it, or something else I can use to research this on the net?
>
>
>>>>> And
>>>>> functionally, the D/F#is practically equivilent to F#-7b5 in function?
>>>> In my original analysis I called the F#m7b5 a tonic function chord and I
>>>> called the D/F# a subdominant function chord in my corrected analysis,
>>>> which would seem to have me disagreeing with myself.
>>> Yeah, that and the fact that down below you say that the SD isn't
>>> reached until the Fmaj7 ( which is horseshit, no offense).
>> I guess you don't understand SD funct in minor keys then. No offence.
>
>
> Look six lines up - You said "D/F# is a subdominant function chord in
> my correct analysis".
> Then you said " The SD function chord is not truly reached until the F
> Maj 7".
Look for the other lines that talk about how these chords with scale
degree 6 are extremely ambiguous as far as harmonic function is concerned.
> Then below you tell me It's not your fault if I don't understand it.
It isn't my fault. It's tricky, but it's not that tricky.
> Is this how you teach your students?
Yes, it is.
But with my students I don't have to deal with the vagaries of usenet
and text-only descriptions.
And I'm not a harmony teacher, so I don't really need to do these types
of explanations all that often. All I teach is guitar, jazz guitar.
>>>> But the trouble is that in minor keys there is so much harmonic variety
>>>> due to the musica ficta notes that assigning a completely unambiguous
>>>> harmonic function to many chords is not really possible.
>>>> VIm7b5 is kind of in a netherworld where it can sound very much like a
>>>> tonic chord or very much like a subdominant chord depending on context.
>>>> This is one such context. When the subdominant tone of the key is not
>>>> actually present on VIm7b5 (in the guise of Tb13) I tend to hear it as a
>>>> tonic function chord.
>>>> In the common Im VIm7b5 IIm7b5 V7 progression, the VIm7b5 most certainly
>>>> has T function, for example.
>>>> Even a IV chord can . Jazz players are know to end minor key tunes on
>>>> IV13(#11), for example.
>
> Now you are going on about an F#-7b5 which isn't even in the tune and
> is only in the discussion because you have been playing the wrong
> chord for years.
I'm doing that because you don't understand SD function in minor keys.
I'm trying to explain it to you. I believe you even asked me to do that.
So quit your belly-aching and go back and read it again. Lol.
>>>> The most potent indicator of SD funct in minor keys is actually scale
>>>> degree b6, which both of these chords (VIm7b5 and IV, that is) obviously
>>>> do not have present.
>
> Thus finishing up a discussion about jazz which we are talking
> about....why? because you like jazz.<shrug> OK
Sb6 is the most potent indicator of SD function harmony no matter what
style of music is being considered, as long as it involves minor key
harmony. This has nothing to do with jazz. <double shrug, sigh, fart>
> The IV in stairway to heaven is not "hav(ing) T funct within a minor
> key given the right
> circumstances".
That's a poorly formed sentence and I don't know what you mean.
But IV9 is often used in jazz to end a minor key tune.
It's very closely related to Im6.
Whether or not IV9 should be analyzed as having T function in this
instance is in many ways subjective, but I'd say yes.
>>> IDK - most of that sems irrelevant to this discussion.
>> That was me trying to explain to you how SD funct works in minor keys.
>> It's hardly irrelevant. You had challenged me on the validity of that
>> aspect of my analysis and now I've explained it to you. It's not my
>> fault if you don't understand it, but it's completely relevant.
>
>> Scale degree b6 is the prime indicator SD funct in minor key harmony no
>> matter what the style is.
>> Chords that contain Sb6 (and do not contain the leading tone) are pretty
>> much always SD funct chords.
>
> Sounds like that Fmaj7 then is a CONTINUATION of the SD function
> started by the D/F# - pretty much like the IV-iv I am fond of.
If that's the way you want to see it then that's fine with me.
Like I said, in minor keys IV's harmonic function is ambiguous.
>>>> In STH the only place with a true SD funct chord is when the Fmaj7 chord
>>>> occurs.
>
> Who's theory is this?Specifically what theorist or school or whatever.
> I think I have an idea who but will wait to see if the person you
> mention is the same one.
I learned about it through Gordon Delamont's book, Modern Harmonic
Technique. I'm guessing that he got it from Hindemith, like you.
> [snip history lesson I don't need]
>> Jimmy Page is a brilliant rock guitarist and Led Zeppelin is a brilliant
>> band. But their brilliance is not based on harmonic sophistication or
>> the subtleties of voice leading. Some of their brilliance lies in not
>> pursuing those aesthetics.
>
>
> Your approach to this song is so confused
My approach to this song is not confused at all.
But you are confused regarding my approach to the song. Oh well.
> you can't even see the
> simple voice leading right in front of your eyes in this intro.
I see the simple voice leading and i don't really like all that much.
He jumps from the high C in the melody down a tritone to F#. That's an
awkward melodic transition between those two chords in my opinion.
There's some other things I don't like about it too, but I won't bore
you with all that. I just like my way better.
But if I'm ever playing this tune in a cover band in front of any rabid
Led Zepellin fans I'll be sure to play it the right way, because nothing
is worth going through this conversation again with someone like you.
> If you'd like to hear a more sophisticated approach taken by him
> concerning voice-leading, have a listen to "The Rain Song"
Like I said... He's a brilliant guitar player.
>>>>> I'd expect the F# to lead to some sort of B as a 'rule' of sorts,
>>>> Mn7b5 chord do not always function as IIm7b5.
>>>> Only an inexperienced musician would suggest that this was the case.
>>> LOL - And when's the last time I beat my wife, right? Seriously, "rule
>>> of thumb of sorts" is the same as "do not always. We agree here.
>>> I don't agree that the m7b5 most oftentimes has the same function as a
>>> first inversion IV chord though
>> I never said it did.
>> What I said is that it usually has the function of a min6 chord in 3rd
>> inversion.
>
> Good. Than we can fill in that blank with Am6 and call it a day.
>
>> It's acoustical root is another matter entirely.
>
> I wouldn't mind reading more about that method.
See above.
Joey Goldstein
Please see my other reply to your other post in this thread.
What you say above is fine for individual intervals, but there's more to
it when you have chords with several intervals.
Daniel Schorr
>
> > Danny
>
> > PS- Google Groups really sucks. Damn you, Verizon...
>
> lol,
>
> like so many things in life, it takes some getting used to! I can say
> that it has been (touch wood) extremely reliable for a long time with
> me and in all kinds of conditions all over the world and I have never
> had any problems finding things in the archive once I remember a few
> key words. I know there is a lot of prejudice towards Google, but they
> have so much free stuff that works really well and a very good record
> of reliability. I tried some other readers and they were not nearly as
> simple.
>
> LJS
It's good for what it is: a web based interface ( and a way for Google
to continue to track our every move on the internet lol) But it
doesn't come close to doing what a dedicated newsreader can do, such
as my old one, Forte Agent.
With that, I could sort by author, date thread, time etc, administer
killfilters for the likes of Wereoboy etc. Sort messages by saved,
unsaved,set message priorities and a whole host of other things, the
leat of which was deleting old messages I had nouse for. This is what
used to be known as a kludge- maybe it still is idk - but the
integration with Google reader is very helpful for seeing only what
you havent seen before. But then again, In my last message to Joey, I
wasn't able to "Paste as quoted text" and my shit looked all retarted
(although I am sure Joe thought my shit looks all retarted anyway
lol). Plus, the digest feature to send messages/updates to my email/
phone seems to want to send them and randomly determined intervals
based on the relative positions of Mercury and Jupiter or something.
It'll have to do for now - I'm not downloading anything these days so
I am not going to pay for newsgroup server access. It'll have to do
for the time being.
Danny
Jack Campin - bogus address
> I am not going to pay for newsgroup server access. It'll have to do
> for the time being.
There are free servers out there - the one I use (albasani.net),
aioe.org, eternal-september.org. Or news.individual.net, which
is better but costs 10 euros a year.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
LJS
With google, Have you tried using their ' edit tabs' to sort as you
like? Remember, the idea of google is NOT to put into folders but to
use tags and sorts to find anything you want.
LJS