The Basics of Chord Relationships (Introduction)
Albert Silverman
BASICS OF CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (INTRODUCTION)
by Albert Silverman
February 5, 1999
--------------------------------------------
Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or music
conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as "theory."
Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the generally
accepted meaning of "theory" and the special interpretation which Musical
Academia attaches to this word.
Webster's dictionary defines "theory" as:
"A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle offered to explain phenomena."
It can be concluded that, in accordance with this definition,
THEORY IS SYNONYMOUS WITH *UNDERSTANDING*
For example, in the field of science, the phenomena which are explained by
different theories are such things as (in physics) the motion of bodies,
the nature of vibrations, the nature of chemical reactions, etc., etc. In
other words, the explanation which is provided by the theory helps one to
understand the nature of some particular phenomena.
For reasons which will be explained shortly, Musical Academia takes the
position that the phenomenon which is being explained (in accordance with
Webster's definition) by musical "theory" is _musical Art and History_
(which will henceforth be referred to as "Ancient Art"). This
interpretation as to what is meant by "theory" has profound and far-
reaching implications.
CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (HARMONY)
Those who have had any significant contact with music know that what is
commonly referred to as "harmony" (the major body of music theory) deals
with "chords." Considering the preoccupation with chords in teaching the
music of the common-practice period (during which harmony reached the peak
of its development), one would certainly expect that the purpose of
teaching harmonic theory is to provide the student with an UNDERSTANDING of
chord relationships.
Unfortunately, however, this is not the case. At the heart of the problem
is the dismal failure of Ancient Art to come to grips with the nature of
CHORD RELATIONSHIPS
Although the Modern view of chord relationships diverges significantly from
the view in the common-practice period, Ancient Art must necessarily
reflect the prevalent view in that period of time. Indeed, it is the
specific purpose of Musical Academia to avoid "revisionism" of musical
history, with the express purpose of preserving Ancient Art into eternity.
In a cruel joke perpetrated at the expense of theoretical comprehension,
the course in Ancient Art which is dished up to the hapless and unwary
student
UNDER THE GUISE OF "THEORY"
fails miserably to provide him/her with the understanding of basic
theoretical principles.
Compounding the problem, the unwary student is unable to make the crucial
distinction between Ancient Art and the principles of chord relationships.
Needless to say, those who are perpetuating this _theoretical fraud_ upon
students are hardly chomping at the bit to point out this fact. If the
student knew what is deliberately being hidden, he/she might have some
vigorous objections to this trickery.
Were Musical Academia to *REASONABLY* explain the principles of chord
relationships, the objection to referring to Ancient Art as "theory" would
be less strenuous. In that event, the theory would at least be devoted to
an explanation of harmonic PRINCIPLES, rather than simply being an
explanation of musical PRACTICE (how-to-do-it). However, the Ancient
"theoretical explanation" of harmony in the common-practice period is
NOT a reasonable explanation of harmonic principles. On the contrary,
Ancient Art (at least the harmonic portion of it) is a horribly complex
and virtually incomprehensible maze of irrelevance, irrationality,
inconsistency, and incoherence ("i" is a wonderful letter for beginning
a word!) This hardly serves to promote the needed understanding of chord
relationships.
In a nutshell:
Rather than to explain the principles of chord relationships, the
purpose of teaching Ancient Art (the harmonic portion of it) within
Musical Academia is to _explain how music was written_ during the
common-practice period.
What's wrong with this approach to teaching harmony? It all depends upon
one's objective in studying the subject. There is nothing wrong with this
basic philosophy IF one's purpose in studying "theory" is to learn about
the compositional STYLE of this period (ranging roughly from 1650 to 1900).
However, if one's purpose is to learn the principles of chord
relationships, then _studying Ancient Art in the hope of obtaining an
UNDERSTANDING OF THESE IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIPS is futile_. It will not
get the job done. Period.
Who NEEDS to understand chord relationships?
In the ultimate analysis, what it all boils down to in the musical wash is
whether or not Musical Academia should serve those who have a NEED to
understand the principles of chord relationships. In this regard, anyone
who
(1) composes "serious" music based upon the triad,
(2) arranges or transcribes music in the popular style,
(3) improvises in the popular style, or
(4) teaches music in the popular style
needs to understand these principles. And it should be a foregone
conclusion (but apparently it is not) that composers who do not compose
triad-based music and have no intention of doing so nevertheless NEED this
knowledge, _and need it desperately, since it is the backbone of
compositional literacy_.
On the other hand, although it will probably be denied by those who resent
their status as "second-class citizens" in the academic Musical Caste
System, there is very little evidence that the instrumental performer (of
so-called "serious" music) need know much of anything about chord
relationships. All that he (or she) need do is read the notes which are set
in front of him (or her); the principles which were employed to compose the
music are of no practical importance in its performance. In other words, the
instrumental performer _who is not improvising_ can, without any
significant knowledge of chord relationships, safely navigate his/her way
through the printed score, set there as a roadmap. This fact of musical
life is proved thousands of times, day in and day out.
Following an innate law of the universe, that which is not of practical
necessity is guaranteed to fall through the cracks. Not unexpectedly,
therefore, the vast majority of music students are grist for Musical
Academia's mill. Of primary importance in Musical Academia is that the
"purity" of Art Music must not, under any conditions, be diluted by
catering to what it considers to be "heathen" popular interests. Thus it is
quite understandable that, when push comes to shove, Musical Academia will
adhere to its self-appointed charter, which is to teach Ancient Art, and
let those be damned who need something else! Musical Academia will, of
course, be glad to take their money and give them a certificate of
attendance.
Ancient Art versus Chord Relationships
Given the hypothesis that Ancient Art (1) must be preserved, and (2) does
not reasonably explain the principles of chord relationships, how can these
principles be successfully taught, assuming that there is a real desire
to teach them to everyone who "needs" them?
In principle, it is a simple matter to keep Ancient Art and chord
relationships firmly separated. Imagine, if you will, this classroom
scenario:
In this corner, folks, we have that jester, "Ancient Bunko." While he
is an aesthetic fellow who is artistically useful and is not
interested in revising musical history, he is nevertheless a ludicrous
and enigmatic clown, who will entertain us with his ridiculous
patch-and-piece efforts to conform with compositional practice.
Take a bow, AB.
Over here in this other corner, folks, we have "Chord Relationships."
While he has _excellent aural correlation_, is logical and well-
organized, and conforms with triadic compositional practice in ANY
time period, he cannot abide that insufferable prankster/conjurer,
Ancient Bunko. Lighten up, CR.
Be very sure that you keep your fighters straight, or YOU will wind up
on the floor!
What is the problem with this dual approach to teaching harmony? Contrary
to the old saying, honesty is NOT the best policy in the halls of musical
academe. On the contrary, honesty is an unpardonable sin here, wherein
three arguments can be raised against "honesty-in-chord-relationships."
(1) It casts incomprehensible Ancient Art in an unfavorable light.
(2) Eliminating the mystique and incredible confusion that are part and
parcel of musical "art" poses a grave danger to the Academic Musical
Caste System. How can the musical caste be delineated and the riff-raff
kept out of The Club, if the playing field is leveled by destroying the
"understanding barrier" that is part and parcel of Ancient Theory?
(3) Any theory which provides an UNDERSTANDING of chord relationships is
(paraphrasing the words of one typical academic representative who
teaches music theory and composition in a large Midwestern university)
"artistically useless." In other words, boys and girls, eliminate the
mystique, confusion, and absurdity from music "theory" and it is no
longer "art"!
So what is a poor academician to do, without giving away the show? The
generally accepted "solution" to this dilemma is brilliant. Simply teach
Ancient Art to all music students and claim that it is "theory," the
purpose of which is to _explain how music was written in the
STYLE of the common-practice period_.
Reflecting Musical Academia's perceived necessity to camouflage Ancient Art
as "theory," it is unconcerned about providing an understanding of chord
relationships to those whose musical interests lie in the academically-
invisible "popular" sector. The reason, of course, is that, not being
classified as "art music," this lowbrow stuff has no legitimate place
within the halls of academe.
Not only does Musical Academia generally ignore the needs of those whose
primary musical interest is not "art music," but it also sees no need to
provide an understanding of chord relationships _to non-compositional
majors_. Surely, goes the script, the non-compositional major, who has no
need for such understanding, in the eyes of Musical Academia, will be none
the worse for wear if he (or she) emerges from his course in "theory"
_believing that he understands chord relationships_, when what he (or
she) has REALLY been taught is Ancient Art/History.
On the other hand, most students who major in "serious-music" composition
will, if they persevere despite carrying the heavy baggage of Ancient
Art/History, eventually learn the principles of chord relationships; if
not directly from instruction, then by the process of osmosis.
Yet it is essential that, no matter what the circumstances, ALL (even those
who recognize its absurdity) within Musical Academia pay lip service to
Ancient Art. To prove this, after (and if) you learn the principles of
chord relationships, study the books on "theory" by very famous and well-
regarded composers/teachers. With rare exception, the lip service which
they are forced to pay to Ancient Authority will be reflected in incredibly
convoluted, tortuous, and all-but-incomprehensible
(translation: ludicrous) "explanations" of the underlying principles of
their musical craft.
Decrypting Ancient "Theory"!
Although Ancient Art purports to explain the development of "chords" during
the common-practice period, the theoretical principles of chord
relationships, several of which are lurking around somewhere in a typical
course in harmonic "theory" (or in the currently popular "whole music"
approach to teaching music), are virtually buried under a huge pile of
irrelevant and highly confusing detail. This effectively precludes their
recognition. Needless to say, if they can't be recognized, they can't be
understood. But who cares? Certainly not Musical Academia, with its own
self-serving agenda.
Hence if the object is to understand these basic principles, it is
essential that they be extracted from this Ancient Garbage Dump and exposed
to the light of day. To this end (the "decryption" of harmonic Ancient
Theory), I have written a series of articles entitled "The Basics of
Chord Relationships", which is currently in eight parts, plus this
introduction.
Departing from the accepted Ancient academic view that harmonic theory is a
description of how music was written in the common-practice period, what
will be found in this series of articles is a TRUE theoretical
exposition. As such, its purpose is to explain the principles of chord
relationships in _abstract form_; i.e., divorced from any particular
stylistic framework. Such a "scientific" type of presentation is
extremely powerful in the across-the-board insight (_independent of the
time period in which the music is composed_) which it provides.
Dynamic Function
-----------------
Although virtually obscured in the typical course in harmony (due to the
ridiculous failure of Ancient Theory to recognize the TIME-DEPENDENCY of
the harmonic process at every step of the way, "dynamic function," which is
concerned with the nature of chord relationships within a time-dependent
harmonic organization ("structure"), _is the very heart of the subject_.
In contrast with the inability of Ancient Theory to deal with (translation:
to teach) this most crucial and fundamental area of the subject of
"harmony," my series of articles on chord relationships cuts right to
the chase--and let the chips (and the chumps) fall where they may. It
provides a detailed explanation of both Ancient and Modern (mine)
harmonic structures, and provides an illuminating comparison (if
there is even anyone out there who understands the Ancient structural
role of the diatonic scale).
In a nutshell:
It cannot be over-emphasized that an understanding of dynamic
function is the essential starting point for UNDERSTANDING the role
played by chords in harmonic theory. Sorry about that.
My "Basics of Chord Relationships" discusses Modern (as opposed to Ancient)
chord construction, which is routinely carried out _without regard to
the dynamic function of the chord in a musical context_.
A basic set of four chords is derived with reference to the two
semi-tone intervals of the diatonic major scale. This chord set
provides the basis for all _dynamic chord relationships_ within the
harmonic structure.
This structurally-complete basic chord set is then expanded to include
(1) chords with a chromatically-altered fifth degree, and (2) chords with
"added" (non-essential) tones. A sensible notational system (which
conforms, for the most part, with modern "popular" notation) is also
developed and discussed in detail in part (4).
Scott GF Bailey
"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bbnuoa$6co$1...@panix2.panix.com...
>
> BASICS OF CHORD RELATIONSHIPS (INTRODUCTION)
> by Albert Silverman
> February 5, 1999
> --------------------------------------------
> Everyone who studies music in one of our academic institutions or
music
> conservatories gets a dose of what is commonly referred to as
"theory."
> Therefore, the first order of business is to understand both the
generally
> accepted meaning of "theory" and the special interpretation which
Musical
> Academia attaches to this word.
>
> Webster's dictionary defines "theory" as:
>
> "A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
> principle offered to explain phenomena."
>
Try a different definition:
3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science,
or an art <music theory>
"Abstract" is used here to mean "speculative". So, general and
speculative principles of the art of music. Which would open the field
of "Music theory" into a much wider area than your narrow definition
allows, making it more along the lines of "thinking about the art and
history of music".
Bokkers
>
> Rather than to explain the principles of chord relationships, the
> purpose of teaching Ancient Art (the harmonic portion of it) within
> Musical Academia is to _explain how music was written_ during the
> common-practice period.
I have a question: Why are you using the 12-tone division of an octafe? Do
you NEED this for your theory, or is it only easier to explain your theory
that way?
Richard Ratner
wrote:
>In a nutshell:
>
> Rather than to explain the principles of chord relationships, the
> purpose of teaching Ancient Art (the harmonic portion of it) within
> Musical Academia is to _explain how music was written_ during the
> common-practice period.
>
>What's wrong with this approach to teaching harmony? It all depends upon
>one's objective in studying the subject. There is nothing wrong with this
>basic philosophy IF one's purpose in studying "theory" is to learn about
>the compositional STYLE of this period (ranging roughly from 1650 to 1900).
>However, if one's purpose is to learn the principles of chord
>relationships, then _studying Ancient Art in the hope of obtaining an
>UNDERSTANDING OF THESE IMPORTANT RELATIONSHIPS is futile_.
Thank you for this nutshell, for it proves you wrong. Roman numeral
analysis of functional harmony is irrelevant to style, and will do a
very nice job of describing the function of chords in serious music
from the renaissance well into the 20th century, a span with widely
disparate styles. Roman numeral analysis does not even have the
vocabulary to describe style, so your observation seems rather odd.
I would like to pose a challenge. I will allow you to choose any piece
of piano music that you like from the classical period. We will both
do an analysis, you via your method, whatever that is, and me via
traditional roman numeral analysis. We will then submit our analyses
to the group and see which is preferred. I will await your choice of
piece.
Albert Silverman
My theory is a theory of the *harmonic process*; i.e., chord progression,
not acoustic principles. Chord progression is a man-made phenomenon, which
does not have an acoustic foundation. Hence temperament plays no role in
chord progression.
Ancient Theory jumbles up all of these things together. That is, it fails
to separate the man-made nature of chord progression from the acoustic
foundation which is concerned with chord properties *in isolation*. Hence
my disdain for "acoustic roots," which fail to deal with the man-made
nature of harmony in the common-practice period.
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
> >
>
Albert Silverman
The problem with "analysis" done by those who follow Ancient Theory is
that it is simply an exercise in IRRELEVANCE. Since it does not relate to
theoretical principles, any old analysis will do.
I see no point in arguing theory with one who is steeped in traditional
indoctrination and irrelevance.
Daniel Seriff
(in message <slrnbe82g7...@panix1.panix.com>):
Your refusal of Richard's challenge is telling. Unsurprising, but telling
nonetheless.
--
Daniel Seriff
If it isn't on fire, blowing up, or fucking something, Steve just ain't
interested. He doesn't care about watching the game, he just wants to see
lots of pretty colors moving around really quickly.
meeso
> Your refusal of Richard's challenge is telling. Unsurprising, but telling
> nonetheless.
na, not necessarily.
Maysara
Dr.Matt
Nope, it's telling.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
"If it's not addressed to my address proper, it may be counted as spam"
meeso
> Nope, it's telling.
I told you to go fuck yourself, I really don't want to hear from you
until you've managed to accomplish that.
Maysara
Joey Goldstein
What an idiot. And this is Albert's only supporter. You must be very
proud Al.
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Scott GF Bailey
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3EE4A772...@nowhere.net...
>
>
> meeso wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:02:48 +0000, Dr.Matt wrote:
> >
> > > Nope, it's telling.
> >
> > I told you to go fuck yourself, I really don't want to hear from
you
> > until you've managed to accomplish that.
> >
> > Maysara
>
> What an idiot. And this is Albert's only supporter. You must be very
> proud Al.
>
The apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Bob Pease
"Scott GF Bailey" <scottg...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bc2afh$ehg32$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de...
I plonked him when he started in on a flame war, asking him to find another
victim.
I later Googled out his response.
"I like you, sugar"
Bye. Bye miss/mr Non-American Pi!
Dr. s
meeso
> What an idiot. And this is Albert's only supporter. You must be very
> proud Al.
Matt said he cannot do it, you know, fuck himself. why don't you give him
a hand. you know, solidarity, since both of you are Jewish.
rude ha? there is still more, specialy for you.
while studying aesthetics, I learned to appreciate vulgarism. it goes very
well with people like you whatever the subject of the group.
being his only supporter is enough for me, even if it was all a mistake
(which is not the case anyway).
go fuck Matt you ass hole. (you called me an idiot, here you go)
Maysara
meeso
really, at least it falls.
in your case, you'll be sticking in a babys diapers (that is Matt him
self) that is full of shit & talking about that as your choice of freedom.
FUCK YOU.
Maysara
meeso
> I plonked him when he started in on a flame war, asking him to find another
> victim.
> I later Googled out his response.
>
> "I like you, sugar"
>
> Bye. Bye miss/mr Non-American Pi!
>
> Dr. s
ah, now we have two Doctors.
what is your phd. about ?!!!
you seem to remeber me will, good.
I can tell, you must be one of those freak Jewish.
Maysara
Joey Goldstein
And I was right. Are you an anti-semite too?
> here you go)
>
> Maysara
Gee, thanks for joining our little group here. Your contributions have
been insightful to say the least.
Joey Goldstein
meeso wrote:
>
>
> you must be one of those freak Jewish.
Ah...Here we go.
meeso
> Are you an anti-semite too?
oh no no, not anti-semitic at all, just the Jewish you know.
stay tuned smart ass.
Maysara
meeso
>
>
> meeso wrote:
>>
>>
>> you must be one of those freak Jewish.
>
> Ah...Here we go.
oh yeah baby, here we go. provok the unforgoten for dirty people like
you. you cannot stand it at this point. so next time when I order an ass
hole like you to shut up, you better do it.
just if you stop advertising yourslves. Yuk, disgusting.
Maysara
Scott GF Bailey
"meeso" <maysa...@yahoo.com.hk> wrote in message
news:pan.2003.06.09...@yahoo.com.hk...
Is this what passes for debate in Hong Kong? No wonder you were a
British protectorate for so long. You clearly need a chaperone.
Dr.Matt
Read the headers. Not Hong Kong. It's also not what passes for debate
in Cairo, but you're correct that a child may need a chaperone.
Joey Goldstein
Ah. So semite's are OK. It's just Jews you hate? I see.
Dr.Matt
62.139.139.22 belongs to EgyNet Cairo, which appears to be a full-service
ISP not requiring the use of intermediaries like yahoo.com.hk.
Interesting.
frea...@yahoo.co.uk
KNOCK-KNOCK...... "Come in"...... "Is this the room for an
argument?"...... "I've told you once"..... "No you havn't".. "Yes I
have".. No you havn't"..
Daniel Seriff
(in message <pan.2003.06.09....@yahoo.com.hk>):
How can you tell, what with your head jammed so deeply into your rectum?
Josh Dougherty
>
>
> meeso wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, 09 Jun 2003 12:56:02 -0400, Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >
> > > Are you an anti-semite too?
> >
> > oh no no, not anti-semitic at all, just the Jewish you know.
> >
> > stay tuned smart ass.
> >
> > Maysara
>
> Ah. So semite's are OK. It's just Jews you hate? I see.
>
Except for Silverman apparently.
Josh
meeso
yes, *IT IS* interesting :-))))))))))))))))))))))
Maysara
Richard Ratner
I would have laid 100:1 odds that this would be your reply. The truth
is that you will not do it because you cannot do it. You argue with
people "steeped in traditional indoctrination" ALL THE TIME -- that's
all you do, so don't try to use that as an excuse as to why you will
not accept the challenge. You will not accept the challenge becuase
you are a charlatan, plain and simple. The only question which remains
is, are you so sick in your mind that you believe the crap that you
just wrote, or are you such a child that you think you can fake anyone
into believing that the above was written for any reason other than to
mask your inabiliity?
Richard Ratner
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:
>
>The problem with "analysis" done by those who follow Ancient Theory is
>that it is simply an exercise in IRRELEVANCE. Since it does not relate to
>theoretical principles, any old analysis will do.
I have been more closely analyzing this paragraph. What does it truly
say? The first sentence if obvious, but what are we to make of the
second? Of course Albie knows that a harmonic analysis relates to
theoretical principles, they are just not his theoretical principles.
Are you saying, Albie, that YOUR theory is incapable of generating an
analysis? I can accept this, IF you state clearly and succinctly,
then, what the purpose of your theory is.
Richard Ratner
wrote:
>I'm watching you doc.
>yes, *IT IS* interesting :-))))))))))))))))))))))
Are you familiar with the English term, "to bluff"? You're watching no
one.
>
>Maysara
Bob Pease
"Richard Ratner" <s...@f.com> wrote in message
news:qvqbev0hjg4v7vu05...@4ax.com...
Dixit RJP
I read and post to this ng to share ideas and learn or clarify stuff, mainly
the latter.
It is fun to feed trolls and engage in riposte with them only if I've got
nothing else to do except play free cell or watch Football.
However, after shooting goldfish in a barrel with t .22 , IMO it is moronic,
verging on sinful to continue.
With this disclaimer, let me use your Quote from AS as an example of how his
rhetoric is so dense and loaded, that it is impossible or unproductive to
decipher it, even for an occasional glimmer of something useful.
> >The problem with "analysis"
Here AS starts out with the "Cynical quote mark" ploy, alerting the reader
that he has some reason to dispute the accuracy or integrity of his
opponent.
>>done by those who follow Ancient Theory
Here is the "snide label" technique, implying that current theory is effete.
> >that it is simply an exercise in IRRELEVANCE.
Here's the twanger..the shotgun attack without saying anything specific.
Also puts the reader on the defensive, implying that the reader has wasted
his time up to now with nonsense.
>Since it does not relate to
> >theoretical principles, any old analysis will do.
here is an example of multi-level fallacious logic.( don't have time or
patience to point it all out..left as an exercise to the reader)
..
Anyway with THIS as a starter, I concur with you that any information other
that hysterical attempts to convince the reader that good stuff is somehow
to follow, is going to be a chore to ferret out .
I suggest plonking, as I have done, with occasional caveats that the guy is
a nut who has not or will not or cannot demonstrate the application of the
intelligible part of his ideology.
Bob Pease
Bokkers
> 62.139.139.22 belongs to EgyNet Cairo, which appears to be a full-service
> ISP not requiring the use of intermediaries like yahoo.com.hk.
>
> Interesting.
X-Trace says: fu-berlin.de (Freie Universitaet Berlin)
I never understand these headers...
Joey Goldstein
Dr.Matt
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>What is it about music theory that attracts all these psychos and creeps?
Don't answer that question, Joey
Dr.Matt
Mayasara el Hareth Omar el Zobeir. About 19 years old. "...he is now
finally studying Composing and Conducting in the Cairo Conservatoire."
A late undergraduate. And an activist in a Palestinian children
sympathy group. Perhaps this explains his mixture of musical
knowledge and musical ignorance. It doesn't explain his hatefulness,
scatology, or denigration of scholarship, though. A friend of his
says that he is constantly hungry... perhaps this fuels his behavior.
Joey Goldstein
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
> In article <bc4vm5$9j1$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>,
> Bokkers <wim.bokker...@hetnet.nl> wrote:
> >>
> >> 62.139.139.22 belongs to EgyNet Cairo, which appears to be a full-service
> >> ISP not requiring the use of intermediaries like yahoo.com.hk.
> >>
> >> Interesting.
> >
> >X-Trace says: fu-berlin.de (Freie Universitaet Berlin)
> >I never understand these headers...
>
> Mayasara el Hareth Omar el Zobeir. About 19 years old. "...he is now
> finally studying Composing and Conducting in the Cairo Conservatoire."
> A late undergraduate. And an activist in a Palestinian children
> sympathy group. Perhaps this explains his mixture of musical
> knowledge and musical ignorance. It doesn't explain his hatefulness,
> scatology, or denigration of scholarship, though. A friend of his
> says that he is constantly hungry... perhaps this fuels his behavior.
Nice.
bogus address
> Mayasara el Hareth Omar el Zobeir. About 19 years old. "...he
Is that translated via Google? - I thought he was a she? Seemed
sensible enough until she/he took rather excessive exception to a
perhaps rather unnecessary comment from Bob Pease.
Can we perhaps try not to create any more aggro than we've already
got? I wouldn't particularly like to be reminded of some of the
opinions I had or the responses I was prone to when I was 19;
fortunately that was long before Usenet. There are some people who
have clearly devoted themselves to a lifetime of digging themselves
into an ever-deepening hole but Maysara isn't obviously one of them,
yet anyway.
: X-Trace says: fu-berlin.de (Freie Universitaet Berlin)
: I never understand these headers...
It's a very reliable, well-administered, free news server. People
from all over the world use it. Nothing odd about it at all. If
it wasn't for its registration process making it so difficult to
use an anti-spam address, I'd be using it.
========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
Dr.Matt
bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Mayasara el Hareth Omar el Zobeir. About 19 years old. "...he
>
>Is that translated via Google? - I thought he was a she? Seemed
>sensible enough until she/he took rather excessive exception to a
>perhaps rather unnecessary comment from Bob Pease.
No, it's in plain English on the web.
>Can we perhaps try not to create any more aggro than we've already
>got? I wouldn't particularly like to be reminded of some of the
>opinions I had or the responses I was prone to when I was 19;
>fortunately that was long before Usenet. There are some people who
>have clearly devoted themselves to a lifetime of digging themselves
>into an ever-deepening hole but Maysara isn't obviously one of them,
>yet anyway.
>
>
>: X-Trace says: fu-berlin.de (Freie Universitaet Berlin)
>: I never understand these headers...
>
>It's a very reliable, well-administered, free news server. People
>from all over the world use it. Nothing odd about it at all. If
>it wasn't for its registration process making it so difficult to
>use an anti-spam address, I'd be using it.
Yeah, but it's not where he's connecting :)
>========> Email to "j-c" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce <========
>Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
><http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html> food intolerance data & recipes,
>Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
>
Bob Pease
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@timepilot.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:JvsGa.371$_K....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <11...@purr.demon.co.uk>,
> bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Mayasara el Hareth Omar el Zobeir. About 19 years old. "...he
> >
> >Is that translated via Google? - I thought he was a she? Seemed
> >sensible enough until she/he took rather excessive exception to a
> >perhaps rather unnecessary comment from Bob Pease.
To my recollection, my comment, necessary or not, was in reaction to a
condescending post by M, explaining the structure of the scale to someone
who was simply looking for a technical computer algorithm, and did not need
a lecture in grade-school level music.
M. thence escalated it into a flame war , disputing my right to comment on
the level or relevance of his post.
When he descended into hate rhetoric, I didn't need the practice to demolish
him as he did a self-destructo gig on himself.
I concur that further attention to him is simply feeding a racist, violent
teenaged troll.
Bob Pease