Alice Responds! (Part One)

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 8, 2003, 10:55:35 PM6/8/03

to

In a recent exchange with the Gentleman-with-the-Hat, I stated:

"The particular tones that are used in a chord-based composition have
nothing at all to do with the identity of the tonal center, which is
the most vital piece of information in a 'tonal' composition. In a
tightly-knit composition (i.e., where the identity of the tonal
center is strong throughout the entire piece), the tonal center is
determined by departure-and-return, synchronized with the melodic
phrasing.

Everyone knows that."

Puzzled by my statement, an inquisitive participant in the discussion
replied:

----------------------------------------------------------------------
"Well, I don't. Can you explain? Tones used in ordinary chords are
"chosen" from the same tones that are used in the melody. So there IS
a relation between the chord notes and the melody tones. IMO the tonal
center can be found by finding the scales where those tones fits in
and by analysing what the tonic (? dutch: tonica) is."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Clearly, not *everyone* knows (1) how melody tones are related to
chord tones, and (2) how the RCS is identified. On the contrary, from
the discussions in our Wonderful forum over several years, it is easy
to deduce that, while some residents know how melody tones are
related to chord tones, apparently *no one* knows how to identify the
RCS!! The failure to understand the crucial RCS identification
mechanism lies at the very heart of the exceptional conceptual
difficulty which our Wonderful community exhibits with regard to
chord-based theory. Worse yet, few of our Wonderful residents seem
even to understand the meaning of chord-based theory!

But before I answer these two questions, I should point out that, in
order to avoid the use of the word "tonal," it is best to refer to
the center of harmonic activity as the "root of central significance"
(abbr. RCS). The mere mention of "tonal" creates a catastrophic
conceptual confusion within the ranks of our Wonderful community. Why
is this? It is due to the strong influence of our Ancient Revered One,
whom our members look up to in awe, despite the fact that he just
can't seem to get straight anything involving "chords."

On the other hand, new and unfamiliar terms terrorize our residents.
If I give in to this fear and attempt to calm frazzled nerves by
using the term "tonal center" to refer to the RCS, then what
invariably happens is that *the tonal center is confused with the
Ancient tonic*. You can count on it--unfailingly. The term "tonic"
should only be used to denote the first degree of a diatonic major or
(harmonic) minor scale, and not to be used to refer to *both* the RCS
and a first scale degree. In the current response, in order to make
an end run around our Ancient Revered One and neutralize his secret
weapon (confusion), I will use the abbreviation RCS as necessary to
refer to the center of harmonic activity. Furthermore, I will not use
the Ancient term "tonic" at all, since it serves no useful *harmonic*
purpose.

A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
chordal) background exists at every point in time. For purposes of
this discussion, it is assumed that there is only one melody. The
subject of multiple melodies in chord-based music is explained in
texts on "counterpoint" and is not pertinent to the current
discussion. The melody "co-exists" with this chordal background; it
is *not* produced by a time sequence of chords, as is erroneously
stated in numerous Ancient-influenced texts on harmony. At issue here
is the relationship between melody tones and the chordal background.
With few exceptions, the requirement which dictates the "permissible"
use of a melody tone whch coexists within a harmonic background is
based upon *the avoidance of an unpleasant discord*. The successful
avoidance of such a discord depends not only upon the tone's pitch,
but also upon its time duration and relative accent. For example, a
short-duration tone which blends with the harmonic background without
any significant "aural objection" might well create an unpleasant
discord when its time duration is extended.

In order to assess the possibility of a discord between a melody tone
and the harmonic background, it is necessary to define precisely what
we mean by harmonic background. Specifically, *all* of the
possibilities which can be used for the harmonic background of any
chord-based musical composition are expressed as a set of chord forms
(you call them "ordinary" chords, I call them "essential chord
forms"). The importance of the word "any" cannot be overemphasized.
Once such a chord set is defined, it is then possible to assess the
question of a discord between the background harmony and some
particular melody tone. The derivation of this essential chord set is
given in The Basics of Chord Relationships and it need not be repeated
here. In brief, this chord set consists of two subsets: (1) Basic
chords (2) Altered chords.

The set of Basic chords consists of four chord forms:

(1) minor triad
(2) major triad
(3) minor tetrad
(4) major tetrad

You surely know what a triad is (I surmise that you are not a Music
Teacher!), but you almost surely do not know what a tetrad is, since
this terminology is unknown to our Ancient Revered One, in connection
with chord-based theory. The tetrad happens to be a very *specific*
type of four-tone chord; once again, it is discussed in The Basics of
Chord Relationships. To find out how these Basic chords are
constructed, either read that or ask some specific questions.

The set of Altered chords consists of eight chord forms, three of
which are not of practical significance (for reasons that will not be
detailed here). The five Altered chords which *are* of practical
significance are:

(5) minor triad with lowered fifth degree
(6) major triad with raised fifth degree
(7) minor tetrad with lowered fifth degree
(8) major tetrad with lowered fifth degree
(9) major tetrad with raised fifth degree

To find out how these Altered chords are constructed, read The Basics
of Chord Relationships or ask some specific questions.
----------
Apart from the two triads, these nine chord forms of course have
Ancient-influenced names, seemingly designed to perpetuate the
general state of catastrophic conceptual confusion. It seems as
though rationality, consistency, and coherence are not permitted
within Ancient Nomenclature! And the nomenclature cannot be changed
without revising Ancient Musical History (which Musical Academia
refers to as "theory"). But of course *we* know that theory is a
description of musical principles, not a time continuum of Ancient
Hallucinations. Don't we?

There remain tones which are not component tones of the background
harmony. Such tones are commonly referred to as "added" tones or
"non-harmonic" tones or "unessential" tones. Given this set of nine
essential chord forms, it is easy to hear (i.e., from aural
experience) that certain of these tones do not create an unpleasant
discord with the harmony to which they are added. For example, a
C-major triad contains tones CEG. We can add tone A to this triad
without creating an unpleasant discord. Thus if the background
harmony is a C-major triad, we can use melody tone A freely, without
fear of unintended consequences. Similarly, we can add tone D to a
C-major triad, creating perhaps only a slightly more discordant
effect. Hence this proves the fact that *melody tones need not
necessarily be restricted to component tones of the background
harmony*, contrary to your simplistic statement.

The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
specific questions.

CONCLUSION

In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
between melody tones and chord tones. In Part Two, I will address the
identification of the RCS. Do you somehow get the feeling that it will
not agree with your stated opinion (IMO) ?

-----
Alice
who is well aware of her current residence!

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 5:41:03 AM6/9/03

to

> Clearly, not *everyone* knows (1) how melody tones are related to
> chord tones, and (2) how the RCS is identified. On the contrary, from
> the discussions in our Wonderful forum over several years, it is easy
> to deduce that, while some residents know how melody tones are
> related to chord tones, apparently *no one* knows how to identify the
> RCS!! The failure to understand the crucial RCS identification
> mechanism lies at the very heart of the exceptional conceptual
> difficulty which our Wonderful community exhibits with regard to
> chord-based theory. Worse yet, few of our Wonderful residents seem
> even to understand the meaning of chord-based theory!

I don't understand the meaning really. If I should say it in my own words it
has to do with chords and their relation regardless of key. But maybe this
is an oversimplification.

>
> But before I answer these two questions, I should point out that, in
> order to avoid the use of the word "tonal," it is best to refer to
> the center of harmonic activity as the "root of central significance"
> (abbr. RCS). The mere mention of "tonal" creates a catastrophic
> conceptual confusion within the ranks of our Wonderful community. Why
> is this? It is due to the strong influence of our Ancient Revered One,
> whom our members look up to in awe, despite the fact that he just
> can't seem to get straight anything involving "chords."
>
> On the other hand, new and unfamiliar terms terrorize our residents.
> If I give in to this fear and attempt to calm frazzled nerves by
> using the term "tonal center" to refer to the RCS, then what
> invariably happens is that *the tonal center is confused with the
> Ancient tonic*. You can count on it--unfailingly. The term "tonic"
> should only be used to denote the first degree of a diatonic major or
> (harmonic) minor scale, and not to be used to refer to *both* the RCS
> and a first scale degree. In the current response, in order to make
> an end run around our Ancient Revered One and neutralize his secret
> weapon (confusion), I will use the abbreviation RCS as necessary to
> refer to the center of harmonic activity. Furthermore, I will not use
> the Ancient term "tonic" at all, since it serves no useful *harmonic*
> purpose.

For me it's very difficult to grab what the RCS is and what it's purpose is.
I think I should read more about it.
To me it's a very abstract thing. The ancient 'tonic' can be uses in a very
practical way. I think this is not what you deny?

>
> A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
> chordal) background exists at every point in time. For purposes of
> this discussion, it is assumed that there is only one melody. The
> subject of multiple melodies in chord-based music is explained in
> texts on "counterpoint" and is not pertinent to the current
> discussion. The melody "co-exists" with this chordal background; it
> is *not* produced by a time sequence of chords, as is erroneously
> stated in numerous Ancient-influenced texts on harmony. At issue here
> is the relationship between melody tones and the chordal background.
> With few exceptions, the requirement which dictates the "permissible"
> use of a melody tone whch coexists within a harmonic background is
> based upon *the avoidance of an unpleasant discord*. The successful
> avoidance of such a discord depends not only upon the tone's pitch,
> but also upon its time duration and relative accent. For example, a
> short-duration tone which blends with the harmonic background without
> any significant "aural objection" might well create an unpleasant
> discord when its time duration is extended.

Ok. Clear. But most of the time I start with an existing melody and try to
find chords to add texture to the melody. A very practical way is to find
the key of the melody and to find the triads on the scale tones of the key.
So in this way the melody tones are there first. Now the chord tones has to
be chosen so that they are not unpleasant to the ear.

Can you explain why they are not permitted in Ancient Nomenclature? I am
aware of the existence of these chords. And they can be 'build' on scale
tones, with or without alterations. Their character depends on the place in
the scale. For example not every single altered chord adds the same
'texture' in all contexts. That is also valid for chord sequences. Their
character depends on their context. (Sorry for my Ancient speek, but that's
our frame of reference).

> There remain tones which are not component tones of the background
> harmony. Such tones are commonly referred to as "added" tones or
> "non-harmonic" tones or "unessential" tones. Given this set of nine
> essential chord forms, it is easy to hear (i.e., from aural
> experience) that certain of these tones do not create an unpleasant
> discord with the harmony to which they are added. For example, a
> C-major triad contains tones CEG. We can add tone A to this triad
> without creating an unpleasant discord. Thus if the background
> harmony is a C-major triad, we can use melody tone A freely, without
> fear of unintended consequences. Similarly, we can add tone D to a
> C-major triad, creating perhaps only a slightly more discordant
> effect. Hence this proves the fact that *melody tones need not
> necessarily be restricted to component tones of the background
> harmony*, contrary to your simplistic statement.

No, I dit not state that melody tones are to be chosen from the background
harmony. But that they are chosen from a scale. Not by dogma, but because my
ears want that. You did that too in your example. All those tones fit in a
scale. The chord tones are chosen from the same set. The use of non-scale
tones can add surprising effects. How can you explain these 'surprises'
_without_ ancient theory?

>
> The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
> Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
> record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
> specific questions.
>
> CONCLUSION
>
> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
> between melody tones and chord tones. In Part Two, I will address the
> identification of the RCS. Do you somehow get the feeling that it will
> not agree with your stated opinion (IMO) ?

Well, I don't know. I have the feeling that it is all about chords, chords,
chords and chords. How does this all fits in real music? That is not meant
cynical. It is a real question. I have to admit that I did not read
everything very carefully. But if I have time on my hands, I will.

Scott GF Bailey

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 12:01:01 PM6/9/03

to

"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:bc0sv7$8ph$1...@panix3.panix.com...

>
> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
> between melody tones and chord tones.

No, you didn't. All you've done is say, at great length, that in
homophonic music there is a melody and an accompaniment. You've not
discussed how they interrelate at all.

Josh Dougherty

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 12:17:45 PM6/9/03

to

"Scott GF Bailey" <scottg...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:bc23sf$du772$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de...

Nonsense! He's also said that a melody note in homophonic music...err, i
mean "chord-based composition" doesn't have to be a component tone of the
accompanying chord. For instance, tone D might be a melody note over a CEG
chord! In fact, any melody tone might exist as long as it does not create
an "aural objection"!

Try getting an ancient theorist to teach you that!

Josh

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 1:21:20 PM6/9/03

to

I don't know what you mean by an "accompaniment."

Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
>
>
>

Scott GF Bailey

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 3:27:24 PM6/9/03

to

"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:slrnbe9ggg...@panix1.panix.com...

Very clever, Al, but we've all seen this one before. I am not going to
be dragged into a war of definitions over a term you pick at random.
Your disingenuousness is, as usual, quite transparent.

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 5:57:29 PM6/9/03

to

In article <bc2g02$eosii$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de>, Scott GF Bailey wrote:
>
> "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbe9ggg...@panix1.panix.com...
>> In article <bc23sf$du772$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de>, Scott GF
> Bailey wrote:
>> >
>> > "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>> > news:bc0sv7$8ph$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>> >>
>> >> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
>> >> between melody tones and chord tones.
>> >
>> > No, you didn't. All you've done is say, at great length, that in
>> > homophonic music there is a melody and an accompaniment. You've
> not
>> > discussed how they interrelate at all.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by an "accompaniment."
>>
>>
>
> Very clever, Al, but we've all seen this one before. I am not going to
> be dragged into a war of definitions over a term you pick at random.
> Your disingenuousness is, as usual, quite transparent.
>

Ah, an Ancient Indoctrinee unmasked!

Using terms that he cannot define. You have learned well from your Ancient
Master.

Joey Goldstein

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 7:18:18 PM6/9/03

to

Do we all share the same Ancient Master or are you referring to someone
in particular in Scott's case?

--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca

Scott GF Bailey

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 10:46:47 PM6/9/03

to

"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:slrnbea0m9...@panix1.panix.com...

> In article <bc2g02$eosii$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de>, Scott GF Bailey
wrote:
> >
> > "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> > news:slrnbe9ggg...@panix1.panix.com...
> >> In article <bc23sf$du772$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de>, Scott GF
> > Bailey wrote:
> >> >
> >> > "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:bc0sv7$8ph$1...@panix3.panix.com...
> >> >>
> >> >> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
> >> >> between melody tones and chord tones.
> >> >
> >> > No, you didn't. All you've done is say, at great length, that in
> >> > homophonic music there is a melody and an accompaniment. You've
> > not
> >> > discussed how they interrelate at all.
> >>
> >> I don't know what you mean by an "accompaniment."
> >>
> >>
> >
> > Very clever, Al, but we've all seen this one before. I am not going to
> > be dragged into a war of definitions over a term you pick at random.
> > Your disingenuousness is, as usual, quite transparent.
> >
>
> Ah, an Ancient Indoctrinee unmasked!
>

Goodness gracious, Al. Everyone here but you is an "ancient indoctrinee".
That's why we're not all tearing our hair out still trying to define
"chord".

> Using terms that he cannot define. You have learned well from your Ancient
> Master.
>

Thank you, Darth Silverman. If you'd paid attention in class, perhaps you
might have learned something, too.

I never said I can't define "accompaniment". Read the message again. I said
I refuse to play this game with you. It's one of your typical diversionary
tactics; we've all seen it before. You are using this transparent attempt at
obfuscation to hide the fact that you did, in fact, say almost nothing in
your OP.

But let's go back to your original post. What do you mean by "relationship"?
Dazzle us with your brilliance.

Scott GF Bailey

unread,

Jun 9, 2003, 10:53:49 PM6/9/03

to

"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3EE515A3...@nowhere.net...

He's referring to the Cabal, remember? The Cabal of Ancient Theory to which
nobody's ever sponsored him. The Worldwide Plot To Silence Silverman that
was put into motion before he was born. It's right there on page twenty-two
of the C.A.T. handbook, right after the secret handshake and the martini
recipe.

Daniel Seriff

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 2:18:12 AM6/10/03

to

On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:21:20 -0500, Albert Silverman wrote
(in message <slrnbe9ggg...@panix1.panix.com>):

That doesn't really surprise anyone around here.

--
Daniel Seriff

I think I'll just hang around a while and poke my first love's remains with a
stick.

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 3:54:18 AM6/10/03

to

No one in particular. His Master is Ancient Musical Authority, asa the
Ancient Theorist.

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 3:56:44 AM6/10/03

to

In article <0001HW.BB0AE216...@news-server.austin.rr.com>, Daniel Seriff wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jun 2003 12:21:20 -0500, Albert Silverman wrote
> (in message <slrnbe9ggg...@panix1.panix.com>):
>
>> In article <bc23sf$du772$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de>, Scott GF Bailey wrote:
>>>
>>> "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
>>> news:bc0sv7$8ph$1...@panix3.panix.com...
>>>>
>>>> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
>>>> between melody tones and chord tones.
>>>
>>> No, you didn't. All you've done is say, at great length, that in
>>> homophonic music there is a melody and an accompaniment. You've not
>>> discussed how they interrelate at all.
>>
>> I don't know what you mean by an "accompaniment."
>
> That doesn't really surprise anyone around here.
>

How would YOU know? You're not anyone; you're no one.

Daniel Seriff

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 11:28:33 AM6/10/03

to

On Tue, 10 Jun 2003 2:56:44 -0500, Albert Silverman wrote
(in message <slrnbeb3ps...@panix1.panix.com>):

Good comeback, skippy.

--
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.

Joey Goldstein

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 12:44:24 PM6/10/03

to

Sort of like the Harvey Keitel character in the Adam Sandler movie
Little Nicky?

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 5:03:26 PM6/10/03

to

In article <bc1ks3$b5r$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, Bokkers wrote:
>> Clearly, not *everyone* knows (1) how melody tones are related to
>> chord tones, and (2) how the RCS is identified. On the contrary, from
>> the discussions in our Wonderful forum over several years, it is easy
>> to deduce that, while some residents know how melody tones are
>> related to chord tones, apparently *no one* knows how to identify the
>> RCS!! The failure to understand the crucial RCS identification
>> mechanism lies at the very heart of the exceptional conceptual
>> difficulty which our Wonderful community exhibits with regard to
>> chord-based theory. Worse yet, few of our Wonderful residents seem
>> even to understand the meaning of chord-based theory!
>
> I don't understand the meaning really. If I should say it in my own words it
> has to do with chords and their relation regardless of key. But maybe this
> is an oversimplification.

Yes it is. However, you are correct in your comment about "key." So you
may now go to the head of the class!

Before you can even discuss chords on a concrete, practical basis, you
need an abstract (our residents here in Wonderland have an absolutely
terrible time understanding abstract concepts, since our Ancient Revered
One cannot tolerate them and works extremely hard to prevent our residents
from understanding them) definition of "chord." The starting point, from
which everything else follows, is that:

A CHORD IS A UNIT OF COMPOSITION

Repeating what I have said before, this means that, contrary to the
teachings of our Ancient Revered One, a chord is *NOT* created by the
coincidence of several melodies. Rather, it is an entity that is used as a
compositional "building block," as it were. This, then, is the defining
characteristic of chord-based composition.

The reason that you (and all of our other residents who are struggling
mightily under the pervasive influence of our Ancient Revered One, whether
or not they even know it!) are having great difficulty with the RCS is
that it is an *abstract concept having NOTHING whatsoever to do with the
tones of a diatonic scale*. A good analogy between the musical and
physical worlds is the concept of a harmonic musical structure viewed as a
"harmonic solar system," which consists of a musical sun and eleven remote
musical planets. These TWELVE abstract entities (I'm certain that you know
about the magic number twelve, which keeps popping up in music theory) are
known as harmonic *functional roots*. When reduced to musical practice,
these twelve functional roots (which I refer to simply as "roots" and
number them from {1} to {12}) correspond to the twelve tones of the
chromatic scale. In this planetary model, the RCS is (you guessed it!) the
harmonic "sun."

A crude physical analogue of harmonic "root progression" (in the language
of our Ancient Revered One who, unable to tolerate abstract concepts, uses
the word "root" with reference to the tones of a diatonic scale) would be
a "musical astronaut" who journies throughout the 12-planet harmonic
universe. For example, the root progression {3}-->{2} would be represented
by our musical astronaut journeying from planet {3} to planet {2}, etc.
Note that the Ancient so-called "dominant-tonic" progression is the root
progression {2}-->{1}.

>
>>
>> A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
>> chordal) background exists at every point in time. For purposes of
>> this discussion, it is assumed that there is only one melody. The
>> subject of multiple melodies in chord-based music is explained in
>> texts on "counterpoint" and is not pertinent to the current
>> discussion. The melody "co-exists" with this chordal background; it
>> is *not* produced by a time sequence of chords, as is erroneously
>> stated in numerous Ancient-influenced texts on harmony. At issue here
>> is the relationship between melody tones and the chordal background.
>> With few exceptions, the requirement which dictates the "permissible"
>> use of a melody tone whch coexists within a harmonic background is
>> based upon *the avoidance of an unpleasant discord*. The successful
>> avoidance of such a discord depends not only upon the tone's pitch,
>> but also upon its time duration and relative accent. For example, a
>> short-duration tone which blends with the harmonic background without
>> any significant "aural objection" might well create an unpleasant
>> discord when its time duration is extended.
>
> Ok. Clear. But most of the time I start with an existing melody and try to
> find chords to add texture to the melody.

But you are having difficulty because you do not understand the
theoretical nature of harmonic root progression, along with the
relationship between melody and the harmonic background which, when it
changes, is a root progression.

>A very practical way is to find
> the key of the melody and to find the triads on the scale tones of the key.

This is a *very bad* way to construct chords, because you currently do not
understand that the appropriate method for constructing chords does not
involve any linkage between chord form and key; this is a false premise of
our Ancient Revered One. This is all explained in The Basics of Chord
Relationships. Study it to see how to construct a chord *without* relying
upon such a linkage.

> So in this way the melody tones are there first. Now the chord tones has to
> be chosen so that they are not unpleasant to the ear.
>
>> In order to assess the possibility of a discord between a melody tone
>> and the harmonic background, it is necessary to define precisely what
>> we mean by harmonic background. Specifically, *all* of the
>> possibilities which can be used for the harmonic background of any
>> chord-based musical composition are expressed as a set of chord forms
>> (you call them "ordinary" chords, I call them "essential chord
>> forms"). The importance of the word "any" cannot be overemphasized.
>> Once such a chord set is defined, it is then possible to assess the
>> question of a discord between the background harmony and some
>> particular melody tone. The derivation of this essential chord set is
>> given in The Basics of Chord Relationships and it need not be repeated
>>

This is another way of saying that, because Ancient Theory is defective,
the resulting terminology and nomenclature is nonsensical and irrelevant,
although it must be admitted that it is often highly amusing. But for
enlightenment? Forget it!

I am
> aware of the existence of these chords. And they can be 'build' on scale
> tones, with or without alterations. Their character depends on the place in
> the scale. For example not every single altered chord adds the same
> 'texture' in all contexts. That is also valid for chord sequences. Their
> character depends on their context. (Sorry for my Ancient speek, but that's
> our frame of reference).

This is what so desperately needs "fixing." Eventually you will (if you
ever manage to get out from under the influence!) look back upon this
current viewpoint as a horrible dream--a virtual nightmare!

>
>> There remain tones which are not component tones of the background
>> harmony. Such tones are commonly referred to as "added" tones or
>> "non-harmonic" tones or "unessential" tones. Given this set of nine
>> essential chord forms, it is easy to hear (i.e., from aural
>> experience) that certain of these tones do not create an unpleasant
>> discord with the harmony to which they are added. For example, a
>> C-major triad contains tones CEG. We can add tone A to this triad
>> without creating an unpleasant discord. Thus if the background
>> harmony is a C-major triad, we can use melody tone A freely, without
>> fear of unintended consequences. Similarly, we can add tone D to a
>> C-major triad, creating perhaps only a slightly more discordant
>> effect. Hence this proves the fact that *melody tones need not
>> necessarily be restricted to component tones of the background
>> harmony*, contrary to your simplistic statement.
>
> No, I dit not state that melody tones are to be chosen from the background
> harmony.

Sorry; you are right.

>But that they are chosen from a scale.

Where do you think that the background harmony comes from?

>Not by dogma, but because my
> ears want that. You did that too in your example. All those tones fit in a
> scale. The chord tones are chosen from the same set.

I do not understand your argument here.

>The use of non-scale
> tones can add surprising effects. How can you explain these 'surprises'
> _without_ ancient theory?

What is your point?

>>
>> The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
>> Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
>> record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
>> specific questions.
>>
>> CONCLUSION
>>
>> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
>> between melody tones and chord tones. In Part Two, I will address the
>> identification of the RCS. Do you somehow get the feeling that it will
>> not agree with your stated opinion (IMO) ?
>
> Well, I don't know. I have the feeling that it is all about chords, chords,
> chords and chords.

The RCS can only be identified AURALLY, with reference to chord
progression. This is a DYNAMIC process; i.e., it takes place over a period
of time. Very importantly, this identification process in no way relates
to the tones of any particular diatonic scale. Trying to identify the RCS
in STATIC fashion, with reference to the tones in a musical score as
components of a particular diatonic scale, is an exercise in futility.
Repeat: an *exercise in futility*. So yes indeed, this process IS about
chords, chords, chords, and chords.

>How does this all fits in real music? That is not meant
> cynical. It is a real question. I have to admit that I did not read
> everything very carefully. But if I have time on my hands, I will.

Answering this question is what *analysis* is all about. Only by analyzing
a piece of real music, in terms of root progressions and the chords built
upon those roots, will you ever be able to learn how chords fit into this
music. This remains an exercise for the rest of your life--IF you are
serious about becoming musically literate.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of "musicians" (who may claim to be
serious, but who are really seeking "credentials" to serve as a
substitute for understanding) are unwilling to make this lifelong
commitment. Instead, they are willing to spend their lives wandering
around aimlessly in Wonderland!

Alice
(still stuck in Wonderland; can't seem to get out of that hole!)

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 5:48:55 PM6/10/03

to

In article <slrnbechsu...@panix1.panix.com>,
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:

> A CHORD IS A UNIT OF COMPOSITION

All right! So there you have it! Where are your compositions?

--
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"

Joey Goldstein

unread,

Jun 10, 2003, 10:09:34 PM6/10/03

to

Albert Silverman wrote:
>
> In article <bc1ks3$b5r$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>, Bokkers wrote:
> >> Clearly, not *everyone* knows (1) how melody tones are related to
> >> chord tones, and (2) how the RCS is identified. On the contrary, from
> >> the discussions in our Wonderful forum over several years, it is easy
> >> to deduce that, while some residents know how melody tones are
> >> related to chord tones, apparently *no one* knows how to identify the
> >> RCS!! The failure to understand the crucial RCS identification
> >> mechanism lies at the very heart of the exceptional conceptual
> >> difficulty which our Wonderful community exhibits with regard to
> >> chord-based theory. Worse yet, few of our Wonderful residents seem
> >> even to understand the meaning of chord-based theory!
> >
> > I don't understand the meaning really. If I should say it in my own words it
> > has to do with chords and their relation regardless of key. But maybe this
> > is an oversimplification.
>
> Yes it is. However, you are correct in your comment about "key." So you
> may now go to the head of the class!
>
> Before you can even discuss chords on a concrete, practical basis, you
> need an abstract (our residents here in Wonderland have an absolutely
> terrible time understanding abstract concepts,

If you had any superior ability in this area I think you'd have a better
understanding of keys, tonality, cadences and harmony.

> since our Ancient Revered
> One cannot tolerate them and works extremely hard to prevent our residents
> from understanding them) definition of "chord." The starting point, from
> which everything else follows, is that:
>
> A CHORD IS A UNIT OF COMPOSITION

A chord may function as a unit of a composition, sure, but that is not
its definition. Or have you redefined "definition" too?

Do you know the definition of "chord" Albert? I don't think you do. The
last time I saw you try to define chord here you used some really
ancient definition where all sorts of perfectly acceptable chords, by
today's standards, were labeled as 'discords'. So what's a "chord" Al?

> Repeating what I have said before, this means that, contrary to the
> teachings of our Ancient Revered One, a chord is *NOT* created by the
> coincidence of several melodies.

The chords we all know and love today and the tonal progressions that we
all so easily use today were indeed first discovered in this very way,
by the coincidence of several melodies. Anybody writing music today has
to use chords in a melodic way on one or another level. Rock musicians
at the very least strive for a strong melodic bass line. Composers for 4
voices still strive to have a melodic logic in all 4 voices. Only the
very crudest, most insensitive, composer would neglect the simultaneous
melodies that result from sounding a series of chords.

A chord progression may very well be conceived of with the absence of
any melodic considerations but it can not be made into an actual piece
of music until those considerations are dealt with.

> Rather, it is an entity that is used as a
> compositional "building block," as it were. This, then, is the defining
> characteristic of chord-based composition.

Just because a chord can be used as *a* unit of composition does not
mean that there is anything in the world that could be described as
"chord-based" composition. There isn't. Chord-based composition is a
figment of your simpleton-level imagination.

Don't flatter yourself Albert. Your RCS is easy to grasp. It's just
irrelevant to the making of or the 'explaining' of any real music.

> A good analogy between the musical and
> physical worlds is the concept of a harmonic musical structure viewed as a
> "harmonic solar system," which consists of a musical sun and eleven remote
> musical planets. These TWELVE abstract entities (I'm certain that you know
> about the magic number twelve, which keeps popping up in music theory) are
> known as harmonic *functional roots*. When reduced to musical practice,
> these twelve functional roots (which I refer to simply as "roots" and
> number them from {1} to {12}) correspond to the twelve tones of the
> chromatic scale. In this planetary model, the RCS is (you guessed it!) the
> harmonic "sun."

It's just that your 12th planet is totally out of whack with the way
that real people make real music in the real Universe.
Your system would be much more compelling and in sync with REAL music if
it were laid out like this:
-6 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 RCS 1 2 3 4 5 6
Gb Db Ab Eb Bb F C G D A E B F# (with C as RCS)
But that still wouldn't make it relevant!

> A crude physical analogue of harmonic "root progression" (in the language
> of our Ancient Revered One who, unable to tolerate abstract concepts, uses
> the word "root" with reference to the tones of a diatonic scale)

No-one has ever used the word "root" to be synonymous with the tones of
a diatonic scale in the way that you are suggesting. In tonal music, the
tones of the major or minor scale are merely used as a set of tones from
which the roots of the most strongly key related chords *can be* drawn.
TONAL harmonic analysis is about how things, melodically and
harmonically, relate to the key feeling, period. In an analysis of tonal
music by divorcing harmonic progression from its relation to the key you
lose any understanding of the essence of the music. YOU do not
understand tonal music Albert, not in the slightest.

Nobody who makes music of any type, tonal or non, hears or thinks of
music in the way you describe. NOBODY. Your theory explains no music
that anybody has ever written and, since you don't write any music
yourself, it never will. Yours is an impotent little weenie peeing in
the wind.

> would be
> a "musical astronaut" who journies throughout the 12-planet harmonic
> universe. For example, the root progression {3}-->{2} would be represented
> by our musical astronaut journeying from planet {3} to planet {2}, etc.
> Note that the Ancient so-called "dominant-tonic" progression is the root
> progression {2}-->{1}.

And what kind of wormhole do you propose for him to return so quickly,
as is so often the case, from the 12th planet?

> >> A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
> >> chordal) background exists at every point in time. For purposes of
> >> this discussion, it is assumed that there is only one melody. The
> >> subject of multiple melodies in chord-based music is explained in
> >> texts on "counterpoint" and is not pertinent to the current
> >> discussion. The melody "co-exists" with this chordal background; it
> >> is *not* produced by a time sequence of chords, as is erroneously
> >> stated in numerous Ancient-influenced texts on harmony. At issue here
> >> is the relationship between melody tones and the chordal background.
> >> With few exceptions, the requirement which dictates the "permissible"
> >> use of a melody tone whch coexists within a harmonic background is
> >> based upon *the avoidance of an unpleasant discord*. The successful
> >> avoidance of such a discord depends not only upon the tone's pitch,
> >> but also upon its time duration and relative accent. For example, a
> >> short-duration tone which blends with the harmonic background without
> >> any significant "aural objection" might well create an unpleasant
> >> discord when its time duration is extended.
> >
> > Ok. Clear. But most of the time I start with an existing melody and try to
> > find chords to add texture to the melody.
>
> But you are having difficulty because you do not understand the
> theoretical nature of harmonic root progression,

No, he's fine. It's you who do not understand that melody and harmony
can not be divorced from one another. And in tonal music they can not be
divorced from the governing principles of the key. You probably don't
know this because you don't write any music.

> along with the
> relationship between melody and the harmonic background which, when it
> changes, is a root progression.

That's quite a sentence. "The theoretical nature of harmonic root
progression along with the relationship between melody and the harmonic
background which, when it changes, is a root progression." How could
that not make sense to anybody? Beats me.
So when the relationship between melody and the harmonic background
changes that's a "root progression".
And I always thought a root progression was a progression of roots. Live
and learn.
Or are you trying to describe your own twisted version of a "key change"
here? Is that it? You call key changes "root progressions" now? Keep
those new definitions of common terms coming Al. It really helps make
your message clear.
So what do you call a progression of roots then?

> >A very practical way is to find
> > the key of the melody and to find the triads on the scale tones of the key.
>
> This is a *very bad* way to construct chords,

Says who? You? Who the f... are you? You've written no music.

> because you currently do not
> understand that the appropriate method for constructing chords does not
> involve any linkage between chord form and key;

In key based music it most certainly does. If you tried to write some
music sometime you might know this.

> this is a false premise of
> our Ancient Revered One. This is all explained in The Basics of Chord
> Relationships.

Nothing is explained in any of your writings. It is a theory about
nothing (in much the same way that Seifeld was a show about nothing).

> Study it to see how to construct a chord *without* relying
> upon such a linkage.

Why would anybody want to know how to do that?

What you're really saying here is that because you're too stupid to
understand traditional theory and because you're a paranoid egomaniac
you have to lash out at people who really do know what they're talking about.

> I am
> > aware of the existence of these chords. And they can be 'build' on scale
> > tones, with or without alterations. Their character depends on the place in
> > the scale. For example not every single altered chord adds the same
> > 'texture' in all contexts. That is also valid for chord sequences. Their
> > character depends on their context. (Sorry for my Ancient speek, but that's
> > our frame of reference).
>
> This is what so desperately needs "fixing."

You need fixing! Desperately.

> Eventually you will (if you
> ever manage to get out from under the influence!) look back upon this
> current viewpoint as a horrible dream--a virtual nightmare!

He'll look back at this conversation as a nightmare!

> >> There remain tones which are not component tones of the background
> >> harmony. Such tones are commonly referred to as "added" tones or
> >> "non-harmonic" tones or "unessential" tones. Given this set of nine
> >> essential chord forms, it is easy to hear (i.e., from aural
> >> experience) that certain of these tones do not create an unpleasant
> >> discord with the harmony to which they are added. For example, a
> >> C-major triad contains tones CEG. We can add tone A to this triad
> >> without creating an unpleasant discord. Thus if the background
> >> harmony is a C-major triad, we can use melody tone A freely, without
> >> fear of unintended consequences. Similarly, we can add tone D to a
> >> C-major triad, creating perhaps only a slightly more discordant
> >> effect. Hence this proves the fact that *melody tones need not
> >> necessarily be restricted to component tones of the background
> >> harmony*, contrary to your simplistic statement.
> >
> > No, I dit not state that melody tones are to be chosen from the background
> > harmony.
>
> Sorry; you are right.

Albert must really like you. He never tells anybody else that they were right.

> >But that they are chosen from a scale.
>
> Where do you think that the background harmony comes from?

The key.

> >Not by dogma, but because my
> > ears want that. You did that too in your example. All those tones fit in a
> > scale. The chord tones are chosen from the same set.
>
> I do not understand your argument here.

He's saying that the tones in a key have a sort of gravity that attracts
them together within the melody and harmony both. If you knew anything
about tonal music this would be obvious.

> >The use of non-scale
> > tones can add surprising effects. How can you explain these 'surprises'
> > _without_ ancient theory?
>
> What is your point?

His point is that what you call "ancient theory" is a necessity for
understanding tonal music and that your theory is irrelevant to said goal.

> >>
> >> The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
> >> Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
> >> record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
> >> specific questions.
> >>
> >> CONCLUSION
> >>
> >> In Part One of this response, I have addressed the relationship
> >> between melody tones and chord tones. In Part Two, I will address the
> >> identification of the RCS. Do you somehow get the feeling that it will
> >> not agree with your stated opinion (IMO) ?
> >
> > Well, I don't know. I have the feeling that it is all about chords, chords,
> > chords and chords.
>
> The RCS can only be identified AURALLY, with reference to chord
> progression.

Again I ask you: Are the Root Of Central Significance and the tone that
is at the center of the melodic phrasing always the same tone, or can
they be different tones?

If they are always the same tone then you need a term for it that
encompasses both the harmonic and melodic aspects of it. The word
"tonic" has been used for this concept for some time now.

If they can be two different tones then you are even more screwed up
than I thought.

> This is a DYNAMIC process; i.e., it takes place over a period
> of time. Very importantly, this identification process in no way relates
> to the tones of any particular diatonic scale.

So you deny that the primary source for MELODIC material in tonal music
is the major or minor scale of the key too?
Just what does the diatonic scale have to do with music making in your
little theory?

> Trying to identify the RCS
> in STATIC fashion, with reference to the tones in a musical score as
> components of a particular diatonic scale, is an exercise in futility.

Trying to identify a tonic, in traditional-speak, by that technique
would also be futile.
So what's your point?

> Repeat: an *exercise in futility*. So yes indeed, this process IS about
> chords, chords, chords, and chords.

I want a theory that's about music, music, music, and music (tonal music
that is), not just chords.

> >How does this all fits in real music? That is not meant
> > cynical. It is a real question. I have to admit that I did not read
> > everything very carefully. But if I have time on my hands, I will.
>
> Answering this question is what *analysis* is all about. Only by analyzing
> a piece of real music, in terms of root progressions and the chords built
> upon those roots, will you ever be able to learn how chords fit into this
> music.

Yes Albert's analysis of All The Things You Are was brilliant and
insightful. No-one hear's this tune like Albert can hear it!

> This remains an exercise for the rest of your life--IF you are
> serious about becoming musically literate.
>
> Unfortunately, the vast majority of "musicians"

You mean people who unlike yourself actually make music?

> (who may claim to be
> serious, but who are really seeking "credentials" to serve as a
> substitute for understanding) are unwilling to make this lifelong
> commitment.

Committed is what you should have been, long ago.

> Instead, they are willing to spend their lives wandering
> around aimlessly in Wonderland!

I thought Alice was in Wonderland. The rest of us certainly are not.

> Alice
> (still stuck in Wonderland; can't seem to get out of that hole!)
>

--

unread,

Jun 12, 2003, 2:12:34 PM6/12/03

to

> Before you can even discuss chords on a concrete, practical basis, you
> need an abstract (our residents here in Wonderland have an absolutely
> terrible time understanding abstract concepts, since our Ancient Revered
> One cannot tolerate them and works extremely hard to prevent our residents
> from understanding them) definition of "chord." The starting point, from
> which everything else follows, is that:
>
> A CHORD IS A UNIT OF COMPOSITION
>
> Repeating what I have said before, this means that, contrary to the
> teachings of our Ancient Revered One, a chord is *NOT* created by the
> coincidence of several melodies. Rather, it is an entity that is used as a
> compositional "building block," as it were. This, then, is the defining
> characteristic of chord-based composition.

If chords are to be seen as building blocks for use in a composition, does
this mean that starting with melody is nog good any more? Or if I want to
write a piece for two instruments (duet), how can I use chords-based
composition techniques (?) for this? Or is chord-based composition only
relevant for a specific type of music?

> A crude physical analogue of harmonic "root progression" (in the language
> of our Ancient Revered One who, unable to tolerate abstract concepts, uses
> the word "root" with reference to the tones of a diatonic scale) would be
> a "musical astronaut" who journies throughout the 12-planet harmonic
> universe. For example, the root progression {3}-->{2} would be represented
> by our musical astronaut journeying from planet {3} to planet {2}, etc.
> Note that the Ancient so-called "dominant-tonic" progression is the root
> progression {2}-->{1}.

Ok. Does this mean that you travel in fifths?

> >> A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
> >> chordal) background exists at every point in time.

I think that this answered my previous question about compositions for two
voices alone.
Does this mean that Ancient Theory is only useful (in your eyes) where this
premise is not what you want?

> >> For purposes of
> >> this discussion, it is assumed that there is only one melody. The
> >> subject of multiple melodies in chord-based music is explained in
> >> texts on "counterpoint" and is not pertinent to the current
> >> discussion. The melody "co-exists" with this chordal background; it
> >> is *not* produced by a time sequence of chords, as is erroneously
> >> stated in numerous Ancient-influenced texts on harmony. At issue here
> >> is the relationship between melody tones and the chordal background.
> >> With few exceptions, the requirement which dictates the "permissible"
> >> use of a melody tone whch coexists within a harmonic background is
> >> based upon *the avoidance of an unpleasant discord*. The successful
> >> avoidance of such a discord depends not only upon the tone's pitch,
> >> but also upon its time duration and relative accent. For example, a
> >> short-duration tone which blends with the harmonic background without
> >> any significant "aural objection" might well create an unpleasant
> >> discord when its time duration is extended.

Does this say that you first need to choose chords as the building blocks of
your composition and then add a melody 'layer' on this chords? I can imagine
this: I played keyboard: melody over chords (but also chords under a
melody!!). I don't (yet) understand why one needs a whole new theory for
this.

> > Ok. Clear. But most of the time I start with an existing melody and try
to
> > find chords to add texture to the melody.
>
> But you are having difficulty because you do not understand the
> theoretical nature of harmonic root progression, along with the
> relationship between melody and the harmonic background which, when it
> changes, is a root progression.

I have no difficulty with that!! I did not say that. It is in fact very,
very simple to find chords for an existing melody. I did that very often and
in no time I am able to find nice sounding chords and progressions. (These
progressions are also root progressions in your theory, are they?)

> >A very practical way is to find
> > the key of the melody and to find the triads on the scale tones of the
key.
>
> This is a *very bad* way to construct chords, because you currently do not
> understand that the appropriate method for constructing chords does not
> involve any linkage between chord form and key; this is a false premise of
> our Ancient Revered One. This is all explained in The Basics of Chord
> Relationships. Study it to see how to construct a chord *without* relying
> upon such a linkage.

But WHY? It just works!!!

> >> Apart from the two triads, these nine chord forms of course have
> >> Ancient-influenced names, seemingly designed to perpetuate the
> >> general state of catastrophic conceptual confusion. It seems as
> >> though rationality, consistency, and coherence are not permitted
> >> within Ancient Nomenclature! And the nomenclature cannot be changed
> >> without revising Ancient Musical History (which Musical Academia
> >> refers to as "theory"). But of course *we* know that theory is a
> >> description of musical principles, not a time continuum of Ancient
> >> Hallucinations. Don't we?
> >
> > Can you explain why they are not permitted in Ancient Nomenclature?
>
> This is another way of saying that, because Ancient Theory is defective,
> the resulting terminology and nomenclature is nonsensical and irrelevant,
> although it must be admitted that it is often highly amusing. But for
> enlightenment? Forget it!

????

> I am
> > aware of the existence of these chords. And they can be 'build' on scale
> > tones, with or without alterations. Their character depends on the place
in
> > the scale. For example not every single altered chord adds the same
> > 'texture' in all contexts. That is also valid for chord sequences. Their
> > character depends on their context. (Sorry for my Ancient speek, but
that's
> > our frame of reference).
>
> This is what so desperately needs "fixing." Eventually you will (if you
> ever manage to get out from under the influence!) look back upon this
> current viewpoint as a horrible dream--a virtual nightmare!

But why needs something to be fixed if it works? If it ain't broke, don't
fix it!

> >> There remain tones which are not component tones of the background
> >> harmony. Such tones are commonly referred to as "added" tones or
> >> "non-harmonic" tones or "unessential" tones. Given this set of nine
> >> essential chord forms, it is easy to hear (i.e., from aural
> >> experience) that certain of these tones do not create an unpleasant
> >> discord with the harmony to which they are added. For example, a
> >> C-major triad contains tones CEG. We can add tone A to this triad
> >> without creating an unpleasant discord. Thus if the background
> >> harmony is a C-major triad, we can use melody tone A freely, without
> >> fear of unintended consequences. Similarly, we can add tone D to a
> >> C-major triad, creating perhaps only a slightly more discordant
> >> effect. Hence this proves the fact that *melody tones need not
> >> necessarily be restricted to component tones of the background
> >> harmony*, contrary to your simplistic statement.
> >
> > No, I dit not state that melody tones are to be chosen from the
background
> > harmony.
>
> Sorry; you are right.
>
> >But that they are chosen from a scale.
>
> Where do you think that the background harmony comes from?

From a scale?! (Water comes from the sea. Is it therefor valid to say that
the sea is in a glass of water?)

> >Not by dogma, but because my
> > ears want that. You did that too in your example. All those tones fit in
a
> > scale. The chord tones are chosen from the same set.
>
> I do not understand your argument here.

That what you say about background harmony and melody tones easily can be
'translated' into Ancient Theory Speak!

>
> >The use of non-scale
> > tones can add surprising effects. How can you explain these 'surprises'
> > _without_ ancient theory?
>
> What is your point?

My point is that ancient theory can explain these things because it is
apparant that these 'surprises' are present BECAUSE they are non-scale
tones. Can your theory do the same?

I am not interested in the irrelevance of Ancient Theory but in the
RELEVANCE of your theory.

> >> The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
> >> Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
> >> record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
> >> specific questions.

I will read it some time. If I have plenty of time.

> > Well, I don't know. I have the feeling that it is all about chords,
chords,
> > chords and chords.
>
> The RCS can only be identified AURALLY, with reference to chord
> progression. This is a DYNAMIC process; i.e., it takes place over a period
> of time.

I am interested in how this RCS beast can be found and how it can be
relevant, even if it only applies to chord-based music.

> Unfortunately, the vast majority of "musicians" (who may claim to be
> serious, but who are really seeking "credentials" to serve as a
> substitute for understanding) are unwilling to make this lifelong
> commitment. Instead, they are willing to spend their lives wandering
> around aimlessly in Wonderland!

What counts for me is that I can *do* something with a theory. If
understanding leads to better music, I am very interested. If not, I am
bored.

>
>
> Alice
> (still stuck in Wonderland; can't seem to get out of that hole!)

If I can do anything to help you out of that hole....? ;-)

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 12, 2003, 8:45:08 PM6/12/03

to

In article <bcaftb$e6p$1...@reader10.wxs.nl>, Bokkers wrote:
>> Before you can even discuss chords on a concrete, practical basis, you
>> need an abstract (our residents here in Wonderland have an absolutely
>> terrible time understanding abstract concepts, since our Ancient Revered
>> One cannot tolerate them and works extremely hard to prevent our residents
>> from understanding them) definition of "chord." The starting point, from
>> which everything else follows, is that:
>>
>> A CHORD IS A UNIT OF COMPOSITION
>>
>> Repeating what I have said before, this means that, contrary to the
>> teachings of our Ancient Revered One, a chord is *NOT* created by the
>> coincidence of several melodies. Rather, it is an entity that is used as a
>> compositional "building block," as it were. This, then, is the defining
>> characteristic of chord-based composition.
>
> If chords are to be seen as building blocks for use in a composition, does
> this mean that starting with melody is nog good any more?

Not at all.

>Or if I want to
> write a piece for two instruments (duet), how can I use chords-based
> composition techniques (?) for this?

Although a "chord" is defined as several tones in combination, it is not
necessary that these tones be *sounded simultaneously in time*. Due to the
phenomenon of "aural persistence," several tones sounded in a sequence in
time combine within the ear to provide the sensation of a chord, provided
that the sequence is not stretched out "too long" in time. In other a
words, even an instrument which is capable of playing only one note at a
time can, in effect, play a "chord." Almost surely you know this but have
not consciously thought about it. If this were not true, an arpeggio, for
example, could not be identified aurally as a "chord." So you may rest
easy. The number of "voices" involved has nothing at all to do with
whether or not the music is chord-based.

>Or is chord-based composition only
> relevant for a specific type of music?

It is, but the "type" of music is not based upon the number of voices.
Rather, it is music composed within the framework of a chord as a
compositional unit. That is, one must think as a *progression from one
chord to another* over a period of time.

>
>> A crude physical analogue of harmonic "root progression" (in the language
>> of our Ancient Revered One who, unable to tolerate abstract concepts, uses
>> the word "root" with reference to the tones of a diatonic scale) would be
>> a "musical astronaut" who journies throughout the 12-planet harmonic
>> universe. For example, the root progression {3}-->{2} would be represented
>> by our musical astronaut journeying from planet {3} to planet {2}, etc.
>> Note that the Ancient so-called "dominant-tonic" progression is the root
>> progression {2}-->{1}.
>
> Ok. Does this mean that you travel in fifths?

No. Rather, it is a loose model for root progression which, in simple
chord-based composition, occurs at certain points in the musical phrasing;
namely, at the end of a *phrase*, in the return to the RCS after a
"journey" through the harmonic universe, as it were.

Additionally, the 5th-step root progression is very commonly observed at
"remote" locations within the harmonic structure. Fifth-step "chain"
progressions are also very common. For example, the root progression
{5}-->{4}-->{3} is a two-step chain progression, etc. In Ancient Theory,
the root {5} is said to be a "secondary dominant," since the progression
is by fifth-step to {4}, etc.

>
>> >> A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
>> >> chordal) background exists at every point in time.
>
> I think that this answered my previous question about compositions for two
> voices alone.
> Does this mean that Ancient Theory is only useful (in your eyes) where this
> premise is not what you want?

I don't understand this statement. Would you re-phrase it?

>
>> >> For purposes of
>> >> this discussion, it is assumed that there is only one melody. The
>> >> subject of multiple melodies in chord-based music is explained in
>> >> texts on "counterpoint" and is not pertinent to the current
>> >> discussion. The melody "co-exists" with this chordal background; it
>> >> is *not* produced by a time sequence of chords, as is erroneously
>> >> stated in numerous Ancient-influenced texts on harmony. At issue here
>> >> is the relationship between melody tones and the chordal background.
>> >> With few exceptions, the requirement which dictates the "permissible"
>> >> use of a melody tone whch coexists within a harmonic background is
>> >> based upon *the avoidance of an unpleasant discord*. The successful
>> >> avoidance of such a discord depends not only upon the tone's pitch,
>> >> but also upon its time duration and relative accent. For example, a
>> >> short-duration tone which blends with the harmonic background without
>> >> any significant "aural objection" might well create an unpleasant
>> >> discord when its time duration is extended.
>
> Does this say that you first need to choose chords as the building blocks of
> your composition and then add a melody 'layer' on this chords?

No. Generally melody is the driving force in a chord-based composition.
However, the *nature* of the melody must be controlled in a certain
manner, so that the time sequence of melody tones is perceived as
constituting the desired chord progression. This is done by the selection
of melody tones, their relative accents, and time durations.

>I can imagine
> this: I played keyboard: melody over chords (but also chords under a
> melody!!). I don't (yet) understand why one needs a whole new theory for
> this.

You are misconstruing the word "theory." Theory is an explanation of the
music; i.e., it is a *point of view*. You may indeed do this, but it needs
to be *explained* in a rational manner. The Ancient explanation is not
rational.

>
>> > Ok. Clear. But most of the time I start with an existing melody and try
> to
>> > find chords to add texture to the melody.
>>
>> But you are having difficulty because you do not understand the
>> theoretical nature of harmonic root progression, along with the
>> relationship between melody and the harmonic background which, when it
>> changes, is a root progression.
>
> I have no difficulty with that!! I did not say that. It is in fact very,
> very simple to find chords for an existing melody. I did that very often and
> in no time I am able to find nice sounding chords and progressions. (These
> progressions are also root progressions in your theory, are they?)

Yes. But this is hardly *my* invention!

My point is that we need an organized way of thinking about these
things--things that have been in existence for a long, long, long time.

>
>> >A very practical way is to find
>> > the key of the melody and to find the triads on the scale tones of the
> key.
>>
>> This is a *very bad* way to construct chords, because you currently do not
>> understand that the appropriate method for constructing chords does not
>> involve any linkage between chord form and key; this is a false premise of
>> our Ancient Revered One. This is all explained in The Basics of Chord
>> Relationships. Study it to see how to construct a chord *without* relying
>> upon such a linkage.
>
> But WHY? It just works!!!

WHAT "just works"?

I doubt very much that you understand Ancient "key."

>
>
>> >> Apart from the two triads, these nine chord forms of course have
>> >> Ancient-influenced names, seemingly designed to perpetuate the
>> >> general state of catastrophic conceptual confusion. It seems as
>> >> though rationality, consistency, and coherence are not permitted
>> >> within Ancient Nomenclature! And the nomenclature cannot be changed
>> >> without revising Ancient Musical History (which Musical Academia
>> >> refers to as "theory"). But of course *we* know that theory is a
>> >> description of musical principles, not a time continuum of Ancient
>> >> Hallucinations. Don't we?
>> >
>> > Can you explain why they are not permitted in Ancient Nomenclature?
>>
>> This is another way of saying that, because Ancient Theory is defective,
>> the resulting terminology and nomenclature is nonsensical and irrelevant,
>> although it must be admitted that it is often highly amusing. But for
>> enlightenment? Forget it!
>
> ????

These question marks relate to your understanding of "key." But you are
hardly alone.

>
>> I am
>> > aware of the existence of these chords. And they can be 'build' on scale
>> > tones, with or without alterations. Their character depends on the place
> in
>> > the scale. For example not every single altered chord adds the same
>> > 'texture' in all contexts. That is also valid for chord sequences. Their
>> > character depends on their context. (Sorry for my Ancient speek, but
> that's
>> > our frame of reference).
>>
>> This is what so desperately needs "fixing." Eventually you will (if you
>> ever manage to get out from under the influence!) look back upon this
>> current viewpoint as a horrible dream--a virtual nightmare!
>
> But why needs something to be fixed if it works? If it ain't broke, don't
> fix it!

It needs "fixing" *so that you (and everyone else under Ancient
Authoritative influence) can understand it*!

>
>> >> There remain tones which are not component tones of the background
>> >> harmony. Such tones are commonly referred to as "added" tones or
>> >> "non-harmonic" tones or "unessential" tones. Given this set of nine
>> >> essential chord forms, it is easy to hear (i.e., from aural
>> >> experience) that certain of these tones do not create an unpleasant
>> >> discord with the harmony to which they are added. For example, a
>> >> C-major triad contains tones CEG. We can add tone A to this triad
>> >> without creating an unpleasant discord. Thus if the background
>> >> harmony is a C-major triad, we can use melody tone A freely, without
>> >> fear of unintended consequences. Similarly, we can add tone D to a
>> >> C-major triad, creating perhaps only a slightly more discordant
>> >> effect. Hence this proves the fact that *melody tones need not
>> >> necessarily be restricted to component tones of the background
>> >> harmony*, contrary to your simplistic statement.
>> >
>> > No, I dit not state that melody tones are to be chosen from the
> background
>> > harmony.
>>
>> Sorry; you are right.
>>
>> >But that they are chosen from a scale.
>>
>> Where do you think that the background harmony comes from?
>
> From a scale?! (Water comes from the sea. Is it therefor valid to say that
> the sea is in a glass of water?)

Certainly it (at any moment) is a chord that is constructed from a
scale. What are you questioning?

>
>> >Not by dogma, but because my
>> > ears want that. You did that too in your example. All those tones fit in
> a
>> > scale. The chord tones are chosen from the same set.
>>
>> I do not understand your argument here.
>
> That what you say about background harmony and melody tones easily can be
> 'translated' into Ancient Theory Speak!

Of course it can. But WHY should anyone want to do this? It is an exercise
in futility!!

>
>>
>> >The use of non-scale
>> > tones can add surprising effects. How can you explain these 'surprises'
>> > _without_ ancient theory?
>>
>> What is your point?
>
> My point is that ancient theory can explain these things because it is
> apparant that these 'surprises' are present BECAUSE they are non-scale
> tones. Can your theory do the same?

I still don't understand what you are getting at.

Once again, "theory" is a means of explaining practice. I am explaining
practice by setting up an essential chord set, which does not contain
*every possible tone*. Ancient Theory comes to the same conclusion, but by
a different route.

>I am not interested in the irrelevance of Ancient
>Theory but in the
>RELEVANCE of your theory.

Of course, if a theory is to be worth anything at all, then it MUST be
"relevant"; i.e., it must correlate with practice. Ancient Theory does not
do so. This is my whole point, in case you have missed it.

>
>> >> The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
>> >> Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
>> >> record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
>> >> specific questions.
>
> I will read it some time. If I have plenty of time.

Do you expect to learn music theory overnight? People spend a *lifetime*
in this endeavor. ONE STEP AT A TIME. No quicker than this!

>
>> > Well, I don't know. I have the feeling that it is all about chords,
> chords,
>> > chords and chords.
>>
>> The RCS can only be identified AURALLY, with reference to chord
>> progression. This is a DYNAMIC process; i.e., it takes place over a period
>> of time.
>
> I am interested in how this RCS beast can be found and how it can be
> relevant, even if it only applies to chord-based music.

You *should* be, since this is the heart of chord-based music, from which
all else stems. In other words, it is the heart of Ancient "tonality."
Believe it or not!!! Make sure that you do not make the mistake of calling
this "key feeling"; an absurd term dreamed up by one (or those) who are
unable to define the beast.

Although you were not here for the last several years, I have, in the
past, posted several articles of actual pieces of music, intended to
explain the underlying concepts of the RCS, chord progressions, etc., etc.

But, since this is the most difficult concept in chord-based music, it
follows that very few individuals really followed the details. As you may
be aware, if something cannot be learned within a couple of weeks, then
why bother? This is our "instant society." This is why so very few have
any understanding of musical principles.

I will probably eventually re-post one or some of these past articles. But
I have no reason to expect that anyone here will be interested in
following them. In fact, in *today's* newsgroup, which is filled with
individuals whose sole purpose is to say nothing and to flaunt their
defective "credentials," signifying nothing, it is extremely doubtful that
anyone will be interested.

These jerks have nothing to say and say it very well.

>> Unfortunately, the vast
majority of "musicians" (who may claim
to be >> serious, but who are really seeking "credentials" to serve as a
>> substitute for understanding) are unwilling to make this lifelong
>> commitment. Instead, they are willing to spend their lives wandering
>> around aimlessly in Wonderland!
>
> What counts for me is that I can *do* something with a theory. If
> understanding leads to better music, I am very interested. If not, I am
> bored.

Once again, you need to understand what is meant by "theory." It is *not*
as set of "rules" for composing. It is *not* a "method" of composing.

>
>>
>>
>> Alice
>> (still stuck in Wonderland; can't seem to get out of that hole!)
>
> If I can do anything to help you out of that hole....? ;-)

You can ask the *right* questions!!

Alice

>
>

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 13, 2003, 4:54:45 AM6/13/03

to

> > If chords are to be seen as building blocks for use in a composition,
does
> > this mean that starting with melody is nog good any more?
>
> Not at all.
>
> >Or if I want to
> > write a piece for two instruments (duet), how can I use chords-based
> > composition techniques (?) for this?
>
> Although a "chord" is defined as several tones in combination, it is not
> necessary that these tones be *sounded simultaneously in time*. Due to the
> phenomenon of "aural persistence," several tones sounded in a sequence in
> time combine within the ear to provide the sensation of a chord, provided
> that the sequence is not stretched out "too long" in time. In other a
> words, even an instrument which is capable of playing only one note at a
> time can, in effect, play a "chord." Almost surely you know this but have
> not consciously thought about it. If this were not true, an arpeggio, for
> example, could not be identified aurally as a "chord." So you may rest
> easy. The number of "voices" involved has nothing at all to do with
> whether or not the music is chord-based.

Ok.

> >Or is chord-based composition only
> > relevant for a specific type of music?
>
> It is, but the "type" of music is not based upon the number of voices.
> Rather, it is music composed within the framework of a chord as a
> compositional unit. That is, one must think as a *progression from one
> chord to another* over a period of time.

Ok.

> >> A crude physical analogue of harmonic "root progression" (in the
language
> >> of our Ancient Revered One who, unable to tolerate abstract concepts,
uses
> >> the word "root" with reference to the tones of a diatonic scale) would
be
> >> a "musical astronaut" who journies throughout the 12-planet harmonic
> >> universe. For example, the root progression {3}-->{2} would be
represented
> >> by our musical astronaut journeying from planet {3} to planet {2}, etc.
> >> Note that the Ancient so-called "dominant-tonic" progression is the
root
> >> progression {2}-->{1}.
> >
> > Ok. Does this mean that you travel in fifths?
>
> No. Rather, it is a loose model for root progression which, in simple
> chord-based composition, occurs at certain points in the musical phrasing;
> namely, at the end of a *phrase*, in the return to the RCS after a
> "journey" through the harmonic universe, as it were.

A cadence as we would call that. :-)

> Additionally, the 5th-step root progression is very commonly observed at
> "remote" locations within the harmonic structure. Fifth-step "chain"
> progressions are also very common. For example, the root progression
> {5}-->{4}-->{3} is a two-step chain progression, etc. In Ancient Theory,
> the root {5} is said to be a "secondary dominant," since the progression
> is by fifth-step to {4}, etc.

Ok.

> >> >> A basic premise of chord-based composition is that a harmonic (i.e.,
> >> >> chordal) background exists at every point in time.
> >
> > I think that this answered my previous question about compositions for
two
> > voices alone.
> > Does this mean that Ancient Theory is only useful (in your eyes) where
this
> > premise is not what you want?
>
> I don't understand this statement. Would you re-phrase it?

Never mind. It is not relevant anymore, since it has been answered by your
previous answers.

And ancient theory is not organized enough?

> >> >A very practical way is to find
> >> > the key of the melody and to find the triads on the scale tones of
the
> > key.
> >>
> >> This is a *very bad* way to construct chords, because you currently do
not
> >> understand that the appropriate method for constructing chords does not
> >> involve any linkage between chord form and key; this is a false premise
of
> >> our Ancient Revered One. This is all explained in The Basics of Chord
> >> Relationships. Study it to see how to construct a chord *without*
relying
> >> upon such a linkage.
> >
> > But WHY? It just works!!!
>
> WHAT "just works"?

Finding chords for an existing melody using existing music theory.

> I doubt very much that you understand Ancient "key."

Maybe I don't understand it really, but I am able to make *practical* use of
the concept. That's enough for me.
Can your theory help me in the same way? You talk about an *appropriate*
method for constructing chords. Can you give me any (simple) examples that
end up in real music?

(Besided: We all still use Newton's formula for mass, force, time, velocity,
gravity. Even now we know (thanks to Einstein) that his theory is not
correct.)

> >> >> Apart from the two triads, these nine chord forms of course have
> >> >> Ancient-influenced names, seemingly designed to perpetuate the
> >> >> general state of catastrophic conceptual confusion. It seems as
> >> >> though rationality, consistency, and coherence are not permitted
> >> >> within Ancient Nomenclature! And the nomenclature cannot be changed
> >> >> without revising Ancient Musical History (which Musical Academia
> >> >> refers to as "theory"). But of course *we* know that theory is a
> >> >> description of musical principles, not a time continuum of Ancient
> >> >> Hallucinations. Don't we?
> >> >
> >> > Can you explain why they are not permitted in Ancient Nomenclature?
> >>
> >> This is another way of saying that, because Ancient Theory is
defective,
> >> the resulting terminology and nomenclature is nonsensical and
irrelevant,
> >> although it must be admitted that it is often highly amusing. But for
> >> enlightenment? Forget it!
> >
> > ????
>
> These question marks relate to your understanding of "key." But you are
> hardly alone.

Than, explain me what key is!
Or do we use other definitions of what key is?

Need I have a good understanding of key if it is not present in your theory?

> >
> >> I am
> >> > aware of the existence of these chords. And they can be 'build' on
scale
> >> > tones, with or without alterations. Their character depends on the
place
> > in
> >> > the scale. For example not every single altered chord adds the same
> >> > 'texture' in all contexts. That is also valid for chord sequences.
Their
> >> > character depends on their context. (Sorry for my Ancient speek, but
> > that's
> >> > our frame of reference).
> >>
> >> This is what so desperately needs "fixing." Eventually you will (if you
> >> ever manage to get out from under the influence!) look back upon this
> >> current viewpoint as a horrible dream--a virtual nightmare!
> >
> > But why needs something to be fixed if it works? If it ain't broke,
don't
> > fix it!
> It needs "fixing" *so that you (and everyone else under Ancient
> Authoritative influence) can understand it*!

Ok. But *what* if I understands? Does this make me understands music better?
Does it open new ways for creating music? What is the bonus? Theories are
not philosophies!

> >> > No, I dit not state that melody tones are to be chosen from the
> > background
> >> > harmony.
> >>
> >> Sorry; you are right.
> >>
> >> >But that they are chosen from a scale.
> >>
> >> Where do you think that the background harmony comes from?
> >
> > From a scale?! (Water comes from the sea. Is it therefor valid to say
that
> > the sea is in a glass of water?)
>
> Certainly it (at any moment) is a chord that is constructed from a
> scale. What are you questioning?

I forgot. It was a discussion about a previous discussion.
But now you mention scales as the construction base for chords!!
So scales are not irrelevant in your theory? And keys are?

> >> >Not by dogma, but because my
> >> > ears want that. You did that too in your example. All those tones fit
in
> > a
> >> > scale. The chord tones are chosen from the same set.
> >>
> >> I do not understand your argument here.
> >
> > That what you say about background harmony and melody tones easily can
be
> > 'translated' into Ancient Theory Speak!
>
> Of course it can. But WHY should anyone want to do this? It is an exercise
> in futility!!

If it is a 1 to 1 translation (what I think it is), we are talking only
about different languages. Not different theories.

> >> >The use of non-scale
> >> > tones can add surprising effects. How can you explain these
'surprises'
> >> > _without_ ancient theory?
> >>
> >> What is your point?
> >
> > My point is that ancient theory can explain these things because it is
> > apparant that these 'surprises' are present BECAUSE they are non-scale
> > tones. Can your theory do the same?
>
> I still don't understand what you are getting at.

Forget it, then.

> Once again, "theory" is a means of explaining practice. I am explaining
> practice by setting up an essential chord set, which does not contain
> *every possible tone*. Ancient Theory comes to the same conclusion, but by
> a different route.
>
> >I am not interested in the irrelevance of Ancient
> >Theory but in the
> >RELEVANCE of your theory.
>
> Of course, if a theory is to be worth anything at all, then it MUST be
> "relevant"; i.e., it must correlate with practice. Ancient Theory does not
> do so. This is my whole point, in case you have missed it.

This point is easy to miss, since you does not make use of examples. I am
not able to learn a theory without examples. All text books about music
theory make use of examples. In *that* way there is a correlation with
practice.

> >> >> The relegation of a tone to the "added" category is not to deny its
> >> >> Åimportance, You may read about added tones (sounds like a broken
> >> >> record, doesn't it?) in The Basics of Chord Relationships or ask
> >> >> specific questions.
> >
> > I will read it some time. If I have plenty of time.
>
> Do you expect to learn music theory overnight? People spend a *lifetime*
> in this endeavor. ONE STEP AT A TIME. No quicker than this!

O sure. I am not in a hurry.

> >> > Well, I don't know. I have the feeling that it is all about chords,
> > chords,
> >> > chords and chords.
> >>
> >> The RCS can only be identified AURALLY, with reference to chord
> >> progression. This is a DYNAMIC process; i.e., it takes place over a
period
> >> of time.
> >
> > I am interested in how this RCS beast can be found and how it can be
> > relevant, even if it only applies to chord-based music.
>
> You *should* be, since this is the heart of chord-based music, from which
> all else stems. In other words, it is the heart of Ancient "tonality."
> Believe it or not!!! Make sure that you do not make the mistake of calling
> this "key feeling"; an absurd term dreamed up by one (or those) who are
> unable to define the beast.
>
> Although you were not here for the last several years, I have, in the
> past, posted several articles of actual pieces of music, intended to
> explain the underlying concepts of the RCS, chord progressions, etc., etc.

That's what I want to see. So there *are* examples.

> But, since this is the most difficult concept in chord-based music, it
> follows that very few individuals really followed the details. As you may
> be aware, if something cannot be learned within a couple of weeks, then
> why bother? This is our "instant society." This is why so very few have
> any understanding of musical principles.

The same goes for ancient theory.

> I will probably eventually re-post one or some of these past articles. But
> I have no reason to expect that anyone here will be interested in
> following them. In fact, in *today's* newsgroup, which is filled with
> individuals whose sole purpose is to say nothing and to flaunt their
> defective "credentials," signifying nothing, it is extremely doubtful that
> anyone will be interested.
>
> These jerks have nothing to say and say it very well.

As far as I am concerned: it is definitely not my intension to end up in a
flame war.

> >> Unfortunately, the vast
> majority of "musicians" (who may claim
> to be >> serious, but who are really seeking "credentials" to serve as a
> >> substitute for understanding) are unwilling to make this lifelong
> >> commitment. Instead, they are willing to spend their lives wandering
> >> around aimlessly in Wonderland!
> >
> > What counts for me is that I can *do* something with a theory. If
> > understanding leads to better music, I am very interested. If not, I am
> > bored.
>
> Once again, you need to understand what is meant by "theory." It is *not*
> as set of "rules" for composing. It is *not* a "method" of composing.

Theories model a thing. But most theories can be applied in practice. It's
these practical consequences where I am most interested in.

> >> Alice
> >> (still stuck in Wonderland; can't seem to get out of that hole!)
> >
> > If I can do anything to help you out of that hole....? ;-)
>
> You can ask the *right* questions!!

And the right question is? (I assume this is too simple?)

Josh Dougherty

unread,

Jun 13, 2003, 5:35:49 AM6/13/03

to

Silverman has already insisted that his theory has no relationship to
"practice" as you call it, ....meaning: composing, performing or improvising
music. He can not articulate any benefit that any musician might get from
his theory other than some kind of vague notion of "understanding". He
simply claims that his theory produces some kind of "understanding" that
"ancient theory" can't (and in fact intentionally obscures from musicians),
but he can't ever explain to musicians what this supposed "understanding" is
or how it can be translated into "practice".

Josh

"Bokkers" <wim.bokker...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:bcc3l9$f1i$1...@reader11.wxs.nl...

Bob Pease

unread,

Jun 13, 2003, 10:48:33 AM6/13/03

to

"Josh Dougherty" <jdoc1...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:VVgGa.42193$rO.41...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...

> Silverman has already insisted that his theory has no relationship to
> "practice" as you call it, ....meaning: composing, performing or
improvising
> music. He can not articulate any benefit that any musician might get from
> his theory other than some kind of vague notion of "understanding". He
> simply claims that his theory produces some kind of "understanding" that
> "ancient theory" can't (and in fact intentionally obscures from
musicians),
> but he can't ever explain to musicians what this supposed "understanding"
is
> or how it can be translated into "practice".
>

I would suggest reading Finnegans Wake instead.

I'm sure that there would be some "Inner" meaning and appreciation of music
to be gleaned from studying Silverman.
But not at the expense of learning loads of esoteric mysteries centered
about Silverman's vision of himself as a misunderstood and persecuted
Musical Messiah.

Bob Pease

Joey Goldstein

unread,

Jun 13, 2003, 11:26:11 AM6/13/03

to

Bokkers wrote:
>
>

> (Besided: We all still use Newton's formula for mass, force, time, velocity,
> gravity. Even now we know (thanks to Einstein) that his theory is not
> correct.)

I think that most physicists believe that Newton is still very much
correct on the everyday scale that his theories are equipped to operate
on. It is only with the very big that Einstein's relativity theory of
physics come into play and it is only with the very small that quantum
mechanics comes into play.

Albert is hardly the analog to Einstein or Bohr within the world of
harmonic theory.

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 13, 2003, 1:08:34 PM6/13/03

to

>Bokkers wrote:
>>
>>
>
>> (Besided: We all still use Newton's formula for mass, force, time,
>velocity,
>> gravity. Even now we know (thanks to Einstein) that his theory is not
>> correct.)

newton's theories provide an extremely useful approximation, well within the
limits of what we can actually measure in daily life.

as's theories do not provide anything useful by his own admission, and they
certainly do nothing to correct any approximations out there in traditional
theory.

Daniel Seriff

unread,

Jun 13, 2003, 8:16:18 PM6/13/03

to

On Fri, 13 Jun 2003 9:48:33 -0500, Bob Pease wrote
(in message <bcco81$i...@dispatch.concentric.net>):

I just picked up a copy of Robert Anton Wilson's /Everything is Under
Control: Conspiracies, Cults and Cover-Ups/ and, to be quite honest, I was
expecting Albert to be mentioned therein. I think we should collectively
contact RAW and inform him that he has left out an important conspiracy
theory.

Pun intended.

--
Daniel Seriff

Your religion is the goofy fruit of the ha-ha bush.

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 8:42:16 AM6/14/03

to

But maybe Albert wants to compare himself with one of those persons.

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 8:44:06 AM6/14/03

to

"Inotmark" <inot...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:20030613130834...@mb-m07.aol.com...

> >Bokkers wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >
> >> (Besided: We all still use Newton's formula for mass, force, time,
> >velocity,
> >> gravity. Even now we know (thanks to Einstein) that his theory is not
> >> correct.)
>
> newton's theories provide an extremely useful approximation, well within
the
> limits of what we can actually measure in daily life.

I know

>
> as's theories do not provide anything useful by his own admission, and
they
> certainly do nothing to correct any approximations out there in
traditional
> theory.

I don't know , but I think you are correct.

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 1:56:49 PM6/14/03

to

In article <bcf5gk$k6t$1...@reader08.wxs.nl>, Bokkers wrote:
>
> "Inotmark" <inot...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
> news:20030613130834...@mb-m07.aol.com...
>> >Bokkers wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >
>> >> (Besided: We all still use Newton's formula for mass, force, time,
>> >velocity,
>> >> gravity. Even now we know (thanks to Einstein) that his theory is not
>> >> correct.)
>>
>> newton's theories provide an extremely useful approximation, well within
> the
>> limits of what we can actually measure in daily life.
>
> I know

What you and the Gentlemen-with-the-Cello do *not* know, however, is the
difference between a *scientif* theory and *musical* theory!

Until you learn this, as I have pointed out in previous posts, you will
continue to be in trouble. Big trouble.

And, until the Gentleman-with-the-Cello learns this, he should stick to
playing his Cello, which is undoutedly more challenge than he can handle,
without taking on the additional challenge of attempting to be all-knowing
in matters of musical theory, and in offering "advice" to others who have
very little knowledge of this subject.

>
>>
>> as's theories do not provide anything useful by his own admission

Here is another one who seeks to put words in my mouth. This newsgroup is
full of such LIARS. I would suggest that you ask this LIAR to provide a
*quote* from me which admits that my theory does not provide anything
useful. You should be careful about listening to LIARS in this newsgroup.
They will indeed *not* provide anything "useful." I, however, find no
necessity for claiming that they admit to this fact. You see, I am not a
LIAR.

I guess it is because I do not play the Cello.

>and they certainly do nothing to correct any approximations out there in
>traditional theory.

The Gentleman-with-the-Cello is trying to gloss over absurdities,
inconsistencies, irrationalities, incoherence, etc., etc., in Ancient
Theory by referring to them as "approximations."

ROTFL!

It is time to curtail such nonsense immediately.

> I don't know , but I think you are correct.

No, you do not know. You have no basis whatsoever (at least at this time)
to determine whether or not the Gentleman-with-the-Cello is correct. In
fact, his Ancient Assertions are *ABSURD*. This is of course to be
expected. This hardly qualifies for the description "correct." >

You need *his* "advice" like you need a hole in the head!

Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)

wherever the hell THAT is

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 2:24:32 PM6/14/03

to

>From: Albert Silverman

(vitriolic diatribe snipped)

your creativity seems to be fading - maybe you better go back into hibernation
and try to recoup some strength.

if i have misunderstood you please clarify:

How is your theory useful to performing musicians? (name one, show some pieces
where your analyses clarify something other analyses do not)

How is your theory useful to composers? (show how it creates coherence where
other techniques don't)

if it is not useful to composers or performers, please explain to whom it is
useful and in what way?

failing that, there is no need to find a quote - the volumes at which your
silence speaks are deafening

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 2:25:52 PM6/14/03

to

>rom: Albert Silverman slv...@panix.com

>What you and the Gentlemen-with-the-Cello do *not* know, however, is the
>difference between a *scientif* theory and *musical* theory!

sorry, i have been published in a scientific journal too, on subjects unrelated
to music.

Richard Ratner

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 2:41:48 PM6/14/03

to

On 14 Jun 2003 18:24:32 GMT, inot...@aol.comnospam (Inotmark) wrote:

>How is your theory useful to performing musicians? (name one, show some pieces
>where your analyses clarify something other analyses do not)
>
>How is your theory useful to composers? (show how it creates coherence where
>other techniques don't)

If you want to guarantee not getting a reply from Albie, just ask the
two questions above.

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 3:31:11 PM6/14/03

to

> What you and the Gentlemen-with-the-Cello do *not* know, however, is the
> difference between a *scientif* theory and *musical* theory!
>
> Until you learn this, as I have pointed out in previous posts, you will
> continue to be in trouble. Big trouble.

Then I am in big trouble. Well it feels fine being this way in big trouble.

>
> And, until the Gentleman-with-the-Cello learns this, he should stick to
> playing his Cello, which is undoutedly more challenge than he can handle,
> without taking on the additional challenge of attempting to be all-knowing
> in matters of musical theory, and in offering "advice" to others who have
> very little knowledge of this subject.

I think playing cello is much more challenging than learning music theory.

> >> as's theories do not provide anything useful by his own admission
>
> Here is another one who seeks to put words in my mouth. This newsgroup is
> full of such LIARS. I would suggest that you ask this LIAR to provide a
> *quote* from me which admits that my theory does not provide anything
> useful. You should be careful about listening to LIARS in this newsgroup.
> They will indeed *not* provide anything "useful." I, however, find no
> necessity for claiming that they admit to this fact. You see, I am not a
> LIAR.

Well I don't think that you said that about your theory. I think nobody
lies, but we all have our own truth ;-)

> I guess it is because I do not play the Cello.

You should do that. A lovely instrument!

> >and they certainly do nothing to correct any approximations out there in
> >traditional theory.
>
> The Gentleman-with-the-Cello is trying to gloss over absurdities,
> inconsistencies, irrationalities, incoherence, etc., etc., in Ancient
> Theory by referring to them as "approximations."
>
> ROTFL!

All theories are approximations.

>
> It is time to curtail such nonsense immediately.
>
> > I don't know , but I think you are correct.
>
> No, you do not know. You have no basis whatsoever (at least at this time)
> to determine whether or not the Gentleman-with-the-Cello is correct. In
> fact, his Ancient Assertions are *ABSURD*. This is of course to be
> expected. This hardly qualifies for the description "correct." >

The assertions 'sounds' very reasonable to me. At least not absurd.
But as I said: I don't know.

>
> You need *his* "advice" like you need a hole in the head!

How should I know that, being that ignorant as I am? Who is speaking the
truth?

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 3:35:07 PM6/14/03

to

"Richard Ratner" <wr...@rgrg.com> wrote in message
news:p5rmev42m157qp8sb...@4ax.com...

If he's indeed not able or willing to answer these questions, I doubt his
theory is useful.
But I am not sure, yet.

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 3:36:04 PM6/14/03

to

"Inotmark" <inot...@aol.comnospam> wrote in message

news:20030614142552...@mb-m18.aol.com...

Off topic: What subjects?

Richard Ratner

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 3:48:22 PM6/14/03

to

When 4 or 5 days pass and Albie has written thousands of lines of
bullshit about alice or whatever, but hasn't answered these questions
because he is unable, then I hope you will be sure.

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 4:02:50 PM6/14/03

to

>From: "Bokkers" wim.bokker...@hetnet.nl

>Off topic: What subjects?
>

herbal photochemotherapy in the ancient world. its a part of my life i like to
forget.

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 3:57:33 PM6/14/03

to

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 8:01:29 PM6/14/03

to

>From: Albert Silverman

>
>We are all waiting.......

no, we aren't. you all may be, but we aren't.

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 14, 2003, 8:04:47 PM6/14/03

to

>From: Albert Silverman slv...@panix.com

>From what I have seen here, I would think that music theory is something
>that you should like to forget about--not "forget." In the meantime, LIAR,
>let's see that quote of mine.
>
>
> WHERE IS IT?

it's archived somewhere. you can look for it if you need to remember it. you
might remember a discussion some years ago when i remarked that your theory was
a theory about nothing.

i have already admitted that you can correct me if i am wrong. what is your
theory useful for? i am all ears ...

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 12:28:56 AM6/15/03

to

In article <20030614200447...@mb-m07.aol.com>, Inotmark wrote:
>>From: Albert Silverman slv...@panix.com
>
>>From what I have seen here, I would think that music theory is something
>>that you should like to forget about--not "forget." In the meantime, LIAR,
>>let's see that quote of mine.
>>
>>
>> WHERE IS IT?
>
> it's archived somewhere.

I see--"archived somewhere". You must think that you are playing a game
with children--LIAR!

you can look for it if you need to remember it.

*I* am not the one who needs to "remember" it. I don't "remember" things
that never existed.

Now cough it up. You have no credibility whatsoever. You have just been
caught in a first-class LIE. You are now a full-fledged member of the

LIAR'S CLUB

here in this newsgroup.

you
> might remember a discussion some years ago when i remarked that your theory was
> a theory about nothing.

What you claimed here, however, is that *I* admitted to a theory which is
not "useful." NOW you say that it was YOU who made the statement about a
"theory about nothing." Now go back to your Cello. You have

NO PERSONAL OR MORAL CREDIBILITY

no matter how well you may play the Cello. The two are unrelated.

What's more; STAY OUT of my conversation with Wim Bokkers. Participation
here is limited to those with credibility.

You almost took him in......

> i have already admitted that you can correct me if i am wrong. what is your
> theory useful for? i am all ears ...

Too late. You will have to get your answers to this question elsewhere.
Meanwhile, perhaps you can dream up some more LIES about what *I* said or
didn't say........

Scott GF Bailey

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 1:06:22 AM6/15/03

to

"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:slrnbenbmf...@panix1.panix.com...

To be fair to Al (who really doesn't deserve fair treatment after his
campaign of ad hominems), he has said emphatically several times that music
is not science. However, he has used the following definition of 'theory'
for several years:

"A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
principle offered to explain phenomena."

This definition is nothing at all like the definition of "theory" used for
other arts. I supplied him with a definition which makes a better fit:

"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".

He never responded, but I don't think he likes the "speculative" bit, as
opposed to "explanatory".

Of course, he has also said:

From: Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com>
Newsgroups: rec.music.theory
Subject: Re: Teaching music and theory to a young child
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 06:27:27 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and UNIX, NYC
Lines: 209
Message-ID: <slrnbc916f...@panix1.panix.com>
References: <b9oonb$mdi$1...@reader1.panix.com>
<tT0wa.68098$ey1.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<b9s34e$t8n$1...@reader1.panix.com>
<kXlwa.71063$4P1.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
<slrnbc68ns...@panix2.panix.com>
<6bIwa.73042$4P1.6...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: panix1.panix.com
X-Trace: reader1.panix.com 1053066447 8488 166.84.1.1 (16 May 2003 06:27:27
GMT)
X-Complaints-To: ab...@panix.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 06:27:27 +0000 (UTC)
User-Agent: slrn/0.9.7.4 (NetBSD

'No, No, No, a thousand times NO! "Theory" as applied to music is *not* at
all similar to the word "theory" as used in science.'

and:

From: slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman)
Subject: Re: It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World! (24)
Date: 1998/04/29
Message-ID: <slvrmnEs...@netcom.com>
Sender: slv...@netcom4.netcom.com
References: <slvrmnEr...@netcom.com> <3545F1...@doc.mmu.ac.uk>
<slvrmnEs...@netcom.com> <6i5jio$ri$1...@news.crc.ca>
Organization: home in La Mesa, California
Newsgroups: rec.music.theory

'My theory is NOT based upon "scientific principles."'

Which begs the question of what a "scientifically acceptable general
principle offered to explain phenomena" is doing in his definition of
"theory".

Anyway, the definition Al uses implies that music theory is somehow akin to
scientific theory. Or, that the man-made aesthetic cultural artifact known
as music is a "scientifically-explainable phenomenon" rather than a
collection of evolving, arbitrary historical practices having no meaning
outside the culture which gave birth to them, just like painting or
literature or theater. He has also stated his opinion that music, which he
admits is an art, should be taught as an art:

From: slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman)
Subject: Re: A Vast Wasteland (RevA)
Date: 1999/07/13
Message-ID: <7mfuc7$l...@dfw-ixnews4.ix.netcom.com>#1/1
References: <7mb42p$1...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>
<7mep7r$b3v$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>
Organization: home in La Mesa, California
X-NETCOM-Date: Tue Jul 13 12:52:07 PM CDT 1999
Newsgroups: rec.music.theory
NNTP-Posting-User: slvrmn

'What I AM saying is that the Academic Musical Establishment is not
teaching the relevant principles of musical composition. Rather, they are
presenting music as "art" and "history."'

I don't understand Al's objection to institutions of learning that present
art as "art" and the history of that art as "history". Or how the historical
practices and aesthetics of that art, which are the only things which make
up it's "relevant principles", are somehow ill-suited as pedagogical
material.

Al doesn't seem to get that "music theory" is a collection of historical
argy-bargy that, on some levels, makes no sense at all because none of it
arose naturally or scientifically, and it makes his poor head spin, which
caused him to flunk his theory courses in college and grow into a bitter old
man with an axe to grind:

From: slv...@netcom.com (Albert Silverman)
Subject: A theory of Chord Relationships
Date: 1998/02/12
Message-ID: <slvrmnEo...@netcom.com>
Sender: slv...@netcom9.netcom.com
Organization: home in La Mesa, California
Newsgroups: rec.music.theory

'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 being an explanation of
musical PRACTICE.'

Nowhere does Al define "principle", but he does keep trotting out the
definition of "theory" as "A more or less plausible or scientifically
acceptable general principle offered to explain phenomena" which when taken
with his stance against teaching music as an art, might lead one to believe
he indeed feels that music is a science and not an art.

So, music is an art, but it cannot be taught as art. Music theory is like
science in some undefined way, but it is not science. Music theory is an
explanation of "principles", a term as yet undefined, but we can assume it
means neither historical artistic practice nor scientific principles.

I hope that's clear now to everyone.

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 6:31:03 AM6/15/03

to

>From: Albert Silverman slv...@panix.com

>> i have already admitted that you can correct me if i am wrong. what is
>your
>> theory useful for? i am all ears ...
>
>Too late.

yup.

Richard Ratner

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 9:36:48 AM6/15/03

to

Translation of all the crap below: I will get so "outraged" about
Inotmark that everyone will forget about the fact that I cannot answer
his simple, direct questions, pasted below.

>How is your theory useful to performing musicians? (name one, show some pieces
>where your analyses clarify something other analyses do not)

>How is your theory useful to composers? (show how it creates coherence where
>other techniques don't)

>if it is not useful to composers or performers, please explain to whom it is

>useful and in what way?

Albie MUST attempt to change the subject becuase it all boils down to
Inotmark's questions above. Albie's inability to answer them is the
single, simple proof that he is nothing but a huge bag of hot air.

What about it, Albie? Care to give a try to answering them? It's a
rhetorical question, of course. What a deranged loser you are.

And by the way, since you seem so obsessed with veracity, I need to
ask you something. The quote below is from

<9ko2ge$8al$1...@news.panix.com>

"I can speak with authority in this area, since I am an expert in jazz
accordion."

Okay, time for some backup, Albie. Please name the last few gigs you
had, the location and date. I will verify them. Thanks.

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 1:36:15 PM6/15/03

to

In article <fnsoevkn3dcld8oms...@4ax.com>, Richard Ratner
wrote but did not answer the question:

How do you define "accompaniment", as it is used in music?

How do you define "homophony"?

Richard Ratner

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 3:17:56 PM6/15/03

to

On Sun, 15 Jun 2003 17:36:15 +0000 (UTC), Albert Silverman
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:

>In article <fnsoevkn3dcld8oms...@4ax.com>, Richard Ratner
>wrote but did not answer the question:
>
> How do you define "accompaniment", as it is used in music?
>
> How do you define "homophony"?

What are you talking about? I "wrote" what, when, precisely? Have you
posed these questions to me before? I think we both know the desperate
tactic that you are employing in asking me these things, don't we?....

>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)

However, attempting to change the subject again will not help you,
Albie. I will paste below everything that you snipped so that everyone
who reads here will see how dishonest you are. Rather than attempt to
answer the questions below, or at least say that you will not answer
them, you attempt above to ask *me* irrelevant questions in order to
avoid the shame of not having an answer to them. Lets put our cards
out on the table, shall we, Albie? Inotmark's questions below are very
simple and direct, and are intended to prove you are a charlatan. They
have served their purpose perfectly, as anyone can see. Your avoidance
of them proves you are nothing but hot air. The questions are pasted
below for your convenience, Albie. Answer them or be forever branded a
dishonest phony. And don't forget the one about your gigs. I will be
more than happy to call the establishments that hired you as the
expert jazz accordionist that you claim to be just as soon as you
provide me with their names and cities. If you do not provide this
information, you are again proven just a lying bag of hot air. I'll be
waiting.

* * * * *

<9ko2ge$8al$1...@news.panix.com>

Joe Dolsak

unread,

Jun 15, 2003, 10:25:36 PM6/15/03

to

"Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message

news:slrnbepbkf...@panix2.panix.com...

> In article <fnsoevkn3dcld8oms...@4ax.com>, Richard Ratner
> wrote but did not answer the question:
>
> How do you define "accompaniment", as it is used in music?
>
> How do you define "homophony"?

How do you define "useless waste of oxygen" *Albert*?

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 3:08:53 AM6/16/03

to

In article <fnsoevkn3dcld8oms...@4ax.com>, Richard Ratner wrote:
> Translation of all the crap below: I will get so "outraged" about
> Inotmark that everyone will forget about the fact that I cannot answer
> his simple, direct questions, pasted below.
>
>>How is your theory useful to performing musicians? (name one, show some pieces
>>where your analyses clarify something other analyses do not)
>
>>How is your theory useful to composers? (show how it creates coherence where
>>other techniques don't)
>
>>if it is not useful to composers or performers, please explain to whom it is
>>useful and in what way?
>
> Albie MUST attempt to change the subject becuase it all boils down to
> Inotmark's questions above. Albie's inability to answer them is the
> single, simple proof that he is nothing but a huge bag of hot air.
>
> What about it, Albie? Care to give a try to answering them? It's a
> rhetorical question, of course. What a deranged loser you are.
>
> And by the way, since you seem so obsessed with veracity, I need to
> ask you something. The quote below is from
>
><9ko2ge$8al$1...@news.panix.com>
>
> "I can speak with authority in this area, since I am an expert in jazz
> accordion."

Thank you for the plug! If you had not mentioned it, the folks in this
newsgroup would never be aware of my prowess on the accordion! once again,
thanks.

>
> Okay, time for some backup, Albie. Please name the last few gigs you
> had, the location and date. I will verify them. Thanks.
>

You seem to be unable to recognize that this is a group on music theory,
not on who had what gig where or when. Therefore I must respectfully
reject your request for information which is off-topic in this newsgroup.

By the way, can you define what you mean by "accompaniment" or
"homophony"? These ARE theoretical topics and fair game for this on-topic
posting here. Surely you would want us to be impressed with your
theoretical knowledge. So explain this for us. I am sure that many folks
around here would like the answers to these two questions, which are
apparently so dear to your heart.

Bokkers

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 3:10:51 AM6/16/03

to

> You have yet to learn the meaning of Ancient Musical Authority, which is
> at the root of the problem in musical so-called "education." When you
> learn this meaning, if ever, you will then be able to discern who is
> speaking the "truth." By the way, have you ever asked the Pope whether the
> Catholic Doctrine is The Truth?

No, but there can be many popes. Who's the pope here?

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 3:17:27 AM6/16/03

to

In article <AU9Ha.10310$2x4....@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>, Joe Dolsak wrote:
>
> "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbepbkf...@panix2.panix.com...
>> In article <fnsoevkn3dcld8oms...@4ax.com>, Richard Ratner
>> wrote but did not answer the question:
>>
>> How do you define "accompaniment", as it is used in music?
>>
>> How do you define "homophony"?
> How do you define "useless waste of oxygen" *Albert*?

What a silly question! *I* define it as any post here by Joe Dolsak. This
is evident.

However, to prove me wrong, why don't YOU define "accompaniment" and
"homophony"? Certainly one with YOUR knowledge of music theory would have
no difficulty doing this.

After all, this IS purportedly a newsgroup in music theory, is it not?

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 7:02:18 AM6/16/03

to

Yet another post in which, instead of answering the questions posed
of him, Silverman thrashes and tries to draw attention away from the
evident fact that he knows nothing at all about music and only pretends
to have ever performed any.

In article <slrnbeqr84...@panix2.panix.com>,

Inotmark

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 7:45:39 AM6/16/03

to

>From: Albert Silverman slv...@panix.com

>Thank you for the plug! If you had not mentioned it, the folks in this
>newsgroup would never be aware of my prowess on the accordion! once again,
>thanks.

so surely you can help me to understand berio's sequenza then - being such a
master of the accordion you must be intimately familiar with this masterwork
for your instrument.

Richard Ratner

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 7:59:32 AM6/16/03

to

This is a riot! Is that the best you could come up with? HAHAHAHA!
You lying, little creep. You're just a sad, lonely old man who
twiddles a bit on the accordion and, not being able to cope with your
own mediocrity, you have aggrandized yourself on newsgroups, and only
on newsgroups, into a guru of music theory and an "expert" in jazz
accordion. I cannot imagine a more pathetic image.

>
>By the way, can you define what you mean by "accompaniment" or
>"homophony"? These ARE theoretical topics and fair game for this on-topic
>posting here. Surely you would want us to be impressed with your
>theoretical knowledge. So explain this for us. I am sure that many folks
>around here would like the answers to these two questions, which are
>apparently so dear to your heart.

Nice try, Alblie, but asking me irrelevant questions out of left field
for no reason other than to vainly attempt to distract from your
obvious inability to answer the questions posed to you is desperate
and dishonest, and will not hide the fact that that inability is a
direct product of fakery at best, outright lying at worst.

P.S. Take your stupid "accompaniment" and "homophony" and get yourself
a decent music dictionary, will you?

Roger Harris

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 8:45:05 AM6/16/03

to

Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com>, on Mon, 16 Jun 2003 07:08:53
+0000 (UTC), wrote:

>In article <fnsoevkn3dcld8oms...@4ax.com>, Richard Ratner wrote:

<SNIP!>

>
>By the way, can you define what you mean by "accompaniment" or
>"homophony"? These ARE theoretical topics and fair game for this on-topic
>posting here. Surely you would want us to be impressed with your
>theoretical knowledge. So explain this for us. I am sure that many folks
>around here would like the answers to these two questions, which are
>apparently so dear to your heart.
>

I notice that you refuse to answer these questions yourself, albert.
I'm not a musical kind of guy, but in the interest of putting a
merciful end to the thread, here are some defs for you since you
couldn't figure it out.

Homophony is plain harmony... the sameness of sound..

I'm guessing "accompaniment" is what you do with your off-hand whilst
typing furiously with your right.

>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)

>>>
>>> LIAR'S CLUB

Is this anything like Sam's club? ... or is it one of those private
dance party types of clubs I can never seem to get into?

>>>
>>>here in this newsgroup.
>>>
>>>you
>>>> might remember a discussion some years ago when i remarked that your theory was
>>>> a theory about nothing.
>>>
>>>What you claimed here, however, is that *I* admitted to a theory which is
>>>not "useful." NOW you say that it was YOU who made the statement about a
>>>"theory about nothing." Now go back to your Cello. You have
>>>
>>> NO PERSONAL OR MORAL CREDIBILITY
>>>

Post proof that anything you have spewed here is useful in any way. I
find your Alice in Wonderland fetish particularly disturbing.

--

Roger Harris

Bob Pease

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 11:26:47 AM6/16/03

to

"Roger Harris" <damog...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message >

>Post proof that anything you have spewed here is useful in any way.
> I find your Alice in Wonderland fetish particularly disturbing.
>

I find it annoying.
It is a feeble attempt to ape a far greater intellect than his own.

RJ P

Roger Harris

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 1:14:14 PM6/16/03

to

"Bob Pease" <bobnosp...@concentric.net>, on 16 Jun 2003 15:26:47
GMT, wrote:

Coke-heads and the insane pump out manifestos of equal or greater
quality than Big Al here... If you don't believe me, check
news:alt.angst or news:alt.philosophy for yourself.

Questioning my intellect does not negate the validity of my
challenge... I question your's just as easily. Post proof that he
knows what he is talking about. Cite a verifiable instance of this
vast expanse of knowledge he posseses being put to any use other than
wasting perfectly good electrons.

--

Roger Harris

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 16, 2003, 1:22:29 PM6/16/03

to

In article <1ttrevg7tpb06t6kr...@4ax.com>,

Or neurons...?

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 17, 2003, 3:07:02 PM6/17/03

to

In article <bcknjn$q...@dispatch.concentric.net>, Bob Pease wrote:
>
> "Roger Harris" <damog...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message >
>
>>Post proof that anything you have spewed here is useful in any way.
>> I find your Alice in Wonderland fetish particularly disturbing.
>>
>
> I find it annoying.

Mission accomplished!

Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)

> It is a feeble attempt to ape a far greater intellect than his own.
>
> RJ P
>
>

James L. King III

unread,

Jun 18, 2003, 10:33:05 AM6/18/03

to

In article <slrnbeupmm...@panix2.panix.com>, Albert Silverman
<slv...@panix.com> wrote:

> In article <bcknjn$q...@dispatch.concentric.net>, Bob Pease wrote:

> > "Roger Harris" <damog...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com> wrote in message:

> > > Post proof that anything you have spewed here is useful in any
> > > way. I find your Alice in Wonderland fetish particularly
> > > disturbing.

> > I find it annoying.

> Mission accomplished!

> Albert Silverman (Al is in Wonderland!)

Well at least we have confirmation that Al's mission wasn't to educate
(which was ostensibly what the mission appeared to be).

James King

Bob Pease

unread,

Jun 18, 2003, 4:35:38 PM6/18/03

to

"Roger Harris" <damog...@REMOVETHISyahoo.com.com> wrote in message
news:1ttrevg7tpb06t6kr...@4ax.com...

I don't understand how this comment applies to my post.

I intended to say the AL's fetish is annoying and that his style is a poor
imitation of Lewis Carroll's who was a far greater intellect than Al's.

I don't think that AL has said anything worthwhile.
Why should I attempt to post any proof of his legitimacy.?

It seems that all this was clear from the wording of my original post.

RJ Pease

James King

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 2:13:58 PM6/21/03

to

In article <slrnbeqr84...@panix2.panix.com>,
Albert Silverman <slv...@panix.com> wrote:

> By the way, can you define what you mean by "accompaniment" or
> "homophony"? These ARE theoretical topics and fair game for this
> on-topic posting here. Surely you would want us to be impressed with
> your theoretical knowledge. So explain this for us. I am sure that
> many folks around here would like the answers to these two questions,
> which are apparently so dear to your heart.

Oh, I do so like diving in head first without checking to see if the
pool is filled with clean water.

Homophony, as I understand it, is a term that means that the different
voices move together without displaying any significant individual
rhythmic independence or interest. Most hymn-tunes are good examples.

Accompaniment normally implies the presence of a primary performer or
soloist more or less subserviently supplied with a background by another
performer or by other performers. In music theory, it would imply that
one of the voices has priority (and is generally considered the melody)
and the other voices are given lesser priority.

The "priority" voice is usually (but not always) either:

1) The highest pitched voice
2) The voice that has a different rhythm from the other voices
3) The loudest voice

Or a combination of these factors. Sometimes a lesser factor will come
into play, such as timbre.

Now, obviously Al will have different definitions that will out of
NECESSITY be different from these definitions. But I suspect he needed
to hear what these definitions are so he can come up with his own
neo-pseudo-definitions.

James King

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 21, 2003, 3:19:48 PM6/21/03

to

In classical music, homophony refers to contrapuntal music in which
one melody line is designed to rivet the listener's attention--by a
combination of rhythmic interest, ornament, motif, and shape--while
the other parts remain uninteresting but syntactically well-formed and
contrapuntally independent. The sum of the uninteresting parts is the
accompaniment.

One of the several uses of the term polyphony in classical music is in
contrast to homophony: a music with many interesting parts all vying
for attention.

Polyphony is also used in contrast to monophony, meaning, respectively,
music of many parts and music of a single melody line. These two
uses of the word polyphony really never come into conflict with each other.

I supplied these responses back in 1994 when Al first asked for them.

Al still somehow supposes that there are series of chords which
somehow happen without creating multiple simultaneous melodies, and
that somehow there is somewhere a music by Bach in which multiple
simultaneous melodies do not create series of chords. I don't think we
can disabuse him of this idea, but he has gone on record in the newsgroups
claiming that this latter imaginary animal (which neither Elliot Carter nor
Arnold Schoenberg has encountered despite what might appear to be very
pointed hunts for it) is the true polyphony. The notion that Bach thus
composed music without chords probably serves Al as an excuse for
not analyzing familiar works by Bach within his grand compass of
"common practice". The contrast between this and Schenker's analysis
of the first prelude from WTC (as far as I can tell, Glenn Gould followed
Schenker's interpretation consequences to the letter there) is striking.

But then, Schenker was a musician.

Albert Silverman

unread,

Jun 24, 2003, 2:56:37 AM6/24/03

to

In article <bcgus6$j2qon$1...@ID-125766.news.dfncis.de>, Scott GF Bailey wrote:
>
> "Albert Silverman" <slv...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:slrnbenbmf...@panix1.panix.com...
>> In article <S7LGa.387$_K.7...@news.itd.umich.edu>, Dr.Matt wrote:
>> > Part of the irony of Al's rant here is that for years (see Google) he
> has
>> > claimed the music is a science and music theory is a scientific theory.
>> >
>> Prove your claim, LIAR. Let's see that quote, LIAR. I have caught you in
>> such LIES several times in the past, "doctor." And each time, you have
>> failed to come up with the quote.
>>
>> LET'S SEE IT, "DOCTOR" LIAR.
>>
>> We are all waiting.......
>>
>>
>
> To be fair to Al (who really doesn't deserve fair treatment after his
> campaign of ad hominems), he has said emphatically several times that music
> is not science. However, he has used the following definition of 'theory'
> for several years:
>
> "A more or less plausible or scientifically acceptable general
> principle offered to explain phenomena."

Really? Where did I ever USE this definition of "theory"? I stated that
this is the definition of theory found in Webster's dictionary. I never
USED this definition of theory in relation to music.

Now let's see exactly where I USED this definition of theory. I challenged
"doctor" LIAR to come up with such a proof and he of course failed to do
so. As he always does when he falsely "quotes" me.

You can be damned certain that he would have offered this proof right up
*if he had it*. But he didn't and he doesn't. YOU think that you have it.
So let's see it. I'm waiting.

Dr.Matt

unread,

Jun 24, 2003, 7:10:35 AM6/24/03

to

Al, your attack doesn't hide your backpeddling.