A little good advice about chords.

[mukuzi]

Originally posted by red|dragon stfu skatan boys and girls who are reading, listen to Poparad. it isnt that what skatan is saying is confusing or complicated, its just that its plain incorrect. if you are into that sudo zen master crap check out the real master then - pat martino "My relationship with my guitar is indeed spiritual."

I`m not into "Zen master crap"
Dont know where you would have got that idea?
Care to find a quote or are you simply trolling.
What is plain incorrect?
Just because i have made a distinction about a triad not functioning as a modulator you say thats plain incorrect, that

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan blah blah blah

 

 

 

You keep dropping names like Schoenberg and Russell, and those of us who know those guys' works thoroughly realize that you're talking out your ass.

 

It is clear that you do not understand those authors, and it is highly probable that you've never actually read them (although you may have read a few snippets about them on websites). Having studied Schoenberg's 'Structural Functions' and 'Theory of Harmony' at great length, it is obvious to me that you have not studied them at ANY length.

 

You keep redefining what a chord is, each time your definition is more incorrect and unreasonable than the one before it. You THINK you know something about harmony, but your posts betray you in that regard.

 

You need to go to the beginning and study harmony from the ground up...then, and only then, can you ever hope to have any true concept of the subject. You want to believe that you've reinvented the wheel; in fact, you NEED to believe that in order to discredit every major theorist, writer, teacher, composer, and musicologist of the last 300 or so years. You keep claiming them all to be wrong, yet you have not given a SINGLE shred of evidence to support your claim. What you HAVE done is drop Schoenberg's name numerous times, when what he wrote is in complete disagreement with what you keep typing. When the source you are using as 'support' refutes your every word, you haven't a leg upon which to stand.

 

Your line of BS might fool, intimidate, or otherwise discourage a few newbies who simply don't know any better, but for those of us that do know better (ie those of us that have studied harmony), you are revealing yourself as completely full of crap.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan sorry i dont understand the e#

 

 

 

If you don't understand the E#, that alone should be evidence enough that you are sorely lacking in knowledge.

[mukuzi]

auggie, shut up
i`m sick of your negative shyte, i havent ever read any websites about GR or AS
your full of crap
when you get beond looking at Bach and get into the 20th century then you might realise i know my stuff.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan auggie, shut up i`m sick of your negative shyte, i havent ever read any websites about GR or AS your full of crap when you get beond looking at Bach and get into the 20th century then you might realise i know my stuff.

I will not shut up.

I am not being negative; it is YOU that doesn't understand harmony.

I am not full of crap, and I've got quite a list of luminaries to support that (some of which I mentioned in an earlier post) However, you certainly are, which I amply indicated by posting Schoenberg's own words that clearly contradicted what you claim his words to be. I realize how humiliating that must have been for you, but you asked for it.

And rest assured, you do NOT 'know your stuff'. I, on the other hand, do, and have proven that, many times, many ways...

'Merry Christmas, to you'.

[mukuzi]

ok
if i`m wrong then you must believe

*the humble and exployted triad can modulate

* two in fact "modulates to five, then five "modulates to one


your just another classical theorist hung up on a very outdated system used to explain classical music only.
Bach is so easy to understand, your just one of a million people who think because they can understand the very easy maths of bach etc they can relate the same easy math to that coltrain`s music.
dont you realise i dont care what you think, your rude and closed minded.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan ok if i`m wrong then you must believe *the humble and exployted triad can modulate * two in fact "modulates to five, then five "modulates to one Wow...once again, you post something completely out of nowhere that has nothing to do with the subject at hand. your just another classical theorist hung up on a very outdated system used to explain classical music only. Bach is so easy to understand, your just one of a million people who think because they can understand the very easy maths of bach etc they can relate the same easy math to that coltrain`s music. Schoenberg is a far cry from being 'classical' in his approach to harmony (or composition, for that matter), although he certainly makes his understanding of harmony in the period of common practice abundantly clear. I have read Schoenberg; you have not. I've got both 'Structural Functions' and 'Theory of Harmony' in my library, which is sizeable, to say the least. Your snide remarks about Bach aren't doing you any favors, other than to display your ignorance about him. dont you realise i dont care what you think, your rude and closed minded.

You're the one who doesn't know what a chord is. Those of us pointing that out to you are not being rude; we're doing you a favor, to help YOU get past YOUR close-mindedness.

[mukuzi]

If you read my posts more than once you will see what i have been trying to say over and over again
I have left some stuff you can comment on and you haven

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan If you read my posts more than once you will see what i have been trying to say over and over again The only thing you've managed to express is your complete lack of familiarity with the subject of harmony. I have left some stuff you can comment on and you haven

[mukuzi]

"I have read Schoenberg, both books you mention"

Suuuuuure....and my name is Elmer J Fudd. I own a mansion and a yacht.


i love old books i had to wait for structional functions to be reprinted because i couldnt find a first, or second edition. that was in about 1996 from memory...

Norton has been printing that book nonstop for over 30 years."

it was on back order from the publisher when i ordered it in 1996



this is my last post to you:



I no longer have any respect for you at all.

[red|dragon]

Music Theory For Children!!!

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111111111 HAGSHAGSHGAHSGAHSHAS!!!!!

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan this is my last post to you: I no longer have any respect for you at all.

"I care!"

[red|dragon]

Auggie Doggie,

I used to not have any respect for you, but now I do. lol

[gennation]

Boy for that little three note triad, skatan sure has a lot to say about it.

Yeah skatan, everybodies been pretty cool/tolerable with you.

You might as well drop the topic now. Like Geddy say's "conform or be cast out". You're in the subdivision now.



Don't take yourself so seriously, cause everyone else gets a giggle out of it at this point.

Jump into some other threads and give some legitimate help so people get the information they are looking for. That's what this forum is used for.

Bring your triad/chord debate somewhere else (maybe OJ or GJ). Most of us here try and HELP people here instead of try to prove who's right and who's wrong.

Start participating please.

[mukuzi]

Originally posted by gennation Don't take yourself so seriously, cause everyone else gets a giggle out of it at this point. Jump into some other threads and give some legitimate help so people get the information they are looking for. That's what this forum is used for. Bring your triad/chord debate somewhere else (maybe OJ or GJ). Most of us here try and HELP people here instead of try to prove who's right and who's wrong.

i have had a smile on my face the whole time brother, i`m chill, i have a sarcastic tone most people from the usa just dont get so i`m happy, your happy were all happy
cheers mate
the triad debate was closed by the dude from australia, if you read his post you will understand what we all were talking about.
to save time i have pasted it here

quote bardsley:
About the maj7b9 thing, though I still think that's probably the most useful way of labelling it - in that, as Poporad mentions your ear hears the C as the root, given the way we hear triads -, I kind of agree that in function it's going to have a dominant quality to it. In that we tend to see dominant 7th chords as the tension chord, and a cluster of of three notes semi-tones apart is big on tension. Even though it's a maj7 chord, it's hard to imagine it functioning as a harmonic goal.
end quote.


let me know whan you get it

[gennation]

Originally posted by skatan i have had a smile on my face the whole time brother, i`m chill, i have a sarcastic tone most people from the usa just dont get so i`m happy, your happy were all happy cheers mate the triad debate was closed by the dude from australia, if you read his post you will understand what we all were talking about. to save time i have pasted it here quote bardsley: About the maj7b9 thing, though I still think that's probably the most useful way of labelling it - in that, as Poporad mentions your ear hears the C as the root, given the way we hear triads -, I kind of agree that in function it's going to have a dominant quality to it. In that we tend to see dominant 7th chords as the tension chord, and a cluster of of three notes semi-tones apart is big on tension. Even though it's a maj7 chord, it's hard to imagine it functioning as a harmonic goal. end quote. let me know whan you get it

bardsley is just reiterating the fact that most everyone did already to you. There wasn't much more to say on it after it was first said. All this stuff is kind of a no brainer.

It's ok to accept it skat.

No debate really necessary.

[Tarv]

Originally posted by skatan i have had a smile on my face the whole time brother, i`m chill, i have a sarcastic tone most people from the usa just dont get so i`m happy, your happy were all happy cheers mate

Ya right, LOL:rolleyes:

Originally posted by skatan auggie, shut up i`m sick of your negative shyte, i havent ever read any websites about GR or AS your full of crap when you get beond looking at Bach and get into the 20th century then you might realise i know my stuff.

It read's pretty to me.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Tarv It read's pretty to me.

There's not nearly enough Jill Hennessy in his life to cheer him up!

[red|dragon]

omfg *drooooooool*

[Tarv]

Good Call:thu:

And Red Dragon for the love of god get rid of that long-ass sig, granted it is funny, but damn if it's not annoying to scroll through:mad:

[bardsley]

Skatan, you do realise that I'm firmly on Auggie's side of this discussion don't you? I'm just chipping in with my - already acknowledged - small grasp of music theory.
There are things you've said that I think I agree with you about, but generally what you've said is so confused and filled with the kind of tactics generally described as "moving the goalposts" that I can't tell.
I can see why no one else is interested in having a discussion with you, as you're not interested in a reasoned argument.
You can't have a coherent argument (and I mean argument in the good way, in which two people reason with each other) if you refuse to accept any common terminology. It's fine to challenge piece of terminology, but again, it has to be based on (reasoned) premises.
Auggie and Poporad have proven themselves time and time again to offer clear, well thought out responses to numerous problems people encounter with theory. They clearly have a good background in harmony of the common practice era, combined with an up to date knowledge of more current theoretical approaches.
You mention two theorists, yet fail to quote them.

And another thing, here's a quote from you "In George Russell

[mukuzi]

bardsley i do see what you were saying, were on the internet so its best if we take sides:rolleyes:
i did however see how you explained it best and thats why i quoted you.


Here are a few quotes from Schoenberg from the 1999 edition


Ch1 pg1
"A triad standing alone may be the tonic of one tonality or one degree of several others
The addition of one or more triads can restrict its meaning to a lesser number of tonalities"

I took this to say:
A lone triad is entirely indefinite in its harmonic meaning without the addition of one or more triads to restrict its function

Ch2 page 4
"Construction of chords in order to produce consonances and the traditional dissonance, triads, seventh chords, ninth chords and there inversions"
"Chords built on the seven tones of the major scale appear as triads, seventh chords etc"
Page 6
"There is a deference between the bass of a chord and its root"

"The structural meaning of a harmony depends exclusively on the degree of the scale"

Page 12

"A succession of neutral triads fails to establish a tonality"

And my personal fav:
Page 13
"The chords which express a tonality unmistakably are the three main triads, one, four and five"

My understanding of all this leads me to think a triad is only a chord when it is inside its diatonic home and surrounded by a triad a fifth below or above

What other names can we give a triad?

[Tarv]

Originally posted by skatan What other names can we give a triad?

 

 

A chord, now drop it already.

[mukuzi]

Originally posted by Tarv A chord,

 

 

can your triad/chord modulate ?

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by skatan can your triad/chord modulate ?

 

 

 

Triads are chords; the same Schoenberg you're quoting and completely musunderstanding says so, and in no uncertain terms.

 

You keep taking his words to mean something that they do not mean, nor did he intend for them to mean. Just because you WANT them to mean something does not make it so...just as you WANTING to redefine the word 'chord' does not make your definition correct.

 

Also, you seem to have no concept of what 'modulation' is, let alone how to execute one. It also seems that you don't understand the concept of tonality, and thus any reading you have done from Structural Functions regarding the regions is COMPLETELY LOST ON YOU. You're not ready for that book...not even close.