It's funny you say that. Academia claims to avoid ambiguity and opinions, requiring anything academic to be based on documentation that is supposedly accurate (I'll stay away from 'fact') - yet the very academics that decide whether someone attempting to join academia is acceptable, more often than not, give their opinions ambiguously when assessing. To add to this, they have a similar mindset to scientists. If you consider that the world's foremost authorities on quantum physics (seeing you mentioned them) are also often PhD's, they are definitely part of academia.
What makes academia funny and bordering on hypocrisy, is that for a 'new' work to be considered valid, it has to be based on something that already exists that can support it. If anyone thought clearly on that, for anything to be truly new, it does not draw on anything that already exists.

I think many may purposefully set out to try and be an enigma. It may also explain why people mistake many of them as having their head wedged in their gluteus maximus.

 

Music theory is not a bunch of rules.
It is the patterns and structure that exists inside of music .

I can demonstrate to you this right now .
The KEY of C major has 2 most important chords .
1.Cmaj6 CEGA
5.GBDF G dominant 7

I am about to show you the patterns and structures contained in this key regarding these 2 functions in such a way as to show the connection of many details of information in the order they exist in.

We going to use C6 CEGA for the tonic
We going to modify G7 slightly to be Bdim7 BDFG#

Now, combining these chords into a scale .
CDEFGG#ABC
You get C6 on strong beats
CDEFGG#AB
You get Bdim7 on weak beats
CDEFGG#AB

Next we are going to list out each note of the scale
Except that we are going to show the chord inversion which belongs to each note .
CEGA
DFG#B
EGAC
FG#BD
GACE
G#BDF
ACEG
BDFG#
CEGA

Now what we finally have is the patterns in music show interconnecting all levels of detail .

We have the I to V to I
Repeating cascading through all inversions traveling through all octaves of the instruments.

In the KEY of C major
This structure can be used to represent

Cmaj/ G7/ Cmaj

Or
Cmaj/ E7/ Cmaj
Cmaj/ Bb7/ Cmaj ( IV min Substitution
Cmaj/ C#7/ Cmaj/ ( Tritone sub
..
Amin/ E7/ Amin
Amin/ G7/ Amin ( backdoor dominant
Amin/ Bb7/ Amin ( Tritone sub

All of those forms are represented
By using the Scale of Chords above.


This structure is showing us any melody made has a chord inversion attached.( Melody and harmony)

Here is the C6 Dim7 Scale of Chords
Using Drop 2 Voicings ( play voicing low to high as indicated below)

CGAE
BFG#D
AEGC
G#DFB
GCEA
FBDG#
EACG
DG#BF
CGAE

Now , we see Voice leading descending through all octaves of the instrument using the Voicings .
It combines melody with harmony .

None of this is " rules"
No.
It is how music itself exists
It is how each attribute connects to each other and shows you how to create anything on any form in a key on any portion of an instrument .
Any time you create a Melody you now have a harmony as well , finally it demonstrates voice leading. ( Meaning any time you are on a note in your chord how to get to next nearest note of the chord coming next)

This above information is not rules to follow.
It is an explanation of " how music actually works".
( In 1 specific explained context .)

 

Thinking thumbs said-
What makes academia funny and bordering on hypocrisy, is that for a 'new' work to be considered valid, it has to be based on something that already exists that can support it. If anyone thought clearly on that, for anything to be truly new, it does not draw on anything that already exists.

Um this is crazy ridiculous, I'm sorry I know it was not addressed to me but I cannot help it but to respond to it.
Most of science is people getting recongnized
For demonstrating academia wrong.
E=mc2 went against all beleifs of the time and demonstrated them wrong.
This is what always happens .
A scientist build a case and demonstrably shows that current ideas are wrong .
We are talking millions of instances of this happening. This is the direct opposite of what your comment is claiming .
You try to make it sound like a weakness that when evaluating a claim you have to have some information to demonstrate what you are claiming is actually true ?
That's ridiculous to suggest that is a negative attribute.
You are basically saying we should throw out the process of differentiating between reality and fantasy. And allow in things which cannot demonstrate to work or be valid in any shape or form. Lolololol what a joke ( good one :D

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

What's the matter, you don't have a way to express a valid point to make ? ( So you resort to the ridiculous? Lol what type of impact can that have on me? Is it just you expressing an impulsive frustration which you are unsure how to relive?)
Please don't troll again , just express the real point you want articulating your view on its own merit.

On the other hand , if you are instead expressing that times when I demonstration step by step information .that it appears to you like that . I recommend you go do some study of the basics to get yourself to the intermediate level , such that you can fathom these things.
If you want to act like a real person sometime and just politely ask a question about what part you having a hard time with. I am happy to explain it in more depth . ( That's possible also .)

If you don't understand something, just ask.
( Way better than throwing a temper tantrum about your misunderstandings .)
I'm happy to help you with whatever concerns you have if you express them clearly .

Maybe you did not see the portion where I demonstrate exact Voicings ( low note to high note )
That you can punch into your DAW piano roll.
The Voicings are shown low note up to high note .

CGAE
BFG#D
AEGC
G#DFB
GCEA
FBDG#
EACG
DG#BF
CGAE

Start in the highest octave of the piano
Punch in each voicing as a chord
Work your way to the lowest octave .

In this way you get an actual demonstration .
( Copy whole thing paste into a new measure
Next remove the middle notes only having the outer notes. Play it through listen to it.
Play it super fast tempo then slow tempo on your daw

If this portion is not your misunderstanding ( which led to your beligerent trolling )
Simply comment what part you want clarification about , I will just give you the answer why it works that way and explain to you what your wondering about. ( You can't advance forward if you throw a tantrum when you hit a point you don't fathom.)
It's important to move forward my friend.
What I'm presenting here is the basics , if you want to get to the advanced you want to make sure you keep advancing .( Don't stay stuck if you don't understand something my friend.)

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

You have completely read that incorrectly. For someone to write a dissertation that is accepted, the literature must already exist to support their concept within their dissertation. Ask any PhD or DMA. Read a dissertation - The literature review alone supports that as being true.
If a scientist is a PhD which is also what I was saying that a substantial amount that teaches the new breed of quantum physicists are, they MUST have done a dissertation to get their PhD. If you find one, get their dissertation, read it and observe their literature review. Their idea may be new, but it is supported by what already exists.

I did not structure it, neither did you or anyone else here. What I have stated is pretty accurate.

P.S - To get a PhD means it is considered a 'new' work. The fact it uses existing works to support it on base principle means it is using old works to validate its 'newness'.
If you think about what the word 'new' means, it is something technically that has not been thought of before, or done before or conceptualized before. In the simplest form, it should not need anything old to validate it if it works and it exists. But in academia documentation being accepted at the higher post-graduate level, it does.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Jan 2, 2020

I wish it was a joke. You seek knowledge. I sincerely suggest for your own edification that it is worth downloading a dissertation. find a music one. It's interesting how the post-graduate institutions use literature in existence to validate in some scenarios.
It's different. I do not think any way of doing anything is necessarily wrong - if it works. This is also why I keep saying to you to go for it. You may have an unusual way to type it out, but it is YOUR way and that I believe is a good thing.

 

You are just changing the goal post .
I did not read anything incorrectly because I was only responding to what you actually wrote.

You wrote this
{ Thinking thumbs said-
What makes academia funny and bordering on hypocrisy, is that for a 'new' work to be considered valid, it has to be based on something that already exists that can support it. If anyone thought clearly on that, for anything to be truly new, it does not draw on anything that already exists.}

It's not a hypocrisy that for that work to be valid it has to demonstrate that the context is nested inside if the framework of reality ( drawing on and presenting which already exists )
You are saying that having a connection to reality in some way makes it a hypocrisy. That's b. S. ( Bad science)

Then you wrote this.

{If anyone thought clearly on that, for anything to be truly new, it does not draw on anything that already exists.}

I'm thinking about it clearly. You are wrong for something to truly be new is 100% has to " draw on things that already exist ".

This is because every individual aspect of reality has to be compatible as a whole system .
( As opposed to fantasy and fiction which stands on its own .)
So the way biology works has to connect with the way chemistry works with the way gravity works etc.
Any area of context which purports to find something new cannot be incompatible with the way reality works .
Think the " flat Earth idea"
Let's look at the furnace of stars being the birth place of the atoms the elements which we are made . The flat Earth idea in this way is not compatible with the fact that the furnace of stars being the only means of creating the gravy elements like carbon from which the " flat earthers" body is physically made .
In this way any purposed idea has to be able to fit like a puzzle peice into the framework of reality .
This is one more time again I have shown you to be incorrect about what you are saying.
Please feel free to try and move the goal post as mu h as you want , it's not going to suddenly make wrong statements okay.
( Unless you claim your comments are just poetry .....that's a way to say incorrect things and have it be okay.)

So in review it's not a hypocrisy that a new idea must interface with the facts if reality ( drawing on existing literature or experiments or information.)
This not a weakness it's a strength.

P.s.

This why the human soul is impossible , implausable, improbable .
There is no single object in reality labeled a " human being"
There is no object labeled the " soul"
A human being is trillions of living cells just as the U.S.A. is trillions blades of grass trees rocks .
( Unless you are prepared to say " Russia " or " Canada" has a " soul".
You see any purposed idea if concept has to interface with the rest of reality
( It cannot be incompatible with reality.)

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

Read any Music or Science or any Discipline PhD or DMA dissertation.
Unfortunately, that supports what I have said. Whether right or wrong in your opinion, it exists and supports what I have said.
I did not say it was good, just the way it is.

 

There is a difference.
I'm not saying things like this .
Key of
Cmajor and it's relative F#minor.

That's just a wrong statement there is no C major F# relative minor .
All of the information I present from every nano bit of information zoomed all the way to the while framework is completely compatible .
Every individual part has to be compatible with the entire larger framework as a whole .
There is no portions of information I present which are incompatible with the whole or contradict any other individual parts.

 

You are not even reading what I wrote you did you?
I have read them .
And as I explained to you .
You are wrong.

I'll demonstrate watch.

Hi, I'm MMJ2017
I have a new exciting scientific discovery .
It is " brand new" science !
It has no connection at all to anything to that ever came before .

Chapter 1.

There exists a being named " tranzigoflip"
Which exists in the mega- natural realm.
Tranzigoflip, has no body and no brain and is the creator of our universe .
Tranzigoflip did this because our reality is a video game in which he keeps score at our life on Earth.
Once we die tranzigoflip enters back into the game in s different situation so that over the course of enternity the humans " soul" can advance and get better at interacting with other consciousness .
Here is the equation which shows that the universe is a video game .
T=U(r),tz x%2 - Zed
Now because this proposition has no connection to any previous science or facts about reality in any way shape or form
This is how we know it's a " new" thing right?

No.
Because it draws on nothing from the past it's how we know tranzigoflip is pure " imagination "
Just as real and actual as a comic book super hero.

 

Ok we seem to have our posts confused?

I was replying to your DIRECT reply to me regarding how dissertations and PhD's, academia etc etc.... I leave you to your own thing so this is confusing? I may have clicked the wrong reply. (Of course there is no C in F# relative minor it's a C# because it's relative to A major).

 

Regarding your imagination story - No academic discipline other than perhaps a fictional magazine or short story science magazine - wherever you may publish it, would accept it as true without supporting existing scientific evidence. It's a good idea, but academics are interesting people.
Even then as everyone is witnessing with climate change, no matter how many scientists say it is real, there are as many that say it is not. A person does not even need to be a scientist to see the conflicting 'expert' opinions in something where making the world a better place to live in is the only goal.

 

That's my point .
I'm creating comment boxes about information about music ( you mentioned me doing it my way (
The information component is valid from the simple level all the way out to the whole framework with no individual part being incompatible .
This is different to your comment boxes which
Has false incorrect information.

This is a false statement.
If anyone thought clearly on that, for anything to be truly new, it does not draw on anything that already exists.}

All new things have to 100%
Draw on what came before in every context in every human endeavour from the beginning of mankind until the end of mankind .

Only fiction and fantasy
Has no way to interface with reality.
Only that which is false has no interconnected peices to what came before.
That will never change .

 

So now you admit of your trolling.
One moment you say it's a hypocrisy to draw on what came before , then a moment later you say
It's valid to draw on what came before .
( Scientific evidence and reason is that connection to what came before don't you see that ?)
Only false statement has no way to connect to reality .
For examples of a false statement.
" There exist an afterlife ."
" A human being has a soul "
" Death of a human being means that human being consciousness lives forever "

Those are example of false statement
( Because the millions of prices if reality as re incompatible with them refute them.)

 

No, it's not. It's like yours, a theory. In a perfect world which it is not, anything new or original is not a copy. A copy is not an original nor is it new, it's only a copy. A copy is either a form of cloning or plagiarism in music.
In a perfect world, new means unique. This in its simplest form means: 'There is nothing else like it.'
I also did not write the dictionaries and neither did you.

Now who is shifting the goalposts?

Trolling? That's mean. People cannot seem to even discuss with you unless they agree with you. You wonder why so many people give you crap. You are right and everyone else is wrong. You refuse to even try to see that someone else may have a point of view even if it does not agree with yours.

 

Okay I think I understand you better , my apologies .
Yes that is an interesting idea . I have thought a lot about that myself .
My mistake I was under the impression that you were coming from a different angle than that.
Yes I've thought a lot about this idea myself.
I have come to the understanding
" There is no such thing as something new".
What I mean is that.
" We stand on the shoulders of giants "

( Everything is a re-mix)

There is no way to create a " new" thing which contains no fragments or structures of the preexisting .

This same for music or scientific inventions .
Progress is gradual and you accumulate what came before.
The " new" thing you create .
Contains patterns and structures of what came before .
There's no way to escape this .
The reason is that it has to interface with reality.
For example with music you'll always have .
1 Harmony
2. Rhythm
3.Melody

With no way or hope to escape those .
It cannot be done.
( You can have your own version of those 3 though )

If it's a scientific invention .
The details have to match with the way the laws of physics work .
Only failed invention does not work with laws of nature ( it's why it failed )

Same with music , if you remove
Harmony
Rhythm
Melody

You don't have music ( or a failed attempt anyway

 

Last edited: Jan 2, 2020

No problem.

I agree that we definitely stand on the shoulders of giants. They have left such an incredible legacy, that finding anything that is truly 'new', to stay in context, is more difficult than it has ever been.
I believe it is important to try and look outside of the box. This is also not easy for any of us with the amazing legacy we are blessed to have in music. As an example, Parker and Gillespie with BeBop, invented an entirely 'new' way of improvisation. Your point is valid especially there. Without their time spent with Earl 'Fatha' Hines, without the coleman Hawkins and Lester Young's before them, they had no foundation to build from. I totally agree with you there. In a 'perfect world', BeBop would also have been completely unrelated to what came before, but it wasn't. Ornithology - How High the Moon, Indiana - Donna Lee, Koko - Cherokee, so on and so forth. They drew from what came before.

The word NEW should mean unlike anything that has come before, but it is a very rare thing to find something that does not bounce off another thing that is already in existence.

 

What you are bringing up is really important .
A lot of people that make music get in a rough spot and cannot figure out what to do in order to express themselves with what comes out as a new exciting work.
I believe this topic has a lot to offer in terms of understanding that if you can understand the separate parts and different ways and varieties ,
That you begin to put together a more natural and fluent " new" music because you accept your own personal idiosyncrasies.
( As opposed to trying force yourself to " sound" like someone else. Or what you " think " people want to hear.) In this way it's way I place and emphasis on the analogy of the way we use our spoken language ( even dialect and accents to personalize and individualize )

 

You have raised some interesting points. We ALL want to be unique and have our own sound or voice. I think that may be singularly one of the most important goals. As you have stated we must rise upon the shoulders of giants before us to do that. There are so many discussions in that area - for a start, Where does influence end and uniqueness begin - that is a massive discussion with so many variables....
If we have a foundation we can build on it which you have said many times. This I encourage wholeheartedly. I encourage anyone to find themselves. It is part of the beauty of individuality and finding your own voice. Without a foundation to start and search from, we would search aimlessly.

You are completely right about accepting our own idiosyncrasies. If we cannot acknowledge them and love them then we cannot develop. The things that make us all unique can be put into music. None of us have enough time to explore everything that we might. A maxium of 100 years is not enough.

 

One aspect I think is a secret to really speaking in your musical voice is to treat your weaknesses as a strength whenever possible .
If there's things that come out naturally and unique you have to find the place that your unique attributes can shine ( indstead of coming out in a place where you lose your confidence and comes across like a weakness )
Part of that process is to understand the patterns and structures in music that fit in different ways just like how we combine our words and sentences with language at light speed in order to express an idea fluently.