that seems like a demented third

 

Or as the Irish say, a demented turd.

 

ah finally another voice of reason...welcome aboard sir / madam another warrior in the good fight against mindless absurdity...bravo

 

by 9th did you mean G double sharp in the key of G?

 

A 'C', an E-flat, and a 'G' go into a bar. The bartender says: "Sorry, but we don't serve minors." So, the E-flat leaves, and the C and the G have an open fifth between them. After a few drinks, the fifth is diminished: the G is out flat. An F comes in and tries to augment the situation, but is not sharp enough.
A D comes into the bar and heads straight for the bathroom saying, "Excuse me. I'll just be a second." An A comes into the bar, but the bartender is not convinced that this relative of C is not a minor. Then the bartender notices a B-flat hiding at the end of the bar and exclaims: "Get out now! You're the seventh minor I've found in this bar tonight."
The E-flat, not easily deflated, comes back to the bar the next night in a 3-piece suit with nicely shined shoes. The bartender says: "You're looking sharp tonight, come on in! This could be a major development." This proves to be the case, as the E-flat takes off the suit, and everything else, and stands there au natural.
Eventually, the C sobers up, and realizes in horror that he's under a rest. The C is brought to trial, is found guilty of contributing to the diminution of a minor, and is sentenced to 10 years of DS without Coda at an upscale correctional facility. On appeal, however, the C is found innocent of any wrongdoing, even accidental, and that all accusations to the contrary are bassless.

 

Simply epic! I may compose a score to go with it and present it as an opera at the local girls school. Except I'm required by police to stay away from schools by court order. Never mind. I'll direct from the 100 yard exclusion zone.

 

Hey Jack! Upon personal reflection would you say that you possess a sense of humor? Because frankly, you seem a bit of a bore.

 

These are just inversions which can be spread across and shifted through the registers of an instrument. But the range is limited by the physical capabilities of any instrument. A piccolo flute has a far smaller range than a church organ for example.

For reference: https://i.pinimg.com/originals/cc/0f/6c/cc0f6c2598a6b807e159d8f7e282a169.jpg

You are over-complicating a pretty basic principle of music theory here. The point is: every number of stacked notes have a finite number of possible and - more important - relevant arrangements.

If you have a triad of 3 notes you get 2 possible inversions with different relevant intervals in between the notes. In a 7th chord you get 3 inversions. And all of these inversions fundamentally change the intervals between some of its notes and thereby the tonal quality of the chord - shifting them through octaves does not. It might change the color of the chords but not its function.

These relevant intervals don't change no matter how many octaves of distance you put in between - but that's irrelevant for the tonal quality and the function of a chord. An A minor chord in root position still feels like A minor in root position even if you drop the A by an octave. It just has more bass - so in reality you only have to know 1 set of inversions to know all relevant possibilities. The rest is just composition and arrangement/voicing.

 

Thank you but keep in mind what is one man's absurdity is another mans reason.
I believe what I wrote. Everything does have its place. If the whole is loved by many, then each of the components is important and has its place to make up the sum of the whole, each component having its own unique importance.

 

Funny how people who have little knowledge about music theory can be so sure there is nothing of value for them to be found.

 

You sound so unreasonable that I'm surprised you were able to come up with a response to my post. I don't even know where to start to respond to your irrational babbling, so I won't. Your sentences, unfortunately, do not deserve a response other than just this. Take care.

 

The interesting part about music forums I have found is that there are a lot of people in forums across the globe that know quite a lot about music theory. I know of a few where there are some well-known authors who simply say nothing or pretend ignorance. I am in an arrangers and composers group on facebook where there are some Pulitzer winners who say next to nothing. It is the young pups going 'look at me' doing all of the talking. Sure, there are people that think they know more than others, but it seems that a lot of people that do know a great deal have no need to say so because they are too busy doing.

 

Hell yeah. Happens everywhere on the net with any topic and even more with music.
And because if they do they waste time replying to these false-elite snobs pointless arguments.

 

I reported all of you including myself. Now wait and see what happens. Have fun!

 

How can you say sth like that? Oh wait, for jazz pianists or soloists, everyone is lowbrow and philistine except themselves.

 

Musical snobbery. I was lucky enough to be headhunted and signed to Sony BMG at the age of 21 for their film/tv department. I felt like a fraud being labelled as a "composer" when I couldn't even read music. I decided to come clean and tell my record label boss and his reply was "I couldn't give a fuck if you use a calculator to write music, if it sounds good we'll use it ".

 

Last edited: Dec 16, 2019

Boring first fact: Member @MMJ2017 has been regularly challenged by literally dozens and dozens of members about the lack of quality, and lack of coherence in his posts about Music Theory.
After one of my criticisms, I received a fairly typical rantish reply from MMJ which included a challenge.
I extracted the 'challenge bits' out of the rant and have responded by accepting that challenge.

My response is this insanely long reply. It is deliberately 'over the top' and is intended to provide a permanent reference so that no-one else need ever bother wasting their time debunking the nonsense that this character keeps on dumping here.
This response is so long that I have done the decent thing and broken it up into titled sections…

Section 1) A short(ish) summary. For most people this will be more than enough.

Section 2) The blow-by-blow details. This is very long, and very thorough. I actually think it is worth reading in full, but I fully accept that most people will regard this as a boring reference to be read only by masochists or by people that have been co-opted onto the jury. This long section does itself have many subsections.
Given that I was challenged to be thorough and explicit, I have also written this entire post up into a downloadable pdf document.
The pdf document contains more details than the post.
http://www.mediafire.com/file/9puzu6o3u3kht5a/When-MMJ-Faced-the-Music.pdf

MMJ, is this explicit enough for you?

===

Section 1) The short(ish) summary (and even this is longer than you'll like)
Note that the discussion is about whether some ways of presenting music theory are nice high quality and some ways are junk.
My allegation is that MMJ's efforts are clearly in the junk bag and that his real grasp of music theory is far less capable than he desperately wants to us to believe.
(Seriously, you could just accept the above paragraph as 100% true and don't bother reading the rest)

==================

Section 1.1 The history

• Member '@Crisis! What Crisis!' posted an example page from a Jazz-oriented music theory book. The suggestion was that this page (which I now call 'the Jazz Sheet') was an example of reasonable quality presentation of music theory. It was contrasted to the scruffy notes that MMJ regularly publishes.
• MMJ responded by calling the Jazz Sheet 'trash' and by asking moderators to comment on whether it was acceptable to post this kind of trash. (a quite mind boggling response)
• MMJ published another page of scruffy notes, accompanied by the routine deluded arrogant claims that these scruffy notes were superior to the Jazz sheet. (another simply astonishing claim)
• I commented that the claim was just another example of MMJ's delusion and that his scruffy notes were, yet again, incompetent, and yet again, riddled with errors.
• MMJ challenged me to "specifically articulate and demonstrate what you are talking about"

… and so here we are.

Section 1.2 An overview of my response

Section 1.2.1 The health warning (beginners in music theory - please read this!)
The most important part of my response is what I call a health warning for anyone that is in the early stages of their journey into exploring music theory. Exploring music theory can be daunting and exciting in equal measure. Nothing could be worse than encountering badly written, incorrect, music theory, It will leave you confused and may damage your confidence when you inevitably don't understand it, and you may even end up turning away from music theory for no good reason. You owe it to yourself to seek out only high quality music theory presentations. The web is littered with good stuff. You are spoilt for choice.
I allege that reading MMJ junk is bad for your brain. In my long response (below) I will thoroughly demonstrate the truth of that claim.
But you actually don't need to read all this boring evidence, just as long as you accept this brain vaccination and refuse to allow your confidence to be derailed by the mountains of MMJ junk in this forum. Stay confident - demand only the best for your education.

Section 1.2.2 What I expose in this document
I expose two separate issues here.
The first issue is what I call MMJ's outrageous misplaced assessment of his own teaching ability. I seriously regard his ramblings on music theory as worse than the ramblings of a poor quality student. Any attempt to classify these ramblings as 'teaching' is a grotesque insult to the word 'teaching'.
The second issue is just as bad. MMJ has been regularly challenged in this forum to demonstrate 'more than just his pretend teaching'.
He has been challenged to demonstrate that he can 'do something' (in fact 'do anything') useful with his alleged music theory knowledge. Music Analysis is a very traditional skill that most of us want to have as a result of studying music theory. We want to be practically capable of analysing other people's music, because it's nice to be able to do, and because it might help us write better music ourselves. Music Analysis can be really complex (try dismantling Debussy for example, I can't do that without masses of help) or it can be really simple (dismantle a three-chord pop song, which even beginners should be able to do).
On one precious occasion I ended up in a dialogue with MMJ about music analysis and it was an amazingly simple example, the simplest 3-chord pop song you have ever heard (a simple but still beautiful song). The truly astonishing thing was that MMJ failed in every single respect, to correctly analyse that 3-chord pop song. He quite simply could not do it! If this is the state of your alleged music teacher's brain, you should feel scared to trust anything they say.

Section 1.2.3 Summary of Allegations
I allege and demonstrate that.

• MMJ is incapable of delivering music theory education in anything other than a very low quality, scruffy, and educationally damaging manner.
• MMJ is incapable of using his alleged music theory knowledge to carry out even the most elementary music analysis. This should be an immediate disqualifier for any wannabee music educator. (I don't want to be a passenger on an airplane piloted by a deluded imposter who just likes to play with flight simulators)

These facts should scare the hell out of beginners. These facts will leave experienced musicians pissing themselves with laughter, or feeling bored, or feeling angry, which is, in fact, precisely what regularly happens in every one of MMJ's threads - It is not hard to see why?

Section 1.2.4 The Bright Side
In the long notes below, I dismantle MMJ's pretentious claims about his music theory knowledge. That is inevitably a negative task, (it might be more fun cleaning toilets). For delivering that task, I will, of course, get all the usual 'mad dog barking' responses from some ignorant sections of the community. But I have also tried to use this as an opportunity to present some positive suggestions. I have made sensible suggestions about 'better ways of sharing music theory knowledge'.
So, even you ignore almost all of the long section below, I would suggest that you do take a look at Section 2.3

...and that is the end of the summary and probably all that (or more than) most normal people can bear to read.

==========

A re-think: I just decided to back away from trying to post all of the long Section 2 into the forum, it is just too long.
It made far more sense to provide a link to a downloadable pdf file version that contains the whole shebang.
Sorry if that is less convenient - but it is more practical..
The pdf version includes all of the above comments plus…
• Section 2.2 Comparing MMJ's notes to the Jazz sheet
• Section 2.3 Suggestions for a better way of sharing music theory
• Section 2.4 The agonising comparison - the example above versus MMJ's version
• Section 2.5 Conclusion and Opinions about Bogus Teaching Claims
• Section 2.6 The Music Analysis Farce

Below, I include only extracts from the pdf version. (sorry, but even the extracts are long)
The first extract is what I meant by offering positive suggestions about how we could all share music theory knowledge in ways that are vastly superior to spewing out junk notes. In the pdf version I also demonstrate how MMJ's attempts to teach the exact same topic are truly dreadful, and riddled with errors.
The second extract is just a link to another thread in this forum, the one I mentioned above where MMJ demonstrates overwhelmingly that he has zero ability to analyse even the simplest 3-chord pop song.

Section 2.3 Suggestions for a better way of sharing music theory
I am trying to provide a small example of what I mean by a 'well presented' music theory topic and then contrast it with the same music theory topic that got crucified with errors in MMJ's scruffy notes.
So, please note this subtle difference. I am not trying to present or discuss any specific music theory topic here; I am trying to present an example of 'how to present music theory well'. i.e., exactly what MMJ always fails to do.

Here are a few suggested ways that we could all profitably enjoy music theory posts in this forum.

1. Just find examples of nice stuff that already exists and tell each other about it. No need to pretend we invented it, or have exclusive insights, or know better ways of explaining it. Just share it and move on.
2. Find the same nice stuff and maybe add some small extra value, maybe start a discussion about the ideas found in that pre-existing high quality resource.
3. In principle, there is nothing wrong with people posting personal tutorials here too, but if the quality of those personal tutes is radically inferior to the stuff from 1. and 2. above then why do it? Self-serving grandstanding of the type offered by MMJ is definitely not a good answer!

Below are examples of 1. and 2. As you will eventually see, I am deliberately picking a topic from MMJ's scruffy notes.
So even if the topic is not your favourite, please bear with me.
The topic is "Using 'enclosures' in your solo playing".
This need not be in Jazz, it's useful anywhere, but finding it discussed in Jazz is as good as anywhere.

=== Start of example post [1] ===
Hey guys, I found this topic on using enclosures in solo playing. It's about when you are targetting a note and you precede it with a couple of other notes called an enclosure. Roughly, you play a note above the target, then a note below the target, and then the target. Or the other way round, a note below, then a note above and then the target. You can find lots more details and advice at these links…
A web page: https://www.learnjazzstandards.com/blog/learning-jazz/jazz-theory/use-enclosures-jazz-solos/
A video:

=== End of example post [1] ===

My personal opinion: I think example post [1] above is fine. Just identifying a well presented item on the Internet and pasting a link to it is easily more than enough. There is just no need for any of us to pretend that we are music-theory messiahs providing better versions, especially if we can't add any real value.
But humour me here please; assuming that you do want to add a bit of personal value, here's one way it could be done, just by carefully adding some personal extra notes.

So, this is my deliberately contrived example of…

1. Identify and acknowledge the source (instead of plagiarism!)
2. Provide a tiny extract (e.g., a screenshot)
3. Try to add some tiny value of my own, a few careful notes or discussion questions.
4. Make damn sure that the end result maintains some minimum standards in presenting a little bit of music theory education.

After this example we'll compare how MMJ utterly ruined the exact same topic and then bragged about in typically nauseating condescending style.


If you've followed along with the example above you can see that it does the following…
It points you to a nice well constructed resource (web page and video) that…

• Explains what an enclosure is - when playing lead lines
• Illustrates the enclosure idea in the context of a classic chord sequence [ii, V, I] which in the key of C amounts to [Dm, G, C] or more interestingly [Dmin7, G7, CMaj7]

As I mentioned above, the music theory example used above was chosen because MMJ included the exact same topic in his scruffy notes. In the pdf file I explain in tedious detail what a total disaster his version is.

His 'superior teaching' version is basically just this.

Even if this was correct (which it definitely is not) it would still be totally inadequate and could never be regarded as useful teaching material. In fact, this tiny piece of nonsense is actually riddled with errors. MMJ could indeed get a prize for cramming so many errors into such a short space. If you're interested, see the pdf file where I have provided the painful note-by-note explanation of why the above is exactly the kind of garbage that beginners should be scared of.

The above is an almost perfectly typical example of the kind of nonsense that MMJ keeps on pumping into the forum. No sane person could be bothered to go through all those boring posts exposing the countless errors. All the experienced musicians just think "you must be joking" and they either complain or move on. But all this junk really is a serious health hazard to beginner's music theory education.

Section 2.5 Conclusion and Opinions about Bogus Teaching Claims
My sincere conclusion is that if MMJ was a student submitting this as a coursework in a music class, he would get a total fail grade and probably be advised to go away and study something else.
The idea that this level of music theory incompetence can be dressed up and presented as superior teaching is just completely deluded and an insult to everyone in this forum.
I should be pissed of (but I'm not) about 'wasting my time' exposing this fraudulent teaching delusion.
But what I genuinely am pissed off about is how serious beginners can come to a forum like this and have their tentative steps towards (and confidence about) understanding music theory totally derailed by this endless stream of erroneous garbage.

Surely, something has to change!

Section 2.6 The Music Analysis Farce
Mercifully for me, I don't have to write much here; I've already done it before.
So what we have here is the truly eye-opening saga where MMJ attempts to analyse a 3-chord pop song and screws up every single step. He demonstrates convincingly that

• MMJ really cannot identify the correct chords for a 3-chord pop song.
• MMJ really cannot analyse the chord sequence in the 3-chord pop song.
• MMJ cannot work with or understand the correct analysis even after it has been handed to him on a plate.

Read it and weep!
When MMJ finally faced the music - the MMJ score sheet https://audiosex.pro/posts/408795/

===============

My Concluding Comments
I just wasted about 90 minutes of my life writing this post and the accompanying pdf document.
It would actually have been more stimulating to go and clean my toilet.
There is a real opportunity cost to sweeping up garbage but someone needs to do it. My hope is that other sane people will now have a convenient resource that enables them to avoid having to waste any of their time doing the same thing.
The link to the pdf file is now a permanently available document that anyone can use when they find themselves reading another arrogant misguided MMJ post and they find themselves thinking...
"hang on a minute - aren't you that guy that had his pretentious nonsense debunked? - where's that link?"
That link is here -
http://www.mediafire.com/file/9puzu6o3u3kht5a/When-MMJ-Faced-the-Music.pdf

This post was as requested by MMJ's explicit challenge;

now signed, sealed and delivered!

 

Last edited: Dec 16, 2019

After my boring chore debunking MMJ garbage, your post here was a breath of fresh air. Thanks for making me laugh.

 

I need a lobotomy after reading this entire thread.

I feel like I have aged 50 years

 

This is my point.
You absolutely said nothing specific except describe your storytelling.
You misunderstood anything you even attempted to talk about connected to reality .
99 percent is non sense you coming up with adjectives .
You are so halarious .
No wonder why you are deathly afraid of making a thread with. " Your version" of music theory or information.
No wonder why you have never accomplished anything as this forum.
( Observations)
Thank you for truly showing a bit more into the mind of madness .
( My corn flakes await )

I never knew " clown shoes"
Was a religion for you .