-
Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian
And the whole point of this thread was to argue with the anti-theory guerrillas in one place instead of spread all over the forum.
Peace,
Kevin
-
03-04-2011 01:15 AM
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Congratualtions! You are the Westboro Baptists of the Jazz Guitar Forum. And the Supreme Court just ruled 8-1 to affirm you right to be a jackwagon.
-
Originally Posted by Ron Stern
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Anyone have any ideas about other types of music
Blue theory versus grass theory
Country theory versus western threory
Rock theory versus roll theory
Be theory versus bop theory
Rag theory versus time theory
Lenon Theory vs McCartney Theory
Lerner vs Lowe
Pacquiao vs Mayweather
Ginger vs Mary Ann
?
And just remember, I am ready to go to "war" against any "opponent" and "fight" any-and-all you's gorillas or guerillas, you pseudo-scholars. C'mon, C'mon, I'll fight you with one note tied behind my back! Step up and toe the line.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
1. Not theory, but practices
2. Theory, therefore classical, but . . . .
any other description isn't classical theory and therefore is a different theory?
I don't follow. Some guy could say, "I hate that jazz where they go weedly weedly weedly." Is that a different musical theory, because it's not classical music theory?
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
My larger point was just that we don't need to start theory from scratch just because some new ideas are introduced. I would say that composers like Stravinsky made an even more radical change from CPP theory than jazz ever could. But we don't reinvent theory from scratch for Stravinsky, we just add some "rules" that only apply to that sub-genre of music. And jazz is much closer to CPP theory than that so it requires even less accommodation.
I think that it is just the anti-intellectual vibe and ignorance, perhaps mixed with a slight (but entirely undeserved) inferiority complex that causes some jazz musicians to act like jazz theory and history has nothing to with that of classical. What I've seen on this forum has only strengthened that opinion.
Originally Posted by Aristotle
The point of your misquote? It's misdirection trying to divert attention from your in ability to substantiate your claims:
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by oneworld
Peace,
Kevin
-
Originally Posted by JohnRoss
Here's what I mean.
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
See, he even disagrees with himself.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
But after a break, the thread was brought back to life and it seemed to be getting productive again, until the anti-theory guerrillas showed up. I suggested starting a new thread with a more narrow focus, but it didn't take.
Hi boo-boo, I'm home just in time to brush you up on Theory 101.
-
Originally Posted by fumblefingers
If pitch alteration means a note between two traditional notes, that's easy. Just put in a capital B for bend. Bend to what? Up to the player.
Next issue.
I seem to recall hearing that in the Baroque Era in the middle part of the concerto they would put in a note to the harpsichord guy to just play what he thought was good. Whatever. It's not a matter of precedent, it's a matter of logic.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
You chime in to take some cheap shots (half of which I don't even understand) and manage to once again avoid backing up your claim.
But that is your lietmotif. Here is Aristotle's rhetorical method:- Make an unfounded claim, preferably one that contradicts an accepted fact in music history of theory in an attempt to make it look silly.
- Ignore all contradictory evidence, regardless of it's source. Attack the credibility of any source other than Aristotle.
- Provide no actual source of your own, or claim an imaginary source that you refuse to quote and name. When asked to name it, just tell the asker to find it himself and insult him for not knowing the imaginary source.
- When finally relentlessly confronted to provide a source, quickly change the subject.
- If that doesn't work, ignore substance completely and just use personal attacks.
.
So, I'll try once again: What are your 4 characteristics [of a Neapolitan chord] and what is the source?
Should I hold my breath?
Peace,
Kevin
-
Mary Ann, definitely!
-
I was partial to Mary Ann too.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Peace, er, he meant War
-
Originally Posted by markerhodes
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
1 and 2) if you don't know, you are too ignorant of basic music theory for me to both educating you, and
3) Yes.
BTW, I guarantee my source is better than yours.
-
Originally Posted by Flyin' Brian
I'm right
No I'm right you said it WRONG
NO YOU said it WRONG and you're stupid
NO I'm not stupid, YOU'RE stupid.
Oh yeah well fuck you
Oh no...fuck YOU
It might be entertaining in a car wreck sort of way if it weren't so pathetic.
It is only a coincidence that the best stick to poke him with is to feed him a ration of his own sh...you know what.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Originally Posted by Aristotle
Originally Posted by Aristotle
Originally Posted by Aristotle
That is the difference between you and me - I'm trying to get at the truth. I provide my sources and my logic. You just make things up and refuse to say where it's all coming from and quickly change the subject as quickly as you can.
Originally Posted by Aristotle
You seem to get some impish glee from riling me up - but you can't make me angry. You lack the arguing skills to raise my ire. All you do is make up imaginary sources and make unfounded claims about things that you obviously don't understand. Why would that threaten me?
Look, when you want to have an adult conversation let me know. But to have a real discussion, you're going to have to provide evidence to support your claims. But all you seem to do is try to run in circles trying to find some desperate sliver of a way to avoid admitting that you're making it up.
But until you start even pretending to back up your ridiculous assertions, I don't see the point in continuing. You still have several questions that you've avoided answering and are just playing games now. I answer any question put to me and cite sources and examples when I can. You just run around making ridiculous claims and then change the subject when challenged. But that's the MO of the anti-theory guerrilla.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 03-05-2011 at 05:42 PM.
-
Originally Posted by Tom KarolOriginally Posted by markerhodesOriginally Posted by Aristotle
MRS. HOWELL.
It's always the sophisticated rich ones that are the most wild. In addition her husband was always too busy to notice her; he was either supervising Gilligan building him a golf course, or listening to the radio to get the stock report or having the professor search for rare truffles for the evening meal. That gives you an in; she needs love, man!
Mrs. Howell! Think about it. She'd be the best for a poor jazzman. You'd be "kept", as they say. (She reminds of the people who are your audience at country club gigs. )Last edited by paynow; 03-05-2011 at 10:48 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
First of all the goal of a lawyer is not to get at the truth,
BTW, jazz theory vs classical theory? Who told you there was such a thing as jazz theory? One of your "sources?" One of your "scholars?" Who are these cowards? LOL!
Peace
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
That appears to be what your trying to do, but you've abandoned the argument. You are no longer making coherent points. You've abandoned any pretext of discussing the subject, don't even pretend to answer the questions, and are just throwing up bizarre statements that you think will somehow impugn my argument. It's like someone running away and wildy throwing things behind them to try and hit the pursuer. But I'm not pursuing you, just the truth.
You seem to be caught up in what you perceive to be lawyeristic trickery. It's ironic that you bring up Gerry Spence. The quote that I most remember from him is, "The first trick of the winning argument is the trick of abandoning trickery." The problem is that you aren't even pretending to address the argument anymore and are just trying trickery for the sake of trickery (and failing at that.) You've abandoned the argument (wisely) and are just being a troll (childishly.) Amazingly, you seem to think this is the path to some victory. But you can't win the debate because you abandoned that a dozen posts ago, so all you can really win is the contest to see how annoying you can be. (Again, isn't that the definition of a troll?)
Originally Posted by Aristotle
If you question the existence of "jazz theory" then why read and post in a "Theory" folder on a jazz forum? I don't believe in astrology which is why I stay off of their forum. I suppose I could go there and just be a troll, challenging everything that everyone says, trying to disrupt their conversations - but how childish would that make me?
Let me know if you have something of substance to discuss. Life is too short to just be the foil for your trollage. So far I can't think of one ridiculous claim that you've even pretended to back up with anything more than "because I say so." The amazing thing is that you think this is clever.
Let me know if you want to discuss the musical issues, but if all you have is impotent attempts at rhetorical trickery, I see no need to continue. Let me know when you have an actual point to make besides incoherent, OT sniping.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 03-06-2011 at 03:36 AM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Amazingly, you seem to think this is the path to some victory
If you question the existence of "jazz theory"
-
Enough already! And ...
Mrs. Howell! Yeah - that's what I call, "... thinking outside of the box!"
Gibson ES-125 from 1958
Today, 09:27 AM in For Sale