For Wagnerfan: The Tristan Chord

[gert]

Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion? Check out this reply to an artilce
published yesterday in the NYT (!):

"While Fox news does have a full stable of conservative pundits on
their payroll, they do bring on many people with left leaning views
for debates. There are fewer conservatives given the same opportunity
at their rival liberal network over at MSNBC. The Chris Mathews show
consists of a bunch of Liberals sitting around agreeing with each
other, which makes for an awfully boring political show. The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks . That is OK for the
opinion pages of a newspaper, but what about the opinion that is front
and center in the headlines on the front pages? Why were some front
page stories, which were detrimental to former President GW Bush
handled differently than similar events once Barack Obama became
President? The Abu Ghraib scandal, whereby Iraqi prisoners were
humiliated, merited 32 front page stories, yet the US Soldier death
squad scandal during Obama's tenure was barely mentioned? The
humiliation of
Iraqi prisoners was bad, but the wanton murder of Afghan civilians was
worse. Sometimes all the news that's fit to print is in the political
eye of the beholder. I think Bill Keller is throwing some pretty large
stones from his glass house."

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/keller-murdochs-pride-is-americas-poison.html?hp

[Kip Williams]

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion? Check out this reply to an artilce

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...

Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)

Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller? Not Dowd, who
was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making up nasty
stuff about Clinton and Gore?

I don't mind people having different opinions, but your letter-writer is
just making up pretend-facts.


Kip W

[gert]

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion?  Check out this reply to an artilce

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...
Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)
Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller?

Either I read a whole lot more at the NYT than you do, or we have
drasticaly different vewis of what - politically - is "moderate" and
what is
"full strength." I agree that Douthat (sp?), who has been there for
only
about 2, 3 years, pulls more to the Right. Don't know Nocera (does
he/she have a regular column?), but Tom Friedman and Bruni regularly
deliver the 'borderless 'Democratic viewpoint. Friedman, some of
whose
views I like and respect, is solidly anti-"right-wing", but is also
never afraid
to call ill-meaning leftist expressions and actions for what they are.


But all such people are only opinion writers, not real journalists who
REPORT
the news in its raw state, and not mix and blend it with their slants
and ill-con-
cealed ideological views.

What are your thoughts on the ideas and ideo-purity
of folks like Paul Gigot, Byron York, Peggy Noonan, George Will, et
al?

Post by Kip Williams
Not Dowd, who
was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making up nasty
stuff about Clinton and Gore?

It's clearer now why 'Demolefts' (my word) have such a narow view
of what proliferates in the "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" journalistic
world when one of you
believes that Maureen Dowd writes for the entertainment of the
'Right'??!!
I believe she would label you as sacreligious to the cause! <g>

gc

Post by Kip Williams
I don't mind people having different opinions, but your letter-writer is
just making up pretend-facts.
Kip W

[Kip Williams]

Post by gert

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion? Check out this reply to an artilce

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...
Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)
Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller?

Either I read a whole lot more at the NYT than you do, or we have
drasticaly different vewis of what - politically - is "moderate" and
what is
"full strength." I agree that Douthat (sp?), who has been there for
only
about 2, 3 years, pulls more to the Right. Don't know Nocera (does
he/she have a regular column?), but Tom Friedman and Bruni regularly
deliver the 'borderless 'Democratic viewpoint. Friedman, some of
whose
views I like and respect, is solidly anti-"right-wing", but is also
never afraid
to call ill-meaning leftist expressions and actions for what they are.

Before Douthat, they had Safire.

Nocera's on their roster of columnists at the web page (Opinion >
Columnists tab). He's more of an old-time conservative than a
right-winger. Bruni's more of a centrist. Friedman was a tireless
champion of Bush's invasions and wars, always managing to find phantom
ethnic cab drivers who would give him a ride while saying
(coincidentally) exactly what he wanted to put in his next column — and
always pushing the GOP line.

It may surprise you to know this, but there are conservative Democrats.
There just aren't liberal Republicans.

Post by gert
But all such people are only opinion writers, not real journalists who
REPORT
the news in its raw state, and not mix and blend it with their slants
and ill-con-
cealed ideological views.

Some of those real journalists at the Times pushed heavily to prosecute
the Clintons for years for what turned out to be a dry well, and to
cheerlead the invasion of Iraq with cooked information they'd been
handed. It's only right-wing activists who seem to think that the paper
is a hotbed of liberals pushing their views.

Post by gert
What are your thoughts on the ideas and ideo-purity
of folks like Paul Gigot, Byron York, Peggy Noonan, George Will, et
al?

I try to avoid them, but they're undoubtedly conservative. They may not
be as far right as you want, but they're not centrist or liberal. Will
will say just about anything to push the cause.

Post by gert

Post by Kip Williams
Not Dowd, who
was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making up nasty
stuff about Clinton and Gore?

It's clearer now why 'Demolefts' (my word) have such a narow view
of what proliferates in the "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" journalistic
world when one of you
believes that Maureen Dowd writes for the entertainment of the
'Right'??!!
I believe she would label you as sacreligious to the cause!<g>

Trashing Clinton for imaginary offenses and making up crap about Al Gore
was fetching water for the Right. Perhaps she thought cozying up to the
GOP would help her career. As far as I can see, her only cause is herself.


Kip W

[wagnerfan]

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion? Check out this reply to an artilce

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...
Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)
Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller?

Either I read a whole lot more at the NYT than you do, or we have
drasticaly different vewis of what - politically - is "moderate" and
what is
"full strength." I agree that Douthat (sp?), who has been there for
only
about 2, 3 years, pulls more to the Right. Don't know Nocera (does
he/she have a regular column?), but Tom Friedman and Bruni regularly
deliver the 'borderless 'Democratic viewpoint. Friedman, some of
whose
views I like and respect, is solidly anti-"right-wing", but is also
never afraid
to call ill-meaning leftist expressions and actions for what they are.

Before Douthat, they had Safire.
Nocera's on their roster of columnists at the web page (Opinion >
Columnists tab). He's more of an old-time conservative than a
right-winger. Bruni's more of a centrist. Friedman was a tireless
champion of Bush's invasions and wars, always managing to find phantom
ethnic cab drivers who would give him a ride while saying
(coincidentally) exactly what he wanted to put in his next column — and
always pushing the GOP line.
It may surprise you to know this, but there are conservative Democrats.
There just aren't liberal Republicans.

Post by gert
But all such people are only opinion writers, not real journalists who
REPORT
the news in its raw state, and not mix and blend it with their slants
and ill-con-
cealed ideological views.

Some of those real journalists at the Times pushed heavily to prosecute
the Clintons for years for what turned out to be a dry well, and to
cheerlead the invasion of Iraq with cooked information they'd been
handed. It's only right-wing activists who seem to think that the paper
is a hotbed of liberals pushing their views.

Post by gert
What are your thoughts on the ideas and ideo-purity
of folks like Paul Gigot, Byron York, Peggy Noonan, George Will, et
al?

I try to avoid them, but they're undoubtedly conservative. They may not
be as far right as you want, but they're not centrist or liberal. Will
will say just about anything to push the cause.

Post by gert

Post by Kip Williams
Not Dowd, who
was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making up nasty
stuff about Clinton and Gore?

It's clearer now why 'Demolefts' (my word) have such a narow view
of what proliferates in the "Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy" journalistic
world when one of you
believes that Maureen Dowd writes for the entertainment of the
'Right'??!!
I believe she would label you as sacreligious to the cause!<g>

Trashing Clinton for imaginary offenses and making up crap about Al Gore
was fetching water for the Right. Perhaps she thought cozying up to the
GOP would help her career. As far as I can see, her only cause is herself.
Kip W

Every time Peggy Noonon opens her mouth, dust come out. Insufferably
arch.

Wagner fan

[gert]

   I agree that Douthat (sp?), who has been there for

Post by Kip Williams

only
  about 2, 3 years, pulls more to the Right. Don't know Nocera (does
he/she have a regular column?), but Tom Friedman and Bruni regularly
deliver the 'borderless 'Democratic viewpoint.   Friedman, some of
who views I like and respect, is solidly anti-"right-wing", but is also never afraid
to call ill-meaning leftist expressions and actions for what they are.

Before Douthat, they had Safire.

Wm. Safire was a brilliant and highly entertaining linguist. With an
acute ear for the humorous. Thank you for reminding me of him!

Post by Kip Williams
Nocera's on their roster of columnists at the web page (Opinion >
Columnists tab). He's more of an old-time conservative than a
right-winger.

I’d like to be thought the same, though I no longer have the suffix
Republican attached. Their continuous but even more extensive
exploitation of a woman’s right to choose in the just-ended primary
campaign sealed their ‘fate’ for me. I am now a registered
Independent.]

Post by Kip Williams
Bruni's more of a centrist. Friedman was a tireless
champion of Bush's invasions and wars, always managing to find phantom
ethnic cab drivers who would give him a ride while saying
(coincidentally) exactly what he wanted to put in his next column — and
always pushing the GOP line.

I seem to remember a little of this. Unfortunately, there just are
men who believe in wars - *for the right reasons* - who wear both
partys’ labels.

Post by Kip Williams
It may surprise you to know this, but there are conservative Democrats.
There just aren't liberal Republicans.

Now that’s not only untrue but indicative of a restricted (if not
narrow) news influx! You can say that and still hog-wash FOX news? I
don’t pretend to know all of the contemporary ‘big names’, but there
are Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, former Senators
Lugar (IN?),amd Rockefeller (AR?), Presidents Nixon, Ford, and surely
a host of Governors, past and present.

Post by Kip Williams

But all such people are only opinion writers, not real journalists who
REPORT
the news in its raw state, and not mix and blend it with their slants
and ill-con-
cealed ideological views.

Some of those real journalists at the Times pushed heavily to prosecute
the Clintons for years for what turned out to be a dry well, and to
cheerlead the invasion of Iraq with cooked information they'd been
handed. It's only right-wing activists who seem to think that the paper
is a hotbed of liberals pushing their views.

I don’t consider myself “right wing”, whatever that is, and have NEVER
been an activist for ANY party. [Except the “party” of Ross Perot!]
Gee, I do hate these political pseudonyms. They really do sting when
you find them applied to yourself! You may not want to view the NYT
as a “hotbed of liberalism”, but their editorials, for one, have
ALWAYS expressed the Liberal viewpoint on whatever the topic of the
writer is, with no holds barred in severity of verbal expression. And
then, their columnists?? Like Paul Krugman (who is supposed to write
about economics but Liberal politics permeates just about every
paragraph he writes}, Frank Rich, Gail Collins (NO relation!),Tom
Friedman, Maureen Dowd (but she’s half serious, half comedienne),and
95% of their Op-Eds. That has been a foregone conclusion I guess
since its inception. I think I have saved one for ‘posterity’, and
will link to it if I find it.

Post by Kip Williams

  What are your thoughts on the ideas and ideo-purity
of folks like Paul Gigot, Byron York, Peggy Noonan, George Will,  et
al?

I try to avoid them, but they're undoubtedly conservative. They may not
be as far right as you want, but they're not centrist or liberal. Will

I hate to say this, but this is so indicative of a narrow viewpoint
(I’ll leave ‘mind’ out of it for now). Have you noticed that I read
(and can often quote) all the Liberal Democratic journalists of the
NYT, and can extend that to the Washington Post, the LA Times, The
Guardian, the New Yorker Mag. & TV Network anchors, etc? I really
think that I listen to & read as much or more of the “opposition” than
I do of the “home” crew. I believe that such – and more - is the
undeniable mark of an intelligent and informed citizen of any adopted
ideology. And, after all, the conservative viewpoint(s) is chiefly
carried by only TWO outlets: the Wall St. Journal and FOX (NOT
“faux”) News channels. That’s about two against .two DOZEN.

Post by Kip Williams

when one of you believes that Maureen Dowd writes for the entertainment of the
'Right'??!! I  believe she would label you as sacreligious to the cause!<g>

Trashing Clinton for imaginary offenses and making up crap about Al Gore
was fetching water for the Right. Perhaps she thought cozying up to the
GOP would help her career. As far as I can see, her only cause is herself.

I really don’t count Dowd as a serious columnist because her obvious
intention is:

1) to impress how clever she is with words
2) to impress how clever she is with reconfiguring a story to her
“journalistic” spinning
3) Earn by hook or crook her paycheck

gc

[Kip Williams]

Post by gert

Post by Kip Williams
It may surprise you to know this, but there are conservative Democrats.
There just aren't liberal Republicans.

Now that’s not only untrue but indicative of a restricted (if not
narrow) news influx! You can say that and still hog-wash FOX news? I
don’t pretend to know all of the contemporary ‘big names’, but there
are Senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe of Maine, former Senators
Lugar (IN?),amd Rockefeller (AR?), Presidents Nixon, Ford, and surely
a host of Governors, past and present.

FOX News not only slants their editorials, they allow the talking points
of the day to permeate every news item as well. Studies show that the
more FOX you watch, the more likely you are to believe in things that
just aren't true. Is it something in the water, you think?

The Republicans who don't tow the party line are marginalized, jeered
at, mocked, and kicked out of the party. Why do you think those are
"former" Senators? Why do you think conservative think-tank writers are
now coming out to say that their party is seriously messed up?

Nixon isn't far-enough right for the current crop of Republicans. Obama
is to the right of Nixon, and they think he's a Socialist. Reagan would
fail their purity test. I'm less worried than I used to be, because they
can't keep this up.

Post by gert

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
But all such people are only opinion writers, not real journalists who
REPORT
the news in its raw state, and not mix and blend it with their slants
and ill-con-
cealed ideological views.

Some of those real journalists at the Times pushed heavily to prosecute
the Clintons for years for what turned out to be a dry well, and to
cheerlead the invasion of Iraq with cooked information they'd been
handed. It's only right-wing activists who seem to think that the paper
is a hotbed of liberals pushing their views.

I don’t consider myself “right wing”, whatever that is, and have NEVER
been an activist for ANY party. [Except the “party” of Ross Perot!]
Gee, I do hate these political pseudonyms. They really do sting when
you find them applied to yourself! You may not want to view the NYT
as a “hotbed of liberalism”, but their editorials, for one, have
ALWAYS expressed the Liberal viewpoint on whatever the topic of the
writer is, with no holds barred in severity of verbal expression. And
then, their columnists?? Like Paul Krugman (who is supposed to write

I've pointed out that half of them are held by many to be conservative.
Obviously, they're not conservative enough for an independent like you,
but your initial claim that there is only one was clearly incorrect,
even though you're now apparently going back to it.

Post by gert
about economics but Liberal politics permeates just about every
paragraph he writes}, Frank Rich, Gail Collins (NO relation!),Tom
Friedman, Maureen Dowd (but she’s half serious, half comedienne),and
95% of their Op-Eds. That has been a foregone conclusion I guess
since its inception. I think I have saved one for ‘posterity’, and
will link to it if I find it.

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
What are your thoughts on the ideas and ideo-purity
of folks like Paul Gigot, Byron York, Peggy Noonan, George Will, et
al?

I try to avoid them, but they're undoubtedly conservative. They may not
be as far right as you want, but they're not centrist or liberal. Will

I hate to say this, but this is so indicative of a narrow viewpoint

I prefer to think of it as not having an unlimited amount of time to
spend subjecting myself to the same old counterfactual nonsense. I
monitor them, I read stuff from them from time to time, but I am not a
political animal. I don't spend all my time looking for things to get
mad about. I'd rather enjoy my life.

Incidentally, I have yet to encounter somebody who actually hates to say
something they "hate to say." Usually, they love saying it, and dive in
with both feet. You, of course, may be the exception.

Post by gert
(I’ll leave ‘mind’ out of it for now). Have you noticed that I read
(and can often quote) all the Liberal Democratic journalists of the
NYT, and can extend that to the Washington Post, the LA Times, The
Guardian, the New Yorker Mag.& TV Network anchors, etc? I really
think that I listen to& read as much or more of the “opposition” than
I do of the “home” crew. I believe that such – and more - is the
undeniable mark of an intelligent and informed citizen of any adopted
ideology. And, after all, the conservative viewpoint(s) is chiefly
carried by only TWO outlets: the Wall St. Journal and FOX (NOT
“faux”) News channels. That’s about two against .two DOZEN.

The conservative viewpoint is freely passed along by those 'liberal'
news sources. They happen to devote some small amount of their time to
opposing voices, and I guess that pisses some people off who like their
opinions undiluted.

The New York Times, like most news sources now, has been gamed by the
Right into watering down any uncomfortable facts with whatever opposite
nonsense the GOP starts shouting. They'll follow a climate scientist
with a debunked zealot and pretend that the truth must be halfway
between the two viewpoints. It seems that all sides accept that the
truth has a liberal bias and must be buffered with lies to be fair.


Kip W

[David O.]

Post by gert
Wm. Safire was a brilliant and highly entertaining linguist.

Not a linguist, per se, but a language & usage columnist. He was solid
at it, too—not quite so good as Barzun but better than John Simon.

[Kip Williams]

Post by gert
Wm. Safire was a brilliant and highly entertaining linguist.

Not a linguist, per se, but a language& usage columnist. He was solid
at it, too—not quite so good as Barzun but better than John Simon.

I have one of his books — a political lexicon. I bought it back when you
couldn't just Google and find out what a Copperhead or a Know-Nothing or
a Mugwump was. And yeah, his writing in it is entertaining.


Kip W

[wagnerfan]

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion? Check out this reply to an artilce

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...
Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)
Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller? Not Dowd, who
was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making up nasty
stuff about Clinton and Gore?
I don't mind people having different opinions, but your letter-writer is
just making up pretend-facts.
Kip W

Look Gert is a blind fool - I have killfiled the idiot and have no
further use for her - she is blind AND stupid and nothing will change
her mind esp facts. Oh she is also either a liar (saying that she
watched those two shows very often and never saw a Conservative), or
she is just stupid in that she won't admit they were there. Whatever -
for me she has a big "L" on her head and I won't waste my valubale
time with ther. words.

[gert]

Post by wagnerfan

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion?  Check out this reply to an artilce

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...
Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)
Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller? Not Dowd, who
was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making up nasty
stuff about Clinton and Gore?
I don't mind people having different opinions, but your letter-writer is
just making up pretend-facts.
Kip W

Look Gert is a blind fool - I have killfiled the idiot and have no
further use for her - she is blind AND stupid and nothing will change
her mind esp facts. Oh she is also either a liar (saying that she
watched those two shows very often and never saw a Conservative), or
she is just stupid in that she won't admit they were there. Whatever -
for me she has a big "L" on her head and I won't waste my valubale
time with ther.  words.

What’s that old saying, "you can lead a horse to water but you can’t
make him drink?"
Your ego-comfort in accusing me to be a liar bespeaks a dessicated
thought process whose only refuge is impunity-free barbs. Dullards
like you should consider carefully your pseudonym. Yours belie an
intensely false impression that you are familiar with the works of the
named composer, but also imply that you might *know* something about
the theoretical and compositional constructs of that composer.
I’d suggest you be wary that current descendents of Richard Wagner
might stumble upon this forum and consequently sue you for defamation-
libel of their name.

Addtionally, it's so pitiable that you feel the need for me to
"understand" that your "time" is more valuable than mine.
ROTFL!!

Whether by killfile or other means, get thee away from me, scum.

GC

[Gerard]

Post by wagnerfan

Post by Kip Williams

Post by gert
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and
Rachel Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or
Conservative guest give an opposing opinion? Check out this

...

Post by gert
"The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices,
the exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks."

...
Just Brooks? ("Moderate"?)
Not Douthat, or Friedman, or Nocera, or Bruni, or Keller? Not Dowd,
who was a Useful Idiot for the conservatives, spending years making
up nasty stuff about Clinton and Gore?
I don't mind people having different opinions, but your
letter-writer is just making up pretend-facts.
Kip W

Look Gert is a blind fool - I have killfiled the idiot and have no
further use for her - she is blind AND stupid and nothing will change
her mind esp facts. Oh she is also either a liar (saying that she
watched those two shows very often and never saw a Conservative), or
she is just stupid in that she won't admit they were there. Whatever -
for me she has a big "L" on her head and I won't waste my valubale
time with ther. words.

Funny how you keep wasting your valuable time with the idiots you've killfiled.
What do you do during the rest of your time? Talking to the other idiots?

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

That's kind of interesting.

Unfortunately, the remainder of your post was inane gibberish. I think you
should be careful not to let any mental patients near your computer, so that
this sort of thing won't happen again.

[gert]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

That's kind of interesting.

Were it not for what you say in the succeeding paragraph, I might not
have commented on this at all, especially since it was not *directly*
sent to you.
Now, I have to say "kind of interesting" means that (1) you either do
not understand the difference between an augmented 4th or a diminished
5th, or (2)
you said this to deflect from the grossly UNfunny remark below that
you so hoped would generate more *comedic comradeship* with people who
see,
macularly degeneratively, the world as you do.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
Unfortunately, the remainder of your post was inane gibberish.  I think you
should be careful not to let any mental patients near your computer, so that
this sort of thing won't happen again.

Obviously this was meant as some kind of humorous reply to assuage
the hurt of my rhetoric to your fragile belief system.
It's ALWAYS "inane gibberish" when irreproachable logic meets the
brick wall of collectivist tribal beliefs.

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
--
Matthew B. Tepper:  WWW, science fiction, classical music, ducks!!
Read about "Proty" here:http://home.earthlink.net/~oy/proty.html
To write to me, do for my address what Androcles did for the lion
Opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of my employers.

[Matthew B. Tepper]

PLONK the spewer of nonsense, invective, and ad hominems.

I've really been enjoying the downfall of Rupert Murdoch, by the way.

[David O.]

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

And in the slow movement of the Emperor Piano Concerto, Beethoven
wrote "Somewhere" before Bernstein did!

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Post by David O.

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

And in the slow movement of the Emperor Piano Concerto, Beethoven
wrote "Somewhere" before Bernstein did!

Brahms invented the tango, and the proof is right there in the first movement
of his Symphony #4! For that matter, Schubert invented ragtime, and you can
hear it in the finale to his String Quintet!

[wagnerfan]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:47:28 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

Post by David O.

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

And in the slow movement of the Emperor Piano Concerto, Beethoven
wrote "Somewhere" before Bernstein did!

Brahms invented the tango, and the proof is right there in the first movement
of his Symphony #4! For that matter, Schubert invented ragtime, and you can
hear it in the finale to his String Quintet!

I was wondering why this thread was called The Tristan Chord" (great
book by the way) and I see it was because gert the nert is continuing
to post to me even after I told her I couldn't read her posts since I
killfiled her. So here we have another idiot who can't stand being
ignored and will just keep posting. Gert - Live With It - I don't
like you. I don't like to read you. I killfiled you. I will not read
your postings. Get a life and move on

Wagner fan

[Gerard]

On Sun, 06 May 2012 22:47:28 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"

Post by Matthew B. Tepper

On Sun, 6 May 2012 12:45:22 -0700 (PDT), gert

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord
before Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes
the lower interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an
augmented 4th.

And in the slow movement of the Emperor Piano Concerto, Beethoven
wrote "Somewhere" before Bernstein did!

Brahms invented the tango, and the proof is right there in the
first movement of his Symphony #4! For that matter, Schubert
invented ragtime, and you can hear it in the finale to his String
Quintet!

I was wondering why this thread was called The Tristan Chord" (great
book by the way) and I see it was because gert the nert is continuing
to post to me even after I told her I couldn't read her posts since I
killfiled her. So here we have another idiot who can't stand being
ignored and will just keep posting. Gert - Live With It - I don't
like you. I don't like to read you. I killfiled you. I will not read
your postings. Get a life and move on
Wagner fan

See?
This is what you write when wasting your *valuable* time.
You must have a lot of it.

[Mark S]

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion?  Check out this reply to an artilce
"While Fox news does have a full stable of conservative pundits on
their payroll, they do bring on many people with left leaning views
for debates. There are fewer conservatives given the same opportunity
at their rival liberal network over at MSNBC. The Chris Mathews show
consists of a bunch of Liberals sitting around agreeing with each
other, which makes for an awfully boring political show. The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks . That is OK for the
opinion pages of a newspaper, but what about the opinion that is front
and center in the headlines on the front pages? Why were some front
page stories, which were detrimental to former President GW Bush
handled differently than similar events once Barack Obama became
President? The Abu Ghraib scandal, whereby Iraqi prisoners were
humiliated, merited 32 front page stories, yet the US Soldier death
squad scandal during Obama's tenure was barely mentioned? The
humiliation of
Iraqi prisoners was bad, but the wanton murder of Afghan civilians was
worse. Sometimes all the news that's fit to print is in the political
eye of the beholder. I think Bill Keller is throwing some pretty large
stones from his glass house."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/keller-murdochs-prid...

You're an idiot.

All you've posted is a REPLY to an opinion piece posted at the NYT
website, a fact-free, opinionated REPLY that is obviously written by
an ill-informed dittohead RW asshole like yourself.

The NYT is going to post any reply to its columns on their website as
long as those comments meet their standards of no porfanity etc.

"Check out this reply." Asshole.

[gert]

Post by Mark S

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.
Also, do you remeber the tit-a-tat over the Chris Matthews and Rachel
Maddow shows and their almost never having a Repub. or Conservative
guest give an opposing opinion?  Check out this reply to an artilce
"While Fox news does have a full stable of conservative pundits on
their payroll, they do bring on many people with left leaning views
for debates. There are fewer conservatives given the same opportunity
at their rival liberal network over at MSNBC. The Chris Mathews show
consists of a bunch of Liberals sitting around agreeing with each
other, which makes for an awfully boring political show. The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks . That is OK for the
opinion pages of a newspaper, but what about the opinion that is front
and center in the headlines on the front pages? Why were some front
page stories, which were detrimental to former President GW Bush
handled differently than similar events once Barack Obama became
President? The Abu Ghraib scandal, whereby Iraqi prisoners were
humiliated, merited 32 front page stories, yet the US Soldier death
squad scandal during Obama's tenure was barely mentioned? The
humiliation of
Iraqi prisoners was bad, but the wanton murder of Afghan civilians was
worse. Sometimes all the news that's fit to print is in the political
eye of the beholder. I think Bill Keller is throwing some pretty large
stones from his glass house."
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/keller-murdochs-prid...

You're an idiot.

And you're a TRIPLE idiot if you think I did not know this!!!!

Maybe you need to address your comments directly to your
assaholic comrades' on this forum because I don't obey your
whip-like, holier-but-DUMBER than thou excrement blather.

Post by Mark S
All you've posted is a REPLY to an opinion piece posted at the NYT
website, a fact-free, opinionated REPLY that is obviously written by
an ill-informed dittohead RW asshole like yourself.

Do you think that you could write one sentence in this reply without
the crutch of that word,
asshole? Oh, but please d onot misunderstand. Just because I abhor
such low-class verbiage
doesn't mean that I cannot open a deeply recessed cannister of such
filth as I've heard
from friends of yours at this site. You've taught well. Or learned
well.


If this is all you can gather up in your toxically malicious
portfolio of slandering
and cursing anyone who speaks of and defends a different belief system
from yours,
then you are a more odorous vermin than I originally thought.

It's amazing how people like you can get so slatheringly HOT over such
relatively
inconsequential remarks, when no one is declaring them as Written on
the Tablets
[No, I don't believe in the "tablets" either, but i surely believe
there must be some evil
corners to your psyche that prompts this kind of response, prompting
shades of another
who spoke with your same brand of fire and brimsone.].

Your reaction(s) surely belies a deeply recessed fear that (1) you are
not totally
sure of YOUR ideological beliefs, and (2), your totally
inappropriate (?) angry
response reveals how much you really HATE what *some* conservative
viewpoints
do to your obviously weak political psyche. Note: I NEVER go
ballistic in answering
challenges to my viewpoints. Maybe you need some aging to temper your
*Temper.*

Post by Mark S
The NYT is going to post any reply to its columns on their website as
long as those comments meet their standards of no porfanity etc.

They also don't post replies that effectively deconstruct the
rancourously
partisan views of the author that prompted the reply that I posted.
Including
mine, that ended with these comments:

"As the #1 distributor of all things Leftist and anti-conservative,
the NYT
proves ever more its additonal #1 function: bird cage liner."

Post by Mark S
"Check out this reply." Asshole.

Suggest that you check out the one I typed just before your
reminder. Vermin

GC

[herman]

Post by gert
Suggest that you check out the one I typed just before your
reminder.   Vermin
GC

Sadly for you, Mark was 100% correct.

If the NYT posts a counterfactual RW reader's response on its online
paper, it doesn't mean (as you seem to suggest) that there's some
truth to it.

Both David Brooks and Ross Douthat are solidly conservative. A couple
of years ago the NYT gave William Kristol a weekly column, but that
was just too weird, asking people to pay for straight GOP spin and it
didn't last long.

Maybe you don't consider yourself Right Wing, but we do. It's pretty
evident.

[td]

Post by herman

Post by gert
Suggest that you check out the one I typed just before your
reminder.   Vermin
GC

Sadly for you, Mark was 100% correct.
If the NYT posts a counterfactual RW reader's response on its online
paper, it doesn't mean (as you seem to suggest) that there's some
truth to it.
Both David Brooks and Ross Douthat are solidly conservative. A couple
of years ago the NYT gave William Kristol a weekly column, but that
was just too weird, asking people to pay for straight GOP spin and it
didn't last long.
Maybe you don't consider yourself Right Wing, but we do. It's pretty
evident.

Actually David Brooks is squirming these days and feels less and less
comfortable with the Republican Party, which is not the one he knew
and signed up to. The Tea Party - AKA Tea Baggers - has succeeded in
destroying the party and he despairs. His weekly session with Mark
Shields reveals a man unable to defend the actions of leading members
of the GOP in Congress.

Douthat? Don't bother reading him, so I cannot say if he is solid or
not.

TD

[gert]

Post by gert

Post by Mark S

Post by gert
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/opinion/sunday/keller-murdochs-prid...

You're an idiot.

And you're a TRIPLE idiot if you think I did not know this!!!!

Just for honesty's sake (not an overflowing commodity here), let's
just revisit that *Letter*:

My response to the NYT Letter that responded to the Bill Keller
Article:
Murdoch’s Pride Is America’s Poison
http://tinyurl.com/8xp2kwf

[NOTE: The quoted parts from here on will probably have two arrows.

Post by gert
"While Fox news does have a full stable of conservative pundits on
their payroll, they do bring on many people with left leaning views
for debates.

[Proof:
Fox News –Dem. Liberal Guests, used for Special Debates on a
contemporary issues:

Kirsten Powers, Democratic strategist, Fox News contributor;
Robert Reich, fill-in host (CNN?), former Secretary of Labor in
President Clinton's Ad.
Marc Lamont Hill, assistant professor of Urban Education at Temple
University(a black)
Medea Benjamin, Code Pink co-founder
Tanya Acker, Democratic strategist
Richard Dawkins (prominent biologist, Atheist)
Joan Walsh (editor, Salon.com)
Jon Stewart (yes, Liberal)
Tavis Smiley (talk show host)
Barbara Walters

Post by gert
There are fewer conservatives given the same opportunity
at their rival liberal network over at MSNBC. The Chris Matthews show
consists of a bunch of Liberals sitting around agreeing with each
other, which makes for an awfully boring political show.

Some of those “bunch of Liberals" that appear at least once a week,
rotating:

Jonathan Alter
Howard Kurtz
Howard Fineman
Eugene Robinson
Al Sharpton (now has his own show)
Joan Walsh
Arianna Huffington
Jon Meacham, et al

Post by gert
The NY Times
Opinion section gives few opportunities to conservative voices, the
exception being, the token moderate, David Brooks .

[Kudos for hiring another: Ross Douthat]

Post by gert
That is OK for the opinion pages of a newspaper, but what about the opinion that is front
and center in the headlines on the front pages? Why were some front page stories, which were >detrimental to former President GW Bush handled differently than similar events once Barack Obama >became President?

This is soo true, and is well documented in Bernard Goldberg’s
fabulous book “A Slobbering Love Affair”, the story and documentation
of the fawning press during the Rise of Obama years. [I read it;
documents
everything I SAW, READ, and HEARD (radio) during 2007, 2008.]

Post by gert
The Abu Ghraib scandal, whereby Iraqi prisoners were
humiliated, merited 32 front page stories, yet the US Soldier death
squad scandal during Obama's tenure was barely mentioned? The
humiliation of Iraqi prisoners was bad, but the wanton murder of Afghan civilians was
worse.

Here is one of those opinion/moral situations in which each story has
no clear, non-challenged decree as to the wrongness or rightness of
each. “Religion” (thankfully) has no play. Choosing to publicize
with front page seriousness, over and over for 32 times, seems more
concerned with bringing shame on the presiding Administration (and
officials of the prison, though no liaison was ever proved) than
“getting the story out.” I myself remember in detail how all of this
was handled, throughout the *world*, with the
molten lead of hatred for Bush & Co. overflowing with this chance,
fluky coup.

Post by gert
Sometimes all the news that's fit to print is in the political
eye of the beholder. I think Bill Keller is throwing some pretty large
stones from his glass house."

Agreed. But he is throwing his stones to a batallion of catchers with
large mitts.


GC [reminding Wagnerfan that I am in his killfile, or maybe he
didn't know that GC and "Gert" are one and teh same?)

[td]

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

Of course he didn't know that. Dickey hasn't made it to Op. 31 No. 3
yet. He's still trying to figure out Op. 2 No. 3. Can't quite get the
harmonies, you know.

Augmentation? The only one he knows about is the surgical treatment he
had on his dick a few years back. Turns out the doc was a quack, so he
is still a very limp Dickey.

TD

[Tassilo]

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

This is not news. Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note. On
the piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G
sharp, but, functionally, the two notes are not necessarily
equivalent.

When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#. If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab. (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.) When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord. (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)

That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.

-david gable

[Matthew B. Tepper]

Tassilo <***@aol.com> appears to have caused the following letters
to be typed in news:ef59e2f0-ef38-4033-9439-592d9c3c4310

Post by Tassilo

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

This is not news. Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note. On the
piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G sharp, but,
functionally, the two notes are not necessarily equivalent.
When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#. If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab. (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.) When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord. (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)
That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.
-david gable

Thank you for rescuing this actual interesting music-analysis item from the
nonsense to which it had previously been shackled.

[wagnerfan]

On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:08:31 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:ef59e2f0-ef38-4033-9439-592d9c3c4310

Post by Tassilo

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner? Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3. Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

This is not news. Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note. On the
piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G sharp, but,
functionally, the two notes are not necessarily equivalent.
When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#. If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab. (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.) When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord. (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)
That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.
-david gable

Thank you for rescuing this actual interesting music-analysis item from the
nonsense to which it had previously been shackled.

Actually Dr. Gable went into this analysis in a way that the OP
could never have imagined or possibly understood.
Wagner Fan

[gert]

Post by wagnerfan
On Mon, 07 May 2012 21:08:31 -0500, "Matthew B. Tepper"

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:ef59e2f0-ef38-4033-9439-592d9c3c4310

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

This is not news.  Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note.  On the
piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G sharp, but,
functionally, the two notes are not necessarily equivalent.
When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#.  If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab.  (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.)  When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord.  (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)
That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.
-david gable

Thank you for rescuing this actual interesting music-analysis item from the
nonsense to which it had previously been shackled.

  Actually Dr. Gable went into this analysis in a way that the OP
could never have imagined or possibly understood.
Wagner Fan

Doesn't your mouth get really sore from your putting your foot in it?

Dr. GC - "Gert"

[gert]

Post by Matthew B. Tepper
to be typed in news:ef59e2f0-ef38-4033-9439-592d9c3c4310

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

This is not news.  Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note.  On the
piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G sharp, but,
functionally, the two notes are not necessarily equivalent.
When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#.  If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab.  (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.)  When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord.  (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)
That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.
-david gable

Thank you for rescuing this actual interesting music-analysis item from the
nonsense to which it had previously been shackled.

There was this fellow in my undergraduate Form & Analysis class who
sat
behind me and would whisper to me periodically when the instructor got
into some thick and heavy analyses, "nonsense." I wondered why he
flunked out at the end of that semester. Now I know why.

[gert]

Post by Tassilo

Post by gert
Hey dude, did you know that Beethoven used the Tristan Chord before
Wagner?  Yep, in his Sonata Op. 31/3.  Except he writes the lower
interval as a diminished 5th. and Wagner prefers an augmented 4th.

This is not news.

Certainly not for me. FYI, I was applying a little techno-info to
the _ _ p who uses
“Wagnerfan” as his pseudonym, and picking up another _ _ p along the
way who
apparently is not addicted to anonymity as his sidekick. I was
attempting to have
a little fun at his expense, since he, and many of his colleagues,
entertain the idea
that I am, well, apparently to them, not up to their intellectual/
musical “knowledge”,
or heaven forbid, ‘achievements” So far, all of my forages in this
area have been
successful, judging by their furious and angry replies (and false
threats of “killfiling”
and “plonking”)..

If you can bear another FYI, I studied 2 years of 18th / 19th. Century
Harmony and
Counterpoint and 1 year of 16thC counterpoint, plus a year of Form
and Analysis,
all required for my undergraduate degree (with a major in
performance).. Such things
as your excellent breakdown of the so-called Tristan Chord is “not
news” to me, having
done this type of harmonic analysis maybe hundres of times with
numerous examples
from the Common Practice literature as well as that beyond. So, the
famous Wagner
chord, which heralded a dramatic departure not only from harmonic
spellings but to
unexpected written and aural resolutions, was introduced to me when I
was 18 or19
- .a loong time ago.

Had I known that you wanted to expand on my little joke (either for
personal edification
or a wish to “join the herd” of my, errr, ‘followers ?)’, I would
have sent you the movement
and measure numbers of the Beethoven example.(MV I, mss 32 & 38,
transposed: 40 & 42).

Might be interesting to point out also that Beethoven resolves this
chord each times he uses
it, i.e., in mss 32-38, the Eb to D, mss, 40-42, the F to E natural.
Wagner of course, did not,
choosing to UNresolve the leading voice upwards by semitones from G#
to B.

I know there are many more examples of this particular supertonic
usage, but at the moment,
they’re not ‘coming back.’

[Of course, my antagonists erupted in the anticipated glee at your
post. This type reaction
really does suggest, to me anyway, some major personality-self-image
problems.
I wonder what they will come up with next to spur another ‘spree.’
Well, the least you can
say is that this time, it IS about music. :-0]


Gerrie Collins



. Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note. On
the piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G
sharp, but, functionally, the two notes are not necessarily
equivalent.
When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#. If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab. (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.) When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord. (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)
That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.









 Used by every 18th-century composer, the ii7 chord

Post by Tassilo
in the minor mode is identical to the so-called Tristan chord as long
as you admit "enharmonic equivalence," that is, as long as you regard
A flat and G sharp, for example, as instances of the same note.  On
the piano you do, in fact, use the same key to play A flat and G
sharp, but, functionally, the two notes are not necessarily
equivalent.
When if first appears on the downbeat of measure 2 of the Tristan
prelude, the Tristan chord is spelled (reading up from the bass) F-B-
D#-G#.  If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab.  (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.)  When ii7 of E
flat minor appears on the downbeat of m. 37 of Beethoven's Sonata in E
flat major, op. 31, no. 3, F, Ab, Cb, and Eb are precisely the four
notes constituting the chord.  (Reading up from the bass, Beethoven’s
chord is spelled Ab-Cb-Eb-F.)
That being said, the Tristan chord is not spelled as if it were ii7 in
any key, and it is not resolved as if it were ii7 in any key.
-david gable

[whiskynsplash]

Post by gert
Had I known that you wanted to expand on my little joke (either for
personal edification
 or a wish to “join the herd” of my, errr, ‘followers ?)’, I would
have sent you the movement
and measure numbers of the Beethoven example.(MV I, mss 32 & 38,
transposed: 40 & 42).
Might be interesting to point out also that Beethoven resolves this
chord each times he uses
 it, i.e., in mss 32-38, the Eb to D, mss, 40-42, the F to E natural.
Wagner of course, did not,
 choosing to UNresolve the leading voice upwards by semitones from G#
to  B.
I know there are many more examples of this particular supertonic
usage, but at the moment,
 they’re not ‘coming back.’
[Of course, my antagonists erupted in the anticipated glee at your
post.  This type reaction
really does suggest, to me anyway,  some major personality-self-image
problems.
I wonder what they will come up with next to spur another ‘spree.’
Well, the least you can
say is that this time, it IS about music.  :-0]
Gerrie Collins

Your riposte sound curiously like the Ape examining the Professor.
Incidentally your entire Beethoven "analysis" appears almost word-for-
word in Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord

I'd be more impressed with your laundry list of academic credentials
if you had possessed the aural memory to recognize the Duke of Plaza-
Toro's patter song from "The Gondoliers," one of the most popular
Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, especially since you gushed that you
reely, reely liked G&S.

[gert]

Post by whiskynsplash
Your riposte sound curiously like the Ape examining the Professor.
Incidentally your entire Beethoven "analysis" appears almost word-for-
word in Wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord
I'd be more impressed with your laundry list of academic credentials
if you had possessed the aural memory to recognize the Duke of Plaza-
Toro's patter song from "The Gondoliers," one of the most popular
Gilbert & Sullivan operettas, especially since you gushed that you
reely, reely liked G&S.

How encouraging! It seems that the last time ‘we’ swapped words, it
was on a more cordial note. However, it seems now you wish to join my
ever-growing collection of zoological and cerebral oddities.
Welcome to the group, Mr. Orangutan. I’m sure you will find much
companionship in the well-populated section of your species in my
personal internet zoo.

However, as much as you try to impress me with your ill-expressed
speculations – about music, G & S, and me, you have proved that you
cannot escape who and what you are, which your pseudonym gives but one
indication.
As far as melodic recognition, I would give you a leg up on your new
cage mates if you could recognize the differences in harmony melody,
and LYRICS between Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd.

Hint: One is not a dirigible and the other is not a flower.

[herman]

 FYI, I was applying a  little techno-info to
the  _ _ p who uses
“Wagnerfan” as his pseudonym, and picking up another _ _ p along the
way who
 apparently is not addicted to anonymity as his sidekick.    I was
attempting to have
 a little fun at his expense, since he, and many of his colleagues,
entertain the idea
that I am, well, apparently to them, not up to their intellectual/
musical “knowledge”,
 or heaven forbid, ‘achievements”   So far, all of my forages in this
area have been
 successful, judging by their furious and angry replies (and false
threats of  “killfiling”
and “plonking”)..

In other (less loquacious) words, you're a troll.

[herman]

Post by gert
If you can bear another FYI, I studied 2 years of 18th / 19th. Century
Harmony and
 Counterpoint and 1 year of 16thC counterpoint, plus a year of Form
and Analysis,
 all required for my undergraduate degree (with a major in
performance)..

Has it ever occurred to you that every time you start one of these
expeditions (intended to show how smart you are) you wind up having to
explain you really went to school, it was just a very long time ago?

[gert]

Post by herman

Post by gert
If you can bear another FYI, I studied 2 years of 18th / 19th. Century
Harmony and
 Counterpoint and 1 year of 16thC counterpoint, plus a year of Form
and Analysis,
 all required for my undergraduate degree (with a major in
performance)..

Has it ever occurred to you that every time you start one of these
expeditions (intended to show how smart you are) you wind up having to
explain you really went to school, it was just a very long time ago?

I happily took the time 15 minutes ago to “explain” the reasons that
answer your smart-ass comments. I’ve since reconsidered that they
wouldn’t interest you, nor would you buy them. So we’re back at
square one. You don’t like what I say, and vice-versa. So why do
you even reply to things not meant for you, except to reiterate your
still very bothersome concept of me. I can live with that but it’s
annoying to have to type rebuttals every full moon.

_Gert


[However, just had to leave this one in:]

One wonders the purpose of your statement? You must be under the
erroneous impression that “degrees” make a person “smart”? I have
only *had* to mention such things maybe twice in circumstances as this
one, for a legitimate purpose with dumbo statements. [Note Wagnerfan
referring to Tassilo as Dr. Gable to impress upon me his invidious
comparison. FYI, mentioning the courses I took was meant for Dr.
Gable only, so happy was I to let him know that I could appreciate the
time and work he expended.]

[gert]

Post by Tassilo
 If I substitute the right pitches for the top three pitches
here, pitches that are enharmonically equivalent to the pitches Wagner
actually uses, I can respell this chord so that it is identical to a
ii7 chord in E flat minor: F-Cb-Eb-Ab.  (F is the root of ii7 in E
flat minor, Ab the 3rd, Cb the 5th, and Eb the 7th.)  >

Actually, I think the 7th of the supertonic chord *in Eb minor* would
be spelled (root form) F-Ab-Cb- Ebb. (?) My mind seems to be
recalling that the ii7 in minor is a full-diminished chord. All minor
3rds,
F-Ab; Minor 3rd., Ab-Cb; Minor 3rd., Cb-Ebb.

However, you do sound like you might have had a Major (or minor) in
theory! So I will stand corrected!

_G

[Tassilo]

Post by gert
Actually, I think the 7th of the supertonic chord *in Eb minor* would
be spelled (root form) F-Ab-Cb- Ebb. (?)  My mind seems to be
recalling that the ii7 in minor is a full-diminished chord.  All minor
3rds,
 F-Ab; Minor 3rd., Ab-Cb;  Minor 3rd., Cb-Ebb.

Gerrie, ii7 in the minor mode is always a half diminished seventh
chord. Build one on B in A minor and you'll see what I mean: B-D-F-
A.

-Tassilo

[gert]

Post by Tassilo

Post by gert
Actually, I think the 7th of the supertonic chord *in Eb minor* would
be spelled (root form) F-Ab-Cb- Ebb. (?)  My mind seems to be
recalling that the ii7 in minor is a full-diminished chord.  All minor
3rds,
 F-Ab; Minor 3rd., Ab-Cb;  Minor 3rd., Cb-Ebb.

Gerrie, ii7 in the minor mode is always a half diminished seventh
chord.  Build one on B in A minor and you'll see what I mean:  B-D-F-
A.
-Tassilo

YES! Now I 'see' it (and somewhat remember it). Thanks so much,
David.
I can't help but say that it is a pleasure to "make your
acquaintance."

_Gert