Metaphysica Music Theory

reply to luthier

I spent many years in India studying.

Really. Where, what and with whom did you study?

Second gamelan is also easy to figure out.

And you can tell by ear, can you, exactly what the key of a gamelan tune is? In Western music nomenclature?

According to Evan Reed, one of the authors of the study, converting sound to light itself is novel, because there is only a very narrow frequency range -- around 100 GHz to 10 THz -- where sound and light overlap.

100Ghz to 10THz is narrow?

100GHz is sound?

Mechanical vibrations are perturbations in an electromagnetic field?

Seeing as you are a physics (student?) it seems you would understand how important consciousness is and that sound and consciousness have a history in human scripture.

Why do you expect a physicist to be an expert on consciousness -- or scripture?

All of what you say is utter crap.

Funny, I was just thinking the same about your posts. You have demonstrated an almost total ignorance of music theory, musicology, musical acoustics, psychacoustics, acoustic physics and even luthiery. You don't even realise that your precious cymascope is nothing but a toy.

Are you really a luthier?

originally posted by: Astyanax
reply to luthier

I spent many years in India studying.

Really. Where, what and with whom did you study?

Second gamelan is also easy to figure out.

And you can tell by ear, can you, exactly what the key of a gamelan tune is? In Western music nomenclature?

According to Evan Reed, one of the authors of the study, converting sound to light itself is novel, because there is only a very narrow frequency range -- around 100 GHz to 10 THz -- where sound and light overlap.

100Ghz to 10THz is narrow?

100GHz is sound?

Mechanical vibrations are perturbations in an electromagnetic field?

Seeing as you are a physics (student?) it seems you would understand how important consciousness is and that sound and consciousness have a history in human scripture.

Why do you expect a physicist to be an expert on consciousness -- or scripture?

All of what you say is utter crap.

Funny, I was just thinking the same about your posts. You have demonstrated an almost total ignorance of music theory, musicology, musical acoustics, psychacoustics, acoustic physics and even luthiery. You don't even realise that your precious cymascope is nothing but a toy.

Are you really a luthier?

Oh I have have I?

I lived in Gujarat (palintana) and chenai. Studied with Balasubramanium Sharma, Arnab Chakrabarty, and ustad vilayat khan.

I also studied Tonal harmony with W.A.Mathieu. Have an advanced knowledge of music theory both western and eastern.

Yes I can notate Gamelon in western notation. Why couldn't you? The pitches won't be correct in equal temperament but the basics can as can the polyrhythm of the gongs drums and flutes.
I can tell your desperately trying to save face since you haven't provided any insight to why I have no clue. Nor did you argue against my points or read the article from popular science on turning sound to light.

Do you understand raga or the Vedas? Do you know what the drupad style of raga is? Or the kirana school? Do you know where any of the schools or padagody of hinudustani or carnatic music come from?
Do you know how the 22 shrutis are achieved, how the scale was made from overtones from the fifth and third partials?

Do you know anything about physics or acoustics you couldn't have Googled from someone else's opinion?

Have you ever read a single philosophers work? It seems you don't how to argue logically. Do you have a way of proving or disproving metaphysics that so many brilliant minds have failed at?

Its you who is in deep water here. I have provided plenty of evidence which you avoid expertly and choose to use insults without any substance. I also had the opportunity to study ethnomusicology privately David Reck at Amherst College. Prob one of the premier ethnomusicologists in the world.

If you want to debate an article or actual topic that would be nice.

How about your statement there is no such thing as levitation. Do you know that? What was the nature of reality again according to physics? Did you read the study from Princeton on telekenisis and psychogenesis?

And yeah I am a luthier, I would post pics but not sure how on my mobile. I am finishing an emerald sparkle semi hollow Tele right now.

Thanks to all the thread participants for an interesting read.

Special thanks to KAOStheory who nails it.

Astyanax can keep denying military/march bands tune higher, but even as I recognize that one can take any record and put it in the pitch app like was done with the African music to determine for sure, Asty has not done so to back the assertion that they don't tune higher than a440.

I tune to a432 because I like it.

soundcloud.com...

a reply to: luthier

I lived in Gujarat (palintana) and chenai. Studied with Balasubramanium Sharma, Arnab Chakrabarty, and ustad vilayat khan. I also studied Tonal harmony with W.A.Mathieu.

Thank you. I was curious. Did you study with Vilayat Khan in Gujarat or in Madras?

Yes I can notate Gamelon in western notation

Perhaps you can — you seem to have various superpowers — but my question was about being able to identify the tonal centre of a gamelan piece accurately according to our Western system or notes and pitches. Which, since they don't follow our system at all, would be a bit difficult.

You seem to be trying to turn our conversation into an inquisition on my musical abilities. Don't bother; they are modest. Nevertheless, they are more than sufficient for the purposes of this conversation, which is about acoustics, not music.

I can tell your desperately trying to save face since you haven't provided any insight to why I have no clue.

My dear fellow, you are quite right, except that the face I am trying to save is yours, not mine.

Look: I made some remarks earlier. You chose to dispute them. I supported them with evidence. You did not look at my evidence. You then went on to make further claims of your own. When asked to provide support for them you refused. You have gone on making claim after claim, each more dubious than the last, with no evidence for any of them. If you have provided evidence quote the relevant section of the relevant post. Perhaps you don't understand what counts as evidence.

You have insulted and attacked me — your last post, completely off topic, was nothing but an attempt to show me up personally — yet I have treated you with more gentleness than you deserve. I have also — unlike you — backed up every assertion I've made here with a clear explanation or with documentary evidence — none of which you will even look at.

It isn't my face that needs to be saved here, believe me.

Do you understand raga or the Vedas? Do you know what the drupad style of raga is? Or the kirana school? Do you know where any of the schools or padagody of hinudustani or carnatic music come from?

I know very little about raga. I probably know more about Hinduism than you do. What has any of this got to do with what we are discussing?

Do you know anything about physics or acoustics you couldn't have Googled from someone else's opinion?

Quite possibly not; I don't know exactly what's out there, and most of human knowledge, they say, is on the internet. However, I came by my knowledge honestly, by following an honours degree course in Physics with Musical Acoustics at a respectable university in England. I can no more prove this than you can prove your claim about having studied in India, but don't you think that, if I really was lying, I would choose something a bit grander? Juillard, maybe? Or Vilayat Khan?

And again, what does this have to do with the topic? It doesn't matter what or how I know about physics, acoustics or tiddleywinks, so long as the information I present here is correct and verifiable. And it is. As I have shown.

Have you ever read a single philosophers work?

Yes, indeed I have. For someone who has not actually done a college course on the subject, I am impressively well read in the subject. I have my favourite philosophers an' all, and I can quote from their works. What does this have to do with the topic we are discussing?

Sweet Fanny Adams, that's what.

Do you have a way of proving or disproving metaphysics that so many brilliant minds have failed at?

You know, at times you are barely intelligible. What do you mean, 'prove or disprove metaphysics'? Metaphysics isn't a proposition, it is a field of inquiry. Are you asking me to prove or disprove all metaphysical propositions? Why? Which ones in particular are relevant to the topic?

What was the nature of reality again according to physics?

Matter and energy interacting in spacetime under the influence of the laws of physics. Relevance to the topic?

Did you read the study from Princeton on telekenisis and psychogenesis?

Post it, and I will read it. By the way, what the hell is psychogenesis? The birth of souls?

How about your statement there is no such thing as levitation.

I made no such statement.

I have provided plenty of evidence which you avoid expertly and choose to use insults without any substance.

See above.

It seems you don't how to argue logically.

Poor old me, eh?

And yeah I am a luthier

That's good, because sure as hell you're no debater.

a reply to: pilgrimOmega

Asty has not done so to back the assertion that they don't tune higher than a440.

I made no such assertion. In fact, one of the sources I quoted makes it very clear that marching bands did tune high. But not to A=444Hz; and that is the point I was making.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: luthier

I lived in Gujarat (palintana) and chenai. Studied with Balasubramanium Sharma, Arnab Chakrabarty, and ustad vilayat khan. I also studied Tonal harmony with W.A.Mathieu.

Thank you. I was curious. Did you study with Vilayat Khan in Gujarat or in Madras?

Yes I can notate Gamelon in western notation

Perhaps you can — you seem to have various superpowers — but my question was about being able to identify the tonal centre of a gamelan piece accurately according to our Western system or notes and pitches. Which, since they don't follow our system at all, would be a bit difficult.

You seem to be trying to turn our conversation into an inquisition on my musical abilities. Don't bother; they are modest. Nevertheless, they are more than sufficient for the purposes of this conversation, which is about acoustics, not music.

I can tell your desperately trying to save face since you haven't provided any insight to why I have no clue.

My dear fellow, you are quite right, except that the face I am trying to save is yours, not mine.

Look: I made some remarks earlier. You chose to dispute them. I supported them with evidence. You did not look at my evidence. You then went on to make further claims of your own. When asked to provide support for them you refused. You have gone on making claim after claim, each more dubious than the last, with no evidence for any of them. If you have provided evidence quote the relevant section of the relevant post. Perhaps you don't understand what counts as evidence.

You have insulted and attacked me — your last post, completely off topic, was nothing but an attempt to show me up personally — yet I have treated you with more gentleness than you deserve. I have also — unlike you — backed up every assertion I've made here with a clear explanation or with documentary evidence — none of which you will even look at.

It isn't my face that needs to be saved here, believe me.

Do you understand raga or the Vedas? Do you know what the drupad style of raga is? Or the kirana school? Do you know where any of the schools or padagody of hinudustani or carnatic music come from?

I know very little about raga. I probably know more about Hinduism than you do. What has any of this got to do with what we are discussing?

Do you know anything about physics or acoustics you couldn't have Googled from someone else's opinion?

Quite possibly not; I don't know exactly what's out there, and most of human knowledge, they say, is on the internet. However, I came by my knowledge honestly, by following an honours degree course in Physics with Musical Acoustics at a respectable university in England. I can no more prove this than you can prove your claim about having studied in India, but don't you think that, if I really was lying, I would choose something a bit grander? Juillard, maybe? Or Vilayat Khan?

And again, what does this have to do with the topic? It doesn't matter what or how I know about physics, acoustics or tiddleywinks, so long as the information I present here is correct and verifiable. And it is. As I have shown.

Have you ever read a single philosophers work?

Yes, indeed I have. For someone who has not actually done a college course on the subject, I am impressively well read in the subject. I have my favourite philosophers an' all, and I can quote from their works. What does this have to do with the topic we are discussing?

Sweet Fanny Adams, that's what.

Do you have a way of proving or disproving metaphysics that so many brilliant minds have failed at?

You know, at times you are barely intelligible. What do you mean, 'prove or disprove metaphysics'? Metaphysics isn't a proposition, it is a field of inquiry. Are you asking me to prove or disprove all metaphysical propositions? Why? Which ones in particular are relevant to the topic?

What was the nature of reality again according to physics?

Matter and energy interacting in spacetime under the influence of the laws of physics. Relevance to the topic?

Did you read the study from Princeton on telekenisis and psychogenesis?

Post it, and I will read it. By the way, what the hell is psychogenesis? The birth of souls?

How about your statement there is no such thing as levitation.

I made no such statement.

I have provided plenty of evidence which you avoid expertly and choose to use insults without any substance.

See above.

It seems you don't how to argue logically.

Poor old me, eh?

And yeah I am a luthier

That's good, because sure as hell you're no debater.

Right.

I studied with vilayat khan in new jersey actually.

I already posted the link to Princeton. You just ignored it. I also posted the link on physics.org relating the nature of reality/hologram. Its relevant because the Princeton studies show 1 consciousness alters events (however small). You state things as if since there is no study (yet) it can't be true. My point here is these are studies in physics that have correlating spiritual anecdotes. You also stated things like levitation have been long since disproven. In fact we don't even know if the world we live in is real. As David Hume relayed. Kant fixed it by saying we constitute our own reality. This is what I am referring to. It is also impossible to prove or disprove metaphysics so when you assert so knowingly that you are right about the topic its actually a fallacy already discussed and debated for centuries by some of the most important people in philosophy and science (can't have one without the other). You can have an opinion but your choice of words does not reflect such a thing it is presented as scientific fact. quantum mechanics says that the part of reality that we do not perceive is radically different than the part of the world that we do perceive.

Do you think the folks in Bali and Jakarta know where the tonal center is? Do you think that information has been relayed and written down years ago by the earlier ethnomusicologists? Do you think you could study the topic then recognize what you hear? This is what I am talking about with logical debating. There was a gamelon at Smith College near where I grew up. Also understanding pitch is ear training not magic. How do you think Indian musicians accurately reproduce such small differences in notes.

Did you not question my understanding of instrument making, music theory, sound engineering, and acoustics? Where is your proof as in point out a real fallacy with any statement I made regarding the subjects.

Did you read the light to sound article I posted for you yet?

The point is many people have discussed the topic of sound and brain activity, there are some good papers out there on concert pitch its not all new age. John Stuart Reid has some good stuff. He invented the cymascope and has used it to help decipher dolphin language among other things. Oliver Sacks also has great work as well as Anthony Storr.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: pilgrimOmega

Asty has not done so to back the assertion that they don't tune higher than a440.

I made no such assertion. In fact, one of the sources I quoted makes it very clear that marching bands did tune high. But not to A=444Hz; and that is the point I was making.

F178Hz:

a reply to: Astyanax

I have to ask because it's so relevant to my current assignment.
And anyone else here, jump in as well (not you luthier, I know you know lol.)

Can you simply take one of these A440hz keyboards, and play (in a C major scale) the 1st, then combine the 1st with the 2nd, 3rd, 4ths, 5th, 6th, and 7th in the scale - then do 8-1 as well, the octave- and tell me what your perception is of each? I'm very curious as to how you perceive these simple intervals, and if you can offer a system of "more proper" ones, love to check that out to.

Also just want to say even though this thread is ridiculously off topic at this point, i'm ok with that lol.

originally posted by: KAOStheory
a reply to: Astyanax

I have to ask because it's so relevant to my current assignment.
And anyone else here, jump in as well (not you luthier, I know you know lol.)

Can you simply take one of these A440hz keyboards, and play (in a C major scale) the 1st, then combine the 1st with the 2nd, 3rd, 4ths, 5th, 6th, and 7th in the scale - then do 8-1 as well, the octave- and tell me what your perception is of each? I'm very curious as to how you perceive these simple intervals, and if you can offer a system of "more proper" ones, love to check that out to.

Also just want to say even though this thread is ridiculously off topic at this point, i'm ok with that lol.

So sorry. Been very grumpy and sick. Its also drives me crazy when people try and destroy others work without having the empirical evidence to do so. I don't believe everything you may have written but something as complex as this subject without prior knowledge (ahem..no names) needs to be contemplated and thought about before coming to a grand decision about "reality". Then it can't be ultimately proved or disproved when discussing metaphysics. And it doesn't need to be.

I find your work fascinating and even if I don't subscribe 100 percent to it, I wouldn't say it isn't true....especially after examining it for five minutes.

Sorry I derailed your thread.


P.s. John Stuart Reid is a very approachable guy if you email him (if you haven't already). He has done a lot of work on this subject.

a reply to: luthier

I already posted the link to Princeton.

You did not. Your 'Princeton' link is not to a scientific paper, it's to a feature article on a space-cadet webzine about the PEAR programme at Princeton, a long-ago research project, shut down these many years, that produced literally zip in terms of hard evidence for any psi phenomenon.

Don't believe me? Here's a link to all the PEAR published papers. Lots of hints and statistical oddities but nothing to definitely indicate the existence of any extrasensory powers whatsoever. More to the point, not one of them offers the slightest support for the proposition that there is something special about A=432Hz, or about 'a-little-bit-over-C-sharp' either.

That is why I ignored it. It's irrelevant, exaggerated to the point of untruth, and is not authoritative.

I also posted the link on physics.org relating the nature of reality/hologram. Its relevant because the Princeton studies show 1 consciousness alters events (however small).

Your two Physics World links were both to the same page — some science journalist's dumbed-down, half-baked opinions about a piece of totally academic, indeed rather abstract work in quantum theory. It doesn't say what you think it's saying, or support your claims in any way.

In fact we don't even know if the world we live in is real. As David Hume relayed. Kant fixed it by saying we constitute our own reality.

I see you are as knowledgeable about philosophy as you are about various other subjects we've discussed. The question of how we know what we know was not raised or solved by either Hume or Kant, though they both had things to say about it: it is as old as philosophy. Plato was already talking about it five centuries before Christ. Are you seriously trying to use arguments in epistemology to tell me I don't know what I know? David Hume, who privileged experience and discounted induction as means to knowledge, would laugh you to scorn.

Anyway, we're done with all that now, and here's why:

Originally posted by luthier
I spent many years in India studying.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Really. Where, what and with whom did you study?

Originally posted by luthier
I lived in Gujarat (palintana) and chenai. Studied with Balasubramanium Sharma, Arnab Chakrabarty, and ustad vilayat khan.

Originally posted by Astyanax
Did you study with Vilayat Khan in Gujarat or in Madras?

Originally posted by luthier
I studied with vilayat khan in new jersey actually.

The game's up, laddie. I'm done with you. Let me just say in conclusion that nothing you have said has given me the slightest reason to reconsider my opinions about the A=432 cult. If your intention was to persuade me of its claims, you have signally failed.

a reply to: KAOStheory

I don't know whether I understand your question. Are you asking me to play — on an ordinary keyboard — a single note, followed by a series of basic major-diatonic intervals based on that note as the root, and tell you what they sound like?

They sound like intervals.

a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: Astyanax

a reply to: Astyanax
This is my last reply to you. The papers from pear do in fact show major anomalies that the chief scientist has stated several times over the years "if people still don't believe the evidence they never will no matter how much proof."

Oh and yeah that's what epistemology is right? Would you rather play pretend and rehash ideas already discredited by previous arguments? I know its easier to argue without philosophy, it takes a lot less thought. You can just react without thinking.

I also stated several times I don't google my knowledge hence why It doesn't take me anytime to respond well that and I am very sick and home trying to recover. Those sources as I stated were from quick searches on subjects already understand.

Just FYI. My brother had a full scholarship to UT for undergrad, then Mcgill, and the University of Chicago for physics. He has 2 phds and is now working doing weather modeling. So what you said about these being low level theories are just ridiculous. These theories come from intense modeling research not something you make sound like a whimsical idea. Not only that but these theories are the most likely scenarios by research and observations of data from space and particle research. Then again you would know that if you were a real physicist who keeps up with quantum mechanics.

Secondly you NEVER point out what is wrong with anything I said just your own opinion which I really don't care about it.

Do you know the history of philosophy? (which is where empiricism comes from). Did David Hume not say you can't prove reality exists and that you are not just dreaming? Did Kant not say and is what is regarded as the truth about reality still today that the only thing you can prove about reality is that it is created. That we constitute our own reality.

I think you would be a better engineer than physicist. There is too much creative thinking involved there.

I am sorry to derail this further. If you want to debate topic by topic message me. We can go line for line and debate these non op topics as much as you like. If you would like I will email my brother who actually works as a physicist he can tell you all about his work with particle physics and what the actual cutting edge research is showing not just the whimsical theories you are suggesting they are. In Chicago he actually worked with some of the top scientist in the US at the fermilab. I can guarantee you it wont be pretty.

Here is a link. You can find the fermilab contact info where you can tell them there research is just off the cuff ideas by crazy scientists. You should contact MIT too. Tell them not take part in these half baked ideas seeing as they are part of the research. Basically what they do is sit around on ATS pretending to be physicists coming up with half baked skeptical atguements.

www.fnal.gov...

a reply to luthier

This is my last reply to you.

Oh, good.

The papers from pear do in fact show major anomalies.

Prove it. I gave you links to all the papers. Show us one that reveals 'major anomalies.'

I don't google

If you actually knew what you were talking about, you wouldn't need to.

I am very sick and at home trying to recover.

So what? If your illness doesn't prevent you from making post after post on this thread, why should it stop you from backing up your posts with a few facts?

Just FYI. My brother had a full scholarship to UT for undergrad, then Mcgill, and the University of Chicago for physics. He has 2 phds and is now working doing weather modeling. So what you said about these being low level theories are just ridiculous.

The brains of the family, is he? Maybe you should ask him to help you with your posts.

Do you know the history of philosophy?

Yes.

Did David Hume not say you can't prove reality exists and that you are not just dreaming?

Prove it.

Did Kant not say and is what is regards the truth about reality still today that the only thing you can prove about reality is that it is created.

Prove it.

If you want to debate topic by topic message me.

In your dreams, chum.

a reply to: luthier

Here is a link...

You have no idea what a scientific paper looks like, do you?

Ok I lied. Prob my ego.

So a US gov website with the some of the worlds most brilliant students and scientists isn't enough? On a conspiracy forum,... your ego level is so high you want me to link scientific papers .1 percent of the population has the education to understand. Just for you? Why don't you research Firmilab that should be enough to tell you the guys aren't taking bong rips coming up with half baked ideas. The head scientist on the project is a well respected and peer reviewed scientist. This is US government contract with over 300 million in its budget.

So I need to link theories that are commonly understood by intro philosophy students too? What's the matter you couldn't google a quick quote oh,..i get it you have to actually take a class or at least read more than a two second blurb. Then again if you were a physics student you would have been required to take philosophy at least in every major research school I am aware of.

Try Hume's Fork and the problem with induction. They will be easier to google. Though you may need someone to explain what they mean. Unless you already know them and are just arguing out of spite.

As far as Kant I site the Critique of Pure Reason. Again you can't just google some blurbs you need to read comprehend and ponder.

Yeah my brother is the brains of the family no shame there and not an insult. I am totally fine with that. His second and third scholarships were because of his undergrad work and were both so he could be part of major projects.

I realize math is a language and probably some laymen's terms and metaphore are not completely accurate (I know that cat story from Shoernberg) however this is ATS right? Why don't you get on a science site and debate with them? Does it make you feel good to point out the stupidity of all of us? Funny thing is you post others arguments like a tabloid paper. You leave out the context and the whole statement and then offer a rebuttal to a perfectly edited snippet. Perhaps media is a good choice of occupation when you graduate since such a cutting edge and knowledgeable physicist is left to post on a conspiracy forum.

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: KAOStheory

I don't know whether I understand your question. Are you asking me to play — on an ordinary keyboard — a single note, followed by a series of basic major-diatonic intervals based on that note as the root, and tell you what they sound like?

They sound like intervals.

You may not have understood the question, but you answered it, thank you.
"A432" is not a cult - what a ridiculous statement - it's a pitch standard, and the proper one for science, healing, physics, and attunement to the solar spectrum and the cosmic keyboard. i don't care if you think the world is flat, it's round. and hollow lol.

from "The Handbook of Acoustics for the Use of Musical Students," Thomas-Frederick-Harris, 1910:

originally posted by: luthier

originally posted by: KAOStheory
a reply to: Astyanax

I have to ask because it's so relevant to my current assignment.
And anyone else here, jump in as well (not you luthier, I know you know lol.)

Can you simply take one of these A440hz keyboards, and play (in a C major scale) the 1st, then combine the 1st with the 2nd, 3rd, 4ths, 5th, 6th, and 7th in the scale - then do 8-1 as well, the octave- and tell me what your perception is of each? I'm very curious as to how you perceive these simple intervals, and if you can offer a system of "more proper" ones, love to check that out to.

Also just want to say even though this thread is ridiculously off topic at this point, i'm ok with that lol.

So sorry. Been very grumpy and sick. Its also drives me crazy when people try and destroy others work without having the empirical evidence to do so. I don't believe everything you may have written but something as complex as this subject without prior knowledge (ahem..no names) needs to be contemplated and thought about before coming to a grand decision about "reality". Then it can't be ultimately proved or disproved when discussing metaphysics. And it doesn't need to be.

No worries, and thanks for participating here. I may have some questions for you, and it is in regards to work on my 2nd work and this paid project i OP's about, for your time i would of course gladly pay or barter.

I find your work fascinating and even if I don't subscribe 100 percent to it, I wouldn't say it isn't true....especially after examining it for five minutes.

Thank you, the one review for my book I have on Amazon agrees with you.

Sorry I derailed your thread.

You didn't, no worries, I'm not an "off-topic" nazi. The headbone's connected to the legbone.

P.s. John Stuart Reid is a very approachable guy if you email him (if you haven't already). He has done a lot of work on this subject.

Thank you again, I will. So are Dale Pond, Susan Alekjander, Judith Pennington, and many others I have had the pleasure of corresponding with in my work, and I will add him to the list.
Sorry i don't quite get how to do these individual quote separations, I assume it's as easy as posting photos lol

a reply to: luthier

Does it make you feel good to point out the stupidity of all of us?

I didn't come here for that. I came here to express a view concerning an aspect of the thread topic -- metaphysical music theories. To make a contribution to the thread.

You disagreed with me, for reasons I found unconvincing. I explained why. You called me 'closed-minded' and proceeded to get all hot under the collar when I explained why your arguments were wrong. Through all this you never substantiated even one of your claims; posted irrelevant links that didn't address the topic or support your statements; and when you found that bluster wasn't working, you lied clumsily, and got caught.

I didn't make you look stupid, luthier. I didn't have to. You did it all on your own. Take care now.