In article <slrndb0qej.30r.slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
Albert Silverman <slvrmn@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>On 2005-06-15, Nightingale <singer@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Albert Silverman wrote:
>>> On 2005-06-14, jeffontheleft <marcel.graf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm currently trying to work through this book
>>>
>>>
>>> WHY?
>>>
>>> To pass an exam in music theory?
>>>
>>
>> Perhaps he is just interested in learning.
>
>Perhaps. But I have yet to see that here.
>
>> If it was a course, I would
>> expect him to have a teacher he could go to with questions.
>
>The problem, of course, is that his teacher would not answer his
questions
>in a manner which provides an understanding of the subject material.
>
>And the reason for this is that his teacher has been told what to
"think,"
>not how to apply *reason* in coming to proper conclusions.
>
>In other words, his teacher is *forbidden* from thinking logically about
>the subject matter.
>
>Now then, if his teacher (generic model) wants to engage here in a debate
>on music theory *based upon reason and not on avoiding a revision of
>musical history*, then let him step right up to the plate, for that
>first pitch.
>
>So far, I have had *NO* takers. The reason should be obvious.
>
>
>Albert Silverman
>(Al is in Wonderland!)
>where understanding is irrelevant
>since residents are told *what* to think, not *how* to think
>
>
>
>>>
>>> Albert Silverman
>>> (Al is in Wonderland!)
>>> where understanding is irrelevant
>>> and "learning to the test" is very relevant
>>
>> Why?
>
>Because the test does not ask the *RIGHT* questions. And no one is
>interested in knowing what the right questions *are*.
>
> THAT'S WHY.
The reason you have no takers is indeed obvious, Al. You're
a ranting non-musician with nothing to say.
--
Matthew H. Fields http://www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
To be great, do better and better. Don't wait for talent: no such thing.
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
|
