|
I have no issue understanding the theory, although make a quick search on Dorian mode and you'll find variations (which genus!!!!) When I learned this stuff, Dorian in D was DEFGABCD. My point about simple melodies being esoteric still stands. If you say a given melody is in E Major and wanted transposed to E Dorian, I can do that, but to say what mode any given melody is in .... sure if a melody is all white notes and As and Ds predominate you'd say it was Am and if Cs and Gs predominate it's CM, but with good coverage across the whole scale ...?
To demonstrate this concept I once took Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star and transposed it to Dorian. It's remarkably sinister sounding 
I did a concert at Christmas, with my wife on cello, which included Carol of the Bells. The original key was Em and pretty much features a "drone" on E all the way through My wife contradicted me when I mentioned it being in Em to someone ("no it was in G"). For her there is no difference, she doesn't compose and she only needs to know enough theory to follow a musical score and one sharp to her means G. She plays a pretty mean cello, but she can't tell minor from major (yet alone Dorian from Aeolian) nor does she need to!
Life is like a s**t sandwich; the more bread you have, the less s**t you eat.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes I see what you mean, the key or mode can be ambiguous depending on which notes are and aren't included in the tune. I've seen lots of arguments happen about this, but the fact of the matter is that a simple melody often doesn't have a fixed key or mode, at least until you start harmonizing. It's worse with written music, because you can write anything in any key with accidentals and not change a thing, something people tend to forget when they look at a key signature (it's there for convenience in reading/writing, not to "tell" you what key it is).
This is why melody players like cellists don't have to care much about keys/modes, but harmony players do
|
|
|
|
|
Disco is still around, they call it house music these days.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Because some people, like me, aren't interested in 'winning hearts'. We are interested in challenging
Congratulations. You succeeded. Sigs are turned off.
|
|
|
|
|
What did I succeed at? I didn't intend for sigs to be disabled, just for CP to maintain its lively character. Chris asked the community what it thought and it said my sig was OK. Clearly Chris is planning something for sigs, perhaps enabling them only in SB and BR, perhaps something else. Perhaps he wants to punish the community for not agreeing with him and has thus turned them off completely. Don't know, what do you think?
|
|
|
|
|
You succeeded in "not winning hearts" and "challenging the system".
Chris asked you to remove your sig. You changed it much later and we now have a lot of posts and threads.
What I think:
At the beginning I sympathised with you because I did not accepted the message deletions. But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
Jochen Arndt wrote: But you still do not understand that a community requires backing down sometimes.
That's something he's not good at, but a personal smack on the hand is a better solution than the creation and enforcement or rules and processes.
|
|
|
|
|
But the community is clearly in favour of allowing my sig if you look at the responses in this thread.
Anyway, I have changed it, since it was getting a bit old anyway (yes, I have had that sig for a long time).
|
|
|
|
|
I remember seeing the sig weeks ago, and thinking "beh" (which is Italian for "meh").
It obviously pissed off the people you wanted to piss off, but, unfortunately, their method of responding was unacceptable.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
|
|
|
|
|
Chris asked me to remove my sig a long time after the noise and discussion initiated between both camps. I actually changed it quite soon after he asked, and if you go back to ' is this a bug' you will see that is the case.
And then we cone to the 'community'. Chris posed the question here, and clearly the majority of people are un favour of allowing my sig, even if not agreeing with the content, so should I abide by the communities wish and reinstate it?
|
|
|
|
|
If you had removed the sig when recognising that it makes problems we would not have these discussions. Insisting is often not the best choice.
I will now follow my own advice and back out from this discussion.
|
|
|
|
|
I saw too much support from the community, that's why I didn't remove it.
Whoever runs the site, without members, without the community, CP wouldn't exist, so its always the opinion of the majority that should be considered.
|
|
|
|
|
Ah - the "12 people voted for me and that makes a majority" argument again.
Just to summarise for those who are still reading:
1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry.
2. Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression.
3. Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: 1. Most people on the site don't care. The vast, huge, 99.9999% don't even know about Matt. Sorry.
Why do you even have to say that? Do you really think I am looking for attention?
You are miles out. Really. I am surprised.
Chris Maunder wrote: Of those who expressed support, the majority expressed support for freedom of expression.
Which is what I said.
Chris Maunder wrote: Of those who expressed an opinion I did not see a single voice saying "you should be able to post whatever you like in whatever forum you like regardless of the forum topic or rules".
I never claimed they did. What I did say, as many others did, is that a sig is not a post and thus shouldn't be subjected to the same rules.
But anyway, I am bored with this. I have changed my sig so when you get it working again no one need have their tiny little world disturbed by a few words.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Which is what I said
You said "it is clear the community want the sig to stay Chris" and "The community clearly wants freedom of speech Chris, and my sig to be allowed"
Freedom of speech, yes. And everyone has that.
Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that.
Please stick to the discussion (though I know you won't) and have another crack at this simple question:
Do you feel you should respect the community and the site, and myself personally, and keep discussions in the appropriate (yet still very public) places we've asked you to?
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Posting messages that include politics and religion in the lounge? (and yes, a sig is part of a message). Show me the majority support for that
I didn't claim that. I merely stated what others have said, the posts in the lounge about politics go un noticed, it is only when it contains a sensitive subject that some people start getting upset, as has been stated by others here.
Chris Maunder wrote: keep discussions in the appropriate
As I have always done. Show me where I have discussed Israel in the lounge? Or any politics for that matter.
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Or any politics for that matter
So this whole thing boils down to you taking the view that a signature is not part of a message or discussion. That what you include in your sig is essentially invisible, inviolate and not subject to posting guidelines.
Was not me, guv'nor, 'twas my sig, the little rascal. Never know what he'll get up too next!
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, that's exactly what I and others think, including you since you think PhilLenoirs sig is OK, yet you have asked Martin (the Australian I think he is) to moderate his language in the lounge.
Clearly its a case of double standards aimed at people who criticise criticise Israel, as this CP member also attests: http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986823/Re-Can-someone-upvote-this.aspx[^]
|
|
|
|
|
Munchies_Matt wrote: Yes, that's exactly what I and others think
It's certainly taken a long time to get here. So:
Your sig is part of your signature. Include religion or politics in your sig and I consider it as including the content in your message. At that point I'll judge whether your trying to incite a conversation on religion or politics in a given forum and will take the appropriate action.
This isn't up for debate. This is how I will run my forum.
a) My discussion on language included a bunch of details you've conveniently elided. Swear words are obfuscated, most public newspapers are fine with posting obfuscated swear words, so from the point of view of propriety, I have no problem.
b) Swear words are words. They aren't discussions on religion and politics that take over the Lounge and make it a place where the majority of developers no longer want to visit due to it being hijacked by those wanting to use it as a soapbox. That is the reason for the ban on religion and politics in the lounge.
Two very different things.
|
|
|
|
|
And I have never discussed politics in the lounge, so you should be happy. 
|
|
|
|
|
This is starting to need a very big DON'T FEED THE TROLL
Every time you have said something, he has tried to turn around your words. It is not worth, he is not going to change the way he answers in this "conversation".
I have read the full thread so far and (for me) it can be resumed to:
do
{
if message.contains (respect)
play_the_card_of (it was not so bad)
else if message.contains (rules)
play_the_card_of (speech freedom)
else if message.contains (you are not getting the idea)
play_the_card_of (other people support me)
}
while (someone answers)
---------------------
About the original question asking for opinions:
I am one of the 99% who doesn't know who Matt is.
I am one of the 90% who doesn't care who Matt says.
For me signatures are a very tricky thema. To avoid all kind of "grey zones" boundaries to spam, abuse, bypassing guidelines and so on... I would just delete signatures or add a very simple and easy to understand rule for them... NO LINKS AT ALL, it doesn't matter if URL, a href, plain text or whatever format.
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
Chris Maunder wrote: Was not me, guv'nor
LMAO! 
If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.-John Q. Adams
You must accept one of two basic premises: Either we are alone in the universe, or we are not alone in the universe. And either way, the implications are staggering.-Wernher von Braun
Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.-Albert Einstein
|
|
|
|
|
Actually, its about Israel. http://www.codeproject.com/Messages/4986990/Re-A-discussion-On-What-Constitutes-Abuse-And-What.aspx[^]
Some people just cant stand to have it criticised and will use any means at their disposal to crush criticism of it. Here, Nick has successfully convinced you that my posts are political. (At first you didn't, you thought his behaviour was wrong, and you 'had words with the nuker' to quote you. Clearly as part of that conversation he convinced you he was right.)
Its a sad world where we have to tread on eggshells because of events 70 years ago in Germany. Where such a shadow makes us sit back and see innocent children murdered.
Anyway, I am sure politics, morality and religion are not allowed to be discussed here so I will stop at that.
|
|
|
|
|
Providing a link to an anti-Jewish hate site is clearly political. We do not want have Arab-Israeli massacres at this web-site. We want everyone to feel comfortable.
I am a geek and came here to communicate with other geeks about software - not about politics. The value of the web-site is primarily not in the lounge but in the published articles.
I do not want to publish my political opinions here because I want people of other political persuasion to be comfortable here too discussing and sharing software.
Munchies_Matt has not published a single article here but was providing anti-Israel messages for several years. I do not think it is fair. If I noticed it before I would have raised the question earlier.
Nick Polyak
|
|
|
|
|
Nick Polyak wrote: an anti-Jewish hate site
And now you really give yourself away. The site is about Israel complying with UN law pure and simple.
Your objection to my sig is not because its political, its because its anti Israeli extremism.
Nick Polyak wrote: The value of the web-site is primarily not in the lounge but in the published articles.
That is your opinion, me and many others think its prime value are the non technical discussion forums.
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
