perfect_pitch
I openly came here stating I was not a trained pianist. I never claimed to have "credibility", I sound like a raving lunatic to you, perhaps to others, but that has absolutely no bearing on whether or not what I'm presenting is TRUE or FALSE. If consensus were the only game in town, pioneers which helped create modern society would have been killed/eliminated (which they were, extensively for decades) by people with minds like yours (oh gee this person sounds nuts, and they're also threating my self-esteem and confidence, engaging attack mode). I wish you would drop this credibility nonsense, I never claimed rights to it.
Back to that song in the non-piano post, answer me this. Did you read it thouroughly, comprehend it (you know, understand it, not believe it, merely understand it), listen to the song, apply what I said, and still fail to see it?
If the answer is yes, I have absolutely no interest in engaging further, because the patterns I have laid out in that thread are there, it my world, crystal clear and plain as day. Just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not there. We can't see dark matter in the universe, we know it's there because there is invisible mass responsible for shaping galaxies. We know it's there because of the signatures it produces. It's all patterns, extrapolating from what you have to work with. I'm not an astro-physicist, nor musician, nor anything of note, but one thing I am sure of is, music is shapes that we can't see, but can only sense audibly. Words are shapes that we can't see, but sense audibly. When a composer writes a work based on words, I can find them (perhaps not always, but if the work is concise, you'll bet your you know what I'll find them: Rach and Liszt seem to resonate with me naturally). I was careful to claim that this is ONLY possible for romantic-type works. In the non-piano thread, just because there are a few dozen views and no responses, doesn't mean people read it fully, comprehended it, and decided that it was nonsense. If they think that, they can either post as such, or ask for clarification on ANYTHING I've presented to date, and I will detail further, in any method at my disposal agreeable to them. I'll go on Skype, answer any single question raised, the obstacle here is getting people to "tune in", it's a one-time stop. Once you hear it, you're suddenly in the zone, and everything becomes clear. I want others to experience what I have experienced. Whether or not this is agreeable to you personally has no bearing on whether or not it's possible and/or true.
Here's a pretty useful example I'll borrow from the author Richard Dawkins (believe it or not I read stuff, and learn, and think, and wonder. You know what that's like, right?). We can't prove that there is not a teapot orbiting Jupiter. Science only has something to say about how likely it is, that is is very highly unlikely. Science can't tell us that it's false to a certainty, there is absolutely no way with current technology to disprove such a claim. My claim, to individuals like you, sounds highly "unlikely". This I happily grant, but to call me out on "credibility" and not deconstructing any single one of my propositions says a bit about what your agenda is.
If you feel I haven't "provided enough proof", I simply restate, what evidence can one provide to another who doesn't/is unable to value evidence? It means absolutely nothing to them, not becase the evidence isn't there, but because they are unable to reconcile that with their own stubborn agenda of maintaining their own self-reassurance and superiority, given they probably invested a lot of resources to reach where they are, they don't want some Joe coming in and making these claims without a fight.
If you do stop by that non-piano thread and have another look, and it clues in, we'll go from there. If that never happens, you and I are wasting our time with each other. All I will say is, the grass is greener on this side of the fence, I hope you'll join me sometime.
I'll await your general "well but you just sound crazy, I don't like you" reply.
Topic: Quasi Una Fantasia Movement I L.V.B.