Chord Analyser

Discussion in 'comp.music.midi' started by Steven Briggs, Jun 2, 2003.

  1. On Sat, 07 Jun 2003 18:27:30 GMT, "Angeline J."
    <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

    >
    >"FRETBUZZ" <fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    >> Re the program to identify chord names:
    >>
    >> Let's not forget that in many cases, when you start adding extra notes to

    >a
    >> basic chord triad, it can then have 2 or more names - basic examples:
    >>
    >> the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
    >> the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6

    >
    >
    >Determining which chord it is depends upon the context of the chord, ie.
    >what chord precedes it, what chord succeeds it, what key is it in and what
    >sort of harmonic structure does the song use?


    A bunch of programs give OK guesses for this. GNMIDI is a nice
    shareware tool which does this in a useful fashion, generating text
    markers to work with.

    It isn't a substitute for knowing the chords. But as a short cut to
    getting them, it is a help. If you want to play harmony, I'd still
    say that you must learn the chords.

    But if you want to use your MIDI file as a virtual fake book, the
    chord analyzer tools give you a quick way to do it. If the program
    guesses wrong, you can still add your own choices *if* you know how to
    harmonize.



    >> I know it's a bit Luddite to suggest this to a computer based newsgroup...
    >> but maybe getting hold of a guitarist's chord bible (with notation) would
    >> help - after all, you know the note names so it would merely be a case of
    >> flicking through the pages till you get to the appropriate root note or a
    >> page showing a chord with the right notes in it; granted this is a bit of
    >> extra work...but it will help you remember the chord names and possible
    >> alternatives as well, plus the better ones often include a theory tutorial
    >> about chord construction.

    >
    >
    >In the long run, learning new harmonic structures and how they work, *why* a
    >progression has a certain feel to it - that's the real payoff. Gaining more
    >knowledge, more options, becoming a better composer.


    I think that chord analysis tools can help to do that.

    Ever play from a fake book? You can't do a lot with one unless you
    know how to build the harmonies. But if you know the chords used, and
    can listen to the music (or if lucky, see a real score of it -- sheet
    music isn't cheap most places), it can speed up learning.


    --
    *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
    ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
    *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>
  2. Barry Graham

    Barry Graham Guest

    "FRETBUZZ" <fretbuzz01@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:bbt13f$rv7$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk...
    > the chord has the notes F A C D and the names F6 or Dm7
    > the chord has the notes FACE and the names FMajor7 OR Am6
    >

    If the Am6 is ACEF# it could be F#m7b5.
    Am6 is the sort of name that frequently appears in stock sheet music so that
    "Grandma Potts from Stumpy Gully" doesn't get phased by a m7b5 chord. Often
    the bass line gives it away.
  3. Angeline J.

    Angeline J. Guest

    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:080620031001292250%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <bVCEa.1917$Jw6.1434511@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
    > > > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things

    I
    > > > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.

    > >
    > > Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird chords

    (the
    > > original poster's need)

    >
    > The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
    > know he's analyzing triads.
    >
    > Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
    > Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly they
    > can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
    > Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in function.
    >
    > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
    > identify?




    See a previous post of min in this thread about implied harmony.
  4. Angeline J.

    Angeline J. Guest

    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:080620031008076132%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <JYCEa.1918$Jw6.1435283@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline


    >
    > Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
    > ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
    > program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.




    True.

    I am convinced though, that reliance on such a program limits one's musical
    horizons. A good musician can ID chords easily and nearly instantaneously.
    If a composer does not have those skills, I'll wager that the harmonic
    options available in that mind will be fewer and sometimes even nonexistent.

    I have that opinion because I've been in that place before - lacking
    knowledge. One can never know too much music theory, IMO.
  5. dave

    dave Guest

    i agree, whats the use of having a computer program to anaylse chords for
    you. it would be a lot simpler to work it out on a piano or guitar than
    trying to be smart and start up your computer to do it, and end up getting
    it wrong. Im not a professions musician at all, but its not rocket science.



    "Angeline J." <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote in message
    news:CaeGa.4518$Jw6.3145344@news1.news.adelphia.net...
    >
    > "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:080620031008076132%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > > In article <JYCEa.1918$Jw6.1435283@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline

    >
    > >
    > > Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
    > > ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
    > > program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.

    >
    >
    >
    > True.
    >
    > I am convinced though, that reliance on such a program limits one's

    musical
    > horizons. A good musician can ID chords easily and nearly instantaneously.
    > If a composer does not have those skills, I'll wager that the harmonic
    > options available in that mind will be fewer and sometimes even

    nonexistent.
    >
    > I have that opinion because I've been in that place before - lacking
    > knowledge. One can never know too much music theory, IMO.
    >
    >
  6. In article <w4eGa.4517$Jw6.3143719@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > > > > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
    > > > > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those things

    > I
    > > > > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.
    > > >
    > > > Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird chords

    > (the
    > > > original poster's need)

    > >
    > > The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
    > > know he's analyzing triads.
    > >
    > > Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
    > > Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly they
    > > can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
    > > Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in function.
    > >
    > > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
    > > identify?

    >
    >
    > See a previous post of min in this thread about implied harmony.


    See my response to that post.

    --
    ///---
  7. In article <CaeGa.4518$Jw6.3145344@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > > Computer programs and human brains are both capable of a great deal of
    > > ambiguity, contradiction and differing of "opinions". So while a
    > > program can't resolve all chord assemblies, neither can a musician.

    >
    > True.
    >
    > I am convinced though, that reliance on such a program limits one's musical
    > horizons.


    I agree. I don't think anyone has argued for "reliance" on such a
    program. Someone was simply looking for such a program. I don't think
    they said they didn't want to learn harmony, didn't want to be able to
    identify chords or any other variation on that now fixed theme.

    > A good musician can ID chords easily and nearly instantaneously.


    I'll leave it to you to define what a "good musician" is. I've known a
    number that couldn't identify much of anything either on paper or in
    English, but jeez could they play music. They didn't know what a 7b9
    was but could play them anytime they were called for.

    > If a composer does not have those skills, I'll wager that the harmonic
    > options available in that mind will be fewer and sometimes even nonexistent.


    Provided they also lacked a vast amount of personal playing experience,
    I would agree.

    > I have that opinion because I've been in that place before - lacking
    > knowledge. One can never know too much music theory, IMO.


    There is an age-old fear (or variation on sloth) exemplified by a
    reluctance to learn harmony because it will "shape" a musicians
    thinking. "Influence" them adversely; make them sound "academic", etc.
    I think that's bogus. I too have always been passionate about learning
    theory.

    But I don't discount a computer's program to encourage that curiosity
    for others, rather than squelch it. I make no judgement whatever on
    such a program use for good or evil.

    In essence:

    "Say, what time is it?"
    "You oughta buy a watch."
    [Vamp on watchs, clocks, and the history of time measurement.]

    --
    ///---
  8. In article <bcc33k$k6a$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, dave
    <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    > i agree, whats the use of having a computer program to anaylse chords for
    > you.


    How about correcting your errant thinking as you learn; verifying your
    guesses and/or pointing out other ways of using the same chords? Just
    the first though off the top of my head.

    > it would be a lot simpler to work it out on a piano or guitar than
    > trying to be smart and start up your computer to do it, and end up getting
    > it wrong.


    As a student, once you think you've accurately "worked it out", how
    best to verify?

    > Im not a professions musician at all, but its not rocket science.


    Neither is the concept that a program has to be "validated" by people
    who don't need it before it's deemed feasible.

    --
    ///---
  9. dave

    dave Guest

    well on you go and spend hours playing chords into a computer Gerry, and
    have fun guessing what they are. Then when you hone this skill down to a
    fine art, give me a shout.

    Personally, ill continue to work chords out on an instrument, and using what
    I call "the sense of hearing", shall be able to tell whether Im onto the
    right chord or not.





    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:130620030841267748%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <bcc33k$k6a$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, dave
    > <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
    >
    > > i agree, whats the use of having a computer program to anaylse chords

    for
    > > you.

    >
    > How about correcting your errant thinking as you learn; verifying your
    > guesses and/or pointing out other ways of using the same chords? Just
    > the first though off the top of my head.
    >
    > > it would be a lot simpler to work it out on a piano or guitar than
    > > trying to be smart and start up your computer to do it, and end up

    getting
    > > it wrong.

    >
    > As a student, once you think you've accurately "worked it out", how
    > best to verify?
    >
    > > Im not a professions musician at all, but its not rocket science.

    >
    > Neither is the concept that a program has to be "validated" by people
    > who don't need it before it's deemed feasible.
    >
    > --
    > ///---
  10. Angeline J.

    Angeline J. Guest

    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:130620030829133796%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <w4eGa.4517$Jw6.3143719@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > > > I know music inside and out; much better than computers. But that
    > > > > > doesn't preclude me from looking for a tool to do faster those

    things
    > > I
    > > > > > can already do. Like printing instead of hand-scoring.
    > > > >
    > > > > Thing is, the computers don't do a good job of analyzing weird

    chords
    > > (the
    > > > > original poster's need)
    > > >
    > > > The OP never used the words weird, odd, complex or unusual. For all I
    > > > know he's analyzing triads.
    > > >
    > > > Nevertheless computers do well what we teach them to do. Overture and
    > > > Logic both do an exceptional job of such chord analysis. Certainly

    they
    > > > can be faked out by a C Maj 9 with the 3rd in the bass, calling it a
    > > > Em7. But then a human could argue that it really is a Em7 in

    function.
    > > >
    > > > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be taught to
    > > > identify?

    > >
    > >
    > > See a previous post of min in this thread about implied harmony.

    >
    > See my response to that post.



    You didn't respond to that particular post.

    George Shearing's "Over the Rainbow" (his arrangement)

    In a good portion of the chord progressions, the root note is left out.

    I'm not sure what computer algorithm could be devised to recognize that.

    Computers seem all powerful, but consider that even a 2 year old has a
    greater capacity for understanding language than a computer.
  11. In article <gqoGa.5193$Jw6.3288869@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be
    > taught to identify?
    >
    > George Shearing's "Over the Rainbow" (his arrangement)
    >
    > In a good portion of the chord progressions, the root note is left
    > out.


    Leaving the root note out of the chord doesn't automatically produce an
    inaccurately identified chord. Clearly a program doesn't depend on
    analyzing chords only if the root is present.

    Are you gonna spell me a chord that you think a computer can't analyze
    or not? I'll assume you won't attempt it.

    > I'm not sure what computer algorithm could be devised to recognize
    > that.


    Do you know a lot about computer algorithms?

    > Computers seem all powerful, but consider that even a 2 year old has
    > a greater capacity for understanding language than a computer.


    They can't wash the dishes either. What has that got to do with the
    topic? I sense that this has little to do with computers or chord
    analysis.

    --
    ///---
  12. In article <bccu0s$51i$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk>, dave
    <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

    > well on you go and spend hours playing chords into a computer Gerry,
    > and have fun guessing what they are.


    Logically such a program would be doing the guess work, not me. See,
    that would be the *purpose* of the program. See the initial post for
    further clarification.

    > Then when you hone this skill down to a fine art, give me a shout.


    HEY DAVE!

    That was a shout. I could analyze chords into forever before personal
    computers existed. Try to focus: I didn't request the program--someone
    else did. Are you trying to say I could never have acquired the skill I
    have, if I had used software to help me? Is this limited to chord
    analysis--or to every utility a computer might have?

    Using such a program, for any reason whatsoever, isn't inherently evil,
    growth-stunting or anything else. It's just a frigging program!

    I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
    software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
    be a musician or composer if you used a computer. The same with
    Band-in-a-Box, quite possibly the greatest practice-aid ever invented
    for a musician.

    It seems you have too much emotional involvement to address the topic.

    > Personally, ill continue to work chords out on an instrument, and
    > using what I call "the sense of hearing", shall be able to tell
    > whether Im onto the right chord or not.


    You might ponder the use of a grammar-checking software, I'm not sure
    what the syntax of that phrase intended.

    For maybe the fourth and final time--nobody in this thread has endorsed
    using a program INSTEAD of learning theory. No one. Nobody has said
    you shouldn't listen, hear, or play a musical instrument.

    --
    ///---
  13. Angeline J.

    Angeline J. Guest

    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message news:130620031403571932%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <gqoGa.5193$Jw6.3288869@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > What kind of weird chords do you believe a computer can't be
    > > taught to identify?
    > >
    > > George Shearing's "Over the Rainbow" (his arrangement)
    > >
    > > In a good portion of the chord progressions, the root note is left
    > > out.

    >
    > Leaving the root note out of the chord doesn't automatically produce an
    > inaccurately identified chord. Clearly a program doesn't depend on
    > analyzing chords only if the root is present.
    >
    > Are you gonna spell me a chord that you think a computer can't analyze
    > or not? I'll assume you won't attempt it.


    I'll break out the chord progression from "Over the Rainbow" later.


    > > I'm not sure what computer algorithm could be devised to recognize
    > > that.

    >
    > Do you know a lot about computer algorithms?



    Yes. One of my majors in college was Computer Science. I went through the Math Department at UC San Diego and much of the upper division coursework was theoretical although we did do a fair amount of real programming.

    Programs like compilers (translate third generation languages like C, BASIC, etc. into assembly code) parse a program, break it up into different symbols and run it through an algorithm which (IIRC) models a structure called a deterministic finite automata. It works for computer languages because the grammar is fixed. A deterministic finite automata does not work for spoken languages - there is too much variation.

    Chord recognition is almost infinitely simpler than understand a spoken language, but it still isn't deterministic because of context (for example, the "implied harmony"). However, I'll guess that an algorithm could be designed that would recognize all but the most esoteric jazz progressions.
  14. Angeline J.

    Angeline J. Guest

    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message news:130620031418435095%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    >
    > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
    > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
    > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.



    That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how music works.

    Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer assisted counterpart.
  15. In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:

    > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
    > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
    > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.

    >
    > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing
    > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how music
    > works.
    >
    > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer assisted counterpart.


    Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
    evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat.
    It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
    both extant programs.

    --
    ///---
  16. Angeline J.

    Angeline J. Guest

    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
    > > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
    > > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.

    > >
    > > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing
    > > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how

    music
    > > works.
    > >
    > > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer

    assisted counterpart.
    >
    > Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
    > evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat



    Read my post, dubmbass. I said that score writing by hand and its computer
    assisted counterpart are the same thing.
  17. dave

    dave Guest

    hey Gerry, no one likes you.


    "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    >
    > > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding score-writing
    > > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you couldn't
    > > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.

    > >
    > > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same thing
    > > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how

    music
    > > works.
    > >
    > > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer

    assisted counterpart.
    >
    > Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
    > evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat.
    > It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
    > both extant programs.
    >
    > --
    > ///---
  18. Mike C.

    Mike C. Guest

    Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems to be
    the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are arguing
    beyond reason with him. I'd say that it looks like *you* don't like him,
    because he has shaken up your little world of "how music works, according to
    Dave". Sometimes you have to be open to new ideas or you stagnate.

    I, for one, don't find it all that necessary to pick up an instrument to
    figure out if the chord works or not. I can tell by using my sense of
    relative pitch, and if the chord has been misnamed, I can make the
    adjustment, either in my head on the spot, or taking a few extra seconds to
    physically correct it on the page/in the computer program.

    "dave" <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:bckmoq$4bj$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
    > hey Gerry, no one likes you.
    >
    >
    > "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    > news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > > In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > >
    > > > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding

    score-writing
    > > > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you

    couldn't
    > > > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
    > > >
    > > > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same

    thing
    > > > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how

    > music
    > > > works.
    > > >
    > > > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer

    > assisted counterpart.
    > >
    > > Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
    > > evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and sweat.
    > > It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
    > > both extant programs.
    > >
    > > --
    > > ///---

    >
    >
  19. dave

    dave Guest

    Hey Mike. No one likes you either!


    "Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
    news:BrEIa.52082$sm5.59582@rwcrnsc52.ops.asp.att.net...
    > Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and suggest that Gerry seems to

    be
    > the voice of reason here and there are only two participants who are

    arguing
    > beyond reason with him. I'd say that it looks like *you* don't like him,
    > because he has shaken up your little world of "how music works, according

    to
    > Dave". Sometimes you have to be open to new ideas or you stagnate.
    >
    > I, for one, don't find it all that necessary to pick up an instrument to
    > figure out if the chord works or not. I can tell by using my sense of
    > relative pitch, and if the chord has been misnamed, I can make the
    > adjustment, either in my head on the spot, or taking a few extra seconds

    to
    > physically correct it on the page/in the computer program.
    >
    > "dave" <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
    > news:bckmoq$4bj$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk...
    > > hey Gerry, no one likes you.
    > >
    > >
    > > "Gerry Scott-Moore" <222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid> wrote in message
    > > news:140620030831402114%222ggg@adelphia.net.invalid...
    > > > In article <bnxGa.5760$Jw6.3427743@news1.news.adelphia.net>, Angeline
    > > > J. <fatsupermodel.takethisout@hotmail.com> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > > I remember the some conversation 15 years ago regarding

    > score-writing
    > > > > > software. Plenty of eye-clawing and shrieking about how you

    > couldn't
    > > > > > be a musician or composer if you used a computer.
    > > > >
    > > > > That's different. Score writing or using a computer, it's the same

    > thing
    > > > > because neither one really contributes to one's understanding of how

    > > music
    > > > > works.
    > > > >
    > > > > Score writing by hand is just an archival method as is its computer

    > > assisted counterpart.
    > > >
    > > > Again you've misplaced the point; eye-clawing and shrieking about the
    > > > evils of using a computer program instead of good ol' brains and

    sweat.
    > > > It's identical in both "discussions". Rather than the feasibility of
    > > > both extant programs.
    > > >
    > > > --
    > > > ///---

    > >
    > >

    >
    >
  20. Loki Harfagr

    Loki Harfagr Guest

    "dave" <sidelacker@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in
    news:bcvd3d$9fp$2@pheidippides.axion.bt.co.uk:

    > Hey Mike. No one likes you either!
    >
    >
    > "Mike C." <Funkifized@msn.com> wrote in message
    >


    OK, just to get in the tune you play:

    Trim your posts
    Don't top post.

    Was it correctly shaped ? Pure Major 6th ;D)

Share This Page