A miserable response by Alexander Peci!
Finally, two days ago, I saw an “answer” in my e-mail, or rather a dirty attack on my analysis published at Opusalb magazine on March 5, 2019 on the “Remodelage” book. Meanwhile, “The Master” used to send excuses to many colleagues via e- mail, like a tract, without my knowledge, behind my back, but somebody maybe advised him that this was not fair, therefore he was forced to send it to me, as well.
But what to see: the “Great Mastery” confuses, changes, substitutes or expands the reader’s attention from my measures taken as examples into other measures. For example in the first case he moves from measure 4 to the second one. There are (of course) 10 “mistakes” there, and to him this happens because of the “wrong analysis”. After that he “finds” the courage to blame and shout, that me is supposed: – “With the venom i produced to kill others, I killed myself” (His words in the e-mail).
Note: The measure in the first example of my analysis is the measure 4 of the work “Si gjithe te tjeret” and it is not about measure 1 and 2.
Measures 1 + 2
At measure 4 it is the moment of connecting the two chords, harmonically incorrectly, while at first measure there is no such connection. So, it’s not me I am wrong, its “the master” small trick to confuse and erase the facts. In jurisprudence this is called hiding the evidence. And he certainly does this to avoid the reader’s attention.
They may think wrong today due to this trick, but tomorrow the analysts will not think like that, because the works are going once be analyzed and the truth on them will be revealed. Inside these truths will come out how the “master” does not know the harmony field.
In the second example, the trick lies in shifting the attention not on the essence of the issue being discussed, but on rhythm. The essence of the issue is using a group of notes, being known since middle-age like an evidence of his low-level creation of this work.
To add the confusion, he names this group of notes as “bucle” (which is ridiculous and that does not appear in any professional book) and deals with the rhythm of the example, which is unimportant to us.
In the third example, he still turns to serve his mistake as a wrong analyses.
– Honorable and great Professor! There are two types of legato in music: legato of value and legato of expression.
If you want the note to be sustainable, you have to use the legato of value and not the legato of -expression, so I’m not mistaken in the analysis, it’s your mistake.
Metronome has nothing to do here except to blur readers who do not know about music writing. Here’s an example of this in this picture:
Photo from the book
The first Fa natural grade, unless it is repeated in the fifth and the sixths of the eighth, cannot keep the effect of natural out of the mass, so in the following measure.
Furthermore, in the third example he still tricks as if he does not understand, that the analysis is about the tredicesimo chord in the second beat of the first measure (which keeps being only the hilarious creation of the “great author”), but throughout the continuation of the work.
Also the phrase “jazz accord” is still an imaginary creation of the “great author”, as the analysis does not use it this was.
It is written: I quote: – “It’s about chords in a state of non-arrangement and even tredicesimo chords mostly used in harmony with jazz.
” Finally, what about the “D5 / 6 with anharmonic sounds” (related to the La natural, Do natural, Mi natural and Fa natural (even the Fa diesis for B moll) forgive my ignorance but I do not understand it and never heard about it…ever.
Please let me know (first beat in measure 2).
So, in essence and surprisingly I find no mistake, but the answer of the poor has only one explanation: Or he really does not know, or he knows them wrong. Or he may tricks thinking that he may mislead the reader no appreciating the analysis.
As about the pianism, you have to admit it, you the Master, that you have learned it from the accordion and therefore every pianists complains when he or she is forced to play your works.
I admit “you are the majestic and the most productive creator of the century”, but “you also make mistakes”, though a lot of them.
Finally, wouldn’t it be better to face the criticisms as a man of honor, and not to slip the criticism, and what is even worst, to blame and deflate on social networks?