On Feb 27, 7:10 am, i...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(paramucho) wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 04:39:50 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 26, 5:26 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Tom K. wrote:
>
> >> > Using II for supertonic hasn't been done for nearly forty years.
>
> >> On the contrary. Most jazz harmony books use upper case Roman
numerals
> >> for all chords.
>
> >> We don't write simply "ii" or "ii7". We write "IIm" and/or "IIm7".
>
> >> --
> >> Joey Goldstein
> >> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> >> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> >> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
>
> >the only major book that I know of that uses UC/RN has been the Piston
> >Harmoy text. I am sure that there are others, but I have not run
> >across any books in mainstream use that does not use UC/LC with the
> >delimiters. I have also not run across the use of RM/maj-min etc.
> >either. All the texts that I have seen use the standard UC/LC RN
> >notation in the standard manner.
>
> >In my quest to try to keep current, an you give some examples of who
> >is turning back the clock to use the older system based on Piston? I
> >know you stated Jazz theory books, but in the cl***** that I have
> >taken, there was no such use of this in these cl***** either. I don't
> >know why anyone would, so if there is an advantage to reverting to
> >this additional separation from standard theory notation, please give
> >us some details.
> >LJS
>
> What standard?
After checking out your list of books, I see how you might be
confused!
>
> These are the books that I happened to pick up and check. All
> reasonably recent, some very recent.
>
> ANALYSIS OF TONAL MUSIC, Cadwallader etc
> A GUIDE TO MUSICAL ANALYSIS, Nicholas Cook
> MUSICAL ANALYSIS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Jonathan Dunsby etc
> A GENERATIVE THEORY OF TONAL MUSIC, Fred Lehrdahl etc
> TONAL HARMONY IN CONCEPT AND PRACTICE, Alan Forte
> HARMONY IN TONAL MUSIC, Joel Lester
> HARMONY, STRUCTURE AND STYLE, Leonard Ratner
> HARMONY AND VOICE LEADING, Edward Aldwell etc
> INTRODUCTION TO SCHENKERIAN ANALYSIS, Alan Forte etc
>
> And each of them uses all upper-case. Most of them follow traditional
> classical practice and let the key signature specify major or minor.
> Beyond that, there are the usual differences in usage that are found
> in music texts.
>
> As usual, there is no generic standard. But, if anything approaches a
> standard in classical practice it would seem to be the traditional all
> UC model.
Well, I tried to find information on your collection, here is what I
was able to find this morning.
ANALYSIS OF TONAL MUSIC, Cadwallader etc
Schenkerian Theory? This is an example of standard functional
notation?
A GUIDE TO MUSICAL ANALYSIS, Nicholas Cook
Is this another Schenkerian approach? The authors seem to think so.
MUSICAL ANALYSIS IN THEORY AND PRACTICE Jonathan Dunsby etc
An edition written to provide sup****t for N. Cook's book above that
aimed to foster both a way of thinking and manner of doing Ian Bent's
"Analysis" from 1987.
You think that this book, written to explain another author's way of
thinking is an example of something that would be considered
standard?
A GENERATIVE THEORY OF TONAL MUSIC, Fred Lehrdahl etc
"We gave tried to achieve a synthesis of the outlook and methodology
of contem****ary linguistics with the insights of recent music theory
(The Bernstein Lectures)... Lerdahl supplied musical insights and
Jakendoff, the linguist, constructed formal systems to express them.
The result is a theory formulated in terms of rules of musical
grammar."
Taken from Chapter 1, Theoretical Perspective.
This book seems to be an extension of Bernstein's cross discipline
approach to explaining philosophical musical theory to scholars from
disciplines other then music. It is primarily to use linguistics to
help explain similarities of music and language.
TONAL HARMONY IN CONCEPT AND PRACTICE, Alan Forte
Couldn't find information on this one, may be out of print but:
Holt Rinehart & Winston; 3rd Sprl edition (June 1979)
This seems however, that it was written more than 20 years ago if my
math is correct.
HARMONY IN TONAL MUSIC, Joel Lester
Jestor Review
Harmony in Tonal Music by Joel Lester. Author(s) of Review: David
Neumeyer
Music Theory Spectrum, Vol. 5, Spring, 1983 (Spring, 1983), pp.
132-136
The article points out that this book is a combination of Schenkerian
analys and basic instruction in traditional harmony so as to give a
unified approach. The author go on to state that although there is a
lot of good theory in these two volumes, that it, like many others,
fails to live up to the hype by the author.
Also note that this review was written in 1983, and thus is again more
than 20 years ago.
HARMONY, STRUCTURE AND STYLE, Leonard Ratner
MCGRAW-HILL, New York, 1962 (hmm, over 40 years old.)
Could not find illustrations but the text is really rather straight
forward and extremely basic so far as I could see. He could have used
Piston's method and this one might actually have been a book that was
used in some colleges for Freshman theory, but from what I could see,
it was nothing special or popular enough to set a standard.
HARMONY AND VOICE LEADING, Edward Aldwell etc
Ahh, a basic theory book that seems to be based on normal things of
interest to functional harmony, and according to the contents does
seem to use UC/RN symbols. And it seems to slip in at 19 years old to
more recent than the 20 years mentioned by Tom. It does however (I
could only get the Contents to view) seem to be a version of the
Piston Harmony as far as I can tell by the organization of the topics.
At least it is not Schenkerian!
INTRODUCTION TO SCHENKERIAN ANALYSIS, Alan Forte etc
Again, published in 1982 and then to explain a much older idea of
theory that is really not that concerned with UC or LC RNs. Hardly an
example of a Standard for Music Theory Notation.
So what do we have. Is it 5 books on Schenkerian theory? one on
Bernstein's approach to music not from a functional manner so much as
from a developmental manner? two dinosaurs that may use the UC but are
not really the mainstream of what students are generally studying and
a possible rewrite of the Piston book.
As shallow as my research is on these books, it seems as though I have
checked them out more than you have and quite frankly, I am
disappointed at this selection as a set of books that show that UC
functional notation is the norm! I have to wonder if you just flipped
through and took a quick look at the illustrations and didn't even
bother to see what the books were about. I only did a quick look at
the web and found that all but 2 of these books were certainly not the
type of book that would be considered a standard of any kind for
functional analysis notation and only a couple even touched on the
subject. Do you really use these books as a source for your Classical
Theory? Are they standard in your school? or were they standard at
Berlkee?
LJS
|
