On Feb 27, 7:08 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > In the jazz community, when analyzing chord progressions that are to
be
> > used by jazz improvisers, things are usually the way I've said they
are.
> > I.e. We tend to use upper case Roman numerals and spell out the chord
> > quality in our analyses of chord progressions. Spend some more time in
> > the jazz community maybe?
>
> Preface that paragraph above with "In my experience...."
The carats seem to be messed up here. But if I am following them
correctly, YES, if you (Joey) preface your comments by saying that "in
your experience" then they are more true than the statements that you
had made in the first place! That would change your claim to a great
extent as the claim was that it was STANDARD. This shows that it is
only opinion and I would have no way of knowing that you would not me
telling the truth.
>
> Lots of jazz players I've associated with have also used lower case
> Roman numerals, sometimes with qualifiers (eg. "iim" vs "ii") and
without.
> Almost all schooled jazz musicians have taken a legit Tonal harmony
> course in school *in addition to* their jazz harmony courses. So they
> all understand the norms of classical Tonal analysis techniques.
>
> But in general, in my experience, most jazz musicians prefer to use
> upper case Roman numerals with qualifiers, eg "IIm".
As I have pointed out in another post, that is certainly true. The
problem is now being whittled down a bit. YES, the do this, but it is
not really analysis. When they do use the UC with qualifiers they are
only spelling chords in the context of a key. Analysis is more than
this. What you are describing is really not much more than a way to
help them to learn to transpose the tunes to various keys. We used
these methods verbally when calling out R&B chords back in the 50s and
60s. We did not, however, profess this to be analysis. When we
analyzed the tunes, we talked about them in different terms and in
ways that were specific to our local and to the music that we were
playing. It was very effective for having new players learn the tunes
on the job. It was not, however, a standard of analysis.
>
> If you don't want to do it that way, fine. Don't do it that way.
>
> Meanwhile, did someone up-thread say that Piston used upper case RN?
> Did he write out chord quality too? Or was the student expected to
> interpret "II" as being a minor chord based on the active key?
As stated many times in the past although maybe not in this particular
thread, the latter is correct. That was the problem with Piston's
Harmony. The information was all quite right, but the student had to
learn both systems. I believe that this was related to the fixed DO
used in Europe, but I may be wrong about that. Piston was a more
modern musician writing about an older style and he presented the
music in that manner. Personally, I like his approach although I
certainly realize its limitations as an introductory book on harmony.
Piston is a great book to use as long as you use one of the other ones
that uses the UC/LC as well. The problem occurs when you get into more
modern progressions and a lot of extra information has to be penned
into the analysis to show function where as the UC/LC eliminates a lot
of these extra notes as it accounts for the various scale implications
that may be used in a more directly related manner
On the other hand, his other books like the one on Counterpoint can be
taken as one of the best standards on the subject and can stand alone
and is not dependent on other knowledge to understand a wider range of
musical eras.
>
> My main exposure to classical Romantic era harmony was the Delamont
> books. And I was surprised to find out later that his labels were non
> standard. He used upper RN for all primary chords in both major and
> minor keys. LC for everything else, including non-primary major chords
> within minor keys.
> Eg.
> In C major
> I ii iii IV V vi viidim
> In C minor
> Im iidim biii IVm V bvi viidim
> (Note: He used the small superscripted circle for dim. I just can't
> remember how to type it right now.)
>
> At the time I was reading his books, it was all clear to me.
> But nowadays it seems really convoluted and confusing. I know he was
> trying to impress upon the student the im****tance of the primary chords,
> but still.
> Thankfully, there are many other gems within his pages.
So what is not standard in the way that Delamont presented the
material as you described? This is the standard UC/LC language as far
as your description goes. I am saying this with a qualification,
however based on your understanding of this to be convoluted and
confusing. It seems that someone is, I am not sure if it is you or
Delamont so in the interest of making these statements less confusing,
I will just address what you wrote as being an accurate representation
of what the author originally states and let the chips fall where they
belong.
> In C major
> I ii iii IV V vi viidim
This is pretty much the standard method of notating the triads built
on scales of the major key. The surprising thing is what happens in
the next section in minor.
> In C minor
> Im iidim biii IVm V bvi viidim
This is simply wrong. If he stated this in this manner, he was making
up his own rules and they don't make any sense. You would be perfectly
correct in being confused and seeing it as a convoluted manner. THIS
IS NOT STANDARD BY ANY MEANS!
This COULD be an attempt by this particular author to somehow unite
the major and minor keys in some way other than Piston's use of the
all upper case, but it falls short in so many ways that I am surprised
that any reputable school would profess this to be either standard or
correct in any cir***stances as presented here.
Right of the bat, there is a mixture of symbols that have no reason
except to possibly do something differently. It is also not clear and
needs to be taken totally within the context of this one author in
this particular text. You have Major chords with two different
symbols. What could he possibly be thinking with the need to call the
Minor Key Tonic with a Major symbol and then add a minor symbol to
correct this original mistake? the biii chord? Well which form of the
minor is he actually using? In the pure form this should be a bIII
(meaning in the standard of notation taught in all the freshman
courses that I have ever seen) as a description of Eb G Bb but would
of course be bIII+ for the augmented chord that exists in the Harmonic
and Melodic forms. Then again with the Major IV with a descriptive "m"
to change it back to Minor? Do you see any logic in this? I would not
think so, and if this is an accurate re****t on a book that you had at
a young age, it is no wonder that you are confused with what standard
Classical function notation is in reality. Although there are good
things to say about Berklee, they are not known for their clear and
concise understanding or teaching of Classical analysis. This would
probably further be confusing as they do experiment with various
methods of chord spelling, groupings and analysis as it applies
specifically to the jazz literature that they are teaching at various
times.
To continue, we have the bvi chord. This makes no sense. Here we have
the secondary (?) chord which is really Major, but it is written as
Minor and there is no indication that it is Major in quality. We must
assume what? If it is the pure form that the chord is Ab Cb Eb? well
that doesn't work so well but he doesn't have a M to show minor like
he does with the Minor chords that are written with the Major UC
numbers but with the "m" to show that it really is minor. If that
sentence is confusing and sounds silly, well thanks, then it is a
clear representation of what is contained in the Cmin scale chords as
presented. I will try to find something on the web that will verify
your recollections of this author before I will say with certainty
that this may be one of the worst music theory systems that has ever
been published. I find it hard to believe that since you indicate that
it was an early book you ran across that it was before the age of
anyone being able to publish and sell a book. That being the case, I
have to assume that no reputable publisher would have published what
you printed above. I can, however, see that this author MAY have had
some agenda and was confusing in his examples or that you just tried
to study something before you had the background to understand what
was really being stated. It doesn't really matter which is the case,
the point is that this is NOT standard by ANY standards and I would
suggest that you go through this book again and look for other
misconceptions that may have been presented inadvertently or by
mistake by the author.
> (Note: He used the small superscripted circle for dim. I just can't
> remember how to type it right now.)
>
> So, things don't seem to be nearly as standardized as I think LJS would
> like them to be. Perhaps he could start his own.
You certainly have a very unique form of logic. I must admit that I
find it hard to follow. You quote a theory book with a very UNSTANDARD
way of writing chords. You admit that it made sense when you read it,
but it didn't later as you had time to digest it. You say that it now
seems convoluted and confusing, its not standard, but THIS is proof
that things are not standardized as I and anyone that has been through
a freshman theory course seem to think? I have spoken to students in
many states, countries, colleges and even in the subway of New York
and each and everyone understood the basics of standard functional
notation. It is "standard" because it is simple and it works. It does
the job that it is intended to do and that is one providing a common
language that can be used to analyze relation****ps in a consistent
manner with the minimum number of 'extra' notes having to be inserted
into the text. UC/LC is not the complete picture, but it is the
standard language that is in use to set the stage for deeper analysis
of harmonic progression.
Maybe I should start my own Harmony Standards Council? Why? You can do
a survey of texts used in accredited colleges teaching basic harmonic
theory. You can also read journals on education and on analysis. As
you get to higher levels (as if!) you will see some non standard
approaches to talk about specific pieces that do not fit the
conventional forms of analysis. They will not, however, be presented
as standard and they will be specifically spelled out and explained in
a manner that should help the reader to see how that particular piece
needs a different language.
A Harmony Standards Council? isn't that what you are describing when
you say that this is the standard way that you and your friends do it?
I am using the standard. You are presenting a numeric method of chord
spelling as a standard language for analysis. Maybe you can get it
published on Wiki.
LJS
|
