On Feb 28, 9:07 pm, i...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(paramucho) wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 16:46:33 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljsche...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 28, 12:41 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> >>news:fq51it$757$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> >> > 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?
>
> >> Schoenberg used non-case sensitive numerals. One is expected to know
the
> >> quality in the key. Alterations (like minor iv in Major) have to be
> >> appended.
>
> >Thanks for the sup****t Steve.
> >Yes Schoenberg would probably have used the UC/RN similar to Piston.
>
> "Piston" as in "Walter Piston" always used all-UC. See below for the
> later editions of his book.
>
That was my belief and it was my original statement. I did state that
there were many people that rewrote the Piston book using UC/LC. The
fact that I qualified a post by someone that said
> > I
> >would think that this would have been the norm when he was still
> >stretching the limits of functional chromaticism and without looking
> >up the time line, Schoenberg may have gotten that from Piston or they
> >both may have gotten it from the same source.
>
> Well, there you go guessing again, and getting it all wrong again. But
> don't let mere facts get in the way, keep guessing, sooner or later
> you're bound to get *something* right :-)
That was not a guess. It was a speculation of why they would have had
common thoughts. You are beginning to improve your skills at reading
much more into a post than is really there. The word "may" could have
been a tip off. I don't care who got it from whom. The point is that
you CAN study theory with all UC, it just is not the current standard
and it is not the most efficient way to do it!
>
> STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONS OF HARMONY, Arnold Schoenberg, 1954 (which I'm
> looking at, rather than just imagining, you know, as in "evidence")
> uses all-UC and an idiosyncratic use of strike-through to indicate
> altered chords. He does not use functional slash notation.
>
> One strength of his approach is that he labels movement to other keys
> not by the literal name of the key (which is non-functional of course)
> but with circled (D), (T), (M) etc. A bit of Riemann there I think.
>
> >> I think Piston may have started out that way, but in the more recent
DeVoto
> >> editions, case sensitivity is there (IIRC, I'm not positive).
>
> >Correct again. As I stated previously, I don't know if he changed,
> >but I did mention that there were many translations of his Harmony
> >into UC/LC notation. I really have not seen the DeVoto editions, but I
> >do seem to remember something similar to what you have said as this
> >came up in older discussions.
>
> I don't know how you can say possibly "correct again" when you have
> not even "seen the DeVoto editions". Wi****ng on a star...
Again read the response. I said that I don't know that he changed, but
I had heard from some that the DeVoto editions had changed. If you
remember I did say that there were many (DeVoto seems to fall into
this catagory) that re wrote Piston into UC/LC. If DeVoto was or was
not one of these really has no bearing on this discussion. People did.
Piston theory good! UC not as good! Piston with UC/LC very good!
>
> Again, I have a copy of the DeVoto edition from 1983 in front of me
> (you know, all physical and real rather than imagined) and its all-UC.
> There were later editions of Piston upto 1987 which may well have made
> the move, but I, like you, don't have the evidence available on those
> editions.
>
> I'm a bit perplexed however. Has this thread moved from a discussion
> of recent trends, i.e. in the last ten to twenty or even forty years,
> or is it now just some kind of pissing contest regarding any use of
> all-UC versus UC/LC at any time? Can
Seem to have something missing here. I have had some of these problems
recently as well. I have never meant to say anything about recent
trends or about the future of the language of functional analysis. I
personally don't care how Joey makes his living and I have no
aspirations to enlighten him to what I think is correct and logical
and useful approaches to analyzing music, ANY music. My post from the
beginning has been and has only been a rebut to the statement that he
made concerning the UC with modifiers and then extensions being the
STANDARD for functional analysis. If he wants to teach this to his
students that is his business. When he stated it as universal fact of
being a standard on a public news group that has many young and
impressionable students, then he is leaving his community of students
and friends and making statements that will set young learners into
limiting directions. As an educator, I have an obligation to do
everything I can to see that students have the best methods of
learning available to them so that they can make a choice.
If you notice, or read more carefully, I have repeatedly stated that,
yes, his stated method of is used by a lot of Jazz musicians. I also
pointed out in a response to Hans that I had first ran across one of
the early Berklee methods of doing this in the Mid 60s. At that time,
Jazz musicians were somewhat looked upon as being second class
musicians. I and my friends never subscribed to this notion. McGeehan
and others were somewhat pioneers of helping Jazz musicians attain the
status of first class musicians by helping to make it a subject of
higher learning that id deserves to hold.
Joey's outline of a way to notate chords is valid. It does what it
does. It is a bridge between Alpha notation in the fake books and
relating the chords to a key in a very basic functional manner. This
method has been around longer than I have and it is a step. It is a
step to the more highly evolved way of looking at function that has
had a long tradition in the Classical music world. Almost all Jazz
concepts have their roots not only in the African music brought to the
West during the early days of the US, but it has its musical roots in
the Classical music tradition as well as it evolved into an art form.
the BeBop era was a major step both in harmonic progression as well as
introduction of other 20th century as Jazz evolved from its Blues
roots into a very sophisticated art form. With these steps, the older
forms of Alpha notation were fine for describing the notes that went
into a chord. Then they started to use the UC with the same modifiers
that were used with the Alpha notation and now, as many music
departments have both Classical and Jazz offered, most Jazz players
are at least familiar with UC/LC notation.
And with good reason. It opens up a vast amount of ideas in
literature that is from the Classical sector that is applicable to
both Classical and Jazz music. In today's society, there is less
difference than either 'side' will admit. The two worlds are merging
not only in functional harmonic theory, but in selection of
instruments, harmonic practices, 20th century concepts that go into
areas other than traditional functional music.
It is my position that to attempt to set as a standard the
intermediate step of chord spelling that uses UC with modifiers and
extensions is a step in preventing the student from having a clear
path to analysis of all resources that are available. The UC method
under discussion is fine for helping the student limited to Alpha
notation to get his feet wet and is used as a bridge by many musicians
for various reasons. (many because they have not had the op****tunity
to study music formerly with anyone other than Jazz musicians if even
at that level) but that this is a stepping stone at best. The UC/LC is
simple enough that it can be taught to the most basic student and by
its very nature will tend to pull the student toward seeing the
functional relation****ps of the harmony. To hold back knowledge of
this musical language is a disservice to the student.
This and only this is my position. Anything else was taken out of
context or misunderstood or miss explained by me. Piston was a side
issue only to point out that there was some precedent for UC, but that
it was not the best way as proved by later developments. His theory is
flawless, his notation was less than the most clear way to look at the
music that evolved after he wrote the book and as educators and
theorists discovered that the UC/LC was a more effective tool. Things
may be different in some of the more conservative parts of Europe.
They may be more in tune with the Piston language of studying
analysis, but the UC method pro ****ted to be the STANDARD in the OP
was not related to Piston in any manner. It is a totally different
concept. His language is NOT a respelling of Alpha notation. His
method is basically using UC/RN as a unifying factor to show that the
functional harmony of the music that he was writing about was common
to both Major and Minor keys. His "Harmony" text is an old style,
conservative way of teaching music theory that is perfectly correct.
It was great for the time that it was introduced. He wrote it in the
early 1900s as someone pointed out (I think you) and that was before
the 20th century was in full swing. The fact that his edition is still
considered the standard for theoretical thought is a testimony to his
knowledge. After he wrote this, it became obvious that his thought
could be better served by changing the UC language to the UC/LC
language. Neither of these languages are really related to the UC
modifier/extension method that was stated here. They simply do not
serve the same function in musical analysis and should not be
considered to do so.
LJS
|
