"Joey Goldstein" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fqen00$7iq$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> It has been proposed (accused?) by Lemuel J Schenck (can I call you
> "Lemmy"?) that for some reason using upper case Roman numerals in an
> harmonic analysis in and of itself somehow puts many limitations on the
> analysis than using lower case Roman numerals would.
>
> Anybody here care to attempt to demonstrate how merely UC RNs is
> necessarily more limited in and of itself?
Something I don't think has beein pointed out Joey- there are THREE
systems
here
UC/LC (I is major, i is minor).
UC with modifiers (I is Major, Im is minor). I'm going to call this UCMm
hereafter.
UC with "out of mode" modifiers (I is major in major, I is minor and
minor,
and I"m" is minor in major, and I"M" is major in minor)
I think Lemmy is talking about UC only, not UCMm (which is what I think
you
use).
Tell me what chords these are (I realize we need to define a key to say 1
is
C etc.):
I IV V I
Tell me what chords these are:
i iv V I
In UC, you MUST know the mode first.
In C minor, the progression above would need to be:
I IV V IM (or some other indicator that tells you the final chord is
"out
of mode" and Major instead of minor as expected in minor mode).
In C major, above progression would be:
Im IVm V I (again, some modifier - often a figured bass numeral - is
needed for the out of mode chords).
Using UC/LC:
i - iv - V - I tells us exactly the qualities. So it carries TWO bits of
information - QUALITY and SCALE DEGREE. UC only tells us the LATTER,
unless
we know the key/mode.
So basically, the UC/LC carries QUALITY information in the symbol, for
which
an only UC system must carry a modifier when a chord is out of mode. Not a
HUGE limitation, but I would say UC/LC is more "elegant" in the regard
that
if one believes saying more with less is more elegant, there you go.
> The only thing I can think of is that in the systems of UC oriented jazz
> analysis that I am accustomed to there is no way to indicate inversions
> within the analysis.
In Classical analysis, both UC and UC/LC use inversional symbols from
figured bass with which I know you're familiar.
But, for example, let's say we have v6 in C minor. That's a minor dominant
in first inversion. We know it's Bb-D-G.
In UC notation, we'd have to put V6/b3.
6
V
b3
So in other words, by including quality within the UC/LC system, figured
bass symbols also become "symbolic" as well and "6" means first inversion
of a triad, period. There's never a need to put 6/3 because any
alterations
to the quality of the triad would be shown by the case of the RN. In the
UC
system - at least those that use figured bass symbols as modifiers, the FB
is "real" in that it shows how a note should be altered. So again, the
UC/LC
system is a little more "elegant" in that regard.
In my experience, I have not encountered UC very frequently (though it
should be noted that even UC/LC will use UC only when speaking
genericallym
but not with modifiers - they'll also even use note names or chord symbols
as well when relevant). Those that I have, treat things like the +6 family
similarly:
French+6 is II #6/4/3 (or in FB, a + symbol on the 6 is used as well)
German+6 is IV #6/5/3 (or the 3 omitted since it's implied).
(note that one is II and the other is IV)
One of the "limitations" with this is it likens +6 family sonorities to
7th
chords (because the same inversional symbols are used) which may not
necessarily be the best way to think about them. While labelling them by
"nationality" involves some understanding of what the intervallic
structure
(or scale degree content) of the sonority is, so does "v6" for that
matter.
Those who want to make a distinction between 7th chords and +6th chords
find
that using the same symbology for both does little to point that out -
except for the fact that #6 is a "red flag" to some degree.
Others wish to make a distinction, and choose a "name" scheme which allows
all chords with a semi-tone expansion for the +6 to 8ve (or subsumed
octave
in the case of resolutions to V7) motion to be part of the same "family".
It's not unlike how we generally consider "Tonic" family chords to be
"I/i"
chords. They have the same number. Calling +6 family chords, II for Fr,
and
IV for Ger - though adhering to a Pre-Dominant concept, makes them "less
similar" from a symbological standpoint.
Furthermore, there are those that feel there are also non-tertian
sonorities
with historical origins as 6th chords (from Fauxbourdon) and feel it is
relevent to include that distinction, which is why the Neapolitan Sixth,
and
the Augemented Sixth sonorities are typically given "names" rather than
"numerals" - N6, and Ger+6. While we know bII6 is the same as N6, the N
signifies there's something "special" about the chord. So again, I'd say
this system includes a little more information, and readily recognizeable
distinction, than an all UC system, though certainly anyone who's studied
an
UC in an advanced setting would be able to spot these distinctions as
well.
It's just not as readily apparent to someone who's not pursued this
further.
So a lot of the UC/LC (and obviously UCMm) has a practical pedagogical
purpose as well - by introducing students to these "informational symbols"
early on, they can then learn later the conceptual differences, rather
than
having to learn a IV might not always be a IV. I think experience has
proven
that the former system is more effective, or at least easier to handle by
today's "but the rules keep changing" mindset. Obviously, another
pedagogical advantage is that UC/LC allows one person (an instructor) to
KNOW if another person (a student) knows what the chord is. You've got a
100
percent chance of getting a C chord in the key of C right if you put "I"
(because it could be either in an all UC system), but only a 50 percent
chance in an UC/LC system. And one of the points of teaching is to make
sure
your students KNOW what they should have learned, not guessed lucky.
Though
this is getting away from your "analysis" question.
But then again, there isn't really any need to
> indicate inversion within the analysis because any inversion would be
made
> clear by the accompanying chord symbols.
> Eg. C/E (in C) would just be analyzed as I.
>
> So, while this may appear to be a liability, it's actually an advantage
of
> the system, at least the way I see it.
I think it's only a liability if pointing out inversion is im****tant.
In Classical music, before we had "chords" as we know them (tertian
sonorities like "5th" chords and 7th chords), the system was
"consonance-based" and consonance was figured from the Bass. That means
that
sonorities like "6th" chords (which some people choose to point out as
being
"special" as mentioned above) and things like 7-6 suspensions made it
im****tant to consider the bass.
So while I think it's im****tant to aurally understand the difference
between
a 7-8 V-I cadence and a 2-1 V-I cadence (in the Soprano), that's something
we don't point out in analysis. I doesn't "affect" things the same way the
bass movement does: V6-I tells me something different than V-I. Or,
I-viio6-I6 tells me something different than I-viio-I. So for both
historical reasons and supposed functional concepts (like prolongation),
describing the bass line's interaction with the harmonic content has been
something seen as worth pointing out.
Obviously though, we still will sometimes say something like "I-V" in a
generic sense when we just want to talk about a Tonic to Dominant move,
etc.
It seems to me, while Jazz uses inversions, and alternate roots, from an
analytical standpoint the Bass is more of an "equal partner" in the
texture,
so it makes sense that including inversions in analysis is less of a
consideration. It's similar to how I don't need to know what the soprano
is
doing in an analysis - I 've got the music for that. I do need to know
what
the bass is doing though. For you, it seems like you don't need to know
what
the bass is doing - you've got the music for that. You need to know what
"colors" have been added to a harmony, etc.
But with a system like UC only, it's confusing (or let's at least say,
***bersome):
I is major in major
I is minor in minor
I"m" is minor in major
I"M" is major in minor.
So you see how confusing that might be - you always have to know the major
or minor mode. For Jazz, with modal possibilities, that might prove even
more of a concern.
For UC/LC, and UCMm, there's only TWO symbols for all of that I/i or I/Im.
In UC/LC, we simply absorb the "Im" of UCMm into the LC RN.
I will point out, to me, the biggest danger of UCMm is that "M" when
hand-drawn, can look like upper or lower case. "IM" could be misread a
number of ways.
Likewise, we have a problem with UC/LC in general - v and V are just
different sizes. We write "V" with bottom and top serifs that are obvious,
and LC without serifs to be clear. But people tend to get lazy with "M"
because they use that letter in other places. Roman Numerals (as letter
being used as numerals) seems to make them think enough to use case
correctly (or in student's cases, to try to use them correctly).
In type, it's not as big an issue, though some fonts can be problematic as
David pointed out.
Best,
Steve
|
