"Joey Goldstein" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fqf0vk$ng6$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Steve Latham wrote:
>> "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).
>
> The Berklee UC only style always spells out chord quality, except for
> major triads.
> In C:
> I = C
> Im = Cm
> Imaj7 = Cmaj7
> etc.
>
That's what I mean by UCMm - didn't want to give credit solely to Berklee.
> Now that we've established that, I thank you for all the typed
> information, but you really haven't told me anything I don't really know
> already (except for the descriptions of the UC w/o modifiers style of
> analysis....yech),
Well, wasn't that informative though :-)
and you haven't really addressed my question.
I did. It's just that the UC/LC uses a numeral only for minor. That's the
basic difference Gee, you're grumpy today. Don't read so many LJS posts
(and for God's sake, don't respond!).
>
> As for Berklee-style analysis not recognizing things like the Neapolitan
> chord, well, you've sort of got a point, depending on what angle you're
> coming from. We recognize it as bII but don't really care much about its
> origins per se and have less strict voice leading rules for dealing with
> it.
Right.
Plus we're also happy to borrow even more chords from the parallel
> phrygian than just bII. So IMO this is not really a weakness. It allows
us
> to deal with this sonority in ways that a CPP theorist would not allow.
To
> my way of thinking, that's an advantage, not a disadvantage.
Well, let's say, it's an advantage to be able to label everything you need
to label in a system. We don't need to label something from the parallel
phrygian, so there's no use muttering up the system with extra symbols.
That's an advantage in that context.
>
> As for inversions, like I said, with Berklee-style analysis those are
> specified in the chord symbols. So we *do* make note of them.
Sure, but C/E is like me writing out E-G-C. But you saying I is not like
me
saying I6. So including inversional symbols on the RN is an "advantage" if
that's an im****tant thing to point out in the abstract (that is, not key
specific) world of RN.
As you said above about the Neapolitan - it depends on what angle you're
coming from. I think Jazz analysis has evolved more hand-in-hand with
performance practice because of its improvisational nature. Classical
analysis is more after the fact and while we can use it to compose, we
don't
really. So the practical part of it is limited to theoretical discussion.
Steve
|
