Joey Goldstein wrote:
> 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.
>
> 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), and you haven't really addressed my question.
>
> 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. 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.
>
> As for inversions, like I said, with Berklee-style analysis those are
> specified in the chord symbols. So we *do* make note of them.
And btw, if it's not painfully obvious yet, I'm asking y'all what you
think is lacking in Berklee-style analysis because *I* don't think it is
lacking. I actually think it's better suited to handle the types of
things that pop up in analyses of modern Tonal music than the typical
methods associated with UC/LC RN.
So please prove me wrong.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
|
