Re: Perceived limitations of using UC RN in an harmonic analysis

Steve Latham wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 

>> 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.

We don't see the inversion as having as much functional significance.
That's the difference.
Who's right and who's wrong would probably depend on the specifics of 
the music being considered. Certainly, with my present understanding of 
acoustical roots, I can see how inversions of some chord types could 
drastically alter their functions within a key. But those chord types 
would not be found, generally, within a CPP composition.

> 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. 

Exactly. And that's exactly why the very intelligent folks at Berklee 
came up with their own methods for harmonic analysis. It has become, 
more or less, the standard within the jazz community because it works so 
well.



-- 
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca