On Mar 2, 11:09 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 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?
>
> I'll start it off...
> 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. 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.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Gee Joey, Is this a real attempt to make a response? I am proud of
you. Call me anything you like, you usually do!
Well there is inversions. Only in some instances it his really related
to function. It is really a side issue and of course in Jazz, since
the bass is generally improvised, and that is really the only voice
that counts, it is sort of a moot point in Jazz analysis. This would
however limit its use in CERTAIN eras of Classical music. This by
itself would hinder the student that only understood your UC notation
from having an easy way of seeing some of the similarities with some
of the early classical music although this is not really a very big
point and I would not have bought this up as a liability as in Jazz
(the medium that we are using at the moment as an example) as as you
say, it is not really im****tant what inversion is there.
What is im****tant, however is something that in your example that is
NOT included. Since you are responding to my criticism of that
notation as a functional analysis tool, doesn't it seem as though you
would have used an example of your notation that showed something
about function? you use the example of C/E. Well you are not even
using your system for the example! C does not indicate function. It
the C a Tonic chord? or is it a IV chord or a V chord in major? or is
it a bIII in minor? Your example does not give any information as to
function at all! So how can your post be addressed from a point of
view that says that the limitation of that language is weak on
FUNCTION, but your example avoids any indication of either function or
UC notation.
Then there is the /E or inversion notation. If the chord is in the
context of Cmaj, than you may say that it is a I/ E? well, the E would
not be in RN so is this a new definition of how this system works? or
would it be a I/III ? Well that doesn't seem to be clear unless you
explain it. It looks as if it has a poly chordal thing happening
there. So do you indicate it as I/3 injecting an additional numbering
system? No, none of these are practical as anything. Something is
wrong here.
In addition to the use of Alpha notation as an example of a concept of
what is good or bad in a UC notation, there is a mixing of concepts
with the subject of the inversion in the first place. I can maybe
address the first part of this if you use an example in the UC
notation that you are talking about. BUT as to the other problem:
This has some relation to the concept of analysis itself and the
different components of it. In some genres of music the inversion is
im****tant, and in other genres it is of less im****tance. There are
also many different types of languages that are used to DESCRIBE a
section of music or more simply a harmonic progression. Inversions are
sometimes included in a functional analysis of the harmony and some
times it is not necessary. It depends on many factors. Sometimes
people confuse figured bass with UC/LC analysis or with functional
analysis. It really is neither. In a figured bass, there is NO RN
either UC or LC. There is a bass line and there is the figured bass.
Figured bass is an early lead sheet. Composers in the Baroque era
often wrote the melody, the bass line and the figured bass. Passed out
these lead sheets and the band started to jam. (Sounds familiar?) That
is the what figured bass is, an early lead sheet. The FB spelled out
the chords that the piano (maybe the guitar in some cases, I don't
know their status in the music of this period) The Piano or
keyboardist (harpsichord or clavichord) would then improvise the
voicing of the tones and fit their interpretation of the music to the
group. (Of course, this keyboard position was often occupied by the
composer himself, but it was still improvised)
Thus, Figured Bass is not an analysis tool at all. It is the simply an
early way of spelling chords just like a lead sheet. In some
instances, the figured bass is included in the first step of analysis
that will use UC/LC or in Piston's school, the UC in the same manner
as the UC/LC does. This system is, however different than the one that
you are discussing.
The advantage of the UC/LC is that it can be flexible. Just like a
language need to be to keep up with the changing times. As music is
analyzed with UC/LC pattern start to emerge. You can start with music
from the Baroque through the Romantic periods, into Jazz and include
any other period or culture that uses functional type of harmony. It
can even be used with some forms of non functional music although this
does start to put a strain on the method. It is flexible enough to
show vastly different styles of music in this one language. That is
the strength of this language that is not inherent in the Jazz UC
notation.
If you add specific ways of using the Jazz UC to include this
flexibility so that it can be used to show relation****ps of chords in
a clear and microcosmic as well as macrocosmic manner, then Jazz UC
would be evolving into a language that would be useful for analysis
rather than to be a way of spelling chords similar in use to the
Baroque figured bass method. One might respond, "Oh yea! Well how
simple is it to show a V7#5 with a minor ninth and a #11 in figured
bass?" The answer would be that you would not. Complex chords were not
used in that time and the figured bass language is not equipped to
handle music that is beyond the period that used it. That is why it
fell by the wayside as music evolved. The same is true of the Jazz UC.
It is perfectly good for what it does. It, as I have said so many
times in posts that you have not read, is very good at what it does.
It does not, however, have the flexibility or simplicity of the UC/LC
to talk about the harmonic structure in such a manner to present the
material in the same depth for as many different genres of harmonic
style. It just simply is not designed to do this.
This is what I have been saying. You seem to disagree, but just like
this example, nothing that you have said has addressed this topic. If
the language is more expansive than you have mentioned and you can
explain how this is the case, I would be very interested in hearing
what you have to say and could possibly learn from it. I have,
however, not seen anything in your posts to suggest that this is true.
Nor have I seen evidence of this in my conversations and class sharing
with very intensely trained Jazz musicians. They all seem to know both
of the languages and can easily understand these and other systems of
analysis. Alex, a very impressive young tenor man showed me the only
complete explanation of the Jazz UC notation that you are talking
about. He really did understand it and was able to make if perfectly
clear in his writings and also explained the common mistakes that many
Jazz musicians made using this system and how to best guess what they
meant. He did this when I asked him how he was presenting his material
relative to analysis in a class that he was teaching in theory in one
of the Jazz schools. He was having trouble getting his ideas across
even though the students understood this system. I was happy to have
this op****tunity to have all the details of the Jazz UC notation so
clearly presented. Even though I had used it and understood it, the
clarity and completeness of his explanation was a pleasure to hear.
After I saw what he was doing, I showed him how to add the Jazz
symbols to the UC/LC language. I translated his chord symbols into UC/
LC and helped him present it to the students. NO ONE, the teacher nor
the students had any problem of understanding what was presented. Like
I say, it is not that complicated. Then with the use of the key area
notation to show the tem****ary modulations, and how a tune was made up
of the same cadential patterns in different related keys and
immediately, everyone understood the tune and about 15 minutes later,
the class was improvising with this understanding and could use the UC/
LC for other Jazz tunes with no problem. It simply is designed for
this specific use and like the Jazz UC notation, they both do the job
that they are designed for very well. Yes, sometimes the more complex
chordal structures become a bit intense in the UC/LC notation, but
they are equally intense in the Jazz UC notation. The difference is
that one is good at analysis and the other is good to spell chords.
Both are useful tools, but the UC/LC can do both and the other? well
not so well at functional harmonic analysis.
Now, without the addition of the specific symbols to account for the
"advances" of harmonic texture in music, the UC/LC would not be as
effective with more modern music. If I were analyzing the music of the
Baroque period I would only use the symbols that pertained to that
period. With music of the latter part of the Classical period, there
may be some symbols that were not generally used in the Baroque music.
If using the UC/LC in the Romantic period, there would be more
extensive use of maybe the + or of altered 9ths or even 11ths and a
slightly different use of some sus4 chords. Just as the language grows
during the functional harmony Hay Day of classical, it can grow to
accomodate the special chord types that appear in the functional
harmony of Jazz. Jazz is neither superior or inferior to Classical
music in any manner. There is good Classical music and there is good
Jazz and both have many examples of not so good music. The same is
true of the musicians that play these different styles. The only
difference it that the Jazz musician, the ones that I am talking
about, have the extra hat to wear that is missing on most of the
Classical musicians heads, and this hat is the improvisation hat. The
Jazz improviser needs to be a composer as well, and he has to
improvise or compose in real time. THIS is why it is im****tant that he
has the best tools at his disposal in order to understand what is
necessary to wear the hat of improviser/composer and the UC/LC is
designed to help him do just that.
I hope that this either clears up some of your misconceptions of what
I have been stating and that you will send me an example of what you
are trying to say that does actually use the notation that you are
discussing so that I can address it more directly. I am sure that that
was simply a slip that resulted from an emotional response to
something and that you just lapsed into the Alpha language because of
its closeness to the Jazz UC language.
LJS.
|
