On Mar 2, 12:56 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@[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 am not sure, but which one of these are the Piston system. That is
what I had clearly explained in my many posts There are three, (the
way you list it) The UC/LC used in many universities, the Piston UC
and the Jazz UC. your first example seems OK, the second one seems to
be the Jazz UC but I am not sure that the "out of mode" one is the
Piston system and that is the three that I have clearly been
discussing. Actually, only mentioning the Piston, as it is really a
variation of the UC/LC (or vice versa) Is this a new one that you made
up or just injected into this thread to spice things up? or is this
your description of the Piston notation?
>
> I think Lemmy is talking about UC only, not UCMm (which is what I think
you
> use).
No Stevie, that is still another misconception that seems to have been
thrown in for who knows what reason. There is actually two being
discussed by me in this thread. One of them has two variations. There
is the one that I responded to set forth by Joseph that he described
as being the Upper case RN with the same modifiers as used in the
standard Fake book Alpha style. The UC/RN would be assigned by the key
of the piece. I have been calling this the Jazz UC notation. (Call it
what you will)
Then there is the UC/LC that you described as being used by most of
the accredited colleges in the US and its variation is the Piston
method of notation. Except for the use of all UPPER case RN for
reasons that I have had to explain ad nausum in other posts is
essentially the same except that as you day subsequently, needs to in
the context of a major or minor key in order to properly spell the
chords (Piston prefers that his students take this step for reasons
that he must believe in) but all the other aspects of the language is
designed for the functional analysis of the harmony. The Jazz UC does
not include (unless someone adds it to what I have stated as my
understanding of what Joey G has stated) the other aspects of the
language that makes analysis easier to describe.
> 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).
Hmm, isn't that the same symbol that you use in your VM7 notation to
say a Maj7th?
>
> 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).
I am assuming that this is in the Jazz UC? and not the Piston,
>
> 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.
Except that if the Jazz UC does not add the temp modulations and other
aspects of function that are inherent in the UC/LC notation, then the
Jazz UC remains as having chord spelling as the scope of the language.
Useful, but not the same. Yes it is more elegant, but if you look
deeper, there is more to analysis than describing the notes that are
used.
>
> > 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.
Yes, they use inversional symbols taken from Figured Bass, which is a
chord spelling notation of its own. These two languages are sometimes
used in conjunction for certain periods of the CPP, but they are not
necessary if you are interested more with the FUNCTION of the harmony.
Very useful in a lot of cases, not so much so in Jazz, but not an
essential element in functional analysis as a general rule.
>
> 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
If this is an example of the Jazz UC, isn't it obvious that this
notaton is sort of useless? It certainly is not an example of UC/LC,
and certainly not Piston. and now another type of modifier is added,
actually two, the 6 as a figured bass symbol and a b3 as an Arabic
scale notation for the bass. Aren't you stretching the international
fusion a bit here? Multi lingual is cool, but three languages to show
an inversion? and relative to a thread on FUNCTIONAL harmony? This is
getting a bit amusing.
> 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:
In case you don't realize it, this generic style is the Piston
system.
>
> 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.
Whew! finally a point of relevance!
The thing that has not been mentioned (that I noticed) is that
Functional harmony certainly does not need to be expressed with the
figured bass, as you state here. It often is not relevant. But if the
Figured Bass notation is used, understanding is only made clear if
these symbols are placed under the BASS note of a score. This makes
the figured bass language still another language that is being used
that does not apply to my assertion. It is a good combination for a
basis of analysis for certain periods of music. And it does point out
this rather small limitation of inherent in the JazzUC notation. But
it simply is not a part of what I have been saying. No one is
addressing what is the FUNCTIONAL use of the Jazz UC ? That was my
response to Joey G's assertion that the Jazz UC is a language that is
the standard in his community of musicians for analysis of Harmonic
function.
>
> 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
Talk about my endless posts!lol
So are your saying that UC/LC is in general more sophisticated than
the others? I still see that there is a lot of misunderstanding or
lack of understanding the point that I had asserted. No one has yet to
address it. But in lieu of that, what exactly are you saying? It seems
to me that you are saying that there is more information inherent in
the LC/UC notation although I don't see real evidence of it in this
post.
If the only drawback that you can see to the UC/LC is that one may
confuse the v and V if penman****p is poor, then you must be saying
that it is more useful for many different types of music. It just
seems as though you don't really seem to want to admit that. Am I
understanding you clearly?
LJS
|
