On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:41:25 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llatham@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
wrote:
>> 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.
Indeed, there is one area where most classical analyses remain "key
specific" and that's in indicating key centers. In the example below,
the first line of RNs has C as tonic and the second A (minor):
<some music....
C: I V III vi
a: V i
Schoenberg, and others I guess, apply abstraction at this level too.
In the example (T) stands for Tonic and (sm) for the submediant minor
(in both cases UC/LC is used for major/minor information):
<some music....
(T) I V III vi
(sm) V i
So, Schoenberg has an abstraction for what you is usually treated as
literal key-specific information. I don't think the key-specific
information detracts greatly from the analysis here or in Joey's case
either. We tend to read the music and the labels at once.
The usage Joey refers to is not far removed from classical analyses
which expect you to read the bass line while scanning the RNs. Others
might argue that inversions provide too *much* information in a
labeling system that celebrated an inversion-free view of chords.
>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.
It's ironic, of course. that figured bass, used to denote inversions
these days, evolved out of and for an improvisational context, around
the same time as chord symbols appeared. It's a bit like putting back
in what Rameau and Weber managed to take out.
There are other ways to denote inversions. Some texts use "b", "c" etc
for inversions. So, "Ib" is a first inversion tonic. Others place a
digit under the RN, and/or the accompanying analytic symbol. So, "D
(over) 3" would be a first inversion dominant".
{C G C } Chords
<C B C > Bass
I V I Roman numbers
3
T D T Functional symbols
3
Here's an Riemannian example of that with more additional information:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Stufentheorie8.PNG
And, of course, inversion information is entirely independent of
all-UC or UC/LC issues.
|
