paramucho wrote:
> 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
I don't follow you.
We use key indications too in Berklee-style analysis.
We also might indicate pivot points, where the music can be analyzed in
two keys simultaneously, if that's what your above example is supposed
to be showing.
> 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
All you're saying is that he had a different, more abstract, way of
indicating the key. But he still indicates the key.
> 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.
I'd like to think that in a Berklee-style analysis, if an inversion, as
indicated by a chord symbol, actually happened to affect the chord's
function that it would be noted in the analysis or the chord would be
renamed.
I.e. I don't see the lack of inversion indications in the Berklee-style
analysis as being anything lacking in the system. This true for any
chord that retains the same acoustical root when inverted. but not be
true for a chord that does not reatin its ac rt when inverted.
>> 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.
>
>
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
|
