On Mar 2, 5:27 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > Steve Latham 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 think Lemmy is talking about UC only, not UCMm (which is what I
> >> think you use).
>
> > The Berklee UC only style always spells out chord quality, except for
> > major triads.
> > In C:
> > I = C
> > Im = Cm
> > Imaj7 = Cmaj7
> > etc.
>
> > Now that we've established that, I thank you for all the typed
> > information, but you really haven't told me anything I don't really
know
> > already (except for the descriptions of the UC w/o modifiers style of
> > analysis....yech), and you haven't really addressed my question.
>
> > As for Berklee-style analysis not recognizing things like the
Neapolitan
> > chord, well, you've sort of got a point, depending on what angle
you're
> > coming from. We recognize it as bII but don't really care much about
its
> > origins per se and have less strict voice leading rules for dealing
with
> > it. Plus we're also happy to borrow even more chords from the parallel
> > phrygian than just bII. So IMO this is not really a weakness. It
allows
> > us to deal with this sonority in ways that a CPP theorist would not
> > allow. To my way of thinking, that's an advantage, not a disadvantage.
>
> > As for inversions, like I said, with Berklee-style analysis those are
> > specified in the chord symbols. So we *do* make note of them.
>
> And btw, if it's not painfully obvious yet, I'm asking y'all what you
> think is lacking in Berklee-style analysis because *I* don't think it is
> lacking. I actually think it's better suited to handle the types of
> things that pop up in analyses of modern Tonal music than the typical
> methods associated with UC/LC RN.
>
> So please prove me wrong.
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Maybe if you followed the thread and pointed out how the Jazz UC
pointed out cadences and key relation****ps and other functional
patterns instead of asking others to do your homework for you, this
thread would be over very quickly. Do you really need others to
explain what you say?
LJS
|
