On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 09:50:10 -0500, Joey Goldstein
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
Yes. I was responding to Steve's point about the lack of abstraction
in the way your method indicates inversions and saying that the same
applied to the way his method indicated keys. And that I didn't think
that either was a serious defect.
|
