paramucho wrote:
> 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.
OK. Thanks for clearing that up, I think.
But Steve's "standard" method is the first of your two examples above,
not the second one - which is Shoenberg's way, right?
So I don't see anything abstract at all all about the *standard* "L.
Steven (Stephen?) Latham method" of labeling a key change.
But I can see Steve's point, regarding inversions, that some level of
description is missing from the Berklee method. Still, it's not a big
deal.
I think we all agree on that.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
|
