On Mon, 03 Mar 2008 21:49:53 -0500, Joey Goldstein
<nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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.
And that was my point. The Berklee method goes "literal" for
inversions. The system Steve descrives goes "literal" for key centers.
>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.
I'd also agree that it's a nice day outside :-)
|
