On Mar 3, 8:50 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> paramucho wrote:
> > On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 20:41:25 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[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
Well Joey G. Maybe if you had answered the challenge and included an
explanation of HOW Berklee addressed the Key areas like you were
asked, SOME of what you said may make some sense. What exactly HAVE
you been talking about. If you didn't see that key area analysis was
part of the topic, it certainly appears that it is not very im****tant
to you for analysis. SO HOW - DOES - your - JAZZ - UC - deal - with -
that? Is that slow enough and clear enough for you
|
