"Joey Goldstein" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fqfd4s$mr0$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
> 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.
>
I don't see anything lacking either.
But I also haven't seen a bunch of analyses using this system, only what
you've told me about it.
I don't know that it's "better suited" necessarily. It certainly is
well-suited to what it's used for.
The inversions are a good point
Does an analysis need to consider them?
In CPP analysis, we do, so any symbol that doesn't include inversion
information is no good.
So IIm to represent a ii chord in first inversion isn't helpful.
Dm/F is helpful, but it obviously lacks the "non-note specific" elements
that we use numerals for in the first place.
But, in Jazz analysis, or analysis of pop tunes, etc. - is it necessary
to
show inversion? If so, IIm is lacking. If not, it's fine.
But, I should point out, that II/ii can also be used to "not show"
inversions. So it seems to me, UC/LC is applicable to both styles, but,
IIm
would be less informative in a situation where inversions need to be
shown.
Obviously though, UC/LC needs to be adapted to include things that are not
there already - like I siad, we could easly extend UC/LC to include
symbols
for things like VTS or TS.
Can we adapt IIm to show inversions within the symbol? What do we call a
V7
in 3rd inversion? V7/4/2 is kind of funky (though not impossible). The
Brits' take is to say V7d - d for thrid inversion. Or V7/7, telling us the
7th is in the bass would be ok, if not a bit ***bersome.
So, both systems seem to be largely well-suited for what they were
designed
for (or have evolved for use in). Whether either is adaptable to other
styles seems to be largely a question of how we adapt the system, and what
information we wish to point out.
In any case, I think the only UC method (where you have to know the mode)
is
definitely not as elegant as either of the above systems.
Best,
Steve
|
