On Mar 4, 1:35=A0pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@[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
thin=
gs
> > 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?
IMO, not usually.
But when an inversion does affect the harmonic function it's a good
idea to mention that someway.
> 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.
Like I said earlier, the jazz analysis would usually have the chord
symbols present as well, just like a classical analysis usually has
the notation present.
> But, in Jazz analysis, or analysis of pop tunes, etc. - is it necessary
=
=A0to
> 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,
II=
m
> 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
symbol=
s
> for things like VTS or TS.
>
> Can we adapt IIm to show inversions within the symbol? What do we call a
V=
7
> 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
designe=
d
> 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
|
