Re: Perceived limitations of using UC RN in an harmonic analysis

On Mar 4, 2:31=A0pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
> news:fqfi9p$t41$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> > Exactly. And that's exactly why the very intelligent folks at Berklee
ca=
me
> > up with their own methods for harmonic analysis. It has become, more
or
> > less, the standard within the jazz community because it works so well.
>
> I don't disagree. We can say the thing about the fine folks who've come
up=

> with, and adapted the CPP system as well.

But I have yet to see any of these supposed adaptions to the standard
classical model. Your analyses of Satin Doll would not be acceptable
in your world, would they? I certainly don't think they're good
descriptions of what's going on in that tune.
To describe that tune you need the tritone substitute dominant
concept, and y'all haven't included that within your system yet, as
far as I can see.

> But, do you think we should use the Berklee system for analyzin Mozart,
an=
d
> vice versa? I'm not convinced that we should, even if we can.
>
> Steve

"Should"? Probably not.
But we could. It's backwards compatible enough to handle it.

I'll try to post some scans of the Nettles & Graff book when I get
home tonight.