"paramucho" <ian@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:47ce9e21.25910847@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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
Yes, others will often do it with brackets under the chords, with yet
another RN to show that those chords "come from" or are tonicizing, etc,
the
"key of the III" for example.
am - G7 - C.... at the beginning of a chorale will often show the G7-C
over
a bracket that has "III" to show those chords are coming from the III of
am,
the relative Major in this case. And the bracket will go until am (or some
other key) asserts itself, and the brackets may overlap one, or possibly 2
chords (that themselves may be bracketed within another key area). But
these
are short "excursions" to other keys, not full-fledged modulations, so
they
don't look at them as having loads of pivot chords, etc.
>
> 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 might agree. But I think there are some things - like a Cadential 6/4 -
that are pretty im****tant to label in their inverted forms! I-V-I means
something totally different than I6/4-V-I!
>
> 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".
Oh - I knew about the a b c d, but I waas just guessing about the other -
it
seems logical of course, but I've not really seen it in writing except
maybe
once in passing.
Steve
|
