"Joey Goldstein" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:fqidci$73q$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> OK. Thanks for clearing that up, I think.
>
> But Steve's "standard" method is the first of your two examples above,
not
> the second one - which is Shoenberg's way, right?
> So I don't see anything abstract at all all about the *standard* "L.
> Steven (Stephen?) Latham method" of labeling a key change.
I think what Ian was pointing out Joey was that in most analyses, we put
the
key, like:
C: - I - ii6 - V7...
at the beginning.
When we modulate to a new key, we put the new key's name in, on a lower
line, with a bracket symbol when a pivot chord is used:
C: I - vi6 |
___|
G:| ii6 - V7 - I
In the Schoenberg case (which Ian correctly assumes is used by others as
well), we abstract this a bit further by removing the names of the keys:
I - vi6|
__|
V:| ii6 - etc.
Showing we've modulated to the key area of the V chord.
The advantage is it doesn't "restrict" the progression to any one key.
A potential disadvantage though is when you modulate to more remote keys -
modulating to the key of the #IV looks a little funny on paper instead of
just starting in C and moving to F#. But those types of modulations are
not
so common as to cause great heartache.
>
> But I can see Steve's point, regarding inversions, that some level of
> description is missing from the Berklee method. Still, it's not a big
> deal.
>
> I think we all agree on that.
Yes, I agree. I think though, where you said Berklee was backwards
compatible - that's only true if we don't want to show the inversions,
which, apparently, we still do (that is, show them on a single symbol).
Steve
|
