"Joey Goldstein" <joegold@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:d34fd804-4f0d-429a-a123-d2e12a26539d@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mar 4, 2:31 pm, "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
> > came
> > 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.
You're absolutely right. I can only say that, they saw no need to include
symology for it, because it wasn't something that would be encountered. If
a
symbol is developed, it should adhere to the basic principles of the
existing system. Though I'll say SubsV7 is just as elegant as anything
else.
> But, do you think we should use the Berklee system for analyzin Mozart,
> and
> 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.
Well, if you can't indicate inversions, how do you handle a cadential 6/4?
I'll try to post some scans of the Nettles & Graff book when I get
home tonight.
Ooh, please - I'd like to see it. I can never afford to go out and buy
these
damn things we talk about, and finding them online is always a hassle
(damn
copyright laws - we'll call this "excerpts for educational use" which is
under the fair use clause :-)
Steve
|
