Steve Latham wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <joegold@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>
news:cc59db79-2445-4612-9378-549b1d08ea78@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> 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.
>
>
> How do you mention it in those cases?
>
>
>> 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.
>
> Oh - I see what you meant now - no, actually, we don't always have the
> notation present - in many cases, it's simply Roman Numerals, especially
in
> writings. Sometimes examples are included, but that's kind of the whole
> point about RN - and more especially now, UC/LC, is that you can define
> everything except the number and voicing of the upper notes. You've got
the
> root, the quality, the inversion, and if you know the key, that also
tells
> you the bass note specifically, and the other chord tones generically.
We
> know that if it's 4 parts and root position, the root will be doubled,
and
> if its 6/4 the 5th will be doubled (exceptions in either case exits) and
in
> many things, we know some other specifics, like if we have V7-I, we know
the
> 7th of the V7 will go down to the 3rd of the I chord (in virtually all
> cases) and the remaining voices (since we know the bass) become almost
> inconsequential. In many cases, you will see things like "to harmonize
> ^3..." so we even know the soprano note - and in that case, it's
practically
> tablutare without the rhythm notation version - we can make assumptions
that
> are fairly accurate about everything - not that we need to take it that
far.
>
> Now, of course it is nice to have a notated example, and hopefully, the
> actual example from which the analysis is drawn, but often enough, there
are
> no graphics to go along with the numerals.
>
> Steve
>
>
Are you saying that a composer could re-compose the piece being analyzed
just by looking at the analysis?
I'd find that hard to believe.
Or are you saying that a composer might proceed to compose several
completely (almost) new pieces based solely on the harmonic analysis of
some other piece?
That'd be easier to believe.
But I've been lead to believe that classical analysis techniques are
geared towards the analysis of pre-existing music, and are not geared
towards creating new music based on a given chord progression. Perhaps
y'all do more of that sort of thing than I've given you credit for.
But the Berklee style of analysis is geared for that very purpose from
the ground up.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
|
