On Mar 4, 7:14 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> Steve Latham wrote:
> > "Joey Goldstein" <joeg...@[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
This is a good explanation Steve. It shows a side of the UC/LC that I
could not have explained as well. I would have let it go at if we had
the Bass and we are harmonizing a melody, once the chord is named, we
have the whole arrangement. It may have different open and closed
voicing, but other than the voicing, that is the arrangement.
>
> 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.
>
I understand that you do believe this. That is why I try to explain
how you criticize things that you don't understand. If you understood
the classical UC/RN you would see how this is quite easy. Once you are
aware of all the implications of the Language, this sort of thing is
no problem. Your alternate question below is a definite YES. But back
to this concept.
When you are both trained in Classical Conventions and Classical
Analysis, you can look at the melody (actually you could do a lot
without the melody) and the Analysis in UC/LC. The figured bass gives
you the bass line. The numbers tell you the notes in the chord, If you
have the melody, you know how to voice the other lines to compliment
it. Thus you have all the voices present in the UC/LC description of
what is going on. Your knowledge of voice leading will connect them
and your knowledge of the specific style you are working with and
their conventions, you literally have everything. Any good student can
do this.
Thus, if you want to change a note in an inner line that is something
other than a voicing change, this would change the numbers and/or the
numeral somewhat. Change that and when you put it together again or
modify your composition, that notation will tell you what to do. Its
really pretty simple stuff. We did it all the time with various
assignments. I am sure that Steve did this sort of thing as well. (I
hope they still teach this skill. It is very useful for many
things.)
> 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.
Depending on your definition of new pieces, a definite YES, this too
is easy.
You can use the same harmony and write a different melody.
Or you can re harmonize the inner voices and and keep the BASS and
Melody.
You can keep the UC/LC and rewrite the bass and/or the melody.
You can keep the UC/LC and write a Chaconne or a Ground Bass. (these
are two forms that when combined (as I understand the forms) is the
general form of Jazz tunes in performance. The Ground bass has a
repeating bass line for each chorus and the Chaconne has a set series
of chords that are used for improvisation, or free composition, buy
the creator.)
> 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.
Classical musicians do a lot of things that you don't give them credit
for!
>
> But the Berklee style of analysis is geared for that very purpose from
> the ground up.
You say this Joey, but you don't explain how!
Steve,
I was commenting to you and Joey. I am assuming that you might either
forward these comments to him, or that you have already addressed
these concerns and explanations to him, or not. I just didn't want to
be talking behind his back, although, he is the one that Killed the
files!
LJS
>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
|
