Re: Perceived limitations of using UC RN in an harmonic analysis

"Joey Goldstein" <nospam@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fqks5u$ik$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> 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'm saying a person could reconstruct the chords and voicings, including
the 
voice-leading. But no, they couldn't reconstruct the rhythm or anything
like 
that obviously.


> 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.

Well, you're right. For existing music. But when people do compose new 
stuff, they don't do it "based on a chord progression". That's were I
point 
out one of the major stylistic differences in something like Jazz - Jazz
(at 
least a large part of it) is based on taking pre-existing chord
progressions 
and improvising new material over them. Mozart wouldn't have thought of a 
chord progression first. It was more about harmonizing a melody (which I'm

sure some Jazz composers do as well when starting from scratch
so-to-speak)

>
> But the Berklee style of analysis is geared for that very purpose from
the 
> ground up.
>

Right - that's my point - purpose. Analysis versus, let's call it 
"construction". Berklee certainly allows you to analyze something, then
use 
that analysis to construct.

In a sense, we just analyze, though to some degree we can "reconstruct".

Steve