On Mar 10, 12:49 pm, "Steve Latham" <llat...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@[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.
And exactly how does the Berklee system reconstruct the rhythm in its
functional analysis?
>
> > 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)
>
Here you are changing the point of reference with the two genres. You
are using the composed piece itself of the classical music for one
side of the equation. But you are using not the composed Jazz tune,
but the improvisation on that composition as the other side of the
equation. They are two different things. Like comparing a Cadenza to
the head of a Jazz tune. They are simply not the same thing.
If you want to talk about the improvisation part of a typical Jazz
tune, you must include the entire tune and that would take you into
the classical form of a Chaconne or Ground Bass, depending on the way
the improvisation went. When shown in this light, the way it is on
real gigs, you must use different examples as the Mozart example would
not stand up. If Mozart was writing a Chaconne, he would of necessity
be starting with a set of chords and then writing a melody. If he also
wrote the exposition melody, then he would be doing the same function
as the Jazz musician if the Jazz musician wrote the tune and then
played the improvisation. It becomes a totally different thing than a
comparison of the usefulness of either system being 'better' than the
other.
There are no facts in that paragraph that shows that either is any
better or worse than the other for composition. And taken in the
context of a Chaconne, the Functional Harmonic of either can remind
the improviser of the chords. The one that presents the material in
the best, clearest and most efficient would probably be the one that
would better serve that particular musician at that point.
>
>
> > 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".
What you mean "we" white man! (lol) This may be true for you, but it
is certainly not universal. There is nothing in any Berklee or any
other system of analysis that provides more information that is useful
to "reconstructing" the music. Even you have stated that they are both
providing the same basic information so how can you possibly conclude
that one could reconstruct better than the other? Without some sort of
evidence that would show how this is done, it is simply an empty
statement of opinion and is by no means any kind of valid
conclusion.
LJS
>
> Steve
|
