The Strange Case of the Roman Numerals
Steve Latham
As both a product of the American Collegiate system and an educator at an
American University who has studied and taught Music Theory, I will share my
observations:
In general, the current "standard", if we may call it that, among American
Universities that are offering traditional music degrees that require
students to take Theory courses at the undergraduate, graduate, and to some
degree, post-graduate levels, and that use texts by American publishers
authored by respected educators/theorists in the field or from other
Universities such as those by Gauldin, Kostka/Payne, Piston, etc. is to use
a "case-sensitive" Roman Numeral analysis system.
Roman Numerals are used for Functional, Tertian-based harmonies.
"Names" are used for Functional, non-Tertian-based harmonies.
Either may be used for non-Functional harmonies, based on the context.
The "case-sensitive" system is as follows:
UC - Major triad.
LC - minor triad.
UC with "+", Augmented triad.
LC with "o", diminished triad.
7th chords are as follows:
UC - Major 7th and Dominant 7th (and by extension, 9ths, etc.)
LC - minor 7th, and half- and fully-diminished 7ths (and 9ths, etc.)
Obviously, any alterations, such as a Dominant 7th chord with a raised 5th,
would produce an Augmented triad portion of the harmony, and thus an UC RN
would be used.
The symbols are obvious, except that X7 is a Dominant 7th (or Mm7), and XM7
is a Major 7th.
In a Major key, the diatonic Roman Numerals are:
I ii iii IV V vi viio
IM7 ii7 iii7 IVM7 V7 vi7 vii%7
In a minor key, they are:
i iio III iv [IV] [v] V VI [VII] viio
i7 ii%7 IIIM7 iv7 [IV7] [v7] V7 VIM7 [VII7] viio7
(#vi%7 also appears, though rarely in triad form)
Note: bracketed numbers represent those chords that can be created with
raised 6 and lowered 7 - lowered 6 and raised 7 are considered to be the
"normal" state for harmonies.
9th chords are generally (comparatively) rare, and 11ths and 13ths virtually
non-existent, though the system can be logically extended to include them,
and the patterns above remain the same. In the case of altered 9ths, the
alteration is shown on the symbol.
THESE ARE THE DIATONIC CHORDS. There are no others! There is no I7 (like C E
G Bb as I) in a Major or Minor key in this system. All other chords come
from three places: Another key (Secondary key), another Mode (parallel
mode), or are regularly occurring functional Chromatic, non-Tertian
sonorities. All other harmonies are typically non-functional (and it should
be noted that numbered chords can also appear in non-functional roles).
Secondary chords use the same numbering system, except the convention is to
show them a "X/Y" where X is the name of the chord in secondary key, and Y
is the tonic chord of the secondary key. V7/ii for example.
Mode mixture uses the RN of the chord from the parallel mode. For example,
using a minor i chord in a Major key gives you "i", rather than the normal
"I".
Because some chords, when borrowed, appear on what is a lowered or raised
scale degree, b or # is prefixed to the RN to show that the ROOT of the
chord has been altered from its normal state. Thus, in a Major key, mode
mixture (borrowed chords) available are:
i, iio, bIII, iv, v, bVI, bVII
im7, ii%7, bIIIM7, iv7, IV7, v7, bVIM7, bVII7, viio7.
In minor,
I (IV, V, viio, etc. are already in the minor system). ii is possible,
though rare. Any other chords, such as IM7, IVM7, etc. are seen as a switch
back to the Major mode (again, since so many "borrowed" Major chords are
already in the minor system) and not necessarily borrowing.
The only remaining chords are non-Tertian sonorities. Older theorists
treated these as tertian forms (or likened them to tertian forms) but newer
conventions are treating these more from their historical origins. As a
result, they give them "names" rather than numbers.
Neapolitan Sixth - N
Augmented Sixth - +6, Italian +6, French +6, and German +6.
Formerly, N has been called "bII", and the +6 family seen as inversions of
II and IV chords.
All chords can appear in secondary contexts. For example, the following
progression, in C, might appear:
C - Ab/C - F#o7/C - G7/B, in which case the RN would be I - N6/V -
viio4/2/V - V6/5 (thus we have a secondary Neapolitan, and a secondary chord
with mode mixture).
Chords that appear in non-functional contexts are put in parentheses. There
are a few common "embellishing chords" with non-functional uses, and they
are typically named simply as what they would be - (iii6), etc. Some, where
roots are unimportant (or even undeterminable), have names instead - (cto7 -
common tone diminished 7).
There are a few other chords that arise out of chromatic motion, or have
other voice-leading origins, that appear in chordal contexts and are felt to
deserve Roman Numeral status because of their functional importance.
V+ (V+7, etc.)
Vsubs6 (V7subs6)
IVadd6 (ivadd6)
These are pretty specific chords and typically only appear on these scale
degrees.
Beyond that, other chords are seen as pushing beyond the boundaries of CPP
Tonality. For example, "II" in Major, as a non-functional major chord built
on scale degree 2 is so rare as to be considered astylisitic. However, since
the system is clear, it does tell us what it is: A Major Triad (UC RN) built
on scale degree 2 (II). If we wanted to build a minor triad on raised scale
degree 4, it would simply be #iv.
The problem comes in when other systems come into play, as we've obviously
discovered. For people who call a major chord built on scale degree 2 "II"
just because the system allows, may not understand (or be telling us in
their analysis) that the chord has a secondary origin. Likewise, calling C
Eb F# A "#ivo7" in C major tells us "what it is", but not what it's function
is. Normally, it would be a viio7/V, but in this context, it is a chromatic
embellishing chord. Because of it's different function, and it's "non-chord"
origin we call it a common tone diminished 7 (cto7).
So there's a disconnect in the way many people now use RN to "tell you what
to play" and the way CPP tonal analysis uses those numbers to describe
functionality. Additionally, because many contemporary educators are trying
to reinforce those differences, the system is moving away from "less
informative" symbology to more "descriptive" symbology - or, at least it's
more descriptive in the sense that once you learn what a symbol means, you
understand all of the functional information it conveys.
It seems to me, other styles are trying to move to a "more generic" system,
to make the RNs useful for both for analysis and playing from.
Unfortunately, this is at odds with the original intent of the system and
obviously, because older systems exist as well, we end up with very similar
symbols being used in close proximity to each other.
So above is the system most widely used in American Universities and in most
texts I encounter, except for when people are speaking generically (using IV
to mean iv, IV, key of IV, etc. which these authors also do), or in older
texts where a "less informative" set of symbology was used (the reader is
expected to "assume" much more).
Best,
Steve
Joey Goldstein
>
> The problem comes in when other systems come into play, as we've obviously
> discovered. For people who call a major chord built on scale degree 2 "II"
> just because the system allows, may not understand (or be telling us in
> their analysis) that the chord has a secondary origin.
The Berklee system, the one that I have been calling the "norm' within
the jazz community (because that has been my experience...and i'm sorry
if this appears arrogant to LJS...but this has been my experience with
most jazz musicians I have encountered within the 35 years or so of my
career in jazz) would use "II7" only in a passage where calling it V7/V
doesn't make sense, as within a piece based on constant structure
harmony which is a technique of post-CPP origins.
I.e. Just because we're using UC/RN does not mean that we do not have
the tools to denote harmonic function within an harmonic analysis.
Within the world of CPP analytic devices there is no way at all to label
the chords in a passage of constant structure harmony except as
"mistakes". I see the way we do things as being a modern modification of
the way you did things, and it is designed to accommodate for modern
devices that your system has no way of dealing with, like constant
structure harmony, tritone substitute dominant chords, and the blues.
I'm sorry if that seems arrogant to anybody out there, but that's the
way I see it.
But sometimes we might use UC/RN outside of an harmonic analysis, just
for transposition purposes too. Eg. II7 to denote what is really
functioning as V7/V.
Generally, as far as using UC/RN within an harmonic analysis is
concerned, we simply spell out the chord quality with more text.
Imaj7 vs I7
IIm7 vs ii7
IIIm7 vs iii7
IVmaj7 vs IV7
etc.
This system helps us jazz idiots from getting confused because the
functional harmony designations more closely resemble the familiar chord
symbols we will use on the bandstand.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
Sorry. vs IM7
> IIm7 vs ii7
> IIIm7 vs iii7
> IVmaj7 vs IV7
vs IVM7
Hans Aberg
> The "case-sensitive" system is as follows:
>
> UC - Major triad.
> LC - minor triad.
> UC with "+", Augmented triad.
> LC with "o", diminished triad.
>
> 7th chords are as follows:
> UC - Major 7th and Dominant 7th (and by extension, 9ths, etc.)
> LC - minor 7th, and half- and fully-diminished 7ths (and 9ths, etc.)
> Obviously, any alterations, such as a Dominant 7th chord with a raised 5th,
> would produce an Augmented triad portion of the harmony, and thus an UC RN
> would be used.
>
> The symbols are obvious, except that X7 is a Dominant 7th (or Mm7), and XM7
> is a Major 7th.
>
> In a Major key, the diatonic Roman Numerals are:
>
> I ii iii IV V vi viio
> IM7 ii7 iii7 IVM7 V7 vi7 vii%7
>
> In a minor key, they are:
> i iio III iv [IV] [v] V VI [VII] viio
> i7 ii%7 IIIM7 iv7 [IV7] [v7] V7 VIM7 [VII7] viio7
> (#vi%7 also appears, though rarely in triad form)
Thanks for the info Steve.
Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as
he feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman
numerals I II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
If he wants to indicate a chord that is not within the scale, he suffixes
symbol name in C major
M major 7th C E G B
x dominant 7th C E G Bb
m minor 7th C Eb G Bb
/o half-diminished 7th C Eb Gb Bb
o diminished 7th C Eb Gb A
where /o is a slashed o.
In addition, he prefixes sharp # or flat b to indicate transposed chords.
Hans Aberg
Tom K.
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1KGxj.37304$T8.32866@trnddc03...
>
> Chords that appear in non-functional contexts are put in parentheses.
> There are a few common "embellishing chords" with non-functional uses, and
> they are typically named simply as what they would be - (iii6), etc. Some,
> where roots are unimportant (or even undeterminable), have names instead -
> (cto7 - common tone diminished 7).
>
Great summary of current U.S. practice, Steve.
I'd only add that the non-functional chords should also have a label such as
passing chord (PC), neighboring chord (NC), etc. - similar to non-chord
tones.
Tom K.
Steve Latham
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fq7f2b$i29$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Steve Latham wrote:
>>
> The Berklee system, the one that I have been calling the "norm' within the
> jazz community (because that has been my experience...and i'm sorry if
> this appears arrogant to LJS...but this has been my experience with most
> jazz musicians I have encountered within the 35 years or so of my career
> in jazz) would use "II7" only in a passage where calling it V7/V doesn't
> make sense, as within a piece based on constant structure harmony which is
> a technique of post-CPP origins.
We too would have to describe such a usage similarly. Debussy's (among
others) planing comes to mind (planing would be what you call constant
structure harmony)
> I.e. Just because we're using UC/RN does not mean that we do not have the
> tools to denote harmonic function within an harmonic analysis.
Didn't mean to imply anything of the sort. And in fact, it seems that you
use quite a bit of the same symbology, with extensions to cover things that
don't fit into that system, which makes perfect sense.
>
> Within the world of CPP analytic devices there is no way at all to label
> the chords in a passage of constant structure harmony except as
> "mistakes".
Not true. But we do make a distinction between functional and
non-functional, as do you it seems. So is we saw:
C - Dm7 - D#o7 - C/E we would simply call the Dm7 and D#o7 "embelllishing"
or "linear" chords. In most cases, we would analyze:
I (ii7 cto7) I6
In some instance, the quality of the chord might be put:
I (m7 o7) I6 (but only under the notation where the context would be
clear that these are different chords)
or
some might use #iio7 knowing as long as it's in the "non-functional"
parentheses, it won't be understood as a secondary dominant or anything.
I see the way we do things as being a modern modification of
> the way you did things, and it is designed to accommodate for modern
> devices that your system has no way of dealing with, like constant
> structure harmony, tritone substitute dominant chords, and the blues. I'm
> sorry if that seems arrogant to anybody out there, but that's the way I
> see it.
I agree with you. Our system has no way of dealing with it, largely because
the music it was designed to deal with didn't use those things, so there was
no need for the descriptor. What bothers me Joey, is not the adaptation or
extension to deal with things beyond the "original" sytem, but the misuse of
things from the earlier system. I don't think bVI7 should be called a
German+6 any more than I would guess you don't think a Tritone Sub should be
called a Neapolitan (or even Ger+6/I) for example. They are each similar and
related concepts, but I htink those distinctions are important.
>
> Generally, as far as using UC/RN within an harmonic analysis is concerned,
> we simply spell out the chord quality with more text.
> Imaj7 vs I7
> IIm7 vs ii7
> IIIm7 vs iii7
> IVmaj7 vs IV7
> etc.
I think that's reasonable - though as I said to David, extra symbols :-)
>
> This system helps us jazz idiots from getting confused because the
> functional harmony designations more closely resemble the familiar chord
> symbols we will use on the bandstand.
And that there's a very good practical reason for that consistency. Again
though, that's kind of why I see the analysis side of it being "subsumed"
into that Playing side of it.
The good thing is, the system you mention above is obvious enough to prevent
any confusion!!!!
The problem with others, like all UC, is that we might note be able to tell
whether someone's "II" is,
D-F-A
D-F-Ab
D-F#-A (as CSH)
D-F#-A (as V/V)
I bet the Berklee cats, or the other authors realized that this could cause
a problem, so they appended the already widely use chord symbol qualities
into the RN. Makes good sense. I think it's easier for use to translate
both ways than someone who's used to the all UC system.
Best,
Steve
Steve Latham
>> Generally, as far as using UC/RN within an harmonic analysis is
>> concerned, we simply spell out the chord quality with more text.
>> Imaj7 vs I7
>
> Sorry. vs IM7
That's what I thought - you had me freaked out there for a second, but I
figured it was a typo based on previous discussions!
Steve
Steve Latham
"Hans Aberg" <haberg_...@math.su.se> wrote in message
news:fq7fjj$bdc$1...@aioe.org...
> Thanks for the info Steve.
>
> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as he
> feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman numerals I
> II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
What does he do about 9th chords, or things like C6???
>
> If he wants to indicate a chord that is not within the scale, he suffixes
> symbol name in C major
> M major 7th C E G B
> x dominant 7th C E G Bb
Wait, you mean D7 in C would be IIx ???
That's pretty far out there!
Steve
Steve Latham
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:P6qdnYW9a6NM1Fra...@comcast.com...
Thanks Tom - I realized I had forgotten this after I posted. I do like those
that differentiate between various linear chords by linear function. I think
I recall things like "Neighbor +6" or "Passing o7" which I think is far more
descriptive than lumping them under other groupings.
Steve
Joey Goldstein
>
> The good thing is, the system you mention above is obvious enough to prevent
> any confusion!!!!
Exactly.
Unless you're LJS.
Steve Latham
> Steve Latham wrote:
>>
>> The good thing is, the system you mention above is obvious enough to
>> prevent any confusion!!!!
>
> Exactly.
> Unless you're LJS.
What does LJS mean? Are you making up new abbreviations? Joey, please
provide a reference other than Wikipedia for your abbreviations. LOL.
Hans Aberg
>> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as he
>> feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman numerals I
>> II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
>
> What does he do about 9th chords, or things like C6???
One can add intervals, by subscripting say a "+6", same as "add",
meaning that the sixth is not normally there and should be added,
subsuming that the 7th should be deleted. If he uses notation such as
"#7", "##7", "#3", it means an intervals that is already there should be
changed (suspension).
>
>> If he wants to indicate a chord that is not within the scale, he suffixes
>> symbol name in C major
>> M major 7th C E G B
>> x dominant 7th C E G Bb
>
>
> Wait, you mean D7 in C would be IIx ???
Yes he writes out explicitly on p. 20 (vol. 1)
IIx D F# A C
> That's pretty far out there!
I think it derives directly from the figured bass, using the standard
principle to just write out what is necessary given the context. So, II
in C gives the chord D F A C, so no extra symbol is needed, but D7 one
must writes something: IIx.
I looked in Hindemith, "Traditional Harmony", and he just writes out the
intervals, figured bass style. For 9th he does not write out the 7th.
The symbols M or m are not needed, as he always changes the key.
Hans Aberg
paramucho
wrote:
>Just for a bit of clarification:
>
>As both a product of the American Collegiate system and an educator at an
>American University who has studied and taught Music Theory, I will share my
>observations:
>
>In general, the current "standard", if we may call it that, among American
>Universities that are offering traditional music degrees that require
>students to take Theory courses at the undergraduate, graduate, and to some
>degree, post-graduate levels, and that use texts by American publishers
>authored by respected educators/theorists in the field or from other
>Universities such as those by Gauldin, Kostka/Payne, Piston, etc. is to use
>a "case-sensitive" Roman Numeral analysis system.
Are you now sure about Piston? You weren't certain in an earlier post.
The DeVoto edition that I have, from 1983, is not case-sensitive.
I'm not sure why you make this qualification:
and that use texts by American publishers authored by respected
educators/theorists in the field or from other Universities such
as those by Gauldin, Kostka/Payne, Piston, etc.
Are you saying that there is a discernable group of institutions that
don't fit that category or are you saying that you just aren't sure?
<Snip of a great summary. Many thanks.>
>It seems to me, other styles are trying to move to a "more generic" system,
>to make the RNs useful for both for analysis and playing from.
>Unfortunately, this is at odds with the original intent of the system and
>obviously, because older systems exist as well, we end up with very similar
>symbols being used in close proximity to each other.
You are claiming some form of legitimatinb lineage here. In fact, its
well-known that the "original intent" of roman numbering could only be
described as anti-functional. You might find this article on the
history of the topic (and on the lack of a common definition of
"functional") illuminating.
http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.95.1.3/mto.95.1.3.kopp.art.html
David Kopp's article gets at the heart of the functional/labeling
distinction and points out that the term "functional" remains largely
undefined (and explicitly mentions Kostka/Payne in this regard).
Begin Quote
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
[1] Harmonic function is a term which, although it may seem to
express a simple and obvious concept, has grown uncommonly vague
through use. Loosely put, function signifies harmonic meaning or
action. But notions of what meaning and action constitute may
take many forms. In our time, any search for a commonly accepted
definition of function will be frustrated, for the meaning of the
word has proved adaptable to support a wide variety of statements
concerning harmony. For example, the harmonic meaning of chords
is often attributed to each diatonic scale degree and their
variants, serving as the roots of a variety of chords.(1) Thus we
may say that A-flat major functions as III in F minor, as V in
D-flat major, and as flat-VI in C major. The term function may
also be used in a stronger sense to signify a concept of the
intrinsic potentiality of a given chord to progress in a
particular way or to a particular chord; thus we say that V
expresses function in its tendency to progress to I. We may use
the term to group chords with similar syntactic behavior, e. g.
saying that II and IV often express similar function. We may link
it to the primacy of tonic, dominant, and subdominant in the key.
Or we may associate function with specific outcomes rather than
with unitary scale degree identity.(2)The term may be associated
with harmonic tendencies of individual chord tones as well as
chords.(3) It may be correlated with phrase-based syntactic
meaning.(4) The function concept has even been identified with a
prolongational scale-step notion.(5) We often use the term
function to denote meaningfulness or meaningful relation within a
key, as opposed to "color," which signifies a relation without
meaning in the tonal system. All of these and many more
contrasting notions of chord identity, potentiality, and activity
may be invoked by the same term. Yet we use it as if its meaning
were fixed and intuitively evident. None of the harmony textbooks
cited above, for example, treats function as a concept to be
defined in its own right or contains an index entry for the term.
==================================================
1. "Each scale degree has its part in the scheme of tonality, its
tonal function." Walter Piston and Mark DeVoto, *Harmony*, fourth
edition, New York: Norton (1976), p. 49.
2. "The IV has three common functions. In some cases, IV proceeds
to a I chord...More frequently, IV is linked with ii...(it may
also go) directly to V..." Stefan Kostka and Dorothy Payne,
*Tonal Harmony*, second edition. New York: Alfred A. Knopf
(1989), p. 103.
3. This approach is used by Daniel Harrison in his recent
*Harmonic Function in Chromatic Music: A Renewed Dualist Theory
and an Account of its Precedents*, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (1994).
4. "In the Kuhnau, the tonic functions first as an *opening
tonic* At the end it is a goal of motion, thus a *closing
tonic*." Edward Aldwell and Carl Schachter, *Harmony and Voice
Leading*, 2nd. ed., New York: Harcourt, Brace, and Jovanovich
(1989), p. 84.
5. Willi Apel, *The Harvard Dictionary of Music*, 2nd. ed.,
Cambridge: Harvard University Press (1969), article on function.
==================================================
[2] Furthermore, we commonly associate an idea of function with
the thought of many theorists of common-practice tonality, and
regularly identify the presence of "function" in theory which
significantly predates the introduction of the formal concept.
What we call function in these theories is not always the same
thing, nor is it always what we may think it to be. It is a
familiar idea that one's view of the past can be affected by
one's own manner of thinking (6); familiar terms may particularly
obscure. In the space of this short essay I cannot propose either
to trace either the development of the functional idea through
the history of theory or to identify all the theorists to whose
work we attribute function. Instead, I will restrict my inquiry
to an attempt to isolate and evaluate the aspect of three major
theories of harmony customarily associated with the function
concept, one each from the beginning, middle, and end of the
common-practice period. I hope to show how different this aspect
is in each case, and to argue that the use of the same term to
describe each unduly denatures its effectiveness.
==================================================
6. Thomas Christensen has examined this issue in "Music Theory
and its Histories," in *Music Theory and the Exploration of the
Past*, ed. Hatch and Bernstein, Chicago: University of Chicago
Press (1993).
==================================================
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
End Quote
Perhaps the key sentence in the excerpt is this:
None of the harmony textbooks cited above, for example, treats
function as a concept to be defined in its own right or contains an
index entry for the term.
putting "function" in the category of "a merely interesting notion", a
little like "tonality". Without a meaningful definition of "function"
the distinction between the two approachs, so-called functional and
mere labelling, largely becomes one of notation.
Coming back to "original intent", the German Wikipedia article
provides a good overview of the "original intent" of "stufentheorie",
aka, scale-step theory, as the work of Weber and Sechter. In the
example they show roman numbers simply labeling the scale-steps
(all-UC). The functional analysis comes in the second line, and is
Riemannian.
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stufentheorie_%28Harmonik%29
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bild:Stufentheorie8.PNG
Thus, I dispute your historical depiction of "original intent" and
thus the legitimation you propose of your preferred use of roman
numbering.
Indeed, historically, theories of music are seen shape-shift and
morph. The local norm you refer to has the luxury of being focussed on
an archaic, and thus unchanging area of music. Newer forms of music
require new tools and new approaches. That has always been the
challenge for music theory which, because of changing styles, has
never had the luxury of becoming dogma. The historical habit has been
to reuse and reshape older terminology to new trends rather than to
invent complete new systems of terminology for each new generation.
Thus, its *changing* usage which has the legitimation of an historical
argument.
Of course, any argument regarding the functional/labeling distinction,
is quite separate to the all-UC versus UC/LC distinction. All-UC and
UC/LC have both been used for so-called functional usage.
>So above is the system most widely used in American Universities and in most
>texts I encounter, except for when people are speaking generically (using IV
>to mean iv, IV, key of IV, etc. which these authors also do), or in older
>texts where a "less informative" set of symbology was used (the reader is
>expected to "assume" much more).
I would qualify your assertion as "most widely used in American
Universities [when used to teach undergraduate theory]." Even in that
restricted domain I note a 2005 article by Ian Quinn, Yale, which
argues explicitly against the UC/LC practice and effectively rebutts
your criticism of "older texts...[where] the reader is expected to
'assume'...
In the example, I have followed Aldwell & Schachter’s practice of
using only capital Roman numerals, and it won’t surprise you to know
that I consider the practice of using cases and other symbols to
distinguish among chord qualities another surefire way to exacerbate
the problems I am discussing. I am unconvinced of the value in
asserting a qualitative relationship between the VII7 chord in major
and the II7 chord in minor; they may sound the same in isolation and
this is what we mean by calling them both half-diminished seventh
chords, but I would prefer that students first attend to the matter
of their scale-degree content...
Ian Quinn, Yale University, 2005
www.amsteg.org/content/docs/smt2005-talk.pdf
Further, a 2003 survey of materials used at a number of listed U.S.
universities (the only survey I could locate) has Aldwell/Schachter
and Kostka/Payne in the top group. As you know, Aldwell/Schacter is an
all-UC text, which hardly supports your broader contention.
http://ntis12.ets.org/onyx/APMusicTheoryCurriculumSurvey.pdf
So, it's not all as cut and dried as your handwaving seemed to
indicate. And, in terms of your initial claim of legitimation in terms
of "respected educators/theorists", I would have thought it would be
useful to have Yale on your side.
Beyond that I don't see UC/LC dominating the other recent theoretical
literature at all -- in fact, if anything I see the opposite. The
examples I found in the 2003 CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF MUSIC THEORY were
all-UC. Grove-online seems to be mostly all-UC (I've seen only one
example of mixed case). So while, it may look like a shining, new,
universal standard from within the recent undergrad teaching
microcosm, from the outside it looks like a local norm that may take
hold over a longer period or which may equally be dispensed with. In
some ways it is a return to the notation that Prout was using around
1900. That was succeeded by all-UC. My wild guess is that the next
flavor-of-the-month will be a Neo-Riemannian approach (which has never
lost its grip in Germany).
Thus, while there may be a recognisable recent, local trend in
teaching undergraduates, the broader, unqualified claim you make
regarding UC/LC:
In general, the current "standard", if we may call it that, among
American Universities that are offering traditional music degrees
that require students to take Theory courses at the undergraduate,
graduate, and to some degree, post-graduate levels...
is not substantiated. So, "Yes, *perhaps*", for undergraduate theory
classes, but "No" as a "current 'standard' among American unis, in the
broader sense beyond undergraduate teaching. And "No" to your attempt
to historically legitimate the so-called functional usage of roman
numbering.
Certainly, you are free to use your preferred approach in teaching
this archaic music, but you can't claim a much wider applicablity than
that field or that your teaching model is somehoworother the
legitimate form of usage and that other approaches are in some sense
inappropriate.
LJS
Try reading the posts. Yes, a lot of them do this. What part of this
don't you understand. It is a translation of the Alphabet system. Some
even force this into a descriptive kind of analysis. I gave you that
from the beginning, but you insist that this is the standard and
simply it is not and bogus citations that come from your personal
community will not change that. You can change a Fake Book from Alpha
to RN and it may be easier for "Jazz Musicians" (your thoughts not
mine) to understand than the UC/LC. The fact is that the UC/LC is
actually simpler to use and there is no evidence in MY circles that
"Jazz Musicians" have any problem understanding the UC/LC. They even
can add the extensions that have evolved since the end of the limited
CPP period that is used by many in this group.
The point, that you seem to be missing, is that the 'standard' that
you are talking about is limiting for the musician that thinks that
there may be a bit more to Jazz than is taught in many of the "Jazz
theory" books. Especially the ones that are elaborations of chord
charts and scales charts with little or no real theory to assist the
student with their choices. Being as the UC/LC can work for the
entire tonal spectrum much easier than any other system yet devised
and in general use, it is limiting for the Jazz musician in that he is
led to exclude the advantages to the UC/LC that can be gained by
understanding a larger number of modern tonal and modal musical
concepts.
I don't think that Jazz musicians are of a lower level of musicians
than Classical musicians as you seem to imply with your statements.
Modern Jazz is more and more classical and 20th C in concept and even
21st C in concept every day. In a time when Jazz and Classical
musicians (since you seem dead set on separating them!) are opening up
their boundaries to revert to suggesting that Jazz musicians need to
use an intermediate step of learning to spell the chords before they
can get on to analysis is ludicrous. Maybe you have missed the change,
but Jazz musicians and Classical musicians are equal in their ability.
Jazz musicians don't have to take a back seat to anyone. They can and
do learn theory in the same way and from the same music. The nice
thing is that they can and do adjust their language to help the
younger and less educated musicians when necessary by modifying their
language to communicate with those that do not understand the UC/LC
system. This has been one of the more pleasant relationships that Jazz
musicians may have had over the years in their quest to spread and
share their ideas. I hope it continues. But I believe that i t is the
responsibility of the educators to show the students the more complete
system rather than to teach the student the system that is more
limited.
LJS
LJS
I thought you said good bye! I understood your notation back in the
early 60s! You just can't resist making unsubstantiated statements!
lol
LJS
Joey Goldstein
>
> Try reading the posts.
No. You write too much and don't say anything.
> but you insist that this is the standard and
> simply it is not
It is within the general jazz community.
I live in this community.
You do not.
You've proven time and time again that you know nothing about what it is
that jazz musicians do.
> You can change a Fake Book from Alpha
> to RN and it may be easier for "Jazz Musicians" (your thoughts not
> mine)
That makes transposition easier, that's all. It has nothing to do with
analysis. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
In Nashville they do it with Arabic numerals.
So what?
> The fact is that the UC/LC is
> actually simpler to use
No it isn't.
It requires more training in analysis before you can even understand
what the symbols mean. It's like some kind of code or secret language
compared to what I'm talking about.
> and there is no evidence in MY circles that
> "Jazz Musicians" have any problem understanding the UC/LC.
I never said they did. What I said is that most of us prefer to use UC.
> The point, that you seem to be missing, is that the 'standard' that
> you are talking about is limiting for the musician
Not at all.
> that thinks that
> there may be a bit more to Jazz than is taught in many of the "Jazz
> theory" books.
Any jazz musician who wishes to study classical analysis techniques is
perfectly welcome to do so. The main difference, outside of all the
banned progressions in CPP theory, is that we don't deal with the voice
leading in any sort of a strict way, if at all. Sure we need to study
voice leading, but our "rules" are much more relaxed.
But, remember that for a jazz player these harmonies are just imagined
until someone goes to play the tune. Classical analysis deals only with
the analysis of music that has already been written, or is about to be
written, note-for-note. I.e. Much more depends on the actual voice
leading in a classical analysis. The techniques used in jazz harmony
books take this into account, and that's part of the reason they use the
labels and the symbols they use.
But mostly, the type of analytical labeling I'm talking came about as a
reaction against the kind of analytical labeling that you're talking
about. Jazz theorists had an opportunity to do things differently, and
they took it. Nah, nah, nah, nah nah.
> I don't think that Jazz musicians are of a lower level of musicians
> than Classical musicians as you seem to imply with your statements.
We are of a much lower order analytically.
We don't really need to analyse music much at all.
What we need is to be able to hear it and to be able to play what we hear.
And generally, IMO, this puts us at a higher level than most classical
musicians.
You seem to value analysis. We value music making.
Made any music I can hear lately?
> Modern Jazz is more and more classical and 20th C in concept and even
> 21st C in concept every day. In a time when Jazz and Classical
> musicians (since you seem dead set on separating them!) are opening up
> their boundaries to revert to suggesting that Jazz musicians need to
> use an intermediate step of learning to spell the chords before they
> can get on to analysis is ludicrous.
We need to spell and play chords so that we can play tunes.
We need to play tunes, from day 1, so that we can play with others and
so that our ears and musicianship will develop. Anything that gets a
novice player onto the bandstand as quickly as possible is a good thing,
a very good thing. You'd have a poor young jazz student take 3 years of
theory before he could play with anybody.
This LC thing with you appears to be some sort of fetish.
It's really odd.
Joey Goldstein
> I understood your notation back in the
> early 60s!
You understand nothing.
Steve Latham
"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
news:47c7da84...@freenews.ozemail.com.au...
>
> Are you now sure about Piston? You weren't certain in an earlier post.
> The DeVoto edition that I have, from 1983, is not case-sensitive.
Yes, you are correct, it's all UC.
>
> I'm not sure why you make this qualification:
>
> and that use texts by American publishers authored by respected
> educators/theorists in the field or from other Universities such
> as those by Gauldin, Kostka/Payne, Piston, etc.
>
> Are you saying that there is a discernable group of institutions that
> don't fit that category or are you saying that you just aren't sure?
I'm saying that there are commuity colleges that use off-the-wall texts, and
universities that have professors who have written their own "texts" (course
paks) or who've been influenced by a certain publisher, etc.
>
> [1] Harmonic function is a term which, although it may seem to
> express a simple and obvious concept, has grown uncommonly vague
> through use.
Actually, if someone thinks it is simple and obvious, it's not. So he's got
a bad thesis to start.
Loosely put, function signifies harmonic meaning or
> action. But notions of what meaning and action constitute may
> take many forms.
Yes, well understood.
In our time, any search for a commonly accepted
> definition of function will be frustrated, for the meaning of the
> word has proved adaptable to support a wide variety of statements
> concerning harmony. For example, the harmonic meaning of chords
> is often attributed to each diatonic scale degree and their
> variants, serving as the roots of a variety of chords.(1) Thus we
> may say that A-flat major functions as III in F minor, as V in
> D-flat major, and as flat-VI in C major.
Right, function is context-sensitive.
>
> None of the harmony textbooks cited above, for example, treats
> function as a concept to be defined in its own right or contains an
> index entry for the term.
So he's crying because it's not a simple definition. Sounds like LJS.
I'm sorry functionality is beyond the reach of this author. Maybe he'll get
it one day.
>
> Thus, I dispute your historical depiction of "original intent" and
> thus the legitimation you propose of your preferred use of roman
> numbering.
I mean the original intent was for analysis, not performance.
>
> Indeed, historically, theories of music are seen shape-shift and
> morph. The local norm you refer to has the luxury of being focussed on
> an archaic, and thus unchanging area of music.
Yes, exactly! That's the whole freakin point!
Newer forms of music
> require new tools and new approaches.
Yes, aboslutely. As do olde froms of music in fact.
>
> I would qualify your assertion as "most widely used in American
> Universities [when used to teach undergraduate theory]."
Fine, it was implied.
>
> the problems I am discussing. I am unconvinced of the value in
> asserting a qualitative relationship between the VII7 chord in major
> and the II7 chord in minor; they may sound the same in isolation and
> this is what we mean by calling them both half-diminished seventh
> chords, but I would prefer that students first attend to the matter
> of their scale-degree content...
> Ian Quinn, Yale University, 2005
> www.amsteg.org/content/docs/smt2005-talk.pdf
If you give a student C Eb G, and ask them to identify it, and they put "I",
we as educators do not know if the student actually knows that the triad is
minor rather than major. That's the problem with the system. Most students
can luck out and get the scale degree a triad is built on to get the numeral
right - it's an entirely different case for them to differentiate between
half and fully diminshed 7ths, or any other type of chord for that matter.
So if he is unconvinced, I wonder what kind of students he's turning out?
What way does one have to check that a student actually knows whether the
chord on paper is Major or minor. Obviously, there are other reasons for
using them, but, in this case, his being unconvinced seems more a matter of
lack of understanding than anything.
>
> is not substantiated. So, "Yes, *perhaps*", for undergraduate theory
> classes, but "No" as a "current 'standard' among American unis, in the
> broader sense beyond undergraduate teaching. And "No" to your attempt
> to historically legitimate the so-called functional usage of roman
> numbering.
Let's be careful here though, many people do not use UC/LC distinction in
certain contexts. When speaking generically (for instance, when describing
12 bar blues) people will use UC even for a minor blues. So in many cases,
(even in those texts that do use UC/LC distinctions) the "generic" UC is
fine for use, so naturally, you're going to see more of it.
>
> Certainly, you are free to use your preferred approach in teaching
> this archaic music, but you can't claim a much wider applicablity than
> that field or that your teaching model is somehoworother the
> legitimate form of usage and that other approaches are in some sense
> inappropriate.
Where do you teach?
And I never said it was for anything other than archaic (in this case, CPP
Tonality) music. Other systems must be used in other contexts.
Steve
LJS
Oh Joey, you are so articulate and informative.
What part of good bye did I misunderstand?
LJS
paramucho
wrote:
>
>"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
>news:47c7da84...@freenews.ozemail.com.au...
>
>> [1] Harmonic function is a term which, although it may seem to
>> express a simple and obvious concept, has grown uncommonly vague
>> through use.
>
>Actually, if someone thinks it is simple and obvious, it's not. So he's got
>a bad thesis to start.
*He* doesn't think it's "simple and obvious", he's saying that it
might "seem" to be such. The whole point of the article is to question
the view that its simple and obvious. You couldn't have gotten it more
wrong.
>Loosely put, function signifies harmonic meaning or
>> action. But notions of what meaning and action constitute may
>> take many forms.
"Loosely put" is not a definition. His point is that these authors,
who all use the "functional" notion, do not define the term. The only
possible refutation is to show that they do, or one might try to show
that a definition is not necessary.
>So he's crying because it's not a simple definition. Sounds like LJS.
>
>I'm sorry functionality is beyond the reach of this author. Maybe he'll get
>it one day.
That's a fine, intellectual refutation you've made Steve. Just what
I'd expect from "a product of the American Collegiate system and an
educator at an American University who has studied and taught Music
Theory". If you are willing to work with knowledge that isn't subject
to definition, that's your business, both others feel differently.
I can only assume you didn't take the time to download and read the
article which includes a concept and historical surveys and shows a
detailed knowledge of what people *think* function means. His
intention is not to dispense with the idea of function but rather to
push for "careful definiton and elaboration".
For me it is sufficient to note that, as it stands, "function", is
undefined. You haven't refuted that.
>> Thus, I dispute your historical depiction of "original intent" and
>> thus the legitimation you propose of your preferred use of roman
>> numbering.
>
>I mean the original intent was for analysis, not performance.
The intent now, wherever I see it, is still for analysis. Where do you
see it being used for performance? And don't you see it still being
used for analysis in its non-functional form?
In any case, I take it that you have no objection to non-functional
usage when its used for analysis.
<snip>
> I would qualify your assertion as "most widely used in American
>> Universities [when used to teach undergraduate theory]."
>
>Fine, it was implied.
The language you used made a much broader claim:
In general, the current "standard", if we may call it that, among
American Universities that are offering traditional music degrees...
is to use a "case-sensitive" Roman Numeral analysis system.
And it is naturally to that claim that I responded. But I accept your
qualification.
>> the problems I am discussing. I am unconvinced of the value in
>> asserting a qualitative relationship between the VII7 chord in major
>> and the II7 chord in minor; they may sound the same in isolation and
>> this is what we mean by calling them both half-diminished seventh
>> chords, but I would prefer that students first attend to the matter
>> of their scale-degree content...
>> Ian Quinn, Yale University, 2005
>> www.amsteg.org/content/docs/smt2005-talk.pdf
<snip>
>So if he is unconvinced, I wonder what kind of students he's turning out?
So you're saying that educators should wear rose-colored glasses and
treat what they teach as faith rather than as knowledge to be improved
upon?
<snip>
>> Certainly, you are free to use your preferred approach in teaching
>> this archaic music, but you can't claim a much wider applicablity than
>> that field or that your teaching model is somehoworother the
>> legitimate form of usage and that other approaches are in some sense
>> inappropriate.
>
>
>Where do you teach?
You began your article by legitimating yourself as a product of the
American college system and as an educator and legimated the texts you
referred to as written by "respected educators/theorists" Because I am
neither American, nor a teacher, I looked for information from
American educators and theorists, and found Kopp and Quinn.
Kopp teaches at Boston University. You'll find his impressive resume
here: http://www.bu.edu/cfa/music/faculty/kopp/, which notes that he
has also taught at Harvard and Yale and you'll find a review of his
recent book on Chromatic Transformations here:
http://mto.societymusictheory.org/issues/mto.04.10.1/mto.04.10.1.bass.html
Quinn teaches at Yale http://www.yale.edu/yalemus/people/faculty.html
and edits the Journal For Music Theory http://www.dukeupress.edu/jmt/.
He won the Society for Music Theory's Emerging Scholar Award in 2004.
Your responses to these two respected educators/theorists was childish
rubbish and to treat them as idiots. So much for your capacity for
intellectual debate. And I can only assume that you didn't take the
time to download and read their articles, both of which are
interesting in their own right.
In any case, if you think they're misguided then I suggest you write
to M.T.O. however, I didn't see anything in what you wrote which
refuted their points:
(a) One article points to the difficulties of using UC/LC. I also
noted a survey showing Aldwell/Schachter still in common use,
indicating that there is no universal swing to UC/LC in American
undergraduate teaching, further qualifying your claim. It's not a
"standard."
(b) The other article points out that a surveyed group of textbooks
that teach a "functional" approach to harmony do not define the term.
The only refutation possible here is to point to well-established and
accepted definitions of the term. You haven't done that.
The remaining point concerns the "original intent" of roman numbering,
where you made a long case for "functional" usage. I pointed out that
the opposite was the case, referring to Weber and Sechter. You
responded that by "original intent" you meant "analysis" rather than
"performance". Please show me pop/rock examples of scores where roman
numbering is used for performances purposes. In any case, I assume you
no longer have any objection to the use of roman number "labeling"
when it is used for analysis. Particularly since this was its
"original intent".
So, as a result, your "new standard" for "American universities" has
been trimmed back to a "recent trend" in undergraduate texts and any
claims regarding "functional" usage are not substantiated. As in our
discussion regarding sevenths you have tried to universalize your own
local practice.
(Which reminds me; when I was looking Schoenberg I came across his
definition of sevenths:
In a seventh chord the dissonance usually descends one step to
become the third of fifth of the following harmony, or is held
over to become its octave.
<D C |D C |D--D >
<G E |G A |G A >
<B A |B A |B A >
<E A |E F |E F >
STRUCTURAL FUNCTIONS OF HARMONY, Arnold Schoenberg, p5)
Joey Goldstein
>
> Oh Joey, you are so articulate and informative.
Thank you.
For once you've typed something that makes sense.
And it didn't take you 5000 words to say it.
LJS
> LJS wrote:
>
> > Try reading the posts.
>
> No. You write too much and don't say anything.
Maybe if you read some of them instead of preconceiving what they
said.
>
> > but you insist that this is the standard and
> > simply it is not
>
> It is within the general jazz community.
> I live in this community.
> You do not.
> You've proven time and time again that you know nothing about what it is
> that jazz musicians do.
See, you know nothing of my community. One has to wonder why you
always think that you are the only one that has a life! and that your
circle is the only one around. The only difference with my circles is
that we don't have "mutual admiration societies"!
>
> > You can change a Fake Book from Alpha
> > to RN and it may be easier for "Jazz Musicians" (your thoughts not
> > mine)
>
> That makes transposition easier, that's all. It has nothing to do with
> analysis. Why is this so hard for you to understand?
> In Nashville they do it with Arabic numerals.
> So what?
>
> > The fact is that the UC/LC is
> > actually simpler to use
>
> No it isn't.
> It requires more training in analysis before you can even understand
> what the symbols mean. It's like some kind of code or secret language
> compared to what I'm talking about.
Well, I am sorry that you feel this way. Maybe you should give it a
try again. If you have any trouble with it, I will be happy to help
you to understand it. I don't see what you could find so difficult,
but there are different learning styles. First get the notion of that
early notational system that you said proved to be confusing and
convoluted out of your head. That in itself could be what is holding
you back on seeing the simplicity of the UC/LC notation.
>
> > and there is no evidence in MY circles that
> > "Jazz Musicians" have any problem understanding the UC/LC.
>
> I never said they did. What I said is that most of us prefer to use UC.
Sure. Most in YOUR circle. That is up to you and your circle. That
doesn't make it either Standard or the most efficient, only that it is
the language that you and your friends understand and prefer. I have
many that prefer to use it as well. Mostly because they only have had
jazz theory and never good solid Classical theory foundation. So they
think in Alpha terms and they use this as a bridge. I never said that
it was useless, (that is part of what you miss by not reading things)
I only said that it is not a standard and that it makes it MORE
DIFFICULT (not impossible) to get down to a deeper understanding of
the music.
>
> > The point, that you seem to be missing, is that the 'standard' that
> > you are talking about is limiting for the musician
>
> Not at all.
Well, if you think that the UC/LC is more difficult, it would follow
that you would not see this limitation.
>
> > that thinks that
> > there may be a bit more to Jazz than is taught in many of the "Jazz
> > theory" books.
Again, reading the posts may eliminate some of these silly comments. I
think that I have said the same thing. I have also said that these
same people, in general certainly not all, will not have a great
success if they try to analyze the classical music that is applicable
to jazz. This is my point and only concern. There is one simple (yes,
Joey, it is really not that complicated) way to analyze ALL tonal
music and that is the language that has evolved the most, been in use
the longest and have proven itself and thus the UC/LC is the most
efficient language to use. Just think about it. UC/LC can be used for
both and your UC can only be used for Jazz. Why would you want to
exclude the additional information?
>
> Any jazz musician who wishes to study classical analysis techniques is
> perfectly welcome to do so. The main difference, outside of all the
> banned progressions in CPP theory, is that we don't deal with the voice
> leading in any sort of a strict way, if at all. Sure we need to study
> voice leading, but our "rules" are much more relaxed.
How can you think that way? Yes, it is welcomed to do so, but then he
has to learn a new system and then ranslate the Jazz language to UC/LC
before he can even get started. Why not learn the better one in the
first place?
Then thee is this notion of BANNED PROGRESSIONS!! If this is what you
got out of Classical theory, you missed the boat. It is what a
successful study of Classical Harmony is about. You are taking the
descriptions of specific genres of music as the focus of theory. Well,
it is used that way to some extent. Yes, if you want to write music
that is specific to a certain period or even more specifically to a
composer, yes you can isolate what he did and did not do to sound that
particular way.. This is much like analyzing Louis Armstrong and
realizing why traditional musicians laugh at you when you start off
with Lydian scales and diminished scales when playing the Saints. It
just isn't done in the traditional setting! (BTY, I meant the
universal YOU not you directly)
The problem that you seem to have is that you think that UC/LC
notation stops somewhere around Beethoven. Well, in some strictly
conservative schools it might, but this language is capable of
handling harmony up to the 12 tone serial technique and then has many
uses with all the NEO - styles as well as music from many parts of
the world that use functional harmony. Some schools will not accept
the modifiers that are used in Jazz in their classes. Well, in their
defense (and I don't agree with them!) they are not teaching Jazz and
these symbols take the student away from the subject at hand and only
muddies the waters for studying old style CPP. Once you have finished
with these basic classes and you start to study music that actually
USES the Jazz extensions they SHOULD be accepted. If a school does not
allow the language to grow with the music, then they are just a guilty
of Classical/Jazz prejudice as the Jazz educator that doesn't see the
value of Classical harmony.
MUSIC IS MUSIC. Jazz is a form of music, classical music is a form of
music. They have differences and they have similarities. There are
differences between Bach and Wagner as well as similarities.There are
differences and similarities with Louis Armstrong and Freddie Hubbard.
There are similarities and differences with Beethoven and Bill Evans.
The thing in common with all of them is that they all can be analyzed
using the language of UC/LC. Why would you not want to use the best
language to put all these people into the same perspective?
Voice leading
Well, maybe you don't care much about voice leading, but that,
fortunately is not universal. I know an 80 something year old jazz
player that plays practically ONLY by voice leading and only if
stylistically justified will play the normal block voicing that most
guitar players use as a mater of course. Most great piano players that
I have known and heard thought that voice leading was the most
important part of their harmony. Only beginners play R357 parallel
motion lines! Your rules are more relaxed? You may not be analyzed as
much, and no one may listen to your voice leading (or lack of it) so
often as Beethoven's voice leading was. And Bill Evans had lots of
players studying his voice leading as an example of his style. I think
that the importance of voice leading was strongly emphasized in the
McGeehan book that I wrote about earlier in the 3rd volume that was
about piano voicing and what? oh, yes Voice leading. I am shocked that
you dismiss voice leading as 'relaxed' in the Jazz idiom. I am sure
that there were many composers through out the CPP time that had
relaxed ideas of voice leading as well. I can't name any of them
because their music never quite stood the test of time. (this is why
there were voice leading rules!!) Maybe in your circle, guitar players
are relaxed on voice leading. I don't know. I do know that in my
circles, if there are two players of fairly equal technical ability,
and one just plays chords and the other makes use of good voice
leading, that the one with the voice leading will work and the other
one won't. I hope that I have somehow misunderstood this statement! I
find it hard to believe that you can dismiss voice leading so easily!
The rules may be different, but "relaxed"? I certainly hope this is
not the consensus of you community.
>
> But, remember that for a jazz player these harmonies are just imagined
> until someone goes to play the tune. Classical analysis deals only with
> the analysis of music that has already been written, or is about to be
> written, note-for-note. I.e. Much more depends on the actual voice
> leading in a classical analysis. The techniques used in jazz harmony
> books take this into account, and that's part of the reason they use the
> labels and the symbols they use.
You seem to be forgetting about the composer. I mean of course the
Jazz composer, sometimes referred to as the PLAYER or IMPROVISER.
Because of the necessity of the player to ALSO be a composer, it is
even more necessary that the analysis of the tune be as complete as
possible. Of course, I am talking about Jazz as improvisation, not
Jazz as someone that reads parts in a larger jazz ensemble. Generally
the framework of the tune has in fact already been written as is in
the classical music. Then the roles change and the player has the
additional job of writing the music. This paragraph sounds like there
are more "relaxations" here in addition to voice leading that is taken
into account by the theory books of which you speak. Well, all I can
say to this is that in the musicians that have stood scrutiny and have
passed the test of time, most of these are the ones that did NOT take
these things into account, but rather addressed them and by analysis
and hard work, managed to come up with music that COULD INDEED stand
up to this kind of scrutiny.
>
> But mostly, the type of analytical labeling I'm talking came about as a
> reaction against the kind of analytical labeling that you're talking
> about. Jazz theorists had an opportunity to do things differently, and
> they took it. Nah, nah, nah, nah nah.
Well, I don't think that they ALL took it. Certainly Bill Evans didn't
take it the way you are describing I would think that Chic Corea would
take exception to this kind of analysis of his work. I just saw a very
interesting video on a Herbie Hancock project and I am sure that he
would take offense (or maybe just smile and ignore) this type of
comment about his music. This list could go on and on to practically
any of the established and successful jazz performers and composers. I
am offended by your lack of respect for your the Jazz musicians that
have proven to be complete musicians. Maybe the 'theorist' that you
know think this way, but if I saw this in a teacher that I had a class
in, the class would be over the moment that I discovered this attitude
by the teacher. How can you, as a teacher and an educator, hold Jazz
musicians in such low esteem. This is certainly not the case in any
circle that I would associate myself.
>
> > I don't think that Jazz musicians are of a lower level of musicians
> > than Classical musicians as you seem to imply with your statements.
>
> We are of a much lower order analytically.
> We don't really need to analyse music much at all.
> What we need is to be able to hear it and to be able to play what we hear.
> And generally, IMO, this puts us at a higher level than most classical
> musicians.
> You seem to value analysis. We value music making.
> Made any music I can hear lately?
Maybe you are of a much lower order analytically. This is not the case
of the entire jazz world. Speak for yourself. Your statements are
simply an insult to working musicians in all Jazz idioms. As for my
music? Does that really matter? I don't see what it has to do with
anything. Weather I can live up to the standards that I set for myself
or not has nothing to do with what right or wrong. IF I had the
attitude that I have read from you in this post, I wold certainly not
have any recordings to present. I would not put an inferior product on
the market. I know some that do, but it is deceptive in a way,
although they have to do what they have to do to sell CDs on the gig
and make a living. They don't, however, pretend to be what they are
not and they do generally play the same level on the job as the CD, so
the audience makes their choice and that addressed the ethical
question. But, no, I have been busy teaching and not trying to
rebuild. I know that I am not Bill Evans and I don't claim to be him.
But since I am capable of hearing the difference, I would not want to
front a group and then try to pass it off as such to people that
couldn't tell the difference. That doesn't see to be true by the
statements that I have read above! I am content to listen, study and
be a sideman on gigs to stay a bit into shape after being a rather
successful sideman in so many different genres and having played with
so many top performers in so many different styles.
>
> > Modern Jazz is more and more classical and 20th C in concept and even
> > 21st C in concept every day. In a time when Jazz and Classical
> > musicians (since you seem dead set on separating them!) are opening up
> > their boundaries to revert to suggesting that Jazz musicians need to
> > use an intermediate step of learning to spell the chords before they
> > can get on to analysis is ludicrous.
>
> We need to spell and play chords so that we can play tunes.
> We need to play tunes, from day 1, so that we can play with others and
> so that our ears and musicianship will develop. Anything that gets a
> novice player onto the bandstand as quickly as possible is a good thing,
> a very good thing. You'd have a poor young jazz student take 3 years of
> theory before he could play with anybody.
>
> This LC thing with you appears to be some sort of fetish.
> It's really odd.
Joey, it just isn't that difficult. In fact if presented correctly, it
is easier than dealing with some of the limitations of your system If
your students take 3 years to learn the UC/LC system, please, don't
teach it to them. You would certainly be doing them a disservice. As a
teacher, you should really learn it and then you could teach it to
them in a matter of weeks if not sooner. If it was as difficult as you
profess, the poor young Classical music student would take 3 years
before he could analyze a simple CPP piece and this is just not the
case. You really don't seem to understand this system at all. If it
was me, I would be concerned about that! It JUST ISN"T THAT
COMPLICATED.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
me to respond to you then write less (a lot less) and say what you think
needs to be said. I don't have time for this bullshit. you seem to have
way more time on your hands than me, and that's saying a lot.
And try not to be so wrong all the time.
LJS
I don't expect you to respond. As usual, you just make empty
accusations. You now claim that Jazz musicians are incapable of
learning simple music techniques, that they are relaxed on voice
leading and other such nonsense. Just like everything, say something
derogatory and then claim to be above everything but never a direct
and convincing reason. I don't expect you to respond with any
substance. You never have. I think you have a cut and paste that
states that those that disagree with you are wrong. No reasons, just
wrong.
Well, which of the musicians that I mentioned are relaxed with voice
leading? which ones are not capable of basic classical analysis?
Which one do you think took 3 years to learn the simple language of UC/
LC. Expect you to make a real response to back up your statements?
Ha! I gave up on that quite a while ago! Just same old same old no
info responses from you. Just unfounded ranting and raving and
attacking anyone that disagrees with you! Ha, a real response indeed!
If you can't explain it its all "bullshit". Its your usual MO when you
realize that you can't defend your statements.
LJS
Steve Latham
>
> That's a fine, intellectual refutation you've made Steve. Just what
> I'd expect from "a product of the American Collegiate system and an
> educator at an American University who has studied and taught Music
> Theory".
Exactly, just what *you* would expect.
Steve
Joey Goldstein
>
> I don't expect you to respond.
I don't know who you think you are. Or where you think this is. Or what
you think a usenet discussion group is for. But you really do seem
deluded and overly invested emotionally in all of this. Take a break,
man. Relax.
> As usual, you just make empty
> accusations.
About you being wrong?
Nope, not empty.
> You now claim that Jazz musicians are incapable of
> learning simple music techniques,
When did I ever claim that?
> that they are relaxed on voice
> leading and other such nonsense.
But generally, we are. We are not generally concerned with avoiding
parallels, although we may be aware of them. We are not concerned with
many of the voice leading "rules" that most freshman legit harmony books
are concerned with. We are not as concerned with resolving dissonant
intervals in prescribed ways all the time. We break those rules, often
without hesitation in order to achieve different types of voice leading
effects. Voice leading that would be banned by any teacher of a legit
tonal harmony class.
> Just like everything, say something
> derogatory
But you *are* a jerk.
And you *are* wrong about (nearly?) everything you've ever said here
about jazz or jazz musicians. Hell, you're usually wrong about classical
music too!
> and then claim to be above everything
Not everything.
Just you. I appear to know more about all of this than you do, or I
wouldn't need to correct you all the time.
> but never a direct
> and convincing reason.
It's impossible to convince you of anything.
*Everybody* here tries and tries and tries, but you continue to just
spout off wrong facts and wrong ideas, word after word after word,
senseless paragraph after paragraph. Nobody has the energy to correct
you anymore because you just keep writing and writing and writing your
bullshit. It's not worth it. So we just let it sit there.
> I don't expect you to respond with any
> substance. You never have. I think you have a cut and paste that
> states that those that disagree with you are wrong. No reasons, just
> wrong.
Come up with a convincing argument about something I've said that's
wrong, and I'll be happy to concede. I can't remember the details, but
I'm sure I've conceded points several times since even you've been here.
Just not to you, because you're usually wrong.
Why are you so obsessed with what I think?
> Well, which of the musicians that I mentioned are relaxed with voice
> leading?
Who did you mention? I didn't read it.
> which ones are not capable of basic classical analysis?
Many jazz musicians have not received *any* formal music education. This
was especially true in the early days of the music. There are self
taught and play only by ear. Most contemporary jazz musicians have
studied legit harmony while in school and would be quite capable of
analyzing many classical pieces using the UC/LC textual devices that you
are so fond of. But generally they don't have to do that sort of thing
very often because they are not dealing with that type of music on a
daily basis. Generally, for the types of things they do deal with, and
for the rare times when there is any reason to do an harmonic analysis,
they *prefer* to use UC RNs in the fashion that I have described.
What you don't understand is that for a jazz player there is very little
value placed on being able to do a proper analysis of anything. What we
value are people who can play. And it has been proven time after time
that in order to be able to play jazz formal training and formal
analytical techniques are largely besides the point. If you actually
knew any jazz musicians you'd already know this and I wouldn't have to
be telling it to you. I know more about harmonic analysis than most jazz
musicians. Most of them make fun of me because of this.
> Which one do you think took 3 years to learn the simple language of UC/
> LC.
It takes most music freshman, with no previous experience in classical
music or Tonal analysis, at least that long to get anything of any
musical value from a typical Tonal harmony class. But understanding how
the UC/LC system itself works shouldn't take anybody all that long. It's
a fine system for labeling chord quality. Enjoy it, and leave the rest
of us who prefer not to use it the Hell alone.
(Was that swearing? Did I offend your delicate sensibilities?)
> Expect you to make a real response to back up your statements?
Nicely formed sentence. What does it mean?
> Just same old same old no
> info responses from you.
Just the same old voluminous wrong responses from you.
Mercifully, you kept this one short enough.
> Just unfounded ranting and raving and
> attacking anyone that disagrees with you!
Dude, you're the only one here ranting and raving.
*Nobody* here really cares about whether or not you use an upper case RN
or a lower case RN, except you. Get a grip.
> Ha, a real response indeed!
> If you can't explain it its all "bullshit". Its your usual MO when you
> realize that you can't defend your statements.
I've defended everything I've said here. And I've been very clear.
You continue to talk about jazz and jazz musicians as if you know what
we do, and you don't. Why not just stop before you embarrass yourself
even more?
LJS
> "Hans Aberg" <haberg_20080...@math.su.se> wrote in message
Yes it is. That is the way I remember it as well. Sure, if you agree
that x = dominant type of chord then it works, but there is now and
was at the time a perfectly acceptable way to do this. His language
was designed for a very specific approach, it was clearly defined and
it served that purpose well. This approach was to limit the notation
to 60 chords that would work for all the standards. It was successful
in this scope. You could learn the 60 chords (a manageable number
considering that there were 5 types times 12 roots to build them on)
and then use the chords that went with them (he did have a manner of
basic key analysis, I just don't recollect the details of this at this
time). I liked the system for this reason and have incorporated it in
my learning and teaching to a certain extent in a slightly different
context.
The idea of using the simplest harmonic centers to learn a tune and to
guide one through such a large repertoire as the standards of that
time was quite a powerful educational tool. The player could start
playing in a relative short time. True that you were not equipped to
be on the cutting edge of innovation. True that it gave a rather
"Saturday afternoon wedding band" type of Jazz. BUT it did get the
student playing and using scales and learning how these 5 chord types
sounded and how they related to each other in the a very simple
manner. And to most beginners, that is all that they should be doing
at this point. Their ear is generally not experienced enough to hear
all the more modern esoteric scale types and shadings of color of more
complex extensions and substitute progression. But they are playing,
and working Weddings and Cocktail parties and as their ear develops
and they learn to listen to both themselves and to other musicians and
to hear that something else is going on, THEN they can more easily
learn to use the more modern and innovative techniques in a musical
manner.
The only problems that I see (or saw) is the misunderstanding of the
scope of this method and the same bete noir that Piston used in
"Harmony" text. If McGeehan had translated his 60 chord notation of
the standards (as I did) into the UC/LC language, it made lots more
sense and the languages are about equal in difficulty, and the student
could then have the background that would enable him to gain the
experience of both the Jazz world and the Classical world without any
additional effort. I understand that there was a lot of prejudice
aimed at the Jazz musician and he probably looked at it as a new
language for a new concept. Unfortunately, the actual result further
widened the gap of the two schools. I am surprised (or maybe I just
haven't seen them) that there has not been more re-writing of the
McGheehan 60 chord system into the UC/LC as occurred with the Piston
edition. It may have helped close the gap of these two forces of
music. I don't think, however, that McGeehan ever claimed that this is
a method of analysis of music that is or should be standard. Maybe he
did and I missed it, but I know nothing of such a claim. Instead, he
published a very effective to bring the musician to a very good level
of playing with traditional harmonic patterns well established in the
CCPish schools of progression and this is a great place to start to
learn to analyze music and to play jazz. My guess, (NOTE THAT THIS IS
OPINION NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON FACT) that he was trained in UC/LC
and used this to help him to make his choices of the 60 chords (he
could have used the Piston version of the Classical Harmony, and that
would have accounted for his choice of UC notation) but I feel certain
that he did reach this by conventional language of classical harmony
that HE studied in what ever school that he learned functional
analysis. Why he did not use the more modern and evolving UC/LC is
hard to understand. This however neither reflects badly on what he was
able to do nor does it make this method specific use of an alternate
notation standard. It is just a very effective way to learn some very
important tools in a very efficient order that will allow the student
to progress to more advanced analysis and musicianship.
LJS
ps,
I don't remember the details of his choice of chords. When I try to
recreate, I come up with 6. (that would be 72 chords) Dominant 7th,
Maj7, min7, diminished7, half diminished7 and augmented. Maybe Hans
can shed light on this if he still has the text.
Joey Goldstein
>
> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as
> he feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman
> numerals I II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
Do you mean "tetrad", i.e. a 4-note chord?
"Tetrachord" generally refers to a 4-note scale, in my experience.
LJS
> On Fri, 29 Feb 2008 17:31:23 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llat...@verizon.net>
>
> Quinn teaches at Yalehttp://www.yale.edu/yalemus/people/faculty.html
> and edits the Journal For Music Theoryhttp://www.dukeupress.edu/jmt/.
Very interesting perspective "paramucho" and I agree with a whole lot
of it. I think that I had previously qualified the use of the Piston
type of UC as possibly being of more use outside the US. But the thing
about the PistonUC and the UC/LC is that they are basically the same
thing and neither is what was outlined in the original UC as a RN
translation of the Fake book notation. The Piston and UC/LC are both
used for analysis. They both address the same issues. They both
describe the same basic information that is available both in
Classical analysis and Jazz analysis. The only difference is that the
Piston is a bit more "aloof" approach. He WANTS the student to have
the dedication to KNOW all the basics necessary to understand how the
variations of the functions of harmony are basically the same for
Major or Minor and thus he has no reason to change the notation to UC/
LC. He is using it to come up with the same information that the UC/LC
does. I don't know, nor do I care which came first! When the music
progressed to another level, or extension of harmonic color, the UC/LC
holds up better then the Piston. It can still work, but it just isn't
as obvious if you are looking ONLY at the RNs without the Score to put
it into perspective. In Piston classes, it is almost necessary to have
the Score available, or a working knowledge of the piece to most
efficiently work with his notation. It is very helpful, to have the
score with UC/LC notation but not necessary for translation from the
UC/LC to spelling on the keyboard.
By that I mean (this and only this) that if you are given a tune
analyzed in both methods and you are given ONLY the RNs, you have many
more decisions to make in order to get the exact spellings of the
chords. True, all the information may be there AFTER you have seen the
score, but if you have not, there are some spots that may have a
different interpretation than is quickly obvious. This is one reason
why it wold become more popular with educators trying to teach
students various concepts of harmony. You can take UC/LC and with less
thinking and less decisions very simply and accurately spell all the
chords with the correct notes. You can do this immediately after
learning the simple symbols and conventions used in the system. You do
NOT have to know the principle behind the analysis to EASILY spell the
chords. You don't have to consider the color of the key, you just look
at the analysis and you can start part writing or arranging it with
only the basics of the language. No other information necessary. At
that point, you are ready to start to delve deeper into true
analysis.
This is all possible with Piston, it just takes more prep and study
with the language. So the argument, or contention, is not so much as
if the Piston vs UC/LC is a fight for standardization, but rather that
EITHER will work. The other UC system presented is not that far away,
but as presented does not provide the same flexibility of EITHER of
the other languages. It is a purpose specific language written for and
by a smaller set of musicians for a specific reason. A lot of
musicians do NOT worry about improvising. A lot of them are content to
PLAY the notes on Piano or Guitar that spell the chords. They may or
may not be expected to play a solo. After all, there are horns for
that and musicians that play only in ensembles like big bands etc may
NEVER have to us an analytical language for any reason whatsoever.
This alternate UC language is fine for that. It works well. Just not
as good if you feel the need to really understand and to use this
understanding for composition and improvisation.
So, although I see what you are saying about the lack of a universal
"standard" and I understand your objection that I and others assume
that what we do in the US is the way the world is. (We have been
referred to as a group as "the ugly Americans" from time to time!) I
thought that I, at least, had acknowledged that this may not be as
world wide standard as implied by my original posts and I thought that
I was clear that the OTHER standard was the Piston way (just not IMO
AS clear as the UC/LC, but quite useful). It just seems to me that
your post here seems to be a reaction to a side issue. It seems at
though you agree that one of the two, Piston/UCLC, that at least if
taken as a duo, one or the other is generally used as a standard. That
is the real issue. I may have been the cause of this myself in an
early post when I brought up Piston as an older form of UC that was
possibly the basis of the retrogression by the "Jazz UC" language that
was claiming to be standard and I apologize if this led the thread
into confusion that the Jazz UC presented and the Piston UC was
related in any way other than the use of UCRN.
I respect that there are musicians that like the Piston presentation.
I personally think that it is a bit snobbish in the US. In Europe, it
may be more just Old School and traditional to use the language that a
great pioneer used to explain a whole lot of music. Either can be used
to explain either Classical or Jazz, but for clarity, I still see the
UC/LC as being able to handle more styles with fewer distractions.
I hope that this helps to clarify our differences and similarities. As
always I think we are very close, but on different but parallel track.
I was wondering. Which country do you consider to be your native land?
I assume Europe, but in the beginning I really did not give it much
thought. My guess would be a rock oriented musician from the British
Isles some place. Sorry if I am wrong and hope that this would not be
offensive. LOL. I certainly do not mean it in any way other than to
know who I am addressing.
LJS
Tom K.
> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>
>> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as
>> he feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman
>> numerals I II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
>
> Do you mean "tetrad", i.e. a 4-note chord?
> "Tetrachord" generally refers to a 4-note scale, in my experience.
>
Joey, as used in PC Set theory from the 60's & 70's, "tetrachord" was the
preferred term for a 4 PC set. Hopefully one could tell from the context
which meaning was implied (I'm not intending to connect Mehegan with Forte,
et al, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some cross-fertilization.)
Sort of similar to whether E+9 means E, G#, B#, D, F# or E, G#, B, D, Fx (to
borrow from another thread)!
Tom K.
Joey Goldstein
>
> Very interesting perspective "paramucho" and I agree with a whole lot
> of it. I think that I had previously qualified the use of the Piston
> type of UC as possibly being of more use outside the US.
That is absurd.
How could one style of CPP Tonal analysis be of "more use" depending on
what country it is being used in?
> But the thing
> about the PistonUC and the UC/LC is that they are basically the same
> thing
So is Berklee-style UC, to a much larger degree than you seem to be
aware of.
> and neither is what was outlined in the original UC as a RN
> translation of the Fake book notation.
Neither is Berklee-style UC.
> The Piston and UC/LC are both
> used for analysis.
So is Berklee UC.
> They both address the same issues.
So does Berklee UC, except in the areas that I have already noted.
A course in classical harmony is basically a course in 4-part voice
leading (ala "part writing" or "chorale texture" or whatever you want to
call it). A course in jazz harmony is basically about the progressions
themselves. Voice leading is often taught as a separate subject, perhaps
in an arranging class.
> They both
> describe the same basic information that is available both in
> Classical analysis and Jazz analysis.
So does Berklee UC.
> The only difference is that the
> Piston is a bit more "aloof" approach.
Maybe you mean "goofy".
> When the music
> progressed to another level, or extension of harmonic color, the UC/LC
> holds up better then the Piston.
Just curious, but how does your version of standard UC/LC happen to
label tritone substitute dominant chords and their associated IIm7 chords?
For example, what's your analysis of Satin Doll's progression in the A
sections?
Here's the progression (because I'm assuming that you don't know it
based on everything else you've ever said about jazz here in this ng):
Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |Cmaj7
It's all standard fare except for the Abm7 Db7.
I am not aware of any way to analyse that with the "standard" classical
Tonal analysis palette of harmonic devices. Most classically oriented
harmony teachers I've encountered label that merely as a "mistake". They
might be willing to label the Db7 as a bII+6 chord (of course a CPP
classical theorist would never allow such a thing), but they have no way
of dealing with the Abm7.
So please tell me how your modernization of the standard UC/LC system
deals with these chords?
> It can still work, but it just isn't
> as obvious if you are looking ONLY at the RNs without the Score to put
> it into perspective.
All classical harmonic analysis requires the score, whether it's UC or
UC/LC. These are techniques designed from the ground up to be used to
analyse pre-composed music. If there is no actual music there is nothing
to be analyzed.
> In Piston classes, it is almost necessary to have
> the Score available,
Every classical analysis is like this.
Incidentally, in a Berklee-style jazz analysis, we usually have the
chord symbols present also.
> or a working knowledge of the piece to most
> efficiently work with his notation. It is very helpful, to have the
> score with UC/LC notation but not necessary for translation from the
> UC/LC to spelling on the keyboard.
Bullshit.
Many progressions in classical music depend upon specific voice leading
in order to be labeled in the 1st place, like your beloved bVI+6
chord(s). Without the actual music in front of you there is no way to
analyze it in any sense that has any meaning. Classical analysis is not
generally geared towards abstracting generalizations for the purpose of
being able to improvise or even to compose new music based upon the
music being analyzed. It's generally geared towards the analysis of
music that has already been created. I suppose that to one degree or
another an enterprising musician might try to use it for those purposes,
but that's not what it was created for. On the other hand, the Berklee
system was created for precisely these purposes.
> By that I mean (this and only this) that if you are given a tune
> analyzed in both methods and you are given ONLY the RNs, you have many
> more decisions to make in order to get the exact spellings of the
> chords.
Nonsense.
Someone who is familiar with Piston's UC only methods, which you
yourself have said contains all the exact same information as the
"standard" UC/LC methods, will encounter exactly the same problems as
someone from the UC/LC school if presented with a score-less analysis.
> True, all the information may be there AFTER you have seen the
> score,
Classical Tonal harmonic analysis techniques require the score.
Without the score there is nothing to be analyzed.
> but if you have not, there are some spots that may have a
> different interpretation than is quickly obvious. This is one reason
> why it wold become more popular with educators trying to teach
> students various concepts of harmony. You can take UC/LC and with less
> thinking and less decisions very simply and accurately spell all the
> chords with the correct notes.
And with Berklee-style UC only methods you require even less thinking,
less decisions, and less pre-known information.
> You can do this immediately after
> learning the simple symbols and conventions used in the system.
Precisely the strengths of the Berklee system, even more than your
beloved UC/LC "standard".
> You do
> NOT have to know the principle behind the analysis to EASILY spell the
> chords.
Even easier at Berklee.
> You don't have to consider the color of the key, you just look
> at the analysis and you can start part writing or arranging it with
> only the basics of the language.
But that's exactly what Berklee-style analysis was designed to do from
the start. You've had to modify some arcane system that was designed to
deal with pre-composed music and needed to be further modified
extensively in order to be able to handle modern Tonal music. Sure,
anybody can work your way. But why would they want to?
> No other information necessary. At
> that point, you are ready to start to delve deeper into true
> analysis.
What's the difference between "true analysis" and what you've been
discussing up till now?
> This is all possible with Piston, it just takes more prep and study
> with the language.
> So the argument, or contention, is not so much as
> if the Piston vs UC/LC is a fight for standardization, but rather that
> EITHER will work.
As does Berklee-style UC.
> The other UC system presented is not that far away,
> but as presented does not provide the same flexibility of EITHER of
> the other languages.
Prove it.
> It is a purpose specific language written for and
> by a smaller set of musicians for a specific reason.
And that specific reason is the analysis of modern Tonal music.
It's not like we can't analyse Bach ala Berklee. We can, if we choose
to. But you have yet to demonstrate the modifications needed to your
system in order to be able to handle Ellington, let alone what guys like
Herbie Hancock or Wayne Shorter are into. The Berklee system was created
because your favorite system was not up to the task.
> A lot of
> musicians do NOT worry about improvising.
Right. just the one's who are improvisers, duh.
> A lot of them are content to
> PLAY the notes on Piano or Guitar that spell the chords. They may or
> may not be expected to play a solo. After all, there are horns for
> that and musicians that play only in ensembles like big bands etc may
> NEVER have to us an analytical language for any reason whatsoever.
> This alternate UC language is fine for that.
It's a fine analysis technique for people who don't have any need for a
technique of analysis? Nice logic.
> It works well. Just not
> as good if you feel the need to really understand and to use this
> understanding for composition and improvisation.
Bullshit.
You don't understand what it is or you could not make such an ignorant
statement.
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:fqeq7r$cui$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as
>>> he feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman
>>> numerals I II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
>> Do you mean "tetrad", i.e. a 4-note chord?
>> "Tetrachord" generally refers to a 4-note scale, in my experience.
>>
>
> Joey, as used in PC Set theory from the 60's & 70's, "tetrachord" was the
> preferred term for a 4 PC set.
OK.
> Hopefully one could tell from the context
> which meaning was implied (I'm not intending to connect Mehegan with Forte,
> et al, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some cross-fertilization.)
I would.
And I doubt that Hans was writing ala Forte either.
> Sort of similar to whether E+9 means E, G#, B#, D, F# or E, G#, B, D, Fx (to
> borrow from another thread)!
E+9 would never mean E G# B D Fx to anybody who knows what E+9 means.
Steve Latham
Ian, my apologies, my previous response was a bit hasty.
I wanted to point out in my original post, in my experience, a system that I
perceive is widely used in the confines I described so that other readers
would understand that system. You provided excellent statistics to show that
that system may not be as widely used as I implied.
Interestingly, we have switched from Kostka/Payne, to Aldwell/Schachter, but
in classroom instruction, UC/LC is still used. There is a strong possibility
either way that the system in the text might also be in use in the
classroom, or, the opposite system might be used. I think it's pretty safe
to assume though that most will go with their text's system.
Another interesting thing I've gleaned from these posts is that you seem
annoyed at systems that are "defined" such that they are unable to change
and adapt to new philosophies and trends. So I'm intrigued that you would
seem to support an UC only system where I think many (IMHO) would perceive
an UC/LC system to be more elegant and informative, and a change for the
better.
Maybe I'm misreading your post and it was merely intended to clarify
inaccuracies or assumptions in my original statements, and not to promote
the traditional UC system over the UC/LC system that, IME, seems to be
gaining in popularity.
Steve
Steve Latham
>
> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
>
> Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>
> Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |Cmaj7
>
> It's all standard fare except for the Abm7 Db7.
> I am not aware of any way to analyse that with the "standard" classical
> Tonal analysis palette of harmonic devices.
[note: I know you're asking someone else, but I'll give you my responses
too]
This is what I've mentioned many times before. The CPP system doesn't really
include symbology for concepts that weren't typical CPP behavior. We don't
have "3-2" suspensions because there's no need to. I think that's true of
most systems. The General MIDI specifications weren't designed to deal with
USB, it wasn't available when the General MIDI specs came out. Now, can we
revise or modify systems? I think so. But, backwards compatability has
become essential in things like Technology fields. Why not music theory?
Most classically oriented
> harmony teachers I've encountered label that merely as a "mistake".
I wouldn't. It's Jazz. But it is astylistic to CPP music. So the question
becomes, how informative is if for us to analyze these chords when we are
simply labelling them, rather than showing any function. For example,
calling Db7 in C bII7 is a "label". It tells us what the chord is, but to a
classically trained theorist, bII means Neapolitan, which has a Pre-Dominant
function. This definitely does not go with this chord. A better label, in
revisionist fashion, would be to call it something that both differentiates
it from the Neapolitan, and that says something about its function beyond
its "II-ness". I would think, "TS" or "VTS" would be obvious and logical.
They
> might be willing to label the Db7 as a bII+6 chord (of course a CPP
> classical theorist would never allow such a thing),
True. The concept of "augmented 6" means something. More specifically, it
has to deal with voice-leading - the +6 expanding to the octave. So here's
my beef - I don't want to call the Db7 an Augmented 6th chord unless the
voice-leading factor is there. I want to call it something that describes
its function while differentiating it from any other common, similar chords.
"TS" is the best it could be IMHO.
but they have no way
> of dealing with the Abm7.
ii7/TS - TS.
That is, the ii7 of the the Tritone Sub to the Tritone Sub. This is why
"VTS" might be nice, so we have ii-V progression "of" the TS.
In CPP analysis, we can actually describe this Joey, but only the chords in
their functions in that context, not the context they're presented in here.
Abm - Db in C would be v/N - N - that is, the minor dominant of the
Neapolitan (or the key of the Neapolitan if you like) to the Neapolitan.
However, it makes little sense.
Another option is to simply call them embellishing, or non-functional chords
(which I hope you haven't synonimized with "mistake" - these are not
mistakes, just non-functional chords). So Db7 can certainly be a chormatic
upper neighbor embellishing chord to I. That doesn't make it "wrong", but it
also "lessens" its function. Because in Jazz, the tritone element is so
strong, it's not really fair to call this chord "embellishing" because it's
obviously functional.
We could also call this a ii-V tonicization of the key of Gb, which never
materializes. Now, that would be a "mistake" in the sense that a composer
just siply wouldn't write such a thing in the style of music for which this
system evolved to describe.
A side note here Joey - we do not use UC/LC to analyze Palestrina or
Stravinsky either, even though they used Major and minor chords. I think one
of the difficulties Jazz players have is that while Jazz also uses 7th
chords, which Debussy did as well, and which Palestrina, and Mozart used, it
is NOT CPP Tonality (that is, there are certainly pieces much more similar
than different, but there are plenty that are different as well).
I feel that Jazz players, in an attempt to legitimize their art, started
using the analytical symbols used in academia for their music (and there are
obvious practical reasons as well, so it wasn't totally an ulterior motive).
As a result, people feel that Jazz is "more similar" to tonal music than
less similar. Jazz is actually fairly different - first of all, it's
basically a system based on tetrachords, er, tetrads rather than triads.
It's also a system that allows for chromatic or modal alterations to be
included in key-based systems (i.e. #11 rather than plain 11).
Now, that's not to say that we can't point out similarities between Jazz and
Tonal music. We should. In fact, to me, that's largely the point of
analysis. We in fact do this in CPP Tonality - though most people don't seem
to understand it. We point out fauxbourdon passages, though we call them
non-functional. We point out the origin of a iv6-V cadence in minor as being
a full cadence in the Phrygian Mode (a Phrygian Cadence). So I don't have a
problem with noting elements of Modality that have "held over" into
Tonality. Likewise, I would like to see the elements of Tonality that are
continued into Jazz pointed out. But I get the feeling that most people
think the two are muc more similar than they really are (again, there may be
dead similar pieces, but a lot of it isn't). Again, We can put Roman Numeral
under Palestrina's chords. We can also note that it's in what looks like a
Major Scale. But it's far more informative to point out the differences in
Palestrina and Mozart, and we do so by saying it's Ionian, and it has a
Final, and we don't bother with a RN analysis.
I don't see where Jazz, or Debussy should be any different. There are
Debussy works that, a CPP Tonality analysis can shed some light and allow us
to compare it with other works. But there are others where doing such is
completely uninformative (and in fact, some of his works are more
informative when considered in a Jazz context). There are certainly some
Jazz pieces that go I-vi-ii-V-I. And analyzing them with a CPP Tonal
analysis in mind can be quite informative. But to try and analyze some of
the other works I've heard (I've heard 12-tone pieces for Jazz) in a Tonal
context, "just becuase they use 7th chords" or "just because there's a
ii-V-I at the end" or "just because it's written in C" might not be all that
informative.
> So please tell me how your modernization of the standard UC/LC system
> deals with these chords?
>
> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
>
> Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>
> Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |Cmaj7
ii7 - V7 - ii7 - V7
iii7 - VI7 - iii7 - VI7
vi7 - II7 - bvi7 - bII7 - IM7
But this isn't very informative. It's just labelling. It merely tells you
the quality of the chord, and the scale degree upon which it's built. It
would be useful as a transpositional tool, but it doesn't really tell us
what the chords are doing.
To me, the first line sets up the tonality of C. Then, it is a typical
circle of 5ths progression - A7 - D7 - G7 - C
I see the em7-A7 pairs as an embellishement of the A7, and the Abm-Db7 as an
embellishment of the G7 (as a TS).
But the second line sounds like a key change - a direct modulation.
Likewise, the penultimate measure sounds like a key change. Do we point
these out? If so, do we use traditional terminology and symbology, or do we
need something more specific to this situation (for example, I've heard the
term "Semitone Displacement" for use in atonal music where the music
"settles" into a note/sonority a semitone above or below the existing sound
world).
So I think traditional RN analysis can only be "de-functionalized" to
provide a "labelling" for this which isn't all to informative. If there are
functional elements we need to point out, shouldn't we point them out?
>
> Classical Tonal harmonic analysis techniques require the score.
> Without the score there is nothing to be analyzed.
Well, we can do it aurally as well. But obviously, the piece pre-exists.
Steve
Tom K.
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:C5Eyj.3171$6R.651@trnddc04...
>
>
> ii7/TS - TS.
>
> That is, the ii7 of the the Tritone Sub to the Tritone Sub. This is why
> "VTS" might be nice, so we have ii-V progression "of" the TS.
Assuming the Db7 is substituting for V7 of C, then Abm7 is substituting for
ii7 of C - you'll need different terminology than "ii7 of the the Tritone
Sub" (which would be Ebm). OTH, your concept is spot on.
Incidentally, I recently found a series of 3 or 4 chromatically descending
V7's in Chopin, which surprised me as I thought they didn't occur until at
least Liszt & Franck. I guess they could be thought of as G6>/G6/V - sounds
a lot like T. Monk to me.
Haven't yet found a (classical) theory book which adequately labels Db7~C in
C. The Benjamin, Horvit & Nelson text includes it with nonstandard Aug.
6ths, (inversions, secondary Ger6, etc.) but they label it as a viio6/5 with
lowered 3rd in the bass! At least they recognize the dominant function.
Tom K.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> with Forte, et al, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some
>> cross-fertilization.)
> I would.
A quick google says you're right. It's surprising to me that American
musical academia is so compartmented.
So I looked for a more likely figure to link Forte with the jazz world
and tried Anthony Braxton. Not much more, though I did find somebody
is offering Braxton ringtones. Using those in public would be a good
way to get your head kicked in.
==== j a c k at c a m p i n . m e . u k === <http://www.campin.me.uk> ====
Jack Campin, 11 Third St, Newtongrange EH22 4PU, Scotland == mob 07800 739 557
CD-ROMs and free stuff: Scottish music, food intolerance, and Mac logic fonts
Hans Aberg
>> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7,
>> as he feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman
>> numerals I II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
>
> Do you mean "tetrad", i.e. a 4-note chord?
> "Tetrachord" generally refers to a 4-note scale, in my experience.
The Harvard concise says that "tetrachord" can also be used to denote
any collection of four notes. It can also be taken to denote a
collection of four pitches within a perfect fourth, used to build
scales. Maqam World <http://maqamworld.com/> uses it that way. I does
not have an article "tetrad", though one "triad". Loc.cit. suggests that
some modern music prefer "simultaneity" when the pitches do not fall
into the classical patterns. Merriam Webster's big brick says the owrd,
whne meaning several tones sounding simultaneously comes from "accord",
meaning bringing together.
Hans Aberg
.
wrote:
Hey Tom,
I've just been fooling with this a bit on guitar, and I think it [Db7~C ]
is coming from a sort of "Libertango" type thing.
it seems to be the "middle pair" of something that goes like this:
B B B B
F# F E D
D Db C B
B B B B
What tipped me off was the static B natural
( Cb of the Db7 to the B of C^7)
I'm not sure how you would analyze it in roman numerals - Piston calls
major type progressions like that + II, which is what I think you guys
refer to as common tone diminished.
I've seen this before in Led Zeppelin's "Since I've Been Lovin You" ( the
little guitar tag after "Lose my worried mind")
The more I play it, the more I think this is where it comes from.
Plausible?
Danny
Danny Schorr
Sorry - new software not set up properly yet -
That's from Danny Schorr
¤ Alias
Joey Goldstein
it makes it very difficult to carry on a conversation with you.
I don't have time to go over this line by line, paragraph by paragraph.
But I'll do my best.
Steve Latham wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:fqevfb$lcv$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
>> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
>>
>> Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>>
>> Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |Cmaj7
>>
>> It's all standard fare except for the Abm7 Db7.
>> I am not aware of any way to analyse that with the "standard" classical
>> Tonal analysis palette of harmonic devices.
>
> [note: I know you're asking someone else, but I'll give you my responses
> too]
>
> This is what I've mentioned many times before. The CPP system doesn't really
> include symbology for concepts that weren't typical CPP behavior.
LJS is claiming that there have been "standard" modifications to the
standard CPP analysis techniques that you cited in an earlier post that
allow it to be used for analyses of modern Tonal music (i.e. modern
music that is based on major and minor keys but that may happen to
violate certain stricter notions of Tonality demonstrable in the works
of CPP composers).
I'm trying to find out what these modifications are.
He is also claiming that his system is superior than Berklee's system
for dealing with this type of music. I think he's dead wrong.
> We don't
> have "3-2" suspensions because there's no need to. I think that's true of
> most systems. The General MIDI specifications weren't designed to deal with
> USB, it wasn't available when the General MIDI specs came out. Now, can we
> revise or modify systems? I think so. But, backwards compatability has
> become essential in things like Technology fields. Why not music theory?
Backwards compatibility is easy. It's forwards compatibility that's tough.
> Most classically oriented
>> harmony teachers I've encountered label that merely as a "mistake".
>
> I wouldn't. It's Jazz. But it is astylistic to CPP music. So the question
> becomes, how informative is if for us to analyze these chords when we are
> simply labelling them, rather than showing any function. For example,
> calling Db7 in C bII7 is a "label". It tells us what the chord is, but to a
> classically trained theorist, bII means Neapolitan, which has a Pre-Dominant
> function. This definitely does not go with this chord. A better label, in
> revisionist fashion, would be to call it something that both differentiates
> it from the Neapolitan, and that says something about its function beyond
> its "II-ness". I would think, "TS" or "VTS" would be obvious and logical.
I might, agree if I knew what "TS" or "VTS" actually meant.
But LJS seems to think that there is some "standard" way of labeling
this. You seem to be confirming that there isn't.
> They
>> might be willing to label the Db7 as a bII+6 chord (of course a CPP
>> classical theorist would never allow such a thing),
>
> True. The concept of "augmented 6" means something. More specifically, it
> has to deal with voice-leading - the +6 expanding to the octave. So here's
> my beef - I don't want to call the Db7 an Augmented 6th chord unless the
> voice-leading factor is there.
Well the default voice leading of the 3rd and 7th of a "SubV7 chord" is
the opposite of the voice leading of the 3rd and 7th of V7 chord.
With V7, the chord's 3rd usually rises to the tonic and the chord's 7th
falls to the mediant (or minor mediant in minor keys).
Eg.
G7 C (or Cm)
F E (or Eb)
B C
G C
With a SubV7, its 3rd falls and its 7th rises.
Eg.
Db7 C (or Cm)
Cb C
F E (or Eb)
Db C
So, does that satisfy your stated criteria for an +6 chord or not?
It should. It doesn't behave in the strict CPP way that bVI+6 behaves.
But the aug 6th interval expanding to an octave is part of it.
Yet in jazz, we don't always have to voice lead it like that either.
Db7 might go right to C7 as I7 of a blues, with all parallel motion
including parallel tritones. We are much free-er with our materials.
> I want to call it something that describes
> its function while differentiating it from any other common, similar chords.
> "TS" is the best it could be IMHO.
Are you using "TS" to mean "tritone sub"?
Usually we just call them "SubV7 chords".
> but they have no way
>> of dealing with the Abm7.
>
>
> ii7/TS - TS.
C'mon. That's a pretty big stretch for any classical theorist, isn't it?
And you really mean v7/TS, as you put it below. In C, ii7/TS would be
Ebm7. And with this label you're making it seem like there's a
tonicizing of bII going on, which isn't really what's going on here at all.
Or you mean ii7/bV, another thing that would make the heads of most
classically oriented theorists explode.
> That is, the ii7 of the the Tritone Sub to the Tritone Sub. This is why
> "VTS" might be nice, so we have ii-V progression "of" the TS.
Assuming I got "TS" right, what's the "V" supposed to mean?
> In CPP analysis, we can actually describe this Joey, but only the chords in
> their functions in that context, not the context they're presented in here.
Huh?
> Abm - Db in C would be v/N - N - that is, the minor dominant of the
> Neapolitan (or the key of the Neapolitan if you like) to the Neapolitan.
> However, it makes little sense.
But you're tonicizing bII which is not what's going on.
> Another option is to simply call them embellishing, or non-functional chords
> (which I hope you haven't synonimized with "mistake" - these are not
> mistakes, just non-functional chords).
But the chords in question *are* functional. They form a very effective
and common cadential formula for approaching the I chord. They do not
exist in some non-Tonal form of music devoid of major and minor keys.
They are quite common in the everyday music making of contemporary
musicians of all stripes and persuasions.
You guys really do need some sort of a modification to your analytical
devices to account for this type of modern harmony. [Or you should join
us (we are The Borg) because we already have a system that effectively
handles this as well as Bach and Beethoven. Our system is backwards
compatible, but may not prove to be forward-compatible because nobody
knows what's coming.] Lemmy seems to think that your system has all the
modifications it needs already. But you don't seem to be aware of them.
So let's see 'em Lemmy!
> So Db7 can certainly be a chormatic
> upper neighbor embellishing chord to I. That doesn't make it "wrong", but it
> also "lessens" its function. Because in Jazz, the tritone element is so
> strong, it's not really fair to call this chord "embellishing" because it's
> obviously functional.
>
> We could also call this a ii-V tonicization of the key of Gb, which never
> materializes. Now, that would be a "mistake" in the sense that a composer
> just siply wouldn't write such a thing in the style of music for which this
> system evolved to describe.
>
> A side note here Joey - we do not use UC/LC to analyze Palestrina or
> Stravinsky either, even though they used Major and minor chords. I think one
> of the difficulties Jazz players have is that while Jazz also uses 7th
> chords, which Debussy did as well, and which Palestrina, and Mozart used, it
> is NOT CPP Tonality (that is, there are certainly pieces much more similar
> than different, but there are plenty that are different as well).
Clearly passages of Stravinsky and/or Palestrina can be heard as being
within a key. To the extent that someone else wants to extract these
sounds for their own uses it might be quite useful to analyse these
particular passages with RN analysis techniques. As far as understanding
the totality of the harmonic universe of the entire piece is concerned
though, you are obviously correct.
> I feel that Jazz players, in an attempt to legitimize their art, started
> using the analytical symbols used in academia for their music (and there are
> obvious practical reasons as well, so it wasn't totally an ulterior motive).
I think it was totally for practical purposes.
Just because we use SubV7 chords and they didn't do this in the CPP, are
we to conclude that our music is not Tonal and that the trappings of
Tonal analysis are irrelevant? Of course not. Our music is in keys just
as much as any CPP composer's music was in a key.
> As a result, people feel that Jazz is "more similar" to tonal music than
> less similar. Jazz is actually fairly different - first of all,
Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
And we're not just talking about jazz harmony here. We're talking about
the harmony of contemporary popular music. Popular Tonal harmony is what
CPP Tonal harmony evolved into.
> it's
> basically a system based on tetrachords, er, tetrads rather than triads.
Just because we prefer the density of 7th chords does not make a jazz
progression any less based on triads. It's just triadic music with
extensions.
> It's also a system that allows for chromatic or modal alterations to be
> included in key-based systems (i.e. #11 rather than plain 11).
Jazz notions of key of much less farther away from classical notions of
key than you evidently seem to realize. If jazz music was not based on
keys, then yes, we'd need some completely new analytical system to
describe it. But that is not the case.
It's not an harmonic analysis either, unless there is some commonly
understood subtext by the reader as to the harmonic functions of VI7,
II7, bvi7 and bII7.
> It's just labelling. It merely tells you
> the quality of the chord, and the scale degree upon which it's built. It
> would be useful as a transpositional tool, but it doesn't really tell us
> what the chords are doing.
>
> To me, the first line sets up the tonality of C. Then, it is a typical
> circle of 5ths progression - A7 - D7 - G7 - C
It is based on that, but that's not exactly what it is, because there is
no G7.
> I see the em7-A7 pairs as an embellishement of the A7, and the Abm-Db7 as an
> embellishment of the G7 (as a TS).
What G7?
It's not an embellishment of G7. It's a substitute for it.
> But the second line sounds like a key change - a direct modulation.
Yes and no. The roots are all diatonic to C. There's just one
non-diatonic tone, C#, in the A7 chord. It certainly doesn't sound like
the piece should end on a D chord here. But the 2 chords are diatonic to
D major as well. It's a paradox of sorts. But the key feeling on C is
never weakened through the entire A section. There are whiffs of other
keys, but nothing conclusive.
> Likewise, the penultimate measure sounds like a key change. Do we point
> these out? If so, do we use traditional terminology and symbology, or do we
> need something more specific to this situation (for example, I've heard the
> term "Semitone Displacement" for use in atonal music where the music
> "settles" into a note/sonority a semitone above or below the existing sound
> world).
Yes, you need something more specific, like the Berklee system of analysis.
Joey Goldstein
> somebody
> is offering Braxton ringtones.
lol
Joey Goldstein
OK.
Sorry. And thanks.
LJS
> LJS wrote:
>
> > I don't expect you to respond.
>
> I don't know who you think you are. Or where you think this is. Or what
> you think a usenet discussion group is for. But you really do seem
> deluded and overly invested emotionally in all of this. Take a break,
> man. Relax.
>
> > As usual, you just make empty
> > accusations.
>
> About you being wrong?
> Nope, not empty.
>
> > You now claim that Jazz musicians are incapable of
> > learning simple music techniques,
>
> When did I ever claim that?
Hmm, What about its so complicated that a Jazz student would have to
study it for 3 years before he could do anything? Joey, it is not
Rocket science. UC/LC functional notation is just not that hard.
>
> > that they are relaxed on voice
> > leading and other such nonsense.
>
> But generally, we are. We are not generally concerned with avoiding
> parallels, although we may be aware of them. We are not concerned with
> many of the voice leading "rules" that most freshman legit harmony books
> are concerned with. We are not as concerned with resolving dissonant
> intervals in prescribed ways all the time. We break those rules, often
> without hesitation in order to achieve different types of voice leading
> effects. Voice leading that would be banned by any teacher of a legit
> tonal harmony class.
so that is what you got out of voice leading. Parallel 5ths! There is
a bit more than that. Specifically, Parallel 5ths are not forbidden in
Classical composition, it is just not a convention that was allowed in
certain places at certain times. UC/LC has nothing to do with parallel
5ths. As I have said, you don't seem to understand the UC/LC language
that is being talked about. Your examples like Parallel 5ths show that
you do not have the system in the proper perspective. For one thing,
it is a function of connecting chords and not the language that us
used to work with them. Then there is the reason that they were not
tolerated in certain eras of music evolution. They were not indicative
of the style in the Baroque, Classical and most of the Romantic
periods. They came into use more in the more modern times as the
Romantic period began to turn into the 20th C music. To even use that
in the same discussion as UC/LC shows that you were never properly
introduced to the UC/LC system as well as the notion that you missed
the whole point of analyzing the CPP period even in its limited
sense.
There. Pure and simple fact about an example that you threw in that
has no relevance and is not true in any case. Parallel 5ths have
nothing to do with the a disciplined application of voice leading.
There is much more to it than that!
>
> > Just like everything, say something
> > derogatory
>
> But you *are* a jerk.
> And you *are* wrong about (nearly?) everything you've ever said here
> about jazz or jazz musicians. Hell, you're usually wrong about classical
> music too!
>
> > and then claim to be above everything
>
> Not everything.
> Just you. I appear to know more about all of this than you do, or I
> wouldn't need to correct you all the time.
See, more examples of your simply ragging with no rhyme or reason.
Just because you don't have anything factual to say.
>
> > but never a direct
> > and convincing reason.
>
> It's impossible to convince you of anything.
You really have not been paying attention have you!
Joey, name calling and is not trying to convince, it is trying to
obscure. Give me some facts and logic. I am eager to learn from
ANYBODY. I have learned much from you. In spite of your self. I always
find it enlightening to see how someone from a different culture looks
at things. You have been very enlightening.
> *Everybody* here tries and tries and tries, but you continue to just
> spout off wrong facts and wrong ideas, word after word after word,
> senseless paragraph after paragraph. Nobody has the energy to correct
> you anymore because you just keep writing and writing and writing your
> bullshit. It's not worth it. So we just let it sit there.
Well, I will certainly concede that there has been a lot of words
trying to correct some of the SPIN and misquoting that often stem from
your responses. That is certainly a fact. Is that why you drop out
when I have to constantly state that what you are saying that I say is
not what I said? There is a lot of that.
>
> > I don't expect you to respond with any
> > substance. You never have. I think you have a cut and paste that
> > states that those that disagree with you are wrong. No reasons, just
> > wrong.
>
> Come up with a convincing argument about something I've said that's
> wrong, and I'll be happy to concede. I can't remember the details, but
> I'm sure I've conceded points several times since even you've been here.
> Just not to you, because you're usually wrong.
>
> Why are you so obsessed with what I think?
More evidence of your not paying attention. I have said repeatedly
that I don't care what you think or do! I do care that you will make
statements that are not true or very misleading or an obstruction to a
student. That and only that are the reasons that I bother to respond
to your posts at all. Other than that, I could care less. And I could
care less if it is you or anyone else that puts up a half truth, or a
personal slant or short cut that is not the actual way that things
are. Then I will jump in.
Other than that I will occasionally be interested in a post and will
inject a different perspective to what was said. I try to make that
clear, but you always assume that it is an attack on you and respond
with rage and no information! Once and a while is one thing, but with
you it is a predictable response that follows the same evasive and
obscuring methods over and over again. Most of my last posts have been
only restating my premise. Nothing new. Merely an attempt to cut
through the side issues that are thrown in that obscures the premise.
One could quite easily ask, why are you so obsessed with having the
only point of view on every subject? I have seen other posters explain
over and over certain concepts and you never seem to even accept that
they are right enough to consider that they may have something to say.
Really, get a grip.
>
> > Well, which of the musicians that I mentioned are relaxed with voice
> > leading?
>
> Who did you mention? I didn't read it.
Yet you constantly claim that I am always wrong. You must have some
ESP! I mentioned that unlike your claim, I don't think that Bill
Evans, Chic Corea or Herbie Hancock ever "relaxed" their voice leading
when they played as you claimed was the norm in your Jazz community
that I should visit to learn from.
What difference is that since you don't bother to read anything.
>
> > Just unfounded ranting and raving and
> > attacking anyone that disagrees with you!
>
> Dude, you're the only one here ranting and raving.
> *Nobody* here really cares about whether or not you use an upper case RN
> or a lower case RN, except you. Get a grip.
English is your native language isn't it!
>
> > Ha, a real response indeed!
> > If you can't explain it its all "bullshit". Its your usual MO when you
> > realize that you can't defend your statements.
>
> I've defended everything I've said here. And I've been very clear.
> You continue to talk about jazz and jazz musicians as if you know what
> we do, and you don't. Why not just stop before you embarrass yourself
> even more?
Joey your are really stuck on yourself. You don't under stand UC/LC
language, you have problems with even some CPP analysis, you think
that Jazz musicians are inferior yet you claim to be the master of the
idiom. You claim to know everything and yet you can't defend anything.
You have said nothing since your original post to show how the
translation of Alpha into UC/RN is a language for analysis of either
Jazz or Classical music yet you think that your responses are some how
pearls of wisdom. You have said nothing to show what your community of
Jazz icons have to say. You teach at a Jr College, you play in a small
community, but by some strange twist of fate, you seem to think that
you know everything about everything! But then all we get when you are
questioned is grammar school playground retorts and spewing of
nonsense! Re read your gems of wisdom and pick out a few of the
informative responses! I am not embarrassed by my statement. Your UC
notation is NOT as you claimed any kind of standard notation that is
of any particular use for analysis of Jazz and certainly not for
Classical music. The UC/LC notation that is in common usage by most
North American certified universities is capable of doing both. You
claim that it is so complicated, but you don't understand what it is
and is not and if it took you the three years that you attended
college to learn it, you got a raw deal at your school and if takes
you that long to teach it to your students it is because you don't
understand it, not because it is complicated.
This is what I have bee saying from the beginning. You have a response
for that? Or can you only talk trash?
LJS.
paramucho
wrote:
>
>"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
>news:47c8ca5f...@freenews.ozemail.com.au...
>
>Ian, my apologies, my previous response was a bit hasty.
>
>I wanted to point out in my original post, in my experience, a system that I
>perceive is widely used in the confines I described so that other readers
>would understand that system. You provided excellent statistics to show that
>that system may not be as widely used as I implied.
>
>Interestingly, we have switched from Kostka/Payne, to Aldwell/Schachter, but
>in classroom instruction, UC/LC is still used. There is a strong possibility
>either way that the system in the text might also be in use in the
>classroom, or, the opposite system might be used. I think it's pretty safe
>to assume though that most will go with their text's system.
The Compleat Musician will want to understand the lot of course, so
teaching both is probably the best solution.
How do you find find Aldwell/Schachter? I found it difficult to
discern a backbone structure in all those little chapters.
>Another interesting thing I've gleaned from these posts is that you seem
>annoyed at systems that are "defined" such that they are unable to change
>and adapt to new philosophies and trends. So I'm intrigued that you would
>seem to support an UC only system where I think many (IMHO) would perceive
>an UC/LC system to be more elegant and informative, and a change for the
>better.
>
>Maybe I'm misreading your post and it was merely intended to clarify
>inaccuracies or assumptions in my original statements, and not to promote
>the traditional UC system over the UC/LC system that, IME, seems to be
>gaining in popularity.
It's the latter. I don't hold any particular affection for all-UC at
all. Indeed, with analysis I agree with the point Dave Webber made
today: you can use anything you want just so long as you define your
terms up front. In maths that's so ubiquitous that they have developed
a sub-language to handle most of the definition task (commutative,
associative etc). I don't know why we can't do a better job of that in
music -- and that's what the Kopp article was getting at.
In the past I have generally used UC/LC and the system you described
looks much like what I usually see in rock, particularly where all
7ths etc default to minor instead of following the key signature (if I
understand your description correctly). The advantage is that one can
the language independently of a musical example because the notation
fully describes each object rather than relying on implication. Of
course one could adapt an all-UC model to do the same.
Rock labeling has other features: it may notate a minor key as if it
were a relative minor with vi as the tonic and typically doesn't use
functional slash notation. Dominic Pedlar's 791 page THE SONGWRITING
SECRETS OF THE BEATLES really has an unfortunate title. In fact the
book provides a solid education in rock harmony using the Beatles
progressions as examples. It reads like a textbook with chatty
interludes. His fourth chapter dedicates 38 pages to secondary
dominants, where he subtitles each chord type with its functional name
e.g. "II7 (the 'V of V')". Although he doesn't otherwise use the
slash/"of" notation he does teach readers how to recognise secondary
dominants. So, it's not as if those who don't use functional notation
are clueless. I had a look at the book today and I guess I'm more
impressed with his achievement now than I was in 2003 when I tended to
quibble over the chatty bits.
These days, for personal use, I usually transpose progressions to C
major/A minor and (sometimes) use "->" between two chords where you
would use slash notation. I read the same kind of information in my
analyses. I think that labeling and functional labeling are both a bit
overrated.
One problem I have with roman numbering is that no matter how you cut
it, one tends to drag along a CPP-heritage when using roman numbers.
Two issues flow from that. First, its difficult to avoid the
"legitimation" issue you mention in another thread today. Second, rock
tends to measured by its congruence to CPP. Now, its true that rock
and CPP share a some common heritage and that rock inherits some of
CPP, but there are important features of rock which have nothing to do
with CPP. They tend to get lost in labeling which can't avoid but
treat CPP as some kind of measuring stick.
A problem I have with functional labeling is that it provides only
partial information. I noted once that the four or five analyses I
located of the opening of Beethoven's Waldstein sonata were all
different and yet none of the analyses was incorrect. Now, one could
argue that each of these analyses sought to analyse some different
aspect or viewpoint. But, equally, one could argue that its just a
free-for-all once you get away from a couple of simple patterns.
Another problem with functional labeling, for me, is with the very
notion of "function" itself. This is a term like "tendency" or
Schenker's "Tonwille", or "tonality" which ascribes some force/destiny
to mere notes. To me, those kinds of things can only be examined as
cognitive constructs, not musical constructs. Labeling can't even
scratch the surface there. Narmour attempts a cognitive theory of
melody in his two volumes on the subject.
Which is not to say that I don't think musicians shouldn't learn about
secondary dominants and similar things -- they describe very common
musical patterns very well. I'm reminded of a small book on set theory
I read years ago (Halmos???) where the author wrote that the best
thing to with the book was to read it, understand it and then forget
it.
Joey Goldstein
LJS is wrong again on the Internet!
I'd better jump in and correct him!
...Maybe not. Gilligan's Island is on TV.
Tough choice though.
LJS wrote:
> On Mar 2, 10:46 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> LJS wrote:
>> Why are you so obsessed with what I think?
>
> More evidence of your not paying attention. I have said repeatedly
> that I don't care what you think or do!
Yet you've just spent a 1/2 hour at least writing a 261 line post that's
almost all about *me* and has very little to do with music.
Now why is that?
Tom K.
<.@.> wrote in message news:i0hms35k79oofrgtc...@4ax.com...
>
> B B B B
> F# F E D
> D Db C B
> B B B B
>
> What tipped me off was the static B natural
> ( Cb of the Db7 to the B of C^7)
>
> I'm not sure how you would analyze it in roman numerals - Piston calls
> major type progressions like that + II, which is what I think you guys
> refer to as common tone diminished.
>
C, Dm7, Co7/Eb, C/E.
Danny, if pressed for RN labels for your example, I'd say
Bm: i, [ V7/V, bII], i
with the bracketed chords decorating the tonic. Even better would be simply
i with the inner voices moving through passing tones.
Tom K.
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>
><.@.> wrote in message news:i0hms35k79oofrgtc...@4ax.com...
>>
>> B B B B
>> F# F E D
>> D Db C B
>> B B B B
>>
>> What tipped me off was the static B natural
>> ( Cb of the Db7 to the B of C^7)
>>
>> I'm not sure how you would analyze it in roman numerals - Piston calls
>> major type progressions like that + II, which is what I think you guys
>> refer to as common tone diminished.
>>
>The common tone diminished is usually used to embellish a major chord as in
>C, Dm7, Co7/Eb, C/E.
Yes I know - there's typical resolutions in classical that seem different
from the types of pop songs I usually put under this umbrella:
>
>Danny, if pressed for RN labels for your example, I'd say
>Bm: i, [ V7/V, bII], i
>with the bracketed chords decorating the tonic. Even better would be simply
>i with the inner voices moving through passing tones.
>
>Tom K.
>
Yes, that's fine - I was reviewing as much just now.
( And I should note that Piston technically calls this a +II7 - supertonic
with a raised root (!) and raised 3rd.)
But how using the concept of the cto -two verticalities instead of all
four- to explain the musical logic of the [Db7~C ]?
It seems like a valid concept to me, and as you stated, there isn't any
other standard solution to be found in the usual harmony texts.
Danny
paramucho
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>Tom K. wrote:
>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
>> news:fqeq7r$cui$1...@news.datemas.de...
>>> Hans Aberg wrote:
>>>> Mehegan uses an upper case system only. He does not write out the 7, as
>>>> he feels jazz should only use tetrachords. So the upper case Roman
>>>> numerals I II III IV V VI VII denote the tetrachords within the scale.
>>> Do you mean "tetrad", i.e. a 4-note chord?
>>> "Tetrachord" generally refers to a 4-note scale, in my experience.
>>>
>>
>> Joey, as used in PC Set theory from the 60's & 70's, "tetrachord" was the
>> preferred term for a 4 PC set.
>
>OK.
>
>> Hopefully one could tell from the context
>> which meaning was implied (I'm not intending to connect Mehegan with Forte,
>> et al, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was some cross-fertilization.)
>
>I would.
>And I doubt that Hans was writing ala Forte either.
Have you seen Forte's book "The American Popular Ballad of the Golden
Era 1924-1950" He provides an adapted form of Schenkerian analysis
partly accessible via the Amazon "Look Inside This Book" at:
http://www.amazon.com/American-Popular-Ballad-Golden-1924-1950/dp/069104399X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1204515570&sr=8-1
I don't have his most recent effort, "Listening To Classic American
Popular Songs", 2003, which includes a CD with him playing piano on
"Embraceable You".
Joey Goldstein
b:
Im V7/V bIImaj7 Im
Bm C#7/B Cmaj7 Bm
The C#7 never resolves to F# as expected, so this involves a deceptive
cadence of V7-of-V.
bIImaj7 is subdominant function chord, borrowed from the parallel
phrygian scale. It can also serve the same function as V7 (although we
don't label it as having dominant function), namely as an approach chord
to Im (or I in major keys).
Danny Schorr
Foeget this part - I shouldn't have even brought up major - I was thinking
of songs like "You won't See Me" and "You're all I need to get by" because
of the chromatic movement over a static bass. But that's confusing and
irrelevant. Sorry
>
>But how using the concept of the cto -two verticalities instead of all
>four- to explain the musical logic of the [Db7~C ]?
>
>It seems like a valid concept to me, and as you stated, there isn't any
>other standard solution to be found in the usual harmony texts.
I'm just saying that stuff like this:
Bm: i, [ V7/V, bII], i
seen in "Libertango" and a lot of Brazilian music seems to be the
equivelent to the reasoning behind the Db7 to C Maj 7:
Again, to simplify by removing the extraneous info
B B
F E
Db C
If you accepted thodse "chords" as chromatic movement, how would you label
it? you wouldn't put it in B minor, right? that wouldnt make sense.
Hope you can follow what I'm trying to get at. I can hear it quite clearly
- my ears are saying it's a Libertango type tag at the end of some basic
ii7-V7's
Danny
Danny Schorr
wrote:
>.@. wrote:
Would you apply that to "Satin Doll"?
A quick move to Bm?
Danny
Danny Schorr
Did I really write that! Holy shit!
I'm tired and I started playing it without the Ab minor 7. I had a point
somewhere about relating this all to functional notation - somehow.
One the bright side, I wrote 3 new songs.
Thank you and good night
D.
LJS
Tom, when it comes to semantic disagreements and putting things into
context, you may be asking a bit much of Professor Goldstein. lol
LJS
paramucho
wrote:
>
>Very interesting perspective "paramucho" and I agree with a whole lot
>of it. I think that I had previously qualified the use of the Piston
>type of UC as possibly being of more use outside the US. But the thing
>about the PistonUC and the UC/LC is that they are basically the same
>thing and neither is what was outlined in the original UC as a RN
>translation of the Fake book notation. The Piston and UC/LC are both
>used for analysis. They both address the same issues. They both
>describe the same basic information that is available both in
>Classical analysis and Jazz analysis. The only difference is that the
>Piston is a bit more "aloof" approach. He WANTS the student to have
>the dedication to KNOW all the basics necessary to understand how the
>variations of the functions of harmony are basically the same for
>Major or Minor and thus he has no reason to change the notation to UC/
>LC. He is using it to come up with the same information that the UC/LC
>does. I don't know, nor do I care which came first!
Piston doesn't care -- I don't think he was "aloof". He he was just
using the mainstream notation.
The real difference is not between all-UC and UC/LC but betweeen the
traditional "implicit" notation and the more recent "explicit"
notation.
>I hope that this helps to clarify our differences and similarities. As
>always I think we are very close, but on different but parallel track.
>I was wondering. Which country do you consider to be your native land?
>I assume Europe, but in the beginning I really did not give it much
>thought. My guess would be a rock oriented musician from the British
>Isles some place. Sorry if I am wrong and hope that this would not be
>offensive. LOL. I certainly do not mean it in any way other than to
>know who I am addressing.
>LJS
I'm Australian, so that's a British musical heritage. As an adult I
lived in Germany for about 15 years. Classical people tend to see me
as coming from Rock. Rock people see me as coming from Classical. When
I improvise it tends to be bad classical or even worse jazz. I studied
classical when I was younger. In the 90s I undertook a detailed study
of the Beatles/Lennon, which tends to be my speciality in RMT. The
past few years I've been living musically predominantly in the 1400s,
1500s and 1600s.
The other difference to clarify here is that although I might get into
a blue with my old rock mate Steve now and then, whose detailed
knowledge of his speciality I respect, I don't come out here primarily
to insult other posters or to post stuff that even *I* know is
nonsense. Rec.music.theory is a bit of a Usenet oasis where people
usually enjoy their differerences and learn from each other.
Joey Goldstein
> On Sun, 02 Mar 2008 23:13:20 -0500, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net>
>> b:
>> Im V7/V bIImaj7 Im
>> Bm C#7/B Cmaj7 Bm
>>
>> The C#7 never resolves to F# as expected, so this involves a deceptive
>> cadence of V7-of-V.
>> bIImaj7 is subdominant function chord, borrowed from the parallel
>> phrygian scale. It can also serve the same function as V7 (although we
>> don't label it as having dominant function), namely as an approach chord
>> to Im (or I in major keys).
>
> Would you apply that to "Satin Doll"?
>
> A quick move to Bm?
>
> Danny
Why would I want to do that?
They are very different progressions.
If you're really asking what the typical analysis of SD is, ala Berklee,
here it is:
C:
SD D SD D
\IIm7__V7/ \IIm7_V7/
Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
\IIm7_V7/IIm \IIm7_V7/IIm
Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
D
\IIm7_V7/V \SubIIm7_SubV7/
Am7 |D7 |Abm7 |Db7 |
T
I
C |
Since G7 never actually proceeds to C there is a deceptive cadence
involved. But Em7, when first heard (as IIIm7) is a like-function
substitute for I.
Since A7's progression to D7 is interrupted, twice, this also involves
deceptive cadence. Eventually though, after the interpolated Am7 it does
get there. Normally I'd also include a curved arrow pointing ahead from
A7 to D7.
D7's (V7/V) move to G7 is also interrupted via the interpolated Abm7
chord. But V7/V moving to SubV7 is not a deceptive cadence of V7/V,
since both V7 and SubV7 have D function. I.e. V7 and SubV7 are both seen
to be more or less the same chord.
So why all the backslashes and slashes you might ask?
And how does that Abm7 fit in?
Well, in a Berklee-style analysis any min7-dom7 pair, where the root of
the min7 is a P4th below (or P5th above) the root of the dom7 chord, is
considered to be part of a \IIm7_V7/ pairing. This is true even if the
two chords involved are not necessarily functioning as IIm7 or V7 within
the primary key or some secondary key. Eg. When it occurs within a major
key, the progression of IVm7 to bVII7 to I would be labeled this way:
C:
I \IVm7_bVII7/ I
C |Fm7 Bb7 |C
This is because it is not really functioning as II-V-of-bIII.
It would only be functioning that way if it actually preceded an Eb
chord, and then it would really be part of a bona fide modulation into
Eb major (or possibly a brief move to the parallel minor key, i.e. C
minor). But since chords like IVm and bVII7 happen so frequently within
major keys we have this idea of a 4th harmonic function within the major
key, subdominant minor function.
1. T function (essentially chords that sound and function much like I).
2. D function (essentially chords that sound and function much like V or
V7).
3. SD function (essentially chords that sound and function much like IV)
4. SDM (essentially chords that sound and function much like IVm)
I.e. SDM function chords are borrowed from the SD area of the parallel
minor key/mode.
The characteristic note of SDM function harmony is scale degree b6 of
the major key. In C, Sb6 is Ab. So a great many chords that contain an
Ab that occur within a piece that is primarily in C major will be
labeled with SDM function.
As far as SDM function chords are concerned this borrowing from minor
usually includes chords with Sb6 found within the parallel natural minor
and harmonic minor scales.
Eg. IVm, IVm7, bIV, bVI, bVImaj7 and bVII7.
VIIdim7 and V7b9 are not SDM chords. They are D funt because they also
contain the leading tone as well as the subdominant of the key (S4)
along with Sb6.
The mel min scale does not have Sb6, so the chords that come from it can
not have SDM function.
In addition to nat and harm min we also borrow from the parallel
phrygian and parallel locrian scales.
Eg. bII, and bIImaj7 come from the parallel phrygian.
bVI7 comes from the parallel locrian scale. All 3 are considered to be
SDM funct chords when they occur within primarily major keys.
Borrowing from the parallel dorian scale has the same problems for SDM
funct that the mel min scale has. I.e. No Sb6.
You might ask why "bII7", which does contain Sb6, is not considered to
be a SDM funct chord. There are 2 reasons for this.
1. bII7 is not found within any of the parallel minor scales or parallel
minor modes.
2. bII7 happens to contain the leading tone (enharmonically...eg. Cb,
the b7 of Db7 is enharmonically equivalent to B, the leading tone), as
well as S4 and Sb6, so it has D function.
Enough about SDM function....
Back to SubV7 (Db7) and it's related IIm7 (Abm7).
So, we always pair chords that have a IIm7 V7 relationship, even if they
are not actually functioning as IIm7 or V7 within the primary or some
temporary secondary key. In jazz, we the potential for *any* dom7 chord
to be embellished with it's related IIm7 chord.
So, G7-C and Dm7-G7-C are essentially both the exact same movement.
When faced with a IIm7-V7 progression, many jazz players prefer to
ignore the IIm7 chord and just play off of the V7 chord. Or they might
ignore the V7 and play only off of the IIm7 chord. This might occur in
the accompaniment as well as in the soloist's lines.
Now, we also see Db7 and G7 as being functionally equivalent, i.e.
possessing D function. They both have a strong tendency to move to I (or
Im). This is because both chords contain the Tonal tritone, S4 and S7 of
the key.
On the G7 the Tonal tritone is found between the chord's 3rd and its b7
degrees. Eg. B and F.
On Db7 these same two tones are present in the guise of Cb (the chord's
b7) and F (the chord's 3rd).
So within the key of C (or C minor) both G7 and Db7 can be used a D
function chords approaching I (or Im).
[This also means that G7 can be used as SubV7 in the key of Gb, or Gb
minor. But let's save that for another discussion.]
If G7 can be paired up with its related IIm7 chord, Dm7; then Db7 (as
SubV7) can also be paired up with its related IIm7 chord, Abm7.
So the basic variations of Dm7-G7-C that a jazz musician uses daily,
including cross pollinizations, are:
Dm7 G7 |C
G7 |C
Dm7 |C
Db7 |C
Abm7 Db7 |C
Abm7 |C
Dm7 Db7 |C
Abm7 G7 |C
The progression in Satin Doll is 5th from the top.
But we see all 8 progressions as being essentially the same movement.
For the finer details, see The Chord Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony by
Nettles and Graff.
Joey Goldstein
>
> You guys really do need some sort of a modification to your analytical
> devices to account for this type of modern harmony. [Or you should join
> us (we are The Borg) because we already have a system that effectively
> handles this as well as Bach and Beethoven. Our system is backwards
> compatible, but may not prove to be forward-compatible because nobody
> knows what's coming.] Lemmy seems to think that your system has all the
> modifications it needs already. But you don't seem to be aware of them.
>
> So let's see 'em Lemmy!
Actually, I take that back.
I've kill-filed you Lemmy.
If you respond to this, hopefully I won't see it.
And I will not respond to anything you write if I do see it. (Unless you
actually have a point that is worth responding to. But I don't see that
as being highly likely.)
LJS
> LJS wrote:
>
> > Very interesting perspective "paramucho" and I agree with a whole lot
> > of it. I think that I had previously qualified the use of the Piston
> > type of UC as possibly being of more use outside the US.
>
> How could one style of CPP Tonal analysis be of "more use" depending on
> what country it is being used in?
Ever consider culture, educational systems and tradition? It certainly
seems as though things mean different things in Canada and
specifically in your community than they do other places! If you had
more experience with international students this would be obvious to
you. Even in the US or Canada there are many differences in the
perception of things learned and the slant that is a result of their
culture. All your students and community members all have the same
background and all see everything in the same way? How strange and it
really sounds boring!
>
> > But the thing
> > about the PistonUC and the UC/LC is that they are basically the same
> > thing
>
> So is Berklee-style UC, to a much larger degree than you seem to be
> aware of.
If I can guess as to your meaning: I explained how I understood your
Jazz UC notation and I have repeatedly asked you for clarification or
for some information to show that it was more than that! Did you just
come out of hibernation or something else that had you in a semi
conscious state? If there is more to it than that, for the nth time,
please enlighten! (Wow, after 50 or so posts, the initial question and
request is starting to sink in!!!
>
> > and neither is what was outlined in the original UC as a RN
> > translation of the Fake book notation.
That is the way I explained what I understood you to say when I
responded to you in the first place! Tell us, what else is inherent in
the system? But alas, there has been no responses (well there was that
C/E as an example of Jazz UC. I must admit, that does make one
wonder.
>
> Neither is Berklee-style UC.
>
> > The Piston and UC/LC are both
> > used for analysis.
>
> So is Berklee UC.
Well what part of "please explain how" is so hard to understand?
>
> > They both address the same issues.
Well, tell us how! That is what I have been asking.
>
> So does Berklee UC, except in the areas that I have already noted.
> A course in classical harmony is basically a course in 4-part voice
> leading (ala "part writing" or "chorale texture" or whatever you want to
> call it). A course in jazz harmony is basically about the progressions
> themselves. Voice leading is often taught as a separate subject, perhaps
> in an arranging class.
>
> > They both
> > describe the same basic information that is available both in
> > Classical analysis and Jazz analysis.
Well not exactly, but there are similarities. There is more to it than
that. You state that very thing when you say that in Jazz, voice
leading is not directly related to Harmony. Well in many players that
is true. Now we are back to another unanswered post where I responded
to this at that time and asked if you really thought that Bill Evans
and improvised and composed changes were not directly related to voice
leading. I mentioned a few others as well. And you claim that this is
not important. Well, if the leaders and the Icons of Jazz thought it
was important, I will go with them rather than to subscribe to the
idea that it is only important if you take an arranging class
(actually the Classical face of Jazz as it is pre composed and the
idea is to recreate it as composed) that may be the view of your Jazz
community that thinks voice leading is only something important for
those more adept Classical musicians. My community would not have that
attitude.
>
> So does Berklee UC.
>
> > The only difference is that the
> > Piston is a bit more "aloof" approach.
>
> Maybe you mean "goofy".
I see. I think that Piston is a great analyst and a bit of a snob so I
say "aloof". You seem to disagree and think that Piston is "Goofy"!
My, my, my. That community of yours seems to have a different view
than most musical scholars. Would you care to give some examples of
his Goofy system of theory?
>
> > When the music
> > progressed to another level, or extension of harmonic color, the UC/LC
> > holds up better then the Piston.
>
> Just curious, but how does your version of standard UC/LC happen to
> label tritone substitute dominant chords and their associated IIm7 chords?
Give me an example in context and I will tell you how the language
would describe it and we can compare and explore.
>
> For example, what's your analysis of Satin Doll's progression in the A
> sections?
>
> Here's the progression (because I'm assuming that you don't know it
> based on everything else you've ever said about jazz here in this ng):
>
> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
>
> Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>
> Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |Cmaj7
>
> It's all standard fare except for the Abm7 Db7.
> I am not aware of any way to analyse that with the "standard" classical
> Tonal analysis palette of harmonic devices. Most classically oriented
> harmony teachers I've encountered label that merely as a "mistake". They
> might be willing to label the Db7 as a bII+6 chord (of course a CPP
> classical theorist would never allow such a thing), but they have no way
> of dealing with the Abm7.
> So please tell me how your modernization of the standard UC/LC system
> deals with these chords?
That would be a way to label it if one was to take liberties. But it
would not be a good example of how the analysis process would work.
There is a different approach to the same facts. In Uc/Lc there wold
also be a couple of approaches. The beginning of course would be
generally be the ii7V7's in normally C and D and G. One could, if
they were new to using this in this genera, continue with the ii7V7 in
Gb and notate it as a deceptive cadence from the Db to the C, or maybe
as you described, above and this would not be the way that I would use
this to describe this at all. It is what I would expect to be your
question. Before I give you my explanation, let me ask you. Is this
or the respelling to a bII+6, that you say can work but is not
exactly right, and you are correct here, it is not right. How would
Jazz UC notation analyze this? BTW, I would think that only a student
that is not aware of the tritone sub, either Jazz or Classical student
would make this mistake!
I would, having been aware that I was looking to use this language for
a genre that had different rules than the CPP, I would approach it
head on and let it do its thing. Thus, that progression may look like
Key of C: bvi7 bII7 I. (I am using the bII7 in the normal manner that
it would be used in this genre to denote a dominant type of chord)
That is the functional analysis description. You may say that this
does not show any CPP function and of course this is correct it
doesn't. That is because this is NOT a CPP function, it is a Jazz
function. Just as in the CPP, we learn that i iv i 6/4 V7 i is a
cadence formula and we see that in Jazz a ii7 V7 I is a cadence
formula, as we did more tunes in the Jazz genre we would discover that
the bvi7 bII7 is the tri-tone sub cadence formula and then it is a
part of our analytical vocabulary that has grown through using this
language in this genre. In the beginning, spelling a I IV V I did not
mean anything. After seeing it in the music over and over and each
time we saw that it followed the same pattern, THEN and only then did
the functional relationships have meaning in that music. This is the
same thing, only it is now a result of seeing it over and over again
in the Jaz medium.
Now to step back a bit. Lets say that we are just beginning to study
Jazz with the UC/LC and this is a new progression to us. Then after
seeing that this is NOT a pattern that we know, it would be necessary
to give an explanation of what is going on. Then, since we see it as a
cadence to C and we hear it as a cadence in C and it quacks like a
cadence in C, we may see how we can analyze it as a Cadence in C!
I would explain it somewhat like this. Here we have a cadence that
seems to be built on a ii7 V7 pattern in a key that is a tri-tone
above the tonic. The progression seems to be a ii V in Db but the
resolution is not to Gb but to a tonic on C. This cadence has the
elements of a typical cadence. We could call the bvi7 a second class
chord, leading to the bII first class chord functioning as a tension
chord or a dominant chord and leading to the resolution in C. (I would
then further note) If this progression is a characteristic of the Jazz
idiom, I would suggest that we decide on a name for this progression
(bvi7 bII7 I). Since the 2nd and 1st class chords are taken from the
key a tri-tone away, maybe something like a Tri-Tone Cadence or a Tri-
Tone substitute Cadence may turn out to be a good name for this.
That is how the UC/LC would grow to accommodate this progression that
was not in common usage in the original CPP. Now that this TriToneSub
is used and accepted, the language has provided a means to use the
same logic of establishing and defining the norms of the CPP has now
been used to show this norm of the Jazz period.
>
> > It can still work, but it just isn't
> > as obvious if you are looking ONLY at the RNs without the Score to put
> > it into perspective.
Thus, with this perspective, you see that the score is not necessary
to put this into perspective. The simple fact that the language has
been used to define bvi7 bII7 I as a TTS. Now you know that when you
see that, it means TTS and the language shows you exactly what it is.
>
> All classical harmonic analysis requires the score, whether it's UC or
> UC/LC. These are techniques designed from the ground up to be used to
> analyse pre-composed music. If there is no actual music there is nothing
> to be analyzed.
Well, since it is in a score, maybe so, but how is that different than
saying that you need a lead sheet for Jazz analysis? I don't see the
point here. The music is in the sound. If you reduce a score of Mozart
to a lead sheet, all of the HARMONIC information is still there. We
just don't see it that often in that presentation. Other than that, if
we had a big band score, we would need the score to analyze what is
there, or we have to make a lead sheet to study the harmony. It looks
like a same/same to me.
>
> > In Piston classes, it is almost necessary to have
> > the Score available,
>
> Every classical analysis is like this.
> Incidentally, in a Berklee-style jazz analysis, we usually have the
> chord symbols present also.
That particular line is in reference to a specific instance that was
mentioned. If you have ONLY the Piston UC analysis, if you don't know
if it is in Maj or Min, you can't accurately spell the chords. You can
still see the functional analysis, however. The spelling of the chords
is merely a step to seeing the functional relations. Let me try to
clear this misconception up for you by using the Piston method a bit.
Following the same steps as I did with the UC/LC, in Piston you may
come up with a bVI7 bII7 I. Since Piston would assume that you knew
that if the bVI would be minor and that the bII would be dominant in a
major key. It would also be assuming that if the key was minor that
it wold be (probably, I am trying to guess how that goofy Walter would
handle it!) assumed to make the progression a half diminished Ab7 and
a Dominant Db chord. IF there is a minor version of the TTS, Piston
would work for this, BUT if there is not a norm of a minor version of
the TTS then this is an example of how his "goofy" system would not
grow as easily as the UC/LC language.
>
> > or a working knowledge of the piece to most
> > efficiently work with his notation. It is very helpful, to have the
> > score with UC/LC notation but not necessary for translation from the
> > UC/LC to spelling on the keyboard.
>
> Bullshit.
Well, learn it and it will be obvious. If I wrote, Key of C: ii7 V7
I. A score would be OK to have and may have some information in it,
but the spelling of the progression is obvious to be DFAC GBDG CEG.
You don't need a score to spell the chords. This is the only thing
that this statement means. Noting more and nothing less.
> Many progressions in classical music depend upon specific voice leading
> in order to be labeled in the 1st place, like your beloved bVI+6
> chord(s). Without the actual music in front of you there is no way to
> analyze it in any sense that has any meaning. Classical analysis is not
> generally geared towards abstracting generalizations for the purpose of
> being able to improvise or even to compose new music based upon the
> music being analyzed. It's generally geared towards the analysis of
> music that has already been created. I suppose that to one degree or
> another an enterprising musician might try to use it for those purposes,
> but that's not what it was created for. On the other hand, the Berklee
> system was created for precisely these purposes.
You are hung up on the Aug6 chords. I wish it was MY beloved chord. I
could use the royalties that I would have from it. It is really
everyone's beloved +6 chord.
Why to you need a score to spell this chord? As written you are
saying it is a Ab C Eb F#. You don't need a score for that. In a
functional analysis, you wold have a chord before that and after that.
You then take the notes that are spelled out and you part write them.
This is often the test format that is used to test the knowledge of
progressions. If your statement of needing the score to understand the
written language was true, then the test would be impossible to
complete. But is isn't, so its not and that claim just doesn't stand
up.
>
> > By that I mean (this and only this) that if you are given a tune
> > analyzed in both methods and you are given ONLY the RNs, you have many
> > more decisions to make in order to get the exact spellings of the
> > chords.
>
> Nonsense.
I believe that we are talking about the Goofy Guy's UC here. At least
that is the way that I meant it. If you are referring to the Jazz UC
then you may be correct. I would think that the Jazz UC is designed
for spelling chords and have said that many times, and I have also
said that it is very good at doing that. Just like a lead sheet. You
certainly would not need a score to play the notes of the chord. Then
if you wanted to use good voice leading for these notes you could or
if you wanted to relax the voice leading rules, you would be able to
do that too. In both cases you would have the spelling to work with.
> Someone who is familiar with Piston's UC only methods, which you
> yourself have said contains all the exact same information as the
> "standard" UC/LC methods, will encounter exactly the same problems as
> someone from the UC/LC school if presented with a score-less analysis.
No, you are forgetting that the spellings for the same functions are
different if the key is major or minor. This is the difference that
the key makes. Other than that, there is really no problems with
either system. Piston only has that Goofy way of expecting you to know
this.
>
> > True, all the information may be there AFTER you have seen the
> > score,
>
> Classical Tonal harmonic analysis techniques require the score.
> Without the score there is nothing to be analyzed.
Now you seem to be loosing the thought. You have reversed the
conditions. This started as a comment about IF you were given the
score already placed into the language. The music was there, but your
teacher did not give you this. He only gave you the Functional
analysis. Certainly, if you change the question to fit your answer,
you may be right, but if you do that on the test, you will certainly
be marked wrong. Most schools (I don't know about your community)
require that the QUESTION is fixed. You are expected to frame the
answer to that QUESTION. You are not allowed to give your own
convenient answer and scratch out the professor's question and then
rewrite it to fit your answer. Actually, I had a student try that
once. I thought it was cute. He was smart, but he did not do the
lesson and I thought it was a good attempt. He of course paid the
price on that quiz! But I enjoyed it a lot.
>
> > but if you have not, there are some spots that may have a
> > different interpretation than is quickly obvious. This is one reason
> > why it wold become more popular with educators trying to teach
> > students various concepts of harmony. You can take UC/LC and with less
> > thinking and less decisions very simply and accurately spell all the
> > chords with the correct notes.
>
> And with Berklee-style UC only methods you require even less thinking,
> less decisions, and less pre-known information.
And, until you explain otherwise, a whole lot less information. I am
waiting.
>
> > You can do this immediately after
> > learning the simple symbols and conventions used in the system.
>
> Precisely the strengths of the Berklee system, even more than your
> beloved UC/LC "standard".
I see the logic here. Since they are both the same in a certain
respect, your beloved Standard is still better than the other beloved
standard. (You just can't resist can you?)
>
> > You do
> > NOT have to know the principle behind the analysis to EASILY spell the
> > chords.
>
> Even easier at Berklee.
Right, that is not the question. They are both easy for spelling. The
Berklee is easier for YOU because you don't seem to understand the UC/
LC as well as you do the Berklee. If you did, they would be equally
easy. I am still, however, still waiting to see how the Jazz UC gets
you into the analysis as deeply. You may be correct. If you are, you
could have explained it thousands of words ago and this thread would
be history. I don't know why you won't come across with the
explanation of how it does this.
>
> > You don't have to consider the color of the key, you just look
> > at the analysis and you can start part writing or arranging it with
> > only the basics of the language.
>
> But that's exactly what Berklee-style analysis was designed to do from
> the start. You've had to modify some arcane system that was designed to
> deal with pre-composed music and needed to be further modified
> extensively in order to be able to handle modern Tonal music. Sure,
> anybody can work your way. But why would they want to?
What are you missing? Spelling the chords is NOT analysis of harmonic
function. You have to do more than that. You don't think that if you
look at a score and you spell the chords that you have done an
analysis do you? I am sure that you are more advanced than that. I
have not modified the "arcane" (is that related to Goofy?) system as
much as I have included the new techniques into a perfectly working
system that already has an extremely large data base. Weather you want
to admit it or not, the music that you analyze in Jazz is the way you
describe Classical music. A lead sheet or a Jazz score IS pre composed
music. You can spell the chords and be done with it. I knew an
interesting musician. "Black Mike" was his name. He could play the
changes to any lead sheet to any chords, functional or at random, that
you put in front of him. He could play them at any tempo and cover the
whole horn if he wanted. They were, however, all arpeggios. They were
fine for short little spurts in a big band arrangement, but on an
improvisational gig, this got boring after a few measures rather than
a whole night.
He could spell chords very well, but Mike didn't know the other
information and thus he did not have the freedom or conceptual
understanding to create good solos. He did have a good career as an
ensemble and he was a wonderful musician from a performance aspect. He
just never had the chance to learn the ANALYSIS that may have helped
him to play more interesting and melodic solos. THAT is why many
people may WANT TO learn it the proper and most efficient way.
>
> > No other information necessary. At
> > that point, you are ready to start to delve deeper into true
> > analysis.
>
> What's the difference between "true analysis" and what you've been
> discussing up till now?
Nothing. We have not started to go into a deeper analysis. I gave a
hint above with your TTS example. I will be surprised if you
understand it as yet, because it is a different way of thinking and
looking at it, but it is the gateway to learning to look at the why's
and wherefor's that analysis provides.
>
> > This is all possible with Piston, it just takes more prep and study
> > with the language.
> > So the argument, or contention, is not so much as
> > if the Piston vs UC/LC is a fight for standardization, but rather that
> > EITHER will work.
>
> As does Berklee-style UC.
Once again (maybe 100 times again) Show me? YOU may be right. Maybe
there is more to your Jazz UC that you failed to explain when I have
asked you the last few hundred times. If you don't come up with the
explanation, I have to assume that either you can't or that it is some
secrete information that you want to sell or something. Save us all a
lot of time. Just explain what is in the Jazz UC language that will
help to provide a path to a deeper analysis.
>
> > The other UC system presented is not that far away,
> > but as presented does not provide the same flexibility of EITHER of
> > the other languages.
>
> Prove it.
No. I don't see this flexibility in your system so it is impossible
that I prove it. If it CAN provide that flexibility, then YOU explain
how it can and I will be happy to learn these uses for this Jazz UC
that I have not been using. I wold love to add something to this
arsenal and I would be very glad to be able to have you be responsible
for actually teaching me how that system can do the same thing. You
don't seem to be willing to address the issue and simply show how it
can.
>
> > It is a purpose specific language written for and
> > by a smaller set of musicians for a specific reason.
>
> And that specific reason is the analysis of modern Tonal music.
> It's not like we can't analyse Bach ala Berklee. We can, if we choose
> to. But you have yet to demonstrate the modifications needed to your
> system in order to be able to handle Ellington, let alone what guys like
> Herbie Hancock or Wayne Shorter are into. The Berklee system was created
> because your favorite system was not up to the task.
You keep saying that. But no info. Spelling Ellington or Hancock or
Shorter is not analysis! It is spelling! I have shown you above how
the UC/LC IS up to the task. Show me how the Jazz UC does the same
thing for Jazz and then for all other tonal music. Then they would be
equal. The Jazz UC notation MAY have been created for the reason that
you stated, but IF it was, it only proves that the creator did not see
how to do the same thing in the UC/LC OR that he needed a hook to sell
books. In either case, it was NOT necessary to create a different
language. It is more likely that this language is what it appears to
be and that is a quick way to get the sound of a lead sheet by playing
the basic chords and the melody.
Come on Joey G. Lets see some teaching here. Stop saying that IT JUST
IS, and give some reasons.
>
> > A lot of
> > musicians do NOT worry about improvising.
>
> Right. just the one's who are improvisers, duh.
>
> > A lot of them are content to
> > PLAY the notes on Piano or Guitar that spell the chords. They may or
> > may not be expected to play a solo. After all, there are horns for
> > that and musicians that play only in ensembles like big bands etc may
> > NEVER have to us an analytical language for any reason whatsoever.
> > This alternate UC language is fine for that.
>
> It's a fine analysis technique for people who don't have any need for a
> technique of analysis? Nice logic.
Well, that is what you can correct by showing how the Jazz UC does do
this task! Yes the logic is fine. I have seen no evidence that the
Jazz UC is a help for the analysis to any degree as much as the UC/LC.
Thus it would be fine for those Jazz musicians that don't rely on
composition/analysis. (did you have the New Math in HS? i.e. Boolean
algebra? or did your generation miss that?) I am asking you to teach
me how to agree with you. How can you use the Jazz UC as a language to
relate functional music? Here's your chance. I am eager to learn. Show
me Professor. I have said from the beginning that there may be
something that I am missing in your Jazz UC, show me what it is and
the discussion will be over! (if it holds up!)
>
> > It works well. Just not
> > as good if you feel the need to really understand and to use this
> > understanding for composition and improvisation.
>
> Bullshit.
> You don't understand what it is or you could not make such an ignorant
> statement.
Well, I am asking. Show me. Stop talking about what we know and don't
know and explain it to me and everyone!
LJS
LJS
> Why you guys have to write so much is beyond me.
> it makes it very difficult to carry on a conversation with you.
> I don't have time to go over this line by line, paragraph by paragraph.
> But I'll do my best.
>
> Steve Latham wrote:
> > "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >news:fqevfb$lcv$1...@news.datemas.de...
>
> >> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |
>
> >> Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>
> >> Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |Cmaj7
>
> >> It's all standard fare except for the Abm7 Db7.
> >> I am not aware of any way to analyse that with the "standard" classical
> >> Tonal analysis palette of harmonic devices.
>
> > [note: I know you're asking someone else, but I'll give you my responses
> > too]
>
> > This is what I've mentioned many times before. The CPP system doesn't really
> > include symbology for concepts that weren't typical CPP behavior.
>
> LJS is claiming that there have been "standard" modifications to the
> standard CPP analysis techniques that you cited in an earlier post that
> allow it to be used for analyses of modern Tonal music (i.e. modern
> music that is based on major and minor keys but that may happen to
> violate certain stricter notions of Tonality demonstrable in the works
> of CPP composers).
WRONG. THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID AT ALL. You claimed standard for the
Jazz UC and I replied that there was already two standards (as it
evolved) The UC/LC and the Piston UC. I said that they could continue
to grow (as it did from its inception) to accommodate. You are totally
re writing what I have said. (Changing the question to fit your answer
again!)
> I'm trying to find out what these modifications are.
> He is also claiming that his system is superior than Berklee's system
> for dealing with this type of music. I think he's dead wrong.
WRONG AGAIN. I suggest by the Jazz UC that I understand from your
comments that this system is not designed to do the same thing as the
UC/LC or the Piston. You are again changing the question to fit your
answers.
>
> > We don't
> > have "3-2" suspensions because there's no need to. I think that's true of
> > most systems. The General MIDI specifications weren't designed to deal with
> > USB, it wasn't available when the General MIDI specs came out. Now, can we
> > revise or modify systems? I think so. But, backwards compatability has
> > become essential in things like Technology fields. Why not music theory?
>
> Backwards compatibility is easy. It's forwards compatibility that's tough.
>
> > Most classically oriented
> >> harmony teachers I've encountered label that merely as a "mistake".
>
> > I wouldn't. It's Jazz. But it is astylistic to CPP music. So the question
> > becomes, how informative is if for us to analyze these chords when we are
> > simply labelling them, rather than showing any function. For example,
> > calling Db7 in C bII7 is a "label". It tells us what the chord is, but to a
> > classically trained theorist, bII means Neapolitan, which has a Pre-Dominant
> > function. This definitely does not go with this chord. A better label, in
> > revisionist fashion, would be to call it something that both differentiates
> > it from the Neapolitan, and that says something about its function beyond
> > its "II-ness". I would think, "TS" or "VTS" would be obvious and logical.
>
> I might, agree if I knew what "TS" or "VTS" actually meant.
> But LJS seems to think that there is some "standard" way of labeling
> this. You seem to be confirming that there isn't.
I certainly did say this! I don't know what you are talking bout.
That is the voice leading characteristics of an era just as the
infamous Parallel 5ths ban is a characteristic of another era. I
certainly did not say that you had to voice lead it in the same style
of anything. I ONLY said that careful use of GOOD voice leading is
inherent in the master musicians, in both Classical, Jazz and any
other genre. I did not define what they were at all. YOU have made the
selections that you think make your case, but they are once again,
changing the question to fit your answer..
>
> > I want to call it something that describes
> > its function while differentiating it from any other common, similar chords.
> > "TS" is the best it could be IMHO.
>
> Are you using "TS" to mean "tritone sub"?
> Usually we just call them "SubV7 chords".
>
> > but they have no way
> >> of dealing with the Abm7.
>
> > ii7/TS - TS.
>
> C'mon. That's a pretty big stretch for any classical theorist, isn't it?
> And you really mean v7/TS, as you put it below. In C, ii7/TS would be
> Ebm7. And with this label you're making it seem like there's a
> tonicizing of bII going on, which isn't really what's going on here at all.
Maybe if you read my analysis of Joey G's assignment you would see
that this is not the only way to use the system. The problem here is
that you are not using the language the same way with both CPP and
Jazz. Instead you are using the FINDINGS or the CONVENTIONS that were
discovered in the CPP with the USE of the UC/LC LANGUAGE. If on the
other hand, you use the same techniques that were used to discover the
CONVENTIONS of the CPP, you will see how the same LANGUAGE can be used
to discover the CONVENTIONS that are specific to the Jazz era. THAT is
what analysis is and this language (UC/LC) worked in the CPP, it will
work in the Romantic period and it certainly works on Jazz, show
tunes, and fox-trots. or any other functional music.
The LANGUAGE allows one to see recurrent patterns. I NEVER SAID THAT
THE SAME CONVENTIONS USED IN THE CPP WOULD WORK IN THE JAZZ IDIOM. I
SAID THAT THE LANGUAGE COULD BE USED IN THE SAME MANNER TO ALLOW
ANALYSIS TO OCCUR IN THE JAZZ IDIOM IN THE SAME MANNER AS IT DID
DURING THE CPP. There is a very big difference. This is a step towards
analysis. Somewhere along the line someone discovered, maybe by
accident, who knows that the TriToneSub sounded good. Probably he
didn't know why or what to call it. By using ANALYSIS and seeing this
pattern bvi7 bII7 I occur over and over again in the same context with
the same result, you have then used the LANGUAGE tool do define a NEW
function that is a CONVENTION of the Jazz Idiom. That is a very
different thing from what is being discussed here.
>
> Or you mean ii7/bV, another thing that would make the heads of most
> classically oriented theorists explode.
>
> > That is, the ii7 of the the Tritone Sub to the Tritone Sub. This is why
> > "VTS" might be nice, so we have ii-V progression "of" the TS.
>
> Assuming I got "TS" right, what's the "V" supposed to mean?
>
> > In CPP analysis, we can actually describe this Joey, but only the chords in
> > their functions in that context, not the context they're presented in here.
>
> Huh?
>
> > Abm - Db in C would be v/N - N - that is, the minor dominant of the
> > Neapolitan (or the key of the Neapolitan if you like) to the Neapolitan.
> > However, it makes little sense.
You are touching on the right concept, but you are trying to use the
CPP conventions of Nepolitian to describe a different convention. Let
the language define the unique function that has been since called the
TriToneSub! It is a new function so it needs another name. YOU ARE
HOWEVER SO CLOSE. You are actually using the example that should make
it clear. I don't know the dates, but before the Nepolitian6 was used
in the CPP, there was not any N6 or what ever notation you want to
describe this. There was no symbol for it because the concept was not
in use! When it came to be present in the music, the language of the
UC/LC allowed this pattern to be identified and its uses studied and
they decided to give it a symbol of its own. The same could be said of
the Picardy Third. Before it was used, there was no term. When it was
used, the language showed that in MINOR the i iv V I was appearing at
the end of many pieces. This was evident with the language and then
the language grew to include this. Same for the +6 etc. It will not
work if you try to use the wrong conventions for the concept in
question. You need to analyze and then you see it.
>
> But you're tonicizing bII which is not what's going on.
>
> > Another option is to simply call them embellishing, or non-functional chords
> > (which I hope you haven't synonimized with "mistake" - these are not
> > mistakes, just non-functional chords).
>
> But the chords in question *are* functional. They form a very effective
> and common cadential formula for approaching the I chord. They do not
> exist in some non-Tonal form of music devoid of major and minor keys.
> They are quite common in the everyday music making of contemporary
> musicians of all stripes and persuasions.
>
> You guys really do need some sort of a modification to your analytical
> devices to account for this type of modern harmony. [Or you should join
> us (we are The Borg) because we already have a system that effectively
> handles this as well as Bach and Beethoven. Our system is backwards
> compatible, but may not prove to be forward-compatible because nobody
> knows what's coming.] Lemmy seems to think that your system has all the
> modifications it needs already. But you don't seem to be aware of them.
>
> So let's see 'em Lemmy!
You want me to do your homework again? Read my post that I responded
to your assignment here if the above still evades your understanding.
Is this to imply that Jazz is NOT tonal? Who is the ">>" indicating
here. I don't think this is Joey G's words. I thought that this was
Stevie, but that would be a surprise to hear him say that.
>
> Well we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
> And we're not just talking about jazz harmony here. We're talking about
> the harmony of contemporary popular music. Popular Tonal harmony is what
> CPP Tonal harmony evolved into.
>
> > it's
> > basically a system based on tetrachords, er, tetrads rather than triads.
That in no way takes it out of the tonal class. It only describes the
conventions of periods just as a lot of Romantic music is based on
four note chords.
>
> Just because we prefer the density of 7th chords does not make a jazz
> progression any less based on triads. It's just triadic music with
> extensions.
>
> > It's also a system that allows for chromatic or modal alterations to be
> > included in key-based systems (i.e. #11 rather than plain 11).
This is also allowed in UC/LC if you let the language do its work and
not limit it to only the CPP conventions. Face it, the CPP is just
that. It is what people did at that time. Just because the UC/LC was
used to analyze it does not mean that this is the limit of the UC/LC
language. Maybe you would be more comfortable with Baroque UC/LC and
Classical UC/LC and Romantic UC/LC and Jazz UC/LC. I find this silly
and a bit redundant. In the above example, however, the Era changes,
and may be separated if you like, but the LANGUAGE is the same for
them all. Call it standard, call it compatible, call it what you want.
The same language will work as well in all of these instances.
>
> Jazz notions of key of much less farther away from classical notions of
> key than you evidently seem to realize. If jazz music was not based on
> keys, then yes, we'd need some completely new analytical system to
> describe it. But that is not the case.
I agree that Jazz and Classical music often share a vast amount of
common progressions. Your wording seem a bit off to me as I am seeing
contradictions that I would not normally think would be in your posts.
Bach chorales are based on keys in a manner similar to Jazz. Lets
look. Temporary key areas (Tonicazations ? or what ever) that are
closely related. Usually to the vi, the ii the IV or V and then to
other keys with the harmony of different styles. The same key
relationships are found in development sections of many symphonies. In
fact in Beethoven even you will find uses of modulations to much more
distant keys as well as many progressions and this is further similar
when you get to the later Romantic period.
Well, that is what the language does. It describes. If you try to
analyze this in CPP terms you will fail. If you allow it to do its
job, you will see that just like ii V I that the bvi bII I is a
function to Jazz. ii7 V7 I is not that common to the CPP (although it
does exist) but it can be further analyzed to show its relation to the
IV V I but the ii V I is seen as a CONVENTION of Jazz and should make
sense to any Jazz musician. In the same manner, if you use the
language to show that bvi7 bII7 I is a TriToneSub (by any name it
would smell as sweet!) and would then be seen that way.
>
> > It's just labelling. It merely tells you
> > the quality of the chord, and the scale degree upon which it's built. It
> > would be useful as a transpositional tool, but it doesn't really tell us
> > what the chords are doing.
No. It is a PATTERN that is repeated in many songs of the Idiom. It
does tell us what the chords are doing. They are functioning as a
cadence. A different cadence than the ii7 V7 I but a cadence on its
own merit.
>
> > To me, the first line sets up the tonality of C. Then, it is a typical
> > circle of 5ths progression - A7 - D7 - G7 - C
>
> It is based on that, but that's not exactly what it is, because there is
> no G7.
>
> > I see the em7-A7 pairs as an embellishement of the A7, and the Abm-Db7 as an
> > embellishment of the G7 (as a TS).
>
> What G7?
> It's not an embellishment of G7. It's a substitute for it.
>
> > But the second line sounds like a key change - a direct modulation.
>
> Yes and no. The roots are all diatonic to C. There's just one
> non-diatonic tone, C#, in the A7 chord. It certainly doesn't sound like
> the piece should end on a D chord here. But the 2 chords are diatonic to
> D major as well. It's a paradox of sorts. But the key feeling on C is
> never weakened through the entire A section. There are whiffs of other
> keys, but nothing conclusive.
That in itself is note worthy. The entire pattern show an incomplete
cadence suggesting the keys of C C D D G and then the "new guy" the
suggestion of Gb. Its not a direct modulation, but it is a definite
cadence. It is the first of all similar pattern that breaks the
incomplete cadence pattern. Instead of going to the expected key of
Gb, it "deceives" us by going to the key of C for a resolution that is
very strongly suggested by the implied key areas of C D G or in UC/LC
these key areas could be considered I II V. Notice that the implied
key areas are used to set up the tonality of C if you look at it in
this manner. Yes Duke could have used a ii V I in C to finish the
phrase, but then it would not be as popular as it is today. This
Deceptive cadence or TriToneSub is one of his own specific CONVENTIONS
that is used as a hook in this tune. Now we are starting to get to
understanding why these elements work in this A section of this tune.
We have unresolved suggestions that outline the I II V of the key and
then we have a suggestion of a modulation to the bV but even here we
have this suggestion resolved to the key that was being established by
the incomplete cadences from the beginning of the tune.
>
> > Likewise, the penultimate measure sounds like a key change. Do we point
> > these out? If so, do we use traditional terminology and symbology, or do we
> > need something more specific to this situation (for example, I've heard the
> > term "Semitone Displacement" for use in atonal music where the music
> > "settles" into a note/sonority a semitone above or below the existing sound
> > world).
>
This may be the main difference with our generations. You always seem
to want to inject new terms. Are they really needed? The entire
section is a series of II V I's Their arrangement and their lack of
resolutions and the ultimate resolutions and the implications of these
elements says a whole lot about the tune. Once these elements, which
are the most obvious ones from a FUNCTIONAL perspective are pointed
out, then if you want to explore that particular aspect in a manner
that may be related to something else from another context, you are
now ready to do this as you have defined the CONVENTIONS that are used
in the Jazz Idiom. It you want to compare this CONVENTION to what ever
style created or that you are considering with the concept or
convention of "Semitone Displacement" than this is taking the analysis
another step. You now would have explained the functional aspects of
the harmony in the idiom that you are analyzing and you are now
beginning to show how some other composer in a different idiom and
possibly from a vastly different context, is also represented by this
seemingly simple progression. NOW it is starting to be a real
analysis.
> Yes, you need something more specific, like the Berklee system of analysis.
Persistence is certainly one of your characteristic traits. lol BUT
your persistence of making that statement without giving any examples
of how it actually does this is really getting boring. Maybe you CAN"T
explain it. But saying it over and over again may convince some, but
that doesn't make it truth.
LJS
LJS
> On Sun, 2 Mar 2008 10:20:30 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Very interesting perspective "paramucho" and I agree with a whole lot
> >of it. I think that I had previously qualified the use of the Piston
> >type of UC as possibly being of more use outside the US. But the thing
> >about the PistonUC and the UC/LC is that they are basically the same
> >thing and neither is what was outlined in the original UC as a RN
> >translation of the Fake book notation. The Piston and UC/LC are both
> >used for analysis. They both address the same issues. They both
> >describe the same basic information that is available both in
> >Classical analysis and Jazz analysis. The only difference is that the
> >Piston is a bit more "aloof" approach. He WANTS the student to have
> >the dedication to KNOW all the basics necessary to understand how the
> >variations of the functions of harmony are basically the same for
> >Major or Minor and thus he has no reason to change the notation to UC/
> >LC. He is using it to come up with the same information that the UC/LC
> >does. I don't know, nor do I care which came first!
>
> Piston doesn't care -- I don't think he was "aloof". He he was just
> using the mainstream notation.
So do I. It was what he learned so it was the language he used. The
Aloof comment was purely a statement of opinion that he was capable of
understanding it quite easily in that language and that he might
"relish" in the extra work and thought that the young student would
have to use to emulate the hard work and devotion that he had. I
certainly meant nothing by it. It did turn out produce an amusing
Joeyism. I had never quite thought of Walter Piston or his system of
harmony to be "Goofy" That is an original one.
>
> The real difference is not between all-UC and UC/LC but betweeen the
> traditional "implicit" notation and the more recent "explicit"
> notation.
>
> >I hope that this helps to clarify our differences and similarities. As
> >always I think we are very close, but on different but parallel track.
> >I was wondering. Which country do you consider to be your native land?
> >I assume Europe, but in the beginning I really did not give it much
> >thought. My guess would be a rock oriented musician from the British
> >Isles some place. Sorry if I am wrong and hope that this would not be
> >offensive. LOL. I certainly do not mean it in any way other than to
> >know who I am addressing.
> >LJS
>
> I'm Australian, so that's a British musical heritage. As an adult I
> lived in Germany for about 15 years. Classical people tend to see me
> as coming from Rock. Rock people see me as coming from Classical. When
> I improvise it tends to be bad classical or even worse jazz. I studied
> classical when I was younger. In the 90s I undertook a detailed study
> of the Beatles/Lennon, which tends to be my speciality in RMT. The
> past few years I've been living musically predominantly in the 1400s,
> 1500s and 1600s.
Thanks. That heps me to understand your perspective in a more clear
manner. It is surprisingly close to what I had gathered. I do suspect,
that your improvisations are better than you imagine or at least that
you have the potential to make them much better then you want to take
the chance to admit. Sorry t ask but what us RMT? My text
abbreviations are a weak element with my adjustment to the tech world
that sprang up during my life. I too, have a very strong respect and
admiration for the Beatles. Since I sort of grew up with them, I look
at it from a different perspective than I would expect you have. I
followed some of their paths through other cultures in many of the
same ways that they did with some of their same aids to understanding
that they used as they evolved to the phenomenon that they became. I
would enjoy comparing some of these perspectives with your more
musical approach to the analysis of their evolution.
Did you study analysis using the Piston notation? Is it more common in
Germany and/or Australia or where ever you did your study? Is your
interest in the 15th -17th C music as a performer, a composer or an
analyst? I am not a scholar, especially with the dates and names of
these periods, but they have been of great interest to me from a
conceptual point of view. They are really the key to modern music.
Some of the ideas and concepts that were used at that
"Primitave" (yes, early is really what I think, but most people think
that those old eras had people that was somewhat primitive, but I see
them as doing a whole lot of very sophisticated things with a limited
amount of tools and technology)
>
> The other difference to clarify here is that although I might get into
> a blue with my old rock mate Steve now and then, whose detailed
> knowledge of his speciality I respect, I don't come out here primarily
> to insult other posters or to post stuff that even *I* know is
> nonsense. Rec.music.theory is a bit of a Usenet oasis where people
> usually enjoy their differerences and learn from each other.
I don't generally do this either. Joey, however, has a history of
making statements that can be limiting to the education process for
the student. Then he refuses to address the problems and starts his
routine. In the meantime, if I have the time, and fighting the Flu,
there are times that you just have to sit and do something, so I use
it to help me to review and try to update the things that I have
learned over the years. If anyone wants to read them, they will find a
whole lot of useful approaches that are not always taught in our
educational system at this time. So I get to review these different
perspectives and use (yes even some of the ridiculous statements by
some) opinions and even misconceptions to help me to find questions to
ask about my own views and other views expressed.
Couple that with his, I would say sophmoric approach to name calling
etc, (Maybe, elementary school yard is a better comparison) and I
sometimes just need the comic relief.
So I apologize for so many posts, but I try to answer all that I can,
especially when they are spinning and actually changing what I said
and then arguing that what I didn't say was wrong but in the context
that I actually said these "misunderstandings"! I use the refresh key
a lot with things that are just chatter and of no interest to me and I
expect that we are all capable of doing the same thing so it does not
bother me to a great extent. I would rather over respond rather than
to be tacit and have my thoughts morphed and send a student in the
wrong direction. Also, since I think concepts rather than specific
facts and this seems to be such an oddity, I feel obligated to point
out that there are more ways to look at something other than the way
we suspect it will be on the test.
I have no problems with having to prove that my ideas are valid. They
will stand on their own merit and I welcome any serious discussion to
force me to either change them or to modify them or to prove them to
be valid. They are, surprising to me, sometimes so far from the scope
of what people in this group can even imagine. I hope that there is an
explanation other then schools now are teaching only facts (or
teaching to the test) rather then teaching the students how to THINK.
I don't know the perception down under, but there is this "Every Child
Left Behind" concept that is destroying our education in the US and
this is totally putting the finishing touches on the dummy down
syndrome that is prevalent in the US and other parts of the world.
Thanks for the information. I like to know something about people that
I am talking to. I think that it can help avoid at least some
misunderstandings. I am looking forward to having discussions with you
either in group or in private e-mail.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Go do your own own homework you know-nothing blowhard.
You could start with the Nettles & Graff book.
Next time don't open your mouth so big to criticize something that you
know absolutely nothing about.
Unbelieveable,
LJS
If you want to live like an ostrich that is your choice. Keep your
head in the sand.
LJS
Steve Latham
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:ya2dndiioqJSp1ba...@comcast.com...
>
> "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:C5Eyj.3171$6R.651@trnddc04...
>>
>>
>> ii7/TS - TS.
>>
>> "VTS" might be nice, so we have ii-V progression "of" the TS.
>
> for ii7 of C - you'll need different terminology than "ii7 of the the
> Tritone Sub" (which would be Ebm). OTH, your concept is spot on.
I'm trying to say that it's a ii-V progression, rather than a v-I. So yes, a
sticky wicket.
Time for some K/P style Brackets probably!
>
> Incidentally, I recently found a series of 3 or 4 chromatically descending
> V7's in Chopin, which surprised me as I thought they didn't occur until at
> least Liszt & Franck.
I never put anything past Chopin. I think, in a sense, he was "unschooled"
in some regards, and he did things that maybe were more "folksy" or not so
"learned" (accent on final e), and in a sense did things "wrong" - and thus
came up with some of the first truly non CPP music we get (at least in any
consistency and quantity).
Some Quartal harmonies sprinkled in here and there too :-)
Steve
Steve Latham
>
> LJS is claiming that there have been "standard" modifications to the
> standard CPP analysis techniques that you cited in an earlier post that
> allow it to be used for analyses of modern Tonal music (i.e. modern music
> that is based on major and minor keys but that may happen to violate
> certain stricter notions of Tonality demonstrable in the works of CPP
> composers).
> I'm trying to find out what these modifications are.
I'm not aware of any. The best I've seen is a "de-functionalizing" of the
system such that something like II as II, and not V/V are "allowable".
People have also accepted things like "IV/IV" when you see a Bb in the key
of C for example, but it "functions" as a IV to the IV chord, rather than a
bVII. That makes sense, but I don't know that they've caught on in any
larger circles or become "standard" in any sense.
> He is also claiming that his system is superior than Berklee's system for
> dealing with this type of music. I think he's dead wrong.
The system as I laid it out in the start of this thread is ill-equipped to
deal with music outside of the confines of CPP tonality. We can say that
certain things are "like" CPP progression and use analysis for that, but
otherwise, the symbology of the system needs to be extended. The TS example
is an excellent example. Calling it a German+6/I is completely uniformative.
It is what it is - a Tritone Sub. Let's call it that. Done. IF, it DOES act
like a Geman+6 of I, then I have no problem calling it that. But, if we're
talking about the resolution of the tritone as being the important, then
that's not what +6 chords are about, so it's not really a great thing to
name them that.
Another thing is CPP Tonality is really a TRIAD based system. C6 (CEGA) is
not a Tonic. We would have to have I6 (and a way to not confuse that with a
first inversion I) to be able to descibe these chords. We do use IV add6
already, but I don't like the idea of it being "added" - it's really part of
the chord and "add" sounds a little like an outcast. So it could be
extended, we'd just have to decide how.
>
>> We don't have "3-2" suspensions because there's no need to. I think
>> that's true of most systems. The General MIDI specifications weren't
>> designed to deal with USB, it wasn't available when the General MIDI
>> specs came out. Now, can we revise or modify systems? I think so. But,
>> backwards compatability has become essential in things like Technology
>> fields. Why not music theory?
>
> Backwards compatibility is easy. It's forwards compatibility that's tough.
Yes - hard to predict what's coming down the pipe sometimes!
>
> I might, agree if I knew what "TS" or "VTS" actually meant.
Tritone Sub. Or, Tritone Sub for V.
> But LJS seems to think that there is some "standard" way of labeling this.
> You seem to be confirming that there isn't.
I don't know of any that points out that it's a Tritone Sub, and I think
that's important. We could call it bII7, but it doesn't tell us much (unless
we all learn that the symbol bII7 MEANS tritone sub in all cases).
>
> With a SubV7, its 3rd falls and its 7th rises.
> Eg.
> Db7 C (or Cm)
> Cb C
> F E (or Eb)
> Db C
> So, does that satisfy your stated criteria for an +6 chord or not?
Yes, that is the way a German +6 resolves.
But, does it resolve to just plain C? Or does it resolve to things like C6
or C7? Most of the time, when people play a Tritone Sub on guitar for
example, all the notes go DOWN (not that they can't go other directions, but
that's obviously one typical occurrence).
> It should. It doesn't behave in the strict CPP way that bVI+6 behaves. But
> the aug 6th interval expanding to an octave is part of it.
>
> Yet in jazz, we don't always have to voice lead it like that either.
Right!
> Db7 might go right to C7 as I7 of a blues, with all parallel motion
> including parallel tritones. We are much free-er with our materials.
Right. Which is why I don't think it's an +6 chord. It's "like" and +6 chord
in some respects, and it might voice similar to one in some cases, but it's
really a different concept - it's there as a substitite for V.
>
>> I want to call it something that describes its function while
>> differentiating it from any other common, similar chords. "TS" is the
>> best it could be IMHO.
>
> Are you using "TS" to mean "tritone sub"?
> Usually we just call them "SubV7 chords".
OK. Didn't know. I was looking for something short like "II" or "bIII" at
longest :-)
>
>> but they have no way
>>> of dealing with the Abm7.
>>
>>
>> ii7/TS - TS.
>
> C'mon. That's a pretty big stretch for any classical theorist, isn't it?
> And you really mean v7/TS, as you put it below. In C, ii7/TS would be
> Ebm7. And with this label you're making it seem like there's a tonicizing
> of bII going on, which isn't really what's going on here at all.
I know. I'm trying to say it's a ii-V progression, but the V chord is a
substitute for the V chord of the key.
>
> Assuming I got "TS" right, what's the "V" supposed to mean?
SubsV7 - I just wanted the RN V in there.
>
>> In CPP analysis, we can actually describe this Joey, but only the chords
>> in their functions in that context, not the context they're presented in
>> here.
>
> Huh?
>
>> Abm - Db in C would be v/N - N - that is, the minor dominant of the
>> Neapolitan (or the key of the Neapolitan if you like) to the Neapolitan.
>> However, it makes little sense.
>
> But you're tonicizing bII which is not what's going on.
Right - that's what I mean - we can analyze them in a CPP context, but not
in the context they're presented here - there's no symbology for it.
>
>> Another option is to simply call them embellishing, or non-functional
>> chords (which I hope you haven't synonimized with "mistake" - these are
>> not mistakes, just non-functional chords).
>
> But the chords in question *are* functional. They form a very effective
> and common cadential formula for approaching the I chord. They do not
> exist in some non-Tonal form of music devoid of major and minor keys. They
> are quite common in the everyday music making of contemporary musicians of
> all stripes and persuasions.
Right. Again, that's why I would not want to call these anything "CPP". They
are not CPP, so they need a new label that describes their functionality.
>
> You guys really do need some sort of a modification to your analytical
> devices to account for this type of modern harmony. [Or you should join us
> (we are The Borg) because we already have a system that effectively
> handles this as well as Bach and Beethoven.
You seem to be missing what I wrote - if you don't show inversions, this
system doesn't effectively handle any B-B - only unless we all decide that
inversions are unimportant. AFAIK, CPP theorists still feel inversions are
worth pointing out.
Our system is backwards
> compatible, but may not prove to be forward-compatible because nobody
> knows what's coming.] Lemmy seems to think that your system has all the
> modifications it needs already. But you don't seem to be aware of them.
The MIDI system was built with a certain amount fo forsight for forwards
compatability. I don't know that this system of analysis was.
I think it has all of the necessary symbology for dealing with CPP music.
When music goes beyond the bounds of CPP, we have do decide if we want to
modify this system, or use a new one. I think we're all waiting to see how
it evolves.
>
> Clearly passages of Stravinsky and/or Palestrina can be heard as being
> within a key.
Maybe, and it might be worth pointing out those similarities. But,
describing them in such a way is to imply that they ARE a key implies that
they are JUST LIKE something else, and that eliminates the distinguishing
characteristics - which may be of more importance.
To the extent that someone else wants to extract these
> sounds for their own uses it might be quite useful to analyse these
> particular passages with RN analysis techniques. As far as understanding
> the totality of the harmonic universe of the entire piece is concerned
> though, you are obviously correct.
Right.
>
> It's not an harmonic analysis either, unless there is some commonly
> understood subtext by the reader as to the harmonic functions of VI7, II7,
> bvi7 and bII7.
Right.
>
>> It's just labelling. It merely tells you the quality of the chord, and
>> the scale degree upon which it's built. It would be useful as a
>> transpositional tool, but it doesn't really tell us what the chords are
>> doing.
>>
>> To me, the first line sets up the tonality of C. Then, it is a typical
>> circle of 5ths progression - A7 - D7 - G7 - C
>
> It is based on that, but that's not exactly what it is, because there is
> no G7.
>
>> I see the em7-A7 pairs as an embellishement of the A7, and the Abm-Db7 as
>> an embellishment of the G7 (as a TS).
>
> What G7?
> It's not an embellishment of G7. It's a substitute for it.
Sorry, that's what I meant in this context. I said embellishment becuase I'm
looking at two chords as "belonging to" the substitute principle here.
>> But the second line sounds like a key change - a direct modulation.
>
> Yes and no. The roots are all diatonic to C. There's just one non-diatonic
> tone, C#, in the A7 chord. It certainly doesn't sound like the piece
> should end on a D chord here. But the 2 chords are diatonic to D major as
> well. It's a paradox of sorts. But the key feeling on C is never weakened
> through the entire A section. There are whiffs of other keys, but nothing
> conclusive.
Ok, here's the problem with the Tonality definition Joey. Tonality is about
establishing and maintaining keys through patterns. In a CPP piece, a move
like this DEFINITELY implies a new key. Key centers are implied through
things like ii-V progressions because the ii-V progression is unique to a
key. The way CPP composers put a modulation into their music was to use a
chord that was unique to a key other than the home key.
If we were going to use a CPP system to define this kind of non CPP
activity, we would have to call it a "non-modulatory excursion" or something
like that. What you don't seem to understand is, this kind of progression,
in a non-modulatory capacity, is as foriegn to CPP-oriented music as having
a 12-tone melody in there.
>
> Yes, you need something more specific, like the Berklee system of
> analysis.
Show me your analysis, so I can see what it looks like.
Steve
Tom K.
>
> People have also accepted things like "IV/IV" when you see a Bb in the key
> of C for example, but it "functions" as a IV to the IV chord, rather than
> a bVII. That makes sense, but I don't know that they've caught on in any
> larger circles or become "standard" in any sense.
Someone on RMT once termed this a "double plagal" progression which makes a
lot of sense. But Steve, can you find a CPP example? I always had to fall
back on something like the Beatles "A Little Help From My Friends" when
teaching this particular function of the subtonic in major. (The other main
function being V7/bIII, of course.)
Tom K.
Steve Latham
The
> past few years I've been living musically predominantly in the 1400s,
> 1500s and 1600s.
You would have enjoyed the concert I attended last night: Tallis Scholars.
They did a program of music of Spain and Portugal, especially those who
originated from the Evola School (now apparently a world heritage site) -
some of the composers worked there, others studied there and moved to
Lisbon, etc. They were all 1500s composers, except Malgaz (sp?) who was born
1638. It was amazing that, even how close he was to Bach's birth year, the
music was of a style much more akin to a lightly chromatic Gesualdo. One of
the themes of the evening's repertoire was the isolationism of these
composers, and in one sense, their lagging behind the "mainstream", but in
another sense continued to advance their own local traditions. They also did
a Victoria Requiem.
Steve
Steve Latham
I've not found any CPP examples - or at least anything that we wouldn't see
as a modulation to the Subdominant in the first place, or, as V7/bIII.
There was that cadence in Schubert or Schumann I found (they're like
Rosenstein and Guildencrantz to me) where it basically went:
I - bVII7 - I - bVII7 - ...
I can't think of anything else to call that but bVII. At worst, it's simply
lower neighbor to I. People might see it as a deceptive resolution or
something funky, but, I is I, definitely not operating like VI, err... vi.
Steve
paramucho
wrote:
<snip>
It took me a while to get back to this summary...
>Roman Numerals are used for Functional, Tertian-based harmonies.
>"Names" are used for Functional, non-Tertian-based harmonies.
>
>Either may be used for non-Functional harmonies, based on the context.
>
>The "case-sensitive" system is as follows:
>
>UC - Major triad.
>LC - minor triad.
>UC with "+", Augmented triad.
>LC with "o", diminished triad.
>
>7th chords are as follows:
>UC - Major 7th and Dominant 7th (and by extension, 9ths, etc.)
>LC - minor 7th, and half- and fully-diminished 7ths (and 9ths, etc.)
>Obviously, any alterations, such as a Dominant 7th chord with a raised 5th,
>would produce an Augmented triad portion of the harmony, and thus an UC RN
>would be used.
>
>The symbols are obvious, except that X7 is a Dominant 7th (or Mm7), and XM7
>is a Major 7th.
>
>In a Major key, the diatonic Roman Numerals are:
>
>I ii iii IV V vi viio
>IM7 ii7 iii7 IVM7 V7 vi7 vii%7
>
>In a minor key, they are:
>i iio III iv [IV] [v] V VI [VII] viio
>i7 ii%7 IIIM7 iv7 [IV7] [v7] V7 VIM7 [VII7] viio7
>(#vi%7 also appears, though rarely in triad form)
>
>Note: bracketed numbers represent those chords that can be created with
>raised 6 and lowered 7 - lowered 6 and raised 7 are considered to be the
>"normal" state for harmonies.
By VII I assume you mean the major chord on the lowered 7th degree
and by viio the diminished triad on the raised 7. I find it strange
that VII is not written bVII or that viio is not written #viio to
discriminate between the root notes, as occurs with VIM7 and #vi%7.
>9th chords are generally (comparatively) rare, and 11ths and 13ths virtually
>non-existent, though the system can be logically extended to include them,
>and the patterns above remain the same. In the case of altered 9ths, the
>alteration is shown on the symbol.
>
>THESE ARE THE DIATONIC CHORDS. There are no others! There is no I7 (like C E
>G Bb as I) in a Major or Minor key in this system.
By "this system" I guess you refer to CPP in general rather than just
the "system" you are describing here.
In any case, since the diatonic chords are those formed by the notes
of the diatonic collection then clearly b7 has no place in a major key
*diatonic* chord.
That said, Aldwell/Schachter treat bII as part of the minor. I can't
find the page where they discuss the issue, but they reference the
claim when discussing mixture where they say "(we count bII as part of
minor)" on page 505 and show bII being imported into major by simple
mixture.
> All other chords come
>from three places: Another key (Secondary key), another Mode (parallel
>mode), or are regularly occurring functional Chromatic, non-Tertian
>sonorities. All other harmonies are typically non-functional (and it should
>be noted that numbered chords can also appear in non-functional roles).
>
>Secondary chords use the same numbering system, except the convention is to
>show them a "X/Y" where X is the name of the chord in secondary key, and Y
>is the tonic chord of the secondary key. V7/ii for example.
>
>Mode mixture uses the RN of the chord from the parallel mode. For example,
>using a minor i chord in a Major key gives you "i", rather than the normal
>"I".
>
>Because some chords, when borrowed, appear on what is a lowered or raised
>scale degree, b or # is prefixed to the RN to show that the ROOT of the
>chord has been altered from its normal state. Thus, in a Major key, mode
>mixture (borrowed chords) available are:
>
>i, iio, bIII, iv, v, bVI, bVII
>im7, ii%7, bIIIM7, iv7, IV7, v7, bVIM7, bVII7, viio7.
Aldwell/Schachter are slightly different regarding the triads:
In major they have bII instead of iio
In minor they additionally have ii iii vi.
>In minor,
>I (IV, V, viio, etc. are already in the minor system). ii is possible,
>though rare. Any other chords, such as IM7, IVM7, etc. are seen as a switch
>back to the Major mode (again, since so many "borrowed" Major chords are
>already in the minor system) and not necessarily borrowing.
>
>The only remaining chords are non-Tertian sonorities. Older theorists
>treated these as tertian forms (or likened them to tertian forms) but newer
>conventions are treating these more from their historical origins.
There are almost as many explanations of the Neapolitan sixth as there
are books on harmony. Schenker (Harmony p110) calls it the Phrygian II
and says the root is lowered to avoid "discomfort". Jonas, the editor,
adds his explanation that the lowered root avoids the "inherent
tendency" towards III of the chord with the unlowered root, ending
"this explanation is better than the current one, which prattles on
about s "third relationship" [between major and minor]." Forte has the
new voice leading explanation, but it doesn't result in a different
chord.
> As a
>result, they give them "names" rather than numbers.
>Neapolitan Sixth - N
>Augmented Sixth - +6, Italian +6, French +6, and German +6.
>
>Formerly, N has been called "bII", and the +6 family seen as inversions of
>II and IV chords.
Except that the use of these "names" to label progressions precedes
the new models by up to a century. Prout labels the aug6s It6, F6 and
G6 and Schoenberg labels bII as "Nep".
In fact this sort of usage, along with "cto7" below, points to a basic
problem with the Anglo-American usage. Originally RNs simply labeled
chords. In Germany a functional interpretation of the labels was added
on a separate line below the labels. Anglo-American practice has been
to reinterpret the RNs with I standing for Tonic, V for Dominant etc.
As analysis becomes more sophisticated more and more of the original
chord labels are lost or renamed to functional names. I prefer the
two-line approach, which also solves the embellishing chords issue --
they simply need not appear on the functional line.
>All chords can appear in secondary contexts. For example, the following
>progression, in C, might appear:
>C - Ab/C - F#o7/C - G7/B, in which case the RN would be I - N6/V -
>viio4/2/V - V6/5 (thus we have a secondary Neapolitan, and a secondary chord
>with mode mixture).
>
>Chords that appear in non-functional contexts are put in parentheses. There
>are a few common "embellishing chords" with non-functional uses, and they
>are typically named simply as what they would be - (iii6), etc. Some, where
>roots are unimportant (or even undeterminable), have names instead - (cto7 -
>common tone diminished 7).
There's a lot of variation in earlier texts on this matter. Some never
use parentheses and thus do not distinquish. Others simply omit labels
for so-called "non-functional" chords.
I understand the usage of the term "functional" to mean "role" or
"usage" rather than the mathematical meaning where the application of
a function to an argument produces a result. Thus, I find the term
"non-functional" to be a bit problematic since it implies, to me, an
"inability" to function" rather than simply an "absence" of usage.
>There are a few other chords that arise out of chromatic motion, or have
>other voice-leading origins, that appear in chordal contexts and are felt to
>deserve Roman Numeral status because of their functional importance.
>
>V+ (V+7, etc.)
>Vsubs6 (V7subs6)
>IVadd6 (ivadd6)
>
>These are pretty specific chords and typically only appear on these scale
>degrees.
As noted in a previous thread, the remaining issue is that this
heavily-worked term "functional" is not clearly defined by most books.
Forte attempts a description at least, but with a clear-cut definition
it seems to me the that the system must be learned by rote rather than
by principle.
LJS
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:38:53 GMT, "Steve Latham" <llat...@verizon.net>
These are all slightly different dialects of the same language. I
believe that we started out with the limited symbols of the early CPP
(its been so long!) and then as we expanded the progressions that we
encountered in the music, we expanded our language to include them. We
did not, however, stop evolving with the Classical period.As dictated
by the music, we continued to have the UC/LC language as a tool that
served us well in many instances deep into the 20th Century as
appropriate.
In the analysis language, all of the above is written in the RN form
at my school. Only when we were talking about the progression in a
summary or in the written part of the analysis would we use these
names. The process was simple. The RN would be factored down to the
most explicit functional RNs. Then for further ease of discussion, we
would use the above names for discussion. The Numerals are very clear
to see as you learn the language and music, but they are cumbersome to
use when you are discussing them in a verbal language such as English.
This is the same way that I would look at the bvi7 bII7 in RN and in
Jazz it may be called in discussion the "tri-tone Sub".
>
> Except that the use of these "names" to label progressions precedes
> the new models by up to a century. Prout labels the aug6s It6, F6 and
> G6 and Schoenberg labels bII as "Nep".
>
> In fact this sort of usage, along with "cto7" below, points to a basic
> problem with the Anglo-American usage. Originally RNs simply labeled
> chords. In Germany a functional interpretation of the labels was added
> on a separate line below the labels. Anglo-American practice has been
> to reinterpret the RNs with I standing for Tonic, V for Dominant etc.
> As analysis becomes more sophisticated more and more of the original
> chord labels are lost or renamed to functional names. I prefer the
> two-line approach, which also solves the embellishing chords issue --
> they simply need not appear on the functional line.
>
> >All chords can appear in secondary contexts. For example, the following
> >progression, in C, might appear:
> >C - Ab/C - F#o7/C - G7/B, in which case the RN would be I - N6/V -
> >viio4/2/V - V6/5 (thus we have a secondary Neapolitan, and a secondary chord
> >with mode mixture).
I may understand what you are saying here, but I find the "/" notation
to be a bit confusing and I would like to see it in a different format
before I could say for sure. I think it is the mixture of /RN and /
Number. I am assuming that in the /RN you are using it as a temporary
Key area and in the latter case they are figured bass notation. Is
that correct?
>
> >Chords that appear in non-functional contexts are put in parentheses. There
> >are a few common "embellishing chords" with non-functional uses, and they
> >are typically named simply as what they would be - (iii6), etc. Some, where
> >roots are unimportant (or even undeterminable), have names instead - (cto7 -
> >common tone diminished 7).
We never used parenthesis in this manner. We would use the original UC/
LC notation unless the embellishment could be accounted for as NH
tones. If the only possibility was as a chord, we would notate it. We
may insert note or foot note to explain it. If there were many of
these rather than a single or very few occurrences of this nature, the
we would look for another type or supplemental way of dealing with
them. Until the music of Debussy, I don't offhand remember this
occurring and then we would be looking at the music from a different
aspect that may use UC/LC in some parts, but wold have other aspects
described in a different manner.
>
> There's a lot of variation in earlier texts on this matter. Some never
> use parentheses and thus do not distinquish. Others simply omit labels
> for so-called "non-functional" chords.
>
> I understand the usage of the term "functional" to mean "role" or
> "usage" rather than the mathematical meaning where the application of
> a function to an argument produces a result. Thus, I find the term
> "non-functional" to be a bit problematic since it implies, to me, an
> "inability" to function" rather than simply an "absence" of usage.
I agree here also. Although in talking I may not remember to be
specific on this point, certainly a term like "non traditionally
functional" or something of that nature. This would be not only for
the reasons that you state, but also because there are other types of
functionality that may apply. There may be, for instance, chords other
than V7 chords that act as dominant. They may be even non tonal
clusters or voicings that release tension to another set of notes that
functions as a resting place or tonic that are in many ways
functional, but should have another way of being described.
>
> >There are a few other chords that arise out of chromatic motion, or have
> >other voice-leading origins, that appear in chordal contexts and are felt to
> >deserve Roman Numeral status because of their functional importance.
>
> >V+ (V+7, etc.)
> >Vsubs6 (V7subs6)
> >IVadd6 (ivadd6)
>
> >These are pretty specific chords and typically only appear on these scale
> >degrees.
>
Certainly, I only wonder why you single them out unless it is to point
out that these common chords may not be included in a limited use of
UC/LC by some that restrict it only to a short specific period that
may not have generally used these chords as a result of chromatic or
voice leading origins.
> As noted in a previous thread, the remaining issue is that this
> heavily-worked term "functional" is not clearly defined by most books.
> Forte attempts a description at least, but with a clear-cut definition
> it seems to me the that the system must be learned by rote rather than
> by principle.
I agree here as well. I think that is why many just can't seem to get
a complete grasp of the nature and scope of analysis. Functional
harmony is, as I understand it, a label refers to the over all
progressions as used in the general course of music that started
roughly around the Baroque period and served us up to and including
some of the 20th C. In general, this follows the general rule of the
movement away from Tonic and they the return to tonic through the
Cycle of 5ths. As this concept has evolved, the language has allowed
to have different chords to function as the 1st and 2nd (and 3rd etc)
class chords so that the chords that function as these can be
substituted for the actual 5th relation chords that would follow the
strict pattern of IV VII III VI II V I. This works for a vast
majority of all music that is generally considered Functional Harmony.
There are typical variations from this pattern, such as the Plagal
Cadence, but most of the "CPP"
LJS
LJS
Well, This is the only example of one of your analysis that I can
find. I understand that you did not direct it towards me, although I
did give you the opportunity when I posted my analysis of it using UC/
LC So even though you put me into the other world, I will certainly
allow you to modify it if think that would make your ideas a bit more
clear. I had posted one before yours came out and I had planned to put
it in this reply but I can't find it at the moment, I will either find
it or repost it so that I can show you how we look at this
differently.
>
> If you're really asking what the typical analysis of SD is, ala Berklee
> here it is:
Right off the bat, I see many additional things in here that were
never mentioned when I asked you for elements of your Berklee system
during the temper tantrum.
> C:
> SD D SD D *you say this is sub dominant & Dominand function below. This was never mentioned and are additional elements.*
> \IIm7__V7/ \IIm7_V7/ *now there is the \ / symbols (never mentioned) and I am not sure of why this is necessary to note*
> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 | * here is the chords in Alpha notation. I don't know why they would be included, isn't this what was started with*
>
> \IIm7_V7/IIm \IIm7_V7/IIm
> Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>
> D
> \IIm7_V7/V \SubIIm7_SubV7/ *here we have a new element added the Sub. You may define it later, but this is one more thing that is not any element that you have mentioned earlier*
> Am7 |D7 |Abm7 |Db7 | * and then a repeat of the Alpha*
>
> T
> I
> C |
Then there is a very long narration the goes on to describe the
progression and give definitions of the terms etc. The narration is
long even by my standards and still doesn't answer some questions that
should be answered by the student that would be analyzing the piece in
order to understand and play it. In fact, instead of the analysis
helping the student to learn, he has to know everything below in order
to analyze the piece before he can do it himself.
Consider this approach instead.
Key C
ii7 V7 ii7 V7 Key D (II): ii7 V7 ii7 V7 Key G (V): ii7 V7 Key C *
(I) bvi7 bII 7 I. * see notes below for labels and explination.
(I did skip the very first level before this when a beginner may have
to write ii7 V7 iii7 VI7 etc as I think most students would work out
this in their heads when they saw the Dominant chords on different
steps all with the 5th relationship) But at even this point, the
student can see that the tune is centered around the key of C (I) D
(II) and G (V) and that if he wants to stay completely inside the
tune, he can use these three scales plus non harmonic tones for
improvisation. The cadence Key of C was chosen as this is probably the
way that a student that had never heard of a tri tone sub would see
it. He may see it as KeyGb(bV) ii7 V7 Key C (I) I instead. In either
case, he would know what scales would be included with the grouping of
the chords that you indicate with "\ /"
Summary:
Satin Doll A section is is a series of incomplete cadences that
navigate through the keys of C D G (Gb) and back to C. or I II V (bV)
I .
The song starts in I , passes through the key areas of II V and then
returns to I The over all structure is thus a ii V (I inc.) inside of
a II V I. This may be seen as a unifying factor brought about by the
macro and micro cosmic use of the same material. The * or the Gb: ii7
V7 is a common Jazz convention known as the TriToneSub. It substitutes
the V7 with the Dominant a tritone away from the dominant of the key.
In this case, the use of this technique continues to develop the ii7
V7 incomplete cadence by modulation to an more distantly related key,
adding to the tension as we expect to hear the Dominant by its place
in the phrase, but then it resolves to the tonic by a deceptive
cadence (if you think of the TTS in Gb) to the home key of C thus
completing the cadence. In Jazz, this is a common substitution and
often will be used instead of a ii7 V7 I.
End of This analysis.
Notice that this analysis is about 10 lines long (not counting the
reason that I skipped the noted step) It can be done by an astute
student that knows nothing about the tri tone sub and he can still
make use of the concept without knowing the name of it. He has a clear
organization of the keys that are involved and can see a relationship
of the keys very easily. These are the elements that are there if you
learn the basic language of UC/LC. JazzUC could be adapted to show the
same thing, but as I see in your analysis, it is not the way that you
use it. I don't understand the need for the Alpha notation and the SD
D T notation in your example. Or the \ / notation and I don't see
the keys that are implied by the harmony in either your UC notation or
the explanation.
As I said above. You did not write this in response to my approach so
maybe this is not an accurate representation of your Berklee system of
analysis. If it is, I would like to learn the thought process that
allows what I see in your analysis that tells you those elements that
I point out. If it is not the complete language as you use it, I would
like to see how you use it to transmit that information. Any
information that may clarify your system is what I have been asking
for all along. I do hope that you, (or someone else if you don't get
the posts from the other side) will help me to understand the
BerkleeUC a bit better so that I can learn how to convey at least the
same type of information in my archaic UC/LC language.
Thanks to all for your patience with my quest for information.
LJS
Back to Joey.
paramucho
wrote:
>On Mar 6, 12:02 am, i...@hammo.com (paramucho) wrote:
All your remarks above are addresses to Steve's post, not my response
to Steve.
>> There's a lot of variation in earlier texts on this matter. Some never
>> use parentheses and thus do not distinquish. Others simply omit labels
>> for so-called "non-functional" chords.
>>
>> I understand the usage of the term "functional" to mean "role" or
>> "usage" rather than the mathematical meaning where the application of
>> a function to an argument produces a result. Thus, I find the term
>> "non-functional" to be a bit problematic since it implies, to me, an
>> "inability" to function" rather than simply an "absence" of usage.
>
>I agree here also. Although in talking I may not remember to be
>specific on this point, certainly a term like "non traditionally
>functional" or something of that nature. This would be not only for
>the reasons that you state, but also because there are other types of
>functionality that may apply. There may be, for instance, chords other
>than V7 chords that act as dominant. They may be even non tonal
>clusters or voicings that release tension to another set of notes that
>functions as a resting place or tonic that are in many ways
>functional, but should have another way of being described.
I think Steve's described system applies strictly to CPP.
>> >There are a few other chords that arise out of chromatic motion, or have
>> >other voice-leading origins, that appear in chordal contexts and are felt to
>> >deserve Roman Numeral status because of their functional importance.
>>
>> >V+ (V+7, etc.)
>> >Vsubs6 (V7subs6)
>> >IVadd6 (ivadd6)
>>
>> >These are pretty specific chords and typically only appear on these scale
>> >degrees.
This is also a response to Steve's original post.
The basic idea of the functional approach, i.e. the mapping of the
significant and subordinate steps in progressions of I to V, or V to I
and etc, is an easily grasped intuitive idea. The devil is in the
detail and the variations. If the "system" is in fact just a
description of various ad hoc usages then the bar is not set very
high. If the implication is that the various components of a
functional system behave themselves (prescriptively) according to some
central organising principle, the bar is set much higher and rigorous
definition is required.
SleepyHead
my two penn'orth in? ...
Notwithstanding Steve's original post I tend to use the roman numeral
system wherever it helps me clarify either harmonic or intervallic
relationships. For example:
ii - a minor triad built on the 2nd degree of the major scale;
ii - a minor triad built on the 2nd degree of any scale;
ii - a minor second interval.
I don't, IOW, limit my usage of RN to purely CPP analysis because I
tend to use RN as shorthand for chords in order to get a quick grasp
of what I've written without having to skim-read the music (something
I still do inaccurately when looking at scores). I also use this to
CPP-ify chords progressions in order to re-direct them towards a
certain tonal goal as I have days where I look at scores and just see
a jumble of notes.
I suspect my usage of RN as shorthand stems from me being a guitarist
- it's not uncommon for guitarists to just read the names of chords
and work out a chord progression using familiar shapes - so it comes
naturally to me to do more-or-less the same when trying to understand
what I've written.
Having said all that I'm not a teacher of music, and I haven't had any
analyses published in learnéd journals, so my use of this system is
purely a private one. I think it has utility though, and that's often
the factor that causes notational / analytical systems to grow or
decline in usage. I'm not sure what - if anything - that proves though.
LJS
> All your remarks above are addresses to Steve's post, not my response
> to Steve.
>
I hadn't really noticed, I was just responding to the statements as
read the conversation. Just popping in as I had an experience to
relate or a thought to inject.
>
> >> >There are a few other chords that arise out of chromatic motion, or have
> >> >other voice-leading origins, that appear in chordal contexts and are felt to
> >> >deserve Roman Numeral status because of their functional importance.
>
> >> >V+ (V+7, etc.)
> >> >Vsubs6 (V7subs6)
> >> >IVadd6 (ivadd6)
>
> >> >These are pretty specific chords and typically only appear on these scale
> >> >degrees.
>
> This is also a response to Steve's original post.
I didn't realize that I was so one sided here. Just happened that way!
I agree that it is simple and that the devil is in the details. I
differ on at least the phrasing of the second half of the paragraph. I
see the "system" as the process but the "description of various
usages" to me is only the first level if you ONLY spell the chords.
Then again, I can see that you may mean that a running narrative or
"description" of the events is just that and not really the analysis
at all. I find that the choices of words in this part to be thus a bit
confusing and not as specific as I think you mean. At lease in the way
that my American understanding of Down Under language comes through
my experiences.
Tte first and lowest level of analysis is to spell the chords, This is
necessary however to put it into what ever language that you start
with. Once the notes involved in the harmony is known and the chord
tones are decided, then looking for patterns that demonstrate the
function or the manner that the harmony functions in a setting that
describes tonality is the next level of analysis. As far as Harmonic
Analysis goes, a good description of the chord colors and the way that
Roots set up the tonality, most of the information has already been
presented at this point, I see the devil in the details for this step.
All chords and all relationships should be there clearly and
accurately presented in the best tonal manner possible.
There can be some variation or more than one way to express some
functions, as in the TriToneSub. That is where the summary comes in.
The student would naturally pick the one that makes the most sense for
him. The teacher should show alternate ways of looking at it if
possible to point out perspectives that may be of importance in other
context or can give a different perspective.
The summary should also include the pointing out of how the Functional
analysis is put together. The relationships in SD, for example create
a series of II V (I)'s inside a larger II V I scheme of key areas. The
Key areas follow an established functional pattern of their own. And
of course, the two alternate notations of the TTS itself should be
pointed out and defined. The definition here is optional for
understanding of the event. It is merely a label of the progression.
Named or unnamed, the progression sounds and functions the same and
suggests the same tonality. IMO, definitions often cloud the issue. In
the end, it is what it is! A rose by any other name etc... But they
are useful for talking about the concept and should certainly be
included. The Label, however, does not have its place in the Language
used IN the analysis. The analysis is to discover the Labeled concept
in the music. By using the Label you are assuming that the reader
knows this definition or label. The student using the language, will
not know this and needs to analyze it in the unlabeled terms. The same
is true for the TTS or for the N6. The student will not know to write
N6 unless he knows and have studied the concept. But he can learn the
concept with the UC/LC language (or other languages derived from this
language) that will show the function, and then when someone presents
him with the LABEL, then he knows the concept and also the Name that
some ascribe to this.
LJS
LJS
> Hey folks - interesting thread you've got going here - mind if I throw
> my two penn'orth in? ...
>
> Notwithstanding Steve's original post I tend to use the roman numeral
> system wherever it helps me clarify either harmonic or intervallic
> relationships. For example:
>
> ii - a minor triad built on the 2nd degree of the major scale;
> ii - a minor triad built on the 2nd degree of any scale;
> ii - a minor second interval.
>
> I don't, IOW, limit my usage of RN to purely CPP analysis because I
> tend to use RN as shorthand for chords in order to get a quick grasp
> of what I've written without having to skim-read the music (something
> I still do inaccurately when looking at scores). I also use this to
> CPP-ify chords progressions in order to re-direct them towards a
> certain tonal goal as I have days where I look at scores and just see
> a jumble of notes.
That is what a language should do. It would be a real shame to have
such a valuable resource as the language developed to explain the CPP
would die with the evolution of music. It still works for ALL
functional harmony as we use it and is very handy for putting even a
lot of non traditional functional harmony into a workable format for
comparison.
>
> I suspect my usage of RN as shorthand stems from me being a guitarist
> - it's not uncommon for guitarists to just read the names of chords
> and work out a chord progression using familiar shapes - so it comes
> naturally to me to do more-or-less the same when trying to understand
> what I've written.
>
Actually I think that UC/RN may be the direction of guitarists and any
other chordal players whose primary interest is the chords. Then would
come the melody players leaning to the language of their peers for
easy communication. My only thoughts is that this is fine, but
learning to analyze music requires a different approach than most
actually use with the RN/UC method. The UC/LC RN or the Piston UC are
both systems that have evolved to cover a lot of different genres. I,
and many (most?) other analyzers like the UC/LC as it is the simplest
and the most efficient to pull all the factors together. And since it
seemed to be used for analysis back to the CPP, it has been proven
over and over again. Many other approaches have been created that are
basically copies of this language and the processes that are
associated with it. Why use the copy when the original is still the
most efficient and versatile. That said, what ever it takes to look at
as many possible levels of analysis that works for you is the best one
for you or anyone else.
> Having said all that I'm not a teacher of music, and I haven't had any
> analyses published in learnéd journals, so my use of this system is
> purely a private one. I think it has utility though, and that's often
> the factor that causes notational / analytical systems to grow or
> decline in usage. I'm not sure what - if anything - that proves though.
Well your lack of publishing doesn't really mean so much these days.
Anyone can publish a book if they want. The opinion of the student or
the aspiring musician and composers are the most important as these
are the people that use it.
LJS
Danny Schorr
>Consider this approach instead.
Thanks, LJS.
With all due respect to Joey, who spent a lot of time writing that
analysis- it was making my head explode. Seemed to me that that way of
looking at things was just trying to shoehorn everything into the key of C,
and having to go to some pretty far out extremes to justify it
I was really struggling with this for the past few days because I hear the
melody of each ii-V7 as being ^6 - ^5.
and when it moved around the key centers, I was still hearing the melodic
bits as ^6 - ^5
(^ meaning scale degree, not ^ for major 7th as has been used lately)
So the overall effect to the ear is one of transposition, somehow. But I
was stuck until LJS showed me the key centers of I, ii, V, and bII ( or is
that bii)
You guys can argue over which analysis has ultimate correctness. All I can
say is that with this new explanation I can make music. I cant make music
with the Berklee way of looking at things. It's too hard and convoluted .
Again, to Joey - Thank you for sharing how Berklee looks at things - I
appreciate the time and effort that took. I just don't agree with it.
>In addition to nat and harm min we also borrow from the parallel
>phrygian and parallel locrian scales.
>Eg. bII, and bIImaj7 come from the parallel phrygian.
>bVI7 comes from the parallel locrian scale. All 3 are considered to be
>SDM funct chords when they occur within primarily major keys
This may be true for all I know. But how am I supposed to use this
explanation to make music?
(To tell the truth, I had to stop reading it halfway through. It seemed way
more complex than was justified for what seemed to be almost a "pop" tune)
Nothing personal - I don't agree with a lot of things lately. You may
remember that I used to do a lot of harmonic analysis on the Bach Chorales
here, and I got sort of good at it. But quite frankly, deciphering the
chord progressions didn't really help me all that much until I started to
focus on the melodic movements of each individual line in the Chorales, and
seeing cadential patterns in them. I'm starting to see that overt
( each of the 4 voices) melodic motion and underlying melodic motion
melodic motion of the tonal centers are the key to understanding music more
than Roman numeral analysis per se. I dont know if I phrased that right.
But I've been reading Hindemiths craft of composition and it's changed the
way I hear things and understand music.
So, LJS analysis says the harmonic movement of the tonal centers going from
I, to ii, to V7, to bii to I one makes perfect sense.
Finally,- my original intention by bringing up " Libertango" was simply to
justify the move from Db7 to C maj7, since it was stated that there was not
" a (classical) theory book which
adequately labels Db7~C in C. "
I noticed similarites and tried to connect two things . As far as i can
tell , the logic on this point, the Db7 is a stand in for the G7 because
they share the same tritone ( I understand tritone sub, LJS) and so it's
V-I in jazz parlance. But I'm not convinced the ear HEARS it this way
Joey Goldstein
1. I have not read the LJS post to which you are responding because I
have him kill-filed.
2. My analysis did not take me long to do. It is standard fare.
I should not have digressed into the discussion of SDM harmony though.
It made the whole thing much longer than it needed to be.
3. I'm betting that his analysis is exactly the same as mine, except for
the Abm7-Db7 measure, but that you simply did not understand what
secondary dominants and secondary II-V's entail.
I called A7 "V7/IIm". That means "V7-of-IIm". It involves what is called
tonicization of the IIm chord. So it is a type of key change from C
major to D minor. But the key feeling of D major is never confirmed so
it is not labeled as a bona fide key change. It's called a secondary
dominant because the key it implies is secondary. The primary key is
still C major.
This would be true in a classical UC/LC/RN oriented analysis style just
as much as it would be within Berklee's style. The only difference is
that at Berklee they use upper case Roman numerals and explicitly spell
out the chord quality, eg. IIm7 vs ii7. That's it.
The Em7 in my analysis was labeled as "IIm7-of-IIm" (i.e. the IIm7 chord
in the key of D minor). The Em7 and A7 taken together is what is called
a IIm7-V7 pair, namely IIm7-V7-of-IIm (written on the analysis as
"\IIm7_V7/IIm", i.e. a IIm7-V7 progression in the key of D minor).
LJS probably called this the key of D major rather than D minor though,
which is not really what's happening. But you could choose to play
through these measures as if you were in the key of D major. Lots of
guys do. The difference can be as subtle a thing as the accompanist
adding an F# to both or either chord.
And that's the thing about a jazz-style analysis of a chord
progression...The soloist and the other players can actually influence
the key feeling by virtue of the notes that they play. I.e. I can play
through these chords as if I'm momentarily in D minor or momentarily in
D major. It's up to me. The given progression has a level of ambiguity
to it by virtue of the fact that the music has not been made yet by the
improvisers the progression is to be played by. Classical analysis is
aimed only at music that has already been put down on paper, note-for-note.
Which brings us to another point.
Just because you have a good working analysis of the keys involved with
a given chord progression does not mean that you automatically know what
notes to play, i.e. the chord-scale relationships. Often the two do go
hand in hand. Eg. If the progression is actually in D minor, using the D
minor scale(s) might be appropriate. But often they don't go hand in
hand. So be careful if that's what you're thinking that analysis is used
for by a jazz musician. It isn't really. It's just used to get a better
idea of certain parameters of a progression. It also helps to memorize
tunes because the same basic building blocks reoccur in tune after tune.
4. I called D7, "V7-of-V". That means that G is being tonicized here. D7
is a "secondary dominant". The secondary key is G major. The primary key
is still C major. Am7 is "IIm7-of-V", the IIm7 chord in G major.
Together they form a secondary IIm7-V7 progression, "IIm7-V7-of-V"
(written in the analysis as "\IIm7_V7/V").
5. Classical musicians have no way of dealing with the Abm7 Db7 measure,
and this is where the SubV7 concept, a notion of jazz institutions like
Berklee, *has to* be invoked. The music is in no way that matters "in
the key of Gb major here". For the music to be "in the key of Gb major"
the Db7 chord would have to resolve to a Gbmaj chord, and it doesn't. It
doesn't feel like Gbmaj is the home chord at all here. Cmaj is still
strongly felt as the tonal center. If we stuck a Gbmaj chord in there it
would feel like a surprise, not something had already been implied by
the previous music. We expect to hear a Cmaj chord, and that's what we
do hear. Now, an improviser might use the notes of the Gb major scale to
create melodies over these chords, but even that doesn't make the music
feel like a Gbmaj chord is expected in the next bar.
No, Db7 is clearly being used as a chord with the same harmonic function
in the key of C as G7. It behaves exactly like G7 and that's how we
analyse it, namely, as a tritone substitute for G7 ("SubV7" in the
analysis).
In classical music this progression would never be allowed so they don't
have a meaningful designation for it within an harmonic analysis. They
have something close, called an augmented 6th chord, but Db7-C does not
parse as bII+6. Even if they were willing to call this bII+6 they would
have no way to deal with the previous chord, the Abm7.
So in lieu of labeling this most common progression "a mistake" or
"suddenly atonal music", we need some new analytical device. That device
is the SubV7 chord. And it's related SubIIm7 chord forms a IIm7-V7 pair
with the SubV7 chord. The analysis was SubIIm7-V7 (written as
"\SubIIm7_V7/" in my analysis.
I'm sorry if you found my analysis too difficult.
But it really is exactly the same ideology and terminology as whatever
LJS has been giving you, except for the Abm7-Db7. The only other real
difference is the upper case Roman numerals and the extra text
descriptions of the chord quality.
Did you happen to see the examples from the Nettles and Graff book that
I had posted at my web site? Barry Nettles is the head of the harmony
course at Berklee. This book is essentially the Berklee harmony course.
If you're trying to learn what scales are appropriate to play over a
given chord progression there is no better book on the market to get you
started. It's called "The Chord-Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony" and it's
available from advancemusic.com.
Joey Goldstein
Sorry...
The key felling of D minor is never confirmed.
Joey Goldstein
>
> Did you happen to see the examples from the Nettles and Graff book that
> I had posted at my web site?
Here are the links again.
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/NG/NG1.PDF>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/NG/NG2.PDF>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/NG/NG3.PDF>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/NG/NG4.PDF>
LJS
> On Thu, 6 Mar 2008 21:50:03 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Consider this approach instead.
>
> Thanks, LJS.
>
> With all due respect to Joey, who spent a lot of time writing that
> analysis- it was making my head explode. Seemed to me that that way of
> looking at things was just trying to shoehorn everything into the key of C,
> and having to go to some pretty far out extremes to justify it
>
> I was really struggling with this for the past few days because I hear the
> melody of each ii-V7 as being ^6 - ^5.
>
> and when it moved around the key centers, I was still hearing the melodic
> bits as ^6 - ^5
>
> (^ meaning scale degree, not ^ for major 7th as has been used lately)
>
> So the overall effect to the ear is one of transposition, somehow. But I
> was stuck until LJS showed me the key centers of I, ii, V, and bII ( or is
> that bii)
The key centers for the ii7 Vs would be I (Cmaj) II (Dmaj) V (Gmaj)
and bV (Gbmaj). These tonics are never realized as they are all
incomplete or deceptive cadences. And of course there are at least two
ways to look at the TriToneSub
> You guys can argue over which analysis has ultimate correctness. All I can
> say is that with this new explanation I can make music. I cant make music
> with the Berklee way of looking at things. It's too hard and convoluted .
That has been my only point. The analysis has to be simple and easy to
understand. And it has to be simple to do. Some pieces do have a lot
of complexities. Satin Doll is not one of the most complex things in
the world. It is simply a development of ii7 V cadences by
transposition and deceptive cadence. The deceptive cadence has a
specific Jazz name, but the name is irrelevant. A rose by...
> Again, to Joey - Thank you for sharing how Berklee looks at things - I
> appreciate the time and effort that took. I just don't agree with it.
Remember that I don't think his post that I responded to was his
simplest analysis. At least I hope not. I offer him and encourage him
to share the true way that students can us his system to understand
works on their own. That, after all is what it is all about. I hope
that he will show us a better use of Berklee analysis. I am sure that
there must be a more clear way of saying things.
>
> >In addition to nat and harm min we also borrow from the parallel
> >phrygian and parallel locrian scales.
> >Eg. bII, and bIImaj7 come from the parallel phrygian.
> >bVI7 comes from the parallel locrian scale. All 3 are considered to be
> >SDM funct chords when they occur within primarily major keys
>
> This may be true for all I know. But how am I supposed to use this
> explanation to make music?
This may be some ways of searching for precedents of the TriToneSub,
but that very notion seems to be in disagreement with some of the
things that I had read in previous posts, but to go back to the
historic roots, or whatever, is more ethnomusicology. It may be
important, but if you are going to get on a bandstand and play, you
have to think of what is happening and you have to have it use a
little of your brain power for that so that you can use most of it to
make music. (Most of us don't have a lot to waste on music history
when we need to come up with an improvisation! lol)
>
> (To tell the truth, I had to stop reading it halfway through. It seemed way
> more complex than was justified for what seemed to be almost a "pop" tune)
>
> Nothing personal - I don't agree with a lot of things lately. You may
> remember that I used to do a lot of harmonic analysis on the Bach Chorales
> here, and I got sort of good at it. But quite frankly, deciphering the
> chord progressions didn't really help me all that much until I started to
> focus on the melodic movements of each individual line in the Chorales, and
> seeing cadential patterns in them. I'm starting to see that overt
> ( each of the 4 voices) melodic motion and underlying melodic motion
> melodic motion of the tonal centers are the key to understanding music more
> than Roman numeral analysis per se. I dont know if I phrased that right.
> But I've been reading Hindemiths craft of composition and it's changed the
> way I hear things and understand music.
>
That is the beauty of a simple key area analysis. Now you can think
the keys and the scales and your ear will start to develop good
melodic technique that is not only based on the CHORDS. Now you can be
aware of the chords but you can concentrate on the scales you use and
really free yourself up to create MELODY. (some, and I don't mean
Joey, forget that MELODY RULES in music) A simple analysis like this
gives you all the information that is necessary. If you want to
research the history and evolution, this is still a perfect place to
start
> So, LJS analysis says the harmonic movement of the tonal centers going from
> I, to ii, to V7, to bii to I one makes perfect sense.
>
> Finally,- my original intention by bringing up " Libertango" was simply to
> justify the move from Db7 to C maj7, since it was stated that there was not
> " a (classical) theory book which
> adequately labels Db7~C in C. "
Things evolve. That is the point. You can discover the TTS with the
language. But the progression exists no matter what you call it. All I
try to do is to see what is there and how it all fits together. You
can go deeper, but you don't have to in order to make music. Now, some
deeper thought is good to COMPOSE a tune like this. But that is
another step that can also be implemented with the same language.
>
> I noticed similarites and tried to connect two things . As far as i can
> tell , the logic on this point, the Db7 is a stand in for the G7 because
> they share the same tritone ( I understand tritone sub, LJS) and so it's
> V-I in jazz parlance. But I'm not convinced the ear HEARS it this way
They do. But in this tune, I think that it is the ii-Vs that are the
important part. One could just as easily think of it only as more
dissonant Dominant (the bvi7 bII7) to further create tension after the
ii7 V7 IN The key of G (V) and then the DECEPTION of this dominant to
return to the Home key of C makes the tune a real gem of a example of
doing a lot with very simple concepts. If the TTS was known before
this tune, it is another form of development, if it was not know
before this tune, then it would be creating this effect using the
technique that I described here. There is usually more than one way to
skin that old cat! That is the importance of having a very simple and
clear way of seeing what is there.
I am glad if it helped you to understand the tune. Try the process on
other tunes and let me know how you make out. I will look at them for
you if you want. You should practice doing them on your own. Autumn
Leaves is interesting and simple and has a few different ways of
viewing things. Bur there are so many tunes. Just pick one.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
>
> So, LJS analysis says the harmonic movement of the tonal centers going from
> I, to ii, to V7, to bii to I one makes perfect sense.
And if you're labeling the secondary keys here, and you think that the
Db7 is implying one of them, it's bV, not bii.
Primary key of C, to secondary key of D minor (or D major), to secondary
key of G major, *to secondary key of Gb major*, to primary key of C major.
*Except* that the whole concept of secondary keys, and secondary
dominants, and tonicization, is built on notions of tonicizing closely
related keys, i.e. keys with tonics and tonic triads that are found
within the primary key. Also, the generally accepted list of secondary
dominant chords all have diatonic roots.
We have V7 (Eg. G7), the dominant of the primary key (C).
We have V7/IIm (Eg. A7), the dominant that tonicizes the IIm chord (Dm).
We have V7/IIIm (Eg. B7), the dominant that tonicizes the IIIm chord (Em).
We have V7/IV (Eg. C7), the dominant that tonicizes the IV chord (F).
We have V7/V (Eg. D7), the dominant that tonicizes the V chord (G).
And we have V7/VIm (Eg. E7), the dominant that tonicizes the VIm chord (Am).
Note: Just as it is common to embellish a V7 chord as IIm7-V7, every
secondary dominant chord can be embellished with it's related IIm7 chord.
V7/IIm (A7), becomes \IIm7_V7/IIm (Em7-A7 or Em7b5-A7)
V7/IIIm (B7), becomes \IIm7_V7/IIIm (F#m7-B7 or F#m7b5-B7)
Etc.
There is no V7/VIIdim because a dim chord is not a suitable candidate
for tonicization. If there was a V7/VIIdim, in C major it would be F#7,
and F# is not a diatonic note in the key of C major.
There is no V7/bV (normally) because bV is not a diatonic chord in C. If
there was a V7/bV it would be Db7, but Db is not a diatonic tone in C major.
So the primary SubV7 chord can not be seen as part of a simple
tonicization formula involving closely related keys. The key that has bV
as its tonic is about as far a relation to the original key as you can get.
[And BTW These concepts have nothing to with Berklee. They are common
parlance in pretty much every school of Tonal harmonic analysis.]
Even when we extend tonicization to include the tonicizing of chords
from the parallel minor mode (as was often done even in the Common
practice period of classical music), there is no bV chord to tonicize.
V7/bIII is Bb7.
V7/IVm is the same as V7/IV.
V7/Vm is the same as V7/V. [This would be exceedingly rare - because in
minor keys the regular version of the chord built on scale degree 5 is a
V7 chord (from the harmonic minor scale), not the Vm7 chord derived from
the nat min scale.]
V7/bVI is Eb7.
V7/bVII is F7. [Also rare. The reg version of the chord on scale degree
7 in minor keys is VIIdim.]
Now, it was also common, in Romantic era harmony and the harmony of
American popular music, to extend Tonality to include borrowing chords
from the parallel modes: mixolydian dorian and even phrygian.
So we might also occasionally see:
V7/bII (Ab7) tonicizing bII (Db - from the parallel phrygian scale)
But they drew the line there, and did not borrow from the parallel
lydian or locrian scales. This has to do with the fact that these two
scales lack the feature of having both a tone present a P5th above and
below the "tonic" of the scale. All the other modes have this feature.
In C ionian, dorian, mixolydian, aeolian, and phrygian, C is surrounded
by F and G.
In C lydian, there is no P5th below C.
In C locrian, there is no P5th above C.
So these scales were seen to be less valuable as subjects to make a
tonal center out of (especially locrian because it has a dim triad built
on its "tonic"). Of course modern jazz players have been having a field
day with lydian though.
So, clearly, the Db7 (and it's accompanying Abm7) are something quite
different from simple every-day notions of tonicization.
Still, in modern Tonal music, these last taboos of modal interchange
seem to me to be broken from time to time anyway, via borrowing chords
from the parallel lydian and locrian scales.
In which case, it is possible to see Db7 (in C) as being a tonicization
of Gb (bV) if we allow for borrowing from the parallel locrian scale.
But that's not the way the chord is really used in this tune or in most
tunes. Here, it is clearly being used as a like-function-substitute for
G7. Thus the moniker "SubV7".
Incidentally, all secondary dominant chords also have tritone subs.
Many, but not all, tritone substitute dominant chords happen to have
non-diatonic roots.
SubV7 chords are also often paired up with their related IIm7 chords:
SubV7 is Db7. Sub\IIm7_V7/ is Abm7-Db7.
SubV/IIm is Eb7. Sub\IIm7_V7/IIm is Bbm7-Eb7.
SubV7/IIIm is F7. Sub\IIm7_V7/IIIm is Cm7-F7.
SubV7/IV is Gb7. Sub\IIm7_V7/IV is Dbm7-Gb7.
Etc.
Hope that helps you with the basic concepts.
LJS
(I have a delete key, works better IMO) but if he wants to hide,
that's his choice.
SO I am responding to Danny through this response, I assume that one
of Joe will see it unless the Kill file snips out the responses. No
matter. As far as I can see so far (looking ahead a few posts) Joey's
responses show the same understanding of my posts if they are Killed
or alive. Or in short, no relation at all. All guessing and
speculation. Same old, same old.
On Mar 7, 9:42 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Danny Schorr wrote:
LOL
> 2. My analysis did not take me long to do. It is standard fare.
> I should not have digressed into the discussion of SDM harmony though.
> It made the whole thing much longer than it needed to be.
Totally irrelevant.
> 3. I'm betting that his analysis is exactly the same as mine, except for
> the Abm7-Db7 measure, but that you simply did not understand what
> secondary dominants and secondary II-V's entail.
>
Well, isn't that the point? I thought that understanding, without a
lot of rhetoric was the goal. AND that it should be able to be done by
the student.
> I called A7 "V7/IIm". That means "V7-of-IIm". It involves what is called
> tonicization of the IIm chord. So it is a type of key change from C
> major to D minor. But the key feeling of D major is never confirmed so
> it is not labeled as a bona fide key change. It's called a secondary
> dominant because the key it implies is secondary. The primary key is
> still C major.
>
Of course it is. BUT
First: this would have been one of the answers to the question of
"What other elements were in your analysis that I had not stated when
I asked if there was more to your approach?" Seeing them now, I would
say...
Second: although I had stated previously to Steve in another thread
that I liked that way of noting the key areas on the keyboard, but
when presented in an analysis, the writing out of the key longhand (as
students are often required to do) the stating of the key at the
beginning of the change makes it much more easily understood and
obvious. It then (in the more Classically originated UC/LC) also
isolated these areas so that the relationship of the areas can also be
analyzed. It simply makes both of these important concepts easier to
see and understand.
Third: The "\ /" symbols are interesting. I can see their use to help
the student to organize and isolate groupings. We would have done
something like this on our worksheets as we were just learning that ii
V would mean a half cadence. Or I can see the value of using these to
seperate the bvi bII I if you wanted to then define this as a TTS. I
find the additional RN thrown in after the "/" to be an additional
notation that just makes the presentation more complicated than you
have to. Simplicity has been my point all along.
> This would be true in a classical UC/LC/RN oriented analysis style just
> as much as it would be within Berklee's style. The only difference is
> that at Berklee they use upper case Roman numerals and explicitly spell
> out the chord quality, eg. IIm7 vs ii7. That's it.
>
> The Em7 in my analysis was labeled as "IIm7-of-IIm" (i.e. the IIm7 chord
> in the key of D minor). The Em7 and A7 taken together is what is called
> a IIm7-V7 pair, namely IIm7-V7-of-IIm (written on the analysis as
> "\IIm7_V7/IIm", i.e. a IIm7-V7 progression in the key of D minor).
This doesn't make a lot of sense to me. a ii7 chord does not exist in
minor even if you call it a IIm7. In minor this would be a half-
diminished chord unless you were in the melodic form. The V7 following
it, especially as it is included in the \ / would suggest that these
two chords would suggest a Dmaj. rather then Minor, but..
if one wanted to think of it that way, I would have no problem with
that. Most play it in Major. Minor has no conflicts with the melody or
the chords. Remember that I said the analysis would give you the basic
keys that would work to get you to play the tune very easily. As you
develop your understand of music, you can then expand your concept to
more fully express the melodic lines that you want.
My only problem with this view it is not expressed that way in the
score, especially with the repeats of the ii7 V7. I am surprised that
this question did not come up on the next phrase. the Gmaj (V): ii7 V7
that precedes the TTS bvi-bII. In my fake book, there is an Amin7-5
written as an alternate progression. This would be the ii half
diminished 7 and would then suggest that the G (V) would be a Gmin (v)
instead. In either case, what I have noted is what is there in the
score.
>
> LJS probably called this the key of D major rather than D minor though,
> which is not really what's happening. But you could choose to play
> through these measures as if you were in the key of D major. Lots of
> guys do. The difference can be as subtle a thing as the accompanist
> adding an F# to both or either chord.
>
> And that's the thing about a jazz-style analysis of a chord
> progression...The soloist and the other players can actually influence
> the key feeling by virtue of the notes that they play. I.e. I can play
> through these chords as if I'm momentarily in D minor or momentarily in
> D major. It's up to me. The given progression has a level of ambiguity
> to it by virtue of the fact that the music has not been made yet by the
> improvisers the progression is to be played by. Classical analysis is
> aimed only at music that has already been put down on paper, note-for-note.
Which is what I have been saying all along in this and earlier
threads. The jazz artist must have a very good understanding of what
parameters are inherent in the music. When you are playing, good
musicians don't follow the lead sheet all the time. Some not only
influence, but totally change the harmonic structure of the piece.
Listen to Bill Evans and you will see some examples of this as well as
in other musicians. BUT I can assure you that they have a very nice
and easy understanding of these simple songs. With this foundation,
they can then show their stuff and just make music.
>
> Which brings us to another point.
> Just because you have a good working analysis of the keys involved with
> a given chord progression does not mean that you automatically know what
> notes to play, i.e. the chord-scale relationships. Often the two do go
> hand in hand. Eg. If the progression is actually in D minor, using the D
> minor scale(s) might be appropriate. But often they don't go hand in
> hand. So be careful if that's what you're thinking that analysis is used
> for by a jazz musician. It isn't really. It's just used to get a better
> idea of certain parameters of a progression. It also helps to memorize
> tunes because the same basic building blocks reoccur in tune after tune.
If things have more than one way of being interpreted, then that will
be obvious as the student learns these concepts. This is what Joe has
trouble seeing. He knows what he likes and what has worked for him. He
seems to forget that there are beginners out there that may not hear
things the same way he does. They most likely are trying to find the
scales to play that will let them get through a solo and not sound
foolish. Here is the misunderstanding...
The LANGUAGE is best used if it puts the chords into an easily
understood format that can allow the analyst to work with the
materials at hand. The first step is exactly what I have written. You
can play from this probably tonight if you can play your instrument
and you know the keys. It has done the first level task. This same
LANGUAGE, can then be analyzed more deeply or in totally different
directions. Once you can play the tune, you then can play music. Take
chances, make mistakes, make good mistakes and you can go back and
analyze what you have done. That is the way we learn and develop our
own style.
You can take this tune and choose scales from a number of various
approaches. You can sometimes play a section, as questioned here, in
major and make "happy" music or in minor and make that chorus a "sad"
section (LOL) Once you have a clear and basic understand of the
music If you want to go into other concepts of theory, you may have
to use other concepts of analysis. I am only speaking of Functional
Harmonic Analysis. These chords function in the manner I have analyzed
them. Are there variations? nuances? and different interpretations? I
certainly hope so. I would hope that you find your own ways of using
the LANGUAGE to make your own sound. If you do, some will work, some
will not. That is how you develop your sound.
>
> 4. I called D7, "V7-of-V". That means that G is being tonicized here. D7
> is a "secondary dominant". The secondary key is G major. The primary key
> is still C major. Am7 is "IIm7-of-V", the IIm7 chord in G major.
> Together they form a secondary IIm7-V7 progression, "IIm7-V7-of-V"
> (written in the analysis as "\IIm7_V7/V").
>
> 5. Classical musicians have no way of dealing with the Abm7 Db7 measure,
> and this is where the SubV7 concept, a notion of jazz institutions like
> Berklee, *has to* be invoked. The music is in no way that matters "in
> the key of Gb major here". For the music to be "in the key of Gb major"
> the Db7 chord would have to resolve to a Gbmaj chord, and it doesn't. It
> doesn't feel like Gbmaj is the home chord at all here. Cmaj is still
> strongly felt as the tonal center. If we stuck a Gbmaj chord in there it
> would feel like a surprise, not something had already been implied by
> the previous music. We expect to hear a Cmaj chord, and that's what we
> do hear. Now, an improviser might use the notes of the Gb major scale to
> create melodies over these chords, but even that doesn't make the music
> feel like a Gbmaj chord is expected in the next bar.
Well that is simply not true. I am a classical musician and I have
dealt with it. I certainly am not exceptional by doing this. This
shows a misunderstanding of the whole Classical Analysis concept. How
do you think that the "rules" of cadence and functional harmony came
to be in the first place? If there was a musician in an earlier era
that stumbled on this bvi to vII7 I cadence and it caught on, it would
have been seen as they analyzed the music and it would have been named
and the conventions of use would have been established. Before the N6
was 'Labeled' it was only a bII6. They could deal with this they could
have dealt with the TTS. The language actually shows that this
particular "ii7 V7" resolving to the I (Tonic) chord is a cadence of
some sort. Call it what you will, it is in the analysis. You could
play this progression for your whole life and never hear the words
"tri tone sub" and you music would still sound the same.
>
> No, Db7 is clearly being used as a chord with the same harmonic function
> in the key of C as G7. It behaves exactly like G7 and that's how we
> analyse it, namely, as a tritone substitute for G7 ("SubV7" in the
> analysis).
Isn't that implicit in the UC/LC as well?
>
> In classical music this progression would never be allowed so they don't
> have a meaningful designation for it within an harmonic analysis. They
> have something close, called an augmented 6th chord, but Db7-C does not
> parse as bII+6. Even if they were willing to call this bII+6 they would
> have no way to deal with the previous chord, the Abm7.
> So in lieu of labeling this most common progression "a mistake" or
> "suddenly atonal music", we need some new analytical device. That device
> is the SubV7 chord. And it's related SubIIm7 chord forms a IIm7-V7 pair
> with the SubV7 chord. The analysis was SubIIm7-V7 (written as
> "\SubIIm7_V7/" in my analysis.
Classical musicians don't have those words in their vocabulary because
the older music did not have these progressions in their music. As
they analyze these progressions, they then have it. The very fact that
he chooses to use a bII+6 is strange. Only an uninformed Classical
student would do this, and no student worth his salt would call the
given material a mistake. I have no idea what the basis of these
statement are. They are there. They sound fine. They sound like a
dominant function to any informed ear, and the student will ponder on
how to notate this. Maybe classical musicians that then went to
Berklee would do this, I don't know, but real classical students
wouldn't think that way.
>
> I'm sorry if you found my analysis too difficult.
Wasn't simplicity one of the criteria? Doesn't this admit that your
analysis is not as easily understood by a beginning student? Isn't
that my point all along?
> But it really is exactly the same ideology and terminology as whatever
> LJS has been giving you, except for the Abm7-Db7. The only other real
> difference is the upper case Roman numerals and the extra text
> descriptions of the chord quality.
And you would know that because....
and Again you miss the scope of everything that I have said. I can
never understand where you get these things.
>
> Did you happen to see the examples from the Nettles and Graff book that
> I had posted at my web site? Barry Nettles is the head of the harmony
> course at Berklee. This book is essentially the Berklee harmony course.
> If you're trying to learn what scales are appropriate to play over a
> given chord progression there is no better book on the market to get you
> started. It's called "The Chord-Scale Theory And Jazz Harmony" and it's
> available from advancemusic.com.
I saw them They were very fine definitions of some progressions.
1) the student should not have to buy a specific book to understand
lead sheets
2) all these progressions will make sense, albeit undefined, in UC/LC
without needing any other information
3) when the student sees these progressions, he knows that they are
not mistakes, but will then know that something like bvi7 bII7 I is
some thing that works and is useful and will THEN get the label from
N&G if his friends don't tell him the name.
4) You say that this book is essential for the Berklee harmony course.
That is probably true. It does not, however, preclude the fact that
they can be seen in the literature, analyzed with the UC/LC and put to
use by the student with simple analytical skills even if they don't go
to Berklee, or even if they (gasp!) don't think that the Berklee
approach is the ONLY way to learn music!
5) Now there is a new term thrown in "the chord scale). It may be of
interest or not. Most of the music I hear (except for some modern
modal music) has chord group scales based on functionality. What ever
this theory is (let me guess, Joey won't attempt to explain what this
means) it would be something that can be, and probably should be,
looked into after the student has an understanding of functional
harmony as practiced in the historical and present mainstream. This
and EVERY other approach that has ever been used from the beginning
until now and continuing into the future should be explored. But to
start here is a commitment to the Berklee method. It may be what one
is looking for, but the system, as I have experienced it in this group
and in life, is closed and is reluctant to look at other concepts. If
this is the direction desired, then it IS the perfect system.
LJS
LJS
> Danny Schorr wrote:
>
> > So, LJS analysis says the harmonic movement of the tonal centers going from
> > I, to ii, to V7, to bii to I one makes perfect sense.
>
> And if you're labeling the secondary keys here, and you think that the
> Db7 is implying one of them, it's bV, not bii.
Wow, its amazing! Absolutely no difference if Joey reads the post or
if he Kill-files it! He constantly comes up with the wrong information
to talk about. If Joe would actually read it, instead of guessing like
he constantly does, there would be much less understanding.
>
> Primary key of C, to secondary key of D minor (or D major), to secondary
> key of G major, *to secondary key of Gb major*, to primary key of C major.
>
> *Except* that the whole concept of secondary keys, and secondary
> dominants, and tonicization, is built on notions of tonicizing closely
> related keys, i.e. keys with tonics and tonic triads that are found
> within the primary key. Also, the generally accepted list of secondary
> dominant chords all have diatonic roots.
This may be true in Berklee, but it is not true in real life. Again, I
don't understand this obsession of keeping the past evolution of music
so isolated as to preclude it from reality. The composers of the CPP
didn't use these progressions to a great extent. THEY stayed, for a
large part, in the more closely related keys. Music evolved. That is
how a language grows. Yes, if you think that the UC/LC LANGUAGE is the
progressions and keys used in the CPP then there is no understanding
of how the language and analysis works. The LANGUAGE allows the key
areas to be expressed to show functionality in DIFFERENT KEYS. In the
CPP they are closely related. In other music they are not. There is no
rule that says (Well maybe Joe's rule or Berklee's rule) that the keys
have to be closely related or that there are limitations as to what
scale or non scale tones can be a secondary dominant! That is Joe's
opinion. It is not fact!
>
> We have V7 (Eg. G7), the dominant of the primary key (C).
> We have V7/IIm (Eg. A7), the dominant that tonicizes the IIm chord (Dm).
> We have V7/IIIm (Eg. B7), the dominant that tonicizes the IIIm chord (Em).
> We have V7/IV (Eg. C7), the dominant that tonicizes the IV chord (F).
> We have V7/V (Eg. D7), the dominant that tonicizes the V chord (G).
> And we have V7/VIm (Eg. E7), the dominant that tonicizes the VIm chord (Am).
>
> Note: Just as it is common to embellish a V7 chord as IIm7-V7, every
> secondary dominant chord can be embellished with it's related IIm7 chord.
> V7/IIm (A7), becomes \IIm7_V7/IIm (Em7-A7 or Em7b5-A7)
> V7/IIIm (B7), becomes \IIm7_V7/IIIm (F#m7-B7 or F#m7b5-B7)
> Etc.
Yes, and that is why the 'embellishment' would usually be chosen to
show which key the Dominant is referring to. i.e. the ii7 would be an
embellishment to the Major key and the ii7-5 for the minor key. Unlike
your interpretation in your previous post where you guessed at what
you think I said. Which way do you want it to be? ii7 V7 as Major, or
as Minor as you say it is in the Em7 A7 in SD?
>
> There is no V7/VIIdim because a dim chord is not a suitable candidate
> for tonicization. If there was a V7/VIIdim, in C major it would be F#7,
> and F# is not a diatonic note in the key of C major.
No, but certainly any major or minor form of any VII chord could. Why
would you even consider this. (Although, in some more modern
compositional concepts, I can see where this would at least be
possible if the tune was written using the Locrian modes, but that is
an ENTIRELY different thread!!)
>
> There is no V7/bV (normally) because bV is not a diatonic chord in C. If
> there was a V7/bV it would be Db7, but Db is not a diatonic tone in C major.
> So the primary SubV7 chord can not be seen as part of a simple
> tonicization formula involving closely related keys. The key that has bV
> as its tonic is about as far a relation to the original key as you can get.
Why do you make up these rules? Who says that the key area needs to be
diatonic?
>
> [And BTW These concepts have nothing to with Berklee. They are common
> parlance in pretty much every school of Tonal harmonic analysis.]
As if!
> Even when we extend tonicization to include the tonicizing of chords
> from the parallel minor mode (as was often done even in the Common
> practice period of classical music), there is no bV chord to tonicize.
> V7/bIII is Bb7.
> V7/IVm is the same as V7/IV.
> V7/Vm is the same as V7/V. [This would be exceedingly rare - because in
> minor keys the regular version of the chord built on scale degree 5 is a
> V7 chord (from the harmonic minor scale), not the Vm7 chord derived from
> the nat min scale.]
> V7/bVI is Eb7.
> V7/bVII is F7. [Also rare. The reg version of the chord on scale degree
> 7 in minor keys is VIIdim.]
I am sure that this is useful in some manner! It seems rather obvious
although maybe limited.
> Now, it was also common, in Romantic era harmony and the harmony of
> American popular music, to extend Tonality to include borrowing chords
> from the parallel modes: mixolydian dorian and even phrygian.
> So we might also occasionally see:
> V7/bII (Ab7) tonicizing bII (Db - from the parallel phrygian scale)
>
> But they drew the line there, and did not borrow from the parallel
> lydian or locrian scales. This has to do with the fact that these two
> scales lack the feature of having both a tone present a P5th above and
> below the "tonic" of the scale. All the other modes have this feature.
> In C ionian, dorian, mixolydian, aeolian, and phrygian, C is surrounded
> by F and G.
> In C lydian, there is no P5th below C.
> In C locrian, there is no P5th above C.
> So these scales were seen to be less valuable as subjects to make a
> tonal center out of (especially locrian because it has a dim triad built
> on its "tonic"). Of course modern jazz players have been having a field
> day with lydian though.
>
> So, clearly, the Db7 (and it's accompanying Abm7) are something quite
> different from simple every-day notions of tonicization.
Finally, there is a point(?) to these endless lists. (I see you have
lots of time on your hands since you recovered from your temper
tantrum!) BUT the point doesn't follow. First, it is a ii V in the key
of Gb. This is the bV of the tonic. It implies that the key, if
resolved would be to the Gb or bV. BUT it isn't. It does create
tension. It extends tension that was first created by the ii V in the
V or Gmaj. that implied movement to the Dominant key, this was set up
by the implication of the ii V in the supertonic (major or minor still
the cycle of fifths) Thus we have tension going from the implied keys
of the 2nd class key ares of D to the 1st class key area of G and now
we have an implied key of Gb. This seems to be extending this tension
to another level as it is the furthest distance possible (an Aug4th)
from the tonic of C. The bII7 also shares some very important tones
with the G7 chord Specifically the B (Cb) and the F. Thus this chord
not only creates tension by implying that it will go to Gb, and this
series of tensions then uses the common B F of the V7 and the bII7 to
seamlessly resolve to the home key of tonic. If one understands the
concept it is an extension of the Dominant function set up by the
KeyG: ii7V7 that leads to the bvi bII. The fact that it was set up by
the three previous tonal and closely related ii7 V7s sets up the ear
for the deception that seems inevitable (after all, the TTS functions
as a dominant if you label it or if you call it a bvi7 bII7) and it
ends up exactly where the G7 would, the G7 just wold not be a
colorful. All perfectly tonal, perfectly logical and perfectly
functional. If it loses its functionality because of the label, I
would suggest that you reconsider your concept of functionality.
This tune is a very good example of the Ellington genius to use very
simple concepts in very simple ways to lead the listener around
tonality in such a pleasant yet very controlled manner. Call it a TTS.
That is fine. But if you don't, it still sounds the same.
>
> Still, in modern Tonal music, these last taboos of modal interchange
> seem to me to be broken from time to time anyway, via borrowing chords
> from the parallel lydian and locrian scales.
> In which case, it is possible to see Db7 (in C) as being a tonicization
> of Gb (bV) if we allow for borrowing from the parallel locrian scale.
>
> But that's not the way the chord is really used in this tune or in most
> tunes. Here, it is clearly being used as a like-function-substitute for
> G7. Thus the moniker "SubV7".
So why would you bring it up here as an explanation? And why do you
need to call it a SubV7? Is this the only possible chord or
progression that could be defined as a SUBV? Is this the one and only
chord that can SUB for Dominant? this is the implication of that
particular label as if it isn't, then there would be more than one
choice for spelling for the label SUB7 and that would not be so clear
would it?
>
> Incidentally, all secondary dominant chords also have tritone subs.
> Many, but not all, tritone substitute dominant chords happen to have
> non-diatonic roots.
> SubV7 chords are also often paired up with their related IIm7 chords:
> SubV7 is Db7. Sub\IIm7_V7/ is Abm7-Db7.
> SubV/IIm is Eb7. Sub\IIm7_V7/IIm is Bbm7-Eb7.
> SubV7/IIIm is F7. Sub\IIm7_V7/IIIm is Cm7-F7.
> SubV7/IV is Gb7. Sub\IIm7_V7/IV is Dbm7-Gb7.
> Etc.
>
> Hope that helps you with the basic concepts.
Yes, these additional ways of labeling these chords, rather than the
actual ii7V7 that would show the same thing without having to learn
these additional SUB definitions. but, I don't see the spelling here!
Don't you have to first spell the chords and then decide that they are
Sub somethings and then when the student reads them, how does he know
to spell them the proper way, or how does he know that the spelling he
sees in the score or lead sheet means these labels unless he took that
particular course? Do you see the circular pattern here? I thought we
were talking about simplicity.
Just curious. What would Berklee (JG) do if a composer actually used a
French or German 6th in a Jazz composition? would you use the
Classical labels and forget the spelling aspect of the language as
here? or what?
LJS
Danny Schorr
> And if you're labeling the secondary keys here, and you think that the
>> Db7 is implying one of them, it's bV, not bii.
>
>Wow, its amazing! Absolutely no difference if Joey reads the post or
>if he Kill-files it! He constantly comes up with the wrong information
>to talk about. If Joe would actually read it, instead of guessing like
>he constantly does, there would be much less understanding.
He's responding to my mis-statement about the key center being bii, when I
meant to say bV.
I realized this was an error but didn't bother correcting it. I really
should have. Again: we all agree that the last key center is bV, not bii.
Slow down, guys, I'll respond to everything here. I have things to do this
afternoon, but I will get to this.
Danny
LJS
> On Sat, 8 Mar 2008 08:47:14 -0800 (PST), LJS <ljsche...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And if you're labeling the secondary keys here, and you think that the
> >> Db7 is implying one of them, it's bV, not bii.
>
> >Wow, its amazing! Absolutely no difference if Joey reads the post or
> >if he Kill-files it! He constantly comes up with the wrong information
> >to talk about. If Joe would actually read it, instead of guessing like
> >he constantly does, there would be much less understanding.
>
> He's responding to my mis-statement about the key center being bii, when I
> meant to say bV.
I know. I only corrected your post to make sure it was inline with
what I stated. I don't know how long you have been reading, but Joey
has this tendency to respond to things that was never said. He seems
to quickly scan the post, decide what answers he has in the broad
sense of the topic and then use his answers even if they don't really
fit the post. His answers are then somewhat true, but only if they
applied to the post. They often don't and then when challenged, his
temper kicks and the name calling, personal slurs, total absence of
information and the same old same old starts.
In reality, as I have said many times, he has learned a lot,
especially for his limited formal music schooling and no real
schooling in the Classical tradition. If he could learn to listen to
other points of view, he could fill in the blanks and really put
things together. I don't know if this is true of his playing or not. I
have tried to listen to some of his music but I seem to have trouble
with the downloads. The ones that I have managed to get did not
particularly inspire me to try to get the others to work, but this
mine was a very limited sample. But my liking or not liking his music
has never been the issue for me. My issues are only those that limit
the scope of the student and then only when it is expressed on a
public forum line a newsgroup. I don't care if someone buys his book
and follows it. That is their choice. I don't care what he does in his
classes, again that is all choice. I also get upset when he says
things about Classical Theory that is either not quite right or just
plain wrong. And I feel obligated to respond when things like, "The UC/
LC is so complicated that a jazz student would have to study it for 3
years before he could use it to play a simple tune."
Congratulations on your exceptional ability as a music student!! I
think you did it in about a day or less!! lol
>
> I realized this was an error but didn't bother correcting it. I really
> should have. Again: we all agree that the last key center is bV, not bii.
>
> Slow down, guys, I'll respond to everything here. I have things to do this
> afternoon, but I will get to this.
What's your hurry. Take things at your own pace as you learn the
concepts. You can e-mail interesting posts to your own e-mail account
and then take your time and use them for reference or study at your
leisure. I don't mind if you respond late to my posts on line here or
by personal mail. I am not always prompt but I try to be and will
always eventually respond to your theory concerns.
LJS
>
> Danny
Joey Goldstein
>
> This would be true in a classical UC/LC/RN oriented analysis style just
> as much as it would be within Berklee's style. The only difference is
> that at Berklee they use upper case Roman numerals and explicitly spell
> out the chord quality, eg. IIm7 vs ii7. That's it.
Just to bring this point into better focus...
Here's what a classical UC/LC/RN analysis of Satin Doll would look like:
C:
ii7 V7 ii7 V7 ii7/ii V7/ii ii7/ii V7/ii
Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
Mistake!!!(Fail)
ii7/V V7/V ???????? I
Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |C
Here's the Berklee style analysis again:
C:
\IIm7_V7/ \IIm7_V7/ \IIm7_V7/IIm \IIm7_V7/IIm
Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
\IIm7_V7/V Sub\IIm7_V7/ I
Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |C
You should see that the only discernible differences are:
1. At Berklee they prefer to use upper case Roman numerals only and to
spell out the chord quality in a similar fashion to the way a chord
symbol would be spelled.
2. At Berklee they bracket all instances of any progression with the
same intervallic structure as a IIm7-V7 progression (or a IIm7b5_V7
progression). This is because of the central place in jazz that the II-V
progression holds. Chords that fit this description are bracketed
whether the chords are actually functioning as IIm7 and V7 in the key or
not. This was the point I was trying to make earlier when I digressed
into my discussion of Subdominant Minor function harmony. My example
involved the \IVm7_bVII7/ progression.
If you've seen the excerpts from the Nettles & Graff book you'll
understand that the type of brackets I am forced to use here with simple
ASCII text are different than the types of brackets that they used in
their book which are hand drawn.
As a matter of fact, the types of brackets they use at Berklee now are
different than what we did in the 70s. Plus N&G have started using a
superscripted way of denoting secondary dominants and SubV7 chords.
Eg.
V7/IIm
\______/
Em7 A7
The N&G method shows that Em7 and A7 form a IIm-V7 pair simply by
placing a bracket above (sometimes beneath) the two chord symbols. The
superscripted "V7/IIm" indicates that the A7 is a secondary dominant,
which makes the Em7 its related IIm7 chord in retrospect. So all in all,
their graphic representation can take up less room on the page than the
way that we did it when I was at Berklee like this:
\IIm__V7/IIm
which is how we did it in the old days.
Again, you have to see this drawn by hand.
3. At Berklee we have the notion of the tritone substitute dominant
chord. I am aware of no classical school that teaches Tonal harmonic
analysis that has made accommodations to their palette of analytical
devices to include the tritone substitute dominant chord. There may
indeed be a school like that, but I'm not aware of them.
And that's it. Aside from some of the graphic aspects, and from the
notion of the SubV7 chord, the two analyses and the notions involved in
both are identical. But at Berklee they happen use UC/RN. That's it.
There would be nothing to prevent someone from using the UC/LC/RN
nomenclature to do the exact same analysis as the Berklee analysis. It's
just that most folks who use that style of analysis don't allow for
SubV7 chords. And, in my experience, in the jazz community most people
generally prefer the UC/RN style of analysis.
Alain Naigeon
to try the example Ab7 -> Db7 and to discover that my ears
indeed agree with a resolution to Cmajor !!
It's surprising because I used to think, before, that the topology
of harmony was, roughly, "the closer, the farther" - and here it's
clearly not the case !
But I've also heard that we could add a third chord concluding
in F, and it works very well if we change the rhythm of the
second chord Db7 (for instance 2 quarters instead of a half).
Thus it seems that rhythm *has* a lot of harmonic implications
(and *that* is not a surprise to me).
--
Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensuration
http://anaigeon.free.fr | http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
Alain Naigeon - anai...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
Alain Naigeon
47d2efb3$0$17126$426a...@news.free.fr...
> But I've also heard that we could add a third chord concluding
> in F, and it works very well if we change the rhythm of the
> second chord Db7 (for instance 2 quarters instead of a half).
> Thus it seems that rhythm *has* a lot of harmonic implications
> (and *that* is not a surprise to me).
Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
Ab -> Db -> C -> F
Joey Goldstein
> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d2efb3$0$17126$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> But I've also heard that we could add a third chord concluding
>> in F, and it works very well if we change the rhythm of the
>> second chord Db7 (for instance 2 quarters instead of a half).
>> Thus it seems that rhythm *has* a lot of harmonic implications
>> (and *that* is not a surprise to me).
>
> Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
> Ab -> Db -> C -> F
>
There's all sort of things we could do, of course.
Why it is that *you* want to do that particular thing is not clear though.
And BTW. The progression is Abm7 Db7 C, not Ab7 Db7 C.
Incidentally...
Ab7 Db7 C
in C, would be
SubV7/V SubV7 I
Joey Goldstein
Another thing that people tend forget about this tune is that it has a 4
bar intro that clearly confirms the key of C major before all of the
modulating II-V's even begin to happen.
This is yet another reason why the Db7 feels so strongly that it wants
to resolve back to the already established primary tonic chord, Cmaj.
Alain Naigeon
fqusq3$sol$1...@news.datemas.de...
> Alain Naigeon wrote:
>> Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
>> Ab -> Db -> C -> F
>>
>
> There's all sort of things we could do, of course.
> Why it is that *you* want to do that particular thing is not clear though.
It's not clear to me either :-) I just heard that it could sound quite
natural,
but I certainly believe you that there might be other ideas!
> And BTW. The progression is Abm7 Db7 C, not Ab7 Db7 C.
>
> Incidentally...
> Ab7 Db7 C
> in C, would be
> SubV7/V SubV7 I
Thanks Joe, but I'm just completely unfamiliar with chord notations,
and I don't understand what is a "tritone substitution" :-(
Is there a site explaining this kind of things, starting from a basic
level ?
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> fqusq3$sol$1...@news.datemas.de...
>> Alain Naigeon wrote:
>>> Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
>>> Ab -> Db -> C -> F
>>>
>> There's all sort of things we could do, of course.
>> Why it is that *you* want to do that particular thing is not clear though.
>
> It's not clear to me either :-) I just heard that it could sound quite
> natural,
> but I certainly believe you that there might be other ideas!
>
>> And BTW. The progression is Abm7 Db7 C, not Ab7 Db7 C.
>>
>> Incidentally...
>> Ab7 Db7 C
>> in C, would be
>> SubV7/V SubV7 I
>
> Thanks Joe, but I'm just completely unfamiliar with chord notations,
> and I don't understand what is a "tritone substitution" :-(
> Is there a site explaining this kind of things, starting from a basic
> level ?
>
The classic resolution of the tritone interval in a V7-I progression
involves contrary motion by step.
G7 Cmaj
F moves to E by half-step
B moves to C by half step
In C minor it's:
G7 Cm
F moves to Eb by whole-step
B moves to C by half step
B is the leading tone, it is a half step below the tonic, C.
In a Db7 chord, the tritone interval is formed between F and Cb.
Cb is enharmonic to B. So Db7 and G7 share the same tritone interval.
And, in the key of C, when Db7 occurs in a place where G7 is normally
expected, it can behave in exactly the same manner as G7 behaves,
namely, as an approach chord to I (or Im), i.e. a chord with dominant
function.
In C, Db7 is said to be the "tritone substitute dominant chord" (aka
"SubV7") for G7.
Not only do Db7 and G7 share the same tritone interval, but their roots
are also a tritone apart from each other. Thus the name.
Db7 Cmaj
Cb moves to C
F moves to E
In minor:
Db7 Cm
Cb moves to C
F moves to Eb
Cb is enharmonic to B, the leading tone in the key.
Most melodies that fit over G7-C will also work over Db7-C.
The two chords are more-or-less functionally interchangeable, although
there will be times when only one or the other will do.
Any dom7 chord that is functioning with dominant function within the
primary key or a secondary key (not all dom7 chords have dominant
function btw) is often replaced with its tritone sub. This is fairly
routine for modern jazz players.
C A7 D7 G7 C
can become
C A7 D7 Db7 C
or
C A7 Ab7 G7 C
or
C Eb7 D7 G7 C
or
C A7 Ab7 Db7 C
or
C Eb7 D7 G7 C
or
C A7 Ab7 G7 C
or
C Eb7 D7 Db7 C
All the above progressions are essentially the same, functionally
speaking. Just different colors of the same basic departure-return movement.
Just as a V7 chord is often accompanied or embellished with its related
IIm7 or IIm7b5 chord, so can a secondary dominant chord, a SubV7 chord,
or a secondary SubV7 chord.
The basic movements to the primary tonic, in C, would be:
G7 C
or
Dm7 G7 C
or
Db7 C
or
Abm7 Db7 C
or
Dm7 Db7 C
or
Abm7 G7 C
C A7 D7 G7 C
can become
C A7 D7 Dm7 G7 C
or
C Em7 A7 Am7 D7 Dm7 G7 C
or
C Em7 Eb7 Am7 Ab7 Dm7 Db7 C
or
C Bbm7 Eb7 Ebm7 Ab7 Abm7 Db7 C
etc.
Hope that helps.
LJS
As I re read my statements concerning your music on the web, I noticed
that it was NOT what I intended to convey at all. If I implied that
your musicianship was not professional I would like to retract that
implication and to apologize it Joey or anyone else got that idea from
my comment. All I was really trying to say was that his musicianship
or playing ability or has nothing what so ever with what I think of
his ability to analyze and explain music, especially Classical music
and to the limited amount of Jazz analysis that I have seen his Jazz
analysis and that he is certainly welcome to his opinions, but I think
that music can be explained in a much more simple way and with more
clarity than I have seen on this newsgroup.
SO once again If I implied anything negative about his musicianship, I
am deeply sorry and apologize for not catching this possible
implication before I sent this post In fact, I was away from the post
and forgot to re read it before I sent it Sorry Joey if I challenged
your playing ability If you remember, I have often stated that I think
you have vast amounts of experience and that you have done a lot with
a limited amount of formal schooling and that I respect the knowledge
that you have accumulated.
LJS
LJS
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > This would be true in a classical UC/LC/RN oriented analysis style just
> > as much as it would be within Berklee's style. The only difference is
> > that at Berklee they use upper case Roman numerals and explicitly spell
> > out the chord quality, eg. IIm7 vs ii7. That's it.
>
> Just to bring this point into better focus...
> Here's what a classical UC/LC/RN analysis of Satin Doll would look like:
>
> C:
> ii7 V7 ii7 V7 ii7/ii V7/ii ii7/ii V7/ii
> Dm7 |G7 |Dm7 |G7 |Em7 |A7 |Em7 |A7 |
>
> Mistake!!!(Fail)
> ii7/V V7/V ???????? I
> Am7 D7 |Abm7 Db7 |C
Is this a joke? It would be funny if it had any truth to it. It only
shows that you don't understand the Classical UC/LC RN system at all.
And the only mistake involved would be your turning that in and then
you would of course fail.
LJS
That is true, you could use UC/LC in the style of Berklee and in fact
it would make it a bit more clear. It is more difficult, however to
use the Berklee to do the same with Classical music. You are still
missing the difference with LANGUAGE and ANALYSIS. You mix up the two
in your Berklee system. You need to bring in outside information to
express your ideas (i.e. THE SUB7 for TTS) Looking at the analysis it
doesn't even spell the chords.
I do hope that your example of the Classical UC/LC was supposed to be
a sarcastic joke. Otherwise, you have made a fool of yourself.
LJS
LJS
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
>
> > Alain Naigeon wrote:
> >> Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
> >> Ab -> Db -> C -> F
>
> > There's all sort of things we could do, of course.
> > Why it is that *you* want to do that particular thing is not clear though.
>
> It's not clear to me either :-) I just heard that it could sound quite
> natural,
> but I certainly believe you that there might be other ideas!
>
> > And BTW. The progression is Abm7 Db7 C, not Ab7 Db7 C.
>
> > Incidentally...
> > Ab7 Db7 C
> > in C, would be
> > SubV7/V SubV7 I
>
> Thanks Joe, but I'm just completely unfamiliar with chord notations,
> and I don't understand what is a "tritone substitution" :-(
In this particular case, it is a bvi7 bII 7 I. or AbCbEbGb DbFAbCb to
CEG. You can read about why this works as a dominant in one of my
replies to Danny. If you can't find it, ask and I will tell.
LJS
> Is there a site explaining this kind of things, starting from a basic
> level ?
>
> --
>
> Français *==> "Musique renaissance" <==* English
> midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensurationhttp://anaigeon.free.fr|http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
> Alain Naigeon - anaig...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
Tom K.
"Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> wrote in message
news:47d2f11e$0$17950$426a...@news.free.fr...
> "Alain Naigeon" <anai...@free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> 47d2efb3$0$17126$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
>> But I've also heard that we could add a third chord concluding
>> in F, and it works very well if we change the rhythm of the
>> second chord Db7 (for instance 2 quarters instead of a half).
>> Thus it seems that rhythm *has* a lot of harmonic implications
>> (and *that* is not a surprise to me).
>
> Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
> Ab -> Db -> C -> F
>
What you may be hearing, Alain, is the Db7 behaving as a German 6th in the
key of F. If you haven't yet studied it, a German 6th is enharmonically
equal to a V7 chord built on scale degree b6 and it normally resolves to a V
chord. So (assuming your Ab is Ab7 and not Abm7):
Ab7 -> Db7 -> C(7) -> F
F:V/Ger6 - Ger6 - V7 - I
By the way, what the classical folk call a German 6th (or Italian 6th) is
labeled a Tritone Sub for V7/V by the jazzers. The real issue for you is
whether or not the Db7 - C makes the C sound like a V chord (and thus
resolved naturally to F) - if so, the Db is a Ger6. This progression has
been in use in CPP music for hundreds of years. However, the Db7-C
progression when C is not a V chord isn't found much before the late 19th
century.
Hope this doesn't add to the confusion!
Tom K.
LJS
> On Mar 8, 2:38 pm, "Alain Naigeon" <anaig...@free.fr> wrote:
>
> > "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > fqusq3$so...@news.datemas.de...
>
> > > Alain Naigeon wrote:
> > > And BTW. The progression is Abm7 Db7 C, not Ab7 Db7 C.
>
> > > Incidentally...
> > > Ab7 Db7 C
> > > in C, would be
> > > SubV7/V SubV7 I
Since Joey has kill filed me, can someone explain this? Its the SubV/V
SubV7 that has me puzzled. Maybe there is some other Berklee student
that can tell me what this is supposed to mean or if it is a misprint.
Here is my dilemma:
If \Abm7 Db7/ C = Sub\IIm7_V7/ I (from the last post)
Now I understand that the bII7 puts it in a different light as it is
now a Dominant chord rather then a II chord. It is now ntated as sort
of a Dominant of a Dominant the way it is notated (a Sub7 of a Sub7)
But in the case of the Db7 chord, there is a resolution to the C and I
understand that to be the definition of the Sub7. BUT if that is true,
Why would the Ab7 which resolves naturally like a Secondary would in
any key to the V7 a fifth below its root, have the same name as the
other that resolves as defined in the Sub7 (Db7) that resolves down a
half step.
How can both chords with different resolutions be notated in by the
same Sub label?
Or is this a misprint?
LJS
The Ab7 resolves one way, the Db7
>
> > Thanks Joe, but I'm just completely unfamiliar with chord notations,
> > and I don't understand what is a "tritone substitution" :-(
>
> > --
LJS
> "Alain Naigeon" <anaig...@free.fr> wrote in message
>
> news:47d2f11e$0$17950$426a...@news.free.fr...
>
> > "Alain Naigeon" <anaig...@free.fr> a écrit dans le message de news:
> > 47d2efb3$0$17126$426a7...@news.free.fr...
>
> >> But I've also heard that we could add a third chord concluding
> >> in F, and it works very well if we change the rhythm of the
> >> second chord Db7 (for instance 2 quarters instead of a half).
> >> Thus it seems that rhythm *has* a lot of harmonic implications
> >> (and *that* is not a surprise to me).
>
> > Typo ! I should have said "we could add a fourth chord" :
> > Ab -> Db -> C -> F
>
> What you may be hearing, Alain, is the Db7 behaving as a German 6th in the
> key of F. If you haven't yet studied it, a German 6th is enharmonically
> equal to a V7 chord built on scale degree b6 and it normally resolves to a V
> chord. So (assuming your Ab is Ab7 and not Abm7):
>
> Ab7 -> Db7 -> C(7) -> F
>
> F:V/Ger6 - Ger6 - V7 - I
>
> By the way, what the classical folk call a German 6th (or Italian 6th) is
> labeled a Tritone Sub for V7/V by the jazzers. The real issue for you is
> whether or not the Db7 - C makes the C sound like a V chord (and thus
> resolved naturally to F) - if so, the Db is a Ger6. This progression has
> been in use in CPP music for hundreds of years. However, the Db7-C
> progression when C is not a V chord isn't found much before the late 19th
> century.
>
> Hope this doesn't add to the confusion!
>
> Tom K.
What you are describing would be the German6th with the complete chord
and the Italian6 if the 5th was omitted. BTW I think your reply is an
astute observation of Alain's post.
I see that you see the relationship to the two progressions. It seems
obvious to me and people that I know that the the fact that it goes to
a V chord rather than a I chord that the resolution is the same. I
would further suppose that the TTS is a result of this and could have
very well been the intention of the "Duke" with Satin Doll. I believe
that he did some classical study. Then again, I believe what some call
the German 6th or Swiss6th (spelled Db F G# B There are so many labels
that I don't even care which is which) which makes it a II6+ type of
chord (by what ever name, (double augmented may be another name) That
IIRC resolves to the Tonic chord in the 6/4 inversion.
I would think that "Duke" would have been interested in harmony with
his studies and that he would have been familiar with these
progressions. Thus it is entirely possible that either one of the
augmented 6th chords could have been his way of using these sounds for
his tunes. I think he used them more than once!
The only point to mentioning this is to point out that even if some
Jazz analyzers don't think that Classical music has no way of dealing
with these progressions simply does not understand how the
Augmented6th chords work. You are perfectly correct that they are used
in the same manner as the TTS only not in the EXACT same way. Its all
a manner of voice leading and root movement. Take the Tonic 6/4 of the
Swiss6+ and switch it to the Root position of the Tonic and you have
exactly the progression labeled as the Sub7. There is too many labels
that are used in analysis that may be OK for advanced philosophizing
but not for students to learn how to analyze tunes! The labels require
outside input from the basics that all students need to get a good
understanding of a tune. Its not be necessary to know short cut names
to understand how things work.
In my analysis of Satin Doll, I did not show it this way as that is
not the way that a beginner or someone not familiar with the TTS would
see it if he was learning the tune by making an analysis of it. He
would spell the chords and try to put them into a relationship. (I
think I let the door open for "other ways to look at it" when I gave
the relationship in two manners, one as a ii V in Gb and one in a bvi
bV in C as I was going for simplicity and I know that Joey gets his
dander up when he hears mention of the +6 chords as they relate to
this. I don't know why, but he certainly seems to. AND the fact that
unless I got into the complications of respelling the chords that may
or not be correct as to function in the lead sheet, would have made
the simple analysis much more complicated and would not have been
instructive for a beginner and certainly would not have been the
typical conclusion to be drawn by a beginner.
In response to Alain, however, I am jealous that you addressed it
before I had a chance to decide if I wanted to rattle Joe's cage at
this point ;-) After all, he has "Kill filed" me!
Thanks for bringing this up as it is the 3rd way now that Classical
theory can account for this progression and each is an example of a
different level of analysis.
LJS
Steve Latham
"paramucho" <i...@hammo.com> wrote in message
news:47d38082...@freenews.ozemail.com.au...
> On Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:38:53 GMT, "Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net>
>
> By VII I assume you mean the major chord on the lowered 7th degree
> and by viio the diminished triad on the raised 7. I find it strange
> that VII is not written bVII or that viio is not written #viio to
> discriminate between the root notes, as occurs with VIM7 and #vi%7.
viio is BDF in both C major and C minor.
VII is BbDF in C minor, and bVII is the same chord in C major.
I know, doesn't seem extremely logical, but like not having a modifier for a
Dom7, and having to have one for a Major 7, it's an artifact of what symbols
got most commonly used in some manner.
>>THESE ARE THE DIATONIC CHORDS. There are no others! There is no I7 (like C
>>E
>>G Bb as I) in a Major or Minor key in this system.
>
> By "this system" I guess you refer to CPP in general rather than just
> the "system" you are describing here.
Yes.
>
> In any case, since the diatonic chords are those formed by the notes
> of the diatonic collection then clearly b7 has no place in a major key
> *diatonic* chord.
In the key of C. Not in the major mode necessarily.
>
> That said, Aldwell/Schachter treat bII as part of the minor. I can't
> find the page where they discuss the issue, but they reference the
> claim when discussing mixture where they say "(we count bII as part of
> minor)" on page 505 and show bII being imported into major by simple
> mixture.
True. It is common enough. Some consider it to have Phyrgian origins. If we
want to consider b3, b6, and b7 as available borrowings from the minor mode
in major, then we could easily extend that to include a borrowing from the
parallel Phrygian as well. I think some a reluctant to do so because of the
possible confusion it might cause (students brought up on major/minor might
be thrown if another mode appears). Still, since the root itself is not
avaialable in major/minor mixture (scale degree 2 doesn't change!) many
classify it as a chromatic chord as well.
>
> Aldwell/Schachter are slightly different regarding the triads:
>
> In major they have bII instead of iio
Wait, you mean in addition to iio?
> In minor they additionally have ii iii vi.
So, a d minor, e minor, and a minor chord in C minor?
> There are almost as many explanations of the Neapolitan sixth as there
> are books on harmony. Schenker (Harmony p110) calls it the Phrygian II
> and says the root is lowered to avoid "discomfort". Jonas, the editor,
> adds his explanation that the lowered root avoids the "inherent
> tendency" towards III of the chord with the unlowered root, ending
> "this explanation is better than the current one, which prattles on
> about s "third relationship" [between major and minor]." Forte has the
> new voice leading explanation, but it doesn't result in a different
> chord.
>
Well certainly, dminished ii does tend to want to go to III - though it
goest to V well enough too. bII seems to "pull down". I think the adjustment
historically was to simply "undiminish" the chord.
I prefer the
> two-line approach, which also solves the embellishing chords issue --
> they simply need not appear on the functional line.
I have no problem with that. Would be a good solution actually. I'm sure
publishers would hate wasting the extra space though!
Steve
Steve Latham
>
> As noted in a previous thread, the remaining issue is that this
> heavily-worked term "functional" is not clearly defined by most books.
> Forte attempts a description at least, but with a clear-cut definition
> it seems to me the that the system must be learned by rote rather than
> by principle.
>
I think that it is not rote, but experience.
I'm not sure if you're complaining that it's ill-defined, or that it's
nebulous, etc. And I'm not sure if you're either complaining or pointing out
that lack of a clear cut definition makes it difficult to learn, and/or
describe.
I think with concepts like this, they're not unlike other conceptual words
like "Freedom" - Freedom can be hard to define (especially to children who
lack the experiences to compare freedom to lack thereof in many cases).
I see "function" as describing how a particular chord, series of chords, key
areas, or even melodic tidbits "fit into the grand scheme of things".
Yes, we can't just say "viio is a dominant function chord". In many cases,
it's more of an embellishing chord. So function is certainly contextual, and
thus being able to define many aspects would require the context to be
known, or explained, for every single instance.
I think we would all agree that the final I chord or many a piece acts as a
conclusive element. That's its function. I think though that function is
different than purpose. For example, a I chord at the end of a passage with
a 3rd in the Soprano may function as the Tonic, and the resolution of the
phrase, but the purpose of the voicing itself is provide less finality than
if the tonic note were in the Soprano. Yet we would analyze either with
simply "I". So function doesn't describe everything, just like everything
doesn't have to be functional. But it is nice to be able to compare a bunch
of works and speak of those elements that seem to have a "higher purpose" as
it were, which helps to define the style.
Steve
Steve Latham
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:fqut0j$sol$2...@news.datemas.de...
>
> Another thing that people tend forget about this tune is that it has a 4
> bar intro that clearly confirms the key of C major before all of the
> modulating II-V's even begin to happen.
>
> This is yet another reason why the Db7 feels so strongly that it wants to
> resolve back to the already established primary tonic chord, Cmaj.
>
Yes - that's an important fact!
Steve
Steve Latham
>
> Any dom7 chord that is functioning with dominant function within the
> primary key or a secondary key (not all dom7 chords have dominant function
> btw) is often replaced with its tritone sub. This is fairly routine for
> modern jazz players.
>
> C A7 D7 G7 C
> can become
> C A7 D7 Db7 C
> or
> C A7 Ab7 G7 C
> or
So Joey, this is what I was trying to notate with "VTS/X" - so, based on the
PDFs you've provided, the last progression above would be:
I - V7/ii - subsV7/V - V7 - I
Is that correct?
Steve