Advice for Joey
tom_k
provide an example for J.R. which establishes C major, how about something
like:
|C |C | Dm7 G7| C | ?
Tom
J R Laredo
But without a clear reference point his question had two answers depending
on the key.
"tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:QvqdnSMaU5S6qpXW...@giganews.com...
Joey Goldstein
But I hear that in F#.
--
Joey Goldstein
<http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
joegold AT primus DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
> I don't think his example was to establish C major, but, another question.
Yes, there was another question.
One that you've evaded all this time.
But now I don't really care about your answer(s).
> But without a clear reference point his question had two answers depending
> on the key.
>
> "tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:QvqdnSMaU5S6qpXW...@giganews.com...
>> As it doesn't pay to get too fancy around here, next time you want to
>> provide an example for J.R. which establishes C major, how about something
>> like:
>>
>> |C |C | Dm7 G7| C | ?
>>
>> Tom
>>
>
>
J R Laredo
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:1e40e$4b085783$d8fecf71$19...@PRIMUS.CA...
>J R Laredo wrote:
>> I don't think his example was to establish C major, but, another
>> question.
>
> Yes, there was another question.
> One that you've evaded all this time.
No, not really. I was just wanting to get the question clear, which you
didn't seem to want to do.
>But wait. In the chord progression:
>C / A7 / |D D7 G G7 |C
>Wouldn't the Dmaj triad still have the function of a >secondary dominant,
>namely V/V?
In the key of C, yes, the Dmaj triad is a secondary dominant, V/V.
Secondary dominant function is still a type of D funct.
In this instance is the A7 called a "pre-dominant" chord or not?
In the set of definitions I use, no, it is not, even though it is the
secondary dominant of the secondary dominant: the V of V of V. This is yet
another instance where terminology is not universal, and can vary with
context. The term "pre-dominant" I reserve for embellishments of the
dominant of the key in question. Not everyone does that.
> But now I don't really care about your answer(s).
You got it, anyway. Neener.
tom_k
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
news:DOKdnfkA-ObeHJXW...@giganews.com...
>
>
> Secondary dominant function is still a type of D funct.
> In this instance is the A7 called a "pre-dominant" chord or not?
>
> In the set of definitions I use, no, it is not, even though it is the
> secondary dominant of the secondary dominant: the V of V of V. This is
> yet another instance where terminology is not universal, and can vary with
> context. The term "pre-dominant" I reserve for embellishments of the
> dominant of the key in question. Not everyone does that.
>
That's always a problem. I'd agree that V/V is dominant and not dominant
prep function. But since as you say, the terminology is inconsistent, one
has to be careful.
Tom
J R Laredo
> tom_k wrote:
>> As it doesn't pay to get too fancy around here, next time you want to
>> provide an example for J.R. which establishes C major, how about
>> something like:
>>
>> |C |C | Dm7 G7| C | ?
>>
>> Tom
>
> But I hear that in F#.
Oh, no, the Snarkster has spoken. Oh, woe is me, whatever shall I
do?????????
Okay, Theory 102.
Extended tonality.
In CCP music where there has been extensive modulation there are often more
than one way to go about the analysis. If the overall key of a piece is
considered to be the reference then secondary harmonies could be the best
way to look at the piece.
So, hearing this in F# (Hey, congrats for finally letting your hearing open
up from the way jazz thought was oppressing you) one could be
........................ drum roll .................
|bII of IV | bII of IV |iii7 of IV V7 of bII of IV|bII of IV.
J R Laredo
Yes, we certainly do. Many way better than I have tried and failed bring it
all together. Far worse than herding cats.
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:cbe2$4b085717$d8fecf71$19...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> tom_k wrote:
>>> As it doesn't pay to get too fancy around here, next time you want to
>>> provide an example for J.R. which establishes C major, how about
>>> something like:
>>>
>>> |C |C | Dm7 G7| C | ?
>>>
>>> Tom
>> But I hear that in F#.
>
> Oh, no, the Snarkster has spoken. Oh, woe is me, whatever shall I
> do?????????
>
> Okay, Theory 102.
>
> Extended tonality.
>
> In CCP music where there has been extensive modulation there are often more
> than one way to go about the analysis.
I guess I missed the "extensive modulation" in Tom's example as well as
my own.
> If the overall key of a piece is
> considered to be the reference then secondary harmonies could be the best
> way to look at the piece.
>
> So, hearing this in F# (Hey, congrats for finally letting your hearing open
> up from the way jazz thought was oppressing you) one could be
> ........................ drum roll .................
>
> |bII of IV | bII of IV |iii7 of IV V7 of bII of IV|bII of IV.
"V7 of bII of IV"
Well done.
Lol
J R Laredo
I had exercises exactly like this. We were given a progression and a key to
reference it to. Like I said, Theory 102. Okay, you got me. A little more
advanced than that: 201.
David Raleigh Arnold
VofV is called a secondary dominant. Walter Piston, who was
a proponent of the concept, never claimed that it was a complete
description of the purpose or function of any chord, but only
proposed it as being often or even usually the best way of
describing its purpose or function in a given context. To say it is
*really* this or is not *really* that is complete and utter nonsense. It
is an option, not absolute truth. This argument is beyond belief.
daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Orangeboxman
G# minor.
Am I the only person here who understands anything?
Orangeboxman
> prep function. But since as you say, the terminology is inconsistent, one
> has to be careful.
Dominants on small structural levels have the function of preparing
dominants on large structural levels.
OTOH, when Schenker writes 'V' at the end of a sonata exposition, it's
still pretty unclear what he means.
Orangeboxman
a proponent of the concept, never claimed that it was a complete
description of the purpose or function of any chord, but only
proposed it as being often or even usually the best way of
describing its purpose or function in a given context.
Piston was delightfully utilitarian, and made sure that abstract
analytical questions wouldn't get in the way of letting
his readers write music that sounded VERY much like the music his
models modeled.
That's why I still recommend Piston.
J R Laredo
"Orangeboxman" <Jo...@orangeboxman.com> wrote in message
news:02de6fac-2bf1-4a71...@l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> >But I hear that in F#.
>
> G# minor.
>
> Am I the only person here who understands anything?
Now, that's just silly. Scott is the only one who matters. Just ask him.
LJS
Nicely put and I love Piston's Harmony.
The only problem I have with Piston is that his book is not the best
one for a beginner to theory. Once the student has a basic concept of
functional harmony, his UC/RN does exactly what you describe. (among
other things) and will as you say, allows the student to learn the
style in spite of its ability to cover more extended contexts of the
function of harmony that can come in very handy when getting to the
post classical era and into the more extended textures of the romantic
and post romantic period.
I recommend it if one has someone that can guide the beginner student
through Piston, or for use by someone that has studied theory in
another manner. I see one of his strong points as being the most basic
and universal way to reduce all of functional harmony to its simplest
terms and that a guide (teacher) or prior knowledge will make more of
his concepts understandable.
LJS
LJS
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 19:46:35 -0500, tom_k wrote:
> >news:DOKdnfkA-ObeHJXW...@giganews.com...
>
> >> Secondary dominant function is still a type of D funct. In this
> >> instance is the A7 called a "pre-dominant" chord or not?
>
> >> In the set of definitions I use, no, it is not, even though it is the
> >> secondary dominant of the secondary dominant: the V of V of V. This is
> >> yet another instance where terminology is not universal, and can vary
> >> with context. The term "pre-dominant" I reserve for embellishments of
> >> the dominant of the key in question. Not everyone does that.
>
> > That's always a problem. I'd agree that V/V is dominant and not
> > dominant prep function. But since as you say, the terminology is
> > inconsistent, one has to be careful.
>
> > Tom
>
> VofV is called a secondary dominant. Walter Piston, who was
> a proponent of the concept, never claimed that it was a complete
> description of the purpose or function of any chord, but only
> proposed it as being often or even usually the best way of
> describing its purpose or function in a given context. To say it is
> *really* this or is not *really* that is complete and utter nonsense. It
> is an option, not absolute truth. This argument is beyond belief.
> daveA
>
> --
> For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
> better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
I agree. When we leaned Piston, were then combined his Secondary
Dominants with the terminology of "Key areas" to account for extended
progressions that were more or less elaborations of the V7 that Joey
places inside the \ / with the Jazz notation. What he describes in
the SubV7 fits with Nadia's idea of the Temporary Key or Key Area
just as easily in CPP and postCPP harmony. They are all the same. Jazz
theory is CPP theory. One is the subset of the other but the CPP came
first. It is the main branch and later changes to accommodate newer
progressions and chord types are all twigs off this same branch.
Thanks for noticing that this statement by Joey had taken an example
and isolated that ONE instance and claimed that I had stated it as an
absolute truth. I didn't think that I was THAT muddy with my example!
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
I don't disagree with that. It's useful when it's useful.
>
> That's why I still recommend Piston.
Take a look at George Thaddeus Jones. It contains the same
material, but IMO it is better written. Regards, daveA
LJS
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:38:28 -0800, Orangeboxman wrote:
> >>Walter Piston, who was
> > a proponent of the concept, never claimed that it was a complete
> > description of the purpose or function of any chord, but only proposed
> > it as being often or even usually the best way of describing its purpose
> > or function in a given context.
>
> > Piston was delightfully utilitarian, and made sure that abstract
> > analytical questions wouldn't get in the way of letting his readers
> > write music that sounded VERY much like the music his models modeled.
>
> I don't disagree with that. It's useful when it's useful.
> > That's why I still recommend Piston.
>
> Take a look at George Thaddeus Jones. It contains the same
> material, but IMO it is better written. Regards, daveA
I have not read that one, but I have heard of it. Piston is not easy
to read. I will grant you that, but there are some very effective
preparations to show the evolution of the harmonies from the beginning
of the CPP through into the post CPP tonal harmony and even into the
more recent times than that.
An example is his choice to use the UC/RN instead of the newer and
maybe more popular UC/LC notation. His choice here is showing the true
nature of functional analysis in that it is the Root movements that
are the most important part of function. Thus when the music gets into
the Romantic period, it starts to have more distractions with chord
colors, especially on the Dominant but the UC notation helps one to
focus on the Function and not be distracted by the colors.
Does the way Jones' book improve Piston's writing follow that example?
or is it lost in translation? either way, it is probably a good book,
but "better written" for you may be different for me. And of course,
still be a much better book for others than for myself. lol
LJS
Orangeboxman
consider Piston difficult to read.
Maybe it wasn't a problem because I had read through Goetschius about
then, too.
These guys are both easier than almost anything I read later, except
for some of the jazzy authors who didn't have as much to say, and took
longer saying it with some degree of inaccuracy.
LJS
But you did not read this one first. I said that because of the
results of guys I knew that started with Piston and did not have a
good guide for it. We had both. When I read it, I could see that some
of the things would not be obvious from only what is written. He
strips it down. We, and apparently you had it easy. We red it after we
read Goetschus and another book that was a guide to the chord types.
The teacher used the texts only as a guide and taked about the theory
and Walter was a frequent visitor to Nadia at the Paris Conservatory.
A good bet would be that if you find people that started with Piston
and no other training that unless they had a good teacher, they will
not get the full benefit of what he is saying and the way he
approaches the subject. I don't say that everyone will agree wiith
that. I am sure that many have started on Piston and did quite well. I
just have not really met very many people that read him first.
That was the implication that I was trying to make by "difficult to
read".
LJS
Orangeboxman
Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
LJS
> True.
>
> Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
Then maybe Joey will like it after all, but I don't think he will like
the emphasis on roots being important and extensions and colors, not
so much.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> True.
>
> Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
What does Mel Bay have to do with Piston?
Is there a Mel Bay classical harmony book out there or something?
David Raleigh Arnold
> On Nov 24, 2:47 pm, David Raleigh Arnold <d...@openguitar.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:38:28 -0800, Orangeboxman wrote:
>> >>Walter Piston, who was
>> > a proponent of the concept, never claimed that it was a complete
>> > description of the purpose or function of any chord, but only
>> > proposed it as being often or even usually the best way of describing
>> > its purpose or function in a given context.
>>
>> > Piston was delightfully utilitarian, and made sure that abstract
>> > analytical questions wouldn't get in the way of letting his readers
>> > write music that sounded VERY much like the music his models modeled.
>>
>> I don't disagree with that. It's useful when it's useful.
>> > That's why I still recommend Piston.
>>
>> Take a look at George Thaddeus Jones. It contains the same material,
>> but IMO it is better written. Regards, daveA
>
> I have not read that one, but I have heard of it. Piston is not easy to
> read. I will grant you that, but there are some very effective
> preparations to show the evolution of the harmonies from the beginning
> of the CPP through into the post CPP tonal harmony and even into the
> more recent times than that.
Comparing their historical treatment of the ninth chord in particular was
why I came to the opinion that GTJ's book was better written. I don't
remember any difference in their notation or the substance of the theory.
Legnani's Op. 20 was published in 1811 (IIRC, CRS) and it was
inconveniently post CPP IMO. Very.
CPP is more of a useful academic exercise framework than an historical
reality, IMO. I'm not knocking it at all, but my perspective is far from
what it used to be. Regards, daveA
Joey Goldstein
You've shown no evidence here that you even understand what the word
"root" actually means.
And you've shown no evidence that you have any understanding at all how
jazz musicians think about such things, including chordal extensions, or
the techniques that we use to create our music.
As for me, I have no intention of reading Piston's harmony book in the
near future.
I know enough for me for right now about that style of harmony and about
those harmonic techniques from reading Delamont.
But I may pick up the Aldwell Schacter book at some point for more of a
CPP-oriented viewpoint. It is a CPP-harmony-oriented text isn't it?
One of the things that I was surprised to learn about Delamont was that
his RN designations were not the "standard" designations that I'd see
the classical musos here using. For instance he likes to use UC/RN for
the primary chords in both major and minor keys.
Eg. With accompanying music showing a key signature of 3 flats he will
label a Cm chord as "I" rather than "i".
His system requires its practitioners to know what the regular versions
of the diatonic chords in the minor key are. Eg. In 3 flats he would
label an Abmaj triad as "vi", and an Adim triad as vi(Irr) ["Irr" =
"irregular"] and the accompanying musical notation would sort out any
confusion.
Etc.
From LJS' recent comments about Piston's use of RN it seems to me that
he's suggested that Piston used only UC/RN. Is this true?
If so, then this would suggest to me that even within the classical
community there is no bona fide standard textual protocol for labelling
diatonic function via Roman numerals, although most folks here prefer to
use UC for chords with maj 3rds and LC for chords with min 3rds. [And
obviously Delamont's system is the most far-removed from a standard
protocol that I've seen yet. It's very puzzling to me why he did these
things the way he did them.]
And this is yet another reason why I prefer the Berklee UC/RN system in
general, because it just spells out the actual chord quality every time.
There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred to.
These textual designations of diatonic function are really based on
jazz/pop chord symbols and it's progressions supplied via jazz/pop chord
symbol charts that this system is actually designed to analyse. It can
be used for analysis of a fully notated performance as well, but that's
not really what it was designed for.
Delamont's system would be totally inappropriate for analysis of a
jazz/pop chord chart. It would be fine for a transcription of a
performance that had been based off of a jazz/pop chord chart though.
And most classical analysis techniques I've seen are also not as
well-suited for analysis of jazz/pop chord symbol charts as the Berklee
system is.
tom_k
>
> From LJS' recent comments about Piston's use of RN it seems to me that
> he's suggested that Piston used only UC/RN. Is this true?
>
> If so, then this would suggest to me that even within the classical
> community there is no bona fide standard textual protocol for labelling
> diatonic function via Roman numerals, although most folks here prefer to
> use UC for chords with maj 3rds and LC for chords with min 3rds. [And
> obviously Delamont's system is the most far-removed from a standard
> protocol that I've seen yet. It's very puzzling to me why he did these
> things the way he did them.]
You have to remember that when Piston first published "Harmony" in 1941, no
one was using "qualitative" RN symbols. Look at earlier analyses by folks
like Schoenberg and Schenker and you will only see upper case RNs.
I seem to recall that by the 5th edition (after Piston's death), Mark deVoto
finally brought "Harmony" into compliance with most other texts; using the
RN symbols to show chord quality as well as chord root but I could be
mistaken. The qualitative RN symbols did become standard practice in most
American universities sometime in the late 1960s ~early '70s.
Tom
Joey Goldstein
OK. Thanks.
LJS
> LJS wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 2:58 pm, Orangeboxman <J...@orangeboxman.com> wrote:
> >> True.
>
> >> Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
>
> > Then maybe Joey will like it after all, but I don't think he will like
> > the emphasis on roots being important and extensions and colors, not
> > so much.
>
> > LJS
>
> You've shown no evidence here that you even understand what the word
> "root" actually means.
> And you've shown no evidence that you have any understanding at all how
> jazz musicians think about such things, including chordal extensions, or
> the techniques that we use to create our music.
>
> As for me, I have no intention of reading Piston's harmony book in the
> near future.
> I know enough for me for right now about that style of harmony and about
> those harmonic techniques from reading Delamont.
lol
This is one of the things that I am waiting for an explanation. How
can you manage to study CPP theory and not know anything about the
music? Didn't know that the Dominant was often a triad? Is Wagner
tonal? and many other examples over the years.
> But I may pick up the Aldwell Schacter book at some point for more of a
> CPP-oriented viewpoint. It is a CPP-harmony-oriented text isn't it?
Another book that requires no actual listening?
>
> One of the things that I was surprised to learn about Delamont was that
> his RN designations were not the "standard" designations that I'd see
> the classical musos here using. For instance he likes to use UC/RN for
> the primary chords in both major and minor keys.
> Eg. With accompanying music showing a key signature of 3 flats he will
> label a Cm chord as "I" rather than "i".
>
And then a book report to show that you actually read something.
> His system requires its practitioners to know what the regular versions
> of the diatonic chords in the minor key are. Eg. In 3 flats he would
> label an Abmaj triad as "vi", and an Adim triad as vi(Irr) ["Irr" =
> "irregular"] and the accompanying musical notation would sort out any
> confusion.
> Etc.
>
> From LJS' recent comments about Piston's use of RN it seems to me that
> he's suggested that Piston used only UC/RN. Is this true?
Another astute observation. (on several levels) lol
>
> If so, then this would suggest to me that even within the classical
> community there is no bona fide standard textual protocol for labelling
> diatonic function via Roman numerals, although most folks here prefer to
> use UC for chords with maj 3rds and LC for chords with min 3rds. [And
> obviously Delamont's system is the most far-removed from a standard
> protocol that I've seen yet. It's very puzzling to me why he did these
> things the way he did them.]
If you understood what goes into a complete analysis, this would not
seem so strange to you.The quality of the chord means very little when
it comes to functional analysis. It was the new thing in the higher
theory circles when he was writing his book. (As it was related to me)
and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
factor of function.
But yes, there is certainly a protocol. There are basic conventions of
notation and there are accepted means of dealing with the "exceptions"
and the evolutions as time went on. See, I knew that you were going
>
> And this is yet another reason why I prefer the Berklee UC/RN system in
> general, because it just spells out the actual chord quality every time.
And I like the UC/LC for the same reason. But truth is, we both like
it because it is the first one we learned. If I analyze a Jazz tune
with UC/LC, I have learned the tune in all 12 keys at once. BUT that
is not analysis. A functional analysis of the tune it not designed to
teach the song for performance.
> There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred to.
for FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS it does not matter what type of chord it is!
Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds. You can listen
to it to see how it sounds. You can read the music if you want to know
the notes. Its all about roots and part writing. Mostly roots. It is
not about color. it is not about rhythm, its not about form, its about
how the harmony functions. Its really a simple concept once you think
about it. Some people, however, never think about it. Colors are
important, but they are just a sidelight and distraction as to the
function of the harmony.
BY the way. Since you have given no example or explanation of how the
rhythm creates the tonality in the blues, I must conclude that you
rethought that particular statement. lol
> These textual designations of diatonic function are really based on
> jazz/pop chord symbols and it's progressions supplied via jazz/pop chord
> symbol charts that this system is actually designed to analyse. It can
> be used for analysis of a fully notated performance as well, but that's
> not really what it was designed for.
>
> Delamont's system would be totally inappropriate for analysis of a
> jazz/pop chord chart. It would be fine for a transcription of a
> performance that had been based off of a jazz/pop chord chart though.
> And most classical analysis techniques I've seen are also not as
> well-suited for analysis of jazz/pop chord symbol charts as the Berklee
> system is.
You are the only one that matters. All the others are just not able to
see things your way. When will we ever learn. JoEyReo.
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 25, 4:03 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> LJS wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 2:58 pm, Orangeboxman <J...@orangeboxman.com> wrote:
>>>> True.
>>>> Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
>>> Then maybe Joey will like it after all, but I don't think he will like
>>> the emphasis on roots being important and extensions and colors, not
>>> so much.
>>> LJS
>> You've shown no evidence here that you even understand what the word
>> "root" actually means.
>> And you've shown no evidence that you have any understanding at all how
>> jazz musicians think about such things, including chordal extensions, or
>> the techniques that we use to create our music.
>>
>> As for me, I have no intention of reading Piston's harmony book in the
>> near future.
>> I know enough for me for right now about that style of harmony and about
>> those harmonic techniques from reading Delamont.
>
> lol
>
> This is one of the things that I am waiting for an explanation. How
> can you manage to study CPP theory and not know anything about the
> music? Didn't know that the Dominant was often a triad?
What exactly is wrong with your ability to comprehend?
I was one of the first people in that thread to suggest that D function
of the V triad was possible and even probable most of the time.
> Is Wagner
> tonal?
I asked a question about the music of Wagner.
I knew he was not considered to be a composer in the CPP style.
I don't think I ever suggested that he was not writing within the
maj/min key system. I don't believe I ever asked about that.
What I asked about was whether or not the tools of CPP analysis were
adequate to analyse his music, and evidently they are not.
I don't really care for Wagner's music, his theatrical ideas, his
politics or his philosophy. And I don't have to.
> and many other examples over the years.
Talk about spinning things your way.
You're just upset because a Berklee dropout like me keeps correcting you
about the details of the music that you're supposed to be a specialist in.
Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
built on scale degree b2, and how "ii7/Ger" would mean a min7 chord
built on scale degree b6. Lol.
>> But I may pick up the Aldwell Schacter book at some point for more of a
>> CPP-oriented viewpoint. It is a CPP-harmony-oriented text isn't it?
>
> Another book that requires no actual listening?
Thanks for your helpful comments about this book.
Another book *you* haven't read?
>> One of the things that I was surprised to learn about Delamont was that
>> his RN designations were not the "standard" designations that I'd see
>> the classical musos here using. For instance he likes to use UC/RN for
>> the primary chords in both major and minor keys.
>> Eg. With accompanying music showing a key signature of 3 flats he will
>> label a Cm chord as "I" rather than "i".
>>
>
> And then a book report to show that you actually read something.
And then a diss that is totally off base and irrelevant.
>> His system requires its practitioners to know what the regular versions
>> of the diatonic chords in the minor key are. Eg. In 3 flats he would
>> label an Abmaj triad as "vi", and an Adim triad as vi(Irr) ["Irr" =
>> "irregular"] and the accompanying musical notation would sort out any
>> confusion.
>> Etc.
>>
>> From LJS' recent comments about Piston's use of RN it seems to me that
>> he's suggested that Piston used only UC/RN. Is this true?
>
> Another astute observation. (on several levels) lol
>
>> If so, then this would suggest to me that even within the classical
>> community there is no bona fide standard textual protocol for labelling
>> diatonic function via Roman numerals, although most folks here prefer to
>> use UC for chords with maj 3rds and LC for chords with min 3rds. [And
>> obviously Delamont's system is the most far-removed from a standard
>> protocol that I've seen yet. It's very puzzling to me why he did these
>> things the way he did them.]
>
> If you understood what goes into a complete analysis, this would not
> seem so strange to you. The quality of the chord means very little when
> it comes to functional analysis.
Really?
I never realized that.
I always thought that I chords had to be major chords and Im chords had
to be minor chords. Live and learn, I guess.... Not.
> It was the new thing in the higher
> theory circles when he was writing his book.
Chord quality was the "new thing" when Piston was writing his book?
I see.
> (As it was related to me)
Another thing you learned second hand.
You knew someone who knew Nadia Boulanger.
You knew someone who knew Bill Evans.
You knew someone who knew a Vegas arranger who taught you all about jazz
big band phrasing.
You know people who have played jazz.
You know people who are real musicians.
> and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
> sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
> decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
> the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
> no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
> was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
> factor of function.
So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type of
chord built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything
including dim7 chords.
I see.
> But yes, there is certainly a protocol. There are basic conventions of
> notation and there are accepted means of dealing with the "exceptions"
> and the evolutions as time went on. See, I knew that you were going
>
>
>> And this is yet another reason why I prefer the Berklee UC/RN system in
>> general, because it just spells out the actual chord quality every time.
>
> And I like the UC/LC for the same reason. But truth is, we both like
> it because it is the first one we learned.
That's one of my reasons. It's not the only one. I've also stated some
of the other reasons.
> If I analyze a Jazz tune
> with UC/LC, I have learned the tune in all 12 keys at once. BUT that
> is not analysis. A functional analysis of the tune it not designed to
> teach the song for performance.
I never suggested that it was.
>> There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred to.
>
> for FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS it does not matter what type of chord it is!
Okey dokey.
> Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds.
How would Gmaj7 function in the key of C major then?
> You can listen
> to it to see how it sounds.
I see. Harmonic analysis has nothing to do with the way the music
sounds. Wow. I learn so much from you Mr. Schmuck.
> You can read the music if you want to know
> the notes. Its all about roots and part writing. Mostly roots. It is
> not about color. it is not about rhythm, its not about form, its about
> how the harmony functions.
It's about how the chords function within a *key* and about how some
chords *don't* function within that key and must therefore be in some
other key. Chords like Gmaj7 in C. This is assuming, of course, that the
music in question is key-based music.
> Its really a simple concept once you think
> about it. Some people, however, never think about it. Colors are
> important, but they are just a sidelight and distraction as to the
> function of the harmony.
I've never suggested otherwise.
> BY the way. Since you have given no example or explanation of how the
> rhythm creates the tonality in the blues, I must conclude that you
> rethought that particular statement. lol
No. You tell me.
How is it that in a blues in C a dom7 chord with root on C is felt to be
the home chord? And please tell me this using the conventions of CPP
Tonal analysis.
>> These textual designations of diatonic function are really based on
>> jazz/pop chord symbols and it's progressions supplied via jazz/pop chord
>> symbol charts that this system is actually designed to analyse. It can
>> be used for analysis of a fully notated performance as well, but that's
>> not really what it was designed for.
>>
>> Delamont's system would be totally inappropriate for analysis of a
>> jazz/pop chord chart. It would be fine for a transcription of a
>> performance that had been based off of a jazz/pop chord chart though.
>> And most classical analysis techniques I've seen are also not as
>> well-suited for analysis of jazz/pop chord symbol charts as the Berklee
>> system is.
>
> You are the only one that matters. All the others are just not able to
> see things your way. When will we ever learn. JoEyReo.
I've never even remotely hinted that I have that attitude towards other
musicians or systems of analysis.
All I've hinted at it that *you* are full of shit and don't know what
*you* think you know, because you are and you don't.
LJS
Is the one I was referring to. There may be a more classical oriented
one, but in re: Delamont. Don't you think that you have had enough
Jazz theory already. And from a fellow Canadian and only designed for
Jazz. Doesn't seem to be really popular with people. You wrote a book
didn't you?
Your problem is your comments and lack of understanding of Classical
Theory and the way we notate it. It has been pointed out by at least a
half dozen people recently that this is your area of "needing some
more study on this topic" but you then tell us that we don't know what
we are saying and prove it by quoting some jacket liner comments about
Delamont!
Isn't this what is called: doing the same thing over and over again
and expecting to get different results? If you want to understand
classical theory you need to study some classical music books! If you
could learn classical music by studying Jazz books, it would follow
that Classical players would learn Jazz by studying classical books.
Do you ever play back what you say and think about what you are really
saying?
If you ever actually read a classical harmony book, did you actually
listen to any classical music? If not, then none of it will make any
sense at all. Classical harmony books are about about things that
classical musicians deal with on a technical level, but if you have
never heard CPP, you won't have a clue as to what these techniques are
really used for. The techniques of analysis in good theory books can
be applied to jazz and other types of music but if you don't spend
time studying these ideas in a traditional CPP setting, you will most
likely be missing the point.
LJS
J R Laredo
Not knowing what the thread you are talking about is, but, why wouldn't the
V triad have a dominant function? I mean, that is the definition, and there
is an evolutionary process in music as there are in many things. Which came
first? The V triad or the V7? If you were to guess V then you would be
right.
>
>> Is Wagner
>> tonal?
>
> I asked a question about the music of Wagner.
> I knew he was not considered to be a composer in the CPP style.
Now you have me really curious. Who doesn't consider him to be a CPP
composer? Yes, he stretched the boundaries, and my teacher considered his
Tristan and Isolde (1865) the beginning of the end of tonality as it is
usually known, and the precursor to the dodecaphony of Schoenberg, but, his
music was tonal.
> I don't think I ever suggested that he was not writing within the maj/min
> key system. I don't believe I ever asked about that.
> What I asked about was whether or not the tools of CPP analysis were
> adequate to analyse his music, and evidently they are not.
It just takes a little more work than a typical Handel arioso is all.
>
> I don't really care for Wagner's music, his theatrical ideas, his politics
> or his philosophy. And I don't have to.
Of course you don't.
>
>> and many other examples over the years.
>
> Talk about spinning things your way.
> You're just upset because a Berklee dropout like me keeps correcting you
> about the details of the music that you're supposed to be a specialist in.
> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
That is a label that some texts use. Harvard Dictionary of Music: "...The
first three are sometimes called (rather pointlessly) "Italian," German,"
and "French" sixth respectively...."
> built on scale degree b2,
And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of Music.
and how "ii7/Ger" would mean a min7 chord
> built on scale degree b6. Lol.
This one took a little thought since I'd never seen this use before: this
would be a wildly extended harmony and I'd like to hear this in context. In
the key of C, a Ger would be built on F#. Sooooooooooo, a ii7/Ger would be
G#-B-D#-F#, enharmonically, b6, or Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb.
>
Yes, that is correct, and I like to know and, when I make an analysis,
convey that. So saying that, overall CCP, while not being bound by it,
firmly embraces the Tonic-Subdominant-Dominant-Tonic cycle, and the major or
minor or etc of the chord doesn't matter. Tonic chords will progress to
subdominant chords and will progress to dominant chords and will progress to
tonic chords, and "The circle, the circle of liiiiiife."
>
>> It was the new thing in the higher
>> theory circles when he was writing his book.
>
> Chord quality was the "new thing" when Piston was writing his book?
> I see.
Making it a part of the analysis was the "new thing."
>
>> (As it was related to me)
>
> Another thing you learned second hand.
> You knew someone who knew Nadia Boulanger.
> You knew someone who knew Bill Evans.
> You knew someone who knew a Vegas arranger who taught you all about jazz
> big band phrasing.
> You know people who have played jazz.
> You know people who are real musicians.
>
>> and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
>> sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
>> decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
>> the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
>> no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
>> was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
>> factor of function.
>
> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type of chord
> built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything including
> dim7 chords.
> I see.
This is a part of the evolution since before there were major or minor or
whatever chords there were two separate lines, one above the other. Even so,
just considering root movement alone is an extreme that I'm not entirely
comfortable with, but, it is a possibility:
tonic-tonic-subdominant-dominant.
>
>> Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds.
>
> How would Gmaj7 function in the key of C major then?
This is one of those times when it would depend on what came before it, and
what came after it. I mean, it could be a III7/iii. Which would be a
little odd.
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 25, 3:33 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Orangeboxman wrote:
>>> True.
>>> Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
>> What does Mel Bay have to do with Piston?
>> Is there a Mel Bay classical harmony book out there or something?
> http://books.google.com/books?id=aYJTD97Hx70C&pg=PT1&dq=mel+bay+music+theory&ei=Vu4NS5G7LKXsNbPByckL#v=onepage&q=mel%20bay%20music%20theory&f=false
>
> Is the one I was referring to.
I missed that I guess.
What did you say about it?
Just glancing at it, it doesn't look like a very good book.
> There may be a more classical oriented
> one, but in re: Delamont. Don't you think that you have had enough
> Jazz theory already.
Delamont's harmony books are not jazz harmony books.
They're contemporary Tonal harmony books. I guess they'd have to be
classified as being geared towards post-CPP Tonal harmony, but they are
definitely not jazz harmony books.
> And from a fellow Canadian and only designed for
> Jazz.
Keep talking. As usual you don't know what you're talking about.
> Doesn't seem to be really popular with people.
It's pretty popular up here as well as elsewhere.
> You wrote a book
> didn't you?
Is that your way of dismissing Delamont?
First of all, you haven't read his stuff so you're talking out of your ass.
Secondly, you haven't read my book either.
> Your problem is your comments and lack of understanding of Classical
> Theory and the way we notate it.
I know. And yet I seem to know more about it than you do.
What's that say about *you*?
> It has been pointed out by at least a
> half dozen people recently that this is your area of "needing some
> more study on this topic"
I believe that you're the only person trying to point that out and each
attempt has been filled with nonsense and mis-information.
If I don't understand something I either stay out of the conversation or
I ask questions of those who do understand it. That's what *you* should
do a lot more of.
> but you then tell us that we don't know what
> we are saying and prove it by quoting some jacket liner comments about
> Delamont!
You're the one who's all caught up in an old out-of-date way of looking
at things. [The "root" of Ab+6 is F#. Give me a break.] You're always
talking about how I should open my mind to all the nifty new things you
know about music. But you're just spouting off the same old tired shit
that's been going on in conservatories since the 30s, and you get it
wrong much of the time. And when I actually come out here with some
newer ideas that are relevant to newer music than the CPP you jump all
over me for not interpreting it in CPP terms and conventions.
*You* should be listening to *me* if you want to learn something new
about music, especially if you want to have some kind of clue about what
is going in in jazz, which you do seem to have some investment in. I'm
the only guy around here with any new ideas. *You* are just spouting off
a bunch of crap you learned in school 50 years ago that you didn't
really understand. So are many of the others here. Just because you
studied classical harmony in school and passed the course doesn't mean
that you understand the ramifications of that subject for actual music
making. You confuse taking a course at school with being a musician. Lol.
Some of the thigs I talk about here are things I learned in school too.
But I never just accepted what was told to me without thinking about it
and without entertaining other viewpoints. Some of the things I talk
about here were learned from reading books in the many years after
school. Some of it was learned on the bandstand by experience. Some of
it I've made up myself by coming to certain realizations after years of
music making.
I don't care if the stuff I say can be backed up by some other source
text or in some school course. All I care about are the ideas. And if
someone can show me that my ideas are not sound then I'll have to change
my ideas.
> Isn't this what is called: doing the same thing over and over again
> and expecting to get different results?
Look in the mirror dude.
> If you want to understand
> classical theory you need to study some classical music books!
What in the world makes you think I want to understand classical theory?
I want to understand music, period, especially music written in the
maj/min key system.
> If you
> could learn classical music by studying Jazz books, it would follow
> that Classical players would learn Jazz by studying classical books.
Exactly! *You* think you understand jazz but you've never studied any
jazz either from books or from recordings or by studying how to play it
with an experienced jazz musician. Yet you go on and on and on as if
you're some sort of jazz expert because you know someone who knew Bill
Evans. Sheesh.
I don't claim to understand classical theory or classical music. That's
what *you* claim to understand and that's supposed to be your area of
expertise. But routinely here, time after time, I seem to know more
about these things you try to talk about than you do.
> Do you ever play back what you say and think about what you are really
> saying?
Yes I do.
Do you?
> If you ever actually read a classical harmony book, did you actually
> listen to any classical music?
I'm not interested in classical music from the CPP.
I've listened to plenty of music from the classical tradition at various
points in my life. Not so much these days.
Much of the stuff I hear from the CPP bores me generally, except maybe
Bach. I lean more towards the 20th Century guys, the guys who knew CPP
harmony but were not bound to it and were searching for more interesting
harmonies and rhythms.
> If not, then none of it will make any
> sense at all.
It all makes perfect sense. Classical harmony from the CPP is not rocket
science. Modern developments in harmony, even jazz harmony, are much
more complex.
> Classical harmony books are about about things that
> classical musicians deal with on a technical level, but if you have
> never heard CPP, you won't have a clue as to what these techniques are
> really used for. The techniques of analysis in good theory books can
> be applied to jazz and other types of music but if you don't spend
> time studying these ideas in a traditional CPP setting, you will most
> likely be missing the point.
If and when I feel the need or desire to know these things on that level
then I will of course study them.
In the meantime, if you try again to describe to me the details of the
music from that era please try harder to get it right. Type less. Make
more coherent sentences. And try not to make so many factual errors.
And try to not be such a dick all the time. Lol.
LJS
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 14:28:50 -0800, LJS wrote:
> >> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:38:28 -0800, Orangeboxman wrote:
> >> >>Walter Piston, who was
> >> > a proponent of the concept, never claimed that it was a complete
> >> > description of the purpose or function of any chord, but only
> >> > proposed it as being often or even usually the best way of describing
> >> > its purpose or function in a given context.
>
> >> > Piston was delightfully utilitarian, and made sure that abstract
> >> > analytical questions wouldn't get in the way of letting his readers
> >> > write music that sounded VERY much like the music his models modeled.
>
> >> I don't disagree with that. It's useful when it's useful.
> >> > That's why I still recommend Piston.
>
> >> Take a look at George Thaddeus Jones. It contains the same material,
> >> but IMO it is better written. Regards, daveA
>
> > I have not read that one, but I have heard of it. Piston is not easy to
> > read. I will grant you that, but there are some very effective
> > preparations to show the evolution of the harmonies from the beginning
> > of the CPP through into the post CPP tonal harmony and even into the
> > more recent times than that.
>
> why I came to the opinion that GTJ's book was better written. I don't
> remember any difference in their notation or the substance of the theory.
>
> Legnani's Op. 20 was published in 1811 (IIRC, CRS) and it was
> inconveniently post CPP IMO. Very.
>
> CPP is more of a useful academic exercise framework than an historical
> reality, IMO. I'm not knocking it at all, but my perspective is far from
>
> --
> For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
> better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Well, its still the most listened to concept and as such, it is the
starting point for study and it CAN be a very effective way of
learning theory. Personally, I like a more historical approach as it
has a more melodic foundation and then counterpoint and then into the
CPP and then etc.but it really doesn't matter as long as movement up
and down the time line is eventually covered. But in analysis, since
the CPP is really very simple, it is a great way to learn as that
period included the functional tonal aspect of counterpoint with many
kinds of forms plus they use the expressive concepts and rhythm and
all the perceptible components of music. As a learning situation, it
is a very rich period as it included all that came before it and it
helped to shape most of what came after it.
Then there is the versatility that is possible by changing the context
of each of the components not only all sub periods of the CPP are
somewhat different but Jazz uses the same components as Hayden and
Brahms and Ravell and Debussey and Wagner. There is a similar
evolution in the Jazz world with the Blues, early Dixieland, Louie
Armstrong, the swing era, BeBop etc etc. Jazz evolution is a
microcosm of the CPP. All of the same components are present but
change the rhythm and you have a jazz feel, change the cadences from
one 2nd class chord to another, limit the variety of the forms used to
head, choruses head, and , well you know the Jazz forms. Some of them
started with march forms. Some blues forms. Different forms, but still
forms. Melody, functional harmony rhythm, form, expression and all the
components are still different ways of defining the conventions. Jazz
kept expanding in the same manner as the CPP.
This is also true in the Classical world. Some of stravinski was
related to the CPP. He even would quote old songs from folk and
popular and put them into his contexts, most of which were the same
components, but he would frame this old song with his concepts of
rhythm and his concepts of harmony (usually not pure functional
although you can see the relationship) and his concept of dynamics and
melody. Same as Hayden, but with changes in some of the components.
Put it all together and just as in education, it is the process that
is important. The process of analysis is very well suited for study in
the CPP. We are familiar with it and we learn the process of analysis
with it and this allows us to understand the whole framework if things
and allows us to discover new things in music and still have something
concrete to help us decide how to use and understand the new music
that we create in this day and age. Once you learn the process of
analysis, in order to change the music, you just change the components
and the way the components are presented and realized.
This is the importance of the CPP. It is alive today in the same
manner that it was hundreds of years ago and it teaches us the
framework or process of analysis.
Ah Ha! So why do we (or at least I) spend so much time on it? Well, I
would rather get some intelligent discussion and other's viewpoints as
to how the OTS can be found as a dominant force in all the music of
our Western musical culture. Try to speculate on that in this group. I
would like to go into more modern modal concepts of music. Again try
to get something like that going. Occasionally there gets something
started and then a beginner that is trying to learn music on their own
or is being overwhelmed at music school will ask a question on the CPP
and then the group snaps to CPP mode, someone makes a gaff or a stupid
statement, someone calls them out abou it and then the name calling
and the profanity and nothing really gets discussed except that old
standby, the CPP.
Lets give it a try. What is your perspective and how has it changed?
LJS
ps
Happy Thanksgiving to all. I don't remember if Canada's Thanksgiving
is a month earlier or later. (I suspect it was earlier as later would
go into Christmas) so belated Happy Thanksgiving to any Canadians that
might happen to be out there.
Joey Goldstein
I don't really know.
Someone here made the assertion that it had to be V7 I think.
Of course there are settings in jazz harmony where what looks like a V
triad might actually be closer to T function, but that's pretty hard to
pull off (unless some other note than S5 is in the bass, in which case
it's not really a V triad).
> I mean, that is the definition, and there
> is an evolutionary process in music as there are in many things. Which came
> first? The V triad or the V7? If you were to guess V then you would be
> right.
>
>>> Is Wagner
>>> tonal?
>> I asked a question about the music of Wagner.
>> I knew he was not considered to be a composer in the CPP style.
>
> Now you have me really curious. Who doesn't consider him to be a CPP
> composer? Yes, he stretched the boundaries, and my teacher considered his
> Tristan and Isolde (1865) the beginning of the end of tonality as it is
> usually known, and the precursor to the dodecaphony of Schoenberg, but, his
> music was tonal.
Well you're right. And I appear to have been talking out of my ass on
that point. I've always thought of Wagner as being more of a post
Romantic-era composer but evidently, after doing a quick search, he
appears to be squarely in the middle of the Romantic era.
Thanks for correcting me.
I've also been under the equally mistaken impression that Rachmaninoff
was a Romantic era composer.
I hope I'm not also mistaken in considering Rachmaninoff's music as
containing many of the post-CPP harmonic devices I've been citing here
lately, like bII+6 chords. When I hear some of Rachmaninoff's stuff, say
on the radio, it often sounds very much to me like Great American
Songbook harmony and/or jazz harmony.
So it would appear that much of what I've been calling Romantic era
harmony is really post-Romantic era harmony.
And I was also under the equally misguided idea that the Romantic era
was post-CPP when it is actually considered to be late CPP.
Always happy to admit when I've made a mistake and equally happy to be
corrected, despite the nonsense that LJS says about me.
Thanks again.
>> I don't think I ever suggested that he was not writing within the maj/min
>> key system. I don't believe I ever asked about that.
>> What I asked about was whether or not the tools of CPP analysis were
>> adequate to analyse his music, and evidently they are not.
>
> It just takes a little more work than a typical Handel arioso is all.
Some of the stuff I've just read makes a big deal about his "Tristan
chord" as being an important break from CPP harmony.
Some of the theories I've looked at, on Wikipedia, seem a little
misguided to my way of thinking. Of course Wikipedia isn't really a
reputable source for much of anything...
But, their example shows the chord F B D# G# and talks about it as if F
is the root. Right off the bat that breaks with the tradition of "roots"
being related to tertian stacks.
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord>
Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
E7b5 in the next measure.
I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other
things going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making
their claims.
What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
in C or A minor.
Is it the opening of the piece or does it occur somewhere later on?
If it's the opening, then what happens right after the "E7" measure.
>> I don't really care for Wagner's music, his theatrical ideas, his politics
>> or his philosophy. And I don't have to.
>
> Of course you don't.
>
>>> and many other examples over the years.
>> Talk about spinning things your way.
>> You're just upset because a Berklee dropout like me keeps correcting you
>> about the details of the music that you're supposed to be a specialist in.
>> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
>
> That is a label that some texts use. Harvard Dictionary of Music: "...The
> first three are sometimes called (rather pointlessly) "Italian," German,"
> and "French" sixth respectively...."
Right. But in CPP-era music these sonorities only occurred on scale
degree b6, not on scale degree b2. Or at least that's what I've been led
to believe.
So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis,
without any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th
above Sb6 being present in the chord. No?
As far as I know, LJS was using "Ger" as a descriptor for bII+6.
>> built on scale degree b2,
>
> And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of Music.
And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
Scale degree #4 is not present in any version of bII+6 whether it be the
Ger It or Fr version.
And if you want to call S#4 the "root" of bVI+6, then I can understand
what you mean and why you'd say that (even though I heartily disagree
with this whole tertian stack notion, and therefore with both you and
Harvard), but please don't say that it's "built on" S#4 because that
makes no sense.
If it's "built on" S#4 then it makes no sense to call it an "augmented
sixth chord" because there is no aug 6th interval above F# in this
chord. As I'm sure you know, the note situated an aug 6th above F# is Dx
and I've never seen this chord spelled with Dx rather than with Eb.
> and how "ii7/Ger" would mean a min7 chord
>> built on scale degree b6. Lol.
>
> This one took a little thought since I'd never seen this use before: this
> would be a wildly extended harmony and I'd like to hear this in context.
I think you might not understand what either LJS is saying about this
descriptor or what I am saying about it.
LJS' analysis of my progression was as follows
C:
I ii7/Ger Ger I
C / / / |Abm7 / Db7 / |C / / Fine
> In
> the key of C, a Ger would be built on F#.
> Sooooooooooo, a ii7/Ger would be
> G#-B-D#-F#, enharmonically, b6, or Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb.
Yikes.
If looked at that way his analysis makes both more sense as well as much
less sense. Lol.
If that's what LJS really meant then the whole thing is even more warped
and divorced from what is really going on musically than I thought.
For one thing if the "Ger" in "ii7/Ger" on beats 1 and 2 of bar 2 refers
to F# Ab C Eb, then wouldn't it mean that the "Ger" above beats 3 and 4
of that bar refers to the same sonority?
For another thing, if you're going to allow for enharmonic spellings,
then there is no need to spell any of these aug 6th chords as aug 6th
chords in the first place.
Nice to know I got something right!
> and I like to know and, when I make an analysis,
> convey that. So saying that, overall CCP, while not being bound by it,
> firmly embraces the Tonic-Subdominant-Dominant-Tonic cycle, and the major or
> minor or etc of the chord doesn't matter. Tonic chords will progress to
> subdominant chords and will progress to dominant chords and will progress to
> tonic chords, and "The circle, the circle of liiiiiife."
>
>
>>> It was the new thing in the higher
>>> theory circles when he was writing his book.
>> Chord quality was the "new thing" when Piston was writing his book?
>> I see.
>
> Making it a part of the analysis was the "new thing."
What did an *harmonic analysis* of CPP-era music look like prior to Piston?
>>> (As it was related to me)
>> Another thing you learned second hand.
>> You knew someone who knew Nadia Boulanger.
>> You knew someone who knew Bill Evans.
>> You knew someone who knew a Vegas arranger who taught you all about jazz
>> big band phrasing.
>> You know people who have played jazz.
>> You know people who are real musicians.
>>
>>> and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
>>> sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
>>> decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
>>> the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
>>> no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
>>> was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
>>> factor of function.
>> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type of chord
>> built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything including
>> dim7 chords.
>> I see.
>
> This is a part of the evolution since before there were major or minor or
> whatever chords there were two separate lines, one above the other. Even so,
> just considering root movement alone is an extreme that I'm not entirely
> comfortable with, but, it is a possibility:
> tonic-tonic-subdominant-dominant.
Yeah, but LJS', comments if taken as offered, are implying that the
tonic chord might be a dim chord or any other chord type because, "chord
type doesn't matter".
>>> Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds.
>> How would Gmaj7 function in the key of C major then?
>
> This is one of those times when it would depend on what came before it, and
> what came after it. I mean, it could be a III7/iii. Which would be a
> little odd.
In my lexicon III7/iii, in C, if it meant anything intelligible at all
(which it wouldn't), would be G7, not Gmaj7.
LJS
I quoted you in a post to Tom. He then told you that the V chord was
often used in the CPP and you said that you didn't know that and you
thanked him for the information.
> > Is Wagner
> > tonal?
>
> I asked a question about the music of Wagner.
Yes, you said "Is Wagner's music tonal"
If you listened to him you would have been able to hear if it was
tonal or not. Then Tom explained what I was telling you. These are
YOUR quotes Joey. Your's not mine.
> I knew he was not considered to be a composer in the CPP style.
> I don't think I ever suggested that he was not writing within the
> maj/min key system. I don't believe I ever asked about that.
> What I asked about was whether or not the tools of CPP analysis were
> adequate to analyse his music, and evidently they are not.
But if you reread you will see that he was mentioned as being in the
CPP style but he expanded the harmony through chromaticism and
extensions to the harmony. Listen and you will learn.
>
> I don't really care for Wagner's music, his theatrical ideas, his
> politics or his philosophy. And I don't have to.
No one said you have to like it. You do seem to like some of the ways
he used the TTS concept. He made good use of the bII I principle on
the dominant and probably on the tonic as well.
>
> > and many other examples over the years.
>
> Talk about spinning things your way.
> You're just upset because a Berklee dropout like me keeps correcting you
> about the details of the music that you're supposed to be a specialist in.
> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
> built on scale degree b2, and how "ii7/Ger" would mean a min7 chord
> built on scale degree b6. Lol.
If you were correcting me with good information, I would be elated. If
you would be able to keep things in the same context, I would be
overjoyed. If you would stop misquoting me and others, I would be
amazed. As it is, I am really only amused.
>
> >> But I may pick up the Aldwell Schacter book at some point for more of a
> >> CPP-oriented viewpoint. It is a CPP-harmony-oriented text isn't it?
>
> > Another book that requires no actual listening?
>
> Thanks for your helpful comments about this book.
> Another book *you* haven't read?
lol
>
> >> One of the things that I was surprised to learn about Delamont was that
> >> his RN designations were not the "standard" designations that I'd see
> >> the classical musos here using. For instance he likes to use UC/RN for
> >> the primary chords in both major and minor keys.
> >> Eg. With accompanying music showing a key signature of 3 flats he will
> >> label a Cm chord as "I" rather than "i".
>
> > And then a book report to show that you actually read something.
>
> And then a diss that is totally off base and irrelevant.
I learned from a master Joey. What goes around comes around.
>
>
>
> >> His system requires its practitioners to know what the regular versions
> >> of the diatonic chords in the minor key are. Eg. In 3 flats he would
> >> label an Abmaj triad as "vi", and an Adim triad as vi(Irr) ["Irr" =
> >> "irregular"] and the accompanying musical notation would sort out any
> >> confusion.
> >> Etc.
>
> >> From LJS' recent comments about Piston's use of RN it seems to me that
> >> he's suggested that Piston used only UC/RN. Is this true?
>
> > Another astute observation. (on several levels) lol
>
> >> If so, then this would suggest to me that even within the classical
> >> community there is no bona fide standard textual protocol for labelling
> >> diatonic function via Roman numerals, although most folks here prefer to
> >> use UC for chords with maj 3rds and LC for chords with min 3rds. [And
> >> obviously Delamont's system is the most far-removed from a standard
> >> protocol that I've seen yet. It's very puzzling to me why he did these
> >> things the way he did them.]
>
> > If you understood what goes into a complete analysis, this would not
> > seem so strange to you. The quality of the chord means very little when
> > it comes to functional analysis.
>
> Really?
> I never realized that.
> I always thought that I chords had to be major chords and Im chords had
> to be minor chords. Live and learn, I guess.... Not.
lol,
Function doesn't have to do with chord types. They tell you the key
context of the function. Function is with the roots. Only in the Major/
Minor keys does the D have to be major. It doesn't matter if the V is
a 13 with each number altered or if it is a triad. If it functions
like a dominant it is a dominant. The II can be half diminished, minor
or major. It will still function like a II. and this is true of all of
the chords. Chord color is important to MUSIC, as even an idiot would
get from my comments, but it is not important to FUNCTION. I never
said other wise.
Are you a careless reader or are you lying?
>
> > It was the new thing in the higher
> > theory circles when he was writing his book.
>
> Chord quality was the "new thing" when Piston was writing his book?
> I see.
Who said that? Careless reading again or are you lying once more.
I clearly said that the UC/lc RN when running the numbers to define
the function was the new thing. Again Is this carelessness on your
part or a bald face misrepresentation of my post?
>
> > (As it was related to me)
>
> Another thing you learned second hand.
> You knew someone who knew Nadia Boulanger.
> You knew someone who knew Bill Evans.
> You knew someone who knew a Vegas arranger who taught you all about jazz
> big band phrasing.
> You know people who have played jazz.
> You know people who are real musicians.
lol My teacher taught with Nadia. She taught Bill Evans when he was
there, she taught me when I was there. We both did very well with her.
We both have the same training in theory. From your comments about
him, I don't think that you listened to him very much either.
>
> > and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
> > sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
> > decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
> > the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
> > no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
> > was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
> > factor of function.
>
> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type of
> chord built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything
> including dim7 chords.
> I see.
lol, You don't see that? Mel Bay did, he made a fortune off of this
one simple application of exactly what you said. You can color that
progression any way you want and it will still sound like the
turnaround that it is if played in that context. Now this is the most
intelligent reply on FUNCTIONAL HARMONY that you have made so far, but
somehow, I don't believe that you are being sincere.
>
> > But yes, there is certainly a protocol. There are basic conventions of
> > notation and there are accepted means of dealing with the "exceptions"
> > and the evolutions as time went on. See, I knew that you were going
>
> >> And this is yet another reason why I prefer the Berklee UC/RN system in
> >> general, because it just spells out the actual chord quality every time.
>
> > And I like the UC/LC for the same reason. But truth is, we both like
> > it because it is the first one we learned.
>
> That's one of my reasons. It's not the only one. I've also stated some
> of the other reasons.
That is exactly what I said. I am amazed (see above) by that "sound
bite"
>
> > If I analyze a Jazz tune
> > with UC/LC, I have learned the tune in all 12 keys at once. BUT that
> > is not analysis. A functional analysis of the tune it not designed to
> > teach the song for performance.
>
> I never suggested that it was.
I believe that you did by the comments you make as there is no other
way to explain how you can not see that FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS is NOT the
spelling of chords. We spell the chords to help to ascertain the
roots. It then only makes a difference what the color is in a few
instances and then only in rare exceptions.
>
> >> There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred to.
>
> > for FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS it does not matter what type of chord it is!
>
> Okey dokey.
Again, correct. The exact chord being used is a different component
than that of FA. Important yes, but not for FA.
>
> > Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds.
>
> How would Gmaj7 function in the key of C major then?
>
> > You can listen
> > to it to see how it sounds.
In Beethoven's 1st it functions melodically as a "dominant to the
dominant" simultaneously as the G7 chord is functioning as the
Dominant harmony.
If you give an example, your question can be answered. Where have you
seen a Gmaj7 being used as a primary chord in CPP literature? Show me
a legit example and I will tell you how it functions. (Like that's
gonna happen. I am still waiting for the Rhythm and Blues explanation
about function)
>
> I see. Harmonic analysis has nothing to do with the way the music
> sounds. Wow. I learn so much from you Mr. Schmuck.
I see. That is really clever. How did you do that? oh yes. You kept
the first three letters and the last and you just made up the middle
part. Really clever. Isn't that the same way you respond to all your
posts?
>
> > You can read the music if you want to know
> > the notes. Its all about roots and part writing. Mostly roots. It is
> > not about color. it is not about rhythm, its not about form, its about
> > how the harmony functions.
>
> It's about how the chords function within a *key* and about how some
> chords *don't* function within that key and must therefore be in some
> other key. Chords like Gmaj7 in C. This is assuming, of course, that the
> music in question is key-based music.
And its not about how chords function in a tonal center? Is this the
Delamont system? or did you make this up. And "don't function must be
in some other key"? Another one of your well constructed sentences and
then Chords like Gmaj7 in C. (should have a verb in there someplace) I
don't care myself but you seem to in my posts. Oops, that was another
post and not this one. I forgot that things change with you on every
post.
>
> > Its really a simple concept once you think
> > about it. Some people, however, never think about it. Colors are
> > important, but they are just a sidelight and distraction as to the
> > function of the harmony.
>
> I've never suggested otherwise.
Ba DaBaDaBaDaBa -- Joey. read up a few paragraphs. now you are
agreeing that the colors are a sidelight and distraction but, but,
but And I quote:
"> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type
of
> chord built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything
> including dim7 chords."
This is from higher up a ways in THIS post.
>
> > BY the way. Since you have given no example or explanation of how the
> > rhythm creates the tonality in the blues, I must conclude that you
> > rethought that particular statement. lol
>
> No. You tell me.
> How is it that in a blues in C a dom7 chord with root on C is felt to be
> the home chord? And please tell me this using the conventions of CPP
> Tonal analysis.
Tell you how it is but don't tell you with the correct answer? Is that
your question.
The C7 in the blues is a chord type. The ROOT is still C. No one said
that the NOTATION of the CPP is limited to the CPP except you. The
ROOT of the chord is C and C is tonic. The Conventions of the BLUES
allows this. If you listen to the Mississippi Delta blues from the old
timers and rural musicians that still sing it like it used to be sung,
you will also notice that they sing more of an A than a Bb when they
sing that particular note. Just like kids do when they sing m_sl.
The blues is defined by the C F C G F C and not the color of
the chords. They can be major, minor, m7 evem a M6 or add a 9th or
11th or 13th and you will still have a blues progression. Just as I
have been saying. (Well, me, Piston, and every other theorists that
talks about it. FUNCTION is a matter of ROOTS. Use the progression of
the blues on those roots and you will have a Blues. If you make up
funny chords to put over those roots you will have a funny blues. Put
a m7 over those roots and you have a regular blues. put them over a
minor chord and you have a minor blues. In all cases you still have
the blues.
I hope that you are still putting us on Joey. Not only is that answer
rather lame. It has nothing to do with rhythm and that was your
contention. THat rhythm could define the harmonic function. Nope. I
was hoping for something better than that Joey.
>
> >> These textual designations of diatonic function are really based on
> >> jazz/pop chord symbols and it's progressions supplied via jazz/pop chord
> >> symbol charts that this system is actually designed to analyse. It can
> >> be used for analysis of a fully notated performance as well, but that's
> >> not really what it was designed for.
>
> >> Delamont's system would be totally inappropriate for analysis of a
> >> jazz/pop chord chart. It would be fine for a transcription of a
> >> performance that had been based off of a jazz/pop chord chart though.
> >> And most classical analysis techniques I've seen are also not as
> >> well-suited for analysis of jazz/pop chord symbol charts as the Berklee
> >> system is.
>
> > You are the only one that matters. All the others are just not able to
> > see things your way. When will we ever learn. JoEyReo.
>
> I've never even remotely hinted that I have that attitude towards other
> musicians or systems of analysis.
> All I've hinted at it that *you* are full of shit and don't know what
> *you* think you know, because you are and you don't.
What, exactly, does it mean when you say that the classical notation
of functional analysis can not tell the whole story about the TTS? You
constantly badger us with this statement that the classical notation
can not explain all that is going on. Those statements reflect on ALL
classical musicians, teachers and theorists even if you hate me. You
really should read what you write. is it possible that you don't
understand what you are saying? I don't think so.
So if that is your Rhythm as functional harmony, you NEED to read a
book. Well, more than read. You need to listen to the music. By what
you have been saying and especially lately, ALL you have ever done is
read about theory. How many CPP pieces have you actually analyzed. You
know, form, melody, functional harmony, rhythm and stylistic
considerations. Have you even played the examples? from real theory
books? With all the part writing etc.? Real classical music?
It sounds as if you haven't even played the examples. I don't mean the
chord symbols, I mean play the actual notes on the piano or something
where you can play all the parts.
LJS
Try to give some real thought and some concrete examples. I am really
bored with your changing contexts and downright lying about what I
say. Put up or shut up.
Try again on the Rhythm and the Blues. And to talk about the m7
precluding the I from being tonic? Have you ever heard an authentic
Mississippi Delta Blues player? And try to pick up a theory book
about the medium you want to show up. All you are showing is your
ignorance of classical theory. Keep this trash logic to your other
groups.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
>
> Some of the stuff I've just read makes a big deal about his "Tristan
> chord" as being an important break from CPP harmony.
> Some of the theories I've looked at, on Wikipedia, seem a little
> misguided to my way of thinking. Of course Wikipedia isn't really a
> reputable source for much of anything...
> But, their example shows the chord F B D# G# and talks about it as if F
> is the root. Right off the bat that breaks with the tradition of "roots"
> being related to tertian stacks.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord>
> Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
> E7b5 in the next measure.
> I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other
> things going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making
> their claims.
> What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
> in C or A minor.
> Is it the opening of the piece or does it occur somewhere later on?
> If it's the opening, then what happens right after the "E7" measure.
OK. Based on the key signature and the way it sounds I'm hearing it as
being the key of A minor, assuming that there's an Am chord coming up
somewhere sometime relatively soon.
If so, then in Berklee-speak the Tristan chord could be seen as a
tritone sub for IIm7b5, I suppose. [Usually the SubII chord would be
SubIIm7 though, not SubIIm7b5, even in minor keys - at least in the
music that I'm accustomed to that is the case statistically speaking.]
But, because of the presence of the leading tone, I tend to hear it the
way I think that one of the Wiki-cited theorists did, namely as E7 with
a couple of unresolved appoggiaturas.
It's an unusual chord to be occurring in A minor. I suppose it does
point to the modern era in that it's more colouristic than strictly
functional within that key.
There's lots of ways that this chord could be thought of.
I can also see it as bVI+6(Fr) (F A B D#) with an appoggiatura (the G#)
below the A nat. But that's a pretty long duration for an app.
It's acoustical root is Db or C#, but seeing it as a Db or C# chord
simply doesn't parse well in A minor.
It's kind of like what we call a side-slip in jazz circles in the sense
that it's like an Abm6 chord, kind of like a chordal appoggiatura below
the tonic chord.
It's kind of like a bunch of things without really being exactly any one
of them.
I'm not wild about the sound of it, but it's kind of cool anyway.
Joey Goldstein
That involved a misconception on my part, evidently, that most if not
all music from that era used V7 rather than V.
I never took the position that a V triad could not be the carrier of D
function in a key.
I've been under the impression, perhaps incorrectly, that the use of the
V7 chord rather than the V triad was one of the things that helped
differentiate the CPP era from the eras of Western music that preceded
the CPP.
>>> Is Wagner
>>> tonal?
>> I asked a question about the music of Wagner.
>
> Yes, you said "Is Wagner's music tonal"
You'll have to provide a more complete quote, complete with the context
in which you insist I said those exact words, because I don't remember
saying those exact words, and I can not find them in any of my recent
posts, except for the instance where *you're asking me* that question.
When I say "tonal" I usually spell it with a capital "T" and I use it to
mean "the maj/min key system". I don't believe I've ever said that
Wagner's music was not based primarily on the maj/min key system. If I
have said that, then it was wrong.
> If you listened to him you would have been able to hear if it was
> tonal or not. Then Tom explained what I was telling you. These are
> YOUR quotes Joey. Your's not mine.
Again, I don't recall asking that particular question. But I do remember
you asking it of me. I think you're just quoting yourself now.
>>>> The quality of the chord means very little when
>>> it comes to functional analysis.
>> Really?
>> I never realized that.
>> I always thought that I chords had to be major chords and Im chords had
>> to be minor chords. Live and learn, I guess.... Not.
>
> lol,
> Function doesn't have to do with chord types. They tell you the key
> context of the function.
What does the word "they" refer to in the above sentence, "chord types"?
"Chord types tell you the key context context of the function."
Is that your sentence?
What does that sentence mean?
> Function is with the roots.
Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to the
key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional within
the primary key and are either an indication that secondary key is being
employed or that chromatic embellishment of a diatonic chord is
occurring. It might also mean that the music isn't really in a key at
all and is more representative of post-Tonal music, which does not
necessarily mean that it is atonal music.
> Only in the Major/
> Minor keys does the D have to be major.
So in major and minor keys the quality of the V chord "matters", but
that's the only chord whose quality matters?
I see. lol.
> It doesn't matter if the V is
> a 13 with each number altered or if it is a triad.
Of course not. Chordal extensions are just decoration of the chord.
But the chord-type matters.
How many CPP pieces use Vm as a D function chord?
How 'bout Vdim?
> If it functions
> like a dominant it is a dominant.
But it won't function as a dominant unless it's the correct chord-type.
> The II can be half diminished, minor
> or major.
> It will still function like a II.
Well I was always taught that when a IIm7b5 chord occurs in a major key
that it was a borrowed sound from the parallel minor and that when IIm7
occurs in a minor key it's a type of borrowing from the major key via
musica ficta.
But IImaj doesn't exist within the diatonic chord set of either the
major or minor key and therefore the designation "II7" in anything other
than a post-CPP analysis, involving constant structure harmony for
example, would be meaningless or wrong.
> and this is true of all of
> the chords.
While IImaj has its root on II it is *not* really "functioning as a II
chord". It's function is either that of V/V or part of another type of
modulation away from the original key.
> Chord color is important to MUSIC, as even an idiot would
> get from my comments, but it is not important to FUNCTION. I never
> said other wise.
>
> Are you a careless reader or are you lying?
No. You are just wrong about chord colour not being a factor in function.
>>> It was the new thing in the higher
>>> theory circles when he was writing his book.
>> Chord quality was the "new thing" when Piston was writing his book?
>> I see.
>
> Who said that? Careless reading again or are you lying once more.
I was asking you to clarify what you had said. That's why there's a
question mark there.
So "what" was the "new thing"?
I'm not lying. I'm trying to make sense of what you're trying to say.
> I clearly said that the UC/lc RN when running the numbers to define
> the function was the new thing.
Now *that's* a lie. Lol.
You haven't said anything clearly, ever.
> Again Is this carelessness on your
> part or a bald face misrepresentation of my post?
None of the above.
>>> and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
>>> sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
>>> decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
>>> the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
>>> no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
>>> was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
>>> factor of function.
>> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type of
>> chord built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything
>> including dim7 chords.
>> I see.
>
> lol, You don't see that? Mel Bay did, he made a fortune off of this
> one simple application of exactly what you said.
I guess I missed that in the Mel Bay books I've seen.
Still, I have my doubts that Mel would publish such utterly nonsensical
ideas.
> You can color that
> progression any way you want and it will still sound like the
> turnaround that it is if played in that context.
Sure, you can do anything and you can put whatever chords you want to
above those roots. But only a few of those chord-type choices will lead
to a progression that is functional within the key that has the root of
"1" as its tonic. Some chord types on those roots will destroy that key
feeling.
Cdim7 / Amaj7#5 / |D7#5#9 / Gm7 / |Cdim7 / / Fine
In what world does it make sense to see those chords as *functioning* in
the "key of C"?
> Now this is the most
> intelligent reply on FUNCTIONAL HARMONY that you have made so far, but
> somehow, I don't believe that you are being sincere.
What are you referring to?
You haven't quoted anything I've said for several lines now.
The last thing of mine that you have quoted involves me being sarcastic.
>>> If I analyze a Jazz tune
>>> with UC/LC, I have learned the tune in all 12 keys at once. BUT that
>>> is not analysis. A functional analysis of the tune it not designed to
>>> teach the song for performance.
>> I never suggested that it was.
>
> I believe that you did
Then you believe wrongly.
> by the comments you make as there is no other
> way to explain how you can not see that FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS is NOT the
> spelling of chords.
I never said that functional analysis is the spelling of the chords.
What I've said is that the spelling of the chords is relevant to the
functional analysis. Certain instances of certain chord-types, even
those on diatonic roots, can not be assigned a proper function within a
key because they will be foreign to that key. I happen to be right, and
you happen to be wrong, and that's no lie.
> We spell the chords to help to ascertain the
> roots.
So the roots are the only concern, but we need to ascertain the chord
type before we know what the root is, and this means that the chord-type
is irrelevant?
I see.
> It then only makes a difference what the color is in a few
> instances and then only in rare exceptions.
Ah. So there are a few instances but only a small few. I see.
So your statements, that chord-type doesn't matter to chord function,
taken as they were actually stated are bullshit?
>>>> There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred to.
>>> for FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS it does not matter what type of chord it is!
>> Okey dokey.
>
> Again, correct. The exact chord being used is a different component
> than that of FA. Important yes, but not for FA.
What is the "function" of Bmaj7 in the "key of C"?
>>> Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds.
>> How would Gmaj7 function in the key of C major then?
>>
>>> You can listen
>>> to it to see how it sounds.
>
> In Beethoven's 1st it functions melodically as a "dominant to the
> dominant" simultaneously as the G7 chord is functioning as the
> Dominant harmony.
Gmaj7 functions as a dominant to G7?
Gmaj7 = V7/V?
Is that it?
> If you give an example, your question can be answered.
My question contained an example.
Your answer was inadequate.
The correct answer, of course, is that Gmaj7 is not a functional chord
in the key of C major.
> Where have you
> seen a Gmaj7 being used as a primary chord in CPP literature?
Irrelevant.
I never specified CPP.
All I'm asking about is key-based music.
In the key of C, if chord quality is irrelevant and only the root
progression matters then how would Gmaj7 ever function within that "key"?
*You* give *me* an example where Gmaj7 would be a functional chord in
"the key of C major".
> Show me
> a legit example and I will tell you how it functions. (Like that's
> gonna happen.
Gmaj7 / / / |Dm7 / / / |Cmaj7 / / Fine
In the above example, how does Gmaj7 function within the key of C major?
I'll save you the trouble...
The Gmaj7 chord is not functional in the key of C major. This music, as
presented, can not be analyzed as being in any specific particular
"key". For this music to be heard as being within any particular key we
would need to have some more music either preceding the example or
following the example that clearly and unambiguously establishes that
key. Even if the key of C major was unambiguously established at some
earlier or later time, there would be no functional designation for the
Gmaj7 chord within that key that would make any sense at all.
I.e. Within the maj/min key system there is no Vmaj7 chord [unless you
invoke post-CPP notions of borrowing chords from the parallel lydian
scale and this is not a feature of most classically-oriented Tonal
analysis methods].
>>> You can read the music if you want to know
>>> the notes. Its all about roots and part writing. Mostly roots. It is
>>> not about color. it is not about rhythm, its not about form, its about
>>> how the harmony functions.
>> It's about how the chords function within a *key* and about how some
>> chords *don't* function within that key and must therefore be in some
>> other key. Chords like Gmaj7 in C. This is assuming, of course, that the
>> music in question is key-based music.
>
> And its not about how chords function in a tonal center?
A tonal centre is not a key.
A key is a particular type of tonal centre.
Functional analysis is about how chords function *in a key*.
> Is this the
> Delamont system? or did you make this up.
It's common knowledge.
It doesn't need explaining to most people. Just to you.
> And "don't function must be
> in some other key"? Another one of your well constructed sentences
My sentence was:
"It's about how the chords function within a *key* and about how some
chords *don't* function within that key and must therefore be in some
other key."
The word "it" refers to functional analysis, obviously. This is a
perfectly well-formed sentence. What's your problem with well-formed
sentences?
> and
> then Chords like Gmaj7 in C.
"Chords like Gmaj7 in C" is a poorly constructed sentence but it's
meaning is obvious to all but you. It refers, obviously to the previous
sentence. I probably should have used a comma after the other sentence:
"Functional analysis is about how the chords function within a *key* and
about how some chords *don't* function within that key and must
therefore be in some other key, chords like Gmaj7 in C."
Here's hoping that's easier for *you* to parse.
>>> Its really a simple concept once you think
>>> about it. Some people, however, never think about it. Colors are
>>> important, but they are just a sidelight and distraction as to the
>>> function of the harmony.
>> I've never suggested otherwise.
>
> Ba DaBaDaBaDaBa -- Joey. read up a few paragraphs. now you are
> agreeing that the colors are a sidelight and distraction but, but,
> but And I quote:
I thought by "colours" you were referring to chordal extensions, not the
chord-type itself.
Chordal colour has very little to do with chord function, but chord-type
has very much to do with chord function.
> "> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type
> of
>> chord built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything
>> including dim7 chords."
>
> This is from higher up a ways in THIS post.
Right. And why are you quoting it again?
Do you enjoy my sarcastic jabs at you so much that you reprint them over
and over again?
OK.
Here's the same 3 chords with a different harmonic rhythm.
F7 / / / |C7 / / / |G7 / C7 / |F7 / / Fine
Notice how it doesn't sound like it's in C any more?
That's because of the harmonic rhythm.
> I hope that you are still putting us on Joey. Not only is that answer
> rather lame.
What answer of mine are you talking about?
Or are you correctly referring to your own answer being lame?
> It has nothing to do with rhythm and that was your
> contention.
Wrong.
It has has very much to do with rhythm.
> THat rhythm could define the harmonic function. Nope. I
> was hoping for something better than that Joey.
You were hoping for something better than something that I hadn't said
yet? That's pretty confused thinking.
> What, exactly, does it mean when you say that the classical notation
> of functional analysis can not tell the whole story about the TTS?
It's not the notation that "doesn't tell the story". It's the theories
that are inadequate. The notation is just shorthand for the theoretical
ideas.
> You
> constantly badger us with this statement that the classical notation
> can not explain all that is going on.
I'm not badgering you about anything.
It's you who's badgering me all the time about how lame my own
Berklee-oriented methods are, you little badger.
> Those statements reflect on ALL
> classical musicians, teachers and theorists
Yes, they do.
I think those conservatory oriented harmony classes are *long* overdue
for a change in course outline and content.
> even if you hate me.
Hate is too strong a word.
I really dislike you though.
> You
> really should read what you write. is it possible that you don't
> understand what you are saying? I don't think so.
It's probable that you don't understand what you're saying.
> So if that is your Rhythm as functional harmony, you NEED to read a
> book.
You need to play more music that doesn't fit the narrow confines of the
music that you studied in school 50 years ago and you need to learn to
look at it from a post-CPP viewpoint.
> I am really
> bored with your changing contexts and downright lying about what I
> say. Put up or shut up.
I'm bored with you. Careful. I might stop talking to you again and then
nobody here would be talking to you. You'll go back to talking to yourself.
And I've never lied here. You just don't understand what is being said.
And you're a prick for suggesting that I do lie. But then you're a prick
in so many other ways too.
J R Laredo
>J R Laredo wrote:
>>> I was one of the first people in that thread to suggest that D function
>>> of the V triad was possible and even probable most of the time.
>>
>> Not knowing what the thread you are talking about is, but, why wouldn't
>> the V triad have a dominant function?
>
> I don't really know.
> Someone here made the assertion that it had to be V7 I think.
Oh, THAT thread. Think it was Jon.
>
> Of course there are settings in jazz harmony where what looks like a V
> triad might actually be closer to T function, but that's pretty hard to
> pull off (unless some other note than S5 is in the bass, in which case
> it's not really a V triad).
In CCP that can sometimes happen when there is what is called a pedal in the
bass. Jazz might have a something similar.
>
> Well you're right. And I appear to have been talking out of my ass on that
> point. I've always thought of Wagner as being more of a post Romantic-era
> composer but evidently, after doing a quick search, he appears to be
> squarely in the middle of the Romantic era.
> Thanks for correcting me.
Calendar wise he was. In his use of tonality and harmony he was close to
the edge.
>
> I've also been under the equally mistaken impression that Rachmaninoff was
> a Romantic era composer.
Music critic Jim Sveda compares Rachmoninoff to one of the letters you hear
about that somehow take 40 years to get delivered. His music, which I do
like a lot, is a throwback to 50 or so years earlier. While a very popular
composer, he isn't important in the sense of innovations to music.
> I hope I'm not also mistaken in considering Rachmaninoff's music as
> containing many of the post-CPP harmonic devices I've been citing here
> lately, like bII+6 chords. When I hear some of Rachmaninoff's stuff, say
> on the radio, it often sounds very much to me like Great American Songbook
> harmony and/or jazz harmony.
Like nearly all composers he was a sum of what he had heard, and he was an
approximate contemporary of George Gershwin and Cole Porter (his son-in-law,
Toscanni, was a fan of Porter) and, of course, Milhaud and Ravel who did
incorporate jazz elements into their music.
> So it would appear that much of what I've been calling Romantic era
> harmony is really post-Romantic era harmony.
> And I was also under the equally misguided idea that the Romantic era was
> post-CPP when it is actually considered to be late CPP.
> Always happy to admit when I've made a mistake and equally happy to be
> corrected, despite the nonsense that LJS says about me.
> Thanks again.
There is a considerable overlap and composers going hither, thither and yon
harmonically, so I would have difficulty pinning down exactly where Romantic
ended and Post-Romantic began.
>
>>> I don't think I ever suggested that he was not writing within the
>>> maj/min key system. I don't believe I ever asked about that.
>>> What I asked about was whether or not the tools of CPP analysis were
>>> adequate to analyse his music, and evidently they are not.
>>
>> It just takes a little more work than a typical Handel arioso is all.
>
> Some of the stuff I've just read makes a big deal about his "Tristan
> chord" as being an important break from CPP harmony.
> Some of the theories I've looked at, on Wikipedia, seem a little misguided
> to my way of thinking. Of course Wikipedia isn't really a reputable source
> for much of anything...
> But, their example shows the chord F B D# G# and talks about it as if F is
> the root. Right off the bat that breaks with the tradition of "roots"
> being related to tertian stacks.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord>
Well, some theorist look at the enharmonic spelling, so it would be, and a
slight reorganizing, F-Ab-Cb-Eb.
> Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
> E7b5 in the next measure.
> I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other things
> going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making their
> claims.
It all boils down to: is that G# the chord tone, or is the A the chord tone
with the G# being the appoggiatura? Which can also affect the way it is
performed. That is what the main arguments revolve around.
> What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
> in C or A minor.
This is the opening of the work, and in A minor.
> Is it the opening of the piece or does it occur somewhere later on?
> If it's the opening, then what happens right after the "E7" measure.
Have to find my copy. I'll get back to this. But, if memory serves, it
sequences up two more times.
>
>>> I don't really care for Wagner's music, his theatrical ideas, his
>>> politics or his philosophy. And I don't have to.
>>
>> Of course you don't.
>>
>>>> and many other examples over the years.
>>> Talk about spinning things your way.
>>> You're just upset because a Berklee dropout like me keeps correcting you
>>> about the details of the music that you're supposed to be a specialist
>>> in.
>>> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
>>
>> That is a label that some texts use. Harvard Dictionary of Music:
>> "...The first three are sometimes called (rather pointlessly) "Italian,"
>> German," and "French" sixth respectively...."
>
> Right. But in CPP-era music these sonorities only occurred on scale degree
> b6, not on scale degree b2. Or at least that's what I've been led to
> believe.
It's a matter of definition. The 6 not only refers to the interval that
resolves out to the octave, but also the inversion. So the second note up
in the chord from the root is in the bass. Since these chords by definition
embellish the dominant the bass note will be b6 and that would make the root
to be #4. For two of the chords. The other two the root is 2 or #2.
In C, the two with root being #4 are:
Ab-C-F# and Ab-C-Eb-F#.
The two with the root being 2 or #2 are:
Ab-C-D-F# and Ab-C-D#-F#.
> So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis, without
> any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th above Sb6
> being present in the chord. No?
No. It is defined as a IV6#53. If it is any consolation, when I first
learned these it was with by the name. It wasn't until later that it was,
"Oh, by the way, these two have the root on #4 and these on 2 and #2."
> As far as I know, LJS was using "Ger" as a descriptor for bII+6.
>
If he was, he was using a protocol that I am not familiar with. Not to say
it doesn't exist, but, new one to me.
>>> built on scale degree b2,
>>
>> And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of
>> Music.
>
> And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
Well, I don't know. You said, "Ger" and that means in my list of
definitions a German augmented sixth, and every source I have in my library
defines it, if it were spelled out in the key of C, Ab-C-Eb-F#, and they all
call the root to be F#. The way I would spell out a bII+6 is F-Db-A and, as
far as I am aware, this doesn't have a name. Not saying it doesn't have
one, or that it is used in a special way, just that it is a new one on me.
> Scale degree #4 is not present in any version of bII+6 whether it be the
> Ger It or Fr version.
> And if you want to call S#4 the "root" of bVI+6, then I can understand
> what you mean and why you'd say that (even though I heartily disagree with
> this whole tertian stack notion, and therefore with both you and Harvard),
> but please don't say that it's "built on" S#4 because that makes no sense.
> If it's "built on" S#4 then it makes no sense to call it an "augmented
> sixth chord" because there is no aug 6th interval above F# in this chord.
> As I'm sure you know, the note situated an aug 6th above F# is Dx and I've
> never seen this chord spelled with Dx rather than with Eb.
>
>> and how "ii7/Ger" would mean a min7 chord
>>> built on scale degree b6. Lol.
>>
>> This one took a little thought since I'd never seen this use before: this
>> would be a wildly extended harmony and I'd like to hear this in context.
>
> I think you might not understand what either LJS is saying about this
> descriptor or what I am saying about it.
> LJS' analysis of my progression was as follows
> C:
> I ii7/Ger Ger I
> C / / / |Abm7 / Db7 / |C / / Fine
Oh, dear. I don't think I agree with that, not at all. Unless I am missing
something, the middle two spell out Ab-C-E-Gb and Db-F-Ab-C. If I am
mistaken, please let me know before I stick my neck out any farther.
>
>> In the key of C, a Ger would be built on F#. Sooooooooooo, a ii7/Ger
>> would be G#-B-D#-F#, enharmonically, b6, or Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb.
>
> Yikes.
> If looked at that way his analysis makes both more sense as well as much
> less sense. Lol.
> If that's what LJS really meant then the whole thing is even more warped
> and divorced from what is really going on musically than I thought.
> For one thing if the "Ger" in "ii7/Ger" on beats 1 and 2 of bar 2 refers
> to F# Ab C Eb, then wouldn't it mean that the "Ger" above beats 3 and 4 of
> that bar refers to the same sonority?
> For another thing, if you're going to allow for enharmonic spellings, then
> there is no need to spell any of these aug 6th chords as aug 6th chords in
> the first place.
The enharmonic spellings would be for ease in either analysis or
performance. You know that some intervals are easier to play at a glance
than others.
It was all upper case. It was assumed that the analyser would know the
major or minor from the context.
Out of time. I'll get to this, later, and, boy, it will be kinda long.
tom_k
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
news:c_udnUuBDrjAm5PW...@giganews.com...
>
>
> Now you have me really curious. Who doesn't consider him to be a CPP
> composer? Yes, he stretched the boundaries, and my teacher considered his
> Tristan and Isolde (1865) the beginning of the end of tonality as it is
> usually known, and the precursor to the dodecaphony of Schoenberg, but,
> his music was tonal.
In his Meta-Variations (Perspectives of New Music, 1972?), Ben Boretz argues
that much of the Tristan Prelude should be considered "centric" rather than
CPP tonal. Centric refers to music which has one - or multiple pitch
centers and/or doesn't use CPP functional root movement.
Although most of Wagner would be considered CPP, I also hear parts of the
Ring cycle as centric, not tonal.
Tom
David Raleigh Arnold
> Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to the
> key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional within
> the primary key and are either an indication that secondary
V/V *is* a functional designation. II or IIm is not. You obviously
*completely* misunderstand it, since you say the exact opposite.
I II III is not functional harmony.
I V/V V is functional harmony.
"Secondary key" is an explanatory device, but the whole purpose of it is
to explain and then dismiss, to keep your attention on *what is* and not
to distract you with nonsense about modes, transpositions, and such.
Every theory text is like an arithmetic or algebra text. You get nothing
from reading it without doing the problems, and less from the pictures.
Why? Because the analysis is not the music. Regards, daveA
J R Laredo
"tom_k" <tko...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:rO-dnfxXHsEQOJPW...@giganews.com...
I do not disagree. However, to say that CPP tools can't analyze his music
goes a little far. They can. Just takes more work is all. And there will
some fuzzy areas, which is part of the fun.
Alain Naigeon
solution (analysis) ;-) Here is the opinion of Smith-Brindle
(Musical composition, Oxford university press, page 112) :
<quote>
A substitution note is a note which takes the place of a harmony
note immediately adjacent to it (sometimes above, sometimes
below). It does not belong to the basic harmony, which it tends
to disrupt. It may or may not resolve on to the note it temporarily
replaces.
[...]
A very simple [sic!] and beautiful example of the use of
substitution notes may be found at the beginning of Wagner's
*Tristan und Isolde*: [quoting the pick up bar plus 6 others]
Here the commonplace cadence A minor - F7 - E7 is given a
subtle mistery through the use of a few substitution notes as follows:
in bar 2, G# is a chromatic substitution for A (on which it resolves),
while B is a diatonic substitution for A or C, on which it does not
resolve; in bar 3, A# substitutes chromatically for B, on which
it resolves.
</quote>
[OMG, I never would have thought "substitution" being so hard
to type several times - just try if you have doubts :-)]
--
Fran�ais *==> "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
http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
tom_k
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
Right. But the only CPP tool for the TR chord has to account for the G# as
an appoggiatura - one which has a duration 5 times that of it's resolution.
So it does seem to me that a cogent explanation which doesn't rely on a "Fr.
+6" label is "less fuzzy" than the CPP RN analyses I've seen. If an
interval analysis using PC set labels illuminates better, then why not use
it? But only where applicable, of course.
It certainly is these "transition" composers who often seem to be the most
interesting to the theorist - as long as everything doesn't have to scan
neatly!
Tom
J R Laredo
"J R Laredo" <jrlar...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
Okey, dokey. Here is the protocol I learned when dealing with secondary
harmonies: others might have learned them differently.
With secondary harmonies, V/V, V/ii, etc. you treat the second chord as if
it was the tonic. In the case of your example, a iii in C would be an E
minor chord, so you treat it and the preceeding chord, the "whatever of" to
be in the key of E minor. In E minor the III chord is a G major triad, and
the key signature is one sharp. So, in the tiny E minor enclave these two
chords create the III7 chord is G-B-D-F#, even though the overall context of
the progression is in C.
Not as long as I thought it might be. I hope I have made myself
understandable.
Joey Goldstein
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:19c66$4b0e25eb$adceee64$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
>> J R Laredo wrote:
>> Some of the stuff I've just read makes a big deal about his "Tristan
>> chord" as being an important break from CPP harmony.
>> Some of the theories I've looked at, on Wikipedia, seem a little misguided
>> to my way of thinking. Of course Wikipedia isn't really a reputable source
>> for much of anything...
>> But, their example shows the chord F B D# G# and talks about it as if F is
>> the root. Right off the bat that breaks with the tradition of "roots"
>> being related to tertian stacks.
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord>
>
> Well, some theorist look at the enharmonic spelling, so it would be, and a
> slight reorganizing, F-Ab-Cb-Eb.
>
>> Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
>> E7b5 in the next measure.
>> I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other things
>> going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making their
>> claims.
>
> It all boils down to: is that G# the chord tone, or is the A the chord tone
> with the G# being the appoggiatura? Which can also affect the way it is
> performed. That is what the main arguments revolve around.
Well if the G# is seen as an appoggiatura below the A, then the entire
chord can be seen as a French aug 6th chord, no?
I guess *you'd* say (and other from your tribe - lol) that this aug 6th
chord is "built-on" and/or has its "root on" B, right? I.e. In "root
position" it would be B D# F A, right?
I learned about that sonority through Delamont's books and he would say
that the "root" is F and that the chord is built on F. But if Delamont's
take on this is not the standard take, which is evidently the case with
a lot of his stuff, then I suppose that even though I think his take is
a better take I'll just have to play along.
His RN designation would be bVI+6(Fr).
Yours, if you felt the need to include a RN descriptor, would be
II+6(Fr), right?
>> What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
>> in C or A minor.
>
> This is the opening of the work, and in A minor.
Thanks. That's what I figured after listening to it, playing it, and
thinking about it a bit more.
>>>> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
>>> That is a label that some texts use. Harvard Dictionary of Music:
>>> "...The first three are sometimes called (rather pointlessly) "Italian,"
>>> German," and "French" sixth respectively...."
>> Right. But in CPP-era music these sonorities only occurred on scale degree
>> b6, not on scale degree b2. Or at least that's what I've been led to
>> believe.
>
> It's a matter of definition. The 6 not only refers to the interval that
> resolves out to the octave, but also the inversion. So the second note up
> in the chord from the root is in the bass. Since these chords by definition
> embellish the dominant the bass note will be b6 and that would make the root
> to be #4. For two of the chords. The other two the root is 2 or #2.
>
> In C, the two with root being #4 are:
> Ab-C-F# and Ab-C-Eb-F#.
> The two with the root being 2 or #2 are:
> Ab-C-D-F# and Ab-C-D#-F#.
OK. Let's try top clear up the confusion in our descriptors here. I'll
try to see it your way....
It's clear to me now that what I've been calling bVI+6(Ger), eg. Ab C Eb
F# - in C, is a chord that you see as having its "root" on scale degree
#4 of the key.
And if you were going to assign a RN to this chord it would be "#IV+6",
right?
Ditto for what I've been calling bVI+6(It), eg. Ab C F# - in C.
I.e. You would label my bVI+6(It) as "#IV+6(It)" (if you were so
inclined to include a RN descriptor), right?
And it seems that because you see the "root" of what I've been calling
bVI+6(Fr) [eg. Ab C D F#) as being on D you would label this chord as
"II+6(Fr)" (if you were to include a RN descriptor), right?
Lastly, what I've been calling the alternate spelling for bVI+6(Ger)
[eg. Ab C D# F# - in C] is a chord that you see as having its
"root" on D# and you would therefore label it as "#II+6(Ger)", right?
>> So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis, without
>> any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th above Sb6
>> being present in the chord. No?
>
> No. It is defined as a IV6#53.
Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "IV6#53".
> If it is any consolation, when I first
> learned these it was with by the name.
Sorry, but I can't parse the above sentence.
> It wasn't until later that it was,
> "Oh, by the way, these two have the root on #4 and these on 2 and #2."
>
>> As far as I know, LJS was using "Ger" as a descriptor for bII+6.
>>
>
> If he was, he was using a protocol that I am not familiar with. Not to say
> it doesn't exist, but, new one to me.
Well so far, as far as bona fide harmony texts or institutions are
concerned, the only place I've seen it is in Delamont's book.
It seems a pity to me that more classical muso types have not adopted
this notion because it seems pretty cogent to me.
But, you'd see the "root" of this chord as being on the leading tone, right?
So what I've been calling bII+6(Ger) [eg. Db F Ab B - in C] would be
"VII+6(Ger)" in your world-view, right?
>>>> built on scale degree b2,
>>> And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of
>>> Music.
>> And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
Again, just for clarity's sake, up to this point in our conversation,
when I wrote "bVI+6" I meant Ab C Eb F#, or Ab C D# F#, or Ab C D F#, or
Ab C F# - in C.
When I wrote "bII+6" what I meant was D F Ab B, or Db F G B, or Db F B -
in C.
OK?
> Well, I don't know. You said, "Ger" and that means in my list of
> definitions a German augmented sixth, and every source I have in my library
> defines it, if it were spelled out in the key of C, Ab-C-Eb-F#, and they all
> call the root to be F#.
> The way I would spell out a bII+6 is F-Db-A
You would? Not sure where you're getting those notes from.
Based on your notions of the "roots" of these types of chords, I would
have thought that you would have seen "bII+6" as meaning (in C):
Db Fbb Abb Cbb - for the Ger,
or Db Fbb Abb - for the It,
or Db F Abb Cb - for the Fr,
or something like that. Lol.
>> I think you might not understand what either LJS is saying about this
>> descriptor or what I am saying about it.
For the record... I might not have understood what LJS' descriptors
meant either. It may even be that he never really meant to post the
analysis I have attributed below to him. But that's the way I understood
his comments at the time.
>> LJS' analysis of my progression was as follows
>> C:
>> I ii7/Ger Ger I
>> C / / / |Abm7 / Db7 / |C / / Fine
>
> Oh, dear. I don't think I agree with that, not at all. Unless I am missing
> something, the middle two spell out Ab-C-E-Gb and Db-F-Ab-C. If I am
> mistaken, please let me know before I stick my neck out any farther.
FYI
The chord symbol "Abm7" means Ab Cb Eb Gb.
The chord symbol "Db7" means Db F Ab Cb.
I'm not sure what "ii7/Ger or even "Ger" is supposed to mean in this
context, but whatever it means it doesn't seem to be the right analysis.
>>> In the key of C, a Ger would be built on F#. Sooooooooooo, a ii7/Ger
>>> would be G#-B-D#-F#, enharmonically, b6, or Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb.
>> Yikes.
>> If looked at that way his analysis makes both more sense as well as much
>> less sense. Lol.
>> If that's what LJS really meant then the whole thing is even more warped
>> and divorced from what is really going on musically than I thought.
>> For one thing if the "Ger" in "ii7/Ger" on beats 1 and 2 of bar 2 refers
>> to F# Ab C Eb, then wouldn't it mean that the "Ger" above beats 3 and 4 of
>> that bar refers to the same sonority?
>> For another thing, if you're going to allow for enharmonic spellings, then
>> there is no need to spell any of these aug 6th chords as aug 6th chords in
>> the first place.
>
> The enharmonic spellings would be for ease in either analysis or
> performance. You know that some intervals are easier to play at a glance
> than others.
Sure, but the whole notion of the augmented sixth chord hinges on the
correct spelling and the correct traditional voice-leading, no? If you
allow for enharmonic spellings then these chords can just be seen as
dom7 chords with roots on Sb6, no?
Joey Goldstein
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:42:01 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to the
>> key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional within
>> the primary key and are either an indication that secondary
>
> V/V *is* a functional designation.
It's a functional designation for a chord *from another key*, a
secondary key. We don't analyse it as being a part of being a bona fide
key change because it does not last long enough to dislodge the tonic of
the primary key from the ear.
"V/V" would be meaningless if the key of V did not possess a V chord to
begin with within its set of diatonic chords.
So, while V/V contains a chromatic note in the primary key it is
completely diatonic to the secondary key.
So, my comment quoted above stands perfectly well.
> II or IIm is not.
"IIm" or "ii" is not a functional designation?
Are you serious?
> You obviously
> *completely* misunderstand it, since you say the exact opposite.
If you say so.
> I II III is not functional harmony.
Well you seem to be arguing with LJS, not with me.
He's the one who's saying that only the roots matter to the functional
analysis and that the quality of the chord above the root has no
functional significance. Not me.
> I V/V V is functional harmony.
>
> "Secondary key" is an explanatory device, but the whole purpose of it is
> to explain and then dismiss, to keep your attention on *what is* and not
> to distract you with nonsense about modes, transpositions, and such.
What in the world does this discussion have to do with modes or
transpositions?
> Every theory text is like an arithmetic or algebra text. You get nothing
> from reading it without doing the problems, and less from the pictures.
> Why? Because the analysis is not the music. Regards, daveA
And your point is?
Joey Goldstein
Sorry, you're right. My bad.
When I saw "III7" I thought that you were referring to a dom7 chord.
Still III7/iii is *not* really a functional chord in the key of C. There
is no III7 chord in any major key. III7 is functional only in minor
keys. So, if E is the tonic then Gmaj7 is a functional a chord. But by
definition, E is not the tonic in the key of C major.
I'm sure I haven't expressed that perfectly, but the ideas should still
stand.
Joey Goldstein
At any rate, I'd be surprised if we can't agree that Gmaj7 (G B D F#) is
not functionally a "V" chord or a "dominant chord" in C.
Remember please that LJS has asserted that only the roots matter when
determining the function of a chord within the key. That's why i brought
up the example of Gmaj7 in C.
J R Laredo
Yes.
> I guess *you'd* say (and other from your tribe - lol) that this aug 6th
> chord is "built-on" and/or has its "root on" B, right? I.e. In "root
> position" it would be B D# F A, right?
Yes. And, every theory book and source I know of.
> I learned about that sonority through Delamont's books and he would say
> that the "root" is F and that the chord is built on F. But if Delamont's
> take on this is not the standard take, which is evidently the case with a
> lot of his stuff, then I suppose that even though I think his take is a
> better take I'll just have to play along.
> His RN designation would be bVI+6(Fr).
> Yours, if you felt the need to include a RN descriptor, would be II+6(Fr),
> right?
No. In the set of definitions I know, the + refers to the triad describing
an augmented fifth, and the 6 to the inversion. Adding the (Fr) would make
the symbology have no sense. Can't do figured bass like symbology here, but
this would be a II and to the right of the II would be a set of three
numbers, one stacked atop each other. On top would be 6# over 4 over 3.
I'll try this and hope it comes out right.
6#
II4
3
No. And I think I know why now I'm being confused. It would be
6#
IV5
3
> Ditto for what I've been calling bVI+6(It), eg. Ab C F# - in C.
> I.e. You would label my bVI+6(It) as "#IV+6(It)" (if you were so inclined
> to include a RN descriptor), right?
IV6#
> And it seems that because you see the "root" of what I've been calling
> bVI+6(Fr) [eg. Ab C D F#) as being on D you would label this chord as
> "II+6(Fr)" (if you were to include a RN descriptor), right?
6#
II4
3
> Lastly, what I've been calling the alternate spelling for bVI+6(Ger) [eg.
> Ab C D# F# - in C] is a chord that you see as having its
> "root" on D# and you would therefore label it as "#II+6(Ger)", right?
It is called a doubly augmented fourth and would be
6#
II4#
3
>
>>> So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis,
>>> without any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th
>>> above Sb6 being present in the chord. No?
The "Ger" "It" and "Fr" can't have any other descriptors since they are
defined. But, in your symbology, which I am not used to, that looks about
right.
>
>> If it is any consolation, when I first learned these it was with by the
>> name.
>
> Sorry, but I can't parse the above sentence.
I didn't learn them by scale degrees or the regular RN. I learned them by
name, first. Since by definition augmented 6th chords embellish only the
dominant triad, and by definition the augmented 6th resolves only by
expanding to the octave of the dominant pitch you build them this way: all
augmented 6th chords contain an augmented sixth interval and the tonic
pitch. For example, in the key of C the dominant pitch is G. The augmented
sixth interval will be comprised of a half step above the the G and a half
step below: Ab and F#. Then put the C, a major third above the bass note,
the tonic, between them: Ab-C-F#, which is the Italian. The German is the
Italian with the addition of a perfect fifth, Eb, above the bass. The
French is the Italian but with an augmented fourth, D, above the bass note.
The last is the Italian but with a doubly augmented fourth, D#, above the
bass note; yes, the sound is exactly like the German, but, the difference is
this chord always resolves to I6/4, the dominant delay chord.
The accepted names/descriptions are: augmented sixth, augmented
six-five-three, augmented six-four-three, and doubly augmented fourth.
>
>> It wasn't until later that it was, "Oh, by the way, these two have the
>> root on #4 and these on 2 and #2."
>>
>>> As far as I know, LJS was using "Ger" as a descriptor for bII+6.
>>>
>>
>> If he was, he was using a protocol that I am not familiar with. Not to
>> say it doesn't exist, but, new one to me.
>
> Well so far, as far as bona fide harmony texts or institutions are
> concerned, the only place I've seen it is in Delamont's book.
> It seems a pity to me that more classical muso types have not adopted this
> notion because it seems pretty cogent to me.
>
> But, you'd see the "root" of this chord as being on the leading tone,
> right?
> So what I've been calling bII+6(Ger) [eg. Db F Ab B - in C] would be
> "VII+6(Ger)" in your world-view, right?
No, since, by definition, augmented sixth chords only embellish the
dominant. This would be treating the C as the dominant, which would make
the key to be F. In other words, bringing this chord in, here, and
resolving it as a Ger chord should be resolved would normally signal a
modulation or, at the very least, signal that the C would be treated as a
secondary dominant to F, the IV chord: so, Ger/IV - V/IV - IV would be a
typical progression.
>
>>>>> built on scale degree b2,
>>>> And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of
>>>> Music.
>>> And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
>
> Again, just for clarity's sake, up to this point in our conversation, when
> I wrote "bVI+6" I meant Ab C Eb F#, or Ab C D# F#, or Ab C D F#, or Ab C
> F# - in C.
Now that I see how your use of symbology (please be advised, I am NOT saying
you are wrong) I realize in what way we are not discussing the same things.
I'll try to keep things straight in the future, but, I am so used to my
symbology that I will mess up, so, bear with that.
> When I wrote "bII+6" what I meant was D F Ab B, or Db F G B, or Db F B -
> in C.
> OK?
Ok. Hope I remember.
>
>> Well, I don't know. You said, "Ger" and that means in my list of
>> definitions a German augmented sixth, and every source I have in my
>> library defines it, if it were spelled out in the key of C, Ab-C-Eb-F#,
>> and they all call the root to be F#.
>
>> The way I would spell out a bII+6 is F-Db-A
>
> You would? Not sure where you're getting those notes from.
As I said, I am used to the + refering to the triad, putting in an augmented
fifth above the root, and the 6 being the inversion, that is, the note that
is the third above the root of Db, F, is in the bass, and there is an
augmented fifth above the root, which would be A.
> Based on your notions of the "roots" of these types of chords, I would
> have thought that you would have seen "bII+6" as meaning (in C):
> Db Fbb Abb Cbb - for the Ger,
> or Db Fbb Abb - for the It,
> or Db F Abb Cb - for the Fr,
> or something like that. Lol.
Hope we have cleared up the confusion.
>
>>> I think you might not understand what either LJS is saying about this
>>> descriptor or what I am saying about it.
>
> For the record... I might not have understood what LJS' descriptors meant
> either. It may even be that he never really meant to post the analysis I
> have attributed below to him. But that's the way I understood his comments
> at the time.
>
>>> LJS' analysis of my progression was as follows
>>> C:
>>> I ii7/Ger Ger I
>>> C / / / |Abm7 / Db7 / |C / / Fine
>>
>> Oh, dear. I don't think I agree with that, not at all. Unless I am
>> missing something, the middle two spell out Ab-C-E-Gb and Db-F-Ab-C. If
>> I am mistaken, please let me know before I stick my neck out any farther.
>
> FYI
> The chord symbol "Abm7" means Ab Cb Eb Gb.
> The chord symbol "Db7" means Db F Ab Cb.
> I'm not sure what "ii7/Ger or even "Ger" is supposed to mean in this
> context, but whatever it means it doesn't seem to be the right analysis.
Oh, my. No wonder you two couldn't understand each other, as you might have
gathered by now. The only way his analysis can work is he puts the key to
be F at some point and the Db moves down to a C and the Cb(B) moves up to a
C. Why he did that, I don't have enough information. And I can't get a ii7
out of this that I can see. If everything resolves the way this should, and
we keep this in C, this is I / / / vi7/Ger / Ger / V/IV. Had to respell the
Abm7 to G#m7 to make even this work.
>
>>>> In the key of C, a Ger would be built on F#. Sooooooooooo, a ii7/Ger
>>>> would be G#-B-D#-F#, enharmonically, b6, or Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb.
>>> Yikes.
>>> If looked at that way his analysis makes both more sense as well as much
>>> less sense. Lol.
>>> If that's what LJS really meant then the whole thing is even more warped
>>> and divorced from what is really going on musically than I thought.
>>> For one thing if the "Ger" in "ii7/Ger" on beats 1 and 2 of bar 2 refers
>>> to F# Ab C Eb, then wouldn't it mean that the "Ger" above beats 3 and 4
>>> of that bar refers to the same sonority?
>>> For another thing, if you're going to allow for enharmonic spellings,
>>> then there is no need to spell any of these aug 6th chords as aug 6th
>>> chords in the first place.
>>
>> The enharmonic spellings would be for ease in either analysis or
>> performance. You know that some intervals are easier to play at a glance
>> than others.
>
> Sure, but the whole notion of the augmented sixth chord hinges on the
> correct spelling and the correct traditional voice-leading, no?
Yes.
If you
> allow for enharmonic spellings then these chords can just be seen as dom7
> chords with roots on Sb6, no?
Only if they did not resolve in a way that represents an augmented sixth
chord. The real focus on these is the resolution, the enharmonic spellings
are of secondary importance. I can't think of a reason off hand, but, it
just might be for clarity on the score or in parts an enharmonic spelling
would be needed.
J R Laredo
Yes, we agree. That Gmaj7 is not functional in C. If it can't be treated
as a III7/iii or as embellishment of itself (briefly in G as the tonic,
I7/V) then it is in there for the sound and the sound alone. But, maybe he
meant chords built of only pitches that are found in the specified key.
That is about the only way around that I am comfortable with.
Joey Goldstein
OK.
I see that you don't use anything remotely like Delamont's notational
conventions when you label these chords in an analysis.
But isn't it obvious by now that when I write "bII+6" that what I mean
is "an augmented sixth chord with bass note on scale degree b6"?
Are you not willing to bend even an inch to try to acknowledge my pov
when you're conversing with me?
> Can't do figured bass like symbology here, but
> this would be a II and to the right of the II would be a set of three
> numbers, one stacked atop each other. On top would be 6# over 4 over 3.
> I'll try this and hope it comes out right.
> 6#
> II4
> 3
OK. Thanks.
Why are you calling it "IV" rather than "#IV"?
And if F# is the "root", then there is no maj 3rd above that root (this
chord has a dim 3rd above its root), so I'm wondering why you're using
an UC/RN as opposed to a LC/RN?
>> Ditto for what I've been calling bVI+6(It), eg. Ab C F# - in C.
>> I.e. You would label my bVI+6(It) as "#IV+6(It)" (if you were so inclined
>> to include a RN descriptor), right?
>
> IV6#
Again, why IV rather than #IV?
Again, why UC/RN?
>> And it seems that because you see the "root" of what I've been calling
>> bVI+6(Fr) [eg. Ab C D F#) as being on D you would label this chord as
>> "II+6(Fr)" (if you were to include a RN descriptor), right?
>
> 6#
> II4
> 3
Why not "4#" rather than "4"?
>> Lastly, what I've been calling the alternate spelling for bVI+6(Ger) [eg.
>> Ab C D# F# - in C] is a chord that you see as having its
>> "root" on D# and you would therefore label it as "#II+6(Ger)", right?
>
> It is called a doubly augmented fourth and would be
>
> 6#
> II4#
> 3
Why "II" rather than "#II" or "#ii"?
Why "4#" rather than "4x"?
>>>> So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis,
>>>> without any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th
>>>> above Sb6 being present in the chord. No?
>
> The "Ger" "It" and "Fr" can't have any other descriptors since they are
> defined. But, in your symbology, which I am not used to, that looks about
> right.
>>> If it is any consolation, when I first learned these it was with by the
>>> name.
>> Sorry, but I can't parse the above sentence.
>
> I didn't learn them by scale degrees or the regular RN. I learned them by
> name, first.
By "name" you mean the country names, right?
OK.
Right. But if you inhabited a post-CPP musical analysis world in which
augmented sixth chords were allowed to have their bass notes on scale
degree b2, even though this sonority never occurred in CPP era music,
then the "root" of that chord, in C, would be be B, right?
6#
VII5
3
Right?
>>>>>> built on scale degree b2,
>>>>> And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of
>>>>> Music.
>>>> And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
>> Again, just for clarity's sake, up to this point in our conversation, when
>> I wrote "bVI+6" I meant Ab C Eb F#, or Ab C D# F#, or Ab C D F#, or Ab C
>> F# - in C.
>
> Now that I see how your use of symbology (please be advised, I am NOT saying
> you are wrong) I realize in what way we are not discussing the same things.
I'll say. Lol.
> I'll try to keep things straight in the future, but, I am so used to my
> symbology that I will mess up, so, bear with that.
>
>> When I wrote "bII+6" what I meant was D F Ab B, or Db F G B, or Db F B -
>> in C.
>> OK?
>
> Ok. Hope I remember.
> Hope we have cleared up the confusion.
Some of it yes. Some of it no.
LJS
> J R Laredo wrote:
JRL >>
Joey >
LJS _
Well, here are my comments on the Joey/JRL exchange concerning my
post. It is late and I have not checked all the spellings of the
chords so there MAY be a typo or two. I apologize if there are. It
should show some of the things that CPP analysis is and what it is
not. It also should show (to those that are most at ease with the UC/
lcRN notation how the UC RN can be used to focus on the true function
of even late romantic chromaticism can be looked at from a functional
analysis in terms so simple that they can be directly compared with
the same functional relationships from Vivaldi through to early
Schoenberg. And possibly demonstrate how the color of the chord has
little or nothing to do with function. Its all about the Roots and/or
Bass notes.
>
> I don't really know.
> Someone here made the assertion that it had to be V7 I think.
When I quoted this question you posed to Tom, it was a “Joey at
nowhere.net” post that I copied it from. Are there two of you? That
would be kind of scary. Lol
>
> Of course there are settings in jazz harmony where what looks like a V
> triad might actually be closer to T function, but that's pretty hard to
> pull off (unless some other note than S5 is in the bass, in which case
> it's not really a V triad).
Is this another pearl of wisdom? What settings? Is this something you
just think MIGHT occur? Without an example, this could simply be a
"key area" mistake or omission, but any theorist would be able to see
that rather easily with a real example no matter what terminology he
used. But why would you be trying to "pull off" anything in an
analysis? It either is or it isn't. An analysis doesn't try to pull
off anything. Its purpose is to show what is there. Is this yet
another occasion that you are, as you put it, "talking out of your
ass"?
>
> > I mean, that is the definition, and there
> > is an evolutionary process in music as there are in many things. Which came
> > first? The V triad or the V7? If you were to guess V then you would be
> > right.
>
> >>> Is Wagner
> >>> tonal?
> >> I asked a question about the music of Wagner.
> >> I knew he was not considered to be a composer in the CPP style.
>
> > Now you have me really curious. Who doesn't consider him to be a CPP
> > composer? Yes, he stretched the boundaries, and my teacher considered his
> > Tristan and Isolde (1865) the beginning of the end of tonality as it is
> > usually known, and the precursor to the dodecaphony of Schoenberg, but, his
> > music was tonal.
>
> Well you're right. And I appear to have been talking out of my ass on
> that point. I've always thought of Wagner as being more of a post
> Romantic-era composer but evidently, after doing a quick search, he
> appears to be squarely in the middle of the Romantic era.
> Thanks for correcting me.
Here, Joey, you have managed to make another major gaff in your
explanation of the first gaff. Not only is Wagner tonal, it IS also a
composer in the CPP tradition. Extended as he may be, (he is NOT
really that far out there compared to what else was happening in his
era anyway) this was one of the benefits of Piston’s codification of
the other theory books. He shows how Wagner is NOT so revolutionary
but merely evolutionary when it comes to his harmonic structures.
>
> I've also been under the equally mistaken impression that Rachmaninoff
> was a Romantic era composer.
Exactly what period do you think Rachmaninoff belongs to? You won’t
believe me, so here is a quote from your vast body of research, Wiki:
Sergei Rachmaninoff
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Rachmaninoff, in his later years, toured the United States
extensively, and remained there from 1918 until his death.
Sergei Vasilievich Rachmaninoff[1] (Russian: Сергей Васильевич
Рахманинов, Sergej Vasil’evič Rakhmaninov, 1 April 1873 [O.S. 20
March] – 28 March 1943) was a Russian[2]-American composer, pianist,
and conductor. He was one of the finest pianists of his day and, as a
composer, the last great representative of Russian late Romanticism in
classical music. Early influences of Tchaikovsky, Rimsky-Korsakov and
other Russian composers gave way to a thoroughly personal idiom which
included a pronounced lyricism, expressive breadth, structural
ingenuity and a tonal palette of rich, distinctive orchestral colors.
[3]
> I hope I'm not also mistaken in considering Rachmaninoff's music as
> containing many of the post-CPP harmonic devices I've been citing here
> lately, like bII+6 chords. When I hear some of Rachmaninoff's stuff, say
> on the radio, it often sounds very much to me like Great American
> Songbook harmony and/or jazz harmony.
> So it would appear that much of what I've been calling Romantic era
> harmony is really post-Romantic era harmony.
You are getting closer to the cigar, but you still have a ways to go.
You seem to think that the Great American Songbook and Jazz are NOT
part of the CPP. Hold on to your hat. Jazz IS CPP harmony. It is post-
romantic only in chronology. Jazz has the same chord types, same
functions, tonal, all of the elements are the same! There is within
the Jazz idiom a parallel to Post Romantic and this would be when Jazz
starts to break off into modal theory and other extended uses of
tonality. You could call it the post-bebop period or something of that
nature depending upon where you draw the line. Page after page of all
the fake books are FH chords after FH chords. There are as many II V I
cadences in Jazz as Bach has I IV V I cadences in his chorales and in
the earlier middle of Jazz, they used many of the same key areas for
modulation targets. Jazz it part of the CPP. Accept it for what it is
and move on.
> And I was also under the equally misguided idea that the Romantic era
> was post-CPP when it is actually considered to be late CPP.
> Always happy to admit when I've made a mistake and equally happy to be
> corrected, despite the nonsense that LJS says about me.
> Thanks again.
Lol, this is not a “mistake”. This shows a total lack of any knowledge
of the periods and developments of music. You have to acquire some
knowledge before you can make a mistake. This is simply, as you so
colorfully put it, “talking out your ass”. We have talked about this
over the years in this group. There was a debate about it. It had been
defined for you even in this and recent related threads in which you
participated. It only shows that you don’t read what I or anyone else
writes and you usually don’t even take the time to Wiki something as
major as that before you state it as FACT. Then later, if called on
it, we get your recent versions of Rosanna Danna’s “Never mind”. And
then you will compound it as you did with Wagner in a later post. How
can this repeated process be labeled a mistake? It is not thought out
well enough to be a mistake. With a mistake, you know something and
you mistakenly say something else. It requires a prior knowledge of
something before you can make a mistake concerning it. You were simply
TOOYA.
>
> >> I don't think I ever suggested that he was not writing within the maj/min
> >> key system. I don't believe I ever asked about that.
> >> What I asked about was whether or not the tools of CPP analysis were
> >> adequate to analyse his music, and evidently they are not.
>
> > It just takes a little more work than a typical Handel arioso is all.
And that is why, of ALL authors, you need to read Piston or the one
that JRL (or was it Orange) suggested as it might be easier to read
and still put CPP into a perspective that is more suited to your
understanding it as you already know (Lord, I hope that you know!)
something about Jazz theory. They are the same, just slightly
different languages.
>
> Some of the stuff I've just read makes a big deal about his "Tristan
> chord" as being an important break from CPP harmony.
Well, not a break so much as an extension. A lot of people have
problems with that. This motif is certainly that that drastic of a
step, but as he develops it and transforms it, he might go into some
fairly sticky business with the chromatic non harmonic tones and more
emphasis on the passing colors generated as these lines weave through
the basic harmonic structure and transforms as the development builds
in intensity. They might be referring to these colors created by the
non chord tones as being the break. This is probably the way you would
see it (if you knew something about it) as if you look at the problems
you would have if one started with your chordal notation of the
Tristan chord by the chords that you spelled, you will not be able to
ever quite get the analysis simple and in a CPP manner. BUT if you
look at mine, it fits quite nicely. Two NCs at fairly typical places
in the measures and you have a I Fr6 V. This it the simplest and most
CPPish example of the French6 chord and resolution that is possible.
> Some of the theories I've looked at, on Wikipedia, seem a little
> misguided to my way of thinking. Of course Wikipedia isn't really a
> reputable source for much of anything...
Lol, Yet you will still cite it as truth when it agrees with you!
Amazing! I would not be surprised if they did have some misguided
opinions although I am sure that we would choose different ones as
examples. Lol
> But, their example shows the chord F B D# G# and talks about it as if F
> is the root. Right off the bat that breaks with the tradition of "roots"
> being related to tertian stacks.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord>
> Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
> E7b5 in the next measure.
Good. And what is it that this tells you about function? I suppose
that you could call it a G7#5b9 although wouldn’t that be Spelled G
B D# F Ab. Maybe you did not notice the G# in the melody and just
decided to add the Gnat to the chord, but if you wrote it down that
way, it is likely that a Gn might be assumed in the Bass and that is
certainly not what Wagner wrote and would have an entirely different
sound. This would be a “mistake” that I would call a typo
(hopefully) and not say anything except “What!” and give you the
benefit of the doubt.
I would have thought you might call it it a G# B D# F chord, or a G#m
(add6) or an E# G# B D# chord, or an E#m7-5 and if you take the time
to work these out in RN in any key, the function is not very clear as
one would like. This choice of chord would suggest that a C chord
might be next in line, but it goes to an E7 so its function is rather
unclear and something else needs to be tried as this simply doesn’t
seem to work. Do you have a way to make this G chord work in a
functional manner?
BUT…
I would call it a B D# F A chord and call the G# the non harmonic tone
instead of the A. If it looks like a melodic leading tone and it makes
the measure fit perfectly with the accepted functional chord know as
the Fr6 and then an upward resolving non-chord tone and thus with
these two circles denoting the non chord tones (G# and A# in the last
measure) , in Jazz theory I think that you would call what is left a
B7-5 and not surprisingly it then resolves to an Emaj (or the V of
Amin) and the only thing that is not letter perfect with the totally
strict context of the CPP Fr6 resolution is that Wagner used the
chromatic line to lead directly to the V7 instead of resolving to the
Triad first and then adding the V7.
> I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other
> things going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making
> their claims.
> What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
> in C or A minor.
Lets look at the opening melody. If it is in C, it starts on the 6,
goes up a minor 6th to the 4^ and comes down to the 3^. But if you
look at it in A, then you have a 1 6 5 melodic line, all strong notes
and characteristic of a minor key and the next chord that comes in
just happens to spell a Fr6 and it goes to a V chord with the 7th
added. But in major it yields some rather strange harmonies that use
lots of those –‘s, b’s etc etc. Which key do you think might be the
most likely candidate?
Mine yields a I Fr6 V OR a I II V if you want to really strip it down
to very simple FUNCTION. It is a Tonic to a 2nd class to a 1st class.
The simplest function is I II V. The rest is really nothing more than
an elaboration of this simple function. You can use the Fr6 if you
like. There is only two small elements that separate this progression
from Haydn or Mozart or LvB or maybe more closely related to Bach! It
even has the b6 in the bass and it resolves as it is expected. (This
line is also a development of the opening resolution of the melodic
skip of the m6, but that is a different component and not FH) The only
difference is that it resolves to a 7th chord almost directly (there
is that second non harmonic tone on the first beat of that last
measure) and in the STRICTEST sense, the Fr 6 would
> Is it the opening of the piece or does it occur somewhere later on?
> If it's the opening, then what happens right after the "E7" measure.
Listen to the piece. This motive is more like THE ENTIRE piece. It
goes all over the place. You can look at this as a I II V that is
repeated and transposed and altered to create an extended song form
that would be very conducive to being the harmonic structure of a
major Jazz composition. Some of the developments of this harmonic and
melodic motif and the lines included are exploited in many different
ways. This would be a good place for you to start learning about the
rest of the world. It’s a lot of I II Vs with the b5 in the V7. You
start there and then you would see how Wagner stayed in this framework
as he transformed this motif into many different shapes and colors and
he still wove his way around to keep it CPP! It is the development
and the growth of this simple Motif that people refer to when they are
saying that it goes beyond the CPP and maybe starts to break away.
Wagner was late romantic and he was strongly into emotion and his use
of chromaticism makes it seem farther away from the CPP than it really
is. That component, the chromatic melodic lines is what makes this
tired old progression take on new life. At his time, it probability
sounded more revolutionary than it does now, but Wagner always seemed
to return to much more stronger CPP traditions as if he didn’t, his
audience might not have been able to follow it.
>
> >> I don't really care for Wagner's music, his theatrical ideas, his politics
> >> or his philosophy. And I don't have to.
>
> > Of course you don't.
But, how can you say that before you have any understanding of his
music? You like the II V I in jazz but not in Wagner. Lol, next you
will be saying that politics is a part of FHA as well as his
theatrical ideas. Lol. And yet, his music is so close to what you do
every day in your music.
>
> >>> and many other examples over the years.
> >> Talk about spinning things your way.
> >> You're just upset because a Berklee dropout like me keeps correcting you
> >> about the details of the music that you're supposed to be a specialist in.
> >> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
>
> > That is a label that some texts use. Harvard Dictionary of Music: "...The
> > first three are sometimes called (rather pointlessly) "Italian," German,"
> > and "French" sixth respectively...."
>
> Right. But in CPP-era music these sonorities only occurred on scale
> degree b6, not on scale degree b2. Or at least that's what I've been led
> to believe.
> So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis,
> without any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th
> above Sb6 being present in the chord. No?
> As far as I know, LJS was using "Ger" as a descriptor for bII+6.
Of course. How else could it be? But if you look at the UTexas site I
sent, they will give you an explanation and an example of how it
originated in the contrapuntal era as Phrygian cadence. In this
context, it is definitely a bII I. I mention this later.
>
> >> built on scale degree b2,
>
> > And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of Music.
HDM might not be Wiki, but it has been around a lot longer! Lol
>
> And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
> Scale degree #4 is not present in any version of bII+6 whether it be the
> Ger It or Fr version.
The French “version” is spelled in Amin is B D# F A. Isn’t the D the
#4 degree? You still don’t see that the bII of I is the same as the
bVI of V. And that is why I carefully pointed out to you previously
that the bII does not occur in the context of bII-I in the CPP but it
does exactly the same thing if you consider the V as the I. Maybe the
\ bII I/ V would make sense to you. But in both cases, the notes and
the progression is the same no matter what you call it. Some call it a
Phrygian cadence that came to us from the contrapuntal period. In the
Phrygian mode, CPP does have the bII I cadence. Since it is not the
strict Major/minor system I didn’t want to confuse you with too many
details, but the bII – I cadence actually not only predates the Jazz
version,, it actually predates the Fr6 as well as it goes back to the
late modal days when the conventions for CPP cadences were being
formed in the various modes, later to be incorporated into the Major/
minor system. This one happens to have found the most favor as going
to the Dominant since the use of the Phrygian as tonic was simply not
being used any more, but they still thought that this TTS was cool
back in the PRE CPP days.
> And if you want to call S#4 the "root" of bVI+6, then I can understand
> what you mean and why you'd say that (even though I heartily disagree
> with this whole tertian stack notion, and therefore with both you and
> Harvard), but please don't say that it's "built on" S#4 because that
> makes no sense.
You should supply a dictionary of how you need things defined for
you. Lol You still miss the boat however. As you remember (or maybe
you forgot already) it is the ROOTS in functional harmony that are
important AND combining this with another element of terminology that
created the shortcut of Gr6, Fr6 etc, as an EXCEPTION. You seem to
forget, or never considered, that in the time of mostly V I that this
idea of a tritone ( the diabolo de musica ) resolving in a different
way than they had forced themselves to learn to tolerate at all, that
it had to be notated like something that showed how it worked. For
Functional use, the “root” is the b6^. That is still a second class
cord, and by the way that the chord evolved was through part writing.
The parent progression would have been Key Cmin: F Ab C Eb to G maj.
This is where it gets the root name. It inherited it and yes it does
fit in tertian notation quite easily. So with the F in the melody and
the Ab in the bass, if you raise the Root F a half step, you have ^4#.
That is why it is spelled that way. But functionally, the Ab resolves
down to the Root of the V and the F# resolves up to the root of V.
( or down to the 7th of V as in the Tristan case) This is not so
apparent with the “figured bass” and thus, just as with the TT “Sub”,
a symbol was created to explain “a whole lot of things that were going
on” that are not readily apparent. So in order to understand the Fr6
or the TTS, you have to look at it separately. Then the symbol will
mean something and if you understand what the symbol means, you will
then be privy to all those cool things that make this a very
exceptional tool to spice up CPP harmony.
> If it's "built on" S#4 then it makes no sense to call it an "augmented
> sixth chord" because there is no aug 6th interval above F# in this
> chord. As I'm sure you know, the note situated an aug 6th above F# is Dx
> and I've never seen this chord spelled with Dx rather than with Eb.
If I ever said “built on” that would be a mistake. I would think that
I used evolved from , or started as, or something of that nature. I
only remember you using the term “built on”., but I could be mistaken
with my choice of words. But it does function as a ^4 even it it is on
the raised degree of this scale and since we are talking about FHA,
calling it a ROOT does not interfere with the function at all. The Ab
in the bass acts as a root in the Phrygian sense as it is the root in
the Phrygian sense. Is it too much for you to see that a chord could
be ambiguous enough to allow for both concepts
\
That is a really strange conclusion for that set of conditions! You
just blew any sense of understanding this whole thing right out the
window. You have forgotten so much so quickly and you are right back
to Theory = How do you spell this chord? What happened to all your
ranting about how it sounds, etc etc, Oh yes, I forgot for a moment.
You don’t bother to listen to any of this stuff. You just read about
it in Wiki. This is too OFF to even consider responding to what you
are saying.
>
> >>>> But I may pick up the Aldwell Schacter book at some point for more of a
> >>>> CPP-oriented viewpoint. It is a CPP-harmony-oriented text isn't it?
> >>> Another book that requires no actual listening?
> >> Thanks for your helpful comments about this book.
> >> Another book *you* haven't read?
>
> >>>> One of the things that I was surprised to learn about Delamont was that
> >>>> his RN designations were not the "standard" designations that I'd see
> >>>> the classical musos here using. For instance he likes to use UC/RN for
> >>>> the primary chords in both major and minor keys.
> >>>> Eg. With accompanying music showing a key signature of 3 flats he will
> >>>> label a Cm chord as "I" rather than "i".
>
> >>> And then a book report to show that you actually read something.
> >> And then a diss that is totally off base and irrelevant.
>
> >>>> His system requires its practitioners to know what the regular versions
> >>>> of the diatonic chords in the minor key are. Eg. In 3 flats he would
> >>>> label an Abmaj triad as "vi", and an Adim triad as vi(Irr) ["Irr" =
> >>>> "irregular"] and the accompanying musical notation would sort out any
> >>>> confusion.
> >>>> Etc.
This was all done by Piston and others before Delamont. It sounds as
if you are talking about Piston here!
>
> >>>> From LJS' recent comments about Piston's use of RN it seems to me that
> >>>> he's suggested that Piston used only UC/RN. Is this true?
> >>> Another astute observation. (on several levels) lol
>
> >>>> If so, then this would suggest to me that even within the classical
> >>>> community there is no bona fide standard textual protocol for labelling
> >>>> diatonic function via Roman numerals, although most folks here prefer to
> >>>> use UC for chords with maj 3rds and LC for chords with min 3rds. [And
> >>>> obviously Delamont's system is the most far-removed from a standard
> >>>> protocol that I've seen yet. It's very puzzling to me why he did these
> >>>> things the way he did them.]
> >>> If you understood what goes into a complete analysis, this would not
> >>> seem so strange to you. The quality of the chord means very little when
> >>> it comes to functional analysis.
> >> Really?
> >> I never realized that.
> >> I always thought that I chords had to be major chords and Im chords had to
> >> be minor chords. Live and learn, I guess.... Not.
>
> > Yes, that is correct,
>
> Nice to know I got something right!
But that correct statement has nothing to do with what is being talked
about. It’s that context thing again! the topic is FUNCTION and you
say that a Im chord has to be minor. Maybe you did not notice that
Piston (and almost everyone else at that time that had published, used
the simple upper case in either event. Your Im is not in either school
of thought. Im is a translation of a Cmin chord in the context of the
key of Cmin. The older notation used by Piston would be simply "I" in
a harmonic analysis as would be the same FUNCTION as a Cmaj in the Key
of C. Two totally different things. a V I will describe the same
function as a cadential G7-Cm or G-Cm or G Cmaj. The color does not
matter for the FUNCTION. A major chord is still a major chord and a
minor one is still minor. That is a definition of the chord color, but
the color doesn't matter in Functional Analysis.
>
> > and I like to know and, when I make an analysis,
> > convey that. So saying that, overall CCP, while not being bound by it,
> > firmly embraces the Tonic-Subdominant-Dominant-Tonic cycle, and the major or
> > minor or etc of the chord doesn't matter. Tonic chords will progress to
> > subdominant chords and will progress to dominant chords and will progress to
> > tonic chords, and "The circle, the circle of liiiiiife."
>
I see only one small point here and I bring it up only because of the
quick flash that passed through my head. Tonic chords can progress
anywhere (the IV is common) and will generally return through the
cycle of fifths. lol If Tonic chords HAD to go to the IV, everything
would be as if you were in an endless loop of the first two A sections
of Autumn Leaves and never make it to the bridge!! lol (I do,
however, understand you point, but I just got this flash of every time
you played music that it would be like playing a casual wedding! sort
of a musical Ground Hog day! Your point, however, is perfectly clear
and correct.)
> >>> It was the new thing in the higher
> >>> theory circles when he was writing his book.
> >> Chord quality was the "new thing" when Piston was writing his book?
> >> I see.
>
> > Making it a part of the analysis was the "new thing."
>
> What did an *harmonic analysis* of CPP-era music look like prior to Piston?
The same as it did in Piston as far as the notation went. . His was a
cumulative of what had gone before and IMO he tried to standardize the
process and make it more universal to cover the evolutionary changes
of the extended CPP period. Obviously, books written before the Post
CPP would not have the same conventions as those before the CPP and
Piston basically took all the older books that were being stretched to
accommodate the evolutions of the period and to provide a
comprehensive approach to the music that was written in the same tonal
tradition of the CPP so the newer pieces may have had additional
conventions, but the look would generally have been the same.
>
> >>> (As it was related to me)
> >> Another thing you learned second hand.
> >> You knew someone who knew Nadia Boulanger.
> >> You knew someone who knew Bill Evans.
> >> You knew someone who knew a Vegas arranger who taught you all about jazz
> >> big band phrasing.
> >> You know people who have played jazz.
> >> You know people who are real musicians.
Don’t you know people? You keep talking about “someone told you” or
“you heard somewhere” or “its been said” or “I thought” and you never
name anyone of these mystery sources. I tell you where I heard them
and then you try to use this as a defense that I, more or less, cite
my sources. I think the latest source you quoted was from Wiki. I will
address that particular one in due time. Who are these people that
have told you all these things that just are not true? Maybe you are
quoting anonymous people off the street?
> >>> and he was not sure how he wanted to use it. I BELIEVE, not really
> >>> sure of some of the details, that Nadia was using the UC/LC but he
> >>> decided to stick with the more pure form (or maybe conservative, in
> >>> the older meaning of the word) of Functional Analysis that presented
> >>> no distraction to the scope and nature of functional harmony, and that
> >>> was that the root movements were the most, if not only, important
> >>> factor of function.
> >> So in a root progression using scale degrees 1 6 2 and 5 the type of chord
> >> built on each root matters little and can be virtually anything including
> >> dim7 chords.
Conceivably it could although if you spent more time trying to make
sense of something rather than to see if you can make up an example
that you can’t find anyplace, then you would be the type of person
that will never understand the true nature of what is being said. But
still, you don’t quote any examples. Once you move into the post CPP,
theoretically it would be possible, but Joey, what exactly would that
have to do with anything?
> >> I see.
I know you don’t see, but this is certainly correct. The I could be
M,m Maj7, I6 or I9 I13 with any –s and +s that you want to add to
them. The II can be M (as in a secondary Dominant, oh yes, that might
be something that looked different after Piston although I am not sure
that he invented that) or a ii7-5 or a ii7 or may be a IV6
(enharmonically) and the same for the other chords. You CAN if you
want to wily nilly exchange them and they would all be the same
functional analysis. You can even voice only some of the extended
chords in such a manner as to create structures that would, taken in
isolation, be totally different chords. In C for example, the VI could
be an A C E G B D F chord and you voice it as A D G C F and if it was
in this progression, and this was the entire phrase, it would still be
a VI chord in a FHA. You may want to make a note of the quartal
structure if it is not a result of natural part writing, and you can
alter any of the notes (but the ROOT) and the FHA would still be the
same.
> > This is a part of the evolution since before there were major or minor or
> > whatever chords there were two separate lines, one above the other. Even so,
> > just considering root movement alone is an extreme that I'm not entirely
> > comfortable with, but, it is a possibility:
> > tonic-tonic-subdominant-dominant.
>
> Yeah, but LJS', comments if taken as offered, are implying that the
> tonic chord might be a dim chord or any other chord type because, "chord
> type doesn't matter".
You really don’t have any concept of context. It actually could be
that a diminished chord could be tonic. I don’t think that this would
happen in a Hayden concerto but if you look at Petruska there is a
very famous melody in the locrian mode and even with the planning of
the chords, a FUNCTIONAL analysis would clearly show that in this
case, IF one were forced to make a FA the tonic would be diminished (I
think in this case with a m7 as well) and the Dominant would be the
Amin chord. It is an extreme example and is not related to the context
of the CPP however but neither is showing how CPP analysis would
notate the bII-I before it was used either.
In CPP UC/RN language, the final Tonic chord is a I. This could be (in
C) a Cmin or a Cmaj or a Cmin(addM6) or Cmaj7 or C9 or even the C7 as
in the blues. They all would be labeled “I “ in this system of
notation in a FUNCTIONAL HARMONIC ANALYSIS.
>
> >>> Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds.
> >> How would Gmaj7 function in the key of C major then?
>
> > This is one of those times when it would depend on what came before it, and
> > what came after it. I mean, it could be a III7/iii. Which would be a
> > little odd.
No it doesn’t. If the hypothetical piece you almost quote has a Gmaj7
going to the Tonic chord of the piece was actually in C then the
Gmaj7 would indeed be a V chord. I know of no such example however, if
you are not just blowing smoke, and you can find one, I would be
surprised it a FHA did not show that it was NOT in C after all. You
allude to that in your post. If the Gmaj7 to C depends upon what came
before and after, then you are opening the door to its NOT functioning
as a tonic and this would make your initial response idiotic.
In early literature, you may find that there is an example that is
approached functionally in the tonality of G, then it might
functionally be a I-IV progression. Or it might occur on some obscure
section of the earlier Non functional contrapuntal modal era and in
that case, we are out of the scope of FHA.
>
> In my lexicon III7/iii, in C, if it meant anything intelligible at all
> (which it wouldn't), would be G7, not Gmaj7.
Thank goodness that sane people can still spell chords and keep things
in context! I believe Joey did the same thing with II/Gr6 / I when he
misspelled the II. Thanks for pointing out that it would have been
the Ab C Eb Gb that is actually is as I stated in the FIRST and
literal notation of the TTS. I was amazed that he made that spelling
mistake on the TTS even! I guess it was the Ger6 that threw him as he
must have learned it as a Gr6 instead. Lol
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Well if that's what he meant he'd only partially more correct.
Just because you have a chord comprised of pitches in the specified key
and it happens to have G in the bass does not make it a dominant chord.
LJS
wrote:
> "tom_k" <tkor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:rO-dnfxXHsEQOJPW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "J R Laredo" <jrlaredo...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
And both of you are certainly right. But in this particular thread,
Joey questioned the ability of CPP Functional harmonic analysis to
deal with this and other music using the tools of Functional
Analysis., I analyzed the Tristan for that particular reason. There
are many other opinions about this particular Motif as well as the
rest of the piece. MY point to Joey, and anyone else that does not see
the importance and the limitations of Functional analysis was that
Functional Analysis certainly CAN work with the example that Joey
found on Wiki. I think that a three RN descriptions and two NCT
circles is a fairly convincing argument that CPP functional analysis
works well on this piece.
You are correct that there are other ways to look at Wagner,
especially in his later works. There is lots of "fun" remaining in
T&I. I do believe that his sonorities are a result of his chromatic
approach to part writing. At least most of his development can be
easily seen to be tonal with the CPP tools once you isolate the NCTs.
Other ways to skin the cat? Certainly. Many of them seem to me to be
"fun" solutions and will USUALLY work only on selected areas of the
composition. Overall, he is very tonal and easily explained with CPP
tools.
LJS
LJS
> About Wagner's Tristan, nearly every author brings his "simple"
> solution (analysis) ;-) Here is the opinion of Smith-Brindle
> (Musical composition, Oxford university press, page 112) :
>
> <quote>
> A substitution note is a note which takes the place of a harmony
> note immediately adjacent to it (sometimes above, sometimes
> below). It does not belong to the basic harmony, which it tends
> to disrupt. It may or may not resolve on to the note it temporarily
> replaces.
> [...]
> A very simple [sic!] and beautiful example of the use of
> substitution notes may be found at the beginning of Wagner's
> *Tristan und Isolde*: [quoting the pick up bar plus 6 others]
> Here the commonplace cadence A minor - F7 - E7 is given a
> subtle mistery through the use of a few substitution notes as follows:
> in bar 2, G# is a chromatic substitution for A (on which it resolves),
> while B is a diatonic substitution for A or C, on which it does not
> resolve; in bar 3, A# substitutes chromatically for B, on which
> it resolves.
> </quote>
>
> [OMG, I never would have thought "substitution" being so hard
> to type several times - just try if you have doubts :-)]
>
> --
>
> midi - facsimiles - ligatures - mensurationhttp://anaigeon.free.fr|http://www.medieval.org/emfaq/anaigeon/
> Alain Naigeon - anaig...@free.fr - Oberhoffen/Moder, France
> http://fr.youtube.com/user/AlainNaigeon
Interesting, I am sure you noticed that in this quotation, that this
is a very tonal analysis. His choice of the older F as root is very
related to the Phrygian cadence, but when he renames the G# NCT as a
"substitution","substitution","substitution" (the copy and past works
quite well Merci! lol) the B becomes a chord tone. It is the Fr6,
complete with the proper spelling and bass note.
I never can understand why it is necessary to re-define a non chord
tone by making up another term, especially one that makes one resort
the the copy and past in order to spell it three times.
LJS
LJS
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
> > Some of the stuff I've just read makes a big deal about his "Tristan
> > chord" as being an important break from CPP harmony.
> > Some of the theories I've looked at, on Wikipedia, seem a little
> > misguided to my way of thinking. Of course Wikipedia isn't really a
> > reputable source for much of anything...
> > But, their example shows the chord F B D# G# and talks about it as if F
> > is the root. Right off the bat that breaks with the tradition of "roots"
> > being related to tertian stacks.
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tristan_chord>
> > Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
> > E7b5 in the next measure.
> > I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other
> > things going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making
> > their claims.
Well there may be a clue in the fact that there is no G in the chord.
and if you look at the resolution, and you see a passing tone that
once passed spells out a E7. What possible reason would you want to
include the A# in the chord? All I can think of is that you either did
not listen to the piece at all or you played a composite of it on your
guitar. Since the NCT of G# appears here as a new voice entering the
single line melody, there is room for one to hear that the G# is
something other than a NCT, but the A# really does not sound like a
chord tone at all nor does it look like anything other than a NC.
And where does that "G" note come from?
> > What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
> > in C or A minor.
> > Is it the opening of the piece or does it occur somewhere later on?
> > If it's the opening, then what happens right after the "E7" measure.
LISTEN TO IT.
>
> OK. Based on the key signature and the way it sounds I'm hearing it as
> being the key of A minor, assuming that there's an Am chord coming up
> somewhere sometime relatively soon.
One small step. But I think you are also saying that you still have
not looked up a score or listened to the piece at all or you would see
that it is indeed in A min.
>
> If so, then in Berklee-speak the Tristan chord could be seen as a
> tritone sub for IIm7b5, I suppose. [Usually the SubII chord would be
> SubIIm7 though, not SubIIm7b5, even in minor keys - at least in the
> music that I'm accustomed to that is the case statistically speaking.]
This from the same mouth that said it was not possible for CPP tools
to comprehend the TTS? But you are saying this in spite of it not
quite performing as the conventions of the TTS says it should? Isn't
that the same thing you said about the CPP-Speak? or are these things
allowed in the B-S and not in the CPP-S?
In re the ii7-5, you should take the time to hit the "discussion" tab
and see what is said about this as an isolated view of the CHORD. You
seem to be pushing the context of the Tristan Chord into the context
of the Functional Analysis.
>
> But, because of the presence of the leading tone, I tend to hear it the
> way I think that one of the Wiki-cited theorists did, namely as E7 with
> a couple of unresolved appoggiaturas.
I don't know if you realize it or not, but the comments you are
referring to in the article are GENERALLY about that one chord, the
controversial chord that is highlighted in the example. It ASSUMES
that, even though this assumption differs from Wagner's own opinion
of what he write, the G# is a chord tone. The controversy concerning
the TC is over this one chord and has nothing really to do with the
Functional Harmonic Analysis of the piece. It is in the manner of "IF
you assume this, THEN we can discuss Wagner as an innovator of new
tonality. It seems from the overall tone of your statements that you
are not considering this and you are now talking about this ONE
isolated chord and not talking about the function.
The whole idea of the G# belonging to the chord is that the G# is
longer than the usual suspension (anticipation). Thus, if you did not
hold that note so long and went to the A sooner, then there would be
no discussion of this sort about this motif. It is the same as if one
would be insisting that a V7 with a 4-3 suspension is the forerunner
of quartal harmony but only if you think that it is held the proper
amount of time to be quartal. This is too subjective to be a part of
FHA.
>
> It's an unusual chord to be occurring in A minor. I suppose it does
> point to the modern era in that it's more colouristic than strictly
> functional within that key.
>
> There's lots of ways that this chord could be thought of.
> I can also see it as bVI+6(Fr) (F A B D#) with an appoggiatura (the G#)
> below the A nat. But that's a pretty long duration for an app.
Not really to Wagner or Bach. And how long exactly would it have to be
in order to be an anticipation (or app.)? its currently 5 eighth notes
long going to an 8th note resolution. If it were 3 + 3, would that
make it an app.) or if the app. were only one 8th long, would it then
be a NCT? In the next measure, that chromatic passing tone is only one
8th long and you called it a b5? One measure has one set of rules for
the length and the last measure a different set of rules? Please
explain!
>
> It's acoustical root is Db or C#, but seeing it as a Db or C# chord
> simply doesn't parse well in A minor.
I assume you are thinking to add the Db to the F Ab Cb Eb make it a
Db9. And correctly stated, it does not Parse well in Amin. But why try
to add a different bass note to the ii7-5 that you use as an example
in the B-S example.
> It's kind of like what we call a side-slip in jazz circles in the sense
> that it's like an Abm6 chord, kind of like a chordal appoggiatura below
> the tonic chord.
>
> It's kind of like a bunch of things without really being exactly any one
> of them.
Or I guess you mean "there is a lot going on there that is in your TTS
analogy (that almost fits!)
>
> I'm not wild about the sound of it, but it's kind of cool anyway.
What is you opinion of the same chord upon its resolution to the
"F7-5" at the last 8th note of the measure? Are you not wild about
this sound either but its cool anyway? and are you wild about the
sound of a V7-5 resolving to a V7?
LJS.
LJS
Sorry, Joey. There are just too many misquotes and too many changes of
context to even start to sort out all of your misconceptions in this
reply.
If you actually would listen to the piece or if you would analyze a
few things to see how the tools work, maybe you could make statements
that actually had an answer. When you reply to something in an
entirely different context and you don't understand the tools and how
they work together when the individual layers of the components of
analysis are combined, there is simply no answer. You are very good at
coming up with "have you stopped beating your wife" questions. I am
beginning to think that you MAY not be doing ALL of this on purpose.
As the questions you pose mount up, it is clear that you just don't
understand.
Maybe when you analyze with the Berkley-Speak language applied to
Berklee music it might make some sense. I have yet to see an example
of how you do this. I have only seen you trying to apply B-S language
to CPP and it simply never comes out good.
I will continue to point out things that I see, but I will not even
try to address posts like this until you can talk about the material
contained. If you have specific musical questions about anything I
said, I will address them. Make it short. and I will try to answer it
in the same spirit you pose it and with back up or explanations of my
reasons, but your tiradial posts is just "in the past" as far as I am
concerned.
LJS
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:42:01 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to
>>> the key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional
>>> within the primary key and are either an indication that secondary
>>
>> V/V *is* a functional designation.
>
> It's a functional designation for a chord *from another key*, a
> secondary key. We don't analyse it as being a part of being a bona fide
> key change because it does not last long enough to dislodge the tonic of
> the primary key from the ear.
duh. Of course it doesn't really matter how long it lasts.
> "V/V" would be meaningless if the key of V did not possess a V chord to
> begin with within its set of diatonic chords.
All keys, whether major or minor, possess the V and V7 chords of the
same exact type. In minor, the raised seventh degree is a given. That's
where the term "harmonic minor" comes from. How can you be so far off
about something so fundamental?
>
> "IIm" or "ii" is not a functional designation? Are you serious?
They designate nothing but a supertonic minor. That conveys
no information pertaining to functional harmony or the lack of it.
LJS
> >> Orangeboxman wrote:
> >>> True.
> >>> Mel Bay is actually a good prelude to Piston.
> >> Is there a Mel Bay classical harmony book out there or something?
> >http://books.google.com/books?id=aYJTD97Hx70C&pg=PT1&dq=mel+bay+music...
>
> > Is the one I was referring to.
>
> I missed that I guess.
> What did you say about it?
> Just glancing at it, it doesn't look like a very good book.
>
> > There may be a more classical oriented
> > one, but in re: Delamont. Don't you think that you have had enough
> > Jazz theory already.
>
> Delamont's harmony books are not jazz harmony books.
> They're contemporary Tonal harmony books. I guess they'd have to be
> classified as being geared towards post-CPP Tonal harmony, but they are
> definitely not jazz harmony books.
>
> > And from a fellow Canadian and only designed for
> > Jazz.
>
> Keep talking. As usual you don't know what you're talking about.
>
> > Doesn't seem to be really popular with people.
>
> It's pretty popular up here as well as elsewhere.
>
> > You wrote a book
> > didn't you?
>
> Is that your way of dismissing Delamont?
Not at all. He was tucked away in a small Canadian community, he did
teach privately, he write a book. I thought maybe you studied with him
and was merely making the comparison thinking that maybe this is why
you swear by him. If he taught you, then you may be prone to follow
in his musical footsteps.
> First of all, you haven't read his stuff so you're talking out of your ass.
> Secondly, you haven't read my book either.
His books seem to be very hard to find and he offers no preview. I
would not pay $50 for a book on your recommendation. I can see the
conclusions you draw and quite frankly, they are not very coherent
when they come to CPP, especially this Romantic period under
discussion.
You say that his book is a great text of Romantic Era harmony but
written with jazz and popular musicians in mind. Yet, you ask if
Wagner is tonal. You haven't as yet presented an analysis that works,
and you couldn't put Rachmaninoff's music in the proper period because
he wrote music that was several decades old and he spiced it up with
some more modern techniques. As you say, if you want to understand how
to analyze classical music, you have to listen and study classical
music.
I listen to Jazz. You don't seem to listen to Classical very much at
all.
>
> > Your problem is your comments and lack of understanding of Classical
> > Theory and the way we notate it.
>
> I know. And yet I seem to know more about it than you do.
> What's that say about *you*?
Nothing. Just consider the source.
>
> > It has been pointed out by at least a
> > half dozen people recently that this is your area of "needing some
> > more study on this topic"
>
> I believe that you're the only person trying to point that out and each
> attempt has been filled with nonsense and mis-information.
> If I don't understand something I either stay out of the conversation or
> I ask questions of those who do understand it. That's what *you* should
> do a lot more of.
And sometimes, you don't even understand that they echoed my
statements! lol Do a LITTLE bit of study, Joey, this is embarrassing.
>
> > but you then tell us that we don't know what
> > we are saying and prove it by quoting some jacket liner comments about
> > Delamont!
>
> You're the one who's all caught up in an old out-of-date way of looking
> at things. [The "root" of Ab+6 is F#. Give me a break.] You're always
> talking about how I should open my mind to all the nifty new things you
> know about music. But you're just spouting off the same old tired shit
> that's been going on in conservatories since the 30s, and you get it
> wrong much of the time.
Joey, IF I were wrong, you would not know it unless someone told you.
How many people have to tell you that in FHA that is the way you look
at the chords. Sometimes we don't. There are NO absolutes that are
true in ALL the cases, and thank goodness for that. Music would be
very boring without ambiguities. If you would only do a little bit of
study, you would see this. You really DO have enough information to
put it all together. Don't be afraid of study. It WILL NOT make your
prior lack of study and misinformation worthless. It will only give
you ways of actually USING and understanding the things you think you
know.
In short: Study and Understand, good! , Misinformation and hearsay,
bad!
And when I actually come out here with some
> newer ideas that are relevant to newer music than the CPP you jump all
> over me for not interpreting it in CPP terms and conventions.
Do you think that what you say is NEW? What, pray tell, are these new
ideas?
And I think that it is YOU that claim that we can't account for this
"new" thing with CPP that starts the ball rolling. I always say that
you should try to use what you ACTUALLY KNOW and you respond with how
everyone else knows nothing.
>
> *You* should be listening to *me* if you want to learn something new
> about music, especially if you want to have some kind of clue about what
> is going in in jazz, which you do seem to have some investment in. I'm
> the only guy around here with any new ideas. *You* are just spouting off
> a bunch of crap you learned in school 50 years ago that you didn't
> really understand. So are many of the others here. Just because you
> studied classical harmony in school and passed the course doesn't mean
> that you understand the ramifications of that subject for actual music
> making. You confuse taking a course at school with being a musician. Lol.
Wow! I learned all of that in a couple of years! Even I didn't think I
could do that. When exactly was Take the A train, and Satin Doll
written? I remember your using this as an example to show this "new"
TTS notation a while back. Of course, Duke got these sounds from
classical music, so I don't know where all this "new" stuff from. What
is this "new" you are talking about?
>
> Some of the thigs I talk about here are things I learned in school too.
> But I never just accepted what was told to me without thinking about it
> and without entertaining other viewpoints. Some of the things I talk
> about here were learned from reading books in the many years after
> school. Some of it was learned on the bandstand by experience. Some of
> it I've made up myself by coming to certain realizations after years of
> music making.
> I don't care if the stuff I say can be backed up by some other source
> text or in some school course. All I care about are the ideas. And if
> someone can show me that my ideas are not sound then I'll have to change
> my ideas.
>
> > Isn't this what is called: doing the same thing over and over again
> > and expecting to get different results?
>
> Look in the mirror dude.
lol I see this laughing face! but I don't look over and over and
expect to see someone else! If your jazz theory can't explain the CPP
then your solution is to look for another Jazz book. Try some analysis
and listening. Then talk to me, you just can't give an opinion of your
own and support it.
>
> > If you want to understand
> > classical theory you need to study some classical music books!
>
> What in the world makes you think I want to understand classical theory?
> I want to understand music, period, especially music written in the
> maj/min key system.
Err, this discussion for one. Your insistence that *your* way of doing
things are better than the classical way of doing things for another.
If you didn't jump in with strange ideas about classical music, we
would NEVER have these kinds of discussions!
>
> > If you
> > could learn classical music by studying Jazz books, it would follow
> > that Classical players would learn Jazz by studying classical books.
>
> Exactly! *You* think you understand jazz but you've never studied any
> jazz either from books or from recordings or by studying how to play it
> with an experienced jazz musician. Yet you go on and on and on as if
> you're some sort of jazz expert because you know someone who knew Bill
> Evans. Sheesh.
> I don't claim to understand classical theory or classical music.
YES, YOU DO CLAIM THAT! What do you think this whole thread started
out to be?
That's
> what *you* claim to understand and that's supposed to be your area of
> expertise. But routinely here, time after time, I seem to know more
> about these things you try to talk about than you do.
lol You are truly a legend in your own mind. You should write fiction.
Oops, you do!
>
> > Do you ever play back what you say and think about what you are really
> > saying?
>
> Yes I do.
> Do you?
>
> > If you ever actually read a classical harmony book, did you actually
> > listen to any classical music?
>
> I'm not interested in classical music from the CPP.
> I've listened to plenty of music from the classical tradition at various
> points in my life. Not so much these days.
> Much of the stuff I hear from the CPP bores me generally, except maybe
> Bach. I lean more towards the 20th Century guys, the guys who knew CPP
> harmony but were not bound to it and were searching for more interesting
> harmonies and rhythms.
Name a few. Give some examples. Talk is cheap.
>
> > If not, then none of it will make any
> > sense at all.
>
> It all makes perfect sense. Classical harmony from the CPP is not rocket
> science. Modern developments in harmony, even jazz harmony, are much
> more complex.
But you never "put up". You say you understand it over and over and
over, but you never give any examples to back it up.
>
> > Classical harmony books are about about things that
> > classical musicians deal with on a technical level, but if you have
> > never heard CPP, you won't have a clue as to what these techniques are
> > really used for. The techniques of analysis in good theory books can
> > be applied to jazz and other types of music but if you don't spend
> > time studying these ideas in a traditional CPP setting, you will most
> > likely be missing the point.
>
> If and when I feel the need or desire to know these things on that level
> then I will of course study them.
> In the meantime, if you try again to describe to me the details of the
> music from that era please try harder to get it right.
hmm, you don't like the music. You have not studied it. It is boring.
you don't know anything about the real language to deal with it, yet
we are to believe that you can tell if I am saying something right or
not. lol what more can be said.
Type less. Make
> more coherent sentences. And try not to make so many factual errors.
> And try to not be such a dick all the time. Lol.
Study some, learn something about what you are talking about and most
likely, you will still be a dick. rotflol
LJS
J R Laredo
Well, I did, didn't I? Once I realized the problem I did acknowledge it and
I will keep trying to keep things straight. That being said, if you somehow
decide to refer to other texts, what are you going to do? Refuse to bother
reading them, no matter how useful and insightful they might be, until
someone buys the rights and edits them to your liking? Your use of symbols
is consistent but I don't see it as superior to what has been developed over
the preceeding 400 years or so.
It is a matter of convention and definition. An augmented 6th always has
the same structure so it is a given what the root of the chord is, and would
be redundant.
> And if F# is the "root", then there is no maj 3rd above that root (this
> chord has a dim 3rd above its root), so I'm wondering why you're using an
> UC/RN as opposed to a LC/RN?
This symbology is based on figured bass. The RN refers to the root and the
numbers refer to the pitches up from the bass, not from the root. In this
case the Ab is in the bass, the next note up is C, which is a third.
>
>>> Ditto for what I've been calling bVI+6(It), eg. Ab C F# - in C.
>>> I.e. You would label my bVI+6(It) as "#IV+6(It)" (if you were so
>>> inclined to include a RN descriptor), right?
>>
>> IV6#
>
> Again, why IV rather than #IV?
> Again, why UC/RN?
>
>>> And it seems that because you see the "root" of what I've been calling
>>> bVI+6(Fr) [eg. Ab C D F#) as being on D you would label this chord as
>>> "II+6(Fr)" (if you were to include a RN descriptor), right?
>>
>> 6#
>> II4
>> 3
>
> Why not "4#" rather than "4"?
Just convention, and to not confuse it with the doubly aug 4th.
>
>>> Lastly, what I've been calling the alternate spelling for bVI+6(Ger)
>>> [eg. Ab C D# F# - in C] is a chord that you see as having its
>>> "root" on D# and you would therefore label it as "#II+6(Ger)", right?
>>
>> It is called a doubly augmented fourth and would be
>>
>> 6#
>> II4#
>> 3
>
> Why "II" rather than "#II" or "#ii"?
It is just the convention.
> Why "4#" rather than "4x"?
It is just the convention.
Then they are not augmented sixth chords. The definition is quite specific.
If they don't resolve the way an augmented sixth chord is defined to
resolve, then, they aren't. They are something else. And that something
else would depend on what is going on in the music.
You see, the reason the chords are written with an augmented sixth, which
is, enharmonically, a major seventh, is the way the interval resolves.
Normally a major seventh in standard voice leading contracts: with a Gb
above an Ab, the normal sonic pull is for the upper pitch to step down to
the F in the next chord. However, writing it as an augmented sixth, Ab
below an F#, shows that the intent is for the interval to expand stepwise to
an octave.
LJS
> J R Laredo wrote:
> > "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> >news:19c66$4b0e25eb$adceee64$24...@PRIMUS.CA...
> > Well, some theorist look at the enharmonic spelling, so it would be, and a
> > slight reorganizing, F-Ab-Cb-Eb.
>
> >> Being a jazz guy, it looks to me like G7#5b9 or Fm7b5 or Abm6 moving to
> >> E7b5 in the next measure.
> >> I'm sure that this view is not correct and that there must be other things
> >> going on in the music for the Wiki-cited theorists to be making their
> >> claims.
>
> > It all boils down to: is that G# the chord tone, or is the A the chord tone
> > with the G# being the appoggiatura? Which can also affect the way it is
> > performed. That is what the main arguments revolve around.
>
> Well if the G# is seen as an appoggiatura below the A, then the entire
> chord can be seen as a French aug 6th chord, no?
Yes, I think everyone has said that by now, its rather hard to deny.
> I guess *you'd* say (and other from your tribe - lol) that this aug 6th
> chord is "built-on" and/or has its "root on" B, right? I.e. In "root
> position" it would be B D# F A, right?
Actually, Joey, we would not normally talk about it in either way.
They are the same chord no matter how you name it. This particular one
is known as the Fr6 and by definition, it is a II chord. But you keep
talking about "Built"on. I think if you though of it more like the
classical tribe uses the term might make sense. The notes are ARRANGED
into the tertian chord format. Ambiguous chords can have more than one
root and extensions can sometimes logically be arranged in different
ways with different spellings. What is you obsession with this?
Yes the defined root of the Fr6 arranged in tertian format is B and it
is a first inversion chord.
> I learned about that sonority through Delamont's books and he would say
> that the "root" is F and that the chord is built on F. But if Delamont's
> take on this is not the standard take, which is evidently the case with
> a lot of his stuff, then I suppose that even though I think his take is
> a better take I'll just have to play along.
In classical terms, you are saying that Delamont is taking the pre CPP
viewpoint that this is a version of the Phrygian cadence. In
functional terms, that is about the only way you can approach the Fr6
and call it a bVII chord. Of course, then if you resolve it like a Fr6
what exactly ( except for the conventions of notation) is the
difference?
> His RN designation would be bVI+6(Fr).
Well, if he were older and said it first, maybe history would have
been changed. But he wasn't so he is merely re-defining the one that
has been in use since the get go. Is this the example of how he can
present the Fr6 to the Jazz players and Popular musicians? I can see
this as a way to notate it for Jazz Guitarists, but it really does not
tell what is happening in the Fr6.
> Yours, if you felt the need to include a RN descriptor, would be
> II+6(Fr), right?
No. this one is wrong. It would be notated as a II #4/3 chord and if
there was a score, you would see that the b6^ is in the bass or if
not, because you studied it before, you would know that this would be
the case. You did not look at the U.T. site did you. It would clear up
a lot of your misconceptions of what the classical view and history of
the Aug6 is.
>
> >> What is the primary key at this point in the piece? They have it notated
> >> in C or A minor.
>
> > This is the opening of the work, and in A minor.
>
> Thanks. That's what I figured after listening to it, playing it, and
> thinking about it a bit more.
Well, I suppose that this is some progress. Did you play it on the
guitar with guitar voicings or did you play it on the piano and play
all the combinations of the various melodic lines in this short piece
so that you could get an idea of a NON chordal approach to his voice
leading?
>
>
>
> >>>> Tell us again about how "Ger" in a CPP analysis means an aug 6th chord
> >>> That is a label that some texts use. Harvard Dictionary of Music:
> >>> "...The first three are sometimes called (rather pointlessly) "Italian,"
> >>> German," and "French" sixth respectively...."
> >> Right. But in CPP-era music these sonorities only occurred on scale degree
> >> b6, not on scale degree b2. Or at least that's what I've been led to
> >> believe.
>
> > It's a matter of definition. The 6 not only refers to the interval that
> > resolves out to the octave, but also the inversion. So the second note up
> > in the chord from the root is in the bass. Since these chords by definition
> > embellish the dominant the bass note will be b6 and that would make the root
> > to be #4. For two of the chords. The other two the root is 2 or #2.
>
> > In C, the two with root being #4 are:
> > Ab-C-F# and Ab-C-Eb-F#.
> > The two with the root being 2 or #2 are:
> > Ab-C-D-F# and Ab-C-D#-F#.
>
> OK. Let's try top clear up the confusion in our descriptors here. I'll
> try to see it your way....
> It's clear to me now that what I've been calling bVI+6(Ger), eg. Ab C Eb
> F# - in C, is a chord that you see as having its "root" on scale degree
> #4 of the key.
> And if you were going to assign a RN to this chord it would be "#IV+6",
> right?
> Ditto for what I've been calling bVI+6(It), eg. Ab C F# - in C.
Well, we normally would not call it a #IV6/5 as this doesn't mean
anything. This would imply a Major chord built on F#. We call it a Gr6
to avoid confusion. But we generally talk to people that knows this or
that will click the links provided to learn the real definition in the
context that is being discussed.
> I.e. You would label my bVI+6(It) as "#IV+6(It)" (if you were so
> inclined to include a RN descriptor), right?
Again the same as above.
> And it seems that because you see the "root" of what I've been calling
> bVI+6(Fr) [eg. Ab C D F#) as being on D you would label this chord as
> "II+6(Fr)" (if you were to include a RN descriptor), right?
Just as above, we don't call it a bVI chord, it is a II 4/3 chord. So
your main premise is not correct. This would almost work with the Gr6
when translated into your tribe's language, but even then it really
does not tell us anything about the function.
> Lastly, what I've been calling the alternate spelling for bVI+6(Ger)
> [eg. Ab C D# F# - in C] is a chord that you see as having its
> "root" on D# and you would therefore label it as "#II+6(Ger)", right?
This must be some typos. This really don't make any sense. Is this
>
> >> So, the short-hand text "Ger", if used in a CPP-oriented analysis, without
> >> any other descriptors, would mean the bVI+6 chord with the P5th above Sb6
> >> being present in the chord. No?
I think that No is the proper answer but this question is too poorly
presented to be certain. What is your definition of a Sb6? and where
does the P 5 come in except that it is in the chord.
>
> > No. It is defined as a IV6#53.
>
> Sorry. I don't understand what you mean by "IV6#53".
>
> > If it is any consolation, when I first
> > learned these it was with by the name.
>
> Sorry, but I can't parse the above sentence.
>
> > It wasn't until later that it was,
> > "Oh, by the way, these two have the root on #4 and these on 2 and #2."
>
> >> As far as I know, LJS was using "Ger" as a descriptor for bII+6.
No I did not. A couple of times, I explained it as being related to
the bII if you considered the music to be in the temporary key of the
V. That is 180 degrees from your mis-quoting of my statements here.
Conveniently omit the context of the Dominant and it sounds like that.
What do you call that? Spinning? Mis quoting? Lying? Ignorance? All I
know is that is not what I said except in that context.
So now that this is cleared up, no matter who is right or wrong, with
this correction, do you still stand by that comment?
>
> > If he was, he was using a protocol that I am not familiar with. Not to say
> > it doesn't exist, but, new one to me.
lol, By your own admission, you don't know the protocol! Almost
everything we have been talking about is new to you! You never studied
it in the context that it was written. You have only studied second
hand explanations of other Jazz musicians. If you, a Jazz musician,
can't understand the classical protocols after studying it only with
Jazz musicians, ALL of our methods are new to you. Maybe they don't
understand it either in its original settings!
>
> Well so far, as far as bona fide harmony texts or institutions are
> concerned, the only place I've seen it is in Delamont's book.
> It seems a pity to me that more classical muso types have not adopted
> this notion because it seems pretty cogent to me.
Well of course it does. You don't have anything to compare it to! All
you know is his way. You don't know it in the other several thousand
texts that have addressed this in the idiom in which it was written!
Why don't they flock to his way? Maybe because in the classical world,
his way does not work better.
>
> But, you'd see the "root" of this chord as being on the leading tone, right?
> So what I've been calling bII+6(Ger) [eg. Db F Ab B - in C] would be
> "VII+6(Ger)" in your world-view, right?
>
> >>>> built on scale degree b2,
> >>> And, it is built on, by definition, #4. Again, Harvard Dictionary of
> >>> Music.
> >> And again, you're talking about bVI+6 and I'm talking about bII+6.
>
> Again, just for clarity's sake, up to this point in our conversation,
> when I wrote "bVI+6" I meant Ab C Eb F#, or Ab C D# F#, or Ab C D F#, or
> Ab C F# - in C.
> When I wrote "bII+6" what I meant was D F Ab B, or Db F G B, or Db F B -
> in C.
> OK?
>
> > Well, I don't know. You said, "Ger" and that means in my list of
> > definitions a German augmented sixth, and every source I have in my library
> > defines it, if it were spelled out in the key of C, Ab-C-Eb-F#, and they all
> > call the root to be F#.
> > The way I would spell out a bII+6 is F-Db-A
>
> You would? Not sure where you're getting those notes from.
> Based on your notions of the "roots" of these types of chords, I would
> have thought that you would have seen "bII+6" as meaning (in C):
> Db Fbb Abb Cbb - for the Ger,
> or Db Fbb Abb - for the It,
> or Db F Abb Cb - for the Fr,
> or something like that. Lol.
>
> >> I think you might not understand what either LJS is saying about this
> >> descriptor or what I am saying about it.
>
> For the record... I might not have understood what LJS' descriptors
> meant either. It may even be that he never really meant to post the
> analysis I have attributed below to him. But that's the way I understood
> his comments at the time.
>
> >> LJS' analysis of my progression was as follows
> >> C:
> >> I ii7/Ger Ger I
> >> C / / / |Abm7 / Db7 / |C / / Fine
>
> > Oh, dear. I don't think I agree with that, not at all. Unless I am missing
> > something, the middle two spell out Ab-C-E-Gb and Db-F-Ab-C. If I am
> > mistaken, please let me know before I stick my neck out any farther.
>
> FYI
> The chord symbol "Abm7" means Ab Cb Eb Gb.
> The chord symbol "Db7" means Db F Ab Cb.
> I'm not sure what "ii7/Ger or even "Ger" is supposed to mean in this
> context, but whatever it means it doesn't seem to be the right analysis.
You don't know what it means but it must be wrong. Lol.
this was, maybe poorly illustrated, intended to show you the "format"
of how to write it if one was to use a variation of the Sub\iiV/ V
when one was using the Gr6 as a Dominant function (as it would have to
be in order to be a bII of any kind) I could have explained it more
clearly. Well, there you have it. A mistake of context in a very far
reaching attempt to show you something using speculative analysis. My
main mistake was some how thinking that you could see that. Well, you
got me! That's one for you. lol
>
>
>
> >>> In the key of C, a Ger would be built on F#. Sooooooooooo, a ii7/Ger
> >>> would be G#-B-D#-F#, enharmonically, b6, or Ab-Cb-Eb-Gb.
> >> Yikes.
> >> If looked at that way his analysis makes both more sense as well as much
> >> less sense. Lol.
> >> If that's what LJS really meant then the whole thing is even more warped
> >> and divorced from what is really going on musically than I thought.
> >> For one thing if the "Ger" in "ii7/Ger" on beats 1 and 2 of bar 2 refers
> >> to F# Ab C Eb, then wouldn't it mean that the "Ger" above beats 3 and 4 of
> >> that bar refers to the same sonority?
> >> For another thing, if you're going to allow for enharmonic spellings, then
> >> there is no need to spell any of these aug 6th chords as aug 6th chords in
> >> the first place.
See above. (aside) I do, however, find it a bit peculiar that Joey
gets into this absurd speculative example so deeply. I wish he would
get into the texts that he recommends even a small iota as deeply.
>
> > The enharmonic spellings would be for ease in either analysis or
> > performance. You know that some intervals are easier to play at a glance
> > than others.
>
> Sure, but the whole notion of the augmented sixth chord hinges on the
> correct spelling and the correct traditional voice-leading, no? If you
> allow for enharmonic spellings then these chords can just be seen as
> dom7 chords with roots on Sb6, no?
I don't think so, but I really don't understand what you mean by Sb6
>
> --
LJS
> J R Laredo wrote:
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net>
> > Newsgroups: rec.music.theory
> > Sent: Thursday, November 26, 2009 8:56 PM
> > Subject: Re: Advice for Joey
>
> >> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> >>> J R Laredo wrote:
You are the only one that would ever come to that conclusion. No one
said that it would make it a V chord except you. I said that the Root
is the important part of function and not the color. You said: Oh
yeah! What about the Gmaj7 chord in C. I replied: show me and example
and I will make it more clear to you.
Result:
NO example.
A stupid response.
Another's response explaining how you missed the context
And then a half assed retraction. (btw-- "he'd only partially more
correct" and you criticize MY sentence construction.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
> On Nov 26, 3:42 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> Sorry, Joey. There are just too many misquotes and too many changes of
> context to even start to sort out all of your misconceptions in this
> reply.
Thank God!
Joey Goldstein
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:45:10 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:42:01 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to
>>>> the key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional
>>>> within the primary key and are either an indication that secondary
>>> V/V *is* a functional designation.
>> It's a functional designation for a chord *from another key*, a
>> secondary key. We don't analyse it as being a part of being a bona fide
>> key change because it does not last long enough to dislodge the tonic of
>> the primary key from the ear.
>
> duh. Of course it doesn't really matter how long it lasts.
I'm not talking about the duration of V/V.
I'm talking about the duration of time spent within the key of V.
>> "V/V" would be meaningless if the key of V did not possess a V chord to
>> begin with within its set of diatonic chords.
>
> All keys, whether major or minor, possess the V and V7 chords of the
> same exact type. In minor, the raised seventh degree is a given. That's
> where the term "harmonic minor" comes from.
What does minor key harmony have to do with V/V?
> How can you be so far off
> about something so fundamental?
How can you bring in so much irrelevant nonsense into a simply idea?
>> "IIm" or "ii" is not a functional designation? Are you serious?
>
> They designate nothing but a supertonic minor. That conveys
> no information pertaining to functional harmony or the lack of it.
I see. Lol.
LJS
> Joey Goldstein wrote:
> > J R Laredo wrote:
No, No, No! You did not come up with an example. You made a statement.
I pointed out the context as being FHA and I said that I did not know
of any examples of this occurring. I then asked for an example from
literature and they the convenient clipping and misquoting starts.
Where is your example of TONAL CPP harmony that has this situation? I
don't see it as yet. I gave you my example of a chord that has a G7
with an added F# (melodically) and explained how this did not fit
your supposition of there existing a Gmaj7 in tonal harmony. They
write it, our tribe analyzes it and tries to explain how it works and
why it works. If no one wrote it, we would not generally analyze it,
for obvious reasons, and we would not try to explain something that
doesn't exist.
LJS
LJS
> LJS wrote:
> > On Nov 26, 3:42 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> > Sorry, Joey. There are just too many misquotes and too many changes of
> > context to even start to sort out all of your misconceptions in this
> > reply.
>
> Thank God!
Your welcome. lol
Joey Goldstein
Yes you did. Thanks.
And you and I are actually communicating with each other, which is much
better than the other types of interactions that tend to go on around here.
> Once I realized the problem I did acknowledge it and
> I will keep trying to keep things straight. That being said, if you somehow
> decide to refer to other texts, what are you going to do? Refuse to bother
> reading them, no matter how useful and insightful they might be, until
> someone buys the rights and edits them to your liking? Your use of symbols
> is consistent but I don't see it as superior to what has been developed over
> the preceeding 400 years or so.
You're right.
I first learned about classical harmony (and species counterpoint) in
1st year at Berklee, but I wasn't ready for it, didn't understand it
(although I easily passed the courses), and put it out of my mind as
quickly as I could because it wasn't relevant to my own music making
activities at the time. It seemed particularly irrelevant to playing
jazz or rock guitar at the time, to me. I regret that.
When I stumbled onto Delamont's books many years later it was a great
awakening for me because I was a much better musician by then and I
realized that all of the part-writing techniques could often be applied
to guitar as long as the music stays within the practical range of the
instrument. This was my only exposure to these types of concepts or
voice leading procedures since my 1st year at Berklee.
I was delighted in some ways (and aghast in other ways) to see his
explanations of the augmented sixth chords and how closely this related
to the Berklee-esque notions of the SubV7 chord while also being quite
different. It's from Delamont that this "bII-augmented-6th chord" notion
that I've been trying to talk about here comes from. It's fine notion,
believe it or not.
There were a great many eye openers in Delamont for me, considering the
musical background I had at that point.
It's disheartening though to see, as the years go on and I talk to more
people from the classical tradition, how far his text deviates in
several key areas from standard practice in the classical community.
Nearly all of his ideas and techniques are based on CPP practice. But
he's got some newer notions stuck in there here and there and he doesn't
tell the reader when he's deviating from commonly accepted notions. Plus
his use of Roman numerals is the weirdest one I've seen yet.
Still, most of his actual ideas are sound, and the general effect of his
books is enlightening.
But I suppose I'll have to find a more standard text to read through if
I'm going to be able to successfully converse with you guys about this
stuff.
OK.
But they do resolve that way. It's just that they resolve to the tonic
chord rather than the V chord (or the tonic 6/4 chord on its way to V).
B > C
F > E
Ab > G
Db > C
or
B > C
F > E
G > G
Db > C
> They are something else. And that something
> else would depend on what is going on in the music.
>
> You see, the reason the chords are written with an augmented sixth, which
> is, enharmonically, a major seventh,
That's a typo, right?
You meant "minor seventh", right?
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:45:10 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>
>>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:42:01 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to
>>>>> the key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional
>>>>> within the primary key and are either an indication that secondary
>>>> V/V *is* a functional designation.
>>> It's a functional designation for a chord *from another key*, a
>>> secondary key. We don't analyse it as being a part of being a bona
>>> fide key change because it does not last long enough to dislodge the
>>> tonic of the primary key from the ear.
>>
>> duh. Of course it doesn't really matter how long it lasts.
>
> I'm not talking about the duration of V/V. I'm talking about the
> duration of time spent within the key of V.
A distinction without a difference. If you are doing a few pages
in another key, you should probably use a pivot chord. Remember
pivot chords? I haven't been in Piston since 1962 but I still
remember those. Your "Duration of time" has no effect on that particular
V/V.
>>> "V/V" would be meaningless if the key of V did not possess a V chord
>>> to begin with within its set of diatonic chords.
>>
>> All keys, whether major or minor, possess the V and V7 chords of the
>> same exact type. In minor, the raised seventh degree is a given.
>> That's where the term "harmonic minor" comes from.
>
> What does minor key harmony have to do with V/V?
!!!!
in C, c d e f g a b c: V7 = g b d f
in C minor, c d eb f g ab b c: V7 = g b d f
Joey Goldstein
> On Fri, 27 Nov 2009 19:49:20 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>
>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 21:45:10 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>
>>>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 04:42:01 -0500, Joey Goldstein wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Chords that have functional designations also have to be diatonic to
>>>>>> the key. Chord-types that have non-diatonic tones are not functional
>>>>>> within the primary key and are either an indication that secondary
>>>>> V/V *is* a functional designation.
>>>> It's a functional designation for a chord *from another key*, a
>>>> secondary key. We don't analyse it as being a part of being a bona
>>>> fide key change because it does not last long enough to dislodge the
>>>> tonic of the primary key from the ear.
>>> duh. Of course it doesn't really matter how long it lasts.
>> I'm not talking about the duration of V/V. I'm talking about the
>> duration of time spent within the key of V.
>
> A distinction without a difference. If you are doing a few pages
> in another key, you should probably use a pivot chord. Remember
> pivot chords? I haven't been in Piston since 1962 but I still
> remember those. Your "Duration of time" has no effect on that particular
> V/V.
Err. Yes it does.
If a bona fide modulation to the key of V has occurred then it's really
just V in the new key, not V/V in the previous key.
>>>> "V/V" would be meaningless if the key of V did not possess a V chord
>>>> to begin with within its set of diatonic chords.
>>> All keys, whether major or minor, possess the V and V7 chords of the
>>> same exact type. In minor, the raised seventh degree is a given.
>>> That's where the term "harmonic minor" comes from.
>> What does minor key harmony have to do with V/V?
>
> !!!!
>
> in C, c d e f g a b c: V7 = g b d f
>
> in C minor, c d eb f g ab b c: V7 = g b d f
>
> Regards, daveA
>
V/V, when used as a descriptor for a chord that occurs in piece whose
primary key is C major or C minor, refers to a chord that has dominant
function in the key of G major. Minor key harmony has absolutely nothing
to do with V/V.
If we were talking about V/ii you might have a point. But it would still
be irrelevant to the point that you were trying to make when you jumped
into this thread.
LJS
That's really sad. With three more years at Berklee you did not have
to take ANY classical theory classes? I had no idea that they were
that out of touch. Even way back then. Even the Duke studied classical
theory and this is what gave him a lot of his distinctive sounds.
>
> I was delighted in some ways (and aghast in other ways) to see his
> explanations of the augmented sixth chords and how closely this related
> to the Berklee-esque notions of the SubV7 chord while also being quite
> different. It's from Delamont that this "bII-augmented-6th chord" notion
> that I've been trying to talk about here comes from. It's fine notion,
> believe it or not.
> There were a great many eye openers in Delamont for me, considering the
> musical background I had at that point.
Like I said. That is really sad. But you know, you had a choice. You
could have studied on your own even if your school let you down.
>
> It's disheartening though to see, as the years go on and I talk to more
> people from the classical tradition, how far his text deviates in
> several key areas from standard practice in the classical community.
Yet you insist on using him as your guru even though everyone keeps
telling you this.
> Nearly all of his ideas and techniques are based on CPP practice.
Since Jazz is CPP harmony, what else could it be based upon?
>But
> he's got some newer notions stuck in there here and there and he doesn't
> tell the reader when he's deviating from commonly accepted notions.
Two things in this one sentence. 1) you are describing a rather poor
teaching technique. The author or teacher , if he is being honest,
should tell you when he is using his own "take" on something. To not
make this distinction is really honest. But you do say that he
explains romantic harmony with a Jazz and popular musicians in mind.
Personally, I would not dummy it down for these musicians. There is no
reason to assume that they need to be taught special. They are
perfectly capable of learning the real language and applying it as
they see fit. You are making him sound like a Preacher rather than a
Teacher.
and 2) If you think that the ideas you have presented are new, you
are mistaken. You have not presented any new concepts except his funny
notation. See below.
> Plus
> his use of Roman numerals is the weirdest one I've seen yet.
So if he is using weird RN and you understand this, have you
considered that possibly that he is really not the best source to
teach you the functional harmony of the CPP?
> Still, most of his actual ideas are sound, and the general effect of his
> books is enlightening.
You READ and maybe even STUDIED his books! If you would try that with
some of the classical harmony texts that you recommend to your
students, maybe you would have the same "enlightening" experience. I
never suggested you just take my word for it. I always suggested that
you look it up and study it for your self. It sounds like this was not
your Delamont experience. He fed you weird notations about the music
that we all studied and you ate it up.
> But I suppose I'll have to find a more standard text to read through if
> I'm going to be able to successfully converse with you guys about this
> stuff.
Duh, I told you that the first time I read you posts. The fact that
you did not know what you were saying really didn't seem to bother you
though. There are free libraries all over. All you had to do was to
make the effort. You can use your own recommendations to start.
Hindemith's Craft ad Schoenberg's Fundamentals are both fine books. I
think that Piston's harmony would be better for you based upon your
experience. They all would be a stretch with your limited background
in the basics of classical theory, but Piston's book would fit more
closely with the basic fundamentals that you got from Delamont and
would be easier for you to translate his weird RN into the proper RN.
If you are accurately portraying his teachings, he is using all of the
same standard harmonic concepts, but with a really off beat and
somewhat limited way of looking at it. Put what you have learned from
Delamont into the Piston RN and you will start (hopefully) to get an
understanding of what Function really is and what a powerful
understanding of everything you think you have learned as well as how
you can use it to make your playing easier and to give you avenues to
progress farther than you ever thought possible.
Of course, if you don't actually do some study and follow up on what
you have said, then all of this post is just "crocodile tears" and you
will not learn anything. The ball is in your court.
LJS
Joey Goldstein
Based on what I've read here, from you especially - but also from
others, it hardly seems to me that Delamont has "dumbed" anything down
at all. Quite the contrary.
He seems to have addressed, quite successfully, many of the stupid
counterintuitive nonsensical bullshit notions that still pervade the
musical view of classically trained, CPP-blinded, folks like you... like
not having an augmented 6th chord available on Sb2 for instance.
[And if you had any reading comprehension at all you'd know by now that
when I write "Sb2" I mean scale degree b6.]
I'm just surprised that so many of his notions are not understood or
accepted by people like you. It's really a shame.
And I'm upset with myself for my naivety for not realizing that
Delamont's stuff is not the standard-fare classical theory I thought it
was, and for talking about it here as if it was standard fare.
The fact that I didn't understand some of the descriptors you folks use
for things like augmented 6th chords does not mean that I do not
understand the concepts at the heart of it. The fact that I think the
notion of the aug 6th chord is filled with too much bullshit does not
mean that I don't understand it either. It means I understand it and
still think it's filled with too much bullshit.
The fact that I don't agree with the notion, found mostly in the
classical-music-world-view, that chord roots must always involve the
lowest note of a stack of thirds doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that I've
had poor training. It means that I disagree with that notion and with
all the other nonsensical bullshit that notion leads to. That's true
when I hear a non-classical musician say the same stuff. It's a common
enough notion. I just don't agree with it.
The fact that I do not cite examples from CPP-era music for the ideas
that I discuss is irrelevant to the things that I tend to discuss. I
supply my own examples when I need to make a musical point. This notion
that someone in the CPP must first have written something in order for
it to find its place in one of your Tonal harmony texts is complete and
utter bullshit IMO. Of course it's important to study the masters of any
art form. But the idea of "theory" in your world is really just
"harmonic technique". Your CPP-oriented harmony texts describe the
techniques that CPP-era composers happened to use in that era. They
appear to be impotent when it comes to far too many techniques used in
Tonal harmony from beyond that era. [But having just glanced through the
Piston book's TOC he appears to have a fair bit of material dealing with
post-CPP notions of Tonal harmony. So perhaps I'll live to eat those words.]
My interest is in modern notions of the maj/min key system and in modern
music written within the maj/min key system that is far too often
breaking the rules of strict CPP-era notions of harmony and can not be
meaningfully analyzed without seriously re-vamping existing standard
notions within the CPP analysis community. This type of re-tooling does
not appear to exist within your community although you insist that it
does. All I've seen here is *you* scrambling to come up with stuff that
looks like it fills that void. The other folks here, like Tom and J.R.
seem to be happy to admit that things like a Db7-C progression can *not*
be analyzed using the conventions of CPP-era analysis and are happy to
leave that sort of thing to people outside of the classical music
community. But all I'm going on is what I've seen here. I'm guessing
that this ng might not be the best place to learn about this stuff. Lol.
This is why people like Delamont come along. And I'm thankful for it.
This is why schools like Berklee come along.
It has nothing to do with dumbing anything down.
What it has to do with is people in your world being seen as stodgy
stubborn unyielding out-of-date and irrelevant as far as he needs of the
vast majority of modern musicians are concerned.
The only reason *I* have right now for wanting to read a CPP-oriented
harmony book is so that I can talk to fools on the Internet like you and
make myself better understood. And why I'd want to do that is anybody's
guess. There has not been a single classical harmonic concept that has
been discussed here lately for which I have not had a firm grasp. I
messed up on the chronology of some composers and I used some slightly
different notions about the "roots" of augmented 6th chords from those
held by the rest of you.
And that is all.
Delamont has given me a very good education in Tonal harmony, better and
more modern-looking than what I probably would have learned from you, or
J.R., or from any of your teachers.
I'm sure you don't see it that way.
But I do.
Orangeboxman
People who hurt my feelings are bad at music theory.
Orangeboxman
Is there a Mel Bay classical harmony book out there or something?
When I first took music theory on a whim in high school, the material
was a set of books called 'Master Theory',
which I recall as being by Mel Bay; also the publisher of the more
substantial guitar book for the guitar class
I was taking at the same time. If you have someone around who is
competent to correct your work in the 'Master Theory' series, you can
basically go at your own speed.
Applying guitar lesson material to theory class and theory lesson
material to guitar class was VERY helpful,
although I have never really learned to play guitar, among my various
other instruments.
After the 'Master Theory' series (which seems rather insipid in
retrospect) and the experience of learning to spell
out guitar chords from theory straight to the instrument without any
reference graphics, I then had the mental training wheels to move on
toward Piston.
What you use for a book, though, will always matter less than whether
or not you extract the salient points from it.
The one thing that I consistently saw as a predictor of success level
in theory while observing beginning theory students in college was
whether or not they had learned to write out the circle of fifths from
memory (thank you, Mel Bay).
That is my first criticism of Aldwell & Schachter: their book alludes
to the circle of fifths ONCE but never actually even bothers to show
it. Meanwhile, they intend to prepare students to study Schenker
without first assuring they even really understand how all the
possible key areas are related.
LJS
quite a while, so I will do some responding.
On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> Based on what I've read here, from you especially - but also from
> others, it hardly seems to me that Delamont has "dumbed" anything down
> at all. Quite the contrary.
> He seems to have addressed, quite successfully, many of the stupid
> counterintuitive nonsensical bullshit notions that still pervade the
> musical view of classically trained, CPP-blinded, folks like you... like
> not having an augmented 6th chord available on Sb2 for instance.
> [And if you had any reading comprehension at all you'd know by now that
> when I write "Sb2" I mean scale degree b6.]
Since ^b6 has been used in this thread up to now, the last line should
have been sufficient. but that's Joey for you.
OK, maybe he does address these some of these things successfully. We
just haven't seen them here. I don't know. I have not read his book.
Just as Russel, it is very difficult to get past the lack of examples
and the hype to see what he is about. In Russell's case, one of my
friends from S.America sent me a pdf copy of Russell and I saw that my
assumptions from those that studied him were correct. Maybe it will be
a different story if I could read Delamont's book. BUT from your
descriptions, everything that you have said falls somewhat short.. You
are closer than you think, but there is still some fundamental
concepts of music and analysis that just are not there.
What do you think is the most clear and in depth analysis of the T&I
motif posted under the title of "Tristan Chord". Remember that with
the Functional Harmonic Analysis that we are concerned with the whole
motif and we are starting only with what it there and without any
isolation of that one particular chord decision to be gospel. The
"Tristan Chord" controversy is a speculative analysis of that
particular chord used by theorists to show a connection to that
particular sonority created by the chromatic lines superimposed over
the basic Functional Chords and composers of the future. Although it
may be true that with or without Wagner's knowledge he may have
inspired Schoenberg or others to take it a step farther and to work
with the chromatic lines WITHOUT the underlying Functional aspect
being a factor, but this would be something other than a Functional
Analysis.
So, what would be Delamont's FUNCTIONAL analysis of these 3 and 1/6th
measures?
>
> I'm just surprised that so many of his notions are not understood or
> accepted by people like you. It's really a shame.
> And I'm upset with myself for my naivety for not realizing that
> Delamont's stuff is not the standard-fare classical theory I thought it
> was, and for talking about it here as if it was standard fare.
We understand them. We just don't see them as particularly helpful or
informative. You, by your own admission, are not a rocket scientist on
classical theory. I am saying that you are missing a lot because of
this. We (I) understand what you are saying with Delamont's system,
but so far, nothing quite seems to give a clear picture of what is
happening.
Please give a Functional Analysis of the motive so I can be
enlightened to the good qualities of Delamont's system. I would really
like to see that the Jazz theorists ARE capable of analyzing ALL
music. I just have not seen it as yet in any of your explanations so
far. Show me one and I will either say, "Great! now I see what you are
saying!" or I will ask for further explanations if I think that it is
lacking in some way and I will give you exact reasons why I think
so.
>
> The fact that I didn't understand some of the descriptors you folks use
> for things like augmented 6th chords does not mean that I do not
> understand the concepts at the heart of it. The fact that I think the
> notion of the aug 6th chord is filled with too much bullshit does not
> mean that I don't understand it either. It means I understand it and
> still think it's filled with too much bullshit.
I think that this has been pointed out time and time again by not only
me, but everyone that cares about you enough to put up with your
bullshit.
>
> The fact that I don't agree with the notion, found mostly in the
> classical-music-world-view, that chord roots must always involve the
> lowest note of a stack of thirds doesn't mean I'm wrong, or that I've
> had poor training. It means that I disagree with that notion and with
> all the other nonsensical bullshit that notion leads to. That's true
> when I hear a non-classical musician say the same stuff. It's a common
> enough notion. I just don't agree with it.
This is where context comes in. Functional Analysis is concerned with
HOW and WHY. It is not about the colors of a particular chord. The
only instance you seem to have a problem with is the Aug6 chords. A
simple look at the UT site, should clear this up a bit. Here is the
link again <http://www.utexas.edu/courses/mus612b/fmain/fdocs/notes/
augsixth.html#french> scroll up and down to see the other chords in
this class.
If you carefully read the posts, you will see that most of the time
(not all but at least a lot) I say that you are just mixing up
contexts. As I have pointed out, this is because you refuse to learn
enough of the language to keep the contexts straight or maybe Delamont
doesn't care about context. I don't know until you provide us with a
Functional Analysis of this work. Then maybe we can help you to see
what the music world for the past 400 years or so has been talking
about. As of now, you really don't understand a lot of what is going
on.
>
> The fact that I do not cite examples from CPP-era music for the ideas
> that I discuss is irrelevant to the things that I tend to discuss. I
> supply my own examples when I need to make a musical point. This notion
> that someone in the CPP must first have written something in order for
> it to find its place in one of your Tonal harmony texts is complete and
> utter bullshit IMO.
Well, in this case, your opinion is simply wrong. You don't give
examples and you are again mixing contexts. You give "statements" like
"What about a Gmaj7 in the key of C?" that is not an example, that is
a speculative statement unless you can show the entire context of the
Gmaj7 actually being in the key of C. I have never seen this in
reality. The unanswered question is "Is this indeed in C?" and "Is
this an example of functional harmony.
Unless you give enough information to show that this example is
relevant in the CONTEXT of a tonal progression using Functional
chords, then it is not an example. It is simply two chords that could
be anything. As it stands, these two chords in succession is NOT in
the functional context. It could be modal. It could be something that
is not properly labeled as being in C. It could be anything without
more to show its context. In order to have a chord progression be an
example, you wold have to include what came before and maybe after in
order for this to be considered an example.
On the other hand, if their has not ever been a composer in the CPP or
extended CPP to use this "tonal" progression, then there may be a
reason for that. That most likely would be that it is NOT functional
and thus would not be covered by CPP tools. If you look at Hindemith's
Craft, one of your recommended books to students, you may find
something like that in there or maybe in his music someplace, but if
you can find that specific one, I will be surprised if it is
traditional functional and you would have to use the 2nd Class/1st
Class/Tonic tool to relate it to Functional chords of the CPP. In
either case, IF you allow this post-CPP harmony in a CPP discussion
THEN this tool would be also included in the CPP tools for this
particular discussion and this tool has NOTHING, absolutly NOTHING to
do with either chord color or roots. It is generally used to describe
tension and relaxation of non-functional harmony.
I am sure that somewhere in Delamont there is another way to talk
about this type of harmony. Maybe you could show how Delamont would
have addressed the "Gma7 C" chord and then we could have an insight as
to how he would handle your "example".
>Of course it's important to study the masters of any
> art form. But the idea of "theory" in your world is really just
> "harmonic technique". Your CPP-oriented harmony texts describe the
> techniques that CPP-era composers happened to use in that era. They
> appear to be impotent when it comes to far too many techniques used in
> Tonal harmony from beyond that era. [But having just glanced through the
> Piston book's TOC he appears to have a fair bit of material dealing with
> post-CPP notions of Tonal harmony. So perhaps I'll live to eat those words.]
Well, there is some truth hidden in there to some of what you say
here, but one of your context errors is to compare Harmonic Technique
to Theory. That is YOUR definitions, it is not ours. Harmonic
Technique would be the same as CONVENTIONS. The harmonic technique or
conventions is but ONE component of many in Harmonic Theory and
Harmonic Theory is only one section of Theory.
Superimposed on the functional theory aspect are other considerations.
OUR theory, (if you must make it US vs THEM) includes the CPP and all
of its components, the Contrapuntal music, the Modal periods, the
Chromaticism leading to atonality, and all of these have some common
and some specialized tools to account for all of the nuances of music
that has been written and analyzed.
Your statement seems to indicate that it is YOUR philosophy, or
Delamont's that is limited to this aspect. If you studied more
classical theory you would see how out of place it is in the context
you stated.
>
> My interest is in modern notions of the maj/min key system and in modern
> music written within the maj/min key system that is far too often
> breaking the rules of strict CPP-era notions of harmony and can not be
> meaningfully analyzed without seriously re-vamping existing standard
> notions within the CPP analysis community. This type of re-tooling does
> not appear to exist within your community although you insist that it
> does. All I've seen here is *you* scrambling to come up with stuff that
> looks like it fills that void. The other folks here, like Tom and J.R.
> seem to be happy to admit that things like a Db7-C progression can *not*
> be analyzed using the conventions of CPP-era analysis and are happy to
> leave that sort of thing to people outside of the classical music
> community. But all I'm going on is what I've seen here. I'm guessing
> that this ng might not be the best place to learn about this stuff. Lol.
And interesting shift (or spin) of your previous posts.
Orangeboxman
"root" actually means.
Please allow me.
The root is the member of the pitch class set which will create the
least implication of further contrapuntal
movement when realized in both the highest and lowest positions of the
actual voicing.
LJS
Sorry, it got posted by mistake before completion. I will pick it up
later when it comes through the system and I can respond to my own
post and continue with addressing your concerns and mis-conceptions of
what has been said in this and related threads.
LJS
Orangeboxman
general, because it just spells out the actual chord quality every
time.
There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred
to.
It's a not-indecent utilitarian compromise, sure.
The structure and suggested voicing of the chord are provided without
contingency on the larger context.
This will usually make it easier to play without first analyzing it
functionally.
OTOH, for the same reason, these chord symbols fall short of being
directly useful for analysis,
but require to be further considered and probably re-notated for
explanation in context.
In terms of removal from contextual implications being an advantageous
analytic starting point, though,
I might ask why one shouldn't just go all the way and use pitch class
set theory. It makes, in and of itself,
absolutely no claims about roots, inversions, extensions, etc. It
completely explains structure, but does
nothing to try to dictate function, especially based on an unstated
canon of other musical examples (as is done with the jazz chord
symbols).
Orangeboxman
Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds. You can listen
to it to see how it sounds. You can read the music if you want to know
the notes. Its all about roots and part writing. Mostly roots. It is
not about color.
Not that I at all support what you're arguing against here, but...
While I agree that functional harmony is not about majors and minors
(or suspensions or extensions, etc.),
I disagree that it's primarily about roots.
The use and disuse of roots in the outer voices of tonal progressions
provides degrees of closural and nonclosural contrapuntal definition
in tonal harmonic progressions. But the essence of functional tonal
harmony is the implication
that two tones at (an interval usually described as a tritone) will
proceed in simultaneously in opposite directions,
each by a small interval. Without this, there are no 'dominants', and
functional tonal harmony is about 'dominants',
not about the 'tonics' which are used to resolve them in the most
predictable manner. The reason that church modes
have 'finals', including the possibility of 'final triads', rather
than 'tonics' is that the 'dominants' in church modes are not
tonal dominants such as would be produced by the grammatical treatment
of the 'tritone' as I have described.
What Wagner and Schoenberg have in common is the presumption that
listeners will grammatically default in reference to a conditioning in
listening to protestant church music; music in which dominant function
is practically always operant in some way.
Wagner assumes that all chords conforming to dominant structure will
also have dominant function and will therefore need to resolve. He
thus uses their presumed failure to resolve as an element of dramatic
suspense for hours at a time
without ever much reminding listeners of their function by letting
them be heard to resolve (which might at least reinforce the reference
grammar he is trying to invoke).
Schoenberg's music is also really about the larger idea of the
dominant as being anything that implies resolution to a tonic. His
serialism is not about 12 tonics, really; it is about the partial de-
verticalization of all possible NON-tonics.
tom_k
"Orangeboxman" <Jo...@orangeboxman.com> wrote in message
news:c995c43a-a1bf-4f66...@g31g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> I might ask why one shouldn't just go all the way and use pitch class
> set theory. It makes, in and of itself,
> absolutely no claims about roots, inversions, extensions, etc. It
> completely explains structure, but does
> nothing to try to dictate function, especially based on an unstated
> canon of other musical examples (as is done with the jazz chord
> symbols).
>
For the same reason that we don't use a 6 line staff where lines denote one
whole-tone scale (0,2,4,6,8,10) and spaces the other (1,3,5,7,9,11)! Also,
PC set notation would seem to be a re-invention of the wheel for music which
is clearly CPP tonal.
Regarding inversion, doesn't Forte's concept of prime form require that set
inversion is an equivalence? This would be misleading at best with 2nd
inversion tonal triads.
Tom
Orangeboxman
V/V *is* a functional designation. II or IIm is not. You obviously
*completely* misunderstand it, since you say the exact opposite.
>I II III is not functional harmony.
I II III is not necessarily structural harmony in that it does not
necessarily show structure.
It is functional harmony in that, inasmuch as it means the same thing
as I ii iii or i ii0 III,
the '2' and '3' must inevitably refer to '1' in order to have any
meaning distinguishing them from
each being their own '1'. To say that something is a weak kind of
functional harmony is different
from saying that it is not functional harmony at all, and this
difference matters... to me at least.
I V/V V, OTOH is definitely functional harmony, even if it does not
show, structurally, that 'I' is 'i'.
Orangeboxman
> was a Romantic era composer.
>Exactly what period do you think Rachmaninoff belongs to?
When I used to hang out with the late clarinetist Don 'Mad Dog'
Wright,
(Harriet gave him that name when Don proposed to her on his way to
deliver her to Ozzie)
he told me all about being the son of a wealthy newspaper owner who
had all kinds of important guests around all the time, including
Enrico Caruso
and Sergei Rachmaninoff.
Mad Dog was drinking and playing jazz by the age of 12 and insisted he
repeatedly saw Rachmaninoff
jamming in after-hours clubs, trying not to be recognized while
hammering out massive chord extensions.
When the guy in 'Shine' starts getting into his Rachmaninoff thing
about 'BIG CHORDS!',
you can pretty well bet they are jazz chords learned and/or developed
in U.S. jazz venues.
'Romanticism', indeed.
LJS
And interesting shift (or spin) of your previous posts. We have not
been scrambling. You do not see how the b6^ to 5^ is the same in
function to the b2^ to 1^. Only upon your insistence that the
explanation HAS to be in YOUR language, (even though at the same time
you are asking for how WE would take care of it!) do we try to force
it into YOUR language. If you call this scrambling, then I guess we
are guilty. If you want to see how WE see it, however, "you have to
learn 'um our language, white man". lol
>
> > This is why people like Delamont come along. And I'm thankful for it.
> > This is why schools like Berklee come along.
> > It has nothing to do with dumbing anything down.
> > What it has to do with is people in your world being seen as stodgy
> > stubborn unyielding out-of-date and irrelevant as far as he needs of the
> > vast majority of modern musicians are concerned.
Quite simply and logically there are two ways to answer this.
1) you do not know our language so you are not qualified to make this
statement either FOR or AGAINST it until you actually can understand
what we are saying.
2) You can provide the examples in YOUR language that I asked for and
then WE can see the wisdom of their statements and apologize for our
ignorance.
So far, neither has occurred.
BTW, do you have polls to indicate how many modern musicians there are
and their demographics? I know that in history you are not even in the
ball park here. And then IF your statement would be true, the next
question is "What music is exemplified by these musicians?". Pop
musicians would be in this "modern musician" categories as would be
Broadway shows, some Bollywood, the EMI musicians (especially the
modalists) the American style pop in all the Asian countries as well
as the more modern music of South America.
I don't know how many of these people what ever system that they do to
learn to understand their music. I suspect that you don't either. Such
a broad unsupported statement without any facts, however, exemplifies
the lack of substance to back up your unsupported statements about
theory as well.
>
> > The only reason *I* have right now for wanting to read a CPP-oriented
> > harmony book is so that I can talk to fools on the Internet like you and
> > make myself better understood. And why I'd want to do that is anybody's
> > guess. There has not been a single classical harmonic concept that has
> > been discussed here lately for which I have not had a firm grasp. I
> > messed up on the chronology of some composers and I used some slightly
> > different notions about the "roots" of augmented 6th chords from those
> > held by the rest of you.
> > And that is all.
No, that is not all. You "messed" up the fundamental premises under
discussion and you still stated them as facts in an authoritarian
manner
and you refuse to answer any questions or provide any clear examples
of your statements. You just state things and if anyone disagrees,
you start to cry and rant and rave.
Give us some examples or give us a complete analysis of those 3 bars
plus an 8th note. Then we have something to talk about. All of your
talk, talk, talk but not the analysis.
>
> > Delamont has given me a very good education in Tonal harmony, better and
> > more modern-looking than what I probably would have learned from you, or
> > J.R., or from any of your teachers.
Finally a truthful statement. If you listen to Delamont and you don't
listen to anyone else, it is true that you would not learn anything
from JR, me or Tom or Piston, or Hindemith or Schoenberg or Bernstein
or ANY one that does not echo what you "already know". You claim not
to be interested, but how many posts have you written on this topic
that you don't care about? Millions maybe? lol
>
> > I'm sure you don't see it that way.
> > But I do.
And you will continue with that myopic view until you learn to listen
to the people that take the time to discuss things with you. As I said
about 5 years ago. You already know everything, you don't think you
have to learn anything more. Isn't that the same message of El Weirdo
that has now made it big or something thing. (And we have had as many
clear examples of his views as we have of yours!)
Give us an example of your best stuff. I gave an account of this
example, Tom has, I think maybe someone else has. Where is YOURS?
LJS
tom_k
>
> When the guy in 'Shine' starts getting into his Rachmaninoff thing
> about 'BIG CHORDS!',
Because of his BIG HANDS?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifKKlhYF53w
Tom
Orangeboxman
> inversion is an equivalence? This would be misleading at best with 2nd
> inversion tonal triads.
'Equivalence' is imprecise. Individual tones in one collection in a
composition are understood to have different relationships with other
individual tones in other collections in the same piece, relating to
their relative positions in their respective set forms, and in
consideration of the relationships between the different sets.
There is no end-to-end procedure that guarantees one will show what is
important to see in a composition simply by
picking out whatever mathematical relationships one decides are
important. This sounds like a pain in the ass, but it also frees up
the diligent analyst to look more in earnest for what the salient
relationships are and how they can be explained mathematically.
Moreover, there's nothing in the taxonomic system, itself, which
either requires or prevents
an analyst from partitioning a composition into interlapping streams
of diagonal material if that is the most compelling
way to illustrate some point he can compellingly make about something
he wants others to consider for some reason.
In a way, because the taxonomic system can be so easily abused (but
not persuasively; bet on that), it puts an important burden on
analysts to decide to analyze the right aspects of the composition for
some chosen purpose. By definition, SOME mathematical relationship
will ALWAYS exist between any two things which can be measured
numerically. The challenged to PC set theorists is to consider which
possible mathematical relationships have some kind of
extramathematical significance. For example, nothing actually requires
PC set theorists to ignore the comparative degree to which a series of
sonorities conforms to the harmonic series; a point which CAN be made
using PC set theory if that happens to be a point to make. It simply
is not taken as an automatic starting point in treating a previously
unanalyzed composition in PC set theory, as it tends to be in one form
or another using most other analytical systems.
'Equivalence' in terms of 'inversion' as Forte uses it is also
imprecise.
For example, a pitch class set which includes some form of a smaller
pitch class set would not necessarily include some inverted form of
that set.
A set class and its inversion DO have the same interval vector, and
they DO have the same number of inclusions to any larger set which is,
in itself, inversionally invariant. So, mathematically, the
relationship between a set class in its inverted and non-inverted
forms is not an arbitrary point of interest.
Joey Goldstein
> Well, this is as close to a discussion that I have seen from you in
> quite a while, so I will do some responding.
>
>
> On Nov 28, 12:38 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>> Based on what I've read here, from you especially - but also from
>> others, it hardly seems to me that Delamont has "dumbed" anything down
>> at all. Quite the contrary.
>> He seems to have addressed, quite successfully, many of the stupid
>> counterintuitive nonsensical bullshit notions that still pervade the
>> musical view of classically trained, CPP-blinded, folks like you... like
>> not having an augmented 6th chord available on Sb2 for instance.
>> [And if you had any reading comprehension at all you'd know by now that
>> when I write "Sb2" I mean scale degree b6.]
>
> Since ^b6 has been used in this thread up to now, the last line should
> have been sufficient. but that's Joey for you.
As far as I've noticed you are the only one here who uses "^" to
indicate scale degree.
> OK, maybe he does address these some of these things successfully. We
> just haven't seen them here. I don't know. I have not read his book.
Ta da.
> Just as Russel, it is very difficult to get past the lack of examples
> and the hype to see what he is about. In Russell's case, one of my
> friends from S.America sent me a pdf copy of Russell and I saw that my
> assumptions from those that studied him were correct. Maybe it will be
> a different story if I could read Delamont's book. BUT from your
> descriptions, everything that you have said falls somewhat short.. You
> are closer than you think, but there is still some fundamental
> concepts of music and analysis that just are not there.
>
>
> What do you think is the most clear and in depth analysis of the T&I
> motif posted under the title of "Tristan Chord". Remember that with
> the Functional Harmonic Analysis that we are concerned with the whole
> motif and we are starting only with what it there and without any
> isolation of that one particular chord decision to be gospel. The
> "Tristan Chord" controversy is a speculative analysis of that
> particular chord used by theorists to show a connection to that
> particular sonority created by the chromatic lines superimposed over
> the basic Functional Chords and composers of the future. Although it
> may be true that with or without Wagner's knowledge he may have
> inspired Schoenberg or others to take it a step farther and to work
> with the chromatic lines WITHOUT the underlying Functional aspect
> being a factor, but this would be something other than a Functional
> Analysis.
>
> So, what would be Delamont's FUNCTIONAL analysis of these 3 and 1/6th
> measures?
Assuming it is in A minor, and assuming that the text descriptor "Fr" is
enough for you to grok that I mean the French aug 6th chord with bass
note on Sb6, and because the chord suggested by the pickup note plus the
first 2 notes of measure 1 are indeterminate, my analysis of the snippet
provide at Wikipedia would look something like this:
a:
Fr V7
| |
I would have the accompanying music notation and would also indicate
that the G# and the A# are serving as an appoggiature.
But I've already speculated on this several times in this thread.
There are no examples *because Gmaj7 is NOT a functional chord in the
key of C major*!
So your notion that the only things that matters for harmonic function
within a key are roots and root motion, and that chord quality (not
"chord colour") is irrelevant to harmonic function, is simply wrong.
If you want to take this opportunity to restate your idea in a more
logically consistent way, now might be a good time to do it.
But even then I'm pretty sure there'd be holes in your argument.
Not at all.
tom_k
> For example, a pitch class set which includes some form of a smaller
> pitch class set would not necessarily include some inverted form of
> that set.
Example?
> A set class and its inversion DO have the same interval vector,
As do the occasional Z related sets.
> and
> they DO have the same number of inclusions to any larger set which is,
> in itself, inversionally invariant.
And this isn't a very different equivalence (imprecise, or otherwise) from
the functions of (say) an Fm chord and one of it's inversions, C major, in a
tonal piece?
Tom
Joey Goldstein
Sorry. The Fr chord is actually in the 2nd full measure with the V7
chord in the 3rd full measure.
LJS
lol, that sort of sums up my reference pretty well. There may be a mel
Bay book concerning functional theory or something beyond chord
spelling. I thought that I had seen one at one time but could not find
it at amazon or in google books. I did find the one that I posted and
it was what I considered a chord spelling book rather than a theory
book as the title suggested. Of course, I have Alfreds Music Theory in
my school library (it covers the terminology etc but doesn't get into
what I would consider theory. I would consider these and other books
of that genre more of "basic literacy" studies. These books will help
keep the student out of Dummy Theory (or what ever the class is called
at any particular college) and it gives them the basic terminology of
keys, chords, major and minor, intervals, counting rhythm etc, etc.
Technically speaking these are theory books of sorts but really does
not get into functional harmony but would tell one how to spell the
chords so that someone that knows can explain the theory that is
associated with it after the student has learned to look at a score,
translate the chords into a notation that will allow the real study of
theory to begin.
I have seen some fairly practical books come out of Berklee. I
remember a three part text that talked about the 60 chord system that
was very helpful for me to translate the standards into actual tonal
harmonic concepts that we found in early music theory. Mostly 101 and
102 classes as the standards never really got past the first stages of
CPP harmony. (and you didn't have to worry about voice leading! just
play the chords in the reference keys using a limited number of chord
colors. BUT, with the courses in functional harmony 101 and 102, it
was easy enough to see the function of the chords so that as we
learned to recognize and hear the extended chords used in jazz, we
already understood their function and we could easily adapt the "
innoveations" in jazz that were invariably taken from the more
advanced chords of the Romantic and post romantic composers. Jazz
players often forget that Jazz is a subset of the CPP. As such, it
amazes me that some of them will not see the connection and think that
they are on to something new. Well, Jazz is something new, but its not
the harmonic function of the chords that make it new. It is the other
components that present the CPP in a new and exciting light.
And of course, the Mel Bay reference was a bit of a Tongue in Cheek
statement anyway. I didn't think that it would have been taken to be
of the level of Piston in scope. BUT in truth, Mel Bay or Alfred's
theory is easier to use as a preparation for Theory 101 than it is to
look up and study the dry definitions of a music dictionary.
LJS
LJS
> >And this is yet another reason why I prefer the Berklee UC/RN system in
>
> general, because it just spells out the actual chord quality every
> time.
> There can be no confusion as to what type of chord is being referred
> to.
>
> It's a not-indecent utilitarian compromise, sure.
>
> The structure and suggested voicing of the chord are provided without
> contingency on the larger context.
> This will usually make it easier to play without first analyzing it
> functionally.
And this is why spelling chords is NOT functional harmony. You can
'Play the changes" with the chord types, but when it comes to
harmonizing the Leading tone passing tone in the 3rd measure of the
Tristan Motif as a V7-5 and then a second chord as the V7, it falls
totally out of the context of the piece and provides no good
information of how one could actually improvise over it and keep the
integrity of the music. If one were to take the melody (that chromatic
line on top) and harmonize that G# with a separate chord, FUNCTIONALLY
speaking, you would do better and keep it in the context of the
FUNCTIONAL use of the harmony. Instead of playing the measure as a
V7-5 -> V7 you would change the other voices to harmonize the melody
with maybe a G# B D F chord ( VIIo V7 or IIIo V7) you would be
following the basic FUNCTIONAL scheme of the piece. But as it stands,
it is a NCT on the strong beat of a simple E7 chord. Nothing more. If
the V7-5 to V7 is an example of the Deeper and more advanced theory
of Delamont, I think I will get a half hour massage with the money
instead of his book.
>
> OTOH, for the same reason, these chord symbols fall short of being
> directly useful for analysis,
> but require to be further considered and probably re-notated for
> explanation in context.
>
> In terms of removal from contextual implications being an advantageous
> analytic starting point, though,
> I might ask why one shouldn't just go all the way and use pitch class
> set theory. It makes, in and of itself,
> absolutely no claims about roots, inversions, extensions, etc. It
> completely explains structure, but does
> nothing to try to dictate function, especially based on an unstated
> canon of other musical examples (as is done with the jazz chord
> symbols).
That is of course another approach and it can work quite well.
Unfortunately, until Joey gives us HIS analysis, we have nothing in
his statements to assume that he learned that from Delamont.
LJS
LJS
> >for FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS it does not matter what type of chord it is!
>
> Its how it FUNCTIONS, not how the chord itself sounds. You can listen
> to it to see how it sounds. You can read the music if you want to know
> the notes. Its all about roots and part writing. Mostly roots. It is
> not about color.
>
> Not that I at all support what you're arguing against here, but...
>
> While I agree that functional harmony is not about majors and minors
> (or suspensions or extensions, etc.),
> I disagree that it's primarily about roots.
A valid discussion. I think it would come down to the some semantic
differences in the end. Please remember, that I used this context
while talking to someone that seems to have put his entire
understanding into one person's view of theory. I considered that this
would be the easiest way to explain the difference that you pointed
out prior to that statement concerning color as being incidental to
function.
The rest is well put. Lets see how it works on Joey!
LJS
LJS
Amazing Joey, you keep saying the same thing and expect that you will
get a different and maybe correct result. You can quote the Wiki
analysis, even though you still don't realize that the Tristan Chord
is not the same discussion of the Functional Harmony of the Motif, you
can attack mine, you can attack JRL's you can attack Orangboxman and
you can attack the entire world of Classical Theory but you can't seem
to come up with an analysis of your own using the things you learned
from Delamont!!! What gives? Wow us with the depth of your knowledge.
We are waiting with eager anticipation for salvation from our
collective ignorance. Come on! Throw down or shut up.
LJS
tom_k
> LJS wrote:
>>
>> Since ^b6 has been used in this thread up to now,
>
> scale degree.
>
Actually, I've been using it as well, and I believe it was Steve who
introduced it to the group. The conventional method is to place a "carat"
symbol above the Arabic numeral to indicate scale degree.
If anyone can figure out how to do that in an email message, let us know.
Tom
LJS
> "J R Laredo" <jrlaredo...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in messagenews:DbSdnZboVrswLpPW...@giganews.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > "tom_k" <tkor...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:rO-dnfxXHsEQOJPW...@giganews.com...
>
> >> "J R Laredo" <jrlaredo...@comcastREMOVETHIS.net> wrote in message
> >>news:c_udnUuBDrjAm5PW...@giganews.com...
>
> >>> Now you have me really curious. Who doesn't consider him to be a CPP
> >>> composer? Yes, he stretched the boundaries, and my teacher considered
> >>> his Tristan and Isolde (1865) the beginning of the end of tonality as it
> >>> is usually known, and the precursor to the dodecaphony of Schoenberg,
> >>> but, his music was tonal.
>
> >> In his Meta-Variations (Perspectives of New Music, 1972?), Ben Boretz
> >> argues that much of the Tristan Prelude should be considered "centric"
> >> rather than CPP tonal. Centric refers to music which has one - or
> >> multiple pitch centers and/or doesn't use CPP functional root movement.
>
> >> Although most of Wagner would be considered CPP, I also hear parts of the
> >> Ring cycle as centric, not tonal.
>
> >> Tom
>
> > I do not disagree. However, to say that CPP tools can't analyze his music
> > goes a little far. They can. Just takes more work is all. And there
> > will some fuzzy areas, which is part of the fun.
>
> Right. But the only CPP tool for the TR chord has to account for the G# as
> an appoggiatura - one which has a duration 5 times that of it's resolution.
> So it does seem to me that a cogent explanation which doesn't rely on a "Fr.
> +6" label is "less fuzzy" than the CPP RN analyses I've seen. If an
> interval analysis using PC set labels illuminates better, then why not use
> it? But only where applicable, of course.
>
> It certainly is these "transition" composers who often seem to be the most
> interesting to the theorist - as long as everything doesn't have to scan
> neatly!
>
> Tom
This is of course is dependent upon the length of an Appoggiatura.
Personally I would call it an Anticipation which is less dependent
upon the length. Of course, either would pose the following question:
IF the lengths of the G# and the A were reversed and the G# was the
eight note, and the A was 5 8th notes long, would you analyze it the
same way?
LJS
tom_k
"LJS" <ljsc...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c929ab9c-9c91-44b4...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 26, 12:16 pm, "tom_k" <tkor...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> Right. But the only CPP tool for the TR chord has to account for the G# as
> an appoggiatura - one which has a duration 5 times that of it's
> resolution.
> So it does seem to me that a cogent explanation which doesn't rely on a
> "Fr.
> +6" label is "less fuzzy" than the CPP RN analyses I've seen. If an
> interval analysis using PC set labels illuminates better, then why not use
> it? But only where applicable, of course.
>
This is of course is dependent upon the length of an Appoggiatura.
Personally I would call it an Anticipation which is less dependent
upon the length. Of course, either would pose the following question:
IF the lengths of the G# and the A were reversed and the G# was the
eight note, and the A was 5 8th notes long, would you analyze it the
same way?
LJS
No quite sure how you can describe the G# as an anticipation here.
At any rate, I would certainly hear the G# differently if it lasted one 8th,
rather than five and would call the chord a Fr. 6th. But that isn't the
Tristan Prelude, it's another piece.
Tom
Orangeboxman
> > pitch class set would not necessarily include some inverted form of
> > that set.
>
> Example?
Sure; a tonal one... If you take the 'dominant seventh' and omit the
fifth, you get a 3-note chord which is included in the dominant
seventh, but which is not included in any transposition of a 'half
diminished seventh', which is an inversion of the 'dominant seventh'.
Conversely, in C major, (A, B, F), which is the inversion of the
dominant with the omitted fifth does not appear as part of any
unaltered dominant seventh.
This is all easier to say with math when the sets become larger and
more diverse. The inclusionary non-equivalence of
set forms and their inversions is VERY important. That is why the
taxonomy recognizes both prime forms and inversions so conspicuously.
'Which is which' is arbitrary, but conveniently makes more reference
of smaller numbers by defining the left-packed forms as the prime
forms.
> > A set class and its inversion DO have the same interval vector,
>
> As do the occasional Z related sets.
And like the Z sets, prime forms and inversions are properly
considered to be 'in special relation', not 'equivalent'.
> And this isn't a very different equivalence (imprecise, or otherwise) from
> the functions of (say) an Fm chord and one of it's inversions, C major, in a
> tonal piece?
For a chord to be 'inverted' in a tonal sense means that there is a
root which is not in the bass.
As PC set theory has no roots, 'inversion' simply means that the
collection transpositionally
maps not to the prime form, but to a form in which the order of
intervals from left to right is reversed.
It is perfectly possible to apply PC set theory to very traditional
music, but the types of operations treated
will tend to be very limited because the treatment of pitches in
traditional music tends to conform strongly to a very
small set of grammatical principles (possibly for the best, but that's
a different problem, eh).
There is a thing in PC set theory called a 'Cohn flip' in which only
some portion of a set form gets inverted.
If you 'Cohn flip' the 'iii' to 'III' in a major key, your pitch
collection can now function as the relative harmonic minor.
These kinds of descriptions are redundant to much else of what can be
said regarding tonal music.
But in dealing with Debussy or anyone influenced by him, 'extensions'
and 'alterations' and such stand to be misunderstood as mere color
because of the application to them of such inappropriate terminology.
Where a tone has larger structural implications than something that
tonal taxonomy would tend to tell us is a 'chord root',
the tendency to explain the more structurally salient tone as
subordinate to the less salient one on the basis of how they
would be spelled using tonal harmonic taxonomy is a very grave error,
indeed.
Jazz is mostly tonal and mostly uses 'extension' and 'alterations' as
color.
But what about when it doesn't?
Why should we keep applying the same grammar-implicative taxonomy?
Joey Goldstein
>
> OK, maybe he does address these some of these things successfully. We
> just haven't seen them here. I don't know. I have not read his book.
Just so you'll know where I'm coming from, here's a pdf scan of the Aug
Sixth section of his book:
<http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/DelAugSix.pdf>
All of my notions about aug sixth chords come from this source as well
as from my discussions with various people here on this ng over the years.
If you're going to continue to engage in Delamont-bashing you might as
actually see some of his stuff rather than getting it from me 2nd hand.
In kind of interested to see what other folks here think about
Delamont's take on the aug sixth chords.
Not real interested in talking to you about it though.
Orangeboxman
No harmony is notated functionally which is notated without specific
reference to some other harmony.
Joey Goldstein
What are the problems you see with my analysis?
Orangeboxman
differences in the end.
Understanding that something is a semantic difference is often enough
to allow two people to drop some kind of dispute.
But it is really only the first step to agreeing upon what is being
discussed in the first place.
Where one word has multiple meanings in different contexts, that is a
major hazard.
But even where the two uses are made clear, there is often more to
argue about: you'll just be closer to arguing about the right thing.