At 3:38 AM -0700 6/05/02, Philip Aker wrote: >>>On Monday, June 3, 2002, at 08:34 PM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: > >>I guess I am more of a Schenkerian than is fashionable these days >>(like many jazzers), but in my ears, metre trumps everything - thus >>the difference between an ornamental V-I where the V is stressed, >>and a structural cadence, where the I is stressed. Does the stress >>of the chords in the progression count for nothing, then, in your >>analysis? > >A good question and I know better than to say "Nevah!" on this list, >but generally for analytical purposes of pitch content, very little. >I'd say this approach is in keeping with both atonal and serial >analysis. I'll usually take a rhythmic analysis separately. If a >piece has any harmonic meter characteristics which catch my ear, >I'll try to categorize them or perhaps better to say understand them >in a way which makes sense for me. > >I know the discussion has been about root movement, but if you care >to peek at the melodic outline of those four measures, you'll >probably agree that it's Hypodorian, i.e, a plagal mode. > >Philip Aker
I understand about analysis for pitch content being of and for itself, and I also realise that Schenker has a hole in his swing, too. Which only goes to show that no ONE analysis tells all. We need to shine light from several different angles to really illuminate all the nooks and crannys of a piece. However, I'm working on my Grand Unified Music Theory, which explains all aspects of every style of music in one simple formula. One of the marvelous advantages of my Theory is that you won't have to actually listen to the piece, as you will get everything you need just from looking at the analysis. I'll let you know when it's done, right now it's still a little rough and leaky. 8-) Christopher _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
