On Wednesday, June 5, 2002, at 07:59 AM, Christopher BJ Smith wrote: >> 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. > 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. Right. That's what I was trying to convey above. > 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-) <BANNER> Coming soon to a web site near you: "GUM Theory Explained" -- a Finale Web Page Plug-In by CBJ Smith... Living proof it's possible to eat smoked meat and chew gum at the same time... </BANNER> Philip Aker http://www.aker.ca _______________________________________________ Finale mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.shsu.edu/mailman/listinfo/finale
