Re: What's the relationship between scales and chords?

I clipped the above because no matter how much we go back and forth,
this is certainly not a list of STANDARD theory books by any stretch
of the imagination. Standard books would be used to teach beginning
theory and analysis to freshmen students in accredited universities.
There may be a few places that have their own agenda, but by an large
(by a big margin) everyone teaches the basics in the UC/LC manner. The
Shenkerian books you referenced (all my notations were taken by the
authors from the preface or introduction of the specified volume or by
reviews of books (as noted) by reputable organizations dedicated to
reviewing published music books as to what they claim and what they
actully do. The modern book that is there, as I think I noted, seems
to be basically an outline of the Piston method and that would not
make it wrong, but also does not make it the standard. I do realize
that

Are they standard in your school? or were they standard at
Berlkee?

I am not attached to any "school" (which I assume you mean in the U.S.
sense) and I don't know why you think I have any connection with
Berklee? Are you confusing me with someone else?


Sorry for that, something made me think of Berklee. I meant no
personal offense.


In fact, the books selected themselves. I just picked up a bunch of
books waiting to go back onto my bookshelves, the idea being that if
UC/LC truly was the "standard" then I would see that standard
reflected in these books, many of which are well-known "standard"
works in their own right. I find it remarkable that the so-called
"standard" you describe is reflected in *none* of them.

It seems as though there was a paper due on Schenkerian theory that
had just been completed in your area. That is a really
disproportionate amount of interest in Schenkerian theory. This
sample should not prove to be standard if you used the same method of
selection at different times of the year unless your library has a
specific set of people that are interest in this particular variation
of common thought.


Indeed, you seem to be telling me that the "standard" you're talking
about only applies to certain kinds of books. Which brings me to my
first question: please tell me which kinds of books this "standard"
applies to and why it doesn't apply to other theory-related works in
the field.


Yes, books that are taught as the basis of language for analysis. This
is done if freshman theory. Why would you want to skip to higher
levels of language that is composer and piece specific as a standard
when all the students are started at the more basic level?

The limiting period I used was well below the forty years mentioned by
Tom. I wasn't aware that you would consider a book only twenty years
old to be a dinosaur, which leads to my second question: when was this
"standard" established? And, if the standard didn't apply only twenty
years ago, how long might one expect this new standard to last?


The older you get, the more the years melt away. Piston goes back to
further than even 40 years. That is why I think that the modern book
you stated may have been modeled after him.

Another of your complaints was that these books could not be
considered as the type which would *establish a standard*. Please cite
the books which do establish this "standard" (and tell me why it
matters if they're Schenkerian or not Schenkerian):

I thought I said that in the original post and then again above.
Schenkerian theory is controversial. It is a theory that is best
suited for higher level analysis that is not specific to the
functional changes as they are looked at in the more conventional
manners of other CPP style analysis. Thus, they may be an example of a
different way to look at music and it may or may not be helpful to
understand, but the basic scope of the theory is not to provide a
unified way to compare music by the typical approach to functional
harmony as taught in the early stages of theory at the university
level. Thus it is not a suitable example for the subject under
discussion. The UC notation may or may not be generic to Schenkerian
theory. It doesn't matter as we are not talking about Schenkerian
theory. We could say that UC/LC is not useful in Schoenberg Serial
Techniques and it would have just about the same relevance.


For the record, I am not defending the all-UC approach. I simply don't
see that two or three recent textbooks can be said to have established
a new "standard". A "standard" requires a broader consensus over a
longer period and can only be said to be effective when it's
*followed*. I note that the few references to labelling made in the
2003 CAMBRIDGE HISTORY OF MUSIC THEORY are also all UC. The on-line
Grove seems to use all-UC although, the article "Harmony (1) [Jazz]"
compares alternate forms of notation. I also don't see that teaching
books are necessarily more able to establish standards than analytic
or theoretical texts.


I think you are confused maybe as to who said what. Joey is talking
about two or three textbooks with a very limited circulation as being
standard for the UC with the additional need for modifiers. And I
agree, these books certainly do not in any way set a standard. I am,
on the other hand, talking about freshman theory throughout the US
since the 60s through now. I have been through who knows how many
freshmen books. When I traveled with bands I would always go to the
college bookstore and see what they were using and if possible talk to
some students. They all understood UC/LC. I am talking of in excess of
30 or 50 texts. The only one that I ever ran across that was ever used
that did not was the Piston book and some others that would have had
alternative presentations for specific uses at the graduate or other
higher level courses.

The Groves and the Cambridge books may have a different slant. Like I
said. Piston's Harmony was a very good book written by a very good
author. In the US his notational method had few followers even though
everyone considered his theory to be the standard. There were then
tons of books that used his theory with the more accepted notation of
the UC/LC as it proves to be much more clear when explaining the
Piston approach to harmony. I believe that this may not have been AS
pronounced in Europe. I think in another post that I pointed out the
it seems to be somewhat related to the Fixed Do in Europe vs the
Movable Do in the US. This is another basic difference to the approach
of the two continents. I don't know that they are directly related
except for the more conservative tone generally applied (rightly or
wrongly) to the European community of scholars. I do know that I have
met more British students that were familiar with the Piston method of
notation than i the US although this is true not only of the UC/LC
notation but also of the Fixed/Movable Do and the Quatrer/Quaver
notation as well. In all cased, it is apparent that the British
educated musician will be more versed in BOTH than the American
counterpart in general. Although I consider this to be a victory for
the British music education, it further emphasizes the fact that the
UC/LC notation is more STANDARD as both the British and American
students understand it better than they both understand the UC only
method.

Thus, I would think that the Cambridge and the Grove texts would have
a tendency to stick with the UC, although I find it hard to believe
that neither of them has reference to explain the UC/LC notation as
well. I would have thought that these references wold have extensive
explanations of both systems. In practice, if you study Classical
harmony, it will soon become apparent that the UC/LC will avoid
confusion and be much easier to understand modulations and
relationships and will present no problems at all to understanding
the Piston notation system. I have to think that if there are two
systems, A and B and A is very good for what it does, but B allows the
same ease for explaining A and in addition B allows it to be done
easier and to apply to more cases, that B is the one more likely to be
standard. This is verified if you pick a number of colleges and go to
their sites and look at the books that are being used for basic
harmony in their theory classes for their music majors.

I do expect that this may begin to get a little bit blurry as the IB
program makes more of an impact in the US and the music curricula
morphs into more of a world music education based more in philosophy
and artistic considerations rather than the more academic approach
that is still prevalent in conservatories. If the the AP courses seem
to be more directed towards that current standard and the IB seems to
be slanted a bit into a more general look at the specifics and
mechanics of music rather than the Artistic approach. I am not opposed
to the IB approach, in fact, I rather like it, but it does open the
door for sloppy theory work to be confused with the more artistic
approach allowed in the IB. When and if this change becomes standard,
I will modify my position on teaching this aspect of music theory. I
say that because, even though I like the more artistic IB method, I
have yet to see the methods that will reach these goals and still
provide the tools to understand the THEORY that the masters have used
to create the artistic results that make music worthwhile. I am not
saying that we will not evolve to this point, only that we are not
there as yet, and to go backward to a style of notation that is not
even as strict and useful as the Piston method but rather simply
substitutes the UC/RN for the letter name of the note as a way of
spelling chords and leads in no way to true analysis (the Piston
method does allow for temporary modulations just as the UC/LC does!
but the UC spelling of chords being discussed does not as presented!
and at best is just a version of the UC/LC that needs additional
typing for the notation and thus is not any kind of improvement at
all!) that is more inherent in both the UC Piston method and the UC/LC
method used by most schools.

The other sub topic in this thread that you and I have not touched
upon is the notion that Jazz musicians need to have a simpler system
with the additional information spelled out more clearly for them so
that they can understand the chord that some transcriber (there is no
universal standards for transcriptions except to have one published!)
chose to be important when he writes a lead ***.

I hope that this clears up our differences. I still think that we are
more of on the same track than it seems, but that we have different
backgrounds and that we see a lot of the same things but from a
different perspective. Please let me know if I snipped to much of the
comments of the books you chose for examples or if you need more
clarification as to why I have to discount them except as I have
noted. They are all useful books, they just don't represent any
standard for notation of harmony as we have been discussing it. The
confusing thing is that there are many ways to skin the cat. But even
though there may be better ways to skin some cats doesn't mean that
the way that everyone skins that typical cat that we see every day is
not the STANDARD way for cat skinning. lol

Or, for the less picturesque analogy: (?) Everyone may make gumbo
differently, but the standard way is still to start with the roux and
go from there. The UC/LC is the way to make the roux.
See ýa in the Gumbo!
LJS
.

Loading