Timeline for Ambiguity of Roman numeral analysis of Andalusian cadence
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 19, 2022 at 21:48 | comment | added | azerbajdzan | I personally have no problems to sight read written chord progressions on guitar even if they are written in mix of several keys. But on the other hand I would never be able to sight read music sheets - I can read them slowly - like counting from position of note C to see what a note it is - so really a better words would be I am deciphering them. But I have no proper music education. | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 21:28 | comment | added | phoog | Examples of this context include "with respect to the Phrygian mode" (where one does not include a flat sign on II because that is an intrinsic feature of the mode) and "with respect to the Aeolian mode (minor)." You say "it tells you nothing about what harmony to use unless you are provided with additional information," but when it is used correctly, you are provided with additional information. (Also, as others have pointed out, Roman numeral analysis isn't intended to communicate music to performers; you're judging a hammer on its usefulness for driving screws.) | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 21:28 | comment | added | phoog | @azerbajdzan you seem to be confusing "unambiguous" with "perfectly clear." Yes, it's unambiguous, but no, it's not perfectly clear, because it's confusing. Many musicians would need to stop and decipher it instead of being able to read it at sight. Roman numeral analysis is also generally unambiguous, but it requires context. Without that context, it is ambiguous just as the statement "she ate it" is ambiguous if you don't know what the antecedents of "she" and "it" are. Yet people use pronouns successfully all the time. Even this question omits context given in the Wikipedia article. | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 21:13 | comment | added | azerbajdzan | @phoog: Except that my "poor spelling" is perfectly clear in what to play in contrast with your poor spelled comment that needs to be deciphered. | |
| Dec 19, 2022 at 11:04 | comment | added | phoog | 'you can use instead, say, "A♯m - A♭ - F♯ - E♯"': onlee iff yu arre vairy tolirunt uv por spellng. | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 16:41 | answer | added | Michael Curtis | timeline score: 4 | |
| Dec 15, 2022 at 0:25 | answer | added | OwenM | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 23:38 | history | edited | Richard | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 49 characters in body
|
| Dec 14, 2022 at 21:02 | vote | accept | azerbajdzan | ||
| Dec 14, 2022 at 17:03 | comment | added | Dom♦ | @azerbajdzan there are very poorly written articles on wikipediea and the music theory related ones tend to be pretty bad and mix up different schools of thought making them hard to parse for people that don't know the area of study. What's slightly more concerning is based on your comments to this question and the answers you have preconceived notion about Roman Numeral Analysis and you are using this question to push it. It like every system has pros and cons, but it's very very useful. As for ambiguity, have you seen how many different chord symbols there are? | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 16:55 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | There’s nothing stopping you nor I from writing articles on Wikipedia, so we can’t expect anyone putting stuff on Wikipedia to know more than we do. I very much doubt there is a school anywhere that describes a major chord with lower case Roman numerals. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 16:30 | comment | added | azerbajdzan | It just shows that roman numerals notation is ambiguous - it is not universal. It depends on what you studied and where. On the other hand Am is universal. Am=ACE everywhere. Same way chord progression "Am – G – F – E" is universal. But using iv – III – II – I or i – ♭VII – ♭VI – V to describe Andalusian cadence is depended on what your music school was. PS: I do not think that the articles on Wikipedia were written by incompetent people. It just shows they went to different schools. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 16:13 | answer | added | Tim | timeline score: 1 | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 15:52 | answer | added | Andy Bonner | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 15:13 | comment | added | Todd Wilcox | The Wikipedia article is not necessarily correct. If it seems confusing to you, it might be because of the article, not because Roman numerals themselves are off. I’ve been taught in a minor key the median is just III. Neither iii nor bIII make sense for the minor mediant except for in jazz where bIII sort of makes sense. The mediant in a minor key is a major chord, so it should never be iii. | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 14:38 | answer | added | Richard | timeline score: 5 | |
| Dec 14, 2022 at 14:28 | history | asked | azerbajdzan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |