You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Add a similar mechanism for the Roman Numeral Analysis(RNA) as for the lyrics where consecutive "_" will be transformed into a continuous melisma line.
For the RNA, this should be applied to the "-" and "=" signs.
Typing this:
Would be transformed into this:
Problem to be solved
In RNA, the following analysis, although apparently correct, doesn't make sense.
This leads to confusion, because a IV usually belongs to the the Sub-Dominant domain while in the measure 3, the IV belongs to the Tonic domain, as a Neighbour chord between to I's.
The same applies for the I64 in measure 5. It does not belong to the Tonic domain but to the Domibant domain as a Arpegiating Dominant chord (or Cadential64).
According to different sources, the correct notation for those cases is the following one (*):
Today, this is not possible to enter this notation.
This proposition will make this notation possible and easy to write.
(*) according (a.o.) to Clendinning/Marvin's "The Musician's Guide To Theory and Analysis" book:
Prior art
/
Additional context
/
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Your idea
Add a similar mechanism for the Roman Numeral Analysis(RNA) as for the lyrics where consecutive "_" will be transformed into a continuous melisma line.
For the RNA, this should be applied to the "-" and "=" signs.
Typing this:
![Roman_analysis_melisma--ASIS](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/50494/340115724-a4c5ebac-560d-4347-ad30-0f65839ac955.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.Mq8aiSy1TJOGuKwrozxXKuwgscaxvyU3TIlZDEoA4h4)
Would be transformed into this:
![Roman_analysis_melisma](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/50494/340115707-2601d10b-45f4-4459-a756-43010a63a84a.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.xegZszWBb0AQ-9HDeOwNsRPCTaKscN2u9m3jNa1npiQ)
Problem to be solved
In RNA, the following analysis, although apparently correct, doesn't make sense.
![Roman_analysis_melisma__Non functional](https://private-user-images.githubusercontent.com/50494/340114976-aecdf090-69d0-4286-b3bd-ee358cc0aeb2.png?jwt=eyJhbGciOiJIUzI1NiIsInR5cCI6IkpXVCJ9.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.6Zd_pt_7b6UUBxefqXGojLioXsYsmULqq7nCU-WTYJo)
This leads to confusion, because a IV usually belongs to the the Sub-Dominant domain while in the measure 3, the IV belongs to the Tonic domain, as a Neighbour chord between to I's.
The same applies for the I64 in measure 5. It does not belong to the Tonic domain but to the Domibant domain as a Arpegiating Dominant chord (or Cadential64).
According to different sources, the correct notation for those cases is the following one (*):
Today, this is not possible to enter this notation.
This proposition will make this notation possible and easy to write.
(*) according (a.o.) to Clendinning/Marvin's "The Musician's Guide To Theory and Analysis" book:
Prior art
/
Additional context
/
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: