"Melisma" for Roman numerals analysis

• Jun 13, 2024 - 10:17

I'd like to achieve this:

Is this possible ? I tried to use the same approach as for lyric's melisma, but it doesn't work:

Any other approach ?



That looks like a mashup of RNA and figured bass. It makes little sense in either notation.

For example, in measure 2 to your harmony is the tonic chord I in root position. in measure 2 it it IV in 2nd inversion. not the tonic chord in 2nd inversion. What would those lines that you want mean?

See https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/figured-bass and https://musescore.org/en/handbook/4/chord-symbols#enter-rna and in particular read the first line "Not to be confused with Figured bass."

In reply to by SteveBlower

I guess you mean this :
Roman_analysis_melisma__Non functional.png

But this leads to confusion, because a IV usually belongs to the the Sub-Dominant area, while in the measure 3, the IV belongs to the Tonic Area, as a Neighbour chord between to I's.

The same applies for the I64 in measure 5. It does not act as a Tonic chord but as a Arpegiating Dominant chord.

The expected notation for such cases is the one in my initial comment (at least following my musical analysis teacher and the Clendinning/Marvin's Theory and Analysis book):

Arpegiating Dominant chord:

a Neighbour chord:

Besides, the lines also emphasis the expected voice leading.

PS: Of course, this is only valid with the lines. This would be false:

Do you still have an unanswered question? Please log in first to post your question.