HELP W ROMAN NUMERAL NOTATION
libby
I understand the notation for all the degrees of a particular scale.
For example, I,II,III,IV,V. etc. What I need to know is how do I
notate in Roman numerals when I go to chords not in the
above-mentioned degrees. A few examples: I'm playing in G maj. I want
to go to B maj. How is it notated in RN?
I'm still in G maj. I want to go to A maj. How is it notated in RN?
I'm still in Gmaj. I want to go to C# diminished. How do I notate it
in Roman numerals?
What about going to F#. Thanks for any help on this.
Bill Murn
Richard Ratner
First of all, it's useful to notate major chords is capitals (V) and
minor chords in smalls (ii).
Chords that use notes outside of the scale are notated to describe
their most common function, which is often the dominant of a chord
based on a degree of the scale. For example, in C major, ii is d
minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which means
the dominant of the dominant, which is the way D major often functions
in C major -- it most often progresses to G major.
So, in re your examples, in G major, you want to notate B major. This
would function most commonly as the dominant of e minor (vi), so it
wojuld be notated V/vi. A major would be the dominant of D major (V),
so would be notated V/V. C# diminished would be viio of D major, so
would be notated viio/V. F# major would be the dominant of b minor
(iii), so would be notated V/iii.
David Webber
"Richard Ratner" <2...@233435r.com> wrote in message
news:pholvvcfn469qgrn1...@4ax.com...
>....For example, in C major, ii is d
> minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which
means
> the dominant of the dominant,
Surely not always? Even with this function? Take Basin St Blues
in C - a lovely example of jumping somewhere and descending back
via the cycle of 5ths:
C E7 A7 D7 G7 C
I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
Functionally it is of course
I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
Dave
--
David Webber
Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
http://www.mozart.co.uk
For discussion/support see
http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
Joey Goldstein
Roman numeral notation is normally only used within a functional
harmonic analysis of a piece of tonal music. In a functional analysis
the chords are labeled according to how they are functioning within a
key. If you are truly in the key of G and a B chord occurs I would need
more information before I could decide how the B chord was functioning,
the chords before and after the B chord for starters. Ditto for the
other chords you mention.
There are 2 or 3 systems of Roman numeral analysis symbols that I have encountered.
The most common way in the classical community is to use upper case
Roman numerals for major chords (eg. I, IV, V) and chords that have
major 3rd degrees (eg. V+). Minor chords and chords that do not have
major 3rd degrees are labeled with lower case Roman numerals (eg. ii,
iii, vii).
With this system of notation the reader must have previous knowledge of
the regular chords that occur within a key. Eg. When he sees "c: III" he
needs to know that in the key of C minor the 3rd scale degree is a min
3rd above the tonic, thus "c: III" indicates a major chord with a root
of Eb.
This system would indicate the diatonic triads of a major key as:
I ii iii IV V vi vii
The reader needs to know that the chord built on scale degree 7 is a
diminished triad, not a minor triad.
In the jazz world we usually use all upper case roman numerals and spell
out the chord type.
Eg. c: bIII
This system would indicate the diatonic triads of a major key as:
I IIm IIIm IV V VIm VIIdim
In either of these analytical systems a B chord that occurs within the
key of G major would probably be seen as part of some sort of temporary
secondary key, "V-of-VIm" perhaps. How the B chord is analysed depends
on the context in which it is used.
There is also a numbering system that is called Nashville notation. It
is not used for analysis purposes but for easy transposition from one
key to another. In this system the roots are merely labeled according to
their intervallic distance from the tonic. Arabic numerals are used.
G: 1 2m 3m 4 5 6m 7dim
G Am Bm C D Em F#dim
In Nashville notation your B chord within the key of G would simply be
"3".
Hope that helps.
Joey Goldstein
David Webber wrote:
>
> "Richard Ratner" <2...@233435r.com> wrote in message
> news:pholvvcfn469qgrn1...@4ax.com...
>
> >....For example, in C major, ii is d
> > minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which
> means
> > the dominant of the dominant,
>
> Surely not always? Even with this function? Take Basin St Blues
> in C - a lovely example of jumping somewhere and descending back
> via the cycle of 5ths:
>
> C E7 A7 D7 G7 C
>
> I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
>
> Functionally it is of course
>
> I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
>
> but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
The extended dominant chain notation is exactly what is taught at places
like Berklee.
Some of us just abbreviate it to:
I V/V7 V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
Dr.Matt
David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Richard Ratner" <2...@233435r.com> wrote in message
>news:pholvvcfn469qgrn1...@4ax.com...
>
>>....For example, in C major, ii is d
>> minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which
>means
>> the dominant of the dominant,
>
>Surely not always? Even with this function? Take Basin St Blues
>in C - a lovely example of jumping somewhere and descending back
>via the cycle of 5ths:
>
>C E7 A7 D7 G7 C
>
>I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
>
>Functionally it is of course
>
>I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
>
>but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
Yes.
Or like this:
C: I V:[V:[V:[V I] I] I] I
"III7" may be a useful terminology in some dialects, but
in others it would be avoided because it obscures the fact
that the E7 chord is not a iii chord in C major.
>Dave
>--
>David Webber
>Author MOZART the music processor for Windows -
>http://www.mozart.co.uk
>For discussion/support see
>http://www.mozart.co.uk/mzusers/mailinglist.htm
>
>
--
Matthew H. Fields http://personal.www.umich.edu/~fields
Music: Splendor in Sound
If it's worth doing, it's worth doing in canon!
Brights have a naturalistic world-view. http://www.the-brights.net/
Richard Ratner
<da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Richard Ratner" <2...@233435r.com> wrote in message
>news:pholvvcfn469qgrn1...@4ax.com...
>
>>....For example, in C major, ii is d
>> minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which
>means
>> the dominant of the dominant,
>
>Surely not always? Even with this function? Take Basin St Blues
>in C - a lovely example of jumping somewhere and descending back
>via the cycle of 5ths:
>
>C E7 A7 D7 G7 C
>
>I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
>
>Functionally it is of course
>
>I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
>
>but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
There are many instances of chords not resolving the way one thinks
they will. How often in music do we hear V7 resolve to vi instead of
I? This does not change the fact that the chord is notated V7.
The question is at the moment of sounding, what does the ear hear, in
your example, with the E7? Does it know that ultimately the E7 is
going to follow the circle of fifths back around to C? I don't think
so. The ear hears a chord it associates with vi as vi's dominant -- it
has no way of knowing that this chord will not resolve to vi. Thus, in
my view It should be notated
I V7/vi V7/ii V7/V V7 I
Another thing to think about is that this progression could choose
not to stop at C, but continue via C7 to F, or even further around the
circle. as long as it likes. Notating it as if its final goal were
somehow implied by the first altered chord is misleading, I think.
>Dave
Thomas Korth
"Dr.Matt" <fie...@rastan.gpcc.itd.umich.edu> wrote in message
news:FiCKb.522$Nz2....@news.itd.umich.edu...
> In article <btepu5$27s$1$830f...@news.demon.co.uk>,
> David Webber <da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >"Richard Ratner" <2...@233435r.com> wrote in message
> >news:pholvvcfn469qgrn1...@4ax.com...
> >
> >>....For example, in C major, ii is d
> >> minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which
> >means
> >> the dominant of the dominant,
> >
> >Surely not always? Even with this function? Take Basin St Blues
> >in C - a lovely example of jumping somewhere and descending back
> >via the cycle of 5ths:
> >
> >C E7 A7 D7 G7 C
> >
> >I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
> >
> >Functionally it is of course
> >
> >I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
> >
> >but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
>
> Yes.
>
> Or like this:
>
> C: I V:[V:[V:[V I] I] I] I
>
> "III7" may be a useful terminology in some dialects, but
> in others it would be avoided because it obscures the fact
> that the E7 chord is not a iii chord in C major.
>
Exactly. The use of III7 here describes the chord tones and the scale
degree of the root, but misses the point of the chord. If you are using
Roman Numerals, they ought to be analytical, not just descriptive.
Another possibility might be:
C: V7/vi -> V7/ii -> V7/V -> V7 I
The arrows signify that each chord of resolution has a I relationship to the
preceding chord, even though it's Roman Numeral indicates the V7 function.
And years ago, this was occasionally used:
C: [V7] [V7] [V7] V7 I
Each bracketed chord is the V7 of the following chord.
Tom
Corinne Rainbow
depending on which tone you are - if you are not using tonal music, it is no
need to use roman numeral.
For exemple in C major
the chord of C major is I, the chord of G major is V
If you are in G major, the chord of B major can only be III (G is I, A is
II, B is III) - by the way the use of a chord on III is quite modal more
than tonal. But it can be used in tonal composition anyway (like Fauré for
exemple)
--
Corinne
Pour m'écrire perso / To write me :
corinne.rainbow serveur : ibelgique.com
La FAQ d'OE : http://www.faqoe.com/
The OE FAQ : http://insideoe.tomsterdam.com/
The OE Helps : http://www.oehelp.com/
Autres sites (en français)
http://www.secuser.com
http://jceel.free.fr
http:// www.hoaxbuster.com
Dr.Matt
Richard Ratner <1...@233435r.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 6 Jan 2004 17:05:45 -0000, "David Webber"
><da...@musical.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Richard Ratner" <2...@233435r.com> wrote in message
>>news:pholvvcfn469qgrn1...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>....For example, in C major, ii is d
>>> minor, D major would not be notated II, but rather V/V, which
>>means
>>> the dominant of the dominant,
>>
>>Surely not always? Even with this function? Take Basin St Blues
>>in C - a lovely example of jumping somewhere and descending back
>>via the cycle of 5ths:
>>
>>C E7 A7 D7 G7 C
>>
>>I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
>>
>>Functionally it is of course
>>
>>I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
>>
>>but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
>
>There are many instances of chords not resolving the way one thinks
>they will. How often in music do we hear V7 resolve to vi instead of
>I? This does not change the fact that the chord is notated V7.
That's a deceptive cadence, and it is made possible by the fact that vi and
I share two of 3 pitch classes.
>The question is at the moment of sounding, what does the ear hear, in
>your example, with the E7? Does it know that ultimately the E7 is
>going to follow the circle of fifths back around to C? I don't think
>so. The ear hears a chord it associates with vi as vi's dominant -- it
>has no way of knowing that this chord will not resolve to vi. Thus, in
>my view It should be notated
>
>I V7/vi V7/ii V7/V V7 I
Anything that you're going to notate as V7/vi should resolve to vi itself
before you exit the key of vi.
>Another thing to think about is that this progression could choose
>not to stop at C, but continue via C7 to F, or even further around the
>circle. as long as it likes. Notating it as if its final goal were
>somehow implied by the first altered chord is misleading, I think.
Its final goal is dictated by where it finally goes, which in turn
determines the key of the whole passage.
>
>>Dave
Richard Ratner
"Exit the key of vi"? So, in your view, if we have the progression I
V7/vi vi V7/IV IV V I , we have entered and exited a key three times
from I to vi to IV to I? I think we have differing ideas of what a
secondary dominant is and what modulation is. In my view, a secondary
dominant is a borrowed chord which in and of itself does nothing to
change the key of the progression. Regarding resolution, V7 is
obviously V7/I, which does not resolve as implied in the example of
the deceptive cadence, but that does not change the fact that it is
notated and heard V7 This is the reason I cited it as an example.
Using your logic, it is not V7/I unless it resolves to I. By the way,
your observation about the fact that vi shares two of three "pitch
classes" with I also applies to the pair of vi and V/ii. And if it is
the fact that V7 does not use a non-scale tone that is somehow
changing it for you, try I V7/vi IV viio7/V I64 V7 I. Here we have two
secondary dominant function chords, neither one of which resolves as
implied by its notation. Does that mean they should somehow be notated
differently? How would you notate V7/vi here, bearing in mind that you
said "anything you notate as V7/vi should resolve to vi itself"?
>
>>Another thing to think about is that this progression could choose
>>not to stop at C, but continue via C7 to F, or even further around the
>>circle. as long as it likes. Notating it as if its final goal were
>>somehow implied by the first altered chord is misleading, I think.
>
>Its final goal is dictated by where it finally goes,
That is nonsense. You do not need the words "dictated by" above, they
are meant to distract from the fact that the sentence really says "its
final goal is its final goal". Nothing is "dictated" in the
progression cited. This is precisely why I made the point that it
could continue around the circle of fifths. My analysis shows this
ambiguity of goal, which is why I prefer it.
>which in turn
>determines the key of the whole passage.
It is your opinion that citing the ultimate goal at the beginning is
more descriptive of how we hear it. I do not share this opinion.
>>
>>>Dave
>>
David Webber
"Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:3FFAEDA6...@nowhere.net...
> David Webber wrote:
> >
> > Functionally it is of course
> >
> > I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
> >
> > but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
>
> The extended dominant chain notation is exactly what is taught at
places
> like Berklee.
Ok, thanks. (To you and others who replied.) I can see that it
*does* emphasise the cycle of 5ths. But I didn't think
I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
was really any more difficult to recognise as the same cycle, and
this one does give an indication of what is happening at the I->III7
stage though I suppose one could write
I III7
V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
to get the best of both worlds.
paramucho
As this thread demonstrates, Roman Numeral usage is not standardised.
UC=Uppercase: Some use only uppercase symbols and rely on the key to
define the default chord types (e.g. in C major, I is a major chord,
II is a minor chord). Altered chords are notated with leading and
trailing accidentals (e.g. bIII is Eb in C). Leading accidentals
denote lowered or raised degrees. Trailing accidentals denote altered
major/minor (e.g. II# is a D major chord in C).
UL=Uppercase/Lowercase: Uppercase, for major, and lowercase, for minor
is more common and really doesn't lose information. For example, if we
know we are in a major key then we know that iii is the natural form
of the mediant and thus we know that III is an altered chord. Leading
accidentals are the same as in UC form although they may be written as
trailing accidentals in UL form.
POP: In a minor key, say A minor, the notation for the mediant, C, is
traditionally III. In pop music however there's a drift towards
notating minor key chords as if they were specified in a major key.
Thus, C would be written bIII.
Here's a comparison of the chords in the natural minor (where "-"
stands for diminished):
a b- C d e F G
UC I II III IV V VI VII
UL i ??? III iv v VI VII
Pop i ii- bIII iv v bVI bVII
In the CP world chord symbols for a minor key often default to the
harmonic minor. The treatment of diminished and augmented chords also
varies.
Chord-wise: If the purpose is to simply describe the chords in a piece
then the approach below is suitable:
[G F# B E A D G]
I VII III VI II V I
Which simple reads, tonic, major chord on the leading note, major
chord on the mediant and so on. Or, tonic, leading note major, mediant
major etc. This will often be all that is required or at least a first
step in an analysis.
Functional: If we want to describe the functional path of a
progression then, in CP's dominant paradigm, we might write:
[G F# B E A D G ]
I V-of V-of V-of V-of V I
There are various forms of this "V-of" notation. In pop it's become
common to notate IV-of relationships in the same way. In a functional
description of a passage some chords might be left unnotated because
they're not considered to have a function.
Modulation: There's another common form of notation of altered chords
and that's when a passage modulates. Here's a passage analysed
chord-wise in both G major and E minor:
[G B e B e a D G ]
G: I III vi III vi ii V I
e: VI V i V i iv (b)VII VI
Functionally we might split this into sections which we assign to the
key of G major and E minor respectively. We can then apply V-of
notation as well.
[G B e B e a D G ]
G: I III ii V I
e: V i V i iv
Decorations: It's quite common to see sevenths added to RN symbols
although in some senses that's more a description of chord quality
than the function of a chord's degree, thus some omit it.
While CP and Pop agree on the seventh any other decoration is going to
be ambiguous. Indeed, I7 and IV7 are as well, denoting a major
sevenths in CP and a minor sevenths in pop.
Inversions: In pop I6 denotes an added sixth. In CP I6 might denote a
first inversion chord. Other's write Ib (where a, b, c etc denote root
position, first inversion, second inversion etc). Indeed it's at this
point that the limitations of what is really only a shorthand notation
show up. For that reason some will accompany a RN description with a
figured bass or, in pop, with slash notation for inversions.
Summary: The whole idea behind RN notation is to present a
*description* of the way you're thinking about a passage. Thus, there
will be as many adaptations as there are ways of thinking about music,
and there are many ways to do that. Any attempt to define a set of
strict rules that everyone should use is doomed because it's simply an
attempt to say that we should all think about music in the same way.
And we don't.
Tony T. Warnock
David Webber wrote:
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3FFAEDA6...@nowhere.net...
>
> > David Webber wrote:
> > >
> > > Functionally it is of course
> > >
> > > I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
> > >
> > > but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
> >
> > The extended dominant chain notation is exactly what is taught at
> places
> > like Berklee.
>
> Ok, thanks. (To you and others who replied.) I can see that it
> *does* emphasise the cycle of 5ths. But I didn't think
>
> I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
>
> was really any more difficult to recognise as the same cycle, and
> this one does give an indication of what is happening at the I->III7
> stage though I suppose one could write
>
> I III7
> V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
>
> to get the best of both worlds.
>
When composing, I tend to think of : I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I as
being the progression.
When writing out on a lead sheet, I tend to think: I III7 VI7 II7
V7 I, as it's a bit easier to read.
Joey Goldstein
David Webber wrote:
>
> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
> news:3FFAEDA6...@nowhere.net...
>
> > David Webber wrote:
> > >
> > > Functionally it is of course
> > >
> > > I V/V/V/V7 V/V/V7 V/V7 V7 I
> > >
> > > but I don't think one would write it like that. Would one?
> >
> > The extended dominant chain notation is exactly what is taught at
> places
> > like Berklee.
>
> Ok, thanks. (To you and others who replied.) I can see that it
> *does* emphasise the cycle of 5ths. But I didn't think
>
> I III7 VI7 II7 V7 I
At Berklee III7 would indicate a non dominant function dominat 7th
chord, which is clearly not the case in this particular progression.
Joey Goldstein
paramucho wrote:
>
> On 6 Jan 2004 07:03:37 -0800, bill...@hotmail.com (libby) wrote:
>
> >jAN.6,2004
> >
> >I understand the notation for all the degrees of a particular scale.
> >For example, I,II,III,IV,V. etc. What I need to know is how do I
> >notate in Roman numerals when I go to chords not in the
> >above-mentioned degrees. A few examples: I'm playing in G maj. I want
> >to go to B maj. How is it notated in RN?
> >I'm still in G maj. I want to go to A maj. How is it notated in RN?
> >I'm still in Gmaj. I want to go to C# diminished. How do I notate it
> >in Roman numerals?
> >What about going to F#. Thanks for any help on this.
> >Bill Murn
>
> As this thread demonstrates, Roman Numeral usage is not standardised.
>
> UC=Uppercase: Some use only uppercase symbols
> and rely on the key to
> define the default chord types (e.g. in C major, I is a major chord,
> II is a minor chord).
I've never seen that system. In jazz circles, as I said earlier in this
thread, we usually use all upper case but the chord on S2 would be
written as IIm7 not just II7.
> Altered chords are notated with leading and
> trailing accidentals (e.g. bIII is Eb in C). Leading accidentals
> denote lowered or raised degrees. Trailing accidentals denote altered
> major/minor (e.g. II# is a D major chord in C).
>
> UL=Uppercase/Lowercase: Uppercase, for major, and lowercase, for minor
> is more common
In my experience this is the most prevalent system in the classical
world. It also involves prior knowledge of the regularly used chords on
the various scale degrees in both major and minor keys. For example:
c: vii7 indicates the chord derived from the C harmonic minor scale's
7th degree, Bdim7, because that is the most regulary used vii chord in
minor keys. To indicate the chord derived from the 7th degree of C
natural minor some extra text is required:
c: vii7(modal) is one way to do it.
Of course this analytical notational system is always just an
accompaniment to actual written standard notation. So if there is any
question as to what the components of the chord that is analysed as vii7
actually are all one has to do is to look at the notes.
Gordon Delamont used his own system which was a confusing take on the
classical. He used upper case for primary chords, I, IV and V in both
major and minor keys.
c: IV meant Fm
c: iii meant Eb
etc.
> and really doesn't lose information. For example, if we
> know we are in a major key then we know that iii is the natural form
> of the mediant and thus we know that III is an altered chord. Leading
> accidentals are the same as in UC form although they may be written as
> trailing accidentals in UL form.
>
> POP: In a minor key, say A minor, the notation for the mediant, C, is
> traditionally III. In pop music however there's a drift towards
> notating minor key chords as if they were specified in a major key.
> Thus, C would be written bIII.
I've never seen this system either.
> Here's a comparison of the chords in the natural minor (where "-"
> stands for diminished):
>
> a b- C d e F G
> UC I II III IV V VI VII
> UL i ??? III iv v VI VII
> Pop i ii- bIII iv v bVI bVII
>
> In the CP world chord symbols for a minor key often default to the
> harmonic minor. The treatment of diminished and augmented chords also
> varies.
CP = "common practice"?
Joey Goldstein
As an improviser I tend to hear and treat it as:
DC DC
I V7/vi V7/ii V7/V V7 I
where "DC" means deceptive cadence.
I.e. As a default, I color the the V/V/V/V as if a vi chord is coming.
As a default, I color the V/V/V as if a ii chord is coming.
This means applying a chord scale to these two dom7 chords that has b9's
and b13's, usually mixolydian b2b6 or the altered domiant scale.
The V7/V is usually colored with a chord-scale that has maj 9's and maj
13's, eg. mixolydian or lydian b7.
My secondary choice is to treat it as:
I V7/V V7/V V7/V I
In this mode of hearing all the dom7 chords would be colored with the
mixolydian or lyd b7 sounds.
For modern jazz players these lines get blurred and the two poles get
mixed and mashed up at will. One usually successful treatment involves
using major tensions (maj 9's and maj 13's) when the dom7 chord is first
heard, and minor (aka altered) tensions (b9's and b13's) just before the
next chord is sounded.
bill murn
Seems to be a lot of variations for the RN system. For my simple
purposes, the Nashville system would work fine. BTW Joey, how do the
Nashville cats notate Dim and Aug, b5,#11,etc., in their system?
Thanks to all who got involved.
---
Joey Goldstein
I'm no expert on it but my guess would be:
1dim, 2b5, 3#11, etc.
The tricky thing with Nashville notation, as far as I can tell, is
deciding when you want to indicate a key change, and how.
For instance lots of tunes change key for the bridge. But a typical
bridge only lasts for 8 bars. Do you indicate that a key change to the
key of 4 (or whatever) has occurred and label the subsequent roots in
relation to their distance from the tone that was 4 in the original key?
Or do you just label all the chords in the bridge according to their
distance from the original tonic still?
This has been explained to me before but since I don't use Nashville
notation I have forgotten the conventions.
The same problem occurs in solfege that uses a movable doh system. When
to move doh?
Dr.Matt
In moveable do solfege, when a key change occurs, it's conventional to
begin solmizing to the new key just after the last note not compatible
with the new key. The implication is that even without the syllables,
the music may be retrospectively understood relative to the new key all
the way back to that point.
The same approach is taken in analyzing modulating harmony, the point
being that music unfolds in time, and the business of being unsure of
its syntax until it has already passed is a normal part of the
expected listening strategy--the part where the listener becomes
intensely focussed and perhaps the main part where the listener
experiences expression and meaning as a result of needing to hold the
passing music in memory for a while in order to recognize the
conventional patterns it eventually fulfills.
It's late, and I don't feel like rephrasing this in smaller bites
right now.
Joey Goldstein
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
> Joey,
> In moveable do solfege, when a key change occurs, it's conventional to
> begin solmizing to the new key just after the last note not compatible
> with the new key. The implication is that even without the syllables,
> the music may be retrospectively understood relative to the new key all
> the way back to that point.
> The same approach is taken in analyzing modulating harmony, the point
> being that music unfolds in time, and the business of being unsure of
> its syntax until it has already passed is a normal part of the
> expected listening strategy
Understood....I think. The problem for me has to do with secondary keys
and primary keys. And wasn't it you who once told me there were no
secondary keys, that a key change is a key change period?
Albert Silverman
Why on earth would you *WANT* to use Roman Numeral notation for chord
identification?
It is absurd, irrelevant, incoherent, asinine, boneheaded, Ancient,
hysterical, etc., etc., etc. These are the nicest things that can be said
for this monstrosity.
It will not help you *one iota* to go through this exercise in
"traditional" nonsense.
Just be glad that you *don't* know how to do it, and pity those who are
going to respond to your question. They know not what they are doing.....
Albert Silverman
(Al is in Wonderland!)
The Romans are coming--RUN!
paramucho
<nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>paramucho wrote:
>>
>> On 6 Jan 2004 07:03:37 -0800, bill...@hotmail.com (libby) wrote:
>>
>> >jAN.6,2004
>> >
>> >I understand the notation for all the degrees of a particular scale.
>> >For example, I,II,III,IV,V. etc. What I need to know is how do I
>> >notate in Roman numerals when I go to chords not in the
>> >above-mentioned degrees. A few examples: I'm playing in G maj. I want
>> >to go to B maj. How is it notated in RN?
>> >I'm still in G maj. I want to go to A maj. How is it notated in RN?
>> >I'm still in Gmaj. I want to go to C# diminished. How do I notate it
>> >in Roman numerals?
>> >What about going to F#. Thanks for any help on this.
>> >Bill Murn
>>
>> As this thread demonstrates, Roman Numeral usage is not standardised.
>>
>> UC=Uppercase: Some use only uppercase symbols
>> and rely on the key to
>> define the default chord types (e.g. in C major, I is a major chord,
>> II is a minor chord).
>
>I've never seen that system. In jazz circles, as I said earlier in this
>thread, we usually use all upper case but the chord on S2 would be
>written as IIm7 not just II7.
It was the initial form used I think (but I may be wrong). I've seen
it in some of the text books I have.
>> Altered chords are notated with leading and
>> trailing accidentals (e.g. bIII is Eb in C). Leading accidentals
>> denote lowered or raised degrees. Trailing accidentals denote altered
>> major/minor (e.g. II# is a D major chord in C).
>>
>> UL=Uppercase/Lowercase: Uppercase, for major, and lowercase, for minor
>> is more common
>
>In my experience this is the most prevalent system in the classical
>world. It also involves prior knowledge of the regularly used chords on
>the various scale degrees in both major and minor keys. For example:
>c: vii7 indicates the chord derived from the C harmonic minor scale's
>7th degree, Bdim7, because that is the most regulary used vii chord in
>minor keys. To indicate the chord derived from the 7th degree of C
>natural minor some extra text is required:
>c: vii7(modal) is one way to do it.
>Of course this analytical notational system is always just an
>accompaniment to actual written standard notation. So if there is any
>question as to what the components of the chord that is analysed as vii7
>actually are all one has to do is to look at the notes.
>
>Gordon Delamont used his own system which was a confusing take on the
>classical. He used upper case for primary chords, I, IV and V in both
>major and minor keys.
>c: IV meant Fm
>c: iii meant Eb
>etc.
The system is perfect for everyone's private form of obsfuscation :-)
But, to go to my final point below, it's clear that what he wanted to
do was present a view where the importance of the primary chords stood
out, so it would be appropriate.
>> and really doesn't lose information. For example, if we
>> know we are in a major key then we know that iii is the natural form
>> of the mediant and thus we know that III is an altered chord. Leading
>> accidentals are the same as in UC form although they may be written as
>> trailing accidentals in UL form.
>>
>> POP: In a minor key, say A minor, the notation for the mediant, C, is
>> traditionally III. In pop music however there's a drift towards
>> notating minor key chords as if they were specified in a major key.
>> Thus, C would be written bIII.
>
>I've never seen this system either.
I've used it for some time because it fits in with the context
independent notation for chords in pop. I noticed it being used in a
large book by Dominic Pedler called THE SONGWRITING SECRETS OF THE
BEATLES, which is actually a fairly straightforward course in harmony
using the Beatles' music as examples. Since Dominic comes from the
Guitar Magazine world I'm guessing the system is also used there.
The approach solves more problems than it causes. I still use the CP
system in the few really harmonic minor pieces I come across.
>> Here's a comparison of the chords in the natural minor (where "-"
>> stands for diminished):
>>
>> a b- C d e F G
>> UC I II III IV V VI VII
>> UL i ??? III iv v VI VII
>> Pop i ii- bIII iv v bVI bVII
>>
>> In the CP world chord symbols for a minor key often default to the
>> harmonic minor. The treatment of diminished and augmented chords also
>> varies.
>
>CP = "common practice"?
Yes -- or "classical practice". You know, old stuff (but not as old as
some other stuff). I'm starting to use PP (pop practice), JP (jazz
practice) etc internally to differentiate this and that.
paramucho
It's just another view of the elephant by the blind men, and it can't
be absurd as long as it helps to say things about the elephant.
Dr.Matt
dialect.
Dr.Matt
Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
>
>"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>>
>> Joey,
>> In moveable do solfege, when a key change occurs, it's conventional to
>> begin solmizing to the new key just after the last note not compatible
>> with the new key. The implication is that even without the syllables,
>> the music may be retrospectively understood relative to the new key all
>> the way back to that point.
>> The same approach is taken in analyzing modulating harmony, the point
>> being that music unfolds in time, and the business of being unsure of
>> its syntax until it has already passed is a normal part of the
>> expected listening strategy
>
>Understood....I think. The problem for me has to do with secondary keys
>and primary keys. And wasn't it you who once told me there were no
>secondary keys, that a key change is a key change period?
No. In classical music, a key change is primarily a structure for
elaborating a chord within the main key. The requirement for well-formedness
is that the non-tonic tone in the melody be supported by consonant harmony,
and that its elaboration then locally take *that* harmony as tonic and
arrive at that harmony by authentic cadence before proceeding in the
original key. There are a few cases--like chains of V7's--where the
goal of the local key may be elided.
The use of more radical key changes which never change back, but in
which the progression of keys is itself an expansion of a motivic
progression of tones--this kind of construction is a late-19th-century
innovation, one of the milestones on the road to atonality.
Joey Goldstein
"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>
> In article <3FFCE5FC...@nowhere.net>,
> Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >"Dr.Matt" wrote:
> >>
> >> Joey,
> >> In moveable do solfege, when a key change occurs, it's conventional to
> >> begin solmizing to the new key just after the last note not compatible
> >> with the new key. The implication is that even without the syllables,
> >> the music may be retrospectively understood relative to the new key all
> >> the way back to that point.
> >> The same approach is taken in analyzing modulating harmony, the point
> >> being that music unfolds in time, and the business of being unsure of
> >> its syntax until it has already passed is a normal part of the
> >> expected listening strategy
> >
> >Understood....I think. The problem for me has to do with secondary keys
> >and primary keys. And wasn't it you who once told me there were no
> >secondary keys, that a key change is a key change period?
>
> No. In classical music, a key change is primarily a structure for
> elaborating a chord within the main key. The requirement for well-formedness
> is that the non-tonic tone in the melody be supported by consonant harmony,
Hmmm. In my experience, the strongest tonal melodies usually have
diatonic tones supported by chromaticism in the harmony for color. Of
course in contrapuntal writing each line is a melody so it all balances out.
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>In article <3FFCE5FC...@nowhere.net>,
>Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>"Dr.Matt" wrote:
>>>
>>> Joey,
>>> In moveable do solfege, when a key change occurs, it's conventional to
>>> begin solmizing to the new key just after the last note not compatible
>>> with the new key. The implication is that even without the syllables,
>>> the music may be retrospectively understood relative to the new key all
>>> the way back to that point.
>>> The same approach is taken in analyzing modulating harmony, the point
>>> being that music unfolds in time, and the business of being unsure of
>>> its syntax until it has already passed is a normal part of the
>>> expected listening strategy
>>
>>Understood....I think. The problem for me has to do with secondary keys
>>and primary keys. And wasn't it you who once told me there were no
>>secondary keys, that a key change is a key change period?
>
>No. In classical music, a key change is primarily a structure for
>elaborating a chord within the main key.
That's an elegant statement, but is there any meat (or soy extract) in
it? I guess the problem I have with it is that I can't see anything
which would disprove it, and if it's not capable of disproof, then how
does it tell us anything :-)
paramucho
(Dr.Matt) wrote:
>I've seen at least one edition of Piston which uses the all-upper-case
>dialect.
In fact UC is predominant in straightforward harmony texts. Since the
original idea was that the numbers referred to the *degree*, and
ascribed a function to the degree, this should not be surprising.
Piston (original and revised), all UC.
Schoenberg: All UC with strike-through to mark altered chords and
annotated with circled symbols for tonic, dominant etc.
Ratner: All UC when used at all. Functions are given above the
symbols:
[C E7 a C7 |F ...
V7-i V7--I
\---/ \----/
I VI IV
Others also use multi-level presentations, each with their own
particular forms.
Lester: All UC and only seems to mark functional chords (I IV V and
VII). Parenthesised figured-bass inversion/resolution.
Forte: All UC when at all. Obviously with figured bass, usually
between the staves.
Aldwell: All UC, often sparse.
Prout: Upper and lowercase.
Other British: Usually sparse usage but UC.
In general, each author has their own additions and annotations to the
basic form. These idiosyncracies rarely explained with any
explicitness.
Dr.Matt
It's not a statement of truth about the universe but of a model for a
cultural phenomenon. You *do* know the difference? Of course it can be
falsified by any music which returns to its home key without closing
off a PAC in the temporary key and then reinterpretting that chord in
the home key. But that's besides the point, since it makes no pretense
of having any saliency outside of a purely cultural phenomenon.
Dr. sidethink
> jAN.6,2004
>
> I understand the notation for all the degrees of a particular scale.
> For example, I,II,III,IV,V. etc. What I need to know is how do I
> notate in Roman numerals when I go to chords not in the
> above-mentioned degrees. A few examples: I'm playing in G maj. I want
> to go to B maj. How is it notated in RN?
> I'm still in G maj. I want to go to A maj. How is it notated in RN?
> I'm still in Gmaj. I want to go to C# diminished. How do I notate it
> in Roman numerals?
> What about going to F#. Thanks for any help on this.
> Bill Murn
There are several conventions about this, each with a vocal group of
followers.
the main problem is that often the actual key center is different than
the SIGNED key sig, but this is often not noted in a particular style
of notation.
Johm Mehegan uses a system of notation that addresses this, but his
charts are hard to learn to read.
Unfortunately I know of no particular standard that is agreed on.
(Please, no replies about the TRUE ORTHODOX style versus Heretical
ravings of Jazz guys <gg>)
not only that, but even with , for example, with a key SIGNATURE of C,
if the modal center is in A minor, often I stands for the tonic of
Aminor wnich is annotated in different ways
For example
the diatonic chords are numbered I ii iii IV V vi and vii by a
leading popular notation . with this convention, II would note IImajor
Losing Popularity is the "Nashville" system which is similar to the
one you are using.
I use a system for myself where II stands for D minor in the Signed
key of C, and IIM satnds for D major. (Avoiding the need for upper
case and lower case Roman Numerals)
To answer your question
Using my system, in the key of G, B major is indeed not the diatonic
III of the signed key of G, so it would be notated as IIIM
Others will have different suggestions.
I would suggest the system used by the program Band-in-a Box if you
are composing or arranging for Jazz or Pop, otherwise you might use
some Classical system which uses lower case RN's
good luck!
Bob Pease
paramucho
Local knowledge is everything. You should have seen by now that this
area, art as fashion/mode, is one area in which we are usually in
emphatic agreement. In fact, the reason I discuss this point is that I
sometimes *seem* to see you being lured by elegance of a construction
where others are lured by the sirens of mathematics.
> Of course it can be
>falsified by any music which returns to its home key without closing
>off a PAC in the temporary key and then reinterpretting that chord in
>the home key. But that's besides the point, since it makes no pretense
>of having any saliency outside of a purely cultural phenomenon.
What I'm enquiring about is it's saliency inside the box. To me, it
sounds more like an optional rather than a necessary way of listening
or thinking about the music. On the same grounds, I have the same
discomfort with the idea that the key to a CP piece is the progression
to the final close. In that case, it sounds to me like a theory of art
based on the notion that the key to a painting is the relationship
between the work and it's rectangular frame. While the frame clearly
exerts its influence, I think it's just one of many such influences.
Both cases, the elaboration of a chord and the overall progression,
are certainly potential elements of a design, but I see them as
options on a palette rather than the only colours as you would *seem*
to imply.
For example, the mediant second group of the Waldstein certainly
elaborates the major mediant of key (an altered chord), but what does
that tell us? Does it tell us why he chose that key for his second
group? I don't think so. I think Tovey's theory, that he'd so weakened
the dominant that it was no longer useable in that role, is more
likely.
Regarding the final close, clearly there are pieces which exercise
this opportunity to the max, be it loudly or very softly. On the other
hand there's a good deal of it which comes to a perfunctory stop
rather than completing in any sense. Indeed, it's often the utter
concentration on the sensuous, timeless *now* that seems to give a
Mozart andante it's entire raison d'etre. The close is then no more
than a cessation (as it often is in the blues).
I don't know how we'd be able to show how Hadyn, Mozart or Beethoven
were thinking about the music at the time of writing.
To put it in a nutshell, I'd have no problem with the statement that
"key changes *can* often be seen to be the elaboration of a chord and
the overall progression to the final close *can* be the important
mechanism that a CP composer chooses to exercise in a given piece".
It's the lack of this optional *can* that makes me feel like you're
speaking *universally* within the cultural box. Perhaps it's just a
matter of language?
Dr.Matt
Nobody says that's the KEY to a CP piece, it's the background against
which the distinctive stuff works. Without a background, the distinctive
stuff might tend not to stand out in high relief.
>Both cases, the elaboration of a chord and the overall progression,
>are certainly potential elements of a design, but I see them as
>options on a palette rather than the only colours as you would *seem*
>to imply.
>
>For example, the mediant second group of the Waldstein certainly
>elaborates the major mediant of key (an altered chord), but what does
>that tell us? Does it tell us why he chose that key for his second
>group? I don't think so. I think Tovey's theory, that he'd so weakened
>the dominant that it was no longer useable in that role, is more
>likely.
Seems to me more like it's the old story of minor keys played out against
a background of a major key, and thus given new life.
>Regarding the final close, clearly there are pieces which exercise
>this opportunity to the max, be it loudly or very softly. On the other
>hand there's a good deal of it which comes to a perfunctory stop
>rather than completing in any sense. Indeed, it's often the utter
>concentration on the sensuous, timeless *now* that seems to give a
>Mozart andante it's entire raison d'etre. The close is then no more
>than a cessation (as it often is in the blues).
Can you give me an example of a Mozart that does that? Seems to me
his closes are either very final and downbeat--or run right into a subsequent
movement which does *not* start on its tonic.
>I don't know how we'd be able to show how Hadyn, Mozart or Beethoven
>were thinking about the music at the time of writing.
Their sketches provide a lot of information, actuall.
>To put it in a nutshell, I'd have no problem with the statement that
>"key changes *can* often be seen to be the elaboration of a chord and
>the overall progression to the final close *can* be the important
>mechanism that a CP composer chooses to exercise in a given piece".
>It's the lack of this optional *can* that makes me feel like you're
>speaking *universally* within the cultural box. Perhaps it's just a
>matter of language?
It's a matter of period. It works wonderously for M. H. & B., only
with a stretch for Chopin, and falls down mightily for Wagner.