Please help me with a decision

[Roc77]

I think I see what you're asking. I think(?) If you are implementing scale sets, then as was said Harmony Nav, just adds a space to cover the different notes for the scale degree.

Excellent reply, thanks, Roc77!
I have to rethink the internal handling of roman numerals now, because chord suggestions, chord progression rules editing, chord progression generating will come in the next update (v2.7) even though it was planned for a later version.

Thank you for the useful links and references.

I have lots of ideas for the drum track, which will be implemented shortly. I am sure it will be quicker and easier than this chord stuff...

Thanks!
Attila

Your quite welcome and I look forward to what you have in store for us next.

[themixtape]

No prob, Attila... I know this stuff is extremely confusing.

Yes, Major+Minor Set is a custom/non-existent scale. But I find it very useful!!! It's got a lot of chords available that I want in my composing.

I'm not sure technically how you would implement the scale degrees in your program, but here are the common degrees for both major and minor-

MAJOR SCALE (for example, C major)
I (C)
ii (Dm)
iii (Em)
IV (F)
V (G)
vi (Am)
vii* (B diminished)

MINOR SCALE (for example, C minor)
I (Cm)
ii* (D diminished)
III (Eb)
iv (Fm)
v (Gm)
VI (Ab)
VII (Bb)

Now, notice how the Roman Numeral scale degrees are different in the minor scale. That's where the confusion sets in. I like to think of everything BASED on the MAJOR SCALE. This way, there is little confusion, especially if you use "Major+Minor Set"

For instance... Major+Minor Set for C would be:
I (C)
im (or Im, however you wish to use... in my opinion, I think it's better to use lowercase when showing minor tonality):
ii (Dm)
ii* (D diminished)
iii (Em)
bIII (Eb)
IV (F)
ivm (Fm)
V (G)
v (Gm)
vi (Am)
bVII (Ab)
vii* (B diminished)
bVII (Bb)

or, separating them, with that vertical line (like I suggested to you months and months ago)....

the COMMON chords first:
I ii iii IV V vi | bIII bVI bVII | im ivm vm ii*

Because since it's major+minor set, go with the MAIN PART of it... the Major scale degrees (in order, most used)... then the extra sections, letting the user know they come from the other scale (from most used, to least-used)

Does this help?

[themixtape]

And also, to JFK-- yes, the Roman Numeral system has been in use for decades... maybe even centuries, I'm not sure. But in Nashville and all the major hit songwriting centers.... they say "the One chord" or "the Five chord".... same as the Roman Numerals... when they co-write or whatever... "it goes to the Four, here." It's a universal language, and as another forum member suggested, the Roman Numerals are used because they can be universally applied to ANY key...

So, if you're in the studio, working with a great singer... and the key of F is too low... and the band knows the chord progressions by heart... all you have to say is "guys, let's transpose the song up to A"... everyone knows that every chord in the song will be the same, just in a different key.

"This chorus is a vi - V - I - IV"... (everyone initially learned that it's Dm - C - F - Bb)

Now they immediately know to play F#m - E - A - D, instead.

The Roman Numeral thing is absolutely essential for songwriting. The best thing that was ever invented, imho.

[BlackWinny]

And also, to JFK-- yes, the Roman Numeral system has been in use for decades... maybe even centuries, I'm not sure. But in Nashville and all the major hit songwriting centers.... they say "the One chord" or "the Five chord".... same as the Roman Numerals... when they co-write or whatever... "it goes to to the Four, here." It's a universal language, and as another forum member suggested, the Roman Numerals are used because they can be universally applied to ANY key...

So, if you're in the studio, working with a great singer... and the key of F is too low... and the band knows the chord progressions by heart... all you have to say is "guys, let's transpose the song up to A"... everyone knows that every chord in the song will be the same, just in a different key.

"This chorus is a vi - V - I - IV"... (everyone initially learned that it's Dm - C - F - Bb)

Now they immediately know to play F#m - E - A - D, instead.

The Roman Numeral thing is absolutely essential for songwriting. The best thing that was ever invented, imho.

Yes It is the very base for all which is related to harmony, transposition, circle of fifths, cadences (something totally obsolete and unknown for the techno/trance "composers"), modulations from a part of a work to a next part, etc.

Without the relative scales written in roman numeral notation, transpositions would be a nightmare for example. Especially to write the parts to be played by a transposing instrument (notably many brasses) within an orchestra. But it would be a nightmare for all transpositions, modulations, etc.

Today we are too much encline to think that the electronic tools (and instruments) are able to resolve all the problems... and even that there is no problem anymore with the "modern music" as they call it. But seen from the sight of the real composer it is totally false (except of course for the boom boom boom kids who write only techno/trance with nothing else than two chords (or even worse... with simply two metal "power chords") and a crowd of huge effects to hide their total lack of knowledge in music theory).

[BlackWinny]

The Roman Numeral thing is absolutely essential for songwriting. The best thing that was ever invented, imho.

I don't know the age of everyone here, but I remember when in the mid-60's I was learning piano and flute, it was absolutely capital to learn by heart (and to practice) the relative intervals to be capable to make all the excercises demanding transpositions. At 7 or 8 years old! Without the roman numeral notation in head, it was impossible to play directly transposed while seeing the sheet non transposed in front of our eyes.

[tonedef71]

For instance... Major+Minor Set for C would be:
I (C)
im (or Im, however you wish to use... in my opinion, I think it's better to use lowercase when showing minor tonality):
ii (Dm)
ii* (D diminished)
iii (Em)
bIII (Eb)
IV (F)
ivm (Fm)
V (G)
v (Gm)
vi (Am)
bVII (Ab)
vii* (B diminished)
bVII (Bb)

Why not the following instead?:
I (C)
i (Cm)
ii (Dm)
ii* (D diminished)
iii (Em)
bIII (Eb)
IV (F)
iv (Fm)
V (G)
v (Gm)
vi (Am)
bVII (Ab)
vii* (B diminished)
bVII (Bb)

The lowercase m's that you added to the minor chords look redundant to me, even if you are trying to imply that those chords were coming from the minor scale.

or, separating them, with that vertical line (like I suggested to you months and months ago)....

the COMMON chords first:
I ii iii IV V vi | bIII bVI bVII | im ivm vm ii*

I think I might also like to be able to see the chord ordering by scale degrees as well (major scale degree chords followed by the minor scale degree chords to denote a Major/Minor set, or minor scale degree chords followed by major scale degree chords to a denote Minor/Major set) -- the same way you presented them initially:
I i ii ii* iii bIII IV iv V v vi bVI vii* bVII

With the Roman numerals, I am also accustomed to seeing figured bass numbers along with the Roman numerals (essential for describing inversions). That would be tricky to do in the UI because the font size would need to be reduced to display the figured bass numbers and symbols which would also need to be aligned in a single column.

[tonedef71]

The Roman Numeral thing is absolutely essential for songwriting. The best thing that was ever invented, imho.

I like it, too.

[BlackWinny]

The Roman Numeral thing is absolutely essential for songwriting. The best thing that was ever invented, imho.

I like it, too.

Their book "Exploring Theory" is very nice also (and with little exercises for the beginners, but the book goes quite deeply in the general things to absolutely know to begin to compose or really play seriously).

http://ars-nova.com/et/

[J.F.K.]

Well, the English version of Wikipedia indeed says that there are two (or three) different versions for notating with roman numerals: A "Traditional notation" version and a "Chord symbol" version:


The "Chord symbol" version is obviously that one, which Attila was talking about. I must say that I still have no sympathy for it. I could not work with that. When I work with a minor scale, then I do not want that I have to think in scale steps based on the major scale. I find that extremely confusing. For me, the traditional notation for roman numerals is the only one that makes sense.

[BlackWinny]

Well, the English version of Wikipedia indeed says that there are two (or three) different versions for notating with roman numerals: A "Traditional notation" version and a "Chord symbol" version:


The "Chord symbol" version is obviously that one, which Attila was talking about. I must say that I still have no sympathy for it. I could not work with that. I know only the traditional notation for roman numerals and for me it's also the only one that makes sense.

It takes also less place in the line.
And with habit it is perfectly readable.
And for those who have weak eyes it is also more easily readable.

All that are very serious arguments for which I always militate. The ease to read... and the thought to the persons having weak eyes.

[J.F.K.]

It takes also less place in the line.
And with habit it is perfectly readable.

But that's not the point. The point is whether there is a "b" before VI or not.

[BlackWinny]

It takes also less place in the line.
And with habit it is perfectly readable.

But that's not the point. The point is whether there is a "b" before VI or not.

Yes, yes, it's an important part of the point.

In the absolute, I'm always for the traditional lectures, those which are used in the harmony books, because it doesn't need to make a mental conversion at each second of our lectures.
After that... why not offer a new notation a bit different if it helps?... But of course it is absolutely important to keep also the traditional notation, at least for the more aged (or weaked eyes) people to prevent them to have a supplementary mental work to do, but also, once more, in order to keep the usability of all the existing lectures, books, ancient sheets using this notation for transposition, existing complete sheets of orchestras, but also perhaps for teaching (think of a parent at home with his/her son or daughter), etc.

A changement in a notation, if it leads to a permanent new habit only for a specific tool, implies more than simply the addition of a letter here and there... it implies changes of habits for some persons which have not necessarily the age or the mental strength to change their habits, and it implies very often very annoying unnecessary changements in much more situations than those we think at the first sight.

That's why, if a changement is suggested to a regular method, why not? All can be good if it is driven by a correct logic. But alway in addition to the regular method, not in pure and simple replacement.

[J.F.K.]

The traditional notation of roman numerals has the enormous advantage that one can immediately see if the base note of a chord is part of the scale or not. If there is a chord bVI or #VI then it is clear, that the base note is out of scale.

Not so at the "Chord Symbol" notation. There bVI designates a chord whose base note *could* be a scale note. "Could" means, that it may or may not be a scale note. It depends on the scale. The whole point of the designation with Roman numerals is ruined with that method of representation.

[BlackWinny]

The traditional notation of roman numerals has the enormous advantage that one can immediately see if the base note of a chord is part of the scale or not. If there is a chord bVI or #VI then it is clear, that the base note is out of scale.

Not so at the "Chord Symbol" notation. There bVI designates a chord whose base note *could* be a scale note. "Could" means, that it may or may not be a scale note. It depends on the scale. The whole point of the designation with Roman numerals is ruined with that method of representation.

Good point, yes.

And another consequence: How to automate a transposition when the engine stumbles upon that ambiguity?

[tonedef71]

The whole point of the designation with Roman numerals is ruined with that method of representation.

I agree with you; such ambiguity makes me uncomfortable.