Most Awesome Sounding Chord Progressions Ever Vol 1

[JumpingJackFlash]

I would also like to add that I think it depends on the style of music you're analysing. If it's generally tonal, then it certainly doesn't matter whether you use upper or lower case numerals. If it's not generally tonal, or if it keeps modulating to lots of different keys, then I can possibly see the value in distinguishing between upper and lower case, but in something like that, as someone said, the numerals don't mean anything anyway, so it's much better to say Dmin rather than ii.

[Sascha Franck]

Used a lot in discussions of theory. But other than that, I guess you're right.

Well, all modern (read: jazz, rock, pop) analysis is usually done with capital roman letters only.

I think all the books I have on pop and rock (not classical) composing use lower case letters for minor and diminished chords. I'll have to look and see to make sure.

I wouldn't happen to know a single one using lower case letters at all (apart from classical ones).
Well, ok, probably some stuff from the 30s or so...

[mistertoast]

Well, my favorite one of all does...

Edly's Music Theory for Practical People. Second Edition 2001.

Over 33,000 sold at $25. Not bad! Someone has actually made money writing about this stuff. :->

http://www.edly.com/mtfpp.html

And it's not classical. At least not in my opinion. Covers blues and jazz anyway.

[funkychickendance]

This is why E-A-B7 is the goods. In 4/4, till the wheels drop off.

[Toxikator]

I - Major
i - minor
i° - diminished
I+ - Augmented

Any other way of doing it is colloquial but not official. In other words, it only works when everyone understands that you MEAN ii when you write II. And since it is plainly OBVIOUS that it is not understood by everyone here, I'd say that it's better to write ii.

[funkychickendance]

Although there is a lot to be said for E-G-E-D-E-G-E till the cows come home, then decide to leave again, all the while mooing "dat spoon, dat spoon dat spoonful"

Great reputations have been built on this kind of stuff, you know?

/funxi

[mistertoast]

You certainly have to differentiate major from minor somehow. Like in that common III-iii-I movement. You can say III-IIIm-I or III-iii-I, but you sure can't just say III-III-I.

[Sascha Franck]

You certainly have to differentiate major from minor somehow. Like in that common III-iii-I movement. You can say III-IIIm-I or III-iii-I, but you sure can't just say III-III-I.

Exactly. And IIIm is what I'm familiar with from all recent non-classical analysis books.
Btw, when you think about it, it only makes sense. I mean, nobody's using lower case letters for minor chord symbols in sheets anymore either. There's always G and Gm (or Gmin).

[nuffink]

I-II-V-I (And i-II-V-i)

i-#iii-i-#vi (Cmin-Emin-Cmin-Amin)

I'm still confused about this.

[Sascha Franck]

I-II-V-I (And i-II-V-i)

i-#iii-i-#vi (Cmin-Emin-Cmin-Amin)

I'm still confused about this.

Well, following Toxikators explanation and some classical analysis conventions, there's not much wrong with it.
I'm only not too sure about the #vi and #iii, because usually when talking about the 3rd and 6th degrees of whatever scale, you index the minor 3rd and 6th, not the major one (regardless of whether you're dealing with a minor or major tonality), but I'll give that the benefit of the doubt, it might be different in classical analysis (too long ago, so I don't remember anymore...).

Personally, I'd number the progression like Im, IIIm, Im, VIm.
So, does anybody know what the final verdict of scale/chord numberings is when dealing with minor tonic chords?

[Toxikator]

Im - IIIm is wrong because it assumes the third scale degree, I want a raised third scale degree.

If you want to use roman numeral analysis AT ALL you should use it the right way. there's a system in place...

BTW as to the progressions I posted, I-II-V-I is Cmaj-Dmaj-Gmaj-Cmaj (can be analyzed as I-V/V-V-I)

i-#iii-i-#vi is a chromatic mediant up, back down, and then a chromatic mediant down (and if you repeat it, back up)

[nuffink]

I-II-V-I (And i-II-V-i)

i-#iii-i-#vi (Cmin-Emin-Cmin-Amin)

I'm still confused about this.

Well, following Toxikators explanation and some classical analysis conventions, there's not much wrong with it.

I disagree. For a start what kind of chord is II? According to toxi it's a II major, not exactly common. Let's be charitable and assume modal interchange from the Lydian.

More problematical is i-#iii-i-#vi (Cmin-Emin-Cmin-Amin). It can either be i-#iii-i-#vi (Cmin-E#min-Cmin-A#min), i-iii-i-vi (Cmin-Emin-Cmin-Amin) or something from outside 12TET.

[nuffink]

BTW as to the progressions I posted, I-II-V-I is Cmaj-Dmaj-Gmaj-Cmaj (can be analyzed as I-V/V-V-I)

It can be, but that secondary dominant isn't going to function too well without a (minor) seventh on it.

[Toxikator]

And as I said, the II can be functionally analyzed as a V/V. that chord progression is a very common one.

And it wouldn't be E# and A#, the # just means to raise the scale degree by a half-step; Eb, when sharpened, becomes E, not E#.

[Toxikator]

It can be, but that secondary dominant isn't going to function too well without a seventh on it.

Have you even TRIED the progression? That's completely untrue.

IN FACT, that sort of kills the progression as it overtonicizes G.

The best solution is I-II-V7-I...

listen