Progressions, numbers, major and minor, oh my.......help...

[jancivil]

I did find a chord chart that list all the major and minor chord progressions AND the way the notes are supposed to be played.

you may have found something that told you this but 'a list of all [] progressions' is highly improbable. or you mistook 'a list of all the possible roman numbers arrived at building triads from a scale' as 'all progressions'. progressions are what you decide to make of the possiblities. the possible permutations would make a long list.

'how they are supposed to be pleyed' is problematic as well. there are principles extrapolated from what's believed to be good practice in a common practice period and the like...

[Sascha Franck]

basically? sort of? what? if you break down the basic difference in bebop vs older jazz reharmonization, the pertinent concept is ii-V-I and a quality of substition particularly for V [V7b5 = II7b5]; and later down the line you can look at where i is the new ii, or where ii becomes II.

I was talking about how things are WRITTEN. Do you get that? Apparently not.
There's not much of a ii-V-I written in contemporary analysis. There's IImin-V-I. As easy as that.

I wouldn't know where 'classical type of analysis' breaks for functional harmony unless you want to assign roman numbers to rock 'progressions' which are as likely to have been conceived outside the paradigm as any guess.

This isn't what my post was about. Even if I'm no native english speaker, here's some decent advice: Learn to read. What I wrote was as clear as a morning sky.

I didn't know handwritten sheet music which tells the person the chords with roman numbers was so prevalent.

It's also that in older sheets you'd find lower case letters for minor chords and capital letters for major chords. That doesn't exist in any modern sheets anymore.
Also, ever heard about the Nashville Number System? If so, you'd also know that quite some sheets can be written down in functions rather than in absolute chord values (and I certainly wish it was more known over here, because that system is brilliant).

Anyway, it was all too obvious what my post was about. Apparently you intentionally tried to make something else out of it. Have fun with that.

- SF

[JumpingJackFlash]

You can look at a chord chart and think, Well your songs in a minor key, so all the notes have to be minor.

As someone else said, there is no such thing as a minor note.
Assuming you mean chord, just because you are in a minor key does not mean that every chord is a minor one. There are major chords in a minor key (V and VI for example), just as there are minor chords in a major key (ii, iii and vi for example).

You may benefit from this: An Introduction to Music Theory.

[wrench45us]

some of my music books devote a page at the start to reviews all the various symbols that have been used to indicate the various major or minor chord symbols and extended chords,
Then they go on to say what they'll be using in their text to clarify their intent. Unfortunately, it seems the authors who do the best job of explaining the proliferation of chord symbols seem to pick the most arcane symbols for their own text.

[Sascha Franck]

Then they go on to say what they'll be using in their text to clarify their intent.

Similar for all sorts of Real/Fakebooks. They do pretty well in terms of "how to write down a chord".
And well, that and whatever Berklee influences have pretty much defined how you write down chord symbols (or chord "degrees", if you will). There's no lower case letters to indicate minor anymore. It's all capital letters, regardless of whether it's Cmin or IImin. And there's very good reasons for that as well.

Unfortunately, some chord forms still haven't made it to much public awareness, such as a "sus2" (or only "2") chord. Instead you'll still find horrible things such as "Cadd9 (omit 3rd)". But well, that's not part of this thread.

- Sascha

[JumpingJackFlash]

some of my music books devote a page at the start to reviews all the various symbols that have been used to indicate the various major or minor chord symbols and extended chords,
Then they go on to say what they'll be using in their text to clarify their intent. Unfortunately, it seems the authors who do the best job of explaining the proliferation of chord symbols seem to pick the most arcane symbols for their own text.

Indeed. I have seen many bad ones. Some of the worst include one which uses Do-Re-Mi etc. exclusively for chord analysis. (No dominant to tonic, it's So-Do! - This got particularly stupid when she introduced the melodic minor), and one which uses subscript numbers to indicate inversions V2 for example meaning Vb (or V6 if you prefer).

[jancivil]

basically? sort of? what? if you break down the basic difference in bebop vs older jazz reharmonization, the pertinent concept is ii-V-I and a quality of substition particularly for V [V7b5 = II7b5]; and later down the line you can look at where i is the new ii, or where ii becomes II.

I was talking about how things are WRITTEN. Do you get that? Apparently not.
There's not much of a ii-V-I written in contemporary analysis. There's IImin-V-I. As easy as that.

IIm. There's good reasons for that because especially in handwritten scores and the likes, it's quite tough to make out what is upper or lower case.

here's some decent advice: Learn to read. What I wrote was as clear as a morning sky.

These failures cannot be reasonably attributed to my abilities, sir. Have you actually claimed that 'IIminor' is different than 'ii' here? The sky must be pretty cloudy where you are.

You have chosen to be diagreeable personally beyond what interests me to mix in with. I know from myself caffiene can be a factor.

[lingyai]

Making new friends, are we Jan?

[sjm]

I've a question that relates more to this thread than to where it was originally posted.

Here's a snippet from another thread:

Imaj7-IVmaj7-V7-Imaj7
Or add 9ths as well.
Imaj9-IVmaj9-V9-Imaj9

Etc.

<SNIP>

Imin7-IVmin7-V7-Imin7
Cmin7-Fmin7-G7-Cmin7

<SNIP>

Now to me, a "maj7" chord has always implied a "major seventh", not a major chord with a (minor) seventh. I'm a bit confused by the above notation, and this kinda ties in to what's being discussed here. I've come across far more "lower case for minor" than IIm/IImin. But I can appreciate that there are different means of notation.

So when I read the above, I'm confused as to whether Imaj7 for a C chord implies:
C E G Bb
or
C E G B

Especially with the mixture of Imin7, Imaj7 and V7. Or put it another way, assuming that Imaj7 is a "normal" 7th, how do you write a "major seventh" chord? ImajMaj7? Does that really make sense?


Now I'm not someone who's spent years studying music theory or anything, I'm just someone who enjoys music and who's picked up these things by being exposed to them. So this is a question of genuine interest, and would appreciate some sort of insight as to why the above notation would be deemed more appropriate/less ambiguous than a simple upper case/lower case distinction. It seems to me that we're simply substituting one form of ambiguity for another. Especially seeing as apart from in an exam, I'd be hard pressed to think of when one would use handwritten texts in this day and age. So what am I missing?



-----

Heading off on a tangent, I've also never seen Cadd9 (omit 3rd) either; every single chord notation I've ever come across has used Csus2. This is from chord books for guitarists, chord notation in popular sheet music, chord finder apps and on the internet in general. Still, I'd know what was meant. Is this sort of thing really that common, and I've been living under a rock for 20 or so years? Or have you just picked a particularly daft example to illustrate a point?

[JumpingJackFlash]

Now to me, a "maj7" chord has always implied a "major seventh", not a major chord with a (minor) seventh.

You are correct.
For reference:

maj7 or Δ - Major seventh (eg. C-E-G-B)
min7 or m7 - Minor seventh (eg. C-Eb-G-Bb)
7 - Dominant seventh (eg. C-E-G-Bb).
dim7 or ° - Diminished seventh (eg. C-Eb-Gb-Bbb)
m7(b5) or ø - Half Diminished seventh (eg. C-Eb-Gb-Bb)

[sjm]

Now to me, a "maj7" chord has always implied a "major seventh", not a major chord with a (minor) seventh.

You are correct.

But the real question is: what's up with Sascha's notation above? Or do I need to wait for Sascha to answer that?

[fmr]

I've a question that relates more to this thread than to where it was originally posted.

Here's a snippet from another thread:

Imaj7-IVmaj7-V7-Imaj7
Or add 9ths as well.
Imaj9-IVmaj9-V9-Imaj9

Etc.

<SNIP>

Imin7-IVmin7-V7-Imin7
Cmin7-Fmin7-G7-Cmin7

<SNIP>

Now to me, a "maj7" chord has always implied a "major seventh", not a major chord with a (minor) seventh. I'm a bit confused by the above notation, and this kinda ties in to what's being discussed here. I've come across far more "lower case for minor" than IIm/IImin. But I can appreciate that there are different means of notation.

So when I read the above, I'm confused as to whether Imaj7 for a C chord implies:
C E G Bb
or
C E G B

Especially with the mixture of Imin7, Imaj7 and V7. Or put it another way, assuming that Imaj7 is a "normal" 7th, how do you write a "major seventh" chord? ImajMaj7? Does that really make sense?

You pretty much nailed the weakness of this cypher system. I never understood why it is so difficult to simply write the notes that are supposed to be played. If people wanted to play something else, they can, but at least they know what was "composed".

My understanding of Imaj7 is that it is always C E G B, because C E G Bb is a chord of F, not a chord of C (and the cypher Imaj7 implies that C is the first degree, therefore, you are in C). If you wanted C E G Bb in C, you'd better note C7b (at least I would, but I use notes instead, so...). C E G Bb could be cyphered V7 "if" you were in F, but not in C.

[sjm]

OK so basically: "min" appended to the upper case roman numeral replaces the lower case roman numeral.

So I -> I
but ii -> IImin (I'd prefer IIm, but whatever)

And everything else relating to the notation of the chords is otherwise unchanged?

So the maj in the above actually really means the major seventh, as in standard chord notation.

So when Sascha introduces the 7ths to the progression with Imaj7-IVmaj7-V7-Imaj7, this really is the (IMO less common case, given my playing background) where all notes are restricted to the current major key; as opposed to the blues/rock 'n' roll approach of adding the minor seventh to the chords, i.e. I7, IV7, V7, I7?

Maybe I was just confusing myself for no apparent reason then


Disclaimer: I use the Maj7 chords myself all the time, so when I say "less common" I really mean in the context of blues/rnr and not all music that was ever written.

Edit: as in my understanding of the chords is exactly the one posted by JJF several posts ago, and would always understand C7 to mean C E G Bb.

[JumpingJackFlash]

If you wanted C E G Bb in C, you'd better note C7b

This would lead to all sorts of confusion, especially as b is a suffix usually used to denote a first inversion chord (eg. IIb).

C b7 might just be acceptable in certain contexts, but much better to just put C7. - Almost everyone would understand this to mean C-E-G-Bb.

[fmr]

If you wanted C E G Bb in C, you'd better note C7b

This would lead to all sorts of confusion, especially as b is a suffix usually used to denote a first inversion chord (eg. IIb).

C b7 might just be acceptable in certain contexts, but much better to just put C7. - Almost everyone would understand this to mean C-E-G-Bb.

I wouldn't. Again, IMO this all "system" (which is not at al "systematized") can be confusing and cause misinterpretations. For me, C7 can be pretty much ANY seventh chord, depending on the harmonic environment I'm in. It just indicates that chord is suppoed to have a seventh, nothing else. So, if I am in C minor, it will be C eb G Bb. If I am in C major, it will be C E G B. If I am in F (major or minor) it will be C E G Bb. If I am in D flat minor it would be C Eb Gb Bbb, etc. So C7 in itself is meaningless, unless you put in within a sepecific context.
OTOH C b7 would be acceptable to me. What I don't understand is why C7b would be a IIb. Second degree of B Flat? Why?
But you are right - I was taught that the alteration always precedes the number, so, the correct would be Cb7. This usually would denote an intention to modulate, but not necessarily.
Rule should be - notes used are always the notes of the specific scale you are in (indicated by the key signature), unless specified otherwise.