Shows us Theory Newbies how to implement chords.

[Sascha Franck]

Toxikator, unless you're dealing with classical material, I can't for the life of me understand why you wouldn't stick to the capital roman number system with chord types indexed as in, say, the New Realbook - which is following the Berklee standard, easily *the* most accepted way of writing down chords and roman numberings.
No need to know about the "underlying" tonality or whatever. II7 is a dominant chord a wholetone above the tonic. IIm7 is a minor seventh chord a wholetone above the tonic. IIm7/b5 is a half-diminished chord a wholetone above the tonic (and please let's not even start using the crossed circle for this one, it reads awfully on handwritten sheets, same goes for the triangle that some people still use for major 7 chords).
Using lower case letters for minor chords has been abandoned in all sorts of "modern" musical styles as well, the simple reason being that, again, on handwritten sheets, they easily get confusing. So why use it for analysis?

Regarding analysis, all the systems have their drawbacks anyways (the same goes for scoring). Why in the world would D minor have just one single b accidental, but at the same time it'd sort of automatically be treated as D harmonic minor, at least as soon as an A7 is involved? The answer is simple: Because no key/numbering system is able to "describe" what's happening in harmonic minor properly. There's no such a rule as "use C on almost all the available chords, but when it comes to A7, use C# instead". That's why our key-ing system is actually only working more or less properly for major tonalities.

In addition, as soon as it comes to modal music of whatever sorts (and a whole freaking shitload of modern pop music qualifies as that, just think about parallel minor chord movements in, say, tarnce), the classical system will fail even more.
This is why I urgently ask everybody dealing with those kinds of music to stick with the somewhat more "neutral" numbering system.
Im7 - bIIIm7 - IVm7 is just as clear as a morning sky. Accidentals are used as with interval numberings (so III is always calling up a chord a major third above the tonic), no gender specified means major, "m" or "min" means minor. Easy.
Yeah, it might not imply any functional relationships automatically, but as these are broken like in every other jazz/rock/pop tune anways, it wouldn't make any sense if they would.

Of course, there's a huge problem with the capital roman numbering system, but the classical numbering system fails just as much: Modulation. "Intermediate" modulations can usually be decribed fine using either system, but as soon as it comes to a "permanent" modulation, both of them will fail, unless you're using some extra stuff (such as modulation indexing arrows and what not). I mean, you just don't want to analyze your usual halftone-up-hittranspose as #I-#IV-#V, do you?

Anyways, as a raw "descriptive" tool, without forcing people to know anything about whatever scales and tonalities, the capital roman numbering system is working best. Even some really slow-minded persons can learn the principles behind it in a matter of a few hours, probably even just one hour.

[nuffink]

Two is company, three is a crowd. I'll get my coat...

Sorry Bert. This has to be made crystal clear or there's no way that any newb can be confident of what's being discussed.

I'm not interested in a pissing contest with toxi. I am interested in getting a common language that can be used to help those who want to understand theory better.

To do that, all the half understood, out of date nonsense has to go.

[Toxikator]

Toxikator, unless you're dealing with classical material, I can't for the life of me understand why you wouldn't stick to the capital roman number system with chord types indexed as in, say, the New Realbook - which is following the Berklee standard, easily *the* most accepted way of writing down chords and roman numberings.

Because I spent 4 years with classical analytical systems and precisely 0 with the Berklee standard. Because I don't really care what Berklee professors have to say on the matter, since the classical system's been around for hundreds of years. Because the classical system is to the Berklee New Realbook what Christmas is to Kwanzaa: one is a history, one is a fabrication. AND because the Berklee system is specifically tailored to be convenient for major scale analysis, a scale which I avoid like gangrape. etc.

I don't CARE if you guys use that system, that's fine with me. If you wanted to use Nashville numbers, I'm down with that too. I took the time to familiarize myself with all of them enough to get by.

No need to know about the "underlying" tonality or whatever. II7 is a dominant chord a wholetone above the tonic. IIm7 is a minor seventh chord a wholetone above the tonic. IIm7/b5 is a half-diminished chord a wholetone above the tonic (and please let's not even start using the crossed circle for this one, it reads awfully on handwritten sheets, same goes for the triangle that some people still use for major 7 chords).
Using lower case letters for minor chords has been abandoned in all sorts of "modern" musical styles as well, the simple reason being that, again, on handwritten sheets, they easily get confusing. So why use it for analysis?

Again, it's what I'm familiar with. Also, does it really seem wise to disregard the underlying tonality?

Regarding analysis, all the systems have their drawbacks anyways (the same goes for scoring). Why in the world would D minor have just one single b accidental, but at the same time it'd sort of automatically be treated as D harmonic minor, at least as soon as an A7 is involved? The answer is simple: Because no key/numbering system is able to "describe" what's happening in harmonic minor properly. There's no such a rule as "use C on almost all the available chords, but when it comes to A7, use C# instead". That's why our key-ing system is actually only working more or less properly for major tonalities.

again, though, that depends on how you write. I utilize that C# almost exclusively when working in harmonic minor, but that's another discussion for another time.

In addition, as soon as it comes to modal music of whatever sorts (and a whole freaking shitload of modern pop music qualifies as that, just think about parallel minor chord movements in, say, tarnce), the classical system will fail even more.
This is why I urgently ask everybody dealing with those kinds of music to stick with the somewhat more "neutral" numbering system.
Im7 - bIIIm7 - IVm7 is just as clear as a morning sky. Accidentals are used as with interval numberings (so III is always calling up a chord a major third above the tonic), no gender specified means major, "m" or "min" means minor. Easy.

To you. How many years did you spend studying jazz? how many studying classical? the system that makes 'sense' to you doesn't to me (or to people classically trained)

And Nuffink, when you get over my saying that Chordspace is only useful for Jazz (and come around from your incredulity that someone could suggest that *gasp* Jazz isn't the be-all and end-all of western harmony!) please do let me know.

I see it was too early to unmute you.

[nuffink]

Toxikator, unless you're dealing with classical material, I can't for the life of me understand why you wouldn't stick to the capital roman number system with chord types indexed as in, say, the New Realbook - which is following the Berklee standard, easily *the* most accepted way of writing down chords and roman numberings.

Because I spent 4 years with classical analytical systems and precisely 0 with the Berklee standard. Because I don't really care what Berklee professors have to say on the matter, since the classical system's been around for hundreds of years. Because the classical system is to the Berklee New Realbook what Christmas is to Kwanzaa: one is a history, one is a fabrication. AND because the Berklee system is specifically tailored to be convenient for major scale analysis, a scale which I avoid like gangrape. etc.

I don't CARE if you guys use that system, that's fine with me. If you wanted to use Nashville numbers, I'm down with that too. I took the time to familiarize myself with all of them enough to get by.

No need to know about the "underlying" tonality or whatever. II7 is a dominant chord a wholetone above the tonic. IIm7 is a minor seventh chord a wholetone above the tonic. IIm7/b5 is a half-diminished chord a wholetone above the tonic (and please let's not even start using the crossed circle for this one, it reads awfully on handwritten sheets, same goes for the triangle that some people still use for major 7 chords).
Using lower case letters for minor chords has been abandoned in all sorts of "modern" musical styles as well, the simple reason being that, again, on handwritten sheets, they easily get confusing. So why use it for analysis?

Again, it's what I'm familiar with. Also, does it really seem wise to disregard the underlying tonality?

Regarding analysis, all the systems have their drawbacks anyways (the same goes for scoring). Why in the world would D minor have just one single b accidental, but at the same time it'd sort of automatically be treated as D harmonic minor, at least as soon as an A7 is involved? The answer is simple: Because no key/numbering system is able to "describe" what's happening in harmonic minor properly. There's no such a rule as "use C on almost all the available chords, but when it comes to A7, use C# instead". That's why our key-ing system is actually only working more or less properly for major tonalities.

again, though, that depends on how you write. I utilize that C# almost exclusively when working in harmonic minor, but that's another discussion for another time.

In addition, as soon as it comes to modal music of whatever sorts (and a whole freaking shitload of modern pop music qualifies as that, just think about parallel minor chord movements in, say, tarnce), the classical system will fail even more.
This is why I urgently ask everybody dealing with those kinds of music to stick with the somewhat more "neutral" numbering system.
Im7 - bIIIm7 - IVm7 is just as clear as a morning sky. Accidentals are used as with interval numberings (so III is always calling up a chord a major third above the tonic), no gender specified means major, "m" or "min" means minor. Easy.

To you. How many years did you spend studying jazz? how many studying classical? the system that makes 'sense' to you doesn't to me (or to people classically trained)

And Nuffink, when you get over my saying that Chordspace is only useful for Jazz (and come around from your incredulity that someone could suggest that *gasp* Jazz isn't the be-all and end-all of western harmony!) please do let me know.

I see it was too early to unmute you.

Stop pretending you're classically trained, eh? It's obvious to anybody that knows even a basic amount of theory that you don't.

[laputa_sync]

Ceasefire!!!!

[nuffink]

Ceasefire!!!!

Not a chance. There are people who I've learned a great deal from and who I could still learn a great deal from who no longer post on this forum with any regularity because toxi does.

[disturb]

Kvr's 'Menu du jour' :

[laputa_sync]

Ceasefire!!!!

Not a chance. There are people who I've learned a great deal from and who I could still learn a great deal from who no longer post on this forum with any regularity because toxi does.

i dont understand that, but i respect your decision. i will wait for disarmament talks in the future...

[whyterabbyt]

Because the classical system is to the Berklee New Realbook what Christmas is to Kwanzaa: one is a history, one is a fabrication.

'History' in the sense of 'a fictionalised narrative based around some historically-proven events, which were then also date-munged to be made backwards-compatible with a pre-existing festival periods popularised by pre-existing religions (in itself ultimately actually derived from certain important astronomical events?)'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas

[nuffink]

i dont understand that

It gets very wearying having your every post scrutinised by an argumentative kid who knows enough of the words to seem plausible but absolutely nothing of the concepts behind the words.

It's like arguing with a parrot. Knowledgable people are giving up.

[Sascha Franck]

Also, does it really seem wise to disregard the underlying tonality?

In one word: Yes.

In nowadays music (I'm talking pop, rock and jazz here, plus all the derivative stuff), you will hardly find a single song which will stick to a single tonality literally. So, for a pure describing approach (without any analysis) it makes a lot of sense to really forget about "exact" tonalities. Most songs still refer to one tonic, though, at least more or less - and the Berklee system is perfect for this.

Apart from that, I find your attitude extremely snobbish. Why would the folks at Berklee et al develop such a system if the classical one was so much better for their (basically jazzy) needs?
The answer is simple: Because it's easier to use it for music that isn't bound to whatever tonality as much as a lot of classical music might be. And yes, a lot of the old Berklee folks do have classical degrees as well, so they certainly were aware of possible benefits.
Another point that you don't seem to be aware of: Especially in jazz, tunes are transposed like mad, to suit a singer, a horn player, open guitar strings and what not. In all such cases it's making a lot of sense to have the numbering of whatever tune in mind. And believe me or not, the capital roman numbering system is easier to understand than anything else (fwiw, the Nashville numbering system is rather similar).

[vurt]

Ceasefire!!!!

Not a chance. There are people who I've learned a great deal from and who I could still learn a great deal from who no longer post on this forum with any regularity because toxi does.

i decided to write a book, at least then he can buy a copy and rewrite which bits he fancys without bothering anyone else.

[Toxikator]

In nowadays music (I'm talking pop, rock and jazz here, plus all the derivative stuff), you will hardly find a single song which will stick to a single tonality literally.

Says you. I can think of maybe 3 bands out of my collection of hundreds of albums that employ vague tonality. Again, if you're analyzing modern pop and jazz, this is true. for Rock, it's somewhat true, but when you start to consider derivative forms like Punk, Metal, Thrash, etc as well as genres like DnB, Indus, etc. you'll find almost NO jazz influence at all; It's particularly true of black-metal and classical crossover acts, which are neoclassical and to which a classical system CLEARLY applies.

I think sometimes that you (and Nuffink) really believe that once Jazz came to be no music was ever written with classical sensibilities.

Apart from that, I find your attitude extremely snobbish. Why would the folks at Berklee et al develop such a system if the classical one was so much better for their (basically jazzy) needs?

Thats just it. Their needs were JAZZ. Mine AREN'T. So I use a system which applies to the music I discuss and work with most commonly. Snobbish is assuming that the system you're most comfortable with is the one everyone is most comfortable with.

Another point that you don't seem to be aware of: Especially in jazz, tunes are transposed like mad, to suit a singer, a horn player, open guitar strings and what not. In all such cases it's making a lot of sense to have the numbering of whatever tune in mind. And believe me or not, the capital roman numbering system is easier to understand than anything else (fwiw, the Nashville numbering system is rather similar).

I have no idea where you get off saying that the Berklee system is easier to understand as if it were some fundamental truth.

Here's how I notate a progression from a simple 4-part string section:
Cmin: i-III-V-viio-i

Here's how YOU notate it

Im-bIIIm-V-viio-Im

Which one is simpler?

I can appreciate you guys wanting to use a system that's comfortable to you. What's retarded is lurking this forum waiting for people to post using classical notation and then starting flamewars about how your system is better and the classical one is rubbish for anything but Baroque music.

I will say this one time, hopefully someone will listen: The classical system is exclusively relevant to classical. the jazz system is exclusively relevant to jazz. For anything else, it's up to the discretion of the analyzer, and shock you though it may, not EVERYTHING written since 1920 is JAZZ.

BTW Nuffink (I'm still seeing you in quotes), you won't learn anything from anyone unless you learn to accept that your Jazz 7ths and your Chordspace don't account for everything in the world of music. In the last week I've seen nothing from you but attacks, you've contributed exactly DICK to the theoretical knowledgebase of this forum.

Piss off.

[vurt]

as genres like DnB, . you'll find almost NO jazz influence at all;

hmmm...

[Sascha Franck]

Again, if you're analyzing modern pop and jazz, this is true. for Rock, it's somewhat true, but when you start to consider derivative forms like Punk, Metal, Thrash, etc as well as genres like DnB, Indus, etc. you'll find almost NO jazz influence at all; It's particularly true of black-metal and classical crossover acts, which are neoclassical and to which a classical system CLEARLY applies.

You're clearly showing your cluelessness here, sorry.
ESPECIALLY for styles such as punk, rock and whatever the "jazzy" capital roman number system is PERFECT, as it doesn't assume you're in whatever "exact" tonality.
How would you describe something such as a uber-common riff like A - C- D with your classical approach? Following your take on it, as the A is a major chord, the III chord would have to be that one building up on the major third. So, you'd have to index the C as well (as biii probably).
Then, take all that black metal stuff: What would be YOUR approach to describe some D - Eb riff? Clearly major, because the Db is major, eh?

Apart from that, telling me something such as DnB doesn't have much of a jazz influence shows a lot...

I think sometimes that you (and Nuffink) really believe that once Jazz came to be no music was ever written with classical sensibilities.

The capital roman numbering system has got NOTHING to do with being bound to jazz or whatever. In fact, you can describe classical compisitions with it just as well.

Snobbish is assuming that the system you're most comfortable with is the one everyone is most comfortable with.

So, you're writing classical compositions then? Can we hear some?

I have no idea where you get off saying that the Berklee system is easier to understand as if it were some fundamental truth.

Because you don't need any theoretical background but a bit of interval knowledge. That's about it. No need to know that a III chord is major or minor, that it's a minor or major third away from the tonic. The system describes that. III is an absolute value. Just as bIII.

Here's how I notate a progression from a simple 4-part string section:
Cmin: i-III-V-viio-i

Here's how YOU notate it

Im-bIIIm-V-viio-Im

Err??? Why would I write bIIIm? I'd write bIII.

I can appreciate you guys wanting to use a system that's comfortable to you. What's retarded is lurking this forum waiting for people to post using classical notation and then starting flamewars about how your system is better and the classical one is rubbish for anything but Baroque music.

There's one fact: The Berklee system IS easier to learn. There's less content you need to squeeze into your mind, hence it's easier. Period.
I have never said the classical system had no advances (in fact, I *did* say it has), but it's not as easy to grasp.
In addition, the Berklee numbering system is easier to apply for most pop/rock/whatever music. And - tough to believe, I know - I don't think the majority of KVR members is dealing a lot with classical music.

the jazz system is exclusively relevant to jazz. For anything else, it's up to the discretion of the analyzer, and shock you though it may, not EVERYTHING written since 1920 is JAZZ.

Seriously, how much do you want to make yourself looking like an idiot, doing statements such as this?
The Berklee system is useable for a f**king WHOLE LOT MORE that just jazz. In fact, apart from some experimental and highly modulating pieces, it's suitable for almost any popular style that has been existing since 1920.

I'm out of this debate now, don't want to spoil my mood by discussing with a helplessly ignorant person like you anymore.

My next post will hopefully be more on topic of this thread.