II, V, I and I, IV, V .......... the same thing?

[Stamped Records]

I've just been farting around as usual and suddenly realised that a II, V, I in F is the exact same sequence as a I, IV, V in C.

I'll keep digging to find the significance that I'm sure exists in this discovery but it would be interesting to hear thoughts and perspectives on the two relationships which I can only call enharmonic progressions at this stage.

[Forgotten]

It’s going to happen a lot, and shows why in this case modulation between these keys is straightforward.

It also shows why sometimes it not that easy to determine which key a piece is in when it’s simple and has few notes.

[Stamped Records]

I would assume that there is some baring on the significance of the ii, V, I in Jazz improv in this discovery. That's where I'm going when I discovered it and a little flicker of a lightbulb has gone on.

[Forgotten]

Read up on blues in jazz and substitutions and you’ll see how it all interconnects.

[Gamma-UT]

I've just been farting around as usual and suddenly realised that a II, V, I in F is the exact same sequence as a I, IV, V in C.

V, I, IV (Gmaj, Cmaj, Fmaj) in C, surely?

II isn't really in F major. ii (Gmin) is. Faced with that progression, yer average musicologist is going to assume that II is a V/V secondary dominant, given it's a circle of fifths type progression.

[Dazedanconfused]

Think he got you there buddy, the g in f is minor in c it's a dominant chord, major w a 7? Don't know how they might correlate, but they might in some jazz universe... might be confusing the supertonic w the dominant?

[someone called simon]

I would assume that there is some baring on the significance of the ii, V, I in Jazz improv in this discovery. That's where I'm going when I discovered it and a little flicker of a lightbulb has gone on.

No, Its just that any chord in a given key is also going to present in a bunch of other keys.

So in F, the IV is Bb. Obviously Bb is a key too, so in Bb it will be the I. What you discovered is just that chords in one key can (and will) be present in another key. Which is a good thing to know, but it's not a big cosmic deal

Also, only 2 of the chords matched really, not 3. As someone else posted, in F the G chord would usually be minor, in C it's usually major, so your progression in G it would be written ii V I, in C: V I IV.

There's no particular significance or jazz connection, and it's not related to substitutions at all.
We could pick any simple progression, say in G - V I iii IV or in D - I IV vi bVII. In both cases these chords would be D G Bm C. This sequence of chords chord could plausibly be in either key. But the more complex the chord structure, the less likely it would be in more than one key.

And there's most similarity between closely related keys - a 4th or a 5th apart, as you discovered, C and F. They have many of the same tones, so it stands to reason they would share some chords, though their function will be different.

[Stamped Records]

Yeah, granted the II in this case is major so it's not an authentic ii, V, I (hope I don't get shot for using the word authentic). But it is an interesting relationship with a I, v instead of a I, V, giving the v/ii it's minor quality for the succeeding C (V) and F (I). So this substituting major V for minor v must be a useful trick in modulating from C to F, bar just using a Cdom chord.

[Forgotten]

Not really as the Eb isn’t in F Maj, so it’s not the best choice for modulating to F.

[jancivil]

I've just been farting around as usual and suddenly realised that a II, V, I in F is the exact same sequence as a I, IV, V in C.

I'll keep digging to find the significance that I'm sure exists in this discovery.

It’s called a coincidence.

We have G, C, and F, then C, F, and G. This is identical? The order of chords is not, and this is meaningful.
The chords function per the key; if we did have II we’d have secondary dominant (or a borrowed harmony from elsewhere), then V, then I. V of V, V, I in F. Compare I IV V in C. It’s similar root movement, but objectively two different progressions, because key.

You apparently made a guess based in the former, believed it was something it isn’t. One notes the supreme confidence of “significance ... I’m sure” and “discovery”, which is either sad or hilarious depending on one’s disposition.
There’s nothing here really.

[jancivil]

past time to acknowledge the need for a cogent course where you recognize the difference between you and a teacher

[Simbucktwo]

What's the significance of ivii on the end of your name Jancivii?

[jancivil]

last letter’s l, not i

it’s my name, jan civil

I have trouble with seeing l as i or the converse as well.

[Functional]

You're using harmonic analysis notation where these terms (ii, V, I, IV) have somewhat defined meaning. So the answer is no; F requires tonicization of F whereas C requires tonicization of C and the degrees are based on whatever is actually perceived as the tonic

Even if the order of the sequence would be the same (and it is not, nor are the chords identical either in standard use, since ii would be typically minor rather than major), it still wouldn't be the same thing

Now if you were asking if F | G | C is the same thing as F | G | C then the answer would be yes

[jancivil]

Clarification needed methinks: tonicization actually means treating non-tonic degrees as tonic.

“II V I in F” is only ‘II V I’ in F;
II being secondary dominant aka V/V. In the basic sense V is tonicized there. This is not the function of G C F in C, let alone

I, IV, V in C

What the term does not mean is recognition that a given I is the tonic chord.