Explaining Roman Numeral Jazz Charts

[leemorgan]

Can anyone explain how to read roman numeral jazz charts? I found this great site that has all types of charts, one of these is the roman numeral chart. I think this may help me with my improve, just not sure how to go about approaching it.

Realbook Jazz Charts - MistyChord Chart

[m78w]

I took a look at the chart, kind of fuzzy since i didn't sign up for the site to get a closer view, but it seemed like they just put everything in one key.

So Imaj7 would be Ebmaj7 if you were in the key of Eb, then bVII7 would be Db7 and V7 would be Bb7.

you just line up a chord with the roman numeral that they indicate on the chart.

This way of doing it, keeping it all in one key, is a bit strange. For example, in the bridge instead of writing:

iim7/IV to V7/IV toIVmaj7/IVmaj7

they write

Vm7/I7/IVmaj7/IVmaj7

which is a very strange way of writing out roman numerals in any style of music.

I always think it's a good idea to think of chords as roman numerals, but I'm not sure if charts like this are helpful or just more confusing.

you might be better off just getting a normal lead sheet to Misty, then writing the roman numerals in yourself for each chord, so you can still learn the numerals but in a more straight ahead and practical fashion.

[Reg]

In jazz... roman numerals should make reference to the "implied tonal center". For the most part they simply represent the chord built on the scale degree of the tune, or "tonal center of the moment". That part..."of the moment" is what becomes a little more difficult. When a chord implies or functions in reference to a different tonal center... The roman numeral should reflect that different tonal center. Can be as simple as V/V, or a modulation. I'm from school of all large case Roman Numerals even though my early education was very traditional... but because of modal interchange being a basic part of jazz harmonic tradition small case RN become somewhat useless, but both systems are used and there's no real problem, traditionalist understand more jazz designed use and jazz theorist usually have a traditional background... anyway from here on it becomes much more complicated... you need to understand jazz theory.
As far as the Misty chart... pretty useless, as Matt said. Doesn't really represent tonal centers. There's a big difference between having numerals that represent the root motion as compared to harmonic motion...
But the concept of RM's is great and works very well for transposing tunes to different keys on the fly. But as with actual chord symbols, there are many problems. Usually from lack of understandings.

[cosmic gumbo]

The Nashville notation system is pretty much the standard in Music City, USA. The main reason for it's use, is to be able to produce charts that can use any key signature you choose.

[Reg]

Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo

The Nashville notation system is pretty much the standard in Music City, USA. The main reason for it's use, is to be able to produce charts that can use any key signature you choose.

It's the standard, but it's pretty loose with jazz charts.... hell it's pretty loose with most charts. But it does work, when you already know
most of the tunes or standard chord progressions and feels. Plus no one needs to learn a new numbering system... or really read music...

[JonR]

Originally Posted by leemorgan

Can anyone explain how to read roman numeral jazz charts? I found this great site that has all types of charts, one of these is the roman numeral chart. I think this may help me with my improve, just not sure how to go about approaching it.

Realbook Jazz Charts - MistyChord Chart

As the guys say, it's just the numbers counted up the scale from the tonic of whatever key you choose.
There are some different conventions, however.
Eg, upper and lower case (as here) can be used for major and minor chords. So, in key of C "iii" would mean Em, while "III" would mean E major.
Sometimes a little "m" makes this clearer, although if that's used consistently then you don't need lower case; upper case can be used all the time.

As m78w says, there are also issues with this when the system is used as a form of analysis - ie assessing "function", what each chord is doing in the sequence.
Eg, in Misty, there are modulations (key changes), which that chart doesn't recognise. That makes it easier to read (which is its main purpose of course), but harder to understand why those chords are used, if that side of it interests you (and it should ).
To give an example of what m78w is saying, let's assume key of C. The "vm7" and "I7" in bar 2 mean Gm7 and C7. In relation to C, that's what they are: a minor7 version of the V chord, and a dom7 version of the tonic. But functionally they are acting as the "ii" and "V" of the chord in bar 3 (IV or F).
IOW, a correct sign for the Gm7 would be ("ii/IV" - ii chord of the IV chord), and C7 would be ("V/IV" - V or dominant of the IV).

However, just for reading, you don't need to know all this stuff, and it may make it harder (and of course slower). IOW, I wouldn't say a chart like this is "wrong" or "confusing". For the purpose of simply reading - and being able to transpose for (and play in) different keys without re-writing - this works fine. It's only if you want to dig a little deeper theoretically that it becomes unhelpful.