-
Is there a proper, or at least well-recognized term for lead-sheet chord symbols written in a key-generic Roman Numeral notation, and furthermore, is there a well-known system of creating such things?
We all know perhaps a basic 12-bar blues form like:
But what about standards that probably modulate around a bit? The first 16 bars of a famous bebop tune that is titled something like "The Scientific Study of Birds"Code:I7 / IV7 / I7 / I7 / IV7 / bVdim7 / I7 / VI7 / ii7 / V7 / iii7 VI7 / ii7 V7/
by a bebop cat who was often called "Bird" goes something like this:
How would one go about creating a basic, generic, key-agnostic lead sheet in roman numerals? By relating each chord-symbol back to the key-signature of the tune i.e.Code:GMaj7 / % / Gm7 C7 / Gm7 C7 / FMaj7 / % / Fm7 / Bb7 / Eb7 / D7 / Gm / Cm7b5 D7 / Bm7 / E7 / Am7 / D7 /
(I hope I got that right. Brain ain't working to well at the moment)Code:IMaj7 / % / im7 IV7 / im7 IV7 / bVIIMaj7 / % / bviim7 / bIII7 / bVI7 / V7 / imin / ivm7b5 V7 / iiim7 / VI7 / iim7 / V7 /
Or would it be notated some other way? I'm thinking in the third bar one might like to write out something like:
Actually, the whole thing would be written as a (iim7 - V7) of bVII... Well, I mean in "secondary dominant" notation if you get my drift. It doesn't really come out very well in computer text as it does in handwriting.Code:iim7-bVII V7-bVII /
Am I making any sense?
The reason I ask is because I've seen the A section of the basic diatonic minor cycle-4 progression (i.e. "Autumn Leaves") written in some weird ways, either treating each chord related directly to the key-signature, or treating the first chord as a minor iv and not worrying about the turnaround, or treating the turnaround as a secondary minor ii V i, etc...
Sorry, I probably spent a lot of words asking a simple question, but I'm not quite sure how the question could have been put more simply. Basically I'd like to create generic lead-sheets of standards, but would like some advice on how to notate them in a manner that makes the most sense to the most people.
-
11-07-2011 01:53 PM
-
I've always just called them "Roman Numeral Charts." Nashville session players use arabic numerals and call their system "Nashville Numbers"...that's fine for simpler chords, but i hate it for jazz.
Every time I've seen this done, the chords all relate back to the key signature which does mean some tunes are a bit tricky to navigate...
-
Precisely, there aren't a lot of country tunes with multiple key centers. If you were to do this for a jazz tune with a lot of ii Vs, you'd need to do a lot of explaining along with it.
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
IMO, you're better off writing charts with the actual chord changes.
The usefulness of Roman numeral shorthand tends to break down when the song goes through temporary modulations as most pop standards and jazz tunes do.
Relating the numerals back to the original key signature can obscure some obvious harmonic motion such as on the bridge to Cherokee where you have a series of ii7-V7-I sequences descending in whole steps. Easily seen with chord symbols, not so with Roman numerals relating to the original key.
I've seen Roman numeral modulations bracketed above with the key changes i.e., ii-V-I in B. But that requires extra work and can result in a cluttered chart.
-
Yeah, I'm with Monk. Roman Numeral charts are something to be familiar with in case you see 'em, but it's not the preferred way of writing out a tune as a chart.
Now, for writing out a song and analyzing it, not a bad way to go at all...but then I want to denote the temporary trips to other keys--I don't want to relate everything back to one key sig.
-
Discussion with many useful suggestions here: Proper, logical way to notate harmonic analysis? - Jazz Bulletin Board
-
I assume you all at least understood what I was aiming at, and I really appreciate the advice -- perhaps this is a good idea as far as harmonic analysis is concerned, but perhaps not the best way to notate a tune. Wouldn't that be easy, though!!? One notation to rule them all and all that jazz..*sigh*.
Great stuff, Jake, though I haven't yet finished reading that thread. So far, though, it looks to be almost exactly what I was looking for. Unfortunately it seems to be rather... esoteric to many people, or at least not bog-standard, but that's fine by me because I'm only really concerned about this kind of sheet for my own personal use, though I'd rather use something that is useful to the most people with the least amount of confusion. Originally Posted by JakeAcci
At least it's a far-shot better than the convoluted key-generic, melody-notation I tried to come up with last winter.
EDIT:
At any rate, it probably wouldn't hurt me to write out the changes to each tune I'm working on in the keys I would like to learn, so perhaps my original ideas was a bit of a fool's errand. After all, it really doesn't take that long to write out some chord-symbols by hand, and I suppose I could use the practice transposing to set keys rather than arbitrary ones...Last edited by jckoto3; 11-07-2011 at 04:38 PM.
-
Yes I think the main things I got out of thread aside from specific notation ideas is that
1. There isn't one standard way to do this for Jazz
2. When making these kind of charts obviously you have to decide the purpose of the analysis and that determines a lot of the level of detail or type of notation you'd use in the analysis. For example, if the purpose is to be able to transpose and perform as quickly as possible, that's going to be a different analysis than if the purpose is to get the clearest possible picture of the harmony of the tune.
-
Numerals are useful for analysis but get ready for a lot of complaining/frustration/mistakes if you write a lead sheet with them. I sometimes jam with a guy who does this, it is *infuriating*.
-
Well noted, Pickle! Originally Posted by Space Pickle
-
I use all large case Roman Numerals and everything relates to key. When tune really modulates... you notate so... and relate to new key. Traditional analysis RM's imply to many wrong options and usually miss what's actually going on harmonically... As far as charts... generally when you play tunes, your think ...or are hearing in respect to some analysis... if your not... then your not really playing the tune... your going through the motions...
You run into same problems with RN notation as with traditional.... someone is deciding what should be implied, even if they're unaware of what they're doing.
When I play with vocalist or when someone wants tune in different key... For melodies etc... I transpose... to reflect what chart wants. Once we begin to solo, I think or hear more in terms of analysis, which takes shape of RM, at least to targets.
Bottom line... be able to read or understand both... Reg
-
Is it a personal stylistic choice of yours to use UPPERCASE, or is there some underlying reason for that? I'm willing to give a new idea a shot, but I personally use "UPPER" when the chord has a Major 3rd and "lower" when the chord has a minor 3rd as they relate to the key-signature. I've gotten used to treating dim and half-dim chords as essentially Dominant chords, but I still notate them as lowercase... Originally Posted by Reg
I've only really toyed around with using "secondary dominant" notation, but I don't know if that is something that I really understand enough to employ. I don't want to cut myself with a tool I can't properly wield.
First off, I don't know what you mean by "RM" as in the statement "Traditional analysis RM's"... I might just be dense right now though.Traditional analysis RM's imply to many wrong options and usually miss what's actually going on harmonically... As far as charts... generally when you play tunes, your think ...or are hearing in respect to some analysis... if your not... then your not really playing the tune... your going through the motions...
You run into same problems with RN notation as with traditional.... someone is deciding what should be implied, even if they're unaware of what they're doing.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, but I almost get it... I think. I'm definitely going to give this a lot of thought from now on.
So if I understand you correctly, at this point one should be able to hear and transpose by either stored knowledge built on years of "intellectual practice" [analysis], or to put it otherwise, by "dead-reckoning" [by "ear" -- reflexive internalized practice]? Of course I don't want to put words in your mouth!! I'm just trying to understand your standpoint.When I play with vocalist or when someone wants tune in different key... For melodies etc... I transpose... to reflect what chart wants. Once we begin to solo, I think or hear more in terms of analysis, which takes shape of RM, at least to targets.
Bottom line... be able to read or understand both... Reg
Eh, on second thought it seems as if I'm asking a lot of questions from you. I don't mean to waste your time or anything..
--JC
Pre-edit: I've re-read your original post, Reg, as well as mine right here, and I think I'm understanding you better, but I'll go ahead and submit this post anyway.
As the fish said to the fryer: "Here's to getting cooked..."
-
The term for what the roman numerals describe is "functional harmony."
There's a pretty good article about it here: Diatonic function - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Traditional jazz (most standards, etc.) are based largely on "functional" harmonic progressions, particularly ii-V-I (or i). But from at least the '30s, jazz also started to include many "non-functional" chords and chord progressions. The beboppers and cool-jazzers took this even farther, and by the time you get to modal jazz, functional harmony can be used as just another "color", rather than the real driving force of the music.
While searching, I found a link to a PDF on "Functional Harmony and the Jazz Guitarist"; perhaps some will find it interesting or useful:
http://www.google.de/url?sa=t&rct=j&...QTDePvWL2OMDbw
-
Hey... Jckoto3... how goes.. Originally Posted by jckoto3
OK... started after i graduated from Berklee back in 70's... Concept is... We as jazz players have more concepts of hearing or understanding what traditional Roman Numerals imply... And one of the big problems is there is usually more than one concept of analysis off chord change going on at same time... not usually... all the time. And when we play changes... we don't simple hear or interpret that single chord as just one chord. Depending on tune... usually implies a chord patterns to pull from, which modal interchange harmonic areas we can pull from, which subs... and on and on. Those doors or applications... are always in use, the doors begin open. We don't start with basic version of analysis and go from there. What traditional analysis implies is one of many choices....So that's the conceptual idea... for an application... A simple I, VI-, II-, V, Sure... I could notate Imaj7, vi , ii , V7... But each of those imply One analysis... and in one simple very straight version of some jazz tunes it could work for a single analysis... but jazz players don't play that way... the modal change door is always open, and our functional interpretations always have different modal style of functional usage going on, again that door is always open. We don't use once in a while and then the analysis or use of Roman Numerals would reflect... So the analysis should reflect what's going on, or at least not be limited by...
Sorry RM should have been RN, (roman numerals).
For transposing practice... sure you should be able to transpose, intellectually, in your head. There are a few methods. Mechanically, just takes practice. Takes lots of practice to be able to comp in a jazz style mechanically... you need to be able to be ahead enough to be able to interpret what's implied... Generally... unless the tune has unusual form, changes or harmonic rhythm... we know the chord patterns and what they can imply... it's just a matter of changing keys. Which leads to how many jazz player hear tunes... target harmonic points. The simple example would be a 12 bar Blues... we all know the form(s),
what the target harmonic points are...the harmonic rhythm. So transposing is simple... right. Then typical rhythm changes, any version... pretty easy to transpose... Most tunes are the same thing, just different chord patterns.... Think about it and we can go further ...
RegLast edited by Reg; 11-10-2011 at 12:02 PM.
-
Thanks a lot, Reg. I think I get what you're saying. However, I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the bold part of your quote below:
I'm not so sure of what you mean by "modal change" and "modal style of functional usage". Is that another way of implying possible substitutions/reharmonizations and possibly modulations of some otherwise arbitrary sort? Originally Posted by Reg
I feel like I'm about to have one of those "light-bulb" moments any day now..
-
Hey jckoto3... Originally Posted by jckoto3
here's some defs... by modal Interchange, I mean any chord can become any other chord with same root and have the implications of the new chordal structure... or not.
The simplest example is Cmaj7 becoming C-7, with one source for this application of the concept... Modal Interchange being parallel minor... very traditional right. So now you can impose the new chords implied from Nat. Minor, or simply keep the original maj. scale derived chords but now with C-7 instead of Cmaj7. You could through Modal Interchange impose CMM and have access to chord structures from CMM scale... or not. This concept Modal interchange has basically unlimited levels of applications... and through structural usage of MI with many levels of application almost any harmonic combination and progression becomes possible.
By Modal style of defining function... I mean using other methods of defining dominant, sub-dominant, tonic etc...Function. Using different methods for determining resolutions of intervals and root motion. Can be as simple as a constant structure principle, using more than a one tonic system...whatever... different guideline for harmonic movement, that's basically what modal music is. Simply taking the concept to a different level or different application.
Generally substitution is method of using different harmonic structures, (chords), that have similar relationship to tonal center or target. Can become more complex when using deceptive resolutions, implied resolutions or any other method of camouflage... the key is relationship to target or reference.
Re-harmonization generally implies different tonal reference.
Both can become pretty complex and difficult to even hear...
Hope helps... I've posed examples of both with standards... I'll need to dig them up. Reg
Here's a re-harm of How Insensitive
Reply With Quote
What's happening at the end of this song?
Today, 07:55 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading