Re: What's the relation****p between scales and chords?

On Feb 27, 11:13 am, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> LJS wrote:
> > On Feb 26, 5:52 pm, Joey Goldstein <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> >> Tom K. wrote:
> >>> "Joey Goldstein" <nos...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
> >>>news:fq2781$pul$1@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >>>> Tom K. wrote:
> >>>>> Using II for supertonic hasn't been done for nearly forty years.
> >>>> On the contrary. Most jazz harmony books use upper case Roman
numerals for
> >>>> all chords.
> >>>> We don't write simply "ii" or "ii7". We write "IIm" and/or "IIm7".
> >>> Really?  Seems like an out of round re-invention of the wheel to me.
> >>> Tom K.
> >> Just used to add clarity.
>
> >> --
> >> Joey Goldstein
> >> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> >> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> >> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
>
> > how so? if the ii means minor then one might think that the 'm' might
> > refer to the extention  as in a Vm7
>
> ( is that the way to write a minor
>
> > dominant or is is a dominant 7th?  maybe the use of VM(-7)(-9) would
> > clear up the confusion caused by a conventional  V-9 symbol.
> > LJS
>
> To a novice "ii" might mean anything.
> To a novice already used to reading chord symbols "IIm" is easy to
grasp.
> "Vm7" obviously would be a min7 chord with root on the dominant of the
key.

What! Listen to what you are saying!

"ii" would mean anything to a novice. OK. If the person had never
heard of ii vs. II it may mean very little. This could depend on which
book he stumbled on when he opened it up to chapter I.
BUT
IIm wouldl have some meaning to the novice that was already used to
reading chord symbols. Well, I guess that could be true if he read it
as a literal translation of the Capital letters of the Alphabet. The
thing is, he would have to also know about the numbering system of the
scales to tell him anything at all about what this meant. Unless you
learned it someplace, it is not obvious that II or ii would mean that
it is the second degree of a scale. Then if that concept is taught,
then UC/LC  will show that there are different types of chords on the
same notes in different cir***stances. With only UC, the concept of
Key has to be taught so the one knows the color of the chord unless
you do what? Oh, yes, add another modifier. Now you have to say that
this II chord is major or minor. How much more simple that is than to
define the color with a simple explanation that II = maj and ii = min.
But now one has to be taught that lower case m = minor and UC M =
major. Yes, that clears that up, but then if the student is to use any
Classical examples for harmony (hmm, isn't there a relation****p with
be-bop changes and Baroque changes) then he has to forget this and
learn the simple way that students have been doing analysis so that he
can study standard MUSIC progressions that have stood the test of time
in multi genre music.

 Both systems require an explanation pure and simple. The only thing
is, the UC/LC works for both genres with the least amount of room for
error.  The only thing that would make the II7 obvious as being a
minor ii with a 7 is if someone is told this. BUT if a student sees
the scale as roots of chords in a key I ii iii IV V vi vii tells us so
much more than I II III IV V VI VII (yes, I did not put in the half
diminished sign. This is another thing that must be learned. The lower
case, does, however, at least show that the 3rd of the chord is minor!
without much of a leap) So then with the UC and modiier you must add
another letter (what shall we use "d" for a diminished chord or a "hd"
for a half diminished chord.

There were reasons that the musical analysis broke away from Piston
and there were reasons why piston liked his method as well. Piston was
aimed at showing that the same functions existed in both the major and
minor keys and this worked well for the music through the CPP. It
becomes less than perfect when the music starts to use more
modulations and borrowed color chords in the music. The UC/LC notation
for functional harmony simply transmits more information in a much
more easily digestible manner. A "II7 V7 I" can mean many things, but
a "ii7 V7 I " pretty much defines it as major irregardless of the key.
To force guitar students, or any other students, to learn a different
system for functional analysis of harmony is nothing more than making
life more complicated for him and forces him to think a certain way
and to lead him into not understanding the relation****ps that are
inherent in both the Jazz and Classical genres. With the current trend
of Jazz leading towards a Jazzy version of Classical music anyway, the
idea of turning the clock back to an earlier and less precise form of
Functional Notation just seems like an unproductive way to go.
LJS

Then you say that Vm7 is OBVIOUS to mean a min7 chord but the only way
that is obvious is if you accept that the V means major (and not
minor) otherwise the m would by your definition of OBVIOUS describe
the UC V as a minor chord with some kind of seventh and since your
OBVIOUS needs a key to be specified so that one can tell if the UC is
Major or minor, it really couldn't mean what you say, now could it?

So I guess there is some other obvious way of notating an Emin7 (E G B
D) in the key of A natural minor (or aeolian) other than Vm7 according
to your OBVIOUS and standard notation?

>
> --
> Joey Goldstein
> <http://www.joeygoldstein.com>
> <http://homepage.mac.com/josephgoldstein/AudioClips/audio.htm>
> joegold AT sympatico DOT ca