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

LJS wrote:
> 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
> 

Spend some time around jazz musicians and this would all be easier for 
you to understand. Sorry you're having such a hard time with it.

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