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

"David Webber" <dave@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message 
news:fq63gr$e66$1$8302bc10@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Butting in at random - I find this argument all very strange.
>
> Yes we have  I ii iii IV V vi vii   for the triads on the notes of a
major 
> scale, (with the implied inconvenience that vii is diminished).   But 
> basically it has proven inadequate in some modern contexts or we
wouldn't 
> be so reliant on C Dm Em F G Am Bdim as well as all the others G7 F6
etc. 
> However this latter system has the disadvantage that it is rooted in one

> key.
>
> What more natural, then, if one whishes to discuss this in a manner 
> independent of the key, than to take the advantages of both systems and 
> have
>
> I  IIm   IIIm  IV  V  VIm VIIdim  V7  IV6 etc.
>
> Anyone familiar with the first two systems, would surely find this one 
> blindingly obvious!
>
> Or am I interrupting a religious argument?   :-)
>

I think you hit the nail on the head, Dave and I'm sorry I brought it up
in 
the first place.

I wonder if Ian's insistence on the continued vitality of UC symbols is a 
geographical issue, as my (U.S.) department went to the qualitative
symbols 
in the early l970's ("nearly 40 years ago") as did a number of others. 
Same 
with the texts with the notable exception of Piston - the latest edition
of 
which is now over 20 years old.

About the only useful info I've gleaned from this thread topic
(qualitative 
RN) was Joey's statement re IIm, etc. being used in some jazz circles.

Tom K.