I disagree. When a musician (rock/jazz/whatever) tells me a song is a 6-2-5-1 progression in the key of C, that means Am(7), Dm(7), G(7), C progression. I don’t know any musicians who, knowledgeable of the terminology, would think this refers to A, D, G, C. If they’re using Roman numeral names, they generally know what they mean, and they know a 6 chord in a major scale is a minor chord. Similarly, they would know a 7 chord in a major scale is a diminished chord.
ETA: Actually, I should make an exception for those speaking in the Nashville numbering system. They would say 6m-2m-5-1.
Okay, that makes sense. But the overall effect that the “I - flat VII - IV - I” rock songs are going for is to parallel the tonal pattern of tonic - dominant - subdominant - tonic. The fact that they achieve this with a chord more often associated with modal systems is almost an accident – I say “almost” because it does, in fact, give it something of a modal “feel”.
Okay. I have limited exposure to the roman-numerals-chord-progression conventions, but it seems to me this would rarely be an issue, because the fact of a chord being major (capital Roman numerals) or minor (lowercase Roman numerals) would always be inescapably stated. Apparently, much as in the Nashville system you mentioned.
I suppose it depends on the context. Among jazz musicians, when somebody says “2-5-1 turnaround,” (in a major key) it’s not necessarily to explicitly state the 2 is minor. Same with “1-6-2-5” or “6-2-5-1.” The 6 and 2 are assumed to be minor, unless explicitly stated.
Rock and jazz, okay. Whatever, hold on there. I know a number of songs where it would indeed be A(7), D(7), G(7), C. It’s sometimes referred to as a ragtime progression. I would expect someone to specify 6 minor and/or 2 minor if minor chords were used.
I think you’re right about context, and you’ve been spending too much time with those jazzers.
Sure, VI-II-V-I is not that uncommon at all. Nor is II-V-I (lots of that kind of stuff in country.) But, and I’m speaking from my experience with musicians who are familiar with Roman numeral terminology, if you were doing the major substitutions for the VI and II, you would explicitly say that.
Perhaps. But the rock musicians I know who do refer to chords by their number are using the terminology of jazz or classical. Unless you’re doing Nashville numbering, I really don’t know rock musicians who refer to chords by their Roman numerals unless they are coming from these backgrounds. Usually, if they want to refer to a “50s” I-vi(7)-ii(7)-V(7) in C, they just say “C-Am(7)-Dm(7)-G(7).” Like I said, if you’re familiar with the Roman numeral system of naming chords, when you hear “two chord,” you think minor, unless otherwise indicated.
I think you’re not quite appreciating the distinction between tonality and modality. It’s really more than just swapping out a chord. Tonality is a very complex and sophisticated theoretical system which creates a sense of gravity pulling towards the tonic. The pattern you mention “tonic - dominant - subdominant - tonic” is not common in tonal music, because the dominant pulls towards I. There’s really no useful meaning in saying the “effect that the “I - flat VII - IV - I” rock songs are going for is to parallel the tonal pattern of tonic - dominant - subdominant - tonic”. Maybe there’s kinda a similar arc, but there are many other chords you can swap in there and have a usable, common rock progression. E.g. I - III - IV - I.
Or I - II7 - IV - I. (II7 = dominant)
Or I - bVI - IV - I.
Each of these have their own features but it would be meaningless to say they parallel a tonal pattern in some way.
I think again it’s important to emphasize the difference between classical analysis (and the roman numeral system of functional harmony), and the practice of writing/playing music.
A jazz musician composing a piece where he uses a progression A(7) - D(7) - G(7) - C understands the functions intuitively. He generally would have no use for the roman numeral system of analysis. (that’s for the musicologists). If it’s written on the page, that’s what you as a jazz musician have to work with.
In general if someone calls out, “hey let’s jam on a 6-2-5-1” I would assume it to be diatonic (6 minor, 2 minor, 5 dominant, 1 major (in a major key)), BUT as an accompanist I would also have the option of substituting dominant chords for the minor chords because they function the same way and can serve to increase the sense of motion through the progression. Jazz musicians rely a lot on intuition and you can feel when it’s appropriate to make such substitutions, as long as it doesn’t conflict with the melody.
This. I’m skimming through this thread, and I hear a lot of talk of “flat seven” chords in rock music, where I would really just say that a piece is written in the mixolydian mode. I come from a music department where we have a lot of classical people, rockers, and everything in between. As a music theory teacher myself, I would ask: why even bother with roman numerals? Go straight to the commercial chords. It won’t help you meaningfully analyze the works in question.
In current music theory scholarship, there’s quite a bit of research devoted to modality in rock music, particularly prog bands like Rush and Yes.
It’s useful for transposition. But, in that case, the roman numeral system specifically isn’t that important. Any relative system (like the Nashville numbering system) will work fine. I transpose much more quickly if I see Roman numerals or Nashville numbers than if I get a piece in E-flat major and am told to play in, say, B. I also find that memorizing chord changes in a relative manner (which, for me, is the Roman numerals) with their key makes for easy transposition. Perhaps this is just a quirk with me and others have a much easier time transposing. I don’t know. I’m not necessarily hung up on getting the precise functional name of chord correct, though, in these sorts of cases. Is it really a Bb/C or C11? I don’t really care. I’ll just memorize it as flat-7-slash-1.
If we’re talking about rock music, I would just write the tab. No one in my band can read music anyway.
Jazz or classical? I might write it for secondary dominants (i.e., V7 of Em), but not in some consistent fashion. It’s not a Bach Chorale. You’re not going to do Schenkerien analysis, or need a figured bass.
But if I’ve learned anything from a wide variety of musicians, it’s that they tend to have idiosyncratic ways of learning things. So if roman numerals works, far be it from me to tell them that it’s wrong, lol.
Very true. I’m not talking Roman numerals per se, but just a relative way of numbering chords to make transposition easier. If you’re never transposing your music, you’re right–there’s little point. However, I know I’m not the only musician who finds this notation easier to deal with in the long run, if transposition is to be expected. There’s a reason the Nashville number system exists.
And I’m not talking jazz or classical, and I’m not talking in-depth technical analysis. I’m talking facilitating the transposition of keys by naming chords by their relation to the tonic rather than a fixed pitch.
True enough. I transpose in my head and use finale to shift my sheet music en masse, so I suppose I’ve gotten pretty lazy at the practice! But I can see how having that system would be helpful on the fly, for sure.
Here’s the system I was taught. If you are using note names, you have to be explicit. A dominant 7 is assumed, because no information about what key you are in is given. (The other assumption is that you mean major, unless otherwise specified)
In Roman numeral analysis, the key (or at least mode) is stated, and the only 7th chord assumed to be dominant is the V[sup]7[/sup], because you always base any Arabic modifications as being on a scale degree of the key. Just like in a I[sup]6[/sup], where the 6 is actually minor. 5-7-2-4 has to be a dominant seventh in a major key. (3-5-1 for the I[sup]6[/sup])
As for the flat seven chord, some people indeed call it a flat seventh chord. However, the use of the word flat instead of major, minor, or dominant is a big enough clue that they are talking about bVII instead of, say, a V[sup]7[/sup]/IV, a i[sup]7[/sup] or even a i[sup]o7[/sup].
Finally, I was under the impression that using delta notation, the seventh is assumed, and you only need to add a number is you are adding another tone, like say a ninth. In other words, CΔ7 is redundant, while CΔ9 is fine.
That depends on your definition of “Dominant.” If you mean dominant in the sense of dominant “function,” i.e., in opposition to the tonic, then no, you can also have a vii fully diminished seven chord that operates in that function. A ii7 also contains the minor seventh, and yet it’s definitely not a dominant chord, but rather a pre-dominant.
