Chord numbering system clarification request

[A tempo]

This is an issue that has plagued me for some time. According to everything I've read, when playing a chord progression the tones of the individual chords are numbered according to the chord. Thus in Cmaj, playing a ii-V-I we start with Dmin (dorian) and number the chord tones D (1), E (2), F (3), etc. When we shift to Gdom (lydian) the same tones are numbered D (5), E (6), F (7), etc. Finally we shift to Cmaj (ionian) and the same tones are D (2), E (3), F (4). Yech!

Finally my question. Why don't we use the key signature sequence throughout? Several reasons to do so would include: (1) staying in constant association to the key signature, (2) one consistent numbering system while only having to remember the chord progression, (3) better handling of the tones between the chords. I'm certain there are others.

I apologize if this has been addressed before. I appreciate any clarification that anyone could provide.

[raymondl3]

You have to make the distinction between naming chord tones and naming chords in a progression. Use one through seven (I - VII) to refer to chords in a progression and save the interval references (1, b3, 5, b7) for times when it is relevant. Imagine you had a progression where you played root-fifth (1, 5) on every chord. Under your system each pattern would be called something different, like (2,6), (5,2), (1-5) whereas it's much easier to say "root fifth on each chord in a ii-V-I."

[A tempo]

Originally Posted by raymondl3

You have to make the distinction between naming chord tones and naming chords in a progression...clip....it's much easier to say "root fifth on each chord in a ii-V-I."

I agree Raymond, it is easy to say "root fifth on each chord" and with the system that I described you can still say that because a 5-2 is a 5th, as is a 2-6. But my question is not how you relay the information to others, but how you internalize it. I obviously did not phrase my original question very well. So here's my second attempt.

I am trying to internalize music theory. I am wondering if anyone has considered using the key signature numbering sequence to describe all of the tones in a piece? I am totally aware that everyone can use any system that they want. I just don't want to reinvent the wheel when this system might actually be used and is described somewhere. I also don't want to walk down the wrong path when there are plenty of music theory masters here on TalkBass.

Thanks again for your response.

[A tempo]

Moderators. After thinking about this I realized that it should probably be posted in the Double Bass - Theory subforum, so I reposted. You are welcome to close this thread.

[raymondl3]

Originally Posted by A tempo

Moderators. After thinking about this I realized that it should probably be posted in the Double Bass - Theory subforum, so I reposted. You are welcome to close this thread.

Good move. Silly to assume anyone who plays EB would have any knowledge of theory.

[bassandbeyond]

FWIW, I think this question is just as relevant to BG as it is to double bass. Anyway, one reason why I think it's impractical to reference every tone of a song in relation to the root of the key is that very few songs are completely diatonic. i.e. songs change keys and some chords are not straight out of the harmonized major scale. When constructing bass lines and solos, you really need to think in terms of the key chord tones at any given moment, more than the overall key of the piece.

[A tempo]

Originally Posted by bassandbeyond

Anyway, one reason why I think it's impractical to reference every tone of a song in relation to the root of the key is that very few songs are completely diatonic. i.e. songs change keys and some chords are not straight out of the harmonized major scale.

Now we are getting somewhere, thank you bassandbeyond. I had never thought of that but under those circumstances wouldn't it still be helpful to conceptualize this portion of the piece as it relates to the key signature? In brief, if the key signature changes, the frame of reference changes and the numbering sequence changes. And when the piece modulates back to the original key, then so would the numbering sequence.

As for the last part of your comment, a chord that is not in the key would obviously have to be dealt with uniquely in either system being as it would not be a I, ii, iii, IV, V, vi, or vii. In the system that I proposed I would call this chord by its degrees within the key signature with accidentals, just as you would in yours, right?

Originally Posted by bassandbeyond

When constructing bass lines and solos, you really need to think in terms of the key chord tones at any given moment, more than the overall key of the piece.

This is so brilliant. I agree and I see the wisdom in your post. But in either system, the chord is still the chord whether you call it a 2-4-6-1, or a 1-3-5-7 so your focus is still on the chord tones.

One of the problems that I have had in making music is how do I get from chord to chord while building harmony. What are the passing tones? Now we are dealing with "inter-chordal harmony" which is often beyond focusing on chord tones. [please don't quote me on that stupid term].

Why did I bring this up? Because what must seem quite easy for most people, conceptualizing chord changes, maintaining harmony and improv have eluded me. I realize that much of this is a disconnect somewhere in my concept of music theory.

I am not trying to convert anyone. I am trying to adopt a system that works for me and you have brought up some very important considerations. Thanks.

[A tempo]

Originally Posted by raymondl3

Good move. Silly to assume anyone who plays EB would have any knowledge of theory.

Originally Posted by bassandbeyond

FWIW, I think this question is just as relevant to BG as it is to double bass.

I don't play double bass, but they have a Music Theory subforum and we don't. I actually prefer that both threads stay current until my conundrum is resolved. I cannot tell you how I have tried to adopt the generally accepted method, but once I change the numbers a few times I get really confused, forget the next chord in the progression, get lost, etc. Actually, it is not that bad, but I'm tired of it anyway.

I am hoping that some giant hand will come down out of the sky and touch me on the forehead, filling my head with music theory clarity. Okay Chris Fitzgerald, I'm here, I'm waiting.

[raymondl3]

Give me an example, like a short chord progression or a really common song and list the problems associated with it, how you would like to deal with it, etc.

[bassandbeyond]

Originally Posted by A tempo

I am hoping that some giant hand will come down out of the sky and touch me on the forehead, filling my head with music theory clarity. Okay Chris Fitzgerald, I'm here, I'm waiting.

Don't worry, it takes a while for most folks before it all sinks in. Thinking from the root of the key as you propose IS useful and appropriate for finding the roots of a given chord progression. For example, Emin Amin Dmin G in the key of C is thought of as iii vi ii V.

But once you've found the root of your chord, it really is best to think of the chord tones in terms of their intervallic relationship to the root of that chord. Trust me. As you advance, you will find that there are many options for passing notes on any given chord, but first you need to develop keen awareness of the R-3-5-7 of each individual chord.

I do not mean to imply that key centers are totally irrelevant. They are not. But for now, I would recommend that you go through the process of harmonizing all 12 keys on paper, and practicing those arpeggios until you can quickly identify IV chords and vi chords, etc. in any key. You'll soon catch on, and start being able to analyze songs quicker.

[mambo4]

for examining the relationships of the chord tones as you move though chords for voice leading and such, I think simply using note names might be most efficient. I'd dispense with numbers all together for that.

[A tempo]

Originally Posted by raymondl3

Give me an example

That's my problem, if I were to give you everything you ask, you could explain it to me and I could follow your suggestions. My problem is that I cannot seem to internalize the "why?" of it all. I can understand your "why", but I can't come up with the "why" on my own. I am so grateful for your hanging with this thread. Please see below.

Originally Posted by bassandbeyond

Don't worry, it takes a while for most folks before it all sinks in...........once you've found the root of your chord, it really is best to think of the chord tones in terms of their intervallic relationship to the root of that chord.......for now, I would recommend that you go through the process of harmonizing all 12 keys on paper, and practicing those arpeggios until you can quickly identify IV chords and vi chords, etc. in any key. You'll soon catch on, and start being able to analyze songs quicker.

Thanks to your posts I will place the Unified Musical Numbering System on hold. I will broaden my studies in harmony as you suggest and hopefully I will catch on. Thanks for well considered responses.

Originally Posted by mambo4

for examining the relationships of the chord tones as you move though chords for voice leading and such, I think simply using note names might be most efficient. I'd dispense with numbers all together for that.

Mambo, this is in part what started me on this quest. I first read and began practicing Pacman's excellent Sure-Fire Scale Practice Method which as you know converts everything to numbers, intervals. Then I read Chris Fitzgerald's brilliant post on the Modes which also converts everything to numbers. Both of these sources have been godsends to me. I practice Pacman's method using Chris' numbering method every day, along with a bunch of other stuff.

I had already been introduced to the Nashville Numbering System which is as you can imagine, numbers. Finally, I began reading Edly's Music Theory for Practical People book. He commonly refers to chord numbers to explain theory. I began thinking, "perhaps if I convert my entire system to numbers, then this chaos will clear itself up". And to some degree it has. But as I stated earlier in this post. I have suspended my conversion while I study chordal harmony as described by bassandbeyond, Pacman and Chris.

I am grateful to you all for trying to clarify what for me has been a very challenging subject.

[Mayers]

Originally Posted by mambo4

for examining the relationships of the chord tones as you move though chords for voice leading and such, I think simply using note names might be most efficient. I'd dispense with numbers all together for that.

I learned that way at college. It is less confusing, I save number for chords progression.

[mambo4]

I think in "numbers" 90% of the time: scale tones, chord tones, intervals, roman numeral chords etc. For most theory thinking It's more efficient, easier to memorize and makes common patterns jump right out.

But when it comes to certain things, like voice leading or chord substitution, the note names seem fastest. Of course, you want to be fluent in converting the numbers to letters and back.

[Stick_Player]

Thus in Cmaj, playing a ii-V-I we start with Dmin (dorian) and number the chord tones D (1), E (2), F (3), etc. When we shift to Gdom (lydian) the same tones are numbered D (5), E (6), F (7), etc. Finally we shift to Cmaj (ionian) and the same tones are D (2), E (3), F (4). Yech!

The confusion was started and has been perpetuated by this ridiculous notion of assigning "modes" to chords. I chord = Ionian, ii chord = Dorian, V chord = Mixolydian. NOPE. (I suffered through this "method" in music school and was also mislead.) The three harmonies, if played in succession are ONLY in the Major Key of the I chord (Ionian Mode, in this case, NOT a bunch o' modes strung together).

In the KEY OF C MAJOR, when you have a ii chord (D min), DO NOT assign D Dorian to it - it is NOT the case!

Per your example: "Gdom (lydian) the same tones are numbered D (5), E (6), F (7), etc." - you've already mislabeled it Lydian.

You want to assign names to the INTERVALS of a chord, use the names: root, third, fifth, ninth, etc. AND indicate if they are minor, major, perfect, diminished, augmented - you need to learn the 'rules'.

Example: D Minor (ii) triad: Root, Minor Third, Perfect Fifth and is built on the second scale step.
Example: G Dominant Seventh: Root, Major THird, Perfect Fifth, Minor Seventh and is built on the fifth scale step.
Example: C Major (I) triad: Root, Major Third, Perfect Fifth and is built on the first scale step.

Learn the intervals (and inversions). Music theory rules are very old and if you learn them, are easy and makes sense. Stop clouding things with ridiculous notions, such as assigning modes to chords.

If you follow this, you'll have no trouble naming chords, chord intervals or modulating to key changes.

Stop the misleading assigning modes to various chords, unless the piece of music is ACTUALLY in a particular mode - then the above information will seamlessly translate.

[raymondl3]

Originally Posted by A tempo

That's my problem, if I were to give you everything you ask, you could explain it to me and I could follow your suggestions. My problem is that I cannot seem to internalize the "why?" of it all. I can understand your "why", but I can't come up with the "why" on my own.

Excellent point. You have to ask yourself what it is you want to do. Start with really short term goals like "I want to be able connect chord X to chord Y" or "I'd like to learn a bass line in this style and understand it." The theory is useless to you if you don't have an application for it, an end goal,a reason.

[A tempo]

Originally Posted by Stick_Player

- you've already mislabeled it Lydian........ - you need to learn the 'rules'

I capitulate, you are right and I don't have a clue why I inserted the mode names in there being as they aren't relevant to my post, nor did I have any intention of using them to figure this mess out. You are also right that I incorrectly labeled G mix, but this too is not germane to the discussion. You know, considering how many times I've had to eat crow, I've never really acquired a taste for it.

I do however know the rules. I was just trying to make the rules make sense to me in some unified kind of way. As you can see from a few posts up I have discontinued this in favor of more shedding. Thanks for your post.

Originally Posted by raymondl3

Excellent point. You have to ask yourself what it is you want to do. Start with really short term goals........ Theory is useless to you if you don't have an application for it, an end goal,a reason.

Raymond, you are the male of the species. This is where I went wrong, trying to solve it all when I just need to take one well focused step at a time. This has plagued me for quite a while. Thank you. I just love TalkBass.