Nashville Number System: Is that all it is?

[LiquidMidnight]

OTOH it took 3 months to even get one of my bands to play "Folsom Prison" as an 11 bar blues all the way though - no hitches in that one.

My current country project focuses primarily on modern country, but we have a few traditional and older tunes, including Folsom. A lot of groups take two bars between the verses, but my lead player was insistent on only taking one bar, like the original recording. I dig playing it like that; it gives the arrangement a sense of urgency.

 

[57pbass]

Been using this for 20 years.. a wonderful method for quick charts. I’ve received many call backs because I was prepared thanks to these charts..

 

[Lex P.]

Been using this for 20 years.. a wonderful method for quick charts. I’ve received many call backs because I was prepared thanks to these charts..

Agreed 100%. I’ve been using 1Chart for a while now. I can chart a song out, come back to it months later and without musical accompaniment play the whole song. Sweet!

 

[57pbass]

Agreed 100%. I’ve been using 1Chart for a while now. I can chart a song out, come back to it months later and without musical accompaniment play the whole song. Sweet!

Invaluable tool.. I have that app as well.. they did an amazing job developing it.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Really interesting thread. I've taught traditional and jazz theory at a university for over 20 years and have had Invalid Link Removed about it for a long time. I know that when am playing by ear or learning to cover changes by ear my intuition "sees" the music in a very different way than would be expressed by either a chart or by traditional analytical notation. the NN system might be a little closer to that in some ways. Never too old to learn something new!

 

[staccatogrowl]

Sparrow and the Bear is very cool ( @Chris Fitzgerald ). I've always thought of NNS to be a close variation of Schenkerian Analysis, just using Arabic numerals. However, by the time someone learns how to spell Schenkerian (and its relationship/application to classical music or jazz), they are well on their way to understanding NNS.

NNS is just another mathematical way to learn/convey/analyze music. Its beauty is its simplicity. It is commonly and successfully used in vernacular diatonic (single key) music, where its use excels. Also, Nashville is/has been a very fertile music place, offering affinity and familiar context to NNS form.

In terms of learning theory it involves the sense of sight, as does as any visual notation. It is useful in reinforcing assimilation of an aural art by use of an additional sense.

Math is an integral part of all music. Without math there would be no way to explain music in terms of physics. However, any mathematical/notation analysis method falls short in explaining the emotion and psychology of music.

I think that aural assimilation of music is the best way to develop emotional and intuitive musical skills. However, one can also use a numerical notation in this quest, assuming they have visual sight (although Barry Harris uses aural numerical methods in teaching jazz students).

Finally, if NNS users sing the intervals indicated by their notation, they are in essence practicing a form of solfège, replacing syllabic reference with Arabic numeral reference. In doing so, they involve multiple senses and brain hemispheres: sight, hearing, and touch (touch of instrument: voice, bass, etc).

 

[Ekulati]

I've always thought of NNS to be a close variation of Schenkerian Analysis, just using Arabic numerals.

Hmm... a friendly clarification, sounds like maybe your understanding of Schenkerian analysis isn’t quite right. First of course, NNS is simply a converted and expanded version of traditional Roman Numeral tonal analysis, adapted for “real world” every day application. Basically it substitutes each diatonic scale degree from Roman to Arabic, e.g. I-IV-V to 1-4-5. (Then of course expands, elaborates, etc.)

Schenkerian analysis deals with harmonic (and melodic) structures of (tonal) music existing at various hierarchical levels, simultaneously (which are themselves then “analyzable”). But this goes way beyond the mere Roman numeral labeling of each “chord” or harmonic structure. The largest (background) level “reduces” a piece of tonal music – even very long ones – into nothing but one big I-V-I progression. The (first) I-V then are said to be "prolonged" by various more surface level (foreground) devices, some being actual harmonies, but others only being, for example, strings of parallel intervals between the outside voices of a texture, used as transition between tonal areas. This really has nothing to do with translating, say, I-vi-ii-V-I into 1-6-2-5-1. It only uses traditional Roman numeral analysis as a jumping off point.

 

[staccatogrowl]

Or maybe it's just that your perception of my understanding Schenkerian analysis isn't quite right? Is this a test? It's OK : )

Go as deep into sharing your understanding and knowledge of Schenkerian analysis as you'd like in the NNS thread. You're barely scratching the surface above anyway, right? There are many books and scholarly dissertations on this subject spanning centuries. It's all fine, however, since it's about learning and communication.

 

[Ekulati]

Well, as one of those folks who has shed plenty of blood, sweat, and tears doing Schenkerian analysis at the graduate level, I am perhaps a little too invested in minimizing misperceptions of what it is and what it’s not.

But yes of course I was just scratching the surface, both because it IS off topic to this thread and also because that’s all it took to show that your understanding of Schenkerian analysis is incorrect. As is your assertion that it’s been around for “centuries.”

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Sparrow and the Bear is very cool ( @Chris Fitzgerald ).

Thank you! It's always satisfying when a long term project finally comes to fruition.

I've always thought of NNS to be a close variation of Schenkerian Analysis, just using Arabic numerals. However, by the time someone learns how to spell Schenkerian (and its relationship/application to classical music or jazz), they are well on their way to understanding NNS.

I'm not a Schenkerian scholar, but my experience with it is that it is more of a "zoom out" button that allows the analyst to view the larger scale harmonic topography of long piece of music; kind of like a "Google symphony" version of "Google earth". In my limited experience with it in grad school I found the concept itself extremely interesting and useful and the specific analytical machinations much less so.

NNS is just another mathematical way to learn/convey/analyze music. Its beauty is its simplicity. It is commonly and successfully used in vernacular diatonic (single key) music, where its use excels. Also, Nashville is/has been a very fertile music place, offering affinity and familiar context to NNS form.

In terms of learning theory it involves the sense of sight, as does as any visual notation. It is useful in reinforcing assimilation of an aural art by use of an additional sense.

This is how I am beginning to understand NNS, as simply another vernacular or interface used to express the same basic information. In teaching both traditional and jazz theory, I begin from the perspective that they are basically the same melodic/harmonic system with different stylistic ornamentation. This would make sense, since the melodic/harmonic content of jazz is based on the model of western European music. It is really fascinating to compare the counterpoint of J.S. Bach and the compositions and improvisations of Charlie Parker as regards what happens on the downbeats of harmonic changes. The results, when viewed from a zoomed out big picture perspective (neo-Schenkerian? ) are so close as to be nearly indistinguishable.

I think that aural assimilation of music is the best way to develop emotional and intuitive musical skills.

Agree.

 

[staccatogrowl]

Your understanding of Schenkerian analysis is incorrect. As is your assertion that it’s been around for “centuries.”

Of course. Only your understanding must be correct, as you apparently know the extent and depth of the knowledge of others, even those you've never met.

And, you must also somehow be right that Heinrich Schenker, while formulating his analyses in the late 1800s/early 1900s, does not have work spanning more than two centuries. How about this? Technically, his ideas were formulated/existed in a time spanning two millenia. (Hint: An event that occurred over two calendar months might not have lasted for two full months.)

Finally, please exemplify your knowledge and proficiency in Schenkerian Analysis, maybe using one of the songs mentioned in this thread. It will certainly be a helpful and enlightening demonstration, while also proving why NNS is so widely embraced. Cheers!

 

[staccatogrowl]

It is really fascinating to compare the counterpoint of J.S. Bach and the compositions and improvisations of Charlie Parker as regards what happens on the downbeats of harmonic changes. The results, when viewed from a zoomed out big picture perspective (neo-Schenkerian? ) are so close as to be nearly indistinguishable.

I first became aware of Schenkerian analysis from a jazz perspective through John Mehegan's jazz improvisation series of books, whereby he analyzed fundamental jazz harmony and rhythm of many jazz standards. This eventually led to theory exploration in university classes, although in classical music analysis. This book: https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0415973988/schenkerguide-21/ and companion website: http://schenkerguide.com offered first glimpses to more detailed components of Schenkerian analysis.

A more recent and fascinating book is Steve Larson's Analyzing Jazz: A Schenkerian Approach. https://www.amazon.com/Analyzing-Jazz-Schenkerian-Approach-Harmonologia/dp/1576471861/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1513543987&sr=8-1&keywords=steve+larson+jazz

In regards to finding great similarity in aspects of Bach counterpoint and Bird compositions and improvisations, viewed from "Google Earth" perspective: It clearly exemplifies Bird's aural assimilation of the work of a classical master. Bird was a master chef, amalgamating works of others as his own, from his time period and before. Several scholars have also documented characteristics of Mozart in Bird's work, and Bird routinely borrowed harmonic structures of same-era popular songs as the basis for his "original" compositions. He found a masterful way to bring diverse and revolutionary work to life, reflective of it's time, much in the same way some practitioners of NNS might hope, in a "Google Earth" way.

It is improbable that Bird used theoretical tools available to today's musicians. He didn't use NNS , instead using his heart, soul, and mind to incorporate elements of music that he loved.

There are diverse and ample tools available, aiding our music education and performance endeavors. NNS is certainly one of them, with solid connection to more comprehensive analytical tools. NNS is a great "shorthand" notation tool. It is accessible and helpful to many. I use it all the time. It is easy to teach to others, and embraced by many musicians with diverse music training and background.

 

[MalcolmAmos]

.......NNS is a great "shorthand" notation tool. It is accessible and helpful to many. I use it all the time. It is easy to teach to others, and embraced by many musicians with diverse music training and background.

Ditto the above.

 

[BassAndReeds]

I am now using the NNS, in conjuction with a tablet and MS Paint. Working very well.

The Pro to Roman Numerals is the difference in Major/Minor chords. The 2 chord being "2m" in NNS, and "ii" in Roman Numberals. I like the "ii" better.

The Pros to NNS is in the 3 and 7 chord. NNS = "3", Roman numeral = "iii". That's too many i's in a row for me. Also NNS = 7, vs Roman Numeral "vii".

A shame NNS doesn't really work with lyrics. May have to devise another system.

 

[RoadRanger]

A shame NNS doesn't really work with lyrics. May have to devise another system.

Sure it does - use NNS with Chordpro format.

 

[Ekulati]

please exemplify your knowledge and proficiency in Schenkerian Analysis

No. You’re the one who said NNS is "a close variation of Schenkerian Analysis, just using Arabic numerals" which is wrong. The burden of proof is on you, to demonstrate how what you said is NOT wrong. I don’t have to produce an analysis of a “song” in order to demonstrate anything. I got my master’s degree in music years ago and am not in music academia anymore. At the time I studied at the graduate level at a prominent University of California campus in the early 90s under preeminent music theorists (not just professors who taught theory), one of whom had studied with Allen Forte at Yale (look him up).

Essentially, as has been noted here already, NNS is a brilliant shorthand adaptation of traditional Roman number analysis, applied to (mostly) “non-classical” music to facilitate easy transposition and performance “on the fly” by musicians. It mostly deals with the labeling of CHORDS for this easy application. Chords are vertical structures. NNS deals very little -- if at all -- with melody, voice leading, hierarchical levels, harmonic prolongations, or the relationships between outer voices of a musical texture (i.e. the main melody and the bass voice). These components, which Schenkerian analysis focuses on, are HORIZONTAL structures. Schenker is all about the LINEAR flow of musical structures/relationships, over time, throughout a piece of tonal music. NNS is primarily a chord shorthand. Vertical vs. horizontal/linear. (And, despite when he lived, his ideas didn’t really start to catch on until the mid-20th century...)

 

[staccatogrowl]

No. You’re the one who said NNS is "a close variation of Schenkerian Analysis, just using Arabic numerals" which is wrong.

Yep, I said that, but followed it with a clarifying statement, "However, by the time someone learns how to spell Schenkerian (and its relationship/application to classical music or jazz), they are well on their way to understanding NNS." The implication of the clarifying statement was to differentiate the NNS notation system form the Schenkerian analysis system.

It's been an interesting dialogue with you. Many hairs to split. You are well qualified academically relative to my undergrad music experience. I admire Schenker's analysis method and those with the skill to use it at a high level, as you assert you have. Peace.

 

[Russell L]

So, how does either system indicate chord inversion?

 

[BassAndReeds]

So, how does either system indicate chord inversion?

I'm pretty sure both use fractions = chord/bass note.

NNS = 5/2 (5 chord in 2nd inversion)

Roman = V/ii (5 chord in 2nd inversion)

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I'm pretty sure both use fractions = chord/bass note.

NNS = 5/2 (5 chord in 2nd inversion)

Roman = V/ii (5 chord in 2nd inversion)

Some musicians need to be careful about that inversion notation.
What is the meaning of numbers 6/5, 4/3, 4/2, etc.?

http://learnmusictheory.net/PDFs/pdffiles/02-09-SATBPartWriting5SecondInversionTriads.pdf

The 2 chord being "2m" in NNS,

I've thought it was 2-