Nashville numbering system minor key

[ics1974]

With minor key do you switch the number to overlay the Aeolian scale instead of the major scale?

 

[Wissen]

By Nashville Numbering System do you mean the roman numerals that indicate chord quality - e.g. I, IV, vi, V? I am not trying to be pedantic, I just want to make sure I am answering the question you are asking. My feelings on calling those roman numerals the NNS are a topic for a different day.

The roman numerals you use will always indicate the quality of the chord - major, minor, diminished, augmented. The quality of the chord will be determined by the scale or mode that song is based on. Therefore, yes. The numbers will be different.

If I am writing a song in Aeolian, that means my 6 is flatted, which makes my 4 chord minor - iv.

If I am writing a song in Dorian, my 6 is not flatted, so my 4 chord is major - IV.

The whole point of the roman numeral system is to communicate root and chord quality in one simple bit of information so the person reading your music knows what they're supposed to be playing. I'm not trying to be condescending, just direct.

I hope that helps!

 

[ics1974]

By Nashville Numbering System do you mean the roman numerals that indicate chord quality - e.g. I, IV, vi, V? I am not trying to be pedantic, I just want to make sure I am answering the question you are asking. My feelings on calling those roman numerals the NNS are a topic for a different day.

The roman numerals you use will always indicate the quality of the chord - major, minor, diminished, augmented. The quality of the chord will be determined by the scale or mode that song is based on. Therefore, yes. The numbers will be different.

If I am writing a song in Aeolian, that means my 6 is flatted, which makes my 4 chord minor - iv.

If I am writing a song in Dorian, my 6 is not flatted, so my 4 chord is major - IV.

The whole point of the roman numeral system is to communicate root and chord quality in one simple bit of information so the person reading your music knows what they're supposed to be playing. I'm not trying to be condescending, just direct.

I hope that helps!

Yes I mean e.g. I, IV, vi, V
So say you are playing in the key of A minor i iv v: Am–Dm–Em
Would you be thinking Aeolian scale with i iv v ?

 

[Wissen]

Yes I mean e.g. I, IV, vi, V
So say you are playing in the key of A minor i iv v: Am–Dm–Em
Would you be thinking Aeolian scale with i iv v ?

The iv indicates a flatted 6th, and the v indicates a flatted 7th, so yes. That says Aeolian to me. Or Natural Minor. Or Minor. Which term and how much specificity you use would depend on your audience.

If someone simply told me "This song is in A minor", I'm going to assume Natural Minor/Aeolian. Likewise if I hear the flatted 6th and 7th, or if I see i iv v, for the reasons outlined above.

If someone said "This song uses A harmonic minor" or I hear someone use the raised 7th or I see i iv V, then that all tells me the same thing.

Likewise if someone says "This song is in A dorian" or I hear the raised 6th or I see i IV v. Again, those all point to the same thing for me.

So I think you are on the right track with your thinking. The quality of the 4 and 5 chords will tell you which mode the song is in, because those two chords' quality is determined by the 6th and 7th scale degrees, which also define the mode. It's all different angles to approach the same basic information.

 

[Pacman]

Just so we're clear here, Nashville Number system doesn't use Roman numerals, they use Arabic numerals.

 

[ics1974]

Thanks everyone.

 

[mambo4]

Yeah Roman numerals : “functional harmony”

Arabic numerals : “Nashville Numbers”

That’s Not The only difference either. Functional harmony is usually for analyzing theory and harmony, Nashville Numbers is a specialized notation system for charting songs independent of a specific key for studio musicians.

for functional harmony it is a common convention to use uppercase and lowercase to distinguish chord quality. But this is by no means a universal approach. I have Berkeley books where it’s always uppercase. Depends on the author.

because of that variation it is no guarantee that a “vi” will always be assumed by readers to be a chord built on the flattened 6th degree. Strive to remove ambiguity. When I need to communicate a root on scale degree that is not a natural major scale interval I make sure to include an accidental : “b vi”, “bVII7” etc, just for clarity.

 

[SteveCS]

...
because of that variation it is no guarantee that a “vi” will always be assumed by readers to be a chord built on the flattened 6th degree.
...

A chord built on the minor 6th would be VI (major) in the minor key (F, A, C in Am) and VI+ (augmented - F, A, C# in A) in the major key, would it not? How are you making a diatonic minor triad on the b6? The only way I can see is on the Major 6th of the Major key (F#, A, C# in A). Starting with the M6 in minor ends up diminished (F#, A, C in Am).

Hopefully I'm just having a senior moment...

 

[EarnestTBass]

With minor key do you switch the number to overlay the Aeolian scale instead of the major scale?

No

 

[mambo4]

A chord built on the minor 6th would be VI (major)

Correct. I misread @Wissen's post about the iv chord containing the flat aeolian 6th (as its 3rd).

But in the spirit of my post I would favor bVI for clarity. For aeolian:

i
ii (m7b5)
bIII (maj7)
iv (min7)
v (min7)
bVI (maj 7)
bVII (7)​

I'm aware not everyone does so, but I find it less confusing.

 

[Papageno]

It always seemed to me that the so-called Nashville number system is a fully superfluous thing.

The roman numerals have been used for centuries to analyze a chord progression in a key independent way. Replacing roman numerals by arabic numerals us not particularly innovative (it is even a downgrade, as the lack if upper and lower case does not allow to distinguish between major and minor as done usually with roman numerals). Arabic numbers are better suited to label scale degrees than chords, i.e
i = 1 - b3 - 5
iv = 4 - b6 - 1
bVII7 = b7 - 2 - 4 - b6
etc.

 

[Wissen]

Just so we're clear here, Nashville Number system doesn't use Roman numerals, they use Arabic numerals.

Nashville Numbers is a specialized notation system for charting songs independent of a specific key for studio musicians.

It always seemed to me that the so-called Nashville number system is a fully superfluous thing.

I appreciate you all weighing in here with this clarification. It appears to me that the Nashville Numbers as a buzzword is having a bit of a moment right now, and people are starting to throw it around both incorrectly and superfluously.

As I see it, only real, actual session musicians would find NNS truly useful. Everyone else trying to learn music really wants the functional harmony system. But some folks trying to teach music theory are beginning to use them interchangeably.

But that's a tangent to OP's question.

 

[mambo4]

The ambiguity gets worse in spoken communication “ one four five” without clarification can easily confuse a student. Another reason to default to the clearest possible format. Don’t get me started on “six chord”

 

[Wissen]

The ambiguity gets worse in spoken communication “ one four five” without clarification can easily confuse a student. Another reason to default to the clearest possible format. Don’t get me started on “six chord”

Context is important to that conversation. "One four five" and "six chord" are perfectly reasonable shorthand that convey all of the necessary information in certain genres. And certainly when a student is starting out learning music theory. I wouldn't try to teach a new student modes until they understood how this all works in Major. In Major, "one four five and six" convey all of the information necessary. Once I explain what that information is, of course.

 

[Malcolm35]

I'll get to the minor question later in this post.

From a guy that used NN --- and the major scale box pattern -- if the song is to be played in a major key follower the chords, find the root of the active chord-- then decide how much of the chord's notes you want. Is just the root all you want, or do you want more than just the root, if so the following comes into the picture notice we are now thinking in chord tones, aka the root's 3rd, 5th, etc.

Using the major scale box pattern....

From the root it's 2 is found same string and over two frets.
The 3 is found up a string and back a fret.
4 is one string up from the root and same fret, etc.
5 is up a string and over two frets from the root, etc.

In NN find the root then decide how full you want that root to be, I.e, R-5 or R-5-8-5. How full is left up to you. You find the root from the NN Arabic number and then fill from that.

Now to the minor question. If you are using the major box pattern to find your minor Key -- you have to adjust. Been awhile, but, I seem to remember you would back up 3 frets and play the NN as written, open for correction here...

Point I'm making NN can be just roots or as full as you like.

 

[ad9000]

This is a bit off topic, but here is David Hood's number chart from the session for Paul Simon's Still Crazy After All These Years, as displayed in the Musicians Hall of Fame and Museum in Nashville. I'd think a song as complex as that one would be a lot more comprehensible in standard notation, but as long as it allowed Hood to get through the song once tape was rolling, the chart served its purpose. It gets pretty crazy toward the end, though. The solo section, which eventually featured Michael Brecker, was possibly inserted at some point after the original chart was written, as you can see it's written outside the margins. Also, the bars marked "3/4" right before the B section and at the 6th bar of the bridge should actually be 3/8 bars, but that's the kind of thing that happens when you're scribbling out a chart on the fly while the artist is running down the song, which I assume is what happened.

 

[Papageno]

Many thanks. That's fascinating.
What is the meaning of the small dashes written of the Nashville numbers (eg in bar 4)?

 

[Malcolm35]

the number of beats that part is active.

 

[Snarf]

It always seemed to me that the so-called Nashville number system is a fully superfluous thing.

The roman numerals have been used for centuries to analyze a chord progression in a key independent way. Replacing roman numerals by arabic numerals us not particularly innovative (it is even a downgrade, as the lack if upper and lower case does not allow to distinguish between major and minor as done usually with roman numerals). Arabic numbers are better suited to label scale degrees than chords, i.e
i = 1 - b3 - 5
iv = 4 - b6 - 1
bVII7 = b7 - 2 - 4 - b6
etc.

Nope. Arabic numbers are easier to read quickly. The purpose of a numbers chart is speed and efficiency. If your eye mistakes a IV for a VI, you're playing the wrong chord. 4 and 6 is easier to see. If you're using a numbers chart, then you already know all the necessary harmony to make it work. It's a prerequisite, and therefore not important to notate the difference between major and minor in the numbers, unless a specific situation arises, and then everyone has their own way of doing it. If a song has a minor IV chord in it for instance, I'll just jot down 4-.

 

[SteveCS]

...
Arabic numbers are easier to read quickly.
...

If you were taught and/or you practiced that way. For those of us brought up on Roman numerals they are probably no less instinctive and immediate than NNS is for someone weaned in that tradition.