Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Question about Nashville notation
- Thread starter BargeOn
- Start date
I’ve only had changes shouted to me on country gigs,so I don’t know if it counts, but 1 meant 1 in the key. It was easy to hear that it was an Am not Amaj.
Jazz is easier for me to understand.
VI is not vi.
Nashville numbers is always major. So if the key is Amin it will be the relative major of Cmaj as the 1. However, there are lots of bastardized notations out there. I have not actually experienced anyone using real Nashville number system in the wild, but I'm sure it's prevalent in certain musical communities.
Whether correct or not, every Nashville gig I've been on has used the 1 for both major and minor keys. Put more clearly; If the band leader says/charts 1 in A it's an A chord. If they say/chart 1 in Am it's an Am chord. I believe @UntitledProject is correct about it always being major academically, but I've never actually encountered anyone using it that way in the wild. YMMV.
I always chart my stuff in the major key so if the Key is actually a minor the root would be the relative major. i.e, Am = 6 C=1
I lived there twenty years, every chart I saw or wrote myself, was always in the major key.
Bassically, Michael
Bassically, Michael
I’ve done it both ways. When I started using NNS, having come from a classical background, I preferred 1 for the minor “tonic”. I really couldn’t see why anyone would notate in relation to the relative Major, making the minor tonic “6-“.
But after a few charts, I quickly realized that it was better to optimize for quick pattern recognition. In NNS, you get used to seeing 1 4 5 without any symbols next to it, and you get used to seeing 2- 3- 6- for minor. If you notate 1- for minor tonic, now you have:
1- (minor)
2o (diminished)
3^ (Major)
4- (minor)
5- (minor)
6^ (Major)
7^ (Major)
Literally every chord now (1) has a symbol next to it and (2) the symbol is different than it would normally be (in Major / diatonic). It’s a lot more cognitive overhead to sight-read a chart written this way. And it turns out that the i-V functional analysis has very little bearing in a performance context.
(I could buy the argument that this isn’t entirely true in a jazz context where 2-5-1 is so common.)
In short, do what’s best for you and those with whom you play, but optimize for lowest cognitive load in a performance context. For me with pop and CCM, I follow NNS conventions and chart relative to the Major.
But after a few charts, I quickly realized that it was better to optimize for quick pattern recognition. In NNS, you get used to seeing 1 4 5 without any symbols next to it, and you get used to seeing 2- 3- 6- for minor. If you notate 1- for minor tonic, now you have:
1- (minor)
2o (diminished)
3^ (Major)
4- (minor)
5- (minor)
6^ (Major)
7^ (Major)
Literally every chord now (1) has a symbol next to it and (2) the symbol is different than it would normally be (in Major / diatonic). It’s a lot more cognitive overhead to sight-read a chart written this way. And it turns out that the i-V functional analysis has very little bearing in a performance context.
(I could buy the argument that this isn’t entirely true in a jazz context where 2-5-1 is so common.)
In short, do what’s best for you and those with whom you play, but optimize for lowest cognitive load in a performance context. For me with pop and CCM, I follow NNS conventions and chart relative to the Major.
Me? 1 is the key, whether major, minor, mixolydian, or any other mode. That's just how my amateur brain is wired (though I technically qualify as semi-pro).
It was fascinating to read comments here on standard practice, and the justification for always using 1 for major. But unless you plan on doing pro sessions in Nashville at some point, go with whatever works for you.
6 for a minor key tune is how I think about it for "plagal" tunes. For example, 6, 4, 1, 5 pattern. In classical speak you'd have a C major key signature, so C is 1.
If you had an E major as dominant chord, then you'd just indicate the "maj".
Funk and blues based tunes I think about in the home key: 1, 3b, 4, 5, b7, 1 pattern, or 1, b7, 4, 1 etc.
There's an interesting YT clip on this conundrum. It boils down to the key signature. That guides the 1, even if 1 isn't the "home" chord of the tune.
If you had an E major as dominant chord, then you'd just indicate the "maj".
Funk and blues based tunes I think about in the home key: 1, 3b, 4, 5, b7, 1 pattern, or 1, b7, 4, 1 etc.
There's an interesting YT clip on this conundrum. It boils down to the key signature. That guides the 1, even if 1 isn't the "home" chord of the tune.
I understand the “1 is always major” thing, but it definitely has to depend on the situation. Take “The Way I Walk” by Jack Scott. It’s a simple 1-4-5 progression with the 1 being minor. Not that you’d ever need to actually chart it, but if you’re quickly explaining it to someone who’s never played it or throwing hand signals on the fly, it would be insane to call it a 6-2-3 progression.
Chord Types
Major chords are represented by just the number (e.g., 1 for C).
Minor chords are indicated with a dash (e.g., 6- for A minor).
Other modifications can be added for more complex chords.
Should it be marked as 1-?
Well, A minor is NOT the same thing as C major.
If I were making a chord sheet of a tune in A minor, I'd write 1m or 1- to represent A minor. I do NOT believe that calling A minor in an A minor tune, the 6 chord, is accurate, and it'll get you all wrapped around the axle eventually, I predict.
If I were writing a tune in C major that had an A minor chord in it, I'd write 6m or 6-. I suppose according to the strictest interpretation of this "system" I should just write 6 and it'd be assumed that it's minor; but I would always opt to err by providing more information than is needed, than risk providing insufficient info.
I do NOT work with people who rely deeply on all the permutations and developments of the "Nashville system", but I'd suggest that by the time you're adding a bunch of special markings and provisos and "it works this way except when this and this and this come up in which case it's something different" clauses, you've exceeded the capabilities of what was meant to be a simple quick method; and you might want to consider another variant of it.
If you use the standard notation (roman numerals with all the chord forms clearly marked (Maj, Maj7, min, 7, min7, m7b5, etc.), then you don't need all the special provisos to the Arabic numeral system. By all means for straightforward compositions, use Nashville's Arabic numerals, but there comes a time when you're asking a Pinto to pull a 20,000 lb trailer up Pike's Peak and you really need a Kenworth.
If I were making a chord sheet of a tune in A minor, I'd write 1m or 1- to represent A minor. I do NOT believe that calling A minor in an A minor tune, the 6 chord, is accurate, and it'll get you all wrapped around the axle eventually, I predict.
If I were writing a tune in C major that had an A minor chord in it, I'd write 6m or 6-. I suppose according to the strictest interpretation of this "system" I should just write 6 and it'd be assumed that it's minor; but I would always opt to err by providing more information than is needed, than risk providing insufficient info.
I do NOT work with people who rely deeply on all the permutations and developments of the "Nashville system", but I'd suggest that by the time you're adding a bunch of special markings and provisos and "it works this way except when this and this and this come up in which case it's something different" clauses, you've exceeded the capabilities of what was meant to be a simple quick method; and you might want to consider another variant of it.
If you use the standard notation (roman numerals with all the chord forms clearly marked (Maj, Maj7, min, 7, min7, m7b5, etc.), then you don't need all the special provisos to the Arabic numeral system. By all means for straightforward compositions, use Nashville's Arabic numerals, but there comes a time when you're asking a Pinto to pull a 20,000 lb trailer up Pike's Peak and you really need a Kenworth.
When charting tunes, i’ll listen all the way to the chorus for whatever chord it resolves to, and make that the 1.
Doing it this way, i’ve charted very few tunes as minor.
I’m in Austin, TX and the issue that pops up occasionally is that some folks will base the chart on the first note of a tune, and it’s infuriating.
Having to clarify that no song has ever been written as 1- 4 7b…
Or that songs don’t resolve to the 3…
Doing it this way, i’ve charted very few tunes as minor.
I’m in Austin, TX and the issue that pops up occasionally is that some folks will base the chart on the first note of a tune, and it’s infuriating.
Having to clarify that no song has ever been written as 1- 4 7b…
Or that songs don’t resolve to the 3…
Yeah, a variant of that is songs that start on the IV or V and people who insist that THAT's the key.When charting tunes, i’ll listen all the way to the chorus for whatever chord it resolves to, and make that the 1.
Doing it this way, i’ve charted very few tunes as minor.
I’m in Austin, TX and the issue that pops up occasionally is that some folks will base the chart on the first note of a tune, and it’s infuriating.
Having to clarify that no song has ever been written as 1- 4 7b…
Or that songs don’t resolve to the 3…
"That'll Be The Day in D!"
So I start out playing a G chord, but what he MEANT was "That'll Be The Day in A", where the first chord is D.
Yes, but there's a version of notation which says to treat the song as if it were C major, so you'd write 6 min for A min, then (for example) 2 min for D, 3 maj for E7 - you get the idea. I wouldn't do it that way but there are people who do. Seems confusing as all heck to me. A four chord or a five -seven chord has a certain sound and calling them twos and threes isn't the same.
When I'm playing songs of more or less conventional layouts, I tend to think along the lines of "OK, first it's I, V, then the bridge starts on IV, back to !, then it drops down to VI, then around the circle of fifths" - well, if you offset all the numbers, all that basic functional harmony information gets lost and I think by the time I figured it out, the song would be over.
So I agree with you, but not everyone notates it that way.
Standard practice in Nashville is to write everything in the relative MAJOR key. So if you're in Em, you are in G and start in the 6m.
But it's not necessarily a steadfast rule. It is the overwhelming common practice though.
But it's not necessarily a steadfast rule. It is the overwhelming common practice though.
Not traditionally in Nashville notation.
Am is your 6m and C is your 1.
