Dorian mode chord progression questions..

Brad

bloodandtears said:

So.. why this??

i - bVII - IV

or

i - VII - IV

And this is why I kinda prefer relating back to the diatonic parent key...

i - bVII - IV could suggest thinking against Dmaj where a C# type chord is the 7th of DMaj. Hence the C chord taking on bVII. 

i - VII - IV could be more likely thinking as Dmin, as the VII chord in the minor system is a major chord a tone down from i. Although the IV is actually minor chord in Dm. Although not if you are thinking in Dorian and treating that as home, then it would be viewed as i - V - IV of course. 

In either case it’s relating the root movement of the chords against D. 

Clarky

viz said:

bigjon said:

Clarky said:
did the upper / lower case thing come out of the US?

 ...  but strictly according to the Nashville numbering system it's vi V IV etc.

Which is to me mental and counter-intuitive. I like the use of small letters for minors but the I (or i) has GOT to denote the home key because it’s the tonic!

I don’t know how far back the use of numbering for chords goes but it was certainly around in the 1700s and always related to the tonic of the piece, whether it was in ionian, aeolian, dorian or anything else. 

when I was at Uni and we were analysing a piece it was always in upper case throughout
we'd be looking at music from Bach [and maybe a little earlier] through to Beethoven [and a little beyond]
there was never any uncertainty with respect to modes because that music isn't modal at all
it's either major or minor and you knew the key.. and at its core it follows well established rules
also Roman numerals would not usually be used in isolation, they would accompany something else. Usually a score of the melody or more commonly 2 part harmony [the melody and bass]..
coming from a 'classical' music education, it's important to remember that chords are constructed differently..
us modern lot [including jazzers] tend to play chords as blocks of notes
in classical music you'll have 3 or 4 independently moving voices whereby chords are generated as the result of the movement of these voices.. so it's a different way of going about things..
so for example, when we saw a 4 part harmony scored, the Roman numerals would be illustrating [for education / reference purposes] the outcome of these contrapuntal voices in terms of the chords that were being generated..
also we'd not generate a set of Roman numerals for the entire piece, only around areas of interest like approaches to key changes, cadences, illustrating pivot chords or other interesting compositional tricks and tools etc..
so I guess you could say we used this system to assist in illustrating things, but it was rarely used on its own..

viz

^ yep very true, in classical music the chord numbers aren’t a replacement for the sheet music. In jazz or blues or rock you can give an accompanist the set of chords in roman numerals and they’ll be able to approximate the song. 

Stuckfast

but surely in Bach's day the continuo player was expected to improvise from a figured bass?

viz

Yes, but as baroque gave way to classical and romantic, improvisation was less feasible. 

- edit and even with Bach there was some recititiv musi which was basso continuo, and some totally obligatory music - sometimes within the same piece; check out his two Passions for example.

Anyway, the main point is, that the 1 chord has always reflected the tonic, until recently, when other conventions have appeared. 

stratman3142

Interesting discussion. My personal preference is to use all capitals and number things relative to the home key. Then denote the chord type after the roman numeral. So for example a 2 5 1 in 7ths would be written as IIm7  V7  Ima7.

Clarky

Stuckfast said:

but surely in Bach's day the continuo player was expected to improvise from a figured bass?

a scored melody along with figured bass is not quite as free as you'd imagine from an improvisational standpoint
you'd only have freedom with the inner voices
and even then, there are enough rules to comply with, along with the figured bass that you'll find that there are not that many options open to you

Clarky

viz said:

^ yep very true, in classical music the chord numbers aren’t a replacement for the sheet music. In jazz or blues or rock you can give an accompanist the set of chords in roman numerals and they’ll be able to approximate the song. 

absolutely.. and contemporary music has far more freedom..
so if you see the chord I or the chord A, you can voice it any way you like [not thinking inversions here, just voicing]

Clarky

viz said:

Yes, but as baroque gave way to classical and romantic, improvisation was less feasible. 

- edit and even with Bach there was some recititiv musi which was basso continuo, and some totally obligatory music - sometimes within the same piece; check out his two Passions for example.

Anyway, the main point is, that the 1 chord has always reflected the tonic, until recently, when other conventions have appeared. 

even in Classical and Romantic times folks did improvise.. usually solo pieces..
Beethoven was particularly known for it..
but yes I agree, a score is only open to so much interpretation in an ensemble..
soloists performing concerti however have a little more freedom for interpretation, especially during a cadenza [as some are not even scored]

Clarky

stratman3142 said:

Interesting discussion. My personal preference is to use all capitals and number things relative to the home key. Then denote the chord type after the roman numeral. So for example a 2 5 1 in 7ths would be written as IIm7  V7  Ima7.

yes it is interesting [musical geekdom... lol..]
typically I'd only use Roman numerals if I'm analysing something because I'm more interested in function with respect to key rather than the notes or specific chord itself..

for regular chord progression stuff [learning music / sight reading / composition] I'd just list the chord names and use slash chords for inversions [cos they're quicker / easier to read]

jpfamps

The Nashville system doesn't use Roman numerals.

I think  using Roman numerals to analyse chord progression is quite an old system for representing chords and date back to classical music.

On our charts when we use the Nashville notation we always denote the chord type as it is often not diatonic, eg the II chord is often major, or even a dominant 7 chord.

Music that modulates, eg a lot of jazz, can cause this type of system to become hard to follow as technically the 1 chord as changing.

Fortunately I don't play much, if any, jazz!

Clarky

I think the important piece [at least from my personal perspective] is understanding what is represented and how to make use of it..
we have a variety of ways of illustrating / describing music that are quite different
they each illustrate things in different ways.. all useful despite their differences
it's like having a box of tools
some good for real-time [reading, making quick sketches]
some good to aid understanding or spot specific things of interest

in a sense it's like graphs / charts.. there are loads of different types..
those you choose are the ones that best illustrate whatever it is you're trying to illustrate or understand..

viz

Clarky said:

in a sense it's like graphs / charts.. there are loads of different types..
those you choose are the ones that best illustrate whatever it is you're trying to illustrate or understand..

That gets a vizwiz. 

Clarky

viz said:

Clarky said:

in a sense it's like graphs / charts.. there are loads of different types..
those you choose are the ones that best illustrate whatever it is you're trying to illustrate or understand..

That gets a vizwiz. 

thanks matey...
and I just corrected a spelling..
just realised I couldn't spell the word 'or'.. and it's only two letters long ffs.. lmao