IV7 - I

hey guys!

I'm quite new to this forum. Been reading a lot though :toothygrin:

I would like to introduce one of my theories. It is derrived from the famous blues form where we see the fourth chord dominant leading to the tonic (which in blues is also a dominant, since blues is in mixo mode). But lets say that we want to use it in an ionic piece. We would still have the fourth chord a dominant seven. (explained as the blues phenomenon). But instead of disregarding it as this with use of simple jazz analysists techniques we can see a different more interesting connection.

See the IV7 as a tritone substitution for VII7 secondary dominant leading to IIIm7. But instead of resolving it to the third we resolve it as a dissapointing cadenza. Normally we would see VII7 leading dissapointingly to I instead of III but here we have the tritone substitution leading down a fourth.

You may think: yeah and so what. of course it is. and really when you read it, it makes sense. But think about what other combinations you can make with this form: in the aeolian mode you can use the major third dominant chord as a tritone substitution for bVII7... it is funny to go through all of the modes with this formula, to discover how many dominant combinations you can achieve on top of your 'general' combinations.

Hmm, let's back up a bit first. By IV7 do you mean the 7 to be major or minor. As part of the major/ionic scale it would be a major 7th. Same on the mixolydian, by stretching the idea of harmonising modes other than major and minor. .And by definition it isn't the dominant. Are you redefining it as that? . by all means but tell us first. The trouble is, if you divert from traditional chord definitions it eventually makes theoretical abstraction fairly useless because.

Like when you talk about "the major third dominant chord" what do you mean?

M

the major third dominant chord is the dominant chord on the major third of the mode...

it IS a major 7 in the ionic and mixo mode, but in it's role as a secondary dominant (used in blues) it is a minor 7.

Oh, right - that's III7 #3 in any mode. It becomes a dominant when resolving in the same mode onto VI or vi, or IV...don't think a iv would be a resolution as the leadingness of the leading note is lost. An interesting sound though. But don't you find that too many chromatic inflexions in a mode and the modality starts to go?

There'll be non-blues composers here who occasionally produce blues harmony - I'd still regard blues as based on the tonic major, the main alterations being on degrees 3, 5 and 7, sometimes the 9. I suppose it's whatever you find most convenient.

Thanks for your reply.

I think you are making up theory. Its true that you can call it that but it doesn't mean that it is used like that. Music theory is not to discover but to explain. If you can find examples in music there this explaination is the most natural then it will be useful.

What you are forgetting is that IVdom7 already exists in minor. If you are suing IVdom7 as a true dominant and not a secondary dominant then chances are your using mode mixture. (as long as its a dom and not an aug6th)

Also, just because you can do this in the major/minor key does not mean it works in aeolian. I know that people tend to just think of modes as identical but starting on a different not, but this isn't the case. Modes has there own tendencies and you won't necessarily be able to just change chord qualities to change modes. Sure you can do it but it probably won't sound right. If it does then use it and the theory will eventually update itself if the music you produce from it is considered "good".

One can think of the major blues progression simply as mode mixture. The IV7 is just barrowed from minor.

IV7 - VII7 - IIIm in C maj would be something like F7 - B7 - Em.

Now we are tonicizing Em here so we will probably analyze this in terms of Em. The F7 would probably be a neapolitan chord instead and probably will be heard like that if no other good reasons exist(with the 7th resolving the wrong way) and possibly in the wrong inversion.

the B7-Em is really a strong progression. Anything before B7 will probably either be part of this tonicization of Em or part of the transition of Em. Depending on what comes before the F7 could help determine what it is. If its truely a dom7th chord then its probably a barrowed chord or a chromatically altered chord. Its kinda hard to know without knowing exactly whats going on.

The truth of the matter is that one can explain with the current theory how any chord links to any other chord in some way or another. Theres no need to make up any new theory to explain it unless it does a much better job.

i see this is gonna take me a couple of years to convince all of you...

you see: in minor mode your suggestion doesn't follow the form. true that IVdom7 exist but in this form the sub v/bIII is bIVdom7. Meaning in C dorian that Fb7 leading to Cminor or Gminor....

i know all the theory you are throwing at me, i just wanted to broaden your harmonic 'vocabulary'. this theory is derrived from blues NOT a blues theory. in reality the IV7 - I is also seen in classical music, latin and jazz and has existed for MANY years. I just wanted to take it a step further. If no one ever made up new theories we would still be stuck with gregorian masses

Uh no

Tritone substitution is taking a chord with the same tritone, not a tritone higher.

F7 doesn't have the F-B tritone leading to C

If I correctly understood your idea...

the chord with the same tritone IS a tritone higher...

but the key is that it is NOT G7 leading to C it is B7

i know all the theory you are throwing at me, i just wanted to broaden your harmonic 'vocabulary'.

Oh, ok. Thanks for that.

:sadtears:

@bryla: You have two problems. First you are trying to explain a non-cpp style of music with cpp theory. Second, people are not just suppose to make up theory to explain things. This is why we have so many problems today(such as religion). Theory is suppose to come from observation. I do understand that is essentially what your trying to do but it should follow the scientific method(observation, hypothesis, experiment, corroboration).

I'm not to sure what you mean it doesn't follow from the form? If we are looking at the minor scale and not the dorian then IVdom7th is in that key and can be used in that way and borrowed for the major key. This is essentially how we get the V7 chord in minor. We borrow it from the maj.

Now, you say that in dorian its really a bIVth in maj. But why change the mode? You can just call up any mode that suits your "theory". Now, does blues use dorian and is based on dorian? Sure, some of it. And the problem is that dorian is not really a CPP thing and hence can't be used in that way. You can't really mix the things and expect to get something that is actually relfects what is being done.

The fact is though that IV7-I is not seen in classical. IV7-I never happens or is very rare. Why? Because it will be explained in a nother way. A way that is more simple and doesn't require this idea of a dominant on the IVth degree in major mode. It could be something like a oV9/V - I with the V missing. A sort of deceptive cadence. It could be many other things too. It depends on the context. i.e. F7 - C is not always IV7-I in Cmaj.

It just seems you are trying to explain something in a more complicated way that is already explained in a much simpiler way. the IV7 in blues can simply be explained as a a chromatic inflection. This happens all the time and explains why any dom/dim chord can follow any other dom/dim chord.

Ofcourse this is mixing two different musical styles so its still not the best solution but since it is very simple we can get away with it.

Instead of looking at the dorian mode you should look at the blues scale: 1 b3 4 b5 5 b7.

The 7th chord build on the 4th is 4 x 1 b3. This can either be a dom7th or a m7th depending on how we choose x.

If we extend the blues scale we get

1 b3 3 4 b5 5 6 b7

which is approaching the chromatic scale. Obviously in the chromatic scale we have any harmonization possible. But here we can see that the 6th might be chosen over the b6 and hence x would be more like the 6th resulting a IVdom7th chord and then maybe a IVmaj7th.

The point I'm trying to get across is that in CPP composers didn't decide things in the same way as blues composers. There are bluesy classical music pieces but they had a different mentality and reason for doing what they did. If you are trying to use CPP theory to explain it then it will probably not be right.

To me, its like your trying to find some link why it is valid but in a way that is much more complicated than it needs be. They did what they did because they did. Maybe it was an accident or maybe it was the african cultural influence. A CPP composer probably wouldn't have done it because it didn't sound right at the time... or if they did use it they would use it in a different way(which is whats important) and thats why CPP music isn't blues.

(I guess I should point out that I'm not trying to say you are using CPP theory to describe blues as it seems your approaching it more from "jazz theory" but in effect this was CPP applied to jazz which also doesn't work well extremly well either)

you're mixing blues in the wrong way... my idea started with the blues but actually has nothing to do with it.

second of all: I'm NOT making stuff up! I just say that instead of regarding the the IV7 as borrowed from dorian or whatever I say that it is a tritone substitution of any secondary dominant. this means that in dorian i don't change the mode as you say. why is it a bIV7 then? because the secondary dominant on the 7th degree of the scale is a bVII7 (in dorian happens to be the same) leading to the bIIIrd degree or the Iminor as a deceptive thing (don't know the english term). that is why we could see a bIV7 - Iminor.

when i say you do not follow the form is that in dorian you still use the bIV7 and that this is a tritone substitution for VII7, which doesn't exist as a secondary dominant in dorian.

the meaning of posting this is to realize what is there or what could be there. afterall you still tend to write what you know exist, and there more you know the more versatile you can write. I'm not saying that i master this but I'm slowly accepting it.

Remember you first heard a tritone? you couldn't believe that people had made instruments that could sound that bad, but after a while you started to accept it and realize its purpose

I'm not really sure what your getting at. It seems to me that you are basing your theory on some false presumptions or misunderstandings of the current theory. Your trying to explain something in a way that you can understand it but it doesn't really help out. I could be wrong since its kinda hard to understand what your getting at. (and I'm not trying to be arrogant here or put you down but just trying to be clear about it)

Now you can call it whatever you want but it really needs some substance. For example, if someone writes a progression as I II7 V7 I then they don't fully understand secondary dominants. That progression is properly notated as a I V7/V V7 I. Why? Because of function. II7 is a supertonic dom7th which means its an altered chord on the 2nd scale step. V7/V is a secondary dominant that has a different function(although they are kinda similar). V7/V - V7 is more natural because it is simply a dominant of the dominant. II7 - V7 is not the dominant of the dominant but an altered supertonic to dominant. They are functioning differently. i.e., you write the progression to best represent what the music is doing and not just write it to show the chords. II7 and V7/V can be identical chords but have totally different functions.

I still believe you are either misunderstanding the theory or do not know it well enough to understand that what your doing is kinda "making" it up. I could be wrong. If you still want to discuss this try rewriting what you mean and be more clear about it. Write up some more info about your goal with the theory and your interpretation and maybe give some examples. When you say things like "blues" and then later "not blues" its kinda confusing what you mean. Just try to be clear about it and then it might make more sense to me but at this point I can only conclude that your making the mistake.

I'm also not necessarily saying your wrong in thinking of something a certain way. Its ok to use a false theory if it helps as a short cut as long as you know its not completely true. This is probably not the best way to think about things but...

sorry but i give up. it might be my bad narrow english that is holding me down, but there is nothing wrong with this theory. I'm sorry if you were confused by the II7 instead of V7/V. I know the difference and use them correctly as well. just thought I could take this shortcut. This difference however doesn't change the 'formula' on which this theory is based on.

But I can't be more clear with, except for if we got together and I showed you, but I guess we just life to far apart :)

and to be clear I understand theory well enough to have this conversation :)

I'm not really sure what your getting at. It seems to me that you are basing your theory on some false presumptions or misunderstandings of the current theory. Your trying to explain something in a way that you can understand it but it doesn't really help out. I could be wrong since its kinda hard to understand what your getting at. (and I'm not trying to be arrogant here or put you down but just trying to be clear about it)

Now you can call it whatever you want but it really needs some substance. For example, if someone writes a progression as I II7 V7 I then they don't fully understand secondary dominants. That progression is properly notated as a I V7/V V7 I.

Don't agree. Why?

If you roman-numeralise chords, they are always relative to the STATED tonic. What you have written is I V(or V7) (in the TONIC) V7. I, so chords 2 and 3 in your progression contain the same actual notes (inc the 7th if applicable).

If that's what you meant, fine, please skip the rest of these comments up to "end", else

If you mean the Supertonic Chromatic (which some people call a "secondary dominant" (or dominant of the dominant)), it's II7#3. Ok?

If you want to express it in terms of the tonic's dominant, you have to state the key (or show the tonal centres referred to in some way to distinguish it) like:

Tonic.....: I......II7#3......V7........I

Dominant:........V7..........I(flat)7.....

If you want to pin it to keys, substitute the keys for "tonic and dominant"

A secondary seventh only becomes a secondary dominant in a functional context.

Any of the secondary sevenths can be chromaticised and made the dominant in a modulation. You'd use III7#3 to get to the relative minor (or VI). Not all work directly though. Some are better as IV (in the target key of the modulation), like flat-IIa (or it's more familiar flatIIb, the Neapolitan-6th).

II7 and V7/V can be identical chords but have totally different functions.

"end"

M

Don't agree. Why?

If you roman-numeralise chords, they are always relative to the STATED tonic. What you have written is I V(or V7) (in the TONIC) V7. I, so chords 2 and 3 in your progression contain the same actual notes (inc the 7th if applicable).

If that's what you meant, fine, please skip the rest of these comments up to "end", else

If you mean the Supertonic Chromatic (which some people call a "secondary dominant" (or dominant of the dominant)), it's II7#3. Ok?

[/Quote]

Nope. II7#3 make no sense and doesn't take into account how the chord is used. Chord naming is all about function w.r.t. to the current context and not about function w.r.t to the global tonic.

If you want to express it in terms of the tonic's dominant, you have to state the key (or show the tonal centres referred to in some way to distinguish it) like:

Tonic.....: I......II7#3......V7........I

Dominant:........V7..........I(flat)7.....

If you want to pin it to keys, substitute the keys for "tonic and dominant"

A secondary seventh only becomes a secondary dominant in a functional context.

[/Quote]

Can you name one chord that isn't in a functional context? All chords are in a context no matter what. Any time you hear a note or a set of notes there is a context and those notes are functioning a certain way(even in atonal or completely random music).

Any of the secondary sevenths can be chromaticised and made the dominant in a modulation. You'd use III7#3 to get to the relative minor (or VI). Not all work directly though. Some are better as IV (in the target key of the modulation), like flat-IIa (or it's more familiar flatIIb, the Neapolitan-6th).

[/Quote]

But we specifically label secondary dominants to refer to there context. There is no III7#3. You can say its a barrowed or chromatic chord but how is it being used? If its going to a minor chord then guess what? Its a secondary dominant because the dominant to tonic function(prototype V-I) is the cornerstone of tonal music(this is what tonal music is made from). Labeling it a III7#3 is just absurd because if its some type of III chord then it not of dominant function. Why? Because "we" (i.e., CPP) base all function off the major scale. Just like we do notation such as naming intervals and other things.

Its like your saying there is such a thing as a non-functional dominant. Its not possible. (ok, maybe for a different culture or something like that but its really built in the overtone series.)

Not against the same tonic, they can't. The idea of abstracting the progression is so that it can be described independent of key so redefining the Roman notation as you go can get pretty confusing!!

[/Quote]

The idea of the roman numerals isn't just for abstracting the key but to define relationships. You can't do this by just naming the chords. C F G? whats the relation ship? Sure its easy but what about C Ab7 Bdim7 Db7 G7 C? Roman numeral analysis is exactly used for that, analysis. If it was just to name the chord then there would not be much of a reason to use it over the just naming the chords themselfs(except it has a "built in" analysis from the abstraction itself).

It seems like your trying to justify analyzing things in non-standard ways because you don't want to learn the "theory". (I am assuming we are talking about CPP).

So me one analysis where they use the symbol III7#3 and I'll show you a wrong analysis. (now jazz does tend to use chords such as F7b5#5, Cmaj7#4, etc... but these are almost always simply what is called non-functional chromatic alterations. i.e., The chord still tends to be used in the same functional way. But also jazz uses modes more and hence there can be other interpretations. )

Now you could say that III7/#3 is synonomous with a secondary dominant but we are just using a slightly different notationl. I might buy that but the problem is that the old notation is perfectly valid and is standard(so why come up with your own notation? To lazy to learn the old one?) and you seem to be wanting to use that notation for every occurance of a dom7 chord built on the maj3rd degree.

One goal of CPP theory is to explain the harmonic analysis in the mose concise but revealing way. The more you expand the notation the less concise this gets and as a side effect it becomes less revealing. Whats the difference between using the V/V notation(for example) than II7 chord III7#3? First is well defined: does a III7 mean a maj chord or minor chord(I use lower case for minor). Does the 7th mean maj7th or minor? does #3 mean to sharp the 3rd scale degree? V/V is much less ambiguous and if, say, you see a Cmaj chord in the key of amin you can distinguish its function by calling it a V/V or a III(depending on what its doing)(or many other things). With your notation you you do nothing to express the context that the chord is occuring in. If we see a V/V for the Cmaj chord then we know that its acting as a dominant 7th if we see it called a III then we know its not. This is the whole point of harmonic analysis and roman numeral notation is the language for this.

For some reason you think its easier to call all chords built on the 3rd degree some type of III chord. This means you neglect any type of modulation or tonicization too. Your analysis would reveal nothing of whats going on that just calling the chords by name wouldn't(i.e., Emin in Cmaj). If, say, a passage is clearly a repeat of a phrase in a different key then you will still label the chords w.r.t to the old tonic with tones of notational inflections to support the changes? Oh, maybe you'll just say its a modulation and then notate from the that key? If you do that then it will look much more like the current theory. What about the case when its a tonicization? (such as a 2 beat sequence of ii-V-I's?) How will you label this? Your notation will offer no insight into what the composer is doing. Sure you'll no he altered some chords but why? Whats the relationship to the whole?

A simple example is

C Dm G7 C D Em A7 D G Am D7 G G7 C.

Here you would refer to everything from Cmaj? (I hope you got the key right because then all your notational inflections would be completely wrong)

Your method of analysis(or some approximate variant):

I II V7 I II#3 III VI7#3 II#3 V VI II7#3 V V7 I

Looks a little strange to me. II# III? How does that fit in with the prototype of the major scale and the cycle of fifths?

CPP

C: I ii V7 I [V/V:] I ii V7 I [V:] I ii V7 I [C:] V7 I

here we easily notice that the composer used the same 4 chord progression but first in the V/V(or even ii if you want but your neglecting the larger modulatory picture) and then in V.

Now you will say that you will just use notate the change of key so you don't have to write all those notational inflections that makes it look messy and gives your analysis some coherence. (as it is you can't make scraggy out of anything because there is no clear pattern as simple as mine).

Ok, so if you do that you can get exactly what I get but then what happens when you look at a more local level?

C D7 G7 C E7 A7 Dm G7 C7 Fm G7 C

How would you handle this? Tthis is clearly all in C

I II7#3 V7 I III7#3 VI7#3 II V7 I7 IVb3 V7 I

See any patterns?

I V7/V V7 I V7/V/ii V7/ii ii V7/V/iv V7/iv V7 I

what about this one? V7/V V7 I, V7/V V7 i, V7/V V7/V i.

How doe sone get that ppatern out from yours? How does one realize that the progression contains simply a repeated pattern? Sure one knows htis is the case by playing it and then thinking about it but can you get that simply from looking at your analysis? Its very simple to see that we are using the same pattern(probably as a result of a sequence) to first tonicize the ii degree and then the iv degree before coming back home(which a minor feel).

Its also not always true that the analysis is always stated from the "local" or "global" tonic. This is because sometimes there isn't a well defined line between the two and its possible for two different people to hear to different things.

Originally Posted by montpellier

Don't agree. Why?

If you roman-numeralise chords, they are always relative to the STATED tonic. What you have written is I V(or V7) (in the TONIC) V7. I, so chords 2 and 3 in your progression contain the same actual notes (inc the 7th if applicable).

If that's what you meant, fine, please skip the rest of these comments up to "end", else

If you mean the Supertonic Chromatic (which some people call a "secondary dominant" (or dominant of the dominant)), it's II7#3. Ok?

Nope. II7#3 make no sense and doesn't take into account how the chord is used. Chord naming is all about function w.r.t. to the current context and not about function w.r.t to the global tonic.

You have to read what I said, I wrote the operative word in caps for you. Well, sorry for my role as the mere messenger but I didn't write these guidelines - they're established. If you want to write them differently, that's fine but you have to explain what you want to do though be prepared to meet resistance.

Can you name one chord that isn't in a functional context? All chords are in a context no matter what. Any time you hear a note or a set of notes there is a context and those notes are functioning a certain way(even in atonal or completely random music).

Any instant of a chord need not be in a functional context. Sometimes a non-functional "chord" gets pronounced functional through frequent practice, such as the cadential Ic (e.g. progression IIb Ic V7a Ia.) The Ic was originally regarded as an appoggiatura on the functional Va but eventually attained functional status in its own right. That's going by the definitions of functional harmony. Other "chords" don't make it but they still get analysed. I'm forever saying to these chord-merchants you have to analyse it in context....that doesn't mean it's position at that instant in the harmony is functional.

Still, I'm not going to argue. When you teach this stuff you'll see what I mean.

Its also not always true that the analysis is always stated from the "local" or "global" tonic. This is because sometimes there isn't a well defined line between the two and its possible for two different people to hear to different things.

One tries to be rigorous - and I go along with notating whatever you like for your personal use but for communicating....

Once again, I think I said "stated tonic" - only pieces from the classical era up to about Brahms have (almost inevitably) a "global" tonic, as you call it, because that's demanded by the form. . ..I'm perfectly happy dealing with any departure from the original tonic which may last for however long the composer likes. I'm also aware that many modern diatonic pieces end in a tonic different from that at the start - fine. . .But let's be clear about what instance of tonic (however transient) we're referring to when romanising chords...so that we can communicate unambiguously.

Of course, you can describe any chords from the vantage of any particular reference tonic. That's why we have these chromatic romanisations - so we don't have to say "ok, we're now briefly passing through this modulation to the (whatever) then out again, so in the new tonic...." In writing out the Louisiana cadence, it would be ludicrous to notate it:

Tonic.....: Ia.............................Ia

Dominant:........V7a...Ia flat7....

So we write it: Ia....IIa7#3....V7a....Ia

Whereas you originally claimed that I - II7#3 - V7 - I was more properly notated as I - V7 - V7 - I. That's nonsense as it stands. Apologies for having to say so. In C major, the triads would be:

.....F....F

G...D....D....G

E...B....B.....E

C...G....G....C

Anyway, enough typing. I'm pushed for time. I repeat that I didn't write these "rules". You're dealing with abstraction here (like it or not - and you seem to be confused about the idea/value of abstracting your model away from specific instances) so you have to be clear. Like programming a computer, you might care to redefine the logic. You might like to say "I want nand to perform an 'or' operation hereafter" - but don't expect a computer to understand that until you rewrite the compiler.

talk later.

M

You have to read what I said, I wrote the operative word in caps for you. Well, sorry for my role as the mere messenger but I didn't write these guidelines - they're established. If you want to write them differently, that's fine but you have to explain what you want to do though be prepared to meet resistance.

[/Quote]

I'm not sure what you are talking about. I learned my theory from Schoenberg, Kostka-Payne, Piston, and Goetschius among others. Your talking about "established" guidelines yet I have never ever seen any mention of a chord notated as X#3 or anything like that. So I'm not sure what guidelines your refering to and my only conclusions can be that you don't know what your talking about or you have learned a different theory.

Any instant of a chord need not be in a functional context. Sometimes a non-functional "chord" gets pronounced functional through frequent practice, such as the cadential Ic (e.g. progression IIb Ic V7a Ia.) The Ic was originally regarded as an appoggiatura on the functional Va but eventually attained functional status in its own right. That's going by the definitions of functional harmony. Other "chords" don't make it but they still get analysed. I'm forever saying to these chord-merchants you have to analyse it in context....that doesn't mean it's position at that instant in the harmony is functional.

[/Quote]

Ic? hmm. you must but on another planet(or continent). Anyways, I do see now that you mean 2nd inversion or the 6/4. Actually the tonic 6/4 is funtioning as a dominant. This is why you usually analyze the tonic 6/4 as a part of the dominant function. What you are talking about has nothing to do with the notational issues disscused though.

What I ment by functioning is that every chord has its roll. It has a hierarchy and we hear chords w.r.t to some roll. The 6/4 has a function. In CPP it is used in a certain way and hence as a certain "function". Out of context it is not used. If you just walk over to the piano and play a 6/4 chord then it has a certain function. This function is not used in CPP. CPP has established a style of function just like traditional music theory has established style of notation. Your notation is either from a different theory or wrong or taught wrong. (or mine is but all the "Big" books correspond to my notation.)

Still, I'm not going to argue. When you teach this stuff you'll see what I mean.

[/Quote]

I hope you don't teach it. Many people call themselfs teachers but don't have a clue. Just pull up your average website on "music theory" and 1/2 the stuff is wrong or incomplete.

One tries to be rigorous - and I go along with notating whatever you like for your personal use but for communicating....

[/Quote]

lol. Can you show me an instance in any theory book by a real professional that uses your notation?

Once again, I think I said "stated tonic" - only pieces from the classical era up to about Brahms have (almost inevitably) a "global" tonic, as you call it, because that's demanded by the form. . ..I'm perfectly happy dealing with any departure from the original tonic which may last for however long the composer likes. I'm also aware that many modern diatonic pieces end in a tonic different from that at the start - fine. . .But let's be clear about what instance of tonic (however transient) we're referring to when romanising chords...so that we can communicate unambiguously.

[/Quote]

But Music theory was build from CPP style. It was created to analyze that style of music. The farther you get from that style the more problem syou will run into. The theory I have learned is the one taught in all major universities in america. I'm not sure where your from or where you learned your theory but it does not correspond to what is taught and as I have pointed out it is ambiguous and uninformative. You seem to have failed to address that so I'm assuming you also agree?

Again, you can shut me up real quick by showing me any analysis in any formal book on harmony that has an analysis using your notation.

Of course, you can describe any chords from the vantage of any particular reference tonic. That's why we have these chromatic romanisations - so we don't have to say "ok, we're now briefly passing through this modulation to the (whatever) then out again, so in the new tonic...." In writing out the Louisiana cadence, it would be ludicrous to notate it:

Tonic.....: Ia.............................Ia

Dominant:........V7a...Ia flat7....

So we write it: Ia....IIa7#3....V7a....Ia

I have no idea where your notation comes from and I can only assume you were either taught wrong or taught a different theory. This seems like someone didn't understand the theory and made up there own.

Whereas you originally claimed that I - II7#3 - V7 - I was more properly notated as I - V7 - V7 - I. That's nonsense as it stands. Apologies for having to say so. In C major, the triads would be:

.....F....F

G...D....D....G

E...B....B.....E

C...G....G....C

no, I said V7/V. This just shows that you don't know what your talking about w.r.t to the popular theory and must have been taught by someone that doesn't know what there talking about.

Anyway, enough typing. I'm pushed for time. I repeat that I didn't write these "rules". You're dealing with abstraction here (like it or not - and you seem to be confused about the idea/value of abstracting your model away from specific instances) so you have to be clear. Like programming a computer, you might care to redefine the logic. You might like to say "I want nand to perform an 'or' operation hereafter" - but don't expect a computer to understand that until you rewrite the compiler.

yeah. I'm sorry I do not know much about mathematics or computers. That Bachelors of Science in math doesn't mean much and the fact that I have been programming for over 10+ years in everything from assembly to C# also means I have no idea about abstraction. All those courses in analysis and group theory was a total waste I guess ;/ Hell, I suppose studying music theory for the last 7 years has also been a waste. So I appologize if I'm an idiot and I'm completely wrong. I didn't mean to waste your time.

The fact is that you can use any damn theory you like if it lets you make sense of what you are using it for. Now I honestly have never seen the theory you mention(the notation) anywhere except maybe an odd occasion when someone references some crazy music school in the middle of nowhere. If your theory works and helps you make sense of the music you are trying to analyze then thats fine. But you shouldn't think that its the only way that its done. Here in America we do things a little different. I have also pointed out several weaknesses in your notation so you should have either countered my arguments about them or realized that they are flawed. I'm not debating you about the theory itself but about the notation you use to describe it. If you want to argue about the theory then you should argue with the musicologests and theoriests that wrote the books that are the cornerstone of music theory taught in western civilization.

I was going to write a diatribe on this but it isn't in the vein of these forums. It's pretty clear that you've learned theory according to a different system - just a shame that it also uses romanised notation - because that just leads to this sort of confusion.

The chordal notation I use has been established in europe for a couple of centuries and got me through my diploma a few years back. I teach it (on and off - I'm a businessman almost full-time) and have never had anyone fail. Here's a couple of books you'll see it used in: The AB Guide to Music Theory (Eric Taylor); and Kitson, an older book but one that rests on what was going on a century ago. (No matter about its age, the principles of music haven't changed too much). There are plenty of others. This isn't to shut you up, just so you can see for yourself.

No doubt, encouraged by their own motives the Americans appear to have decided to change things. I know they renamed the cadences to support the independence thingie. :shifty:

As for

Now I honestly have never seen the theory you mention(the notation) anywhere except maybe an odd occasion when someone references some crazy music school in the middle of nowhere.

Nahhh, come on, you use it yourself but in a weird way.

Point is, you seem to have caused confusion to at least one poster - I could see what you were getting at but it was misleading. Everyone but you has

some false presumptions or misunderstandings of the current theory.

It's enough for the RAM, RCM, LCM, RNCM and conservatoires and universities across europe and acts as a reasonable common language.

Ok, enough from me. I don't support your notation so we'll have to agree to disagree. That's simplest.

V7a-Ia, to that!

M