# Help me get out of this chord progression



## thevisi0nary (Jun 15, 2016)

Whats up. So one thing I've come to notice in my writing is that I am very often deferring to what I call a "1 to 2 and 1 to 2" chord progression, there's probably a much more legitimate name for this. In a basic sense it involves doing a chord or riff based on one note for either a whole measure or half a measure, then going up or down to another one for the same amount of time. It doesnt sound bad, but I just do it way too often, even if I am doing a complex riff it is still based on this progression. I dont know a lot about theory and would like to know any tips and techniques people have for making different or more interesting progressions. 

Here is an example of what I'm talking about

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vo7pV3MDac8

It can either be for a half measure like this or for a whole measure, and it can be either chords or riffs but I am still am doing this too much. When I try to attempt something different it works out sometimes but I feel as if I dont really know what I am doing. I dont really know theory in a way that I can apply to this.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

I think that's a 1 -> perfect 4 in your video....

You just need to work on other intervals, and develop an ear, much like scale interval research.

Try some of these common progressions:

1 - 4 - 5 - 4 (and similar)

I am fond of this one:

Phrygian 1-2-5-2-1 (alternatively written, based on major set 3-4-7-4-3)

Gotta love that flat 2 chord. IT is a dead give away for Phrygian every time....


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jun 15, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> I think that's a 1 -> perfect 4 in your video....
> 
> You just need to work on other intervals, and develop an ear, much like scale interval research.
> 
> ...



Thanks a lot. Do you by chance have any videos you could show me as a reference for some of these progressions?


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

Videos, no, but a chart, yes!

https://endofthegame.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/major-chords.jpg

This will make it easier to determine if a chord should be maj or min in the progression.

For major, your root chord is the 1.
For minor, your root chord is the 6.

You should make your own progressions, and then decide what you like.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 15, 2016)

Those chords are G and D.

This progression is called I - V (one to five), and it's the best two chord progression. Embrace it.

Then try three chord progressions, like I - IV - V (one four five) (G C D). Four chord progressions have a lot more variety.


----------



## CapnForsaggio (Jun 15, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Those chords are G and D.
> 
> This progression is called I - V (one to five), and it's the best two chord progression. Embrace it.
> 
> Then try three chord progressions, like I - IV - V (one four five) (G C D). Four chord progressions have a lot more variety.



If you play the 5 "under" the 1, isn't it considered a "perfect fourth"?

Circle of fourths and all? This is just semantics, but I think this is correct....


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 15, 2016)

G&#8710; D&#8710;. Reminds me of Ventura Highway by America.


----------



## redstone (Jun 16, 2016)

So many possibilities.... Simplify your chords first, if you can't find a solution with simple triads, it'll just be harder with all those extensions.

Vocaroo | Voice message


----------



## bostjan (Jun 16, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> If you play the 5 "under" the 1, isn't it considered a "perfect fourth"?
> 
> Circle of fourths and all? This is just semantics, but I think this is correct....



It depends what you consider the root note, then everything is relative to that. If the root note is D, then G - D is IV - I.


----------



## redstone (Jun 16, 2016)

hum hum....

The chords are Am9 and Em9. So the closest tonal progression is VI III.


e-I-9-I---I---I---I
b-I---I-7-I---I---I
g-I---I---I-5-I---I
d-I---I---I---I-3-I
a-I-5-I---I---I---I
d-I-T-I---I---I---I


----------



## bostjan (Jun 16, 2016)

redstone said:


> hum hum....
> 
> The chords are Am9 and Em9. So the closest tonal progression is VI III.
> 
> ...



What is that tab?

I may well be mistaken, but I thought the chord shapes were like an open C chord, barred up the neck.

Also, what kind of progression never has a I chord in it?!


----------



## redstone (Jun 16, 2016)

bostjan said:


> What is that tab?
> 
> I may well be mistaken, but I thought the chord shapes were like an open C chord, barred up the neck.
> 
> Also, what kind of progression never has a I chord in it?!



- It's the chord he uses. The numbers are the degrees (obviously).

- Well, if we have to describe modal progressions on a tonal system, it's common sense to refer to the closest tonal progression. If a theory says otherwise, maybe it's time to change the theory.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

redstone said:


> - It's the chord he uses. The numbers are the degrees (obviously).
> 
> - Well, if we have to describe modal progressions on a tonal system, it's common sense to refer to the closest tonal progression. If a theory says otherwise, maybe it's time to change the theory.



Wat? Degrees? Like, when you put what looks like an e-string with a nine on it, that's the ninth degree of the e-scale? Meaning E minor? Then, what is the "T" on the d-string, or whatever it is that looks like a d-string? The Tth degree? This is either way over my head or we mean two different things by "degree."

Take a look at the guy's fingers. Also try playing along with it. That isn't even the correct tuning in the tab. Also, I don't see him stretching from the third fret to the ninths fret, also, he's playing chords, also, there are two distinct chords. I have too many issues with your tab, in relation to the youtube video, to even get a grip on what you are saying with it.

Closest tonal progression to what? I am very confused. If a piece of music resolves to a major chord, say, in this case, G major, then that piece is in the key of G major, so G major is the I chord. If there is an alternate way that makes more sense than that, please explain it as thoroughly as possible.

I'm not a theory mastermind, like Mr. Big Noodles, but this is pretty basic stuff to me, so I don't expect to be this easily confused. Only you can solve my confusion by explaining what you are saying.


----------



## redstone (Jun 17, 2016)

The chords are

E--7------2--
B--8------3---
G--9------4---
D--10----5---
A--7------2---
D--7------2---

The chord pattern is therefore


e-I-X-I---I---I---I the 9th degree
b-I---I-X-I---I---I the 7th
g-I---I---I-X-I---I a 5th
d-I---I---I---I-X-I the 3rd
a-I-X-I---I---I---I another 5th
d-I-X-I---I---I---I and the tonic, 1st degree

To summarize, 

e-I-9-I---I---I---I
b-I---I-7-I---I---I
g-I---I---I-5-I---I
d-I---I---I---I-3-I
a-I-5-I---I---I---I
d-I-T-I---I---I---I


No, those chords are minor and exactly what I show you. If you hear them major, you have a problem. As I said, the progression is Am9 Em9 and it can't be otherwise. Sorry but you're just that easily confused.


----------



## sezna (Jun 17, 2016)

CapnForsaggio said:


> If you play the 5 "under" the 1, isn't it considered a "perfect fourth"?
> 
> Circle of fourths and all? This is just semantics, but I think this is correct....



You're confusing intervals with chords, a D chord will _always _be a V chord in the key of G, but the individual note D could be a fifth or a fourth from a G, depending on if you go up or down.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 17, 2016)

Ok, I understand your notation now.

I'm hearing major seventh chords, but perhaps it due to lack of bass response from small speakers.

You didn't really address my questions, but that'should fine.

If the chords are major, it's I - V. If they are minor, it's i - v. Either way, it's a one to five progression. There's no such progression with no tonic in it.


----------



## redstone (Jun 19, 2016)

There are plenty of progressions with no 1st degree in them. We don't need to revolve around "I" since "I" refers to the first degree of the major scale.


----------



## thevisi0nary (Jun 19, 2016)

redstone said:


> So many possibilities.... Simplify your chords first, if you can't find a solution with simple triads, it'll just be harder with all those extensions.
> 
> Vocaroo | Voice message



That clip is nice, so what is the science behind making that? Especially in regards to the "minor" sounding part if that's what that is. 

I'm in a weird position where I can write things based on what I've learned from other songs, but I legitimately don't know what's going on as far applied theory and I often fall into similar patterns. I'm in the position now where I'm about to start learning theory. There's just a lot that doesn't make sense to me though.

Here's an example of that same progression, more technical but same 2 chords. I like the song a lot but I can find a bunch of other files that do the same principle. And I wouldn't be able to take this somewhere else tonaly. 

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3g8-URhURw

There's even times when I write stuff that sounds like it's minor but I don't get how you go from a basic chord progression to complex riffs or jazz progressions.


----------



## j3ps3 (Jun 19, 2016)

thevisi0nary said:


> That clip is nice, so what is the science behind making that? Especially in regards to the "minor" sounding part if that's what that is.
> 
> I'm in a weird position where I can write things based on what I've learned from other songs, but I legitimately don't know what's going on as far applied theory and I often fall into similar patterns. I'm in the position now where I'm about to start learning theory. There's just a lot that doesn't make sense to me though.
> 
> ...



As english is not my native language and I'm trying to keep this short, this might be a little hard to explain but I'll try my best.

Intervals:

You have twelve notes to choose from.

1, b2, 2, b3, 3, 4, b5, 5, b6, 6, b7, 7.

Your root (1) can be any note on your fretboard and the rest follow. For example power chord includes 1 and 5.

|---|---|---|
|---|---|---|
|---|---|---|
|---|---|---|
|---|---|-X-|
|-X-|---|---|
(1)

Each scale typically includes seven intervals.

Major:
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Minor:
1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7

Triad has root, minor or major third (this defines whether your chord is minor or major) and a fifth.

sus2 = 1, 2, 5
sus(4) = 1, 4, 5
maj7 = 1, 3, 5, 7
7 = 1, 3, 5, b7
m7b5 = 1, b3, b5, b7


So...

I'll use C major as an example. It has 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7 intervals which are C, D, E, F, G, A and B.

C major chord progression with the roman numerals (capitals are major and lowercase letters are minor), triads and seventh chords is as follows:

I - C - Cmaj7
ii - Dm - Dm7
iii - Em - Em7
IV - F - Fmaj7
V - G - G7 (dominant 7th)
vi - Am - Am7
vii - Bm(b5) - Bm7(b5)

And each of those chords represent a mode, but I'm sure it'll take you awhile to understand all I said before so I'll just write it here quickly 

I - maj7 = ionian mode (major) = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
ii - m7 = dorian mode = 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7
iii - m7 = phrygian mode = 1, b2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7
IV - maj7 = lydian mode = 1, 2, 3, #4, 5, 6, 7
V - 7 = mixolydian mode = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, b7
vi - m7 = aiolian mode (minor) = 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7
vii - m7(b5) = locrian mode = 1, b2, b3, 4, b5, b6, b7 

Best way for me to start to get my head around all this was to just listen some blues. Learn the I-IV-V chord progression and just listen some blues and play over it. In a C major scale the chords would be Cmaj7, Fmaj7 and G7 and in a relative minor (A minor - the sixth degree of the major scale) Am7, Dm7, Em7.

If you have any questions, just shoot and I'll try to answer them the best I can.


----------



## redstone (Jun 19, 2016)

thevisi0nary said:


> That clip is nice, so what is the science behind making that?



It's a science of practice, my way to build musical intuitions, in one's mind, not on paper. Theories are there to rationalize what is built, so it comes next. I guess I can explain how I practiced composition over the years. Basically I started by exploring the connections between two triads, then three, then all.

1- I explored the horizontal and vertical connexions between any pair of triads, to imagine and hear what are their common scales, and how it moves horizontally (voicings). I noticed that some pairs of triads had two pedals, some one, some none.. which corresponds with how harmonically far they are from each other ; so I also dig the extensions that can be used as an extra pedal.

2- Then I explored the triplets of triads I could consider to be stable objects, where two triads can revolve around another one. And added the extra pedals in the process.

3- After that, I connected those triplets horizontally by gathering all their tonics on a same scale (let's call it a group scale), all thirds on another group scale etc.. I noticed how those group scales actually give the resulting harmony its colors and cohesion, which I found very fascinating.

4- I added another level to my horizontal game, by changing progressively the group scales and playing with the horizontal patterns, for example in the clip you can hear that the highest notes on each chord are forming a descending chromatic scale. That kind of game.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 20, 2016)

redstone said:


> There are plenty of progressions with no 1st degree in them. We don't need to revolve around "I" since "I" refers to the first degree of the major scale.



No.

In the English speaking world, "I" refers to the tonic tonality. You cannot have a progression without a tonic, since the tonic is defined as the resolution chord of the progression. "I", in the English speaking world, does not refer the root note of the relative major scale of the key of the piece.

For example, in D dorian, the progression Dm - Am - B° - Dm is notated by English speaking musicians as i - iv - v - i, *not* as II - VI - III - VII - II.

I don't disagree with your approach, but what you call things does not jive with traditional nomenclature.


----------



## redstone (Jun 20, 2016)

Uh? It doesn't match with the rest of the world then. Harmonic progressions don't necessarily have a resolution chord, and can't even follow the 7 degrees system derived from the major scale, it's very naive to think that way.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 20, 2016)

redstone said:


> Uh? It doesn't match with the rest of the world then. Harmonic progressions don't necessarily have a resolution chord, and can't even follow the 7 degrees system derived from the major scale, it's very naive to think that way.



It's just different notation, as I said, standardized in the USA/Canada/England/Australia/New Zealand/etc. It's not naive, just different.

For the record, your notation is not used in "the rest of the world." Perhaps a great deal of places, but there are many different forms of notation in different cultures.

It's perfectly fine for us not to see eye-to-eye due to notation differences, considering we are not trained in theory using the same nomenclature, but to say one kind of notation is naive, is quite short-sighted.


----------



## redstone (Jun 20, 2016)

Okay enough bull..... You don't make any sense. Really.

You can't call A- F D- E- an I- VI IV- V-. 

The numbers correspond to the degrees of the major scale. If they didn't, no one could tell what your numbers mean. And since they do, "I" must stick to its place on the scale. Therefore it cannot be the resolution of all progressions. A- F D- E- is a VI IV II III. VI is the resolution. That's all.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 20, 2016)

redstone said:


> Okay enough bull..... You don't make any sense. Really.
> 
> You can't call A- F D- E- an I- VI IV- V-.
> 
> The numbers correspond to the degrees of the major scale. If they didn't, no one could tell what your numbers mean. And since they do, "I" must stick to its place on the scale. Therefore it cannot be the resolution of all progressions. A- F D- E- is a VI IV II III. VI is the resolution. That's all.



Except that it is called a "i VI iv v" progression. Read some English language music theory books, or even the wikipedia english language chord progression page. Anything introductory, again, not saying you don't understand how to do a chord progression, just that we use different nomenclature in English. If you want to stick with French language notation, but post on an English speaking forum, then you are simply going to confuse some/most people. And when you start explaining how they are wrong because you use a completely different notation system that makes perfect sense to you and no sense at all to most everyone else, and furthermore refuse to make any effort to understand standardized notation for the language in which the discussion is held, you are not going to get a positive response.

We might as well have an argument over whether it's "Germany" or "Allemagne."


----------



## j3ps3 (Jun 20, 2016)

redstone said:


> Okay enough bull..... You don't make any sense. Really.
> 
> You can't call A- F D- E- an I- VI IV- V-.
> 
> The numbers correspond to the degrees of the major scale. If they didn't, no one could tell what your numbers mean. And since they do, "I" must stick to its place on the scale. Therefore it cannot be the resolution of all progressions. A- F D- E- is a VI IV II III. VI is the resolution. That's all.



Just curious as I'm trying to wrap my head more around these things. How would you analyze these chords:

CmMaj7 - Gm7 - C7 - Fmaj7 
Fm7 - Bb7 - Ebmaj7 - Ebm7 
Ab7 - Dbmaj7 - Dm7(b5) - G7

bostjan can chime in too.. So far I think you're right as I alsl think that there has to be I in a progression. Trying to decide which one of you is making more sense


----------



## bostjan (Jun 21, 2016)

Wow! That's a nifty progression...it looks like what I would call a 12-bar blues progression with some interesting substitutions, but the rhythm is not written out.

The first chord is a chord quality substitution of the tonic: i(maj 7)
The second chord in the progression is the five: v7
The third chord in the progression is another chord quality substitution on the tonic: I7
The fourth chord in the progression is a kind of straightforward IVmaj7
Then there is a sort of backdoor progression: IVmaj7 - iv7 - bVII7 - bIIImaj7 - bii7 - bVI7. I forget the name of this, but I've seen it more than once in jazz-blues progressions.
The next passage is a tritone substitution over a ii - V - I turnaround as: bIImaj7 - ii7b5 - V7
Then back to the tonic.

That's my guess.


----------



## j3ps3 (Jun 21, 2016)

Hopefully you don't cheat and google this now


----------



## bostjan (Jun 21, 2016)

Well, at least I was correct about it being a 12-bar blues progression. What sort of commentary were you wanting?


----------



## j3ps3 (Jun 21, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Well, at least I was correct about it being a 12-bar blues progression. What sort of commentary were you wanting?



My teacher said that he would write it down like this:

C melodic minor: i
F major: ii-V-I
Eb major: ii-V-I
Db major: ii-V-I
C minor: ii-V-i


----------



## Winspear (Jun 21, 2016)

redstone said:


> Okay enough bull..... You don't make any sense. Really.
> 
> You can't call A- F D- E- an I- VI IV- V-.
> 
> The numbers correspond to the degrees of the major scale. If they didn't, no one could tell what your numbers mean. And since they do, "I" must stick to its place on the scale. Therefore it cannot be the resolution of all progressions. A- F D- E- is a VI IV II III. VI is the resolution. That's all.




Sounds to me like you are debating Fixed Do vs Moveable Do - there is quite a lot of reading to do on that but bostjan is certainly correct with what he is saying.

Gotta question about the progressions without an I though - why is that a problem? I'm sure I've heard lots of such progressions. Sure they typically resolve eventually but often as the first chord of the next section, and I wouldn't say they have to.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 21, 2016)

If the next chord is the tonic, then the tonic is in the chord progression.

Is it the case that you subdivide a progression into smaller pieces and the smaller pieces don't have a tonic in them? How else would one define the tonic? There are some serialist pieces with no tonal center at all, though...

Looking at the progression as ii V I modulating keys is a cool way to look at it. I do think, being that it is clearly based off 12 bar blues, that the passage of F chords is, sonically, a play off of the IV / iv substitution, which is extremely common in that style and in that bar position of the progression, especially since it does not follow the rhythm of a typical ii V I turnaround...


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Jun 23, 2016)

j3ps3 said:


> My teacher said that he would write it down like this:
> 
> C melodic minor: i
> F major: ii-V-I
> ...



This is pretty accurate, both in terms of traditional harmonic analysis as well as contrapuntal practice. I'll expand a little. What we essentially have is i&#8710; iiø7 V7 (Cm&#8710; Dø7 G7) with some other stuff in between. So, i&#8710; ... iiø7 V7 where the "..." is merely a bunch of chords that expand that space. That "...," in this case, is a sequence which may be expressed as a linear intervallic pattern, or simply a "LIP." More on that when we get to my analysis.

I did a Schenkerian-style reduction that shows how the melody interacts with the harmony. I'm trying to put together a primer on Schenkerian analysis in this thread, so maybe you can refer to it if this is confusing (which it probably is to most people). I'll try to be clear, but let me know if you get lost.

Let me be up front with this: not a lot of jazz has been analyzed with Schenkerian methods (although Fred Sturm did a video in which he explains the compositional process behind one of his arrangements, and he uses reduction similar to Schenkerian analysis, though I am reasonably sure that he himself has not done any Schenker studies). Schenkerian theory as Heinrich Schenker conceived does not apply to most jazz, especially post-war jazz, because the musical grammar and syntax are completely different from the Classical tonal repertoire that he was dealing with (Mozart, Haydn, Beethoven, Schubert). Here, I have attempted to adapt his method to deal with this Miles Davis tune. Whereas Schenkerian theory supposes that there is always a linear scalar descent to the tonic (and David Neumeyer accounts for linear ascents), jazz, particularly bebop, rarely has that. In Solar, there is a structural tonic pitch in the melody at the beginning, then a LIP, and then a turnaround. So rather than going 5 4 3 2 1 (where 1 is tonic) or 3 2 1, it's just 1 {LIP} {turnaround} and back to 1. I hope my graphs make this easy to see.











The first graph is an analytic overlay, which shows where I am grabbing the notes for my reductive analysis in the second graph.

The LIP is of the 7 10 variety, meaning that the active pitches of the sequence are chordal sevenths (so B&#9837; over C7) falling to chordal tenths (A over Fmaj7). It's a circle of fifths sequence, to boot. This is prominently displayed in the middle of the second graph. By the way, those diagonal lines show that the structural melodic tone is prepared over a (less structural) harmony, but they really belong to a more structural harmony. Less structural notes do not have stems, structural ones do have stems. (The most structural notes have hollow noteheads.) If we reduced out the less structural notes, we would collapse those melodic tones to their more structurally related harmonies, and the next level of reduction would look like this:






Some neat things about this head: notice that the LIP supports a chromatic linear descent. LIPs typically prolong a single harmonic function, or "Stufe" (the Schenkerian term). In this case, it appears to be predominant: it starts on IV (or with ii V I in IV, which itself prolongs IV) and ends on &#9837;II (which is the Neapolitan chord, a traditional predominant function). My graph does not emphasize this relationship, but I could stem things a little differently and slur them to the iiø7 at the turnaround if I wanted to make some sort of claim about the LIP being a long predominant area. You can see that the LIP is iterated three times: once on F, once on E&#9837;, and once on D&#9837;; the interval pattern is repeating down a major second each time.

The notation for the turnaround is a little inconsistent. Remember that I said that stemmed notes with hollow noteheads are the most structural? The D in the bass has a hollow notehead, a stem, a flag, and is attached to a big beam. This is a notation that I stole from my teacher to indicated that it is the structural predominant, that it is subservient to the dominant (G7) that follows right after. I don't really know how to treat that D in the melody, though. When the notehead is solid and it has a flagged stem, it means that it is a structural neighbor. However, with a hollow notehead... well, I haven't seen that anywhere else before. It does not mean the same thing as the same notation in the bass. What I am trying to say is that the D in the turnaround is the (octave-displaced) structural neighbor to the C at the top of the head. It is structural, because it is part of the turnaround, but because there is not a structural descent preparing that 2, it is not functioning in a way that works with normal Schenkerian notation. I'm flying by the seat of my pants, and until I come up with a better way, I hope that this is clear.

Part of the issue in analyzing jazz is that there are no real cadences to speak of, at least not at the beginning of tunes. I hesitate to apply the structural predominant and dominant labels (PD and D) to the turnaround, because those chords do not conclude the phrase, but are a prefix to the repeat of the head. One could make the argument that the entire head is just a tonic prolongation ("T" with no "PD D T" following it). I have, however, left the beams open on the turnaround to show that there is continuation, theoretically into infinity (at which point the soloists would have a chance to take however many choruses they wish). After an indeterminate number of repetitions of the changes, the tune could be capped with a cadence, in which case we would finally have a true PD D T progression to close off the open-ended tonic prolongation of the rest of the tune.


----------



## redstone (Jun 24, 2016)

bostjan said:


> Except that it is called a "i VI iv v" progression.



Except that your wikipedia source shows I'm right. 


_The progression, represented in Roman numeral analysis, is: I&#8211;vi&#8211;IV&#8211;V. For example, in C major: C Am F G.
_

Do you understand that it has nothing to do with an Am F Dm Em? Would it help if it starts in C ? Cm Ab Fm Gm. Can't be called a I VI IV V. Because it is a VI IV II III. 

So please stop. I am right, anywhere in the world. The choice of numbers is a pure matter of notation. It's meant to decrease the alterations, based on a major scale system.


----------



## bostjan (Jun 24, 2016)

redstone said:


> Except that your wikipedia source shows I'm right.
> 
> 
> _The progression, represented in Roman numeral analysis, is: IviIVV. For example, in C major: C Am F G.
> ...



Don't have an aneurysm. 

This thread could have died a quiet death, but you have not allowed it. I've stated my case, and you've rejected it. You read my link and obviously didn't care to try to understand it. Not every song or chord progression is based on a major scale. If you think it is, then, well, I don't care, just go on believing that, go on arguing with people and getting super worked up and stressed out about it...

Or...relax, have a beer, play some guitar, and move on with your life.


----------



## redstone (Jun 24, 2016)

What, by this thread you mean the bull.... you said? I gave you one chance to move on, but you insisted, right?

I don't say all progressions are based on the major scale, I said it's the NOTATION. You don't understand what I say, but hey, if you can't recognize a minor 3rd when you hear one, it's pretty normal.

And for the sake of saving those who could believe what you say :

In music, Roman numeral analysis involves the use of Roman numerals to represent chords. In this context, Roman numerals (I, II, III, IV, ...) typically denote scale degrees (first, second, third, fourth, ...). When a Roman numeral is used to represent a chord, it is meant to indicate the scale degree corresponding to its root note, which is the note on which the chord is built. For instance, III is the Roman numeral which denotes either the third degree of a scale, or the chord built on that degree.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_numeral_analysis


----------



## bostjan (Jun 24, 2016)

Read the link you provided, and then tell me if my notation is not covered right there in black and white.


----------

