You just can’t trust online information

[HomespunEffects]

As for Nashville numbers I get that since it’s largely for tonal stuff in minor or major and folks seem to wanna think keycenter/parent scale the logic fails because
A Blues then would be instead of C F G being 145 in C 5 1 2 in F

Yes. That’s what I’m saying. If something is in A minor I say “this is 6- 2 3 in C”.

 

[Sascha Franck]

Yes A Mixolydian is D.

Ed has already explained this. Quite unfortunately, modal keys have never made it into standard notation. So any tune with a minor tonic is notated in a plain (natural) minor key and any tune with a major tonic is written in a major (ionian) key. And as mixolydian is major, a major key is used, regardless of the hassle to add an additional flat/natural in front of that pesky 7th.

 

[Sascha Franck]

If something is in A minor I say “this is 6- 2 3 in C”.

What if it has a (typical for A minor) E7?

 

[HomespunEffects]

Ed has already explained this. Quite unfortunately, modal keys have never made it into standard notation. So any tune with a minor tonic is notated in a plain (natural) minor key and any tune with a major tonic is written in a major (ionian) key. And as mixolydian is major, a major key is used, regardless of the hassle to add an additional flat/natural in front of that pesky 7th.

I see what you mean.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Yes. That’s what I’m saying. If something is in A minor I say “this is 6- 2 3 in C”.

Sure if you think of it interchangeable with C.
Yet if you’d think about it as 1- 4 5 in Am the harmonic function is pretty crystal clear.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I’d say this is in D and we play 5 4 1 3b/4

This is completely ignoring the tonal center. A very bad idea for any analysis.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

What if it has a (typical for A minor) E7?

Well he did say 6- 2 3 so that’s Am D E

 

[HomespunEffects]

This is completely ignoring the tonal center. A very bad idea for any analysis.

I do see my shortcomings in this concept but it shouldn’t matter.

 

[HomespunEffects]

What if it has a (typical for A minor) E7?

I’d have to see the rest of the progression.

 

[HomespunEffects]

Well he did say 6- 2 3 so that’s Am D E

Yes. I messed that up though. Should have been 6- 2- 3- if is in A minor.

With an E7 it would be written 6- 2- 5of6-


I do that all the time because 3 means 3- in my dumb brain because 3 is minor already why do i have to explain this to myself?

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Yes. I messed that up though. Should have been 6- 2- 3- if is in A minor.

With an E7 it would be written 6- 2- 5of6-


I do that all the time because 3 means 3- in my dumb brain because 3 is minor already why do i have to explain this to myself?

That’s what I would’ve assumed if you hadn’t said 6-

 

[Sascha Franck]

Well he did say 6- 2 3 so that’s Am D E

Oh, ok, sure. Still, relating things to the tonal center is a lot easier than not doing so.

With an E7 it would be written 6- 2- 5of6-

You don't do things like that, really.

 

[HomespunEffects]

You don't do things like that, really.

I actually do.

If you were teaching a robot to write music wouldn’t it simplify the algorithm?

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

Oh, ok, sure. Still, relating things to the tonal center is a lot easier than not doing so.



You don't do things like that, really.

Obviously. As I said it’s the thinking that we do melodies on top of existing diatonic progressions that give rise to to this.

 

[Sascha Franck]

I actually do.

If it's for your personal organisation, anything goes, obviously. But you might want to communicate about these things with others one day...

 

[HomespunEffects]

If it's for your personal organisation, anything goes, obviously. But you might want to communicate about these things with others one day...

That’s why i do it this way. For communication purposes.

It completely bypasses using inefficient notation.

 

[Ed DeGenaro]

That’s why i do it this way. For communication purposes.

It completely bypasses using inefficient notation.

And how does that make sense?

 

[HomespunEffects]

And how does that make sense?

i don’t understand the question.

 

[Sascha Franck]

That’s why i do it this way. For communication purposes.

It completely bypasses using inefficient notation.

People you possibly communicate with will likely not know your system. That's why most of us stick to what is best common knowlegde, shortcomings notwithstanding.

 

[Sascha Franck]

If you were teaching a robot to write music wouldn’t it simplify the algorithm?

That's actually an interesting question.
There's a whole truckload of strange, unclear, shady and whatever things when it comes to musical notation and analysis. Maybe an AI would be able to weed out some of those - but rest assured, on of the hostorical "camps" (kinda like classical vs. more modern) would be all up in arms.