Chord Sequencer but with chord numbers

[robussc]

I love the idea of Chord Sequencer, but I don't like the fact that we're given chord names in the matrix and not chord numbers.

When we look at classic chord sequences they're given in chord number form: I, IV, V, iii or whatever. I've no idea what those actual chords map to for the particular key I'm in, unless I do some homework. But playing with Chord Sequencer, I also have no idea if I'm moving from I to III or iv or whatever.

It would be very nice to have a toggle to switch between chord names and numbers I think. Hopefully it's there already and I've missed it?

[challism]

Good idea, but I think the argument RS would make is that many of the chord sets might be using borrowed chords (outside of the mode), thus making the Roman numeral value system a bit difficult to implement.

Mod note: I've moved this thread to the Rack Extension subforum, as Chord Sequencer is an RE.

[robussc]

Good idea, but I think the argument RS would make is that many of the chord sets might be using borrowed chords (outside of the mode), thus making the Roman numeral value system a bit difficult to implement.

I guess, though I’d be fine with those outlying chords just having their names.

[joeyluck]

I saw the title and thought the suggestion might be about an option to show numbers 1-16 on the pads, with chords in the sequencer numbered accordingly.

Which I think would also be a useful view for seeing at a glance which chords are in the sequencer according to which pad (easier to spot and also differentiate if you have multiple chords that are the same, like "Cm"). Of course, you can click the chord in the sequencer to shift focus to that pad, but this way would make it easier to see at a glance with no clicking.

But it would also be a great way to be more adventurous by just throwing all the chord info out the window So then with just pad numbers, you would only go by the suitability colors (or not).

[ljekio]

I saw the title and thought the suggestion might be about an option to show numbers 1-16 on the pads, with chords in the sequencer numbered accordingly.

Numbers on pads and to show keys on keyboard too.
Now I make my chord sets correspond to the keyboard and put different versions of these chords into different patterns. And I switch patterns using keyswitches. It turns out quite convenient.
But other sets of chords are placed too chaotic and you can't always hit the right one from the keyboard.

[PhillipOrdonez]

The previous version didn't have that grey area, anyone know what's that about? The trigger keys? Can't check now but have wondered since release.

[huggermugger]

The previous version didn't have that grey area, anyone know what's that about? The trigger keys? Can't check now but have wondered since release.

Correct, those are the trigger keys.

[PhillipOrdonez]

The previous version didn't have that grey area, anyone know what's that about? The trigger keys? Can't check now but have wondered since release.

Correct, those are the trigger keys.

Fangs!

[MuttReason]

Nashville Number System. Now that would be one hell of an option to add. A bit niche maybe but I’d use it

[joeyluck]

Here's an idea...

Maybe instead of this or that option and how it may or may not work, maybe user definable labels per pad? Maybe you could just edit the existing chord name to be something else?

So then if someone wants to share a custom chord set with chord numbers I, IV, V, iii, etc., the Nashville number system, or just pad numbers, or even just creative descriptions in place of chord names, the chord set creator could label them that way.

I realize that doesn't help entirely for someone who wants to view presets based on this or that method. But when users can edit them and create them to display a certain way, it would help with those shared chord sets and it would allow for a lot of flexibility without the reliance on how Chord Sequencer recognizes chords.

[Worker 13]

@joeyluck
Yeah, It would be nice to be able to label the chords. I made a bunch of weird extended chord sets and they all say "C?" and "A#?".

[selig]

Good idea, but I think the argument RS would make is that many of the chord sets might be using borrowed chords (outside of the mode), thus making the Roman numeral value system a bit difficult to implement.

Mod note: I've moved this thread to the Rack Extension subforum, as Chord Sequencer is an RE.

Nashville numbers accounts for these types chords (yes, sometimes three chords and the truth isn't quite enough), could easily adapt it to Roman vs Arabic numerals I would think. And it would make a lot of sense to have this option I would think!

[joeyluck]

Here's how I think custom chord naming could look:

CS custom name.png (138.52 KiB) Viewed 868 times

You could then switch between flats, sharps, and custom.

I think the concept of Chord Sequencer is to use the suitability colors as suggestions and to experiment more than rely on theory. With custom labeling, you could label things however you like.

While that might not help those who are looking for an automatic way of alternative labeling for existing sets, presets can be edited and chord set creators could label new sets a different way and share them that way. And you could always toggle to view the chord names as recognized by CS.

I also like the idea of being able to name chords creatively with anything, such as, "Eerie", "Uncertain", "Bright", "Triumphant", etc.

Overall, while custom chords wouldn't be automatic, it would answer more requests for all the various ways of labeling chords.

[challism]

I would love to see custom labeling added to CS.

[mimidancer]

I love the idea of Chord Sequencer, but I don't like the fact that we're given chord names in the matrix and not chord numbers.

When we look at classic chord sequences they're given in chord number form: I, IV, V, iii or whatever. I've no idea what those actual chords map to for the particular key I'm in, unless I do some homework. But playing with Chord Sequencer, I also have no idea if I'm moving from I to III or iv or whatever.

It would be very nice to have a toggle to switch between chord names and numbers I think. Hopefully it's there already and I've missed it?

So if you know your scale the Root note is 1. then they go sequentially. So in C, C=1 Dm =2 Em= 3 F=4 G=5 Am=6 Bdim=7. The thing about chord sequencer the chords in a given set do not have to stay diatonic. But if Diatonic is what you want, You can just use chords and scales. If you have no theory training at all here is a good site for beginners. https://muted.io/cheat-sheet/ Theory is not difficult. You can learn as you go. If you need help. you can message me here or on Twitter. I enjoy theory. Basically, because I am a dork.

[QVprod]

Adding numbers would probably be super confusing to anyone not well versed in theory. Once you get past the 7 diatonic chords you have another 9 (or more depending on chord set) finishing the chord set that would make little sense to a theory beginner. Sure there are numbers you can use, both Roman numeral and Nashville, but seeing a IV/V or a b2 probably wouldn't help much if you don’t already know what those are.

It would probably be more useful to the user to do the homework, as to use a number system effectively, you’d need to know scales anyway.

[selig]

Adding numbers would probably be super confusing to anyone not well versed in theory. Once you get past the 7 diatonic chords you have another 9 (or more depending on chord set) finishing the chord set that would make little sense to a theory beginner. Sure there are numbers you can use, both Roman numeral and Nashville, but seeing a IV/V or a b2 probably wouldn't help much if you don’t already know what those are.

It would probably be more useful to the user to do the homework, as to use a number system effectively, you’d need to know scales anyway.

I hear you, but have to add that chord names are ALSO super confusing to anyone not well versed in theory. Numbers are actually simpler IMO since there is only one set of numbers for any chord progression. But with chord names, if you change key EVERY chord name changes as well. Numbers also allow you to ‘see’ the relative movement, which is the essential part of any chord progression. Numbers also have a built in ability to indicate where they fall in the key, for example when you see a 7 chord you know you are just below the root, etc.

Also numbers are always sequential, chord names not so much such as with the key of G where the “2” chord is not F but instead is A! Instead of having to figure out what the five chord of G is, with numbers you already know the chord since it’s in the name: the 5 chord!

In both cases things get complicated with chords outside the scale, as such I see BOTH methods as equally essential. But I also see the numbers as the foundational method underlying the whole system, which is probably why they are taught early in music theory classes and have been in use for 300 years.

[joeyluck]

Don't the suitability colors serve the purpose for some of this? And isn't the point of Chord Sequencer to throw some theory out the window and experiment? If they were to add another view option, that's a reason why I think custom labels would be most useful and would fit with the concept the best.

[QVprod]

Adding numbers would probably be super confusing to anyone not well versed in theory. Once you get past the 7 diatonic chords you have another 9 (or more depending on chord set) finishing the chord set that would make little sense to a theory beginner. Sure there are numbers you can use, both Roman numeral and Nashville, but seeing a IV/V or a b2 probably wouldn't help much if you don’t already know what those are.

It would probably be more useful to the user to do the homework, as to use a number system effectively, you’d need to know scales anyway.

I hear you, but have to add that chord names are ALSO super confusing to anyone not well versed in theory. Numbers are actually simpler IMO since there is only one set of numbers for any chord progression. But with chord names, if you change key EVERY chord name changes as well. Numbers also allow you to ‘see’ the relative movement, which is the essential part of any chord progression. Numbers also have a built in ability to indicate where they fall in the key, for example when you see a 7 chord you know you are just below the root, etc.

Also numbers are always sequential, chord names not so much such as with the key of G where the “2” chord is not F but instead is A! Instead of having to figure out what the five chord of G is, with numbers you already know the chord since it’s in the name: the 5 chord!

In both cases things get complicated with chords outside the scale, as such I see BOTH methods as equally essential. But I also see the numbers as the foundational method underlying the whole system, which is probably why they are taught early in music theory classes and have been in use for 300 years.

I agree that numbers are the foundation. When I play I think in numbers and anyone I’ve taught piano I’ve done the same. but in this use case I still think it would be still less useful for making music. I see the chord names as more useful, as without the theory knowledge, you know what chord is being played and can apply that to the next instrument.

Granted there’s ways to have the player do it for you, but if you want to maybe play a bass line yourself, as is it’s already telling you what root notes to play. Especially anything that isn’t diatonic. Instead of having to figure out what the 5 of G is, it’s already telling you it’s D.

[selig]

Granted there’s ways to have the player do it for you, but if you want to maybe play a bass line yourself, as is it’s already telling you what root notes to play. Especially anything that isn’t diatonic. Instead of having to figure out what the 5 of G is, it’s already telling you it’s D.

One minor point about that last part - It can only tell you the 5 chord is “D” if it tells you “D” is the “5” chord. Otherwise, how do you know D is the 5 chord unelss there is a numeral “5” appearing with it?
I agree the bass notes are helpful if you are playing bass. But my point is HOW is it visually telling you D is the 5 without using a D and a 5 together? Again I am suggesting BOTH ways of chord naming are essential IMO.

[robussc]

In both cases things get complicated with chords outside the scale, as such I see BOTH methods as equally essential. But I also see the numbers as the foundational method underlying the whole system, which is probably why they are taught early in music theory classes and have been in use for 300 years.

[challism]

RS did give us numbers in the form of the different patterns, 1-8. Although it's not the intended way to use the pattern pages, they could be used for the purpose of Nashville numbers. You could use the pattern select sequencer lane for chord number changes. You could use CS's sequencer for your specific chord of choice (from the chord set) or you could draw/record your chord of choice into Reason's sequencer via the CS's trigger keys. It might be clunky, but it is a workaround.

CS Nashville Number Sets (C Major).zip

(2.12 KiB) Downloaded 23 times