Nashville numbers minor

[analogholic]

 

Trying to start with Nashville numbers and was curious how you use it in minor keys.

 

Do you still think in “major” and name the ”minor tonic” as 6 etc

 

Or do you name the minor tonic as 1?

And in that case do you name 3, 6 and 7 like that or b3, b6 and b7?

 

 

What about tunes like “The Way You Look Tonight” where the B section is in another key? Do you then think like “up a minor third”

 

Would be grateful hearing about how you use this method. Pros and cons of the different ”versions” for minor.

[Sean M. H.]

Oh boy...I'll be very interested in the responses to this thread, as I've been having this very conversation with musicians in my area lately.

 

For context, I play gospel.  In black gospel circles, Nashville numbers, or "calling numbers" as we tend to call it, has become the standard means of communication over the last 20 years (I don't remember guys doing it as much when I first started playing in the late 90s, at least not at my home church).  The reason it is so popular in this setting is that so much of the black church service tends to be spontaneous.  Anytime musicians are backing up a preacher during his sermon, or if the service escalates to a "drive" or "praise break"...that all tends to be called completely on the fly, typically by the keybaordist/organist or sometimes the bass player via hand signals or a talk-back system

 

With all that said, it seems most guys around here tend to default to using the major key numbering.  So if a song is really in a minor key, they tend to refer to what should be the root/tonic as "the 6."  Being sort of late to the whole "calling numbers" thing myself, I seem to be one of the only guys that has even considered that it should be the other way.  But I do understand the clear benefit of always thinking in a major context: the chord quality of each number will stay consistent....1 will be major, 6 will be minor, etc!  It just took some getting used to on my part to play songs (in minor) where we resolve to "the six" and sometimes never actually play "the one"...

 

Curious to see how other genres answer this question

[CEB]

FWIW - You never chart tunes in minor keys in the Nashville system.  All charting is done in the relative major key.  minors are designated by a minus after the letter.  That is the tradition.  Its just the way it is.  

 

For my personal system, I chart in minor keys.  I use Roman numerals,  Upper case are majors and lower case are minors.  Arabic numbers show extension etc .... the way everyone else is educated ... generally.  In a C minor blues the C minor 7th chord equals i7. In Nashville it is 6- with a superscript 7, if I remember correctly.

 

When in Rome ....

[Brad Kaenel]

I always assumed that Nashville numbering spoke to the "key signature", rather than the "key" -- to my mind, those are different things.  A song may be in the "key" of Bb major or Gm minor, but the "key signature" is the same, and thus the Numbering would not change -- the "1" would always be Bb because the "key signature" is Bb.

[ksoper]

A producer I did a lot of work for always charted in the relative major.  If there were a lot of changes I just notated the chords above the numbers. I can read A- D- E faster than I can read 6- 2- 3.  By the time I got the chart the key was already established so the transposition-on-the-fly aspect of the system wasn't crucial. 

[Rodan88]

Hey, folks - 

 

Lifetime east-coaster here, based in NYC for a LONG time. 

 

I am FAR from the world's greatest authority on the Nashville Number System, but I'm fascinated with all things theoretical - as anyone who's endured my long posts will know!

 

The Nashville Number System is something I've taken a deep dive into, not only for my own interest, but also because a few years back, I was hired to prepare a few Nashville Number charts for a band backing Brent Mason in Nashville.  As far as I know, no blood was spilled on that gig, so I'm gonna be brave enough to dip my toe in these waters.....

 

Again, full disclaimer - I cannot BEGIN to compare the level of my experience with those who have used the Nashville system their entire careers, and have witnessed MANY others' takes on the system - good, bad, and otherwise.  In Nashville, often each band member prepares their own number chart, and all have their own preferred conventions.  And as a general rule, people can and will do whatever they want, if it works for them (as we recently discussed in a chord-labeling thread).

 

So...I'm going to disagree with some of what I read in the previous posts.  On the surface, it sounds counter-intuitive to use the degrees of the relative Major scale when charting a tune that is 100% in a minor key.  I have no doubts that everyone who has experienced exactly that is speaking the truth.  But really - does it make any sense AT ALL that a system that was designed to simplify charting and transposing would throw in the additional mental gymnastics of "thinking in a Major key while playing in a minor one?"  Not to me, it doesn't.  And then, throw on top of THAT, the further torture of perhaps trying the tune in a few different keys?  Sure, many country tunes are pretty simple in terms of form and harmony.  But many are not.  And a top-level implementation of the number system can get VERY deep, with many other symbols at play, ways to indicate rhythmic hits, etc.

 

So, I'm gonna say that if people are using a major framework for a minor tune, it's a bad idea, whether or not it's had success, or that's what someone has always done.  MY OPINION here, YMMV.

 

I wanted to attach a bit of "proof" (as if such a thing exists!), so below is a screenshot from Hal Leonard's "The Nashville Number System Fakebook."

 

It's a nice book, with a very long section at the beginning explaining the system in great depth, followed by 200 well-known country tunes from all eras, rendered in beautiful computer-copied Nashville Number System notation.

 

The first minor country tune I could think of was in the book, and is featured in the screenshot - Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats."  In F#m, and notated that way - not in A Major!  (I thought of "Jolene" later, but turns out it's not in the book.)  

 

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!

[El Lobo]

2 hours ago, CEB said:

I use Roman numerals,  Upper case are majors and lower case are minors.  Arabic numbers show extension etc .... the way everyone else is educated ... generally.  In a C minor blues the C minor 7th chord equals i7. In Nashville it is 6- with a superscript 7, if I remember correctly.

That's the way I learned numbering: Roman numerals, upper case are majors and lower case are minors. So Cm blues starts i, usually iv, the 5 may be V7 or v7, like that. To be fair, Nashville numbering as I understand it is a more complex system than the Roman numerals with upper and lower case. In gig situations, I just hear the numbers called out as for example "key of D, 1 minor, 4 minor, sharp 5" or "5 is major and dominant" etc. If I'm reading charts, I like to see the chord names written out in conventional form, even with a key signature. I don't have any experience reading charts done purely in full Nashville numbering.

[mynameisdanno]

In minor keys, you chart the tonic chord as 6m.  

 

Why?  Because part of the goal when making a Nashville chart is to be able to chart a song you've never heard before in one pass, while the songwriter strums through it for you in the control room before you start recording, and without them having to talk you through the whole tune first.  The clock is ticking.  And unless it's a blues, at least half the time, when they start singing Verse 1 in a minor key, the chorus or bridge is going to end up in the relative major.  And do you really want to be writing (or reading, five minutes later) "b3 b7 1m b6" on the chorus?  No, you do not, you want to see 1 5 6m 4.

 

And yeah sometimes this means you end up charting a whole tune with a bunch of 6m, 2m, 3m, etc.  You quickly get used to it.

 

Edited to add: I highly recommend the Chas Williams book if you're getting into this.  

 

The system is essentially an evolved shorthand, and there's nothing wrong with everyone having their own shorthand.  There are some things I do differently in charts solely for my own personal use than the "standard." I've made thousands of them, but I've rarely had a Nashville chart handed to me, and I've rarely had anyone say they could use one of mine.  I've only played a handful of sessions in Nashville, and they're just not the norm in west coast circles.  The only reason I started doing all my charts this way was an extended period of time when I was constantly traveling and also constantly having to learn new tunes for gigs.  I found myself doing about 90% of my chart-making on airplanes, without a convenient pitch reference.

[Sean M. H.]

Some interesting distinctions being noted in this thread so far.  My initial response was based on my experience using a very specific implementation of the number system, where musicians are calling out the numbers verbally on the fly.  The whole idea is really to keep things as generic as possible so that things translate easily.  'Amazing Grace' will start: 1, 1, 4, 1...regardless of what key we do it in.  In that context, as I said before, always referring to thing in the relative major perspective, makes sense.  Again, we know that the 1 will (almost) always be major, the 6 will (almost) always be minor, etc...

 

If we're talking written charts on the other hand, I think I'd prefer to have the tonic referred to as the 1...even if it's minor...as Danno said above though, it's all somewhat subjective.  While I'm sure there is/was a strict standard for the Nashville system, in practice it seems to vary relative to context/genre, personal preference, etc at this point.

[Steve Nathan]

6 hours ago, CEB said:

FWIW - You never chart tunes in minor keys in the Nashville system.  All charting is done in the relative major key.  minors are designated by a minus after the letter.  That is the tradition.  Its just the way it is. 

I assume you mean that you would never chart say House of the Rising Sun as starting on 1-.  That is mostly true, but not 100%

Sticking with that sone, you would typically see 6- 1  2  4      6- 1  3  3 

But occasionally the minor chord is so dominant that it works better to call it a 1 minor, just to make the chart simpler.  This is often true when a song is driven by a seemingly minor EG riff that actually has no third, but "sounds" clearly minor, not major.

 

The Sinatra tune analogholic asked about would be charted in the major key and then marked "modulate" or "Key Change" with the appropriate interval indicated.

So yes, minor key songs are mostly charted as the 6- of the relative major.  One reason is that lots of minor key songs have choruses that are major.  If you start the chart with 1-, the chart gets really ugly in the chorus. 

 

[Steve Nathan]

4 hours ago, Rodan88 said:

Hey, folks - 

 

Lifetime east-coaster here, based in NYC for a LONG time. 

 

I am FAR from the world's greatest authority on the Nashville Number System, but I'm fascinated with all things theoretical - as anyone who's endured my long posts will know!

 

The Nashville Number System is something I've taken a deep dive into, not only for my own interest, but also because a few years back, I was hired to prepare a few Nashville Number charts for a band backing Brent Mason in Nashville.  As far as I know, no blood was spilled on that gig, so I'm gonna be brave enough to dip my toe in these waters.....

 

Again, full disclaimer - I cannot BEGIN to compare the level of my experience with those who have used the Nashville system their entire careers, and have witnessed MANY others' takes on the system - good, bad, and otherwise.  In Nashville, often each band member prepares their own number chart, and all have their own preferred conventions.  And as a general rule, people can and will do whatever they want, if it works for them (as we recently discussed in a chord-labeling thread).

 

So...I'm going to disagree with some of what I read in the previous posts.  On the surface, it sounds counter-intuitive to use the degrees of the relative Major scale when charting a tune that is 100% in a minor key.  I have no doubts that everyone who has experienced exactly that is speaking the truth.  But really - does it make any sense AT ALL that a system that was designed to simplify charting and transposing would throw in the additional mental gymnastics of "thinking in a Major key while playing in a minor one?"  Not to me, it doesn't.  And then, throw on top of THAT, the further torture of perhaps trying the tune in a few different keys?  Sure, many country tunes are pretty simple in terms of form and harmony.  But many are not.  And a top-level implementation of the number system can get VERY deep, with many other symbols at play, ways to indicate rhythmic hits, etc.

 

So, I'm gonna say that if people are using a major framework for a minor tune, it's a bad idea, whether or not it's had success, or that's what someone has always done.  MY OPINION here, YMMV.

 

I wanted to attach a bit of "proof" (as if such a thing exists!), so below is a screenshot from Hal Leonard's "The Nashville Number System Fakebook."

 

It's a nice book, with a very long section at the beginning explaining the system in great depth, followed by 200 well-known country tunes from all eras, rendered in beautiful computer-copied Nashville Number System notation.

 

The first minor country tune I could think of was in the book, and is featured in the screenshot - Carrie Underwood's "Before He Cheats."  In F#m, and notated that way - not in A Major!  (I thought of "Jolene" later, but turns out it's not in the book.)  

 

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts!

Not sure where Hal Leonard came up with this chart, but it's definitely not from the actual  session.  Since I played keys on this Carrie Underwood record, I may have even written the chart we used, but can't say for sure (probably Jimmy Nichols). However, I can say for sure that it would have been written 6- 5 4 5    6- 5 4 3 

[Bobbo Fett]

Man, I would really hate to use numbers on stuff like Great American Songbook tunes......what "number' do you call in, say in Eb, for a Gb13/#9?....it obviously has its useages on country and rock tunes, but to me, on more harmonically advanced stuff, not so much......

[KuruPrionz]

Purely for perspective and the sake of amusement...

 

A gigging country band I knew needed a bassist for one night and asked if I could sit in. Pay was ok for a gig but not for a gig and a practice so I told them I'd be there and play the gig. 

Halfway through the 1st set, the lead vocalist strummer says to me "Do you know the Achy Breaky?" Never played it but I'd heard it so I said "It's a 1-5 in A, right?"

He said "We don't know what you mean when you say stuff like that." I said "Kick it off." 

 

It was a 1-5 in A... 😁

[El Lobo]

12 hours ago, KuruPrionz said:

A gigging country band I knew needed a bassist for one night and asked if I could sit in. Pay was ok for a gig but not for a gig and a practice so I told them I'd be there and play the gig. 

Halfway through the 1st set, the lead vocalist strummer says to me "Do you know the Achy Breaky?" Never played it but I'd heard it so I said "It's a 1-5 in A, right?"

He said "We don't know what you mean when you say stuff like that." I said "Kick it off." 

 

It was a 1-5 in A... 😁

Made me laff. Thanks. Yeah, I've had some similar experiences ... "It does a sharp 5 to 5, right?" "The 6 is major, not minor." "Where it goes to the 2, is that major or minor?" "That's a flat 9." Blank stares.

[MathOfInsects]

The guitarists I do the most playing with chart in Nashville numbers--which is probably related to the fact that we keep losing all our best guitarists to Nashville. So if we're on a gig and they share a chart, it's highly likely to be Nashville numbers.

For sideman gigs I almost always just use Ireal and transpose as needed.

For sessions, it's almost always a singer-songwriter of some level or another. If it's a "newer" artist/vanity project, I just chart in the key of the demo they send. They are not going to transpose from wherever they wrote and play the song.

If it's an established artist, I almost always use Nashville or something close to it. They are more comfortable noticing in real time if something needs to be raised or lowered. I have some old habits/preferences that I read instinctively, so I sometimes show things like pushes and shared bars a little differently. 

One thing I notice is that it's harder and harder not to just chart in Nashville once you start. Last night I had to jot down chords for a dead-ass easy cover for today, and they sent the key and everything, and I still wrote "1 5 4 1 4 1" etc out of a habit I barely knew I had, until I was like, "No, dummy. D A G D G D...." 

Also, right before I hit "Submit Reply," I just realized that was slightly OT. Yes, I expect a minor key to be written relative to the major, almost always, with the exception of a song that is unequivocally and immutably "in" that minor key--say "Ain't No Sunshine." 

[analogholic]

14 hours ago, Steve Nathan said:

But occasionally the minor chord is so dominant that it works better to call it a 1 minor, just to make the chart simpler.  This is often true when a song is driven by a seemingly minor EG riff that actually has no third, but "sounds" clearly minor, not major.

 

The Sinatra tune analogholic asked about would be charted in the major key and then marked "modulate" or "Key Change" with the appropriate interval indicated.

So yes, minor key songs are mostly charted as the 6- of the relative major.  One reason is that lots of minor key songs have choruses that are major.  If you start the chart with 1-, the chart gets really ugly in the chorus. 

 

Without knowing so much about Nashville numbers...this is kind of what I felt...when songs are clearly minor...like "Ain´t no Sunshine...then it would be a bit corny with the relative major...and as you say, a song like My Funny Valentine starts in minor and chorus is in major, then you would write the "1 minor" as 6m...yet again I was maybe hoping to use "one" system for all...so Autumn Leaves has (almost if you would think as "starting" autumn on the tonic minor instead of the 4m) the same chord progression in the A section as Fly Me To The Moon....but the first one is minor and the latter major...so (Im) IVm bVII7 IIIM7  etc becomes Vim IIm V7 IM7....etc which makes it a little confusing for me on these types of (same) progressions... 

 

[analogholic]

2 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

Also, right before I hit "Submit Reply," I just realized that was slightly OT. Yes, I expect a minor key to be written relative to the major, almost always, with the exception of a song that is unequivocally and immutably "in" that minor key--say "Ain't No Sunshine." 

Hehe...didn´t see your post when I posted my reply....funny that you also chose Ain´t No Sunshine as the minor example

[Steve Nathan]

21 hours ago, Bobbo Fett said:

Man, I would really hate to use numbers on stuff like Great American Songbook tunes......what "number' do you call in, say in Eb, for a Gb13/#9?....it obviously has its useages on country and rock tunes, but to me, on more harmonically advanced stuff, not so much......

I'd call it a 3b13#9.  Lots of songs with more than simple triads get cut here every day.

[Steve Nathan]

Here's part of a chart from a session last week.  This artist performs in a "Cowboy Hat" and though there are no 3b13/#9s in it, it does show that we do cut more than 3 chord traditional Country here.  The time sig changes in just one line of the chorus were fun.

[Steve Nathan]

Never played it, but I think Autumn Leaves would start on the 2minor. 

[b3plyr]

6 minutes ago, Steve Nathan said:

I'd call it a 3b13#9.  Lots of songs with more than simple triads get cut here every day.

 That's also what I would (and have) done. And don't sell the charts short - in addition to Steve I'm sure the list of musicians that have used them is impressive. 

[Bobadohshe]

Thank you Steve, you are an invaluable resource. I have wondered about all the stuff written in this thread for the longest time myself. It's great to hear a definitive answer.

[Bobbo Fett]

15 hours ago, Steve Nathan said:

I'd call it a 3b13#9.  Lots of songs with more than simple triads get cut here every day.

I sure wouldn't want to be calling it out on stage though! Other than the studio, that's where in my (LIMITED) experience numbers get used quite a bit.......

[MathOfInsects]

15 hours ago, Steve Nathan said:

Here's part of a chart from a session last week.  This artist performs in a "Cowboy Hat" and though there are no 3b13/#9s in it, it does show that we do cut more than 3 chord traditional Country here.  The time sig changes in just one line of the chorus were fun.

@Steve Nathan, what is the little 5 next to the big 5 in the chorus? A 5-chord--meaning, no 3? Or a second hit on the 5 chord itself?

[Bobbo Fett]

19 hours ago, b3plyr said:

 That's also what I would (and have) done. And don't sell the charts short - in addition to Steve I'm sure the list of musicians that have used them is impressive. 

I think y'all got the wrong impression. I'm not denigrating ANYONE in ANY genre. All I was saying is that, in a live situation, ie, someone in the band doesn't know the tune and someone else is helping by calling out changes (happens to me fairly often) I sure wouldn't be as comfy if the numbers called out started to sound like quadratic equations due to all the extensions. I'm really sorry if I offended anyone, but that was totally NOT my intention.......believe me, I am a mediocre player at best, and would be the last one here to cast stones. I'll shut up now......

[Steve Nathan]

5 hours ago, MathOfInsects said:

@Steve Nathan, what is the little 5 next to the big 5 in the chorus? A 5-chord--meaning, no 3? Or a second hit on the 5 chord itself?

It's an S (the letter) not a 5. It stands for Sus

[Steve Nathan]

1 hour ago, Bobbo Fett said:

I think y'all got the wrong impression. I'm not denigrating ANYONE in ANY genre. All I was saying is that, in a live situation, ie, someone in the band doesn't know the tune and someone else is helping by calling out changes (happens to me fairly often) I sure wouldn't be as comfy if the numbers called out started to sound like quadratic equations due to all the extensions. I'm really sorry if I offended anyone, but that was totally NOT my intention.......believe me, I am a mediocre player at best, and would be the last one here to cast stones. I'll shut up now......

I hope you don't think I was offended in any way. I was not.  Once you get used to numbers, you tend to prefer them to letters.  I suspect if someone was calling changes to me I'd rather hear 3flat than G#flat.  Of course, studio or live, the original concept of using numbers is still valid.  Singers frequently turn around and say, "could we take this down a 1/2 step" or similar, and with numbers, your charts are ready to go and no mental gymnastics are required.  Years ago I was on a record date in NY with some heavy hitters (Will Lee, Hiram Bullock, Steve Jordan).  Jeremy Wahl (original Spyro Gyra) was the arranger.  The singer kept changing her mind about the key, and each time Jeremy would collect everyone's charts and re-write them.  He didn't need to re-write mine as I'd been writing my own number charts for each track.  After about 3 or 4 times, Will and Hiram came over and asked me to show them how my charts worked, and we wen't numbers from there out.

[MathOfInsects]

14 minutes ago, Steve Nathan said:

It's an S (the letter) not a 5. It stands for Sus

Thanks. I half-guessed that but the third one in particular had me convinced it was a 5.

[Steve Nathan]

47 minutes ago, Dave Ferris said:

Steve's chart looks like hieroglyphics to me but whatever you're used to and if the final outcome is the same as a more mainstream chart...well that's all that matters.

 

Charts/lead sheets in most cases are made to be sort of a blue print and meant to be interrupted by the player. That's where the creative line is drawn between someone, a legit player for example, who reads verbatim what is written, and someone who enhances, or makes those chord slashes come alive.

 

No one ever came to a live concert or gig, or listened to a record and said--- hey he/she's not reading a real chart. I came here to see someone read. Let me see that chart, I'm feeling cheated !

The chart I posted does look a lot like hieroglyphics 😆  It's actually quite simple changes, and most interesting for the many time sig changes.

Take line 8 (the song's chorus), and let's say the key is C

the first 2 bars are C F(over C )    Gsus C.  The slash above indicates a "push", meaning the first chord in the bar gets a dotted quarter and the second chord is placed on the and of 2.    The next two bars are the same chords but because the time changes to 6/8,  each chord is a dotted quarter.

 

Line 6 (pre-chorus) is quarter/quarter/half. D- G C.   D- G C   D- G A-    F G C.     D- G A-   F  G  C   Then a 3/4 bar of D- G  A-  with a 1/16 push to the Bbadd2 for a bar and a half. 

[Rodan88]

Sorry I missed all the activity since I last posted!

 

First of all, so glad that you weighed in, Steve (Nathan)!  You and others here have certainly convinced me to soften my stance a bit regarding the labeling of minor keys in the Nashville  Number System.  As I made clear in my post, I've studied the system extensively (both out of fascination and for practical professional reasons), but have very little practical experience using it in real-world conditions, unlike you guys, who are immersed in it daily!  Obviously, your opinion holds far more weight than mine.  

 

It's also ironic that you played on the song (chart) I posted to bolster my argument - "Before He Cheats."  Too funny!  You were wondering where the chart came from, Steve -  it's from Hal Leonard's "The Nashville Number System Fakebook," written by Trevor de Clercq.  I think he's more of an academician than a studio/live player - in the book's bio, it says that he's a member of the faculty at Middle Tennessee State University where he coordinates the musicianship curriculum and teaches courses in digital audio technology - and he holds a Ph.D. in music theory from Eastman.  Impressive credentials, but not necessarily one of the cats, eh?   ;-D

 

As many mentioned, point well taken that many songs with minor verses have Major choruses, which can create a mess if charting it in the opening's minor key.  

 

I do, however, agree with those  who feel that if a song is truly, strongly in a minor key - such as Before He Cheats, Jolene, Ain't No Sunshine, The Devil Went Down to Georgia, etc. it makes more sense to chart it based on that minor key, and not the relative major.

 

Someone used the exact example I was thinking of to show when the reverse approach would make sense to me.  In Fly Me To The Moon (unfortunately, not a country tune), the song starts on the 6 chord (Am7), followed by the 2 (Dm7), the 5 (G7), and the 1 chord (Cmaj7). Of course the song is strongly in C Major, but it takes 4 bars to get there, via a very simple harmonic progression.  Although it starts with the Am7, at no time do you ever hear the song as being in anything other than C Major.  Perhaps it's a bad example because of the genre, the song's familiarity, etc.

 

So, in those situations where using a 1 minor makes the most sense, I'm definitely onboard with that. As Steve said in his original post, "But occasionally the minor chord is so dominant that it works better to call it a 1 minor, just to make the chart simpler."  Yep!  But in other situations, relative major it is!  Steve, we all have great respect for your work; thanks for laying down the law!

 

(One other book that I'll mention if anyone's interested, is Chas Williams' "The Nashville Number System."  Besides a detailed explanation of the system, an interesting feature is the inclusion of many charts handwritten by Nashville studio A-Listers.  On any given song there are a few charts by different players, so you can see how the guys who MAKE the records' individual styles come into play when writing charts for the same songs.  Only drawback is that there aren't any of Steve's charts in the book!)

 

Both of the books that I mentioned in this post also have apps available, and there are many other books/apps/YouTube videos out there if you want to take a deep dive.  Or, you could do it the Steve Nathan way -  move to Nashville and spend decades working with the best in the business.  You won't need no stinkin' books!  ;D