I'm looking for a wee nagging doubt to be eased re: a Roman numeral label of a borrowed chord

close2u

Hi all.
Just a quick ask for some assistance / assurance on Roman numeral notation in a specific context please.
I've been asked by a friend to help label his chord sequence in the key of G minor with some chords borrowed from the parallel G major. And for all I'm fairly sure, there's something about the look of one of the chords that is nagging at me.

The progression starts diatonically:

| Gm  | Eb  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Dm  | Gm  |

|    i    |  VI  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   v    |    i    |

Then repeats with some borrowing in bars 2 and 7:

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  #vi  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii    |    i    |

It is the Em that I don't feel at ease with. I'm fairly sure it does take the label #vi.
Its root is the minor's 6th note of Eb raised a semitone.
But ... a little doubt exists.
Am I just getting this uneasy feeling because it is not so common for minor chords to be borrowed when composing in a minor key? Which makes it simply unfamiliar rather than incorrect.

Brad

I agree #vi does look a little strange, even if I think it does make sense.

As the chords are borrowed from the parallel major, you could perhaps label it as vi/I? So I’d interpret that as the six of the major one chord. Ditto the Am - ii/I because the ii of Gm is Am7b5. 

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  vi/I  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii/I   |    i    |

Another, perhaps more complicated way, could be to label it as the preceding ii of a secondary dominant that isn’t there. As Em is also the ii of D, whose V is A7. So it’s a stretch… but ii/V?

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  ii/V  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii    |    i    |

D is the V of G, so as Em is the ii we’d call it two of five. You could insert an A7, so Em7 - A7 - Bb would give: 

| Gm  | Em  (A7) | Bb  | 

|    i    |  ii/V (V/V)|  III   |

To be honest, I’ve pickled my own head there with that last one

viz

Brad said:

I agree #vi does look a little strange, even if I think it does make sense.

As the chords are borrowed from the parallel major, you could perhaps label it as vi/I? So I’d interpret that as the six of the major one chord. Ditto the Am - ii/I because the ii of Gm is Am7b5. 

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  vi/I  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii/I   |    i    |

Another, perhaps more complicated way, could be to label it as the preceding ii of a secondary dominant that isn’t there. As Em is also the ii of D, whose V is A7. So it’s a stretch… but ii/V?

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  ii/V  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii    |    i    |

D is the V of G, so as Em is the ii we’d call it two of five. You could insert an A7, so Em7 - A7 - Bb would give: 

| Gm  | Em  (A7) | Bb  | 

|    i    |  ii/V (V/V)|  III   |

To be honest, I’ve pickled my own head there with that last one

It’d be the V/ii not the ii/V, coz it’s the 5 of the 2, not the 2 of the 5  

But, yep, I think #vi is the proper one, functionally speaking anyway. Like if it were in G major and the chord were Eb instead of Em, that’d be bVI instead of vi. 

Jalapeno

Might be easier for the particle physics calculations to think of Gm being closer to Bb Major, than G Major - Eb is then a bog standard IV chord

Gm is the natural minor Vi of Bb Major, with all the Gm notes in the BbMaj scale

close2u

Brad said:

I agree #vi does look a little strange, even if I think it does make sense.

Thanks Brad. I'm glad it's not just me that has to do a double take yet thinks it is correct.

viz said: ... I think #vi is the proper one, functionally speaking anyway. Like if it were in G major and the chord were Eb instead of Em, that’d be bVI instead of vi. 

Thanks viz.
I'm very comfortable labelling major and minor chords coming in to a major key from a parallel minor including flats.
I think it is just the lack of familiarity of borrowing minor chords in to a minor key progression where the sharp is required.

Jalapeno said:

Might be easier ... to think of Gm being closer to Bb Major ... Eb is then a bog standard IV chord

Gm is the natural minor Vi of Bb Major, with all the Gm notes in the BbMaj scale

Thanks Jalapeno. It is not the label for Eb that is the issue. It is the Em borrowed from the parallel G major key.
If the progression were considered as in the key of Bb major rather than G minor, the borrowed Em chord would still require a sharp symbol, but would be a #iv rather than a #vi.


Thanks all.

I'm happy to go with #vi and advise my friend of that.

viz

close2u said:

viz said: ... I think #vi is the proper one, functionally speaking anyway. Like if it were in G major and the chord were Eb instead of Em, that’d be bVI instead of vi. 

Thanks viz.
I'm very comfortable labelling major and minor chords coming in to a major key from a parallel minor including flats.
I think it is just the lack of familiarity of borrowing minor chords in to a minor key progression where the sharp is required.


.

Yep, it’s not very common in minor, and that’s the only sharpened possibility, apart from the #iii which is pretty much not going to happen, and the #vii(dim) which is an inversion of the V (which is itself often borrowed from major)

In general, borrowing seems to happen more often with major pieces. 

One of the more common borrowings in a minor key is the ii-V-i, where as well as the V, the ii is often borrowed, not from major but from the dorian mode. By rights it should be ii(dim)-V-i, but you often hear it played as a standard ii to lighten the mood a tad and make it not sound so tragic and classical. 

Brad

viz said:

Brad said:

I agree #vi does look a little strange, even if I think it does make sense.

As the chords are borrowed from the parallel major, you could perhaps label it as vi/I? So I’d interpret that as the six of the major one chord. Ditto the Am - ii/I because the ii of Gm is Am7b5. 

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  vi/I  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii/I   |    i    |

Another, perhaps more complicated way, could be to label it as the preceding ii of a secondary dominant that isn’t there. As Em is also the ii of D, whose V is A7. So it’s a stretch… but ii/V?

| Gm  | Em  | Bb  |  F   | Gm  | Cm  | Am  | Gm  |

|    i    |  ii/V  |  III   | VII |    i    |   iv   |   ii    |    i    |

D is the V of G, so as Em is the ii we’d call it two of five. You could insert an A7, so Em7 - A7 - Bb would give: 

| Gm  | Em  (A7) | Bb  | 

|    i    |  ii/V (V/V)|  III   |

To be honest, I’ve pickled my own head there with that last one

It’d be the V/ii not the ii/V, coz it’s the 5 of the 2, not the 2 of the 5  

Haha indeed, I can see where you’re coming from there and it’s another option however…

If memory serves, I was always taught that any non diatonic minor chord should be viewed as a ii because of the high likelihood of it moving to it’s V. As I said, it’s a stretch