-
I learned my first scales from my dad's 1978 book ($4.95), "Guitar Scales & Melodic Patterns," by Jay Friedman. Good book, but Friedman explains that the melodic minor scale contains one set of notes ascending, and a different set descending. The harmonic minor, he says, is the same notes, going and coming, so to speak.
A few years later, fingerpicker extraordinaire, and Berklee grad, Pete Huttlinger, tells me it's the harmonic minor scale that is different as it descends. This is on a Homespun video, so I doubt they'd let such a blunder pass through. If it is a blunder.
Now, studying jazz, I find in the books I'm using that, apparently, neither scale changes! The melodic minor is "the jazz minor" - and harmonic minor is just the harmonic minor - up, down, inside out, always the same.
What in the world is going on with these minor scales? Why do they sometimes change? Which one changes? Does this not apply in jazz? Help!
-
03-01-2011 03:47 AM
-
Hi!
The three different minor scales we talk about here are:
Natural: 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 b7 8
Harmonic: 1 2 b3 4 5 b6 7 8
Melodic: 1 2 b3 4 5 6 7 8
Melodic minor is the one that changes. Ascending you play 1 2 b3 4 5 6 7 8, but descending you play the natural minor: 8 b7 b6 5 4 b3 2 1. Hope that helps a bit.
I'm new to jazz, so I can't really be sure wether this applies to jazz, but hopefully someone else can clear this out
/Laurits
-
Laurits is right.
There's another melodic minor scale, the one Kojo27 was referring to, also called "bachian" (from J. S. Bach) or "jazz" or "real melodic" (this is the way William Leavitt calls it), that is just a melodic minor scale that is played in the same way both ascending and descending (1 2 b3 4 5 6 7 8 7 6 5 4 b3 2 1)Last edited by Fidelcaster; 03-01-2011 at 07:55 AM.
-
Yes, the melodic minor is different when descending (natural minor, as has been said) in traditional classical harmony.
For the purposes of getting a jazz feel, the "jazz melodic minor" is often used, and that is the same going up as it is down: think of a major scale with the 3rd degree lowered. It's often used over altered chords.
When the term "melodic minor" is used in a forum such as this, assume it means the jazz melodic minor. That's not to suggest the natural, "classical" melodic and harmonic scales (and related chords) are not used in jazz. All three are often mixed together in the same song:
The melody of "Beautiful Love" uses a variety of raised/lowered 6ths and 7ths to give it shape and motion, it's in D melodic minor (traditional not jazz melodic). Notice when the melody rises it uses natural 6th and sharp 7th, and when it falls it uses the natural (aeolian) minor so the 6th and 7th are lowered.
On top of this the guy in the vid sometimes uses Bb melodic minor to improvise over the A7 chord (making it altered). When he does he plays it the same up as down (jazz melodic).
I hope this goes some way to showing the difference between the two melodic minor scales. To get a better idea I would recommend getting the lead sheet for the song, it's in most real books.
It's a great tune
Last edited by Nick0783; 03-01-2011 at 09:11 AM.
-
IMO, you should ignore the BS about a scale using one set of notes ascending and another descending. You will never find a piece of music based on the minor scale employed in that fashion. Composers use all sorts of variation of 6ths and 7ths. Listen to the music, not the BS.
Originally Posted by Kojo27
-
+1 (Actually, +100 if I can do that without receiving a forum violation) Originally Posted by Aristotle
It does not apply in jazz, so don't let it bother you.
-
Originally Posted by paynow
Thanks for giving me a laugh.
-
Yes, as mentioned, in jazz, we use the "jazz minor" (melodic minor the same ascending and descending) most often--which isn't to say you can't ascend one way and descend another--but that's something your ears tell you, not a "rule" that has to be "followed."
You'll see those terms used interchangably in jazz circles, "Melodic Minor" and "Jazz Minor." Same scale: 1 2 b3 4 5 6 7, ascending and descending.
What's with the 8's guys? Confusing for beginners, dontcha think? These are seven note scales...save the 8's for those goofy bebop scales no bebop players ever thought about.
As for that homespun tape, if someone really said that about harmonic minor, that's a pretty big gaffe to leave in, IMHO.
-
You're welcome. Your posts have a great deal of practical sense contained in them. Originally Posted by Aristotle
Thanks for giving me a laugh.
-
Are you sure you don't have me confused with someone else? Originally Posted by paynow
You're welcome. Your posts have a great deal of practical sense contained in them. You are surely expressing what seems to be a minority viewpoint.
Maybe if I go one step further out on the limb, I can provoke some controversy. The Opening Poster is talking about a book of scales , from which, I would think, someone would use for practice and excercise.
If you look at the beautiful song - which I am thankfully rediscovering - from the composer of Stella linked by Nick:
It is a ballad in which there are two quarter-note raised 6 and 7, and only one other non-diatonic melody note. It would be, IMO, an unfortunate waste for someone to spend years practicing scale excercises anticipating the need to whiz up one way and down another that just isn't there in the jazz repetoire.
-
As I've explained before, the whole "ascending" and "descending" thing had to do with how the scales were practiced, not how they were used in composition. In composition the decision to use the b6, 6, b7, or 7 had more to do with harmonic function and the contour of the line. And as I've said before, it is incorrect to think that people like Bach thought of these as different scales - they were all same scale (minor) that had 2 notes that could be inflected depended on need. To Bach, the idea that these were different scales would have been a ridiculous idea. This whole "natural," "harmonic," and "melodic" business came later, probably just for the purpose of practicing.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of people spreading a lot of misinformation about the melodic minors. This is compounded by teachers who know better but give a simplified explanation for beginners and then many people never get beyond that basic theory.
But of course in jazz we don't have to worry about any of that. That's why I prefer the term "jazz minor," it avoids any confusion. Even if you use the term "melodic minor," in jazz you simply assume that it is the same in either direction.
Peace,
Kevin
-
even in jazz improv---check out hank mobley's solo on nica's dream, for example. Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
(as my old theory prof would say "there aren't three minor scales, there's just the minor scale...")
-
I'm not saying that a person can't inflect the scale differently in jazz, just that it isn't the typical approach. Originally Posted by randalljazz
Peace,
Kevin
-
Cheers for that Aristotle.
I'm pleased to discover that Beautiful Love was written by the same person as Stella, the latter particularly never ceases to amaze me when I hear or play it.
Both are brilliantly tuneful and ingeniously harmonised.
Having just looked him up, I wasn't surprised to find Victor Young had a classical background before bestowing his gems on the jazz world. I wonder, though, if he hadn't aquainted himself with the tonal/harmonic variety offered by the various minor scales, we might have been deprived of a bunch of classic songs, at the very least they would have sounded less colourful.
I suppose the one of the ways to convey the various uses of "the minor scale" is to have a number of different scales with different names. I agree it must seem daunting to someone at first, and there is the danger of seeming to be putting the cart before the horse, so that the novice thinks: "do I have to learn this before I can make music? does music come from scales?". This is obviously not right, but a decent tutor/author should always encourage attention back to the actual tunes, using theory only as a means to an end.
For myself, I often noodle around the harmonic minor when jamming with a minor tune. That sort of becomes my home key, then use the melodic minor on altered or ii7b5 chords.
But I guess it's about priorities, if some one wants to learn guitar to play mainly jazz blues or fusion they may find the melodic/harmonic question a confusing distraction to their main purpose.
I tend to think of chords/scales/cadences etc. as theoretical crutches to support someone as they learn the real stuff (actual music), after a while they won't need them, but it's still good to know they are there.
-
On the first question, I'd say you have learn it. Not for the names. You should be able to sing and use the basic four different combinations of 6ths and 7ths. Singing those minor scales takes a lot of practice (and almost surely some coaching in my opinion). Lot of interesting sounds in those combintations. Originally Posted by Nick0783
Scales come from music and music comes from scales. Perhpas the problem with referring to a pitch collection as a scale is that it implies or some infer a sequential order.
Hopefully you'll find a way to make it all come together.I tend to think of chords/scales/cadences etc. as theoretical crutches to support someone as they learn the real stuff (actual music), after a while they won't need them, but it's still good to know they are there.
-
Originally Posted by Aristotle
Funny you should mention singing, I believe that's why the ascending melodic minor came into being in the first place: because in practice the natural 6 and 7 where easier to sing than the b6 of the harmonic.
Anyhow, like you said there's loads of variations that defy the rigid pattern of the scales. Nature Boy is one that springs to mind, and any number of minor tunes with descending chromatic basslines ( My funny valentine, It don't mean a thing etc.).
Learning new tunes is the best way to understand jazz I reckon.
Yeah, I think scales can imply a sequential order that is rarely found in practice. I usually try and practice scales with an ear to the chords of the tune, and make it interesting by inventing new sequences and varying the note values (e.g. triplets quavers, to semi quavers, to triplet crotchets etc.). Anything to keep it loose
-
Originally Posted by Nick0783
Having sung in vocal ensembles that did a lot of of Baroque and I never noticed a difference in difficulties. I never had any problem singing the b6. In fact Bach's tendency to lead from the 7 to the b6 was one of my favorite gestures.
Additionally, it's origin is well understood, in medieval practice it was to avoid harmonic tritones and melodic A2s and to create leading tones. In Baroque practice it had to do mostly with harmonic function.
Peace,
Kevin
-
HOLY MOLY - Thanks to *all* of you - what wonderful, thoughtful, intelligent responses. This more than answered my questions about these up and down minor scales -- although I'm amazed that Homespun Tapes would let such a big blooper stay right in the middle of one of their most popular videos... this is the Jim Croce video, and Pete Huttlinger is teaching "Time in a Bottle," talking on and on about one of the real hooks in that tune, the acoustic guitar segment that is a minor scale harmonized in 6ths, I think. And it does indeed go up the neck using one set of notes, only to come back down using another - the 6th degree being different I'm sure, and maybe the 7th as well.
But he repeatedly calls it "harmonic minor."
In fairness, however, he's making up a scenario for how that part might have made it into the song (the string section plays it, too), and it's clear that this hypothesized scenario wasn't planned or written, so I suppose Pete's allowed to screw up in the heat of his storytelling invention. He sure can play guitar - wowzer. His "I Got Rhythm" chord melody makes me sweat just watching him do it.
I've spent a good part of the day listening to "Beautiful Love" - what a great tune that is.
Aristotle: the Jay Friedman book *is* for drilling scale fingerings, and melodic sequences derived from them, into the player's fingers and ears. And I'll be damned if he doesn't have the student plays the ascending and descending melodic minor scale, in thirds, in groups of four, in endless melodic snippets, repeated up, then back down -- as he does with the major scale fingerings, pentatonics, all of them. So you're right: it is, and was, a waste! I can ascend and descend with the best of them now, but WHY? And the most amazing, nay terrible, thing is that Friedman is a JAZZ PLAYER.
Haha!
Thank all of you very much. I love this forum.
Kojo
-
[quote=ksjazzguitar;127720]
Having sung in vocal ensembles that did a lot of of Baroque and I never noticed a difference in difficulties. I never had any problem singing the b6. In fact Bach's tendency to lead from the 7 to the b6 was one of my favorite gestures.
Additionally, it's origin is well understood, in medieval practice it was to avoid harmonic tritones and melodic A2s and to create leading tones. In Baroque practice it had to do mostly with harmonic function.
Peace,
That's interesting.
I just had a quick look through a Bach prelude for Lute in E minor and he is sharping, flatting and naturaling all over the place. No obvious adherence to a particular minor scale pattern.
The natural 6 and 7 are obviously a smoother run up to the tonic than b6 to 7. I guess it wouldn't pose much of a problem to practiced singers but I imagine it would at least have been considered easier on the ear back then and less suggestive of diablo en musica...
-
Kojo:
It's a peasure. Cheers for letting me know about Pete Huttlinger, I'm always on the look out for new jazz fingerstyle players.
-
I have heard that said. I wonder if people who grew up in Turkey would say the same thing. Originally Posted by Nick0783
In the key we've been using, Dm, I don't see anything particularly difficult about A-Bb-A-G-F-E-D. Alternating that with A-B-A-G-F-E-D, and other more complex switching excercises can give you good headache.
Anyone practing by singing into his electronic tuner?
Last edited by Aristotle; 03-02-2011 at 07:38 AM.
-
Some interesting takes on it in this post:
Melodic Minor Ascending Vs Descending
Similar to what it says in a Hal Leonard theory book I have.
-
Again that is because Bach didn't think of them as "patterns." I think that analyzing Bach takes more than a "quick look" if you want to understand it. In order to understand what Bach was doing, you'd have to do a real analysis. Originally Posted by Nick0783
We had this out in another thread What does Mark Levine mean by a triangle with a line under it?. Here some material that used from the noted Bach scholar, Thomas Benjamin:
Can we call that settled?To quote Thomas Benjamin from The Craft of Tonal Counterpoint (i.e., CP in the style of Bach):
A more thorough elaboration can be seen in his explanation of the 6th and 7th degrees in minor in general:The melodic minor is used most often with tonic harmony, the melodic harmonic or ascending melodic minor with dominant, and the natural minor with the other diatonic triads ... [p.21]
These were of course not some list of rules that Bach kept handy from reference - he just wrote what sounded good to his Baroque ear. These were "rules" that were inferred from analyzing his work.In the Bach style (and in tonal music generally), the minor scale is used in specific, restricted ways, depending on factors of line and harmony.- The leading tone [raised 7th] is used to lead up to the tonic note, especially when the underlying harmony is dominant or tonic. It may also be used as part of a scale leading down from the tonic to the submediant, when dominant harmony is implied.
- The subtonic [b7] usually leads down from the tonic to submediant, as in the natural minor scale, when the underlying harmony is not dominant. The subtonic is almost never used as a lower neighbor to the tonic (except, rarely, with subdominant harmony.)
- The raised submediant [raised 6th] is used to lead up to the leading tone (as in ascending melodic minor), or as part of a descending line following the leading tone (avoiding the A2), associated with dominant harmony. It is almost never used as an upper neighbor to the dominant [5th scale degree].
- The submediant (as in natural minor) [b6] leads down to the dominant note. It may follow the leading tone (creating an A2) or the subtonic, or may occur as an upper neighbor to the dominant.
- The A2 between the leading tone and the submediant (as in the harmonic minor) is occasionally used, normally descending in quick notes, and always with dominant harmony.[pp.12-20]
Then, on the subject of these not being separate scales, he says, "It is also possible to think in terms of the three conventional minor scale forms [i.e. natural, harmonic, melodic], though it must be understood that these have more theoretical than actual validity." In other words, we may see them as separate scales, but Bach didn't. There was just the minor scale and two of the tones were flexible.
Some more examples can come from medieval music. Of course, the music is not tonal, but it was common to raise the 6th or 7th in the Aeolian mode, or to raise the 7th or lower the 6th in the Dorian mode. The choice here has more to do with the flow of the line, possible cross-relations, and avoiding tritones.
Well, I was not a "practiced" singer. I have no singing training. I reluctantly had to sing in the vocal ensemble because of a scheduling conflict and it was the only ensemble I could fit in. (Obviously this wasn't the premier ensemble.) It was an ensemble that was open to the community so most of the people were not "pro" singers. We managed just fine. Originally Posted by Nick0783
The natural 6 and 7 are obviously a smoother run up to the tonic than b6 to 7. I guess it wouldn't pose much of a problem to practiced singers but I imagine it would at least have been considered easier on the ear back then and less suggestive of diablo en musica...
And you seem to have a misconception about Bach's vocal works - you seem to think that they were sung by the congregation. But this was a time when almost no one read music and he was often expected to write new material each week. The complicated stuff that Bach was writing was sung by the church choir, many of whom were his students in the Thomasschule (for example.) Whoever was singing his works, they were much better trained in singing than I am and were probably better trained than many singers today.
I checked out the link, and it seems to have a lot of the same misunderstandings that permeate non-scholarly discussions of the melodic minor. I don't know about the HL book, but I wouldn't hold my breath. HL doesn't publish academic works and I doubt that they consulted a Baroque scholar about minor scales. Don't get me wrong, HL publishes a lot of great books, but I don't really think of them as a source for nitty-gritty classical history. Originally Posted by paynow
Just as a general rule of thumb, any source that says or implies that classical music thought of these as different scales - they don't know what they're talking about and they're just repeating the simplistic explanation that they got in Theory 101. Until the end of the 19th century, there was only one minor scale.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 03-02-2011 at 12:37 PM.
-
It is unfortunate how much unecessary confusion this idea creates. Originally Posted by paynow
The only good part of the common advice for jazz players is that it doesn't apply, even if the reason is shaky.
-
Anyone believe that? Going once? Going twice? Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Reply With Quote
Mr Magic, guitar solo
Today, 05:45 AM in From The Bandstand