What does Mark Levine mean by a triangle with a line under it?

[Aristotle]

As far as the C something over Amin... When I'm hearing/playing the C something,

Is it OK if we call the the Reverse Pat Martino.

[ksjazzguitar]

Kevin I'm simply saying that the descending MM is an available tool for improvisation

True, it is an available tool. I just don't think that people should think that it must be that way. Typically it is not approached this way in jazz (and in classical it is much more complicated than simply "ascending" and "descending.") I think that it is easier just to say that you've switched to the natural minor, instead of thinking of it as the MM descending.

It's strange, sometimes with a tonic minor, I will go up with the MM and down with the Dorian. Bach occasionally did the same, so I'm in good company.

just because we call the ascending the "jazz minor" doesn't make it more or less exclusively "jazz."

No, but it does make a nice distinction. Since we tend to use it so much differently, and in so many different ways in jazz, it makes it clear what we are talking about. But either works.

Oddly enough, the guitarist I've heard with the most advanced use of Harmonic Minor is Yngwie Malmsteen, who has worked up a whole series of exercises to develop the use of the different modes of the HM.

John Stowell also does some stuff with him, covered on his videos. (Man, I should get a kick-back for all the times I plug him. )

I think the HM was devised because otherwise there was no way to include a Dom7 in the Minor keys.

That is how Bach used it most - for a viidim7 or a V7b9.

If anyone wants an example of a song in A minor which uses all these variants, how about "Greensleeves?"

Yeah, Greensleeves isn't the best example. There may be some arrangements that do something along those lines, but I don't think that the original did.

.

Of course, I already gave examples in another thread that Aristotle chose to ignore. They should all be available on imslp.org:

How about the first 2 beats of m.25 of Fugue 20 (Am) of WTC II. Can there be a clearer example? Are you suggesting that he modulated in 1 beat. No, he is clearly on i there (going to V7 in beat 3 with a suspension in the bass.)

How about the bass voice in m.39 of the Prelude 4 (C#m) from WTC II? Or the bass voice in m.19 in the Bm Mass? Clearly here it is changing because of harmonic function, from V to i - this may have been a more accurate analysis of how Bach thought of it. But he always felt free to do what sounded best.

Again, this is Bach and there are many examples in Bach. But again, part of the problem is that people are misunderstanding the "rule" when it comes to classical - it has little to do with "ascending" and "descending" but to harmonic function. To quote Thomas Benjamin from The Craft of Tonal Counterpoint (i.e., CP in the style of Bach):

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]

A more thorough elaboration can be seen in his explanation of the 6th and 7th degrees in minor in general:

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.)
3. 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].
4. 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.
5. 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]

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.

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.

I might suggest from the corpus of Palestrina:

The altus in mm.44-45 of Missa Repleatur os meum laude: Credo - here the notes are F#, G#, A, G, F - pretty clear.

The tenor quintus line in m.9 of Mass: Petra Sancta: Kyrie - the line is A, G#, A, G, F.

Looking at other composers:

The bass line in mm.21-25 in Bassini's La Moralita Armonica - it's interesting. It goes chromatically up and then down in nat min - (in G Dorian) D, Eb, E, F, F#, G, F, E, D.

The bass line in bar 4 of de la Guerre's Suite No. 3 in A Minor: Gavotte - the line is E, F#, G#, E (an interpolation in the line), A, G, F, E.

There are other examples, but what's the point - the anti-theory guerrillas don't even really care.

Ultimately the problem is that this is all based on a flawed assumption of what the "ascending" and "descending" mean - it was clearly not meant on a definition of how to use them. I suspect it had more with how to practice them. Going up one way and down another allowed the keyboardist to practice finding the notes. The ascending for needed the leading tone since it resolves to the tonic. After the resolution, it makes sense to come down in the natural minor. The other problem with coming down the melodic minor is that the 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 implies the major scale, and that b3 can be jarring to the ears (especially to baroque ears.) It just made sense to lower them on the way down. The harm min doesn't have this problem as it is clearly not a major scale.

So the fact that there are plenty of examples of the ascending mel min going down is irrelevant - it was never meant to mean that you assume that it means. And there are few examples of it running up the scale one way and down the other simply because running scales would be boring writing. Sure, some teachers teach it that way, but you can't impugn all of classical theory just because there are some bad teachers out there. I once had a teacher teach me that rivers flow south because south is "down" - does that impugn geography. No, it's just a bad teacher.

Can we please put this petty, baseless, uninformed, anti-theory sniping to rest? It's just what the scale is called, it doesn't mean that you have to play it that way.

Peace,
Kevin

[ksjazzguitar]

Kevin I'm simply saying that the descending MM is an available tool for improvisation

True, it is an available tool. I just don't think that people should think that it must be that way. Typically it is not approached this way in jazz (and in classical it is much more complicated than simply "ascending" and "descending.") I think that it is easier just to say that you've switched to the natural minor, instead of thinking of it as the MM descending.

It's strange, sometimes with a tonic minor, I will go up with the MM and down with the Dorian. Bach occasionally did the same, so I'm in good company.

just because we call the ascending the "jazz minor" doesn't make it more or less exclusively "jazz."

No, but it does make a nice distinction. Since we tend to use it so much differently, and in so many different ways in jazz, it makes it clear what we are talking about. But either works.

Oddly enough, the guitarist I've heard with the most advanced use of Harmonic Minor is Yngwie Malmsteen, who has worked up a whole series of exercises to develop the use of the different modes of the HM.

John Stowell also does some stuff with him, covered on his videos. (Man, I should get a kick-back for all the times I plug him. )

I think the HM was devised because otherwise there was no way to include a Dom7 in the Minor keys.

That is how Bach used it most - for a viidim7 or a V7b9.

If anyone wants an example of a song in A minor which uses all these variants, how about "Greensleeves?"

Yeah, Greensleeves isn't the best example. There may be some arrangements that do something along those lines, but I don't think that the original did.

.


.


.


Of course, I already gave examples in another thread that Aristotle chose to ignore. They should all be available on imslp.org:

How about the first 2 beats of m.25 of Fugue 20 (Am) of WTC II. Can there be a clearer example? Are you suggesting that he modulated in 1 beat. No, he is clearly on i there (going to V7 in beat 3 with a suspension in the bass.)

How about the bass voice in m.39 of the Prelude 4 (C#m) from WTC II? Or the bass voice in m.19 in the Bm Mass? Clearly here it is changing because of harmonic function, from V to i - this may have been a more accurate analysis of how Bach thought of it. But he always felt free to do what sounded best.

That first example, along with the Bouree from the lute suite are smoking guns. Aristotle simply claimed that he couldn't find the first example, but since we know he thinks he is a Bach scholar (at least he said that his is a much better Bach analyzer than me, despite the years I've devoted to it) then we know that he knows what "WTC II" means - any undergrad music student knows that - so he must have been just avoiding the evidence. (If some of you are worried about my "tone" offending Aristotle, don't worry; he keeps saying he never reads past the first sentence of my posts.)

Again, this is Bach and there are many examples in Bach. But again, part of the problem is that people are misunderstanding the "rule" when it comes to classical - it has little to do with "ascending" and "descending" but to harmonic function. To quote Thomas Benjamin from The Craft of Tonal Counterpoint (mostly he's dealing with CP in the style of Bach):

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]

A more thorough elaboration can be seen in his explanation of the 6th and 7th degrees in minor in general:

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.

1. 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.
2. 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.)
3. 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].
4. 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.
5. 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]

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.

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.

I might suggest from the corpus of Palestrina:

The altus in mm.44-45 of Missa Repleatur os meum laude: Credo - here the notes are F#, G#, A, G, F - pretty clear.

The tenor quintus line in m.9 of Mass: Petra Sancta: Kyrie - the line is A, G#, A, G, F.

Looking at other composers:

The bass line in mm.21-25 in Bassini's La Moralita Armonica - it's interesting. It goes chromatically up and then down in nat min - (in G Dorian) D, Eb, E, F, F#, G, F, E, D.

The bass line in bar 4 of de la Guerre's Suite No. 3 in A Minor: Gavotte - the line is E, F#, G#, E (an interpolation in the line), A, G, F, E.

There are other examples, but what's the point - the anti-theory guerrillas don't even really care. They just want to disrupt theory conversations by trolling.

Ultimately the problem is that this is all based on a flawed assumption of what the "ascending" and "descending" mean - it was clearly not meant on a definition of how to use them. I suspect it had more with how to practice them. Going up one way and down another allowed the keyboardist to practice finding the notes. The ascending for needed the leading tone since it resolves to the tonic. After the resolution, it makes sense to come down in the natural minor. The other problem with coming down the melodic minor is that the 8, 7, 6, 5, 4 implies the major scale, and that b3 can be jarring to the ears (especially to baroque ears - The harm min doesn't have this problem as it is clearly not a major scale.) It just made sense to lower them on the way down - it was gentler on the ears and a good way to practice all the notes of the minor scale.

So the fact that there are plenty of examples of the ascending mel min going down is irrelevant - it was never meant to mean that you assume that it means. And there are few examples of it running up the scale one way and down the other simply because running scales would be boring writing. Sure, some teachers teach it that way, but you can't impugn all of classical theory just because there are some bad teachers out there. I once had a teacher teach me that rivers flow south because south is "down" - does that impugn geography. No, it's just a bad teacher. Or (in the case of mel min) they are just making a generalization instead of going into a 2 hour explanation that the student isn't ready for anyway. But for those of us that continued on in our studies, it is all made clear in the end.

Can we please put this petty, baseless, uninformed, anti-theory sniping to rest? It's just what the scale is called, it doesn't mean that you have to play it that way. You complain about how classical theory labels it but don't make the slightest effort to actually understand what it really means. It's like complaining about a movie you've never seen.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

It seems that some don’t know the difference between 'being anti-theory '(whatever that is) and anti BAD theory; the difference between sound theory versus dogma and pseudo-scholarship.

How does it work, do you start with a “theory” (like, Cats are green) and then look around desperately for traces of evidence (even calling cats green when they aren’t, or erroneously pointing to frogs); or do you do diligent research first, establish a theory that explains the whole of was found, and then publish the research? So where is te original study for us to peer review?

Does s a “theory” explain 2% or even 10% of something correctly, while being wrong about the other 90-98%? If you had a theory of driving that only explained 2% of driving, how far would you travel before crashing?

The fact remains – that is, for those who like “musical facts” – there is no example of a sustained use of the so-called “classical” split scale. A 3-note phrase here, a 6-note phrase there - out of several centuries of music. Is three notes a “scale” now? Even if we accept all these little three and four-note examples here as valid, what does he have? 30 second of music out of centuries of composition?

If Charlie Parker used a small part of “Scale X” 2% of the time in minor blues, which statement would be the correct theory of Parker’s playing?
- Parker used this scale, so it should b called The Parker Scale.
- Parker’s music hardly ever uses Scale X, therefore it is inaccurate and a bad theory to call it the Parker Scale.

"there are many examples in Bach"
Really? I’d say there are few. Because every time you can find two beats that seem to fit the dogma, in the same piece, you can find more that don’t.

"here the notes are F#, G#, A, G, F - pretty clear."
Wow. Five entire notes in five centuries. Alert the media.


"It goes chromatically up and then down in nat min - (in G Dorian) D, Eb, E, F, F#, G, F, E, D."
That ascending line is not Melodic Minor (or Dorian).

The evidence is clear: classical music hardly ever uses the Jeckyl and Hyde scale. Think about it, suppose someone said: there is no significant evidence that Beethoven used the V7 chord, that Pat Martino uses chromatic passing tones. How many examples would there be to disprove the statements? What percentage of the music would affirm and reject the proposition? This is actually more about common sense than music, isn't it.

[Reg]

Is it OK if we call the the Reverse Pat Martino.

Hey My ideas have been called much worse...I might get out of the closet if I watch my Ps and Qs... then again I'm sort of use to the dark side...Reg

[Aristotle]

Hey My ideas have been called much worse

I know. And like an opera, each entrace is preceded by his theme song.
Gb min - Eb min - Gb min.

I can name that tune in_______
Two chords.

[fumblefingers]

holy shit! what do we all think of the implications of the Egyptian, Yemeni, and Jordan uprisings? Oh well, nevermind. We probably wouldn't have any differences of opinion about that stuff anyway.

So, back to the horrific wars over chords and scales. Seems to me that:

1. There is theory and there is practice. Classical and Jazz, and traditonal vs. modern practices are different. So I suppose that you could say that the theories (derived from the practices) are too.

2. Theory has its limitations but is very useful for training aspiring musicians and composers. Listeners couldn't care less.

3. I don't remember my classical training very well by now, but it was similar to Kevin's. I didnt go as far with it however.

4. I learned the following Modern Harmony (jazz theory more like) regarding this chord as part of "the I Minor chord family" from Dick Grove:

CmiMa7 scale choices: MM (jazz version), then HM.
CmiMa9 scale choices: same
CmiMa11 scale choices: same
CmiMa13 - MM only.

So experiment with both sounds, except when playing the 13th chord. And also consider the chords that precede and follow this chord.

Since this was a "jazz theory" question i'll end by saying - carry on jazzers!

[Aristotle]

holy shit! what do we all think of the implications of the Egyptian, Yemeni, and Jordan uprisings?

It's the end of the world.

We have the musical Taliban right here, attacking the infidels and all who would bring impurity to the will and laws of the almighty Alla-Gretto.

[ksjazzguitar]

It seems that some don’t know the difference between 'being anti-theory '(whatever that is) and anti BAD theory; the difference between sound theory versus dogma and pseudo-scholarship.

Again, you are not disagreeing with me, but the entire music theory community. It is your supreme arrogance that allows you to think that you magically have figured out what no one else has in 500 years.

The fact remains – that is, for those who like “musical facts” – there is no example of a sustained use of the so-called “classical” split scale.

First of all, no one who knows what they are talking about is calling it a split scale! (At least not in terms of CPP practice.) You are superimposing that on music theory based on the modern understanding of scale. Again, I have twice provided quotes supporting the idea that to these guys, they were not two different scales but the same scale. But of course, you selectively ignore anything you don't like. The melodic minor practice pattern is just a way to go through the possible inflections.

You're accusing them of not using a scale in a way that they didn't think of it. Duh!!!

"there are many examples in Bach"
Really? I’d say there are few. Because every time you can find two beats that seem to fit the dogma, in the same piece, you can find more that don’t.

And how much are you going to pay me to go through 1000 hours of Bach music to search for your smoking guns?

And your search for examples of Bach running up one way and down the other is going to be hard, because he didn't think of the scale that way - he just thought of it as a minor scale with some possible chromatic inflections. To Bach (and most CPP composers - CPP = "common practice period", roughly the Baroque through the Romantic) the minor scale had 2 possible 6th scale degrees and 7th scale degrees.


[quote=Aristotle;121829]"It goes chromatically up and then down in nat min - (in G Dorian) D, Eb, E, F, F#, G, F, E, D."
That ascending line is not Melodic Minor (or Dorian).

The mode is G Dorian. Again, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how scales worked back then. You are superimposing how we think of scales onto them, known as the "Historian's Fallacy." This is a perfect example of how they thought of this scale as being flexible. In Dorian practice at this time, it was common to inflect the 6th down and the 7th up.

I miscounted the measures by the way, it should be 44-48. (I guess I'm deluding myself that anyone is actually going to check these.)

But what is the point of providing examples? First you said there were no examples. So I provided a few that you claimed you couldn't find. (Again, anyone as researched in Bach as you've claimed to be, knows what "WTC II" means and probably has a copy at home, or can find it in 100 places on the internet. Nice excuse to ignore the evidence.) So a few more examples are provided, and now your story changes, now the examples exist, but they aren't enough (you're assuming that those are the only examples.) What will be your excuse if we provided more examples?

The evidence is clear: classical music hardly ever uses the Jeckyl and Hyde scale.

Only you are saying that! And a few teachers who are either uninformed or too lazy to do the full explanation. Yes, there are a lot of jazz players out there who don't understand understand how these guys thought of scales. Why? Because too many (like you) don't like schools, they don't like books that aren't about jazz, and refuse to listen to anyone who knows what they are talking about. Unfortunately, there are a lot of jazz cats out there how get a tiny bit of classical theory and then think that they can pontificate on the subject - you seem to think that you can tear apart 500 years of theory done by 100 thousand scholars with no real education and 15 minutes of reflection.

You seem to prefer to argue against a strawman. You are arguing against the proposition "The melodic minor 'ascending' and 'descending' forms are two distinct scales." But no one who knows what they are talking about is saying that. People who know what they are talking about realize that (to CPP composers) they are just inflections of the parent scale. The whole "ascending" and "descending" thing has more to do with practicing to the best of my knowledge and was never meant for composition.

One last time, to these guys, the terms "natural minor," "harmonic minor," and "melodic minor" didn't exist. To my memory, those terms didn't exist until the 19th century (if I'm off on that, someone please let me know), and were probably just split up for people to practice piano scales. They really weren't thought of as compositionally different scales until the 20th century. To most CPP guys, there is just one minor scale, with two notes that are chromatically alterable. In A minor, the 6th scale degree was F or F#, and the 7th scale degree was G or G#. Neither was the "correct" 6th or 7th, there were two possibilities. You will never understand the classical conception of minor until you understand this paragraph. You are just confusing yourself by superimposing your concept of minor scale on top of them. And you won't get this by asking your guitar teacher or reading Music Theory in Just 15 Minutes a Day! - you will only get it by reading real scholarship by real scholars. But you've already said that you distrust anyone who's done scholarship, so what's the point? The only source that seems to matter to you is, "Because Aristotle says so!." I fail to see anything resembling a citation by you.

It's like your going to an astronomy conference and stand up and scream "None of this means anything because planets don't orbit in circles." The astronomers look stunned, "But no one is saying that. No one has said that in hundreds of years." You reply, "I looked in a book and it had a picture of the solar system, and those orbits were circular!" The astronomers reply, "It was just a simplification - it wasn't meant to be taken that literally or meant to be a perfect representation." But you persist. Every time the astronomers try to discuss anything, you just stand on your chair and start screaming, "None of this means anything because planets don't orbit in circles!" The sad thing is that you think that it makes you the smartest person in the room.

But I'm through arguing this with you, we're just hijacking threads. Maybe I'll put together some info describing how CPP classical music really thinks of the minor scale, instead of Aristotle's cartoonish strawman. And what's the point of arguing with someone who seeks ignorance?

(Again, I don't have to worry about him being offended - he's repeatedly stated that he only reads the first sentence. Hmmm, maybe that's how he reads music theory books - OK, it's starting to make sense now. )

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

I asked people way more advanced than you, going back as far as before you were born. They couldn't come up with a signifcant, sustained example, either.

Again, you are not disagreeing with me, but the entire music theory community.

Two points.
1. You only speak for yourself. You just think your the Fuhrer. Your just lost in your own arrogance.
2. I am not disagreeing with you. You are disagreeing with the notes. Face it, you came up with nothing.

First of all, no one who knows what they are talking about is calling it a split scale!

Split scale Split scale Split scale Split scale

It's jazz. I'll improvise whatever name for it I please. It doesn't matter what it is called, because it isn't in the music anyway.

Oh, BTW, since there didn't appear of the samples I challenged your lame ass to come with, those are the only two sentences I read.

[ksjazzguitar]

...1. You only speak for yourself. You just think your the Fuhrer. Your just lost in your own arrogance.

No, I did not make this up. I even quoted a noted scholar on the subject. To say that "you only speak for yourself" is just away to try and avoid the evidence. You started your rant against MM before I joined in, so how can it be just me? No, it is every scholar whose every written on the CPP use of minor - I've already quoted two. Just find one quote by a scholar or a primary source that contradicts it. But you can't. I may be the only on in this forum who is arguing. But that is simply because so many here do not have a solid background in classical theory and those that do are (perhaps wisely) are staying out of it. This forum does not define the body of scholarship of classical music theory. You need to look beyond your narrow focus if you want to see that. Just saying, "You only speak for yourself." doesn't mean anything if it is contradicted by the facts. It is just a dodge. It is an ad hominem attack attempting to divert attention.

You say, "I asked people way more advanced than you, going back as far as before you were born. They couldn't come up with a signifcant, sustained example, either."

Number one, you are just making this up. (Sorry, but I've caught you making "facts" up before and called you out on it.) Find me one respected scholar that says that the CPP composers thought of the minor as a split scale. You can't, because you're making this up. Making up "scholarly friends that prove that I'm right" is all too easy. And yet you fail to cite one written scholarly source. Just cite one scholarly source that says what you say that it's saying about CPP minor theory, and I will join your fight! You can be the leader! But you can't because this is all imaginary.

And you are still asking the wrong question. Your question is based on you ignorance on the subject. It's like I took you to the zoo and pointed out the Tasmanian Devil. But you scream, "That can't be the Tasmanian Devil - he doesn't spin around in a mini tornado chasing cartoon rabbits! That's what they do! I saw it on TV! Every zoologist says that! This whole zoo is a fraud! You can't find me one Tasmanian Devil that spins around in a mini tornado chasing cartoon rabbits - therefore the Tasmanian Devil is just a myth! Anyone who says the Tasmanian Devil exists is an elitist snob! Anyone who tells me I'm uninformed is having an insulting tone!" But the fundamental problem is your cartoonish definition that you are trying to superimpose on zoology. But whenever anyone tries to explain that to you, you put your hands over your ears and start screaming "La, la, la, la" and change the subject as quickly as possible, claiming victory.

You have all these cartoonish definitions (in this and other threads) that are just based on ignorance and an unwillingness to do even the most basic research. Then you throw a hissy-fit because your cartoonish definitions don't make sense and you blame everyone else. No, the fault is yours. Again, you fail to find one example of CPP theory saying what you say that it says. Find me one scholarly source and you put this all to rest - but you can't because it's all in your head.

2. I am not disagreeing with you. You are disagreeing with the notes. Face it, you came up with nothing.

No, you're disagreeing with an artificial definition. You are trying to put into my mouth (and the mouth of tonal theory) a definition that we don't want. Then you pretend to prove it wrong.

If you have anything even resembling a point it is that a lot of teachers out there are misrepresenting (or at least oversimplifying) classical theory. Ironically, that has been one of my crusades on here, to fight against that, and you are one of the main people trying to stop it. But you want the misunderstanding to persist so you can have something to complain about. But this is mainly the fault of amateur theorists and teachers pretending to know more than they do - every classical teacher that I've had has explained the complex nature of minor, rather than your simplistic "split scale" theory. If you really understood what was going on here, you wouldn't have anything to complain about. But you willfully ignore the facts to keep yourself in a state where you can complain about your imaginary problems. You are fighting to keep the misunderstandings and to put them into the mouths of everyone so that you can have a bigger audience for your uninformed whining.

It's jazz. I'll improvise whatever name for it I please. It doesn't matter what it is called, because it isn't in the music anyway.

But you're changing the subject. You weren't talking about jazz. You were trying to say that 500 years of classical music theory was wrong because they didn't fit your wrong definition. But they are not responsible for your misunderstandings - you and your self-professed anti-scholarship stance are. Again, you aren't really anti-scholarship, just that the only evidence you accept is "because Aristotle says so."

But this is what you do, when you get cornered, you try to change the subject.

And you keep avoiding the subject that their concept of minor was very different than our - they didn't think of 3 different scales. Anyone who says otherwise doesn't know what they are talking about. There is a mountain of evidence to support this and nothing to contradict this. I've provided a few examples (Grove and Benjamin) in this and other threads, but you have yet to cite one source, except for your imaginary friends and the "because Aristotle says so" defense.

Oh, BTW, since there didn't appear of the samples I challenged your lame ass to come with, those are the only two sentences I read.

So now I know you're lying because that means that you didn't look. That first Bach example (Fugue 20, WTC II) is an example of running up the scale one way and down another. It (in the bass) goes A B C D E F# G# A and then (switching voices) down C B A G F E D C. (Why are there not more examples as clear as this? Because it would be boring writing.) You just proved yourself a liar once again - you never looked. And every one of those examples are good examples. If anyone doubts that Aristotle is lying, check for yourself.

But life's to short to deal with liars. Dealing with the epistemologically challenged anti-theory guerrillas is bad enough, but when they start making things up, what is the point? I guess we can agree on one thing, I am a fool if I think that there is a chance of making you see reason. You don't want to see reason, you just want to argue about imaginary problems in theory.

Later, we can start a separate thread. I'll find some more scholarly sources you can ignore. You can make up some more "evidence" that you won't provide.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Again, you are not disagreeing with me, but the entire music theory community.

The music theory community? ROTFLMAO
And where is that community located, fantasy land? A room with padded walls?

Here is nice little paper you might like. Unlike the barrage of mentally unhinged mumbo-jumbo one finds in your posts, this is actual reviewable research.

Looks like this author didn't just check a half-measure here or there.

Excerpt:

"There is some disagreement among theoreticians as to the application of the melodic minor scale in tonal music. It has usually been taught that the sixth and seventh degrees are raised in the ascending form and lowered in the descending form. Examination of music literature of the eighteenth century and particularly that of J. S. Bach shows, however, that the melodic minor scale has exhibited the raised sixth and seventh in both ascending and descending forms, with the use of natural minor in both directions also."

Remember when you said it was my extreme arrogance to think I had figured something that no one else figured out in 500 years? What arrogance? As this paper shows, others figured it out. Besides, 500 years ago, no one heard of this, because the music hadn't been written yet. Do you ever get anything right?


BTW, I didn't read your last post. I have you on ignore, now. That's why I quoted in the same stupid sentence I responded to before.

[Ron Stern]

This is Mr. Levine's explanation, footnote 43 on p. 57:

In classical theory there are two melodic minor scales, one played ascending and another played descending. Because the descending melodic minor scale is identical to the Aeloian mode of the major scale, jazz musicians think of the ascending scale as "the melodic minor scale."

So jazz musicians don't use the melodic minor descending, they just say they do? Why? What they mean is that they're using the Aeloian mode, they just call it something else, because . . . they're sado-masochistic?

I really can't comment on the full range of implications of this passage. On its face it's bogus. One scale with two names is not two scales, and one name is unjustified.

Meanwhile, if the melodic minor (the real one) is also a mode, is it a special kind of mode that can only be played ascending? If you harmonize it, can the chords only be in a progression where the roots ascend?

In other professions, to use neologisms without explanation is to instantly incur the assumption that you're incompetent if not a fraud. What if a surgeon decides on his own name for "sternum"? If you have an explanation, you should have whipped it out already. Meanwhile I'm stuck on page 57 dreading the thought of proceeding on an incorrect understanding.

One thing, one name. Seems like a good idea to me to put it all into "the" minor scale and then deal with the permutations of the extra notes individually. Why is it useful to have more scale names? And by the way, what is the point of calling the melodic minor scale "the minor-major mode"? It's true that the first chord will be a minor-major chord (i.e. C-with-a-triangle-with-a-line-under-it). So what?

In any case, it would seem the book should be re-named. It's not "The Jazz Theory Book", it's "A Jazz Theory Book".

[Reg]

So Mark was using slang notation for Min/maj scale of MM. I'm sure we've all seen triangles used for Maj7 chords, I admit when I'm scratching out changes, I use the devil triangle all the time. And his use of symbol has no reference to centuries old contrapuntal practice of Maj and Min modes. Simply reflecting a chordal structure constructed from collection of pitches called Jazz or melodic minor for the last 50 years in jazz circles.
God I just tried it... it's very quick... oh no I think I'm going to start using it... in the privacy of my office off course... I can't wait to see him at a gig.... of course... I'll say I've been using the symbol for centuries... that should get me a free beer... Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

...Looks like this author didn't just check a half-measure here or there. ...

Great, an undergrad thesis.

Of course, he never mentions any of these "theoreticians" by name or quotes a source. Sometimes thesis writers, especially inexperienced ones, will exaggerate the opposition as a framing devise for their paper. This is an undergrad paper so the bar wasn't that high. Any good paper would have had quotes stating the opposition. This has none, because his opposition are not scholarly theoreticians, but amateur ones and teachers too lazy to give the full explanation.

This is your scholarly source? Some undergrad paper you found on Google?

And of course, if you'd read on, you'd see that his description of Bach's use of this scale is what I said.

Remember when you said it was my extreme arrogance to think I had figured something that no one else figured out in 500 years? What arrogance? As this paper shows, others figured it out. Besides, 500 years ago, no one heard of this, because the music hadn't been written yet. Do you ever get anything right?

The raising and lowering of the 6th and 7th scale degrees predates Bach and goes back to modal practice. I even provided you with Palestrina examples. But the practice even predates him, some have it going back to the 12th century in musica ficta. Ironic isn't it? You're desperate attempt to paint me as ignorant actually reveals your own lack of musical knowledge. For someone who paints himself as some autodidactic musical theory/history genius, ready to take on the whole musical establishment, you sure got some big holes in your background.

But hey, why look up your facts? You can just make them up and when someone tells you they're wrong, you can just put your hands over your ears and scream, "La, la, la, la, la - I'm not listening - la, la, la!" Really, the "I'm not reading your posts but I will continue to respond the them" tactic? Really?

This is Mr. Levine's explanation, footnote 43 on p. 57:....

Yeah, right off the bat, "In classical theory there are two melodic minor scales..." is wrong on two counts. In classical (at least in CPP, usually what people mean when they say "classical") there was only one minor scale and "melodic minor" didn't exist as a separate scale.

Levine's explanation is just the standard short cut explanation that people who don't understand the CPP concept of minor give. It probably refers more to how pianists practice the scale than any compositional aspect. Again, for Bach, there was no such thing as the "melodic minor scale" - there was just minor in all it's inflections.

I don't blame Levine. He either doesn't have a deep background in CPP compositional practice, or he know and is just passing on the standard explanation because he doesn't want to provide ten pages of background.

I assume Levine is a smart and reasonable guy and if we showed him some more scholarly definitions and some examples, he'd agree that that definition is a gross oversimplification. But his real goal wasn't to explain how classical cats think of minor, but to show how jazz cats use that scale that evolved from (widely perceived) classical practice.

So jazz musicians don't use the melodic minor descending, they just say they do? Why?

I'm not aware that many jazz musicians use the ascending and descending forms. I'm sure a few do, but it is not standard practice. When a jazz musician says "melodic minor" he means the "ascending form" in both directions - even the classical guys are not saying that you can't play it in both directions. I like the term "jazz minor" because it avoids confusion, but MM is fine as long as you remember that it means different things to different people.

In other professions, to use neologisms without explanation is to instantly incur the assumption that you're incompetent if not a fraud.

OK, you are my new hero. If only I'd had you in some previous debates. Careful, being my hero might sound like a good thing, but it can actually get you attacked around here.

One thing, one name. Seems like a good idea to me to put it all into "the" minor scale and then deal with the permutations of the extra notes individually. Why is it useful to have more scale names?

Well, in classical, that is how it was before the 20th century. But I do think that there is an advantage to having different names. In jazz we use scales very differently than they did in CPP practice so it makes sense that we would label them differently.

We think of these as separate scales so they should have different names. If we didn't we would have to say, "To get the alterred scale, you play the minor scale a half step up and chromatically inflect chromatically upwards the 6th and 7th scale degrees relative to the minor root that is a half step up." It is much easier to say, "To get the altered scale, play the melodic minor a half step up." Jazz people know that it will have the raised 6th and 7th in both directions.

In any case, it would seem the book should be re-named. It's not "The Jazz Theory Book", it's "A Jazz Theory Book".

Yeah, but all theory books are just "a theory book." They are just theories. I think Levine's book is a good book, even if I don't agree with all of it. But it does a good job of documenting some of the most popular ways to approach these subjects.

The choice of article ("a" or "the") is just marketing.

Peace,
Kevin

[fumblefingers]

This is Mr. Levine's explanation, footnote 43 on p. 57:



So jazz musicians don't use the melodic minor descending, they just say they do? Why? What they mean is that they're using the Aeloian mode, they just call it something else, because . . . they're sado-masochistic?

I really can't comment on the full range of implications of this passage. On its face it's bogus. One scale with two names is not two scales, and one name is unjustified.

Meanwhile, if the melodic minor (the real one) is also a mode, is it a special kind of mode that can only be played ascending? If you harmonize it, can the chords only be in a progression where the roots ascend?

In other professions, to use neologisms without explanation is to instantly incur the assumption that you're incompetent if not a fraud. What if a surgeon decides on his own name for "sternum"? If you have an explanation, you should have whipped it out already. Meanwhile I'm stuck on page 57 dreading the thought of proceeding on an incorrect understanding.

One thing, one name. Seems like a good idea to me to put it all into "the" minor scale and then deal with the permutations of the extra notes individually. Why is it useful to have more scale names? And by the way, what is the point of calling the melodic minor scale "the minor-major mode"? It's true that the first chord will be a minor-major chord (i.e. C-with-a-triangle-with-a-line-under-it). So what?

In any case, it would seem the book should be re-named. It's not "The Jazz Theory Book", it's "A Jazz Theory Book".

a music theory professor might suggest to rename it that way. a marketing professor would suggest to leave it as is.

[Aristotle]

I'll say I've been using the symbol for centuries... that should get me a free beer... Reg

Or a formaldehyde. Cheers.

[Ron Stern]

a music theory professor might suggest to rename it that way. a marketing professor would suggest to leave it as is.

So we're all just so many sheep to be shorn, eh?

[ksjazzguitar]

I actually like the triangle. So many people are using "M7" for major 7 and "m7" for minor 7, that it can sometimes be a little confusing. This is especially true for hand-written charts or even finale charts where people use that "RB" font where all the letters are camel case (lowercase are just small uppercase) - with the flourish of the font, I find it hard to tell the difference in a dark club and a fast chart. The nice thing about the triangle is that it cannot be confuse for anything else. That frees me up to guiltlessly use the "m" for minor - I would use "-" but for some reason, "B-7b5" looks strange to me. For minor Maj 7, I use "m" then a "triangle" then a "7." I've never had anyone who was confused by it, but "mM7" is common too.

It would be nice if all this was standardized, but that ain't going to happen anytime soon. I think that we just need to be familiar with the different ways and usually you can figure out what is going on withing 5 seconds. Sometimes you see something strange. Some people use the "7" with a line through the middle for "Maj7" and I ran accross a chart where "add" notes were in parentheses. So, "C(9)" was "Cadd9" and not "C9" - that was confusing at first. But I think as long as people stick within the standard options and doesn't start making up their own system, things should be OK.

Peace,
Kevin

[Ron Stern]

For the record, a triangle-with-a-line-through-it is the same as a triangle-with-a-line-in-front-of-it, i.e., X major-minor. See p. 58.

Off the top of my head, the triangle is good for writing by hand, and likely to be unavailable when using a computer.

[Aristotle]

So we're all just so many sheep to be shorn, eh?

Or bulls ready to charge, if its "the" source.

[Reg]

There is a standard that is used by most music programs, keyboards and fakebooks etc...
"Standard Chord Symbol Notation" by Clinton Roemer and Carl Brandt in mid 70's, I picked it up in LA years as reference for work. You might want to pick one up. The one detail that always drove me nuts was use of #5 on Dom. chords when clearly was b13... but most don't get it anyway... so who cares. But was a little more useful than Maj. and Min. with permutations and inflection.... sorry I couldn't help myself. I'm totally with Kevin on point about being aware of all notations... what really helps me is my understanding of jazz practice and being aware of what's implied by basic notation. It can get pretty plane Jane when guys simple play changes notated. But that's a different story... Hey Ron are you a jazz player... from your comments, I can't tell. not trying to be rude... just interested. Best Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

There is a standard that is used by most music programs, keyboards and fakebooks etc..."Standard Chord Symbol Notation" by Clinton Roemer and Carl Brandt in mid 70's...

I'm not aware that that is a "standard" - just putting the word "standard" in the title is not enough. The fact that we still see so many different ways of doing it tells us that there is not standard. It takes more than a few people calling something a "standard" - it needs to be a preponderance of the community. Just looking through my books, I see different systems being used. And the default that comes on my Finale certainly was quite different than what I'm used to seeing.

I'm not putting down the book, Reg, it may be wonderful. It sounds like these guys were trying to establish a standard (a noble goal) that never took over. So I think that we're far from having a standard. But we're both in agreement - just learn them all. Maybe someday they will agree on a standard.

Peace,
Kevin

[JonnyPac]

It seems like Levine is looking for a newspeak (1984) version of symbols. He uses C triangle 7 (Cmaj7) for C6/9 voicings in all of this examples though the 7th is not present. He really wants the symbol to indicate a chord-scale, but in the end he is totally misleading. Cmaj13 would imply the use of all the basic chord extensions... Cmaj13+11 would be Lydian... I have been using 13's in my symbols whenever possible because they are the most descriptive of the whole pool of notes that I use.

For the time being, just learn them all, and don't trust them entirely until you hear them in context or investigate deeper into the tune.

It gets ugly when they try to use ambiguous diatonic slash chords... Dm9/G also gets noted as Fmaj7/G and so on... or worse, Fmaj7/E gets called Esusb9 ("phrygian") or Dm6/9/E.

[ksjazzguitar]

I think he is just using the CMaj7 to indicate the chord type. The fact that he uses a 6/9 voicing there doesn't change the basic chord quality. In the same way, labelling a chord and C7 even though the piano player is playing a C9 isn't "misleading." It's common to just label the most basic harmony and not label every single chord voicing, especially when writing out something complicated.

Personally, I prefer it that way. I think that writers assume that if they give you the basic chord, that you can figure out what all the chord tones are. I have transcribed several chord solos and cannot even imagine how much more complicated it would be if I had to label every chord - I just put Dm7-G7-CMaj7 and trust that my reader can tell that that A# over the F7 is a #9. Sometimes the chord and/or voicing is changing every beat - to label it all would be ugly.

Peace,
Kevin