Ascending & Descending Minor Scales

[Kojo27]

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.

Hi Nick,

I wouldn't call Pete a jazz player, although he can play some jazz and can certainly arrange some cool chord melodies. He's more of "Thumb Picker" -- sort of Tommy Emmanuel's second cousin. He's one of the best in his genre, although I can't listen to that stuff for very long. "I Got Rhythm" is worth a listen; if you can find it on YouTube, go for it.

[ksjazzguitar]

Anyone believe that? Going once? Going twice?

I've never heard a scholar say otherwise. I defy you to find me a scholarly source that says otherwise. But you don't want to end this. You want to perpetuate the strawman that create by forcing words into music theorists mouths so that you can complain about them and use them as ammunition in your anti-theory guerrilla campaign. But anyone that has done real research into the subject (something beyond attending a first year theory class and doing some Google searches) can see that it is a paper lion. You are putting words into the mouth of music theory (because your Theory 101 teacher and some bloggers said it) and try to turn it into some Dan Brown-esque conspiracy. The only conspiracy is one of self-imposed ignorance by people that refuse to look at the facts.

Peace,
Kevin

[tylerguitar75]

MOST guitar solos aren't just scales ascending and descending, so I'd figure you just play your melodic minor like your melodic minor, and your harmonic minor just the way it is, #7, i think it is. [e harmonic minor: e, f#, g, a, b, c, d#, e]
hope I answered something, but maybe not. haha

[Nick0783]

Kevin,

hmmm...I get the impression that there is an overspill of ill-feeling from a previous debate that I wasn't party to. You seem to be answering points that I hadn't made.

The Bach stuff was interesting to me, but none of it came as news really. I already understand many of the uses of the various minor scales and how they relate to harmony. These kind of analyses are generally of interest to people who have already absorbed a great deal of classical music - as I have - as they prompt a sense of recognition and pleasure at finding it put into words. To someone unversed in musical terminology they would probably seem daunting and bewildering, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention. We all know that seeming to win an argument is far less important than sharing tips and fostering a sense of good natured cooperation on these forums.

I think if anyone is really into music they will eventually learn enough actual songs / pieces to arrive at their own conclusions as to the usefulness of making a distinction between the various minor scales. I can't be bothered to think about it anymore, I'm off to do some guitar.

[Aristotle]

I've never heard a scholar say otherwise. I defy you to find me a scholarly source that says otherwise.

Sure. That's what laywers and scholars are for. You pay em enough, and they say whatever you tell them to say.

You quote a book that says the 6ths and 7ths are used as both major or minor. I noticed that, too. I also noticed no one in the thread posted to answer my question - oh yeah, all those different combinations of 6ths and 7ths, yeah, that's just one scale.

[ksjazzguitar]

...hmmm...I get the impression that there is an overspill of ill-feeling from a previous debate that I wasn't party to. You seem to be answering points that I hadn't made.

Yes, Aristotle and I have gone around on this exact issue before. Sorry if it seemed that I was attributing ideas to you. I was just pointing out that real scholars don't talk about this "ascending" and "descending" thing.

The Bach stuff was interesting to me, but none of it came as news really. I already understand many of the uses of the various minor scales and how they relate to harmony.

I'll try and say it again, if you are thinking of "various minor scales" with relation to tonal harmony, then you are missing the point. The point is that there is only one minor scale, but two of the notes can be inflected up. The point is that until a little over a century ago there were not separate minor scales.

The whole "ascending" and "descending" probably came out of practicing the scales and has nothing to do with compositional practice.

To someone unversed in musical terminology they would probably seem daunting and bewildering, though I'm sure that wasn't your intention. We all know that seeming to win an argument is far less important than sharing tips and fostering a sense of good natured cooperation on these forums.

Unfortunately in the case of melodic minor, the information that is given is often wrong (at least in regards to classical practice) and it just creates more confusion. And the anti-theory guerrillas use this as a tool to try and mock the theory. But anyone who takes the time to truly understand the theory will see that there is no contradiction. The contradiction comes from the simplistic explanations that are often given and from self-proclaimed experts who never really understood it.

Yes, it's a confusing concept for us. We think of a scale as a fixed set of notes so the concept that some notes can be chromatically inflected is confusing to modern audiences. But really it is just an extension of the musica ficta concept that has been around for almost a thousand years. (It's not a coincidence that they are the exact same notes that would but raised or lowered in the Aeolian and Dorian modes, yielding the exact same "scales." When tonal harmony came along they kept doing the same thing, but they just called it something different.) So really it is this new concept of the fixed note rigid scale that is the newcomer.

Of course, just to stress it, this has little to do with jazz practice. I'm just trying to clear up some of the misinformation about classical practice.

...You quote a book that says the 6ths and 7ths are used as both major or minor. I noticed that, too. I also noticed no one in the thread posted to answer my question - oh yeah, all those different combinations of 6ths and 7ths, yeah, that's just one scale.

You assume that our modern concept of a scale being a fixed set of notes has always been the case. Again, it is just an extension of musica ficta so the idea of "flexible" notes has actually been around a lot longer than our modern concept of scale. If we want to understand the past, we cannot do so by putting our definitions into their mouths.

Of course, you can't find an example of a writer from that time period saying "we only think of them as one scale" - because it simply wouldn't occur to them to say that. They had no idea that they would eventually be thought of as different scales. It would be like a modern writer saying "we don't think of a chicken as a fish" - why would we feel the need to clarify the obvious?

But you've said many times that you don't trust scholars and books so I don't know why I bother.

Peace,
Kevin

[Nick0783]

Sure, no worries.
The history of the development of music theory sounds like a fascinating area of study, I may look it into it in more depth at some point.

I believe a common characteristic shared by all great musicians/composers of classical or jazz was the ability to rein in the rational part of their consciousness, making it subservient to their instinct. Thus allowing their ear to guide them, rather than pre-concieved theoretical devices (such as scales). Of course they would have needed to do their homework (and then some) but in the heat of inspiration their passions would have surely lead the way.

This would account for the trend-bucking brilliance of the greats (Bach, Mozart, Beethoven etc.).
Melodic minor is only valuable in so far as it encourages good practise and understanding, but - like any other aspect of theory - it should never be allowed to impede the creative impulse.

I learnt the various minor scales on piano as a kid, and it did me no harm (twitch, gibber ), but it was much later that I came to fully understand that theory is the cart not the horse.

To lighten the tone, does anyone know what you get when you drop a piano down a mine shaft?

[Aristotle]

But you've said many times that you don't trust scholars and books

Never said that. So, either you are an idiot, a liar or both. The thing I don't trust is YOU.

You assume that our modern concept of a scale being a fixed set of notes has always been the case.

I assume nothing. You do. You assume and presume you know what every one of thousands of people was thinking hundreds of years ago. Anyone out there believe that?

All I did was ask a question - does anyone else believe all these combinations of notes is really one scale? And I didn't ask you. But you decided to tell me what every person who ever lived thinks. Now, I have a question for. It's rhetorical, but you are psycho enough to answer it anyway. Do you really think anyone believe it when you pretend to know what every person in 18th century thought?

[JohnRoss]

does anyone know what you get when you drop a piano down a mine shaft?

A flat minor?

[Nick0783]

err...I'm afraid so...

not one of my best...

How about this: what do you get when Philip Marlow starts to combine his weed smoking habit with his hobby of extracting coal from the earth?

[JohnRoss]

How about this: what do you get when Philip Marlow starts to combine his weed smoking habit with his hobby of extracting coal from the earth?

I give up (with the teensy-weensy but nevertheless proudly pedantic protest that the name is actually Marlowe). What do you get?

[Nick0783]

A mellow dick miner.

I should be arrested for that...

[Nick0783]

Thanks for picking me up on the spelling, don't worry I always prepare myself for pedantry when I come on this site, it's part of the fun.

One final stinker:

What do you get when, on hearing of his upcoming promotion, the 1st Lieutenant gets so excited that he accidentally falls into an industrial sized whittling machine?

[Dad3353]

...I should be arrested for that...

Good evening, Nick...
I sincerely hope that BDLH doesn't get wind of this thread; we'll be flooded with puns and clever wordplay for ever..!
(...and shouldn't that be Richard Marlow..? Mellow Phil miner doesn't quite fit the bill (or William..?)).
I really appreciate the 'lighter note', however. Not too soon.

[JohnRoss]

What do you get when, on hearing of his upcoming promotion, the 1st Lieutenant gets so excited that he accidentally falls into an industrial sized whittling machine?

A sharp major?

Love 'em - more, more!

[Nick0783]

Good evening, Nick...
I sincerely hope that BDLH doesn't get wind of this thread; we'll be flooded with puns and clever wordplay for ever..!
(...and shouldn't that be Richard Marlow..? Mellow Phil miner doesn't quite fit the bill (or William..?)).
I really appreciate the 'lighter note', however. Not too soon.

Salute!

I believe the word dick is an old fashioned American slang term for a private detective (Philip Marlow was a fictional dick created by Raymond Chandler).
It's obscure I know...

[Dad3353]

...an industrial sized whittling machine?

Just checking, Nick..
You wouldn't be a fan of ISIHAC (or 'Clue'...), would you? Does the name Willy Rushton ring a bell? Just checking...

[Nick0783]

All these torturous puns are starting to feel a bit false and contrived, so I am going to b natural from now on. I am also sharply aware there is a chance that they will start to fall flat, and thus diminish my credibility. Don't fret though, I'm just taking a well deserved rest to stave off the possibility that the moderators will get crotchety with me. Don't worry, I'm sure it will all work out fine in the end.

[Nick0783]

Just checking, Nick..
You wouldn't be a fan of ISIHAC (or 'Clue'...), would you? Does the name Willy Rushton ring a bell? Just checking...

Well Doug, my only response to that can be:

Oxford st. south line, change to the bakerloo line, south Kensington, no, apologies...you can't do double reverses...High Street Kensington, Islington, MORNINGTON CRESCENT!

I hope this is right, I'm a bit rusty on the rules

[JohnRoss]

All these torturous puns...

I want to have your baby.

[Nick0783]

I want to have your baby.

You should be barred for saying that.

[ksjazzguitar]

[KS said] But you've said many times that you don't trust scholars and books.

Never said that. So, either you are an idiot, a liar or both. The thing I don't trust is YOU.

These are just two I can find on short notice:

No, paper credentials mean nothing to me. ...

Give the academics enough time and money, and eventually they will prove the obvious.

I don't have time to find the rest. Plus your willingness to lie about your sources in the whole "obscura" debacle shows a lack of respect to scholarship (or honesty in general.) Not to mention that you keep trying to "disprove" accepted historical information with a poll of people on the forum - "Anyone believe that? Going once? Going twice? ... I also noticed no one in the thread posted to answer my question - oh yeah, all those different combinations of 6ths and 7ths, yeah, that's just one scale." As if that has any bearing on the validity of historical facts.

[KS said]You assume that our modern concept of a scale being a fixed set of notes has always been the case.

I assume nothing. You do. You assume and presume you know what every one of thousands of people was thinking hundreds of years ago. Anyone out there believe that?

You're changing the issue. The issue isn't know what every person thought 500 years ago - that would be like saying that we can't know what teenage girls in 1965 thought about The Beatles because we can't know what every one of them thought. A general understanding can be arrived at without a neural downlink from every single person on the planet. By your definition we can never know anything about what anybody thought about anything from the past - a popular battle cry of the anti-academia guerrilla. The issue is to know what leading music thinkers of the time thought. Fortunately, these people liked to write. If want to know what music was like in the 6th century, I read Boethius. If I want to know how people thought in the 9th century, I read the Musica Enchiriadis or the Schola Enchiriadis. If I want to know what music was like in the 10th century, I read d'Arezzo. Zarlino, Rameau, Rousseau, etc., etc., etc. We can also learn a lot from examining the music of the time.

Fortunately, we don't have to read them all - there are plenty of scholars who have hand we can read their secondary sources. But they have those paper credentials that you don't respect and you seem to discount out of hand anyone who says something you dislike.

You are clearly making an assumption that goes counter to mountains of research. Pick up a book on music history and read. Make sure it is one written by people with lots of paper credentials and you might learn something.

Do you really think anyone believe it when you pretend to know what every person in 18th century thought?

How odd that you chose the 18th century! Considering the mountains of writings that we have from the 17th and 18th century, that shows real ignorance of the extant materials that are available.

But ultimately, if you want to disprove the idea that classical musicians tended to think of some notes as chromatically inflectable, then the burden of proof lies with you. It is you that are making the claim that goes counter to the entire musical establishment. (You fail to find a single scholarly source to support your claim - in various threads I've already provided three.) It is you that is going against the status quo. This isn't some contentious debate in music history - it is settled fact that early musicians thought of various notes as "flexible" and that that tradition continued into the CPP.

If you want to deny the existence of musica ficta and the well documented tradition of inflecting notes in minor, then go ahead - but build your case with something besides "because Aristotle says so." You just ignore any evidence that disagrees with you. No wonder you are so confident! It's ironic - my confidence comes from confronting and absorbing data that contradicts my preconceptions.

But ultimately you are not trying to build a case - you are just trying to avoid getting pinned down on a question and trying to disrupt intelligent conversations with you anti-theory guerrilla propaganda.

Peace,
Kevin

[Dad3353]

Well Doug, my only response to that can be:

Oxford st. south line, change to the bakerloo line, south Kensington, no, apologies...you can't do double reverses...High Street Kensington, Islington, MORNINGTON CRESCENT!

I hope this is right, I'm a bit rusty on the rules

Good afternoon, Nick...
Yes, I'll accept that; next time could you just be a bit more precise, and indicate that you're playing Litman's rules; otherwise you'll confuse everyone.
Next challenge: Harmonise 'Three Blind Mice' in the style of 'Bad Penny Blues', censoring anything that could cause offence or frighten the horses.
...and no, you can't post limericks here..!
(I'd better not keep this up; I'll get us both banned..! Nice one, lad...)

[Kojo27]

This "thing" about the history of these minor scales, or minor scale, intrigues me.

Purely by coincidence, just moments ago, I found a pertinent excerpt from a Don Mock book. I'm not sure whether this will add anything, but I find it interesting. Not sure how much of a "scholar" Don Mock is - not sure how one determines an author's scholarly fitness, actually, so I'll make no claims that he's anything other than a very good guitar player who has written some useful (to me) books. This *entire* book is about the melodic minor scale! He has another all about the harmonic minor.

His explanation of the scales' origins seems different from what our forum has come up with - or maybe it's entirely over my head and I just don't know the difference.

This is from a .pdf scan of the book, the pages scanned in as graphics, and I couldn't to save me make it copy and paste directly into this window, so I've attached the two scanned pages directly. Mr. Mock won't mind - it's advertisement for his GREAT book - everybody buy one!

Kojo

[Aristotle]

A sharp major?

Love 'em - more, more!

Why is music like boxing?