Ascending & Descending Minor Scales

[Aristotle]

Not sure how much of a "scholar" Don Mock is - not sure how one determines an author's scholarly fitness,

If musical performance is demonstration of "scholarhsip," then he's a helluva scholar. If scholar means KS agrees with your word choice, then no one is a scholar unless he says so.

[Aristotle]

These are just two I can find on short notice:

Or, more accurately, yanked out of context. Did you learn "debate" from those who conducted the Salen with trials?

[JohnRoss]

Why is music like boxing?

I don't know - why is music like boxing?

[Aristotle]

I don't know - why is music like boxing?

As the doctor says, this is going to hurt a bit -

Because if you don't C# you'll Bb.

[JohnRoss]

Because if you don't C# you'll Bb.

And, incredibly, if we're in D minor, it's actually on topic!

[Aristotle]

And, incredibly, if we're in D minor, it's actually on topic!

There's a man who can keep a train of thought on track.
That's more clever than the joke itself. Hey, wait a minute, I thought we had each other on ignore??

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

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.

No, that sounds like what has been said in this thread.

1. First came the natural minor.
2. Then the seventh was raised in the natural minor to form the harmonic minor. Melodically, this creates a leading tone, which creates tension and pulls you to the tonic note, and harmonically this create a major dominant chord; again, more tension towards the tonic chord.
3. Then the sixth was raised. Don Mock doesn't mention it there, but melodically, this avoids the awkward augmented second interval from b6 to #7 in scalar lines. If you don't need to have the 7th note being a leading tone, you don't need the major 6th either.

As has been beaten to death, the up/down definition of the melodic minor is a simplification.

[ksjazzguitar]

...
1. First came the natural minor.
2. Then the seventh was raised in the natural minor to form the harmonic minor. Melodically, this creates a leading tone, which creates tension and pulls you to the tonic note, and harmonically this create a major dominant chord; again, more tension towards the tonic chord.
3. Then the sixth was raised. Don Mock doesn't mention it there, but melodically, this avoids the awkward augmented second interval from b6 to #7 in scalar lines. If you don't need to have the 7th note being a leading tone, you don't need the major 6th either.
...

Again, to beat a dead horse...

It's a fine explanation except that I don't like the phrases like "to form the harmonic minor." Again, when they were raising and lowering those 6s and 7s, the "harmonic minor" was still centuries away. Perhaps "to form what we now call the harmonic minor" would be better.

Again, I need to stress that when they were inflecting these notes in medieval music, they did not consider themselves to be creating new scales. In the original church modes, in their equivalent of the Dorian (they had no true Aeolian) the B could be inflected down to Bb and the C could be inflected up to C#. There was no concept that these were unique scales, they were still just modes 1 and 2 (the church mode that correspond to Dorian/Aeolian) and they just had notes that were "flexible."

When we get to the tonal era, this "flexibility" was retained. In fact they weren't even sure for a while whether to use the Aeolian or the Dorian for the natural minor (there are plenty of Baroque pieces with "Dorian" key signatures, even though they are not modal and often have more b6s than 6s.) But this idea of the flexibility of the 6th and 7th degree was retained.

Daddy, the reasoning that you give is essentially sound, but it is just the idea that they were separate scales is wrong, from an historical perspective. But this is the problem with most minor scale explanations - it is superimposing our concept of scale onto the past.

One more little quibble, "If you don't need to have the 7th note being a leading tone, you don't need the major 6th either." is not quite true. Historical composers freely switched between 6 and b6, regardless of whether or not there was a 7 and even if there was a b7. In medieval practice the 6 could be used to avoid tritones, cross-relations, awkward melodies, or just because they liked the sound. When we get to tonal music, it could be for all those reasons, plus because of harmonic context.

People (not just you Daddy) keep trying to break this down into some kind of "scalar logic" but it just doesn't work in an historical context - these guys didn't think of scales the way that we do, heck, for centuries they didn;t even think of scales but of modes. This idea of talking about different minor scales (at least compositionally) isn't fully true until the late 19th century. To CPP composers, there was only one minor scale. It's uninflected for is what we call the natural minor, but through chromatic inflection, they could transform it into what we call the melodic minor, the harmonic minor, and the Dorian. Again, they did not think of these are separate scales but all just "minor."

Again, any explanation of the history of the minor scale that tries to say that these were different scales is flawed from the outset.

With all due respect to Don Mock (he's a good player) I'm not aware what his credentials are in the history of music from the 12th to the 18th century. His bio doesn't even mention where (or if) he studied music. Granted, when he would have been going to school, there were few jazz programs and a rock/jazz player might not have felt at home in a classical department. He sounds like a hell of a player and I'd jump at the chance to have a lesson with him, but I'm not aware that he has any background in music history. Again, he's simply passing on the same misinformed history of the minor scale that everyone does.

But it doesn't matter how many people believe something, that doesn't make it true. It doesn't matter how many people believe that George Washington chopped down a cherry tree, or Marie Antoniette said "Let them eat cake," or that humans only use 10% of their brains - it's all rubbish that is just believed by a lot of people so it takes on an air of "truthiness." Similarly, people will continue to pass on this faux-history of the minor scale, until people start examining it critically.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

I don't like the phrases like "to form the harmonic minor." Again, when they were raising and lowering those 6s and 7s, the "harmonic minor" was still centuries away.

Hogwash!

How do you know that the sevants of King Tut didn't have to sing songs of praise to him every day in the Harmonic Minor?

Which is the scarier premise: that you believe what you write, that even you don't believe you, or that someone else might?

But it doesn't matter how many people believe something,

Exactly. It doesn't matter if you believe it.

[ksjazzguitar]

...How do you know that the sevants of King Tut didn't have to sing songs of praise to him every day in the Harmonic Minor?
...

How do I know that the Egyptians didn't have colonies in Antarctica? If want to make that claim, then the burden of proof would be on me. Anyone can make an unfounded claim and pretend that it has validity. It is a childish attempt to divert attention from real scholarship. Real historical scholarship is done by examining the data and seeing what can be inferred. There is just as much evidence for your "King Tut/harmonic minor" theory as there is for my "Egyptian colonies in Antarctica" theory - that is, none. Really, that is just a childish game.

Once again, you are avoiding the question with childish games. Once again, your anti-theory, anti-academia guerrilla propaganda war has run out of steam so you're just trying a new line of BS.

Since you avoid discussing my sources and actual historical arguments and prefer to play sophomoric games, I'll assume that you have nothing else to offer the conversation. Let me know when you want to address the issue again. But I'm still waiting for your source.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

Anyone can make an unfounded claim and pretend that it has validity.

And you just did: "...raising and lowering those 6s and 7s, the "harmonic minor" was still centuries away" You can't possibly know that, and then you talk about "real scholarship." It says something about what "scholar" or scholarship means when you use the word, don't you think?

[ksjazzguitar]

By your logic, we must assume that they had quantum mechanics because there is no way to prove otherwise. Would it be wrong to say that quantum mechanics was still centuries away? I also can't prove that the aborigines didn't have colonies on the moons of Mars. That kind of epistemological nihilism is a dead-end and is a childish tactic to disrupt dialogue. It is just a sophomoric attempt to shift the burden of proof when someone can't make a valid argument.

We have lots of writings from the time that tell us exactly how they were thinking. If you want to tell me that they thought of a "harmonic minor scale" as its own scale in the 15th century, go ahead and find me a source. All the sources that we have indicate otherwise. But you don't want to read those. You don't ever care about the issue. You're just trying to spread your anti-academic guerrilla propaganda. As I said before:

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.

There are mountains of writing and music to glean this information and there are mountains of books written by scholars on the subject. But the only evidence that you seem to care about is "because Aristotle thinks so" - regardless of whether or not you have any basis for thinking it. You just seem to think that you know all this by your self-declared omniscience of musical history. The rest of us have to do research.

We no that they had no harmonic minor scale because they didn't talk about it. They did talk about how they did think of the minor scale, and it is what I said: a single scale with two notes that were flexible. If you want to build a case otherwise, the burden of proof is on you.

Hmmm, and what a coincidence! Once again, you've managed to avoid giving us your source. Quelle surprise! Are there no rhetorical somersaults you won't do to avoid backing up your unfounded claims?

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

You just can't admit you made a mistake, can you? And giving "scholarship" a bad name in the process. Not that it needed any help.

Maybe you specify what day, date and time it was the first time someone used the Harmonic Minor scale.

[Nick0783]

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...)

Good Evening Douglas,

As we know, the rules of Mornington Crescent are so complex as to make any amount of theorising on Melodic minor seem facile in comparison. Yeah that double reverse was a bit out of left field, should have gone with a triple 50 degree turnaround in retrospect. Don't want to confuse any newcomers to the game.

Bad penny blues is a cracker:

You're probably aware that it inspired "Lady Madonna" which has a similar riff and rhythmic feel:

Good old Humph.

This is "on topic" in the sense that the middle eight of Lady Madonna is very "melodic" and when McPaul McCartney was under the age of 16 he was considered by English law to be "a minor".
Is that a bit tenuous?

Anyway...
I think Kevin has a point when he says that the language used to describe scales can give a misleading impression that they somehow descended, fully formed from the heavens, or that they have somehow been deliberately "built" in some way, rather than having come into being gradually as a result of what many different composers untuitively did with their notes...

(It is an example of reification, which is the tendency of people to mistake something abstract for something real:

Reification (fallacy) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This type of fallacy doesn't just crop up in music but in many areas of life, and it's especially frustrating in political discourse, but that's another story...)

...But then, if someone goes to a guitar book wanting a brief effective description of melodic minor for the practical purpose of playing better music, they don't need a long, detailed, nuanced, philosophically
satisfying explanation of it's origins. They can best overcome their misconceptions by getting stuck in to as many tunes/songs/pieces as possible, each one is unique and has a different lesson to teach. That's the best advice I can give to anyone baffled by theory: ask questions by all means, but learn loads of tunes!

Over and out.

[ksjazzguitar]

You just can't admit you made a mistake, can you? And giving "scholarship" a bad name in the process. Not that it needed any help.

Maybe you specify what day, date and time it was the first time someone used the Harmonic Minor scale.

I didn't make a mistake (not this time anyway.) It is common knowledge. I don't need to go looking for your mythical unicorn of a free-standing 15th cent. harmonic minor scale. The music of the period and preceding periods are well documented in the Musica and Scola Enchiriadis and the writings of d'Arezzo, Boethious, Anonymous IV, Cioconia, Tinctous, Galilei, etc. - as well as by later writers like Rameau, Rousseau, d'Almbert, Didero, Fux, Jeppesen, etc. I've actually read large chunks of what they wrote and have analyzed the music of the period. I've read lots of secondary sources on the subject, and even an amateur faux-scholar like you should be able to pick up a tertiary source - any good basic music history text will explain how chromatic inflection worked in the modes and knows that it wasn't a new mode just because a few notes got inflected.

But you fail to mention one source for your assumption that our concept of scale as fixed notes should be extended back to everyone. The only thing even close to an argument is your assertion that "you can't read everyone's mind from 500 years ago so you can't prove that they didn't think that way." Again, by that logic, I can't prove that the Aztecs didn't have quantum mechanics. It's just childish rhetorical gibberish.

If you want to challenge established and well documented musicological understanding based on mountains of primary sources and analysis, then the burden of proof is on you. Cite one source. Where is this coming from? Is this found somewhere besides your imagination? Quit hiding behind non sequitors and put your money where your mouth is.

...But then, if someone goes to a guitar book wanting a brief effective description of melodic minor for the practical purpose of playing better music, they don't need a long, detailed, nuanced, philosophically satisfying explanation of it's origins. ...

Right. I have nothing wrong with simplified explanations. When we first study the atom, we are taught Bohr's standard model of the atom. Quantum mechanics now tells us that it is false, but it is good enough for beginners. When you get more advanced, they give you a more advanced model.

My problem with the standard explanation of the history of minor, is that it superimposes onto them concepts that would have been completely foreign to them. It also is very inaccurate in its explanation of the derivation. And lastly, it is often presented as if it were the final word on the subject and people defend it to the death.

And ultimately, I don't think that "Traditionally there was only one minor key and the 6th and 7th degrees were chromatically inflectable. The different combinations of these evolved into our modern understanding of four different minor scales: natural, Dorian, harmonic, and melodic." Is that really that hard to understand? From there they can go onto the standard explanation, as long as the make it clear that "ascending" and "descending" refer more to the physical practice of the scale than compositional practice. I really don't think that that is too much of an addition and it would make it infinitely more accurate.

When I finally get done with my big recital, I'll probably write an article for my web page where I can document this better. This is exhausting having to explain the same basic facts over and over. If I can get some actual primary source quotes and musical examples it might make the case better, especially since no one reads books anymore. Really, this is pretty basic stuff in any music history textbook.

Peace,
Kevin

[bako]

A side question perhaps of practical importance to some.
In addressing minor tonality, what conceptual framework do you find is most useful to you as an improvising creative musician?

I like to always start with intervals as a basis for all things harmonic.
I like thinking of separate scales and modes because they present an easier model to analyze than one mass inflected minor scale would.
Having absorbed the harmonic info from individual note collections I can freely combine or inflect any note that I can hear in relation to the minor tonal center. To expand the palette of harmonies that can surround a central Minor I chord I use modal interchange ideas.

Example:

If FmMa7 is my I chord then some choices for possible II chords might include:

IIm7b5
IIm7
II7
II7b5
IIdim7

bIIMa7
bII7
bIIMa7+
bII7+
bIIMa7b5
bII7b5

[ksjazzguitar]

A side question perhaps of practical importance to some. ... In addressing minor tonality, what conceptual framework do you find is most useful to you as an improvising creative musician? ... I like thinking of separate scales and modes because they present an easier model to analyze than one mass inflected minor scale would.

Definitely. I am not saying that in modern times, as jazz players, we need to think of minor keys the way that Palestrina and Bach did. We think of these are separate scales and use them as such - that is how I teach the modern practice to my jazz students. That is a 110% appropriate way of thinking of them in our day and age. I am not advising that you use the Bach understanding of minor tonality in your jazz.

I just don't like superimposing our modern way of thinking of scales onto the past and people saying that that is how they were thinking. We can read what these people wrote and we know that they didn't think that way.

I'm not saying that one is right and the other wrong - they are each appropriate for the musics in which they are used. They're just two different ways of thinking. When I'm righting a fugue in a Baroque style, I think of minor tonality as having flexible notes. If I'm taking a jazz solo, I'm thinking of them as separate scales.

Peace,
Kevin