Using The Jazz Minor Scale

[Reg]

On that thing you said before about "jazz minor" being around for 50 years, I looked in the Joe Pass "Style" book. He refers to adding the b9 and #9 to the whole-tone scale. Enharmonically, to a G7, that's Ab minor. Were they calling that a "jazz minor" when you went to Berklee?

Hey Aristotle...how goes... Berklee didn't refer to is as jazz minor, just Melodic min. Same notes up and down. And alt. chord and scale was 7th degree etc.. I do remember the whole tone thing, never really got it, although it basically comes up with same set of notes. Pulling from MM makes it very simple to teach, and when you add use of Modal interchange, analysis of most jazz tunes becomes simple also... I guess I shouldn't say simple...
That was 70 or 71 and I believe is was being taught a few years before, at least mid to late 60's. I was playing gigs with musicians who had spent time at Berklee in 60's and even though they didn't get all the information, I liked the direction and went... It was very cheap back then. I don't know who first put together the information. There's a cat named Steve Carter, who is on this forum. He taught guitar at Berklee in the 70's... not sure if he would know or if he was involved in the theory classes... but you never know. When Berk's kid took over in late 70's the school changed... I dug it before. Gotsta go to my gig... later Reg

[Kman]

Does anyone hear use the major scale up a third over a V7? I think it's a really interesting sound. For example Bb major scale over G7 alt.

[Jazzyteach65]

Does anyone hear use the major scale up a third over a V7? I think it's a really interesting sound. For example Bb major scale over G7 alt.

I've never thought about that! I do use Bb triads derrived from the diminished scale that is

Bb major, Bb minor and Bb dim.

Then again, this can be done with any triad derrivedfrom the dim scale or altered dom scale (triadic/polytonal superimposition over dominants)

[paynow]

Does anyone hear use the major scale up a third over a V7? I think it's a really interesting sound. For example Bb major scale over G7 alt.

Bb (#9) C (sus 4) D (5th) Eb (#5, b13) F(b7) G (root) A (9th)

Interesting. Never thought of that before. I can definitely see that working.

[Jazzyteach65]

Does anyone hear use the major scale up a third over a V7? I think it's a really interesting sound. For example Bb major scale over G7 alt.

REVELATION!!!

Try playing this: Bb melodic minor over d-7 (ii) then Bb Major scale over G7 alt then resolve to C.

eseentially it'sBb-/maj to Bb maj

[Aristotle]

I realize Kman asked the question a while ago...

But I always wonder on these "scales over" posts, are you guys referring to using the entire scale?

If I play Db C Bb G C Bb G over a G7, is that G MM. or G Blues? Or do you have to get to the Eb, or some other note that is not just G-Mix or G alt Blue?

[Jazzyteach65]

I realize Kman asked the question a while ago...

But I always wonder on these "scales over" posts, are you guys referring to using the entire scale?

If I play Db C Bb G C Bb G over a G7, is that G MM. or G Blues? Or do you have to get to the Eb, or some other note that is not just G-Mix or G alt Blue?

Here's where the concept of consonance anddissonance is VITAL! I'm not suggested where you put chord tones in the measure, but looke at the idea:

D-7/ Bb mel minor- Bb, (tension tone implying A7alt to d-7)C-the minor 7th, Db-tension (third of A7) Eb-altered A7 tension-"resolve" it to d, F-minor third, G-fourth, A-fifths

G7alt-Bb major-Bb-#9, C-4, D-5th, Eb-#5, F-b7, G-R A-9

You might wanna add a B in the Bb major for "resolution" sake.
Play around with small two-note melodies from the TENSION categpory/tone over the d-, then figure out where the tension and consonancehappen with Bb maj over G7

then plkay A dorian over C! maj 7#11

[Kman]

Regarding my post about playing a major scale up a minor third from the V7. (In this case Bb major scale over G7). It's a fascinating sound to play over BOTH the II7 and V7. In other words, ignore the II. It keeps things nice and simple which I like and sounds somewhat bluesy.

[Jazzyteach65]

Regarding my post about playing a major scale up a minor third from the V7. (In this case Bb major scale over G7). It's a fascinating sound to play over BOTH the II7 and V7. In other words, ignore the II. It keeps things nice and simple which I like and sounds somewhat bluesy.

I dig the idea of sustained tension/release (2 measures of a V chord pulling toward the 'I') however, if you are not sympathetic in where the chord tones are placed for the sake of tension/release and listeners unaware of the "scaler sophistitication" may find your playing uneasy;}

[Kman]

I dig the idea of sustained tension/release (2 measures of a V chord pulling toward the 'I') however, if you are not sympathetic in where the chord tones are placed for the sake of tension/release and listeners unaware of the "scaler sophistitication" may find your playing uneasy;}

I'm trying to get a more bluesey sound when playing standards. If you have a any tips let me know. Yes, this is not going to work over a ballad, that's for sure. However I do like it over a faster tempo. I'm mainly thinking of simplicity when comes to working at faster tempos. When I see a II/V/I in C for example I like the d minor blues scale and the Bb major scale (all notes), which I just discovered. I find Ab MM is too altered for my taste. I also love using the C major blues scale and mixing in the C minor blues scale or G minor blues scale at the very end leading to I. I'm trying to get more of a bluesey feel to my playing.

[Jazzyteach65]

I'm trying to get a more bluesey sound when playing standards. If you have a any tips let me know. Yes, this is not going to work over a ballad, that's for sure. However I do like it over a faster tempo. I'm mainly thinking of simplicity when comes to working at faster tempos. When I see a II/V/I in C for example I like the d minor blues scale and the Bb major scale (all notes), which I just discovered. I find Ab MM is too altered for my taste. I also love using the C major blues scale and mixing in the C minor blues scale or G minor blues scale at the very end leading to I. I'm trying to get more of a bluesey feel to my playing.

IMHO thinking in terms of deliberate sales other than pentatonic, hexatonic, octonic ect can be counter-productive and limiting. I prefer to think in terms of the chord alterations/tones that different scales shared in common, and think in terms of chord tones and the emotional effect they have against that particular musical period/chorus/harmonic chord. Remember that even "modal" improv that use one "mode," for every note played against the tonality a chord/tertian harmonic structure is/can be implied through every note to the "untrained" listener

[Aristotle]

Here's where the concept of consonance anddissonance is VITAL!

You might wanna add a B in the Bb major for "resolution" sake.

On the second point, that still chimes like a blue scale. On the first point, I know dissonance and release is vital.

I think your get to an important ideda in a later post. The scale is like a pantry. A good recipe is select ingredients. Stuff like pentatonics are more workable because they have some chord tones, some non, and some skips - like melodies. If some young fellow was asking me about a blues-rock riff based on the Am pentatonic, I wouldn't tell him play a C-scale over an A chord. I can use F# with C maj7. No problem. Saying that it's A-dorian over Cmaj7? Yikies.

I look at the BbMM minor pantry, and while considering what to throw on a bed of Dm -G7, I see just enough G-blue ingredients to get by. But I think that is pretty much avoiding whatever is in that Bb MM scale you think can be made tasty. I usually don't do much with II-min. I don't see what to do the Bb Db and Eb notes on a Dm, other than resolving them down in half steps. How do I squeeze some juice out that Bb MM?

[Reg]

There is also a concept of harmonic areas being influenced with blue notes. Can simply be used like pedal going through chord progression , which changes each chord. Or there are different methods of organizing the use of blue note, pulling from one chord for source, using same blue note from each chord and on and on, Kevin referred this as my si-fi collection... I've covered before but is very characteristic of jazz/blues sound... Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

At the risk of regretting getting involved....

...While it is oft repeated, like by Remler and Coryell YouTubes on jazz minor that the melodic minor has different ascending and descending forms; can anyone cite the composers and works that established or recognize this tradition? Or is it a myth?

No, it is very real. To quote Grove Music Online:

There are three ways of conceiving the minor scale in tonal theory. The natural minor consists simply of the ascending or descending sequence of tones and semitones given under the scale from A to A in Table 1 [pic removed]. The melodic minor has raised sixth and seventh degrees ascending, but is the same as the natural minor descending.

This scale can be abstracted from the characteristic movement of minor key melodies where the raised seventh acts as a leading note in the ascending direction (the sixth is raised to avoid an augmented interval between the sixth and seventh degrees). The harmonic minor scale has a raised seventh in both directions, but the sixth is left unaltered. In this way it becomes the product of the three primary harmonic functions, being generated from the triads of the tonic, subdominant, and dominant (with raised third)...

So, this is a very real thing. Now, in practice a composer may chose to use the ascending form of the mel min in a descending direction, depending on what else is going on in the song, and what notes had been played recently and are still in the ear - they don't want an awkward cross-relation. I'm sorry that I don't have any examples on hand, but I do remember running across them in analysis, even as far back as Palestrina, in Aeolian mode. The danger of descending down the mel min is that up until the 4th, it is exactly like the major scale, so the ear may expect the M3 and then the m3 is a rude awakening.


And composers may use the harm min, even with the A2 in there. Additionally, Bach was quite fond of leaping from the root of a viidim7 up to the 7th, a leap of a dim7th in the harm min scale. (Or the 3rd to the b9 of the V7, basically the same thing.)

But these are just quidelines, based on observed practice during the Common Practice Period. These "rules" were occasionally broken when it sounded good.

Even then, the idea that one scale ascending and another scale descending was one scale, and not two, didn't mesh with my gears. And since then, I don't remember ever hearing a song that uses it (them) that way.

Really? I've found that most classical pieces do. You must not have analyzed much Bach. It's extremely common in Baroque music. Just about any Bach minor piece that is scalar will be filled with examples. Of course, we don't use them that way in jazz - even many modern classical composers don't use them that way. But it was an important part of the sound of that period of classical music, up into the 20th century.

But your mistake is in thinking of these as different scales. Tonal harmony considers the natural, harmonic, and melodic as just different inflections of minor. They weren't separated into different scales until later. It's a hard thing for modern musicians to grasp intellectually, but it is really quite natural when heard in context - just listen to almost any Baroque piece. You yourself mentioned the Bouree - most people don't even realize it is happening until someone points it out.

There is also a concept of harmonic areas being influenced with blue notes. Can simply be used like pedal going through chord progression , which changes each chord ... Kevin referred this as my si-fi collection...

*sigh* Reg, it's not the concept that is "sci-fi" - pedal points have a long history, going back hundreds of years. The "sci-fi" part is your terminology that only you seem to use (and at this point I am left to assume was invented by you since after repeated requests you failed to provide an example of anyone else using terms like "blue note control system") and your "bizarre" (to me) explanation (that take 20 posts to pull out of you.) And you still haven't explained how these blue notes are "influencing" or "controlling" the harmony - the point of the pedal (or inverted pedal as the case may be, but there's no need to get that picky) is that it is not part of the harmony but holds in contrast to it - it doesn't influence or control anything. (I'll just ignore the fact that one note by definition cannot be a system.)

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

At the risk of regretting getting involved....
No, it is very real. To quote Grove Music Online:

This has been discussed extensively elsewhere. Had you read that stuff, you would have understood the question better, and not wasted your time posting material that doesn't answer the question.

Really? I've found that most classical pieces do. You must not have analyzed much Bach.

Cite the pieces.

FWIW, as far as Bach goes, maybe I just analyzed him better than you. He runs up and down minor scales with every combination of 6 and 7, clearly not following any rote rule.

BTW, it is common for someone to think he has an example of this, and then I point out, if the piece is in Dm, that the descending passage that superficially might appear to be the D-natural minor scale, but is really a modulation to F major.

[Jazzyteach65]

On the second point, that still chimes like a blue scale. On the first point, I know dissonance and release is vital.

I think your get to an important ideda in a later post. The scale is like a pantry. A good recipe is select ingredients. Stuff like pentatonics are more workable because they have some chord tones, some non, and some skips - like melodies. If some young fellow was asking me about a blues-rock riff based on the Am pentatonic, I wouldn't tell him play a C-scale over an A chord. I can use F# with C maj7. No problem. Saying that it's A-dorian over Cmaj7? Yikies.

I look at the BbMM minor pantry, and while considering what to throw on a bed of Dm -G7, I see just enough G-blue ingredients to get by. But I think that is pretty much avoiding whatever is in that Bb MM scale you think can be made tasty. I usually don't do much with II-min. I don't see what to do the Bb Db and Eb notes on a Dm, other than resolving them down in half steps. How do I squeeze some juice out that Bb MM?

EXACTLY!

We all go through our phases where we tend to gravitate more towards one scaler concept than others, and then our theories and approaches change into the next idea that helps us articuslate or ideas. As improvising musicians, we are constantly looking for new ways to help articulate out ideas more fluidly.
I personally believed in MM scale and diminished approach a few years ago, then I started messing around with polytonal improv, all kinds of scales and triads I could fit on one chord (I had been studying Dan Hearle and Jerry Coker exlusively) Then Joe Lano showed me how to superimpose harmonic minor over a "V" chord. Then last year I remembered something that Jake Hanlon and JohnW told me on here a few years back:I should be chasing a melody rather than a scale or arp. Jake told me to take the dim scale and realize that there are infinite melodies in one scale, pay cloise attention to what melody "works" where.

Those words changed my improvisational life. Trust me, NONE of us wanna think when we gig!

[Reg]

Sorry Kman... the use of blue notes to influence harmonic progression was introduced to me formally at Berklee in early 70's. As I was saying, may be used as a pedal, sometimes in jazz we don't get so hung up on all possible explanations of every term as in my use of Pedal. It's very common and has been for 50 years to simply say pedal... and mean a note or collection of notes held above, below or in middle or even change ranges, which act with or against the existing notes. There are many dilemmas with musicology and jazz... it doesn't quite fit in the traditional domain and terminology yet.
But anyway I have many posts of my playing and trying to explain different concepts of playing Jazz on this site. Check out some and if your interested I'll try and explain how I hear/play any of those, one being the use of blue notes to influence harmony and soloing. Best Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

This [minor scales] has been discussed extensively elsewhere. Had you read that stuff, you would have understood the question better, and not wasted your time posting material that doesn't answer the question.

Sorry, but you'd recently added a post that still seemed troubled by the concept. I read your post at face value and after rereading I come to the same conclusion. I thought that citing and authoritative source might help.

Cite the pieces. [using descending mel min]...FWIW, as far as Bach goes, maybe I just analyzed him better than you. He runs up and down minor scales with every combination of 6 and 7, clearly not following any rote rule.

I see, now your a better analyzer than me. So the grad class that I had in analyzing Bach fugues, that was just a sham? That's the internet for you - anyone can claim to be an expert on anything.

Really, you've analyzed Bach and not found examples of him switching between the different forms of minor? That's like saying that you analyzed Bird and didn't find any chromatic notes - it would mean that you're either lying or don't know what you're talking about.

But I think that you miss the larger point - that Bach didn't think of these as three different scales. If you'd talked to Bach about the melodic minor, wh would have had no idea what you were talking about. They were all the same scales to him (and most of music history.) They are just inflected differently depending on the harmonic and melodic needs - that is the "rote rule." I'd clearly said that the "rule" of which inflection "must" be used was added later.

Where are the examples? Well the Bouree you mention is a great example. As I said before (maybe you didn't read clearly) the "rule" is just a guideline and can be "broken" as needed. Again, to Bach, there was no rule, these were just all the same scale and he altered it to fit his needs. You still seem stuck on this idea that there is some rule - there never was. That was just something that was added later by music teachers to explain the tendency. There are many examples of him breaking this "rule." The CS in bar 3 of his Cm Fugue from the WTC I is a good example of him playing the "ascending form" in a down direction.

If you're asking me to find examples where Bach goes up the scale one way and down the other, that will be hard because Bach didn't really compose that way - long lines that pedantically run through scales. He'd inflect the scales as he needed for harmonic and melodic reasons and to avoid cross-relations. Bach ignored pedantry and just composed.

Examples of Bach inflecting for minor? To numerous to mention. And if you really need me to show you then you have no idea what you're talking about.

BTW, it is common for someone to think he has an example of this, and then I point out, if the piece is in Dm, that the descending passage that superficially might appear to be the D-natural minor scale, but is really a modulation to F major.

So you're really going to the wall with this one. You're going to disagree with every Bach analyst in history? Technically the burden of proof lies with you - you are the one making the ridiculous claim that is contradicting common knowledge. Just saying that you're the greatest on most insightful analyzer ever is not good enough.

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.

I could go on, but what's the point, you either see it or you don't. The problem is that some people take two and a half semesters of music theory or read Music Theory for Dummies and they get spoon fed irresponsible generalization, like "The ascending form of the melodic minor is used one way and the descending the other." That is a gross overgeneralization. So you smell a rat. So you develop theory-o-phobia and you go on the war path against a "rule" that never really existed. If you'd studied theory at a higher level, you'd know that. But since you clearly are stuck here, your theory never went beyond the basics.

... There are many dilemmas with musicology and jazz... it doesn't quite fit in the traditional domain and terminology yet.

No, there are no dilemmas. This is based on a mistaken belief that musicology expects music to conform to it's standards - a common misunderstanding of people without a background in musicology or music theory. It adapts as needed to encompass anything new - that's its job. Can you provide a single example of anything that is impenetrable to musicology of music theory?

Who says that it has to fit "traditional domain and terminology"? (I'm not even sure what you mean by "domain" here.) Music theory and musicology has always felt free to invent and adapt terminology as needed. Look at all the new terminology that was invented to explain 20th century composition techniques. That is the battle cry of amateur jazz theorists that are too lazy to learn what classical theory has to say. In reality almost every concept in jazz theory has an antecedent in classical theory - the blue note is the only example I can come up with off the top of my head.

But anyway I have many posts of my playing and trying to explain different concepts of playing Jazz on this site. Check out some and if your interested I'll try and explain how I hear/play any of those, one being the use of blue notes to influence harmony and soloing.

But Reg, you never explain anything. You throw around a bunch of terms and then make a video with some cool licks. That is not explanation. You still haven't explained how blue notes "control" the harmony - how do they make it do something they weren't already doing? How long have I been after you for an explanation of that - months?

Just once I would love to hear you actually explain something. But you go through sommeraults to avoid explaining anything. Throwing around a bunch of words and making a video of licks is not an explanation.

So, how is a blue note "controlling" anything, and how is that one note a "system"? I suspect that this is just another example of you trying to use fancy words to disguise the fact that you don't know your theory all that well. The danger is that some of these kids are going to pick up some of your Dogberrian language. I have no problem with your playing, but you pseudo-intellectual ramblings are counterproductive to real learning. You are just misleading people. These kids are going to go into a jazz clinic and talk about "blue note systems control the harmony" and they will be laughed at. Again, a google search seems to indicate that you are the only person on the planet saying that.

Again, just explain how a blue note is a system and how it controls or influences the harmony - how it makes it do something it wasn't already doing. If it is just altering the harmony by extension, doesn't every extension do that? Why the bizarre language? That's not really "control" or "influence."

If you can explain that to a basic level of satisfaction, I will apologize deeply. (But I'm not holding my breath - if history is any indication I expect: silence, insults on my playing, misdirection, changing the subject, rambling lists of terminology, attacks on theory in general, or a video of licks. The last thing that I expect is an explanation.)

Peace,
Kevin

[lkmuller]

But anyway I have many posts of my playing and trying to explain different concepts of playing Jazz on this site. Check out some and if your interested I'll try and explain how I hear/play any of those, one being the use of blue notes to influence harmony and soloing. Best Reg

Hey Reg, everyone here loves your posts. You teach by example. Did you know a guy named Gary Shimabukuro at Berdlee in the early 70's? He started out as a sax player but changed instrument midstream and went on to become quite a piano player. He was MD for the Al Harrington Show (of Hawaii Five-0 fame) when I worked it in the mid 70's.

[Reg]

Kevin my reference to dilemma, domain and Musicology are from G.Haydon, "Introduction to Musicology", obviously to basic for your level of comprehension. One dilemma is people like you who claim to be experts in jazz theory, or at least project the image and still play, at least from what you posted on this site, at best, a beginners level of skills, and even less with use of typical jazz harmony, rhythm and improvisation.
Clearly my post was directed to someone else, and you still go on you attack. I'm very happy we disagree, I have no interest in explaining anything to you... I don't really like burning bridges... but we have nothing in common. If you don't like what I say... don't read or listen... I disagree with your concepts of hearing/learning/understanding jazz...
and I'm alright with it... I'm not forcing anything down anyone's throat...No one has too listen, but if they choose to... I'll give my opinions and understanding... and examples.
What a waste of time ...Reg

[ksjazzguitar]

Kevin my reference to dilemma, domain and Musicology are from G.Haydon, "Introduction to Musicology", ...

Can you give a quote in context?

One dilemma is people like you who claim to be experts in jazz theory, or at least project the image and still play, at least from what you posted on this site, at best, a beginners level of skills, and even less with use of typical jazz harmony, rhythm and improvisation.

Well, I was right that the personal attack was coming next. Sorry, posting videos to impress the kiddies is not my priority. (And for the record, Howard Morgan sent a nice note complementing my CMs - I'd hardly call the "beginners level" - but if walking bass line CMs aren't your thing, that's fine. But I don't want to get into an "I'm-better-than-you argument." We both have different goals in our playing.) This also shows that you don't know what the word "dilemma" means. Which means that you must have misunderstood your source as well.

Clearly my post was directed to someone else, and you still go on you attack.

Just asking you to explain your bizarre terminology.

I'm very happy we disagree, I have no interest in explaining anything to you...

My point is that you never have really explained anything. I have never heard so many bizarre terms thrown together with so little meaning. You get all huffy when people ask you to define them, acting as if they are common knowledge when they fail to show up on a Google search.

When have you ever explained anything? It took a week of pestering to finally get you to tell me that "blue note control system" was just what everyone else calls "blue note pedal." You have yet to explain your bizarre terminology that seems to be an inscrutable code that you made up. There is more to theory than making up a bunch of terms to confuse people - that is the opposite of good theory.

You say you're not going to explain anything? When did you ever explain anything? You just find a way to avoid the question when cornered, as you've done here once again.

Here is the question you avoided:

But Reg, you never explain anything. You throw around a bunch of terms and then make a video with some cool licks. That is not explanation. You still haven't explained how blue notes "control" the harmony - how do they make it do something they weren't already doing? How long have I been after you for an explanation of that - months? ...
Again, just explain how a blue note is a system and how it controls or influences the harmony - how it makes it do something it wasn't already doing. If it is just altering the harmony by extension, doesn't every extension do that? Why the bizarre language? That's not really "control" or "influence."

While you're at it, you can fulfill my request by providing an example of something in jazz theory that dies not have a precedent in classical theory? I can think of none save the blue note. Sure, there are lot's of stylistic elements that don't come from the European/American/classical tradition, but not much in terms of theory. This "Music theory can't explain jazz" is the battle cry of amateur jazz theorists who don't bother doing their research.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

I see, now your a better analyzer than me. So the grad class that I had in analyzing Bach fugues, that was just a sham? That's the internet for you - anyone can claim to be an expert on anything.

Like some schmuck who "took a course." Ooh!

It would hardly be the first time for me, and music would hardly be the first subject, when I knew more about something than someone who "took a course."

I told you I was down to reading two sentences per post. I just never told you when it got to zero. I don't know why I fell off the wagon, today.

Technically the burden of proof lies with you - you are the one making the ridiculous claim

Kevin, your arguments so consistently fail to keep track of a conversation, it is like someone with multiple personalities. If you would carefully reread the snippet of my post that you quoted it, it refers to a claim made by Remler and Coryell. They either had proof when they made the claim or they didn't.

Your ridiculous position is that I am somehow under a burden to find evidence of what isn't there?
OK, same pieces of music that you cited, I cite the other 99% of the time, when minor key lines don't follow the so-called "classical" pattern.

When you say it is not a rule, but a guideline, you are on the right path. When something occurs so infrequently that it can be explained by random chance, even raising it to guideline status is myth making.

As to Fugue 1, meas 25: I am not sure which Am fugeu that is and don't have the music. If it is the one I know from Well Tempered Clavier that starts with A G# A., then the rule, guideline - whatever - broken on the first beat and twice in the first two measures. I am quite sure if I analyzed all four voices for 25 measures, I could find more than a dozen of examples of the lines not following the so-called "clasical" pattern before I even get to the one you allege fits it.

I know you are not going to understand this. It's probably too steeped in common sense. When a proposition is false ten or a hundred times more often that it is true, the proposition should be abandoned.

[ksjazzguitar]

"[KS said] That's the internet for you - anyone can claim to be an expert on anything."

Like some schmuck who "took a course." Ooh!

So working on a Master's degree and doing grad work on Bach, that isn't good enough for you? Since you've made it clear that you have no respect for academia, what credentials would someone need to convince you that they know something about Bach? Since you cagily hide your background, it seems that shooting your mouth off about things you don't understand on the internet is all you value.

If you would carefully reread the snippet of my post that you quoted it, it refers to a claim made by Remler and Coryell. They either had proof when they made the claim or they didn't....

Why would they need to defend common knowledge. If they claimed the sky is blue, would they need to defend that too?

OK, same pieces of music that you cited, I cite the other 99% of the time, when minor key lines don't follow the so-called "classical" pattern.

Again, you are building a strawman - no one claims that this is some rule that must be followed (except for bad teachers.) It is mainly practiced this way because it sounds strange to classical ears to go down the mel min - it sounds too much like a major scale and then that m3 is jarring to the ear. If that doesn't sounds bad to you, then don't do it.

The real decision on whether or not to use the inflections or not has more to do with harmonic considerations. Usually for dominant functions, the 6th and 7th will be raised and for tonic or subdominant functions, they will be lowered. I think that the idea of the scale is that if you play it up to the tonic, then that leading tone has resolved and then you are going down in tonic function. Why can't you understand this simple concept?

When you say it is not a rule, but a guideline, you are on the right path.

I'm not on a "path" - I'm already at the destination. It was you that was misinformed and whose understanding is evolving.

As to Fugue 1, meas 25: I am not sure which Am fugeu that is and don't have the music.

Wow, now I know that you're full of hot air. You claim to be a better analyzer of Bach than me, but you don't know what WTC II means? Wow. Like I said, anyone on the internet can pretend to be an expert. But if they keep talking, the truth comes out. You're looking at the wrong fugue, nitwit. And I'm the one that doesn't know what is going on with Bach. That's pretty pathetic.

I know you are not going to understand this. It's probably too steeped in common sense. When a proposition is false ten or a hundred times more often that it is true, the proposition should be abandoned.

The problem is that you imagined the proposition based on your own understanding. Please find my one reputable source that says that it must be played that way. You're just looking for an argument and you're trying to invent one. And this is only one era of music. You really are reading too much into this. But that's what you anti-theory guerrilla terrorists do - you find some minutia of music theory to misinterpret and blow out of proportion and then criticize it without really understanding it.

How arrogant are you? You think that millions of musicians over the last 500 years have gotten it wrong and you are the only person to every figure it out? No, you're just misunderstanding and you are in too much of a rush to find something to complain about that you can't see it.

Peace,
Kevin

[Aristotle]

So working on a Master's degree and doing grad work on Bach, that isn't good enough for you?

No, paper credentials mean nothing to me. Fallacy ad verecundiam is no better than any other fallacy.

That's it. Your once sentence limit has been reached.

The best advice I can offer you is - don't waste time responding to my posts.

[bass2man]

Well, I finally made it to post #125 and I have to tell you all....after reading all this, i'm exhausted...time for a shot and a beer..

This is waaaay more exciting than watching snooky slap someone around on Jersey Shore...