Hi, can someone re-upload this pdf? All the links that I found are deathpathworker wrote: ↑Sat Jun 18, 2016 12:59 pm https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/250 ... -0.8.1.pdf
2012 edition for anyone who wants it.
The guide formerly known as Ravenspiral Guide
-
- KVRist
- 277 posts since 6 Mar, 2003
My music: My soundcloud page
-
- KVRist
- 383 posts since 28 Jan, 2008
-
- KVRer
- 1 posts since 1 Mar, 2020
AUTO-ADMIN: Non-MP3, WAV, OGG, SoundCloud, YouTube, Vimeo, Twitter and Facebook links in this post have been protected automatically. Once the member reaches 5 posts the links will function as normal.
I took one for the team and nabbed the PDF!
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jbtcc ... Zs1nOn7YxH (https://drive.google.com/open?id=1jbtccevUgiUkVBn2vLGaJqZs1nOn7YxH)
Let's all learn music theory together!
-
- KVRAF
- 5496 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
I was perusing this Guide just now, and came across the section on Melodic (Chocolate Fudge?) Minor.
It is actually a little bit more involved than described.
The purpose of Melodic Minor is to avoid the awkward “arabesque” gap created by the minor 6th and leading tone in Harmonic Minor. The correct way to use this scale, according to the rules of 18th century harmony and voice leading, is to use the Melodic Minor when ascending and natural minor when descending.
Also, it is called Melodic Minor because it is used for constructing the melody when Harmonic Minor is being used for the harmony. So it doesn’t really exist independently on its own without caveats.
In the Guide, it is only discussed in the context of the “Jazz Minor” and as we all know jazz isn’t real music.
It is actually a little bit more involved than described.
The purpose of Melodic Minor is to avoid the awkward “arabesque” gap created by the minor 6th and leading tone in Harmonic Minor. The correct way to use this scale, according to the rules of 18th century harmony and voice leading, is to use the Melodic Minor when ascending and natural minor when descending.
Also, it is called Melodic Minor because it is used for constructing the melody when Harmonic Minor is being used for the harmony. So it doesn’t really exist independently on its own without caveats.
In the Guide, it is only discussed in the context of the “Jazz Minor” and as we all know jazz isn’t real music.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
non seqitur "So": So it doesn’t really exist independently on its own without caveats.
That's word salad. The assertion wants to follow a statement you've made that in my experience is unique to you having said it in this thread just now. No, there are harmonies that one uses to support ^6 ^7 melodic minor in ascension that are not out of harmonic minor. That's just not a true statement in any way. IV as opposed to iv is the incredibly obvious chord under that ^6.
Are people supposed as eliding IV by some rule so that "melodic minor" isn't a thing in itself? Are you trying to construct concepts to suit some inchoate premise ad culum? This is bullshit.
Jazz minor enjoys as much currency probably as any usage by that name at this point, except in school. Its prevalence in the old school stems purely from a convention.
"The correct way to use this scale, according to the rules of 18th century harmony and voice leading, is to use the Melodic Minor when ascending and natural minor when descending."
Really? Is that a fact? (here's an invention in D Minor by one JS Bach. Wherein so-called melodic minor ascending appears in descension in keys A minor and D minor.)
Appears to have become a rule to Rameau who formed some sentences around his conception of a 'should be' or right handling of minor key in descension (which by the way was only different than major key in the min. or maj. 3rd to him, and others). JS Bach followed suit except where he didn't.
The supposed awkwardness of b6 ^7 is rather overstated. There is nothing a-melodic about harmonic minor. JS Bach appeared to have preferred something else. Rameau mentioned no problem of harmonic minor in ascension I can find.
The objection can only ever be down to a matter of taste. "fill the gap of" is just regurgitating some old lingo out of context. An irritating construction, against meaning. In fact, the real music theory here is that both come from the older modal music; ie., the practice of fashioning a leading tone to Aeolian for Harmonic minor and Melodic comes from fashioning a leading tone to Dorian.
This guide is underprepared and inadequate for its purpose and since there are solid sources available in its stead even a criticism of its faults vaunts it into being paid attention to, where it might just be left to float away in the 'net.
That's word salad. The assertion wants to follow a statement you've made that in my experience is unique to you having said it in this thread just now. No, there are harmonies that one uses to support ^6 ^7 melodic minor in ascension that are not out of harmonic minor. That's just not a true statement in any way. IV as opposed to iv is the incredibly obvious chord under that ^6.
Are people supposed as eliding IV by some rule so that "melodic minor" isn't a thing in itself? Are you trying to construct concepts to suit some inchoate premise ad culum? This is bullshit.
Jazz minor enjoys as much currency probably as any usage by that name at this point, except in school. Its prevalence in the old school stems purely from a convention.
"The correct way to use this scale, according to the rules of 18th century harmony and voice leading, is to use the Melodic Minor when ascending and natural minor when descending."
Really? Is that a fact? (here's an invention in D Minor by one JS Bach. Wherein so-called melodic minor ascending appears in descension in keys A minor and D minor.)
Appears to have become a rule to Rameau who formed some sentences around his conception of a 'should be' or right handling of minor key in descension (which by the way was only different than major key in the min. or maj. 3rd to him, and others). JS Bach followed suit except where he didn't.
The supposed awkwardness of b6 ^7 is rather overstated. There is nothing a-melodic about harmonic minor. JS Bach appeared to have preferred something else. Rameau mentioned no problem of harmonic minor in ascension I can find.
The objection can only ever be down to a matter of taste. "fill the gap of" is just regurgitating some old lingo out of context. An irritating construction, against meaning. In fact, the real music theory here is that both come from the older modal music; ie., the practice of fashioning a leading tone to Aeolian for Harmonic minor and Melodic comes from fashioning a leading tone to Dorian.
This guide is underprepared and inadequate for its purpose and since there are solid sources available in its stead even a criticism of its faults vaunts it into being paid attention to, where it might just be left to float away in the 'net.
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
since it gets necro'd like this
which is a very specific thing whereby the interval of the sixth in a first inversion harmony on iv is raised to promote drive to the dominant from the subdominant position: F A D to F A D#, to E G# (D). It's an augmentation of a major sixth in a classical music conception known as a "six chord", not an added sixth but the sixth found in a first inversion of a chord, its new bass in relation to its root. Extensions to the 13th are strictly from jazz, & believe me there is no augmented 13th in common practice parlance, the chord name doesn't exist in jazz either, nor does the very idea.
So it has no meaning in this "guide" which certainly is not built from that kind of knowledge.
Earlier I had mentioned a real "#13" but it's way beyond our scope, and beyond conceptions bounded in the full seven-note chord. We may consider #15 and so forth as well if we're getting this far afield. a C root having a B, an F# and an A#. We can make a C# that isn't a mispelled b9 from here.
Quite beyond calling something "a #13 chord"
Sorry kids, some things on the internet do not hold water but are full of holes.
What is a sharp 13th chord supposed as doing or even being? You sharp that interval, or the simpler reading of it, the 6th, it's very probably one of two things: a minor seventh; or its the nominative part of an augmented sixth chord.manducator wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2012 7:20 am On page 19, the last interval in the picture = (#13) flat thirteenth
That should be sharp thirtheenth
which is a very specific thing whereby the interval of the sixth in a first inversion harmony on iv is raised to promote drive to the dominant from the subdominant position: F A D to F A D#, to E G# (D). It's an augmentation of a major sixth in a classical music conception known as a "six chord", not an added sixth but the sixth found in a first inversion of a chord, its new bass in relation to its root. Extensions to the 13th are strictly from jazz, & believe me there is no augmented 13th in common practice parlance, the chord name doesn't exist in jazz either, nor does the very idea.
So it has no meaning in this "guide" which certainly is not built from that kind of knowledge.
Earlier I had mentioned a real "#13" but it's way beyond our scope, and beyond conceptions bounded in the full seven-note chord. We may consider #15 and so forth as well if we're getting this far afield. a C root having a B, an F# and an A#. We can make a C# that isn't a mispelled b9 from here.
Quite beyond calling something "a #13 chord"
Sorry kids, some things on the internet do not hold water but are full of holes.
-
- KVRAF
- 5496 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
If I understand you correctly, you are saying that harmonies underlying melodic minor melodies do not necessarily need to use harmonic minor? If so, you'll get no argument from me on that. But then again, I never said otherwise. I said melodic minor is used to get smoother melodic lines when harmonic minor is being used. I never said there was an obligation to explicitly use harmonic minor underneath raised degrees of melodic minor. Harmonic minor is the 'problem', and melodic minor is the 'solution'. Causality doesn't flow the other way. But what you will see is an overall harmonic minor tonality that nonetheless avoids the arabesque interval in the melody. Whereas harmonic minor is all about establishing the V leading to i relationship in the harmony. And you really cannot separate melodic minor from either harmonic minor or natural minor. With melodic minor, you get the other two.jancivil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:55 pm non seqitur "So": So it doesn’t really exist independently on its own without caveats.
That's word salad. The assertion wants to follow a statement you've made that in my experience is unique to you having said it in this thread just now. No, there are harmonies that one uses to support ^6 ^7 melodic minor in ascension that are not out of harmonic minor. That's just not a true statement in any way. IV as opposed to iv is the incredibly obvious chord under that ^6.
Jazz minor is not melodic minor. Jazz minor merely resembles melodic minor superficially from one angle, but it is simplified to just 7 fixed notes. When you say "melodic minor" it implies a fluidity in the 6th and 7th degrees. "Jazz minor" implies a fixed 7 note major scale with a flat 3rd, with none treated as accidentals. So we really can't use one name to describe the other. Context is everything. You of all people would understand that, I would think.jancivil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:55 pmAre people supposed as eliding IV by some rule so that "melodic minor" isn't a thing in itself? Are you trying to construct concepts to suit some inchoate premise ad culum? This is bullshit.
Jazz minor enjoys as much currency probably as any usage by that name at this point, except in school. Its prevalence in the old school stems purely from a convention.
Your Bach example actually backs up what I'm saying. In this piece in D minor, sometimes the B♮ appears, and sometimes the B♭ appears. So the major 6th does not exist by itself, here. Sometimes it is the natural minor 6th. If melodic minor was just 7 fixed notes, that wouldn't be the case.jancivil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:55 pm"The correct way to use this scale, according to the rules of 18th century harmony and voice leading, is to use the Melodic Minor when ascending and natural minor when descending."
Really? Is that a fact? (here's an invention in D Minor by one JS Bach. Wherein so-called melodic minor ascending appears in descension in keys A minor and D minor.)
Appears to have become a rule to Rameau who formed some sentences around his conception of a 'should be' or right handling of minor key in descension (which by the way was only different than major key in the min. or maj. 3rd to him, and others). JS Bach followed suit except where he didn't.
Clearly, these are not terribly rigid rules for when the raised and natural degrees are used. They seem to just be loose guidelines that came about at some point. But I didn't make them up, and they are certainly something you will come across in music theory class.
Personally I like the gap between the minor 6th and major 7th. I exploit it often. I'd probably have half as much music if it weren't for it. I'm just giving the commonly accepted reason for why melodic minor was used, historically, by composers who opted to do so.jancivil wrote: ↑Wed Feb 07, 2024 5:55 pmThe supposed awkwardness of b6 ^7 is rather overstated. There is nothing a-melodic about harmonic minor. JS Bach appeared to have preferred something else. Rameau mentioned no problem of harmonic minor in ascension I can find.
The objection can only ever be down to a matter of taste. "fill the gap of" is just regurgitating some old lingo out of context.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
-
- KVRAF
- 25053 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
I have no more time for this, it's starting to be like writing a book, and on something I don't care that much about.
It's irritating to me to see the old hoary tropes trotted out, out of what seems to me to be a inchoate or half-assed concept of those matters. Your joke on jazz, if that's what it is (doesn't communicate anything) fell resoundingly flat. Any further exchange of points from there would be a total waste of time, for me, for everyone. Necro'ing this sad thread is bad form, just to do what?
It's irritating to me to see the old hoary tropes trotted out, out of what seems to me to be a inchoate or half-assed concept of those matters. Your joke on jazz, if that's what it is (doesn't communicate anything) fell resoundingly flat. Any further exchange of points from there would be a total waste of time, for me, for everyone. Necro'ing this sad thread is bad form, just to do what?
-
- KVRAF
- 5496 posts since 2 Sep, 2019
So all that because you didn't like a joke about jazz? Touchy! 
Anyways, I have more time for this, so here's a bit of context about melodic minor that might help provide a better understanding to others who also have time for it.
As European music evolved, composers really settled on centering around a relationship between I and V, particularly V resolving to I. However, the natural minor has i and v, so the minor 3rd in v doesn't provide as strong a pull leading back to the tonic as there is from the major 3rd of V leading back to the tonic. This dominant major 3rd leading up a half-step back to the root is called the "leading tone" for obvious reasons.
So when composing in minor, composers started substituting v with V to get that leading tone pull in the chord structure, and thus Harmonic Minor was born. It has a particularly sober and authoritative sound, but some composers found the large interval from the minor 6th to the major 7th a bit garish, particularly in melodic leading, so their solution was to also raise the 6th. This creates a different problem, where this "Melodic Minor" scale loses most of its minor feel, since it's now basically just Major with a minor 3rd. So what was settled on was this loose notion that you use the raised 6th and 7th when ascending, and the natural minor when descending.
But why? The reason is this: when "ascending", this really implies moving up to the root. The whole purpose of the raised 7th is to get the leading tone that pulls everything back up to the tonic. And the purpose of the raised 6th is to smooth over that gap when approaching the raised 7th from below. But when "descending", (that is, when moving from the root down the scale), the leading tone's upward pull is not in play, nor is resolution an immediate concern, so we have space to explore the darker intervals of the natural minor that establish the minor mood.
But at the same time, having two different versions of the 6th and 7th degrees opens up a lot of variation in color, both in the melody and in the harmony by providing the option of V and IV, and if you're really adventurous, ii, which solves the age-old problem of ii° in minor. In a way, melodic minor kind of says "anything goes" which may also be why buttoned down 18th century theorists tried to establish some semblance of rules to reel it in. Otherwise it would be anarchy, or worse, jazz. (Oops, there I go again!)
The jazz minor, on the other hand, doesn't do any of that. It's just another scale: a major scale with a blue 3rd.
Anyways, I have more time for this, so here's a bit of context about melodic minor that might help provide a better understanding to others who also have time for it.
As European music evolved, composers really settled on centering around a relationship between I and V, particularly V resolving to I. However, the natural minor has i and v, so the minor 3rd in v doesn't provide as strong a pull leading back to the tonic as there is from the major 3rd of V leading back to the tonic. This dominant major 3rd leading up a half-step back to the root is called the "leading tone" for obvious reasons.
So when composing in minor, composers started substituting v with V to get that leading tone pull in the chord structure, and thus Harmonic Minor was born. It has a particularly sober and authoritative sound, but some composers found the large interval from the minor 6th to the major 7th a bit garish, particularly in melodic leading, so their solution was to also raise the 6th. This creates a different problem, where this "Melodic Minor" scale loses most of its minor feel, since it's now basically just Major with a minor 3rd. So what was settled on was this loose notion that you use the raised 6th and 7th when ascending, and the natural minor when descending.
But why? The reason is this: when "ascending", this really implies moving up to the root. The whole purpose of the raised 7th is to get the leading tone that pulls everything back up to the tonic. And the purpose of the raised 6th is to smooth over that gap when approaching the raised 7th from below. But when "descending", (that is, when moving from the root down the scale), the leading tone's upward pull is not in play, nor is resolution an immediate concern, so we have space to explore the darker intervals of the natural minor that establish the minor mood.
But at the same time, having two different versions of the 6th and 7th degrees opens up a lot of variation in color, both in the melody and in the harmony by providing the option of V and IV, and if you're really adventurous, ii, which solves the age-old problem of ii° in minor. In a way, melodic minor kind of says "anything goes" which may also be why buttoned down 18th century theorists tried to establish some semblance of rules to reel it in. Otherwise it would be anarchy, or worse, jazz. (Oops, there I go again!)
The jazz minor, on the other hand, doesn't do any of that. It's just another scale: a major scale with a blue 3rd.
THIS MUSIC HAS BEEN MIXED TO BE PLAYED LOUD SO TURN IT UP
