Can we talk melodic minor?

[nuffink]

C-maj7

[Toxikator]

OOOOOH. I see. It's like the C- way of writing Cm, with maj7... so it's a CmM7.

I'll be honest, I've never seen that chord used in one of these discussions, so I had no idea what the New Realbook symbol is for it. My head just sort of saw "CMaj7" and ignored the little -

My bad. That makes a lot more sense now; it's C Eb G B.

So just for future clarification, could you also write it as CmM7? b/c honestly that "-" tricked me up.

EDIT: Okay, Madbrain, I get you, but still, isn't the Dm9b5 chord not built on the melodic minor scale, but the natural minor scale...?

[rockstar_not]

I just play what sounds good to my ears. Sometimes that's more useful to make music.

I wish I knew more theory but I wonder if I would think about it too much.

-Scott

[Toxikator]

I just play what sounds good to my ears. Sometimes that's more useful to make music.

I wish I knew more theory but I wonder if I would think about it too much.

-Scott

There's nothing wrong with that, obviously music is ultimately a creative art. But I've found that the more theory I study, the wider my musical "vocabulary" grows, and the more options I'm left with. I mean, I'd never go cminor dminor, as I have no idea what to DO with it; it would always sound open-ended and directionless. That's what this is about; I'm hoping someone will go "oh yeah, just move it to V and it works the same as iio" or "oh yeah, since you've raised the 6th scale degree it works like the v in dorian and you should move to the v since it suggests the relative i of the aeolian" or whatever have you. I just kind of get tired of hitting random chords wondering where on earth this piece should go.

I'm sure that's happened to you...? You hit a chord, and you know it needs to DO something, but you can't seem to figure out what? And then someone goes "you're thinking of this" and all of a sudden a progression that seemed foreign to you now makes perfect sense?

[Ph-J]

that's just a terminology thing; the way I learned it, a "progression" is the natural, resolving motion of a chord, a "regression" is the opposite motion of the progression, and a "succession" is an arbitrary motion to an unrelated chord.

I know it's a terminology thing, but you realize the common terminology is to call a progression a succession of chords.
There are 'strong' or 'ascending' progressions: a 4th up or a 3d down;
descending ('weak')progressions: a 4th down or a 3d up;
and 'superstrong' progression (as Schoenberg calls them): a step up / down
You're totally entitled to make your own terminology, but you shouldn't be surprised when people answer you using the common definition of the terms.

When You're at the "I" chord, you can't "progress"... at least using those terms.

again, using common terminology, from I you can go to IV, V, VI, even II or III, and the resulting movement would be called a progression.

In the Pachelbel example, the motion is from V to vi... a deceptive resolution which suggests the relative minor.

the Pachelbel example is typical of what is called a 'sequence' ie "the systematic transposition of a melodic, rythmic and harmonic pattern" (Piston),
the pattern I-V is repeated a third down --> vi-iii, then IV-I. Calling the V-vi a deceptive resolution is somewhat missing the point.

To get back to your original point: though it must certainly happen, I don't have any example of a 'ii' in minor; IV is more common, in Bach for example in the 'IV-vii6-i' progression, or as simple interchange to i, as in i-IV-i (Debussy's fanfare in Fêtes comes to mind). I don't have any example for 'vi°' that comes to mind, but it would most probably be used as a V (vii°) of VII (ie dominant to the Bb chord in c)

[Toxikator]

You're totally entitled to make your own terminology, but you shouldn't be surprised when people answer you using the common definition of the terms.

I didn't make it up.

From some website:

There are general principles that, when followed, allow for a clear and a logical presentation of ideas. Similarly, when tonal harmonies follow certain principles, the music seems to move forward more strongly. When chords follow these principles, we say they are following a progression. When they move the opposite of a progression, it is called a regression. In some cases, chords may not clearly progress or regress -- this is labeled a chord succession.

My Theory professors use(d) the same terminology (or progression/regression, anyway).

That may not mean it's right, but I assure you I didn't just make it up.

To get back to your original point: though it must certainly happen, I don't have any example of a 'ii' in minor; IV is more common, in Bach for example in the 'IV-vii6-i' progression, or as simple interchange to i, as in i-IV-i (Debussy's fanfare in Fêtes comes to mind). I don't have any example for 'vi°' that comes to mind, but it would most probably be used as a V (vii°) of VII (ie dominant to the Bb chord in c)

Now see, that's exactly the kind of answer I was hoping for. I'm off to try that, and I appreciate it greatly!

Though I do feel obligated to press the point about the vi°... is there no way in which it would naturally work along with the #vii°? I only ask because the Melodic Minor makes a point of raising the 6th AND 7th... so I was wondering if there wasn't also some sort of working function there. Not that I'm disregarding the vi°>VII motion; it's brilliant, since the VII works so well moving to i (or to V|6 to i)

[Toxikator]

BTW for those following along going "WTF?", here are some other progressions to demo:

i - vi* - VI - ii - V - V7 - VI - #vi° - VII - V|65** - i

i - #vi° - VII7 - i

Do them at your own rhythm, of course. They're not all necessarily meant to be chords of the same duration.

* in C minor, Ab Cb Eb. It's not TECHNICALLY diatonic, but if you respell it as Ab B Eb all of the notes are present, so I'm counting it anyway

** A V7 chord in first inversion (the |65 is the best I can do to approximate the figured bass inversion system using my typing keyboard) to create an ascending half-step bass pattern. For those not the biggest fans of that system of notation, V7/3.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Just doodling a bit regarding #vi°, following my previous advice about the 3rd falling by diatonic step, in the melodic minor this gives you the following options:

1) #vi° - #vii°
2) #vi° - ii
3) #vi° - V

The first option moves to another diminished chord, so probably isn't the best way to resolve it. (Although lots of consecutive diminished chords can work in certain contexts).

Both the second and third options seem perfectly possible. The second option looks particularly good as it moves up a 4th (or down a 5th). But moving to V also works well (with good part-writing of course).

You aren't limited to these of course, maybe resolving the 3rd up a diatonic step might work? (To IV ?)

But personally, I never try to harmonise using the melodic minor. - I harmonise using *the minor key*, then raise any 7ths or 6th that seem appropriate. My default thinking for harmony is probably the harmonic minor though, and sharpened 6ths are only used when necessary in a melodic line (Which is how the melodic minor was first used), or when they simply sound better.

[Toxikator]

JJF, thanks also for that. The #vi° - ii is a nice one in particular, and it's got a sound that's not dissimilar from the ii°-v motion of the natural minor.

I'm not sure how I feel about the #vi° - V motion. It's very odd, but in a way it works. TBH I prefer the sound of the VI - V to it, but it's still nifty.

The #vi° - #vii° grows on you. It seems at first like it shouldn't work but the good thing about it is that moving to the vii° invites the i, so you don't really notice that it's not a stable resolution from one diminished chord to the next. Now if I could just find a way to work the ii° in there we'd be in business