Minor key scales

[bb11]

I'm having trouble understanding the minor key scales...I know there are several, so my main questions are


1. Where can I find the particular roman numeral notations for each scale? Just as the major scale is I-ii-iii-IV-V-vi-viio, I want to know what each minor scale is.

2. What "color" or "feel" does each minor scale provide exactly? I know there is a natural minor scale, harmonic minor, etc..But when is it recommended to use these and why?

Thanks in advance. This forum has been life changing with the theory advice

[JumpingJackFlash]

I'm having trouble understanding the minor key scales...I know there are several, so my main questions are


1. Where can I find the particular roman numeral notations for each scale? Just as the major scale is I-ii-iii-IV-V-vi-viio, I want to know what each minor scale is.

2. What "color" or "feel" does each minor scale provide exactly? I know there is a natural minor scale, harmonic minor, etc..But when is it recommended to use these and why?

Thanks in advance. This forum has been life changing with the theory advice

It's best to think that the minor scale (unlike the major) has two variables in it; the sixth and seventh notes.


The Harmonic Minor: i - iidim - IIIaug - iv - V - VI - viidim

The (ascending) Melodic Minor: i - ii - III - IV - v - vidim - VII

The Natural Minor: i - iidim - III - iv - v - VI - VII


Generally, use the harmonic minor when doing harmonies (chords); making chord V major strengthens the pull towards the tonic.

Use the melodic minor for melodies (to avoid the ungainly augmented interval between sixth and sharpened-seventh degrees).

For more info, see:
An Introduction to Music Theory
Scales, Modes and Chords[/code]

[bb11]

So you're saying it's best to do write a chord progression using the harmonic minor scale, and then write the melody FOR that chord progression with the notes found in the corresponding melodic minor scale?

I'm confused - you said the minor scale has 2 variables in it, and yet the third degree is different (IIIaug vs III)and the second degree in the ascending minor scale isn't diminished.


Thanks for your help!

[JumpingJackFlash]

So you're saying it's best to do write a chord progression using the harmonic minor scale, and then write the melody FOR that chord progression with the notes found in the corresponding melodic minor scale?

I'm confused - you said the minor scale has 2 variables in it, and yet the third degree is different (IIIaug vs III)and the second degree in the ascending minor scale isn't diminished.

The difference between the various minor scales is the sixth and seventh notes (not chords; notes).
The natural minor is according to key signature with no accidentals.
The harmonic minor differs from that only with the seventh note raised by one semitone.
The ascending melodic minor raises both the sixth and seventh notes by one semitone.
The descending melodic minor is identical to the natural minor.

So, take the mediant triad for example, and let's say we're in A minor.
Using the natural minor, the notes of chord III would be C, E and G - a major chord.
G is the seventh note of A minor. If we raise this by one semitone, it becomes G#.
Therefore, in the harmonic minor, the notes would be C, E and G# - an augmented chord.

In a nutshell, I would advise sticking to the harmonic minor by default. The only time this will be an issue is if you have the sixth and seventh notes next to each other in any part. In that case, if the sixth rises to the seventh, both should be raised by one semitone (using the melodic minor to avoid the augmented second). If the seventh falls to the sixth, neither should be sharpened (ditto).

[jancivil]

why should the augmented second be avoided in a line? If you want to assert some deal like that, please provide a context for it.

I mean, once upon a time somebody thought to say that, as if that interval is a bad thing in a musical line.
That was centuries ago and that particular taste consideration isn't so much a rule in music anymore.

[llatham]

I'm having trouble understanding the minor key scales...I know there are several, so my main questions are


1. Where can I find the particular roman numeral notations for each scale? Just as the major scale is I-ii-iii-IV-V-vi-viio, I want to know what each minor scale is.

2. What "color" or "feel" does each minor scale provide exactly? I know there is a natural minor scale, harmonic minor, etc..But when is it recommended to use these and why?

Thanks in advance. This forum has been life changing with the theory advice

Ok, here's the problem:

In the Common Practice Period, Minor keys had 7 notes, two of which were variable depending on the circumstances.

When there was a need to alter a HARMONY so it had more push to the tonic, the 7th note of the scale was raised a half step.

When there was a need to alter the MELODY so it avoiding the difficult-to-sing and "eastern-sounding" interval of the Augmented 2nd, the 6th was raised to lead to the raised 7th, or the 7th was kept natural to lead to the natural 6th.

But, THERE WERE NOT THREE DIFFERENT SCALES. In fact, CPP composers didn't compose using "scales". They composed using KEYS - that's why they call it "Tonality" - it's all about keys.

So take the KEY of A minor.

The chords used would be:

Am Bo C Dm E F G#o

I iio III iv V vi viio

In the V and viio chords, the 7th scale degree was raised for HARMONIC reasons.

In order to help people remember this, people came up with the "artificial" idea of the "Harmonic Minor Scale". But really, Bach didn't sit down and say "Oh, I'm going to use Harmonic Minor for this piece".

Composers would also use IV and #vi%7, which use raised 6 when leading to certain versions of V and viio (by the way, you will see IV move to V, and iv move to V depending on the voice-leading and the melody). You will also find "non-dominant" v (minor v) and bVII used as well (so Em and G in the key of Am).

Again, Bach didn't sit down and say "I'm going to use Melodic Minor for this piece".

Instead, he wrote in E minor for example, and altered the C and/or D based on his HARMONIC and MELODIC needs at the moment.

So we get these "artificial" constructs called the Harmonic Minor and Melodic Minor scale.

If you look at the famous Bouree in Em (from the Lute Suite) you can see immediately that all three "scales" are in use:

E F# G F# E D#* E F# B C#** D#** E D*** C*** B A G etc..

* = Harmonic minor
** = Melodic minor
*** = Pure (natrual) minor (or the descending part of Melodic)

That's not "composing with a scale" - it's altering notes of the key for harmonic and melodic purposes.

Unfortunately, most people do not understand this. So we've had entire genres of music evolve where they DO use these artificial constructs as actual scales - in fact, the ascending portion of melodic minor is used in Jazz as "Jazz Minor" - and you get a total bastardization of the original system, but it still produces good music so it's worthy on it's own merits.

So, the question is, do you want to treat minor like Bach, or like Miles Davis, or like Metallica? Each do different things with minor.

As an aside, CPP composers NEVER use "III+". III is not a dominant function harmony so there was no need to raise 7 (the 5th of the chord) in that chord. I cringe every time I see a theory text say "here are the chords made from the harmonic minor scale". Nope. Sorry. All they did was change 7 in V and viio, and 6 in iv and VI. "ii" (not iio) and "III+" just didn't happen (ii *might* happen very rarely - and if you see either of them, it's typically for another reason).

But for modern music, anything goes. No need to limit yourself to any constructs, artificial or otherwise.

Steve

[JumpingJackFlash]

As an aside, CPP composers NEVER use "III+". III is not a dominant function harmony so there was no need to raise 7 (the 5th of the chord) in that chord.

This is not true. Bach uses this chord quite a bit, usually in first inversion (which can indeed often function as a dominant chord).

Chord ii in the minor key, while not as common as iidim, is also not to be completely disregarded.

If anything, I would say the rarest chords (using the melodic minor) are IVa, IIIb, and any position of vidim. - These are the chords that Bach almost never uses (not without a seventh added anyway).

The rest of your post was all very good though.

[llatham]

This is not true. Bach uses this chord quite a bit, usually in first inversion (which can indeed often function as a dominant chord).

I've been through this discussion many times with people:

They are not III+ chords, they are V+ chords. They are E-G-B# in the key of A for example. You *might* find the B# spelled as C for enharmonic purposes (more likely in more remote keys) and if the chord has a dominant function, we assign it a numeral of "V".

If you can point me to some specific examples where they are actually "III" chords in first inversion, and not functioning as Dominants, I'd be interested to see them.

Steve

[JumpingJackFlash]

This is not true. Bach uses this chord quite a bit, usually in first inversion (which can indeed often function as a dominant chord).

I've been through this discussion many times with people:

They are not III+ chords, they are V+ chords. They are E-G-B# in the key of A for example. You *might* find the B# spelled as C for enharmonic purposes (more likely in more remote keys) and if the chord has a dominant function, we assign it a numeral of "V".

I'm afraid this is nonsense. For starters, E-G-B# is not an augmented chord, that would require a G#. In fact, this combination of notes cannot form any recognised triad starting on E.

E-G-C (which, enharmonically, is the only way to view the above 3 notes) clearly forms a C major triad in first inversion.

Otherwise, by this logic, A-C-F (clearly F major in first inversion) could be viewed enharmonically as A-C-E# and some form of A chord. - This of course is meaningless.

I will however admit that sometimes what might at first glance appear to be III+ in first inversion can be analysed as chord V with a suspension, auxiliary note or similar (this typically occurs at cadences, a holdover from the 17th century) but this is certainly not true in all cases, and there are many times when it just makes sence to call the chord III+.

If you can point me to some specific examples where they are actually "III" chords in first inversion, and not functioning as Dominants, I'd be interested to see them.

Well, unfortunately I don't have a great deal of time on my hands, but as a quick list of a few, check the following examples from Bach's chorales:

Jesu, Jesu, du bist mein. R244/T204/BWV357, bar 13.
Nicht so traurig, nicht so sehr. R149/T261/BWV384, bar 2.
Jesu, meine Freude. R324/T212/BWV81.7, bar 9.
Jesu, der du meine Seele . R37/T200/BWV352, bar 1.

After the title, chorales are referenced against their number in Riemenschneider, Terry and BWV number.

[llatham]

the chord has a dominant function, we assign it a numeral of "V".

I'm afraid this is nonsense. For starters, E-G-B# is not an augmented chord, that would require a G#. [/quote]

Sorry, that was a typo. I meant G#.

Will check out your examples.

Steve

[llatham]

Jesu, der du meine Seele . R37/T200/BWV352, bar 1.

After the title, chorales are referenced against their number in Riemenschneider, Terry and BWV number.