Talk:Minor scale

Some changes

I intend to make a few ammendements to this article. I thought it best to explain my reasons here and to add that I don't wish to offend anybody by doing so, I'm just building on the work you people have already put onto this page. Naturally I expect you to correct any mistakes I make and if your opinions differ I would appreciate some discussion before or after changes.

My first change will be made to the opening sentence:

"A minor scale in music theory is a diatonic scale with a third scale degree at an interval of a minor third above the tonic."

The problem is that minor scales can be derived from sets of pitch relations other than those of the diatonic scale. The paragraph then mentions the Harmonic Minor scale which is not a diatonic scale, containing, as it does a minor third interval).

I will also mention the Dorian and Phrygian modes which, however infrequently they are used in classical music, are both valid and widely used elsewhere.

Furthermore I would suggest, following a brief introduction to those minor scales which cannot be derived from major scales by modal changes alone (Harmonic and Melodic Minor[ascending form]) creating links to other pages (yet to be authored) which cover the properties of these scales in further detail. For those of you who might think this is overkill allow me to explain my reasoning as follows:

By altering just one note in a scale you can also alter the nature of every possible chord formed containing the altered note. This leads to radically different requirements for the harmonisation of the scale concerned and how a piece or fragment of music might be resolved.

To illustrate this take the Harmonic Minor scale (I choose this partly because it is widely used and hence familiar). By sharpening the 7th of an Aeolian ("Natural Minor") you introduce two sets of chords which are effectively rootless, the Diminished 7th (4 notes and four equally valid roots) or the Augmented triad (with its three roots). Neither of these properties exist in the natural minor (Aeolian mode) or the other minor modes derived from the major scale, the Dorian and Phrygian modes.

Melodic Minor (ascending form i.e. Aeolian #6 and #7 for instance) is again very different from the Aeolian modes. Personally I think it is simpler to regard the Melodic Minor ascending form as a derivative of a Dorian because then you only have to alter one note (=Dorian #7).

I hope that this is acceptable. Feel free to contact me. Andrew F. (talk) 03:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Grammar

"In other words meantone tunings the semitone is not half of a tone, but a somewhat larger interval." This is not an English sentence. (Nor, by the way, does it semantically follow its preceding sentence). Please fix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.201.182 (talk) 02:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Spacing

It would be nice if a consistent format for describing the tonal spacing could be arrived at and stuck to. Looking at the minor scale its defined by notes, "ABCDEFGA", tones, "W,H,W,W,H,W,W," , and semitones .. "(in semitones - 2 1 2 2 1 2 2)" but this descriptive format is not stuck to when describing the melodic minor a paragraph later, other modes, for example the page on the Dorian scale also misses out elements of this format. A unified format (perhaps incorporating 3 or 4 of the possible ways of describing the scale) but always in the same order and style (ie capital letters for W and H in the whole and half tones description) would allow a user to more easily compare scales. Rszemeti (talk) 12:45, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The major scale is defined in terms of the spacing of its notes

tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, semitoneAlso known as "Whole step, whole step, half step, whole, whole, whole, half"

This has not yet been done for minor scale. It only says that some notes have been augmented (raised in pitch).

I may be able to work out the spacing of the notes by the sharps and flats used. -- User:Karl Palmen

For the Harmonic Scale it is tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tonesemitone, semitone User:Rjstott (before adding to minor scale someone else should confirm!)

On the Melodic ascending part it is tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, tone, semitone though I've never understood the relevance of why it is different on the way down as scales aren't a general feature of most music!

Thanks for the information and again, I can't understand why it's different on the way down, because I see a scale as a set of notes used for a piece of music.

The harmonic tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone, semitone, semitone doesn't add up. An octave needs 5 tones and 2 semitones.

The melodic tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, tone, semitone does add up. It has a run of 4 tones and a run of 1 tone and so is not a cyclic shift of major and so I'd expect it to sound different.

A look at Musical mode says this is not true and that minor is

tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone

This is a cycle shift of major. It is identical to major except it starts a tone and a semitone lower. Now I ask Why do Major and Minor Scales sound different?

--User:Karl Palmen

Considering just the natural minor for the moment (which has the same notes as the relative major, just permuted) -- it all depends on where your home note (or tonic) is. The pattern of T/S from A upwards to A' in natural A minor is different from the pattern from C upwards to C' in C major. So a melody that treats the respective tonics as the 'home' note will sound different, because of the different pattern of tone gaps. Same notes, different pattern.

If you didn't think of the 'wheel' of notes as having a home, and you could choose C or A as starting point at will, or had no idea of "starting point" at all, then there's no difference. Consider playing random notes from the whole piano keyboard from either set - it will sound the same, because they use the same set of notes. It's only human pattern-making that makes the musical structure that makes the difference. --- The Anome

I now ask about this pattern making. The answer could go in the tonic page. --- User:Karl Palmen

The presence of the leading tone, the sharp version of the 7th scale degree, is essential to establish tonic in the minor mode. It's a mistake to associate the minor mode as used in the common-practice period with the Aeolian church mode because of this. Teaching about the "natural minor" scale is misleading; that's an artificial construct derived (in a kind of back-formation) from the key signature. The key signature does not determine the notes to be used in a piece. Compositions using only the Aeolian notes sound "modal" to our ears and not in the minor mode as composers from Monteverdi to Puccini used it (Vaughan Williams, on the other hand...). There's a very interesting book which addresses this (and other topics) called "Lies my music teacher told me" by Gerald Eskelin. He argues against the "three versions of the minor scale" and argues that only the harmonic minor has any validity. However, this is a minority view and I'm not recommending we present it in Wikipedia. But this may help some of you, and emphasizing the presence of the leading tone for the major V chord may clarify the topic somewhat. Wahoofive 23:04, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

All three of the above sequences are correct. The Harmonic minor is tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone-and-a-half, semitone, Melodic minor is tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone, tone, semitone, and Natural minor is tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone. These are really three different scales. --Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The dark sound of minor keys

In line with User:Karl Palmen's comment, I have a question about this excerpt from the article.

Minor scales are sometimes said to have a more interesting, possibly sadder sound than plain major scales.

I, too, noticed this years ago. To date I have not heard a satisfactory answer as to why this is so. Why is it that transposing a piece to a minor key suddenly makes it sound so gloomy and sullen? Whatever answer we come up with, it'll be an important addition to the article. Surely someone must know? --Ardonik 09:43, Aug 8, 2004 (UTC)

The minor mode may be considered "more interesting" only because it consists of three scales, natural, melodic, and harmonic, which, treated freely together, provides nine pitches (in C:C,D,Eb,F,G,Ab,A,Bb,B), rather than the seven of the major mode (C,D,E,F,G,A,B).

Any mention of the minor made as "happier" or "brighter" than the major, as fact, is not neutral. It does deserve a neutralized mention. Pieces in the minor mode are more than capable of being brighter or happier than a piece in major, and vice versus. Specifically, pieces written in major use effects which depend upon the features of the major scale. The leading-tone is one of these features and is used to create a feeling of drive towards the tonic, depriving a piece in major of the leading-tone, absent in the natural minor scale, takes away a great deal of the pieces energy, without replacing it.

More generally, see the new article section "Differences between major and minor".

Hyacinth 22:20, 8 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the section. --Ardonik 00:19, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I copyedited it a bit; if you did some research for the section (I see a "Gjerdingen, 1990"), would you consider adding the full citation/ISBN to a ==References== section at the bottom? I found the reading to be highly advanced and quite daunting, but that's only a reflection of my own ignorance of music theory. From what I gather, the minor key sounds darker simply because it contains triads not available in the major keys, and because its chromatic range is greater. Did I get it right? And if I did, where does the "darkness" come in? --Ardonik 00:40, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

It might be worth pointing out that a "change in mode" is not a "transposition", (you can't simply transpose from a minor to a major key) and the lightening of mood and sense of completion that is universally experienced by the use of such changes by techniques such as the Picardy third may need mentioning. -- Nunh-huh 00:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Really? I've used software (Anvil Studio) with a "transpose" function that shifted notes up by anywhere from one to twelve half-steps; doesn't that change the key? --Ardonik 00:40, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

It changes the key, but it doesn't change the mode from major to minor or vice versa. Transposition doesn't alter the intervals between notes, which you'd have to do to achieve a change in mode. - Nunh-huh 00:52, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

(Ardonik reads the article.) Oh, okay. Thanks. --Ardonik 08:39, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

According to [1]:

• "So, when you play two or more notes on an instrument capable of sustained tones, difference tones are produced. The difference tones produced by a perfectly just Dm triad in root position (D F A) are Bb (produced by the D and the F) and F (produced by the F and the A). These difference tones themselves produce another difference tone between them, an even lower Bb. So, when you play a Dm triad in JI, you hear a low Bb - not the ideal bass note for a Dm chord. However, when you play a perfectly tuned D major chord in root position (D F# A), the difference tones converge to produce a low D, two octaves below the root of the chord, which gives a nice sense of "rootedness" and finality."

Hyacinth 02:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You mean playing a triad causes some sort of eerie aural convergence on a fourth, separate note?! I'm starting to feel that my ignorance of music theory is overwhelming; is there some sort of resource (online or offline) that could provide a layman with an accessible introduction to this field of study?

Thanks for both of your answers. --Ardonik 08:39, Aug 9, 2004 (UTC)

I think you can probably get by without needing to completely understand the foregoing, as it applies to a particular type of tuning that is not often used (these days)... Suffice it to say that the difference tones alluded to are a possible explanation of a phenomenon musicians noticed when "just intonation" was common: that they associated certain keys (e.g. C# minor, F major) with certain moods or feelings, and that transposition altered those feelings. This seems not to be a factor with "equal temperment". - Nunh-huh 22:28, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I think what this is trying to get at is harmonics and overtones. When a note is played, you don't just hear that one frequency, you hear an infinite (well, not technically, human hearing only goes up to 20,000) number of harmonics. When you play a C, you also hear the C above that, the G above that, the C above that, the E above that, the G above that, etc. I guess if you play a chord, all three notes could have the same harmonic, in which case that harmonic will sound louder than all the others. I think this is what this is trying to say... I'm not sure. --Sbrools ^{(talk . contribs)} 05:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken, the notes in the, say, natural Am scale are C, D, E ,F, G, A, and B, whereas the notes in the C major scale are C, D, E ,F, G, A, and B. So, where does one come up with "The dark sound of minor keys"? --Spud Gun (talk) 15:38, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The natural Am scale has A as the tonic (central note), while the CM scale has C as the tonic. Double sharp (talk) 13:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

P.S. Although I continue to believe strongly that the really most natural of the minor scales is the harmonic minor, which will have the raised seventh degree G-sharp here. Double sharp (talk) 11:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Minor blues scale

There is also a minor blues scale, as heard in such songs as "Why don't you do right?" by Lil Green and many instrumental blues, but I am not competent to do more than point this out on the talk page. Basically the third note is flattened, but I wouldn't dare write about it myself, too ignorant. Ortolan88 01:27, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Check out Jazz scale and Blues scale. That's where such a thing would belong. --Celtic Minstrel (talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Natural minor

"A natural minor scale, is a scale without any accidentals in it." This language is confusing at best. The scale of A Minor is the only one for which this is true. Could someone please replace it with a better definition of "natural minor"? Also, shouldn't natural minor be listed before the other types? --LostLeviathan 17:37, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

An accidental is not just any sharp or flat, but a sharp or flat that's not in the key signature. A# minor has seven sharps in the key signature, but there would be no accidentals in the natural minor scale. —Keenan Pepper 20:36, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

"Naughty Girl"

The following was removed:

• Note. Since the augmented f-g# interval reminds the Western listener of Arabic or Middle Eastern music, harmonic minor is sometimes used to create an "exotic" effect. As an example, listen to "Naughty Girl" performed by Beyonce.

Earlier the article points out intervals in a scale which remind one of some kind of music, so that seems appropriate. My only question would be is "Naughty Girl" really in harmonic minor? Hyacinth 08:11, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I'd say "Naughty Girl" is actually in the Phrygian dominant scale. —Keenan Pepper 20:26, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

D-flat minor

How can we write D-flat minor?? There is no relative major key. Georgia guy 17:34, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Its relative major is F-flat major. You feel more comfortable with the enharmonic equivalent of C-sharp minor, which has E major as its relative. — Gareth Hughes 17:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Diatonic and chromatic

The article uses the term "diatonic" without adequate explanation. This term, along with "chromatic", is the cause of serious uncertainties at several other Wikipedia articles, and in the broader literature. Some of us thought that both terms needed special coverage, so we started up a new article: Diatonic and chromatic. Why not have a look, and join the discussion? Be ready to have comfortable assumptions challenged! – Noetica^♬♩ Talk 22:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

I'm just throwing this out here -- would anyone object to a List of songs in minor key? Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps)))} 04:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would. The list would be much too long to be useful. —Wahoofive (talk) 03:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You know, it might not hurt to have a comparison (or two) to listen to. For people who may understand what the article is saying but don't "get" what the difference is in how it actually sounds, maybe it'd be nice for them to hear what a song in a minor key sounds like compared to a song in a major key (preferably like a snippet of two well-known classical songs). Just a thought--I'm not a hardcore wiki discussion person and don't know the ins-and-outs or the plausibility of this like some of you others do. 70.57.113.4 08:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add my site as an external link as I've taken the time to write out every harmonic minor scale with the fingering and notes so could someone please have a look at it for me and give me the go ahead. http://www.learn-piano.org/harmonic-minor-scale.html thank you for your time. Ben

Merge Mohammedan scale

I was unfamiliar with the term, but it does seem recognized on guitar sites on a quick google search. As it's the same as the harmonic minor scale, it seems like it could be merged there (with simply a brief note of the name). Rigadoun (talk) 18:34, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but I'd say do it. If you can, add some information describing in what context this term would be used instead of harmonic minor. - Rainwarrior 04:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I can definitely see why you have suggested this. After reviewing the page, you are indeed correct that Mohammedan and the melodic minor scales are one in the same. I can see no reason why they should not be merged. Perhaps someone might include an explanation, however, as to how the Mohammedan received its name? I am curious to know.

143.207.8.4 11:51, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Anthony James

The Mohammedan Scale article definitely needs to be merged according to Wikipedia policy, as it is no more than a different name for the natural minor scale. There is actually a stronger argument for separate articles on "natural minor scale" "harmonic minor scale" and "melodic minor scale", but these are probably best as sections, so as to best contrast them with each other. 82.21.244.201 12:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The use of the term "Mohammedan scale" to refer to the harmonic minor scale is outdated, just as the word "Mohammedan", referring to a Muslim person, is no longer in use. In Arabic classical music the maqam which was described by European orientalists as the "Mohammedan scale" is called Maqam Nahawand.

In other words (something quite different)

The article currently says:

The C major scale is C D E F G A B C, so the A natural minor scale is A B C D E F G A (A is the 6th scale note of the C major scale).

In other words meantone tunings the semitone is not half of a tone, but a somewhat larger interval.

I don't see how the second statement is rephrasing the first "in other words". I don't think the article says anything at all about temperament before this mention of meantone. Plus, the "in other words" sentence doesn't seem grammatical; "...meantone tunings the semitone is not hald of a tone..", huh? I'd just delete the "in other words" bit, but am not quite confident enough on my music theory. Can someone explain? Pfly 04:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Possible to improve the explanation of the nature of the descending melodic minor scale

The explanation in the article of how the descending and the ascending melodic minor scale, respectively, is obtained from the harmonic minor scale, is as follows: "either the subtonic is used, or the sixth scale degree is raised". I was much confused by the part "either the subtonic is used" and it was only after a good while that I realised that the descending melodic minor scale contains the exact same notes as the natural melodic minor scale. For clarity, I really think this should be pointed out, and I'm asking someone with a better grasp of the theory than I have!

Thanks for your question or concern. Please sign your posts on talk pages per Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages. Thanks! Hyacinth (talk) 02:32, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is more confusing than it should be

In my opinion, this is one of those articles that has WAY too many cross-references to be useful. I have a very strong music background, including some training in formal theory, but even I had a hard time with terms like "subdominant," "common practice period," "subtonic," etc., so I can only imagine how a person with little training might feel if he/she were to come to this article (as I did) for a basic explanation of the harmonic minor scale (with which I was already familiar). While I understand that it isn't desirable to re-explain every term of art that appears on every page where such a term is used, clicking back and forth between the article and the pages for the various terms gets confusing and frustrating (particularly when the linked pages also contain terms of art that require explanation). Even where parentheticals are used (in this case, e.g., with the term "dominant"), the parentheticals contain terms of art. As it is now, the article reads like something out of a scholarly journal. I think it might be helpful if the first paragraphs of each section were written in more of a "plain English" style. I could do this, but I don't feel confident enough in my formal theory knowledge to do so.

Also, there are a number of things like the following that just don't make sense: "Thus, for purposes of melody, either the subtonic is used, or the sixth scale degree is raised; either way, there is a whole step between these two scale degrees, considered more conducive to smooth melody writing." WHICH two scale degrees? And considered by whom to be more conducisve to smooth melody writing? Zddoodah (talk) 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You have some great concerns, including Wikipedia:Explain jargon. However, "subdominant" is not a rare term and Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a manual, guidebook, or textbook. Hyacinth (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'm just surfing, this rainy Sat. - reading music theory for pleasure ;<} and I was noticing how very well done this article is. I think it's quite clear, if not for newbies. I was thinking the editors could apply some of this to major scale, which could use some work, IMO - I notice Hyacinth is active on both, more or less. ALL of the music theory articles are not for the faint of heart....Jjdon (talk) 20:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Requested audio

I have added some audio examples to the article. Hyacinth (talk) 06:00, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Keys, Circle of Fifths

link that shows the circle of fifths quite well: http://www.i-love-guitar.com/circle-of-5ths.html I am writing a book that explains all of these minor scale discrepancies, stay tuned! Microcosmmm (talk) 06:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence

"A minor scale in music theory is a diatonic scale with a third scale degree at an interval of a minor third above the tonic." This sentence is incomprehensible to almost anyone. I've attended music school and know my theory, so after reading it three times I was able to make sense of it. I strikes me as written by someone who wants you to know that they are a master of music theory, more than they want you to know what a minor scale is. Someone who doesn't know what a minor scale is, clearly doesn't know much about music theory and most likely will not want to read anything more after failing to understand the first sentence. I won't try to rewrite it but here is an example of something someone without extensive knowledge of music theory might understand "A minor scale is the equivalent of starting on the sixth note of its relative major scale and then continuing until you reach that note again, one octave higher. For example, if F major contains the notes F G A Bb C D E 'F' then its relative minor scale would be D minor which contains the same notes but starts and ends on D (D E F G A Bb C 'D')." I understand that it goes on to explain that, but if they don't know what a minor scale is, how likely is it that they will know what the Aeolian mode is? Saying that makes sense only if you are explaining music theory to someone who already knows music theory, which is illogical. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.122.72.51 (talk) 02:24, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

That depends on the term relative major, which only makes sense once you already know what the major and minor scales are. Also, it's a bit of a circular definition. — Gwalla | Talk 16:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is so hard to understand nor do I see how the sentence, "A minor scale in music theory is a diatonic scale with a third scale degree at an interval of a minor third above the tonic," is boasting. Links are provided to diatonic scale, scale degree, and minor third if one needs to read about those terms/subjects. It is certainly better than a circular definition and nothing. Hyacinth (talk) 01:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

References...

Might just be me, but where is all this information coming from? I would be whacking a great big [citation needed] on the whole article...? What's the go with that? Sorry that was poorly posed, I guess my real question is... is all the information coming from that one book Studies on the Origin of Harmonic Tonality‎? 124.170.186.64 (talk) 08:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

By "you would be" do you mean to ask if you should? By what's the go with that do you mean to ask what the proper procedure is? Hyacinth (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Frequency Ratios People!!!

THIS ARTICLE NEEDS A FREQUENCE PROPORTION RUNDOWN, AS IS PRESENT ON THE MAJOR SCALE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.211.235 (talk) 22:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Are you referring to the Harmonic properites section? Hyacinth (talk) 01:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

My point of view on harmonic/melodic

to me , it is just notes borrowed from the major key so the 5th degree of a minor key becomes major (V7) for a perfect cadence (V7 - I) . A good example is autumn leaves. in the real book (for guitar) it is in E minor (F# sig of G Major). the 5th degree is B which is minor (phrygian) in G. It needs to become major for the "cadenza V-I". You then just borrow the notes (from the key of E major) D# for harmonic and C# - D# for melodic. remember that this is western music explanation... 198.103.221.51 (talk) 20:46, 15 February 2010 (UTC) Bachman198.103.221.51 (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.152.51 (talk) 20:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

"Above Considerations"

The section "Harmonic and melodic minor" starts out with 'the above considerations of chordal harmony led to the harmonic minor scale'.

There aren't any above considerations, and apparently haven't been for several months. Somebody take a look at that, eh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.248.86.75 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Lydian Minor

The Lydian Minor scale (fourth mode of Neapolitan Major) is an interesting exception to the rule that a "minor scale" contains the tonic, minor third, and perfect fifth, thus making the tonic chord a minor triad. Lydian Minor is based on the Lydian mode with a minor sixth and minor seventh--the third, curiously enough, is major (the "minor" moniker is likely based on the minor sixth and seventh, which are also flattened in the natural minor scale). What is even more surprising is that the most likely candidate for the name "Lydian Minor" would be Lydian b3--the fourth mode of Harmonic Major. That scale is the Lydian mode with a minor third. You would expect that to be called Lydian Minor, but this is not attested in the literature (Kadmon, 1997, pp. 50, 102). Anyway, is this "notable" enough to bear discussion? I figured I'd ask here first because these scales seem to be fairly obscure. I'm afraid it might just confuse most readers.

Kadmon, A. (1997). The guitar grimoire: A notated intervallic study of scales. New York: Carl Fischer.

MetalJon (talk) 22:58, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Is this Correct?

Harmonic Minor Scale: 1 2 ♭3 4 5 ♭6 7 8 (?) when you have the A minor scale just described below? A B C D E F G# A'. Shouldn't it be tone, semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone and a half, semitone? Therefore 1 b2 3 4 b5 6# 7. Or an I not understanding what you guys have written? 122.107.131.46 (talk)

The first number refers to the tonic itself. So 2 is a whole step above, ♭3 a half step above that (a minor third above the tonic), etc. —Wahoofive (talk) 04:28, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Harmonic Minor image incorrect

The three chords germane to the discussion are shown correctly, but the B-D-F triad is diminished and should be represented by "iio," not "ii." As such, the image needs to be regenerated. Ddunkman (talk) 16:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Corrected. Hyacinth (talk) 05:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

References

A section on 'Natural minor scale' and the heading 'Harmonic minor scale' are missing

There is a heading 'Natural minor scale', but the text under it refers to the 'Harmonic minor scale'! So two things are missing: 1) The actual text about what the natural minor scale is. 2) The correct heading for the harmonic minor scale. This should be corrected! Lowbop (talk) 05:57, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Fixed. Hyacinth (talk) 07:42, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Idiosyncratic "system" material given undue weight

Standard music texts will discuss natural minor scale, harmonic minor scale, and melodic minor scale. A reasonably brief discussion about minor key is also appropriate. It may also be appropriate to talk about the modes that have a minor third (Dorian, Phrygian, Aeolian, Locrian), although that's not really necessary as it's not clear that the term "minor scale" really has significant meaning outside of a tonal system. What is clear, though, is that all this stuff at the end--two relatively long sections!--about "chromatic-minor system" and whatnot is idiosyncratic and relies on a single source that may or may not be very good. In my opinion, those sections should just be removed--they do nothing other than give the impression that some oddball "system" apparently devised by one particular author is a standard thing when it's not. Someone reading this article should come away with an understanding that there are basically three types of minor scales in tonal music (natural, harmonic, and melodic). The "chromatic minor system" stuff is a distraction. It is more than unnecessary--it's presence does the article a disservice. SlubGlub (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

I am frankly amazed by Ken Stephenson's writings. Yes, they are what one could call "idiosyncratic", but they are such uniquely accurate observations. Rock music, as does the blues, loves the grey area between major and minor. In addition, many have come to believe that these blues-based/post-blues genres of music are more simple-minded, or that classical- and jazz-based soundscapes are more sophisticated. Stephenson's "chromatic-minor system", likewise, the other systems of his, is a clear proof of how rock has its own conventions (and subversions) of harmony, sometimes delving into the intricate, whether noticed or not. They are very useful for those who want to learn; they deserve attention. --CPGACoast (talk) 01:31, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

It is entirely possible that Ken Stephenson may be an amazing writer and uniquely accurate observer whose contributions are useful and deserve attention. However, that does not change the reality that entire sections on his chromatic-minor system and natural-minor system have no place in a short article on minor scales. SlubGlub (talk) 19:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I had not realized your reply until just now. I see that the section has since been removed. Nonetheless, I feel that the information delivered in the removed sections on [2] and [3] systems is quite valuable, or at least of interest, to anyone working creatively with music or studying blues-based music. If anyone would like to see the old sections, the archived revisions are listed above. --68.192.114.243 (talk) 00:08, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Natural-minor system and Chromatic-minor system redirects

Someone with a willingness to follow Wikipedia process (really, just takes a tiny bit of patience) should nominate the redirect of "Natural-minor system" and "Chromatic-minor system" to this article for deletion under reason #8 at WP:R#DELETE. That reason is: "If the redirect is a novel or very obscure synonym for an article name, it is unlikely to be useful." "Natural-minor system" and "Chromatic-minor system" are, as far as I can tell, novel and obscure constructs from Ken Stephenson's What To Listen For In Rock: A Stylistic Analysis. Redirecting them to the article on the minor scales is wrong for that reason, but also because it's just wrong! What Stephenson apparently describes is a harmonic system, not a scale. SlubGlub (talk) 04:13, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Tonic triad is undefined

"A minor scale in Western music theory includes any scale that contains, in its tonic triad, ..."

I do not see anywhere a definition of "tonic triad". Links to the separate articles on "tonic" and "triad" are not adequate to define "tonic triad". The reader is unable to understand "minor scale" because its supposed definition uses an undefined term.CountMacula (talk) 09:31, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Is everything a minor scale?

"A minor scale in Western music theory includes any scale that contains, in its tonic triad, ..."

Then certain scales are included among the minor scales. Are these the only scales included? Are these exactly the scales that are included? Are any other scales included? Let's make it easy, not hard. Please don't leave the reader wondering.CountMacula (talk) 09:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Exactly my point, 11 years later. This is an internal conversation between Music theorists, not qualifying as an encyclopedia article, right? 148.69.193.46 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Repair False Conjunction by Page Split

The article should serve to show the incorporation of 3 component scales into one hybrid flexible-melody, functional-harmony whole. It shouldn't contain, in the exclusive sense, the 3 component scales.

Melodic minor, for instance, has modes, which are treated only in an article on jazz. Melodic major, of which melodic minor could be said to be just a mode, is missing entirely from the wiki. Harmonic minor exists only here, but leaves no parallel place for corresponding harmonic major. Natural minor, melodic minor and harmonic minor are also components of the larger (n=6) set of ancohemitonic heptatonic scales, those scales accessible by the Western key signature system, and should be available as independent pages for reference from that (coming) page, too.

Thus I propose removing the redirects for natural, melodic, and harmonic minor, and segregating those sections into separate pages, while reinforcing the main thrust of this page as the historical and functional fusion of those 3 scales. 173.172.210.42 (talk) 04:19, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Harmonic major? Melodic major? Minor is "just a mode" of major? We can't organize our page based on fringe theories. Time to lay off the 4:20, my friend. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

If anything, the reference to Jazz scale#Modes of the melodic minor scale should be strengthened. —Wahoofive (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

There's no fringe theories, just your lack of context. You may not have heard of these scales, or understand tetrachord construction and their derivation from such, but that's no reason to make accusations of drug abuse. Research, learn a little bit. Read. It'll do wonders. 173.172.210.42 (talk) 04:19, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, pretty sure I remember hearing about "harmonic major" in Rimsky-Korsakov... Double sharp (talk) 01:28, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

What's "natural" about the "natural minor"?

Does anyone know what the word "natural" in "natural minor" refers to? Was there any rationale for choosing it? Or is it just a random label used for lack of a better one? Is the inventor of that term known? Did the term originate in English or in some other language? In French "natural minor" ("gamme mineure naturelle") is referred to sometimes as "gamme mineure de type antique", although I don't know which term is more common, which older, and whether "gamme mineure naturelle" was not in fact borrowed from English. Contact Basemetal here 17:35, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

It's called "natural" because it's diatonic, that is, aligned with the typical whole/half step series, which theorists have for centuries tried to connect with natural overtones. Glareanus invented the term aeolian to describe this scale, trying to connect it with other church modes. But I don't know when the term "natural" originated.

Just clicking on the translations of this page in other wikis leads you to the terms "scala minore naturale", "Escala menor natural", "Mode mineur naturel" (which connects it to "l'echelle diatonique naturelle"), and "Natürliches Moll", so I think I'm on safe ground in declaring the terminology to be international. —Wahoofive (talk) 18:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Huge mistake under Melodic Minor

This article currently says that the ascending melodic scale is the same as the natural minor and the descending scale has two altered notes, compared to the natural minor. This is backwards. It's the descending scale that is the same as the natural minor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timbomania (talk • contribs) 18:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Uh? Looks right to me. The numbers are being presented relative to the major scale, so of course the ascending melodic scale has "5 6 7 8" and the descending one has "5 ♭6 ♭7 8", just as it should have. Double sharp (talk) 03:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

Diagram at the top

What do people think of the diagram at the very top with the white and black keys (File:MinorScale.svg)? My instinct is to delete it. In the very least, I think it's too small to read. Squandermania (talk) 01:55, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

I see what you are objecting to, though on my computer screen the diagram does not seem too small to read. It looks like a woodwind fingering chart, and it takes some time to work out what relation it has to the subject of the article. Does it contribute to an understanding of the subject, or hamper it? I'm inclined to think the latter.—Jerome Kohl (talk) 04:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Delete. Not helpful to readers. —Wahoofive (talk) 17:06, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

What is a 'scale formation'?

'Scale formation' is used in the first sentence as an underlying concept -- but it is not explained or linked. 37.99.61.154 (talk) 10:36, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Agree. I changed the first one to "scale patterns" and the second one just to "scales". If someone prefers "scale variants" (or "variations") I could live with that. —Wahoofive (talk) 21:23, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Overly complicates a very simple subject

Major and minor scales are an incredibly simple concept. Over explained in this article to the point of stupidity.

Major scales can be written as TTSTTTS

The T represents tone. Or 1 full step. A to B would be considered a tone. The S represents a semitone or 1/2 step. B to C would be considered a semitone.

there are multiple minor scales but all that does is add confusion. The most commonly used is the natural minor. Using the same format as above....

TSTTSTT

In the above examples if we use c as the root note. The major scale becomes

CDEFGAB

The minor becomes

CDD#FGG#A#

The way I wrote it is correct. One way that Wikipedia could differentiate itself from the other websites is to actually use the notes the way that normal musicians use them. If you don't play jazz you don't say E minor. You don't say A minor. You say D sharp and G sharp.

It needs to be explained in the simplest most easy to understand way. The way it's written right now is a joke. nowhere on either the C minor or C major scale page or the major or minor scale page does it explain what I just explained in simple terms like I just explained them. There should be nothing on any of those pages other than what I just said. The notes the order they go in and that's it. The music theory stuff is irrelevant and immaterial. While it is important the vast majority of people do not understand the mathematical underlay of music. They don't get it and they don't care. There's no reason to have it here there's no reason to discuss the triads and the fifths and all the other garbage that is not important. Just answer the question what is the major scale the answer is

TTSTTTS

no matter what note you pick the major scale follows the pattern above. Doesn't matter. You can start with any note you want and it follows the pattern above. There's nothing else needed. This page is ridiculous.

Please believe I am only trying to help. I've read almost every music theory page on Wikipedia. Hundreds of pages and they all contain garbage upon garbage information. Overcomplicating what is actually a very simple concept.

I don't know how to make it simple. I can provide the information but I don't know how to make it simple and easy to understand. What I do know is this current page needs to be one paragraph long. Not 74 paragraphs. Just one is all that's needed

again I'm just trying to help. I'm abrasive and some people think I'm an asshole. ;) I just want to be able to share my love of music and the joy of music with the world. This article does not do that Sickboy254698 (talk) 06:37, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear. No, it's not that sort of "simple" that you claim. For instance your claim: "The minor becomes CDD#FGG#A#; The way I wrote it is correct. [...] use the notes the way that normal musicians use them."

No, that is never the representation of the C minor scale. Its third note is never described as D♯ (i.e. the second degree raised) but rather E♭ (i.e. the third degree lowered). Likewise the 6th and 7th notes are not G♯ and A♯ but rather A♭ and B♭. Where such enharmonic equivalents are possible in scales, the spelling (e.g. is it D♯ or E♭?) is based primarily on the degree of the scale, and its subsequent modification (raised or lowered). For example the third note (degree) of a C scale is always a variant of E, never of D.

And "If you don't play jazz you don't say E minor. You don't say A minor. You say D sharp and G sharp." What does that even mean? The keys are "E minor" and "A minor", across all of classical, jazz and pop. Your "D sharp" and "G sharp" refer to the seventh degree (leading note) of the eight-note ocatve; they are absolutely not alternative ways of naming the key of the piece.

Hope that helps. Feline Hymnic (talk) 17:59, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Notation details apart, Sickboy254698 comment is absolutely valid. This article isn't an encyclopedia entry. It doesn't explain anything to anyone that doesn't already know what it's about. The whole intelectual exhibitionism starts at the very firts paragraph, where there should be a DEFINITION of the topic, instead of diving directly into comments about it. Please, someone who knows what an encyclopedia article is, do rewrite this whole thing! Please! 148.69.193.46 (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

External Links removed

Let's discuss the criteria for which this link: https://www.fachords.com/tools/scale-finder/?key=3&scale=21&position=3 has been removed (an interactive tool for learning scales), while other links really similar to it are still there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianca1976 (talk • contribs)

If there are other links that don't meet the external links guideline, that is a reason to remove those links, not a reason for a COI editor to add more nonconforming links. - MrOllie (talk) 22:44, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

but those links are still there — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gianca1976 (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Minor triads in intro

The introductory section states that the 1st, 3rd, and 5th scale degrees form minor triads i. All minor scales rather than major triads as compared to major scales. Looking at the example scales shown in that same section this does not seem to be true (also isn't true for the major scales). Instead the 1st, 4th, and 5th form minor/major triads in the minor and major scale(s) respectively. To clarify what I mean: the chords constructed from the notes in Cmaj in order are C, Dm, Em, F, G, Am, Bdim. How is the third scale degree form in a major triad here? What am I missing? 2001:16B8:49FD:C00:7494:5666:AC3A:425E (talk) 12:03, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Scale degrees are single notes, not chords. The first, third, and fifth note of any diatonic scale make a triad, whose character depends on the intervals between those notes in a given scale. In minor scales, 1-3-5 make a minor triad. As you know, in a minor scale, triads using those scale degrees as root notes may be written i, III, and v in roman-numeral notation, where upper case means a major chord, and lower case means a minor chord. Just plain Bill (talk) 13:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead is a somewhat biased towards classical theory

The lead mentions that there are three scales classified as "minor scales": natural, harmonic and melodic. It doesn't mention the dorian mode, which is the default minor scale in jazz and other forms of popular music.

In my opinion the current order of the lead should be reversed. It should start with the definition that is currently the last line "A minor scale is a heptatonic scale in which the first, third and fifth scale degrees form a minor triad". This is the most general definition that everybody can agree on. Then it should say something like "In classical music, minor scale usually refers to three scale patterns: [...] In jazz, minor scale if unqualified commonly refers to the dorian minor." --Alextgordon (talk) 10:20, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

This article, along with "major scale", is about scales. These, almost by definition, are classically oriented.

Meanwhile there is already a complementary series of articles about modes: Greek, church and jazz.

So my view would be to let this scale-related article retain its scale orientation, just as we let the mode-related articles retain their mode orientation. There is already a mention in the article's lead to "related modes", which in turn leads the interested reader towards the wider topic of modes.

Feline Hymnic (talk) 20:46, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Scales "almost by definition, are classically oriented"... with all respect to your positive intention, does this not sound very biased? Even if the word evolved via "classical" music, what other word would we now use to describe the sequences of tones that occur in blues, jazz, folk, Indian ragas, Arabic Maquatam, Japanese Minyo ...? Certainly Scale and List of musical scales and modes suggests that the word is "scale".

I'd go even further in that I don't see why a minor scale must be heptatonic. Is the minor pentatonic scale, unless I have misunderstood terribly, not both minor and a scale? ;-)

I'm making some small changes now to at least clarify the different definitions, but I would support further changes. Or, open to discussion from anyone that believes that it is against the consensus to refer to e.g. Dorian or Minor Pentatonic as "minor scales".

Euan Richard (talk) 09:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

P.S. I'm also removing the following sentence that's currently right there at the top of the page:

> This mirrors the major scale, with its harmonic and melodic forms.

As far as I'm aware, there's a historical derivation of the harmonic and melodic minor (namely wanting a dominant chord on the 5th degree, and avoiding a 3-semitone gap... that may be apocryphal but nonetheless) was not mirrored in the way the major scale evolved, and these scales were not commonly used even in the common practice period. Therefore I'm not sure this sentence belongs right in the first paragraph, confusing people.

However I'm not an expert on classical musical history so if anyone has any source contradicting that, please feel free to call me an idiot and put it back in.

Euan Richard (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Do the contributors know the definition of "definition"?

I don't mean to be rude (ironic, maybe) but the introductory paragraph of this article is a virtuoso performance in the Art of Explaining Things Really Badly. Nothing in it has any resemblance to a definition — definition being defined, according to Wikipedia, as "a statement of the meaning of a term (a word, phrase, or other set of symbols)". Of course, there's no point in writing an article that only people already familiar with the topic can even start to understand what is writen, right? 148.69.193.46 (talk) 21:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Harmonic and Melodic Phrygian

These scales would be the same as the harmonic and melodic minor scales, but with the second degree flattened, hence why they are called harmonic and melodic Phrygian, and Phrygian is the same as natural minor but with a flattened second degree. These scales, starting on E, are:

• Harmonic Phrygian: E, F, G, A, B, C, D♯
• Melodic Phrygian: E, F, G, A, B, C♯, D♯

Here are the modes of these scales:

Modes of Harmonic Phrygian:

1. Harmonic Phrygian (E, F, G, A, B, C, D♯) - 1, ♭2, ♭3, 4, 5, ♭6, 7
2. Lydian ♯6 (F, G, A, B, C, D♯, E) - 1, 2, 3, ♯4, 5, ♯6, 7
3. Mixolydian Augmented (G, A, B, C, D♯, E, F) - 1, 2, 3, 4, ♯5, 6, ♭7
4. Aeolian ♯4 (A, B, C, D♯, E, F, G) - 1, 2, ♭3, ♯4, 5, ♭6, ♭7
5. Locrian ♮3 (B, C, D♯, E, F, G, A) - 1, ♭2, 3, 4, ♭5, ♭6, ♭7
6. Ionian ♯2 (C, D♯, E, F, G, A, B) - 1, ♯2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
7. Altered ♭♭3 ♭♭7 (D♯, E, F, G, A, B, C) - 1, ♭2, ♭♭3, ♭4, ♭5, ♭6, ♭♭7

Modes of Melodic Phrygian:

1. Melodic Phrygian (E, F, G, A, B, C♯, D♯) - 1, ♭2, ♭3, 4, 5, 6, 7
2. Lydian Augmented ♯6 (F, G, A, B, C♯, D♯, E) - 1, 2, 3, ♯4, ♯5, ♯6, 7
3. Lydian Augmented Dominant (G, A, B, C♯, D♯, E, F) - 1, 2, 3, ♯4, ♯5, 6, ♭7
4. Acoustic ♭6 (A, B, C♯, D♯, E, F, G) - 1, 2, 3, ♯4, 5, ♭6, ♭7
5. Aeolian Dominant ♭5 (B, C♯, D♯, E, F, G, A) - 1, 2, 3, 4, ♭5, ♭6, ♭7
6. Altered ♮2 (C♯, D♯, E, F, G, A, B) - 1, 2, ♭3, ♭4, ♭5, ♭6, ♭7
7. Altered ♭♭3 (D♯, E, F, G, A, B, C♯) - 1, ♭2, ♭♭3, ♭4, ♭5, ♭6, ♭7

2601:C6:D200:E9B0:719C:B277:6D03:BE90 (talk) 01:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)