Talk:Minor scale

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)

"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)

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)

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 :

• "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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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.

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)