Major or Minor - simple????

I fail to understand the confusion that some posters are expressing about whether scales are major or minor.

To my naive mind, it is simple.

If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.

(I appreciate that there is a "grey" area between these two intervals;)

Using any other definition (or other intervals) seems to unnecessarily complicate an otherwise straight-forward concept.

Charles Lucy - lucy@harmonics.com
------------ Promoting global harmony through LucyTuning -------
for information on LucyTuning go to: http://www.lucytune.com
for LucyTuned Lullabies go to http://www.lullabies.co.uk
Buy/download/CD from: http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/lucytuned2

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
> I fail to understand the confusion that some posters are expressing
> about whether scales are major or minor.
>
> To my naive mind, it is simple.
>
> If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.

Which third? The tonic third?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.
>
> Which third? The tonic third?

You *are* kidding, right?

But dear Charles, mayhap you confuse chords with scales here?

Cordially,
Ozan

----- Original Message -----
From: Charles Lucy
To: tuning@yahoogroups.com
Sent: 04 Haziran 2005 Cumartesi 20:56
Subject: [tuning] Major or Minor - simple????

I fail to understand the confusion that some posters are expressing
about whether scales are major or minor.

To my naive mind, it is simple.

If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.

(I appreciate that there is a "grey" area between these two intervals;)

Using any other definition (or other intervals) seems to
unnecessarily complicate an otherwise straight-forward concept.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, Charles Lucy <lucy@h...> wrote:
> I fail to understand the confusion that some posters are expressing
> about whether scales are major or minor.
>

It is my understanding that *scales* are neither major nor minor, but
rather *modes* are; and that without any additional signifiers
specifying a "type" of minor, the two words refer respectively to the
Ionian and Aeolian modes of the diatonic scale. There is so much
debate on this subject of scales, and I think most of it is because
the word has been used so carelessly and irregularly over the years.
Perhaps we should just leave it be.

-Igs

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > > If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.
> >
> > Which third? The tonic third?
>
> You *are* kidding, right?

I'm not agreeing with the implications of Charles, but it seemed dead
clear that since he was talking about major/minor _scales_, he must
have meant the third degree of traditional western 12 note scale.
Probably learned by most in the first session of music theory class.

But scales can be larger or smaller in number of steps, etc. Grey
areas all around us...

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > > If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.
> >
> > Which third? The tonic third?
>
> You *are* kidding, right?

No. It's being proposed as a definition; a definition must be precise
to be of much use.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> > --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > > > If the third is "flattened", it's minor; if "natural" then major.
> > >
> > > Which third? The tonic third?
> >
> > You *are* kidding, right?
>
> I'm not agreeing with the implications of Charles, but it seemed dead
> clear that since he was talking about major/minor _scales_, he must
> have meant the third degree of traditional western 12 note scale.

"Must"? It hadn't even occurred to me he was talking about a 12 note
scale.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> "Must"? It hadn't even occurred to me he was talking about a 12 note
> scale.

Well, that is no surprise. For any of the people who took basic music
theory classes, that is how major and minor scales are presented. When
Charles alluded to 'why is this getting so complicated', it seemed
pretty obvious he was referring to the way the vast majority of
Western musicians are trained.

You don't fall into that group, I realize that. This is a case,
however, of "when in Rome". Not to agree with him, but to understand.

Then again, you demand precision. I wish you the best of luck!

Cheers,
Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:

> Well, that is no surprise. For any of the people who took basic music
> theory classes, that is how major and minor scales are presented.

Right. I don't know where you went to school, but where I went to
school the major diatonic scale had *seven* notes to an octave, with
major triads on I, IV and V, and minor on ii, iii, and vi. And yes, I
did take a few music courses as an undergraduate. Admittedly this was
some decades past, but do they really teach that the "major scale" and
the "minor scale" both have the same twelve notes these days, and if
so, why? It's ahistorical and makes little sense.

When
> Charles alluded to 'why is this getting so complicated', it seemed
> pretty obvious he was referring to the way the vast majority of
> Western musicians are trained.

Can you tell me *where* musicians are trained to think the major scale
has twelve notes, and show that in fact this is how the vast majority
of them are now being trained? Because I'm not buying it yet.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Right. I don't know where you went to school, but where I went to
> school the major diatonic scale had *seven* notes to an octave, with
> major triads on I, IV and V, and minor on ii, iii, and vi.

Gene, I was trying to refer to the fact that the discussion, prior to
Charles' query, was about defining scales not limited to 12 notes per
octave; I was trying to say that my inference of the "simplicity" that
Mr. Lucy was referring to was referring to the minor scale structure
as most people are taught in Western harmony, and therefore dealing
with 12 notes per octave. For larger (or smaller?) pitch sets, it
might not be appropriate, but every new music student comes to grips
that while there are (basically) three flavors of a minor scale, they
*all* have the 3rd degree of that scale flatted a 1/2 step from the major.

But you knew all that.

> but do they really teach that the "major scale" and
> the "minor scale" both have the same twelve notes these days, and if
> so, why? It's ahistorical and makes little sense.

Funny.

> Can you tell me *where* musicians are trained to think the major scale
> has twelve notes, and show that in fact this is how the vast majority
> of them are now being trained? Because I'm not buying it yet.

A misunderstanding betwixt us, that is all. I hope the above clarified.

Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:

> Gene, I was trying to refer to the fact that the discussion, prior to
> Charles' query, was about defining scales not limited to 12 notes per
> octave; I was trying to say that my inference of the "simplicity" that
> Mr. Lucy was referring to was referring to the minor scale structure
> as most people are taught in Western harmony, and therefore dealing
> with 12 notes per octave.

Since it was Lucy doing the talking one may assume the operating
tuning assumption is not 12-et, but meantone. Which makes a heck of a
lot of sense, if you want to discuss major vs minor scales.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> Since it was Lucy doing the talking one may assume the operating
> tuning assumption is not 12-et, but meantone. Which makes a heck of a
> lot of sense, if you want to discuss major vs minor scales.

Check out http://www.lucytune.com/new_to_lt/pitch_05.html

Read the first few paragraphs after "First, a few definitions".
Everything that is relating to minor scales (or modes) is dependent on
the third degree of the scale being natural or flatted. If one is to
decide whether a scale is 'minor' or 'major', one only needs look to
the third note, in scalar order, to make a determination. It seems
this is the *first* assumption that one would make, before any other,
when he questioned why the attempt to complexify major/minor.

Jon

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:

> It seems
> this is the *first* assumption that one would make, before any other,
> when he questioned why the attempt to complexify major/minor.

It was the assumption I did make, when I asked my question, the third
note being precisely the third of the tonic. What's your point?

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> It was the assumption I did make, when I asked my question, the third
> note being precisely the third of the tonic. What's your point?

My point would be that when talking about a *scale* being major or
minor, who would assume anything *other* than the third note of the
tonic, which is the third note of the scale. If talking about a scale,
you wouldn't refer to the third note of the dominant, you'd call that
the seventh degree (note) of the scale.

Maybe the trees are getting in the way of the forest, I don't know.
Anyway, I'm closing up for tonight and will be away from my computer
for a while, so no need to continue with me.

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Szanto" <jszanto@c...> wrote:
> --- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> > It was the assumption I did make, when I asked my question, the third
> > note being precisely the third of the tonic. What's your point?
>
> My point would be that when talking about a *scale* being major or
> minor, who would assume anything *other* than the third note of the
> tonic, which is the third note of the scale.

I've never before seen C-D-Eb-F-G-A-B described simply as "minor".

--- In tuning@yahoogroups.com, "Gene Ward Smith" <gwsmith@s...> wrote:
> I've never before seen C-D-Eb-F-G-A-B described simply as "minor".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_scale

You see, Gene, because it isn't in your experience doesn't mean it is
invalid or incorrect - it may just be the way other people do it. My
entire point was that a general consensus of a very large majority of
people who have studied music have come across major and minor scales.
Yes, there are natural, melodic, and harmonic minor scales, but the
one thing they share, and that differentiates them from major, is the
lowered third degree of the scale.

I don't care if that isn't the best definition of scale; I applaud all
those that will choose to make it a mission to redefine these terms to
suit current and future music usage. But for you to be this obstinate
and pedantic, well, whatever...

Out to the car, onto the road,
Jon