Melodic Minor confusion (ascending vs. descending)

[Apple-Joe]

I decided I wanted to experiment with different scales over the same tonic tonight, just to explore the possibillities. Everything went fine, until I reached the Melodic Minor. Even if you might claim that the Melodic Minor has a formual which equals: 1 2 b3 4 5 6 7 corresponding to the major scale, some would claim this formula should not be used when DESCENDING the melodic minor. To emphasize the minor tonality, many plays the notes of the Natural Minor when descending.

So, to the question. Those who favour this method; do they consequently play the notes of the Natural Minor when descending the Melodic Minor? If you were to play a sequence like: 1 - 2 - b3 - 2 - 7 - 1. It is not completely ascending, nor completely descending. It's a 'riff'. Usually the 7th would be the same as the 7th of the major scale - in other words a major 7th. However, now you are technically descending, as you play the root and step back, before you play the root again after the 7th. To the core: would you use the major 7th as the formula for the Melodic Minor implies - or would you use the 7th of the natural minor (the minor 7th) as you are descending that one step?

[Poparad]

The ascending/descending thing is only used in classical music. Everywhere else it's used, only the ascendig form is used, because the scale is often chose for how those specific notes relate to the chords.

As for the example you gave, it would be ascending. Even though you went down to the 7th, you still went back up to the root. It's only where the line is going that matters when determining if it's ascending or descending. But again, the two forms are only used in classical playing.

[Apple-Joe]

Originally Posted by Poparad

The ascending/descending thing is only used in classical music. Everywhere else it's used, only the ascendig form is used, because the scale is often chose for how those specific notes relate to the chords.

As for the example you gave, it would be ascending. Even though you went down to the 7th, you still went back up to the root. It's only where the line is going that matters when determining if it's ascending or descending. But again, the two forms are only used in classical playing.

OK. So someone with a classical approach would play a sequence like:

1 - b3 - 1 - 7 - 6 - 5

With the notes of the natural minor, as the motion is descending and stops there? I presume the classical player would use the natural minor based on your explanation.

Now, if the phrase was: 1 - b3 - 1 - 7 - 6 - 5 ... then then 5 - 6 - 7 - 1.

I imagine the natural minor still would be used for the entire part from root 5th from the lower octave. Which in other words mean: 1 b3 1 b7 b6 5 then 5 - 6 - 7 - 1 back to the root.

[ashc]

The ascending and descending terminology for the melodic minor is one of the places where classical theory and rock/jazz depart from each other. You can treat the melodic minor and natural minor as you wish in any direction and ignore the ascending/descending terminology completely.

In classical theory I think anyway the convention is seen even then more as one of observation in melodies rather than a hard rule.

EDIT: Too late! got distracted during typing

[Poparad]

Originally Posted by Apple-Joe

OK. So someone with a classical approach would play a sequence like:

1 - b3 - 1 - 7 - 6 - 5

With the notes of the natural minor, as the motion is descending and stops there? I presume the classical player would use the natural minor based on your explanation.

Now, if the phrase was: 1 - b3 - 1 - 7 - 6 - 5 ... then then 5 - 6 - 7 - 1.

I imagine the natural minor still would be used for the entire part from root 5th from the lower octave. Which in other words mean: 1 b3 1 b7 b6 5 then 5 - 6 - 7 - 1 back to the root.

Yep. However, in classical music, it's the composer that determines these things, and not the performer. Improvisation isn't used in classical music anymore, although back in the day performers would improvise cadenzas and in the baroque period would add ornaments and other embellishments to the music as they saw fit. However, all that unfortunately fell by the wayside about 100 or so years ago.

[Apple-Joe]

Originally Posted by Poparad

Yep. However, in classical music, it's the composer that determines these things, and not the performer. Improvisation isn't used in classical music anymore, although back in the day performers would improvise cadenzas and in the baroque period would add ornaments and other embellishments to the music as they saw fit. However, all that unfortunately fell by the wayside about 100 or so years ago.

Yes, composer - not performer. Me mixing up the terms.