Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum Classical Sonata Analysis

Thanks. "Still" no.5, ha, I was still on no.4.

that's kind ... thanks.

Not sure if you saw it ealier, PS88, but I did post some further analysis re: content on this movement. Are we still concerned about this. There has been some serious side discussion on this movement, so may have lost track myself.

Wait, you say "further analysis re: content on this movement". *Which* movement? Sonatina 5, movement 1? or some other movement?

(The way you worded your response to my post got me confused again about which movement you're referring to.)

I'm going to have to go back to where I was last following the analysis in detail (way back at the beginning of sonatina 4) and follow it all in detail. Otherwise nothing is going to make sense. I thought I would take a pass on sonatina #4 and pick up again with #5, but I can't: I'm too confused without #4.

Calm down ... no you don't need to do that.

Look back at around noon today. You will see that I posted something about where the material was coming from in the recap and development (no. 5, movement 1.)

It was just after this that you asked about which sonata and movement. Since you did not see my response -- assuming you did not see it, as you later asked again -- I kind of figured you also did not see my brilliant content analysis.

You only need to go back to noon today. Nothing like last week or anything.

Cool, thank you! Whoo hoo! You're right, I completely missed your analysis.

I’m particularly exhausted right now. At work, my “real” teaching, I am a victim of my own success. Day after day I have had such a full schedule that I have had zero time, not even a few spare seconds, to look at posts and answer. So this may not make sense, but I think I am on track.

Don’t lock yourself into a narrow definition of function. If you are in the key of C, as an example, then you are 100% OK calling a G7 a V7, even if it does not go to where you want it to go in a textbook way. Now, let’s assume for a moment that your G7 does this:

G B D F--->>G# B D E, and so G7 to E7/G#. Admittedly we are in flux here. Is it a V7? Well, if we are going to do this, G7, E7/G#, Am, Dm, G7, C (END). Now, is our G7 chord a V7 when it slips to E7/G#? It very much depends on whether you are looking at a big picture or a small one. The G7 is essentially going to C, but it gets side-tracked by slipping to E7/G#, V7 of VI.

With very traditional notation, V6/5 of vii. I prefer V7/3 of VIm or III7/3 to VIm.

Really, any way you slice it, we have this G7 moving to Am by slipping first to E7, just a peek-a-boo modulation described as secondary dominance, but if we stop calling G7 a V7 just because we are sliding to E7 then to Am, then suddenly we have to rename it as something in the key of Am, and that gets nasty in RNs.

We would have to then think bVII7 to V7/3 to Im in the key of A minor. G7 E7 Am.

Insane? Of COURSE it is! So there is a blurring of RN names, labels, and function. If we can’t call a G7, in the key of C, simply V7 just because it is not going to C or I, it gets hopelessly complicated.

My suggestion is that you think that music is all about “context”, and “function” is just one way to try to predict or analyze chords in context. So if, for example, you learn that B D F Ab is a VIIdim7 in the key of C or C minor, it does not mean that you are not thinking of it as nothing more than an isolated chord with no logical place to go to. You expect it to go where it wants to go, and then if it goes somewhere else, you change gears, decide whether you like it, play around with it, then LATER figure out what to call it.

Example: B D F Ab--->>> C D F Ab. Now you just moved from Bdim7 to Dm7b5/C, a very complicated way to explain that we just slid from a fully diminished chord to a half-diminished, and we used absolutely perfect spelling. Now, is our Bdim7 still VIIdim7? The answer is tricky. If it is just a detour, and a couple measures later we get to C or Cm, it is still the VIIdim7. If through some kind of sneaky slithering a composer slides to another key, we can STILL say that we started on a VIIdim7. The important thing to remember is that RNs can deceive us about where we are going, while just using LCs may give us everything we need to know, just by seeing where the chords are going.

Thus context is everything, and no matter what chord we have, we have to consider where we came from, which tells us how we got someplace, and why, then where we are going next. This explains another thing, namely how musicians know how to spell chords with LCs, which themselves do not demand any specific spelling.

No matter what key we are in, if I see B7 moving to E or Em, to me it IS a V7 chord. But if we are in the key of C, and somehow we land on B7, I would like to know how we got there. If it was proceeded by an E or Em chord, I would feel it as a V7, but then if that B7 does something like opening up to an D#m chord (German 6th so spelled B D# F# Gx), then I would hear it as bVI(#6) to Im/5. So which is it? Well, in this case it is sort of both, isn’t it? We came from something like E, so B7 is V7 to that. But where it is going, to D#m, it becomes something else. Can a chord be two things at once?

In my world, yes, and that “shape-shifting chord” is how my mind processes the concept of “pivot chord”. To me a “pivot chord” is something comes from somewhere very logical, then goes somewhere cool but not totally expected.

If we go B7/D#, Em, B7, D#m/B, A#7, D#m, then our B7 wore two hats.

Now, am I writing nonsense that only makes sense to me because of over-exhaustion? Let me know.

I teach a G7 chord as a “generic 7 chord” that MAY be a V7 but that could be other things, such as something like this: E7, G7, Bb7, Db7, E7, something Debussy would do!

Let me present a different way to examine minor. We know, from experience, that we can consider b3 as fixed, but we can have b6, 6, b7 or 7.

Now, let’s build a hybrid minor scale:

C D Eb F G----Ab A Bb B C. This is what music really does. Using this idea, our “VII” chord is the most unpredictable, with all these possiblities:

1) B D F Ab
2) Bb D F Ab
3) Bb D F A
4) B D F A

So we end up with Bdim7, Bb7, Bbmaj7, and Bm7b5.

The most used will be 1, in minor. But 2, Bb7, will show up as V7 or bIII (Eb), secondary dominance. 3 would be unusual, but if you go Bbmaj7 to Bdim7 to Cm, then it works. And 4, Bm7b5 to Bdim7 to Cm works.

I think by this time the RN system has become insane, but theoretically you have:

VIIdim7, bVII7, bVIImaj7, VIIm7b5. When things get this complex, I start moving to LCs and drop RNs, but that is where your exploration is leading you to. It might be good to remember that all your triads are CONTAINED in four note, stacked chords.

I would start out in a key, like C minor, then do this:

C E G B (for the letters)

Then:

C Eb G Bb
C Eb G B

For what a Im chord can do when a 4th note is added. You will probably find out that some of these are “theoretically” in some form of a minor scale, but many will clearly sound as if they do not belong and would appear in some kind of modulation. An example:

F A C E is possible in Cm, VImaj7. But it will probably do something like this;

Fmaj7, F#dim7, G, G7, Cm.

When G7 closes into C major we're in major. If it closes into C minor we're in minor.

When there isn't a cadence there's always a key signature. In major there are fewer accidentals. In minor we can expect the seventh to be sharpened frequently and the sixth occasionally.

In C major we're more likley to see F#'s where the piece is moving into dominant or Bb's where it's going into subdominant. Look at the G's, the dominant in C, if they're natural the we're in C. C, F and G will figure prominently in the bass. Note where these letters occur in the circle of fifths in relation to the key signature.

If the G's are sharpened we're most likely in A minor and the bass will feature E, A and D. Note where these letters occur in the circle of fifths in relation to the key signature.

In a minor key, because the sixth and seventh are often sharpened, the minor chords in the circle of fifths frequently occur as major and the diminished triad on the second (the seventh in the relative major key) can occur as a minor chord.

Conversely, we can use the local chords to build a scale. M35 uses C, F#, A, D and M36 uses Bb, D, G. That's A, Bb, C, D, F#, G. What key features Bb and F#? G minor is the only one.

Approximate/Working/Practical
Key signatures for minor keys:

C: (Bb) Eb [Ab]
G: Bb F# [Eb]
D: C# [Bb]
A: (F#) G#
E: F# (C#) D#
B: F# C# (G#) A#
F#: F# C# G# (D#) E#
C#: F# C# G# D# (A#) B#
G#: Fx C# D# G# A# (E#)
Ab: Bb Eb Ab Db (Gb) Cb [Fb]
Eb: Bb Eb Ab (Db) Gb [Cb]
Bb: Bb Eb (Ab) Db [Gb]
F: Bb (Eb) Ab [Db]

If you know the circle of fifths you can learn these really rather quickly.
___________________

PS88, loving the new sig!

Gary, thank you for those two information-packed posts. I'm going to need to print them out and try them out at the piano, to listen to the progressions and see if I can hear what you're talking about. I can follow what you're saying on paper, but I want to see if I can start understanding some of this aurally.

One problem I struggle with when playing progressions is finding appropriate voicing. Just playing the chords in root position often sounds just like random jumping around to me. But it's probably a good exercise for me to look for some kind of voicing like "nearest neighbour (except the bass line can move in big jumps)", or something like that.


I quoted the whole paragraph because it didn't seem to make sense to pull the following two phrases out of context, but what really jumped out at me were these:

and

I don't really understand what it means to hear a chord or progression "as" something. That is, I hear the chords, and sometimes they sound like coming to a resting point (though sometimes they don't, even when theory tells me I should hear them that way, or they sound at rest to me even when theory tells me they shouldn't), but I don't have any names for what I'm hearing. I can't imagine in my head the sound of a V7-I, or a bVI(#6)-Im/5. I can identify them on paper, and trace which notes are moving where, e.g. is the tritone resolving in or out, but I don't know if I really hear that, and, more significantly, I'm not even sure I hear them as particularly distinctive or different from each other. (But this is why I need to take your posts to the piano and listen to them.)

(I guess actually I can sort of hear certain progressions, because when I play them they sound familiar. But I don't readily pick them out when I hear them in music. They all go by too fast, and the most I can pick out is "that sounded complete.")

I don't think I hear tonic very well, so at any given chord, I don't really have a sense of "this is the home chord" or "this is not the home chord". So I don't really have a feeling of "aha, that progression just arrived at I!" And even less do I hear "aha, tonic chord used to be THIS pitch, and now we've arrived at what sounds like a tonic chord again, but it's a DIFFERENT pitch (change of key or tonality)". Also I don't really hear root, or bass, very well. I think I tend to hear the top note of a chord, unless I pay very close attention -- or if it's something where the bass line is being played by a distinctive instrument, e.g. bass in a band, or double-bass in an orchestra.

Over on the TIM RICHARDS - Improvising Blues Piano Book 1, I've written about some beginning experiences in listening, and trying to understand my successes in terms of small component steps of (in that case) the overall skill of "recognizing 12-bar blues". (I guess it might seem silly in one sense, and lots of people just recognize the 12-bar blues as an overall gestalt, but I don't trust myself to do that, and I want to understand them in detail, and I like the idea of learning by small steps, so I like having found all those component steps.) Anyway, I feel like there's some set of small steps of recognition that sometime I'll be able to identify (and succeed at) that will eventually add up to progress at complicated tasks like hearing something as "V7 going to I" or "bVI(#6) going to Im/5".

Oh well, this is just my usual extended moan about my self-perceived lack of aural skills.

But I think I finally understand what "function" means. It means there's some sense of key or tonality, or brief tonicization of a note (as by a quick secondary dominant e.g. V7/V V7 I), and then the roman numeral for a chord is assigned according to that key. I guess that's a sort of paper definition (because I don't *hear* the sense of key, I just identify it by patterns of notes & accidentals & chords from the score).

That makes me think of a small component aural skill for learning to identify function aurally: I think I can hear the question and answer part of a phrase sometimes. For example, in Argentine tango music I can hear 2 measures opening, and 2 measures closing, over and over. So I could look at my Argentine tango sheet music and examine both the melody and the chords and see if there's a melodic or harmonic pattern to that 2+2 question-and-answer form. And then I would know that I can detect, in that context at least, a Im-V followed by a V-Im (I think that's what they're doing, and I think they're usually in a minor key...). (Actually, I think it's 4+4, but I'm always a bit confused as to the count in Argentine tango because the normal pace is to step on every other beat, and I go back and forth between counting beats and counting the normal pace of steps. Once I've picked which system I'm counting in, it's not confusing at all, but it's interesting because sometimes I'm counting in one system and, say, the teacher of a workshop is counting in the other system.)

Incidentally, I only think Argentine tango is usually in a minor key from playing through a bunch of Argentine tango sheet music and noticing they all seemed to be minor. I don't actually register "this is minor" when I'm listening to them. Although maybe if I found one in a major key I would register "wow, this sounds really different!" I'll have to see if I can find some in major and minor keys and see if I can hear a difference -- see there's another small component skill for the major skill of recognizing major or minor key pieces.

Oh, thinking about the Argentine tango Im-V followed by V-Im. Being able to hear those as question and answer doesn't really mean I can hear Im-V and V-Im. It would perhaps mean I can hear "from start to something else" and "from something else back to start". And actually, it doesn't even really mean that. To tell what I'm really able to hear, I'd want some music, that, say, went Im-III and then III-Im, and listen to find out if that sounds different to me than Im-V and V-Im. And then also some music that went, say Im-V followed by V-III (or anything not Im), and see if that sounded different again, and/or like it didn't come back to start.

I can hear where the phrase ends are coming in Argentine tango, though, and that's something that (as far as I can tell) a lot of people in the places I usually dance don't hear at all, so I feel really good about that aspect of hearing, even if I have no idea how it is I can hear it or how to teach it to other people in any way other than "listen to a lot of Argentine tango music, and then listen some more and practice counting off 8 measures and listen to what's happening". (Or maybe they do hear the phrase ends, they just COMPLETELY ignore them in their dancing.)

Actually, I feel not just good, but really really fantastic about being able to hear the phrase ends, because being able to hear them is a big part of leading Argentine tango in a musical way, that followers really enjoy.

So maybe the followers are hearing the phrase ends subliminally, because they react to that aspect of my leading with pleasure, and tell me I dance musically (as well as other musical/rhythmic aspects of my dancing). (I'm a woman, but I both lead and follow.)

OK, back to our regularly scheduled sonatina analysis. Although in a way this all connects because I'd like to be able to approach the sonatina analysis more aurally, and write about what I can hear more than what I can find on paper, or use what I can hear to drive what I then look for on paper.

Affirmative. This will be my key weapon now.



Dominant ... G, subdominant ... F ... yes and can hear this easily as well. ie. C7 wants to resolve, of course to F, G# is pulling to G. Is this what you mean?



Can you put this another way? Sorry, not clear on what you mean by this.

Perhaps what I need here, is a side lesson of what we mean by the circle of 5ths. I thought I knew this, but as the rest of your note is mostly missing the mark with me, perhaps I do not.

Sorry if we have covered enough times and I somehow breezed over it. I've always thought of circle of 5ths as what resolves to what. C7->F, F7->Bb, Bb7->Eb etc.

In completing this exercise -- "Note where these letters occur in the circle of fifths in relation to the key signature" -- I'm confused.

F G C, subdominant tonic dominant, are adjacent to each other in the circle of fifths. Tick counterclockwise from the tonic, you get the subdominant. Tick clockwise, you get the dominant.

Once you're at, say, F, you could play the key change game again. Tick counterclockwise, you're at the subdominant of F, which is Bb. Tick clockwise, and you're at the dominant of F, which is our original friend C.

Do you have a picture of the circle of fifths? There are lots of them, e.g. at Wikipedia. I found it helpful to practice working it out and drawing it for myself, after I had got the concept from looking at a picture.

Pick any major key on the circle of fifths; the subdominant is one tick counterclockwise and the dominant is one tick rclockwise.

Keys that are adjacent to each other on the circle of fifths turn out to have key signatures which only differ by one accidental. So changing key by just one tick at a time around the circle of fifths -- which essentially by definition turns out to be the same as changing key into the subdominant or the dominant -- means that you're changing to a key that has almost all the same notes as your starting key.

I'm looking where Greener had a question. I read the sentence (highlighted) a couple of times too.


Richard is referring to the notes C, F and G. These are notes 1, 4, and 5, and also the root notes of chords I, IV, V. The "circle of fifths" represents a relationship. C is V of F major/minor (C7=>F or Fm). F is also IV of C major. G is V of C major or minor (G7=> C or Cm). This is the kind of relationship Richard is talking about. "Fifths" because there is a relationship of fifths and fourths (inverse of fifths) among these three notes. Since you play by ear, you will already have this in your ear and fingers.

I would like to demystify this circle of fifths further. Please do google and print out the circle of fifths chart and take it to the piano. Then instead of trying to remember any of its information, compare it with what you already know about music in your ear and fingers. For example, you will see C on the chart, and clockwise, G, D, A.... These are the major keys having 0, 1, 2, 3 sharps in the signature. They are also a fifth apart. Going counter-clockwise you will see C, F, Bb, Eb, which are also the major keys having 0, 1, 2, 3 flats. You also know how these notes relate to each other in "fifths" for the V-I progressions etc. (You already wrote this).

I read about the circle of fifths after I already saw these patterns in music. I illustrated what is felt in the ear and the hands. Since you already have this, I might use the diagram to confirm known patterns, rather than needing to use this as a reference.

For minor keys:
The notes in the natural minor key will be the same notes as those in the relative major key, which is a minor third down from the natural minor - that's how the key signatures work for natural minor. Thus the key of A minor uses the key signature and same notes as for the key of C major. The key of C minor uses the key signature of Eb minor and uses the same notes. Then for notes number 6 and 7, these may be higher (C harmonic minor has B natural, not Bb (7), C melodic minor has A nat & B nat (^ & 7).

The other more logical way which doesn't depend on key signatures is to realize the C major and C minor have the same notes, except that 3 is always lowered in all forms of the minor (C,D,E,F,G vs. C,D,Eb,F,G). Note 7 is usually identical since the F# is raised much of the time as the leading note. Therefore the V7 chord of C major and C minor will both be G7, and you will see note 7 with an accidental in minor. That G, of course, is also your "circle of fifths" note.

I suggest that you take this chart to the piano, and explore it working backward, by using what you already know, and look for patterns, which it represents.

After decades of teaching this I can't follow your chart at all. You really need to rework it. It is 100% inconsistent, and no one is going to understand this chart.

Some people may have seen the two posts that I wrote which goes into that chart, which I have deleted, so I shouldn't leave it at that. I went by the first example, and expected the others to follow suit. When they didn't I started editing my post, but it was turning into a mess. Since people will have already studied that chart, I'm going to write just a bit. I will use ONLY the first example:

C: (Bb) Eb [Ab]

The key of C minor uses the key signature of Eb major (relative major), which has Bb, Eb, Ab in the key signature. That is why those notes are listed. In a minor scale, notes 6 & 7 are variable. I.e.
C, D, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C
C, D, Eb, F, G, Ab, B, C
C, D, Eb, F, G, A, Bb C
are all versions that you might see and hear. That explains why (Bb) and [Ab] were written with parentheses or brackets.

If the same pattern were shown throughout, then I would expect to see

G minor: (F), Bb, [Eb]
knowing that the G minor scale can be
G, A, Bb, C, D, Eb, F, G
G, A, Bb, C, D, Eb, F#, G
G, A, Bb, C, D, E, F#, G

The chart chooses the notes "Bb F# [Eb]" so the pattern is lost, and that's what makes the chart confusing, even if none of the information is actually wrong (there is a version of a G minor scale where we see Bb, F#, Eb.).

Music is a paradise of patterns for pattern seekers.

We can look at the C minor example two ways. If going from the relative major we get these variable notes (underlined):
Eb major: - Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C, D, Eb
C minor: - C, D, Eb, F, G, Ab, Bb, C

If going from parallel (tonic) major
C major: C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C
C minor: C, D, Eb, F, G, Ab(A), Bb(B), C

And commensurate chords.

Depending on what your key signature is, because of the place a given scale has in the music (modulating etc.), accidentals will give you clues at a glance because of patterns. Chords will also give you clues, especially if you are used to hearing them. If you see G7 and then Cm or C, then a key of C minor or C major are likely. Etc.

I believe that G# is a typo for F#, yes?


Sorry the information was confusing. This would be much easier in person with a piano and a whiteboard!

Going back to my post I was trying to establish which minor key we're in from the prevailing key signature (the non-natural notes in the current measures). If we create a scale from adjacent chords such V7 and I, which often occur close together, we get 5-7-2-4 and 1-3-5, which is a scale without 6.

Looking only at the accidentals (key sig) G7-Cmin will give Eb; D7-Gmin will give Bb and F#. I wanted a way of quickly getting from the key sig to the minor key. In sharped keys the "uncharacteristic" sharp will be the seventh and in flatted keys the "uncharacteristic" flat will be the third.

Ex. 1. In C minor, the Eb is uncharacteristic without a Bb so must be the flatted third. Ex. 2. In G minor, Bb is "uncharacteristic" when there's an F# - so it's the third. F# is uncharacteristic when there's a flat so it's the seventh. Ex. 3. In B minor you'd find an A#. That would be uncharacteristic without a D#, so it's the seventh. Ex. 4. In F minor you'll have two flats, Ab and Bb. Since E will most likely be natural (as the raised seventh) the Ab would be uncharacteristic so must be the third.

I don't really want to use a separate chart because knowing the circle of fifths/key sigs allows us to recognise the "uncharacteristic" accidental and establish the key from it.


Ah!

Since I was 10 or 11 and over a decade away from ever hearing about a circle of fifths I noticed a pattern in the chords I was using on guitar in any particular song/key.

If I'm in G major I get a box with G major at the centre and the common chords around it. (The bottom row also doubles as a flatted majors (A min/Ab maj etc) for rock/blues.)

sig: 0#-- 1#-- 2#
Maj: C -- G -- D
Min: A -- E -- B

This can extend to a "circle" of fifths but for me it's a "ribbon" from Cb to G# though I only normally use a 'nine box grid' at any one time.

Top row: key sig from 7 flats to 7 sharps
Second row: Major chords from Cb to G# in fifths
Third row: Minor chords from Ab min to E# min

For minor keys I get a larger range of adjacent chords and it doesn't extend so easily to a circle/ribbon but the principal is the same and once I'm familiar with the area transposition on the fly for an unfamiliar singer is a breeze. The top row is Major/aug chords, middle row is minor/major chords chords and bottom row is Dim/minor chords. For E minor:

0 sharps ----- 1 sharp ---- 2 sharps
C major ------ G maj/aug -- D major
A min/maj ---- E minor ---- B min/Maj/7
F# dim/min --- C# dim

This still gives me an overlapping grid but with extra chord 'types'


Circle(ribbon) of fifths:

KeySig: 1b - 0# - 1#
Major : F -- C -- G (bass notes in major key)
Minor : D -- A -- E (bass notes in minor key)

Any clearer?

Yes, of course, F# I was just working from the previous example and mistyped it.



I'd be happy to put you up for a few days, Richard. We used to run a bed and breakfast here, and I think it would suit you just fine.

Still catching up on everything from last evening and have much of this printed off to take to the bench. But, bench work still forthcoming.

OK, beginning to get this, I think.

I've got an arsenal of key indicators now -- stacks of documents and charts about my office -- which is going to help in solidifying this as it is applied in further analysis.

Yes, much clearer. Thank you all.

When you think about it, the obstacles we face trying to teach this way are huge. Some days I just give up. Yesterday I gave up. But I think one problem is that we try to cover too many subjects in one thread. This is supposed to be about analyzing music, and when we get to things like circle of 5ths or different kinds of minor, I think we would be better off doing those things in other threads.

You lose me with terms like “prevailing key signature”. I don’t know what that means. Either there is a key signature, or there isn’t. And if there is a key signature, that actually reflects the key we are at the moment – or it doesn’t.

In other words, if the key signature says 3 flats, we know that signature is used for two “keys”: Eb major and C minor. Now, whether or not the music actually FOLLOWS the notes specified by those key signatures is quite another matter.

Please let’s not mix key signatures with keys. They are not the same. At any moment we can be in any key, and it is quite possible to write in keys with not key signature. Furthermore, we all know that modulations put us into different keys, but those keys are not shown with key signatures. In fact, in my opinion using key signatures to determine key is a crutch, and in complicated music that is useless.

We simply have to know our major scales/keys. If we know them, then explaining minor is simple. If we don’t, nothing is going to help.

If you combine Cm with G7, you get this: C D Eb F G ***B C.

You can get there instantly by using the C major scale, then lowering only 3. That, in fact, is the simplest minor scale we have, melodic, which is also used a great deal in minor. C D Eb F G A B C. Only flat 3, bam, you have melodic minor.

So viewed in that manner, melodic minor, flatting only 3, is the simplest minor scale to use when thinking in a parallel or tonic manner, thus parallel/tonic minor. C major and C minor.

For natural minor, there are two ways to get there, and I would suggest that both have their uses.

1) Start with major, then flat 3 6 and 7. Thus C D Eb F G Ab Bb C. This principle is especially obvious when starting in C, but it works in any key. And this is how to find parallel/tonic natural minor.

2) Take any major scale, then simply start on the 6th note, so C D E F G A B C becomes A B C D D F G A. The weakness there is that it may not be easy to get to A minor that way if you are not starting from C major as a reference point. But if you start from A B C# D E F# G# A, then A B C D E F G A is easy to slide to, just lowering 3 6 and 7
3)
The point is melodic minor is easy to spot because it is a major scale with 3 lowered. And natural minor is easy to spot because it uses the exact same notes as one of our major scales. That’s why it is so important to have major scales solid, in all keys.

Again, I have the same problem. I don’t doubt that you are right. I have no doubts about your knowing this stuff. But it just seems like backwards logic. There is a reason why I have not yet mentioned harmonic minor. And that reason is that the augmented 2nd is the elephant in the room. If you see Ab B and even SUSPECT you may be in a minor key, ½ step or a semitone above that B gives you the tonic. C is the answer, so C minor. And F G# screams A minor, same reason. The augmented 2nd announces the leading tone, top of the aug2, and so the tonic has to be A.

So skipping harmonic minor, which is unique and explains itself by sound and spelling, you don’t have to talk about “characteristic” or “uncharacteristic”. Melodic minor is 100% consistent and easy to spot, because only one note in a major scale has been lowered, and the moment you get a V7 chord, it screams where it wants to go to. So if G7 is most likely to go to C major, and you see a C major scale, almost, but with Eb, lowered third, it’s obvious that you are in C melodic minor. And you don’t need a key signature to tell you that.

Natural minor explains itself. If you are something that is purely diatonic, sticking to that kind of minor and never using anything else, the notes in the scale will conform to a major scale and then you see that it goes from the 6th degree to the 6th degree.

And when we start linking minor scales, all the different forms, to the circle of 5ths, I think we are in two completely different universes.