Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum is there a use of learning natural minor scales?

Is there a use of learning to play natural minor scales or should I only learn the melodic and harmonic ones?

I think so. Once you know all your major and natural minor scales, knowing your melodic and harmonic minors (and eventually modes) is simply a matter of knowing which scale notes you need to alter.

Sorry if this is not something you're interested in, but since there's no context given, I'll throw this out for whatever it's worth: if we happen to be talking specifically about using the scale as a tool for improvisation/composition, I'd mention that, when you're on a minor chord which is functioning as a vi chord in a major key, the natural minor is often your best bet, since it is "most diatonic." Granted, you may not always want to BE "most diatonic," but when/if you do, you'll want to know what to use.

Over a minor chord that is functioning as a i chord in a minor key, natural minor is also a solid choice. But in that context and even over the vi in a major key, melodic and harmonic are certainly useful, too.

James

I am self teaching my self to play, still a beginner, and I want to do both classical and pop and improv,
I want to meet the requirements of the ABSRM exams even though I am NOT doing them, I just want them to measure my progress in classical, and the requirements for minor scales are that you know both the melodic and harmonic scales.
I'm thinking waay ahead of my self, right now I can play all my major scales, two hands one octave, and I still have a lot to work on evenness of tone.

The reason I'm asking is because the exam requirements say melodic and harmonic and only for the lower grades where you have a choice, you can play the natural.

Any major scale is the natural minor for the sub-mediant. All you need do is start it on the sixth step. You MIGHT want to change fingering but then again, you might not.

The melodic minor is the natural minor on the way down.

Other than a possible change of fingering from the major scale I see no added benefit of practising the natural minor if you're already doing the melodic and the relative major.

I normally agree with you 100% Richard, and for a technical exercise, I still do. But when it comes to playing or improvising in a minor key, it's more beneficial to think of the minor 1 as your tonic instead of the 6 of the relative major. Even in an easy key like A minor, sure you could just play in C, but altering to the harmonic and melodic minor scales seems a little harder to me that way. If you know the scale as A minor, for both the altered scales, you're simply borrowing some notes from the parallel A major scale. Easier to see IMHO. Works for modes too. You could say that C lydian is like playing a G scale starting on the 4, but I think it's easier to see it as a C scale with a raised fourth. Relative is a good way to learn scales academically, but I think for practicality, parallel works better.

Guess we're bound to disagree on a few things here and there.

No disagreement, Brian.

I missed the mention of improv and consequently it's implications.

We can always find something else to disagree on!

Brian, I ran into exactly that. I spent decades with only one thing which I had learned in some primary school grade: singing solfege. The natural minor scale went La to La. When I finally did music theory, the section on modes was a piece of cake: as per your C Lydian example. We learned two methods: "C Lydian - C is 4 of what scale - G major": giving what you outline, and "Lydian is like a major scale with a raised 4th". I found the first easier, and used it to help me figure out the second. As you say, academically it's easy. I aced the exam. Practically it's basically useless.

The problem with orienting along degrees (tonic, supertonic, mediant, submediant etc.) is that a lot of music isn't that black and white along degrees. It became a handicap. At this point I have the degree-functional thing on a back burner to take out as a handy device when needed, but I want what I know to be much more fluid and flexible.

I completely did not understand this thread until this post. This was extremely illuminating since it brought the discussion around from something totally abstract to the concrete. Thanks.

I accept your challenge good sir!

Yes, here in Nashville we use the "Nashville Number System" which is really just modern roman numerals. When you come across a minor song, some people write it as 6m, which drives me crazy. The song usually has at least one dominant/harmonic minor cadence which often brings up the odd chord 3/#5. Tell me that doesn't throw your brain off. Now if it was 1m and 5/7, that would make WAY more sense. Parallel shows context. Relative doesn't.

The word illuminating isn't usually connected with me, but I'll take it. Happy to attempt to clarify the issue.

"is there a use of learning natural minor scales?"

Yes. Having the scales under your hands, so that your fingers "know" what to do without your brain figuring out each note, is greatly beneficial to a player in many circumstances. I congratulate you, Mohannad, for taking up this study on your own, without waiting for a piano teacher to beat you with a yardstick.

"...The melodic minor is the natural minor on the way down...."

Now, isn't that nice? If you learn the major scales, along with their relative minors, you will find that you already know the natural minor without having to take up this study separately. They sneak it in. This is the way they are given in the Hanon Book (though I suggest you play all the scales ALL the way up and down the keyboard, and not just the few octaves in the middle).

Then again, for variety, it can be nice to play the scales in their alphabetic order sometimes, majors and then minors of the same letter name.

While you're on the scales, don't forget the arpeggios. So what if you have to take the books apart and do things in a different order--- or even write them out yourself, on score paper. These essential playing skills will serve you all your life, until the very last time you touch a piano keyboard.

PS- No cheating on the fingering--- at least, not while you're learning them.

No point. Just learn each major scale starting on it's sixth too.



(Those who have a rudimentary idea of music theory will get that.)

I've read about the NNS and I understand it intellectually. Since I have movable Do embedded since I was a small child I relate it to that and wouldn't need the numbers were I going that route - but I get what it's about. I've given it a strong push to move OUT of that mentality and have managed a kind of mind shift. Here is what was happening when I delved into it.

Essentially I was thinking in the "modal" manner of the Renaissance period. I.e. if something was in G major, then G was Do, and if it was in E minor, G was still Do and E was La. It was like I was in this "master key of G is the Do-ness" that sometimes slides from La to La, and sometimes slides from Do to Do and that Do was still there even when I was in minor. What was the Dominant of of a minor key? Mi! But Mi does not have a dominant feel. Actually I felt it as an "altered Mi" since I'd sing a semitone to get up to it (i.e. in E minor, B7 is the V7, and you raise the D to D# - which as a singer I felt as this alteration). At the same time, in E minor, I still was very aware of D7 as the Dominant of the relative major. I still very strongly felt the Dominant of the relative major being Sol. Essentially I was living in both keys: E minor and G major. This was no problem while I was singing "regular" simple music - wasn't even aware of it. It was already a problem with Brahms and Mozart though, because I had to start going to straight intervals (P4 etc.). Do Mi So no longer worked during modulations.

Then I started the traditional harmony theory. I should mention that I was not going to the keyboard - I was hearing in my head using Solfege. As soon as music was in a minor key I was greatly slowed down, and it all stopped being automatic. The reason was this "Mi" thing, because the syllable "Sol" had a strong Dominant feeling for me, which "altered Mi" didn't.

I remember reading a comment by Piston saying that movable Do solfege causes people to learn and advance very fast in the beginning, but in advanced music it becomes a handicap. Sounds like what any crutch will do. And I fell into it.

If this sounds like it's going off track --- The movable Do system gave a strong sense of functional harmony in the Common Practice era -- that's how it relates.

That's what I learned, and how I played scales in violin lessons. But when I went to teach scales I was told all these names are artificial and music doesn't really go that way. The part that is constant are the first 5 notes up to the Dominant and then it alters.

And now my friend, the melodic minor, is up for question too. I'm being shown time and again how music that ascends as the traditional melodic minor does not necessarily descend as the natural minor the way we've been taught. It may still be useful to learn to play scales that way (because??), but apparently that's not what music does.

Yes, they do that to make it easier, but when you introduce your ear to the mix, I think it's more confusing. So yes, the dominant root is on MI, but the altered note in the relative major is SOL, which would be SI (In A minor, G to G#). So wait, there's no SOL in the dominant chord?

For me, the word DO implies tonality, and home base. In college, learning solfeg, the minor was DO RE ME FA SOL LE TE DO, taking into account the flatted third, sixth and seventh. In this case, the dominant would be SOL (makes sense) and the altered note would be TE going back to TI (again, makes total sense to me). I used solfeg in college mainly for sight singing, where you don't have a key to press and are relying only on what you hear in your head. Singing LA and hearing it as DO in my head, and then singing DO, but not feeling like it's home base, just messes things up.

Practicing natural minor scales gets the sound of natural minor into your head, which is to me a useful thing to know. Music may not always proceed in lockstep with the three named minor scales, but surely music sometimes uses parts of these scales. And there are other benefits to learning scales aside from just knowing fingering.

That is what I am doing, I learned all the majors, two hands one octave, now I will learn all the minors, but I am learning them all in one octave and after I finish them all I will start learning to play them on multiple octaves because when you add another octave, bridging the two octaves becomes confusing. I am self teaching my self so I don't have a teacher at the moment, I look through exam requirements to know what I should be working on even though I'm not doing exams. Anyways, is this an acceptable way to learn scales, because I find it already confusing to get the fingering for the individual octave correct, so I am just learning one octave scales. I learned to play c major on multiple octaves but it some time to stop the confusion of tucking in my thumb behind three or four fingers.

Is what I'm doing okay, or should I initially learn to play the scale on multiple octaves?

as for arpeggios, I do plan on working on them soon.

If you're working for exams start with C, G and F majors.

If you're not bothering with exams start with B major, two octaves. It's the easiest mechanically. Chopin taught B major first. Start at two to four seconds per note when you begin playing hands together. Work back through to C via E, A, D and G adding a new key only when you've nailed the current one and not sooner than one key a week. Continue through the flat keys to G flat (easy scale but looks scary). Start on minors when you're having no problems with majors.

Scales are about training the ears not the hands. Listen real hard for any uneveness in time or tone. When you hear it your brain will adjust for it subconsciously, creating the illusion of equally balanced fingers.

Do broken chords before arpeggios. Don't rush into them. You want well drilled fingers (and ears) before you start arpeggios.

Just one question, what is the difference between a broken chord and an arpeggio? give me some examples of how they are to be played

When I play C E G C E G C G E C G E C, what is that?

An arpeggio is a broken chord. In the key of C major, a C arpeggio is simply a c chord (C E G, repeat up an octave) arpeggiated, or played in a broken fashion. See this video for a tutorial:

[video:youtube]R2itD9n3Ky0[/video]

edit: keep in mind a C major arpeggio could also be E G C, repeat, and G C E, repeat, but just in first and second inversions, respectively (know these exist, but worry about them after root position arpeggios). Also know the fingering follows distinct patterns (free scales book with fingerings of everything here: http://petrucci.mus.auth.gr/imglnks...e-Mastering_the_Scales_and_Arpeggios.pdf)