A# minor scale structure please explain!

[keiththebassist]

Also if we could avoid being prudish and snobby in at least one theory discussion that would be super duper!

[Kamael83]

I C I started some sharp discussion about accidentals....and believe me or not i did it accidentally
I guess I will just take it as it is and memorize amount of sharps / flats per scale ...

Thanks again for help

[keiththebassist]

I'm not saying anyone's wrong, it's a matter of convenience.

[Snarf]

Originally Posted by keiththebassist

Don't you think calling it b flat minor instead of a sharp minor is a much cleaner way o putting it? Like you said, you don't want to screw up your perception of a natural C, so why not call it B flat and the C can stay natural.

No no, I'm not saying the C natural needs to be preserved. I'm saying that in A# minor, you MUST have a B# on the sheet so that you know without a doubt you're moving up by a whole step. Writing a C natural above A# is confusing to the eye, and must be written as B#. That's what I was getting at.

Sure calling it Bb minor would be easier by two flats. But what I'm saying is that some people that write charts (especially scores that have a guitar player) will prefer A#. It comes up in real world situations a LOT. So I'm not content to put the blinders up, plug my ears, and say "I'm never playing in a key with more than five accidentals."

Wow, that sounded way snarkier than I intended. Read that last bit with some humor.

[cat_saltnpepper]

C# major has F#, C#, G#, D# A#, E#, B#, which requires couple of enharmonic reading and etc...if you read it as Db major, which only has 5 flats - Bb, Eb, Ab, Db, Gb - you don't really have to deal with any enharmonic reading...

same goes for A# minor, if you read it as Bb minor, whole thing gets little easier.

if you use relative major/minor to get A# minor, you start from C# major and you'll have to deal with extra #s to make your A#natural minor to harmonic minor or melodic (jazz) minor.

when you are talking about theory, there's certain reason when people use B# and E#, or Cb and Fb, which is to describe certain relationship between notes, chords and section and etc..which happens often in classical music. otherwise, we generally use those in different spelling such as C for B#, F for E# and so on to make them easy to read.

A# - B# - C#- D#- E#- F#- G#- A# (natural)

A# - B# - C#- D#- E#- F#- G##- A# (Harmonic)

A# - B#- C#- D# - E# - F## - G## - A# (Ascending melodic or jazz)

this way of writing maybe theoretically correct but definitely not that efficient to read, it's something you need to sort out in your head IMHO, I've never really experienced of somebody saying 'that's G double sharp!' at the bar or any other venue. someone did give me chart with full of E# though.

[Pacman]

Originally Posted by keiththebassist

And please don't try to feed me and B or E sharps, that's just silly. The reason you'll pretty much never see a c sharp major scale is because it's labor some and just doesn't make sense to call it that. If you call it D flat major then it makes much mor sense. The C and F can remain natural. Unnnnless you were bein sarcastic, then disregard me completely.

You see double flats and double sharps all the time. Just depends on your playing situation. If you play big band, for instance, double flats are common. Not so much in a bar (but then, in a bar, you're probably not reading anyway).

[FretlessMainly]

Originally Posted by keiththebassist

And please don't try to feed me and B or E sharps, that's just silly.

Please stop saying this. I realize that this is beyond the OP's question, but in an A7(#9), the melodic line containing the #9 is correctly noted using a B#. Is is incorrect to use a C natural because that is the b3rd, and a properly notated melody should reflect the chord function, not just the enharmonic equivalents.

So, in an A7(#9) chord, there is no C, there is a B#.

[ryco]

Originally Posted by Kamael83

Hi im trying to understand scales..Finally decided to at least start with them...and i`ve got to the point where i`m lost.
In this forum someone said that Minor scale structure is:

W - H - W - W - H - W- W
W - Whole Step
H- Half step

According to this pattern if we will look at chromatic scale:

A-A#-B-B#-C#-D-D#-E-E#-F#-G-G#

I googled it and A# minor scale should have 7 sharps according to wikipedia and it should look like this:
A# - B# - C# - D#- E# - F# - G#

There are many A# minor scales (and -*gasp*- modes). The one above is "Natural" Minor. Not trying to be snobby - just accurate

[keiththebassist]

Originally Posted by FretlessMainly

Please stop saying this. I realize that this is beyond the OP's question, but in an A7(#9), the melodic line containing the #9 is correctly noted using a B#. Is is incorrect to use a C natural because that is the b3rd, and a properly notated melody should reflect the chord function, not just the enharmonic equivalents.

So, in an A7(#9) chord, there is no C, there is a B#.

Forgive me, I realize that that came off as a generalization which it wasn't intended to be. I was strictly referring to the natural minor scale, without attempting to delve into chords or chord tones. I'm really just stating my preference for calling it Bb minor instead of A# minor because there are less accidentals required, and to my mind that is a simpler way of looking at it. I am sure there are some situations where looking at it at A# would make more sense, but I think just for grasping the basic concept of a natural minor scale, Bb is a little simpler.

[keiththebassist]

Originally Posted by Pacman

You see double flats and double sharps all the time. Just depends on your playing situation. If you play big band, for instance, double flats are common. Not so much in a bar (but then, in a bar, you're probably not reading anyway).

You're totally right, You hit the nail on the head by saying "it just depends on your playing situation" I guess I was just saying that for me it's easier to look at it as Bb natural minor as having 5 flats as opposed to A# natural minor with 7 sharps.

[FretlessMainly]

Hey, no sweat. The only thing is, lots of people may read this thread and walk away with a "hard and fast" rule based on what they read, and I just wanted, for the sake of broader context, to point out that there are times when a B# really is appropriate.

An example would be that old chestnut that you shouldn't mix accidentals. Well, in a diatonic context or a key to key discussion, you generally shouldn't. But in the context of a chord with altered non-chord tones (e.g., b9, #9, #11, b13), it is much better to mix accidentals to convey the function of the chord. As in D7(b9). This would be notated as D F# A C Eb.

And I agree that Bbmin is generally a much better way to convey what could be expressed as A#min. While we should strive to learn all keys, A#min is the red-headed step-child of the music world (no offense meant toward red-headed step-children, of course). The only reason I can think of using A#min might be a cyclical modulation from Emin to C#min to A# min to Gmin back to Emin. (this could be viewed as a cascading diminshed-chord-based modulation in minor keys).

But that's the exeption rather than the norm. And, you'd need to decide where to switch from sharps to flats (i.e., at the A#min or at the Gmin).

You might see some classical compositions doing this sort of thing.

[Marty Forrer]

Keiththebassist.... If the Key is C# then the relative minor is A#minor, it cannot be Bbminor, whether you want it to be or not. If the key is Db, then yes the relative minor is Bbminor. You cannot mix up the scales because one is easier.
I often get to back artists who provide chord charts for the backing musos, and even a lot of good singers mix the flat and sharp chords up. It's annoying, it displays a blatant lack of musical knowledge, and diminishes the respect other musos have for that artist.
If that sounds snobbish, I dont care, it's fact.

[keiththebassist]

Originally Posted by Marty Forrer

Keiththebassist.... If the Key is C# then the relative minor is A#minor, it cannot be Bbminor, whether you want it to be or not. If the key is Db, then yes the relative minor is Bbminor. You cannot mix up the scales because one is easier.
I often get to back artists who provide chord charts for the backing musos, and even a lot of good singers mix the flat and sharp chords up. It's annoying, it displays a blatant lack of musical knowledge, and diminishes the respect other musos have for that artist.
If that sounds snobbish, I dont care, it's fact.

Is it just me or do theory discussions get convoluted particularly fast? A simple question about a natural minor scale has everyone getting into Relative minors, #9 chords, double sharps. I'm not claiming to know anything as a steadfast rule that holds true in all situations.

Also, it's unfortunate that anyone would hold less respect for a musical artist when they realize they may not have as much theory knowledge as they do. Being a theory wizard would be awesome, but it's scarcely the point.

[Marty Forrer]

Would you employ a plumber if he only knew half of his trade?

[adrianpavone]

Hey Kamael,

I know some people have already said similar already, but let me just review and compile everything into one post .

When writing a scale you should be using each of the alphabetical letters A-G somewhere in the scale. So for example the key of A minor is Am, Bdim, C, Dm, Em, F, G. In order to turn that into an A# minor you need to move everything up one semitone, but still need all 7 letters: A#m, B#dim, C#, D#m, E#m, F#, G#, which is exactly what you found on wikipedia. This is the same scale other people where discussing as well when they referred to C# major having 7 sharps since C# major and A# minor are just different modes of the same notes.

Now of course normally we would avoid the theoretically correct B# or E# in music as you know (although there are rare cases where it's required such as E# in the key of F#), and as I'm sure you know A# is also Bb. In this particular case calling the key Bbmin instead of A#min turns it into: Bbm, Cdim, Db, Ebm, Fm, Gb, Ab. As you can see this resolves the issue of the sharps and flats where no "natural" flats/sharps exist.

BTW you'll note the keys that use sharps are ascending in fifths whereas the notes that use flats are descending in fifths when you discover the circle of fifths (Circle of fifths - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Fundamentally it boils down to this simple rule: If the number of sharps or flats you've resulted in when creating your key exceeds six, swap to the other style of notation. This is the reason that you will normally see F, Bb, Eb, Ab and Db with flats written whereas G, D, A, E, B and F# tend to use sharps to represent their scales. If you don't follow these rules you start getting into even more trouble very fast with things like having to play an F## (double sharp, really a G) in the key of G# (instead of a just a G in the key of Ab).

Warning: More advanced content below.
FYI circle of fifths is also extremely handy when learning how many sharps/flats are in a key: They increase by one each step around the circle. The circle is also why the order of sharps/flats at the start of a key signature "jump around" on the lines in fifths since they're fundamentally in the order of addition from Cmaj.

[Fergie Fulton]

I see so ,much wrong with the thinking of some players in this thread that it is easy to see why confusing begins.
1/Every note of the chromatic scale, so that is 12 different pitches can have a scale or chord.
2/For a scale to be considered a major one ( there are different types) the 7th note and the eighth note must be a semi-tone apart, if not it is considered minor
3/ There are three types of minor scale to consider, harmonic minor and melodic minor were always delt with and taught as a matter of course, but now the natural minor can be considered.
4/All these scales can be formed from the C scale.

So to keep it brief if a C scale is C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C then the intervals used between those notes are T-T-S-T-T-T-S (T=tone ST = semitone) so the scale is part of the major family because the 7th and 8th note are a semi-tone apart.

The cycle of 5ths is so called it has to place sharps (accidentals) against notes to make them comply to the interval order. Accidentals in the key signature cannot be mixed. They can be added on the score but not in the key signature of the key.

Why called the Cycle of 5ths?....well it is because each new scale starts on the 5th note of the previous starting with the C scale.

As the C scale need no accidentals to comply to T-T-S-T-T-T-S we have C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C as our notes and scale.
If we go to the 5th ( note number 5) we have G as our new starting note for our new scale.

G-A-B-C-D-E-F-G

So if we look at the intervals the 6th, 7th and 8th are wrong.
If we lower the G with a flat then indeed it becomes a semitone between the 7th and 8th, but now the relationship between the G and the A has changed so still the intervals do not conform to
T-T-S-T-T-T-S.
So our only option is to raise the F a semitone with a sharp and now the scale conforms.
so our G scale is now

G-A-B-C-D-E-F#-G

Now go to the 5th of this new Gmaj scale and we get D as our new stating note. So we write the scale out with any accidental added to be included

D-E-F#-G-A-B-C-D

Again we can see that the 6th, 7th, and 8th do not comply, so as in the previous scales the only option is to raise the 7th.

D-E-F#-G-A-B-C#-D

If we apply this to construction method to the next scale of the 5th of Dmaj then it will always be the same problem and always solved by adding a sharp to raise the 7th..

Now if we were to go to the 4th and make a scale of of Cmaj the starting note would be F so the scale would read

F-G-A-B-C-D-E-F

As we can see the 7th does comply because it is a semitone apart, but now the 2nd, 3rd and 4th intervals do not. adding a sharp will not solve it, but adding a flat to the 4th which is the B does solve it. so by adding the flat the scale is

T-T-S-T-T-T-S and reads F-G-A-Bb-C-D-E-F

Go to the 4th of Fmaj and we have Bb.
Use that as our new starting note and we form a Bbmaj scale

Bb-C-D-E-F-G-A-Bb and again the same problem with the 2nd, 3rd, and the 4th, again the only option is to flatten the 4th so the scale reads

Bb-C-D-Eb-F-G-A-Bb

Go to the 4th for a new scale etc etc and you will end up constructiong new scales by adding flats in the same idea that we created new scales when we added sharps.

It is not convienience, or ease, it is simply the only and clearest option available to construct this type of major scale.

Once we have the major scale constucted we can make it minor by lowering the 3rd and 7th degree of any major scale to create one. we can also go to the 6th of a major scale and play it from there to create the relative minor scale of that major.

Any scale is a repeat of the intervals used over and over again, they do not stop after eight notes, as notes repeat so do intervals. In every major scale over two octaves we will find a minor scale in it starting on the 6th note..and so it goes on.

This is just basic construction as in tetrachord theory, but as we can see it workks because it uses the only options available to comply to intervals....not notes.

[Pacman]

Originally Posted by keiththebassist

Is it just me or do theory discussions get convoluted particularly fast? A simple question about a natural minor scale has everyone getting into Relative minors, #9 chords, double sharps. I'm not claiming to know anything as a steadfast rule that holds true in all situations.

I believe things started to go off course when you said:

Originally Posted by keiththebassist

And please don't try to feed me and B or E sharps, that's just silly. The reason you'll pretty much never see a c sharp major scale is because it's labor some and just doesn't make sense to call it that. If you call it D flat major then it makes much mor sense. The C and F can remain natural. Unnnnless you were bein sarcastic, then disregard me completely.

Which showed a lack of understanding and needed to be addressed.

[Febs]

Originally Posted by keiththebassist

Is it just me or do theory discussions get convoluted particularly fast? A simple question about a natural minor scale has everyone getting into Relative minors, #9 chords, double sharps. I'm not claiming to know anything as a steadfast rule that holds true in all situations.

Also, it's unfortunate that anyone would hold less respect for a musical artist when they realize they may not have as much theory knowledge as they do. Being a theory wizard would be awesome, but it's scarcely the point.

It is not just about having more or less knowledge than someone else, but about the readability of the charts on the bandstand. For example, our band has some charts by a guy who has no clue how to properly notate chords, so you have bizarre chord spellings like Am7(b11). If you stop to figure it out, you can ultimately puzzle out that he misspelled an A7(b9) chord. Should I just say, "well, it's OK that this guy calls a b9 a minor third and that he calls a major third a b11, because they're ultimately the same notes and I should just respect those who have less knowledge than I do"? No. What I say instead is, "Don't buy any more of this guy's charts because he doesn't know what the *** he is doing and his charts are impossible to read." Does that make me a snob? No. It makes me someone who has the practical problem of having to sight-read this garbage on the bandstand and little patience for people who make it impossible to do that because of a lack of knowledge.

In another one of this guy's charts, he has a figure written where he mixes up sharps and flats, so there is an F# followed by an Ab. Those two notes are a whole step apart, which would be immediately obvious if written as F# and G# (i.e., a major second). When they're written as F# and Ab, the interval between the two notes is a diminished third. Any decent sight-reader is going to be able to recognize a major second easily, but a diminished third will trip a lot of people up, especially when there is no good reason for it. That may make the difference between a flawless performance and a train wreck.

My point is that this isn't always just an esoteric discussion. There are practical implications for these things.

[Kamael83]

Ok this discussion helped me understand few things and i`m really grateful about it:
1. I think my biggest mistake was when I started creating scales while looking at A chromatic scale and doing it in alphabetical order eg: A minor scale, A# minor scale, B minor scale, C minor scale etc....I`m playing for maybe 7 - 8 months now and I saw circle of 5ths couple of times but never gave it a thought as I was assuming that the time will come It seems that the time is now.
2. While reading through all posts in this thread I understood how the Circle works (tetrachords - new word in my dictionary) etc.
3. I found a mistake in the way I was creating scales by going alphabetically through chromatic scale and trying to apply W-S pattern without understanding the mechanic of it...

So to summarize: thank you very much for taking your time to explain these basic things and pointing out to me Circle of 5ths as a tool in creating scales. It all makes much more sense now Although some people moved a bit off topic ...the larger point of view helped me to see the bigger picture behind creating a scale

[Rockman]

You would have been fine using the chromatic scale if you had stuck with it. If you notice you're chromatic scale only had sharps. Also keep in mind that diatonic scale must have the notes a-b-c-d-e-f-g (in whatever order) and each name can only appear once.