HELP! Concerning Pacman's Method and the relationship between major and minor.

[gefallenesterne]

Pacmans Method (see sticky), is really helpful, but I don't understand how I can connect major and minor scales (as essentially the same patterns, the same notes) together. How can I switch flawlessly from one to the other (meaning how do I practice this?)

My second question is: How do I think about the relation between major and minor? Do I think of the scale and the intervals as one continuous thing? For example, my jazz piano teacher told me he thinks of the minor (i) usually as a minor (vi), always in relation to the major (I). I did this myself for some time as a beginner, got confused and I am now trying to think of it as the minor (i). The thing is: this makes more sense to me but like this I can't seem to connect relative major minor scales not as easily together. With pacmans method, I'd have to learn them as completely different things, while they're not.

i.e. (iv - IV - ii - III7) vs (i - bVI - iv - V7)
Let's take Autumn Leaves as an example: Do you think about the circle of fifths progression in terms of (ii - V - I - IV - vii° - III - vi) OR in terms of (ii - V - I - IV) in major followed by a (ii° - V - i) in minor

 

[SteveCS]

The relationship between major and minor keys is largely arbitrary and one of convenience. IME it is better to treat them as distant cousins than intrinsically linked twins.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Let's take Autumn Leaves as an example: Do you think about the circle of fifths progression in terms of (ii - V - I - IV - vii° - III - vi) OR in terms of (ii - V - I - IV) in major followed by a (ii° - V - i) in minor

For me, in that song, neither. I'd think of it as iv - bVIII7 (or V7/III if you like) - III - VI - ii (half dim) - V7 - i. Because the harmony is all pretty much understandable in G minor, and there's no real need to slip into a related major key.

There are, however, plenty of tunes, especially in jazz, where you do get temporary "tonicizations," meaning that you sort of slip into a key for a short period, maybe just a few measures, but it doesn't really last long enough to constitute a true modulation.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Pacmans Method (see sticky), is really helpful, but I don't understand how I can connect major and minor scales (as essentially the same patterns, the same notes) together. How can I switch flawlessly from one to the other (meaning how do I practice this?)

Are you practicing them from the perspective of the same tonic (tonal center in the case of modes)? That is, C major, C natural minor, C harmonic minor, C melodic minor, C dorian, and so forth and so forth? Starting from your lowest available instance of the notes contained in a given scale? And naming both the note names (Eb, F, G, etc) and the function in the scale as you go? I think the idea is to familiarize yourself with the notes, where they are, and how to get to them, of course; but also, and perhaps more crucially, to tell you what notes are part of your tonality/modality (whether they fall below or above your lowest root) and what their roles are within that tonality/modality.

 

[Wasnex]

I don't understand how I can connect major and minor scales (as essentially the same patterns, the same notes) together. How can I switch flawlessly from one to the other (meaning how do I practice this?)

I think you are over simplifying and drawing a conclusion that is not accurate..

AFAIK Pacman's method is related to scale practice and getting the sound of various modes in your head.

Major and relative minor keys share a key signature, but minor has extra note possibilities resulting in the Harmonic and Melodic minor scales.

Major and natural minor generate the same common modes. So basically if you are switching back and forth between major and the relative natural minor, your dealing with exactly the same notes. Whether you would toggle your harmonic analysis depends on how you want to think, but for the most part I don't think it really matters from a playing stand point.

Harmonic minor raises the 7th scaled degree and (Jazz) Melodic minor raises both the 6th and 7th scale degree. So the Harmonic and Melodic minor scales each generate a new set of synthetic modes. To my way of thinking, it would likely be more important to toggle the harmonic analysis if the music switches from major to the relative Harmonic or Melodic minor.

The following is from a mode cheat sheet I built. It's not necessarily a complete, authoritative reference, but hopefully it's accurate and makes sense.

 

[mambo4]

I’m a little confused by the OP using chord symbols when discussing a scale practice method. But I think I understand the questions.

personally I do not think of the relative minor as the same scale as its relative major. C major is one scale, A minor is another entirely. I do not “try to connect them“ for me it is either one or the other, each with its own implications for the music I am playing.

If I’m playing in C Major, I will think of the C as the tonic, the G as the dominant, etc.

If I’m playing A minor, then A is the tonic , E is the dominant, etc.

I see no utility in translating from one to the other. They are two different scales, and the roles of the tones within each scale are completely different.

I find it more useful and interesting to explore the relationship between C major, C minor, C harmonic minor, and C melodic minor. Parallel scales if you will. Borrowing tones or chords from these parallel scales can be a useful way to look at quite a bit of music.

I would say the same for modes. The fact that they are “the same set of notes, starting in a different place“ does not actually yield very much useful data.There is no need to try to “connect“ them. Treat each as a unique and independent scale with its own sound, and its own implications.

When dealing with circle of fifths progressions like in autumn leaves, my preferred approach is to think in the key of the song as long as it is convenient, but when I see a ii V that is clearly from another key, I just assume a temporary key center and don’t stress about the relationship. There is a bottomless pit of theory for you to pretzel your own connections between any key and any chord. There is more utility in simply recognizing the common patterns that get used, and the common ways those patterns are broken.

 

[Groove Doctor]

I see it both ways listed.

Rigid.
1. Strongly Minor songs based around i - iv - V7
2. that don’t slide in & out of the relative major chord patterns.
These get that nomenclature i - iv - V7.

Switching
1. Relative Major <-> Relative Minor interplay
eg. Verses in Am (vi) with C, F & G, then chorus in C
Major (I) with F, G & Am. These swap verse- chorus throughout the song.
2. These get the (iv) nomenclature.


Fluid/ Both
eg Autumn Leaves.
I can swap mid phrase if it’s easier on the brain.



Note: if in nasty keys i might swap enharmonics… esp if it’s only a bar or two, or having to solo, etc

eg. Cb/Bbb - Fbm I’ll thing B/A - Em.

Not “technically accurate” but highlights how hardline observance to the “rules” can slow you down on the bandstand.
When's the last time you practiced soloing over Fbm ??

TL/DR: learn it both ways, but use whatever method works best for you in your context.

 

[coyote1]

I don’t think in modes per se. There are a few that I utilize consciously, but I consider mode memorization largely a waste of practice time. On bass in particular, I see target notes and leading tones. Whether those leading tones are scalar, arpeggio movement, or chromatic movement depends largely on where the group is in the tune.

 

[Groove Doctor]

Fluid/ Both
eg Autumn Leaves.
I can swap mid phrase if it’s easier on the brain.

Edit:
Fluid/ Both/ Other
eg Autumn Leaves.
II can swap naming systems mid phrase if it’s easier on the brain.
1. Use whatever method makes sense in the song.
2. Use whatever helps you remember it best & play it correctly.
3. Allow others their own interpretation.

Less Talk = More Bass.

 

[iiipopes]

N6 - V6/5 of V - V8-7 - I4-3

 

[Groove Doctor]

Pacmans Method (see sticky), is really helpful, but I don't understand how I can connect major and minor scales (as essentially the same patterns, the same notes) together. How can I switch flawlessly from one to the other (meaning how do I practice this?)

We learned to do technical analyses of songs by writing the “numeral” system above the chord in a chord chart.

Write both methods in your poll above each chord (on their own separate line). Colour code if it makes it easier for you.

Songs like Autumn Leaves seems easier using the second naming system you wrote in the Poll.

One teacher taught us it changes key centres from Major to Relative Minor, hence to two sets of brackets.
Some students used this labelling, others did not. YMMV.

Hopefully I understood your question correctly quoted above.

 

[wompwomp]

Pacmans Method (see sticky), is really helpful, but I don't understand how I can connect major and minor scales (as essentially the same patterns, the same notes) together. How can I switch flawlessly from one to the other (meaning how do I practice this?)

My second question is: How do I think about the relation between major and minor? Do I think of the scale and the intervals as one continuous thing? For example, my jazz piano teacher told me he thinks of the minor (i) usually as a minor (vi), always in relation to the major (I). I did this myself for some time as a beginner, got confused and I am now trying to think of it as the minor (i). The thing is: this makes more sense to me but like this I can't seem to connect relative major minor scales not as easily together. With pacmans method, I'd have to learn them as completely different things, while they're not.

i.e. (iv - IV - ii - III7) vs (i - bVI - iv - V7)
Let's take Autumn Leaves as an example: Do you think about the circle of fifths progression in terms of (ii - V - I - IV - vii° - III - vi) OR in terms of (ii - V - I - IV) in major followed by a (ii° - V - i) in minor

I often use double stops to explore harmonic relationships when I practice scales, modes etc.

i'll drone the tonic through the scale, move on to the supertonic and repeat, the mediant etc. you can play the drone on top of the tone as an actual double stops or you can alternate or whatever pattern.

 

[Chadwick Salls]

I picture Autumn Leaves as ii-V-I-IV-viiº-III-vi-vi. Am7-D7-G∆-C∆-F#m7b5-B7-Em-Em
Every chord is normal in the key of G/Em, but the B, which is "borrowed" from the parallel key of E. The only note that is not in the key of G is the D# (the 3rd of B), so it should be easy to play in the key of G until you see the B7.
To me, the ii-V-i is extra work, and it's much easier to think that it's in G/Em and it just ends on the vi chord

 

[Richard Lindsey]

I picture Autumn Leaves as ii-V-I-IV-viiº-III-vi-vi. Am7-D7-G∆-C∆-F#m7b5-B7-Em-Em
Every chord is normal in the key of G/Em, but the B, which is "borrowed" from the parallel key of E. The only note that is not in the key of G is the D# (the 3rd of B), so it should be easy to play in the key of G until you see the B7.
To me, the ii-V-i is extra work, and it's much easier to think that it's in G/Em and it just ends on the vi chord

Probably much easier still to conclude that it's in E minor and ends on the i. D# isn't extraneous to E minor; it's part of that key, so there's no need to appeal to a parallel key of E. Every chord in that section is a legit part of E minor.

 

[SteveCS]

but the B, which is "borrowed" from the parallel key of E. The only note that is not in the key of G is the D# (the 3rd of B), so it should be easy to play in the key of G until you see the B7.

But D#, and therefore B7, is diatonic in E minor - they are just the leading tone and V7 chord respectively. Yet another case of complexity that could be so easily avoided by treating minor keys as their own thing and not in relation to the boundaries and harmonic structures of major. Nothing is borrowed; Nothing is parallel; it's all just minor.

 

[Chadwick Salls]

Probably much easier still to conclude that it's in E minor and ends on the i. D# isn't extraneous to E minor; it's part of that key, so there's no need to appeal to a parallel key of E. Every chord in that section is a legit part of E minor.

Not every song in Em has a B7.
Also, if a song in G/Em has a Eb and F borrowed from Bb/Gm, it’s still easier to notate Eb and F as bVI and bVII. The key of G/Em can borrow chords from Bb/Gm- I’ve seen these as iv (Cm), bVI (Eb) and bVII (F) and it can borrow from E/C#m and I see as II7 (F#7), III7 (G#7) and VI7 (C#7) in 100 of songs and all those borrowed chords lead you back to E.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Not every song in Em has a B7.
Also, if a song in G/Em has a Eb and F borrowed from Bb/Gm, it’s still easier to notate Eb and F as bVI and bVII. The key of G/Em can borrow chords from Bb/Gm- I’ve seen these as iv (Cm), bVI (Eb) and bVII (F) and it can borrow from E/C#m and I see as II7 (F#7), III7 (G#7) and VI7 (C#7) in 100 of songs and all those borrowed chords lead you back to E.

Wait a minute, where are you getting the Eb and F from? I'm talking specifically about the sequence of chords you yourself provided in post #13, where neither Eb nor F appears. You seem to talking about two different keys at once, or perhaps two different tunes.

Also, there's no such thing as the key of G/Em, or Bb/Gm. It's one or the other. At least in the setting we're discussing here. (I'm not bringing Charles Ives into this.) G major is not the same as E minor, and Bb major is not the same as G minor. There are some cases where you could make an argument for either the major or its relative minor being the best descriptor of what's happening, but in the contexts we typically discuss here, it's not going to be both at once. It doesn't matter that the two keys share the same key signature, because key signatures aren't keys. Keys are established by harmonic functioning--that is, what the chords are actually doing--not by the conventions we use to make our notation clearer.

I'm quite aware of the concept of "borrowed" chords. My point about the B7 wasn't that all tunes in E minor have them--though it's probably safe to say that most tunes that are truly in E minor in terms of Western functional harmony DO have them. It also wasn't that "borrowing" doesn't exist. The point was that the concept of borrowing is completely unnecessary to explain what that B7 is doing in a tune that's in E minor, because B7 is diatonic in E minor. And it seems pretty clear that E minor is the key we're talking about here, not G major. IMO there's no need to make things more complicated than they are.

Also, why would F#7, G#7, or C#7 necessarily lead you back to E major, rather than B major, C#major, or F# major? None of those first three chords are diatonic to E major. The first two, however, are diatonic to C# minor.

 

[mambo4]

Come on guys it's not as if Autmun Leaves were a Fleetwood Mac song...

 

[SteveCS]

Not every song in Em has a B7.

In the same way as not every tune in E minor does have a B7 in it. Compared to the 7 in the major key, how many diatonic trials are there in the minor key?