Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Double Bass "Leading note" vs. "Approach note"
- Thread starter Axtman
- Start date
Traditionally the term "leading tone" refers to scale degree 7 resolving by half step up to scale degree 1. For example in the chord progression G7 -> C the leading tone is B. In that sense the "leading tone" can be considered a specific sub-category of "approach note."
In modern context (such as jazz education) the meanings of these terms might be a little different than what I just said.
In modern context (such as jazz education) the meanings of these terms might be a little different than what I just said.
Sounds like another one of those vocabulary wars.
Remember, just like academic in-fighting, music theory arguments are so fierce because the stakes are so small.
Remember, just like academic in-fighting, music theory arguments are so fierce because the stakes are so small.
A completely unnecessary insult.
"Leading Tone" is used in tonal music to refer to scale degree 7 when that note is a half-step below the tonic. Thus the leading tone of B-natural can be found in the scales of C major, C harmonic minor, and C melodic minor, but not in C natural minor.
From [This invalid link has been removed]
"These approaches could be Chromatic from bellow, Chromatic from above, Diatonic from bellow or Diatonic from above."
An approach note, as defined above, to C could be B-natural, Bb, Db or D natural.
Thus a leading tone is an approach note to the tonic, but not all approach notes are leading tones.
-S-
It's not really a war of anything. As stated by @Mushroo and @Steve Freides, the term 'Leading Tone' refers specifically and uniquely to the seventh note of a scale that is a semitone (or half-step) below tonic, e.g. B in the key of C (or C minor).
Approach note is a more generic term for any note that leads to a note of more significance (harmonically or melodically) than the approach note itself.
Who are 'they' and what is 'it'?
Yes on leading tone... it is leading to the tonic ... so it could be 7 to 1 in C (B to C) or... that C could be acting as a pivot leading tone... going to a new key.. 7-1 (C to Db)
Approach notes are tones moving to another tone within the key... you can have diatonic approach notes... chromatic approach notes. In other words re down to do (diatonic) re to ra to do (chromatic)
Approach notes are tones moving to another tone within the key... you can have diatonic approach notes... chromatic approach notes. In other words re down to do (diatonic) re to ra to do (chromatic)
We could also just go to the root of the word used.
Leading = taking you somewhere
Approach = what is getting you somewhere
Can an approach bring you to a leading? A B C
Can a leading bring you to an approach? B D C
In a Jazz context we don't use this term as much, instead we refer much more to chromatic approach and diatonic approach. We may talk about 7, and we may refer to leading note in reference to what is bringing somewhere, but not only in the case of a seventh...
In some(and more and more) jazz piece the tonal center is moving so much that referring to the leading tone would be misleading.
***Thinking out loud***
Even if Jazz is about improvisation, it is very anchored in the chord progression. Therefore in some chord there could be much more than just one note that is leading...
Also improvisation has brought us to a certain level of playing melody that talking about leading tone when your desired target is the nine or the third or anything else except the roots would be confusing.
In other words, if what I am aiming for is the third and I make sure that everything that revolves around it feels like a leading or an approach tones. Could that be considered as such?...
I guess it all depends on how you see it...
Leading = taking you somewhere
Approach = what is getting you somewhere
Can an approach bring you to a leading? A B C
Can a leading bring you to an approach? B D C
In a Jazz context we don't use this term as much, instead we refer much more to chromatic approach and diatonic approach. We may talk about 7, and we may refer to leading note in reference to what is bringing somewhere, but not only in the case of a seventh...
In some(and more and more) jazz piece the tonal center is moving so much that referring to the leading tone would be misleading.
***Thinking out loud***
Even if Jazz is about improvisation, it is very anchored in the chord progression. Therefore in some chord there could be much more than just one note that is leading...
Also improvisation has brought us to a certain level of playing melody that talking about leading tone when your desired target is the nine or the third or anything else except the roots would be confusing.
In other words, if what I am aiming for is the third and I make sure that everything that revolves around it feels like a leading or an approach tones. Could that be considered as such?...
I guess it all depends on how you see it...
Been to music school, got a degree, teach at a college, know the terminology, just think it's silly.
Clearly, you're taking the discussion beyond its intended supject and expanding it to suit your own agenda because every post you've contributed has very little to do with the topic. I've already concluded that you have some sort of weird axe to grind to insert your comments in a non-sequitor. So, I've reported your posts, as you're probably used to, as inappropropriate.
I find the reporting thing a little over the top. As a german I tend to be very sensitive to things like that (history...)
My analogy would be: "Hey neighbor, I reported you to the police for playing your music too loud." "But why didn't you report the other neighbor who happens to play music loud, too?" "Because I like the music he's playing, but not yours."
I hear you, and empathize. I suppose I find TB's rules a bit too lenient on "jerks" versus "disrespect" because "jerks" tend to pollute the conversation until they kill the thread.
To your analogy, if I were the offender playing my music too loud - guilty - I would have, and did, approach my neighbors before hand, letting them know I LOVE my tunes and ask them to let me know "when it disturbs them" and then I'll do my best to set my volume below that threshold, and ask them to "let me know" when I crossed the line. I never had an issue with a neighbor and learned to love headphones.
I hosted a jazz jam on my front porch for a few years... my neighbors asked us to play at their ceremonies, birthdays, anniversaries, etc, and showed us the wine bottles they consumed during our playing. We weren't very good, but we were "their band."
Thank you for your post. Luckily, tho OP already got his answers so it might not be a big deal if I stay OT for another post (will not post more in this thread)
(last OT post, I hope Chris does not have to clean up here ;-)
And here is, where I tend to think different: Just like in real life, the next jerk might be just around the corner. And while it's totally appropriate to engage him and his behavior personally, unless it's not clearly against society's (forum's) rules, I think it's not ok to report him to the authorities. Because, actually, he also might just think you're the jerk and report you, too. So you might never know when you're on the other end.
(last OT post, I hope Chris does not have to clean up here ;-)
That is precisely why I think the term leading tone is useful as a distinct thing. If we consider how the leading tone (re)assignment is used in modulation, for example ii > V > V/V > etc. Here we have ii becoming II (V/V) by raising its 3rd a semitone - it stops being the subdominant (degree) and becomes leading tone, announcing in no uncertain terms the pending move to the new key. In other words it provides much of the force that actually moves the tonal centre.
YMMV
I get the zinger at academia that was thrown in, as I am uniquely positioned to do, having seen music historians argue until they are blue in the face about whether a trill from period X should start on the upper or lower part. My own teacher had her views, but said that in the end a good musician should be able to make either sound good, which I agree with.
Now that everyone has had a chance to laugh, or not, let's please let the thread continue back on topic.
Along those lines, I don't care what the terminology "officially" means. In the vernacular, I would probably think of a "leading note" like a "leading tone" - i.e. a half step below its target = and an approach note any (usually) stepwise note into a target.
Now that everyone has had a chance to laugh, or not, let's please let the thread continue back on topic.
Along those lines, I don't care what the terminology "officially" means. In the vernacular, I would probably think of a "leading note" like a "leading tone" - i.e. a half step below its target = and an approach note any (usually) stepwise note into a target.
As it just so happens, I am working through a harmony book and have just arrived at the voice leading section and those terms are used in the analysis. In that context, it's important to make the differentiation to clearly explain what's going on to a student (me).
I certainly never think about this stuff when I'm playing, as Silevesq wrote it's either chromatic or diatonic to the next chord tone. Actually, what I think about the most is "boy, that note didn't work at all!"
I certainly never think about this stuff when I'm playing, as Silevesq wrote it's either chromatic or diatonic to the next chord tone. Actually, what I think about the most is "boy, that note didn't work at all!"
If I were a student I would be concerned if my teacher didn't care about such fundamental things. Correct use of precise established definitions means words like 'vernacular' and 'probably' need not enter the discussion, and there would be no cause for 'zingers'.
That's a valid opinion, and one that many share. When I was a student, I noted that the teachers who were the biggest sticklers about exact meanings of terminology and insisting that words be used correctly tended to be either not active performers, or if they still performed, tended to be on the lower tiers of performance experience and ability in relation to the rest of the faculty. The better players and performers tended to think less in absolutes, and would not waste much - if any - time between the distinction between a "leading note" and a "leading tone". At least at my school, the former was not a thing and the latter was; so in the vernacular, most would likely equate the two and get on with the music. As always EEMMV.
