Double Bass "Leading note" vs. "Approach note"

[SteveCS]

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.

You can bet the guys who just got on with it understood the difference, rather than just knew the difference. I think you have to go through knowing to get to understanding. Here in this thread were are concerned with knowing, which is the time to be pedantic.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Getting to the heart of the meaning of a non-traditional term (i.e. - does leading note mean the same thing as leading tone?) is fine, but arguing about these things as though they are life and death issues would not really be helping the OP, IMO.

Also, as a quasi academic (i.e. music professor in a state school who teaches both academic and performance disciplines), I really don't see the problem with jokes about academics who take minute details too seriously. In my experience, those jokes exist for a reason and we tell them ourselves in lighter moments. If, hypothetically, they seemed to be posted in a spirit of bitterness I would probably try to feel compassionate towards the person who seems to experience the bitterness and not reply. If they seemed to be posted as light fun, I would try to appreciate them in that manner as well. I certainly don't see it as some tremendous insult that I need to respond to. Like generic jokes about the Irish, or about bass players, I only take them personally if I decide to. Why would I do that in this case?

EDIT: So, in this case the academic in me says "a leading tone is a half step resolution that resolves upward into a tonic, be it a global or secondary function tonic. If I want to be sure that the author of work that uses the term "leading note" equates it with a leading tone, I should research the particular article in question to see if they clarify that point in their writing".

The musician in me says "that likely means leading tone".

 

[turf3]

Are you suggesting that Jimmie Blanton (who basically invented modern bass playing) or Charles Mingus or Charlie Haden, just to pick some examples, at the age of 50 (well, not Blanton, obviously) was still aware of the music school terminology for a leading note leading tone approach note approach tone or what have you?

My point was that discussion of fine points of terminology is usually fruitless and ends up going down a rabbit hole of argument about whose institution of higher learning uses/used which term for which thing. It's like assigning an entire name and mythos to the "Nashville Number System" when all it is, is using Arabic numerals instead of Roman ones.

Anyway, I apologize to those I offended.

 

[Groove Doctor]

Is there such a thing as a mis-leading note?
Or does that only happen in TalkBass threads?

 

[Laza]

"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.

This means that the 7th degree of a natural minor scale cannot be properly called the leading tone. What, then, is the right name to call it? The subtonic?

 

[turf3]

This means that the 7th degree of a natural minor scale cannot be properly called the leading tone. What, then, is the right name to call it? The subtonic?

I'd call it "the seventh".

 

[SteveCS]

This means that the 7th degree of a natural minor scale cannot be properly called the leading tone. What, then, is the right name to call it? The subtonic?

Yes.

 

[Silevesq]

@Axtman May I ask you why you want to know that? Maybe then will be able to point you in a better direction.

@Chris Fitzgerald Even though we don't live in the same country I find it interesting to know that people feel the same way where you are

 

[SteveCS]

Getting to the heart of the meaning of a non-traditional term (i.e. - does leading note mean the same thing as leading tone?) is fine, but arguing about these things as though they are life and death issues would not really be helping the OP, IMO.
...
I certainly don't see it as some tremendous insult that I need to respond to.
...
The musician in me says "that likely means leading tone".

If is often the case that getting to the heart of the meaning of non-traditional terms is much easier if established terms are used as a frame of reference. If it turns out they mean the same thing that's great. If not, also great. Either way the 'likely' gets eliminated, and that represents progress, IMHO.

I too didn't see any great insult, and personally I don't care if people want to embrace ignorance - I'd rather be out playing than sat here typing the same old stuff - but if someone puts in the effort to frame and post a question to which I can offer an answer then that's what I'll try to do. If I can't offer a helpful answer then I either move on or watch the thread to see if I can pick something up. The one thing I won't do is say "well I dunno therefore y'all don't need to know".

YMMV

 

[Wasnex]

What is the point of making a snarkey comment other than to get a rise out of someone? This by definition is trolling in the Talkbass rules. I just ignored the snarkey comments in this thread, but I know they can sometimes feel very much like personal attacks, regardless of whether they are intended that way or not.

To be honest, I am not entirely innocent of being snarkey, but I aspire to be a better person so I often rewrite and delete posts I have put significant effort into writing. I spent a couple of hours writing and deleting posts in this thread last night, and eventually went to bed at 6 AM without posting. Not because I took the snark personally, but because I felt empathy for someone who I think justifiably felt attacked.

When someone asks an academic question, it's not necessary or helpful to insult or make fun of academics as a class of people. Even worse, such generalized insults are not really appropriate or accurate because many academics are very thoughtful in how they use and apply knowledge. Yes I have known some academics that I thought were worthy of jokes, but I have also known some who inspired me as well. Why lump them together thoughtlessly, and risk hurting someone you don't really even know?

There are plenty of other places on the internet if you want to get into a trolling contest. I like Talkbass because it aspires to be better. Let's keep it that way.

 

[dreamadream99]

you have some sort of weird axe to grind

I was actually more taken aback by @turf3 ’s comment...declaring it a vocabulary “war” after just one single reply.

 

[Don Kasper]

Well, if we've learned one thing from this Thread, it's:
You can Lead a Tone to Tonic, but...always Approach a Beaten Horse carefully! It might not be Dead yet - it may just be Lying like a Sleeping Dog.
Best episode yet of "Game of Tones"!
Thanks, from the sidelines.

 

[logdrum]

Leading almost always refers to the tonic and mostly from the 7th. You can break that rule anytime but always the goal is to be musical

 

[dreamadream99]

You can Lead a Tone to Tonic, but...

Don’t even get me started on appoggiaturas.

 

[Steve Freides]

My point was that discussion of fine points of terminology is usually fruitless and ends up going down a rabbit hole of argument about whose institution of higher learning uses/used which term for which thing.

No one here is arguing about the terminology; we're arguing with what you posted about learning the meaning of some musical terms.

As long as we agree on the meanings of the words we use, it's fine. If there is confusion as to the meaning of terms, e.g., approach note and leading tone, it's fine to ask. It doesn't have to turn into a rabbit hole, and it hasn't here - the OP got plenty of good answers.

To argue otherwise is like saying it's not important to learn to speak French in France. We're talking about music, and there is no right or wrong about the meaning of words anymore than there's a right or wrong about the fact that a book is called a book and not an orbgeforb. Language fluency is a good thing; music is language; fluency in the language of music is a good thing for any musician. Whether or not it's strictly necessary for certain people in certain musical situations is another conversation, but generally, speaking the language of where you're at is a good thing.

So, B->C is a leading tone, D->C is an approach note, and F#->C is an orbgeforb. Clear?

-S-

 

[Whousedtoplay]

An approach note, as defined above, to C could be B-natural, Bb, Db

From here:
Leading-tone - Wikipedia

More about that upper leading tone from

"Expanded Tonality: The Treatment of Upper and Lower Leading Tones
As Evidenced in Sonata "Undine,” IV by Carl Reinecke"

Invalid Link Removed

 

[Steve Freides]

@Whousedtoplay, the descending leading tone - that's a new one for me but I get it. That Wiki is pretty thick - lots of concepts with only brief explanations. It's certainly a less popular usage of the term (although likely one I heard in college and had forgotten ...).

Returning to the original question:

"Leading tone" still means coming up from the below by diatonic half-step.
"Upper leading tone" which mean descending to the tonic by diatonic half-step.
"Approach note" as previously discussed: could be half- or whole-step, from above or below.

-S-

 

[Whousedtoplay]

@Whousedtoplay, the descending leading tone - that's a new one for me but I get it. That Wiki is pretty thick - lots of concepts with only brief explanations. It's certainly a less popular usage of the term (although likely one I heard in college and had forgotten ...).

Returning to the original question:

"Leading tone" still means coming up from the below by diatonic half-step.
"Upper leading tone" which mean descending to the tonic by diatonic half-step.
"Approach note" as previously discussed: could be half- or whole-step, from above or below.

-S-

Invalid Link Removed

Pitch-class prevalence in plainchant, scale-degree consonance, and the origin of the rising leading tone

"Introduction
In a general music-theoretic definition, a leading tone is any unstable tone that moves up or down through a semitone interval to a more stable tone. Unless otherwise stated, leading tones are tacitly assumed to rise: the default leading tone is the lower leading tone, and the standard example is the 7th degree of a major scale or the (raised) 7th degree of a (harmonic) minor scale. The 4th degree of the major scale functions as an upper leading tone if it falls to the 3rd degree, especially if this motion is associated with a resolution of dissonance or release of tension, as in the familiar cadential progression from dominant 7th (in which the 4th scale degree is the 7th of the dominant) to tonic triad. In the Neapolitan 6th chord, the flat 2nd scale degree falls to the tonic – a falling leading tone..."

 

[Steve Freides]

a leading tone is any unstable tone that moves up or down through a semitone interval to a more stable tone.

Here the definition has become too broad, IMO. "Leading Tone" is the name of scale degree #7 in a major scale. The word "leading" in music could be very broadly applied. Heck, part of what makes music, music is the idea of "leading" us somewhere. Because of the name Leading Tone for scale degree 7, "upper" leading tone kind of makes sense - the same thing but the other direction. For me, that's as far as I choose to go.

Thank you for all the interesting links and reading.

-S-

 

[Adam Booker]

Invalid Link Removed

Pitch-class prevalence in plainchant, scale-degree consonance, and the origin of the rising leading tone

"Introduction
In a general music-theoretic definition, a leading tone is any unstable tone that moves up or down through a semitone interval to a more stable tone. Unless otherwise stated, leading tones are tacitly assumed to rise: the default leading tone is the lower leading tone, and the standard example is the 7th degree of a major scale or the (raised) 7th degree of a (harmonic) minor scale. The 4th degree of the major scale functions as an upper leading tone if it falls to the 3rd degree, especially if this motion is associated with a resolution of dissonance or release of tension, as in the familiar cadential progression from dominant 7th (in which the 4th scale degree is the 7th of the dominant) to tonic triad. In the Neapolitan 6th chord, the flat 2nd scale degree falls to the tonic – a falling leading tone..."

Awesome. Somebody rediscovered “tendency tones” and gave it a new name. Same with “upper chromatic neighboring tone” and, to differentiate from the “leading tone,” the ever popular “lower chromatic neighbor.”

One of the most interesting nights of my life was spent at a bar in Texas with a group of Bulgarian music theory professors.