What's the deal with the major/minor second interval?

[MixBass]

A pet peeve of mine for ages. I much prefer raised or lowered than min maj nomenclature when speaking of intervals. It is easier to get the desired note via raised or lowered with students than the “correct” way. The fact this discussion is raised so often proves that the correct way is a bit confusing. A minor 7th in a Maj chord, kind of a mixed message IMO. Calling it a lowered 7th gives me more chance of getting the right note quickly. It’s easy enough to explain later if one is digging in to things but for the casual player or beginner it often brings confusion. I know it’s not correct but I also know I can get the note I want sooner and more often via raised lowered.

 

[Snarf]

*MINOR scale = natural minor

Major 7 - apart of the MAJOR scale only
minor 7 - apart of the MINOR scale only
Major 6 - apart of the MAJOR scale only
minor 6 - apart of the MINOR scale only
Perfect 5 - apart of BOTH scales
Perfect 4 - apart of BOTH scales
Major 3 - apart of the MAJOR scale only
minor 3 - apart of the MINOR scale only
Major 2 - apart of BOTH scales
minor 2 - apart of... none??

Did they realize the pattern wasn't working when they got down to the 2nd interval and just went along with it?

This makes no sense at all. An interval is the distance between two notes, full stop. One example, out of many many many possible examples that disprove this post, is that you can find an interval of a major 7th between the third and second degrees of the minor scale, playing the second degree an octave above the third degree.

AND NOW FOR MY WALL OF TEXT:



oh wait didn't need

 

[Mushroo]

This makes no sense at all. An interval is the distance between two notes, full stop. One example, out of many many many possible examples that disprove this post, is that you can find an interval of a major 7th between the third and second degrees of the minor scale, playing the second degree an octave above the third degree.

AND NOW FOR MY WALL OF TEXT:



oh wait didn't need

What are you talking about?!? Everybody knows minor intervals come from the minor scale, major intervals come from the major scale, and perfect intervals come from the perfect scale.

 

[Snarf]

The perfect scale is too perfect. Instead, I just play a tribute to the perfect scale in its place.

 

[Papageno]

What are you talking about?!? Everybody knows minor intervals come from the minor scale, major intervals come from the major scale, and perfect intervals come from the perfect scale.

Exactly!

Furthermore, diminished intervals come from the diminished scale, and blues intervals come from the blues scale...

 

[SteveCS]

A pet peeve of mine for ages. I much prefer raised or lowered than min maj nomenclature when speaking of intervals. It is easier to get the desired note via raised or lowered with students than the “correct” way. The fact this discussion is raised so often proves that the correct way is a bit confusing.
..

Please don't take it personally, but IME the confusion actually comes from people promulgating incorrect information because they think it is easier. Easier for whom? The fact that the discussion is raised so often is testiment to the number of people who really can't be bothered to validate what they think they know before passing it on. Basic technical terminology is easy and logical when just a little time is taken to understand the simple principles behind it. IMHO, paying students deserve better.

The terms diminished, minor, perfect, major and augmented are absolute terms. Raised and lowered are relative, which means they come with caveats - Raised relative to what? What term do you use for diminished? Double-lowered? Twice-lowered? Double-flat?

 

[Papageno]

Here are a few general considerations on intervals and on their nomenclature as major, minor, augmented, diminished.
(people familiar with music theory will learn nothing from this; hopefully it will nevertheless be useful and clarify things for at least some folks here on TB).

In all diatonic scales (the familiar major scales and their various modes) the intervals between 2 notes are called by a number obtained by counting the notes between those 2 notes, counting both the starting note and the last note. This leads to some rather weird arithmetics in which a 3rd and and 6th add up to an octave (8th), and where a 3rd plus a 3rd plus a 3rd is a 7th. Obviously, this was not conceived by a mathematician...

Now, if one considers all the possible intervals within an octave (in a diatonic scale) one observes that all of them come in 2 kinds: a large one, and a small one, the smaller being a semitone smaller than the large one.
Here are a few example (from the C major scale):
- the ascending interval between C and A is a large 6th (9 semitones)
- the ascending interval between E and C is a small 6th (8 semitones)
- the ascending interval between F and A is a large 3rd (4 semitones)
- the ascending interval between E and G is a small 3rd (3 semitones)
- the ascending interval between C and G is a large 5th (7 semitones)
- the ascending interval between B and F is a small 5th (6 semitones)
- etc.
The only exceptions to this are the unison and the octave, which only come in one kind, and are called "perfect".

For the 2nd, 3rd, 6th and 7th, the large interval is called "major" (which simply mean "big" in latin), and the small interval is called "minor" ("small" in latin).

It is to be observed that the inversion of major interval is a minor interval: e.g., the ascending interval between C and A is a major 6th, whereas the the ascending interval between A and C is a minor 3rd.

Now, one can wonder why the large and small 5th and 4th are not called major and minor like for the other intervals. Actually it could have been done that way, and that would have been a perfectly reasonable nomenclature. However, the large 5th has a very peculiar status in western music. Because of the the frequency ratio of 3/2 between the 2 notes, its very consonnant and constitutes a very strong pilar of tonal (and modal) western music; by contrast the small 5th is very dissonant and has been systematically avoided until the barock period. Therefore, the large 5th was not called "major" but "perfect" (like the octave). Similarly the small 4th (the inversion of the large 5th) was called "perfect". When the small 5th and its inversion the large 4th (which is also enharmonic to the small 5th) came into use starting from the barock period, there were called respectively "diminished" 5th and the "augmented" 4th. "Augmented" and "diminished" are then also used for (non-diatonic) intervals which are, respectively, a semitone larger than a major or perfect interval, or a semitone smaller than a minor or perfect interval.

I now come to the point adressed by the OP in the 1st post of the thread. Apparently, the OP attempted to establish a correlation between the name ("major" and "minor") of intervals between the tonic and other notes of a scale, and the quality ("major" or "minor") of the scale. This idea was not stupid, but it was imperfectly conceived. Among the 7 modes of the diatonic scale, there is indeed one scale for which all intervals from the tonic are "large" intervals: this is the lydian scale (not the major scale), which is the most "major"of all diatonic scales:
C lydian =
C (tonic)
D (major 2nd)
E (major 3rd)
F# (augmented 4th)
G (perfect 5th)
A (major 6th)
B (major 7th)
C (perfect octave)
Conversely, there is one diatonic scale for which all intervals from the tonic are "small" intervals: this is the locrian scale (not the natural minor scale), which is the most "minor"of all diatonic scales:
C locrian =
C (tonic)
Db (minor 2nd)
Eb (minor 3rd)
F (perfect 4th)
Gb (diminished 5th)
Ab (minor 6th)
Bb (minor 7th)
C (perfect octave).
For all other diatonic scales, and in particular for the major scale and the natural minor scale, the intervals from the tonic is a mix of "large" and "small" intervals, as pointed out by the OP. There is however nothing "wrong" about this.

 

[SteveCS]

...
"Augmented" and "diminished" are then also used for (non-diatonic) intervals which are, respectively, a semitone larger than a major or perfect interval, or a semitone smaller than a minor or perfect interval.
...

Augmented and Diminished do not imply anything of the diatonic nature of a note or interval. For example, the Augmented 2nd between the 6th and 7th degrees of the Harmonic Minor scale is diatonic.

...
The only exceptions to this are the unison and the octave, which only come in one kind, and are called "perfect".
...

This is also not true - Augmented unisons and octaves do exist, e.g. C1-C#1. Diminished octaves also exist, e.g. D1-Db2. But the diminished unison does not exist because intervals are always reckoned from the lowest pitch. Any attempt to define a diminished unison, say E1-Eb1 fails because the count did not start from the lowest pitch. So Eb1-E1 becomes an Augmented Unison.

 

[Papageno]

Augmented and Diminished do not imply anything of the diatonic nature of a note or interval. For example, the Augmented 2nd between the 6th and 7th degrees of the Harmonic Minor scale is diatonic.

You are perfectly right on this. In my post, I used "diatonic" as meaning "diatonic to the major scale and its modes", which is source for the nomenclature I discussed.

 

[SteveCS]

You are perfectly right on this. In my post, I used "diatonic" as meaning "diatonic to the major scale and its modes", which is source for the nomenclature I discussed.

But this is another thing that adds to the confusion. The word Diatonic does not mean the Major Scale. Diatonic means 'of the key' - it does not infer anything about which scale (or scales) the key is comprised of.

 

[Papageno]

But this is another thing that adds to the confusion. The word Diatonic does not mean the Major Scale. Diatonic means 'of the key' - it does not infer anything about which scale (or scales) the key is comprised of.

See here the definition of "diatonic" as given in Wikipedia: a diatonic scale is a scale comprised of 5 whole tones and 2 semitones which are maximally separated from each other. These comprise the major scale and its modes. This stricter sense of the term, which is the one I used in my post, excludes the somewhat wider sense encompassing the melodic minor and harmonic minor scales (what you are referring to). The language of music is full of such polysemic terms, whose precise meaning depends on a specific context. If one specifies explicitely what is meant, as I did in my post, there is no ambiguity and no possibility of misunderstanding or confusion.

It appears to me we agree on essentially everything, except possibly on some terminology. I can live with that...

 

[Papageno]

This is also not true - Augmented unisons and octaves do exist, e.g. C1-C#1. Diminished octaves also exist, e.g. D1-Db2. But the diminished unison does not exist because intervals are always reckoned from the lowest pitch. Any attempt to define a diminished unison, say E1-Eb1 fails because the count did not start from the lowest pitch. So Eb1-E1 becomes an Augmented Unison.

I am aware of that. Though they are not that frequent, I remember encountering diminished octaves (or was it augmented?) in pieces by Bach. But again, these do not belong to what I discussed in my post, namely the intervals found in diatonic scales.

 

[SteveCS]

See here the definition of "diatonic" as given in Wikipedia: a diatonic scale is a scale comprised of 5 whole tones and 2 semitones which are maximally separated from each other.

It is worth noting two things. I've never seen that definition in any respectable or reputable text-book and, secondly, Wikipedia, like most sources on the Internet, is 'open-source' and editable by just about anyone without peer review. That page even includes the caveat in recognition that it has not been verified:

My personal opinion, based on what I was taught by a reputable person at a reputable place teaching a reputable syllabus is that Wikipedia has it wrong. Diatonic refers to notes and scales belonging to the key, not a particular class of scale.

On a final note, narrowing the definition adds complications as new definitions for the excluded elements become necessary. The fact is those definitions already exist - they are called major, natural minor, melodic minor and harmonic minor. All of these are diatonic. Simples!!

 

[SteveCS]

As far as I know, both definitions of "diatonic" are 100% correct: The original meaning was "the major scale and its modes" but the definition has evolved over time.

If amything it is the other way around - the wider definition came first and is the more widely accepted. The 'evolution' is very recent (in musical history terms). I think we've had this conversation before. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I've only ever heard the narrow definition used in informal conversations or in jazz contexts.

 

[Papageno]

It is worth noting two things. I've never seen that definition in any respectable or reputable text-book and, secondly, Wikipedia, like most sources on the Internet, is 'open-source' and editable by just about anyone without peer review. That page even includes the caveat in recognition that it has not been verified:
View attachment 4560800
My personal opinion, based on what I was taught by a reputable person at a reputable place teaching a reputable syllabus is that Wikipedia has it wrong. Diatonic refers to notes and scales belonging to the key, not a particular class of scale.

On a final note, narrowing the definition adds complications as new definitions for the excluded elements become necessary. The fact is those definitions already exist - they are called major, natural minor, melodic minor and harmonic minor. All of these are diatonic. Simples!!

If amything it is the other way around - the wider definition came first and is the more widely accepted. The 'evolution' is very recent (in musical history terms). I think we've had this conversation before. Maybe I'm just a dinosaur, but I've only ever heard the narrow definition used in informal conversations or in jazz contexts.

I am aware of the limitations of Wikipedia and that some of its content has to be taken with a grain of salt. Yet my observation is that it tends to converge towards some quite accurate content.

But, following your request of looking at more academic and reputable sources, I checked Robert Gauldin's "Harmonic Practice in Tonal Music" (mostly classical music): it defines a diatonic scale as a scale having the same intervals as the white notes on the piano, which the same as the difinition in Wikipedia. By contrast, in Kostka's "Tonal Harmony", diatonic is used for all flavors of minor scale as you do. Also, Mulholland and Hojnacki's "Berklee Book of jazz Harmony" use the term "diatonic" for a wider class of scales (including in particular the melodic and harmonic minor scales). This illustrates the point I made earlier that many terms in music are used with different meanings in different contexts, or by different authors; none of them is right or wrong, provided people define precisely what they mean.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

My personal opinion, based on what I was taught by a reputable person at a reputable place teaching a reputable syllabus is that Wikipedia has it wrong. Diatonic refers to notes and scales belonging to the key, not a particular class of scale.

That's what I was taught too.

 

[Lownote38]

A pet peeve of mine for ages. I much prefer raised or lowered than min maj nomenclature when speaking of intervals. It is easier to get the desired note via raised or lowered with students than the “correct” way. The fact this discussion is raised so often proves that the correct way is a bit confusing. A minor 7th in a Maj chord, kind of a mixed message IMO. Calling it a lowered 7th gives me more chance of getting the right note quickly. It’s easy enough to explain later if one is digging in to things but for the casual player or beginner it often brings confusion. I know it’s not correct but I also know I can get the note I want sooner and more often via raised lowered.

That's only really the "correct" way in classical theory anyway. When it comes to jazz theory, the method you like (and that I also prefer) is one I hear often, or flat 5/sharp 5 for explaining things.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

A lot of posts in this thread are confusing the terms commonly used to describe formation of chords with the terms used to delineate intervals. Not the same thing.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

The fact this discussion is raised so often proves that the correct way is a bit confusing.

It could just as easily be construed to prove that the "incorrect" method is confusing.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

That's only really the "correct" way in classical theory anyway. When it comes to jazz theory, the method you like (and that I also prefer) is one I hear often, or flat 5/sharp 5 for explaining things.

All the jazz musicians I know are perfectly conversant with, and routinely use, the "classical" method for describing intervals. They only use things like sharp 5/flat 5 etc for describing chords.