Melodic Minor Scale/ Minor II-V-I progression

[El Hombre]

I have been delving deeper into melodic minor scale theory lately and I thought it might be interesting to see whether the people on this forum agree or disagree with the points Mark Levine makes in his book “The Jazz Theory Book” regarding the melodic minor scale and the minor II-V-I progression.

According to Levine: (as interpreted by me:)

The chords that generate from the melodic minor scale (Using C melodic minor as an example) are:

I. C min/maj7
II. Dsusb9
III. Ebmaj#5
IV. F7#11
V. Cmin/maj7 with the 5th (G) in the bass
VI. A half diminished
VII. B7 Alt.

All of these chords share the same melodic minor scale (C melodic minor). The only real difference among the chords generated from the melodic minor scale is the root note of the chord. Unless you are a bass player or a pianist playing root position chords, there is essentially no difference between any of the chords. They are interchangeable.

In traditional theory (referring to theory concerning the major scale) the 3rd and 7th are considered essential notes on dominant 7th chords. When you play dominant chords from melodic minor harmony, the 3rd or 7th may not have much importance at all.

When learning the chords from the melodic minor scale, you should learn the chords from each melodic minor tonality together, as a family. Think key, not chord when learning the chords generated from the melodic minor scale.

The Minor II-V-I progression usually consists of a half-diminished chord, an alt chord and a minor-major chord (Dm7b5, G7 alt, Cmin/maj). The three chords in a minor II-V-I are derived from 3 different melodic minor scales. (D half diminished coming from F melodic minor, G7 alt. from Ab melodic minor, and Cmin/maj from C melodic minor).
(Levine acknowledges that a minor II-V doesn’t necessarily have to resolve to a minor chord)

The 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th of any melodic minor scale, when played together, are not found in any other melodic minor key, any major key, diminished scale, or whole-tone scale. They are characteristic of the melodic minor scale only. The same is true for the root, 3rd, 5th and 7th of a melodic minor scale.


Anyone completely agree with Levine's analysis? Any criticisms?

[Cudo]

The Minor II-V-I progression usually consists of a half-diminished chord, an alt chord and a minor-major chord (Dm7b5, G7 alt, Cmin/maj). The three chords in a minor II-V-I are derived from 3 different melodic minor scales. (D half diminished coming from F melodic minor, G7 alt. from Ab melodic minor, and Cmin/maj from C melodic minor).

Deriving the chordscale for D-7b5 from F Melodic Minor means, that you use MM6 (melodic minor starting on the VI degree). This would involve the major third of the key. In our case e. I am not very convinced of this choice. Better would be to use locrian for II-7b5 in a minor key. Outside playing is something else, but to state that MM6 is the regular chordscale for II-7b5 in a minor key???

[EdByrne]

I have been delving deeper into melodic minor scale theory lately and I thought it might be interesting to see whether the people on this forum agree or disagree with the points Mark Levine makes in his book “The Jazz Theory Book” regarding the melodic minor scale and the minor II-V-I progression.

According to Levine: (as interpreted by me:)

The chords that generate from the melodic minor scale (Using C melodic minor as an example) are:

I. C min/maj7
II. Dsusb9
III. Ebmaj#5
IV. F7#11
V. Cmin/maj7 with the 5th (G) in the bass
VI. A half diminished
VII. B7 Alt.

All of these chords share the same melodic minor scale (C melodic minor). The only real difference among the chords generated from the melodic minor scale is the root note of the chord. Unless you are a bass player or a pianist playing root position chords, there is essentially no difference between any of the chords. They are interchangeable.

In traditional theory (referring to theory concerning the major scale) the 3rd and 7th are considered essential notes on dominant 7th chords. When you play dominant chords from melodic minor harmony, the 3rd or 7th may not have much importance at all.

When learning the chords from the melodic minor scale, you should learn the chords from each melodic minor tonality together, as a family. Think key, not chord when learning the chords generated from the melodic minor scale.

The Minor II-V-I progression usually consists of a half-diminished chord, an alt chord and a minor-major chord (Dm7b5, G7 alt, Cmin/maj). The three chords in a minor II-V-I are derived from 3 different melodic minor scales. (D half diminished coming from F melodic minor, G7 alt. from Ab melodic minor, and Cmin/maj from C melodic minor).
(Levine acknowledges that a minor II-V doesn’t necessarily have to resolve to a minor chord)

The 3rd, 5th, 7th, and 9th of any melodic minor scale, when played together, are not found in any other melodic minor key, any major key, diminished scale, or whole-tone scale. They are characteristic of the melodic minor scale only. The same is true for the root, 3rd, 5th and 7th of a melodic minor scale.


Anyone completely agree with Levine's analysis? Any criticisms?

A few points:

The traditional source of chords in minor is the Harmonic minor, hence the name. As tonal music developed over time, however, various other combinations have evolved, such as those below.

Since chords have traditionally been built in 3rds, the diatonic chords of the ascending Melodic minor would be as follows:

i (MA7), ii7 (-9 in scale), bIII+MA7, IV7-5 (+11), V+7 (9-13), vi7-5 (9), VII+7 (with any of the following, in any combination: -9, +9, -5 (+11), +5 (-13). Of course triads are often also employed.

The ii rarely has a -9 in the chord itself, since it would sound like a bIII MA13 (no 3 or 5) chord in 3rd inversion; and it creates a b9 interval between the root and the -9, which is usually reserved for a dominant situation.

1, -3, 5, 7, 9 can be found in several different scales, most notably the Harmonic minor.

In a minor cadence such as ii7-5, V7, i7--I most often "use" Locrian on the ii7-5, but the Mm "allows for" a Major 9th, which is a good option at times, creating a momentary Major 3rd of the key in minor. The V7 usually takes the Harmonic minor (-9 only), while most anything else is possible. The i could be any minor, depending on context.

I personally don't write the "alt" symbol, because it isn't a chord symbol, but rather a prescription for a scale. I prefer to be specific: VII+7 (with any of the following, in any combination: -9, +9, -5 (+11), +5 (-13), and I only use exactly the tensions which I specifically want to be sounded--the other notes are up to the players.

While the tritone has come to define the dominant sound in the Major/minor tonal system, in early tonal music v7 (5 minor) was often used. It still is sometimes, as for example in "Mahan de Carnival."

Having said all this, I should state that I don't base anything I play on modes, scales or chords. Indeed, the chords themselves merely coexist with the lines I create on the melody, guide tone lines, and the root progression.

[Cudo]

The traditional source of chords in minor have come from the Harmonic minor, hence the name.

The traditional source of chords in minor key is the natural minor scale which is equivalent to the Aeolian mode. Since there is no leading tone in this scale, harmonic minor was created. Finally to eliminate the hiatus (= 1 1/2 step between b6 and M7) on degrees with tonic qualities, the melodic minor was created.
So we have three different scale sources to construct chords in minor key.

The natural minor (NM) is mostly used for subdominant minor qualities which are found on the following degrees:
II-7b5, IV-7 or IV-6, bVIma7 and bVII7.

The harmonic minor (HM) is used only for dominant quality which is found on degree V7b9 and VIIo7.

The melodic minor (MM) finally is mainly used for tonic quality chords which are found on degree I-ma7 or I-6, bIIIma7/#5 and VI-7b5.

[EdByrne]

The traditional source of chords in minor key is the natural minor scale which is equivalent to the Aeolian mode. Since there is no leading tone in this scale, harmonic minor was created. Finally to eliminate the hiatus (= 1 1/2 step between b6 and M7) on degrees with tonic qualities, the melodic minor was created.
So we have three different scale sources to construct chords in minor key.

The natural minor (NM) is mostly used for subdominant minor qualities which are found on the following degrees:
II-7b5, IV-7 or IV-6, bVIma7 and bVII7.

The harmonic minor (HM) is used only for dominant quality which is found on degree V7b9 and VIIo7.

The melodic minor (MM) finally is mainly used for tonic quality chords which are found on degree I-ma7 or I-6, bIIIma7/#5 and VI-7b5.

WADR, these are the kind of misleading generalizations that both Levine and Berklee make, which fly in the face of music history--and common practice.

[Cudo]

Hi Ed,
here I am again. :-)


i (MA7), ii7 (-9 in scale), bIII+MA7, IV7-5 (+11), V7 (9-13--or V+7), vi7-5 (9), VII+7 (with any of the following, in any combination: -9, +9, -5 (+11), +5 (-13). Of course triads are often also employed.

You write IV7-5. Doing this, means the chordscale would contain a flat fifth. MM4 however contains a natural fifth. You better should name it IV7#4 or even better IV7#11.

The ii rarely has a -9 in the chord itself, since it would sound like a bIII chord in 3rd inversion;

In the key of C minor the 3rd inversion of the bIII chord would be either d eb g b (derivated from MM) or d eb g bb (derivated from NM)
I cannot follow you when you say this chord would sound like a D-7b5(b9).
Anyway, a -7b5 chord shouldn't be played with tension b9 because of the dissonant b9 interval like you said.

In a minor cadence such as ii7-5, V7, i7--I most often use Locrian on the ii7-5, but the Mm "allows for" a Major 9th, which is a good option at times, creating a momentary Major 3rd of the key in minor.
The only difference between locrian and MM6 is the 9th. Using a major 9th in this context to me sounds like an approach/leadingtone to the 4th degree of the key rather than the chordscale MM6. The 9th resolution tendency in this case is upward and not downward so it won't work as a tension rather than a leadingtone upwards.

[EdByrne]

Hi Ed,
here I am again. :-)

You write IV7-5. Doing this, means the chordscale would contain a flat fifth. MM4 however contains a natural fifth. You better should name it IV7#4 or even better IV7#11.

In the key of C minor the 3rd inversion of the bIII chord would be either d eb g b (derivated from MM) or d eb g bb (derivated from NM)
I cannot follow you when you say this chord would sound like a D-7b5(b9).
Anyway, a -7b5 chord shouldn't be played with tension b9 because of the dissonant b9 interval like you said.

The only difference between locrian and MM6 is the 9th. Using a major 9th in this context to me sounds like an approach/leadingtone to the 4th degree of the key rather than the chordscale MM6. The 9th resolution tendency in this case is upward and not downward so it won't work as a tension rather than a leadingtone upwards.
I agree that the symbol "should" be #11; I prefer the -5 symbol, however, since I don't like 5 and -5 (or #5) in the same voicing on minor or dominant chords. This is a personal preference.

I was saying that the ii7-9 (Dm7-9 in C-) would sound like an Eb chord in 3rd inversion (EbMA13 no3 or 5). We agree that the b9 is not a good note in this chord.

Horace Silver often uses ii9-5: ii9-5, bII9 (Sub V9), i9 to get a lead line of (in Cm): E, Eb, D. It's a nice, bright sound which begins with the major 3rd in the lead, descending downwards stepwise.

[Cudo]

I agree that the symbol shoud be #11; I prefer the -5 symbol, however, since I don't like 5 and #5 in the same voicing.
I can't follow you. Normally you do not have 2 different fifth in one and the same scale. You could have combinations like #11 and 5 or 5 and b13 but never b5-5 or 5-#5. I find this helpful for a good voiceleading.


I was saying that the ii7-9 would sound like an Eb chord in 3rd inversion (in C-).
This is what I can not realize. The II-7(b9) would be d f ab c eb and the 3rd inversion of Ebma7/#5 would be d eb g b. These 2 chords sound completely different to me.


Horace Silver often uses ii9-5: ii9-5, bII9 (Sub V9), i9 to get a lead line of (in Cm): E, Eb, D. It's a nice, bright sound which begins with the major 3rd in the lead, descending downwards stepwise.
Yeah, you are right. But my ear hears this "e" like a chromatic passing note, virtually preceeded by an "f". Can't explain it better. :-(

[EdByrne]

I can't follow you. Normally you do not have 2 different fifth in one and the same scale. You could have combinations like #11 and 5 or 5 and b13 but never b5-5 or 5-#5. I find this helpful for a good voiceleading.



This is what I can not realize. The II-7(b9) would be d f ab c eb and the 3rd inversion of Ebma7/#5 would be d eb g b. These 2 chords sound completely different to me.



Yeah, you are right. But my ear hears this "e" like a chromatic passing note, virtually preceeded by an "f". Can't explain it better. :-(

In my initial example of the IV in Mm (F7-5 in Cm) above, I cited IV7-5 with #11 in ( )s. I said that I prefer the -5 over the #11 symbol since I, in this case, do not like both the B and C in the same voicing. By extension, I don't usually like 5 and #5 in the same voicing, as in a G7-13, in which I would omit the D in favor of the Eb.

In Cm, the ii7-9 chord, D, F, A, C, Eb would be EbMA13 (no 3 or 5). Play D, F, A, C, Eb in any inversion (put any of these notes in the bass) and it will still sound like an Eb chord--for better or worse, with the exception of when F is in the bass, in which case it could sound as an F13.

I cannot account for how you are hearing the last example: That's personal, and perhaps has to do with getting used to it.

[Cudo]

In my initial example of the IV in Mm (F7-5 in Cm) above, I cited IV7-5 with #11 in ( )s. I said that I prefer the -5 over the #11 symbol since I, in this case do not like both the B and C in the same voicing.
But this is very confusing because writing a flat fith in the chordsymbol means that the scale does not contain a natural fifth because a scale with 2 fifth does not work.
If you do not want that 5 and #11 sound in the same voicing, why don't you write "omit5"?

By extension, I don't usually like 5 and #5 in the same voicing, as in a G7-13, in which I would omit the D in favor of the Eb.
Ok. "d" and "eb" in the same voicing also would creat a b9 dissonance which is normaly not desired at this place. I wouldn't do it neither.

In Cm, the ii7-9 chord, Eb, D, F, A, C would be EbMA13 (no 3 or 5). In any case it will sound as an Eb chord, even without the 3rd (G) and 5 (Bb), and with 9 (F), #11 (A) and 13 C). Play different voicings using the notes D, F, A, C, Eb: To me they all sound like Eb chords--for better or worse.
Ok, I was thinking of a II-7b5 chord, derivated from NM with an "ab" as a diminished fifth.
Of course, if you keep on your chord the flat 9 in a lower register than the fundamental, it will have a lydian touch, that means it sounds like a Ebma7/9/#11/13/omit3.
Including the b natural in the improvisation however it won't be anymore lydian but MM3 sounding.

[EdByrne]

But this is very confusing because writing a flat fith in the chordsymbol means that the scale does not contain a natural fifth because a scale with 2 fifth does not work.
If you do not want that 5 and #11 sound in the same voicing, why don't you write "omit5"?


Ok. "d" and "eb" in the same voicing also would creat a b9 dissonance which is normaly not desired at this place. I wouldn't do it neither.


Ok, I was thinking of a II-7b5 chord, derivated from NM with an "ab" as a diminished fifth.
Of course, if you keep on your chord the flat 9 in a lower register than the fundamental, it will have a lydian touch, that means it sounds like a Ebma7/9/#11/13/omit3.
Including the b natural in the improvisation however it won't be anymore lydian but MM3 sounding.

1. Because that is too tedious and unnecessarry. You are getting into semantics here: Whether you think of the -5 as that or a #4, it amounts to the same note; and -5 is a commonly understood symbol while #4 would raise eyebrows.

2. Play D, F, A, C, Eb in any inversion (put any of these notes in the bass) and it will still sound like an Eb chord. To me they all sound like Eb chords--for better or worse, with the exception of when F is in the bass, in which case it could sound as an F13. In any case, however, I prefer the MA7 inversion of those notes to the b9 interval.

[El Hombre]

Ed,

Is there an alternate resource you would recommend that discusses the melodic minor scale and the minor II-V-I progression other than Mark Levine's book?

Levine's chapter on melodic minor was very different from the traditional theory and application I've seen with the Major scale and constructing chords from the major scale tones. That was why I was wondering if there were some alternate views on the subject. It seemed to me like Levine was stretching to get the following chords from the melodic minor scale tones.

I. C min/maj7
II. Dsusb9
III. Ebmaj#5
IV. F7#11
V. Cmin/maj7 with the 5th (G) in the bass
VI. A half diminished
VII. B7 Alt.

It seemed like he tried to get to those specific chords because he found a practical way to use them for his own purposes. I didn't get many of those chord forms using tradition chord construct methods like I've done with the major scale, but then again, Levine seems to think that you shouldn't view the melodic minor in the same way that you view the major scale.

I figured there are a number of people on this site that have studied music theory in much more detail than me and I thought that it might be interesting to throw some of this chapter from Levine's book out there for discussion.

[EdByrne]

Ed,

Is there an alternate resource you would recommend that discusses the melodic minor scale and the minor II-V-I progression other than Mark Levine's book?

Levine's chapter on melodic minor was very different from the traditional theory and application I've seen with the Major scale and constructing chords from the major scale tones. That was why I was wondering if there were some alternate views on the subject. It seemed to me like Levine was stretching to get the following chords from the melodic minor scale tones.

I. C min/maj7
II. Dsusb9
III. Ebmaj#5
IV. F7#11
V. Cmin/maj7 with the 5th (G) in the bass
VI. A half diminished
VII. B7 Alt.

It seemed like he tried to get to those specific chords because he found a practical way to use them for his own purposes. I didn't get many of those chord forms using tradition chord construct methods like I've done with the major scale, but then again, Levine seems to think that you shouldn't view the melodic minor in the same way that you view the major scale.

I figured there are a number of people on this site that have studied music theory in much more detail than me and I thought that it might be interesting to throw some of this chapter from Levine's book out there for discussion.

Having taught at Berklee on the full-time faculty for three years in a previous lifetime, this stuff appears to be a rehash of the ideas espoused by that institution. (I have all of Berklee's teaching manuals for all their harmony courses, which I taught.)

It would seem that their concept of "avoid notes," with which I mostly disagree, is forgiven for the Melodic minor. Moreover, the idea was Herb Pomeroy's, and it was intended for voicings, not lines. In the case of the Mm, Herb, with whom I studied, dispensed with all such avoids, preferring instead to outlaw various intervallic misdemeanors, such as inner adjacent voices at the 2nd being separated by intervals greater than a 4th, and so on--interesting, but an arbitrary legislation of personal taste in my experience.

I am not a fan of any "jazz theory," which I view is an oxymoron, since all harmony was developed and evolved in European Western art music. I recommend that you study scores, starting perhaps with Chopin, for modern musical theoretical understanding; and there are many fine harmony texts available that trace and examine the various developments in Western harmony. Indeed, if you consult the reference source, Music Analysis, you can find detailed analyses of most compositions to see what others say about a piece that you are analyzing.

I personally find jazz harmony and voicings limited and boring, especially in view of the fact that jazz musicians have barely even begun to assimilate the developments of the early 20th century. And the endless arbitrary rules and restrictions with which it is taught are . . . The problem remains that jazz theory teachers seem to evidence little understanding of music history.

Moreover, I view chord changes and their related scales, or modes, as coincidental to my improvisations, which are based on the melody and its rhythms, guide tone lines, and root progression. Thus, I feel the fundamental fallacy in the current pedagogy lies in the dogma that states that basing one's primary focus of improvisation on translating chords into scales as source material (the accompaniment) is the most sophisticated approach, rather than the composition itself; and this misleads and misdirects.

Having said this, I love jazz and I live for it; but that is no reason to be unrealistic in one's pursuit of knowledge that can be brought to bear in creating a strong personal sonic fingerprint within the idiom.

[El Hombre]

It would seem that their concept of "avoid notes," with which I completely disagree, is forgiven for the Melodic minor.

I think Mark Levine actually does say this in his book. Do you know if he was a Berkelee student or teacher?

I'm not a big fan of the whole 'avoid note' concept that is talked about in his book either. I actually like his book, but it seems like the idea of avoiding notes as a general rule over certain chords doesn't take into account the length of time that note is being played or a number of other factors. It seems like for every 'avoid note' situation there is probably an example of someone playing that avoid note in the situation referred in a manner that totally works over that progression.

[EdByrne]

I think Mark Levine actually does say this in his book. Do you know if he was a Berkelee student or teacher?

I'm not a big fan of the whole 'avoid note' concept that is talked about in his book either. I actually like his book, but it seems like the idea of avoiding notes as a general rule over certain chords doesn't take into account the length of time that note is being played or a number of other factors. It seems like for every 'avoid note' situation there is probably an example of someone playing that avoid note in the situation referred in a manner that totally works over that progression.

"Avoid notes" are melodic tensions, non-harmonic tones. Every composer of value in every style and period in Western history used them to great effect. I'd be lost without them, and their duration only increases or decreases the tension produced, which is a matter of preference. Indeed, the V7sus4 chord itself evolved from the practice of sustaining the fourth to create melodic dissonance before it resolved to the third. Eventually it became accepted as a chord-type of its own--without resolving at all.

[engelbach]

I think Mark Levine actually does say this in his book. Do you know if he was a Berkelee student or teacher?

I'm not a big fan of the whole 'avoid note' concept that is talked about in his book either. I actually like his book, but it seems like the idea of avoiding notes as a general rule over certain chords doesn't take into account the length of time that note is being played or a number of other factors. It seems like for every 'avoid note' situation there is probably an example of someone playing that avoid note in the situation referred in a manner that totally works over that progression.

Actually, Levine does talk about the duration of "so-called 'avoid' notes" over chords.

He also uses the term descriptively rather than judgmentally, as what I interpret to be a shorthand synonym for "a note of a scale that sounds dissonant over a particular chord built on that scale."

I think his mistake was in using the term at all (even though he took pains to always put it in quotes, implying irony), since the name sounds like it should never be played, whereas Levine actually says just the opposite: that "'The creative use of dissonance' might be a good way to describe the entire evolution of Western Music."

See pages 37-38 of The Jazz Theory Book.

[EdByrne]

Actually, Levine does talk about the duration of "so-called 'avoid' notes" over chords.

He also uses the term descriptively rather than judgmentally, as what I interpret to be a shorthand synonym for "a note of a scale that sounds dissonant over a particular chord built on that scale."

I think his mistake was in using the term at all (even though he took pains to always put it in quotes, implying irony), since the name sounds like it should never be played, whereas Levine actually says just the opposite: that "'The creative use of dissonance' might be a good way to describe the entire evolution of Western Music."

See pages 37-38 of The Jazz Theory Book.

Exactly: For me it says it all, exposes the mindset.

[Grabeck]

Having said this, I love jazz and I live for it; but that is no reason to be unrealistic in one's pursuit of knowledge that can be brought to bear in creating a strong personal sonic fingerprint within the idiom.[/QUOTE]

Ed,
You never cease to amaze me!
This was a great conversation (thread?).
Grabeck

[engelbach]

Exactly: For me it says it all, exposes the mindset.

Actually, I was defending Levine. Ah, well ...