My question specifically addresses the G Harmonic Minor scale, which I always see listed as: G, A, Bb, C, D, Eb, F#, (G). The scale is listed alphabetically but it contains a mixture of 2 flats and 1 sharp. In order to fix that the only way to rewrite it to fulfill the 3 guidelines is F##, G##, A#, B#, C##, D#, E##, (F##). Is that correct? It just looks so strange and I'm wondering if using the notes listed at the top is an 'acceptable' exception.
Asked
Active
Viewed 215 times
3
-
" [...] contains a mixture of 2 flats and 1 sharp. In order to fix that, the only way to rewrite it [...]" Well, technically there are more ways to rewrite it with either all sharps or all flats. You'll need double accidentals and beyond, though. Here's my shortcut thought process: G minor has 2 flats. To respell it enharmonically, add/subtract 12 accidentals and respell the tonic like usual - let's try going from 2 flats to 14 flats! That's Abb minor. Now we can change that to harmonic minor, and we end up with an enharmonic respelling that uses only flats: Abb Bbb Cbb Dbb Ebb Fbb Gb! – user45266 Dec 25 '21 at 06:29
-
And this process can be repeated ad infinitum in either direction for more enharmonic madness... This is all completely tangential to the question, and of course as the answers below mention, there's no reason to actually avoid having sharps and flats together in a scale, but I thought it was interesting enough to comment. – user45266 Dec 25 '21 at 06:29
-
Related question: Do scales need to be in alphabetical order?. – Aaron Dec 26 '21 at 19:46
4 Answers
4
Yes, the mixture of sharps and flats is acceptable and standard. Scales like harmonic minor, which are an alteration of the "normal" (i.e., natural minor) scale, will sometimes have both sharps and flats. In the harmonic minor case, the sharp signals that a note has been altered from its expected (key signature) position.
Aaron
- 87,951
- 13
- 114
- 294
-
The mixture of sharps and flats being an acceptable standard (under certain situations anyway) is a relief. Thank you, I appreciate your input. – John Marabeas Dec 24 '21 at 18:29
4
There is no 'don't mix sharps and flats' rule for scales. As you note, this would make G and D harmonic minor scales very difficult to spell!
There IS a 'don't mix sharps and flats' rule for key signatures though. The F♯ in G harmonic minor scale will always be written as an accidental, not in the key signature.
Laurence
- 92,867
- 5
- 62
- 200
2
Musical notation is based on keys rather than scales. Scales are derived by ordering notes within a key. In major keys, it's simple but in minor keys, two of the scale steps are mutable; they exist with both a lower and upper tone. For simplicity, the key signatures of pieces in minor are usually indicated with the same signature as the relative major. During the Baroque (and perhaps extending a bit in the "Classical" era, minor keys were indicated with fewer sharps or flats than that of the relative major; this practice doesn't make reading easier.
Once I did an experiment of notating minor keys this way. G minor would have a single flat and D minor had no sharps or flats in the signature. Then I notated minor key pieces with the key signature of the relative major, with the seventh degree in its upper form, and with the Baroque style. Then I counted the number of actual accidentals needed in the piece (skipping those unchanged by the different key signatures.) Naturally, I used a computer to perform the transpositions. I found the conventional idea of matching the relative major slightly better. The main point is that the VII chord is common in minor key music; it's often used in descending passages (especially in the bass) and is the root note of the dominant of the relative major. These uses seemed to outweigh the use of a raised seventh step at (some) cadences and in some ascending patterns.
ttw
- 25,431
- 1
- 34
- 79
-
Interesting experiment! What types of pieces and songs did you run the experiment on? Hypothetically, it would be neat to see if the accidental ratios changed across styles and genres or across time... – user45266 Dec 25 '21 at 06:36
-
1I took some short Bach pieces (especially the "Dorian Fugue" and a couple of others. I also used some pop music and something Romantic. It wasn't deep enough for a true study, just an hour About all I could conclude is that rotating G-minor with a key signature of Bb and F# didn't save much (and sometimes lost) over Bb and Eb. – ttw Dec 26 '21 at 00:48
-
I imagine a prohibitively extensive study would be needed for the greatest insight. Thanks for sharing, that was interesting! – user45266 Dec 26 '21 at 08:19
-
1It shouldn't need too much. Check out the Brown Corpus from Francis and Kucera. They did the best statistical work on English (at the time and it's still good) by choosing small samples. There may be a nice master's project here somewhere. (I'm too old and someone else probably needs a project.) I wanted to see if there would be any gain by using arbitrary key signatures. My answer was "no," as the current rule has a single generating formula and works well in most cases. It's easier to read a bunch of accidentals that remember arbitrary and pages-old signatures that may change. – ttw Dec 28 '21 at 14:20
1
Minor scales are, like most, alphabetically ordered. How otherwise, would those notes appear on the stave? They also bear reference to their relative major partner. Thus the exact same key signature. The fact that with harmonic minors, the leading note is always raised, means that that note (same letter name, remember) will be the altered one. Naturals will go to sharps, flats to naturals.
So, let sleeping dogs lie - if your idea had been considered a better option, wouldn't we all be using it in preferred.
Unfortunately, that leading note isn't reflected in the key sig., although in minor pieces, it isn't always sharpened, and there's also the sometimes sharpened 6th to consider - again not reflected in the key sig.
Check out Bela Bartok, who did some experimentation with differing key signatures.
Tim
- 192,860
- 17
- 187
- 471
-
1Yes, the leading note not being indicated is problematic, which is the main reason for asking the question. So, your explanation makes sense, especially the 'let sleeping dogs lie' comment. Thank you, this is very helpful, and I appreciate your input. – John Marabeas Dec 24 '21 at 18:26