Minor scales harmony

Yes, it's the same. The only difference is that the various forms of the minor scale give you different chord options.
Comparing the common major scale chord progression you mentioned with those of the minor scales, you get:

A major (I IV V7 I) = A D E7 A

A harmonic minor (i iv V7 i) Am Dm E7 Am: It provides the same strong progressions but with a minor feel.

A melodic minor (i IV V7 i) = Am D E7 Am. This one isn't so common as the main use of the melodic minor is to provide smoother melodic lines, rather than harmony.

A natural minor (i iv v7 i) = Am Dm Em7 Am. This one isn't suitable for cadences as the scale doesn't contain a leading note, (it has G instead of G#) which, in turn, means that the v7 chord doesn't contain a tritone (it has G-D instead of G#-D) so its resolution to chord i is very weak (which is why the harmonic minor scale was invented).

Thanks for the quick reply fretsource! quite clear response. thanks !

Just to add to what Fretsource wrote...

The melodic minor is actually used a lot in harmony, at least in minor key jazz. Since the scale has nine different notes (1-2-b3-4-5-6-7 going up, b7-b6-5-4-b3-2-1 going down), you get a lot more possibilities.

You'll usually see these exploited on the dominant chord - 7#9 and 7b9 chords are really common in minor keys. But in minor keys they're not really "outside" notes: since the dominant chord starts with the 5 of the scale, I'll illustrate this in C minor, using a G7 chord:

G7b9 = G-B-D-F-Ab... which is the 5, 7, 2, 4, and b6 - you're really mixing the ascending melodic minor (for the natural 7) and the descending (for the b6).

G7#9 = G-B-D-F-A#... since A# is enharmonic to Bb, you're doing the same thing: 5, 7, 2, 4, b7 - which is written as #6 to avoid having two of the same letter name - but it's really ascending (7) and descending (b7) superimposed.

Minor keys can also make free use of augmented and diminished chords for the same reason; you've got more notes to play with when you consider all the minor scales available.

G7b9 = G-B-D-F-Ab... which is the 5, 7, 2, 4, and b6 - you're really mixing the ascending melodic minor (for the natural 7) and the descending (for the b6).
But ALL of those chord tones are already present in the harmonic minor scale. Why think of them in terms of both ascending and descending forms of the melodic minor? Any advantage to it?

You're right - the advantage that I find is that minor key tunes really open up the harmonic possibilities. So when I see an altered dominant in a minor key tune - even though I could get all the chord tones by using the harmonic minor if it's a 7b9 - I automatically think the whole top end of the scale is chromatically available (the 5, b6, 6, b7, and 7).

This afternoon I was jamming along with Jobim's "Meditation". Even though it's in G major, there's Em7b9 (F natural) leading into Am7. When I see that, I'm leaning towards the chromatically available notes in E melodic minor, rather than the A harmonic minor for the phrase... that also gives the me G note (which happens to be the key note for the piece) in addition to the G#. [EDIT: Fretsource pointed out I might not have been clear in this - because the Em7b9 leads to Am7, that phrase could be seen as A harmonic minor, containing A-B-C-D-E-F-G#; the E-B-D-F-Ab(G#) are in the Em7b9, but the G (in the Am7) isn't... which is why I tend to a melodic minor whenever I see an alt chord in a tune]

Minor key tunes are incredibly open harmonically. In fact, you can get away with using every note except the major 3rd - but in constructing lines, it's helpful to think in terms of scales. So if I see an altered chord on the key note, I tend to think Phrygian; if I see it anywhere else, I tend to think melodic minor - at least on first read. After I know a tune's changes better, I let my ear tell me what scales work best.

wow..what a master class! I'll digest your example Noteboat...both Fretsource and you have given me an excellent approach to alt chord (especially because I will attend a seminar about Jazz Harmony and improvisation.)
Thanks agaian!

No problem Roberto - thanks for an interesting question. And we ain't finished yet :D
Fretsource pointed out I might not have been clear in this - because the Em7b9 leads to Am7, that phrase could be seen as A harmonic minor, containing A-B-C-D-E-F-G#; the E-B-D-F-Ab(G#) are in the Em7b9, but the G (in the Am7) isn't... which is why I tend to a melodic minor whenever I see an alt chord in a tune]

That's not quite what I meant. I was asking why you mentioned E melodic minor in your post. I wondered if you meant to say A melodic minor. E melodic minor's altered notes are C/C# and D/D# and there's no G# or b9 (F) available.
If you meant to say A melodic minor, it would make perfect sense - as you've got both the F, G & G#. (although Ab/G# isn't in Em7b9).

While we're on the subject, I wonder if NoteBoat or anyone can expand on the use of the jazz modes, i.e., the modes of the harmonic and melodic minor scales.
Although I'm a non jazzer, I'd be interested in knowing more about how they're used in jazz. I assume they're a feature of modal jazz, but the earliest use of modes in jazz was the common old diatonic modes, i.e. Dorian etc., but who came up with the idea of using modes of the minor scales? I know at least one (the Flamenco Phrygian) has a traditional use and predates its use by jazzers, who call it the Phrygian Dominant and see it as the 5th mode of the harmonic minor scale. But I know very little about how the others are used. Any info appreciated.

My goodness, I was more tired than I thought on Thursday!

Fretsource, you're right - I did mean A as the root, using A melodic minor rather than E.

For the "modes" of the minor scales, yeah - some jazzers do use them. You'll see lots of books out there (Mark Levine's Jazz Theory Book and others) that devote a great deal of space to the topic. And I know many jazz players, especially sax and guitar players, who talk a lot about how they use them.

IMO, this is a lot like the standard modes for the typical guitarist: concepts grounded in logic that make very little practical difference on the result. When guitarists start talking about "harmonizing using the Phrygian mode" (something I actually heard someone talking about a couple weeks ago), it points out the problem: if you don't know how to harmonize in thirds, you can get the same result by playing the same line in a "modal fingering". But you're not actually playing in Phrygian mode... you're just harmonizing the major scale the way anybody else would.

My old improvisation teacher called approaches like this "mental m*******" (this is a family forum - his second word rhymed with perturbation): thinking about music in a complicated way to create a sound that's actually very simple.

The way I see the vast majority of jazz tunes is as a collection of two- and three-chord progressions. Each one sets up a "key of the moment". Thinking about a tune in single chords is a lot of work - many chords last one measure (or less), and a lot are at tempos of 200 (or more). Even leaving the speed of the changes out of the equation, you don't have a lot of space to work with: since the basic unit of duration in a jazz solo is an eighth note, a 2-beat chord gives you four notes.

Thinking about a four-note musical space in terms of "what scale can I play here" is useless - because you don't have time to establish a scale. If you can only squeak out D-F#-G-A over a D7 chord, I don't see much point in thinking you're playing in D Lydian b7 - because you didn't actually play either the G# or C!

Now let's say you DID play the G# and C... maybe D-G#-A-C. Is it better to muck up your brain with all these odd scales - and the chords they'll each "go with" - or is it better to understand you can approach any chord tone in a few limited ways (passing tones, neighbor tones, appoggiatura)? Isn't G# really just leaning into a chord tone in a basic arpeggio?

So that's my first objection to using modes of ANY scale outside the context of modal music: you're doing a lot of mental work that doesn't impact what the listener will hear. (On the other hand, if a set of chords all agree with Lydian b7, you could - and perhaps even should - learn that mode for use in the specific piece. But just as rock guitarists talk a lot about using the 'standard' modes in hundreds of situations where they aren't appropriate, the number of tunes that could actually benefit from this approach is very small!)

I have one other related objection to using modes over specific chords... you end up making theory instead of making music. When the beats are flying by at 240 a minute or so, you simply don't have enough time to think "ok, I'll use scale x... " AND "here's a really interesting melody using scale x". You end up soloing by playing scales. If a concert pianist gave a recital of Hanon and Czerny, would you go? I wouldn't.

There is actually one use of these scales (and any other exotic scales) that's important: you expose your ears to new sounds. Take whatever you come across and woodshed with it - turn it inside out, upside down, play different sequences. That lets you build your vocabulary.

But these altered scales have to be put into context: knowing a whole bunch of them is like owning a dictionary. People who have large vocabularies, and speak well using them - choosing their words carefully and precisely - strike me as being very intelligent. People who work big words into conversation because they know a lot of big words strike me as being pretentious.

Music is a language: if you have something complicated to say, you SHOULD build the vocabulary that expresses it precisely. But if you're simply cramming complicated stuff into a simple line, you're losing the listeners who don't understand the vocabulary, and you're not impressing the ones who do.

Bottom line: learn everything you can - but keep it in the practice room. When you take the stage, say what you mean, and worry more about saying something meaningful than how you came up with it.

Thanks, NoteBoat. That's confirmed a lot of what I suspected and also provided some new insights. It seems then that, apart from some occasional legitimate uses, the jazz modes are subject to the same misinformation and misunderstanding as the standard modes are in rock music.

Thanks guys. Fretsource's question brought me back to this earlier thread about modal harmony which is always confusing.

http://forums.guitarnoise.com/viewtopic.php?f=12&t=42397&p=409652#p409652

As you comment many musicians and authors over complicate these subjects. That's why Jimmy Bruno's famous DVD title is: No Nonsense Jazz Guitar.

I have one other related objection to using modes over specific chords... you end up making theory instead of making music. When the beats are flying by at 240 a minute or so, you simply don't have enough time to think "ok, I'll use scale x... " AND "here's a really interesting melody using scale x". You end up soloing by playing scales. If a concert pianist gave a recital of Hanon and Czerny, would you go? I wouldn't.

Really? I'm not the only one who can't do this? Phew...