It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Subscribe to our Patreon, and get image uploads with no ads on the site!
Base theme by DesignModo & ported to Powered by Vanilla by Chris Ireland, modified by the "theFB" team.
Comments
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
Put very succinctly and my approach in a nutshell.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
i can play the, all, I can remember them, I know why they exist, and I know they apparently have different feel
still haven’t got a clue how to use them in day to day playing
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
i can noodle til the cows come home
and certainly since the recent post of Modal something or other which basically says you can just pick any note you want anywhere on the neck because it belongs to a different chord that’s not in the scale or progression and that’s fine !?
is it the chord that you are playing over or the progression which defines / suggests the mode ?
e.g. Am C Dm sounds like A Aeolian, by might be Dorian?
What if I stick E7 on the end ? E7 isn’t in the scale above, so can I just play E Mixolydian over that chord because A aeolian doesn’t suit it?
im not looking for that specific answer, but can you see that’s what I mean when I ask “how you use them”?
.
Yep I see.
I think the missing link for you could be the chords.
You know Dorian is Aeolian but with a raised 6th. But so what? You noodle away in dorian but why, and so what?
Well maybe this is interesting for you:
If Dorian has a raised 6th, what does that tell you about the chords underneath? The most important chord in dorian (apart from the minor i chord) is that it has a MAJOR IV chord!!! It can’t have a minor iv, because then the raised 6th would be absent.
So in your example above, Am, C, Dm, that can never be dorian because the iv chord is minor. It’s gotta be Aeolian. But as soon as you hear minor i and major IV, it’s Dorian.
Here are some examples:
Hank: Apache
https://youtu.be/EzgbcyfJgfQ
DLR: Coconut Grove
https://youtu.be/kQZQ38mO3OA
The Mission: dancing barefoot
https://youtu.be/f7yDGjxeX2U
Venus
https://youtu.be/d4-1ASpdT1Y
You know each mode has a signature notes in the scale but they all also have signature harmonies:
Major I and Major II? Lydian.
Major I and Major bVII? Mixolydian.
Minor i and minor iv? Aeolian
Minor i and Major IV? Dorian
Minor i and minor vii? Phrygian.
Is that of interest?
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
If you’re playing in a minor key then the analysis can rapidly get more complicated. There are a lot of different notes that you can throw in without sounding strange. The Pink Panther theme is a good example. Depending on how you choose to analyse it those notes can either be called incidentals, or you’ve moved between Aeolian, Locrian, and melodic minor scales. In truth all you’ve done is played in a minor key and thrown in some melodic interest.
I think a lot of confusion about modes is down to a misconception that they are 'scales'. They are not scales. Scales have a number of key features some of which are common to all scales and some make certain scales unique (i.e. the Diatonic scales - Major & its relative Natural Minor). The 'core' common feature of any scale is that it has a 'tonal centre' i.e. a tonic note, around which all other notes in the scale consistently and predictably interact in terms of our hearing/recognition of that scale. That is why the human ear recognises a scale and is able to differentiate one scale from another.
Modes, however, are not scales* as they do not have their own tonal centre - that is determined by the parent (Major) scale and its key signature. What they do have, however, is a unique tonal quality. This is due to two factors. Firstly, the different scale intervals they possess relative to each other and the parent (Major) scale. Secondly, the effect of the scale's tonic note shifting its position (between 1 and 7) within each mode and, consequently, performing a different modal tonal function (Tonic, Supertonic, Mediant, Sub-Dominant, Dominant, Sub-Mediant, Leading/Sub-tonic) within each mode relative to the parent (Major) scale and each other. These 2 interactive factors are what makes each mode sound/feel different even though the same scale notes are being played. No book or online source I found on the subject of major scale modes ever explained that yet how can modes be properly understood or explored without having a clear perspective on what they are and why they sound the way they do? I deduced that myself from writing my book via a logical (to me) and structured analysis of what the major scale is, how the modes are derived from it and how they work/sound in relation to it and each other. Of course, the above perspective focuses on the 'Melodic' or 'Horizontal' dimension of modes i.e. playing notes as a melody line. The 'Harmonic' or 'Vertical' dimension of modes is a much more complex matter as witnessed by the many contributions to this thread so far.
*The question of what modes are if they are not scales is also explored in my book. Of course, they are simply 'Modes' but for reasons explained in my book I prefer to call them 'Root Variants' (of the parent scale) because that is the way I see them logically working in relation to the (Major) scale and each other.
We get people saying Aeolian is Blues, that Dorian is Dave Gimour, Mixo... is rock etc etc. On top of major being “happy” and minor being “unhappy”
I cannot believe it is this subjective if they have been a key part of music theory for hundreds of years. There must be some science to them?
what I’d really like to know is how they taught modes to young Herr Beethoven, Signore Rossini and young Comrade Tchaikovsky when they were moving past grade 5 theory in their primary schools in 1647 or whenever they were around :
“ok children, today we are doing the Aeolian mode. To use the Aeolian mode you have to imagine that you have been subjected to hundreds of years of slavery and this allows you to play a minor 3rd note alongside a major chord, and if you combine it with the 5th it will remind you of the steam trains which will provide your route to escape from your miserable life, if you can imagine what a steam train is”
or
“in 300 years time the only people who will have long wavy hair like you currently have will be outcasts of society, who will play a special type of lute which makes much more noise than you think is possible using something called electricity but which makes the noise sound very muffled and like a loud squeal of a pig being slaughtered. If you can imagine the music of those peoples, that is the Mixolydian”
So so can anyone point me to a reference which explains how they taught modes to the classical composers ?
They are all heptatonic scales (from the Italian scala meaning ladder) because they all have a root note and 7 rungs to the octave above. Sure they are similar to major and minor (as are harmonic and melodic minor scales), but that is only one feature of them - it doesn’t mean they aren’t scales in their own right.
i think the best way to discuss those modes is a) as for example a flat 7 palette of notes in V position, and b) as a mixolydian scale on which to base a piece.
Summary: you can think of modes in two ways.
Supportact said: [my style is] probably more an accumulation of limitations and bad habits than a 'style'.
Thanks viz.
Your perspective made me think back to how I tried in my book to logically reconcile (for myself) what music theory defines as 'scales' and what it says about 'modes'. 'Scales' have plenty of consistent definitions in the literature. 'Modes' on the other hand abound with inconsistent, confusing and contradictory literature.
So i started with what the theory books say about the Major Scale i.e. diatonic(notes are relative to a tonal centre), all natural notes, 5 full and 2 half tone steps, etc. Then I asked myself can modes also be scales if they exist only within the context of the (Major) scale? If the scale is defined by its tonic note(the key signature) how can each of the modes also be scales in themselves when they (6 of them) actually are defined by a 'root' note other than the (Major Scale) 'tonic' note? There is an inherent contradiction there which I could only reconcile by not thinking of modes as 'scales' but as something else, which I call 'root variants' (of the major scale).
I developed this reconciliation in my book by exploring beyond the general conventional wisdom that modes sound different simply because they have different intervals. I suggest that they also sound different because the tonal centre, 'tonic' note (of the Major Scale) shifts position sequentially and changes its tonality function within each mode. I have not found that analysis anywhere else and, of course, my interpretation could be flawed.
However, despite my attempt at a theoretical explanation I accept that, in practical terms, .we treat modes as scales in the way we play them.
Coming from a semi-scientific background I find music theory to be a pandora's box of such contradictions and unexplained and unproven assertions and yet, given its mathematical foundations I don't follow why this should be so. However, I am really just a belated beginner on my musical journey so perhaps I'm expecting too much.