I just started learning modes with my instructor this week. Needless to say there is a ton of information to absorb and learn

I did a search on modes but most posts deal with deriving modes and naming modes.
However my question is what is the difference between a scale and a mode? Is a mode just a different form or naming convention?

A mode is derived from a scale and it's a scale itself containing all the same notes as the original scale but begins and ends on a different note with a different pattern of whole steps and half steps.

Take the C major scale - Ionian mode:

C D E F G A B C

W W h W W W h - The whole step, half step pattern

The Mixolydian mode would start with G and proceed to G an octave higher:

G A B C D E F G

W W h W W h W - The whole step, half step pattern

I leave the rest for you to explore.

Or to put it simply, they're the same thing but starting on a different note while remaining in the same key. Play a C major scale, not play the exact same notes, but starting on D and playing up to D.

Well, they're really the same thing. The major scale, for instance, is exactly the same thing as the Ionian mode.

This has come up before, but IMO it's not entirely accurate to say that the modes are "derived from" the major scale. That's an easy way to figure out what the notes are, true--and pretty handy, too--but it doesn't *entirely* describe what the modes act like. Fundamentally, the modes are tonalities of their own, just as a major scale is.

For instance, you can get the notes of D dorian by starting from the second degree of the C major scale, but it wouldn't be correct to say that D dorian is *necessarily* in the key of C major, because it can be its own tonality as well. That is, some tunes can legitimately be said to be in D dorian, period (not C major). And just to confuse things, you can and do use D dorian in tunes that are legitimately in C major, too.

Hi All,

My experience has been to study the sound of the different modes/scales to understand the relationship of each degree of the scale. IOW learn HOW they sound and then... (in my Suprano/Jersey ethnic voice) Fagetaboutit.

Today I could not tell you an aolian scale from a fish scale. It is just a name what is more important is how they relate to you in your playing and let your brain categorize it in it's own way. When you hear a melody what is the logical extension of that melody as it relates to your soloing over the changes. It is all about sound, not being able to spout off all these strange names.

BassLand

Well it's important to know the proper terms IMO.
It makes communication a lot easier - that's what they're for.
It'd be really akward e.g. in a teaching or working situation. You'd have use use several sentences when you could say it with a single word.
I think of doctors or mechanics. If they didn't know their terms, all hell would break loose.

Doctor:
"Well, I think the patient has little thingies in the thing that leads to that pumping thing...." - you get my drift... ;)

So the modes are a tonality loosely derived from the Ionian mode? And the Ionian mode is somewhat parallel to the major scale?

Originally posted by td1368
So the modes are a tonality loosely derived from the Ionian mode? And the Ionian mode is somewhat parallel to the major scale?

No, ionian IS the major scale. They are the same thing, two different names. Modes are not loosely derived from anything. Each mode contains the exact same notes as it's original parent scale, for a lack of plainer English.

What are the notes in an ascending C major scale?

C,D,E,F,G,A,B,C

A different mode of C major would be the exact same notes, but starting and ending at different points: E,F,G,A,B,C,D,E for example

F major (ionian): F,G,A,Bb,C,E,F

A different mode? Start on G, end on G; or any other note, start on E, end on E. Same notes, different starting and ending points.

So do you see how it's wrong to say the modes are, "loosely derived from," or that," ionian is parallel to..." ?

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
Each mode contains the exact same notes as it's original parent scale, for a lack of plainer English.

Except that to be correct and perhaps pedantic, modes don't truly have "parent scales"--they weren't derived by taking sections of the major scale, they were derived as sets of intervals from a starting point, just as the major scale was. Thus, fundamentally, they have no parents, they are their own parents, and they constitute their own tonality.

I once had a lesson with John Scofield in which he argued that the best way of understanding modes was to figure them all *from the same starting point*. The idea was to get away from the view that, say, D dorian derived from C major rather than being a kind of D tonality.

Thus (for td's benefit: I know some or most of the rest of you know this stuff):

C Ionian: C D E F G A B
C Dorian: C D Eb F G A Bb
C Phrygian: C Db Eb F G Ab Bb
C Lydian: C D E F# G A B
C Mixolydian: C D E F G A Bb
C Aeolian: C D Eb F G Ab Bb
C Locrian: C Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb

td, if you play around with these individually for a while, you can hear these are all C-based tonalities, but they all sound and feel different. I hope I'm not muddying the water rather than clarifying it!

Sure do. I'm not trying to be dense I'm just trying to get a clear definition. Thanks David and Richard and Phil I have a lot to explore.

I was struggling with the concepts last night with my instructor and obviously still struggling. It seems like the concept of modes is quite large and I'm just trying to get a grasp.

Richard, I'm so glad you brought this up. I think many young players get caught up in the "need" to learn modes, and then get confused by the "C major scale starting on E" mess.

It is absolutely the best way to learn and understand the modes as their own entities without referring to the major scale in any way.

And while we're on the subject, learn your scales as they relate to chords, not keys. Another great misconception is that if the song is in C major, you can (and I've seen this here) "wander around in the C major scale to solo". :rolleyes:

Excellent thread.

Originally posted by Pacman
And while we're on the subject, learn your scales as they relate to chords, not keys. Another great misconception is that if the song is in C major, you can (and I've seen this here) "wander around in the C major scale to solo". :rolleyes:

Excellent thread.

I agree. Excellent thread this. Learn the correct modes for the relevant chords, rather than using the same scale for the whole song - this will bring more "colour" and tension to the solo.

Originally posted by Pacman

And while we're on the subject, learn your scales as they relate to chords, not keys.

I agree, generally, but one does have to remember about how there isn't just one mode for one chord. For example, given an Em7, you could play diatonically in E Phrygian, E Dorian, or E Aeolian. Which you choose would depend on the "flavor" you're trying to convey at that point, which might well be *affected by*, though by no means always necessarily determined by, the key of the song.

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey


I agree, generally, but one does have to remember about how there isn't just one mode for one chord. For example, given an Em7, you could play diatonically in E Phrygian, E Dorian, or E Aeolian. Which you choose would depend on the "flavor" you're trying to convey at that point, which might well be *affected by*, though by no means always necessarily determined by, the key of the song.

Exactly, which is why I didn't say "learn the scale to go with each chord" or some other such not quite functional piece of information.

I am totally if favor of learning music totally, rather than learning licks or tricks, or just getting by with 1 or 2 scales. I'm no John Coletrane, or John Patitucci, but I'm on the path, searching for and wrestling with the big picture of music. (when I grow up, I want to be like WRISTS LIKE CAROL).

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey

Except that to be correct and perhaps pedantic, modes don't truly have "parent scales"--they weren't derived by taking sections of the major scale, they were derived as sets of intervals from a starting point, just as the major scale was. Thus, fundamentally, they have no parents, they are their own parents, and they constitute their own tonality.

....td, if you play around with these individually for a while, you can hear these are all C-based tonalities, but they all sound and feel different. I hope I'm not muddying the water rather than clarifying it!


Not to ruffle any feathers (we've been down this road before, both up here recently and a while back down in DB), but I have to mention that I think it is VERY important to be aware of the concept of parent scales to modes in many cases. One of my big pet peeves about jazz education is the following misconception, which I see being taught not only all around the country, but all around the WORLD: "when you see a -7 chord symbol, it means play a Dorian minor scale of the same root." This is a total load of BULLSH*T, a fact that both SNACKLAND and RICHER LEMONSEED alluded to in passing.

If you take a standard turnaround in the key of F,

(ex.) iii-7....vi-7......ii-7....V7....I
.......A-7.....D-7......G-7....C7...F

and play a Dorian mode for each minor chord present, you are introducing notes into the tonal center which have NOTHING to do with the key of resolution WHATSOEVER. (i.e. - "A" Dorian introduces the notes B and F#, while "D" Dorian introduces B). If you are doing this because you truly like that sound and you think it sounds good, fine...but if you are doing it because some half baked book or teacher told you that minor=Dorian in jazz, then you are missing the point of the turnaround progression in jazz, which is to lead you back home from whence you came. To play ORGANICALLY over this progression (Which is what standard melodies do 99% of the time), you would want to play a Phrygian for the iii chord, an Aeolian for the vi, a Dorian for the ii, and a Mixolydian for the V. OR, you can just think of the parent key of F and play MELODICALLY from that (notice I didn't say "wander") and it can get you to the same note choices in the big picture sense.

Every year at the Aebersold camps, I get people in my combos squatting on "outside" notes on turnarounds because of this kind of thinking, and it makes me want to pull my hair out (although it's kinda too late for that...). I would far rather see a beginner "fingerpaint" out of a parent scale than "theorize" themselves into 1) playing a bunch of outside notes that don't make sense because somebody told them that each chord symbol MUST have its own corresponding scale, or 2) Thinking so much about all of those chord scales flying by that they become afraid to play a simple melody.

And speaking of melody, most standard melodies stay within "parent scales" a goodly percentage of the time... and tunes like "Have You Met Miss Jones" consist of nothing BUT parent scale tones when you take into account the changing key centers in the bridge. Like I said, I don't want to start a flame war, but I do think that the "Parent Scale" concept is extremely important to understand, especially for beginners.

Regards,

DURRL TABEVIL

Yeah I have to say I'm struggling with the concept of modes myself and it seems to me if you play say the c major scale on a piano you get

C Ionian=C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C...(all white keys)
D Dorian=D, E, F, G, A, B, C, D...(all white keys)
E Phrygian=E, F, G, A, B, C, D, E.(all white keys)

etc etc

Is this right? or am I missing the point completely
(thats happened before)

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



Not to ruffle any feathers (we've been down this road before, both up here recently and a while back down in DB), but I have to mention that I think it is VERY important to be aware of the concept of parent scales to modes in many cases. One of my big pet peeves about jazz education is the following misconception, which I see being taught not only all around the country, but all around the WORLD: "when you see a -7 chord symbol, it means play a Dorian minor scale of the same root." This is a total load of BULLSH*T, a fact that both SNACKLAND and RICHER LEMONSEED alluded to in passing.

If you take a standard turnaround in the key of F,

(ex.) iii-7....vi-7......ii-7....V7....I
.......A-7.....D-7......G-7....C7...F

and play a Dorian mode for each minor chord present, you are introducing notes into the tonal center which have NOTHING to do with the key of resolution WHATSOEVER. (i.e. - "A" Dorian introduces the notes B and F#, while "D" Dorian introduces B). If you are doing this because you truly like that sound and you think it sounds good, fine...but if you are doing it because some half baked book or teacher told you that minor=Dorian in jazz, then you are missing the point of the turnaround progression in jazz, which is to lead you back home from whence you came. To play ORGANICALLY over this progression (Which is what standard melodies do 99% of the time), you would want to play a Phrygian for the iii chord, an Aeolian for the vi, a Dorian for the ii, and a Mixolydian for the V. OR, you can just think of the parent key of F and play MELODICALLY from that (notice I didn't say "wander") and it can get you to the same note choices in the big picture sense.

Every year at the Aebersold camps, I get people in my combos squatting on "outside" notes on turnarounds because of this kind of thinking, and it makes me want to pull my hair out (although it's kinda too late for that...). I would far rather see a beginner "fingerpaint" out of a parent scale than "theorize" themselves into 1) playing a bunch of outside notes that don't make sense because somebody told them that each chord symbol MUST have its own corresponding scale, or 2) Thinking so much about all of those chord scales flying by that they become afraid to play a simple melody.

And speaking of melody, most standard melodies stay within "parent scales" a goodly percentage of the time... and tunes like "Have You Met Miss Jones" consist of nothing BUT parent scale tones when you take into account the changing key centers in the bridge. Like I said, I don't want to start a flame war, but I do think that the "Parent Scale" concept is extremely important to understand, especially for beginners.

Regards,

DURRL TABEVIL

No flames needed, Chris. Everything you're saying is well taken and to the point. I guess my thing is, I wanna have it both ways in a sense (OK, maybe that's cheating). I think players should understand modes in relation to chords, as Pac said, but I also think (and I don't think Pac would disagree) that you have to understand individual chords (and therefore the modes you play over them) in relation to the harmony of the whole piece, both globally (key signature) and locally (implied local changes of key).

You're absolutely right to point out that no chord exists in a vacuum--you always are coming from someplace and trying to get someplace, and you have to keep that in mind when you're trying to address a given chord or chord sequence.

I think part of the apparent difference may be one of terminology. I think less of the parent scale than of the parent *tonality*, I guess. And there's also the issue of other keys being suggested, if not fully established, within a given tune. For example, a couple of Cole Porter tunes use a minor ii-V to resolve to a major tonic. In "I Love You," it starts out as if you're playing in Fm, so you approach the initial ii-V that way, but then a major I comes up, so you move to a different mode. In that same tune, right before the bridge, you seem to move briefly to A. There's a case of "local key change"--you might well choose to play B dorian to E mixolydian for the B-E there (of course other choices are possible), even though both contain notes not in the "parent" scale/tonality of F, because in the short term, you want to convey A.

And your point about playing *melodically through the progression* is of course right on the money.

In practice, I'd bet many of us end up applying similar approaches.

I know it's possible to disappear up one's own behind talking about this theory stuff, but I honestly find such discussions kind of refreshing as a break from so much gear talk ....

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey


No flames needed, Chris. Everything you're saying is well taken and to the point. I guess my thing is, I wanna have it both ways in a sense (OK, maybe that's cheating). I think players should understand modes in relation to chords, as Pac said, but I also think (and I don't think Pac would disagree) that you have to understand individual chords (and therefore the modes you play over them) in relation to the harmony of the whole piece, both globally (key signature) and locally (implied local changes of key).

You're absolutely right to point out that no chord exists in a vacuum--you always are coming from someplace and trying to get someplace, and you have to keep that in mind when you're trying to address a given chord or chord sequence.

I think part of the apparent difference may be one of terminology. I think less of the parent scale than of the parent *tonality*, I guess. And there's also the issue of other keys being suggested, if not fully established, within a given tune. For example, a couple of Cole Porter tunes use a minor ii-V to resolve to a major tonic. In "I Love You," it starts out as if you're playing in Fm, so you approach the initial ii-V that way, but then a major I comes up, so you move to a different mode. In that same tune, right before the bridge, you seem to move briefly to A. There's a case of "local key change"--you might well choose to play B dorian to E mixolydian for the B-E there (of course other choices are possible), even though both contain notes not in the "parent" scale/tonality of F, because in the short term, you want to convey A.

And your point about playing *melodically through the progression* is of course right on the money.

In practice, I'd bet many of us end up applying similar approaches.

I know it's possible to disappear up one's own behind talking about this theory stuff, but I honestly find such discussions kind of refreshing as a break from so much gear talk ....

Wish I had more time to reply, but I have to run off to class in a minute....and if this subject is getting too "esoteric" in relation to the original question, perhaps the local Mods can suggest that we start a new thread?

Your exampe of "I Love You" is a perfect case in point. When I mention "Parent Scales" (I also call them "Blanket Scales" in my own teaching), I'm referring to not only the key of the song itself, but to all of the TEMPORARY key centers that the song contains. For "I Love You", that would include:

G-7b5....C7b9....Fma.....D7+9.....G-7....C7....Fma
Fmi..................Fma.......................... .............

G-7b5..C7b9...Fma....B-7...E7...Ama...B-...E7...Ama
Fmi...............Fma....Ama...................... ............


In the above example, the Parent Scales appear below the chord progression. What I was trying to say was that I think this is a much more musical and MELODIC approach to soloing for beginning/intermediate students than thinking of each chord as having a completely different scale attached to it. In fact, with the exception of the melodic G# in bar 3 (Which is clearly a chromatic neighbor tone, and possibly also a "blue note"), the whole melody of this part of the tune comes from the Parent Scales (tonalities) listed above.

Oops, gotta go...hope we can continue this kind of discussion without flaming carnage...I also find this a refreshing break from gear talk.

DURRL

I actually think I'm starting to get some of the concepts discussed. As usual the converstions about modes gets very deep very fast so I was just looking for a starting point to develop a vocabulary, both verbally and musically, when discussing modes.

I still have a question though. Is there going to be a test?

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey

Except that to be correct and perhaps pedantic, modes don't truly have "parent scales"

I'm well aware of that, but in my experience, sometimes ya have to find ways of saying things that will help the person you're teaching begin to understand and forget about pedantry.

As for not looking at D dorian as being related to C major, but rather as it's own tonality; I can appreciate the thought, but I think it also ignores why D dorian has the tonality that it does. It has it's tonality because of it's relationship to the major scale, the tonic, and the dominant. To explain D dorian simply as a tonality is to only hear half the picture so to speak.

And IMO having a student find the modes as they relate to the major scale makes it much easier for them to work them out and discover their tonalities, rather than telling them w-h-w-w-w-h-w, for instance.

Originally posted by Pacman
And while we're on the subject, learn your scales as they relate to chords, not keys.

I have to disagree with this. Chords relate to keys, period. Unless you understand keys and how chords are related to keys, the chords mean nothing. Even in modal tunes like any number of Wayne Shorter tunes, or Maiden Voyage is a good example, the chords relate to keys and they only reason the progessions sound the way they do is because they don't resolve the way anyone would expect them to.

Scofield got to the point where he can understand all the modes as their own individual tonalities after learning their traditional relationships. Doing it any other way will cause a student to havebig gaps in his knowledge. F lydian dominant ain't sh*t if you don't understand how you got there.

And as for Em7 having all of these possibilities, that's right and wrong at the same time. Traditionally, that would be seen as ii7 in D major. To use an E phrygian scale could work, but be careful with the b9, F isn't in the key. And if that Em7 should actually resolve up to A7 you better be aware of the C# and not play a C in an unfortunate spot in your bassline. How are you gonna know that if you don't know keys and *FUNCTIONAL* harmony. Go ahead and play an F, but you better know how to resolve it or it'll sound like a big fat clam.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski


And IMO having a student find the modes as they relate to the major scale makes it much easier for them to work them out and discover their tonalities, rather than telling them w-h-w-w-w-h-w, for instance.

This is where my problem with the "parent scale" ideology comes in. (Not that what Chris is saying isn't right on the money - it is) First of all, most students get into modes long before they need them. Second, when a student is taught that, for instance, "dorian mode is a major scale played from the 2 to the 2" they are not made to understand that's not what Dorian really is. I tend to lean more to the "dorian is a minor scale with a raised 6", or something along that line. I know this must seem nitpicky, but I think the mindset goes to how deeply we understand, and can therefore use, the modes. I'm also speaking from experience - I knew the modes for years without understanding them.

I'm not sure if I'm being clear. I just think we've failed if a student doesn't realize that the modes are scales of themselves, rather than rearranged major scales.

Wow, it's nice to talk about music once in a while.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski


I'm well aware of that, but in my experience, sometimes ya have to find ways of saying things that will help the person you're teaching begin to understand and forget about pedantry.

As for not looking at D dorian as being related to C major, but rather as it's own tonality; I can appreciate the thought, but I think it also ignores why D dorian has the tonality that it does. It has it's tonality because of it's relationship to the major scale, the tonic, and the dominant. To explain D dorian simply as a tonality is to only hear half the picture so to speak.

And IMO having a student find the modes as they relate to the major scale makes it much easier for them to work them out and discover their tonalities, rather than telling them w-h-w-w-w-h-w, for instance.

I take your point about forgetting the pedantry--a big temptation for me!

As for the point about D Dorian tonality (to take one mode as an example), it's true that in a practical sense, D Dorian often gets used within a C major piece, and its effect in that setting has to do with its relations to other harmonic components of C. When used that way, you could think of C as being the parent tonality of D Dorian. However, D Dorian is also often used as its own tonality--So What is a perfect example, as is a lot of ethnic and folk music. Just as an example, it would be meaningless to say that C is the tonic of So What and G its dominant just because C major and D Dorian cshare a key signature (and I know *you* wouldn't argue that, but I've seen it happen).

That's why I suggested that modal tonality doesn't come from any relationship to major--that would assume that major is somehow the "original" scale from which all others come, rather than one among several equals, none of which is necessarily ancestral to the others--but from its own internal relationships, that is, the intervals from the starting point (WHWWWHW in the case of Dorian).

All that said, though, IMO it's probably easier, as a teachning tool, to use the degrees-of-major-scale thing to help a student get an *initial* handle on this business. But I think it has the potential to become limiting sooner or later, especially in the world of nondiatonic harmony, which is where most of us live, a good portion of the time anyway.

In the end, I think we're talking, as you implied, about two halves of the same whole. You really need both.

But my point is that a dorian scale isn't just a minor scale with a raised 6. There's something behind the dorian tonality. The individual notes no longer have the same function as passing tones and leading tones that they have in the related major tonality though they still sound like they want to go that way. In D dorian, a B points to A despite it sounding like it wants to resolve, as the leading tone, to C. In C major, D points to C, but in D dorian it doesn't point anywhere, hence it's unsettledness. The relationship of all the notes to one another changes and you can really only understand the changes if you understand what's going in the related major scale; not because the major scale is the parent scale, or came first or anything, but because it has the strongest resolutions and therefore sounds the most consonant.

Originally posted by David Kaczorowski
But my point is that a dorian scale isn't just a minor scale with a raised 6. There's something behind the dorian tonality. The individual notes no longer have the same function as passing tones and leading tones that they have in the related major tonality though they still sound like they want to go that way. In D dorian, a B points to A despite it sounding like it wants to resolve, as the leading tone, to C. In C major, D points to C, but in D dorian it doesn't point anywhere, hence it's unsettledness. The relationship of all the notes to one another changes and you can really only understand the changes if you understand what's going in the related major scale; not because the major scale is the parent scale, or came first or anything, but because it has the strongest resolutions and therefore sounds the most consonant.

Is this the reason why when you play C up to B it begs for resolution as opposed to playing D dorian up to C?

Originally posted by td1368
I actually think I'm starting to get some of the concepts discussed. As usual the converstions about modes gets very deep very fast so I was just looking for a starting point to develop a vocabulary, both verbally and musically, when discussing modes.

I still have a question though. Is there going to be a test?


TV90210,

Nah, there won't be a test....at least not TODAY. The only real "test" that matters in all of this theory stuff is the TEST that happens when you're out on a gig, a TEST which always consists of the same single question: "Can you take all of these fancy words and concepts and turn them into some music that SOUNDS GOOD?" If so, you get an "A", no matter how fluently you speak "ACADEMICIANESE". ;)

When I teach scales and modes to most students, I use the following principle to simplify matters: Since MOST scales are made up of half steps and Whole steps, and since in MOST cases the whole steps greatly outnumber the half steps, you can take the whole steps for granted and only note where the half steps occur.

Thus, the standard way of thinking of a major scale,
WWHWWWH (or 1W 2W 3H 4W 5W 6W 7H 8)
can be simplified into:
1 2 3h 4 5 6 7h 8, or abbreviated as either "3h4,7h8", or even 3h,7h. if you do this with the modes of the major scale, you come up with:

1 2 3h 4 5 6 7h 8 (Ionian)......or 3h,7h
1 2h 3 4 5 6h 7 8 (Dorian)......or 2h,6h
1h 2 3 4 5h 6 7 8 (Phrygian) ..or 1h,5h
1 2 3 4h 5 6 7h 8 (Lydian)......or 4h,7h
1 2 3h 4 5 6h 7 8 (Mixolydian).or 3h,6h
1 2h 3 4 5h 6 7 8 (Aeolian).....or 2h,5h
1h 2 3 4h 5 6 7 8 (Locrian).....or 1h,4h

The neat thing about thinking of modes in this way is that you can apply the principle to any root note and create that mode intervallically, which is (IMO) how we hear them anyway. Or, you can also use them in relation to their "Parent Key" using this method by turning the Parent Key into a giant anagram (which is how they are often taught). It should be noted that while this system works for many of my students, there are a few out there who start leaking brain fluid when they try to think this way...and if you are one of those folks, blow the system off and find what works for you.

And yes, before anyone objects, there ARE scales out there that are not made up out of only half and whole steps: Pentatonics (which are derived from Ma and mi scales anyway), Harmonic Minor, and a whole bunch of obscure scales that egghead theory books always mention, like the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA scale, or the LOOK, I'M CHARMING A SNAKE OUT OF A BASKET IN A B MOVIE scale, or the NEW AGE CAMELS WALKING IN THE DESERT scale and the like....if you want to use those, you simply need to modify the system a bit to make them come out right.

Originally posted by Pacman

Wow, it's nice to talk about music once in a while...


Damn tootin! Couldn't have said it better myself.

Peace everyone,

GUIDO D'DURRL


P.S. - edited for format

Wonderful thread, ... thanks to everyone. It has allowed me to look at this stuff from more than one angle.

Tony

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald
... a whole bunch of obscure scales that egghead theory books always mention, like the LAWRENCE OF ARABIA scale, or the LOOK, I'M CHARMING A SNAKE OUT OF A BASKET IN A B MOVIE scale, or the NEW AGE CAMELS WALKING IN THE DESERT scale and the like....if you want to use those, you simply need to modify the system a bit to make them come out right.

That "LOOK, I'M CHARMING A SNAKE OUT OF A BASKET IN A B MOVIE scale" is very hard to learn... I have been playing it, but the snake refuses to come out...

What am I doing wrong? What is the parent scale? Can someone tab it out for me? ;)

Originally posted by Bass Guitar
[BThat "LOOK, I'M CHARMING A SNAKE OUT OF A BASKET IN A B MOVIE scale" is very hard to learn... I have been playing it, but the snake refuses to come out...

What am I doing wrong? What is the parent scale? Can someone tab it out for me? ;) [/B]

Doood, what are you, ignorant?!? It's so simple, it's just a LAWRENCE OF ARABIA SCALE with a flat 2, raised 4, and flat 6. Kids....sheeesh.....gotta do everything for em' nowadays.:rolleyes:






:D
BLINKY TABEVIL

Originally posted by Bass Guitar
That "LOOK, I'M CHARMING A SNAKE OUT OF A BASKET IN A B MOVIE scale" is very hard to learn... I have been playing it, but the snake refuses to come out...

What am I doing wrong? What is the parent scale? ;)



CONTRA-CONTRABARITONE UKULELE,


I'll tell you, but let me preface my remark by saying that you may hate me for this............the answer is:

(drumroll please.......)

B MOVIE MINOR is the aforementioned Parent Scale.


.....chirp......






chirp......




* Cricket*



.....chirp......


Well, you ASKED....


DURRL

Not to ruffle any feathers (we've been down this road before, both up here recently and a while back down in DB), but I have to mention that I think it is VERY important to be aware of the concept of parent scales to modes in many cases. One of my big pet peeves about jazz education is the following misconception, which I see being taught not only all around the country, but all around the WORLD: "when you see a -7 chord symbol, it means play a Dorian minor scale of the same root." This is a total load of BULLSH*T, a fact that both SNACKLAND and RICHER LEMONSEED alluded to in passing.

If you take a standard turnaround in the key of F,

(ex.) iii-7....vi-7......ii-7....V7....I
.......A-7.....D-7......G-7....C7...F

and play a Dorian mode for each minor chord present, you are introducing notes into the tonal center which have NOTHING to do with the key of resolution WHATSOEVER. (i.e. - "A" Dorian introduces the notes B and F#, while "D" Dorian introduces B). If you are doing this because you truly like that sound and you think it sounds good, fine...but if you are doing it because some half baked book or teacher told you that minor=Dorian in jazz, then you are missing the point of the turnaround progression in jazz, which is to lead you back home from whence you came. To play ORGANICALLY over this progression (Which is what standard melodies do 99% of the time), you would want to play a Phrygian for the iii chord, an Aeolian for the vi, a Dorian for the ii, and a Mixolydian for the V. OR, you can just think of the parent key of F and play MELODICALLY from that (notice I didn't say "wander") and it can get you to the same note choices in the big picture sense.


Regards,

DURRL TABEVIL

I am inclined to agree, but would add I use ii-v-i as a means of grouping chord characteristics based upon their 3 and 7 (functional tones)

Ex.
ii,vi,iii,vii (minor) b3, b7 (lowered 3&7 if you prefer)
v (Dominant) b7
i,iv (Major)

That is, not at all to suggest that dorian is THE mode to play over a minor chord. What it suggests is that everything is permissible over the minor chord from its group, but you must recognize whether it functions as a ii,vi,iii,vii. Considering every minor chord as a ii can leave some very uncomfortable choices and lead the ear away from "whence you came." (Not to mention it is just flat out wrong if you are doing an analysis of a jazz chart). I like this idea overall because it helps to instruct players to create lines away from a strict diatonic mold while not missing important turnarounds. This seems to me a comfortable and flexible way to begin improvisation. But it should not be the end all. Studying chordal structure and the subsequent modes that they are derived from is important as well. Looking at these ideas as concepts and building scales based upon a chords structure and its functional tones leads to many more fantastic choices.

In the end constructing a melody should be instinctive from the vocabulary of scales you pick up and the chords and their function within a chart. This is not a difficult process, if you look at the use of language it becomes so engrained we just speak and the more vocab you study and are exposed to during the course of your life, one could argue, the more sofisticated an orator you become. There are many ways to convey a melody, but just as having a purpose or thesis in oration is important, so it is with music as well.

I enjoy these posts also... we are gluttons for punishment.

I did not post a fingering pattern.

You must be slipping, or tired?

I didn't get a chance to respond to your last postings in the other thread, I guess you see we got shut down there. I hope we can continue with this without any issues. I hope the original poster got an answer to his question.

It seems part of your posts were trying to keep me from thinking in a real basic way about the modes, and I don't, but like you said previoulsy, it's about constructing solos so they fit in either diatonic changes or where the key centers change. I just want a bit of info that would help me think of new ideas when the opportunity arises.

I have a lot of experience playing and have encountered a lot of what is being discussed, but I am relating to it (or not) from more of a feel/sound level as I don't have the terminology down, so I think I'm getting caught up when expressing myself or asking a question. I had two years (Fr & So) at the local uni's music program, so I have a bit of ear training and theory ed, but that was a long time ago. I feel like I have some knowledge, but there are a lot of gaps, mainly with terms.

I really appreciate you (Richard L. too!) taking the time to answer my questions.

So....

Is a mode (in striclty a technical sense) a series of notes with fixed intervals between them, thereby having a unique 'tonality'? This would seem to make sense, and then some modes may differ by only a few or maybe one note?

You must be slipping, or tired?

I didn't get a chance to respond to your last postings in the other thread, I guess you see we got shut down there. I hope we can continue with this without any issues. I hope the original poster got an answer to his question.

It seems part of your posts were trying to keep me from thinking in a real basic way about the modes, and I don't, but like you said previoulsy, it's about constructing solos so they fit in either diatonic changes or where the key centers change. I just want a bit of info that would help me think of new ideas when the opportunity arises.

I have a lot of experience playing and have encountered a lot of what is being discussed, but I am relating to it (or not) from more of a feel/sound level as I don't have the terminology down, so I think I'm getting caught up when expressing myself or asking a question. I had two years (Fr & So) at the local uni's music program, so I have a bit of ear training and theory ed, but that was a long time ago. I feel like I have some knowledge, but there are a lot of gaps, mainly with terms.

I really appreciate you (Richard L. too!) taking the time to answer my questions.

So....

Is a mode (in striclty a technical sense) a series of notes with fixed intervals between them, thereby having a unique 'tonality'? This would seem to make sense, and then some modes may differ by only a few or maybe one note?

Yes. A mode, in the basic technical sense I mentioned in the other thread, is just a series of notes spun out at defined distances from a specified starting point. Which is all a scale is, in the basic technical sense. That's why many of us say that a scale is a mode and a mode is a scale. For instance, the major scale is the ionian mode.

And yes, some of the modes differ from each other by only a note or two. IMO, the best way to understand this particular point is *not* to learn the modes in the "degree of the major scale" way but to look at them from the same starting point. That is, C lydian, C ionian, C mixolydian, C dorian, etc. I think I or somebody wrote this out earlier in this thread (which is several years old!). That's IMO the best way of hearing how the flavors differ.

But more and more, I think we obsess too much about modes. I've kinda simplified my own thinking about it, thanks in large part to many things people have said here. From a practical point of view, you could accomplish a lot just by thinking about (1) chord tones versus non-chord tones, and (2) in-the-key/tonality/modality tones versus not-in-the-key/tonality/modality tones. Followed by (3) some way to tie together your note choices over time in a coherent way.

But more and more, I think we obsess too much about modes. I've kinda simplified my own thinking about it, thanks in large part to many things people have said here. From a practical point of view, you could accomplish a lot just by thinking about (1) chord tones versus non-chord tones, and (2) in-the-key/tonality/modality tones versus not-in-the-key/tonality/modality tones. Followed by (3) some way to tie together your note choices over time in a coherent way.

Ok, so when playing over standard M7 blues changes I can solo in root ionian? I think I'm doing that now, but I know that when it changes to the iv chord I 'change' to that chords' scale in my mind and solo with those notes, like what you said in 1 above. That is what I've been doing for years and I wanted something to think outside the box, so to speak.

does that make any sense?

This thread was referenced somewhere else and I stumbled onto it. Without looking at dates I posted. Its good theory is not a computer or the info in this thread would be outdated.

Except that to be correct and perhaps pedantic, modes don't truly have "parent scales"--they weren't derived by taking sections of the major scale, they were derived as sets of intervals from a starting point, just as the major scale was. Thus, fundamentally, they have no parents, they are their own parents, and they constitute their own tonality.

I once had a lesson with John Scofield in which he argued that the best way of understanding modes was to figure them all *from the same starting point*. The idea was to get away from the view that, say, D dorian derived from C major rather than being a kind of D tonality.

Thus (for td's benefit: I know some or most of the rest of you know this stuff):

C Ionian: C D E F G A B
C Dorian: C D Eb F G A Bb
C Phrygian: C Db Eb F G Ab Bb
C Lydian: C D E F# G A B
C Mixolydian: C D E F G A Bb
C Aeolian: C D Eb F G Ab Bb
C Locrian: C Db Eb F Gb Ab Bb

td, if you play around with these individually for a while, you can hear these are all C-based tonalities, but they all sound and feel different. I hope I'm not muddying the water rather than clarifying it!

Thanks, Richard,....you gave me a mental breakthru on modes. I see it as groups of fingering patterns that apply in closed form to five contiguous frets.

X: |0| |0| |0|

Y: |0| |0|0| |

X: |0|0| |0| |

V: | |0|0|

W: |0| |0|

IDPLMAL

I: WZY
d: YWz
P: ZYw
L:WYY
M: WZZ
A: YYw
L: ZZW

Still trying to define upper and lower case convention. Attempt 1: (lower case = sync the pattern to the nut side of 5 frets and upper= sync the pattern to the bridge side of five frets)

Whatever gets me to remember!:eek:

Whoa. Double-zombie. 01->05->09 :D

Man, I REALLY wish we had more threads like this. I seriously learned something after reading through all the posts.

same hear, im now looking at modes not relitive to there parent scales, but as there own things.