Ok I am in the process of expanding my knowledge of theory on the bass....I have been learning modes and scale forms for a while now, but am struggling to find application into what I actually play on a gig or when jamming, and I see jamming as the place to try it all out but....how?....I need a light bulb moment can anyone flick the switch here???? :crying::confused::help::hmm:

I wondered about the same thing for awhile (ever since I saw some guy shred the crap out of a 12 bar and then say something to the effect of "its just modes man") and I think I finally get it, although I need a lot more practice to get to that effortless level, so here goes...

You can use them for a few things:

1)Each mode represents the fingering of all the notes in the songs key from the given note. So if you are playing in the key of C and your root is D anything in the Dorian mode will be in key.

2)Each chord has a related scale/mode that will fit it into the song taking into account the key and the quality of the chord.

3) you can use the modes to spice up your playing/come up with new melodic phrases, when you get tired of writing in minor try writing in Dorain the major 6th will give you lots of different sounds....ext.

I did a video for some people on another message board and well here you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6IszRRsMk

1)Each mode represents the fingering of all the notes in the songs key from the given note. So if you are playing in the key of C and your root is D anything in the Dorian mode will be in key.

2)Each chord has a related scale/mode that will fit it into the song taking into account the key and the quality of the chord.

3) you can use the modes to spice up your playing/come up with new melodic phrases, when you get tired of writing in minor try writing in Dorain the major 6th will give you lots of different sounds....ext.

1) That's not practical, I'd argue just thinking of "notes in the key of C" is a lot easier.

2) Again

3) I'll back this because then you're actually playing modal music.


I'd say unless you're playing modal music or jazz (or both), it's not necessary to think in terms of modes at all. Even in jazz it's not always necessary to use them (for ex. if you're only using the diatonic modes).

When you get into more advanced harmony and start using the harmonic and melodic minor modes, then you might encounter situations where you have to change key centers more often but on a tune with one or two key centers it's not necessary.

my 2 cents.

1) That's not practical, I'd argue just thinking of "notes in the key of C" is a lot easier.



Sure it might be easier, but when thinking of terms of licks Modes make WWAAAAAAYYYYY more sense than just "notes in the key of C"

from a theoretical perspective EADG mx makes sense. That is always how I saw it, and i always wondered what all the fuss was about (granted, i am not much more than a hack).

i have only just recently begun to see jeremyr's perspective. if i were to try to summarize (my possibly incorrect) understanding, i would say that it's a more "pragmatic" approach: that since a song is always a sequence of chords, at minimum, your hand is positioned to play the chord tones. with the chord root underneath one of your fretting fingers. at that point, you know the "compatible" modes to that chord + harmony AT THAT POSITION and you can go off from there. if the compatible mode (to the chord) is in a different key center than the rest of the song, no big deal, you have temporarily modulated the song to a different key center, and it will sound more like modal harmony rather than diatonic harmony. whether this actually sounds ok is dependent on whether your band mates are also on the same page...or are leaving the sonic landscape harmonically ambiguous to allow you to go in either direction.

jeremyr, am i getting there?

Sure it might be easier, but when thinking of terms of licks Modes make WWAAAAAAYYYYY more sense than just "notes in the key of C"

I agree.

The point of learning modes, and I have said this a number of times, is not to learn the modes themselves. The point is to learn about modulation. All modes are, are the "refocusing" of the tonal centre when you have a group of notes. Once you understand that for every scale you have as many modulations as there are notes in the scale which reconfigure depending on the order of the intervals in sequence, you know all you need to know about modes, really.

As for modal music, that is something quite different to the modes of a given chromatic based scale with even tempering.

from a theoretical perspective EADG mx makes sense. That is always how I saw it, and i always wondered what all the fuss was about (granted, i am not much more than a hack).

i have only just recently begun to see jeremyr's perspective. if i were to try to summarize (my possibly incorrect) understanding, i would say that it's a more "pragmatic" approach: that since a song is always a sequence of chords, at minimum, your hand is positioned to play the chord tones. with the chord root underneath one of your fretting fingers. at that point, you know the "compatible" modes to that chord + harmony AT THAT POSITION and you can go off from there. if the compatible mode (to the chord) is in a different key center than the rest of the song, no big deal, you have temporarily modulated the song to a different key center, and it will sound more like modal harmony rather than diatonic harmony. whether this actually sounds ok is dependent on whether your band mates are also on the same page...or are leaving the sonic landscape harmonically ambiguous to allow you to go in either direction.

jeremyr, am i getting there?

you got it bro. A very good description of what thinking in modal perspective is about.

Finding the chord that matches a key becomse 500000x easier 95% of the time if you go with modes.

I did a video for some people on another message board and well here you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6IszRRsMk

I agree that is a cool explanation - learn your modes is the mantra - but understanding what they are and applying them conceptually in the context of a song or set of changes is key : )

Nice description IMHO!

I agree.

The point of learning modes, and I have said this a number of times, is not to learn the modes themselves. The point is to learn about modulation. All modes are, are the "refocusing" of the tonal centre when you have a group of notes. Once you understand that for every scale you have as many modulations as there are notes in the scale which reconfigure depending on the order of the intervals in sequence, you know all you need to know about modes, really.

As for modal music, that is something quite different to the modes of a given chromatic based scale with even tempering.

If you're playing a song with one key center there's no need to think in diatonic modes, in my opinion. It seems unnecessarily complicated and I prefer to think of notes within the key and focus on chord tones.

Preference..

If you're playing a song with one key center there's no need to think in diatonic modes, in my opinion. It seems unnecessarily complicated and I prefer to think of notes within the key and focus on chord tones.

Preference..
That's my preference, too. I like it better because there's nothing I hate worse than sounding like I'm running scales. Thinking in modes is useful sometimes, and it's good academic work to learn them and learn how to use them, but when it comes time for the real deal gig, I prefer to forget about them and just go by the chord changes. That way it sounds natural and not like scale running. Scale running should be punishable by incarceration ;)

Not only that but I find it easier to listen when I have less to think about. That said I usually only think in terms of modes when playing jazz, in which I find chord/scale relationships really useful for playing over changing key centres and complex changes

I agree that is a cool explanation - learn your modes is the mantra - but understanding what they are and applying them conceptually in the context of a song or set of changes is key : )

Nice description IMHO!

Thats a cool Video....turned a few light bulbs on right there.

Ok...to clarify.

1)

If we are playing in C....the chord of the moment is "D"...then I can play in and use the Dorian mode....am I on the right wave???.....the chord changes to "G"....then I have the Mixolydian to play in and around....am I getting it???

2)

Another thing in terms of Harmony....if we are playing in the key of "C" and we are grooving in the chord of "C" if I then focus on "G"...and play with the Mixolydian Mode would that be some kind of harmonization???

I am not sure I am right here especially on point 2.

Plus Jeremyr love that video....how could I best practice that stuff???

Thanks everybody I feel I am learning:hyper:

If you're playing a song with one key center there's no need to think in diatonic modes, in my opinion. It seems unnecessarily complicated and I prefer to think of notes within the key and focus on chord tones.

Preference..

Well, you see that is where it all comes down to function. Not everything is about chord tones when you are playing a counterpoint either. Which is precisely why you might think in terms of modes. Not all music is about melody following the chord changes either.

Diatonically, tonality is determined by where your tonal centre is as determined by where you resolve to. It's not necessarily about which major or minor you are in. Therefore any "mode" can be its own "parent scale" if you can resolve to the tonic of that "mode".

Also I would never dismiss the value of understanding modality and modal function. Voice leading and harmony are important factors in music, but don't substitute for what learning about modes will teach you.

I think preference is one thing, but it only addresses one approach to something and not the overall picture.

I think of the modes as different "soundscapes", each having its own characteristic sound like major (ionian) and natural minor (aeolian). I.e., I see them as different selections of notes to reach a particular sound.

I understand what Jimmy and EADG are sayin' as far as playing the chord tones. You will get far more milage out of just playing these tones as far as being a backing foundation player, which is a large part of the traditional function of the bass player in a group. (I know I know, Mute)

But why limit yourselves to this one aspect? I don't think playing/listening to a guy running just chord tones and arpeggios is gonna be much more interesting than listening to a guy "just running scales". They both have their place.

Modes are more for playing linear lines, as a walking bassist might do. Thinking in tetrachords to connect chords in a progression. If you just play the chord tones of Dorian, Phrygian and Aeolian there isn't going to be any distinguishing signature. What makes modes sound different is the non-chord tones.

One thing about learning and knowing modes is not to use them in a diatonic manner (D Dorian in "C" Maj), but to use them against a key (D Dorian in "F"M or "G"M for example). It's the chromatic factor that makes lines interesting. Maybe play a M6 on an ascending line, and a m6 on a descending line. Same with a M2 vs m2, or raising or lowering a 4th or a 7th, for example. Using them in only a diatonic manner is kinda bland because you are just reinforcing the key, the chromatics are the ear spice.

There is a little more thought into thinking like this, but with practice you get beyond thinking about it - like everything else - and use that particular sound, or sequence of notes, to express yourself.

I understand what Jimmy and EADG are sayin' as far as playing the chord tones. You will get far more milage out of just playing these tones as far as being a backing foundation player, which is a large part of the traditional function of the bass player in a group. (I know I know, Mute)

But why limit yourselves to this one aspect? I don't think playing/listening to a guy running just chord tones and arpeggios is gonna be much more interesting than listening to a guy "just running scales". They both have their place.
Who says we're running chord tones and arpeggios? You use them as a basis for what to play, not the ONLY things to play.

Well, you see that is where it all comes down to function. Not everything is about chord tones when you are playing a counterpoint either. Which is precisely why you might think in terms of modes. Not all music is about melody following the chord changes either.

Diatonically, tonality is determined by where your tonal centre is as determined by where you resolve to. It's not necessarily about which major or minor you are in. Therefore any "mode" can be its own "parent scale" if you can resolve to the tonic of that "mode".

Also I would never dismiss the value of understanding modality and modal function. Voice leading and harmony are important factors in music, but don't substitute for what learning about modes will teach you.

I think preference is one thing, but it only addresses one approach to something and not the overall picture.

True, true. However, the majority of the western music system is based upon a major/minor system, and so when performing a piece of music thats based in this manner, it only makes sense to think in terms of that particular mode of the "pitch set" (parent major scale). Modal counterpoint is a very valid (and way cool) form of thinking about music, but it shouldn't be emphasized as much as it it can be when learning about "chord/scales", which a lot of people assume to be the same as modes. Thinking in terms of the "parent mode" of the composition is essential, and most of the time (plenty of exceptions of course), this will be major/minor.

Who says we're running chord tones and arpeggios? You use them as a basis for what to play, not the ONLY things to play.Hold on thar, big boy!
It was in response to this statement.
That's my prefere, too. I like it better because there's nothing I hate worse than sounding like I'm running scales. Thinking in modes is useful sometimes, and it's good academic work to learn them and learn how to use them, but when it comes time for the real deal gig, I prefer to forget about them and just go by the chord changes. That way it sounds natural and not like scale running. Scale running should be punishable by incarceration ;)My obvious response: who said anything about running scales?

I was merely exaggerating what you were implying.
You said "nothing sounds worse than the sound of running scales"
I'm saying running arpeggios isn't gonna sound a helluva lot more interesting either after a while.
The very first sentence of my post agreed with what you had stated about preferring chord tones.

My post was to point out both chord tones and modal linear lines have their place. Not that one is better than the the other.
A lot of it depends on the style of music for one thing. Old R&R and Do-Wop are gonna want chord tones emphasised and, yes, arpeggios.
All I'm sayin' is after a while, you may grow beyond using just one device or the other and go for the sounds each has to offer.

jeez James, this wasn't a dig at you or your style. Srry if I offended you, bro :)

OK, now I feel bad ;)

You're absolutely right, ryco. And yes, unfortunately, playing bass in doo wop shows does mean you'll be running arpeggios. But it's nothing I do on my own volition ;)

True, true. However, the majority of the western music system is based upon a major/minor system, and so when performing a piece of music thats based in this manner, it only makes sense to think in terms of that particular mode of the "pitch set" (parent major scale). Modal counterpoint is a very valid (and way cool) form of thinking about music, but it shouldn't be emphasized as much as it it can be when learning about "chord/scales", which a lot of people assume to be the same as modes. Thinking in terms of the "parent mode" of the composition is essential, and most of the time (plenty of exceptions of course), this will be major/minor.

Agreed.

As usual I am just trying to point out these things in an inclusive way, though. Sometimes I think people can be too quick to discount an idea based on what is the "norm" and when they do come across where these ideas are useful they are lost as to where to go with them.

With that said, once again I reiterate that the point of learning modes is not to learn the modes themselves but to learn the function of modality.

Well, you see that is where it all comes down to function. Not everything is about chord tones when you are playing a counterpoint either. Which is precisely why you might think in terms of modes. Not all music is about melody following the chord changes either.

Diatonically, tonality is determined by where your tonal centre is as determined by where you resolve to. It's not necessarily about which major or minor you are in. Therefore any "mode" can be its own "parent scale" if you can resolve to the tonic of that "mode".

Also I would never dismiss the value of understanding modality and modal function. Voice leading and harmony are important factors in music, but don't substitute for what learning about modes will teach you.

I think preference is one thing, but it only addresses one approach to something and not the overall picture.


You're right and I'm not dismissing the value of understanding modality, but like HaVIC said, more often than not we're going to be dealing with major/minor key centers. Not to say one can't play music based in other tonal centers but it's definitely not as common, at least for me.

I think above all it's important to know the difference between modal playing/composing and modal thinking, the latter I find quite useless a lot of the time but that's a different story..

Modes are more for playing linear lines, as a walking bassist might do. Thinking in tetrachords to connect chords in a progression. If you just play the chord tones of Dorian, Phrygian and Aeolian there isn't going to be any distinguishing signature. What makes modes sound different is the non-chord tones.


Well this is a tricky issue. While you're right about the non-chord tones, imo sometimes thinking in terms of modes is just not worth the effort.


a) Let's take a simple progression like a rhythm changes.

Cmaj7 // Am7 // Dm7 // G7
Cmaj7 // Am7 // Dm7 // G7


As you can see here we're working strictly with diatonic chords. Some people's natural impulse is going to be to think of the diatonic mode related to the chord, so we're going to say

Cmaj7 = C Ionian
Am7 = A Aeolian
Dm7 = D Dorian
G7 = G Mixolydian.

That's fine and all, but you could just think "notes in the key of C", start each bar on a chord tone, and you'd get the same results with less thinking involved. The benefits of this become obvious in real-world situations where you just don't have time to stop and think and it's beneficial to simplify things.


b) However, when dealing with pieces with more complex harmony with shifting tonal centres you might need to think in modes. Let's complicate that same progression:

Cmaj9 // A7(#11 13) // Dm9 // G7(b9)

(I know it's pretty unlikely to find a progression like this, but it's an exercise).

All I've done here is add some upper extensions, while each chord still has the same function (with the exception of the A7 which is altered to function as a secondary dominant). You will find neither thinking in terms of the diatonic modes or "notes in C" are going to work here because of the alterations to the chord so you're going to have to find different ways to approach this.


In terms of modes and scales, such as:

A7(#11 13) = A Lydian Dominant (or A Mixo #4, A Mixo #11, however you want to look at it)


In terms of arpeggios:

A7(#11 13) = A C# E G (B D# F#)


or maybe in tetrachords, ignoring the extensions, you name it.

So what the hell am I getting at? There's lots of different ways to approach a set of changes. There's too many variables to consider, such as whether you want to highlight the triad, the certain sound of a mode, including or excluding extensions, etc. Everyone will have certain preferences and you should keep your options open. Know how to get sounds you want, and simplify things when you can.

EADG gives a good example of how you might use modes to navigate songs with changing key centers. the rest of the debate has basically focused on whether 'thinking' in modes or simply in keys and chords is more useful; i think the value in using modes in this circumstance is if you are one of those players who likes to think in hand positions and move across rather than up and down the neck. in general i don't think in modes in that circumstance but i wouldn't say it's wrong or right.

one other use for modes is just to add a little secondary tone center to an otherwise diatonic rock passage.

for instance

C / F / Dm / Am
G / Em / F / G

Say this is the verse to a rock song and it repeats twice. It's a pretty boring progression that stays in C major. However if you wanted to give the song a little sense of movement you could play some A dorian over the A minor, which adds a different color to the chord without changing the basic triad and sort of implies a key change to G.

caveat - this is a fairly crude explanation, you want to make sure the mode you mix in doesn't clash with the melody and actually sounds good and fits into the song etc. if you are in a group that pretty much just calls for roots and fifths and hitting the downbeat you won't have a lot of opportunities to do stuff like this. everything in its right place. but just from a general music theory perspective, that's something that i enjoy doing... mixing modes even within passages that don't necessarily change keys. you have to do it right though or it just sounds weird.

That's fine and all, but you could just think "notes in the key of C", start each bar on a chord tone, and you'd get the same results with less thinking involved. The benefits of this become obvious in real-world situations where you just don't have time to stop and think and it's beneficial to simplify things.

If you want to get all abstract and theoretical (which I love doing), you could make the case that the chord progression is simply "modal ionian" - the chords are harmonic derivations of a C ionian modal situation. This is ignoring about the centuries of functional extrapolation that has been built up upon this sort of idea, but at the root of it, diatonic chord progressions are modal ionian chord progressions.

If you want to get all abstract and theoretical (which I love doing), you could make the case that the chord progression is simply "modal ionian" - the chords are harmonic derivations of a C ionian modal situation. This is ignoring about the centuries of functional extrapolation that has been built up upon this sort of idea, but at the root of it, diatonic chord progressions are modal ionian chord progressions.

Well if you want to use all modal systems, it could be beneficial to think of diatonic progressions as "Ionian mode"

but to me, there's no point in thinking in terms of modal systems if you're only using Ionian anyway.

If you want to get all abstract and theoretical (which I love doing), you could make the case that the chord progression is simply "modal ionian" - the chords are harmonic derivations of a C ionian modal situation. This is ignoring about the centuries of functional extrapolation that has been built up upon this sort of idea, but at the root of it, diatonic chord progressions are modal ionian chord progressions.
I prefer to say something like, "It's in C." But I get the idea.

:D

EADG gives a good example of how you might use modes to navigate songs with changing key centers. the rest of the debate has basically focused on whether 'thinking' in modes or simply in keys and chords is more useful; i think the value in using modes in this circumstance is if you are one of those players who likes to think in hand positions and move across rather than up and down the neck. in general i don't think in modes in that circumstance but i wouldn't say it's wrong or right.


I use any and all, it really depends on the situation.

I prefer to say something like, "It's in C." But I get the idea.

:D

It's not in C. It's in the minor supertonic of B major.

It's not in C. It's in the minor supertonic of B major.
My brain hurts.

Since it was mentioned...the key to finally having my light turn on for modes was in arpeggios. I'm going really basic here, any corrections by those in the know, or suggestions to improve the practice, go nuts :)

Just in case you don't have this map - here be the major scale degrees, modes, and arpeggios:

deg - mode - arpeggio
---------------------

I --- ionian ---- Maj7
ii -- dorian ---- min7
iii --phrygian -- min7
IV - lydian ----- Maj7
V -- mixolydian - dominant
vi - aeolian ---- min7
VII - locrian ---- min7(b5)

It breaks down to only four arpeggios, due that we're now only concerned with half of the notes of the scale. Dorian and phrygian use the same min7 arpeggio even though they're mismatched on both the 2nd and 6th scale degrees; 1st 3rd 5th and 7th scale degrees are exactly the same. Yay, arpeggio!

So, now we got half the stuff to worry about. Since we tend to hang out with drummers a lot, this is a very good thing :)

EADG gave a great progression example, I'll dumb it down even further to a simple ii-V-I (V being dominant) in C Major jazz walker and add the arps:

Due that we're in C Major:

ii = Dm7 = D Dorian --- min7 (1 b3 5 b7)
V = G7 = G Mixolydian - 7 (1 3 5 b7 - dominant)
I = Cmaj7 = C Ionian - Maj7 (1 3 5 7)

As a very basic walking line, walk those arps ascending from their respective root notes.

Once you're comfy repeating the arpeggios, walk around with that ii-V-I as a backing track in your head, but just using the modes. Start walking with D dorian, all the way through. Then G Mixo. Then C Ionian. It's all the key of C Major, just with different root notes, so. Very yummy.

Then see what happens if you try to walk around in D aeolian over that I chord where the Dmin7 arpeggio worked so nicely. The first time that I spaced where I was, I hit the b6 due to forgetting I wasn't in D aeolian, and that's where it went "click" for me. I went "ohhhh...." then started happily running around the neck in D dorian.

Rest of these guys are going "duh" right now, but hey. It was a big thing for me :)

Anyways!

I jam along to midi files. In this case, if you don't have any...use the key of C one in "Major ii-V-I All 12 Keys.zip":

http://www.houstonbasslessons.com/play_alongs.html

I starting practicing this off the Dave Marks walking lessons (there be 9 of em, methinks):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7MfADYRmg

His website's down, and the PDFs are on there with arp shapes and such...so here's a link to a lesson PDF. Just change the number in the link for any others. The vids and PDFs are really, really nice so far for where I'm at. Basic, but smart.

http://www.davemarks.com/pdf.youtube.wlk/DaveMarks.Walking01.pdf

Tip o' the iceberg, and just a baby step to start with, but. Hopefully this helps. Don't know if it's pretty, but it was the missing link for me. So far it's done wonders for clearing out unwanted boxes, opening options, and facilitating improv and solo ideas.

Hopefully this is a good route, 'cause I've been practicing the poop out of it :)

-tap

It breaks down to only four arpeggios, due that we're now only concerned with half of the notes of the scale. Dorian and phrygian use the same min7 arpeggio even though they're mismatched on both the 2nd and 6th scale degrees; I III V VII are exactly the same. Yay, arpeggio!

So, now we got half the stuff to worry about. Since we tend to hang out with drummers a lot, this is a very good thing :)

EADG gave a great progression example, I'll dumb it down even further to a simple II-V-I jazz walker and add the arps:

Dm7 = D Dorian --- min7 (1 b3 5 b7)
G7 = G Mixolydian - 7 (1 3 5 b7)
Cmaj7 = C Ionian - Maj7 (1 3 5 7)



Ok, a few things I would point out here.

Firstly that posts like this tend to lead a lot of people down the garden path more than make sense of the theory. I can see you are trying to clarify for yourself as well though.

Secondly, Dm7 (dmin7, or Dmin7 as I would write it), for example, doesn't necessarily = D Dorian. Dmin7 can be "attached" to any given "scale" with the degrees 1, b3 ,5 ,b7, or even to a scale with enharmonics to those degrees (Hungarian Major [1,#2,3,#4,5,6,b7] for example). Essentially you are putting the cart before the horse here. This effectively goes to paradigms like Ornette Coleman's Harmelodic theory and George Russell's Lydian Dominant theory.

I'm probably getting a little ahead of you there, but basically what I am saying is that it's the scale that determines the chords mechanically, not the chords that determine the scale unless you are using the context of a series of related chords to determine a "key" or you are using a certain paradigm to imply which melodic structure will best fit a particular chord.

Basically what you are saying here is applicable to diatonic harmony. The most simple way to put it is to say that diatonically I, IV and V are major, ii, iii and vi are minor and viio is diminished. You can also note that your V chord is dominant.

You should also take note that the way you capitalise or not the roman numerals there makes a difference to how someone will understand what you are talking about. For example when you say "II-V-I jazz walker" someone like me would read that as DMaj - GMaj - Cmaj. Which to me would be a perfectly acceptable progression to play given a circle of 4ths movement.

Also when you say "even though they're mismatched on both the 2nd and 6th scale degrees; I III V VII are exactly the same." You are better off using the terms "the 1st, 3rd, 5th and 7th degrees" since this doesn't look like you are talking about CMaj, EMaj, GMaj, and Bmaj, which is what it looked like to me at first.

I know this is picking at semantics, but this is the very reason why you won't ever see me making posts like this. Firstly they are very confusing even when they are accurate. Secondly and especially given the things I have pointed out here they can, as I said before lead people down the garden path. Besides that there are about a million of these on any given thread you might take the time to do a search on the word "mode" for.

One thing I want to say in general here, and it's more a reiteration, is that it's all well and good to say "well this is what normally happens in most western music", but let's not get carried away with assumptions. I have said this millions of times here in talkbass, too. Just because we are talking to someone we might assume has a developing sense of theory or might have a smaller practical application of theory, I don't really feel it's a reason to tell them half the story.

For example the old "well in the music you play most of the time you only need to follow the chords" argument, being the case in point. Personally I look at it like this, someone might not understand how a certain aspect of theory works, but if you tell them that it's ok you only need to know this that an the other thing because in the "real world" you will only need to know those things, you are really only setting your limitations off onto that person. Not only that but you are giving them a false impression of the context of the knowledge that they do have.

You never know, that person might have benefited from thinking modally, in a way that you might not have.

Beside that if people are confused about something they are told then they should probably seek more professional advice and get clarification from a reliable source.

One thing I want to say in general here, and it's more a reiteration, is that it's all well and good to say "well this is what normally happens in most western music", but let's not get carried away with assumptions. I have said this millions of times here in talkbass, too. Just because we are talking to someone we might assume has a developing sense of theory or might have a smaller practical application of theory, I don't really feel it's a reason to tell them half the story.

For example the old "well in the music you play most of the time you only need to follow the chords" argument, being the case in point. Personally I look at it like this, someone might not understand how a certain aspect of theory works, but if you tell them that it's ok you only need to know this that an the other thing because in the "real world" you will only need to know those things, you are really only setting your limitations off onto that person. Not only that but you are giving them a false impression of the context of the knowledge that they do have.

You never know, that person might have benefited from thinking modally, in a way that you might not have.

Beside that if people are confused about something they are told then they should probably seek more professional advice and get clarification from a reliable source.

Well, there's theory I've learned from textbooks and classrooms, and theory I've learned in the shed and on stage. I try to give my experience with both.

Well, there's theory I've learned from textbooks and classrooms, and theory I've learned in the shed and on stage. I try to give my experience with both.

I understand what you are saying. That is just my point, though. The line that you draw between the two based on your experience, isn't necessarily the line everyone will draw.

I think it's fair to say things like, "in my experience I have found that I tend to think more in terms of key than modes", for example. I don't think that really should go to the presumption that thinking modally is useless to everyone or that your experience playing live translates to what someone else will need to know.

I personally never make the assumption that my approach is the approach everyone will or should take. What I do do though is try to explain as much of the picture as possible and give as many options so that the person I am advising will be able to make their own choice.

I would also point out that, as far as I am concerned what you learn in a "textbook" and what you learn "onstage" aren't necessarily exclusive to each other. You might remember that the people that formulated those ideas in textbooks probably, for the most part formulated them through practical application.

Also what I am saying here isn't implying that you aren't projecting both sides of the "coin" here, but that drawing a distinction between what is practical and what is theory tends to be subjective.

I did a video for some people on another message board and well here you are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yj6IszRRsMk

Very nice job!!!! The explanation of the lick used by Gouche is cool. I did not realize that it is based on the Lydian mode!!!!!


A Groove is a Terrible Thing to Waste! :cool:

I understand what you are saying. That is just my point, though. The line that you draw between the two based on your experience, isn't necessarily the line everyone will draw.

I think it's fair to say things like, "in my experience I have found that I tend to think more in terms of key than modes", for example. I don't think that really should go to the presumption that thinking modally is useless to everyone or that your experience playing live translates to what someone else will need to know.

I personally never make the assumption that my approach is the approach everyone will or should take. What I do do though is try to explain as much of the picture as possible and give as many options so that the person I am advising will be able to make their own choice.

I would also point out that, as far as I am concerned what you learn in a "textbook" and what you learn "onstage" aren't necessarily exclusive to each other. You might remember that the people that formulated those ideas in textbooks probably, for the most part formulated them through practical application.

Also what I am saying here isn't implying that you aren't projecting both sides of the "coin" here, but that drawing a distinction between what is practical and what is theory tends to be subjective.

No, my experience isn't any sort of authority at all. That's not why I give it though. I like to give my opinions and experience because I think learning music theory can be useless in a sense if one doesn't have practical examples to go with it. It's all about understanding the concepts as thoroughly as possible and I find that examples help. Anyone can disagree with me and that's fine too. I just think that's one reason people come to boards like this with their questions when they could surely find the answers they're looking for in books.

No, my experience isn't any sort of authority at all. That's not why I give it though. I like to give my opinions and experience because I think learning music theory can be useless in a sense if one doesn't have practical examples to go with it. It's all about understanding the concepts as thoroughly as possible and I find that examples help. Anyone can disagree with me and that's fine too. I just think that's one reason people come to boards like this with their questions when they could surely find the answers they're looking for in books.

That's true. I'm not sure if you are seeing the point I'm making though.

I could say exactly the same thing of myself, that my limitations aren't the line between what the next person can or should do either. When you say that theory can be useless without practical application I agree on one level, but you have to keep in mind that music theory is both the result of and the impetus for practical application and as such one is not really exclusive of the other.

What I am really saying here is that there is really no line between theory and practical application since any theory can be put into practice and any practical application can be theoretically analysed. Which, comes back to this specific case in point, where you might say that modal thinking is useless to you in a practical sense, but to be fair you can't say it wouldn't be of use to anyone.

I like to give my opinions and experience because I think learning music theory can be useless in a sense if one doesn't have practical examples to go with it.

Unless you're going on to get a graduate degree and then doctorate in music theory.

Unless you're going on to get a graduate degree and then doctorate in music theory.

We're not talking about getting degrees, we're talking about making music.

Unless you're going on to get a graduate degree and then doctorate in music theory.

I don't think either of those things make a person's opinion infallible on the other hand.

That's true. I'm not sure if you are seeing the point I'm making though.

I could say exactly the same thing of myself, that my limitations aren't the line between what the next person can or should do either. When you say that theory can be useless without practical application I agree on one level, but you have to keep in mind that music theory is both the result of and the impetus for practical application and as such one is not really exclusive of the other.

What I am really saying here is that there is really no line between theory and practical application since any theory can be put into practice and any practical application can be theoretically analysed. Which, comes back to this specific case in point, where you might say that modal thinking is useless to you in a practical sense, but to be fair you can't say it wouldn't be of use to anyone.

The best I can give is my experience, that includes knowledge. I'm not saying theory and practical application are exclusive and I'm not saying my way is the best way - but it is one way.

Edited my original post to hopefully make it more accurate...

...tend to lead a lot of people down the garden path more than make sense of the theory. I can see you are trying to clarify for yourself as well though.

Very much so. My trying to explain something that I'm working on, and somebody else pointing out the mistakes, that helps a lot.

I start to learn better via garden path. Need a foundation to work from in order to build. A lot of the stuff you guys are saying is like explaining quantum particle physics to a kid who just starting playing with magnets and iron filings. You say "quark", and it's so above my head that my brain shorts out, and my response is, "I like Garbage Pail Kids."

I know it's garden (hopefully better now), but with that basic knowledge I have, now I can actually read the replies from you guys, and they click. So I end up with progress, rather than keeping tissue paper next to my computer to mop up the drool.

Secondly, Dm7 (dmin7, or Dmin7 as I would write it), for example, doesn't necessarily = D Dorian.

Oop...yep yep, I didn't specify we were in C Major. Fixed that in the post. doh.

This effectively goes to paradigms like Ornette Coleman's Harmelodic theory and George Russell's Lydian Dominant theory.

...I like Garbage Pail Kids.

I'm probably getting a little ahead of you there

Totally. Well, citing theories, yes :) But...hear what you're saying as far as scales defining arpeggios and chords, not the other way around.

not the chords that determine the scale unless you are using the context of a series of related chords to determine a "key" or you are using a certain paradigm to imply which melodic structure will best fit a particular chord.

Totally haven't gotten anywhere near there, yet. Useless with chord theory. That's my next stop on the line, I believe.

You can also note that your V chord is dominant.

Any way to write that? VIIo = diminished...anything for dominant? Specify it afterwards? Or does the fact that you're stating the minor ii and the major I in the ii-V-I tell you what you need to know, that it has to be a dominant V?

For example when you say "II-V-I jazz walker" someone like me would read that as DMaj - GMaj - Cmaj.

Oop...awesome! Didn't know about that...

Can you check out the edits I made on the original post, let me know if it's on track now? I know it's incredibly basic, but is it accurate?

I know this is picking at semantics

No no no, not in the least. You just pointed out some very important assumptions I should not have omitted, turned it around so I can more effectively explain myself, AND understand others at a much higher level. Which I'm totally geeking on as we speak :)

So, thanks!! :D

-tap

when you play a song with chord changes, theres a perfect opportunity to use mode knowledge. during a 1 chord, play the first mode, during a 4 chord play the 4th mode, yadda yadda. you could arpeggiate, or you could just doink around, but either way modes put you in a good position

Any way to write that? VIIo = diminished...anything for dominant? Specify it afterwards? Or does the fact that you're stating the minor ii and the major I in the ii-V-I tell you what you need to know, that it has to be a dominant V?

-tap

Normally you will use lower case Roman numerals with a little circle for diminished, viio for example. As far as a dominant goes, a dominant is really the function of the V chord resolving to the tonic. You can substitute and and have secondary functions for this as well though. Generally you might write the dominant as a V7. For example you might have ii-V7-I.

You might also have II7-V7-I where the II7 chord resolves to the V7 chord by altering the 3rd of the ii chord to become the leading tone the the V chord. This is a typical circle of 5ths/4ths alteration.

viio

Since it was mentioned...the key to finally having my light turn on for modes was in arpeggios. I'm going really basic here, any corrections by those in the know, or suggestions to improve the practice, go nuts :)

Just in case you don't have this map - here be the major scale degrees, modes, and arpeggios:

deg - mode - arpeggio
---------------------

I --- ionian ---- Maj7
ii -- dorian ---- min7
iii --phrygian -- min7
IV - lydian ----- Maj7
V -- mixolydian - dominant
vi - aeolian ---- min7
VII - locrian ---- min7(b5)

It breaks down to only four arpeggios, due that we're now only concerned with half of the notes of the scale. Dorian and phrygian use the same min7 arpeggio even though they're mismatched on both the 2nd and 6th scale degrees; 1st 3rd 5th and 7th scale degrees are exactly the same. Yay, arpeggio!

So, now we got half the stuff to worry about. Since we tend to hang out with drummers a lot, this is a very good thing :)

EADG gave a great progression example, I'll dumb it down even further to a simple ii-V-I (V being dominant) in C Major jazz walker and add the arps:

Due that we're in C Major:

ii = Dm7 = D Dorian --- min7 (1 b3 5 b7)
V = G7 = G Mixolydian - 7 (1 3 5 b7 - dominant)
I = Cmaj7 = C Ionian - Maj7 (1 3 5 7)

As a very basic walking line, walk those arps ascending from their respective root notes.

Once you're comfy repeating the arpeggios, walk around with that ii-V-I as a backing track in your head, but just using the modes. Start walking with D dorian, all the way through. Then G Mixo. Then C Ionian. It's all the key of C Major, just with different root notes, so. Very yummy.

Then see what happens if you try to walk around in D aeolian over that I chord where the Dmin7 arpeggio worked so nicely. The first time that I spaced where I was, I hit the b6 due to forgetting I wasn't in D aeolian, and that's where it went "click" for me. I went "ohhhh...." then started happily running around the neck in D dorian.

Rest of these guys are going "duh" right now, but hey. It was a big thing for me :)

Anyways!

I jam along to midi files. In this case, if you don't have any...use the key of C one in "Major ii-V-I All 12 Keys.zip":

http://www.houstonbasslessons.com/play_alongs.html

I starting practicing this off the Dave Marks walking lessons (there be 9 of em, methinks):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZ7MfADYRmg

His website's down, and the PDFs are on there with arp shapes and such...so here's a link to a lesson PDF. Just change the number in the link for any others. The vids and PDFs are really, really nice so far for where I'm at. Basic, but smart.

http://www.davemarks.com/pdf.youtube.wlk/DaveMarks.Walking01.pdf

Tip o' the iceberg, and just a baby step to start with, but. Hopefully this helps. Don't know if it's pretty, but it was the missing link for me. So far it's done wonders for clearing out unwanted boxes, opening options, and facilitating improv and solo ideas.

Hopefully this is a good route, 'cause I've been practicing the poop out of it :)

-tap

Dude I have been having so much fun jamming over those audio tracks....walking around and attempting solo ideas...such fun....I am still hitting the odd bum not or sticking on a chord to long sometimes....but hey....practice right.

My presumption is that this theory can be applied to any form of music....I feel I have had a light bulb moment....my only fear is what you said about ...""TIP OF THE ICEBERG"":D

Thanks again to everybody and It all seems to blow my mind at the moment but I can´t wait until I understand all of whats being said...Thanks :hyper: