Scales/Modes-What's the difference?

[David Kaczorowski]

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.

[Pacman]

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.

[Richard Lindsey]

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.

[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.

[Phil Smith]

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?

[Chris Fitzgerald]

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

[TonyS]

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

Tony

[Bass Guitar]

[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?

[Pacman]

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.







BLINKY TABEVIL

[Chris Fitzgerald]

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

[ii-v]

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.


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.

[Blueszilla]

Originally Posted by tim99

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?

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally Posted by Blueszilla

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.

[Blueszilla]

Originally Posted by Richard Lindsey

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?

[ii-v]

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.

[lowendfriend]

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.

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!

[Implosion]

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

[Rudreax]

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

[Arpeggiator]

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