Chord/Scale vs. Modes

[efcleff]

very logical, very cool. As a new student, I try to use any and all acurate information to further my knowledge. LIMDAPL is more good info, thanks guys.

 

[Howard K]

j-raj posted:

For example, (I like this one, and use it a bunch). Over Dom7 chords I like to use a lydian b7 instead of the mixolydian... It is built up of TWO 'interchangable' tetra chords. The First Tetrachord (Whole Tone: W-W-W) is like a lydian and the Second Tetrachord (H-W-H) makes the Mixolydian statement.

This all makes perfect sense, but is there a pattern of somesort for remembering whether there's a tone or semi-tone between each tetrachord to make up the complete scale, or is it always a tone?

Ahh, but that's where the LIMDAPL method comes in. If you learn the modes as they relate to their parallel major scale, rather than their relative major scale, you lear the construction logically.

I didnt learn them this way, I learnt them in relation to their parent major scale, so G mix to C Ionian, but once I read about this 'way of looking at it' on TB, it made more sense, since we always talk about music in terms of tonality, major, minor etc.

Someone said somewhere on here once, cant remember who, something he lines of "I believe that Lydian is the true major scale", that was what swayed me - good logic, I like logical

 

[Pacman]

Originally posted by Howard K
j-raj posted:
Someone said somewhere on here once, cant remember who, something he lines of "I believe that Lydian is the true major scale", that was what swayed me - good logic, I like logical

I say it all the time but I can't claim it - I learned it from Jamie Abersold.

 

[Howard K]

I say it all the time but I can't claim it - I learned it from Jamie Abersold.

Good ol' Jamie, a smart bloke by all accounts...

 

[Howard K]

OK, after a few hours deliberation and some
working stuff out on paper...

The harmonic tetrachord written previously, (S-m3-S) is not diatonic, so it comes from harmonic or melodic minor.

So taking the second mode of harmonic minor, for example, the second half of the scale will be made of m3-S-T - which sums to more than a perfect fourth. So this is where it gets confusing I guess...

The tetrachord thing is a nice idea.. but you also need to memorise the patten of tone or semi-tone between each tetrachord to get to the mode.

So, after a brief encounter I think it might be easier to think in terms of whole modes and just remember their tonality by the Major/Minor 3rd and 7ths in each.

...but I do feel I've really learned something here today folks

 

[OldDawg]

I guess you say I'm anti-modes, I think people spend way to much time learning dozens of fingering patterns for modes. Their playing sounds mechanical, stiff. I first about learned about modes for analyzing solos and compositions. They make sense for analyzing, just not for creation. I thought about what are people doing with modes. they are learning colors a mode offers, so they can use it against different chords. To me I thought I already know multiple fingers for the basic major and minor scales. I just need to focus on the scale degrees and altering for the colors when I want. Then I started working on the arpeggios that related to the scale fingerings. That way I was thinking basic chord tones, and scales for color tones. That really open up my soloing.

So if modes work for you great, just modes didn't work for me and what I describe above did. Bottom line you want to get to the point of being able to play what we hear inside. To me that is thinking in colors and intervals.

 

[pepito]

I guess I didn't realy state my question clearly enough. I know how modes are derrived from their parent scales. I know how chords are built.
What I'm asking about is different (are they really different?) approaches to building bass lines.
Say I'm playing through a chord progression in Cmajor. I come to a F chord symbol. The chord/scale approach says I should use the F major scale. I'm trying to figure out how a modal approach might differ, practically and conceptually.

 

[Pacman]

You've got to come to grips with functional harmony. What is the F chord functioning as? A I chord? A IV chord? What comes before it? After?

Then ask yourself what the other instruments are playing. You bassline must support what they are doing. There's no simple answer here.

 

[pepito]

That's what the chord/scale approach tells me to do. How is a modal approach different?

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by pepito
Say I'm playing through a chord progression in Cmajor. I come to a F chord symbol. The chord/scale approach says I should use the F major scale. I'm trying to figure out how a modal approach might differ, practically and conceptually.

I think you may have misunderstood what you call the chord/scale concept. I know of no system that says you *should* play an F major scale over an F chord when you're in the key of C--though you can, if that's the needed musical effect. Not to give you a hard time, but where are you getting this from?

 

[j-raj]

Hey Pacman,

Jamey Aebersold is where IT'S at... Can say how much his books have helped me over the years.

www.jazzbooks.com

pepito, Howard K et al.,

There are PDF's of the scales and modes and such on Jamey's website, digest them.

Howard K,

"...pattern of somesort for remembering..." keep on doing them, they tend to sink in.

 

[Pacman]

Originally posted by j-raj
Hey Pacman,

Jamey Aebersold is where IT'S at... Can say how much his books have helped me over the years.

Jamey's a great guy, and an amazing educator. But you've not answered any questions here. My contention is that there is no "modal approach". Either you're playing the changes as they are functioning, or you're not. It doesn't matter if you're playing a standard or a modal tune.

 

[PhilMan99]

I stumbled over this same question recently at bassplayer.com's forum. Here's the URL to go directly there:

Link Removed

If I read the post correctly, a bass instructor there distinguised between a) a "chord" style and b) a "scale/mode" style.

The "chord" style is much like what a guitarist does - lots of fancy fingerin', but not much theory knowledge. I think ol' time jazz players favor this approach.

The "scale/mode" style gets deeper into the theory, but is not as readily applied (at least not as simply).

I defer to the URL above for details - I can't do justice to the great "thread" there.

 

[ConU]

Originally posted by Pacman


Either you're playing the changes as they are functioning, or you're not. It doesn't matter if you're playing a standard or a modal tune.

Plain and simple truth.that gets a

(the above stuff is rubbish IMO)

 

[j-raj]

Originally posted by Pacman

But you've not answered any questions here. My contention is that there is no "modal approach". Either you're playing the changes as they are functioning, or you're not. It doesn't matter if you're playing a standard or a modal tune.

Good Call Pac-man,

I posted that while I was at the day gig (desk, chair, CPU), musta lost track of the thread and wasn't keeping up with my reading.

Originally posted by Pacman
You've got to come to grips with functional harmony...

.....Then ask yourself what the other instruments are playing. Your bassline must support what they are doing. There's no simple answer here.

I Agree,... Support is important in bass playing and the fact that "There's no simple answer here. "


Regardless of approach that is used, you do have the role of support in the group in both it's rhythmic and harmonic dept's. As far as solo playing, harmonic support in your melody and covering multiple roles with in a tune, keeping the chord structure in ears of those around you and keeping it going (driving)... is very important... Not sure of the science that is directly behind that, nor would I be able to put it into technical words well.

This is what I do...

....I tend to first navigate a tune, by playing the chords of the tune the best I can. Know structure of what is going on. Then, associate (by hearing, intuition, experience and heart) a pattern with a groove that will hold the left hand of the guitarist together with the right foot of the drummer (just for this example)... Soloing, that I'm not the greatest at, so I let my ears and heart unlearn the scale/modes/excercises/routines/sheds to follow the map of chord-association I drew for my self earlier.












...Then I add little slang ('n 'tude)... to let the fellow band members know who's driving da bus. J/K

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by PhilMan99
The "chord" style is much like what a guitarist does - lots of fancy fingerin', but not much theory knowledge. I think ol' time jazz players favor this approach.

The "scale/mode" style gets deeper into the theory, but is not as readily applied (at least not as simply).

No offense, but I think this distinction makes no real sense. It sets up an opposition where there need be none. All of this stuff is just part of understanding how to function in a harmonic structure, as Pacman suggested. And why on earth would you think a jazz guitarist necessarily has less theory knowledge than a jazz bassist? My experience tells me this isn't so.