how do modes work, really?

[teleharmonium]

I think much of this is moot to many situations. I understand modes up and down, yet I don't dwell on them much when playing. I can sit and talk about it all and theorize, but that's more than I want to do when playing. The knowledge of it all just sits in the background for me.

I don't think that makes it moot; all musical knowledge eventually becomes something you don't have to consciously think about when playing, if you keep at it. But if you want some aspect of music theory to become part of your toolbox, you've got to deal with it consciously at some point and put in the time to absorb it.

I'm not necessarily saying that everybody should focus on modes; the point is that you cannot judge how much you use knowledge going by what you are thinking about while you use it.

There is science that shows that after building up neural pathways by learning skills over time, people can perform complex operations while showing surprisingly low activity on an MRI, because of the efficiencies built into the pathways.

 

[teleharmonium]

I do NOT hear that, for instance, E Phrygian is NOT in the 'Key of C Major'. Yes, the Key Signatures LOOK the same, but they do not sound the same. E Phrygian firmly has E as the home tone. .

This exchange between yourself and oniman7 is a classic example of the problems in musical terminology surrounding the concept of key.

Scales alone don't have to be determinative of key. We need to know the musical context.

It is certainly true that modes of a single major scale can be seen as 'in the key' of that major scale - in so far as we have no other musical context to relate to and we're just talking about diatonically related scales in the abstract.

In modern music of any kind, we can no longer make global assumptions about music sticking to diatonic harmony. We lost that at least a hundred years ago.

While we can still make diatonic music, the tonal center, aka the "one", which is usually the beginning and ending chord and the destination for the last resolution is what is better understood as the key of a piece.

If an E phrygian mode (or, more likely, a closely related chord like m7b9, or anything else with an E root really) is established clearly as the home tonality, then no, it's not going to sound like a piece "in the key of C", even if it never leaves chords that are diatonically related to C. However, if the first chord is established as C major, and E phrygian is played over it melodically by one instrument, the melodic use of the mode isn't going to redefine the whole piece.

 

[SeaBassTheFish]

I don't think that makes it moot; all musical knowledge eventually becomes something you don't have to consciously think about when playing, if you keep at it. But if you want some aspect of music theory to become part of your toolbox, you've got to deal with it consciously at some point and put in the time to absorb it.

I'm not necessarily saying that everybody should focus on modes; the point is that you cannot judge how much you use knowledge going by what you are thinking about while you use it.

There is science that shows that after building up neural pathways by learning skills over time, people can perform complex operations while showing surprisingly low activity on an MRI, because of the efficiencies built into the pathways.

Wow, great post, teleharmonium.
Or as Charlie Parker said, "Learn the changes, then forget them."

 

[Richard Lindsey]

However, if the first chord is established as C major, and E phrygian is played over it melodically by one instrument, the melodic use of the mode isn't going to redefine the whole piece.

I think one point some of us are making is that in the situation you're describing above, it's generally not in any way meaningful to think of what you're doing as "playing E phrygian." It's still just C.

As I'm sure you'd agree, a mode isn't defined by what note you start a melody with. That way madness lies. Some folks seem to have been told that if you start a melody with, say, an E over a C chord in the key of C major, that means that you're playing an E phrygian mode. I think that's completely wrongheaded, and that it makes a complete hash of harmonic understanding by bringing in a concept that only complicates matters without shedding a single photon of additional light. It's not an E phrygian mode, it's just a melody in C that doesn't start with the tonic (or the root of the tonic chord). As I know you know (but am saying for the benefit of other posters), this is very far from being an unusual event, and nobody with any basic training in functional harmony would have a problem understanding or explaining it without resorting to modes at all.

 

[teleharmonium]

I think one point some of us are making is that in the situation you're describing above, it's generally not in any way meaningful to think of what you're doing as "playing E phrygian." It's still just C.

I agree, but in the other situation I described, it could make perfect sense - and be more concise than the alternatives - to call it playing in E phrygian.

To keep it simple, let's say a piece starts out with a solo instrument, with the first note being E, with melodic improv using phrygian. So the home tonality in this example is unmistakably E phrygian. Not a bad way to start something out if you're going for something middle eastern or Indian sounding.

If we're going to assign a key to this, it would have to be E minor, not C major. In other words, the diatonically related key is only relevant to the extent that the tonic of that key is also the tonic of the piece; otherwise, it's reduced to an academic point.

 

[AndyMania]

Whoa, Whoa....Let me try to understand this.

If I take the C Major scale......

And I want to start On E and play to E an octave higher......

What would be the proper name for starting on a different scale tone? Since you guys say dont label each "mode" or "sub scale" by the Greek name.

Even though E Phyrigian would look like the exact same pattern and sound the same.

This is still confusing me.

 

[AndyMania]

I agree, but in the other situation I described, it could make perfect sense - and be more concise than the alternatives - to call it playing in E phrygian.

To keep it simple, let's say a piece starts out with a solo instrument, with the first note being E, with melodic improv using phrygian. So the home tonality in this example is unmistakably E phrygian. Not a bad way to start something out if you're going for something middle eastern or Indian sounding.

If we're going to assign a key to this, it would have to be E minor, not C major. In other words, the diatonically related key is only relevant to the extent that the tonic of that key is also the tonic of the piece; otherwise, it's reduced to an academic point.

So playing E Phyrigian would be labeled as E minor with the relative major scale being in G major???

 

[teleharmonium]

So playing E Phyrigian would be labeled as E minor with the relative major scale being in G major???

When you narrow it down to "playing E phrygian", I'm concerned that you aren't fully appreciating the role that context plays.

When we're talking about key, we are talking about a specific piece of music. Not just "playing" without any context.

It's possible to play a part over a song in one key, that if you looked at the part alone, would suggest a different key. Don't let that throw you off.

Again, if the home tonality is E phrygian, and you need to describe it quickly in terms of key (which is an imperfect concept), E minor is what you would use.

But - it's not E minor in the sense of natural minor/aeolian, so it does not have the same kind of relative major/minor scale relationship you are used to from more typical, textbook examples of E minor.

It's just a piece of music that starts out with E phrygian sounds. So the root has to be some form of E, and we usually like conversations about "key" for a song to be short ones, so we say E minor in this case and you're expected to use the score or your ears to notice the b9.

Not sure why a relative major scale would be an important question anyway, if you aren't sold on the purpose of modes; relative major/minor is just as much of a derivative tangent as modes are.

 

[teleharmonium]

Whoa, Whoa....Let me try to understand this.

If I take the C Major scale......

And I want to start On E and play to E an octave higher......

What would be the proper name for starting on a different scale tone? Since you guys say dont label each "mode" or "sub scale" by the Greek name.

Even though E Phyrigian would look like the exact same pattern and sound the same.

This is still confusing me.

I use the greek names myself, as well as the minor scale names where they overlap and I'll also say dominant scale instead of mixolydian if I'm trying to explain something to a player that doesn't know the greek names.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

Whoa, Whoa....Let me try to understand this.

If I take the C Major scale......

And I want to start On E and play to E an octave higher......

What would be the proper name for starting on a different scale tone? Since you guys say dont label each "mode" or "sub scale" by the Greek name.

Even though E Phyrigian would look like the exact same pattern and sound the same.

This is still confusing me.

There's a lot of confusion around, and I think part of it is that we use "mode" at least 3 different ways.

1. Mode = scale. In this view, a mode is just a sequence of notes at specified intervals from a specified starting point. In this view, E F G A B C D E, absent all context, could be called the E phrygian mode.

2. Mode = key (modality). From this perspective, a mode isn't just a set of notes, as in #1. It's a set of notes *coupled with an established tonal center*. You need both to establish a modality or key. Just like key, the term mode in this sense is applied to the overall harmonic flavor of a piece or musical segment. IOW, it's not enough to just have E F G A B C D E, they have to be used in such a way that E is the tonal center. This is NOT the same as starting with the note E, which proves nothing in itself. It means that the center of gravity of *the piece or musical segment as whole*, not just one chord in it or one note in a melody, is clearly E.

3. Mode = a type of chord-scale. A chord-scale is basically a scale (of any type--pentatonic, major, minor, whole tone, octatonic, modal) "spun out" from the root of a given chord as if that root is temporarily considered a I/i, regardless of that chord's actual function of the chord in the musical context. Suppose you have an Fmaj7 in the key of C major. F is scale degree 4 in C. With the chord-scale approach, you take F as the I for the time being (even though it's a IV functionally) and you generate a scale *based on F*. This is the way many of you guys have been told to use modes, and it's precisely this approach that many of us are saying is basically pointless *in a diatonic context*, because it gives you nothing you didn't already have from knowing (a) the notes in the chord and (b) the key you're in at the moment. NOTE: chord-scales can be *extremely* valuable in other settings, just not so much for getting on top of fundamental functional harmony.

So you can play E F G A B C D E and call it practicing an E phrygian mode (= scale) if you want. You can also call it playing the C scale starting with the lowest available note on a 4 string bass. See Pacman's sticky scales thread for an illustration of this approach. But remember that if you're just practicing a scale in isolation, you're not doing anything with it harmonically. It has no real context. SO it doesn't necessarily mean you're playing "in" that mode.

If you're just starting a phrase with an E, that doesn't mean you're actually "in" E phrygian (in the sense of mode = key) or in E anything, for that matter. You have to look at what's happening in the music. Is E home base, or is C (or something else)? If C is, then you're not going to be playing in E phrygian in any meaningful sense. It won't sound like that, and it won't be that.

 

[Richard Lindsey]

I agree, but in the other situation I described, it could make perfect sense - and be more concise than the alternatives - to call it playing in E phrygian.

It would in fact be preferable!

 

[Russell L]

Whoa, Whoa....Let me try to understand this.

If I take the C Major scale......

And I want to start On E and play to E an octave higher......

What would be the proper name for starting on a different scale tone? Since you guys say dont label each "mode" or "sub scale" by the Greek name.

Even though E Phyrigian would look like the exact same pattern and sound the same.

This is still confusing me.

You'd just be playing 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 in the key of C, IMO.

 

[AndyMania]

Okay I'm starting to have a better picture now. Looks like I have to work on developing a context or better yet, learning what is meant by a musical context in music. I'll try playing along to the three songs in E that Stick Player posted. Maybe I'll then, have a true light bulb moment

 

[JTE]

Whoa, Whoa....Let me try to understand this.

If I take the C Major scale......

And I want to start On E and play to E an octave higher......

What would be the proper name for starting on a different scale tone? Since you guys say dont label each "mode" or "sub scale" by the Greek name.

Even though E Phyrigian would look like the exact same pattern and sound the same.

This is still confusing me.

It depends entirely on the context. Just playing any scale root to root doesn't tell us anything about music, that's like reciting the alphabet. So, while E F G A B C D E are the notes of E Phyrgian, that doesn't mean you're now playing in E Phrygian.

Does the melody come home to rest on the E? Does the harmony pull the ear to the Emin7 that's inherent in those notes or does it go somewhere else?

John

 

[Russell L]

I don't think that makes it moot; all musical knowledge eventually becomes something you don't have to consciously think about when playing, if you keep at it. But if you want some aspect of music theory to become part of your toolbox, you've got to deal with it consciously at some point and put in the time to absorb it.

I'm not necessarily saying that everybody should focus on modes; the point is that you cannot judge how much you use knowledge going by what you are thinking about while you use it.

There is science that shows that after building up neural pathways by learning skills over time, people can perform complex operations while showing surprisingly low activity on an MRI, because of the efficiencies built into the pathways.

Well, you're right, actually, that doesn't make it moot. Bad choice of words on my part. I mean, I don't exactly think of everything else I know about theory as I play either. Ya know, now that I think of it, some of those things have become so second nature to me that they almost have some kind of character to them, if that makes any sense. It's kinda like how a tree is scenery along the way, and you automatically know what it means, never mind the scientific description of it. Or, there's the forest, and you take it in without analyzing what it really is. Dunno if those are good analogies or not, or whether they make sense to anyone but me. But I guess it goes along with Charlie Parker's idea of learning the changes and then forgetting them.

 

[teleharmonium]

Ya know, now that I think of it, some of those things have become so second nature to me that they almost have some kind of character to them, if that makes any sense.

I know exactly what you mean. This has a lot to do with the way the learning process really works, vs. how it feels.

Lots of creative people describe peak experiences where it felt like they were just a vessel, and the thing they created just kind of appeared without them trying. It feels external to you because of these painstakingly created neural pathways which give you huge capacity with little or no conscious thought; and maybe also because we have this cultural construct that anything that's really work or is valuable should be hard or should involve suffering, obvious effort, and self consciousness.

Of course, trying is the enemy of doing. I'm in the middle of "The Inner Game of Tennis' which is largely about that, and the importance of defeating the self critical, grasping, trying part of your mind in favor of letting the part that learns naturally and easily do what it does best. My best musical experiences have felt like I was making a leap of faith that I could do something that I didn't feel like I was fully intellectually grasping at the moment.

When I read some articles about the way we use our brains and the way these neural pathways become more efficient with steady practice, personally I found it very comforting that the effort I put in to practice really is making a quantifiable, incremental change in my brain that I will benefit from later. It doesn't always feel that way as you are working on it, but later you realize something has become easy, or second nature.

Just thinking about playing your instrument is as good as actually practicing it, in terms of building up these neural pathways. Brain scans show that musicians even use their auditory nerve when they imagine playing - we're hearing sounds that don't exist in a way that is just as good as hearing it for real, as far as developing the mind is concerned.

 

[pringlw]

I know modes and their uses rather well and I have to say that I find most posts in this thread to be bewilderingly confusing - those that are not outright wrong of course.

I say this not to be critical but rather to be helpful for those who have little knowledge of modes and are eager to learn. Unfortunately with the exception of a few really good posts, the vast majority of the posts here will only confuse you.

Find a good teacher who can simplify this. Modes are really not that difficult and you can learn them quickly with a good teacher.

 

[Matthijs]

I was mainly brought up by musicians firmly subscribing to the "learn your harmony first and then you probably won't need to learn mode names" school of thought. This served me well. I always thought of it as one of those many neurosis guitar players suffer from.

Until this one time I played with some Malinese musicians, wich was already a complicated excercise in bridging musical traditions. However, the harmonic stuff isn't that complicated, until the piano player started a tune, telling me it's in E phrygian. I'm looking confused and trying to make out by ear what he's doing, as the sax player whispers in my ear: "It's in E only using the white keys".

My morale is: regardless of any debate over the use of modes, at times they are usefull in communicating with musicians. That in itself is already a powerfull reason to learn how to use them.

 

[Russell L]

I know exactly what you mean. This has a lot to do with the way the learning process really works, vs. how it feels.

Lots of creative people describe peak experiences where it felt like they were just a vessel, and the thing they created just kind of appeared without them trying. It feels external to you because of these painstakingly created neural pathways which give you huge capacity with little or no conscious thought; and maybe also because we have this cultural construct that anything that's really work or is valuable should be hard or should involve suffering, obvious effort, and self consciousness.

Of course, trying is the enemy of doing. I'm in the middle of "The Inner Game of Tennis' which is largely about that, and the importance of defeating the self critical, grasping, trying part of your mind in favor of letting the part that learns naturally and easily do what it does best. My best musical experiences have felt like I was making a leap of faith that I could do something that I didn't feel like I was fully intellectually grasping at the moment.

When I read some articles about the way we use our brains and the way these neural pathways become more efficient with steady practice, personally I found it very comforting that the effort I put in to practice really is making a quantifiable, incremental change in my brain that I will benefit from later. It doesn't always feel that way as you are working on it, but later you realize something has become easy, or second nature.

Just thinking about playing your instrument is as good as actually practicing it, in terms of building up these neural pathways. Brain scans show that musicians even use their auditory nerve when they imagine playing - we're hearing sounds that don't exist in a way that is just as good as hearing it for real, as far as developing the mind is concerned.

Awesome thoughts there. Maybe that's why some employers want college grads no matter what their degree is in, but just so that they went to college means they can think.

Say, what does it mean when you can picture sounds in your mind? Different notes have color to me, and different instruments (or timbres) have a visible color and texture to me. For instance, C is white and pale green, D is tan, E is green and black, F is orange, G is brown/black, A is red, and B is black with a white edge. A violin's sound is reddish with a silver edge while a trumpet is black and yellow. When listening, I can "see" the music, so to speak.

I am weird.

 

[henry2513]

but just so that they went to college means they can think.

Ha, I've found that to be quite the opposite.