Modes in Minor Keys.

[Richard Lindsey]

Originally posted by thrash_jazz


Awww c'mon - I've been using that joke for more than six years and now you just took away my chance to use it here!

You snooze, you lose.

 

[thrash_jazz]

Originally posted by Richard Lindsey


You snooze, you lose.

[hangs head in shame]

Ya got me. Ya got me good.

 

[TJC]

Chris, you also illustrate perfectly why learning modes as ways to play through chord progressions is risky, and why you should learn to use corresponding scales over chord types or functions.

...I'm quickly starting to understand the first point but I'm not sure I get the second. I've been thinking more and more of modes as patterns unique in themselves - I thought that "modes are scales, scales are modes" was the way to go, yet here Pacman appears to be making an important distinction.

This is why I usually don't worry about the whole "modes of minor" issue too much. I take from it whatever "scales" are useful and then discard the rest.

...proposing that we simply be open to the myriad possibilities that these "modes of minor" suggest in broadening our vocabulary as opposed to searching for laws etched in stone?

If you still want me to go into more detail on this subject, I'll be happy to....

...more, more, more!

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by HOWARD KOSELL
So you'd do best to learn modes independantly, like you would scales, and learn applications?

Yes, I think so. More on this below.

..rather than to learn that "plopian" is the Nth mode of the Martyr scale etc...

Well actually, the "Martyr Scale" isn't really a scale, it's more of a way of being.....

Okay, having said all of that, I have to repeat at least a little portion of my normal rant on chord scales: Once you understand what each chord scale is in a progression and how to build it, don't forget to start viewing them in context so that you can identify large tonal areas that draw from the same overall basic collection of notes. Even after we've said all of this about minor keys and the different "modes" invoved, it is still not only possible but wise to think of a minor ii-V-i as being a single tonality rather than three different and seemingly unrelated scales or modes. Because if you listen to great players, they have the ability to play across these tonalities as well as outlining them. Some people - like Jamey, for instance - feel that the ability to outline them is the greater art form, while others feel that the ability to play across the tonality is a more inherently musical approach. Without adding fuel to that fire, I think everyone would agree that the ability to do both at will should be the goal of anyone aspiring to be a great player, since that ability implies a greater and richer harmonic vocabulary.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by TheJackalCometh


...I'm quickly starting to understand the first point but I'm not sure I get the second. I've been thinking more and more of modes as patterns unique in themselves - I thought that "modes are scales, scales are modes" was the way to go, yet here Pacman appears to be making an important distinction.


The point I was trying to make in the above post refers to taking what BLINKY said about viewing modes as entities in and of themselves and then feeding them back into the progression so that you can again view them in context, but this time with a greater understanding of the details. Does that make sense?


...proposing that we simply be open to the myriad possibilities that these "modes of minor" suggest in broadening our vocabulary as opposed to searching for laws etched in stone?

Bingo. The only "laws etched in stone" are those etched by pedants, well-meaning or otherwise. I think the best course of action is to read these "laws", then use them if they help you get where you're trying to go and then break them when they start to hold you back. As Ed is so fond of saying, THERE ARE NO MUSIC POLICE....so if you get a ticket for breaking any of these laws, tear it up, throw it away, and get about the business of making music.



...more, more, more!

Sure. Specifically, more about what? You've got a pretty good collection of theory types in this thread, so ask away, and I'm sure that someone will be able to help.

 

[TJC]

The point I was trying to make in the above post refers to taking what BLINKY said about viewing modes as entities in and of themselves and then feeding them back into the progression so that you can again view them in context, but this time with a greater understanding of the details. Does that make sense?

Not entirely.

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by TJC



Not entirely.

Okay. Pac said that it's better to learn the structure of each scale or mode on its own rather than relating them to their "parent" scale. I agreed, but added that once you have done this and are using the "chord scales" in the context of an actual piece of music, it's a good idea to examine the surrounding "chord scales" to see if two or more of them actually come from the same basic tonality and are thus "related". If they are, this can simplify your thinking process greatly (see the "Blanket Scales" link in the "Newbie Links" thread.

 

[Pacman]

Chris, my only problem with the "blanket scales" type of thought is that it can mislead someone to think that they can play, for instance, anything in a C major scale over a ii-V7-I in C. While technically this is true, they may end up wondering why they don't sound as "in" as someone who understands playing the chord tones, specific avoid notes, etc....

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by BLINKY TABEVIL
Chris, my only problem with the "blanket scales" type of thought is that it can mislead someone to think that they can play, for instance, anything in a C major scale over a ii-V7-I in C. While technically this is true, they may end up wondering why they don't sound as "in" as someone who understands playing the chord tones, specific avoid notes, etc....

Agreed. I just think that once you DO understand playing chord tones, avoid notes, etc, that understanding the bigger picture again (this time while being able to see the details as options) is extremely valuable.

 

[Pacman]

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald



Agreed. I just think that once you DO understand playing chord tones, avoid notes, etc, that understanding the bigger picture again (this time while being able to see the details as options) is extremely valuable.

awww, man! You mean I gotta learn this stuff?!?

I also agree that parent tonalities can really help 'smooth out' a line - I just don't want anyone to think that they can just wander around a major scale for a iii-vi-ii-V, ya dig?

 

[TJC]

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


Agreed. I just think that once you DO understand playing chord tones, avoid notes, etc, that understanding the bigger picture again (this time while being able to see the details as options) is extremely valuable.

Let there be light - I think I'm starting to understand the relationships spelled out here. Chris and Pacman - Thanks.

 

[TJC]

Originally posted by Chris Fitzgerald


For instance, in C minor, a ii-V7-i usually goes something like:

D-7b5....G7alt....Cmi (7,6, miMa7, take your pick)
..ii..........V7.........i............

And yet we are often taught to play Locrian (or Locrian #2) over the ii chord, Diminished Whole Tone over the alt chord, and melodic minor over the i chord (assuming the piano player doesn't play a b7 in his voicing).

...why a #2 over the ii chord? Wouldn't the 2nd mode of C minor (harmonic or melodic) have a b2?

Is the V7alt normally 'problematic' because of the b2 and/or b6?

 

[Chris Fitzgerald]

Originally posted by TJC


...why a #2 over the ii chord? Wouldn't the 2nd mode of C minor (harmonic or melodic) have a b2?

Yes. They both do. So, why a #2? Ya got me...I'm guessing Miles and/or Trane played it on some record and somebody thought it sounded hip, so they decided to write a book about how hip it sounded and how everybody should play the #2 because straight ahead Locrian is passe...

Seriously, the only reason to play that note is if you HEAR that note. I think the whole notion of trying to teach beginners about "HIP" notes is pretty dopey...a note doesn't begin to sound "hip" until your ears are ready to hear it. And the "hip" notes will only work if the foundation is laid solidly with good "inside" melodic concepts. Learn to hear the simple first, then the complex will come.



Is the V7alt normally 'problematic' because of the b2 and/or b6?

Absolutely not, that's the beauty of it. The first four notes of a G7alt scale would be G, Ab, Bb, B, which also just happen to be degrees 5, b6, b7, and 7 of the parent minor tonality. Most of the time, my "starting point" with a jazz minor ii-V-i is a parent tonality which includes 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7, and 7 for the iimi7b5 and V7alt chords, and then for the tonic minor chord I usualy hear the natural 6 as a better choice than the b6. So the whole tonality can be seen as one "scale" (for lack of a better word) which remains the same except for a "toggling" action of the sixth degree. Try it and see what it sounds like to you.

(For all naysayers and proponents of the diminished-whole-tone scale, you can derive this from the above parent scale by simply changing the "C" to a "C#" during the duration of the V7alt chord)