the myth of modes

[Clef_de_fa]

Thank you for your response.
In order to further explore that modal/tonal subject, I'd like to ask you a question.
If I add some tune to that chord progression and use for that purpose the Lydian Mode, would my chord progression become Modal?

I don't think so as the chord progression has to scream Lydian mode. Like in our case our tonal center is clearly Cmaj and if you throw a F# in the melody over those same chords, it is more akind of an accidential to make it sound good or if it always happen over a specific chord we could analyse it differently.

I guess that this chord progression works like we are all used to provided by a rythm guitar player which doesn't offer much possibility to make it very interesting IMO.

Like take this chord progression in a 4 part harmony, you'll have all kind of interesting harmonic movement inside those chord, that will lead to one or another through early and late note, grace note and other things like that. And so we could find acciential that would suggest another tonality or mode.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

Like in our case our tonal center is clearly Cmaj and if you throw a F# in the melody over those same chords, it is more a kind of an accidental to make it sound good or if it always happen over a specific chord we could analyse it differently.

True.

So much of this discussion is about chord scale theory, except that people think using it is somehow playing modally.

"The one beef I have with the "chord scale movement" is that it sort of suggests all seven notes are equally cool, when in fact that's really not the case. There really are usually four notes you want to land on that are the really, really, good ones. Then there are the others you want to get through and some you barely want to touch them. That degree of weight thing is usually not discussed because it is usually presented in the form of modal thinking rather than voice leading. My advice to people is yes, learn the chord scales but also make sure you can solo using just the chord tones. A big chunk of early jazz history was largely improvising using chord tones and improvising around the melody. Those are two valuable entry points."

-Pat Metheny

I believe he is both accomplished and published.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

More from Pat Metheny. From his Q&A.

"
you really do have to learn ALL the basics first. i always encourage people to be able to improvise just using the chord tones themselves too. with just the 3, 4 or 5 notes of basic harmony suggested by the actual chord, a good improvisor can find lots of things to play. sometimes the scale thing messes people up too cause they THINK of it as a scale- it's really just a set of available tones. better to practice them out of order.

for "outside" conceptions of note choices, i would recommend highly dave liebman's recent book that addresses in detail the idea of a chromatic approach to improvisation and gives lots of great examples of how to open up you ears and brain to ways of having all 12 notes available all the time, which i think is the goal that we all shoot for."

 

[Spin Doctor]

True.

So much of this discussion is about chord scale theory, except that people think using it is somehow playing modally.

"The one beef I have with the "chord scale movement" is that it sort of suggests all seven notes are equally cool, when in fact that's really not the case. There really are usually four notes you want to land on that are the really, really, good ones. Then there are the others you want to get through and some you barely want to touch them. That degree of weight thing is usually not discussed because it is usually presented in the form of modal thinking rather than voice leading. My advice to people is yes, learn the chord scales but also make sure you can solo using just the chord tones. A big chunk of early jazz history was largely improvising using chord tones and improvising around the melody. Those are two valuable entry points."

-Pat Metheny

I believe he is both accomplished and published.

You make perfect sense, as long as you quote someone else...

 

[Lanky Tunes]

You make perfect sense, as long as you quote someone else...

And the reason for turning this personal.....besides the lack of an actual argument on your part.....is what?

Will you be actually contributing something of substance to this discussion at this point or will it all be personal attacks?

 

[Spin Doctor]

And the reason for turning this personal.....besides the lack of an actual argument on your part.....is what?

Will you be actually contributing something of substance to this discussion at this point or will it all be personal attacks?

ok, here's my contribution...

There's nothing to argue. 90% of this thread is complete tripe. One of the very few useful things even mentioned in the entire thing was that quote by Pat Metheny. I thank you for that.

 

[Bob_Ross]

I've tried to embellish those boring chords within the C major scale.
Instead of plain Dm7 I've played Fmaj7/D (bass),
instead of G7/9, I've used Bmin7b5/G (Bmin7b5 second inversion)

You do realize that "Fmaj7/D" is an arranging/orchestration specification, not a harmonic identifier, right? At most it might describe how you want a performer or group to voice the chord (although it's really not even specific enough to achieve that unequivocally). Fmaj7/D is harmonically and functionally identical to Dm7, because it literally is a Dm7 (add9) ...more commonly written as Dm9.
Likewise, "Bmin7b5/G" is just a G9 (G dominant 7th chord with the added natural 9th).

Does Pat mean, 5 notes of "basic chord", like C major triad?

He means the 5 most important notes from that chord-scale. Re-read the Metheny quote where he talks about the "degree of weight" that the notes in a scale should receive. His contention is that the notes in a scale (when played over a chord) are not all equally valid; there is a heierarchy of pitch class in both tonal and modal music.
(Which, since you mentioned him earlier in this thread, is one reason why Schoenberg's 12-tone technique was so radically different from the tonality -- or even atonality -- that preceeded it: In addition to the whole Ordered Interval thing, Schoenberg's serialism gave every pitch class equivalent weight/importance. There was no hierarchy.)

 

[Spin Doctor]

...even his book Dave Liebman does not forget the modes:

View attachment 777698

Of course he doesn't...

 

[INTP]

There's nothing to argue. 90% of this thread is complete tripe.

Just an observation on my part, but it seems to me that almost every discussion involving Music Theory on this site (and most others) devolves in a way similar to this one.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

You do realize that "Fmaj7/D" is an arranging/orchestration specification, not a harmonic identifier, right?

Thank you very much for your comment.
You are a highly educated and very experienced Musician with a very solid theoretical/practical foundation in Music, which gives you a unique opportunity to notice quite a few "weak" spots in Theory. Good for you.
I only see a problem when less educated TB members after reading some "quick chord substitution" tutorial, pick up some of your "arguing" points (way too serious for some of us to understand) from your very interesting comments, and start using them indiscriminately.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

Pat Metheny encourages people to improvise "just (by) using the chord tones".
I love Pat Metheny's music; therefore, please point to Pat's CD or album where he improvises "using the chord tones themselves".

Do I really have to explain the context of his statement?

 

[Lanky Tunes]

Dave Liebman does not forget the modes.]

A claim yet to be made by anyone.

Who are you arguing with again?

I can't seem to find anyone making any of the claims you seem to think you are proving wrong.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

You have a lot of good points about chord scale theory and MODALITY, but IMHO, for some unknown reasons, your explanations do not deliver that solid understanding about the differences between Modal and Tonal music.
I agree that is quite possible that it's me that cannot comprehend your teachings.
(In this case, you are not a very good teacher.)

Yes.

It must be my explanation and not your ability to comprehend.

Same applies to Pat Metheny as well, I guess.

Sure.

 

[Mushroo]

Unless I am completely missing the point of the title The Lydian Chromatic Concept of Tonal Organization (I confess I've never actually read the book) it seems to me, the very language of the title suggests that music can be simultaneously BOTH "tonal" and based on a "mode."

 

[Whousedtoplay]

...music can be simultaneously BOTH "tonal" and based on a "mode."

That is the MOST IMPORTANT POINT in this thread, and you've said it.
Thank you.

P.S. Now, I can start deleting all my "nonsensical" comments from this thread.

 

[Mushroo]

That is MOST IMPORTANT POINT in this thread, and you've said it.
Thank you.

You're welcome (?) but all I did was quote the title of a 1953 book I never read.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

Hey, DON'T HIDE BEHIND PAT METHENY. I have NEVER EVER MET A TRUE MUSICIAN WHO WAS TRYING TO OFFEND OTHER MUSICIAN.

Then by your own definition you are not a true musician, right?

How about you address actual points instead of making this personal?

Here's a little secret to the internet. You cannot read tone.

I have not insulted or tried to insult you or anyone else at all. You are reading tone into things that is not there.

I raised two genuine questions in those :

1- Maybe you are inhibited by how you think about modes.
2- Maybe the problem is your ability to comprehend and not my ability to explain.

DON'T HIDE BEHIND PAT METHENY.

I am not hiding behind anyone.

You were the one who agreed 100% that the people here are a bunch of nobodies. I was simply making the point that someone who, I imagine most of us would not consider a nobody, agrees with some of the points being made by myself and others here.

I was also pointing out the rather obvious point (since you couldn't follow him either) that plenty of people would say that Pat metheny is a great teacher. So maybe the difficulty in your understanding may falls on your ability to comprehend and not my ability to explain.

 

[static0verdrive]

I wrote a song in F and I used a D7 in it.

This is exactly what I meant on page 2 or 3 of this thread that songs aren't always diatonic (meaning notes for all chords come from the over-arching key of the song). I wish I'd realized that earlier when learning my diatonic chord theory, because when I started learning Nashville numbers I got very confused. Granted I'm not caught up on this whole thread yet, most of what I've seen in this thread so far is with respect to diatonic chords. If I write a song "in C" comprised of just C, G, Fm I'm pretty sure Fm is the iii chord... (for Nashville numbers, obviously not for diatonic!) !

 

[DeaconBlues09]

No knowledgeable musician would look at an Amin-D7 progression and assume "the scale is Aeolian." And the reason why has nothing to do with modes.

And the reason is that the proper scale in that instance would be A Dorian....

 

[Mushroo]

And the reason is that the proper scale in that instance would be A Dorian....

What is this "proper scale" nonsense? Music theory doesn't work like that! The only point I made (and I still stand by it) is that "A Aeolian" would not be most people's first choice over ii-V in G. That doesn't mean it is "improper" to play F natural (or any of the other 11 notes) if it sounds beautiful and fits the melody.

Anyway, setting that topic aside for the moment, and assuming for the sake of argument we stick to diatonic harmony (no accidentals outside the key signature), you might say "A Dorian is proper, and you need to be an expert in the modes" and I might say "G Major is proper, and you don't need to know modes at all." Who's to say the other is wrong?