the myth of modes

[Michael B]

This is simply not true.

The vast majority of music can fit retroactively into modal thinking, but modal thinking was not even on the radar of the vast majority of players and writers of popular music.

This is simply a historical fact.

Ok scope vast majority to last 50 years and when I say popular I mean pop and rock of course.

 

[Lanky Tunes]

Ok scope vast majority to last 50 years and when I say popular I mean pop and rock of course.

And my point would still stand.

Classical, metal, prog, and some new age stuff is where you might find the majority of writers thinking modally....and newer jazz.

 

[John Goldsby]

Accomplished and published bassist? Really?
I almost blew coffee out of my nose reading that!
Accomplished bassist is right up there with "professional clown". It is impressive that [sic] either gets gigs, but there is also no accounting for taste.

Ha! That's great. I actually did learn to juggle when I was younger . . . I can always fall back on that if this bass playing thing doesn't work out

I've been traveling this week, but I wanted to check back in with you folks. Thanks for the continued, mostly polite discourse and good ideas.

@LankyTunes: I think you'd actually like my books, if you like the Mike Downes book that you mentioned previously. But as you say, there's no accounting for taste The Downes book is great, btw. The Jazz Bass Book does have some nice pictures, so even if you don't like what I wrote . . .

"Thinking In Jazz" by Paul Berliner (which you also mentioned) is a great book. Especially applicable to this thread is the chapter entitled "The More Ways You Have Of Thinking: Conventional Rhythmic and Theoretical Improvisation Approaches." The chapter title comes from a Barry Harris quote: "The more ways you have of thinking about music, the more things you have to play in your solos." Berliner quotes players on topics about improvising from the rhythm, improvising from chords, improvising from scales and intervals, chromaticism, and integrating different theoretical models. BTW, if anyone has the chance, Barry is still playing and teaching in NYC—you should check him out if you've never had the opportunity. I attended Barry's classes when I first moved to NYC in 1980—great experiences—$2 per class back then!

Disclaimer: All the books LankyTunes has mentioned deal with jazz improvisation. Not all of the ideas in those books are applicable to playing pop, rock, country, Broadway shows . . . or any particular part of bass technique. They are all jazz concept or theory books.

The Dave Liebman book you mention, "A Chromatic Approach To Jazz Harmony And Melody" is a fantastic study of his improvisational ideas, but I'm not sure it would make sense in the context of pop and rock tunes that are being discussed here. I think that Liebman's improvised performance on Aebersold's "Vol. 26, Scale Syllabus" might be valuable if you just want to hear a master improvisor dealing with modal sounds.

I've played with Liebman off and on for various projects and gigs through the years (I think the first time was in 1979, and most recently last summer). He's a player who can obviously make a hugely personal statement whether he's playing standard, modal or free tunes. The vehicle is not the defining sound of his music, rather his musical personality.

I though most people here were anonymous.

I'm not

To understand Liebman and his masterful approach to music, we need to know where he comes from. A huge part of his inspiration was the music and playing of John Coltrane, for example the composition "One Down, One Up" from the 1965 recording "Live at the Half Note." The tune is a modal composition based on two augmented triads, which some would call the Augmented Scale. Liebman heard Coltrane during that period, and the rest is history.

I'm doing a project with Richie Beirach in a couple of weeks, who is Liebman's long-time partner in modern harmonic innovation. One of Beirach's big influences was his teacher Ludmila Ulehla, who authored the great book "Contemporary Harmony: Romanticism through the Twelve-Tone Row." Beirach embraced that harmonic outlook, and combined it with the music of Bill Evans, Lennie Tristano and the whole '60s NYC jazz scene. Deep.

Boys will be boys and Modes will be Modes

Funny how someone here sounds like an old banned member

This thread does have Berlin-esque moments.

Jeff Berlin recently posted to a different forum Invalid Link Removed and apologized for what he said was his "combative nature."

It's too bad Jeff has never written a book, because it would be a great contribution to the canon of modern music pedagogy. I hope he will one of these days. A lot of the things in this thread—using intervals and chord tones with chromatic approach notes, not thinking in scales, not thinking in modes—were beloved topics for Jeff.

While advocating his own method of teaching, Jeff also promotes the teaching style of Charlie Banacos—who did write several book which are unfortunately no longer in print. The only way we have to study the Banacos method is through some of his students: JB, Gary Dial, Mike Stern, Bruce Gertz and Jerry Bergonzi.

I don't understand the position here by some that modes are "incorrectly taught," without saying which institution or teaching method is doing the teaching. Is it Aebersold, North Texas, Berklee, Barry Harris, Charlie Banacos, New England Conservatory, Manhattan School? Or is just a general feeling that there is too much emphasis on discussions of modes when we should be discussing/teaching intervals, chord tones and counterpoint? If that's the case, then why not start the thread with the title: "A Case For Analysing Music Using Intervals, Chord Tones and Counterpoint"?

I don't want to get too argumentative here. OP, while 100% sincere, was a way to voice a (my) view that is clearly deviating from the norm and hoping for some interesting arguments.

HandsFree: You don't want to be argumentative, but you're hoping for interesting arguments? That's cool—you got your wish

I've been working with Joshua Redman the past couple of weeks, and tonight is our last concert. Most of his compositions use functional diatonic harmony, blues-based harmony, or are mixed modal and diatonic harmony. I'll just say that when I need to play four bars of Absus to four bars of Absusb9, I know why the two sound differently—and how to hear the defining notes of each.

 

[John Goldsby]

BTW, our concert with Joshua Redman is being streamed live tonight (leaving now for the soundcheck) on
Invalid Link Removed

Click on "WDR3 hören" to listen at 2:05 Pm EST/US time, or 20:05 in Europe/Germany.

Here's a ballad, long-meter, modal-type tune that I'm soloing on . . . I think it'll be the 3rd tune in the set:

Here are the basic piano voicings for the Gmin to C+4/G sections:

Enjoy!

 

[Don Kasper]

BTW, our concert with Joshua Redman is being streamed live tonight (leaving now for the soundcheck) on
Invalid Link Removed

Click on "WDR3 hören" to listen at 2:05 Pm EST/US time, or 20:05 in Europe/Germany.

Here's a ballad, long-meter, modal-type tune that I'm soloing on . . . I think it'll be the 3rd tune in the set:

View attachment 779908

Here are the basic piano voicings for the Gmin to C+4/G sections:

View attachment 779909

Enjoy!

John,
Quick Question: What Modes will you be using in your solo?(!)
(jk).
Thanks.

 

[Fergie Fulton]

I don't understand the position here by some that modes are "incorrectly taught," without saying which institution or teaching method is doing the teaching. Is it Aebersold, North Texas, Berklee, Barry Harris, Charlie Banacos, New England Conservatory, Manhattan School? Or is just a general feeling that there is too much emphasis on discussions of modes when we should be discussing/teaching intervals, chord tones and counterpoint? If that's the case, then why not start the thread with the title: "A Case For Analysing Music Using Intervals, Chord Tones and Counterpoint"?
.

Hi John, cool reading in your post by the way, the issue with teaching is it is done by those who do not really understand the whole process, so not big teaching institutions as such, but back shop teachers using it to make their teaching methods......more interesting....i feel.

The other part is when to introduce them, a bit like when Jeff (Berlin) talks about chord tones, he is right in what he says, but when do we start introducing students to the ideas of chord tones, or arpeggios as i was taught.
The problem is when does the student/player have enough information to understand the ideas and concepts put to them?
Does the teaching raise more questions than answers that they are not yet able to understand.
Its sometimes like reading Shakespeares Julius Ceasar to a 7 year old and expecting them to get the implcations of all the sub text, to understand it more than just "a bloke who gets to big for his boots and is stabbed by his friends".

So i see a lot of foundation missing in players education, so trying to grasp why scales come before chords is a good approach, but move on and let the teaching flow so we never have to go back.

For example CM7 is because it uses the 7th note of a CMajor scale, so when we start to talk b9 or 11 we know the context of how those two will be used, we do not need to back pedal to explain why they are so.

So the big question "how much foundation do you need, if any, to get the best out of studing and working with modes?"

 

[Don Kasper]

Here's a ballad, long-meter, modal-type tune that I'm soloing on . . . I think it'll be the 3rd tune in the set:

View attachment 779908

Here are the basic piano voicings for the Gmin to C+4/G sections:

View attachment 779909

Enjoy![/QUOTE]

EDIT: NEVERMIND. User Error. Problem Solved.
Thanks.

John,
Does the second chord, (on the "and of 2", the "C+4/G"), need an accidental on the Bb to raise it to a B natural? It looks like the natural is placed in front of the "D", there, not the "B".
Or have I misunderstood/misread the notation?
Thanks.

 

[Febs]

John,
Does the second chord, (on the "and of 2", the "C+4/G"), need an accidental on the Bb to raise it to a B natural? It looks like the natural is placed in front of the "D", there, not the "B".
Or have I misunderstood/misread the notation?
Thanks.

I'm reading that natural sign as being in front of the E. The D is natural in the key signature, so no accidental necessary.

 

[Don Kasper]

I'm reading that natural sign as being in front of the E. The D is natural in the key signature, so no accidental necessary.

OK. I see. That natural sign is in front of the E. My bad.
The Chord is then a C7+4 - NO B natural. (It's a Dominant 7th chord, apparently. I would write that in a way to convey the "Dominant..." character of the chord. But, that's me.)
Thank, Febs.

 

[John Goldsby]

Gentlemen, I'll be using the chromatic scale and making a jazz face

 

[Lanky Tunes]

@LankyTunes: I think you'd actually like my books, if you like the Mike Downes book that you mentioned previously. But as you say, there's no accounting for taste The Downes book is great, btw. The Jazz Bass Book does have some nice pictures, so even if you don't like what I wrote . . .

I'll take a peek at you book. I am always interested in seeing how others teach things.

Disclaimer: All the books LankyTunes has mentioned deal with jazz improvisation. Not all of the ideas in those books are applicable to playing pop, rock, country, Broadway shows . . . or any particular part of bass technique. They are all jazz concept or theory books.

I am too lazy to search the context, but I believe the books I recommended were for someone's specific interest in jazz.

"Thinking In Jazz" by Paul Berliner (which you also mentioned) is a great book. Especially applicable to this thread is the chapter entitled "The More Ways You Have Of Thinking: Conventional Rhythmic and Theoretical Improvisation Approaches." The chapter title comes from a Barry Harris quote: "The more ways you have of thinking about music, the more things you have to play in your solos." Berliner quotes players on topics about improvising from the rhythm, improvising from chords, improvising from scales and intervals, chromaticism, and integrating different theoretical models. BTW, if anyone has the chance, Barry is still playing and teaching in NYC—you should check him out if you've never had the opportunity. I attended Barry's classes when I first moved to NYC in 1980—great experiences—$2 per class back then!

I like Barry Harris and very much admire how he essentially created his own framework for "thinking" musically.

My biggest point in sharing that title was it's value in seeing both all of the other musical experience came before most of those guys even tried jazz (they were generally very proficient before even trying it) and also the progression of of the thinking of players through the different eras.

While there are certainly a lot of things that may not pass the sniff test in contexts outside of jazz, I also think it is important to realize that Carol Kaye and James Jamerson, who played on more pop hits than maybe any bassists ever, both came from a BeBop background and it was the largely the chromaticism, things like enclosures, and an overall emphasis on chord tones that they obviously carried over into their performances.

The Dave Liebman book you mention, "A Chromatic Approach To Jazz Harmony And Melody"

This was someone else. I have only skimmed the book, myself.

A huge part of his inspiration was the music and playing of John Coltrane, for example the composition "One Down, One Up" from the 1965 recording "Live at the Half Note." The tune is a modal composition based on two augmented triads, which some would call the Augmented Scale. Liebman heard Coltrane during that period, and the rest is history.

Coltrane most certainly should get the bulk of the credit for people thinking modally in jazz.

Jeff Berlin recently posted to a different forum Invalid Link Removed and apologized for what he said was his "combative nature."

It's too bad Jeff has never written a book, because it would be a great contribution to the canon of modern music pedagogy. I hope he will one of these days. A lot of the things in this thread—using intervals and chord tones with chromatic approach notes, not thinking in scales, not thinking in modes—were beloved topics for Jeff.

While advocating his own method of teaching, Jeff also promotes the teaching style of Charlie Banacos—who did write several book which are unfortunately no longer in print. The only way we have to study the Banacos method is through some of his students: JB, Gary Dial, Mike Stern, Bruce Gertz and Jerry Bergonzi.

I am familiar with methods/pedagogies of both Jeff Berlin and Charlie Banacos. Jeff is a bit hard to take, but his info is solid.

I don't understand the position here by some that modes are "incorrectly taught," without saying which institution or teaching method is doing the teaching. Is it Aebersold, North Texas, Berklee, Barry Harris, Charlie Banacos, New England Conservatory, Manhattan School? Or is just a general feeling that there is too much emphasis on discussions of modes when we should be discussing/teaching intervals, chord tones and counterpoint?

I don't think anyone is pointing to an institution per se, but what one gets in instructional books and individual tutors. This type of thread shows up ad nauseum on every single site that talks about bass or guitar.

I think much of the issue is with beginners/intermediates often being told that modes are where you start and, because playing through them is an easy time filler that frees up the lazy instructor and makes the student feel like they are doing something, they get too much emphasis.

As has been shown in this thread, you can retroactively filter anything played through modal thinking, which is what I believe many ignorant and lazy teachers often do, but that robs the student of a lot when we often know that that was not the thinking that conceived the songs being analyzed.

If that's the case, then why not start the thread with the title: "A Case For Analysing Music Using Intervals, Chord Tones and Counterpoint"?

That would be a question for the OP.

I am working on a book, so I am in no rush to give away the goods, while suffering personal attacks here, right away.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

What Modes will you be using in your solo?(!)

I see a lack of respect for an excellent Bass player, Musician, Composer.
I'm going to reiterate my opinion.
John Goldsby - a very prolific and superb PRO bass player/Jazz Musician (Double/Electric), and
an extremely-skillful educator with his solid and extensive experience, and
a very nice person to communicate with.
And it's so disheartening when John needs to defend himself here at TB, among the bass players.

 

[Don Kasper]

I see a lack of respect for an excellent Bass player, Musician, Composer.
I'm going to reiterate my opinion.
John Goldsby - a very prolific and superb PRO bass player/Jazz Musician (Double/Electric), and
an extremely-skillful educator with his solid and extensive experience, and
a very nice person to communicate with.
And it's so disheartening when John needs to defend himself here at TB, among the bass players.

Now,
COMIC RELIEF ONLY! drool.

I've recorded that 2-chord progression/vamp/harmonic environment, etc...
Then, I've checked with the book, "The Jazz Bass Book: Technique and Tradition" (a very informative book) by John Goldsby about those "exotic choices for minor chords."

(P.S. I've REALLY tried to search for Lanky Tunes' book but COULD NOT FIND ONE)

The Jazz Bass Book



After trying all those MODES of the harmonic minor scale, I really liked the Phrygian Dominant scale in D as the fifth mode of the harmonic minor scale.

This scale is also known as:

The 5th mode of the G Harmonic Minor Scale.

The Spanish Gypsy Scale.

The Spanish Phrygian Scale.

The Phrygian Major Scale.

Notes: D Eb F# G A Bb C (oct.)
Intervals: 1 b2 3 4 5 b6 b7 (oct.)

Therefore, as a secret John Goldsby's student and as a totally beginner in "bass soloing", I would use
the Phrygian Dominant scale in D as the fifth mode of the harmonic scale to start soloing over those "exotic" chords.

Here is a good downloadable file on the scales and modes.
[Invalid or Expired Link Removed]

WUTP,
My comment was intended to be humorous ( "jk" = just kidding), given the tone of certain comments here.
Absolutely NO Disrespect was intended, and I think JG got the "joke".
Thanks, and sorry if my attempt at humor was not humorous.

 

[John Goldsby]

Hey WUTP: Don is totally cool . . . a great musician and a valuable and generous contributor to TB. Don't worry about me & Don

If you are indeed a "secret student" of mine, then here's a tip: Someone can only insult you if you let them.

Thanks for your analysis of the Joshua Redman changes, but: Take a look at the notes of the piano voicings . . . there's an E natural, never an Eb. The seven notes in the chord could be also laid out as a scale (G ascending Melodic Minor). But I wouldn't (and didn't tonight) play only the notes from that scale. I used what I heard as the most important defining chord tones, and tried to frame those and create melodies using the notes from that scale, and also chromatic approach notes and enclosures. Being able to play the G Melodic Minor scale all kinds of ways gives me a lot of options — to hear what I'm going to play on something like that, or to play something outside of that palette.

@LankyTunes: Thanks for your thorough and measured response. Not all of my comments were directed towards you, but I appreciate your thoughts.

@Fergie:

So the big question "how much foundation do you need, if any, to get the best out of studing and working with modes?"

That's a good question . . . one which I'm going to think about.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Take a look at the notes of the piano voicings . . . there's an E natural, never an Eb. The seven notes in the chord could be also laid out as a scale (G ascending Melodic Minor).

Thank you very much for your response.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

As an aside, for a while it puzzled me how dozens of posts in this thread irked me on such a fundamental--and even emotional--level, and I finally figured it out.

It's quite simple really...a matter of misplacement. Those posts that offended me the most should have really have been posted in this thread:

Let's spread some musical misinformation

 

[Whousedtoplay]

It's quite simple really...a matter of misplacement. Those posts that offended me the most should have really have been posted in this thread:

Let's spread some musical misinformation

I've just followed your recommendation.

P.S. Do you remember your promise?

You know what? I just realized that my previous respnse was more of a rant rather than a mature and direct answer to your wonderful question.


I will answer this concisely in due time, my friend.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

I've just followed your recommendation.

P.S. Do you remember your promise?

Yes I do,... I was gonna get to that Lol!

First, let's ignore the entire notion of scales for a second. We'll come back to it later.

Now, just as a major7 the chord and a dominant 7th chord each have their own flavor. You can build songs with flavors as distinctive as the chords themselves.

Listen to Space Oddity and note the difference between the Major I strummed by the guitar at the first verse (not the intro, but the "Ground control to...part) and then grok the IV maj7 chord the guitar suddenly strums at the "For here, I am floating in a tin can." part. Suddenly a stately strident song became something entirely different. Emotional complexity bursts in.

Name that emotion conveyed by the Maj7 chord. What if you want to capture that emotion? There are many emotions that can be expressed as you add levels of complexity in your chords. What if you decided you wanted to compose a song in that emotion, so to speak.

You will not be able to that very well by playing lines with single notes. It's the chords you use when composing the song that will do it.

I can hear a song and tell you 80 percent of the time what mode it's in. Will I be able to tell you what key it's in? No chance!

I hear the emotions/feeling as the chords relate to each other and I can name that!

Now, to get to the point of your earlier question. Songs need not, and often don't start on the tonic (the I). Like a good many novels and films, the narrative often begins its way in the middle and than works backwards, then transitions to the present, future , whatever,.. but the movie or novel will be a mystery , romance, thriller, etc, regardless.

So to with song composition. A song will have its inherent flavor of its mode regardless of where it starts, transitions, ends.



P.S. To me, one of the most striking points about music theory is that there are rules about how rules should be broken.
So, for instance, Phyrigian is a minor mode, as are Aeolian, Dorian, and Locrian. But you're probably not gonna want to stress the "minor-ness" of a song you are composing in Phyrigian as you would in, say Aeolian. Instead you will find yourself using fifths or even major substitutions for that mode. There are many more examples if you want more.

I know this may be very confusing for many bassists as my knowledge of modes actually inhibited my transition from Guitarist/Songwriter to Bassist until I made the appropriate adjustments. The rules are totally different, and to flesh that out would require an entirely new essay. :-/

 

[John Goldsby]

@Whousedtoplay — Always trust your ears first. I think what you're finding here is that your mastery of certain sounds is not developed in your ears/hearing and connected your ability to grab those sounds on the bass. We have to train our ears, just like we train our fingers on the bass. That will come in time, and you are on the right path. The ultimate goal might be to understand things intellectually, but not let that get in the way of trusting your ears and your gut when you pick up the bass.

Hi John, cool reading in your post by the way, the issue with teaching is it is done by those who do not really understand the whole process, so not big teaching institutions as such, but back shop teachers using it to make their teaching methods......more interesting....i feel.

Thanks for clearing that up, Fergie. I think teachers have an obligation to teach what they know how to do. Many try and teach something they don't really know, something that they read about somewhere, or something that they've heard another great player or teacher talk about . . . material that they themselves haven't internalized. It's cool in a way to latch onto a particular method or concept, but a teacher needs to be able to either play/demonstrate what they're teaching in a musical way, or else play specific recorded examples of what they're explaining. And everything needs to serve the music.

So the big question "how much foundation do you need, if any, to get the best out of studing and working with modes?"

That's a great question. I think it would have been a better title for this thread. @HandsFree — Wat doe je dit weekend?

I think good teachers take a student exactly at the place where they are in their development. I often teach at the Aebersold Summer Jazz Workshops and the Sligo (Ireland) Jazz Project, and I always love it when I get really beginning bass players. Sometimes people come in having just bought a bass . . . they don't know where any notes are . . . they don't know how to pluck it. We might start by naming the strings and finding the note F on the D string. Jam on the F. Find the note Bb on the A string. Jam on F to Bb over and over. I'm trying to train two separate things that should be codependent: Physically playing those two notes, and hearing the difference between those two notes. Eventually, we might be playing "Cold Duck Time," vamping from F7 to Bb7, and even making the bars of Db to Eb in the turnaround. It's a great joy to see and hear a complete novice get to the point where they can *hear* the difference between those four roots, and also have their hands automatically grab the notes. After we achieve that, then I might explain the theory behind what they can already play: We're playing the foundation, the root of each chord—we're the basement—we're keeping the whole band together by doing that.

For a more advanced student, if they can play, for example, a C major scale from root to root, I'll have them play it in different ways. Start on a high E and play down the C major scale to the lower E. Got it? Great—let's do that through all twelve keys up in half steps. How about around the cycle of 5ths, always starting on the 3rd of the major scale and playing down the scale. I still wouldn't necessarily mention that we're playing the Locrian scale, because the name of it is not as important as how it sounds, and the general ability to play various melodic, scalar and chordal things around the bass. This is just bass technique, not bass *music*. But it also trains the ear, plus the connection and reaction time between the ear and fingers.

However, some students are more left-brain, and they want to know why we're doing that, and what it's called.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

It's quite simple really...a matter of misplacement. Those posts that offended me the most should have really have been posted in this thread:

When I have a question, I ask my teacher, but my teacher, instead of helping me to better understand some new "ideas", starts arguing with another teacher, and I'm left more confused than before.
To sum up. There is a place and time for everything, but I doubt that this particular forum is the place to "defend" somebody's doctoral dissertation in music education.

Let's say, currently I'm reading a very interesting article, "PSYCHOACOUSTIC PHENOMENA IN. MUSICAL COMPOSITION" but I would not talk about it here at TB.
(Here: http://www.sonami.net/Articles/Amacher-OAE.pdf)

P.S. On the other hand, I'm just a regular human, "Errare humanum est" - "It's human to err."

I can hear a song and tell you 80 percent of the time what mode it's in. Will I be able to tell you what key it's in? No chance!

As an unusual exception in very few situations I can discern a song's key, but I was around quite a few musicians with "perfect ear/pitch". You could hit any object and my friends would immediately tell me the pitch. I was always jealous about it. Just imagine you don't need to take any Charlie Banacos' courses, but...
I had some lame excuse for my "bad" ears
- where I would listen to a new song/composition and get so exited, "WOW(!!!), listen to that phrasing, etc...", my "perfect pitch" friends would just say, "It's the Locrian mode and the notes are..."

What if you want to capture that emotion? There are many emotions that can be expressed as you add levels of complexity in your chords. What if you decided you wanted to compose a song in that emotion, so to speak.

Don't get me wrong, but my first impressions of a song/composition are - its MOOD, its CHARACTER, its aural ambiance, etc..., all those things that influence my perception and start pushing my emotional buttons. I really like that you mentioned the word, "emotion" with regard to MUSIC, not to this thread.

First, let's ignore the entire notion of scales for a second.

As an amateur, I was mesmerized by the MOOD and aural "ambiance" of two chords from John Goldsby's posting.
I "missed" that simple "Gmi" chord on John's attachment and went for the full piano voicing chord on the second sheet.
(I will save that vamp for my "moody" day/s exercises. It broadens my horizons.)

I now I was criticized by a very knowledgeable, highly educated, and superb bass player, Bob Ross for confusing the chord arrangement with a harmonic identifier but for me and my untrained ear, it's a huge difference between the G minor chord and the slash chord of D add2 / Gm add2, or as you said,

Suddenly a ... song became something entirely different.

A song will have its inherent flavor of its mode regardless of where it starts, transitions, ends.

As I've mentioned before, I cannot recognize what key a song is; therefore, when I hear a musical phrase I think about it as some kind of mode (a pitch-less scale.)
(This web-site mentions 447 different modes -- http://solomonsmusic.net/modes.htm )

While dabbling as a hobbyist in "songwriting", I try to separate a simple mode/mixed mode pop song with no (almost no) chromatism from a "deeper" instrumental composition where chromatic notes add that necessary "zest" to a mode.

The rules are totally different, and to flesh that out would require an entirely new essay. :-/

Thanks again for such a nice posting.
P.S. I'll remind you about that "new essay" later...