the myth of modes

[DeaconBlues09]

What are chords, and why do they differ so vastly from single notes?

A note is like a pixel. Both convey the most basic units of information. Now either play three notes in succession, or play three non-unison notes simultaneously. Or arrange differently colored pixels about each other. Suddenly things become interesting. There is context, harmony or dissonance based on your choices in the notes or color pallets.

Let's start with a note and then add the most non-committal degree and play them simultaneously. That degree would be the fifth. It is remarkably neutral, but it adds beef, or muscle, to your initial note. This is great for riff based metal music. You can fly all over the fretboard chugging out chords, and as long as you adhere to certain patterns, you're good as gold.

Once you add in a third--you commit! Major or minor, sir. North or south, right or left.

One of the fantastic things about chords, and you can get wicked good at this once you know your music theory, is using sus chords to bring in flavor without committing to the whole minor/major dichotomy.

 

[HandsFree]

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 noticed that many players are seeing modes where there aren't any, hence the title. In the original post I gave the example of a D7 chord in the key of G major being confused with a mixolydian mode. But true, as a consequence, I think there's too much focus on modes at the expense of tonal harmony. Which is also what I stated in op.

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.

Musicians I play with have actually employed that D7/mixolydian line of reasoning; I hear it by 'instructors' on youtube and read it on forums like this one. So it must be taught that way. In this thread even a music teacher said it was the correct way to teach improvising basslines (hope I'm not misquoting here). Obviously I wouldn't know what institutions formally teach that way. BTW in my experience a lot of it is dependant on individual teachers, rather than institutional policy.

@HandsFree — Wat doe je dit weekend?

You know Dutch? No gigs I'm afraid...

 

[John Goldsby]

You know Dutch? No gigs I'm afraid...

No, I don't know Dutch, but I can understand a bit, since there are four Dutch guys in our band and I hear them yapping all the time I can google-translate great

You're right—a random approach to using modes is just as bad as a random approach to melody, harmony or rhythm. Some here (I'm projecting) would say that modes shouldn't even be considered in the same light as melody, harmony and rhythm because they are a byproduct of those core musical building blocks.

I could get into the history of how chord/scale theory developed, but I think the important thing to know is that a lot of people use it—some use it well, and others are sloppy.

But, I've got other burgers to fry. Literally . . . it's getting close to dinnertime!

Thanks for checking in @HandsFree — see what you started here

 

[Fergie Fulton]

Great post again John, and pretty much the way all good teachers should work, use your own skills and experience to judge when a student in your charge, and I will say it again "your charge", is at the correct place to deal with new musical ideas.


On the teaching thing, no one teacher, I believe, has all the answers, there is no one stop shop in any education. Music education becomes about new ideas, or looking at existing ideas in a new way ..modes can do this for a player.

My musical education was in brass instruments, Tenor Horn for the main part.
Now the person in charge of my education, my main teacher was responsible for my education.
She would choose who I came in contact with,and what she wanted them to teach me, so for sight reading and technique for example, I had different tutors.
I remember for a few day my sight reading tutor was ill so I got put with another.....did not like the way he taught one bit.

I know know why I was given the tutors I got, they were better for me and I would respond better under their guidance. Its not for me to decide what I need to learn, or how I learn.....that is the job of the person in charge of my education .....I am not qualified at this point to know what I need to learn, or even why I need to learn it, that will become obvious in time.

I saw Louis Armstrong on the TV slur and bend notes, so I asked my tutior on technique how was he doing it.
The reply I got was "Ask your main teacher, it is her responsibility, if she says its OK we will discuss it." Well she did not, so we didn't, and that was the end of it.

Now because the only outside influence we had back in the 60s/70s was what was going on around us it was easy to control our levels of thinking.
So no internet videos to watch, no DVDs, computers etc. to cloud our minds with other ideas and distract us from learning good basics and fundamentals.
In our theory classes for example, we earned the same, regardless of instrument because theory applied to the music not the instrument.
We could not go on-line for example see a lesson on modes, spend time trying to work it out, and in so doing not work on what we should have been working on. We only learned what we were giving in the books and listening to, so very controlled and for the use of a better term " in-line" so each new learned idea was supported by a previous leaned idea.....no holes, no gaps to backtrack and fill.....our teacher knew exactly what we learned, how well we learned it, and more over what we were capable of now learning.

So a Trombone player learned the same theory as me, as did percussionists., as did piano players. A lot of what we done in theory was taught from piano as it best served the purpose of leaning.
We were all encouraged to see piano as our second instrument to our main one.
So again using the piano was universal to use all, we wrote down ideas then once we had a grasp of it we applied it to our instrument....we did not try and learn ideas on the Instrument because the Instrument has certain confines, we applied them to it and worked around any confines we found.

In all we were being taught how to play what would be out in front of us, not think out loud about it, or embellish it.....just play it.
This is why orchestras can play scores well with little rehearsal, they just play what is written.
This also explains, to a slight degree, why some orchestral players struggle to improvise...they never have had the need to....the discipline is to play what is in front of them not improvise over it..
In later studies we did learn to question what was written, and maybe why the composer wrote what they did, when we studied composition and looked into their style and influence.
(Later with experience we learned to question certain aspects of a score composition because it was transcribed wrong, so we learned to see mistakes that should not be there and correct them).

So to modes and when to learn them.
From a players point of view they do not tell us anything that the key does not, the song key has all the info we need to function as a player.
But as a composer, or soloist, looking to write new music within harmony, melody, and rhythm, modes can open up great melodic ideas within harmony.

Someone once said,

"There is what you know and what you have yet to learn...music is a journey not a destination."

I feel that sometimes the focus with modes, and other musical ideas, is where they will end up, rather then the journey of learning. You can jump off at any time, explore then get back on, or if you are happy to just stay where you are and use what you learned up to that point.....you do not need to get back on and learn more, and you should not feel pressured to do so by feeling you are lacking if you do not.
Your teacher has the responsibility to know where you are and what you are ready to take on. Some player move faster than others, so there is not time frame in learning, learning well is the reward.

OK so I have personalised this post a bit, but I can only use my own experiences from a different time in music education, I do it only to point out some of the reasons, and the era, that I learned in that the teacher was the only point of contact and we were their responsibility.
Un-like today....where I find students and players looking for answers in many places, using many resources (internet and YouTube) giving them unreasonable aspirations about what the can do.
Good musicians work on their weaknesses, so they do not impact on their strengths, many players and students I meet seem to only work on the strengths, the things they can do well.

As such they never really learn new ideas, just re-learn what they already know.
New ideas, such a modes, should have you out your comfort zone in grasping the ideas, but you should have the tools to solve it, this is what learning is about. Once you have learned something comes the application.
So if it takes you a few months to learn some modal ideas, then applying may take years...if not a lifetime?
Some players try application before they have understood it, so they have not learned it and this leads to confusion.

What is a dentist but a "lazy doctor" who could not be bothered about learning all the medical information in his books......the just tore out the chapter on teeth and said " That''ll do me......sorted."

 

[Lanky Tunes]

Some here (I'm projecting) would say that modes shouldn't even be considered in the same light as melody, harmony and rhythm because they are a byproduct of those core musical building blocks.

I'd generally say that this is true. You pretty much get the modes for free when you develop a good understanding of the elements you mention, but I think that, due to the language many speak and the occasions where thinking modally works better, everyone should be taught about modes and modal music. I just think it is better to do so in a different order than many of the books and lessons I come across do.

There would, of course, be obvious exceptions for people who are only interested in a particular kind of music. For some modes may be a complete waste of headspace and for others it is the 20 of their 80/20 toolbox.

I'd say that most people hear a song or line and want to capture/recreate that sound and that we should FIRST try to teach them to do so with the tools and thinking that the original composer or player was using, or at least what they were most likely to be using to write or play it in the first place.

It may very well turn out that there is a better way to recreate that kind of sound/line than what the original person used, but often the sound/line is intimately tied to the composer's or player's way of thinking about music.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

using sus chords to bring in flavor without committing to the whole minor/major dichotomy.

Thanks for your comment.
P.S. I hope your comment about the sus chords won't start a new thread about the differences between the sus and add chords.

 

[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.

Lesson learned. Thank you.
How much that slash chord D add2/Gm add2 instead of just the G minor chord could change your choice of notes?

 

[DeaconBlues09]

Note also that a given individual chord can legitimately bear multiple names

Thanks for your comment.
P.S. I hope your comment about the sus chords won't start a new thread about the differences between the sus and add chords.

No need for a new thread! ;-)

With a "sus" chord you omit the third (thus adding a new note without "committing" to a major or minor).


With an "add" chord you omit the 7th (whether major or minor [e.g. flatted] 7th), and can still stack notes above your 1, 3, 5 (unless omitted), leapfrog over the seventh, and snatch an additional note from above....

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Note also that a given individual chord can legitimately bear multiple names



No need for a new thread! ;-)

With a "sus" chord you omit the third (thus adding a new note without "committing" to a major or minor).


With an "add" chord you omit the 7th (whether major or minor [e.g. flatted] 7th), and can still stack notes above your 1, 3, 5 (unless omitted), leapfrog over the seventh, and snatch an additional note from above....

Wow, we are having a very nice conversation. Thank you.
While we are talking about the modes, have you heard about George Russell's "Lydian Chromatic concept of Tonal Organization?"
"...that there is a scale which sounds in closest unity with the harmonic genre of any traditionally definable chord. This scale is termed the PARENT SCALE of a chord."
Invalid Link Removed

More info:
Casa Valdez Studios: George Russell's 'Lydian Chromatic Concept'



Here is a table for finding that "parent scale of a chord".
Taken from here:
http://files.mcclimon.org/projects/lcc-smt-slides.pdf

 

[Don Kasper]

With a "sus" chord you omit the third (thus adding a new note without "committing" to a major or minor).

I beg to differ, (respectfully...)
While the "sus" designation calls for the "4" to be present in the chord voicing, a more complete aural approach INCLUDES the major 3rd (not the minor 3rd) in the overall tonality.
Here is what my ear tells me - (play at a piano, please):

 

[DeaconBlues09]

I beg to differ, (respectfully...)
While the "sus" designation calls for the "4" to be present in the chord voicing, a more complete aural approach INCLUDES the major 3rd (not the minor 3rd) in the overall tonality.
Here is what my ear tells me - (play at a piano, please):

View attachment 780876

I'm not sure I follow you there. I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia (highlighted the bit about thirds in red)

1. 
   A suspended chord (sus chord) is a musical chord in which the (major or minor) third is omitted, replaced usually with either a perfect fourth ( play (help. · info)) or a major second ( play (help. · info)), although the fourth is far more common.
   Suspended chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Don Kasper]

I'm not sure I follow you there. I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia (highlighted the bit about thirds in red)

I use my ears and a piano, NOT Wikipedia, to confirm musical sounds. I respectfully believe that Wikipedia is flat-out wrong here.
Were you able to play the chord voicings (above) at a piano? Let your ears be your guide.
IMHO.
My $0.02.
Thanks for your time, interest and civility, DeaconBlues09.

 

[Don Kasper]

Here is a nice example of the Major 3rd in the melody in a D9sus,13 chord - @ 0:33.

 

[Whousedtoplay]

I'm not sure I follow you there. I cut and pasted this from Wikipedia (highlighted the bit about thirds in red)

1. 
   A suspended chord (sus chord) is a musical chord in which the (major or minor) third is omitted, replaced usually with either a perfect fourth ( play (help. · info)) or a major second ( play (help. · info)), although the fourth is far more common.
   Suspended chord - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

(P.S. Lucky you. Don is the nicest and very diplomatic person among the very few accomplished bass players (Double/Electric) that visit our TB forum.)

I found it from our vast TB archives.
I think Don is right. Check it out:
Which modes should I use in the different chords?

 

[Whousedtoplay]

Here is a nice example of the Major 3rd in the melody in a D9sus,13 chord - @ 0:33.

As always your superb selection of music.
Thank you.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

I use my ears and a piano, NOT Wikipedia, to confirm musical sounds. I respectfully believe that Wikipedia is flat-out wrong here.
Were you able to play the chord voicings (above) at a piano? Let your ears be your guide.
IMHO.
My $0.02.
Thanks for your time, interest and civility, DeaconBlues09.

We'll now, this is really starting to get interesting! And here I always understood that omission of the third is not only the nature of the sus chord, but inherent in it's very definition..."suspended" as in suspended third, just as one need not posit that a triangle as three angles because the term and it's definition are, in fact one and the same, and need not be confirmed by empirical means...


I will definitely have to look into this further after I am done work!.

Thank you Don. Not only for your elucidation, but for your mode of delivery as well.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

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."



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..."



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.


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.)

View attachment 780498

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,





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.



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

Fascinating stuff/links you're posting here, WUTP....and I'm not just referring to this particular post.

 

[Bob_Ross]

I beg to differ, (respectfully...)
While the "sus" designation calls for the "4" to be present in the chord voicing, a more complete aural approach INCLUDES the major 3rd (not the minor 3rd) in the overall tonality.

A bit more respectful disagreement, if you don't mind:

Calling it "a more complete aural approach" seems either vague or misleading. I think it would be more accurate (or at least more informative) to say that the major 3rd is available as a tension on a sus4 chord, but that it is not considered a tone that expresses that chord's quality. I.e., if anything it's too complete: Adding the major 3rd to a sus4 or a dom7sus4 chord removes the sus chord's characteristic ambiguity -- the "suspended" quality that dilutes the need for resolution in tertian harmonies -- and pushes that verticality more towards an unstable perception.

 

[DeaconBlues09]

I use my ears and a piano, NOT Wikipedia, to confirm musical sounds. I respectfully believe that Wikipedia is flat-out wrong here.
Were you able to play the chord voicings (above) at a piano? Let your ears be your guide.
IMHO.
My $0.02.
Thanks for your time, interest and civility, DeaconBlues09.

Follow up on this though. Could you please insert a definition for "suspended" from any dictionary of music or established authority that does not mention the omission of the third?
(respectfully, of course)..

If Wikipedia is wrong in this respect, (and I'm not one to say that it's always right...), I would like to know what the definition is, not just what it isn't...

Thanks!

 

[Lanky Tunes]

And here I always understood that omission of the third is not only the nature of the sus chord, but inherent in it's very definition..."suspended" as in suspended third, just as one need not posit that a triangle as three angles because the term and it's definition are, in fact one and the same, and need not be confirmed by empirical means..

The problem is that definitions of words are not really determined through empirical means. Popular usages defines language, which fluctuates across cultures and eras. It is always a moving target.

One would have to narrow down the context of the words usage, as well as have a pretty complete record of it's use in that context, in order to truly say a word means "such and such".

This is certainly possible with words where the overwhelming majority of people use it a particular way, but not so much with obscure or specialist terms.....which is half the reason that people are having difficulty talking about modes here: a lot of people are talking about different things, but using the same term.