Default Harmony??? Some thoughts...

[JonnyPac]

Here's an idea that's been kicking around in my head for some time... sorry if it is unclear... I'm just throwing it out there.

"Default harmony" and "signifiers" (better terms welcome!)

If there is a given tonal/functional or hybrid modal/tonal progression and we use something like chord-scale theory to outline the changes (using the "pools of notes", "modal palette", or "pitch collections", etc), I tend to hear a "right" scale that 1. has all of the notes that the chord was built from and 2. has passing tones that sound "in key" or "right" as it were.

I call these the "default" chord-scale patterns. Passing tones can connect them, but they are the notes that are the most stable out of the 12.

If a tune is 100% diatonic things are simple; no need for fussy CST BS. If a tune uses borrowed chords, suddenly things get harder for some players to grasp. Secondary dominants are covered by most good teachers and texts, but others are often not.

If we have some typical "hip" Beatles tune with lots of borrowed chords without obvious extensions (besides the melody)... Jazz players tend to see chord symbols as something they can re-harmonize as they wish; often to the extent that the sense of "key" is obscured, IMHO. (I'm a bit conservative being a songwriter myself; I choose my chords carefully and feel like they generally need no spicing up by others.)

Strawberry Fields in C Major:

G Bm/F# G7/F
Am C/G F
F G C Am
F G F C

C
Gm Bb/F
E7(b9)
F A
F C

All of the C F G and Am chords are pure diatonic chords. E7 is from A HM.
The Bm/F# is from G, a neighboring key
The Gm and Bb/F if from F the other neighboring key.
The A is either from D HM related to F or a sequential dominant out of sequence (A7 D7 G7 C).

These would be my default choices for a pop tune. I would not make the Bm chord into a Bm9 since the iii of G is Phrygian w a b9. I would treat the Gm as Dorian (not MM, HM, or any other) since it comes from F.

This is all based on kind of an Occum's razor view. Choosing chord-scales based on the least amount of key signature modification; the simplest answer sounds "right" because we are conditioned in Western musical culture as listeners and we have a sense of the "legal moves" even as non musicians according to some musicologists.

This does not end with triad based pop! I feel like complex jazz tunes with modal interchange also fit right in with a set of default chord-scales.

(Vanilla) Green Dolphin St A section:

C Eb D7 Db (over C pedal)

Dm7 G7 C
Fm7 Bb7 Eb
Dm7b5 G7

I hear it in C Major with a lot of parallel key signature chords (sig of Eb Major/C Minor).

C Ionian Eb Lydian D Mixolydian Db Lydian
D Dorian
G HW Dim, ALT, or C HM because of the b9 and #9 "signifiers" in the melody
C Ionian
F Dorian Bb Mixolydian Eb Ionian (since the tonal center is established by the ii-V7, though Eb Lydian fits the Occum's bill as well.
The Dm7b7 is either from Eb or F MM, both nice. F MM actually has less key modification, so I dig it.
The G7 is probably altered because it follows the m7b5 minor type of pre-dominant. G HW Dim, ALT, or C HM all sound nice.

Anyway, I think this way pretty quickly; looks like a mess printed here, but that's how I "hear" it. I've asked my students, friends, and fellow musicians what sounds "best" or "right" played over many progressions. The safe default sounds are #1 choice so far.

I also consider that many things can be blown over the changes inside/outside or really fast (indeterminate contour based runs, etc. I'm talking about the basic tones that establish the harmony here...

Your thoughts!

[timscarey]

Yes. This is a great discussion. The theory book/method that I sometimes use is called "jazz harmony" by James Knapp.

He calles "default" scales "inside choice" scales.
The method for finding them has to do with parent scales/key signature modification/most notes in common.

The coolest thing about this method is that it includes a system (still being worked on) that measures resolution/non-resolution between any two chords and measures the "tonicness" of any chord based on its "inside choice scale"

Its kind of like CST on crack designed for both the composer and the improviser.

That's what I've been studying for the last 6 years or so and have been lucky enough to teach a few times. Its all pretty usefull IMO it has lead me to some really beautiful and unexpected chord progressions as well as allows me a method for improvising on non-diatonic progressions.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by timscarey

Yes. This is a great discussion. The theory book/method that I sometimes use is called "jazz harmony" by James Knapp.

He calles "default" scales "inside choice" scales.
The method for finding them has to do with parent scales/key signature modification/most notes in common.

The coolest thing about this method is that it includes a system (still being worked on) that measures resolution/non-resolution between any two chords and measures the "tonicness" of any chord based on its "inside choice scale"

Its kind of like CST on crack designed for both the composer and the improviser.

That's what I've been studying for the last 6 years or so and have been lucky enough to teach a few times. Its all pretty usefull IMO it has lead me to some really beautiful and unexpected chord progressions as well as allows me a method for improvising on non-diatonic progressions.

Awesome. Love the term "inside choice" too. Please post more if you are inclined!

[JonnyPac]

Book sounds really cool. Are there online excerpts? What is "Macrodiatonicism"?

[JonnyPac]

Any more thoughts on this, guys?

[timscarey]

I will post a big explination (as much as I can) as soon as I get enough time. Probly this weekend sometime. Stoked.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by timscarey

I will post a big explination (as much as I can) as soon as I get enough time. Probly this weekend sometime. Stoked.

Great. I'm so ready.

[RememberClifford1]

That is an interesting topic. I agree with your choices. I definitely definitely go with the melodic minor choice over the m7b5 chord. Or even the 2nd mode of the harmonic minor scale depending on the context. Generally I don't actually use a locrian mode.

I had a lesson with a guy once who called the altered scale and the augmented triad over a dominant chord a "white paint" choice. What he meant was that it was an essential jazz sound and that it couldn't be reproduced with any other scale or arp choice the same way that white paint is essential to an artist and can't be made by mixing other colors. So I also like that you have the altered scale in your default dominant choices. It's not an "inside" scale but it is a very very idiomatic type of outside.

[JonnyPac]

Bill Evans used a lot of chord-scales that were hip, such as the 6th MM mode over almost all m7b5 chords in any progression, but in other cases, he plays very inside the key. It's probably all about conscious choices to create the desired sound. I like Locrian in some parts 6th of MM in others.

Night in Tunisia

Am7b5 D7 Gm
Gm7b5 C7 F Em7b5 A7

I'd use the MM version over the Gm7b5, but Locrian on the others.

[RememberClifford1]

What about chord extensions? Do you have any default chord extensions or superimpositions? For example over a Dm7 G7 Wes liked to play Fmaj9 (Dm11) and G+ which I suppose would imply the altered sound.

Do you have any defaults?

[JonnyPac]

Sure, I think default sets that include full 6-8 note scales of potential chord tones - no less!

Dm7 (as a ii chord or iv) is "Dorian" Fmaj is in there, yes, Am pent, Dm Pent, Dm, Dm7, Dm11, and Dm13 - lots of triads - it's a flippin' playground of potential!

Over the G7... a little more tricky. 1. a Mixolydian default 2. look for signifiers that point to Mixolydian or an altered scale choice.

If it has b9... C HM, G ALT, and G HW Dim - not WT (aug because the natural 9th).

If it has a +5 or b13, WT (aug), Alt, and C HM, but not HW dim!

If it has a combo of 13 and 9 the choices are simpler. That's usually the case. G13b9 is HW. G7b9b13 is either ALT or C HM (if the bass hits a P5, ALT is out). Whole tone is actually rare in jazz.

[RememberClifford1]

This is interesting talk for me because generally (just in terms of how my thinking tends to be organized) I think of chords and substitutions with extensions and chromatic neighbors, passing tones etc. ie I rarely think of chords. So I like this chord-scale talk. Makes my brain stretch out a bit.

[JonnyPac]

Your way of thinking is probably better, knowing the pitfalls of chord-scale theory! lol

I think on several different levels - 1. key 2. chord-scale/mode pattern 3. melodic devices/rhythmic motif. The order is really simultaneous... real-time playing requires it to come together as fast as possible.

[RememberClifford1]

I definitely think key center for lots of the scalar stuff I play and then after that it's mostly chordal. The thing is that I stumble into playing scalar lines even if I don't think of it that way. I mentioned that I like the melodic minor scale for my m7b5 chord but it's mostly just because i like the way that nat 9 sounds as a chord extension and the way that it pulls to the lowered 3rd when I use it in passing. voila... 6th mode of mel minor. From the way I read your posts about chord scale theory you do the exact same thing (in reverse of course)... by that I mean you think in terms of the scales but hear the extensions and the chords that lie inside those scales. Definitely interesting conversation to be had.

[JonnyPac]

Chicken or the Egg! I wonder about the actual classic jazz masters, how they thought... Done right, it all sounds like good jazz.

[RememberClifford1]

ahhh... sigh.... don't we all... my guess is that it's a lost cause.

I remember being at a masterclass w/ Scofield and someone in the audience asked him... "What do you think about when you're playing all those jagged, angular lines?"

He answered... "nothing really... I guess I just hear them that way."

That was the sort of question that all of us knew the answer to before the guy asked it, but given the opportunity we'd have all asked it just the same.

I've come to accept that (unlike we mortals) the greats just hear the music and play it... hopefully I'll study enough and work hard enough to get at least some watered down version of that musicality but that's a long way off. haha.

[JonnyPac]

...I guess another factor I always consider, is probabilities. I love hearing harmony fully realized like in composed music, but improvisation is so much more fun to hear and play.

By setting up a solid foundation of harmonic changes, the players can all improv and instantly create cohesive harmony (bass + chord + line) that is still fresh sounding. By working with things that are have a very high probability of working together, a jazz performance can be as colorful as say, Debussy or Ravel.

[RememberClifford1]

that's a really nice way of looking at it too. I like that I know some complex subs but it takes a real pro (which I am not) to make them sound nice. I always surprise myself when I turn off the brain and start using the ear (meaning that I revert to my default choices). My choices are much more simple (harmonically speaking) but are more rhythmic and melodic and interesting. Really knowing your basics down cold and being able to make interesting things happen is definitely the way to go... from there you can start expanding the number of choices that you'd consider to be "default." Cool idea.

[JonnyPac]

I'm certainly learning as I go... I hear it takes 10000 hours to master anything. Not there yet myself...

Here's a big blah blah blah from blog... not to get too OT.

I have a “trained ear”, but I do not claim to have “perfect pitch” or anything extremely rare or unbelievable. At some point along the way during my musical self-education, I became able to hear and name isolated chromatic intervals with 99% accuracy (see the interval trainer at musictheory.net). I also became able to hear the “quality” of any chord found in music, including jazz (not counting atonal clusters). I cannot hear the exact inversion or arrangement of a large body notes in some cases, but I can tell what important intervals (from the chord formula) were used to voice the chord. For example, upon hearing a piano chord (though I do not play anything but guitar and bass) I might think “It’s a dominant 7th with a natural 13th and a b9th, and the upper structure is a major triad in second inversion set a major 6th away from the root…” or something like if I'm familiar with the form. I think it much faster than I can possibly say it.

With that in mind, consider the relationship between the bass (upright, bass guitar, etc.) and the chord. The chord can now expand beyond a single instrument. For example, a Dm7b5 played on the guitar paired with a Bb bass note becomes a Bb Dominant 9th chord. I hear the total combination of the two primarily, not just the separate chord(s) or intervals unless I really try. Now think about melodies (and counter-melodies/harmony melodies) in play on top of the chord(s) and bass-line. This adds to the total tonality or quality at hand. If the bass, chord, and melody all come from the same “parent scale/mode” there is a huge amount of harmonic cohesion. As pattern-seeking creatures it makes sense that humans get excited when this kind of structure is heard, even if it is not fully grasped. Think of fractal patterns in digital art; we do not see the math, just the beautiful eye-candy results. Harmonic structures are a part of our Western cultural tradition, and are somewhat based on our subtle perceptions of the overtone series found in acoustics. Through repeated exposure to the overtone series we started actually adding the “phantom intervals” into the music in acceptable ways; the perfect 5th, then the 3rd, and so on. This eventually opened the floodgates for triads, seventh chords, and extended chords. If chords and/scales are played simultaneously and they are not harmonically related we generally find it to be a “challenging listen”. Think of some of the bi-tonal/atonal piano sonatas of Charles Ives! These challenges can be exhilarating at times and extremely unpleasant at others. It takes a certain personality to enjoy them, and I am not usually one of them.

Having an acute sense of “relative pitch” capable of hearing the Gestalt in homophonic music lead me to thoroughly analyze scales and chords, and especially their tonal relationships with one another. I started by examining every diatonic chord possibility. This included exploring all of the possibilities within each of the seven diatonic modes. One of the most interesting results I found was that all of the notes generally sounded acceptable in some context except for notes that were one half-step above the underline triad if they are played on harmonically strong beats. This explains the “avoid” note concept because a dissonant interval of a minor 2nd (or minor 9th) is in play against a foundational triad chord tone (root, 3rd, or 5th). This sounds dissonant in an undesirable way, compared to other intervallic modal tensions, which are often the favorite note choices of jazz musicians.

I also seriously considered “implied harmony”. For instance, a melody that clearly outlines an arpeggio, or a good walking bass line, etc. Interestingly enough, my own developmental guitar practice was primarily unaccompanied by another instrument or recording (except for a metronome). In order for me to really hear the underline chord changes, I intuitively started building “compound melodies”. The implied counterpoint within my lines made having a chordal instrument play behind me somewhat unnecessary. When I finally formed a working trio with an upright bassist and drummer we were all amazed that the extended chords and advanced jazz harmony was fully realized without having to play the guitar in an athletic chord-melody style. The three lines were enough (bass + my harmonically specific compound melodies). This led me to further study “linear harmony” and I found I was in good company with many of the classic bop and post-bop horn players, such as Bird, Clifford Brown, Sonny Rollins, etc (not that I clam to be on their level of mastery). My modal ideas were akin to Miles Davis and the modal concepts of the late 50’s and 60’s. Modal partial voicings like those of Bill Evans, McCoy Tyner, and Herbie Hancock also made a lot more sense to me than the typical approach used by guitarists (which includes bass notes, complete lower structures, and a few extensions). I feel that guitar chords do not have to say it all at once! I prefer to let the voicings state the modal harmony over time and to make good use of the rhythmic space that way.

Playing “outside” (meaning to play in a second tonality for a temporary period before resolving back inside) did nothing but confuse the overall sound of my project. For example, since six or seven out of twelve modal notes sound harmonically descriptive the remaining few sound like “wrong” notes if they are in the place of “guide tones” to me. I do believe however, that all twelve notes in music can be played over any given chord if they are emphasized (or de-emphasized) in a precise and “inside” manner. There surly are masters of playing outside in classic jazz, like Herbie Hancock, Coltrane, and Eric Dolphy. I just have not reached that point on the guitar yet, and I may never. Who knows!

After years of experimentation I found only handful of scales that widely acceptable harmony could be drawn from. The diatonic system, the Phrygian dominant mode (with an extra #9th between the b9 and major 3rd), the melodic minor system, the whole-tone scale, and the “half-step whole-step” version of the diminished octatonic scale. Any scale that has a degree one-step-and-a-half or larger I consider an “abbreviated scale” (i.e. pentatonic scales and hexatonic scales, etc.). For this reason I also found the harmonic minor and major scale somewhat flawed except for Phrygian dominant with a sharp ninth added back in. Other scales such as the bebop and blues scale, I disqualified as true harmony-building scales because the extra note involved in each is merely a passing tone and cannot be used as a modal root from which to build structures.

Though harmony is usually considered the vertical aspect of music it is important to remember that it is time-sensitive and is interpreted horizontally for a limited duration of time as well. We take what we hear in sequence and reorganize it almost as if it were played simultaneously. This obviously has an huge influence on melodic outlines and partial chord voicings played in sequence with in a given amount of time or measures.

Being guitarists we often get proud of particular part in a musical performance and we assume because our part worked and had logic to it that the homophonic result of the ensemble was altogether successful. We often do not take into consideration what notes and scales the bassist or the other melody instruments at the same moment. There is often too much going on to be able to do so in real-time with much accuracy. If we were to go back and analyze all of the parts and the incidental counterpoint/group-harmony we may cringe at the results. By using the standard Roman numeral system and vague chord symbols jazz musicians are typically free to interpret the harmonic structure of a given song very loosely. If two or more musicians choose alternate routes over a series of chords there is an extremely low probability that the counterpoint/group-harmony created between them is on par with a simple prearrangement or a same-mode approach. This restricts the use of certain passing chords and alternate scales for obvious reasons. I feel that there is a huge amount of creative material to be found within each chord-scale, and that it is arrogant when jazz musicians insist on playing “outside” because they feel they have completely exploited playing inside and have no place else to go.

In order to improvise a large amount of harmony and motion without a huge amount of muddled mix-matched moments, some theoretical guidelines must be employed. I truly believe in a simple system where each musician creates parts from the same modal palette (within one beat of each other), and that it has an extremely high probability of real-time harmonic cohesion. This method has become the basis of my group and compositional/arranging style. I write modes where chord symbols usually go on my charts, original or otherwise. In my combo improvised reharmonization is not allowed, whereas substitution using the same mode is strongly encouraged. The result is exceptionally structured music that is constantly fresh sounding and easy to navigate through as a musician. That’s my ear and my sound thus far.

[RememberClifford1]

hahahaha... that's quite a useful bit of "blah blah blah" though. Ear stuff is my absolute favorite thing to explore. It's such a powerful feeling when it starts to come together. My ear is nowhere close to where yours is. I'm probably right there with you on the chromatic intervals (musictheory.net is a godsend) but the chord stuff is something I'm really trying to improve upon. That's a pretty deep understanding of things that you've got going on. Really interesting stuff happening.

[JonnyPac]

I just finished This is Your Brain on Music, and I read Music the Brain and Ecstasy a while back. If you are interested in a scientific look at music and the processes of hearing/performing I really recommend them both. It's so inspiring to know our super-computer-like abilities and our limits...

[RememberClifford1]

I've read the "6 Songs" book that Levitin wrote... not particularly good... but I've had "This is your Brain" on my amazon wish list for a year. I hear that one's awesome.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by RememberClifford1

I've read the "6 Songs" book that Levitin wrote... not particularly good... but I've had "This is your Brain" on my amazon wish list for a year. I hear that one's awesome.

I have not read the 6 songs. Music the Brain and Ecstasy is really nicely organized, especially for us musicians. Amazon.com: Music, The Brain, And Ecstasy: How Music Captures Our Imagination (9780380782093): Robert Jourdain: Books See the TOC on the Look Inside.

[Reg]

Different chord patterns imply different, as you say "default harmony".
Our ears usually develop default choices based on what we like, what we've been taught or more often what we're able to hear and even worse what we're able to play.
What your calling... borrowed chords also imply "default harmony" .
That's one of the reason some use "modal interchange", because as in modal music, with different harmonic concepts with each mode, there are different "default harmonic concepts" with each "borrowed chord".
And the context or chord pattern usually influences which "default harmonic concept" is implied. The melody use to have much more influence on harmonic organization than in the last 20 years. Reg

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by Reg

Different chord patterns imply different, as you say "default harmony".
Our ears usually develop default choices based on what we like, what we've been taught or more often what we're able to hear and even worse what we're able to play.
What your calling... borrowed chords also imply "default harmony" .
That's one of the reason some use "modal interchange", because as in modal music, with different harmonic concepts with each mode, there are different "default harmonic concepts" with each "borrowed chord".
And the context or chord pattern usually influences which "default harmonic concept" is implied. The melody use to have much more influence on harmonic organization than in the last 20 years. Reg

Agreed. Thanks, Reg.

[JonnyPac]

Originally Posted by timscarey

I will post a big explination (as much as I can) as soon as I get enough time. Probly this weekend sometime. Stoked.

[timscarey]

So,

I'm going to cut to the good stuff because I know who my audience is here. I've never really shared this without a piano in front of me and a book, but here it goes....

I should also mention that this is just a few chapters in a much bigger book, these chapters do not deal with tonal harmony.

Macrodiatonic refers to the infulence two adjacent chords have on each other's inside choice scale.

"A Macrodiatonic relationship exists between any two chords regardless of chord type or interval between the roots. In other words, any chord can follow any other chord in a progression, and the two will have a macrodiatonic relationship based on the inside choice of *variable tones that each has in common with the other. The relationship is the most essential expression of the harmony created by the two chords."

Ex. Fm7 (Variable tone = D or Db) next to DMaj7 (Variable tone G or G#)

yields an inside choice of F Dorian to D ionian

All chords have at least on variable tone in the scale associated with them.

The inside choice scale effects the "tonicness" of a chord within a progression, we have 3 different levels of tonicness available they are

Tonic- ionian, aeolean, *phrygian (tonic)
non- tonic - Dorian, Lydian, Locrian
M.M. (non-tonic) - all melodic minor modes

Chord types and associated tonic/non-tonic inside choice scales....

Maj7 - Ionian/Lydian
m7 - Aeolean, phrygian,*Phrygadorian/Dorian
m7(b5) - Locrian/Locrian +2, Altered scale
Maj(b5) - Lydian/Lydian +5
m6 - Dorian/Melodic Minor
Dom7 - Mixolydian/Mixo +4, Mixo b6
7Alt - **Altered scale

*the 2nd mode of melodic minor has a mysterious tonicness too it that Jim calls "the phrygadorian mystery" as does the phrygian minor 7th chord

**the altered dominant chord has only one scale choice.

Now, this leads us into parent scales, which is where this begins leading into the theory of modal resolution.... here we go.

C (major) parent scale....

CMaj7 - ionian
Dm7 - Dorian
Dm6 - Dorian/M.m.
Em7 - phrygian, phrygadorian
FMaj7 - Lydian
FMaj7(b5) Lydian/lydian +5
G7 - Mixolydian/Mixo +4
Am7 - Aeolean
Bm7(b5) Locrian/Locrian +2, Altered scale
C#7 Alt

One thing you might notice is that he says that D mm is derivative of C major scale via the raised "conversion tone" in this case C becomes C#, there fore all Dmm chords are from the C parent scale and should be treated as such when calculating resolution/non-resolution.

Resolution between parent scales

As chords change in a modal harmonic environment, it is also true that their parent scales will change (not always of course) in the process. it is through the movement of parent scales that we determine the resolution or non resolution of the chord movement.

resolving intervals (of parent scales)

up M2, M3, +4
Down m2, m3, 4th

non-resolving intervals

up m2, m3, 4th
down M2, M3, +4

In other words, by looking at the movement of the parent scales between chords we can determine if the chord movement is a resolution or non- resolution, Resolutions will always have a non-tonic inside choice followed by a tonic inside choice, and non-resolutions will have the opposite (non-tonic moving to tonic)

in the case of one or more resolutions or non-resolutions in a row, we will have "pivot chords" where the macrodiatonic relationship to the preceding chord is different from that of the following chord, here, we can decide whether to anticipate the harmonic change or wait for the chord to do it for us.

With all of this stuff and more put together, Jim has created these worksheets that show all of the chords that any chord can resolve to at any time. I know it sounds a little crazy and new-agey and all that, but I really dig it and I haven't really found any flaws in his ideas so far, in fact, I use them all of the time and in most cases agree with them.

[Reg]

hey Tim... doesn't sound crazy, sound pretty straight ahead. That's basically how modal interchange works. It's not a modulation, the analysis still relates to the original.... there are always different choices as to what the original or tonal center of references is and that choice gives many choices or directions for the analysis to go, which opens doors for improvisation or simply basic comping for jazz players. The only downside is sometimes the most logical choice, or choice decided upon by his method of determining pitch resolutions, or at least implied resolutions and function, is not what is used many times... But I like the concept, hell isn't that what we do already. How else would someone hear/see it. I remember having to explain how any chord can resolve to any other chord, and show different methods of why... Reg

[JonnyPac]

Thanks Tim! I'm diggin it. Now can you throw up some examples of chord pairs that fit this method? I see the variable tone idea as very valid. So many players overlook the tones that are not in the chord symbol or fit their "hip" chord-scale sub/re-harm. Just because Aeolian isn't jazzy, doesn't mean there is no context that it fits perfectly. Heck, there are hip uses of Aeolian in jazz, but we just have to be willing to find them. Andrew Hill is a great composer who uses it heavily. I like just about every standard scale and I feel it is totally reliant on the pairing of chords that makes the music interesting.

[timscarey]

So,

I guess the idea is that any pairing of any chords fit the method, diatonic or not, I agree with reg that the given "inside choice" is not always what people play, and thats cool, hence the name inside "choice"

the scale choice aspect of it aims at finding continuity amidst non-diatonic (chord symbol style) harmonic progressions...

Cm7 (aeolean variable tone A/Ab) - Abm6 (melodic minor, variable tone G/Gb going in, Gb dorian going out "pivot chord")

AMaj7 - (lydian variable tone D/D# - Cm7/Bb ( C Phrygadorian Variable tone A/Ab conversion tone option D/Db)

F#Maj7 - (Lydian variable tone B/B#) - Fm7 (Pivot Db coming in D coming out)

Now, in this progression the oinly tonic chord scales are the Cm7 chords and the Fm7 as the pivot chord, using parent scale analysis , we would find

Eb Gb E Ab C# Ab/Eb

following the parent scale resolution intervals we get...

Non-resolution(NR), NR, R, NR, R, and a resolution back to Cm7 as it is a non-tonic chord moving to a tonic chord in the same key.

using this we can choose where to place resolutions and non-resolutions and create what I call a modal resolution template and choose where in our forms to build or release tension. or you can use it just to mess around with different chord progressions and try to make them musical using rhythm and melody.

A conclusion that I might draw from the analysis is that a melody "in c minor" might suit this well, or I might look at this whole passage as being "in c minor" for the purpose of creating a solo that sounds like a melody rather than me just doing a bunch of scale s and arpeggios (which I tend to do, ha ha ha)