Chord function in modal chord progressions?

[Babaluma]

Hi all,
Sorry a bit of a basic question here but do chords within a mode have the same functions as in a major key? For example is the V chord in a Dorian progression still acting as a dominant and pulling towards the I chord, in this case a I-7? To my ears in Dorian this is no so as the V is a minor7 and I don't here the pull but I do here it if playing in Lydian where the V is a Major 7. I understand that most modal jazz compositions tend to have few chords that are less functionally driven but if writing a more harmonically dense set of chords that focus on a tonic other than Ionian I was unsure what the conventions of tension and resolution would be? I assume to just follow my ears but sometimes I like to know the context

Btw if I don't immediately answer it is due to busy work, I will read and appreciate every answer given and respond!

[Christian Miller]

Hi all,
Sorry a bit of a basic question here but do chords within a mode have the same functions as in a major key? For example is the V chord in a Dorian progression still acting as a dominant and pulling towards the I chord, in this case a I-7? To my ears in Dorian this is no so as the V is a minor7 and I don't here the pull but I do here it if playing in Lydian where the V is a Major 7. I understand that most modal jazz compositions tend to have few chords that are less functionally driven but if writing a more harmonically dense set of chords that focus on a tonic other than Ionian I was unsure what the conventions of tension and resolution would be? I assume to just follow my ears but sometimes I like to know the context

Btw if I don't immediately answer it is due to busy work, I will read and appreciate every answer given and respond!

Kinda?

I would describe functional harmony a sit often called in jazz as being more a body of standard patterns than something clearly definable.

Even in classical music you see elements that are not clearly functional in the major/minor sense. There are modal progressions even in this music. The modes of course predated the keys and cast a long shadow into the 18th century even. For example, the baroque Phrygian cadence

Am Em/G Dm6/F E

There is a strong pull towards the E chord even here. This was later intensified by raising the D to
a D# to create a leading tone which is a key feature of the major mode V I cadence - so changing the mode to be more like the major in this key respect.

Am Em/G F7 E

(By this point it became more widely used as a half cadence in Am)

An even more obvious example is the alteration of the minor mode to create this leading tone (harmonic & melodic minor) - this is a key feature of what we may consider functional cadences.

In general the more half step resolutions there are is a cadence the more conclusive it sounds to our ears. In this sense the tritone sub and Valt can be thought ‘super functional’

If that makes any sense which it probably doesn’t lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Babaluma]

Kinda?

I would describe functional harmony as being more a body of standard patterns than something clearly definable. Even in classical music you see elements that are not clearly functional. There are modal progressions even in this music. For example, the baroque Phrygian cadence

Am Em/G Dm6/F E

There is a strong pull towards the E chord even here. This was later intensified by raising the D to
a D# to create a leading tone which is a key feature of the major mode V I cadence

Am Em/G F7 E

An even more obvious example is the alteration of the minor mode to create this leading tone (harmonic & melodic minor) - this is a key feature of what we may consider functional cadences.

In general the more half step resolutions there are is a cadence the more conclusive it sounds to our ears. In this sense the tritone sub and Valt can be thought ‘super functional’

If that makes any sense which it probably doesn’t lol

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is actually really helpful, thanks as always Christian!

[ragman1]

do chords within a mode have the same functions as in a major key?

No, they don't. It would be nice to simply take the 2-5-1 of a mode and make lovely music instead of doing it the normal way. But it doesn't really work like that.

In traditional or tonic harmony everything ends up on the 1 chord. It's like coming home, it's cosy and feels safe. In modal music the chords are displaced so they have a floaty, unstable feel. If you don't mind that, and some people don't, each chord can be spun out for several bars so the soloists can warble away to their hearts' content.

But we like order, we prefer it to instability, so we tend to demand at least some kind of structure. So modal music generally retains the idea of the tonic chord. It's emphasised often so we get it in our head that it's the 'main sound' even if it doesn't quite feel like arriving home.

In 'So What', for example, we start off in Dm, all very nice, but then suddenly veer off into Ebm and we don't know where we are any more. So when eventually we slip back into Dm it's such a nice relief. It's not home but at least it's familiar.

So, to answer your question, modal music doesn't work the same way functional harmony does but it does have its own ideas of structure. Certain chords in each mode have a greater 'pull' to the tonic chord than others. After that it depends on how the tune is composed. If you look at some modal tunes you can see how it works out.

Any more theoretical explanation would be opening a big can of worms, trust me. It involves tritones, characteristic notes, and a lot of stuff that would confuse the sharpest mind. But naturally you can look deeper into it if you want to. Good luck :-)

[Reg]

Yea... sorry Rag.... gots to dissagree.

Root motion is strong. You can still have Maj/Min function in modal tunes. And traditional Function usually is.

Modal function in jazz technically is about the Characteristic Pitch and how it's used. But has become and for a long time... just a tool to help expand harmonic movement. Personally it helps open the SubDom. Door.

Which is where after you get your shit together... can help get out of the vanilla world

[BigDaddyLoveHandles]

I just listened to this last night and I think it's relevant: Nine minutes that changed the world | CBC Radio

Short answer: keep asking "why?"

[ragman1]

Root motion is strong... Modal function in jazz technically is about the Characteristic Pitch...

Reg, I said all that, and the rest, but I wasn't going to write a book down the page about it! There are a ton of tutorials around if he wants to investigate the complex stuff. It can't be trotted out in a few words.

Actually, a lot of modal tunes blend both functional and modal stuff together. From what I've seen, anyway.

[Babaluma]

No, they don't. It would be nice to simply take the 2-5-1 of a mode and make lovely music instead of doing it the normal way. But it doesn't really work like that.

In traditional or tonic harmony everything ends up on the 1 chord. It's like coming home, it's cosy and feels safe. In modal music the chords are displaced so they have a floaty, unstable feel. If you don't mind that, and some people don't, each chord can be spun out for several bars so the soloists can warble away to their hearts' content.

But we like order, we prefer it to instability, so we tend to demand at least some kind of structure. So modal music generally retains the idea of the tonic chord. It's emphasised often so we get it in our head that it's the 'main sound' even if it doesn't quite feel like arriving home.

In 'So What', for example, we start off in Dm, all very nice, but then suddenly veer off into Ebm and we don't know where we are any more. So when eventually we slip back into Dm it's such a nice relief. It's not home but at least it's familiar.

So, to answer your question, modal music doesn't work the same way functional harmony does but it does have its own ideas of structure. Certain chords in each mode have a greater 'pull' to the tonic chord than others. After that it depends on how the tune is composed. If you look at some modal tunes you can see how it works out.

Any more theoretical explanation would be opening a big can of worms, trust me. It involves tritones, characteristic notes, and a lot of stuff that would confuse the sharpest mind. But naturally you can look deeper into it if you want to. Good luck :-)

Clear reply and thanks for taking the time. I need to just spend some time playing through the harmonies and listening with this in mind and also try some modal compositions

[ragman1]

Babaluma -

There are several sites that go through the theory, some clearer than others. But when it actually comes to how to write an interesting modal progression they either leave it out, or get very vague, or too simplistic, and it usually ends up sounding like a folk song, like Scarborough Fair, etc.

Probably the best way is to absorb the theory, and it is complex, then research jazz modal tunes. As I said before, the best ones tend to throw in a bit of modal with some functional chords as well. Blue In Green is like that. Also Flamenco Sketches which sticks in a couple of V's before the I (e.g F7 - BbM7 and D7alt - Gm7).

When it comes to Wayne Shorter nobody knows. One presenter said he was convinced Shorter wrote the melody first then reharmed it. But it is tricky... unless you reduce the whole thing to one or two chords. Which, predictably, becomes very tedious to solo over.

Let us know how you get on if you want. I'd be interested.

[Christian Miller]

When people say ‘non functional’ in general they mean ‘it’s not ii V’s etc’ which is more saying what something isn’t than what it is.

(It’s also to point out that jazz musicians like baroque musicians have an understanding of tonality based on practical music making with specific cases rather than general theory - what you might call ‘schemata’ if you want to be fancy.)

Outside of this relatively ‘small room’ of ‘standard changes’ there’s a massive echoing hall featuring loads of ways people can write music without using the standard issue furniture of standards.

If you spend time looking into one composer you start to see patterns - their equivalent of ii V I’s etc. So for Wayne, the move from m7 or 7#9 to a 7#11 or maj7#11 up a half step with a minor pentatonic melody is a common feature of quite a few of his classic 60s tunes. (A Wayne schema, then, as a II V I is a schema for straightahead jazz.)

OTOH people also mean ‘modal’ to mean a soloing approach that suits itself well to chord changes that aren’t obviously bop (although the modal approach can also be used on standards). At least part learning to improvise on not obviously bebop or standards-like changes (originals etc) sight unseen. This is a useful real world skill.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jonah]

I think your ear is the most important argument.

The theory is mostly retrospective.
Functional theory has a huge backup of classical music where functional realtionships were used to a huge extent with all possible nuances and subtlety, it give lots of context.

Modern (not early/medieval etc) modality to me is much more open language because it is often a mix.
The tunes like Along Came Betty or Scofield's Always September or Falling Grace can be confusing: one one side they use quite clear elements of functional tonality on the other hand they are modal.

Usually I go from the feeling of the form. Ok you can have ii-V-I cadential turnarounds here and there and it is based on kind of dominant-tonic realtionship but does it really create a form?
In my opinion in functional tonality the most important sign is semantical modulation: it is when you have one key for quite a long time and then you change for another key (and maybe more) and then you come back.
So functional tonality is to me more about the relationship between keys (and the keys are clearly pronounced with development, cadences etc.)

So if we speak about relatively simple songs which stay in the same key all the time (or when the switched between keys are not that important) then it is also easy to say it is modal, especially in jazz context.

Another point is what Christian described: modal turnarounds depend much on how each one uses them, in modality a lot of things depend on intensity and time... if you just play Dominant chord long enough it loses the feeling of tension.
The same thing if you put some accent (on beat or something) on a chord a few times you begin to hear it as stable.
If you repeat the same turnaround many times one can begin to hear it as cadential.

But I do not really see there a universal language like it was in classical.
It is very open and much depends just on your choice: it is both an advantage and disadvantage to me.
You have almost complete freedom but this also means there are no restrictions and it may seem like any choice is not obligatory and then there is a feeling that you could do the other thing and it would be the same.
Like it does not really matter where it shifts to... like in Along Came Betty... ok it goes to this key or that key but does it really matter to which one? It seems like the shift itslef is just important and it has kind of no direction overall, it does not matter rven in which key it ends. It is all in the moment...

I think Wayne Shorter is really a could example of creating his own language with that.

[wolflen]

Good post..

In my own harmonic/melodic experiments I cross tonal/modal lines often without any major concerns..to my ears or to others.

Sometime letting an ending chord ring..in key or not will satisfy the ear. Ami11 is a fave for me.

My explorations in "fusion' has led me to question harmonic explanations offered by theory. Ted Greene showed me many examples of broken
rules that sound just fine.

Play a BbM7#11( I think of this as a C13sus) let it ring for several beats follow with the first five chords of Giant Steps ending on a Gmi11 (10th fret)..let that ring for several beats

In playing this at various tempos and rhythms you may hear something calling after that Gmi11.

Tonal/modal..hmmm

[Babaluma]

Babaluma -

There are several sites that go through the theory, some clearer than others. But when it actually comes to how to write an interesting modal progression they either leave it out, or get very vague, or too simplistic, and it usually ends up sounding like a folk song, like Scarborough Fair, etc.

Probably the best way is to absorb the theory, and it is complex, then research jazz modal tunes. As I said before, the best ones tend to throw in a bit of modal with some functional chords as well. Blue In Green is like that. Also Flamenco Sketches which sticks in a couple of V's before the I (e.g F7 - BbM7 and D7alt - Gm7).

When it comes to Wayne Shorter nobody knows. One presenter said he was convinced Shorter wrote the melody first then reharmed it. But it is tricky... unless you reduce the whole thing to one or two chords. Which, predictably, becomes very tedious to solo over.

Let us know how you get on if you want. I'd be interested.

Thanks very much, I am going to try a few months working and will then follow up. Thanks again for this advice, much appreciated !

[Babaluma]

When people say ‘non functional’ in general they mean ‘it’s not ii V’s etc’ which is more saying what something isn’t than what it is.

(It’s also to point out that jazz musicians like baroque musicians have an understanding of tonality based on practical music making with specific cases rather than general theory - what you might call ‘schemata’ if you want to be fancy.)

Outside of this relatively ‘small room’ of ‘standard changes’ there’s a massive echoing hall featuring loads of ways people can write music without using the standard issue furniture of standards.

If you spend time looking into one composer you start to see patterns - their equivalent of ii V I’s etc. So for Wayne, the move from m7 or 7#9 to a 7#11 or maj7#11 up a half step with a minor pentatonic melody is a common feature of quite a few of his classic 60s tunes. (A Wayne schema, then, as a II V I is a schema for straightahead jazz.)

OTOH people also mean ‘modal’ to mean a soloing approach that suits itself well to chord changes that aren’t obviously bop (although the modal approach can also be used on standards). At least part learning to improvise on not obviously bebop or standards-like changes (originals etc) sight unseen. This is a useful real world skill.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Good points and in my own early compositions I have tended to avoid obvious functional changes but have later found many changes that I assumed were unconventional were simply things like minor subdominants so sometimes simply to have something sound musical you end up using functional convention but in a disguised way. I suppose the key thing is does the progression support the theme and have a goal that satisfies the ear? Even Shorter's most obscure tunes have an internal logic I feel?

[Babaluma]

I think your ear is the most important argument.

The theory is mostly retrospective.
Functional theory has a huge backup of classical music where functional realtionships were used to a huge extent with all possible nuances and subtlety, it give lots of context.

Modern (not early/medieval etc) modality to me is much more open language because it is often a mix.
The tunes like Along Came Betty or Scofield's Always September or Falling Grace can be confusing: one one side they use quite clear elements of functional tonality on the other hand they are modal.

Usually I go from the feeling of the form. Ok you can have ii-V-I cadential turnarounds here and there and it is based on kind of dominant-tonic realtionship but does it really create a form?
In my opinion in functional tonality the most important sign is semantical modulation: it is when you have one key for quite a long time and then you change for another key (and maybe more) and then you come back.
So functional tonality is to me more about the relationship between keys (and the keys are clearly pronounced with development, cadences etc.)

So if we speak about relatively simple songs which stay in the same key all the time (or when the switched between keys are not that important) then it is also easy to say it is modal, especially in jazz context.

Another point is what Christian described: modal turnarounds depend much on how each one uses them, in modality a lot of things depend on intensity and time... if you just play Dominant chord long enough it loses the feeling of tension.
The same thing if you put some accent (on beat or something) on a chord a few times you begin to hear it as stable.
If you repeat the same turnaround many times one can begin to hear it as cadential.

But I do not really see there a universal language like it was in classical.
It is very open and much depends just on your choice: it is both an advantage and disadvantage to me.
You have almost complete freedom but this also means there are no restrictions and it may seem like any choice is not obligatory and then there is a feeling that you could do the other thing and it would be the same.
Like it does not really matter where it shifts to... like in Along Came Betty... ok it goes to this key or that key but does it really matter to which one? It seems like the shift itslef is just important and it has kind of no direction overall, it does not matter rven in which key it ends. It is all in the moment...

I think Wayne Shorter is really a could example of creating his own language with that.

Excellent post and I agree that once you go beyond a more straight forward tune then you can create your own language, I suppose it is a test of how effective a players experiments are as a soloist and as a composer is if listeners respond to it and understand the underlying aim of the piece?

[Babaluma]

Good post..

In my own harmonic/melodic experiments I cross tonal/modal lines often without any major concerns..to my ears or to others.

Sometime letting an ending chord ring..in key or not will satisfy the ear. Ami11 is a fave for me.

My explorations in "fusion' has led me to question harmonic explanations offered by theory. Ted Greene showed me many examples of broken
rules that sound just fine.

Play a BbM7#11( I think of this as a C13sus) let it ring for several beats follow with the first five chords of Giant Steps ending on a Gmi11 (10th fret)..let that ring for several beats

In playing this at various tempos and rhythms you may hear something calling after that Gmi11.

Tonal/modal..hmmm

I feel my ultimate goal is to achieve this freedom but I have a lot of work to do

[Jonah]

Excellent post and I agree that once you go beyond a more straight forward tune then you can create your own language, I suppose it is a test of how effective a players experiments are as a soloist and as a composer is if listeners respond to it and understand the underlying aim of the piece?

thank you.
But I am not sure about the litner though.
To certain degree the composer/player IS the only true listner. Of we may call presumable listner (ideal litner?).

Of course you are conventional but you cannot be conciously conventional (unless it is pure sales)