-
I know there's a discussion on this down there a bit but I didn't want to hijack Fefe's thread (some great stuff in there, BTW)...
Anyway, I have absolutely no idea what I'm doing when it comes to modal jazz. I've listened to Kind of Blue inside and out, as well as a whole bunch of other stuff. I can hear what's happening, and I love what they're doing, but I can't figure out how to do it for myself. I'm trying to transcribe Cannonball's solo on Milestones (Man that one is good) and I've been told that transcribing So What is a good place to start too.
But how does it work? Let's take Milestones for an example. Typical AABA, but the A is just Gm7 and the B is just Am7. As far as I can tell, that's all the rhythm section's playing. But there's no way that's all the soloists are playing. Are the soloists kind of meshing in their own chords and substitutions? That's what it sounds like to me. In more modern modal music (say THAT three times fast), I feel as though this is even more pronounced.
So what is the deal with modal jazz? When I play through Milestones, and I just use one scale for every section, I feel as though I don't get anywhere near the breadth of sound that Miles, Cannonball and Coltrane do. So what am I missing?
Complicating this is the fact that I find it incredibly difficult to think modally. If you've got a G chord, and you're playing a G scale with an F natural in it, I would not think of that as some kind of mode, I would think of that as a G scale with a b7. Which in the end is the same thing, but the thought process is very different and as a result when people start talking about D Dorian or what have you I get left in the dust a bit because what is to them a mode is to me an altered scale.
-
01-28-2011 10:26 PM
-
Well, IMHO, based on my research and analysis (which some here disagree with) there is a big difference between what Miles envisioned for modal jazz and how many play it (which is supported by quotes from Miles himself.)
The idea that Miles wanted was that the harmony would stay either static for long stretches or would be changing but not in ways that would affect the scale. The idea was that since you didn't have to worry about the next chord change coming up and finding your way to a guide tone to resolve. Now you could hang out and explore. You can explore the scale and explore upper extensions that used to need to be resolved. The idea was to free the soloist up so that he could focus on melody instead of weaving lines through fast and complicated changes, which had started to bore Miles.
So I think that the key is just to explore melody and free yourself from harmonic worry and making the changes (which most guitarists don't do nowadays anyways, but that's another rant for another time.) If you really want to understand modal jazz as Miles intended it, then you have to transcribe Miles and Evans, two people at the heart of its creation. The other musicians involved, while wonderful players, only halfway got into what Miles was preaching. Cannonball's and Trane's solos are awesome, but there is a large dose of their own personality mixed into what they are doing. Not that there is anything wrong with that - we should be interpreting things our own way - it was very artificial what Miles tried to do, get people to play the way he wanted them to play experimentally, with no warning.
So, the "pure" modal voice is just one color on your palette. And few every play in a pure modal voice nowadays. Me, I might do a chorus or even just half, to set the mood and pay tribute, but then start stepping outside of that and expressing myself.
But transcribe Miles off KOB. Listen to how he uses the scale. Listen to how he fearlessly explores upper extensions. Listen to the space. Listen to the mood. Listen to how he doesn't care about the harmony. That is as close to modal jazz as anyone ever came, IMHO.
The others are great solos and worth studying , but they deviate from Miles' pure vision and therefore are not the nest examples of modal jazz - they are how some great players filter the modal jazz concept through their own strong voices.
Don't get too caught up in the scale and mode thing. Any collection of notes is a scale. What makes it a mode is how it is used. The point of modal thinking is that there is no functional harmony (no V-I relationship) and the eventual resolution is just melody resolving to the tonic. This is how Miles probably understood the term. The modern jazz definition of mode is that it is just an offset scale (that may be applied to functional harmony.) I've seen no one provide any evidence that this was in use before the 70s so I find it unlikely that this was what Miles meant.
Just explore the scale/mode and you don't have to worry about chord changes - if it is Dorian, then every note is consonant so nothing really needs to be resolved. Just explore and have fun.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 01-28-2011 at 11:50 PM.
-
Hey Kingcrimson250 here's a video of possible modal applications when playing jazz...
It's rough, sorry and if something's not clear or you want a better example ... please let me know. My example is in reference to more current usage of modal concepts, but covers early jazz use also...Best Reg
-
What's missing is that those guys had decades of playing jazz at the highest level with the greatest players of their time.
Originally Posted by KingCrimson250
So it might be unrealistic to expect to have the same results.
-
Very true and exceedingly humbling! Originally Posted by Drumbler
-
Modal or otherwise... I think the main idea people are asking about is how to play tunes with very slow harmonic rhythms. Some people actually feel like they are left without ideas because they are used to the constant chord changes dictating their melodic decisions to some degree...
If you have tons of ideas and feel bothered by tunes like RC or Giant Steps, "modal jazz" might feel liberating...
If you are very focused on functional harmony, bebop motifs, voice leading, and working of a written melody, "modal jazz" might leave you feeling stranded...
Just some ideas.... I like both.
Blending the two is fun as well. I like CST as I also like linear playing...
-
Thanks for the plug, nowhere man.
I'm stayin' out of the modal vs. tonal debate though. Please don't quote me, if it's gonna stir shiz up. Thanks. Have fun, and best wishes.Last edited by JonnyPac; 01-31-2011 at 07:20 PM.
-
JP ...ok... sorry... I like your ideas though. Keep up the good work. It seems like you really just want to help people. That's better than being anal about classical terms and the like. I guess I missed something.
-
Yeah, that seems pretty accurate. What's puzzling me is that even if a song's just a vamp over one or two chords, I'll still hear accidentals and foreign arpeggios, almost as though they're substituting their own changes over the rhythm. I'm wondering if there's any merit to that or if they're just playing whatever they want to play and I'm reading too much into things. Originally Posted by Jeremy Hillary Boob Ph.D
-
I think that's where Mr. Pac's loose ideas are nice. He's implying that you can use chromaticism to work towards target notes, outline upper-structure triads and fourths, and imply harmonic movement and still sound "inside"...
Supposedly heavy jazz players like Trane would run Giant Steps changes, symmetrical note patterns, and sidestep to get "outside" on "modal" tunes or one-chord extended vamps... not sure about that...
-
Hey, I never said what you were teaching was bad - just that it wasn't what modal jazz originally was "meant" to be according to Miles. But it is a completely legitimate approach to soloing with some modal flavor. I like the term neo-modal. My complaint wasn't with the approach but with the labeling and history. But I won't bother going into that again - anyone can read that if they want. Originally Posted by JonnyPac
As I said, rarely does anyone actually use a purely modal approach. I certainly don't. (Not for very long at least.)
Peace,
Kevin
-
What do you mean by an "offset scale"? Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
-
Here's a quote from Piston's Harmony...his chapter on tonality and modality.
" Tonality is the organized relationship of tones in music. This relationship, as far as the common practice of composers in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is concerned, implies a central tone with all other tones supporting it or tending towards it, in one way or another. Earlier organizing principals, based on the modes, antedate the period we are studying.
Modality refers to the choice of the tones between which this relationship exists. Tonality is synonymous with key, modality with scale. In addition to the major, minor and chromatic scales, an extremely large number of modes can be constructed in any given tonality. As illustration a few are given here on the key-note C."
His examples show; Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, Pentatonic, Whole-tone and Hungarian.... all starting on C.
He continues..." These modes may be transposed into all tonalities, simply by changing the pitch of the tonic note and preserving the interval relationship"
Just in case you don't know Walter Piston, he is one of standards references for music theory. A modern Rameau or Reimann, covering as he said 18th an 19th centuries.
He was the Professor of music at Harvard University and received two Pulitzer Prizes in Music. He composed music for orchestra and chamber ensembles...
Whats nice about Piston's books... they get to the point...Best RegLast edited by Reg; 02-02-2011 at 12:03 PM.
-
IMO
I think modal music can basically be grouped into three separate things. The first being pre-baroque vocal music that was based on scales from the 1600's. We aren't really concerned with that kind of modal music on this site.
The second being what Kevin considers "real" modal music which was developed by Miles Davis. This uses on scale as the pitch collection for an entire section of a piece, see Kevin's detailed description above.
I think there is a third kind of modal music though, one that avoids the use of V-I relationships and uses only major and minor chords to achieve different levels of resolution and tension. this developed later through composers who. while influenced my Miles, where taking the modal idea somewhere new.
Examples might include....
Wayne Shorter, Chick Corea, Herbie, Robert Glasper, Mulgrew Miller, the list goes on and on.
Some tunes that would fall into this category....
Humpty Dumpty - Corea
Fe-fi-fo-fum - Shorter (modal in places)
North Portland - Glasper
Tell me a bedtime story - Hancock
These are tunes where knowing your modes and how to use them are essential to soloing or improvising, tonal relationships don't work here, I personally consider this music "third wave" modal jazz and I would be interested to hear others thoughts on tunes such as these.
-
Very nice Tim... great examples of use... I, as many have mentioned, mix use of harmonic and melodic aspects of modal and traditional jazz function when soloing, I tend to simply play what I hear... but as you mentioned, my hearing/playing has been influenced heavily by modal concepts, when playing Hancock, Chick or especially Shorter tunes. I mean Shorter basically showed most of us how to hear/think of jazz. Third Wave... great name, tune, band... very cool thanks Reg
-
But Reg, that may have been true when Piston wrote his books in the 30s and 40s. But the definition of "tonality" has evolved into a more narrow meaning. Yes, "tonality" can still have the broad meaning that Piston give to it. But more common is the more narrow definition of having to do with "tonal" harmony, that is functional harmony that exhibits a dominant-tonic relationship, usually within the major-minor setting. Again, my text for my class in 18th century counterpoint was called "Tonal Counterpoint" to contrast it with the modal counterpoint of the 16th century and before. This is what the word "tonal" usually means today. Pointing out what it "used" to mean doesn't help much. Originally Posted by Reg
Piston is a great reference and is well respected as such, but there is a reason why it is no longer used as textbooks, and there has not been a new edition or reprint in almost 30 years. Music theory and some of the terminology has moved on. The more narrow definition of "tonal" was already in circulation in Piston's day, but he chose to go with the definition that he'd heard in school back at Harvard in the 20s.
But thank you Reg, for the most coherent reply you've ever given. I just think that it misses the point a little.
I don't want to get into a big thing here, but the word "mode" (at least as used by jazz musicians) has been demoted to mean just "a scale starting on a different note." "Mode" has just become a fancy word for "scale." It didn't used to be like that. "Mode" used to carry with it some very important compositional implications that contrast with "tonal" music and still carries much of this meaning in the classical world. Originally Posted by timscarey
The problem is that when modern jazz musians try to understand what Miles meant by "modal jazz" they often superimpose their modern meaning of the word onto it. But to truly understand it, we have to understand how he understood it. Based on where he was learning this stuff, his and Evans' writings and his playing, it is evident that what he was thinking was closer to the older meaning of the word, probably based on how the Impressionists used modalism. I have yet to find any reference to the modern definition of mode before the 70s.
.
And Tim, to your different definitions of modal in different times, I would add two new definitions. The Greeks had their own understanding of "mode" that was quite different from the medieval one. (The medieval theorists actually simply misunderstood a lot of Greek theory, often mixing up the names and terms.) The Impressionists also had their own understanding of modalism, adapting it from the medieval understanding. This is almost certainly where Miles and Evans got their understanding - based on their own writings. Listen to the beginning of Satie's Gymnopedie #1 and tell me that does not sound like if could have been on KOB.
I have no problem saying that "modal" has meant different things in different times. (Many music terms do this, look at "sonata" or "sarabande") I take that back, I think that we should realize that words have meant different things in different times. The problem I have is when people try and smear the modern definition over all of history.
Peace,
KevinLast edited by ksjazzguitar; 02-02-2011 at 03:29 PM.
-
Okay.... Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
Gymniopedie No. 1 is in D Major. it does modulate in places, but it's in D.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that, things change and music evolves, why not go with it.
and you didn't even address the composers and tunes I mentioned, do these things not fall into the category of "Modal Jazz"?
I realize that for some reason you have a need to make sure that everyone defines things the same way you and your teachers do/have. But that will never happen, discussion and an open mind lead to a deeper understanding, not insisting that "this is the right way, and you're wrong".....
And, as far as smearing the definition all over history..... what are you referring too? This discussion is about right now, the OP want's to know how to understand Modal Jazz, well, modal jazz has changed since the 60's so why leave the last 50 years out of it?.
when was the last time you heard or read any ancient Greek music? I mean, really dude, music notation as we know it was far from being invented, the 12 tone system wasn't even set in stone, I mean, we could go back even further but whats the point?Last edited by timscarey; 02-02-2011 at 04:28 PM.
-
Originally Posted by ksjazzguitar
So, why do we have to understand it as Miles understood it? it's 2011 and Miles has been dead for a long time. His ideas have grown, changed, and found new composers to push the limits and explore, whats wrong with that?
-
Tim, I totally agree with you. Besides this is not a classical music forum, it is a JAZZ GUITAR forum. We should all assume that "modal" in used in the current jazz vernacular and move on with our discussions.
We all know the terms "inside" and "outside" here, and they are never confused with "interior" and "exterior" paint... It's jazz!
-
Tim, you misunderstand me. I'm not saying that we must play modal tunes the way that Miles played them. I'm saying that as a matter of definition, if we want to understand what that term meant, then we need to look there. How people play modal tunes now? I'd rather call that neomodal or something else to make the distinction. Palestrina wrote fugues differently than Bach, and he wrote them differently Mozart, and he wrote them differently than Beethoven. That is why they are described as different styles of fugal writing. To just put blanket over all modal playing and say that it is all the same thing is I think misleading. This is proven by the number of people I run into on this forum who seem to think that what we call "modal" is that same thing that Miles was thinking.
I think that there is value in understanding what people like Miles and Evans meant bu the term and how they approached it musically. There is value in learning from the past instead of just the present. But you cannot learn from the past if you conflate it with the present. If you think that there is no value in understanding how the greats were thinking, then fine. But how can you understand how they are thinking if you start with half-a-dozen misconceptions?
Again, I'm not telling people how to play "So What." Play it however you want. I certainly don't play it in a purely modal fashion, not like Miles meant the term. I often start out in a purely modal fashion for a chorus, out of tribute and then evolve into a neomodal approach. But I do know the difference.
It's the same with all the people who think that bebop is just playing fast scales. No, that's how people try to emulate bebop now but is pretty much the opposite of how they thought of it then.
Again, if you don't care about understanding the past, then keep ignoring it. You can ignore it by consciously not thinking about it, or unconsciously by paving over our understanding of it by superimposing our definitions and understandings over the top of it. Actually the first choice would at least be more honest.
The question was about figuring out modal jazz. What it was originally is very germane to that question. So is what it means now. The problem lies in assuming that what it means now is what it meant then, which too many people are doing.
Again, play it how you want. But history doesn't change just because understanding the past is too much work - that's what history is for.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Kevin you seem to be missing the point... I've explained how modal jazz was broken down from Berklee in 70's, how has been used by working musicians for 40 years. Miles never came by Berklee, but most of the other jazz greats performing at that time did and lectured or picked up players. Many of faculty were on the road as much as they taught playing modal jazz with those jazz greats. There's a reason why they put together accredited classes on the subject. And yes they could also play... I have to split for gig, but I'll add more later tonight best Reg
-
That's like saying that to understand Bach's compositional process, we don't need to examine the music that we wrote or any of his writings on the subject. All we have to do is listen to next generation of other people who were influenced by him. Why not go to the source? Especially if he's saying something different. That is just a very bizarre statement to me. Originally Posted by Reg
By the time we got to the 70s, the concept of how to approach modal jazz had changed significantly. A simple comparison of an Miles solo off KOB will show that. Transcribe the Miles solo on "So What" and then transcribe someone from the Berklee crowd in the 70s and see the difference. Then go back and read any of the actual quotes from Miles and Evans talking about the conception and making of KOB and then compare it the the crap that everyone is trying to project backwards on it. There have been numerous books that cover the subject - I quoted some of them in the thread out criticism of the chord/scale approach. But people here don't like to read books so I'm not sure what the point of listing them would be - most people here only seem to be interested in reading things they can find on Wikipedia.
These things are readily available, but people don't look. They have their preconceived ideas and don't want to risk having to give them up. If you don't want to look, then don't.
I'm not saying the Berklee cats were playing the songs wrong, just that the definition of what Miles intended (at least as you attribute it to them.) They can play them however they want. My point is that their approach is demonstrably different from what Miles intended. That's fine - nothing says that we have to play it the way Miles did. But as a point of definition, there is a big difference between what Miles tried to do and what others are saying he did. There is a big difference between what he called "modal jazz" and what people nowadays are calling "modal jazz." I'm not arguing that the approach is wrong, just that people are mistaken that the terms refer to the same thing. That's why I prefer the term neomodal - it makes it clear that something different is being discussed. But too many assume that the term means the same thing to all periods.
Apparently, I'm the only one who see a problem with all of this. But you won't talk me out of it, so we'll just have to disagree.
Peace,
Kevin
-
Wow--Reg and Johnny Pac-- wonderful videos. Both very illuminating!
It seems to me that one way to distill the content from the two videos in a practical way would be to say that: 1) to get better at playing modal jazz, it is very useful to spend a lot of time playing over modal vamps, and perhaps even that modal jazz is often the place where jazz musicians get to apply the material generated in practice over modal vamps; and 2) that, as Reg demonstrates beautifully, the key to "using" modes for modal jazz is getting familiar with the with the strongest characteristic flavor of the given mode: e.g., the natural 6 of the Dorian. (And a second key might be to avoid too much suggestion of V-I movement, which is tricky, since most of what counts as "good" line architecture for playing over standards involves tension and release pegged to cadences). Am I correct, though, in my sense that as long as you resolve the implied V back to I swiftly, it is not so much of a problem?
One good way to combine the wisdom of the 2 videos would be to make a practice of playing the various modes starting on the same root--this is what Mick Goodrick advises in The Advancing Guitarist, and he even provides some nice ideas for chord vamps. Doing what Johnny Pac does in his video, but working through all of the modes in one key (which would take a couple of hours with breaks) seems like a very useful exercise (I think this is what Vic Juris advises: one key per month over a whole year, which would stretch out the work so it wouldn't take over your life). By the end of that year, one would really know the flavor tones of each mode cold (It is the beginning of February-- I think I am going to try this myself!)
Now, I think the next step for developing players seems to be getting a handle on "modal interchange": which, as I understand it, means taking advantage of common notes in different modes as a way to "switch tracks," usually briefly, between one modal sound, and another.
Simple enough, but what Reg demonstrates is that this is an "ear" thing much more than a "theory" or "fingering" thing: the key seems to be the ability to hear the "new" colors that a given modal interchange gives you so that you can put them on the canvas in a convincing way. Reg, do I have this right? Could you say a little more about modal interchange?
Anyways, thanks for the clips. You both have great sounds, and play really nice lines. Reg, your right hand is nuts... good inspiration for the woodshed.
-
Thanks JEdgarWinter... nice analysis of playing. I'll put something a little more organized and post. Hey Kevin... fair enough... Just to fill in a little more on The Berklee cats... they were also playing in the 60's, and their concepts of modal playing were being taught there in the 60's also. I didn't get there until 74. I was a going to Cal. and quite to go to Berklee, that was the place in early 70's for being exposed to Jazz theory. Everyone was listening to KOB in the 60's. And I've had Miles autobiography since it came out... But if Miles versions of how he heard modal are similar to some of the other subjects... it may have been revamped in the 30 or so years between KOB and auto. The bottom line is modal playing and concepts of playing are not very complicated... And usually comes down to the player/composer as with most styles to create something which we might consider musical... Reg
-
Hej Reg Nice playing and very nice sound you got. What gear are you playing and how did you record? mic on the guitar or directly into PC? Thanks!
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos