New starter here... a little advice on modes?

[matt.guitarteacher]

Must I really think "fifth mode C harmonic minor to second mode F melodic minor"? It doesn't seem easier and you get the same notes either way.

I don't understand the assumption that one must begin with parent scale and then CONVERT - as part of multi-step thought process. Honestly, to me, this always sounds like someone who has just never thought about it that way , and that's fine. It's just not the way people think about these things who actually use the terminology.

Lyd. dominant, Phryg. dominant, Mixo, Mixo.b13 all convey a chord relationship to dominant in their name. Those who are comfortable with the terminology - and who actually know how to play it - don't stop to think of the parent scale first. I certainly don't, and I'm not any kind of jazz player.

Do we really HAVE to think about C-major to play D Dorian? Again, I'm not thinking C-major as step one of two parts to getting me there, not in terms of playing. D Dorian is its own entity , and you learn to play it as such for the express purpose of not having to think about C-major first just to play it. Otherwise, you may as well just think C-major.

It's exactly the same thing with melodic minor modes and harmonic minor modes for those who are comfortable using that terminology. The whole POINT of learning each degree separately and its associated chord type, is to REMOVE the extra step in thought process.

As a complete amateur jazz hobbyist , IF I happen to think about Lydian dominant being the fourth scale degree, it's because I CAN think about it that way, not because I HAVE to. It opens options rather than limiting them. The other way is just backwards to the whole point of the thing, especially with melodic minor, in which the chords don't all relate to each other functionally the way they do in major and minor.

I mean, you use 6th degree mm and 7th degree to sub for a minor II-V: second degree and fifth degree. That's beyond confusing. Too many degrees of separation , and not really a functional relationship on the surface of the way your verbalizing or symbolically representing it.

At least "Locrian #2" and "altered" immediately imply a functional relationship to the 2nd and 5th scale degrees of minor.

[rpjazzguitar]

Of course, once you've learned the terminology it works fine.

But, if you're just starting out, going through the Greek names for things seem to me to be the long way around.

[Tal_175]

My criticism of the Greek modal names is not that they are hard to learn. There is so much confusion about modes. People talk about them but refer to different things as exemplified even by just this thread. Which is fine but it's also good to come to a shared understanding of what a particular musical terminology means. I believe part of the reason for this confusion is conflating two distinct meaning of modes in the way Greek names are used.
There is modes as chord scales and there is modes as tonal centers.
When you play Bb mixolydian over I chord of blues (or Eb Mixolydian over IV), you are not thinking you're in the Mixolydian tonal center. Mixolydian is a chord-scale here. Some aptly call it the dominant scale.
This very different than So What being in Dorian mode.
Those Greek names were originally used in the tonality sense. In jazz both senses apply but in DIFFERENT contexts. It would have been good if terminology was helpful in distinguishing these. That's why this confusion doesn't apply to MM modes. No one thinks lydian dominant as a tonal center. It's a chord scale. Because MM mode names aren't over-loaded.
Also I heard Emily Remler say she thinks altered as MM up a half step, lydian dominant as MM up a fifth in an instructional video. So even the very top pros can think parent scale and drive chord scales from them. Of course the more you do that the more automatic it gets.

[christianm77]

The Greek names are somewhat pretentious IMO. I know everyone thinks there's a link back to Gregorian chant and Antiquity but actually the names got messed around, and the Medieval/Renaissance conception of the modes was not quite like it is today. Nerds can watch this vid for more info....

So I guess we inherit the Greek mode names from Modern Classical music theory - Schoenberg uses them for instance....

So, while we can sorta kinda trace the Greek mode names back through MA Europe and into Antiquity and that might be a reason to hang on to them if only for 'flavour' (maaaayybeee) there is absolutely no reason IMO why we should have ghastly constructions like 'Locrian #2' or (my favourite) Hyper Locrian.

This sort of stuff is best left to 17 year old prog rockers who want everything about music to sound EPIC and DEEP.

[grahambop]

You’re just a hypolocrite.

[christianm77]

My criticism of the Greek modal names is not that they are hard to learn. There is so much confusion about modes. People talk about them but refer to different things as exemplified even by just this thread. Which is fine but it's also good to come to a shared understanding what a particular musical terminology means. I believe part of the reason for this confusion is the use of Greek names conflating two distinct meaning of modes.
There is modes as chord scales and there is modes as tonal centers.
When you play Bb mixolydian over I chord of blues (or Eb Mixolydian over IV), you are not thinking you're in the Mixolydian tonal center. Mixolydian is a chord-scale. Some aptly call it the dominant scale.
This very different than So What being in Dorian mode.
Those Greek names were originally used in the tonality sense. In jazz both senses apply but in DIFFERENT contexts. It would have been good if terminology was helpful in distinguishing these. That's why this confusion doesn't apply to MM modes. No one thinks lydian dominant as a tonal center. It's a chord scale. Because MM mode names aren't over-loaded.
Also I heard Emily Remler say she thinks altered as MM up a half step, lydian dominant as MM up a fifth in an instructional video. So even very top pros can think parent scale and drive chord scales from them. Of course the more you do that the more automatic it gets.

Here's another thing. Thinking the latter way allows you to apply what you already have rather than having to come up with new language for every new chord type.

How many of us have as many altered dominant and locrian #2 ideas as minor ideas?

Alright, maybe bako, but aside from him?

I mean, it's useful to know that cool A melodic minor tinged line I can also play on F#m7b5 and Ab7? Or that it would give a cool sound on Cmaj?

Top pros are top pros not because they know more shit but because they can apply the shit they already know seamlessly in all situations. Charlie Christian, Pat Martino, Emily Remler etc etc all did this.

So if we convert every chord to minor, we play all our minor stuff on it, major, the same, dominant, and so on.

There are a small number of important relationships - cycle four, tritone and dim symmetry, family of four and thirds for major and m7 chords - that we need to know to accomplish this. There's not a huge amount intellectual information, but that's plenty to apply rigorously and consistently..

Then some nerd can tell you about how you are using the C lydian augmented or whatever.

[rlrhett]

Top pros are top pros not because they know more shit but because they can apply the shit they already know seamlessly in all situations. Charlie Christian, Pat Martino, Emily Remler etc etc all did this.

Well, Pat Martino knows way more shit. Just ask him. ;-)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[bako]

I don't understand the assumption that one must begin with parent scale and then CONVERT - as part of multi-step thought process. Honestly, to me, this always sounds like someone who has just never thought about it that way , and that's fine. It's just not the way people think about these things who actually use the terminology.

A scale is a repository of harmonic extensions centric around each pitch.
Assuming one knows at least one viable fingering for a scale, they are then in position
to examine each family member in detail within the parent scale context.
It is useful as an early method of practice because it builds on something previously known.
This is the derivative approach.

One of the biggest misnomers is that modes are the same as fingerings.
I look at what some refer to as modal fingerings as scale inversions.
It is our musical choices and not a given fingering that create a modal color.
The rhythm section, bass + chord are highly influential as to how a given note is harmonically understood.
Every mode can be played anywhere on the fingerboard.

The parallel approach is more connected to practical modal usage, applying intervallic modal content to
a given root. When the parent scale is in a state of constant movement it is an unnecessary step to be
referring backwards to derivation. Knowing the sonic and descriptive content of modal structures is a more direct path to access this material.

In my opinion, modes provide a great one stop shop experience for studying various combinations of
intervals from a melodic and harmonic perspective. The chromatic scale is the mother of all,
but is dense and complex, too much info to digest at once (in the beginning).
Studying smaller collections of notes such as 7 note scales are far more manageable and chips away
at the larger project of studying chromatic content.
Smaller still:
hexatonics (chord pairs/modal compression approach)
triad + one (quadratonics)
7th chord + 1 (hybrid pentatonics)

[bako]

Alright, maybe bako, but aside from him?

I can't even remember all the various names that have evolved to codify various modes.
I think in roman numerals harmonic major III, etc. The names are unimportant to me.
Let me put it this way, ear training is a good thing.
Playing around with note collections is an ear training game for me.
Is it useful to get comfortable with a wide array of harmonic combinations?
In my opinion, yes. Modes can be helpful in this regard.
It is hardy the only way to accomplish this goal but it does cover a lot of ground.

[rpjazzguitar]

The part of this discussion I tried to contribute to was the naming issue.

Dorian or m13?

Lydian dominant or 7#11?

5th mode harmonic minor or 7b13?

Etc

Just keeping the naming close to the application.

[DS71]

One of the biggest misnomers is that modes are the same as fingerings.

Winner Winner Chicken Dinner.

[christianm77]

Well, Pat Martino knows way more shit. Just ask him. ;-)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Sure he does. I think maybe you parsed that statement differently to how I intended it. That's not the point - PM doesn't know much stuff - it's like PM knows how to apply the stuff he knows, however much stuff that is.

All GREAT players that have revealed some aspect of their process seem to have some version of this. Using the material they know to maximum effect. That's just efficiency.

Charlie Christian probably knew less shit than PM. Probably knew less shit than most student jazz guitarists around - but he is still better than most at applying it. Probably would have learned more shit had he lived.

If you know a good line on D7 find other chords you can play it on. And then find variations on that D7 line and so on... Play through a whole song just using that line. And so on.

(But PM was KILLING from a very early age, and then had to re-learn. Obviously he has a very efficient, playing oriented process like Charlie Christian.... That convert to minor concept is EXACTLY the sort of thing I'm talking about.)

Ben Monder knows 8,000,000 chords, but he knows all the applications of them too... Lage Lund, similar thing.

But it can start from day one. You have to learn 1 of those 8,000,000 chords at a time. Say you know only the shapes x 2 3 2 3 x and x x 4 5 5 5 - well, you have four types of chord you can play that on right away. Break them up into melodies, embellish and so on... Learn some Charlie Christian lines that use these shapes and see what he gets up to.

That's learning jazz, right? The process of improvisation - take some material, and use it. And learning fluency through the song. Anyway, straightahead jazz there's not that much going on harmonically... But you have to be able to play lines. Not the same thing.

(The harmonic challenges of modern tunes are a bit different, but that's another story, the same principles can totally apply. )

(And yes you can also do the parallel thing where you take that set of intervals and change them to get new voicings.... Do that with lines to and so on. That's important fretboard mapping. Teach one shape and get them to modify it into every scale or chord.)

How you hear those lines harmonically is a bit more philosophical.... Not unimportant - but - I want to get people playing....

[rpjazzguitar]

Sure he does. I think maybe you parsed that statement differently to how I intended it. That's not the point - PM doesn't know much stuff - it's like PM knows how to apply the stuff he knows, however much stuff that is.
.

Well said. My experience with transcription supports the point. I almost never transcribe an entire solo. Rather, I transcribe sections which catch my ear. I hear something that sounds really different than anything I know how to play and think, "what was that?!".

Then, when I figure it out, it usually turns out to be something familiar. For example, I'll hear a really novel sounding line over a ii V, and it will turn out to be an alt scale -- the same one I already use. What's the difference? Better melody. Or it will turn out to be a juxtaposition of one chord over another -- and it's a substitution I already use.

For myself, I know that I'm better off spending time finding better ways to use the stuff I already know than trying to find new sounds through theory.

[rlrhett]

Sure he does. I think maybe you parsed that statement differently to how I intended it. That's not the point - PM doesn't know much stuff - it's like PM knows how to apply the stuff he knows, however much stuff that is.

It was a joke. Pat Martino is famously immodest and grandiloquent.

I think I understand now that modes are a matter too serious to joke about, and apologize for my misplaced levity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[matt.guitarteacher]

There is a really irritating kind of reverse snobbery towards naming modes here. Calling something by a mode name is no more "theory" than naming it by a chord symbol.

There's a false logic which only seems to work in one direction in these conversations. "Players who call something by a name therefore MUST think of the name in order to play it and .... must also work out theory formulas in real-time in order to play it".

That's simply isn't the way names and symbols work. I can play a major scale, for example, and call it a major scale, but I don't HAVE to think about the NAME in order play it .... nor do it HAVE to think of a formula in order to play it. Once you know how to play it, you may be aware of the formula, but it isn't a RESTRICTION the way it seems like is being described here.

I can likewise verbalize the process of driving for my teenage daughter while she's learning , but that doesn't mean that I personally HAVE to verbalize and work out formulas and steps in order to drive myself. Labels are separate entities. So, why do we talk about modes this way? Labels are labels, but they aren't necessarily PROCESSES or methods for thinking or doing anything ... in a restrictive or limiting sense.

[christianm77]

It was a joke. Pat Martino is famously immodest and grandiloquent.

I think I understand now that modes are a matter too serious to joke about, and apologize for my misplaced levity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

:-)

[christianm77]

There is a really irritating kind of reverse snobbery towards naming modes here. Calling something by a mode name is no more "theory" than naming it by a chord symbol.

There's a false logic which only seems to work in one direction in these conversations. "Players who call something by a name therefore MUST think of the name in order to play it and .... must also work out theory formulas in real-time in order to play it".

That's simply isn't the way names and symbols work. I can play a major scale, for example, and call it a major scale, but I don't HAVE to think about the NAME in order play it .... nor do it HAVE to think of a formula in order to play it. Once you know how to play it, you may be aware of the formula, but it isn't a RESTRICTION the way it seems like is being described here.

I can likewise verbalize the process of driving for my teenage daughter while she's learning , but that doesn't mean that I personally HAVE to verbalize and work out formulas and steps in order to drive myself. Labels are separate entities. So, why do we talk about modes this way? Labels are labels, but they aren't necessarily PROCESSES or methods for thinking or doing anything ... in a restrictive or limiting sense.

I think I’m more concerned about streamlining the learning process... learning two different names for D7#11 seems a bit extra as the kids say.

[joe2758]

I would say, know and be able to play all of them (without referencing the parent key, in other words know the scale degrees). Then focus on shedding the hell out of 2 of them; sequences and language etc. I focus on major and dominant, but you could do major and dorian which i think is common.

[christianm77]

I would say, know and be able to play all of them (without referencing the parent key, in other words the scale degrees). Then focus on shedding the hell out of 2 of them; sequences and language etc. I focus on major and dominant, but you could do major and dorian which i think is common.

Dorian is Dominant.

[christianm77]

Kinda

[joe2758]

Dorian is Dominant.

yeah man that's why i said either will work. a mode that puts the weight correctly on major, and a mode that puts the weight correctly on dominant.

[christianm77]

yeah man that's why i said either will work. a mode that puts the weight correctly on major, and a mode that puts the weight correctly on dominant.

Exactly. Or you can do both and triangulate them together.

The CST style jazz educators aren’t wrong when they say the 6 in Dorian gives away the sound of the dominant. The interesting thing is they don’t go that extra conceptual step and combine the two functions into the one scale the way Barry and Pat do... which vastly streamlines everything.

[rpjazzguitar]

Another example.

G A B C D Eb F could be called G7b13. It is 5th mode melodic minor, aka mixolydian b6.

G Ab B C D Eb F could be called G7b9b13. This one is 5th mode harmonic minor, aka phrygian dominant.

Change one note. Instead of specifying the change, the naming goes from mixob6 to phryg. dom.

So, now, let's say you're reading a new tune. The chord is G7b9b13. Where is the need to learn that it's "phrygian dominant"? How does that make learning the material any easier? Sure, if you want to, you can do it in Greek and you end up at the same place as if you just went with chord symbols. Doing it with chord symbols isn't perfect for every situation, but I think it's a better way for the novice to graduate to intermediate.

[Tal_175]

I would say, know and be able to play all of them (without referencing the parent key, in other words know the scale degrees).

If you don't reference the parent scale, say if you're playing over G7 but superimposing Bmin7b5 lines over it (you don't always start from the root I pressume), so now you're thinking B locrian scale and be able to instantly play it anywhere on the fretboard instantly? Or are you still thinking G dominant scale but starting from the third. If you do that, then aren't you still driving your lines from some sort of parent scale?


PS. I can drive any mode easily because I know their construction and I can find any interval fairly quickly but that's different. I still think in terms of the notes of the chord I'm playing (it could be a super imposed chord).

[Tal_175]

On piano every key is a different fingering. So a pianist that doesn't use parent scale approach must learn 84 scales just for the major?