-
I can do a lotta stuff, but understanding modes eludes me. The bit about starting a scale on a different note, that is.
In the abstract, I get it: to quote from a jazz edumacation site:
"For example, if we play the notes of C major but starting on a D we get the Dorian mode, which has quite a different character to the original major scale. Similarly if we start on an F we get the Lydian mode, which sounds different again."
and,
"The Dorian scale should generally be your go-to jazz scale choice on a minor seventh chord. It’s a minor mode with a flattened seventh but a natural sixth, and you can work it out by playing any major scale starting on the second degree."
So if I am playing over a C chord, and I want to play in the Dorian mode, I should play notes from a Bb major scale.
Or if I'm playing over a Cm7 chord and I want to play in the Lydian mode, I should play notes from an F scale.
Or... maybe I want to play a Mixolydian scale, and I'm sitting there THINKING... and then the song is over. WTF?
Ah, just let me play my Bird and Louis licks in a graceful way over the changes, and then I can get paid...
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the whole bit about superimposing one scale over a different chord is WAY over my head. I can still read music, sound good and cooperate with the leader, that's the important thing. But I may be too dumb to be a jazz musician. 60 years a player, 60 years a moron...
-
01-27-2026 05:04 PM
-
It's not as arcane as you make it out to be..... if you know the diatonic chords within a scale, you can identify the modes associated with them.
For example, in C major we have these 4 note chords [I'm using the ^ sign for Major]: C^7 - Dm7 - Em7 - F^7 - G7 - Am7 - Bm7b5.
In this key, the Dorian mode is associated with the IIm7 chord, Dm7. Em7 = phrygian, F^7 = Lydian, G7 = mixolydian mode, etc.
Consider the effect of a scale over its diatonic chords. In a C major scale, the Dm7 chord has a natural 6th (B), the Em7 chord has a b6th (C) & b9th (F), the F^7 chord has a #11th (B), the G7 chord has a b7th (F), the Am7 chord has a b6th (F), and the Bm7b5 chord has a b5th (F) & b9th (C).Last edited by Mick-7; 01-27-2026 at 05:53 PM.
-
I read that Hermeto Pascoal had his students write in several scales that would work - right over each chord in the chart.
And, then, as they soloed, they could see their alternatives.
Eventually, you learn the sounds of each option and you no longer need to write them in.
-
Yes.
Originally Posted by TF
No. Typically over a minor 7 chord, the scale that's played will have overlapping chord tones. So over Cmin7, one can, say, play C Aeolian for a darker sound. Note Aeolian also has a b3, 5 and b7. But that's if C minor is tonic chord. Usually minor 7's function as II chords. In that case Aeolian would be an unusual choice. Originally Posted by TF
So, the point is there are certain harmonic and idiomatic reasons behind common scalar preferences for each chord. In other words, you don't just play any scale over any chord.Last edited by Tal_175; 01-27-2026 at 06:13 PM.
-
That kind of thinking is basically Ma7, m7, 7th, m7b5 arpeggios filled in with other notes from the scale.
Anything that requires thought needs to progress from a counting the nuts and bolts stage to happening in a single gesture, real time. Otherwise it will cause more harm than benefit when performing.
Musical growth is made by addressing the areas where we are relatively dumb and strengthening them. Deciding which are most relevant to our musical progress is personal. Modes may or may not be of use for you.
-
You can play a whole lot of jazz and never touch a mode.
-
Understanding modes is all about understanding that each mode has a characteristic sound.
For example, you can probably tell a major chord from a minor chord by ear, without thinking about it. You hear different sonic "colors."
The same ability goes into distinguishing Ionian mode (aka the "major scale") from Aeolian mode (aka the "natural minor" scale.)
Some modes are quite different from one another, as in the example above. Others are a bit more subtle. There is only one difference between Mixolydian and Ionian. There is only one difference between Ionian and Lydian, but that's a bit more subtle. There's only one difference between Aeolian and Dorian.
USING modes is a different skill. I'm not going to get into the how-to because there are many ways to do so, and I want to keep this post short. The first step, though, is to learn what makes each mode unique and to learn how to hear those differences.
HTH
SJLast edited by starjasmine; 01-28-2026 at 12:27 AM.
-
Inversely, one can play a whole lot of modes and not play Jazz. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
S
-
the study of modes in a jazz contest takes a great deal of time and dedication.
The above examples of just using the diatonic modes in one key alone can be a task for many to use with some authority.
In advanced studies using them and mixing them in several keys against harmonic structures in modal settings can
challenge many advanced players.
Bobby Stern has some lessons that stress this type of thinking. Using any note at random..knowing all the modes it is contained in
and using them over basic and altered harmonic progressions. Some sound very hip and crunchy some don't work at all.
This takes alot of time and experimentation.
-
When someone asked Joe Pass about modes at a workshop he said the only mode he understood was apple pie a la mode. Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
-
I just reread this and noticed what may be a misconception. If you're playing over a C chord and you play the notes from a Bb major scale, you'll be playing a Bb and an Eb against a chord with an E, not an Eb, and no B or Bb. That's going to sound very dissonant (or it's going to change the character of the C chord by adding a 7th) and I'm guessing that's not what you want. Originally Posted by TF
Dorian is a minor mode. If you're playing over a Cm7, then you can use the notes of C dorian which are the same notes as Bbmajor.
Similarly, lydian mode is typically associated with Maj7#11 chords. I don't know what it would mean to play lydian mode over Cm7. If you played the notes of Fmajor scale against Cm7, the E will clash with the Eb and it will sound dissonant. An advanced player might use that, but I'm guessing that's not what you're trying to figure out. BTW, C lydian has the same notes as Gmajor. Flydian has the same notes as C major.
You have to start with the chord in the tune and then figure out which mode(s) you can use to get the sounds you want. You can't apply any mode over any chord and have them all sound consonant. Many combinations will sound dissonant.
EDIT: In case the foregoing wasn't clear, here's another view. Say the song has a Cm7. You then want to figure out what notes to play. You might ask, "is there a Cm7 scale?". That would make things easier, wouldn't it?
It turns out there are a few Cm7 scales and you pick one that applies to the role of the Cm7 in the song. If it's part of Cm7 F7 Bbmaj7, that points to C Dorian. If it's part of Eb6 Cm7 Abmaj7 Bb7, that's a different usage and I'd think about C aeolean. These choices can be argued/extended/whatever. You could do it by thinking about chord tones or tonal centers, but that's another post or two.
The idea is to find a scale that has just the notes you need to cover the chord you're trying to solo over - and get the sound you want. According to this approach, thinking about scales and modes makes things easier when you're trying to figure out which notes to play over which chord. I can't vouch for "easier".
The basic point is you have to match the chord to a scale/mode that works for that chord.
If you think the nomenclature sucks, it will be interesting to see if anybody disagrees.Last edited by rpjazzguitar; 01-28-2026 at 12:55 AM.
-
I find the superimposed mode approach to jazz confusing and distracting. I don’t know if that means I’m dumb. Perhaps it just means that the approach is not for me. I suppose it could also mean that I’ve not shedded it enough, but at this point in my life I’d rather have fun playing.
Having said that, modes have their place. When I was on my way to becoming a work-a-day musician in the 1980s, I found modal fusion interesting because it enabled me to go beyond the rock and pop and big band jazz that I played for pay. Holdsworth and Mahavishnu blew my mind.
When I quit guitar and sold all my gear in the 1990s to study and travel, I immersed myself in world music, much of which is akin to modal music, perhaps more for creating some kind of atmosphere or sonic framework. And so I studied Gambian kora, Turkish oud and Iranian setar.
In the 2000s, when the guitar beckoned me back, I fell in love with jazz standards, playing out at open jam sessions for fun and for socializing. I really enjoy the challenge of trying to weave new melodies and finding pathways through the changes with chord tones. Occasionally, and perhaps echoing my world music forays, I enjoy a modal tune, something like “Impressions,” when it gets called during a jazz jam session.
But while I do know and respect modal infused playing, using the superimposed mode approach is somewhat cumbersome. I guess one doesn’t always need to know everything all of the time when playing this music we all love.
-
"60 years a player 60 years a moron" I love it. If you're playing and enjoying it for that long you're doing something right.
-
Imo, it's more important to just have command of the scale - playing C dorian over C-7 - than to do mental gymnastics with the idea of C dorian is Bb major.
Side note: no rejecting the other minor scales. Natural minor, harmonic minor, melodic minor.
-
I've been playing for 54 years. I'm both too dumb and too slow for jazz. Originally Posted by TF
-
Welcome to the mad at theory cult.
-
You know what inversions of chords are about... Originally Posted by TF
C E G -> E G C -> G C E are the root position, first inversion, and second inversion of the C major triad. The bottom note is just moved up an octave. A seventh chord has four notes, so it has a third inversion (with the 7th on the bottom).
Here is the thing...
We call the process above "inversion" in the sense that all the different forms are still versions of the same thing - a C major chord of some kind.
Modes are like the inversion process applied to scales, but now the scales are not the same things in spite of the same notes... because the new scales have new tonics.
CDEFGAB -> DEFGABC -> EFGABCD ... are the first, second, and third modes of the C major scale, considered different scales.
Inversions of chords keep the assignment of the root.
Modes of scales change the assignment of the tonic
Notice that inversions call the first one "root position"
The modes call the first one the first mode, not "tonic position"
In music with inversions we recognize the root of the chord wherever it is and hear all those inversions of the chord, in our example, as a C major.
In music with modes of scales we recognize the particular tonics of the modes what ever they are and hear those modes, in our example, as different scales with tonics of C, D, E...
The tricky part is that knowing all this one may imagine encountering a E G C in the wild and think of it and hear it as E G C - some kind of E chord (in root position), and while theorists may be clever and imagine E G C as the "second mode" of the C major triad, if the musical context makes it sound like C major, then C is the root and it is the first inversion of C major.
Likewise, DEFGABC might be viewed as the first inversion of CDEFGAB as DEFGABC but the musical context will correct you.
What gets confused is that there is only one way to view the inversions of chords, but there are three perspectives to view the modes of scales on the guitar.
1] Assign the different scale degrees as the tonics of the modes.
This is easy since all the notes involved are the same, so you start each mode from a different scale degree;, however, this helps see where they come from and how they are constructed, but does not help so much with hearing what makes them sound different (because you are using the same set of notes for all of them).
2] Assign all the modes of the scale to the same tonic and maintain position and change the fingering pattern for each mode. These are the folks that know the modes as "sharp this flat that" adjustments to the parent scale degrees.
3[ Assign all the modes of the scale to the same tonic and drone the low E string and change positions to hear each mode with its tonic assigned to E; all of the modes will now be using different sets of notes, but it is mechanically possible to use shifts of fingering position to reassign the next mode's tonic within the same one big fingering pattern for the whole neck. This may be the easiest way to explore the differences in how they sound.
-
I would not focus on modes.
To modal system makes sense in modal jazz.
To make D dorian sound like a characteristic mode you have to create the feeling of tonic D.
If you just play D dorian over ii - V -I (Dm7 - G 7 - I) - it will sound like a line in the key of C.
But for example Myxolidian.. in functional tonality context it will really create a sound of #11 on the tonic chord.
Chord -scale theory is not a strong and consistent theoretic tool in my opinion. Though maybe players use it in any context, it is not a must to play jazz.
And - even if you use it - hearing is more important than understanding.
I know CST players who really think in terms of scales over chords always... and they really hear and choose 'colours' based on this even in trad jazz.
But when I listen to their solos in trad jazz - I hear traditional tonality with alterations and extentions.
So basically - the approach you use is more about how you organize and hear it.
Playing from different theory approaches can also affect phrasing in my opinion: the on who plays from trad harmony tends to rely more on vertical relations and tension/release in melodic lines (melody is much more connected with harmony)
the one who thinks in modes hears more a coloristic effect of melodic intervals against chords (melodic line is more separated from harmony), it is possible that he will not hear suspension where I would hear it for example...
of course it is very abstract speculation, in real practice it is more complicated and mixed
-
There is a central confusion in the OP that has also side tracked about half of the responses.
The poster used the term "modes" but what they mean is chord-scales. Modes and chord-scales are distinct concepts. When you are playing Dorian over the II chord of II-Valt-I, you are not playing in the "Dorian mode", but you are using a chord-scale in tonal, functional context. If a tune is in C Dorian, then the dorian mode is the modal context of the tune.Last edited by Tal_175; 01-28-2026 at 09:53 AM.
-
Thats a fair point. Maybe the practical distinction … Originally Posted by Tal_175
Chord scales are everywhere but you don’t really need to think of them that way to play great music.
Modes are used much more sparingly but you kind of need to understand what’s going on there to play anything nice on the narrower set of circumstances when they’re used.
-
To get back to the OP, I don't find thinking of say, D Dorian, as the C major scale played from D to D as particularly helpful in playing. Maybe in understanding where it "comes from", or as a quick access point to what notes are available...but not in the actual playing. I mean, when improvising how often are you playing a scale all the way through, starting on the first note?
Conversely, thinking about a C scale over a Dm chord might give you the right note set, but not all notes in a scale are weighted equally. I wouldn't accent or hang on a F over a C chord...but over a Dm that's a great note.
-
Yes.. but I also think that it can be better explained through functional tonality, or at least triadic chords (which is a foundation for functional tonality). Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
You do not hang on a F on C chord because it is suspension to an E.
And on Dm chord it is a 3rd so quite stable tone.
But what about a B? If you play a B on Dm - it can sound as a #6 (which can be quite stable sound in jazz), if you play it on C - maj 7 - can also be stable
But if Dm is iii of Bb major? Than most probably a B will not work...
Of if C chord is V of a major... might work but definitely not in the same way as when it is in C major..
So basically, it is all about context and to me the inconsistency of CST is that it is a bit artificial well ... any theory is, but functional tonality theory is based on a huge historical 'database' of actual music where it was developed and used ... and CST came up as an experimental practical theory but it is used often by default, just as a law...
a young guitarist buys a book and reads: you see that chord - play that scale... and so on.
the difference is with functional tonality you most probably eventually understand how music works in general, with CST it ends almost where it begins.
Modal tonality is an interesting idea... but as a general conception it is absolutely the opposite to the functional tonality.
If one thinks in terms of modal tonality it is like feeling centripetal force and in terms of functional tonality is like centrifugal force
By force I mean not actual tension/release of notes in the system but the mentality: in functional tonality you eventual come to the big picture, relations on the level of form: even if you start from a small detail.
And in modal tonality it is vice versa the bigger picture is vague and undetermined and and the focus is always on a detail.
Maybe this is also the reason why it became popular in jazz - as jazz playing is often in the moment.
-
I think it is too sophisticated interpretation. I understand what you mean but in real application 'mode' (in modern sense) and 'chord-scale' is the same thing for most people. Originally Posted by Tal_175
This is the problem of this system, in most cases it ignores the context.
-
I read the OP more as sarcastic commentary on people promoting formulaic theory-derived prescriptions for how to improvise than as an expression of actual confusion. The fake folksy spellings and indications that he actually knows plenty about modes and scales seem like dead giveaways to me. It's more like he's calling people who stress theory in unhelpful ways dumb than he's actually calling himself dumb. Seems to me, some of the commentary sort of proves his point.
-
Thanks for the great discussion.
Re John A's post above: There is something to what you say... you may have a point... I think I understand what you are getting at...
Reply With Quote
“Shearing style”
Today, 05:26 PM in Comping, Chords & Chord Progressions