The levels of understanding modes

[fumblefingers]

...or to put it another way: So What.

oh boy.

[JakeAcci]

By reading this thread I'm beginning to know where the confusion is coming from.

Nuff

One liners are great, useful contributions are also useful.

Jake

[JakeAcci]

For me the idea of modes and ragas kind of merged in my mind initially, probably a product of the era (think John Coltrane meets Ravi Shankar).
I practiced scales against a drone. I would play modally derived single and multiple note ideas.
This was excellent ear training and harmonic inventory taking. The info gathered in this fashion can be applied in virtually any musical context.

George Russell's book confounded me mostly but gave me this one powerful idea. A path to hearing chromatically could be found through learning a
group of scales that collectively address all the interval combinations. A more manageable study method than grappling with all 12 chromatic tones.

Advancing Guitarist was a great book that reinforced many good ideas and raised my commitment to better absorb fundamentals.
I took away the idea of understanding modes from 2 different viewpoints, derivative of a parent scale and parallel to a common root.

What I call modes, might be more accurately described as the "harmonics aspects of scales".
The detailed study of these harmonic aspects are training wheels and not an end destination.

Pre-internet, I never heard the expression Chord Scale Theory. I never met anyone who viewed scales/modes in disdain as an evil false prophet.
It is hard for me to imagine a world full of people applying chord/scale formulas oblivious to the result.
Living in the small village of NYC didn't fully prepare me for the things I would later hear about.

A great improvisor can make a strong musical statement with 1 or 2 notes.
It is not the fault of a mode if you or I fail to do so with 7 notes.

I don't believe any "mechanical methodology" (an expression that I learned from Reg) is a great path to learning style.
For that it is better to go straight to the source, the music.

Whatever confusion I experienced always decreased by digging in and solidifying fundamentals, by experimenting and observing the results.

I view melodies and chords as part of the same harmonic continuum. Scales/modes are just a more fleshed out version of a chord.
I don't believe in "avoid notes". I do believe in the intelligent use of the available resources each mode offers.
As my hearing improves so do my powers of discretion.

I never believed in the existence of "modal fingerings". Modal sounds are created by a hierarchy of notes.
The bass note and accompaniment often assert greater influence than the melody.
Play one scale based phrase and change the drone note. Each time the drone changes, the same line takes on a new meaning.
The fingerings that start and end on each tone I think of as scale inversions.

I try not to draw hard lines between the varying possible harmonic frameworks.
1 chord, vamp structures, multiple harmonies pivoting around a pedal tone, key centered progressions, rapid modulating keys, etc.
I don't accept the terms (for myself) non-functioning or atonal. Any harmonies that can connect musically to one another must be on some level functional.
To me atonality is tonalities shifting more rapidly or denser than I can absorb at my present level of comprehension.
Perhaps, tomorrow that will change....

These days I still practice against drones, moving between modes, making hybrid chord scales, trying to teach myself to hear additional harmonic relationships.
When I play, I try to focus on drawing out commonalities or differences between the evolving harmonies.

Interesting, Bako. Good read. A different perspective for sure.

[fumblefingers]

That's a wrap! Great thread everybody.


Next up: "The Fledgling Jazz Guitarists' Internal Conflict with Playing Arpeggios from the Third".

[gersdal]

I never thought there was anything confusing about modes but after reading this thread I definately am confused

A part of me wants to apologize for contributing to your confusion, but honestly I thinkthat is good and that may be your first step in direction of questioning whereyou stand and eventually improve.

[gersdal]

For me the idea of modes and ragas kind of merged in my mind initially, probably a product of the era (think John Coltrane meets Ravi Shankar).
I practiced scales against a drone. I would play modally derived single and multiple note ideas.
This was excellent ear training and harmonic inventory taking. The info gathered in this fashion can be applied in virtually any musical context.

George Russell's book confounded me mostly but gave me this one powerful idea. A path to hearing chromatically could be found through learning a
group of scales that collectively address all the interval combinations. A more manageable study method than grappling with all 12 chromatic tones.

Advancing Guitarist was a great book that reinforced many good ideas and raised my commitment to better absorb fundamentals.
I took away the idea of understanding modes from 2 different viewpoints, derivative of a parent scale and parallel to a common root.

What I call modes, might be more accurately described as the "harmonics aspects of scales".
The detailed study of these harmonic aspects are training wheels and not an end destination.

Pre-internet, I never heard the expression Chord Scale Theory. I never met anyone who viewed scales/modes in disdain as an evil false prophet.
It is hard for me to imagine a world full of people applying chord/scale formulas oblivious to the result.
Living in the small village of NYC didn't fully prepare me for the things I would later hear about.

A great improvisor can make a strong musical statement with 1 or 2 notes.
It is not the fault of a mode if you or I fail to do so with 7 notes.

I don't believe any "mechanical methodology" (an expression that I learned from Reg) is a great path to learning style.
For that it is better to go straight to the source, the music.

Whatever confusion I experienced always decreased by digging in and solidifying fundamentals, by experimenting and observing the results.

I view melodies and chords as part of the same harmonic continuum. Scales/modes are just a more fleshed out version of a chord.
I don't believe in "avoid notes". I do believe in the intelligent use of the available resources each mode offers.
As my hearing improves so do my powers of discretion.

I never believed in the existence of "modal fingerings". Modal sounds are created by a hierarchy of notes.
The bass note and accompaniment often assert greater influence than the melody.
Play one scale based phrase and change the drone note. Each time the drone changes, the same line takes on a new meaning.
The fingerings that start and end on each tone I think of as scale inversions.

I try not to draw hard lines between the varying possible harmonic frameworks.
1 chord, vamp structures, multiple harmonies pivoting around a pedal tone, key centered progressions, rapid modulating keys, etc.
I don't accept the terms (for myself) non-functioning or atonal. Any harmonies that can connect musically to one another must be on some level functional.
To me atonality is tonalities shifting more rapidly or denser than I can absorb at my present level of comprehension.
Perhaps, tomorrow that will change....

These days I still practice against drones, moving between modes, making hybrid chord scales, trying to teach myself to hear additional harmonic relationships.
When I play, I try to focus on drawing out commonalities or differences between the evolving harmonies.

Thank you Bako for a very interesting perspective. You definitely have some similarities to what I'm thinking about, but probably wasn't able to present as good as I hoped.

I started more serious studies into guitar and music early in the 80'ties, and the only source of information was the Guitar Player magazine. That was a fantastic source of information, but all the fuzz about modes and different ways of looking at modes started for me then.

[gersdal]

Next up: "The Fledgling Jazz Guitarists' Internal Conflict with Playing Arpeggios from the Third".

Hmm. If that is how you feel, I'm really sorry that I couldn't contribute more to your learning process.

[aniss1001]

A part of me wants to apologize for contributing to your confusion, but honestly I thinkthat is good and that may be your first step in direction of questioning whereyou stand and eventually improve.

No need to apologize at all. No one forces me to read this thread.

But yes I think this thread is a good example of how something extremely simple can be turned into something complicated and confusing, which BTW is very tipical in jazz theory IMO.

I come from the field of computer science where I generally take something really complicated and try to describe/define it in the simplest way possible so that it can be used in a larger context as merely a building block.

I guess it is necessary for me to do the same with jazz theory. I don't find theory all that useful actually. Yes knowing the basics is essential but I don't see any need for more than that.

To me scales/modes are just collections of notes (or rather intervals). Each has a specific sound/color and are used in certain ways according to the TRADITION of jazz to form chords and improvise over them.

And it seems to me that the jazz tradition for the most part is limited to rather few scales/modes:

* The 7 modes of the major scale.
* The 7 modes of the MM scale.
* The 2 modes of the diminished scale.
* The 5th mode of the HM scale.
* The whole tone scale.
* The pentatonic and blues scale.
* The bebop scales.

(I tend to simplify whenever I can so I see the latter 2 as derived from the major scale by omitting/adding notes)

You don't need to learn more scales to play jazz. From the transcribing I've done that is what they all play pretty much all the time with some added chromatic notes off course.

Nor do I think the use of these scales/modes is that confusing. Given a certain base chord there are a limited way of choosing extensions and improvising over it (scale-wise).

Take for instance a dominant chord going to a minor chord. You could find all sorts of scales that would fit over that chord but according to tradition there are just a few options that are used 99.99% of the time: 5th mode of HM, altered scale, HW diminished and whole tone scale (if you wanna get really exotic).

That's it. The rest is up to the ears which of course is where jazz really IS hard. Scales, modes, CST and theory in general are just concepts to simplify/generalize things a bit and guide my ears.

Anyway that's how I see it

[gersdal]

No need to apologize at all. No one forces me to read this thread.

Thanks.

But yes I think this thread is a good example of how something extremely simple can be turned into something complicated and confusing, which BTW is very tipical in jazz theory IMO.

That's sad. That was the total oposite of my intension. Simplification is also something I am very interested in.

My attempt on simplification in this contex was to create the levels to describe more or less stable situations that I see guitarists find themself, and where they often create great improvisations in my opinion.

The confusion is in my opinion not in scales / modes or chord scale theory, but in the discussion when people from different levels (if you accept my analogy) discuss these. These discussions are often confusing, and not fruitfull. I accept that people need to articulate their understanding to improve the foundation for their understanding, but being fundamentalist about it is not good. My intention was more respect for that guitarist are at different levels, and can function there well, and it is not an good idea to throw all sorts of more difficult stuff at them untill they are ready (illustrated with the questions typically leading to the next level).

A side effect of the levels could possibly also be to indicate a future route for guitarist, but also allow them to rest assured that they will function well at the level they are.
According to the feedback I've had I think I succeded to some extent, but I also see some improvements needed.

I guess it is necessary for me to do the same with jazz theory. I don't find theory all that useful actually. Yes knowing the basics is essential but I don't see any need for more than that.

I'm interested in learning about how you developed into where you are now, and how well the levels I have described fits with that development (if does at all).

Nor do I think the use of these scales/modes is that confusing. Given a certain base chord there are a limited way of choosing extensions and improvising over it (scale-wise).

I hope I never said that scales and modes were confusing, I intended to say that discussions on scales / modes were confusing. If I have said that modes are confusing anywhere in this thread I would gratefull if you tell me where, and I'll correct it.

That's it. The rest is up to the ears which of course is where jazz really IS hard. Scales, modes, CST and theory in general are just concepts to simplify/generalize things a bit and guide my ears.

Good. You obviously have a good foundation for jazz improvisation IMHO. You may have further steps you may take, but not neccessarily. And I would ask you, and everybody else, to be humble in discussions on these issues as your view is not the only functional view. Thats all ...

[whatswisdom]

oh boy.

Sorry, FF. Pretty bad for sure but I couldn't resist.

[whatswisdom]

These discussions are often confusing, and not fruitfull.

Disagree. It's all part of the learning process. I find it very interesting to read a variety of attempts (from beginners to advanced) to explain theory, which is what you get here all the time. It seems that emotions run high whenever modes are the topic of discussion. CST even more so... Learning what modes are not is useful too.

[gersdal]

Disagree. It's all part of the learning process. I find it very interesting to read a variety of attempts (from beginners to advanced) to explain theory, which is what you get here all the time. It seems that emotions run high whenever modes are the topic of discussion. CST even more so... Learning what modes are not is useful too.

Accepted.The sentence is not necessarily applicable for all. You may be within the majority or a minority, but anyway I agree it is not a statement that I can make as a general fact.

Maybe I’m just too old to be a part of discussions that looks like “trench wars”, and my attempt to structure this possible learning process is waisted. I don't enjoy the emotional discussions.

[whatswisdom]

...my attempt to structure this possible learning process is waisted.

Not at all. I've been following this thread with interest and found your contributions valuable. The charts listing the various skill levels are cool.

[JakeAcci]

I think the effort to address a serious issue should be applauded.

We often have conversations on this board, arguments even, between players of such varying skill/knowledge levels that sometimes people think they are talking about the same topic when they are not! It leads to messy conversations where not a lot constructive happens except maybe that people are forced to work on their writing chops to explain what they believe.

This post seemed to be an attempt to address an example of this kind of miscommunication. I "got" the point, I'm not sure if the critics in this thread didn't "get" it or just don't feel the issue is really a big issue, or what.

I think it's unfortunate that people (here?) are often are more interested in defending or teaching their own methods, despite how successful those methods may be, rather than being open to new perspectives, admitting some potential ignorance or lack of ability, and possibly learning something. And believe me, I do not see myself as an exception to this - I've noticed myself doing it a lot and tried to adjust the behavior but of course still slip up. I'm just as guilty as the worse of them, which is why I'm aware of the tendency.

Edited to add: I think a lot of it comes down to the "you don't know what you don't know" paradox. When we're ignorant of something, we usually aren't aware of our, um, unaware-ness.

[mr. beaumont]

But I think it's also okay to teach what you know and what you have gotten results with--I just try to make sure my students understand that I'm showing them "My Way," not "The Only Way."

Part of our job as teachers is to instill that thirst for knowledge...I can honestly say that all of my best students pursue knowledge on their own time using a variety of resources...

[Nuff Said]

Chord-Tone vs. Chord-Scale Soloing

"the chord-scale approach has a potential downside. Many students begin studying chord scales early in their musical education and attempt to apply the knowledge acquired immediately on their instruments. Unfortunately, this often happens too soon in the student's development as an improviser--before he or she has learned how to shape an appealing improvised melody by ear on a chord or chord progression using only, or mainly, chord tones."

"Ideally, melodic ear training for improvisers should begin with chord-tone soloing and then advance to chord tones with approach notes and/or chord scale soloing."

Chord-Tone vs. Chord-Scale Soloing by Professor Hal Crook at Berklee

http://www.berklee.edu/faculty/detail/hal-crook

Nuff

[JakeAcci]

But I think it's also okay to teach what you know and what you have gotten results with--I just try to make sure my students understand that I'm showing them "My Way," not "The Only Way."

Part of our job as teachers is to instill that thirst for knowledge...I can honestly say that all of my best students pursue knowledge on their own time using a variety of resources...

Yes, of course, I agree with all of that. It's not the teaching that's a problem, it's teaching with little interest in learning or being taught.

I think I do try to make my students understand that I'm showing them "my way" and not "the only way." I often use disclaimers like "well, the way I see it," "my opinion is," "I prefer the sound of" etc.

[mr. beaumont]

It's not the teaching that's a problem, it's teaching with little interest in learning or being taught.

That's the biggie right there.

The minute we stop learning we should stop teaching.

[gersdal]

Part of our job as teachers is to instill that thirst for knowledge...I can honestly say that all of my best students pursue knowledge on their own time using a variety of resources...

I wasn't at all suggesting a limitation of the resources. I was suggesting a system for identifying when they were ready for what type of information based on my own experience.

Suggestions for improving or correcting bad steps in my proposal is very welcome.

[mr. beaumont]

Gersdal, don't take my comment as directed at you, it was just a little off topic conversation within a conversation.

I like the way you laid things out...Because of the way I teach, if a student was with me from the beginning the flow would look quite different as l am very hands off concerning modes until the student has the major scale, it's harmony, and chord building/arpeggios down--but I also don't discourage students from seeking knowledge out on their own, which means I'll often get the "what do you know about modes?" question (kinda like "where do babies come from?)

...so the flow of things would look rather different.

But even though I say that, that doesn't mean I disagree with your way of looking at things--I find it very well thought out and very logical.

[aniss1001]

Hi again gersdal,

If I have said that modes are confusing anywhere in this thread I would gratefull if you tell me where, and I'll correct it.

Don't believe you've said that. I do get that you're reffering to how folks talk about the matter. I guees I meant to say that I think the reasons for that confusion are:

1) The lack of a proper nomenclature in music theory in general and jazz theory in particular.

2) The tendency towards over-analyzing and over-complicating simple things among modern jazz musicians.

I'm interested in learning about how you developed into where you are now, and how well the levels I have described fits with that development (if does at all).

Ok! 1st off I'm still a noob to jazz. When I 1st picked up a guitar I quickly learned the pentatonic and blues scales. Knowing only this I started improvising. I would listen to players like Clapton and Hendrix and try to imitate them. Sometimes picking up their phrases but often simply trying to imitate their general sound.

Then one day I learned the church modes. Didn't think there was anything complicated about it and inmediately started using them in my improvisation. I kind of saw them as "extended" pentatonics. The dorian for instance being a minor pentatonic with a 6th and 9th added.

I would spend entire days improvising and just playing around with each mode trying to fully get the sound of each one. In all these years I knew little theory besides the cycle of 5th, the church modes and the 5th mode of the harmonic minor (for improvising over dominants going to minor chords). As far as playing rock, blues, funk, pop, etc. this approach worked fine.

Then for some reason I lost interest in music and stopped playing for like 14 years. When I regained the interest about a year ago my focus had changed entirely to jazz. A different beast allthogether.

I then read up on CST, started working on the melodic minor modes and the diminished scale and inmediately started to apply this to playing (standard) changes. After a while I realized that this approach in itself was insuficient so I started to focus more on arps (playing the basic chord notes) and vocabulary (learning licks).

That is pretty much it. That is what I do today too. I transcribe a lot. Learn licks I like. Do eartraining. Learn tunes. Sing stuff (licks, melodies, scales, arps). Play around with voicings and chord melodies.

I also work on scales (in particular the MM modes and diminished) though I don't actually practice them much. More like trying to relate them to arps/chords and simply improvising with them. Sometimes over a drone or a one chord vamp, but also taking basic vamps like for instance...

:| CM7 | A7(Alt) | Dm7 | G7(Alt) |:

... And try to play around with different scales/modes over each chord.

I never took lessons and I honestly don't know if I could practice "better" but I can say that in this year I HAVE seen a lot of progress so it can't be all THAT bad.

As I said the most difficult part is getting it all into your ears. This is a really slow and painful process for me that requieres constant hard work. And in a sense everything else are just tools to make this process a bit easier I think.

Hope I answered your questions

[Jazzpunk]

But I think it's also okay to teach what you know and what you have gotten results with--I just try to make sure my students understand that I'm showing them "My Way," not "The Only Way."

Part of our job as teachers is to instill that thirst for knowledge...I can honestly say that all of my best students pursue knowledge on their own time using a variety of resources...

You seem to be the only person in this thread acknowledging both sides of the coin. Teaching is a two way street with responsibility being placed on both the student and the teacher.

I would like to hear Gersdal and Jake's thoughts on the question I brought up earlier in this thread regarding advanced players who arrive at opposing view points on the usefulness of viewing scale fingerings as isolated modes.

The reality is that teachers develop their own personal bias on this subject depending on whether or not they have found it to be useful in their own playing. This is also dependent on the teachers education as well as what style of jazz they play which should be considered in the discussion but seldom is.

Take Jimmy Bruno and Sheryl Bailey for example: Bruno uses the '5 shapes' and refuses to discuss them as isolated modes. Great player. Bailey comes from the Berklee school and regularly refers to fingerings by isolated mode names and employs CST as one method of viewing available note choices at any given point in time. She is a great player as well.

For people who take to Bruno's way of thinking they will enter a discussion on modes/fingerings/CST from that perspective. For people who take to Bailey's way of thinking, they will enter the conversation with a different point of view.

I agree that fuzzy logic and inexperience on the part of the student contributes to confusion and debate but I also think that bias on the part of the teacher adds to it as well.

So for those of us navigating it all, who do we believe? Do we believe the pro who finds viewing scale fingerings as isolated modes to be useless or do we believe the pro who finds viewing scale fingerings as isolated modes to be useful?

More to the point, how can something be proclaimed useless for all when there are pro level players who have reached a different conclusion?

[gersdal]

Ok! 1st off I'm still a noob to jazz. When I 1st picked up a guitar I quickly learned the pentatonic and blues scales.......

I then read up on CST, started working on the melodic minor modes and the diminished scale and inmediately started to apply this to playing (standard) changes. After a while I realized that this approach in itself was insuficient so I started to focus more on arps (playing the basic chord notes) and vocabulary (learning licks).

Very good answer, and I recognize your story, and I would hope you recognize the story I was telling in the original post. Rather close to your story in my opinion (maybe I wasn't able to explain myself well, but ...)

Thanks!

[gersdal]

You seem to be the only person in this thread acknowledging both sides of the coin. Teaching is a two way street with responsibility being placed on both the student and the teacher.

That really means I have to work on my writing. I tried to look at both sides of more than one coin, but obviously didn't succeed in expressing it in a way that was understandable.

I would like to hear Gersdal and Jake's thoughts on the question I brought up earlier in this thread regarding advanced players who arrive at opposing view points on the usefulness of viewing scale fingerings as isolated modes.

I think the reply you got from Mr B was excellent. I've really don't got anything to add. There are many roads to good improvising. Chord scales and modes are one way, but not the only one. However, I was trying to describe the "typical" road to improvisation which includes scales, cord scales, modes etc. Being fundamentalist about one view is one of the least interesting thing I know of. Humble attitude of other approaches is what this tread is about as far as I'm concerned. I'm very sorry I obviously couldn't express me better.

The reality is that teachers develop their own personal bias on this subject depending on whether or not they have found it to be useful in their own playing. This is also dependent on the teachers education as well as what style of jazz they play which should be considered in the discussion but seldom is.

Take Jimmy Bruno and Sheryl Bailey for example: Bruno uses the '5 shapes' and refuses to discuss them as isolated modes. Great player. Bailey comes form the Berklee school and regularly refers to fingerings by isolated mode names and employs CST as one method of viewing available note choices at any given point in time. She is a great player as well.

For people who take to Bruno's way of thinking they will enter a discussion on modes/fingerings/CST from that perspective. For people who take to Bailey's way of thinking, they will enter the conversation with a different point of view.

I fully agree.

I agree that fuzzy logic and inexperience on the part of the student contributes to confusion and debate but I also think that bias on the part of the teacher adds to it as well.

Inexperience on the part of the student is the teachers role to help. The issue for me is teachers contributing to the confusion as you mentioned above.

So for those of us navigating it all, who do we believe? Do we believe the pro who finds viewing scale fingerings as isolated modes to be useless or do we believe the pro who finds viewing scale fingerings as isolated modes to be useful?

More to the point, how can something be proclaimed useless for all when there are pro level players who have reached a different conclusion?

My intention was to describe many levels where a lot of players find them self comfortable, and improvise beautiful - with the necessary talent obviously. I think players can stay at the pentatonic level for a life, and be successful musicians. I also believe that when they are motivated the teacher should help them to move on. I indicated what I believe to be typical questions a student would have when they are ready to move on.

If I read you correctly, you must have totally misunderstood more or less everything I wrote . The good thing though is that it seems like we agree pretty much

[gersdal]

I like the way you laid things out...Because of the way I teach, if a student was with me from the beginning the flow would look quite different as l am very hands off concerning modes until the student has the major scale, it's harmony, and chord building/arpeggios down

Not to far from my level 0 I'd say.

--but I also don't discourage students from seeking knowledge out on their own, which means I'll often get the "what do you know about modes?" question (kinda like "where do babies come from?)

LOL. Fully agree. I'd wait for the right type of questions until I started giving them too much more. Let them be comfortable with what they know. And go further when they are ready.

Looks something like 1 - 2 level in my description ... Not exactly, but not too far off.

...so the flow of things would look rather different.

I don't see the difference Please explain.

I don't think the levels I described was the only way. I asked for suggestions of other routes. I was wondering how much my perception and experience influenced my teaching and my understanding of a development into theory and improvisation.

But even though I say that, that doesn't mean I disagree with your way of looking at things--I find it very well thought out and very logical.

Thanks.