The levels of understanding modes

[gersdal]

The levels of understanding modes for guitarists and why discussion on modes is often so confusing
Based on my own learning process, students I have had, and a lot of questions in various discussion groups on Internet, I’ve came up with a description of typical levels of understanding the modes. The result is “The learning curve of the modes!” or “The levels of understanding modes”.

This is my view on it, and you will probably disagree in some or all of it, but maybe you still will agree with the essence that there is a learning curve and some levels that a lot of players stop for a while or for good.

Another interesting thing about discussions in Internet groups about modes is that people discuss from totally different levels of understanding, leading up to anything between hilarious to disastrous discussions. This causes a lot of confusion and not much learning. It's like describing the probabilistic details of quantum mechanics to someone who is asking why a steel beam is stronger than a wood beam.

I made a short and simplified description of the basis of understanding improvisation, with emphasis on understanding modes. The interesting thing for me is off course that modes are really not interesting at all. It appears for most guitarists at an early stage of learning (level 0), and disappears a little later (level 3 in my evaluation, but also rather early - except when talking about modal tunes. This rings true for a lot of guitarist, but not all. The typical Berklee students seem to have a longer lasting relation to modes than other guitarists. Then again, players of other instruments often haven’t heard about modes at all. Some guitarists don’t give a damn about modes or scales and still plays beautifully. Other guitarists focus on other ways like intervallic playing, improvising based on the melody etc and also plays beautifully. I’m not describing these, but what I regard to be the majority that all have a hang up on the topic of modes.



I’ve written this pretty much based on my own experience, and I’ve stopped at level 5 – were I would claim I am at the moment, and I’ve been cheeky enough to call that advanced. If you disagree in that be called anything close to advanced, feel free to propose new levels and more appropriate names for the levels.



From reading guitar magazines and interviews with pro guitarists (not the ones that are into teaching, but the others) I’ve written a possible pro-level. I don’t know how many levels there will be between my level 5 to the pro-level, so it is not numbered. Any views on this are welcome.



Please do not take this as an insult if you disagree or feel that I have downgraded you in any way. This is based on my learning curve, reinforced by the learning curve I’ve seen students and others have, but it certainly do not need to be your learning curve.

Would be cool to have your views on it.

[JakeAcci]

Gersdal, this is a very, very cool lay out, and I appreciate your presentation here. I might disagree with you on small details but they are details that are irrelevant to your main point, so overall I think this is great. It should be a sticky.

I know you don't start threads too often so it's cool to see you come out of the wood work with something like this that I think will be helpful to many.

I understand the problems that can come with assigning "levels" to understanding of improvisation, as it's purely subjective.

I really hope nobody gets too invested in a discussion of what is or is not "advanced". It will get us nowhere. Instead, looking at this simple layout of understanding I might rate it as 0=guitar player that knows major, minor, and pentatonic scales and can improvise in one key and 5=gersdal.

I might simplify things a bit, maybe assigning different 'levels' using my own experience and observations of others.

A huge factor is the influence of rock playing and rock "training" that is common for guitarists, and that's plays such a huge role in the problems guitarists face when starting to try to play jazz.

So, my take:

levels of improvisation in relation to modes, common progression for a modern guitarist, focusing on the relation to modes:


0 - knows nothing

1 - knows pentatonic (to play rock)

2 - knows major and minor scales but has a very hard time improvising melodically with them (probably because of lack of aural skills as well as a lack of vocabulary that uses those scales)

3 - learns a few modes but similar problems as #2, uses modes over modal vamps and rock songs

4 - can play melodically with modes, make logical, melodic statements

5 - develops an interest in jazz. Is faced with many ii V I progressions and is mentally stuck trying to assign a mode to each chord

6 - From this point, it seems people diverge in different ways. For me, I lept off from this point by getting into bebop and learning a lot of bebop vocabulary and completely eschewing chord scales/modes. For some, they take a more educated and logical approach to CST, probably combined with transcription, and learn to navigate chord changes passably. There are other pedagogical approaches as well, but we're talking about Jazz Standards here and all approaches to probably boil down to, like you said, looking more at key centers rather than modes for individual chords.

7 - From #6, we're talking about players who can play through tunes and have it sound "fine." From here there are obviously an infinite number of directions people can go, stylistically, technically, etc, so I feel good leaving it here. Again, this is ONLY in relation to an understanding of modes. Completely leaves out issues of taste, phrasing, rhythm, voicing, style, etc

[fumblefingers]

this is interesting. IMO its focused on modes a bit too much however. it seems like the real topic that your students are grappling with is improv levels, as opposed to mode levels.


for the music major guitarist i like the way that Berklee and UNT have laid out their improv classes and the topics within them. (serious players needn't go to college to do likewise however). furthermore, UNT has proficiency barrier exams before their improv classes. that enables an instrumentalist to see very clearly the need to evolve their technique relative to the ability to improvise at ever higher levels. if they can't pass the exam they have to wait to take the course. (no tickie, no wash!). UNT has 5 levels of improv, counting graduate improv. the syllabus for each of the 5 levels is listed on their website.


Improvisation | UNT Division of Jazz Studies

i think that Bert Ligon and Garrison Fewell have made some significant contributions to improv studies in recent years. more traditionally speaking, i think that one can learn a lot from Jerry Coker's and David Baker's contributions. Go bless those guys.

[JakeAcci]

this is interesting. IMO its focused on modes a bit too much however. it seems like the real topic that your students are grappling with is improv levels, as opposed to mode levels.

FF you might be missing the point. See the title of the thread:

"The levels of understanding modes: why discussion on modes is so confusing"

Gersdal clearly intended to discuss modes, probably in reaction to a very long thread on modal fingerings that came up recently.

"I made a short and simplified description of the basis of understanding improvisation, with emphasis on understanding modes."

Edit: Actually, it's a discussion about discussing modes.

[Billnc]

You said it all at advanced. "Modes are only really useful for modal music". The confusion stems from forcing modes on a system (jazz) of playing CHORDAL music.

[fumblefingers]

FF you might be missing the point. See the title of the thread:

"The levels of understanding modes: why discussion on modes is so confusing"

Gersdal clearly intended to discuss modes, probably in reaction to a very long thread on modal fingerings that came up recently.

"I made a short and simplified description of the basis of understanding improvisation, with emphasis on understanding modes."

Edit: Actually, it's a discussion about discussing modes.

thanks man. and sorry, but while the information was interesting and probably representative of what some people experience, i didn't think that "the point" was very well represented.

column 2, "status of understanding..." looks much more like an evolving dialogue about improv than a treatise on modes to me.

remove all notions of the topic of improvisation, and what is left in that narrative?

whatever, just IMO. your free to have yours as well.

[JakeAcci]

No personal offense intended, FF. I think the discussion is meant to be of modes, how they relate to improvisation, how guitarists at different levels of experience relate to modes as a tool for improvisation.

Given the context of our discussion here (a jazz guitar message board), I think it's hard (useless, possibly?) to talk about modes without talking about improvisation.

I await Gersdal's thoughts...

[FatJeff]

There seems to be a huge jump between level 3 and level 4. Are you saying "hundreds of scales" as an exaggeration? Because I consider myself to be at level 4 (as you have defined it), but I certainly don't know hundreds of scales.

[Rich Cochrane]

There seems to be a huge jump between level 3 and level 4. Are you saying "hundreds of scales" as an exaggeration? Because I consider myself to be at level 4 (as you have defined it), but I certainly don't know hundreds of scales.

Yes, "hundreds" seems a bit inflated; I doubt whether many players even know the fingerings for more than a few dozen (including modes). We don't have to know hundreds of scales, for example, to have more than two choices over a Maj 7 chord. Here are some common-ish examples just to illustrate:

• Augmented and Lydian #2 (modes of the Harmonic Minor)
• Lydian Augmented (mode of the Melodic Minor)
• "Bebop Major Scale" (1 2 3 4 5 #5 6 7)
• Harmonic or Melodic Minor scales themselves
• Hypermodal applications of the pentatonic (e.g. Db minor pentatonic played over A Maj 7; same with Ab minor)

FWIW, I think the trouble with modes is that they're introduced with the kinds of shortcuts gersdal describes. "Just keep playing A Dorian over the D7 and it becomes D Mixolydian" is confusing and impractical when you meet non-diatonic chords. If the theory isn't explained in an intelligible way up front, modes will always seem like some weird trick the student doesn't quite understand.

[gersdal]

There seems to be a huge jump between level 3 and level 4. Are you saying "hundreds of scales" as an exaggeration? Because I consider myself to be at level 4 (as you have defined it), but I certainly don't know hundreds of scales.

Sorry. Yes, it is an exaggeration. Many students (and myself if I remember correctly) knew the 7 scales (modes) from the major scale, the 7 from the harmonic minor, the 7 from melodic minor, the 7 from harmonic major, some 4 synthetic scales, and typically a few exotic scales that didn't fit with any of the above. That does not make a hundred, but more than what can actually be used in an improvisation situation... so it felt like hundreds.

[gersdal]

Gersdal, this is a very, very cool lay out, and I appreciate your presentation here. I might disagree with you on small details but they are details that are irrelevant to your main point, so overall I think this is great. It should be a sticky.

Thank you for your kind words. Very good to see that you understand the issue, and your description "discussion of the discussion of modes" are very good. It's easy to say that "modes are only for modal music", but students of the guitar are faced with hundreds of books and articles and web sites that explain everything from modes. A discussion with any of these students probably need to be focused on lifting them "one level at the time".

The rest of your reply is also very interesting. I have to get back to you on that.

[Rich Cochrane]

It's easy to say that "modes are only for modal music"

...and completely incorrect, if by "modes" we mean "the Lydian mode", "the Lydian Dominant mode" etc. Those are as applicable to "All The Things You Are" as to "So What".

But the modal way of thinking -- "play this scale over all these different chords and it will sound OK" -- is counterproductive in some contexts. It's typically how rock players are taught, and perhaps this topic just keeps on being an issue because many guitarists start out playing rock and then "move on" to jazz. Very few of the jazz greats did that.

[gersdal]

I really hope nobody gets too invested in a discussion of what is or is not "advanced". It will get us nowhere. Instead, looking at this simple layout of understanding I might rate it as 0=guitar player that knows major, minor, and pentatonic scales and can improvise in one key and 5=gersdal.

Simple and true way of saying it

Allthough I may have seen similarities between other guitarists, students and my own learning curve, I may have evaluated them all with my own perception of it all. Hence, it is very interesting to see if other see very different learning curves.

I haven't put enormous effort into describing the levels into details, but I hope they kind of describe the general picture. Your take on it is quite similar, and also has a rock background as a starting point. Maybe other with other starting points will disagree, which is interesting in itself.

I might simplify things a bit, maybe assigning different 'levels' using my own experience and observations of others.

A huge factor is the influence of rock playing and rock "training" that is common for guitarists, and that's plays such a huge role in the problems guitarists face when starting to try to play jazz.

So, my take:

levels of improvisation in relation to modes, common progression for a modern guitarist, focusing on the relation to modes:


0 - knows nothing

1 - knows pentatonic (to play rock)

2 - knows major and minor scales but has a very hard time improvising melodically with them (probably because of lack of aural skills as well as a lack of vocabulary that uses those scales)

3 - learns a few modes but similar problems as #2, uses modes over modal vamps and rock songs

4 - can play melodically with modes, make logical, melodic statements

5 - develops an interest in jazz. Is faced with many ii V I progressions and is mentally stuck trying to assign a mode to each chord

6 - From this point, it seems people diverge in different ways. For me, I lept off from this point by getting into bebop and learning a lot of bebop vocabulary and completely eschewing chord scales/modes. For some, they take a more educated and logical approach to CST, probably combined with transcription, and learn to navigate chord changes passably. There are other pedagogical approaches as well, but we're talking about Jazz Standards here and all approaches to probably boil down to, like you said, looking more at key centers rather than modes for individual chords.

7 - From #6, we're talking about players who can play through tunes and have it sound "fine." From here there are obviously an infinite number of directions people can go, stylistically, technically, etc, so I feel good leaving it here. Again, this is ONLY in relation to an understanding of modes. Completely leaves out issues of taste, phrasing, rhythm, voicing, style, etc

Very interesting. In reallity, as you say, there will probably be various ways of moving after some stage ... like a tree growing or something... I'll have a look and possibly update my view on it based on your comments.

[gersdal]

this is interesting. IMO its focused on modes a bit too much however. it seems like the real topic that your students are grappling with is improv levels, as opposed to mode levels.

Thank you for your kind words.

The focus on modes are as JakeAcci mentioned because of a discussion I read here at Jazzguitar.be that seemed to me to go on two totally different levels. This triggered me to think about learning curves and what IMHO would be the best way to help students forward. It is true that I'm talking about improvisation, but the large number of information sources that guitarists have today on improvisation is so filled up with modes that it does IMHO need to be seriously included.

for the music major guitarist i like the way that Berklee and UNT have laid out their improv classes and the topics within them. (serious players needn't go to college to do likewise however). furthermore, UNT has proficiency barrier exams before their improv classes. that enables an instrumentalist to see very clearly the need to evolve their technique relative to the ability to improvise at ever higher levels. if they can't pass the exam they have to wait to take the course. (no tickie, no wash!). UNT has 5 levels of improv, counting graduate improv. the syllabus for each of the 5 levels is listed on their website.


Improvisation | UNT Division of Jazz Studies

Thanks. Interesting information. Many of us does not teach at schools were you can use the "no tickie, no wash" approach. We have to plant seeds and hope they grow in a reasonable way. The idea I had was to give an example of a possible learning curve and a direction to lead the students, and to see if others recognized the same learning curve. As I understand it JakeAcci recognized it, but I'm absolutely interested in learning more about other totally differnt view on this.

i think that Bert Ligon and Garrison Fewell have made some significant contributions to improv studies in recent years. more traditionally speaking, i think that one can learn a lot from Jerry Coker's and David Baker's contributions. Go bless those guys.

Agree

[gersdal]

i didn't think that "the point" was very well represented.

Not good. Do you have any suggestions for improving it?

column 2, "status of understanding..." looks much more like an evolving dialogue about improv than a treatise on modes to me.

Mmm. Ok. Yes, but the "modes" kind of play a role in an evolving dialogue about improvisation. Agree?

remove all notions of the topic of improvisation, and what is left in that narrative?

whatever, just IMO. your free to have yours as well.

I'm probably not understanding your point here. Sorry

[Nuff Said]

"The levels of understanding modes: why discussion on modes is so confusing"

The logic is simple, play a specific Mode over a specific chord, its called "Chord Scale Theory".

So why is it confusing?

Nuff

[gersdal]

...and completely incorrect, if by "modes" we mean "the Lydian mode", "the Lydian Dominant mode" etc. Those are as applicable to "All The Things You Are" as to "So What".

I guess I would disagree with you in general on your statement. A functional tune like "All The Things You Are" is IMHO best viewed as harmonic elements (bricks) and played pretty much like key centre improvisation. However, the typical harmonic elements (like ii-V-I) may be spiced up by e.g. altered scale for the dominant 7th chord. I would, however find it over-complicating to teach Dm (dorian), G7 (Mixolydian or altered), Cmaj7 (Ionian) ... Teoretically it would be wrong because the chords does not last long enough to create the modal feel of e.g. dorian. The feel of a ii-V-I is C major in this example. That is not changed even if we throw in an altered scale over the G7. It is also much easier way of thinking that you are playing C major all the way. But this is really another discussion in my opinion...

But the modal way of thinking -- "play this scale over all these different chords and it will sound OK" -- is counterproductive in some contexts. It's typically how rock players are taught, and perhaps this topic just keeps on being an issue because many guitarists start out playing rock and then "move on" to jazz. Very few of the jazz greats did that.

Accepted. I started playing punk in the late 70'ties, so I guess I fall into that category ... or something even worse . My perception is certainly based on my upbringing and experiences. Your view is interesting as you obviously come from a different background.

[gersdal]

"The levels of understanding modes: why discussion on modes is so confusing"

The logic is simple, play a specific Mode over a specific chord, its called "Chord Scale Theory".

So why is it confusing?

Nuff

Modes are not confusing, discussions on modes are confusing.... If you're happy with with the way you think and see it all, I'm happy with that. If you're interested in more, there is more to it out there. That's my point. And that I have no interest in burring you in other information untill you ask for it

[Nuff Said]

Modes are not confusing, discussions on modes are confusing....

The various discussions over the years that concern whether Modes/CST are a good approach to creating Jazz music are confusing.

Nuff

[gersdal]

The various discussions over the years that concern whether Modes/CST are a good approach to creating Jazz music are confusing.

Well put and probably more correct than my statement.

[fumblefingers]

Not good. Do you have any suggestions for improving it?


Mmm. Ok. Yes, but the "modes" kind of play a role in an evolving dialogue about improvisation. Agree?


I'm probably not understanding your point here. Sorry

i'm not questioning the student confusion and dilemna that you encounter in your teaching gig, especially from the rock background etc. it is what it is (as they say)

i think that i'm making a similar point as you, but in a different way. i study jazz and classical. classical guitarists certainly play modal music (Bach, etc) but they don't struggle with all the items that you have noted in columns 2 and 3. they study theory, practice scales, modes, arepeggios, etc. etc. and then they just play their pieces as the composers have written them. i have spent a good deal of time around classical guitar professors and students alike. i've never heard them express frustration as is noted here. and the reason seems obvious to me. they're not struggling with cool solos.

my other point was that if you teach a student the art of jazz improv in a similar fashion as the best schools and teachers do, you may be able to avoid the obsessive focus on modes and scales.

put another way, you have defined a problem/challenge. i don't doubt that it's real. but what is the solution to the problem?

[AlsoRan]

I would describe myself as a bit of a newbie but to my mind, there is one statement in this thread that I have not read elsewhere that seems to very important in this discussion:

"FWIW, I think the trouble with modes is that they're introduced with the kinds of shortcuts gersdal describes. "Just keep playing A Dorian over the D7 and it becomes D Mixolydian" is confusing and impractical when you meet non-diatonic chords."

This defines a big problem or weakness with teaching and learning modes (in the CST sense) because if someone throws in, say an altered chord substitution while comping, the mode I normally would use for a given chord in a progression (i.e. the ii chord) may not match as "nicely" as it would had the chord choice remained diatonic.

Thanks Rich and Gersdal.

[whatswisdom]

The interesting thing for me is off course that modes are really not interesting at all.

I'm confused on this one. Maybe you could break it down to beginner level?

[gersdal]

i think that i'm making a similar point as you, but in a different way. i study jazz and classical. classical guitarists certainly play modal music (Bach, etc) but they don't struggle with all the items that you have noted in columns 2 and 3. they study theory, practice scales, modes, arepeggios, etc. etc. and then they just play their pieces as the composers have written them. i have spent a good deal of time around classical guitar professors and students alike. i've never heard them express frustration as is noted here. and the reason seems obvious to me. they're not struggling with cool solos.

Cool. I don´t have much experience in getting classical guys to improvise, but the experience I have is that it often is very correct, but also ... boring. You probably know more about this that me, and I thank you for the perspective which is interesting.

my other point was that if you teach a student the art of jazz improv in a similar fashion as the best schools and teachers do, you may be able to avoid the obsessive focus on modes and scales.

put another way, you have defined a problem/challenge. i don't doubt that it's real. but what is the solution to the problem?

If you could teach students in some sort of isolation I think a lot of well developed pedagogic strategies may have been great. The fact is however that all students will see tons of information about modes, their favorite player talking about modes (often in a very confusing way), their band mates talking about modes, etc. So you have to deal with it in some way.

I shall be careful in proposing a solution, but the idea here was that we have to accept that there are a sort of a learning curve... and that students will be at different stages in this learning curve ... and that trying to teach a student harmonic analysis when they want to learn the finger patterns for the modes is not necessarily fruitful.

[gersdal]

I'm confused on this one. Maybe you could break it down to beginner level?

ohh? Did I write that? In the context it was better then in isolation. To correct it slightly I would say; Modes are cool for modal music.