Why Guitar Modes?

[meritonemusic]

First of all, I want to be clear. I have studied modes, I know how they work, I know what they are, I completely understand the concept. I understand that Ionian is I, Dorian is II, Phrygian III, etc. and that all modes come from the major scale. Modes are very useful to me in a lot of learning aspects of music. But-this is the thing. It doesn't matter if I play a solo in D dorian, E phrygian, A aeolian, or G mixolydian- it all sounds like C, because it is C. This drives me nuts!! I'm not asking what modes are, or where they come from. I'm just wondering-How do you actually make modes a useful tool when soloing? Thanks for your help

Hi Tyler

it's all about the root note! If you are playing the notes of C major scale, but the bass and rest of the band is basing their riffs and lines around D - then you are playing D Dorian - not C major.

Try out this backing track

you can play C major as much as you want on this, but it will be D Dorian and sound like D dorian - you will notice that the 'weights' change - ie some notes that felt like 'home' in C major now don't, and some notes now seem to work better in this new Dorian context...

[JZGuitarman]

If we concentrate so much on the technicalities and theory, dissecting a tune like a frog in a laboratory study, where does the spontaneity and the soul in our playing go? How can we make an impact on our listeners, if we can't reach their heart?

[TH]

If we concentrate so much on the technicalities and theory, dissecting a tune like a frog in a laboratory study, where does the spontaneity and the soul in our playing go? How can we make an impact on our listeners, if we can't reach their heart?

Good point Guitarman. The tune always comes first. The feeling is always primary. The point of all the theory and technicalities is to provide options when we, as jazz improvisors, are in fact composers in real time.
If the "dissecting" comes first, we are merely students of something we don't really understand. But there comes a time in every developing and advancing artist when we come face to face with the limitations of our understanding. This might be seen in a solo that feels good to play but sounds like an old habit. Or it may be a feeling that a piece suggests that one doesn't have the vocabulary to fully express. Or it may be an opening of an idea the piano player makes, a wonderful profound twist on an old tune that one is forced to follow up with using a modified blues lick vocabulary that doesn't really fit. There are many scenarios, but in each one, the artist's ability to express is hindered by lack of options. Theory and technical abilty (proficiency) is just one attempt to allow an artist to grow in ways their natural ease might not allow.
I've had students ask "why do we need to know big words and grammar? I say everything I need to say." But there may come a day when a particular dialogue may take a person to new abstractions of thought, new concepts that need new words to describe. The broad line can be informed by shading. The noun animated by the right adjective. The right phrase given greater impact by knowledge of where to place it.
The songs we play are built on structure though we may not be aware of it. Understanding the structure allows us the freedom to make it our own.
It starts with feeling, but we grow our whole lives. A little knowledge allows the feeling to wear a new set of clothes if we choose.
David

[JonnyPac]

From Kieth Waters Studio Recordings of the Miles Davis Quintet Oxford University Press 2011:

MODAL JAZZ

1. Modal scales for improvisation (or as a source of accompaniment)
2. Slow harmonic rhythm (single chord for 4, 8, 16 or more bars)
3. Pedal point harmonies (focal bass pitch or shifting harmonies over a primary bass pitch)
4. Absence or limited use of functional harmonic progressions (such as V-I or ii-V-I) in accompaniment or improvisation
5. Harmonies characteristic of jazz after 1959 (Suspended fourth- "sus" - chords, slash chords, harmonies named for modes; i.e., phrygian, aeolian harmonies)
6. Prominent use melodic and/or harmonic perfect fourths

In this discussion, I will use the term modes and scales interchangeably. I will not examine the relationship of jazz modality to Renaissance modality- those studies that do (and their resultant exchanges) do not meaningfully enhance enhance the understanding of modal jazz.

Discuss more here:
Defining "Modal Jazz"

[Jesuselpacifo]

Hi guys. So after reading a thread in the theory section about the problems discussing modes, and the different levels of knowledge surrounding modes I accept that I know very little. I have some questions though and I'm looking for answers.

What is the difference between playing in a certain mode and playing in a scale and avoiding the root note?

How do modes sound different to each other?

Why do people use modes when improvising?

I know this is going to sound very ignorant to most of you, but isn't something like D Dorian just starting and ending C major on C? And if so, how does a melody in D Dorian not sound like playing in C and avoiding ending on C?
I'm confused about this, and help would be appreciated.

[cosmic gumbo]

Doesn't Dmin7 sound different than CMa7? Different flavor of sound? Modes give us a method of expanding on this. There's a logic to harmony that is best understood by using modes. Believe it or not, it's meant to simplify things, not make them more complex.

[Rich Cochrane]

Sorry in advance for a long post -- I hope I can say something helpful here. This is the #1 theory-thing that guitarists get confused about, often because they've had ti explained to them poorly.

How do modes sound different to each other?

Simple answer: each mode is a different scale. For example, in C:

C Major is C D E F G A B
C Dorian is C D Eb F G A Bb

Clearly these are going to sound quite different because they contain different notes.

I know -- that's not quite what you meant. What you meant was related to this:

isn't something like D Dorian just starting and ending C major on C?

Not exactly. I think the best way to think of it is like this:

The Dorian scale is a scale you make by following a certain kind of recipe. The Major scale uses a different kind of recipe. By coincidence, if I follow those two recipes using different root notes I sometimes end up with exactly the same notes.

For example, the recipe for the Dorian scale is "take the Major scale and flatten the 3 and 7". Say I want to play a Dorian scale in D. I take the D Major scale:

D E F# G A B C#

and I drop the 3 and 7 by one semitone to get

D E F G A B C

This does not mean I have to play the scale starting on D: it just stared there when I wrote it down because D is the root note, and the convention is we usually start with it. We can play the Dorian scale starting and ending on any note we like.

But this root note thing is the key to the difference. Try this:

1. Drop your "E" string down to "D". Hit it and let it ring out while you play a few notes from the D Dorian scale. Try to play something melodic and get the sound into your head.

2. Now drop your "E" string down again to "C" and play exactly the same notes. I guarantee they will sound different.

One example of a difference: when you're playing in (1), ending a line on the note "D" sounded like a firm, solid conclusion, but in (2) it would have sounded unresolved, as if it needed an answer.

This is because the ringing note fixes the root for you, and the root fixes the "meaning" of all the other notes. That "D" note you played in (1) was a root, but the "D" in (2) was a ninth, which is a note of (mild) dissonance.

The only reason we care that D Dorian and C Major are "modes of each other" is that it gives us a little shortcut when we're learning them that means we can re-use our fingerings. Since fingerings are tiresome to memorize, this is a Good Thing, but my advice would be not to get overly hung up on it from a theory perspective.

If you have more questions please do shout.

[JonR]

Hi guys. So after reading a thread in the theory section about the problems discussing modes, and the different levels of knowledge surrounding modes I accept that I know very little. I have some questions though and I'm looking for answers.
What is the difference between playing in a certain mode and playing in a scale and avoiding the root note?

Playing "in" a mode is like playing "in" a key, except the scale has a different structure.

Major key = Ionian mode
Minor key = Aeolian mode, with occasional raising of 7th (harmonic minor) or 6th and 7th (melodic minor)

When you play in a mode, you are not in a key. The main difference of a mode from a key is that there is a b7 scale degree. (Except for lydian mode, which has a maj7.)

How do modes sound different to each other?

Lydian = major with #4
Mixolydian = major with b7
Dorian = minor (aeolian) with major 6
Phrygian = minor with b2
Locrian = minor with b2 and b5

Why do people use modes when improvising?

This is the toughest question, because it begs the definition of two words: "use" and "modes"

Generally speaking, it's probably true to say that people don't "use modes" when improvising. If they think they do, then they are probably using the word "modes" wrongly (see below for a sense in which it's right). Modes are not fret patterns on guitar - not any more than keys are.
Would you say when improvising "I'm going to use the C major key on this"? - you might say "C major scale", and that's the point.

A mode is a lot more than just a scale. Like a key, it's a scale with a defined keynote, an aural tonal centre. The "C major key" might have various different chords, each with its own "root"; but the "tonic" is always C.
Modes strictly don't have "tonics" (they have "finals"), but they work the same way. Eg D dorian mode might have a few different chords (with different roots) but the final is always D. (Actually most people today would use "keynote" or "tonal centre", not "final". But "root" is best reserved for chords, or it gets confusing.)

I know this is going to sound very ignorant to most of you, but isn't something like D Dorian just starting and ending C major on C?

No. I assume you mean "starting and ending on D" , but even that is not quite the whole story. D has to sound like the keynote. D dorian mode is not "in the key of" C. It is its own key in a sense.
It's best compared with the D minor key (D aeolian mode).
D minor = D E F G A Bb C D
D dorian = D E F G A B C D
Small but crucial difference . (D melodic minor also has B, but will have C# too.)

And if so, how does a melody in D Dorian not sound like playing in C and avoiding ending on C?

Well, it might. But it should sound like D is a keynote, like it's a "Dm" sound. It shouldn't sound like you're "avoiding ending on C".

Listen to "Oye Como Va" by Santana (or Tito Puente or whoever). That's in A dorian mode. Does it sound as if they are avoiding ending on G? No, it sounds pretty definitely like A is keynote. But it's not "key of A minor" (in the strict classical sense), because (a) there is no G#, and (b) there is an F# instead of F.

You could also listen to the long solo in the Doors "Light My Fire". That's also in A dorian mode. Again, although you could say they're "using the G major scale", it doesn't sound as if they are avoiding ending on G! Neither do they need to start and end every phrase they play on A. The chords (Am7-Bm7) and the bass are enough to tell us the keynote is A.

Regarding your question about "using modes" to improvise, of course you would "use A dorian" if the piece was in A dorian to start with. Same as you would "use the G major scale" if the piece was in G major. It's the exact same set of notes, of course! (and the fret patterns are all the same for both) The difference is (a) the sound of the progression - which chord sounds like the key chord - and (b) what kinds of phrases you might choose to play. Probably you would go more for an A note to end phrases instead of G. You wouldn't have to (the chords should say "Am" loudly enough), but it would underline the mode more.

The above two tunes are very simple modal vamps - not much like modal jazz (although there is an affinity in each case). But they help - IMO - in understanding the difference between modes and keys.
Modal jazz can be that simple (eg "So What"), but often it will combine a few different modes in the same piece.
This is where it differs from the key-based (functional) progressions of pre- 1960s jazz.
With a chord progression in a key, chords change pretty quickly, and usually at least two (normally three or more) all come from the same scale. The chords have a hierarchy, and suggest forward movement through the tune: dissonances implying resolution on to a consonant following chord. The basic I-IV-V functions, essentially.
Modal harmony is quite different. A piece might spend a long time on one chord. When it changes to another, that chord will probably come from a totally different scale (mode). The sense is not of forward movement, more of standing in one place, and then (if there is a chord-mode change) stepping across to another place. None of the chords contain any implication about what chord might come next. Also, the chords (at least in modal jazz) are typically built mostly in 4ths and 2nds, not in 3rds like chords in keys.
When I say a piece might spend "a long time on one chord", that doesn't mean players holding the same shape or voicing. Sometimes in modal harmony (within the same mode) it seems like a player can stack together any random notes from the mode, whenever. It doesn't really matter, because modal jazz is all about the scale. Chords often don't exist as such.
If you listen to the opening vamp of Miles Davis's "All Blues" (G mixolydian), no one is playing a G7 chord. Bill Evans is trilling 3 or 4 notes together (D E A at least); the bass plays a G-D-E-F riff; the saxes play riffs on other notes of the mode (B-C-D) and D-E-F). Everything comes from the "C major scale", of course. But G is clearly "keynote", there is no sense that C is the "tonic".
So it's not "in key of C", because G is keynote. And it's not "in key of G major" because it has an F, not an F#. It's "in G mixolydian".

[AmundLauritzen]

There is no difference, you end up with the same notes. If you call it C major or D dorian, it doesn't matter as long as you end up with the same notes, which you do.

But, the reason why the mode theory is taught is that it helps you analyze the function of the notes according to the chord you're on. When you use D as the root, you'll see the intervals differently than if you use C as the root. Being able to see the chord tones relative to D helps you hit those better in your playing.

D Dorian: D,E,F,G,A,B,C

That's okay, but it's useless without keeping the formula in mind: R,2,b3,4,5,6,b7. Compare it to the minor scale: R,2,b3,4,5,b6,b7.

Only one note is different. It makes more sense to compare dorian to aeolian because it shows the differing sixth. Actually, you can use D dorian in a tonic minor situation to get the major sixth which is non-diatonic in that situation, but very familiar in relation to the chord. Your ear expects a minor sixth on a tonic minor chord, but you play the raised sixth instead.

Now just raise the 7th of the dorian scale to get melodic minor:
R,2,b3,4,5,6,7

From dorian to melodic minor, only one note changes.

Now you can take the aeolian scale and raise the 7th, and you'll have harmonic minor.
Or you can drop the 6th of your melodic minor to get harmonic minor.
As you can see, it's a useful theory for getting to know important notes on a chord. I always found the mode theory to be most useful for comparing modes of similar families like the minor modes I used in the example, and the major ones(Ionian,Lydian). So you can make a system based on chord quality and then compare the different modes in that family to see how they differ and then experiment with those intervals. On a minor chord, you can try b6,6,b7,7 both regardless if it's a II chord and a VI chord.

You can also systematize the mode families for dominant chords and half diminished chords and compare them.

The whole "Modes are major scales starting from another tone" idea is crap you hear from rock musicans who think modes are different positions of the major scale on the fretboard. Modes need their respective chords in order to function as modes. But that's modes in a modal situation, not a tonal situation like most jazz(except modal jazz). Modes on modal tunes is different. In tonal situation(tonal as in music with cadences), modes are more abstract and don't function as they do in a modal situation because the harmony changes too fast in order for your ear to anchor to the modes roots.

[mr. beaumont]

The trick with modes is to understand the characteristic pitches...if you want to visualize your C major scale patters for D Dorian, have at it, but if you accent the same notes that you do for C major lines, it's not going to sound like "Dorian."

As far as "WHY" as to learning modes, in certain situations they're the clearer roadmap...mind you, all of this visualization, mapping, patterns, boxes, etc. is for the practice room...when it comes to actually making music, hopefully the sounds are ingrained enough in your ears and your fingers have matched those pitches enough times that you can find them again...if you're playing patterns and boxes and scales while improvising, it sounds pretty obvious.

[Rich Cochrane]

Jesuselpacifo -- you've had two completely different answers from JonR and me and I wanted to explain why.

JonR is mostly referring to the use of modes in "modal jazz", where they're a structural part of the composition, accompaniment and solo statements. Most jazz isn't modal jazz (I guess).

I'm just referring to what Dave Youtube means when he says the Dorian sounds good over some m7 chord but the Lydian doesn't. Usually Dave's referring to a m7 chord in a functional-tonal song that's in a key -- i.e. he's not talking about "modal jazz".

The two perspectives are different but I didn't want it to seem as if we were (a) both saying the same thing in mystifyingly different ways, or (b) exposing some deep disagreement about "what a mode is".

[Jesuselpacifo]

Thanks guys! I think I've got a better grip and understanding on this now.
So modes are like interval patterns, and different modes are different patterns.
Again, thanks. I've got plenty of reading here to keep me satisfied!

[JonR]

Thanks guys! I think I've got a better grip and understanding on this now.
So modes are like interval patterns, and different modes are different patterns.

In a musical, aural sense, yes. But don't confuse them with specific major scale patterns on the guitar fretboard - some teaching material uses mode names to label 7 different major scale fret patterns.
Those mode names have no bearing on musical application. Eg, you don't need to select a "dorian" pattern to play in dorian mode. And you can use a "dorian" pattern to play in any mode.
In that sense the mode names (for the fret patterns) are pointless - they're just labels, not the same as modes as musical entities. Just remember that and you should be OK .

[Reg]

Hey Jesuelpacito... there are big differences in sound, use and understanding with the meaning and usage of modes.
There are relics of the past... which is totally cool... but that's what it sounds like. I'll skip the history lesson, it's common knowledge.

Old people, like myself usually want to keep every thing in the same little boxes... make sure our vision of what is correct, stays that way.
The more we reinforce our beliefs, the safer we feel. It really doesn't matter what's true, we're simply playing our intellectual game.

There are different approaches to playing Jazz... the basic material is fairy common. Most are able to simply pull from those simple little boxes. But when your ears begin to develop, as well as you knowledge and skills, the actual playing part.... you will hear the difference.

Of course, that's a maybe, most don't.

To begin with you need to understand the difference between Modality and Tonality. All the conversations within this thread are from tonality perspective. Which are part of the discussion, but you would think the use of the word mode, might involve modal concepts.

Ask the guys who understand modal music so well to post some playing examples, not some worked out memorize and perform example. Actual music in a jazz style that demonstrates the definition.

Modes are not about the organization of the notes, your interval patterns. Jazz has adopted the modal terms to denote starting from different degrees of a scale. That is simply a tool for learning, for beginners... your going to get past the simple terms and begin to understand and be able to hear from a modal perspective.

We generally use major-minor functional harmony as source for determining function. Established relationships between notes determine tonality.

But you can use different notes from a tonal system to create those functional determining relationships.

You can play or pull from D Dorian or C major from the second degree, both the same collection of notes.
You can play as scale, arpeggio, chords... how ever. While you use this collection of notes there are principles in use, relationships between the notes, how we want or hear them reacting...

This simplifies down to a few basic tendencies. We generally call this Major-Minor Functional Harmony... there are a few different titles etc...

So we can use that same set of notes,( D dorian, C Maj from 2nd degree) with those implications... Rules, we can follow or break, doesn't matter. Our reference is still to the same tonal system. When we change the modality, we change which notes we're going to use to determine the relationships that define function.
Long story shorter... different rules to guide harmonic movement.
It's not the pattern or arrangement of the notes... it's which notes we decide to use for relationships to determine function.

I've posted musical examples of modal concepts before and will do so again. But would like to hear some of the other point of views.

And as I always say... very rarely are there simply one or two concepts going on in jazz. There usually all going on, interacting and reaction. Listen to how players connect and where they pull from. Reg

[Jazzpunk]

In a musical, aural sense, yes. But don't confuse them with specific major scale patterns on the guitar fretboard - some teaching material uses mode names to label 7 different major scale fret patterns.
Those mode names have no bearing on musical application. Eg, you don't need to select a "dorian" pattern to play in dorian mode. And you can use a "dorian" pattern to play in any mode.
In that sense the mode names (for the fret patterns) are pointless - they're just labels, not the same as modes as musical entities. Just remember that and you should be OK .

Just wanted to clarify for the OP in case he found this post confusing (I know I would have in the beginning) that if you have learned major scale patterns with mode names attached they actually do have a musical application when put in the proper context.

So if you've already learned that the second 'scale pattern' of C major is D dorian, you can indeed play that scale pattern over an appropriate dorian vamp as a way to initially start exploring modes.

I started with 'scale patterns as modes' initially and found it to be an easy way to start getting the characteristic sounds of each mode ingrained into my ears. Exploring this way of organizing pitch collections doesn't mean you can't move on eventually and get deeper into the topic.

[JonR]

Just wanted to clarify for the OP in case he found this post confusing (I know I would have in the beginning) that if you have learned major scale patterns with mode names attached they actually do have a musical application when put in the proper context.

So if you've already learned that the second 'scale pattern' of C major is D dorian, you can indeed play that scale pattern over an appropriate dorian vamp as a way to initially start exploring modes.

I started with 'scale patterns as modes' initially and found it to be an easy way to start getting the characteristic sounds of each mode ingrained into my ears. Exploring this way of organizing pitch collections doesn't mean you can't move on eventually and get deeper into the topic.

Fair point.
I can certainly see that for a beginner, it's a good idea to begin from one familiar pattern or shape, and explore the modal variations from there - even if it represents an artificial limitation that needs to be jettisoned once understood (rather like learning to ride a bicycle fitted with stabiliser wheels ).

I would go with something like the classic minor pentatonic pattern, link that with the chord shape (on the same root), and then go on to the aeolian, dorian and phrygian variations.
IOW, triad 1st, pent 2nd, three modal variations 3rd.

1. 
"Em" chord shape (minor, 6th string root)
|---|-R-|---|---|---|
|---|-5-|---|---|---|
|---|b3-|---|---|---|
|---|---|---|-R-|---|
|---|---|---|-5-|---|
|---|-R-|---|---|---|
.
2.
"Em" pentatonic pattern (adds 4th and b7)
|---|-R-|---|---|b3-|
|---|-5-|---|---|b7-|
|---|b3-|---|-4-|---|
|---|b7-|---|-R-|---|
|---|-4-|---|-5-|---|
|---|-R-|---|---|b3-|
.
3: modal variations
.
"Aeolian" pattern (adds 2, b6)
|---|-R-|---|-2-|b3-|
|---|-5-|b6-|---|b7-|
|-2-|b3-|---|-4-|---|
|---|b7-|---|-R-|---|
|---|-4-|---|-5-|b6-|
|---|-R-|---|-2-|b3-|
.
"Dorian" pattern (adds 2, 6)
|---|-R-|---|-2-|b3-|
|---|-5-|---|-6-|b7-|
|-2-|b3-|---|-4-|---|
|-6-|b7-|---|-R-|---|
|---|-4-|---|-5-|---|
|---|-R-|---|-2-|b3-|
.
"Phrygian" pattern (adds b2, b6)
|---|-R-|b2-|---|b3-|
|---|-5-|b6-|---|b7-|
|---|b3-|---|-4-|---|
|---|b7-|---|-R-|b2-|
|---|-4-|---|-5-|b6-|
|---|-R-|b2-|---|b3-|

- the important thing being the link with the chord shape. (That's the only way the pattern names makes sense.)

It's only one (very limited) application - a demonstration more than a practical strategy - but it seems a good way to begin to grasp modal variation.

It would be important to progress from that to (a) similar extensions from other movable chord shapes (pent, then modes), and (b) seeing other chord shapes within the pattern.
IOW, while the above can be useful as a learning tool, the modal connection with patterns needs to be broken quite quickly. Important provisos:

(a) Any one of those patterns can work as any mode; it's just a matter of re-assigning root note roles and scale degrees from there.
(b) Mode interpretations may be worthless anyway. If you can see a chord in the pattern, the pattern will fit that chord (obviously, right?).
(c) However, it's crucial to not look at individual chords in isolation, but in groups in sequence. Normally, if one plays a group of chord shapes all in the same position, the underlying scale - or at least the prime available material for improvisation - will reveal itself as the sum of all the chord tones. That's really the only information you need. Modes don't give you anything extra (other than some fancy labels ).

[Reg]

Although Jon believes playing using modal concepts is useless or doesn't exist... and I respect Jon's posts. But I don't believe their useless and employ modal concepts all the time. They can be used in context with other organizational systems of organizing tonality... or not. They can be used with Major-Minor functional Harmony or not. Even in traditional composition modal concepts were and still are used to derive different notes to use for relationships to define tonal systems.

That method of using one tonal reference or one key for reference and pulling from that harmonic area to derive complete harmonic structures works and has been around for ever... but it's very straight, almost to the point of being like using a pentatonic scale to play over everything.
Very classical approach to jazz. Maybe you can't hear the difference or maybe it sounds wrong... There are other systems to derive pitch collections.

[CaseyW]

I remember literally being in tears as a kid because my teacher through no fault of his own could not make me understand the answer to the OP's question when I would ask it over and over again. Returning to it many years later as I have, this thread has been very helpful, plus a lot less traumatic, thanks!

[JonR]

Although Jon believes playing using modal concepts is useless or doesn't exist...

That's not what I believe at all. Of course modal concepts exist. They are extremely useful both for composing, and for analysing existing music (at least if it's modal in structure).
(I do try to make that clear in my standard rants )

The misunderstanding and confusion comes in the notion of "applying modes" when improvising - because it's a misleading and confusing use of the term.
(Who knows what people mean when they talk about "applying" modes, "using" modes, or even "playing" modes? People who use those phrases always seem to end up revealing their own confusion about what modes are. They might actually play very well, but their thinking - their way of explaining what and how they're playing - is woolly. And usually the modal terms are irrelevant.)

They can be used in context with other organizational systems of organizing tonality... or not. They can be used with Major-Minor functional Harmony or not. Even in traditional composition modal concepts were and still are used to derive different notes to use for relationships to define tonal systems.

Reg, I respect you probably a lot more than you respect me - - so I'm sure you're right - but can you give some concrete examples, for my own education?

That method of using one tonal reference or one key for reference and pulling from that harmonic area to derive complete harmonic structures works and has been around for ever... but it's very straight, almost to the point of being like using a pentatonic scale to play over everything.

Uh, well I'd call that a blues approach. And I would say blues is a modal music, if I didn't think that would cause a whole load more confusion...

I think I see what you're getting at here: that one CAN apply modal analysis to pre-modal functional harmony, as another way of breaking down - and maybe expanding on - the material (pitch collections) available.

I have no quarrel with that approach - but IMO it does require (morally if you like) a fundamental understanding of functional principles to begin with. Otherwise the modal approach simply dismantles the original progression. As I think I said before, the ideal is to work from a place of knowledge, not of ignorance.
I'm not saying functional harmony is "better" than modal harmony, or should be left well alone (preserved in aspic); just that, as jazz players, we should understand those historic principles before we mess with them. Sometimes "if it ain't broke don't fix it". Sometimes those principles are still alive and kicking today.

Moreover, we can never understand the thinking and approach of jazz musicians before 1959 unless we do understand functional concepts, and ignore modal ones (because they were simply unknown back then).

OTOH, I guess there is an argument for saying that there's no sense in studying jazz from before 1959 because we've moved on over 50 years since then... jazz is nothing if not constantly re-inventing itself, and maybe it's enough for jazz to build on the immediate past, rather than the distant past.

I certainly don't agree (much) with reviving vintage styles such as dixie or bebop. It can be fun, but that's not what jazz is about for me.

My real beef is not really about the music in any case, but about trying to get people to use words accurately and consistently, so at least we all know exactly what we're talking about before we start arguing!
(Guitarists are the real sinners here, or whoever first promoted the idea of naming fret patterns after modes. The confusion that that notion set in train is truly mind-boggling...)

[guitarplayer007]

Do professional Jazz players actually think in modes when improving or just react and play

[AmundLauritzen]

Do professional Jazz players actually think in modes when improving or just react and play

Thinking only happens in the woodshed.

[JonR]

Do professional Jazz players actually think in modes when improving or just react and play

I'd say - if they think consciously about strategy at all - they're thinking sound. They hear what's going on, and hear in their head how they might respond to it.
If they are hearing modes, therefore, they will think that way. (They would certainly recognise a modal sound when they hear one.)
This would probably be the case over long vamps of one or two chords.
With fast changes (as in traditional bebop), they'll be thinking about progression, voice-leading and overall phrase shape. Linear thinking, IOW.
Awareness of chord tones of course - and possibly chord scales too - but seeing the bigger picture in order to link them all up. Modes wouldn't play a part in that.

I'm saying "they" of course, not "I" or "we" . I do play jazz, but I'm not sure I'd consider myself a "jazz musician". Not compared with the pros I know.

And of course it's true, as AmundLauritzen says, that on the bandstand all this stuff has been absorbed subconsciously (through years of practice in most cases) so musicians can think purely in phrases, in melodic and rhythmic shapes - in the same way you or I can speak English without thinking about the underlying grammar. We know what we want to say, and we say it; we don't need to think "article-noun-verb-adjective-noun" first...
Like Miles Davis said "I'll play it first and tell you what it is later".
Sometimes you really don't know what you're going to play, it just comes to you as you listen. Or you imagine something and it comes out different - so you work with that. Or you just play something - anything - and then respond to what you just did.

But in terms of the (very good) question, it comes back to the sound. A mode is a sound. It can be on a single chord, but that chord will sound different from the same chord used as part of a progression. So chords can be used in functional ways, or modal ways - and each way sounds different. The improviser's task is recognising those distinctions (and others)- and assessing the context of course - and going with them. Or maybe, just to be cranky, going deliberately against them! But in either case, being aware of which it is.
Trying to play a modal sound on a functional chord is a waste of time. IOW, you can think of it as "modal" all you like, but it won't sound like that.
Eg, if you see a G7 in key of C major, and decide "I'm going to play G mixolydian on this", that's fine, it will fit perfectly. But who'll know or care? It won't sound mixolydian, it will sound like "V chord in C major". It will sound exactly like someone playing the C major scale on the V7 chord. The difference is the G7 chord has an expectant tension waiting to resolve to C; G mixolydian mode doesn't have that. So why not think the way it will sound in the first place?
If you think "V chord resolving to C" then you are going to play phrases accordingly: with a logical outcome on the C chord, expressing the cadence.
If you think "G mixolydian", then you're focussing purely on the G7 chord, ignoring what's coming next. (When you get to the C chord, you'd then switch and think "C ionian"...)
That may well work. Maybe it will even sound better than the first way! But the point is to be aware of the difference, and know what you're doing.

And STILL - this kind of thinking is what you do when woodshedding: trying things out, trial and error, getting it all under your fingers. So when you play for real, you don't have to think. You just hear it and feel it, because it's all there in your subconscious.

[Reg]

Hey Jon... sure, I'll post some playing with commentary examples. Would dig hearing some of your playing... It's always nice to put the words with the playing etc...

007... I'm a working musician... Not just jazz, although I'm trying to cut back on gigs, I still work all the time. When you understand what's going on musically, you have time to think. I played a Big Band gig last night, I read well, I don't have to watch charts all the time, even fairly active melodic sections. So usually during solo sections... I don't watch the chart, I watch players and listen... I also interact and react... but I have time to make choices on where we as the rhythm section and soloist want to go. If the soloist goes off in a coltrane multi-tonic sequence... I can go with the soloist or I can use basic tune as pedal effect. There is not only one way to play.

Using modal concepts is not simply pulling from a mode and using characteristic pitch in one of the standard modal systems...
I also use modal concepts... as method of getting away from leading tone and tri-tone functional control... get away from Major-Minor functional harmony as method of controlling harmonic function or movement. There are symmetrical modal methods of controlling relationships or function... not just standard relationships... V I or variants.

Thinking in modal concept... is almost a method for opening my ears and mind to different choices. We've all been train to hear standard tonal relationships... where music usually goes.

But as Jon mentioned... you do need to know and understand the history and development of music. Somewhat like how can you play out if you don't know what's in, well maybe not best analogy.

Gigs are my practice, they're not magical, just playing music. Generally audiences keep you honest, you don't just go through the motions, play what you know will and always has worked.

As far as learning, trying theoretical ideas, most are with composition and arranging, which trickle down to my playing.

It's hard to believe we as the performers of music have changed that much. I would think we are still somewhat the same... different tools or skills, but same cogitative abilities. Our awareness of what has and is going on has obviously expanded.

Reg

[tweed1]

hi ive been studing the diatonic triad and major 7th modal chords, with great pleasure, im now looking for a pdf or a book where i can find the 6ths 9th 11ths and 13ths progressions and how they work in with the modes.... thanks

[JonR]

hi ive been studing the diatonic triad and major 7th modal chords, with great pleasure, im now looking for a pdf or a book where i can find the 6ths 9th 11ths and 13ths progressions and how they work in with the modes.... thanks

In a jazz context, it's probably better to avoid tertian chords when working in modes. At least, that's what the classic modal jazz players did (esp pianists like Bill Evans and McCoy Tyner). They used quartal chords, in order to avoid the functional connotations of tertian harmonies.

IOW, when jazz ears (at least those trained in pre-modal functional harmony ) hear a "Dm7" chord, the likely assumption is it's a ii chord in the key of C major. They would expect it to be followed by G7 and C. A secondary likelihood would be vi in F major.

So when the modal pioneers were after a "D dorian" modal sound, they wanted to subvert such expectations; they had to fight listening habits. So they'd more likely use a quartal "Dm11", voiced something like A-D-G-C-F. That's a stack of 4 perfect 4ths, and the acoustic root of each interval is the upper note. So the ear follows the root indication all the way to the top of the chord, by which time our other subconscious music instinct is telling us a root can't be on the top of the chord!
So the end result is an ambiguous-sounding chord, with no clear root. (In fact calling it "Dm11" doesn't really tell us anything.) Exactly what one wants for "pure" modal jazz, where the whole point is melodic exploration of the scale; static harmony, not any kind of "chord progression".

IOW, the chords in modal harmony are fluid: they tend to dissolve into the scale, as if they are (almost) random collections of notes from the mode that just happen to occur together.

The other alternative concept about modal chords - closer to what you're after - is that a modal chord should not be totally ambiguous, but should express the character of the mode, by choosing distinctive notes from the mode.
So lydian mode is expressed by a maj7#11 chord - because no other mode contains those intervals (from the root).
Phrygian is expressed by a susb9 (7sus4b9).

The problem then is some common modal jazz chords could in fact stand for more than one mode. Eg "G7sus" - a common indicator of G mixolydian in modal jazz charts - could equally well fit G dorian, aeolian or even phrygian. And of course G7sus might well be used as a dominant in C major.

However, the advantage in building modal chords is you don't have to worry about "avoid notes". In functional harmony, chords have jobs to do in progressions (that's what "function" means after all ). That means certain extensions are avoided if they disrupt that function. A chord needs to have a clear identity, and any dissonance in the chord has to be functional - to have a clear meaning. So we tolerate (even enjoy) the B-F tritone in a G7 chord, because we recognise its dominant function relative to C; we wait for the resolution of that tension in the C-E 3rd of the tonic chord.
But if we hear the B-F tritone on a Cmaj7 chord ("Cmaj11"?), it's much more unpleasant. We hear two opposing functions at the same time: tonic vs dominant.
(OK, the conventional G7-C dissonant>consonant cadence may be too cheesy and predictable for jazz tastes, but we still don't like dissonance to be out of place.)

But when it comes to modal harmonies, we're not (or are not supposed to be ) listening for functional meaning in the chords. We are supposed to be enjoying each chord sound for its own sake, its characteristic mood. Dissonance is just "local colour", so it's purely a matter of personal taste what notes (out of the mode) you add to the chord. That's how a b9 can work on top of a phrygian chord. A 7susb9 chord is a crunchy sound, but we like the crunch as it is. We're not waiting for it to "resolve".
(Even so, susb9 chords - like ordinary sus chords - can also be used as functional dominants. Context - then - determines our expectations about what dissonances mean.)