-
So for the I chord in the key of C, use C Ionian or C Lydian (both modes have major 3rd).
C Ionian = C major scale
C Lydian = G major scale (has #11)
For the ii, iii or vi chords, use Dorian, Phyrgian or Aeolian modes (each has minor 3rd and b7) i.e. Use D Dorian, D Phyrgian or D Aeolian over Dm7, or E Dorian, E Phrygian or E Aeolian over Em7, or A Dorian, A Phrygian or A Aeolian over Am7.
D Dorian = C major scale
D Phrygian = Bb major scale
D Aeolian = F major scale
E Dorian = D major scale
E Phrygian = C major scale
E Aeolian = G major scale
A Dorian = G major scale
A Phrygian = F major scale
A Aeolian = C major scale
For the IV chord, just play F Lydian = C major scale
For the V chord, use Mixolydian mode (has major 3rd and b7).
G Mixolydian = C major scale.
For the vii chord, just play B Locrian = C major scale.
This approach is called the "Derivative" approach, since as you can see It's relating each mode to a major scale it's derived from.
The Phyrgian mode can be explained a little more technically correct, but let's keep this simple for now.
So it looks like the primary uses of this approach are to give alternative sounds to the I ,ii,iii and vi chords.
There are other approaches, as discussed by others above, but this seems easiest to get started with. And no new fingerings beyond major scales!
Note that not all applications will sound good in every context. Use your ears.
For example, I've found that Carlos Santana sometimes uses the Aeolian mode rather than Dorian over a ii-V progression for his famous sounding lines. Not traditional jazz, but a good example of where different modes bring out different sounds.
Try playing lines from the C major scale, then the F major scale, then the Bb major scale over a looped Dm7 chord, or "So What" and you'll see what I'm getting at.
Experts, please weigh in!
Bill
-
06-26-2012 06:32 AM
-
OK, try to track with me here. Here's a cool way to hear the tonality of the modes. I learned this from a Frank Gambale floppy record that came in an issue of Guitar Player...
Let's take the seven modes and start them all on C. So C Major (Ionian), C Dorian, C Phrygian, C Lydian, C Mixolydian, C Minor (Aeolian) and C Locrian. I call these parallel modes.
What are their relative Majors?
C Major's relative major is C Major
C Dorian's relative major is Bb Major
C Phrygian's relative major is Ab Major
C Lydian's relative major is G Major
C Mixolydian's relative major is F Major
C Minor's relative major is Eb Major
C Locrian's relative major is Db Major
Does this make sense? The relatives have the same key signature.
OK, here's where the fun is. Take the IV and V of the relative major and put it over the C, the root of all of the parallel modes of C. This creates a very modal two chord progression. In other words...
F/C and G/C imply C Major
Eb/C and F/C imply C Dorian
Db/C and Eb/C imply C Phrygian
C/C and D/C imply C Lydian (I know C/C is just C, use trying to be consistent.)
Bb/C and C/C imply C Mixolydian
Ab/C and Bb/C imply C Minor
Gb/C and Ab/C imply C Locrian
Get a jamming buddy to trade off comping and soloing over these simple two chord progressions.Last edited by tstrahle; 06-29-2012 at 03:05 AM.
-
I am very familiar with modes and how they are used.
Put it this way ...would you rather have a scale for each chord(modal) or would you rather have seven chords for one scale (traditional harmony)?
None of this will teach you to play jazz ,but will give you a starting point in which only knowledge and time will get you to that goal!
I know a lot of you know where I'm coming from.
The constant reference to which mode to use is a disservice to the harmonic understanding of our musical repertoire!
Marc Silverman
-
There's certain types of situations where thinking chordally makes more sense...others where thinking scalar is the better choice.
Anybody who can really play knows when to use what...and knows any thinking is for the practice room.
-
Both methods can use a chordal or scalar approach but if you build chords on each note of major , minor, harmoic minor, melodic minor....up to the 9th you have discovered the origin of these harmonies and have covered all chord variables with few exceptions. At this point you are more likely to discover where that d min b5 to G7+5-5+9-9 came from
-
+1
Originally Posted by mr. beaumont
One leads to the other. CST has its place as do arps and chromatic connecting notes. Knowing/using all of these tools and internalizing them in the practice room is essential to playing what is in your head in real time, of course this does not teach vocabulary. But at this point you already know where it all came from. Without vocabulary it is moot.
-
The difference that makes sense for me is that between functional harmony and modal harmony.
It makes no sense to apply modal concepts (different scale for each chord) in a functional harmony sequence. Essentially it's missing the point.
Likewise, in a modal sequence, it's missing the point to try to apply functional concepts, like looking for "V" or "ii" chords.
In jazz up to the 1960s, it's no problem distinguishing between the two. "Modal" jazz was that new stuff Miles invented and Coltrane and others took off with. "Functional" jazz was everything else - everything pre-1959.
The problem now, of course, is that in contemporary jazz functional and modal concepts often co-exist in the same tune. It can be hard to tell whether a particular chord has a functional "meaning", or is just there because it sounds cool. Or maybe both...
-
I would love to know how Wes thought or G Benson
-
Yea... Jon great post. Not that any of your others were not... but very reflective of a jazz tradition... very cool.
BS stuff.... The difference between MODAL and TONAL harmony... is which pitches will define FUNCTION. And there are other Modal like harmonic systems which will also define function... not simply note resolutions. Then you complicate the situation with use of Modal interchange, blue notes and of course Melodic Minor... in a non-functional modal and modal interchange practice. And as Jon said... usually there all going on simultaneously.
Obviously Wes was extremely straight and played in the older tonally functional practice with use of blue notes and their influence, Benson was very similar... more blue note influence and beginnings of Melodic Minor jazz practice... even his modal playing was,(is) maj/min functionally based.... The Maj./Min. functional thing is... Tonic, subdom and dominant... tritone resolution controls all.
Music somewhat all becomes about relationships... and how they effect how we hear.
Marc... I believe the constant reference to modes... implying starting points or degrees of scale, is simply a learning tool. Not a goal... how else would you teach different tonal systems and their relationships, both functional and non functional concepts derived from nontraditional tonal harmony. The disservice might be more teacher related.
Reg
-
Reg ...why teach another tonal system when the traditional system encompasses mostly everything you need to know !
I am not sure what is meant by functional and not functional in this thread ,unless it means the functional is tonal movement from one voice to the other in a chord progression and modal has mostly no voice movement.
I just cringe when someone explains a II-V-I IN C major, uses a modal explanation when you just needed to play a C major scale. Of course you need to make it sound good!
-
Why choose when you can have it all?
Scales, triads, arpeggios, intervallic structures, chord shapes, quartals, etc...
I've never heard of anyone limiting themselves to thinking of just one element/approach when improvising. When you practice, it's a different story. But in that case you add to your bag of tricks and once you master, say a scale, you don't have to think about that anymore then you start thinking of, say triads.
When you "just play" you don't think, and this is when your assimilated vocabulary comes out. In the end it all melts together and it's in your reactions. You'll play lines that when you analyze them, you'll find scale fragments, triads, arpeggios, chromatic embellishment of chord tones. All the things you have practiced.
-
I think if you transcribe their solos, that will get you as close as you can get. Maybe even closer than you would if you actually asked them... Originally Posted by guitarplayer007
-
Hey marcwv...obviously you don't, but generally that's what you will sound like... A traditional non-jazz player covering jazz tunes. Not good or bad... Different. Originally Posted by marcwv
Functional implies guidelines for controlling the where, why and how of musical harmonic/melodic movement, specifically, what pitches and intervals control that movement.
Modal function generally implies different set of guidelines...those guidelines are usually referred to as a harmonic or tonal system... Very different use of the term modal when used to imply starting on different scale degrees.
But like you said... One scale can cover over a II V. I am a jazz player, that could be a great starting point for creating relationships and back in the 60's I didn't really hear much more... Throw in some blue notes and I was ..... Hip, yea I was talkin. I still dig that style, I just posted a Wes tune on my thread, which I tried to play in that style... The Blue notes were used with a reference to a harmonic system ... Not random... But very simple. I even only used octaves to help simpify. But I have many more choices of where to go and where to begin from...
Reg
-
Exactly - well put. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
As with any language, you can't "say what you feel" until you've absorbed the vocabulary and grammar so it's second nature. (And the more vocabulary the better, of course.)
You don't analyze as you're playing, you don't need to. As Miles said "I'll play it first and tell you what it is later."Last edited by JonR; 10-17-2012 at 04:21 AM.
-
That's the sense in which I understand the distinction. "Functional" refers to principles based on classical CPP harmony - ie that of major and minor keys. Originally Posted by marcwv
So-called "modal" jazz (which is arguably a misnomer) attempted to do away with those principles, mainly because they seemed to have been exhaustively explored by then, and did not address the musical ideas that Miles (in particular) was developing. (In that sense, it kind of parallelled what happened in classical music around the end of the 19th century.)
Me too Originally Posted by marcwv
.
-
I would rather have both! An anecdote: A student asks his teacher "Should I play my G chord with these three fingers, or these three fingers? My last teacher said that these three fingers are better." The teacher responds "You should know both ways as each way will make you more likely for success under different circumstances. And your last teacher was a douche." Originally Posted by marcwv
I think musicians will find that even they are playing the same seven notes, just thinking in dorian (example: Dm) while playing over an Ionian passage (example: Cmaj7) will cause different musical ideas to surface.
Everything you learn will teach you to play jazz (and music!). I've come to just call jazz "music." You'll find jazz musicians that are influenced by The Beatles, Stravinsky, Hendrix, you name it! It's important that you know the language but if we all start treating it as a formula, it might as well be dead! Every great artist has one thing in common: they take a form that has been refined and do something to give it a little twist. This ability comes from superior knowledge of what comes before you, as well as respect. But if you don't experiment and use all you have, you'll never be able to use your voice and say "Hey, this is what I think of Jazz!"
-
True enough. Originally Posted by baerashbrewer
What's important however (esp if we are in teaching mode...) is to be aware that one is not actually "playing in dorian mode" when thinking that way. One is just (presumably) accenting some different notes on the Cmaj7 chord, or within the C ionian mode.
IOW, one needs to emancipate oneself from modal terminology where it's inappropriate (or potentially confusing). There should be a better phrase than "thinking in dorian" to describe the effect in C major. Maybe "playing from the 9th", or something like that.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more. Originally Posted by baerashbrewer
The problems come when we try to convert the sounds to words in order to talk about them. In jazz, traditional theory terms often get thrown around rather carelessly (or arbitrarily redefined), so that WE know what we mean when we use them, but that might be different from what the other person thinks we mean.
Modes is one of the worst concepts in that respect. We all know what we think we mean by a mode. But if we don't define what we mean to start with, that's where the arguments at cross-purposes arise. (Let alone the immense confusion obvious in the rock guitar world about what modes are all about. Less of an issue in jazz, thankfully, which invented modern modal concepts after all. But it still happens.)
-
Very important points that can save novices a lot of frustration. Originally Posted by JonR
True enough.
What's important however (esp if we are in teaching mode...) is to be aware that one is not actually "playing in dorian mode" when thinking that way. One is just (presumably) accenting some different notes on the Cmaj7 chord, or within the C ionian mode.
IOW, one needs to emancipate oneself from modal terminology where it's inappropriate (or potentially confusing). There should be a better phrase than "thinking in dorian" to describe the effect in C major. Maybe "playing from the 9th", or something like that.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more.
The problems come when we try to convert the sounds to words in order to talk about them. In jazz, traditional theory terms often get thrown around rather carelessly (or arbitrarily redefined), so that WE know what we mean when we use them, but that might be different from what the other person thinks we mean.
Modes is one of the worst concepts in that respect. We all know what we think we mean by a mode. But if we don't define what we mean to start with, that's where the arguments at cross-purposes arise. (Let alone the immense confusion obvious in the rock guitar world about what modes are all about. Less of an issue in jazz, thankfully, which invented modern modal concepts after all. But it still happens.)
I look at modes in a tonal context as a theoretical construct to light up the chord tones and important intervals as they relate to the current chord.
The good thing about melodic minor for example is that patterns are interchangeable due to the nature of the scale. What I mean by that is that you can find a pattern in say C melodic minor. A pattern I like is D,Eb,G,A.
This can be moved around in octaves, and the notes can be shuffled. This particular construct is very effective and it translates well into any chord that C melodic minor would be used over. For example:
the pattern D,Eb,G,A from C melodic minor gives us these intervals over the different chords.
Dsusb9. root, b9, 11th, 5th. These happen to be the most defining intervals to play over that chord.
Ebmaj7#5. maj7th, root, third, #11. All great chord tones for this Lydian augmented application.
F7#11. 13th, b7th, 9th, maj3rd. Beautiful unaltered dominant sound, all good chord tones.
G7b13. Fifth, b13, root, ninth. Although the patter is acceptable, C melodic minor is not the most usual choice for that chord but it works.
Am7b5. 11th, b5, 7th, root. Beautiful sound on half diminished.
B7alt. #9, major third, b13, b7th. Great altered dominant sound.
So this is just one example of how an intervallic pattern translates well between melodic minor modes. This one in particular will give essential chord tones for any application. I can't think of any pattern from melodic minor that would give "avoid" notes when applied like that. This is the beauty of the scale. In this explanation I tried to explain how a key center approach and a "modal" approach can both complement each other and give different insight.
Taking a visual pattern, trying it over any chord that scale would be used over and then explaining it through "mode"-theory.
The same can't be said for modes of the major scale, which has the possibility of giving you an F over Cmaj7. It's not wrong, but it can sound awkward.
-
Absolutely. This is what I meant by " thinking" in Dorian. Not playing in Dorian. I do believe that this modal approach may be where we disagree on other topics. I have been taught heavily in the modal area and think of everything in terms of the chords place within its key and its corresponding chord scale. In that I find modes to be one of the greatest things in theory, while traditional theory I find inefficient and confusing. No disrespect! Just the way I see it. No matter what I think we can agree that it really matters what you hear than how you analyze it. Originally Posted by JonR
True enough.
What's important however (esp if we are in teaching mode...) is to be aware that one is not actually "playing in dorian mode" when thinking that way. One is just (presumably) accenting some different notes on the Cmaj7 chord, or within the C ionian mode.
IOW, one needs to emancipate oneself from modal terminology where it's inappropriate (or potentially confusing). There should be a better phrase than "thinking in dorian" to describe the effect in C major. Maybe "playing from the 9th", or something like that.
Absolutely, couldn't agree more.
The problems come when we try to convert the sounds to words in order to talk about them. In jazz, traditional theory terms often get thrown around rather carelessly (or arbitrarily redefined), so that WE know what we mean when we use them, but that might be different from what the other person thinks we mean.
Modes is one of the worst concepts in that respect. We all know what we think we mean by a mode. But if we don't define what we mean to start with, that's where the arguments at cross-purposes arise. (Let alone the immense confusion obvious in the rock guitar world about what modes are all about. Less of an issue in jazz, thankfully, which invented modern modal concepts after all. But it still happens.)
-
I'd also like to add one thought. It's also easy for guitarists to confuse modes with positions.
-
Regarding bebop lines with chromatic embellishments and what have you:
I visualize the parent scale, but I am always aware of the chord tones of each chord as they pass by, and the idiomatic chromatic embellishments for each chord tone. I know my arpeggios and their upper structures and what they sound like. I did exercises where I chromatically embellished these as well. The main picture I see on the guitar is the scale, and then the little chromatic notes are like decoration around, attached to the visual of the scale.
Passing tones and embellishments don't make a scale to me. Except for the dominant bebop scale, but that was only in the beginning and that's only one passing tone in one situation to keep track of. At this point that scale is only now a passing tone over dom7ths to me.
There are many roads to the same goal. Once one is undertaken, it can be beneficial to try another. It can only broaden ones horizons.
-
OK... if your looking for one analysis, one starting base for developing relationships... Major-minor Functional analysis works just fine, standard set of guidelines for defining what and how to use, develop and hear your improve... it's just not the only set of guidelines. If your not aware of the other standard jazz practice set of guidelines... that's what your going to sound like. Sure if you have the rest of your performance skills together... you can fake it... but your going to sound very vanilla.
Jon's point is basically right... but it's not just for what else could be going on... it's for what is going on... just because one can't or refuses to hear doesn't mean it's not going on.
This is general dialogue... not directed towards anyone...
One of the main concepts of bebop is use of blue notes... How do you organize their use... how many systems of tonal or modal organization are you aware of. Can you even verbalize or understand one... please don't think scale... you know where that goes. So you use approach or chromatic concepts from typical maj/min functional theory or harmony.
We're back to vanilla square one...
Jazz players aren't looking for vanilla. Jazz performance isn't about using the simplest one dimensional collections of notes. I don't want to play tied together whole notes all night... that's what using one harmonic system sounds like...
Amundlauritzen... approach is great... he's trying not to shut his ears.
Just as you start with the tune... one tune, then some changes, more changes, throw in notes besides the melody, more changes, subs, modal interchange, maybe use of Melodic minor through modal interchange... or other access method etc...
Now your looking at sections or bars of the tune... keep going, now your looking at one bar... one beat. Just as the tune has an organizing method of defining , so do single beats. Just because the tune you played yesterday was in key of Bb... doesn't meant the tune your playing today is also in Bb. Your able to separate the two and still call them jazz tunes... that same concept is going on in one tune, one beat.
Maybe not the best analogy... my point is jazz harmony isn't one dimensional... once jazz players became aware of bebop concepts... those concepts were always going on. The same with modal concepts etc... the concepts don't disappear... they become more refined, better understood. Just as we went from adding notes to V7 chords to eventually using Melodic Minor as one source for harmonic altered chords... we created or were able to hear what was always already going on... it didn't matter, it became common practice. This process is still going on.
Just as traditional harmonic practice and analysis went through changes... if you listen, still is, functional analysis and practice has changed... and will continue to do so.
-
Reg, A big thank you for sharing your knowledge here on this forum.
I also liked a previous post of yours, see below, explaining playing Bebop lines:
Approach notes and enclosures anyone?
Originally Posted by Reg
-
Hi all
I am struggling to grasp the concept of Modes and how to approach them
Basically, if i'm asked to play G Dorian - How would I approach this:
1. Play the GMajor scale and just flatten the 3rd and fifth notes
2. Find the Key in which G is the second note, which would be F and then play the F major scale from the second note.
What is the best way to approach and understand this?
Thanks
-
Either way will give you G dorian mode. Originally Posted by JazzGuitar
But let's say you wanted to "grasp the concept" of the major scale and how to approach it. Would playing the G major scale from G up to G help?
Yes; but it's only the start.
To grasp the concept (to begin to understand the point), you have to listen to music made with major scales (in major "keys"), and compare with (say) music made in minor keys, or in no key at all. IOW, you need to recognise the sound of the major scale (and the typical applications of it) in practice.
Modes work like keys, in that they are ways to compose music; not ways to improvise in existing music. (A lot of material implies the latter - or actually claims it - but it's only true in very rare circumstances.)
So G dorian mode, in practice, sounds very like the G minor key. The differences are:
1. It has E natural instead of Eb.
2. It doesn't ever raise the F to F#*, or use a D major chord as V - as is conventional in the G minor key.
3. In pure modal jazz, it will feature very few chords, maybe only one. If there's two, they'll probably be Gm7 and C7, or Gm7 and Am7. Otherwise chords will probably contain a lot of 4ths: eg, Gm11, G7sus4, etc.
(* In improvisation, this is not a hard and fast rule. Chromatic passing notes can be used in modal music, just as they are in key-based music; but they will probably be rarer.)
#3 means that G dorian mode (like all modal jazz) is more like a one-chord groove, a harmonically static vamp, rather than a journey through a chord progression, as happens in key-based (functional) harmony.
However, that's only really the case in early modal jazz (eg Miles' 1959 tracks, and early 60s tunes by people like Coltrane, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter), where the idea was to break out of the roller-coaster/treadmill of bebop tunes with their frantic changes, and achieve a more meditative, open, ambiguous vibe. The decks had to be cleared of all the old stuff, and early modal jazz was more about what was avoided (chords in 3rds, chord changes, anything reminiscent of bop) than what was contained.
But within a few years, modal practices began to be combined with old functional ones, everything thrown into the pot.
But jazz improvisation is still (as it always was) about constructing melodic/rhythmic phrases using chord tones, extensions and passing notes. One doesn't really need to understand modes any more than one needed to understand keys in older jazz. If you work with the melody and chords - using notes from neighbouring chords as passing notes, and chromatics for outside sounds and half-step transitions - it's hard to go wrong.
On those occasions where there are no neighbouring chords... (or where the chords either side clearly don't relate to the current one)... that's where modal ideas can become appropriate and useful.
Some classic modal jazz:
Last edited by JonR; 04-03-2013 at 04:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
Grant Green, What is This Thing
Today, 01:59 PM in Ear Training, Transcribing & Reading