Modal Theory and Traditional Theory

[JohnRoss]

That's because that's how modal music works. Each chord is a world unto itself.
This is not the case in functional harmony; no single chord makes sense on its own, you need to know where it's come from and where it's going.

Without disputing anything Miles did, or anything else occurring in modal jazz, modal music may or may not have this kind of laid-back never-mind-where-you're-going-just-enjoy-where-you-are kind of logic to it. Usually it doesn't, usually modal music is as or nearly as laden with tension-resolution kinds of harmonic movement as diatonic music. The chords may not mean the same, but they're still there. For example, in minor modes, the (major) chord on the seventh tends to have roughly the same function as the diatonic dominant, it wants to resolve to the tonic. Another example: when flamenco goes Phrygian, the second tends to work in the same way, resolving down a semitone to the tonic (F - E).

[mike walker]

Nothing inherently wrong with thinking one scale per chord.
If you find that tough, then that's to do with you, not the scales.

What you find difficult doesn't automatically negate the method.
For you, maybe, but that shouldn't then become a generalization.

If you want to play Chord tones, that's cool. That is one important part of a bigger picture.
But when you play a 5th on the first chord of All the things you are,
what is it a 5th of? The Chord or it's corresponding/positional scale? Both?

How do you individualize the flavour of each chord?

Is that a min chord with a 6th or a flat 6th?

Can we play the 6th when the position of the chords intimates a b6th?

You bet. And this starts to get to the nitty gritty.

Can you get these individual sounds without any backing? Just with you and your instrument?

Call it whatever works for you. Mode, pool of notes, scale, pitch collection, colour, etc etc. To a point, we need a collective understanding, but this is not fixed in the real world.
We often need a few terms to describe the same thing (as understood by others) to communicate on the bandstand or in the rehearsal room.

[JonR]

Without disputing anything Miles did, or anything else occurring in modal jazz, modal music may or may not have this kind of laid-back never-mind-where-you're-going-just-enjoy-where-you-are kind of logic to it. Usually it doesn't, usually modal music is as or nearly as laden with tension-resolution kinds of harmonic movement as diatonic music. The chords may not mean the same, but they're still there. For example, in minor modes, the (major) chord on the seventh tends to have roughly the same function as the diatonic dominant, it wants to resolve to the tonic. Another example: when flamenco goes Phrygian, the second tends to work in the same way, resolving down a semitone to the tonic (F - E).

OK, now you widening the scope of "modal" music to other cultures - very good idea, but I was being deliberately narrow in reference to archetypal "modal jazz", to try and highlight the differences. The "project" of modal jazz (inasmuch as there was one) was to avoid those too-obvious functional cadences, and - to begin with - try to eschew any cadences at all, as if to see what music might be like without them. In fact, when you see cadences in early modal jazz, it tends to borrow (usually briefly) the old functional ones - eg the altered D7 in "All Blues", and the transitional dominants in "Flamenco Sketches".
The relationship of Eb to Dm in "So What" can be heard as a tension of a kind, but Eb>Dm isn't really a cadence, but a change of key. Is the opening Em11>Dm11 motif a dorian cadence? Not IMO; more like a statement of the modal material.
Other modal tunes like Maiden Voyage and Little Sunflower have no modal cadences; just moves from one mode to another.

You're quite right about "modal cadences" in general, of course, but I think most people would say that - while attractive - they're weaker than tonal (key) ones. G7 to Am is not such a strong move (not as "resolute" ) as E7 > Am, or G7 > C.
Bb > Am is a strong move, but - as a phrygian cadence - sounds more exotic to western ears ("flamenco") than other more "folksy" ones such as G > Am; phrygian mode not being part of the folk cultures that inform most of western popular music. I don't recall hearing many phrygian cadences in modal jazz; however, something very like it is enshrined in the jazz tritone sub, of course; although that is a totally functional move (standing for V7alt>I), not a modal one. It's a more urgent cadence than an unaltered V7>I, but because of the chromaticism, not because of its arguably phrygian flavour.

[JonR]

Cool explanation JonR. It seems the functional blends into modal - they're different areas on a spectrum of approaches.

That said it also seems that modal can easily be adapted to any "functional" tune, just pick the modes that are most conducive to the harmonic movement - this is what the CST people are doing it seems

I watched this video from Scott Gormley of a functional analysis of "..Miss Jones".

His analysis describes the chords in terms of their position within their key centers. Presumably a functional or key center player playing this tune would find the key and play mostly within those notes. Whereas a modal or CST/chord tone player would just take the chords as they come but also acknowledge their direction.

Do I have this right?

Yes, I think so. That would be an intelligent way to employ modal concepts, within a consciousness of functional purpose.
My argument would simply be that the modal perspective is unnecessary in a functional tune.
What's the point of considering the chords separately? How does it help? It's no easier than the trad method, arguably more complicated, and tends to deny the functional connections.
Just my $0.02

Is "Giant Steps" a functional or modal tune?

Functional - totally!
But the functional moves, the modulations, are so frequent and dizzying that a modal approach is not that much tougher to employ. (But still tougher, IMHO.)

[AmundLauritzen]

Is "Giant Steps" a functional or modal tune?

As functional as it gets. It's all II-V's and II-V-I's in three keys a major third apart. The multi tonic system of major thirds is what makes it challenging. Playing over each of those II-V's and II-V-I's making separate statements is something most players can do. It's making a coherent line through the modulations(and through the whole tune for that matter) that is the challenging part.

[P4guitar]

Thanks for educating me gents.

I now understand and fully embrace my musical orientation - modal and proud of it!

I do confess to a little functional experimentation from my youth though....it was just a difficult and confusing phase

[mike walker]

Yes, I think so. That would be an intelligent way to employ modal concepts, within a consciousness of functional purpose.
My argument would simply be that the modal perspective is unnecessary in a functional tune.
What's the point of considering the chords separately? How does it help? It's no easier than the trad method, arguably more complicated, and tends to deny the functional connections.
Just my $0.02

It doesn't necessarily 'deny the functional connections' at all.
The denial is in the beholder.
Looking at it from a chord/scale relationship has many benefits.
So many ways to connect the chords when you take voicings from each scale. You can connect with much more melodic flow.

Herbie, Mcoy, Jarrett, Sco, so many contemporary players look at it from this perspective.
But not just the modernists. Bill Evans, Jim Hall, Gil Evans etc etc......
So many.
You can slightly alter each flavour as you get into more and more sounds.

I read somewhere that it gets folks riled up when players talk of Modes or Chord/Scale approaches.

I find that utterly bizarre.

[Reg]

There are theories and then then there are their applications. Generally what most of us want to deal with is practical theory... which deals with composition and performance.

There is (practical) traditional theory... guidelines for fundamentals of the study of the structure of music.....melody, rhythm, counterpoint, harmony and form all within tonal systems.

Notes, notes in succession.... individual chords and in succession ...and all the relationships that may or may not happen.

All these in relationship to a tonal center(s).

The majority of traditional theory is under the big controlling label of..
Functional Harmony... I went through before...

Voice leading, borrowing, modulation etc... are all applications of
Traditional theory/ functional harmony.

They're guidelines for practice of composition and performance... not theory, their applications of theory. Voice leading, resolutions etc... are not the theory... they're methods of performance or composition of the theory. Harmonic and contrapuntal practice are applications of theory.

This is not a chicken or the egg conversation... we're not talking about which came first... that's a given.

Sorry to beat into the ground.

Modal theory, not 13th century or the different european stages etc... but the internal relationships of notes within a scale, which are going to be tonic etc... define Function, the hierachy of pitch relationships beyond just being a scale... musically functional modal systems.

The scale is not a closed system, modal function can be a musical property, not just a category of tonal function.

And then there are Jazz applications of traditional theory, modal theory and other musically functional systems of organization.

It generally helps when talking about music theory or practical theory to have references... A concept or reference of an application(s). That application may become a concept and also have applications but it helps to have reference.

If you really want to understand... compose or write music, and then become aware of what and why you compose, understand why you like or dislike something, beyond your feeling as some point in time.
Or not. When we perform it usually goes by to quick for any real type of analysis...
Reg

[docbop]

Modal theory, not 13th century or the different european stages etc... but the internal relationships of notes within a scale, which are going to be tonic etc... define Function, the hierachy of pitch relationships beyond just being a scale... musically functional modal systems.

Thank you, that is what I looking for the definition of Modal Theory.


Whole post is excellent

[JonR]

It doesn't necessarily 'deny the functional connections' at all.
The denial is in the beholder.
Looking at it from a chord/scale relationship has many benefits.
So many ways to connect the chords when you take voicings from each scale. You can connect with much more melodic flow.

OK, but I file that under "chromaticism". For me, that's how it makes sense in practice.
You have a key "environment". Any notes you want to employ on a chord that are neither in the chord nor in the diatonic scale - for purposes of more interesting "melodic flow" - are simply "outside" notes. They gain their legitimacy from how they connect the lines, not from what chord-scale they might seem to be part of.
Moreover, the chromatic view allows the use of any of the other 5 non-diatonic notes, if they can play a part in that improved voice-leading. It seems odd to look for a non-diatonic chord scale, which will probably only provide one or two chromaticisms.

IMO, the chord-scale principle makes perfect sense if you're looking for 7 notes which all work beautifully on the chord (better than diatonic scales, which often have 1 or 2 "avoid notes"). In itself, it has nothing to do with the chord before or after.
When (as you're saying) you combine it with an awareness of chord function and context, then it seems to me the pure CST aspects melt away into irrelevance.

IOW, I'm taking it for granted that all 12 notes are available at all times on any chord, but that there is a strict hierarchy, or spectrum, of "in" and "out", on 3 or 4 levels: chord tones as most "in", chromatics and avoid notes as most "out". That's not to do purely with the chord itself, but with its function or purpose.

Eg, let's say I have a G7 chord in key of C (resolving to C). I'm not going to choose lydian dominant because it has "no avoid notes" (by raising the C to C#). If I choose a C# on the G7, it will be in order to make some kind of chromatic line, probably up to the 9th on the C. (If down to C I'd probably think of it as Db.) IOW, I might end up using a pool of notes that an educated listener would interpret as "lydian dominant". But that's not how I think of it.
I might also alter other chord tones for similar reasons, but without thinking about what scale, as a whole, they might spell; that's beside the point.
Eg, if I was to use the "altered scale" - or notes from it - that would be because it consists of a maximum number of half-step moves to C (or to its consonant extensions). The "7th mode of melodic minor" is irrelevant, just a coincidental resemblance. Still, the scale is not the point; the voice moves are the point.

It's true that it amounts to the same thing. I'm not suggesting that people who work from a CST/mode perspective are always trying to cram 7 notes into every chord, and play them in order!
I'm just saying that a chord tone and chord function perspective (which includes chromatic options) means you can bypass CST/mode thinking, and retain a clear connection with how the music works. From that perspective, CST seems like a side-track.

Just to underline: I'm still talking about music which is clearly functional, such as vintage jazz standards.
Then again, I'm not saying those tunes can't be deconstructed from a modern perspective, opened up with modal style substitutions or reharmonisations. That's what jazz ought to be about, after all: messing with the material .

Herbie, Mcoy, Jarrett, Sco, so many contemporary players look at it from this perspective.
But not just the modernists. Bill Evans, Jim Hall, Gil Evans etc etc......
So many.
You can slightly alter each flavour as you get into more and more sounds.

Well, it would be interesting to know exactly what their views on it were. I suspect that an analysis of any of their playing (on functional standards I mean, to stay on the point) could be interpreted from a few perspectives, with equal validity. Where you saw a mode, I might see a construction reflecting function, or voice-leading. Or vice versa, maybe

I read somewhere that it gets folks riled up when players talk of Modes or Chord/Scale approaches.

I find that utterly bizarre.

Well, I don't get "riled up", personally; maybe just a little bemused sometimes at folk not seeing the wood for the trees (which can happen when CST is applied too narrowly or exclusively).

I understand the point that isn't the theory that's at fault - only some people's occasional misuse or misunderstanding of it.
(I love Hal Galper's anti-CST rant on that youtube video - where he calls it "totally bogus" - but he's only talking about the way it's often poorly taught, because it's easy to teach it poorly. He seems to be saying one ought to abandon it entirely, and I definitely wouldn't subscribe to that - although I do think his alternative, what he sees as the traditional method, is solid in any kind of jazz.)
If anyone needs reminding...

[JonR]

Modal theory, not 13th century or the different european stages etc... but the internal relationships of notes within a scale, which are going to be tonic etc... define Function, the hierachy of pitch relationships beyond just being a scale... musically functional modal systems.

The scale is not a closed system, modal function can be a musical property, not just a category of tonal function.

Just to make sure I'm following you here, Reg...

A mode as "the hierachy of pitch relationships" - within a functional chord, relative to the root, yes? (As well as within a mode in its own right.)

"modal function can be a musical property, not just a category of tonal function". "Modal function" meaning simply that a mode can exist outside of tonal function, yes? (Eg, D dorian as an entity separate from C major, distinct from a function as "ii in C major".)

(If so, btw, no disagreement from me!)

[mike walker]

OK, but I file that under "chromaticism". For me, that's how it makes sense in practice.
You have a key "environment". Any notes you want to employ on a chord that are neither in the chord nor in the diatonic scale - for purposes of more interesting "melodic flow" - are simply "outside" notes. They gain their legitimacy from how they connect the lines, not from what chord-scale they might seem to be part of.
Moreover, the chromatic view allows the use of any of the other 5 non-diatonic notes, if they can play a part in that improved voice-leading. It seems odd to look for a non-diatonic chord scale, which will probably only provide one or two chromaticisms.

IMO, the chord-scale principle makes perfect sense if you're looking for 7 notes which all work beautifully on the chord (better than diatonic scales, which often have 1 or 2 "avoid notes"). In itself, it has nothing to do with the chord before or after.
When (as you're saying) you combine it with an awareness of chord function and context, then it seems to me the pure CST aspects melt away into irrelevance.

IOW, I'm taking it for granted that all 12 notes are available at all times on any chord, but that there is a strict hierarchy, or spectrum, of "in" and "out", on 3 or 4 levels: chord tones as most "in", chromatics and avoid notes as most "out". That's not to do purely with the chord itself, but with its function or purpose.

Eg, let's say I have a G7 chord in key of C (resolving to C). I'm not going to choose lydian dominant because it has "no avoid notes" (by raising the C to C#). If I choose a C# on the G7, it will be in order to make some kind of chromatic line, probably up to the 9th on the C. (If down to C I'd probably think of it as Db.) IOW, I might end up using a pool of notes that an educated listener would interpret as "lydian dominant". But that's not how I think of it.
I might also alter other chord tones for similar reasons, but without thinking about what scale, as a whole, they might spell; that's beside the point.
Eg, if I was to use the "altered scale" - or notes from it - that would be because it consists of a maximum number of half-step moves to C (or to its consonant extensions). The "7th mode of melodic minor" is irrelevant, just a coincidental resemblance. Still, the scale is not the point; the voice moves are the point.

It's true that it amounts to the same thing. I'm not suggesting that people who work from a CST/mode perspective are always trying to cram 7 notes into every chord, and play them in order!
I'm just saying that a chord tone and chord function perspective (which includes chromatic options) means you can bypass CST/mode thinking, and retain a clear connection with how the music works. From that perspective, CST seems like a side-track.

Just to underline: I'm still talking about music which is clearly functional, such as vintage jazz standards.
Then again, I'm not saying those tunes can't be deconstructed from a modern perspective, opened up with modal style substitutions or reharmonisations. That's what jazz ought to be about, after all: messing with the material .
Well, it would be interesting to know exactly what their views on it were. I suspect that an analysis of any of their playing (on functional standards I mean, to stay on the point) could be interpreted from a few perspectives, with equal validity. Where you saw a mode, I might see a construction reflecting function, or voice-leading. Or vice versa, maybe
Well, I don't get "riled up", personally; maybe just a little bemused sometimes at folk not seeing the wood for the trees (which can happen when CST is applied too narrowly or exclusively).

I understand the point that isn't the theory that's at fault - only some people's occasional misuse or misunderstanding of it.
(I love Hal Galper's anti-CST rant on that youtube video - where he calls it "totally bogus" - but he's only talking about the way it's often poorly taught, because it's easy to teach it poorly. He seems to be saying one ought to abandon it entirely, and I definitely wouldn't subscribe to that - although I do think his alternative, what he sees as the traditional method, is solid in any kind of jazz.)
If anyone needs reminding...

Not chromatic, Jon, although of course it could be.
Simply as part of the scale.
Hal is right it is poorly taught.
These 'systems' amount, pretty much to the same thing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either approach.
I don't see either as 'irrelevant'. I understand and teach both ways and both ways have been lights in the dark for many of my students.

Certain aspects of CST are a waste of time IMHO on certain types of standard, for sure. But this happens too from a functional view on certain types of progression.

I don't see a problem in the least with being able to verbally communicate a sound to someone in rehearsal or even on the bandstand such as 'Lydian Dominant' to give them a clearer picture.

[oldtomfoolery]

Functional - totally!
But the functional moves, the modulations, are so frequent and dizzying that a modal approach is not that much tougher to employ. (But still tougher, IMHO.)

This is a quote on giant steps. See, I don't think we are really understanding the differences and similarities. I don't think the appropriate question is whether or not the tune is functional or modal. It's how you like to analyze it. I have to stress again, that modal jazz is not modal theory. They are two completely different, but related, subjects. This tune can be easily described as modal. Pretty much three key centers with ii-V's (ii-V's exist in modal music, they are part of the same scale, or mode, and you can choose to outline both, or treat both chords as one tonality). Very easily analyzed modally. I'm not sure where "functional" vs. Modal came from in this thread.

I have to make sure we are back to the original question which is "traditional" vs. modal. Not functionality, that is a different conversation with a completely different argument and premise. To start saying the modal analysis doesn't take into account functionality is a false statement. Context is the #1 most important thing to take into account in modal harmony. Without context there is no modal harmony. Functionality is extremely important and if that is not recognized, then anyone trying to understand modal harmony, is of course going have a bad time.

Once again, modal theory is not for modal vamps. This is a misstatement. You could analyze everything from Rogers and Hart to Coltrane to Stravinsky to Bach using modal analysis.

[oldtomfoolery]

(Eg, D dorian as an entity separate from C major, distinct from a function as "ii in C major".)

(If so, btw, no disagreement from me!)

I don't believe this statement is true. D dorian has a good amount of tension in it. Just because the C chord isn't part of the vamp, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same with vamping on G7. There is an unresolved sound to that chord. Again, just because you don't play the C chord, doesn't mean it's not there, or begging to be there.

But again, modal jazz is not the subject here. Modal harmony is not about analyzing modal jazz. Modal jazz comes from modal knowledge, not the other way around.

[JonR]

I don't believe this statement is true. D dorian has a good amount of tension in it. Just because the C chord isn't part of the vamp, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Same with vamping on G7. There is an unresolved sound to that chord. Again, just because you don't play the C chord, doesn't mean it's not there, or begging to be there.

But that's just habits of listening (listening to major key functional harmony).

When you listen to "Oye Como Va", are you always waiting for that G chord to arrive?

Or the verse of "Moondance" (also A dorian): does it sound odd never to go to G?

What about "All Blues"? Are you waiting for that opening vamp to resolve to C major?

There is undoubtedly a tension in a mixolydian chord; but it's a colour, not designed to "resolve" anywhere. Admittedly part of its appeal (at least in rock, maybe in jazz) is that sense of ambiguous open-endedness, exemplified in those sus chords of Maiden Voyage. But it's quite easy to get used to such a chord as a tonal centre. Happens all the time in rock (let alone in blues )...

But again, modal jazz is not the subject here.

It isn't? I take the point, but this is a jazz site, and the topic is "Modal theory and traditional theory", so I would think the subject of "modal jazz" is bound to come up.

Modal harmony is not about analyzing modal jazz. Modal jazz comes from modal knowledge, not the other way around.

Well, that's an interesting statement.

There was no "modal jazz theory" before modal jazz. (Just as there was no classical theory before classical music; there was theory, of course, just not "classical".) Of course Miles and Bill Evans (and George Russell?) had ideas related to modes - in some way - which came to fruition in the music.
But theory of what they actually did - as we talk about it now - was formulated later, as a way of describing it. (Unless you know different?)

In ay case, if "Modal harmony is not about analyzing modal jazz", then why are we discussing it here? Surely not because it's about analyzing functional jazz (which already has sufficient theory to cover it)?

It's true that "modal jazz" has little or nothing to do with the music of the pre-classical modal period (which was before harmony was invented anyway).
But what I understand as "modal theory" is exactly relevant to "modal jazz" - or, if not, what else are we to call the theory we use to analyze modal jazz?
(I'd be happy to call it "impressionist jazz", and "impressionist jazz theory", if we all agree that's more accurate.)

[JonR]

This is a quote on giant steps. See, I don't think we are really understanding the differences and similarities. I don't think the appropriate question is whether or not the tune is functional or modal. It's how you like to analyze it.

Right.

I have to stress again, that modal jazz is not modal theory. They are two completely different, but related, subjects.

Can you elaborate? I realise there can easily be differences (one is theory, one is practice, obviously ), but surely the fact they are related is relevant?

This tune can be easily described as modal. Pretty much three key centers with ii-V's (ii-V's exist in modal music, they are part of the same scale, or mode, and you can choose to outline both, or treat both chords as one tonality).

Right. That would be a fair point if Giant Steps did consist purely of ii-Vs. But either it's ii-V-Is, or its V-Is. I don't see any unresolved ii-Vs in the charts I have.

It's still true you can analyze the ii-V-Is as dorian-mixolydian-ionian if you want (or maybe each ii-V as a dorian I-IV, followed by an ionian - or lydian? - I). But it seems a lot simpler and more pertinent to call them what they are: ii-V-Is in a particular major key. Unless you're going to impose non-diatonic modes (phrygian on the m7s??), you don't lose anything with the functional perspective.

I'm not sure where "functional" vs. Modal came from in this thread.

The title of the topic?
Admittedly that means equating "functional" with "traditional", which seems safe enough to me.

I have to make sure we are back to the original question which is "traditional" vs. modal. Not functionality, that is a different conversation with a completely different argument and premise.

OK. Then what do you understand by "traditional" theory?

To start saying the modal analysis doesn't take into account functionality is a false statement.

To define terms properly (I mean in the way they seem to be most useful, in my experience), modal harmony is a totally different thing from functional harmony.
It's quite true that an analysis can consider both (because music can consist of both). A modal perspective can consider a functional one, and vice versa. But it doesn't have to.
(I might agree that it should.)

Context is the #1 most important thing to take into account in modal harmony. Without context there is no modal harmony. Functionality is extremely important and if that is not recognized, then anyone trying to understand modal harmony, is of course going have a bad time.

Not sure I follow here. You make a distinction elsewhere between "modal jazz" and "modal harmony", so I'm not sure what you mean by the latter.
From my understanding of "modal harmony", it's something that (largely or completely) abandons functional practices.
"Functional" means chord progressions based on traditional major and minor key practices. "Modal" (in the sense in which I understand and use it) means harmony using essentially different practices.

I'm not denying that a modal perspective can be used when looking at traditional (functional) tunes. Only questioning its usefulness.

Once again, modal theory is not for modal vamps. This is a misstatement. You could analyze everything from Rogers and Hart to Coltrane to Stravinsky to Bach using modal analysis.

I'm sure you could. But what would be the point?
Or - a different point - what theory do you use to analyse modal vamps?

In short, this is a dispute about definitions of terms! I'm not saying yours are "wrong", I just haven't encountered them used in that sense before, with the distinctions you're making. That's why I'd like more detail of definition.

[JonR]

Not chromatic, Jon, although of course it could be.
Simply as part of the scale.

But part of what scale?
In my view (I mean in the way music makes sense to me), "chromatic" means not part of the current material in the harmony; something used as contrast or colour, but (in functional harmony) more likely as transition.
That might be a note outside a particular key scale - or it might indeed be a note outside a particular mode.

Hal is right it is poorly taught.
These 'systems' amount, pretty much to the same thing.
There is nothing inherently wrong with either approach.
I don't see either as 'irrelevant'. I understand and teach both ways and both ways have been lights in the dark for many of my students.

Certain aspects of CST are a waste of time IMHO on certain types of standard, for sure. But this happens too from a functional view on certain types of progression.

Sure.

I don't see a problem in the least with being able to verbally communicate a sound to someone in rehearsal or even on the bandstand such as 'Lydian Dominant' to give them a clearer picture.

Agreed. I don't disagree that modal/CST terms are often a useful shorthand.

[oldtomfoolery]

When you listen to "Oye Como Va", are you always waiting for that G chord to arrive?

Or the verse of "Moondance" (also A dorian): does it sound odd never to go to G?

What about "All Blues"? Are you waiting for that opening vamp to resolve to C major?

No, but they certainly sound different than major, because they are. I do believe there is a good deal of tension in those tunes, that give them a constant forward motion.

I guess that I feel that jazz is more than a timeline of "what came first." Because if that was the case, we might as well not be discussing theory at all. To think that the "traditional analysis of jazz" is where everything began, and shall remain the same, holds just as much weight as arguing the same for modal analysis. If we really want to approach all of this, we might as well throw out the books and start using our ears again. Actually, we all should be doing that for real!

But again, there is a simple question here. Can traditional harmony coexist along with modal harmony, 100%? It has been established by most, that you can know both, and use them accordingly. But my question, from the modal school, is what can traditional analysis do that modal can't, and vise versa (is that how you spell it?). If there is a specific example out there, somewhere, that can show?

--

On modal songs, vs modal harmony, they are related, but they are not part of this discussion. Modal songs are part of the modal analysis tree, but not the trunk.

Yes, it's true that you would use modal theory to analyze modal vamps, but vamps aren't the only thing you could analyze.

JonR, it does seem that you are going around in circles and ignoring many posts on this thread that explain many things are argue are irrelevant to the conversation. No one is trying to say that you are wrong about music in every single way. Or even one way. But it does seem as though the conversation has derailed, because there has been no acceptance of other's posts. I would have to conclude from this that you refuse to change your misguided view on modal harmony. It is far too narrow and incorrect for you to continue in this discussion as a reliable source. I would rather see the discussion revamp (pardon the pun) into a constructive conversation on how best to utilize both approaches. There are plenty of published books on modal analysis for you to check out:

Vamps are probably one chapter out of 40, and probably near the back.

[Reg]

Just to make sure I'm following you here, Reg...

A mode as "the hierachy of pitch relationships" - within a functional chord, relative to the root, yes? (As well as within a mode in its own right.)

"modal function can be a musical property, not just a category of tonal function". "Modal function" meaning simply that a mode can exist outside of tonal function, yes? (Eg, D dorian as an entity separate from C major, distinct from a function as "ii in C major".)

(If so, btw, no disagreement from me!)

Hey Jon... when you pick a phrase from a context... well you know.

Be careful mixing concepts and applications and order of reference.

I didn't use the term "mode" I said Modal Theory... the internal relationships of notes within a scale.... which of those notes and relationships are going to be tonic etc... I'll add, how ever you chose to call or label and organize those relationships will create a system and define function. That function or system of controlling movement doesn't need to be related to a root, can be a characteristic pitch, or defined by rhythmic reference, there are other choices beside maj/min functional harmonic practice.

So... not really, only if one uses as reference maj/min functional harmonic practice and calls musically functional modal systems ornamental.

Modal function becomes tonal function... of that specific modal system.

Tonal function needs a reference to be defined.

These are not my personal opinions. They've been around awhile...

Most of these conversations have very little to do with playing Jazz, if we move on to jazz concepts of modality and tonality, and other systems of defining function... why or how one chord can follow another and how to organize as well as connect those chords, or melodic ideas... well some of the discussion might really help playing and compose jazz, and other styles of music... just a thought.

Reg

[JonR]

No, but they certainly sound different than major, because they are.

Of course.

I do believe there is a good deal of tension in those tunes, that give them a constant forward motion.

Right, but it's not a motion towards an anticipated resolution.
Or at least, we quickly get used to the fact that an apparent ii or V chord is in fact the I. And its restlessness becomes an attractive characteristic, or mood
(That's the way I see it anyhow.)

I guess that I feel that jazz is more than a timeline of "what came first." Because if that was the case, we might as well not be discussing theory at all. To think that the "traditional analysis of jazz" is where everything began, and shall remain the same, holds just as much weight as arguing the same for modal analysis.

Well, the problem with any theory is that once something is written down, it tends to persist... maybe beyond its usefulness. Jazz wouldn't be jazz if it didn't move forward all the time, literally improvising on the past.
IMO, theory often acts like a dead hand in that respect.

If we really want to approach all of this, we might as well throw out the books and start using our ears again. Actually, we all should be doing that for real!

Quite! The problem comes in what terminology we use to describe what we are hearing. Or what we thnk we are hearing...

But again, there is a simple question here. Can traditional harmony coexist along with modal harmony, 100%? It has been established by most, that you can know both, and use them accordingly. But my question, from the modal school, is what can traditional analysis do that modal can't, and vise versa (is that how you spell it?). If there is a specific example out there, somewhere, that can show?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "modal analysis", so I don't know if it can do everything "traditional analysis" can.
From how I understand the terms, they are designed for different kinds of music.
I don't doubt you can use modal analysis (whatever that is) to analyse functional harmony, but does it include recognition of chord function?
I'm guessing, if so, it's a more complete system than traditional harmonic theory?
(It's spelled "vice versa", btw ).

On modal songs, vs modal harmony, they are related, but they are not part of this discussion. Modal songs are part of the modal analysis tree, but not the trunk.

OK, I think I get that.

Yes, it's true that you would use modal theory to analyze modal vamps, but vamps aren't the only thing you could analyze.

Right.

JonR, it does seem that you are going around in circles and ignoring many posts on this thread that explain many things are argue are irrelevant to the conversation. No one is trying to say that you are wrong about music in every single way. Or even one way. But it does seem as though the conversation has derailed, because there has been no acceptance of other's posts. I would have to conclude from this that you refuse to change your misguided view on modal harmony.

I'm open to re-education. I'm just not sure I understand your usage of terms, because they seem to overlap in confusing ways.

It is far too narrow and incorrect for you to continue in this discussion as a reliable source.

I'm not claiming to be a "reliable source". I'm expressing views based on some 20 years experience playing various kinds of jazz (and other stuff before that), and reading of a few well-known theory bookss (classical and jazz).
I'm sure my knowledge is incomplete, I don't pretend otherwise.

I would rather see the discussion revamp (pardon the pun) into a constructive conversation on how best to utilize both approaches. There are plenty of published books on modal analysis for you to check out:

Examples?