-
A few threads made me jump in here and make an account. The two threads were on "Why Modes" and "m7b5 vs. half-dim." In these threads, things got a little heated. I do believe that both sides were correct in intent. However, I do feel that after going back and re-reading the threads I feel that one poster was immediately dismissed by another poster for simply expressing his/her preference. On the defense to explain, was things got out of hand by both parties. Pretty much, the other poster went through his response and said right or wrong to every sentence which seems a little discouraging and strong, especially since this is an online forum.
As a student and teacher of modal theory myself, I have to say that this m7b5 and half-diminished quarrel is a big misunderstanding. Viewing the other recent thread about modes really got me thinking. I think everyone should consider that you cannot 100% accept modal theory and traditional theory side by side. As they both become more complex, they begin to have disagreements about function and labels.
Strangely a poster on the mode thread said something along the line of "you can't play using modes, you have to know the chord tones." This make me jump out of my seat. Who out there is teaching modes without teaching the chord tones and tensions? That is simply learning scales and not modes in their true purpose.
Also, please keep in mind that playing a modal tune is not the purpose of the modal, contemporary theory system. It is used for playing changes, simple and complex, just as much as the traditional system.
Now, if I am not mistaken, one of the biggest differences comes to analyzing the chords of a key. When harmonizing a major scale, which someone brought up in on of the mentioned threads, the traditional system labels the different notes to their natural state within the key, while modal scale measures their distance from the root of the chord.
This brings me back to half-dim vs. m7b5. One poster mentioned that there is really no b5 on the VII chord as per Ligon. When looking at traditional harmony vs. contemporary modal harmony, there are different labeling issues. And this is why younger and newer students and teachers are using the modal system exclusively. Now, for me to say it's better or not is not why I am here, typing this. However, the biggest reason that many schools and books are now using the modal system is to avoid having TWO systems. Scale for locrian would be 1,b2, b3, 4, b5, b6, b7. Triad: 1, b3, b5. 7th chord: 1, b3, b5. Tensions b9, 11, b13. Hence the m7b5 chord.
Now to clarify, there is one diminished 5th in a m7b5, rather than two in dim7, so that makes sense that it is half instead of fully diminished. A colleague asked me why G7 wasn't a half diminished chord, it has a dim 5th between the b3 and 7.
So the question really is what is better, is there a better, and why a better, or can the two systems not co-exist. If so, will traditional prevail or will modal take it's place? I'm honestly very confused about why the modal system is giving people so many problems. I don't say that in defense or to offend anyone. But I honestly would like to know. I find it very simple and self-explanatory, I am a pretty good player who is pretty successful. John Abercrombie, Ruller, Scofield, Lund, etc all speak and teach in terms of the modal system, almost, if not all, exclusively. My question is why the hate? And if anyone could weigh in here without saying that it's pretty much stupid and dumb, etc, and say, "well, the modal system doesn't allow me to do this" or "I don't understand this" maybe we can all talk it over and answer some questions like rational musicians. Maybe the two schools are really misunderstanding the other, maybe the traditional approach does allow some things that I don't understand, and maybe the modal system does too.
Is one more effective than the other. Is one more efficient, one more detailed?
The reason that I feel this is important is because there seems to be a lot of confusion out there about what labels mean what and what chords do what. Purely the purpose of science I could say!
Also, one last thing. If everyone could please refrain from making definite statements. I would like to see a discussion, not arguments. If your first post is, "traditional system sucks because..." or "modes don't do crap," then please take time to think of why you prefer your system and think of questions of what you might not get about the other. Or tell us why you use both systems.
-
10-26-2012 03:28 PM
-
I didn't read those threads, but I'll just add, I think it's good to see modern, CST harmony as a supplement and outgrowth of traditional harmony. Actuall I think it's a good idea to study classical harmony and voice-leading to get the big picture. But of course, to play jazz that isn't necessary... Lots of players hardly know any theory... you just need to know the sounds and how to find them.
But another point... I was participating in other threads about bebop... And you have to remember none of the players before the 60's knew anything about modern modal theory. So if someone wants to master the music of Parker and co. it makes sense to study their music and methods. To try to learn bebop using modern modal methods, you will probably sound like a modern modal player playing bebop tunes.Last edited by RyanM; 10-26-2012 at 05:40 PM.
-
Can someone explain the difference between traditional theory and modern modal? I have never understood what the debates were about.
-
Crude simplification:
Originally Posted by 4thstuning
Functional harmony (before 1959) = keys, triadic chords, voice-leading, tension and resolution.
Modal harmony (after 1959) = no keys, quartal chords, no voice-leading, tension as colour.
-
IMO, modal terminology tends to make functional harmony look more complicated than it is. Chords in that system are not chosen for their modal identities, but for their harmonisation of the melody and their functional role in a progression. Modal analysis tends to obscure chord function, or - at best - just adds a superfluous extra layer of terminology. Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
I have nothing against modes, but no jazz musician before 1959 knew anything about them, and they seemed to do OK.
But jazz of the last 50 years can't be understood without the modal approach, in combination with conventional theory. Despite arguably being outdated, functional sequences still occur in jazz, and modal interpretations don't help explain or handle them.
-
I have no interest in arguing about people's weird takes on theory, but this statement you made seems kind of silly, since modes have been taught in traditional theory for hundreds of years. So your statement is akin to saying no jazz musician before 1959 had access to traditional theory. I don't believe that. In fact, Miles Davis who is known for starting the modal jazz movement studied at Julliard, and you learn modes even in your first year of theory. I always cringe when people claim to know what a particular jazz artist or all jazz artists knew or didn't know. You really have no idea what they knew or didn't. It's a common myth that no jazz musicians used theory before a certain date, yadda yadda, kind of like your blanket statement. But in fact, many of them did have some level of formal training, which would have included theory, and yes reading (the other myth is that early jazz musicians didn't know how to read music). People also learn stuff on their own. I know I learned a ton of theory before I entered college theory I. If the books were available (and they were available long before 1959), there is the possibility a jazz musician had them. As a general rule everyone should refrain from making claims they know what Charlie Parker knew, or all jazz musicians pre XXXX knew. It's silly. It is completely illogical. Originally Posted by JonR
Last edited by jazzadellic; 10-26-2012 at 06:53 PM.
-
There are hundreds of threads about Modes and how it confuses people, and strangely it seems to be a guitar forum phenomenon.
When I played sax, I'd frequent the "saxontheweb" forums and whenever the subject of modes came up, it was always more relaxed.
Because the guitar is complex to begin with, guitarists get confused by modes and all that and forget to practice and play guitar.
Whenever I see positions of the major scale explained as "modes" in instructional videos I cringe because I know we're in for another round of wisecrack guitarists confusing novices again with this stuff that isn't really vital to playing music at all.
I have nothing against modes myself. I approach music from many directions, but the most important thing about any theory or approach to playing is that it helps the player develop a vocabulary and train the ear to hear good melodies over the chords. Modes can do this, if taught with common sense. It's not the theory itself that is the problem, but usually the teachers lack of ability to analyze how his student(s) learn most effectively.
Because, obviously, not everybody are going to respond to the same theory equally. That's why there are different approaches, and we should be thankful for that.
-
Spot on. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
-
They may have known about them. The point is, they made no use of the concept in jazz. Before 1959, modes were an ancient pre-classical system, partially re-adopted by early 20thC composers (Debussy, Ravel, etc). Originally Posted by jazzadellic
No jazz musician before Miles - so it seems - thought of connecting the idea with jazz.
Miles dropped out (after a year, I think) but it's interesting he may have heard about the concept there. Originally Posted by jazzadellic
By all accounts his inspiration for the experiments on Kind of Blue came from African music and memories of gospel from his childhood; it was Bill Evans who provided the classical erudition, the Debussy quartal influences.
As we know, the way modes were employed in jazz was quite different from the practice of the medieval ecclesiastical modes, although it was perhaps inspired by early 20thC composers (thanks to Evans) as much as by ethnic music and gospel/blues.
Well I wouldn't say that at all. Originally Posted by jazzadellic
And anyway it doesn't matter what they knew (what they may have learned in colleges). What matters is what they did in their music, and (as far as we can tell) how they thought about music, in particular how they approached improvisation.
There were certainly no academic jazz courses before recent times, no jazz pedagogy. (Anyone know a date for the first jazz course run by a college?)
Jazz musicians learned by the apprenticeship system. Many of them certainly did study classical theory, and classical techniques (from tutors if not from colleges), but when they played jazz, they learned from the tradition, from older players.
Improvisation was based on embellishing a melody, and on blues-style chromatics and vocalisations, and no doubt on an understanding of the major and minor key context of tunes, and chord progressions, including voice-leading. That was the "theory" they would have known.
It's hard to imagine how a concept such as modes (in any sense) could have had any appeal, even among those who might have heard of it. Not until some forward-thinking dude (step forward Mr Davis) got tired of all the relentless functional merry-go-round (let alone the taint of white European heritage it still carried) and wanted out, wanted to chill....
His so-called "modal" jazz was a reaction against the old functional harmony, not an addition to it or embellishment of it. It was seen as a totally new way of looking at melody and harmony.
Not a myth I subscribe to Originally Posted by jazzadellic
. There was the odd famous example that people like to bring up (Django Reinhardt, Wes Montgomery, at least at the beginning). But the majority had formal tuition in their instrument, and in any case would have been required to sight-read in big bands.
The claims are based on the music, statements from musicians themselves, and a knowledge of the musical environment of the time, which is not hard to come by. Originally Posted by jazzadellic
You'll be looking at Charlie Parker's music for a long time before you find any modal content in it. You can argue for a chord-scale consciousness, but even that is not necessary. His improvisations (even his compositions) were all about arpeggios, embellishment of certain chord tones, and his favoured upper extensions and alterations.
Of course you can analyse that (and describe it) in chord-scale terms - even in modal terms if you want. You're absolutely right we don't know what he was thinking. But the analysis is much simpler if we avoid modal terms. There is no evidence he knew anything about modes. There is plenty of evidence he knew about functional harmony, voice-leading, chromatics, etc.Last edited by JonR; 10-27-2012 at 10:08 AM.
-
Exactly. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
Agreed, but whether it's "vital" isn't really the issue there. The practice of giving guitar fret patterns mode names is simply idiotic, and bound to cause confusion when learners encounter what modes really are. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
They then hear all this stuff about how cool modal sounds are, how they can be "applied" in improvisation...
It takes some of them a while to realise it's all the same 7 notes, so wtf?
That's when they come up against the knottier issue of whether modes - correctly used as terms for sounds - have a place in key-based music; whether (or how much) genuine modal jargon helps in understanding, analysing - and improvising in - music which is not essentially modal.
That's the real nub of the debate; although it still comes down to education, to how well the concept is taught. Properly done, combined with an understanding of keys and functional harmony, I do think those terms can be useful.
Hey, I just said that... Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
Right. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
One big problem is the amount of info on the web about this - not all of it flawed by any means, but it's naturally not organised in any way. Easy for anyone to surf the countless youtubes or theory sites, pick up bits and pieces here and there, and try in vain to connect the dots... Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
Even those who understand modes perfectly well often fail to explain the background or the proper context. It's tempting - esp in a short youtube video - to try and pander to the natural student hunger for short cuts, secrets, or magic bullets. Plenty of great players, too, are not great teachers; they forget what they take for granted, that what seems simple to them is not at all simple to a beginner.
No learner likes to be told "it's going to take you years to really get this".
-
Timeline of jazz education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Originally Posted by JonR
-
Damn, why didn't I think of wiki? Originally Posted by randalljazz
Interesting stuff.
I guess the next things we need to know are:
1. what was on the curriculums of those courses? (in terms of how to play jazz, not just its history)
2. which well-known jazz musicians studied on them?
I imagine #1 is going to be impossible to answer in full (not without extensive research).
-
I still don't understand modes/trad theory...and in spite of the generous attempts to educate the masses here. I use CST, chord tones, and superimposed harmonies...and I almost never think in terms of keys - what type of player am I?
-
Dunno, I never heard you! Originally Posted by 4thstuning
If you're using the strategies you say, it's not really necessary to "think" in keys, any more than it is to think in scales.
I understand key when I see it - same as I understand modes when I see them - but the thinking process is usually at a higher level.
IOW, a key-based tune is likely to share the same scale between at least two chords in a row. Its chords have a sense of direction (toward a tonic ultimately). But if you're playing off the chords, then you're on the right path anyway. You can't go wrong. No need to look under the chords (as it were) to determine what key they're in (if any).
IOW, jazz theory - whether it's functional, modal, CST, whatever - is often about breaking things down more than they need to be broken down. It's in the pursuit of understanding, naturally - but often from an academic (or pseudo-academic) perspective. From the player's perspective, that much analysis may not be necessary.
Eg, if you have a Dm7 going to a G7, what do you need to know?
(a) the notes in each chord,
(b) how to find those notes somewhere (ideally anywhere) on your instrument,
(c) possible additional passing notes on each chord.
What you don't need to know is (d) what key is that? or (e) is this some kind of mode or modes?
Hopefully you know enough theory to answer (a).
Hopefully you know your instrument well enough to deal with (b).
The answer to (c) - admittedly - might come from further theoretical knowledge, such as key, modes or chord-scale theory. But it's much more easily answered as: "the notes in the other chord"; or maybe "any note a half-step below a chord tone, used as an approach."
It's true (in this case, as in many others) that "the notes in the other chord" amount to a diatonic key scale (from the key perspective) or a couple of modes (from the CST perspective). But you don't need to know that. It's just more labels. It doesn't help you. (Not if your knowledge of (a) and (b) is secure enough, and you have a little common sense.)
-
My understanding of traditional and modal theory are still the same, put as simply as I can...
Traditional theory is based on tonality and functional harmony.
Tonality is... the organized relationships of tones or notes in music.
Functional harmony... is based on defining a set notes that defines chord function and how to connect chords. There are three functionally different types of chords... Tonic, Dominant and subdominant. All the rest are variants of one of these. If you have the patience read Riemann and Rameau for beginnings and if your really interested, I have many more reference reads. Don't just read one...
Modality refers to the choice of notes which create the organized relationships.
Very simplified...
Tonality... the key
Modality... scale
When two or more chords are heard in succession...
What chord follow another and
How to connect the two chords...
These are both traditional practice and understandings of common practice period...CPP, 1600 - 1900. The terms don't quite apply before and after. And have a much broader understanding when applied to Jazz theory... or CJP... common jazz practice, that's just for fun, but if your going to discuss or understand jazz harmony you need more.
There are jazz versions of modal theory... I've posted many times... There are other system of organizing notes or chords relationships to create reasons for function, function is like the motor for harmonic movement.
Reg
-
Absolutely, and the main problem with all this scattered information is that it becomes fragmented and separated from a unifying approach, and that doesn't just apply to modes but to most other topics. Originally Posted by JonR
Nothing can replace studying with a teacher, and that's what is going to help the student connect the dots.
Modes can be useful if they're taught as part of a complete guitar method.
This is a problem I see with the often praised Jazz Theory Book by Mark Levine. Many mistake it for a complete method, or a blueprint, while it is really more of a reference. This is because the book is organized by topics, and not laid out step by step.
That book worked well for me when I was following a method given by a teacher, and supplementing with the book.
-
Yes, I have mixed feelings about Levine's work, as I've said before. Well-designed and clearly written, and very inspiring when I first read it (and all the examples from recordings make it seem very authoritative). But as many have pointed out before, the title does it no favours. It is merely "A" jazz theory book, not "THE" jazz theory book. Originally Posted by AmundLauritzen
Most of the criticisms of it really amount to a criticism of that definite article. It omits to mention or explain a whole ton of stuff that any book calling itself that should really include.
-
Hi Guys,
Just jumping back in here. I think the main argument is still this:
Can trad and modal harmony exist together?
This question doesn't mean that a musician has to pick one or another. They can certainly be used at different times. BUT, can they actually work together?
From what seems to be posted here is two arguments. "This one can do that but this one can't do this." And, "These people used these, these people used these."
For the second statement, I think it is important that a lot of players didn't use either. I don't feel that who used what is what matters. When transcribing Wes, for example, I am not using the same thinking he did, who knows what he was thinking! But, I do tend to see the modal approach in his playing. Arpeggios, tons of them, modal scales, and lot and LOTS of superimposing. But some of these recordings are old, and some of them are "newer" jazz. I think we need to keep in mind that guitar is much more a "newer" instrument in jazz than the rest.
For the first statement I still feel like traditional harmony can explain some things, but doesn't work well for modal harmony. Can someone make a statement that can so that modal harmony can't explain something that is "traditional." That's a strange way to put it, I know.
-
I'm still trying to get the terminology "Modal Theory". I'm familiar with Modal Jazz, and the modes they go way back in traditional H&T. Use of mode was popular with Fusion players. People have been using "modes" of the Melodic Minor scale for ages. When I first got into improv I was taught the Overtone scale which now people call Lydian b7 which comes from the Melodic Minor. Also the Altered scale and one that comes from Melodic Minor. So this what you're calling Modal Theory?
Just trying to get the definition of the term Modal Theory.
-
I would say that this question is part of the thread. However, there are some great examples above. In short, like in the original post, labeling each scale degree from the root of the chord, rather than the key, as well as other things. Plenty of great examples in previous posts. Originally Posted by docbop
-
Could you elaborate? It seems as though many posters don't understand the functional sequences. I would say that I do, but feel that you will be able to explain them with greater detail. I myself, am a blues and a rock player at heart, that started studying jazz later in life (about 14 years ago), and tend to cling to more modern players. You could see why the modal system is my foundation to the labeling system. Originally Posted by JonR
-
Yes. They often exist in the same tune, usually one after the other. Wayne Shorter did a lot of this, at least in his 60s material. So did many contemporary followers of Miles's experiments. (His "All Blues" is a prototype combination of modal and trad ideas.) Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
To exist at the same moment in time, you'd need to have a chord with both a functional and a modal interpretation - which is quite possible, and I'd say quite common in modern jazz, by which I mean from the last 40 years, max (AFAIK).
Wes definitely used modal ideas, and combined them with traditional functional chord moves; that was what most 1960s musicians seemed to be doing - after Kind of Blue, and before fusion (and disregarding "free", which attempted to abandon both). Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
But IMO we need to distinguish between composition and improvisation.
Whether a piece of music is functional or modal (or a mix of both) is in its composition. The improviser would then follow suit, assuming he/she can read and hear the distinctions.
Eg, it wouldn't be quite right to say Miles applied modal improvisation on "So What". It was written as a modal exercise, and he played accordingly. He constructed melodic lines within a modal environment. In a sense, it's not so different from how he would have played on a functional tune, except he only had one chord!
So it's useful to ask first: is tune X functional, modal, or a combination?
And secondly: does (or should) that dictate the kind of thinking an improviser brings to it? Is it actually possible to play in one way over a tune written the other way? What difference, if any, does it make?
What does "thinking modally" mean, in practice?
It seems to be very common, given the prevalence of modes and CST in modern jazz education, to apply these ideas retrospectively to the older (non-modal or partially modal) jazz compositions and standards.
Does that make soloing (a) easier, or (b) better?
Does it open up new ideas? Or does it ignore or destroy some defining aspect of the old music? Or both, and does it matter?
Well, not a lot. As a lead (soloing) instrument, it goes back to the 1930s at least, even earlier if you count Eddie Lang and Lonnie Johnson. Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
So "newer" in that sense than cornets, saxes, etc, but still well in place before the upheavals of the late 50s and 60s.
Absolutely. Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
It's debatable whether (or how much) music theory actually "explains" music anyway Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
. It really just describes "common practices", and labels and organises them. "This is what musicians do, these are the rules they seem to be following. We don't quite know why, but they do..."
As such, modal theory can't deal with functional harmony, because it ignores many of the common practices of the latter. Ie, it's not designed to explain traditional harmony, any more than trad CPP theory can explain modal jazz.
Modal jazz theory (and CST) followed on from actual modal jazz, as a way of describing what musicians seemed to be doing in that music. (There was arguably some theoretical precedent in the writing of George Russell, but although Miles knew his work, it's debatable how much he understood or absorbed it; it probably inspired him, but so did a lot of other stuff.)
Trying to understand traditional harmony from a modal perspective is a little like trying to put wheels on a horse; just because cars have been invented, and you think wheels are the cool new thing.
Of course, trad and modal harmony are somewhat closer to each other than horses and cars are... Maybe it's more like trying to put diesel in a petrol engine...
-
OK, you got me there Originally Posted by oldtomfoolery
. When I say "still occur", I'm basing that on a very cursory listen to very few examples of contemporary jazz. Plus of course the fact that we still talk about keys and chord functions...
But functional sequences as such are quite easy to describe, and not too difficult to spot. (All the classic jazz standards of the 1920s, 30s and 40s are of this type.)
Generally, they use "tertian" harmony (root triads with extensions up to 13ths and various alterations), and there is typically a group of chords with a sense of key centre. You have one chord which feels "stable", like a home or rest point, and other clearly related chords (harmonised from the same scale or very similar) which represent varying tensions away from that. It feels like the music is moving forward harmonically (over and above any rhythmic drive), with a "tale to tell".
In contrast, modal harmony is typically based on quartal chords (named in tertian language as various kinds of sus chords, or slash chords). One chord may last a long time, but when (if) it changes, the next chord won't have a key relationship with it. It will go somewhere else, but not out of any sense of "narrative connection". IOW, rather than functional harmony's sense of chords constantly moving forward, going up and down (or in and out) in levels of tension, modal harmony feels more like a series of static positions.
Where functional harmony "tells a story", modal harmony is a series of "moods". Its chords can sound "expectant", but the tensions in them are colouristic, with no functional meaning. They give no clue as to what chord might come next.
In contrast, functional harmony is full of clues and signs about what's coming - if often wrong-foots you, with "deceptive cadences", but that's part of its game. It leads you by the hand, but sometimes (maybe when you feel you know where it's going) it drags you somewhere more interesting.
Modal harmony just sits there, asking you to contemplate the surroundings; when it changes, it's like "OK, now look over here".
Thinking about it this way, you can understand Miles's desire to get off the by-then tedious roller-coaster of functional bebop, and find something genuinely "cool", in every sense. Something beautifully static and meditative. Rather than a single chord being a limitation, it was a liberation.
But when I say modal theory doesn't explain functional harmony, I mean that it considers each chord in isolation. 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. "Function" simply means the chord has a job, a role in a progression in a "key". It's a cog in a machine. Separate the cogs from each other, and the machine stops working.
In the modal perspective, the chord root rules, and all the other notes have a roughly equal value. Modal jazz tends to reject triadic chords, because of their functional associations, going for ambiguous quartal sounds, or random, fluid voicings.
In the functional perspective, the chord root is a numbered scale degree; the "tonic" of the key rules, as "I"; the 3rd and 7th of each chord are almost as important as the root, arguably more so; they are the "guide tones" which drive the harmony forward. If other extensions are employed, they will either be reflecting melody notes, or taking part in some other kind of voice-leading between chords either side. Alterations too are designed to provide more interesting chromatic voice moves; eg a b5 can lead by half-step to a following root. (A "7alt" chord is not just a tasty stack of dissonances; it's a set of half-steps on their way to chord tones or extensions on the tonic.)
IOW, modal is all about the chords, on their own. It's the cast of characters in a film. Functional is all about the movement between the chords; it's the story, the plot.
In that sense, yes, they can (and should!) work together. But you can't describe a film to someone by just saying who's in it. You have to talk about what happens.Last edited by JonR; 10-27-2012 at 02:52 PM.
-
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?
If so, I tend to agree with oldtomfoolery that modal can cover all the bases.
Is "Giant Steps" a functional or modal tune?
-
I have to step in here and have to kindly disagree. Although, thank you for a well thought out response. A minor chord in modal theory is not just a minor chord. You have to see where it fits in the mix to know what tensions it has, what can be superimposed, how to be in key, out of key, etc. Simply put a ii vs. iii vs. vi chord. Also, it could be constant structure, part of a leading ii-V. Contemporary theory, using modal theory, doesn't only apply to vamps or songs with a constant key center. Originally Posted by JonR
Most of the musicians that I have worked with that have a knowledge of modes seem to agree that theory doesn't explain music. It's simply two things: a communication factor and an ear training tool that applies labels to sounds for easier recall.
Is there a specific example you could give. Say, for example, two or four bars from a Parker tune, etc, analyzed two ways: trad vs. modal that show the differences?
Reply With Quote
Moffa Mithra
Today, 08:31 AM in For Sale