-
This is correct, up to a point, but it's something that is usually inbuilt into a composition in the first place. It's really like an extension of the "major=happy, minor=sad" idea. Some tunes are written in a mode or modes in the first place, same as others are written in a major or minor key. Our business as improvisers is to work from what's given. If it's in Bb major, that's its thing. If it's in C dorian, that's a different thing.
Originally Posted by shotzi
However it is possible (again up to a point) to change the material of a piece to affect its mood. We do this all the time when we impose blues scale (a kind of minor mode) over a major key progression. We are introducing "wrong notes", but according to a familiar common practice: flattening the 7th, 3rd, and maybe 5th of the key scale. The clashes that sets up with the chords are well known and acceptable: that's "the blues"
, a cool funkification of the boring old major key 
.
Then again, we wouldn't normally do this on just any major key tune! It would sound cool on some songs, not on others.
Where blues uses variable flattening of those 3 degrees of the scale, we can sometimes use more precise modal alterations of the major key, such as b7 alone (mixolydian), b7 and b3 (dorian), maybe even b3, b6 and b7 (aeolian, or parallel minor).
In the other ("bright") direction, we could raise the 4th of the major key (lydian).
But situations - in composed tunes - where it's possible to impose these alterations (without sounding plain "wrong) are not common. You would need a chord progression simple or ambiguous enough to allow it.
And it's still all about the key. IOW, the modal applications are in relation to the keynote, not the individual chords.
The point about the usual kind of chord progression in a major or minor key is that the chords work in a particular way as a series, leading from one to the next (as well as harmonising the melody). The more complex the chord sequence, the less chance of imposing non-diatonic scales without disrupting the "machinery" of the progression.
That doesn't mean that you can only work with what is given! That's where you start: meaning you need to be able to look at a chord chart and assess what it means in terms of key and scale. You need to understand the raw material in front of you. Those are not separate chords each with their own scale potential; they are cogs in a machine.
Nevertheless, if you understand how the machine works, you can usually see ways of enhancing its operation, by introducing certain functional alterations. This is what jazz chord substitution and reharmonisation is all about. But modes have no place there.
In a tune which is written in a mode or modes (rather than a key) you may actually have less choice about how you can change it. Eg, Miles Davis's "So What" is an exercise in dorian mode. You could play D aeolian or D phygian over the Dm7, but it's missing the whole point. If you don't want to play in dorian mode - play a different tune!
Precisely. The whole of modes being an improvisation tool to impose different moods on an existing tune is a common misunderstanding. That isn't what they're about at all. Originally Posted by shotzi
If you want to change the mood of a piece (and why not?), the best way to do that is through tempo, dynamics or intensity. Play a "happy" tune slow and it will sound sadder. Play a "sad" tune fast, it will sound happier. Loud and soft also have very strong mood effects, and all these things over-ride the effects of key or mode. (A minor key tune played fast won't sound "sad".) You can play with an aggressive attack, or a mellow tone - with obvious mood meanings in each case.
What modes are are tools of composition - or maybe of jamming, which is much the same thing, ie building something from scratch. Writing in modes is refreshingly different from writing in keys, which is really what drove the modal jazz revolution in the first place. IOW, it's about creating a whole different improvisation environment. Taking an old functional jazz standard (of the 30s or 40s) and imposing modes on it is like trying to put wheels on a horse. No man, it's like a whole different mode of transport... the horse does its thing, a car does its thing.
Last edited by JonR; 05-05-2013 at 12:55 PM.
-
05-05-2013 12:52 PM
-
Amen. Originally Posted by pkirk
In all these discussions on modes, scales, chords, etc, rhythm is the elephant in the room. (And it's a pretty cool, funky elephant...)
There's an old jazz saying, something like "don't think of notes and then put a rhythm to them. Think of a rhythm and put notes to it."
-
Thanks for everybody's responses. For the record, I took the advice of someone in this thread and started working on the solo for Charlie Christian's "Grand Slam." This has been very helpful. I'm not at full speed yet, but I'm definitely getting a feel for some of the nuances of jazz soloing that I needed to play to actually understand. This is what I want to be doing at the moment with my playing, and after I have the "Grand Slam" solo where I want it I'll probably learn a few more Charlie Christian solos before moving on to something else.
As someone mentioned in this thread, rhythm is very important in jazz, too, so if anyone can recommend an intermediate song to get some good rhythm practice in, I'm all ears. I have trouble picking songs out myself because they always seem to have so many different interpretations.
As far as modes go, some of the information in this thread was helpful and some of it was confusing. I've always been fairly confused by modes, though, so that's the way it goes. I'm putting them back on the backburner for now. That said, though, something did click for me as far as modes go last night. I was reading in an instruction book and it said, "Use G Dorian (or think F Major scale) over Gmin7." That makes sense to me. Now, I'm not sure what you guys think of that statement, but, if this is technically correct in some way, I understand why G Dorian would be in the F Major scale and why A Mixolydian would be in the D Major scale, etc... for all the modes. So maybe I know something about modes, sort of? Or maybe this is all completely wrong. I'm having fun with the "Grand Slam" solo, so I'm not worried about it anymore.
Thanks for your help everybody.
-
Yeah, I think you're getting a bit closer--that info is correct...but still a bit of a complicated way of thinking...
Glad you're putting them off for a bit. Modes are one of those things I see so many people new to jazz get hung up on, and they usually stagnate and give up...you're going to the source now--the music itself, not some abstract concept of "play this over this." You'll be alright.
Write out some of that solo as you play it, look at how the notes relate to the chords...you're going to need that knowledge. CC was all chord shapes with chromatics and some blues scale ideas, and a few diminished ideas...the concepts are simple, what he did with them, badass.
-
Good idea. If it was good enough for Wes... Originally Posted by shotzi
Yes. Unfortunately that's kind of the point... Originally Posted by shotzi
No, it's correct. Question is: what it does mean in terms of playing, is it any help? Originally Posted by shotzi
Excellent. Originally Posted by shotzi
Remember CC knew nothing about modes. (Doesn't mean mode terms might not be useful in describing what he was playing; just that he didn't think in that way, and clearly didn't need to.)
(Totally agree with Jeff, if in any doubt.)
Reply With Quote
How is the Steve Howe 175?
Today, 05:54 PM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos