-
Hi, maybe this is a dumb and long question. I want to know the modes of the melodic minor, harmonic minor and harmonic major scales, I m never be aware about that (sorry my simplicity) anybody? Sorry if it is a basic thing. Thanks
-
05-09-2014 05:28 PM
-
Here are the names I use:
For Melodic Minor,
1) Melodic Minor - 1,2,b3,4,5,6,7
2) Phrygian Nat. 6 - 1,b2,b3,4,5,6,b7
3) Lydian Augmented - 1,2,3,#4,#5,6,7
4) Lydian Dominant - 1,2,3,#4,5,6,b7
5) Mixolydian b6 - 1,2,3,4,5,b6,b7
6) Locrian Nat. 2 - 1,2,b3,4,b5,b6,b7
7) Altered Dominant - 1,b2,b3,b4,b5,b6,b7
For Harmonic Minor,
1) Harmonic Minor - 1,2,b3,4,5,b6,7
2) Locrian Nat. 6 - 1,b2,b3,4,b5,6,b7
3) Ionian Augmented - 1,2,3,4,#5,6,7
4) Dorian #4 - 1,2,b3,#4,5,6,b7
5) Phrygian Dominant - 1,b2,3,4,5,b6,b7
6) Lydian #2 - 1,#2,3,#4,5,6,7
7) Altered Dominant bb7 - 1,b2,b3,b4,b5,b6,bb7
For Harmonic Major,
1) Harmonic Major - 1,2,3,4,5,b6,7
2) Dorian b5 - 1,2,b3,4,b5,6,b7
3) Phrygian b4 - 1,b2,b3,b4,5,b6,b7
4) Lydian b3 - 1,2,b3,#4,5,6,7
5) Mixolydian b2 - 1,b2,3,4,5,6,b7
6) Lydian Augmented #2 - 1,#2,3,#4,#5,6,7
7) Locrian bb7 - 1,b2,b3,4,b5,b6,bb7
.. and there you have it!
-
That's what I would say if I ever had a reason to call them anything. I just know what they are and use them. Every once in a great while there's a need a call them by name, but they still require definition and clarification once you say what it is.
-
By the way if you really want to learn the modes I would suggest recording vamps so you can improvise over them. What I do is generally record two chords (first chord starting from the first degree and the second starting from the 6th degree of the scale/mode) and improvise over them.. the chords would be stacked in 4ths so that it would give an more open-ambiguous feeling that you wouldn't get otherwise if you were in improvising in a tonal key center progression (ii-V-I),(I-IV-V-I).
It would also help to have a goal oriented way to approach learning modes on the fretboard, that way you know and feel like you are progressing. My way is too convoluted and time consuming (basically an extension of Mick Goodrick's approach of single string and double string soloing) but it does have its advantages and I use it when learning tunes as well. In terms of practicality you're better off focusing on tunes/songs. If you're feeling adventurous modes can add perspective to your playing.
My two cents on learning/knowing modes.
As in what uses these scales have over certain chord/chord progressions? And/or the reason why they are named the way they are?
Originally Posted by henryrobinett
-
No. As in using them in composition. Sometimes I'm playing a song written by some guy in the band, or myself and I have to explain, or it's explained to me, what the mode is. Originally Posted by jazznylon
-
I don't see much point in those names. 7th mode melodic minor 5th mode harmonic minor etc. should do the trick.
-
I think one should make up names for the modes: "The Turbo Albanian", "Subliminal Subramanian", "Flip yer Lydian"...
-
Unless you're playing modal music modes are kind of blah to me. They're too vague. But for variation, it's cool.
-
Thanks! I aprecciate your effort. I dont care about the names, But I think they are variations about the Ionic modes.
I love the goodrick/Jim Hall approach, about the horizontal playing than the tipical 5position boxes (they are very useful too)
Sorry my english
-
the thing about modes is that they can't really be explored to great lengths over progressions. 1 bar of D min isn't really enough time to get the sound in your head, that's why modes aren't really useful in functional harmony.
-
Exactly. Originally Posted by nick1994
A piece of music is either written in a key (or keys), or in a mode (or modes).
If the former - ie if it was a jazz or popular tune written before 1959 - then it's a key thing (functional harmony), and modes have no relevance. None. Attempting to apply modes is a category error, likely to make nonsense of the music.
If it's a jazz tune written after 1959, then it might well be in a mode (or modes), and it might also include some old-fashioned key-type (functional) sequences. Or it might still be 100% functional, the old-fashioned way. In fact, it's very common to mix both systems in the same tune.
In any case, one can improvise perfectly well on either type of tune, just by using the material the tune gives you (the notes in the melody and chords). You don't have to identify the keys or modes, or give them names. You just have to be able to find those notes (and chords) anywhere on your instrument.
The point of understanding how keys and modes work is for composition. The different formulas for how chords are constructed and used, in both functional and modal harmony, offers huge potential for the composer.
Once a tune is composed - and you're improvising on it - that depth of understanding might be of interest if you're curious, but is not necessary for improvisation.
In a post-1959 jazz piece, combining functional and modal principles, it might be useful to be able to spot the differences - where the joins are, as it were - but mainly it's just about acceptance that both principles are in play. A chord might be an isolated sonority in its own right (modal), and it might have a functional role too (leading in some way to the next chord). The "linear-horizontal" approach is a good one either way - phrasing across sets of chords, rather than on each chord in isolation - because it makes the best melodic sense.
-
Sometimes I feel I exist in an alternate modal universe.
I was taught about modes as a sequentially ordered manifestation of chordal extensions:
(1 2 3 4 5 6 7) or (1 9 3 11 5 13 7) or (1 3 5 7 9 11 13)
Three views on the same material. There is no dichotomy between chords and scales.
One measure or half a measure on a chord does go by quickly.
I often focus on the movement of notes, commonalities or the differential between chords.
Awareness of the full extension increases the potential pool of notes at play.
The extension is synonymous with a mode. Extensions are the norm regardless of how long a chord lasts.
The one disadvantage I observe to this organizational approach is that each extension is viewed in a separate box.
It is a bit awkward to address functional movements that combine multiple note collections within one chord symbol.
Every organizational tool has it strengths and weaknesses.
Arnesto,
Forum member Matt Warnock posts extensive lessons on his site and elsewhere.
Here's a link to his mode/scale material:
Guitar Modes & Scales - The Best Beginner's Guide | Jazz Guitar Online
-
"I'll play it first and tell you what it is later." -Miles Davis
-
I fully agree with all this. Originally Posted by bako
IMO it's a question of perspective, and this depends on the harmonic structure of the music - simply put, whether it's functional on the one hand, or modal on the other.
In functional harmony, those "multiple note collections" on each chord, are usually too much to think about. The important thing is to understand the root-5th movements, and the guide tone movements (3rds and 7ths). The upper extensions are always available, of course - and can provide interesting supplementary voice lines - but they're secondary. (And of course choice is limited by the key context anyway. Each chord-mode is fixed.)
In modal harmony, the upper extensions come into their own, because each chord is usually designed as an expression of the mode, and has no leading function in a sequence. Typically, there will be much more time spent on each chord.
Each chord-mode is usually still fixed by the composition, but occasionally there is freedom to apply others.
In functional harmony, the equivalent freedom is chromaticism. If you want notes other than those given by the key and chords, then any chromatic note can be added in passing. Sometimes sets of them can be applied as altered chords (usually V7s), but the purpose is still chromatic voice-leading, and not the "modal" sound of the chord itself.
IOW, the full set of chord tones and extensions serves the purpose of "colour" in modal harmony.
In functional harmony, it's about linking with chords either side, which is also where alteration can play a part.
The latter goes back to the practice of harmonic minor in minor keys - raising the 7th to get a leading tone, usually on the V7 chord - and jazz extends that with its altered dominants, in both minor and major keys.
Altered dominants, of course, are where modes of melodic minor come in, but the link is always coincidental. Eg, Ab melodic minor has nothing to do with the key of C minor; it just happens to match the chord tones and alterations on a G7alt chord (if you respell some of the enharmonics). G7alt doesn't derive from Ab melodic minor; it derives from altering the 5th and 9th to make chromatic voice moves to the tonic.
Naturally this "functional-modal" distinction is a little artificial. There can be overlaps. You can have extensions used purely as colour in functional harmony. And you can have voice-leading in modal harmony.
That's my "universe"
.
-
I dont want to start a futile argument here, but statements like this are highly debatable. Keys and modes are not that substantially different as outlined here. In fact, natural minor is, as we all know, the aeolian mode, and a maj scale equals ionian. Originally Posted by JonR
It is correct that music before the 60s was based mainly on the functional dynamics of traditional harmony, derived from maj and min scales. However, it would be misleading to believe that there are no functional relationships in 'modes' - of course there are.
Modal music is built on tonal centres that have prima facie less traditional routing in our hearing customs, which is why they are more suitable to shifting (without traditional modulation). But that does not mean the ear cannot associate functional relationships (in the sense of meaningful tension and relaxation). Lydian, eg, can be used as effectively as a root scale, as ionian, just with a slightly different effect on the listener, and new ways to create meaningful progressions (in a functional, not random, way).
The effective use of tonal material depends on what you want to achieve. If you like to mislead the listener and build up paths that resolve in unexpected ways, for which modes can be one tool to use, why not? There is no rule in the world that tells us that this would be forbidden from a contemporary perspective of tunes that emerged from the 50s.
-
That's quite true, at least as employed in rock music generally, as well as in jazz. Originally Posted by Phil in London
I did go on to explain that that's usually the case in post-1960 jazz and rock. A piece that seems to be in a "key" is likely to have various alterations that make it more like a mode. A piece in a mode might have key-type alterations and cadences. And quite often it's hard (and therefore pointless) to tell the difference.
But there is still music which falls pretty neatly into one or other camp, and I think the distinction is useful.
My main beef, anyhow, is the application of modal thinking (aka "chord-scale theory") to functional harmony. It obscures rather than clarifies, and is more limiting than liberating. It's an important issue because functional harmony didn't die out in 1959. Never mind that pre-59 jazz and pop standards are still common currency; new songs are still often written in keys, with little or no modal inflection. Maybe not most songs now, but a sizable minority.
It's true that conventional major key theory is still taught as if all music obeyed those rules - which is why so many beginners get confused when they find songs that "break the rules". Theory has to start somewhere, and the major key is not a bad place; we all know the sound of "do re mi fa so la ti do". But it shouldn't be taught as if it's a set of rules; it's a "common practice", but not a universal one.
Well, it depends how you define "modes". Originally Posted by Phil in London
In the earliest "modal jazz" (better called "impressionist" jazz) harmony was usually designed to exclude functional connotations as much as possible. The whole point was to create a new way of making music, avoiding any kind of cadences or voice-leading, and treating chords as fluid, ambiguous collections of notes - chosen seemingly at random from the mode, but in fact built largely on 4ths (quartal) rather than functional tertian principles. Chords in 3rds sound functional, like they're supposed to belong in a progression. Chords in 4ths don't. In that way, "modal" practices were seen as opposed to functional practices.
That doesn't mean that, even in the early days, modal tunes didn't sometimes include functional changes. Miles Davis's "All Blues" is an example of combined modal and functional principles. But the difference is quite plain, as G mixolydian and dorian give way to a minor key bVI-I cadence.
Likewise, when Wayne Shorter mixed the two systems, you could always tell which bit of a tune was which.
Things became a little more subtle later on, with distinctions becoming blurred, as "revolution" was no longer an issue. The battle was won and people could relax.
In rock, meanwhile, the key/mode blurring was all down to the influence of blues and folk music, genres which had always had an ambivalent attitude to the common (functional) practices of classical and popular music. The modality (and the "neutral 3rds" and often flattened 7ths) of British folk music blended well (in pre-20thC US) with the modality of African styles.
When we (I!) talk about "pre-1959 music" I'm really referring to popular music as exemplified by jazz "standards", the tin-pan alley/musical show songwriting tradition, which owes almost everything to classical tradition (via the so-called "parlour" harmony simplifications of vaudeville). There always were hints of blues influence in that music, of course, but it wasn't until rock'n'roll that blues flavours really flooded into the pop mainstream.
Rock has never really cared about theory of any kind, of course. The sounds rock musicians like, that they cherry pick to make their songs, can come from old pop ballad sounds, just as they can from primitive blues, or folk drones. The whole of popular culture is open. Major and minor key principles are one palette of sounds, but no more important than any other.
Right. It's then just a question of how narrowly we want to define "functional" and "tonal" Originally Posted by Phil in London
. It's obviously not appropriate to apply rigid CPP rules ("tonality" in the classical sense, which excludes modes) to modern popular music. It might obey them sometimes, but no one cares if it doesn't.
To say modal harmony is "non-functional" (or "non-tonal") doesn't mean it's "random". Modal sequences clearly can be linked in musically logical ways which are different from crude functional systems (which I think is what you're saying).
The truth is more that there is a kind spectrum, with tight CPP key-based music at one pole (all well-defined cadences and proper voice-leading), and quartal, non-functional "modal" harmony at the other. Most music exists somewhere between those two poles. (And I guess there could be a 3rd "pole" of atonality! Pure noise for its own sake, with no logical harmonic content.)
Absolutely. Originally Posted by Phil in London
In fact, functional harmony already has a huge palette of "misleading" or "unexpected" effects it can apply, but of course that depends on the fact that tonality establishes expectation in the first place. That's kind of the whole point of the functional system: it sets up expectations in order to mislead. That's where key-based music gets its drama and interest from, its expressive tensions and resolutions. If it fully follows expected directions (I-IV-V-I), you end up with the most tedious kind of muzak.
Music right at the extreme "modal" end of that spectrum contains no expectations. It will establish a mode fairly clearly, but you have no idea of what chord (if any) that opening one might change to. Nothing is expected, and therefore nothing can be unexpected. That's the effect of a tune like Herbie Hancock's "Maiden Voyage". The opening sus chord is the sound of unfocussed anticipation - largely because that's the sound such a chord would have in key-based music, a tension awaiting resolution. But then it's followed by another sus chord from a different key - and another and another. So we're at sea (hence the title of course), but in a rather exciting way. Eventually we accept that the sus chords are not awaiting any kind of resolution; they're just sonorities, colours, self-contained modalities in their own right.
But still - and this supports the point you're making - I think the ear still searches for some kind of logic connecting chords in a sequence. We refuse to accept that they might be random, there must be a connection, there has to be a thread joining them. Modal jazz composers went with this instinct, and created non-functional connections - such as sequences of chords of the same type (So What, Maiden Voyage), or sequences of different chords on the same root (a few Wayne Shorter tunes).
And almost always, one can find shared tones between neighbouring chords with no other apparent connection. While such things may not be "functional" in the old classical sense, they are all accepted within conventional theory, at least as types of modulation, even if modal music might not use them quite that way.
-
JonR, I agree with most of what you write.
Something I may add from my side: Functional harmony and what it actually means may have more to do with social customs and depends heavily on who is the listener, rather than being a scientific exercise with strict rules. For example, if you expose a modern urban city kid to Schönberg's Verklärte Nacht (which uses a stretched chormaticsm-based harmony in the tradition of Wagner's Tristan, but is still functional and was written before Schönberg's transition to dodecaphony), the response might be 'oh, this sounds like film music' (an experience I made recently with my nephew). Take the same piece and imagine to play it to JS Bach's employers at the Thomaskirche in Leipzig in 1740. They would probably have fallen off their chairs and simply been at loss to know what is going on.
Similarly, the harmonic tensions and functional relationships that 'modes' create, to which we referred above, are (in my point of view) much more evident to us 'today' than they may have been in Debussy's time. Through listening to all sorts of musics, today's listeners have a wider understanding of the potential and the inherent 'demands' that result from ambiguous chords and vague tonal centres, and I would go so far as to say that this ability has even created concrete expectations of transitions from one mode to another, which are quite comparable to the traditional effects of modulation by ways of Dom7 chords.
On the more practical side - I agree that it seems unnecessary to be always 100% precise in terminology. Rather, I am a fan of people using stuff in a way that it can be applied practically. If it helps to develop a nice line over a d-minor chord (that leads via G7 to Cmaj) by thinking in 'dorian', that seems fine to me. Conversely, if somebody thinks about the scale to be used as C major, but avoids to play a line which refers to C maj as current chord, but rather ('correctly') elaborates on the D minor character within C major - thats fine too. At the end, scale names are just crutches, what counts is to use the tonal material in a given context so that it sounds cool.
-
Nice dialect...
Generally when I use tonal or modal concepts, with composition or performance... I always have a reference from which to create relationships, develop etc...
When I use terms to explain a modal reference, Jazznylon's list of names, is cool.
With Melodic Min
1) sometimes called Jazz Minor
2) sometimes...Dor. b9 or b2
6) sometimes...similocrian
7) sometimes...superlocrian
With Har. Min
4) sometimes ... Romanian
7) sometimes...ultra locrian
With Har. Maj.
6) sometimes... Lyd. #2 #5
I generally verbally say... 3rd degree of MM for Lydian Augmented etc. My point is I want My reference understood.
Pretty common to refer to notes... 1,2,3,4,5,6,7, with scales and 1,3,5,7,9,11,13 with chordal structures, again I want my reference understood.
When we compose... there is all the time in the world to organize and create any relationship from any organization. I can basically organize any Functional system I choose, and make the music go where I choose. I can use Riemann's functional Harmony concepts, Schoenberg's substitutes regions and transformations... whatever, but generally when performing jazz... live jazz. The process of organization of relationships and methods of creating function... happens very quickly.
It's very easy to after the facts... break the music down and then force whatever labels one choose to explain where and why the music goes.
My point is that if you as... a performer... in a live jazz performance... are stuck in your personal view of the musical world and how it works... whatever organizational guidelines, you might miss much of what is actually going on.
Example being your playing any standard from before what we sometimes call jazz modal beginnings, during a very standard II V I functional progression, and a soloist decides to access Melodic Min from any one of those chords, You should be ready to discard Maj/Min tonal functional harmony and be aware of target tonalities... with different organization of which notes are going to create guidelines for function. These changes of tonal organization... can be very subtle.
What I generally hear on this forum is... they're embellishments or some type of chromatic organization, which fits nicely into most harmonic organizational systems. And maybe they are... but not always.
Phil's last paragraph... "on the practical side"... was music to my ears. Being aware of what traditional thought and history have created with respect to musical understanding is always a basic standard... but jazz involves being aware of the possibilities... even with respect to established understandings.
Some personal usages... when I access or decide to pull from Melodic Minor or Blue note organized note collections... generally functional organization changes... by that I mean I don't generally use tonal dominant function from that note collection, notes become organizational in themselves.
When I pull from Harmonic Minor and Har. Maj. I generally still use typical tonal function. The exception is with use of modal interchange, where somewhat simultaneous organizational systems are in use... which is very typical with jazz.
What about...
Pentatonic scale and it's modes...
1) Maj Pen.
2) suspended Pen
3) Man gong
4) Ritusen
5) Min Pen
Bebop...
1) bebop maj
2) bebop Dom
3) bebop dorian
4) bebop min.
5) bebop loc.
Double Harmonic...1, b2, 3, 4, 5, b6, 7 who cares
-
I hope it is not too late for me to join in to this excellent discussion? I really appreciate the dialog and ideas shared -- especially between Jon and Phil. I feel as though this discussion can really help to clarify some points of confusion in my mind as I struggle with key concepts. Originally Posted by JonR
I had never before heard that there was a clear distinction between songs which tend to fall into a "functional harmony" category vs. songs which are of a "modal harmony" type. As I read this, however, it dawns on me that I have been encountering these very scenarios.
As a guitarist who plays a lot of chord/melody (solo, fingerstyle) most of my playing leans heavily upon functional harmony (at least as I understand the term). When arranging a song, I typically perform that which I believe is called "harmonic analysis" -- by that I assign Roman numeral designations to the under-lying chords of the song. By this manner, I recognize the primary key of the piece / passage and have a grasp of which notes are fair game for sounding "in key." I utilize this same primary method if I am asked to "take a solo" when jamming along in a garage rock band environment: establish the key(s) of the song, and play the corresponding major/minor scale notes. This methodology works well for me much of the time for popular music, rock songs, and really old standards.......
........and then there are the *other type* of songs. I had never heard "modal harmony" used as a term before, but that makes sense. Key? What key? Some songs (i.e. All the Things You Are, Sweet Georgia Brown, most of Miles' Davis stuff, etc) do not seem to "be in" a key in the traditional sense. This has left me pretty stuck given any opportunity to play over or improvise within such songs. I am early in my understanding of anything modal, but assuming I am grasping this distinction correctly, it may explain the "difference" between two types of songs I have encountered. To put it another way, if I can at least put a name/term upon that which I cannot do (at least not very well) and identify the difference between the two song types, I may have a clearer understanding of what I am seeking to achieve.
I don't really have a specific *question* to ask here, but I would value any clarification or confirmation of my thoughts. I have long realized intuitively that some songs -- especially a lot of jazz songs -- did not lend themselves to my "what's the key?" approach to soloing, but I did not have a clear understanding of why. I feel like this discussion may be helping me gain some traction.
Thanks for any further thoughts.....
-
Hey Paul,
I had a friend in San Diego who has passed away, taught at state... anyway his name was Leon Dallin, One of his books was called..."Techniques of Twentieth Century Composition". Try and pick up one of the later editions, early 70's.
He had a classical CCP background, but was able to use existing theory and terminology to express some very basic musical concepts which crossover very nicely for jazz applications and usage.
You might be mixing up use of Modal Interchange with Modal functional concepts. The difference being Modal Interchange is a set of guidelines which control access to different harmonic tonal centers and can still work within Maj/Min functional Harmony guidelines. Function is generally the organization behind harmonic movement...not voicings or voice leading which are realizations of that movement.
Modal functional guidelines are different sets of common practice that control function within Modal music. That concept... A different set of guidelines to control harmonic movement is what changes the function within a tonal system.
Tonal music has guidelines of how certain notes and interval react, (function) in musical contexts. Generally in modern times when we use the term Modal, we're referring to which notes are the ones doing the controlling.
-
Well, the first two at least are definitely "functional" - they come from the tonal era of jazz/popular music, and follow key-based rules pretty well. Originally Posted by Paultergeist
The thing is, key-based music doesn't have to stay in the same key throughout! In fact it rarely does. Modulation is a standard, traditional effect.
And there is the classical concept of "secondary dominants", where chords are used not to change key, but to temporarily "tonicise" chords other than the tonic (Sweet Georgia Brown begins with secondary dominants). Add to this the jazz practice of substitution (tritone subs, dim7 subs, etc), and you have all kinds of chromatic movement within a key, but still with clear functional relationships from chord to chord.
In functional jazz, it's quite common for key centres to change every couple of chords - eg, in strings of ii-V pairs from different keys. So scales do need to change as you're improvising - you have to follow the key implications, and/or the chromatic voice-leading. But you rarely need to change for every chord.
So this still all counts as "functional", based on the "major-minor key system".
Where it changed (in jazz) was with Miles Davis's modal experiments, beginning in the late 1950s (Milestones and Kind of Blue). He wanted a music that was more open, static and meditative, inspired partly by African music, partly by Bill Evans' Debussy-inspired impressionist chordal style, partly by the (controversial) theories of George Russell. (He didn't call it "modal" jazz, that debatable term got attached later.)
The idea was to try to escape from the frantic functional sequences of bebop, to find a new cool region. That meant avoiding chords in 3rds, going for ambigous 4ths; holding one chord for a long time, and when (and if) changing, changing to a totally unrelated one.
In some ways, that type of jazz is easier to improvise on (one chord-scale for several bars), in others it's more demanding, because you don't have the route-map of the chords; the rail tracks keeping you in line; the predictable end point. You have a wide path, with no destination. It's too easy to just noodle, ramble aimlessly. Functional sequences impose a discipline on you; modal ones require you to discipline yourself.
But - as I said before - it's not the case that everything changed in 1959. The modal concept, rather than being a total revolution, ended up getting absorbed into the tradition; the tradition expanded to accommodate it. People still played tunes like All The Things You Are; they still played blues; but when they wrote new tunes, they often combined old and new practices.
Generally, when you look at any chord progression, don't ask what key it's in; ask yourself what the links are from chord to chord. Is there old-fashioned root movement in 5ths (down)? Is there voice-leading from 3rds to 7ths (or 3rds up to roots), even if only in pairs of chords? If not, is there some other linking principle - eg shared tones, pedal bass, etc.?
If there is no discernible link between one chord and the next, you probably have a "modal" tune - especially if each chord lasts for some time. You can then regard each single chord as its own key centre; chord symbol and melody are usually enough to give you a complete scale.
Essentially, I usually find I can improvise on anything just from looking at the chords (and playing the melody). No need to identify a key - unless 2 or 3 chords in a row make it obvious. Even then, that's just an intellectual recognition; the choice of notes is still determined from the chord tones.
In cases where a chord has no obvious key link with those either side, then - as I say - other notes of a suitable scale will probably be in the melody. If not - well, it probably doesn't matter what other notes one chooses to fill in between (chromatics are acceptable in any case). One uses one's ear.
When it comes to rock music, the main rule is that "a key may include notes and chords from the major and the parallel minor together".
IOW, rock music "mixes modes" ("modal interchange"). A tune in E major might include A, B7, C#m, F#m, D, G, C, Am. The first 4 all come from E major, the last 4 all from E minor. But few rock musicians think of such a distinction. As long as E is the main chord, then it's all "in E".
I.e., being "in key of E" doesn't mean diatonic E major exclusively. The tonic chord will be major, but that's the only difference from being "in E minor".
This "rule" - or rather this "common practice" - derives partly from blues, partly from folk music, and partly from the rock guitarist's palette of common chords: E major is a good-sounding tonic (because of that bass E), and - at least if not inhibited by any study of music theory - he'll throw in any combination of his other simple chords that sound good.
It's a tradition too, of course. Once someone discovers that a bVI chord sounds good in a major key progression (Buddy Holly, Carl Perkins), then others will copy it. Likewise with bVIIs, minor IVs, and the rest.
Rock also has modal instincts, but derived from blues and folk (and maybe ethnic music such as raga), not from jazz. IOW, it likes one-chord grooves; and it likes chord extensions used as colour, rather than for functional reasons. Hence add9s, unresolved sus4s, etc.
Where rock does use traditional cadences, it much prefers plagal (IV-I) to authentic (V-I). In fact it likes stringing together plagal moves. Eg, in jazz (see Sweet Georgia Brown!) you might get A7-D7-G7-C. In rock, they'll reverse that and lose the 7ths: C-G-D-A.Last edited by JonR; 09-03-2014 at 11:22 AM.
-
Just to add:
I'm using "functional" and "modal" in a slightly different sense from Reg. I totally agree with what Reg says, I just find it useful to limit "functional" to classical CPP practices, to traditional "major and minor keys". It's an artificial distinction (as I also said earlier), because most music mixes "functional" and "modal" (in my sense of the terms), and we can rightly talk of modal music "functioning" in the way Reg says.
I was suggesting that pure "modal" music (in my sense) has no functional links from chord to chord - that changes can be totally random. However, that's rarely the case. It's more true that modal harmony uses other kinds of linking principles: eg, chords of the same type, or chords sharing a bass note (not a root).
-
Thanks Reg, I'll keep on the lookout for that one. Originally Posted by Reg
Quite possibly, I am indeed mixing up these concepts....I am so new at gaining any insight along these lines, I have not yet formed a clear distinction in my mind. Your explanation is helpful, thank you for posting it. Originally Posted by Reg
-
Jon,
Thank you for the detailed and thoughtful reply. Wow, there is a lot of history in this study as well!
I would be lying if I said I am *getting* everything you have written, but I have read through your post a couple of times now and some of it is sticking. Sometimes the plow has to be dragged repeatedly across stubborn soil.
May I ask: You use the term "Parallel minor scale;" is that a minor scale with the same root as the Major scale? (i.e. E Major scale ==> Parallel minor would be E (natural) minor? I want to make sure I am not confusing the issue with the relative minor scale.....?
Thanks again for taking the time to respond in such detail. I appreciate it.
Paul
-
I found in doing some studio work on some dates...the lead sheets were written with no key signature..the melody was your guide in these cases..and the chords on top seemed like the writers best guess in many cases..so you may have a diatonic melody sequence in the key of A major...but the chords may be Eb7/E of some such voicing because the keyboards may be filling the harmony in the key of A and your part is over the top so to speak..and you find out how it sounds in the playback..the chords you are given will not be from the "song"-but only your part..this is a very dis-jointed approach to music I realize..but it is a fact of life in "manufactured" music..
on some sheets your instruction is to "free play E melodic minor" or a named mode...I found an old copy of the first Mahavishnu songbook...the keys were assigned to mode names..I found that very interesting..
The term "fusion" is where I found a place to use "modal scales" and as Reg and Jon R have said-in essence..there is no goal in modal forms..that is your not working from a I to a V and through a series of chords that brings you back to I...the example of Hancocks Maiden Voyage-the use of ambiguous Sus chords and extended bars of unrelated chords over a specific melody that may just have the sparse outline of the chord..and the solo can be just about anything it wants..as your not going "home" so to speak...your THERE!
this kind of thing takes a while to absorb into everyday playing..and you have to work at it-that is if you even want/need to apply these kind of sounds in your playing. I find the epitome of this "fusion" style with Miles Davis-Bitches Brew..and some later work with john scofield on guitar (talk about "outside playing" john is a master at it)
play well
wolf
Reply With Quote
Knaggs Chena A
Today, 06:19 AM in Guitar, Amps & Gizmos