Scale, mode, modulated scale

**Ron Stern** · 07-08-2009, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by timscarey

there is no advantage to calling it a key change, Just remember that one is C mixo and one is C major.

Yeah man.

1. You're playing along, thinking about tweaking something. Just one thing, once. What could I try right here? How about flatting this one 7, this one right here, only. Considering that to be a key change is cumbersome.

2. Do the same thing and thinking of it as Mixolydian mode is also cumbersome; but somewhat less. The advantage is, Mixolydian mode is thought to be more or less "major sounding", so when you working in some other context, different song, same song different place, you may be thinking "right here I want something major sounding" and then you might think "Ok try Mixolydian; let's see, what does that mean? Oh yeah, flat the 7." IOW if the question is: how could I do something major sounding? -- flatting the 7th is not a naturally occurring answer, to me. Other changes you might make might be major sounding as well, but they're not the same as the Mixolydian mode, theoretically or musically. So remembering it as Mixolydian mode is easier, more functional, more efficient. Give everything it's own name and keep it that way.

3. Which brings me to this point: if it's cumbersome and inefficient to think of the employment of a mode as a key change while actually playing, why, in the realm of pure silent theory, would you say:

C Mixolydian is in the key of F hence has a Bb (Mike J)

In fairness to Mike, he's not the only one I've heard this from, and I'm sure that's exactly what someone told him, and everyone is acting in complete good faith, etc. So leaving the disclaimer and returning to the substance:

If it comes down to "the parent scale of C Mixolydian is F" vs. "C Mixolydian is in the key of F" I think the former is greatly preferable, because the point is to put the two scales side by side. IOW we're combining scales to make a mode, not changing keys. We're not exploring the key of F, we're exploring the key of C, by employing a mode. What happens in the key of F is another story. To say, "Well, you're in the key of F, however briefly", is enormously confusing to someone trying to understand what a mode is.

If at some point I want to change the whole goldang song to F, I'll do it. If I just want to change one note, why change keys? Then you have to change back again. I get tired just thinking about it.

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 07-08-2009, 06:59 PM

Consider an example: All The Things You Are http://www.jazzguitar.be/all_the_things_you_are.html

Take a look at the first 8 measures:

Fmin7 / / / | Bbmin7 / / / | Eb7 / / / | AbMaj7 / / / |
DbMaj7 / / / | Dmin7 / G7 / | Cmaj7 / / / | / / / / ||
Cmin7 / / / | Fmin7 / / / | Bb7 / / / | EbMaj7 / / / |
AbMaj7 / / / | Amin7 / D7 / | Gmaj7 / / / | / / / / ||

Just comp that. Sounds okay? What would you do to decide what notes to play over those chords?

One approach is to identify the key centre(s). Clearly there's some modulation between keys going on in these 8 measures -- I count 14 different chords. I hope I won't need 14 different key signatures for 8 measures!!

The lesson linked above divides that into four keys:

Fmin7 / / / | Bbmin7 / / / | Eb7 / / / | AbMaj7 / / / |
Ab: vi7 | ii7 | V7 | IMaj7 |

DbMaj7 / / / | Dmin7 / G7 / | Cmaj7 / / / | / / / / ||
IV7 | C: ii7 V7 | Imaj7 | ||

Cmin7 / / / | Fmin7 / / / | Bb7 / / / | EbMaj7 / / / |
Eb: vi7 | ii7 | V7 | IMaj7 |

AbMaj7 / / / | Amin7 / D7 / | Gmaj7 / / / | / / / / ||
IV7 | G: ii7 V7 | Imaj7 | ||

So you can think of the first five measures as being in Ab, the next three in C, five in Eb, three in G.

Where are the modes hiding? Well, wherever they are, maybe they should stay hidden! But consider the first five measures. You could just doodle along in Ab and that would not sound awful, but you may want to follow the individual chords more closely, to outline the changes. In that case, the modes are as follows, if we keep it in the one key of Ab:

Fmin7: F Aoelian: F G Ab Bb C Db Eb F
Bbmin7: Bb Dorian: Bb C Db Eb F G Ab Bb
Eb7: Eb Mixo.: Eb F G Ab Bb C Db Eb
AbMaj7: Ab Ionian: Ab Bb C Db Eb F G Ab
DbMaj7 Db Lydian: Db Eb F G Ab Bb C Db

So these five modes, while all sharing the same 7 notes (4 flats), have different tonal centers. The use of modes here is suppose to help you see there is movement, rather than a static harmonic structure that would follow from five measures of merely AbMaj.

Aside: I'm trying to keep the harmony here as simple as possible. Of course to make it jazzier you could do all sorts of additional things: add passing tones, chord extensions, substitutions, pursue the modes a bit (say put Fmin7 in F Dorian), put what I wrote is a start, to try to show how modes analyze how keys and chords intersect.

**MikeJ** · 07-08-2009, 08:25 PM

Hey Big Daddy..
You explained nicely what I had attempted (badly) to say in the early stages...
My hat is off to all the excellent responces I have seen here.. For me its enough for now .. My aim is to play the instrument, enjoy the music and leave the deep meaningful discussions to the theroists..

**Ron Stern** · 07-08-2009, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by monk

No wonder you are confused.

The Guitar Handbook is one of those "Complete Encyclopedia Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The Guitar" type of books. These kinds of books seldom live up to the hype.

You're right, the absurdity of the proposition is revealed even as you say the words. Trouble is, they put in on the best books, and the worst, and everything in between. People suggest that it be put on the cover of a book (any author worthy of the name cringes) and get paid to make the suggestion. Wow.

Still, the book has been very helpful in other areas, as have the others.

Having several books has its own pitfalls. The original post was a mess because I was attempting to synthesize the various definitions and restate them, which can't be done, because they are contradictory. I'm sorry for giving everybody a headache for trying to figure out something that doesn't make any sense. I couldn't think of any other way to proceed. Buy another book? Not for a while, anyway. Look what happened with these four.

**Ron Stern** · 07-08-2009, 08:48 PM

Most excellent, Big Daddy. I'm going to go through what you've said front to back, back to front, etc. etc.

Here's how I look at it: we're looking for quality in improvising. You have to think of something quick. The first thing that occurs is something you already know. If you don't add to that or change it you get in a rut. Now what? You can select things at random and make random changes, what I call the one hundred monkeys with guitars approach.

Or you can do it by analysis. Very time consuming, but faster than the monkeys. Bottom line, the analysis produces new patterns which you try out and accept or reject. The ones you accept you have to burn into fingers and from there into your mind because when you actually play, they have to be reproduced memories, not calculated results.

Then there's the good old sudden impulse, the unconscious, and the supernatural. Once in a blue moon.

Hope I'm not boring you.

**mr. beaumont** · 07-08-2009, 10:04 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

"Stick with the major scale until you've memorized every note in every key" doesn't work for me. Without some application, the memory just doesn't retain it. .

i wasn't clear enough--because you're absolutely right--you need to do things in context, because A. it's how you're actually going to end up using this stuff, and B.--it's fun, and if it isn't fun why are we doing it?

my comment is really just based on the modes. no modes until you have the major scale down. this doesn't mean put aside chords, harmony, arpeggios, and all the stuff that goes with it.

here's the deal in the end. while i'll preach against learning the modes now, truth is i do know 'em and i do use 'em. but the truth is also that i could play you a whole set of straight up jazz, never once think modally, and you'd still be saying "okay, but where did all those cool notes come from?" there's a TON of fun in the major scale, arpeggios, and superimposing arpeggios over chords of a different name. hell, there's a lot of fun in the pentatonics.

the last truth is that in basic application, the modes are boring...G mixolydian over a G7 chord? whoopedy-doo. the most interesting modal stuff is more advanced, and it just doesn't happen NOW. there's other,more important stuff to dig deeply into before scratching the surface with others. this is just my opinion, mind you, but if you were my student, it's the way i'd teach you---and at the risk of sounding too full of myself, i really think you WOULD get it and be sounding "jazzy" already, if i were.

I am by no means at the level of the jazz masters, nor am i a perfect teacher, but i do think i'm good at one thing: de-mystifying the crap that i honestly think some teachers DON'T want folks to know, so they shroud it in hard to understand terminology and draw weak parallels to other things they may have taught poorly as well...

either that, or they don't know what they're talking about either!

**mike walker** · 07-09-2009, 08:28 AM

Foundations are so important.

Modes are not boring. Boring use of them, however, is boring.

A simple maj scale, could be considered boring in 'basic application' but it, in itself, is not boring.

Modes are moods. How you use them, is everything.

**Ron Stern** · 07-09-2009, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by mr. beaumont

. the most interesting modal stuff is more advanced, and it just doesn't happen NOW. there's other,more important stuff to dig deeply into before scratching the surface with others. this is just my opinion

That is my impression also. I had become very enthusiastic because up to the modes chapter there was a definite flow from concept to concept, they were reinforcing each other, they were suggesting things, even songs and riffs I already knew appeared in a different light, more clear, etc etc.

Next is modes. It's like falling into a black hole. I assume that because the concept survives it does have some application, but as you say, later. Further on in the sequence of instruction. Wouldn't it be best to wait to teach them until the entire foundation is complete? Theoretically you can calculate modes immediately after you can calculate the major scales, right? But what's the point if, having calculated them, you can't employ them, at least not in the way that justifies their existence?

A possible answer to that is that the author/teacher wants to refer to modes while progressing further along the schedule. So I look for references to modes, after the modes chapters, and find none. This raises (for me) the issue, how much time and effort to invest now. There's a strong urge to just bag it altogether. But then how will I remember what I've learned, if anything?

That's really the issue. I'll take it on faith that they're worth it someday. If I don't use them until then, they're not going to stick.

Thanks again for your time and advice.

**Goofsus4** · 07-09-2009, 12:36 PM

It's not a black hole if you just skip all the business about their derivation. None of that is important for using them to make music.

All you need to do to use them is to treat them like 7 scales, each with a differnent intevallic formula, like every other scale you use. When was the last time you thought about the profound conceptual underpinnings of the pentatonic scale? Nobody does that - they just learn it, then start blowing over blues changes with it.

Keep using the modes, but quit thinking about them. But when using the modes, be sure that you visualize and understand every musical interval you are playing with respect to the chord you are playing over. If you can begin to see the chord tones nestled inside the mode patterns, then the music begins.

**RyanM** · 07-10-2009, 01:51 AM

**mike walker** · 07-10-2009, 02:51 AM

Ryan,
good post.
So much misunderstanding where modes are concerned.

Great to debate these things openly tho. Open debate is a wonderful thing.

**tele jazz** · 07-10-2009, 03:14 AM

i agree mike, modes are useless unless you know what to do with them.

**JohnW400** · 07-10-2009, 09:08 AM

Anybody notice the Koontz Oval Hole Archtop in the background of the video? It's either a Koontz or a Standel designed by Koontz. There was my eye candy for the day

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 07-10-2009, 10:29 AM

Good point in that video. Our minds trick us! Basically, Steve was saying if you play scales: D Ionian, E Dorian, F# Phrygian (or as I like to call it, Fridge-ian) ..., ie:

D E F# G A B C# D C# B A G F# E D
E F# G A B C# D E D C# B A G F# E
F# G A B C# D E F# E D C# B A G F#

It just sound like it's all the same -- actually it sounds like a scale exercise in D

But if you play scale D Ionian, D Dorian, D Fridge-ian:

D E F# G A B C# D C# B A G F# E D
D E F G A B C D C B A G F E D
D Eb F G A Bb C D C Bb A G F Eb D

(maybe with a drone string) you hear it much better. You can feel the change in modality.

**guitar-monkey** · 07-10-2009, 11:43 AM

Good video. Very similar to the way my teacher explained modes to me. I think it might clear up a good few things for Ron Stern.

**Jazzaluk** · 07-10-2009, 02:09 PM

There seems to be a light coming on in many heads with respect to the sound of modes.

However, the fact of the matter is that most standards (except decidedly modal jazz standards) are written around tonal centers where the application of modal thinking is redundant and often confusing, especially to beginners. These type of tunes normally gravitate to the root of tonal centre with temporary modulations in the form. They don't shift from one mode to another to create various exotic or ethic flavors as it does in "modal music" which continuously shifts its tonal "centers of gravity" (ala George Russel).

While modal music is very beautiful and compelling, modal thinking does not effeiciently translate to other forms. It is difficult and often counterproductive to force-fit modal concepts over standards. It is better to think in terms of tonal centers and the use of outside tones and substitutions ....IMHO. Thinking modally in most standards will quickly lead you to believe that the different modes are in fact the same notes with different names.

In short, modal thinking belongs to modal music.

**mike walker** · 07-10-2009, 02:52 PM

Originally Posted by Jazzaluk

There seems to be a light coming on in many heads with respect to the sound of modes.

However, the fact of the matter is that most standards (except decidedly modal jazz standards) are written around tonal centers where the application of modal thinking is redundant and often confusing, especially to beginners. These type of tunes normally gravitate to the root of tonal centre with temporary modulations in the form. They don't shift from one mode to another to create various exotic or ethic flavors as it does in "modal music" which continuously shifts its tonal "centers of gravity" (ala George Russel).

While modal music is very beautiful and compelling, modal thinking does not effeiciently translate to other forms. It is difficult and often counterproductive to force-fit modal concepts over standards. It is better to think in terms of tonal centers and the use of outside tones and substitutions ....IMHO. Thinking modally in most standards will quickly lead you to believe that the different modes are in fact the same notes with different names.

In short, modal thinking belongs to modal music.

Good stuff for debate Jazza,

Take 'all the things you are'... first 5 chords in Ab. Tonal centre Ab.
No delineation. No clarity of movement. Just a big chunk of Ab (with outside notes and substitutions).
This is ok. And it can work with arpeggio work etc.
But IMHO what it tends to do with a lot of inexperienced improvisors is blur the lines. The pool of notes offers them limited melodic ideas.
Hearing this can be a problem for a learning improvisor. (How many of us have heard ourselves back on tape and been surprised at how bad, or good it was.)
As you can play outside and use substitutions with tonal centres, so can you with using a mode/scale/sound per chord.

It just individualises each sound so that even without chords below the impro
you can still hear the distinct sound of a particular standard.

**Ron Stern** · 07-10-2009, 06:54 PM

Originally Posted by Goofsus4

It's not a black hole if you just skip all the business about their derivation. None of that is important for using them to make music.

All you need to do to use them is to treat them like 7 scales, each with a differnent intevallic formula, like every other scale you use.

Man oh man I'm glad you said that because I've been thinking along those lines too.

Once you derive the modes of any scale, you then can "translate" them (if that's the correct term) into scale patterns (e.g. Dorian = 1 2 b3 4 5 6 b7) and make a little table of them . The books generally present the derivation first and the table second.

My current method is to pick some note, like D, and pretend I'm playing something in that key. Then I pick a mode (i.e. the modified scale). I hit the tonic of the key and then jump quick like a bunny into the notes of the mode, trying to emphasize some kind of way the notes in the mode that are different than the notes in the key. IOW play one against the other, any way I can think of, to force the contrast to appear, just to hear it many times and get used to it. Ultimately I imagine that when playing there is no calculation and no table either. I sure hope not !

I am curious to know when calculating comes into play but it can wait, for sure.

Thanks for your advice.

**Ron Stern** · 07-10-2009, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by JohnW400

Here's a pattern for you to use to help you retain the harmonies. You can play the corresponding mode to it (C major 7 use C major scale, F maj7 use F lydian)

The numbers are I IV vii iii vi ii V I.

Or in C: Cma7 Fma7 Bmi7b5 Emi7 Ami7 Dmi7 G7 Cma7.

The progression sounds good but I don't follow the terminology. Does it illustrate something, and/or is it a starting point for something else? Are we taking the chord progression and applying a mode? Or did a mode produce the progression? From what? Am I to take the progression and modify it in some way?

**Ron Stern** · 07-10-2009, 07:50 PM

This seems like an excellent suggestion, by Matt Warnock, from Gabe's thread:

Originally Posted by m78w

If you notice, starting with Lydian and moving down the chart you are only lowering one note each time to produce the next mode.

Lydian - #4
Ionian - b4
Mixolydian - b7
Dorian - b3
Aeolian - b6
Phrygian - b2
Locrain - b5

It's a good way to work out the modes because you are constantly relating every fingering back to one that you already know. It also helps get the sound of each mode into your ears as when you practice all the different modes in a row you start to hear how each gets "darker" as you move down the chart.

You could work on this a long time, I bet, and actually come up with new things to play, and not mess with how modes are derived until later, and maybe never. Everything in its own time.

**JohnW400** · 07-10-2009, 10:42 PM

Originally Posted by Ron Stern

The progression sounds good but I don't follow the terminology. Does it illustrate something, and/or is it a starting point for something else? Are we taking the chord progression and applying a mode? Or did a mode produce the progression? From what? Am I to take the progression and modify it in some way?

You mentioned something about applying what you learn. The pattern I wrote out uses all 7 chords that are in the the scale set up in a common pattern. There are quite a few songs tht use this progression or a variation of the pattern (like Emi Ami Dmi G7 C F Bmi7b5 E7)

So as an excercise to help put together chords, modes and how they sound, you could play the chord, then the mode that goes with that chord. This way you're applying both the chord progression and the chord. You wind up training your ear in the process.

Cma7 = C major (ionian)
Fma7 = F lydian
Bm7b5= B locrain
Emi7 = E phrygian
Ami7 = A aeolean
Dmi7 = D dorian
G7 = G mixolydian

Also, don't get hung up on terminology. Rather than work on what it's called work on commiting what it sounds like to memory.

This will help you out more than working on what it's called. Think of the sounds as major, minor, dominant7th, diminshed and augmented (for starters)

**tele jazz** · 07-11-2009, 05:55 AM

saying that certain chords should be used with certain modes is missing the point

**BigDaddyLoveHandles** · 07-11-2009, 11:54 AM

If we're talking about standards like "All The Things You Are" (versus Mile's "So What") I would says that's backwards. In that context, modes are an analytic residue: the intersection of tonal centre (Ab) with chord (Dbmaj7) yields Db Lydian.

The more I think of it, the less important modality is.

**JohnW400** · 07-11-2009, 12:31 PM

Originally Posted by tele jazz

saying that certain chords should be used with certain modes is missing the point

I disagree. When you're first learning this stuff it makes it easier to retain and use. And rather than just do scales and modes in a row you're applying it to a useful pattern. on top of that you're also learning that the IV chord for exapmle has a lydian sound.

After you have these basics down then you can do what you want.

**mike walker** · 07-11-2009, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by JohnW400

I disagree. When you're first learning this stuff it makes it easier to retain and use. And rather than just do scales and modes in a row you're applying it to a useful pattern. on top of that you're also learning that the IV chord for exapmle has a lydian sound.

After you have these basics down then you can do what you want.

Totally.