Modal Interchange Question

[Arpeggio]

I'm studying Jazz Composition book by Ted Pease. It has been useful to use in conjunction with my Real Book and the mDecks harmonic analysis eBook (I learn about harmony from Jazz Composition, work out what's going on the the Real Book, then check if I got it right in mDecks.

Anyway. Page 78 of this book is about Modal Interchange. As far as I can tell it seems to suggest a IV- chord is in major keys, as in a minor chord on the 4th degree of the major key scale. I don't understand this because on the 4th degree of the major key should be a major chord (IV), while the IV- chord is what you get on the 4th degree of a minor key.

Therefore I would have thought that, in the case of these chords, modal interchange would be where you replace the IV chord from major key with a IV- from minor key, rather than the IV- chord being in the major key to begin with as it seems to suggest. What is going on here?

[ragman1]

The first red bit means that AbM7 and Bb7 can replace Fm7 in the key of C minor. C minor is the parallel minor to C major. It seems wrong because Ab and Bb aren't in C... but they are when they're described as the bIV and bVII. I know it's confusing.

The second red bit means DbM7 replaces Am7 in C major. That's taken from the Phrygian mode (from Ab major). Again it's confusing because... well, it is.

If you can bide your time a while I have a chart somewhere which shows all possible substitutions clearly. However, it doesn't mean they all work well. In fact, only relatively few do and are frequently used.

It would be more useful if your book gave example progressions so you could play them to see the effects. It might do on another page maybe.

[FwLineberry]

I'm studying Jazz Composition book by Ted Pease. It has been useful to use in conjunction with my Real Book and the mDecks harmonic analysis eBook (I learn about harmony from Jazz Composition, work out what's going on the the Real Book, then check if I got it right in mDecks.

Anyway. Page 78 of this book is about Modal Interchange. As far as I can tell it seems to suggest a IV- chord is in major keys, as in a minor chord on the 4th degree of the major key scale. I don't understand this because on the 4th degree of the major key should be a major chord (IV), while the IV- chord is what you get on the 4th degree of a minor key.

Therefore I would have thought that, in the case of these chords, modal interchange would be where you replace the IV chord from major key with a IV- from minor key, rather than the IV- chord being in the major key to begin with as it seems to suggest. What is going on here?

That's like a double interchange. IV- is often used in the major key. You can see it as coming from the harmonic major scale or as borrowed from the minor scale. So you're actually replacing one chord borrowed from the minor scale with another chord borrowed from the minor scale at that point.

.

[ragman1]

The first red bit means that AbM7 and Bb7 can replace Fm7 in the key of C minor. C minor is the parallel minor to C major. It seems wrong because Ab and Bb aren't in C... but they are when they're described as the bIV and bVII. I know it's confusing.

The second red bit means DbM7 replaces Am7 in C major. That's taken from the Phrygian mode (from Ab major). Again it's confusing because... well, it is.

It would be more useful if your book gave example progressions so you could play them to see the effects. It might do so on another page maybe.

The fact is this is a horrifyingly complex subject. I'd recommend that you google it... except I don't if you value your sanity. Alternatively use the search box here and you'll find several threads on this forum that deal with it. You'll probably get more sense out of them.

The fact is that, although the theoretical possibilities are great, only a few tried and trusted changes are used in most jazz music.

[ragman1]

The first red bit means that AbM7 and Bb7 can replace Fm7 in the key of C minor. C minor is the parallel minor to C major. It seems wrong because Ab and Bb aren't in C... but they are when they're described as the bIV and bVII. I know it's confusing.

The second red bit means DbM7 replaces Am7 in C major. That's taken from the Phrygian mode (from Ab major). Again it's confusing because... well, it is.

It would be more useful if your book gave example progressions so you could play them to see the effects. It might do so on another page maybe.

The fact is this is a horrifyingly complex subject. I'd recommend that you google it... except don't if you value your sanity. Alternatively use the search box here and you'll find several threads on this forum that deal with it. You'll probably get more sense out of them.

The fact is that, although the theoretical possibilities are great, only a few tried and trusted interchanges are used in most jazz music.

[Arpeggio]

That's like a double interchange. IV- is often used in the major key. You can see it as coming from the harmonic major scale or as borrowed from the minor scale.

I suspected it was something like that. As though the author perceived a kind of normality for VI- in major, therefore like a double interchange as you say if going from that basis.

So you're actually replacing one chord borrowed from the minor scale with another chord borrowed from the minor scale at that point..

Yes. It would look like chord family substitution of the modal interchange chords, if not for the bVII7 chord, which is in the Dominant family of the minor key, rather than the subdominant family of the minor key as vi- and bVIMaj7 are.

The first red bit means that AbM7 and Bb7 can replace Fm7 in the key of C minor. C minor is the parallel minor to C major. It seems wrong because Ab and Bb aren't in C... but they are when they're described as the bIV and bVII. I know it's confusing.

I’ve seen the bVII7 occur quite often in major keys, always knew it was modal interchange but never considered it to be replacing any particular hypothetical chord from the original Major key.

To be honest I’ve never regarded modal interchange as replacing any particular hypothetical chord from the original key, but rather just borrowing chords from a parallel key that sound good. That’s probably where much of my confusion comes from i.e. why does this particular chord from the parallel key replace that particular one from the original? That’s probably a much deeper aspect the above chord family analysis only scratches the surface of.

The second red bit means DbM7 replaces Am7 in C major. That's taken from the Phrygian mode (from Ab major). Again it's confusing because... well, it is.

Do you mean it replaces Fm or Fm7? (IV- in second red box) I sometimes get my IV and VI mixed. Interesting that DbMaj7 contains Db, F, Ab, C, which shares all notes from the original F minor chord (F, Ab, C) except for Db.

It would be more useful if your book gave example progressions so you could play them to see the effects. It might do so on another page maybe.

Yes the book does just that. I’m looking forward to progressing onto that.

The fact is this is a horrifyingly complex subject. I'd recommend that you google it... except don't if you value your sanity. Alternatively use the search box here and you'll find several threads on this forum that deal with it. You'll probably get more sense out of them.

True. Mountains always look bigger when looking up, as opposed to down from the top. Keep on climbing!

The fact is that, although the theoretical possibilities are great, only a few tried and trusted interchanges are used in most jazz music.

Agreed. It’s more about the movement between chords not just the theoretical concepts. Perhaps in the book author’s case the VI- has become so tried and tested he’s seems to have got this as being in the major key before modal interchanging it. If so I disagree with him and see VI- in a major key as modal interchange!

[bako]

Borrowing vs Replacing

Borrow - take and use (something that belongs to someone else)
with the intention of returning it

Replace - take the place of

These are compatible ideas.
Borrowing is referencing the source of where the material is drawn from.
Replacing is focused on usage, defined as a substitute for the fundamental
harmonic content of the scale/key.

[ragman1]

why does this particular chord from the parallel key replace that particular one from the original?

Because it works is the usual answer! Because it sounds right/good and produces the desired effect.

To be honest, my very strong advice would to not take MI too seriously. When one first encounters it, it's like opening up a whole cornucopia of delights, an endless possibility of exciting new sounds, and all the rest of it. Actually in practice a lot of the options are unworkable simply because they don't sound good at all.

A pointed example of that would that, technically, one could replace, in Dm7-G7-CM7, the G7 with a Gm7 (from either the C dorian, mixolydian or aeolian modes). But would you? Gm7 before CM7? So a lot of it is simply redundant from a practical point of view.

The most commonly used MI's that work are the backdoor progression (Fm7-Bb7-CM7), replacing a major 2-5 with a minor one (Dm7b5-G7b9-CM7), embellishing a IV-I with the ivm6 (FM7-Fm6-CM7), replacing the V with ivm6 (Dm7-Fm6-CM7), replacing a final I with the bIIM7 (G7-DbM7-CM7), or replacing the V with the bV7b5 (Db7b5-C6), and that kind of thing.

Of course, there are other changes that I may have forgotten but I think those are the main ones in common use. In a major key, anyway. Or sometimes composers might just shove in a non-diatonic chord simply because it sounds good at that point, nothing academic about it!

It's just a point and probably you'll come to it if you're not there already :-)

[ragman1]

If you're interested, here's a chart with major key possibilities. It's incomplete because one could also include all the chords from the harmonic and melodic minor scales. However -



Take, say, a 6-2-5-1 in C -- Am7-Dm7-G7-CM7 -- and replace with some of the options. You could try (I'm just selecting at random):

AbM7 - Dm7b5 - GbM7 - CM7

If you like it, use it! It's not illegal :-)

[ragman1]

why does this particular chord from the parallel key replace that particular one from the original?

Because it works is the usual answer. Because it sounds right/good and produces the desired effect.

To be honest, my very strong advice would to not take MI too seriously. When one first encounters it, it's like opening up a whole cornucopia of delights, an endless possibility of exciting new sounds, and all the rest of it. Actually in practice a lot of the options are unworkable simply because they don't sound good at all.

A pointed example of that would that, technically, one could replace, in Dm7-G7-CM7, the G7 with a Gm7 (from either the C dorian, mixolydian or aeolian modes). But would you? Gm7 before CM7? So a lot of it is simply redundant from a practical point of view.

The most commonly used MI's that work are the backdoor progression (Fm7-Bb7-CM7), replacing a major 2-5 with a minor one (Dm7b5-G7b9-CM7), embellishing a IV-I with the ivm6 (FM7-Fm6-CM7), replacing the V with ivm6 (Dm7-Fm6-CM7), replacing a final I with the bIIM7 (G7-DbM7-CM7), or replacing the V with the bV7b5 (Db7b5-C6), and that kind of thing.

Of course, I'm sure there are other changes that I may have forgotten but I think those are the main ones in common use. In a major key, anyway. Or sometimes composers might just shove in a non-diatonic chord simply because it sounds good at that point, nothing academic about it.

It's just a point and probably you'll come to it if you're not there already :-)

[ragman1]

If you're interested, here's a chart with major key possibilities. It's incomplete because one could also include all the chords from the harmonic and melodic minor scales. However -



Take, say, a 6-2-5-1 in C -- Am7-Dm7-G7-CM7 -- and replace with some of the options. You could try (I'm just selecting at random):

AbM7 - Dm7b5 - GbM7 - CM7

If you like it, use it! It's not illegal

[bako]

Tonality is built around the idea of centricity.
A collection of notes and harmonies orbiting around a central pitch and chord.
Modes present a wealth of variations of brighter/darker content and relationships.
Modal interchange (as I imagine it) is the conscious mixing of colors drawn from
a combination of scale sources. This can be a single chord or chord sequence
drawn from a secondary source.

[Arpeggio]

Because it works is the usual answer. Because it sounds right/good and produces the desired effect.

To be honest, my very strong advice would to not take MI too seriously. When one first encounters it, it's like opening up a whole cornucopia of delights, an endless possibility of exciting new sounds, and all the rest of it. Actually in practice a lot of the options are unworkable simply because they don't sound good at all.

Agree. That was my approach when filling in the MI exercise in the book, what sounds best.

A pointed example of that would that, technically, one could replace, in Dm7-G7-CM7, the G7 with a Gm7 (from either the C dorian, mixolydian or aeolian modes). But would you? Gm7 before CM7? So a lot of it is simply redundant from a practical point of view.

I agree. It sounds OK but is not strong and doesn’t really move.

The most commonly used MI's that work are the backdoor progression (Fm7-Bb7-CM7), replacing a major 2-5 with a minor one (Dm7b5-G7b9-CM7), embellishing a IV-I with the ivm6 (FM7-Fm6-CM7), replacing the V with ivm6 (Dm7-Fm6-CM7), replacing a final I with the bIIM7 (G7-DbM7-CM7), or replacing the V with the bV7b5 (Db7b5-C6), and that kind of thing.

Just tried them out, liking it. No doubt I’ve come across them numerous times in the Real Book. I don’t like to criticize as I am learning from you and it’s just an internet post not like your writing a book, but I can’t place what parallel tonality Db7b5 would have interchanged from in the case of Db7b5-C6. Isn’t Db7b5 is a tritone sub, while replacing the V with the bV7b5 would actually give you Gb7b5 to C6?

If you're interested, here's a chart with major key possibilities. It's incomplete because one could also include all the chords from the harmonic and melodic minor scales. However -



Take, say, a 6-2-5-1 in C -- Am7-Dm7-G7-CM7 -- and replace with some of the options. You could try (I'm just selecting at random):

AbM7 - Dm7b5 - GbM7 - CM7

If you like it, use it! It's not illegal

Sounds good. The GbM7 borrowed from Locrian sounds quirky strong before resolving to CM7 as would using the V-7b5 to replace the V7. Where did you get that chart from please?

[ragman1]

I can’t place what parallel tonality Db7b5 would have interchanged from in the case of Db7b5-C6. Isn’t Db7b5 is a tritone sub, while replacing the V with the bV7b5 would actually give you Gb7b5 to C6?

Db7b5 is a tritone sub of G7 and is used in lots of Bossa tunes, like Girl From Ipanema (in F). It's in the chart as a possible V7 sub from the Locrian mode.

The verse of GFI goes:

FM7 - G13 - Gm7/Gb7b5 - FM7/Gb7b5. It's a sub for C7.

Where did you get that chart from please?

I just googled 'Modal Interchange Chart'.

[Jonah]

I never really heard Modal interchange. Just probably becasue I do not hear contextual 'kinship' of the modes in question.

Always felt as if it was a mechanical tool.

[christianm77]

I never really heard Modal interchange. Just probably becasue I do not hear contextual 'kinship' of the modes in question.

Always felt as if it was a mechanical tool.

Do you not hear major/minor stuff?

There are different ways to contextualise it though. Barry Harris has his 8 note scales which encapsulates the most common borrowed minor key chords.

Also there’s harmonic major

[Jonah]

Do you not hear major/minor stuff?

There are different ways to contextualise it though. Barry Harris has his 8 note scales which encapsulates the most common borrowed minor key chords.

Also there’s harmonic major

I thought about it. I think I hear a relations between modes very contextually.
Like relative major/minor... I hear their relation not as modes but as keys.. but this is already a context.

That's why I hear a parallel minor/major as very remote actually. And it's important - because in Schubert's music shifting to parallel major/minor is always something forced unnatural... I mean this remote relation was heard as part of the language.

Obviously when someone in C major 'borrows' something from from C minor - just the conception sounds a bit weird to me...
And for me harmonic major is just a different thing than natural major.. very far one from another.

I am not against it of course.. whatever works but I can't use tools that I don't hear in music.

I hear realtions in modal music too but they are also contextual.

Anyway I can't hear the modes relative just through common root.

[ragman1]

Obviously when someone in C major 'borrows' something from from C minor - sounds a bit weird to me...

It shouldn't, it's standard jazz harmony.

[Jonah]

It shouldn't, it's standard jazz harmony.

it can be a standard tool to bring in or develope some ideas in jazz but it is not standard harmonic language in jazz to my hearing.
Language is not theory.

And referring to that one phrase out of the whole post of mine is not quite correct and may lead to misunderstanding becasue I explained there why I do not hear it as relative.

For me relations are defined by the musical contex not by formal coincidence of some notes.
For me minor and major are functional first of all and I hear them as keys and they are very remote form each other as keys.

As modes - can someone give me an actual example from a real jazz piece or solo where one can clearly hear C major and C minor as relative modes and use this relation as idioms to create musical narration?

[christianm77]

it can be a standard tool to bring in or develope some ideas in jazz but it is not standard harmonic language in jazz to my hearing.
Language is not theory.

And referring to that one phrase out of the whole post of mine is not quite correct and may lead to misunderstanding becasue I explained there why I do not hear it as relative.

For me relations are defined by the musical contex not by formal coincidence of some notes.
For me minor and major are functional first of all and I hear them as keys and they are very remote form each other as keys.

As modes - can someone give me an actual example from a real jazz piece or solo where one can clearly hear C major and C minor as relative modes and use this relation as idioms to create musical narration?

Yardbird Suite?

[Jonah]

Yardbird Suite?

Thank you.
Could to specify exactly? I mean analyze the language from point of view of Cmaj and Cmin scales relations? Probably this could help me into hearing it

I see it visually of course - but I do not hear there scale relations

[christianm77]

Thank you.
Could to specify exactly? I mean analyze the language from point of view of Cmaj and Cmin scales relations? Probably this could help me into hearing it

I see it visually of course - but I do not hear there scale relations

Just the A section melody. First few bars.

The melody to me clearly modulates from C major to C minor with the b7, b6 and b3 in the second bar.

That weaving in and out of parallel major/minor to me defines the harmonic sound world of Charlie Parker's music, especially the b7-b6-5 cadence. It's part of the reason it sounded slick and modern at the time. Obviously he didn't invent it any more than Rembrandt invented the colour brown, but it became a defining feature of his music to my ears. The same types of minor borrowings are all over Soul, R&B including modern soul influenced pop and neo-soul.

How would you hear it?

[Jonah]

ust the A section melody. First few bars.

The melody to me clearly modulates from C major to C minor with the b7, b6 and b3 in the second bar.

That weaving in and out of parallel major/minor to me defines the harmonic sound world of Charlie Parker's music, especially the b7-b6-5 cadence. It's part of the reason it sounded slick and modern at the time. Obviously he didn't invent it any more than Rembrandt invented the colour brown, but it became a defining feature of his music to my ears. The same types of minor borrowings are all over Soul, R&B including modern soul influenced pop and neo-soul.

How would you hear it?

Yes I understand what you mean... but I honestly though I clearly see (I mean exactly see - not hear) what you are coming from I do not hear it as Cmajor - C minor... I hear it as minor subdominant.

It is like plagal turnaround with minor subdominant... just a bit more extended maybe as he describes minor sound more intensively.

You see.. I think my ear is more rooted in th ehearing of C major to C minor like something of a very strong contrast... (it is definitely from classical background I admit... you see they have a dominant in common but in classical thinkimg it would be too straight to use it (except final major chord) - so it always sounds as something going 'outside' - something perverse even... some kind of distortion of musical space.
The famous example from major to minor could be Moonlight Sonata at the beginning where he goes directly from E major to E minor - to me it sounds like someone suddely sunk... (the whole opening section there is tremendous actually)
Schubert used it quite a lot... Impruptu Op.90 #1 - it is in C minor - but there is suddely a C major chord - yes it is in cadence but the minor is so clearly described that this C major sound like some kind of very forced effort...
Interesting example is Chopin - who often used major/minor for two different sections. Whithout any preparation... but with him I think his general indifference to functional relationship. He just goes straight.
All this is just to illustrate what I mean...

And I think probably you would agree it is very different from what is going on in Parker's style there... where this is very sof and does not create any confluct or serious tension...
Of course if one wish one can explain minor subdominant in major as borrowing from parllel minor... but I just do not get what for...

But thank you anyway! At least now I see what is meant under it


PS
By the way it is interesting that in German (and Russian too) terminolgy parallel means what in English is realtive (like C major and A minor)... I suddenly thought maybe terminology actully represents (or even affects) the perception?

The melody to me clearly modulates from C major to C minor with the b7, b6 and b3 in the second bar.

It is interesting... I wold never say that in such a context.. melody can't modulate for me (harmony it outlines - can)

[Jonah]

If you borrow from C (harmonic) minor into C major you basically get an altered effect which is totally a jazz sound. Play Dm7b5 - G7b9 - CM7 and it's there. It's probably that simple.

thanks,

but it does not sound C minor to me at that monent when it sounds)))... altered dom yes, maybe minor subdominant - yes but not c minor

Again I understand the tool and how it is applied... I sa just I do not hear realtive minor thing there.

[christianm77]

Yes I understand what you mean... but I honestly though I clearly see (I mean exactly see - not hear) what you are coming from I do not hear it as Cmajor - C minor... I hear it as minor subdominant.

It is like plagal turnaround with minor subdominant... just a bit more extended maybe as he describes minor sound more intensively.

You see.. I think my ear is more rooted in th ehearing of C major to C minor like something of a very strong contrast... (it is definitely from classical background I admit... you see they have a dominant in common but in classical thinkimg it would be too straight to use it (except final major chord) - so it always sounds as something going 'outside' - something perverse even... some kind of distortion of musical space.
The famous example from major to minor could be Moonlight Sonata at the beginning where he goes directly from E major to E minor - to me it sounds like someone suddely sunk... (the whole opening section there is tremendous actually)
Schubert used it quite a lot... Impruptu Op.90 #1 - it is in C minor - but there is suddely a C major chord - yes it is in cadence but the minor is so clearly described that this C major sound like some kind of very forced effort...
Interesting example is Chopin - who often used major/minor for two different sections. Whithout any preparation... but with him I think his general indifference to functional relationship. He just goes straight.
All this is just to illustrate what I mean...

And I think probably you would agree it is very different from what is going on in Parker's style there... where this is very sof and does not create any confluct or serious tension...
Of course if one wish one can explain minor subdominant in major as borrowing from parllel minor... but I just do not get what for...

But thank you anyway! At least now I see what is meant under it


PS
By the way it is interesting that in German (and Russian too) terminolgy parallel means what in English is realtive (like C major and A minor)... I suddenly thought maybe terminology actully represents (or even affects) the perception?

I read a book on classical harmony once - the Dynamics of Harmony by George Pratt - that said we should abandon the idea of major and parallel minor and think of one unified tonality. I think the author might have an interesting conversation with Barry Harris...

OK. Let's get silly - what about the use of the Lydian cadence in the Dorian tonality of Machaut's Kyrie?