Functional Tonal vs Modal Harmony and Berklee greek names

[wolflen]

when I teach fairly new players that ask about modes:

they may have seen on YouTube, their idols saying they use exotic modes with some very cool names..that sound like star wars weapons.

I tell them to wait until they really have diatonic harmony and its related modes well understood and how they can be used
before they venture into the deep space of modal madness.

Master players Monder, Quayle, Govan, Vai and many others know how to use modes in relation to chords..
Some young players just want to use "modes" with little or no knowledge of how to use them in a harmonic
or melodic setting..but cool names and speed is the main goal.

When I play in a fusion context..its open season..rules, terms like avoid and the rest (brings back memories of Catholic school nuns with terror tools like a ruler on the knuckles)
are by-passed in improvisation.

Melodic considerations may be addressed..and here rules may be used-if the ear agrees.

In general..for those just beginning the long journey into harmony..I think it a good idea to know about harmonic rules and the terms used.
If they are thought with logical examples and consistency..then they can be by-passed as the student grows and learns more about
harmony and its variations as applied in jazz.

[rodolfoguitarra]

What difference does nomenclature make? Do you work for Abersold? As far as context, that's pretty basic knowledge to know that it can always be a choice to use the corresponding modes to the diatonic chords in tonal harmony.. and other applications of modes of other scales. I don't understand what you think is so disruptive.

As an educator, for me, appropriate nomenclature makes all the difference. I see this confusion very frequently.

[Tal_175]

As an educator, for me, appropriate nomenclature makes all the difference. I see this confusion very frequently.

The confusion mostly exists in the rock world where they approach improvisation from key center point of view. Some rock players think that getting more advanced means learning to use modes. But then they don't know how that all fits in with the music they play.

In the more chord centric view tradition of jazz (like in that BH video posted by J.Smith), I don't really know what is the confusion. One either uses chord-scale organization or they don't. If you're building a voicing (or a linear phrase) for a minor chord, and the chord functions as a iii chord, how do you organize your choices (and your instrument)? Would you play a natural 9 as an extension? Some may use trial and error as a process, others like to use a system as reference. The system can be an existing one or one that they developed themselves.

[rodolfoguitarra]

I think nomenclature is important. I feel like the terms a person uses should match the utility of the concept. So talking about a iii chord as being “Phrygian” implies pretty strongly that the approach is meaningfully modal, or scalar. Which it isn’t. If you talk about a major triad a half step up being available over that chord, that would be maybe more useful to me, even though the end result is still sort of “Phrygian” or whatever. Because I think it illustrates the melodic effect of what’s going on a little better.

I sort of imagine saying “oh you use your Phrygian mode.” And then someone saying “oh so like C major scale still?” And then I’d say “yes, but … also don’t just run scale stuff and some notes will hit better than others depending.” And then I would need to explain what sorts of things work in what ways anyway …

At which point I wonder whether there isn’t a better name (or more specific name) than “Phrygian” for what should be happening there.

Besides that, the Phrygian sound has nothing to do with being the III degree (or whatever) of any key. The Phrygian sound is an entity that exists on its own and is not subordinate to the I.

WTH would use an Esusb9 instead of Em7 on the 5th bar of My fine Romance for instance?

[Christian Miller]

I can imagine Barry’s response to being called chord centric haha. He was a scales guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Tal_175]

I can imagine Barry’s response to being called chord centric haha. He was a scales guy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think we are using the terms differently. Chords come from scales. But there is a difference between the key center view of a minor pentatonic blues player and the view that is chord specific such as playing dominant scale over the first chord and #4 diminished over the sixth chord of the form etc.

[Christian Miller]

Besides that, the Phrygian sound has nothing to do with being the III degree (or whatever) of any key. The Phrygian sound is an entity that exists on its own and is not subordinate to the I.

WTH would use an Esusb9 instead of Em7 on the 5th bar of My fine Romance for instance?

OK, who are you addressing this to and why?

If you want to start the jazz theory is twaddle rant I’m 100% here for it, but be warned that the rabbit hole goes deep haha.

I think your problem with all of this may come from expecting too much of theory.

I think it is a strength of jazzers that they’ve always looked on this stuff as practical materials for music making, rather than falling into the trap of looking for complete and self consistent systems that encapsulate and explain music.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[pamosmusic]

Besides that, the Phrygian sound has nothing to do with being the III degree (or whatever) of any key. The Phrygian sound is an entity that exists on its own and is not subordinate to the I.

WTH would use an Esusb9 instead of Em7 on the 5th bar of My fine Romance for instance?

If I can be blunt … you phrased your initial post as a question. But I gather you already had an answer in mind and were looking for an opportunity to defend it.

I would totally play an F major triad over the E minor … depending on what the context is. The opportunities to voicelead into some other upper structure are plentiful. So why not?

Which is why I was saying I’d just call it using a bII triad over a minor chord rather than “a Phrygian” sound.

[rpjazzguitar]

After reading the thread my thoughts turned to this.

Let me apologize in advance.

I know some Berklee grads (names you might know) who are encyclopedic with regard to theory. And, they employ it in their practice regimens, get it into their unconscious playing and sound incredible.

I also know some Berklee grads who I presume know the same theory and sound ordinary.

So, the path to becoming the so-called "well rounded jazz musician" ends in different places depending who is traveling.

I barely understand this thread, tbh. What I gather is we're discussing what can be heard as a tonic, or, alternatively, the same thing in a different harmonic role.

Minor scales are interesting because they commonly come in multiple flavors. dorian, phrygian, natural, harmonic, melodic and whatever I've forgotten to list.

So, to make my contribution to the technical literature (and without checking who already figured this out) I propose the General Minor Scale abbreviated gm. Cgm is C Db Eb F G Ab A Bb B. Or, to the theorists, Fm add nat3, or something. That's your minor scale for every application. It always works, provided you're careful with the notes that don't sound good. Is that caveat somehow unfair?

[Christian Miller]

I think we are using the terms differently. Chords come from scales. But there is a difference between the key center view of an minor pentatonic blues player and the view that is chord specific such as playing dominant scale over the first chord and #4 diminished over the sixth chord of the form etc.

No I understand.

Actually working from an overall tonality is a pretty flexible way to understand functional harmony - classical theorists do it this way and I have no idea why it isn’t taught more in jazz. Working from chords each time can obscure relationships between progressions. I think this way a lot, but I don’t think people find it easy to get their heads around if they are used to the chordal way.

As for Barry… I don’t know. The major 6 dim scale unifies a lot of stuff for example, IVm, IIm7b5, V13b9, relative minor within the key. I felt he taught this way sometimes rather than just on the chord. There’s an aspect of looking at things this way in his teaching.

But yeah your average guitarist doesn’t think in those terms.

[rodolfoguitarra]

If I can be blunt … you phrased your initial post as a question. But I gather you already had an answer in mind and were looking for an opportunity to defend it.

You nailed it.

[pamosmusic]

You nailed it.

Been there

[Jimmy Smith]

As an educator, for me, appropriate nomenclature makes all the difference. I see this confusion very frequently.

Ok, understood. For me, I just integrate knowledge based on its relevance to me and how I can use it. It makes no sense to me why anyone would get hung up on what is or isn't official, when nothing is set in stone in the first place. Unless they are a college professor or something and have to reconcile strict curriculum. Are you a professor? Or are you some other sort of teacher?

Besides that, the Phrygian sound has nothing to do with being the III degree (or whatever) of any key. The Phrygian sound is an entity that exists on its own and is not subordinate to the I.

You're incorrect, it can be either. You've never heard that when you're on a diatonic chord, it's a usual choice to be able to play the mode respective to that scale degree? Yes, 'modal playing' where you tonicize a mode and sit on that scale is one of the main uses of modes. But that doesn't mean phrygian 'has nothing to do with the iii' and modes aren't used in tonal harmony music. That's ridiculous.

WTH would use an Esusb9 instead of Em7 on the 5th bar of My fine Romance for instance?

Are you serious? The clip I posted had BH using phrygian over the iii on all the things you are. I don't think he sussed it tho. You can do whatever you want in music. I don't understand this weird false paradigm you have of anything related to a scale that is a mode isn't permitted in tonal playing. That's absurd.

My teacher Tony Monaco also uses modes in tonal playing. Most frequent application would be locrian on the ii of a minor 2-5.

[pamosmusic]

I think it is a strength of jazzers that they’ve always looked on this stuff as practical materials for music making, rather than falling into the trap of looking for complete and self consistent systems that encapsulate and explain music.

So this is important here.

I get uncomfortable with people talking about how things are unrelated or one thing is incorrect or a has nothing to do with b or whatever.

The big thing is that any of these theoretical frameworks are valid and helpful insofar as they can give a person material to practice.

I love Jordan Klemons’s stuff (which Christian cited above as Stefon Harris’s approach, which Jordan adapted for guitar) and I love the BH stuff, and actually I love using CST as a way of arriving at upper structure applications in particular. But I’ve sort of resigned myself to the fact that I find these really elegant systems to be interesting and inspiring and incredibly useful, but I will practice them for months or years just to have little things from each sort of seep into different corners of my playing.

And that’s cool and good.

[rodolfoguitarra]

Are you serious? The clip I posted had BH using phrygian over the iii on all the things you are. I don't think he sussed it tho. You can do whatever you want in music. I don't understand this weird false paradigm you have of anything related to a scale that is a mode isn't permitted in tonal playing. That's absurd.

My teacher Tony Monaco also uses modes in tonal playing. Most frequent application would be locrian on the ii of a minor 2-5.

I didn't hear any phrygian voicing in the Barry Harris clip. I did not say that within the tonal system, everything that is modal is prohibited. Obviously, the tonal system includes modal interchange chords (in this case, the modal names make sense to me).

[Christian Miller]

Yeah I’d go as far to say there is no jazz theory - only jazz practice. What people here and in similar spaces call ‘theory’ is either learning terminology or strategies for playing music and cool things they can work on. Theory in the sense of Hugo Reimann or JP Rameau’s project to explain or encapsulate music as a phenomenon in objective terms) doesn’t exist in jazz - even where we use their ideas to make music literally every day.

(but actually there are music theory professors who try to explain Wayne Shorter’s harmony and so on without immediate practical applications to playing jazz etc, so it does exist. Meanwhile the jazz improviser is best off just practicing the things.)

OTOH I’ve been convinced for a while that there’s a natural mission creep that happens when a neat idea that’s useful in one area starts to gain popularity and then begins to be used outside of its original context as a sort of general theory for all types of stuff even where it doesn’t function well.

I think this is definitely the case with CST on its journey as a theory of colouristic harmony in lines and voicings and via Aebersold as an improvisation method and the way to analyse basically all music.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmy Smith]

I didn't hear any phrygian voicing in the Barry Harris clip. I did not say that within the tonal system, everything that is modal is prohibited. Obviously, the tonal system includes modal interchange chords (in this case, the modal names make sense to me).

Playing C-7 chordally and melodically in the context of Ab major and including a Db note by definition distinguishes the chord scale device for that time as phrygian.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Do you not have a premise anymore, just arguing?

[rodolfoguitarra]

Playing C-7 chordally and melodically in the context of Ab major and including a Db note by definition distinguishes the chord scale device for that time as phrygian.

I don't understand what you're trying to argue. Do you not have a premise anymore, just arguing?

I know that the scale that fits the IIIm7 has the same notes as the Phrygian scale, but to me it is a coicidence only. It is the same as saying that the C major and A minor scales are the same because they have the same notes. How are they the same?

[Jimmy Smith]

The diatonic scale to the 3rd degree of major is phrygian, but it's not phrygian. Got it.

[rpjazzguitar]

The white keys are seven different modes.

If you want to hear phrygian, get a low droning E cemented into your ears and then play the white keys starting on E and don't omit the F. It always sounds to me like flamenco. There are other ways to play around with it, but this one has always struck me as basic.

[Jimmy Smith]

The white keys are seven different modes.

[Mick-7]

On the other hand, a truly modal chord forces you to play only one scale over it. The chord that best represents the Phrygian mode is the sub9 since you "can't" play any other scale choice.

Never sure about chord names, is a Esus7b9 = EADF? (no point in calling it minor if it's suspended)

If so, there are a few scales that could be played over it (depending on whether the 5th of the chord is included), D melodic & harmonic minor, A harmonic minor... and others.

P.S. - I think it's silly to talk about "phrygian chords." The question to ask is: What is the chords function in a progression? That will tell you how to improvise with/over it.

[rodolfoguitarra]

Never sure about chord names, is a Esus7b9 = EADF? (no point in calling it minor if it's suspended)

If so, there are a few scales that could be played over it (depending on whether the 5th of the chord is included), D melodic & harmonic minor, A harmonic minor... and others.

P.S. - I think it's silly to talk about "phrygian chords." The question to ask is: What is the chords function in a progression? That will tell you how to improvise with/over it.

Yes, you could play other scales, but I'm talking about what would commonly be played.

[rodolfoguitarra]

[ragman1]

To go back to page one :-)

that minor 7th chord never sounded phrygian, like, for instance, a susb9 chord.

Obviously a m7 doesn't sound Phrygian because it isn't. However, the Phrygian chord - susb9 - is derived from a minor chord. Normally the b9 sound over a m7 is avoided but if the 3rd of the m7 is raised then it becomes a sus chord which is neither major or minor. Then the b9 can be added happily.

The resulting susb9 can therefore be substituted for both the ii and the V in a ii-V-I progression.

As for whether this is modal or functional, I'd say substituting in a ii-V-I is more functional than modal. Using the Dorian, Mixolydian and Ionian modes isn't considered 'modal' so neither should using the Phrygian over the susb9.