Functional Tonal vs Modal Harmony and Berklee greek names

[rpjazzguitar]

If I am understanding this correctly, you don't think about the chords when practicing or performing. You work on internalizing the form and the melody of the tune then you work on coming up with ideas that sound good. Is that right?

If I know the tune well enough to "feel" the changes, I don't think about anything but melody. Well, also about how to use the melody to make the solo build in intensity. This is the way that works best for me. Feel the tune and make melody.

If I don't know the tune that well, or I just can't feel the changes, then I try to think about melody, primarily, while remaining aware of the chord tones of each chord -- which is part of "clam-avoidance".

So, to the extent I can put it into words, it's something like this, for example. I imagine going to a stinging high note as a way of building a solo. Sometimes I'll know the exact note I want, but sometimes I don't. If the chord is, say, Am7, I'll be aware that my stinging high note can't be too dissonant against that chord. So, I might play A C E G or B rather than the other 7 notes. I generally know the chord tones in the chords I play - I mean, without thought.

The downside is that I can't really play anything that I can't already hear. I have made a choice to practice my melody-no-clam stuff more than trying to learn new sounds by theory.

Well, that explanation may be pretty inaccurate, but I don't know how to explain it any better.

[Tal_175]

So, to the extent I can put it into words, it's something like this, for example. I imagine going to a stinging high note as a way of building a solo. Sometimes I'll know the exact note I want, but sometimes I don't. If the chord is, say, Am7, I'll be aware that my stinging high note can't be too dissonant against that chord. So, I might play A C E G or B rather than the other 7 notes. I generally know the chord tones in the chords I play - I mean, without thought.

This is not too different than what I meant by being aware of vertical relationships. But it seems like this is more a secondary process for you when you work on a tune. I tend to focus on these vertical relationships first when I work on a tune (connecting scales, playing patterns, arpeggios etc) until the harmony gets into my ear.

[rpjazzguitar]

This is not too different than what I meant by being aware of vertical relationships. But it seems like this is more a secondary process for you when you work on a tune. I tend to focus on these vertical relationships first when I work on a tune (connecting scales, playing patterns, arpeggios etc) until the harmony gets into my ear.

Similar. My early attempts at playing a tune with unfamiliar harmony will focus on chord tones and what I think of as easy extensions. Others would refer to that as arps. I don't intentionally use many patterns, although I'm not recommending that everybody else should make the same tactical mistakes that I make. I am aware, often, of tonal center, which you might think of as scales.

When I work on trying to make my harmony less vanilla, I tend to think about the substitute chords I use in comping and play on them. Tritone, sideslipping, interchanging I iii V^7 vi or various things from melmin and whatever else I can scrounge up. Some basic stuff is in my playing but a lot of it is a distant dream.

[ragman1]

Mark Levine because someone asked me who said that III is Phrygian.

I'd want to see the context in which he said that. Do you have his book? Take a photo of the text.

[rodolfoguitarra]

I'd want to see the context in which he said that. Do you have his book? Take a photo of the text.

post #140

[ragman1]

post #140

No, rodolpho, that is not Mark Levine saying that the iii chord is Phrygian. Those chords are not the chords of C major as you know perfectly well.

Stop messing your mind up with this crap.

[frabarmus]

I don't mind the Greek names... but if they're hard to memorise or problematic for any other reason, why not simply call, for instance, Phrygian "major scale from third degree", Aeolian "major scale from sixth degree", Superlocrian " ascending melodic minor scale from seventh degree"... etc. etc.? Doesn't really matter how you call them. as long as you can play/apply them, I guess...

[ragman1]

Doesn't really matter how you call them. as long as you can play/apply them, I guess...

Exactly.

[Bobby Timmons]

Those chords are not the chords of C major as you know perfectly well.

The chords actually all do use diatonic notes. But the E and A aren't what are commonly used. Minor 7s are usually used. A-b6 isn't really a viable chord, because if you flat the 6, all it does is turn it into F major 7. Although b9 does work with a minor 7. I tried it, sounds fine. It just sounds murkier. It's also used in Corcovado.

Stop messing your mind up with this crap.

Yep. Really bizarre thinking. He seems to be saying that if there are chords that are associated with modal playing like the sus7b9, then it means a modal paradigm is being used in the tonal harmony chords. Which isn't true, you can use whatever chords you want in tonal harmony, it's called chromaticism.

He also doesn't understand that the harmonized major scale has chords built on each degree, and it also has modes associated with each chord. Modes are just built in 2nds instead of 3rds. Where does he think the modes came from? C major 7 ionian, D minor 7 dorian, E minor 7 phrygian etc. It doesn't mean you're playing modally.

[Christian Miller]

Nb - in standards the iii7 is most commonly used as a sub for I or Ib. You do quite often see the b6 added on top, in which case it tends to sound like a Imaj9 chord.

So yeah.

Otoh m7b6 is not an uncommon sight in modern charts - for example in the tune I’m looking at in this video Kurt Rosenwinkel ‘the cross’

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rodolfoguitarra]

He also doesn't understand that the harmonized major scale has chords built on each degree, and it also has modes associated with each chord.

Are you kidding me, right?

Where does he think the modes came from?

Since they are older than the major scale....they not came from there certainly.

[ragman1]

The chords actually all do use diatonic notes. But the E and A aren't what are commonly used. Minor 7s are usually used. A-b6 isn't really a viable chord, because if you flat the 6, all it does is turn it into F major 7. Although b9 does work with a minor 7. I tried it, sounds fine. It just sounds murkier. It's also used in Corcovado.

Yep. Really bizarre thinking. He seems to be saying that if there are chords that are associated with modal playing like the sus7b9, then it means a modal paradigm is being used in the tonal harmony chords. Which isn't true, you can use whatever chords you want in tonal harmony, it's called chromaticism.

He also doesn't understand that the harmonized major scale has chords built on each degree, and it also has modes associated with each chord. Modes are just built in 2nds instead of 3rds. Where does he think the modes came from? C major 7 ionian, D minor 7 dorian, E minor 7 phrygian etc. It doesn't mean you're playing modally.

Preachin' to the choir, Jimmy.

Actually, if chords are made by stacking 3rds then in C maj the iii is Em -> Em7 -> Em9. But Em9 is E G B D F# which you wouldn't play because of the F#.

I don't care about this stuff, I just don't play iii9 in a major key. I don't think I ever have either, it's just instinct or something.

[pamosmusic]

Are you kidding me, right?


Since they are older than the major scale....they not came from there certainly.

I mean …. Not really.

Or at least it’s complicated. The modes *as we understand them* are derived from the major scale and are understood as flowing from the major scale.

The names of the modes as they were applied centuries ago do not necessarily refer straightforwardly to the same thing they refer to now.

So this points again to your problem being just with the names we’re using — in which case—yet again—just don’t use them.

[ragman1]

rodolfo, have you ducked my post? Naughty, naughty :-)

[Bobby Timmons]

Are you kidding me, right?

No, I'm not kidding.

Since they are older than the major scale....they not came from there certainly.

Lol. Major is a mode - Ionian. The modes come from there. This is really basic stuff.

[Bobby Timmons]

Preachin' to the choir, Jimmy.

Actually, if chords are made by stacking 3rds then in C maj the iii is Em -> Em7 -> Em9. But Em9 is E G B D F# which you wouldn't play because of the F#.

I don't care about this stuff, I just don't play iii9 in a major key. I don't think I ever have either, it's just instinct or something.

Well it's the custom to 2-5 everything and treat a iii7 as a ii7 and play dorian over it. It's not customary to play the flat 9 over the iii9 even though it's diatonic. Although I tried it and I think it sounds fine so I'm going to start using it. Or the iii7 will be treated as a ii in minor - E-7b5 to A7 to D-7 etc. All different sounds that are useful. I can't stand 2-5ing everything and always dorian to mixolydianing everything so I'm goin to make use of all the options. Stupid guidelines like no flat 9 on a minor 7 chord also peeve me so I'm disregarding that.

[ragman1]

Well it's the custom to 2-5 everything and treat a iii7 as a ii7 and play dorian over it. It's not customary to play the flat 9 over the iii9 even though it's diatonic. Although I tried it and I think it sounds fine so I'm going to start using it. Or the iii7 will be treated as a ii in minor - E-7b5 to A7 to D-7 etc. All different sounds that are useful. I can't stand 2-5ing everything and always dorian to mixolydianing everything so I'm goin to make use of all the options. Stupid guidelines like no flat 9 on a minor 7 chord also peeve me so I'm disregarding that.

I rarely meet an Em7 except when it comes before A7 so I don't see it as the iii. There are other instances when it appears but I'm never tempted to treat it as the iii of D major because I don't use D major for jazz (yet).

The only time I get caught, or used to, is when I'm subbing Em for CM7. If I'm not careful I see it as an Em in its own right and start using F#'s over it. That's probably okay if it's quick. But what I was tempted to do was immediately see it as a m6 which is disastrous. Not only the F# but the C#. That's the big trap, that really is a wrong move over CM7.

So what I usually do these days is treat all my M7's as M7's, not anything else, thus bypassing the problem.

[pamosmusic]

Well it's the custom to 2-5 everything and treat a iii7 as a ii7 and play dorian over it.

I don’t think this is true at all. Unless it’s a guideline in a theory book somewhere. Either way, it definitely doesn’t hold up in what people actually play. It happens sometimes but honestly probably exception more than rule.

[JimmyDunlop]

I rarely meet an Em7 except when it comes before A7 so I don't see it as the iii. There are other instances when it appears but I'm never tempted to treat it as the iii of D major because I don't use D major for jazz (yet).

The only time I get caught, or used to, is when I'm subbing Em for CM7. If I'm not careful I see it as an Em in its own right and start using F#'s over it. That's probably okay if it's quick. But what I was tempted to do was immediately see it as a m6 which is disastrous. Not only the F# but the C#. That's the big trap, that really is a wrong move over CM7.

So what I usually do these days is treat all my M7's as M7's, not anything else, thus bypassing the problem.

Man you Talk about music trying to seem that you have some understanding, but reality proves the opposite. Just check your soundcloud man...This forum IS full off fake gurus. One guy come with a doubt and these guys with zero knowledge just Talk no sense confusing the guy instead of helping him.

Maybe this topic was discussed previously. I would like to hear your thoughts. I will tell you a little about my story.

When I first started, I learned the Berklee method. As you know, they relate the IIIm7 to phrygian mode, where the b2 and b6 would not be included in the chord voicing since they are avoided notes. This caused me some conflict because, to my ears, that minor 7th chord never sounded phrygian, like, for instance, a susb9 chord.

After years of research, I discovered that what I learned from Berklee dealt with functional harmony (at that time, I didn't even know that there could be another system like modal harmony). I discovered that in the modal system, the b2 is an essential tone on a true phygian chord. Also, there is no function; the phrygian chord would not be called IIIm7.

On both systems, the scale is the same, but they do not produce the same results. I have found out that many people have the same experience. I think that the Berklee method (associating functional harmony with church modes) in some way leads to misunderstanding.

PS: I found this podcast where the authors of The Berklee Book of Jazz Harmony talks about that:

90: Berklee Harmony - Interview With Joe Mulholland & Tom Hojnacki | Listen Notes (min: 29:20)

Now my question would be? Why are you so worried about that question? In what degree this nomenclature disturbs your playing? I really want to help you.

I would like to hear you playing to have an idea of what IS really happening.

[pamosmusic]

...This forum IS full off fake gurus. One guy come with a doubt and these guys with zero knowledge just Talk no sense confusing the guy instead of helping him.

As a certified fake guru, I feel it incumbent upon me to clarify that in this particular case HE confused US.

[Bobby Timmons]

I don’t think this is true at all. Unless it’s a guideline in a theory book somewhere. Either way, it definitely doesn’t hold up in what people actually play. It happens sometimes but honestly probably exception more than rule.

You must be joking. You think it's off base to say it's custom to play dorian over a minor 7 being treated like a 2 regardless of if it's the 2 of the key or not? For example, treating a 3-6 like a 2-5. I'm not presuming to say what is used proportionally across all jazz, just I'm pretty sure that's a common device. What exactly would be more common than dorian? Some chromatic approach on the minor arp? I know it's not phrygian! :P

Man... this forum IS full of fake gurus.

In the words of AA: Dunning-Kruger valley.

[pamosmusic]

You must be joking. You think it's off base to say it's custom to play dorian over a minor 7 being treated like a 2 regardless of if it's the 2 of the key or not? For example, treating a 3-6 like a 2-5. I'm not presuming to say what is used proportionally across all jazz, just I'm pretty sure that's a common device. What exactly would be more common than dorian? Some chromatic approach on the minor arp? I know it's not phrygian! :P

In the words of AA: Dunning-Kruger valley.

I wouldn't call it Phrygian ... but yes.

Playing it like a iii chord.

If I were going to play a iii VI like a ii-V, then it would be a ii-V of the ii ... which is to say it would be more like a minor ii-V than a major ii-V. b6 over the iii chord and b9 and b13 over the VI.

And for what it's worth, I didn't say no one ever plays a different m7 chord like it were a ii chord ... but it's certainly not "the custom."

Stylistically, it's very hard bop, I think.

[Bobby Timmons]

I didn't say "the custom", I said custom. Meaning a common device, but not necessarily the most common one.

[pamosmusic]

Well it's the custom to 2-5 everything and treat a iii7 as a ii7 and play dorian over it. It's not customary to play the flat 9 over the iii9 even though it's diatonic.

My bad, I suppose?

[Bobby Timmons]

My bad, I suppose?

Dang it. Well I agree.