Functional Tonal vs Modal Harmony and Berklee greek names

[Tal_175]

Modal names for chords within functional progressions is a natural result of the parallel view of chords.
Check out Advancing Guitarist p.65 for an example.

Barry Harris scale applications to standards were very much a similar concept except he didn't use the same names and he merged some if the chords with the same function under the same chord.

[pamosmusic]

Can you please explain it?

You will undoubtedly regret this

[pamosmusic]

I would like to hear from you guys your arguments in favor of modal nomeclature in functional harmony, maybe I will change my point of view.

I think most folks commenting on the thread don’t favor modal nomenclature though?

The closest is Jimmy and, if I’m reading him correctly, he’s not even really saying he prefers it — just that he sees the utility.

So again … a bit confused about where the argument is here.

[Christian Miller]

You will undoubtedly regret this

Oh yes he will

Tbf I found functional theory EXTREMELY useful for understanding changes. Im glad I learned it.

There’s two sides as I see it
1) how harmonies move
2) what you can stack on a chord

1) is addressed by functional harmony, 2) by CST. They may or may not be the only or even best to look at things, but they both address those areas well for jazz.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmy Smith]

I would like to hear from you guys your arguments in favor of modal nomeclature in functional harmony, maybe I will change my point of view.

I think most folks commenting on the thread don’t favor modal nomenclature though?

The closest is Jimmy and, if I’m reading him correctly, he’s not even really saying he prefers it — just that he sees the utility.

So again … a bit confused about where the argument is here.

I don't use modal nomenclature. I just use devices however I want within tonal harmony. Which includes trying different scales like phrygian over chords.

Obviously, the more notes the chord has, the fewer options there would be, but what is clear is that a susb9 is not a functional III chord.

It's just an example. Just as susb9 truly represents the Phrygian, minor 7(13) truly represents the Dorian.

The minor 7th chord does not represent any of these modes.

Wtf is your premise or question?

[rpjazzguitar]

All Of Me in Cmaj.

C is the starting tonal center, underlying a Cmaj chord.

Next chord is E7. If you're still thinking C tonal center, you might adjust the G and make it a G#.

All you're doing is recognizing the tonal center and adjusting a chord tone you might not like to make it one more consonant.

A7 is next. Now you might adjust the C and make it a C# Otherwise you could still think of it as being in C tonal center. Or maybe you'd like to make the F an F#.

Next tune. So What. Now you're in Dm tonal center.

[rodolfoguitarra]

Wtf is your premise or question?

Again I will have to explain to you for the thousandth time.

Knowing that tonal harmony had already been established and theorized for many years, why use modal names when referring to each degree of the scale? What is the advantage? If for centuries it was not needed by thousands of great musicians, why do we need it now?

[rodolfoguitarra]

To mention a few respectable names who agree with me: Bert Ligon, Nelson Faria, Tom Quayle (the ones I remember right now)

[GuyBoden]

Wrongly or rightly, Modally, I was taught this:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(From my old notes)

Notice how the note "F" the 2nd note of E Phrygian Mode 3 creates a lot of tension. It's important to remember that the 2nd note of Phrygian Mode is the mode's character note, which distinguishes it's sound.

Hear the tension that a Chord creates when it contains the 2nd note of the scale, note "F".

Notice how the note "F" the 6th note of A Aeolian Mode 6 creates a lot of tension. It's important to remember that the 6th note of Aeolian Mode 6 is the mode's character note, which distinguishes it's sound.

Hear the tension that a Chord creates when it contains the 6th note of the scale, note "F".

Notice how the note "B" the 6th note of D Dorian Mode 2 creates a lot of tension. It's important to remember that the 6th note of Dorian Mode 2 is the mode's character note, which distinguishes it's sound.

Notice how the note "F", the 7th note of G Mixolydian Mode 5, creates a lot of tension. It's important to remember that the 7th note of Mixolydian Mode 5 is the mode's character note, which distinguishes this mode's sound.

Notice how the note "B", the 4th note of F Lydian Mode 4, creates a lot of tension. It's important to remember that the 4th note of Lydian Mode is the mode's character note, which distinguishes this mode's sound.

The Ionian scale is rarely used in modern Modal Harmony, due to it's strong use in Functional Harmony, that's harmony built in thirds with strong cadences pulling towards the tonic chord. (Functional harmony is the basic music theory taught all over the western world.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have also been taught this way. The avoid notes in functional actually are essential tones in modal (check Modal Jazz 1 by Ron Miller)

I've posted decades ago on all this BS.... but

You sound like you understand traditional Functional Harmony.
Modal Functional harmony works with use of the CP (Characteristic pitch(s).

Ionian...Nat.4th
Dorian...Nat. 6th
Phrygian...b2
Lydian... #4th
Mixo...b7th
Aeo...b6th
Locrian...b5

Locrian is complicated...

Function can be controlled with use of CP as Tonic or Dominant, typically dominant.

Maj/min or traditional functional music is organized with Ionian as the reference. We tend to use the term "modal" in traditional functional music as just starting on a different scale degree Ionian.... But still use the Functional organization of Ionian.

This is very basic, like the starting point... There are many more doors, or references for expanding Traditional functional organization. Maj/Min Functional musical organization.

The concepts have expanded and evolved... and still is.

Modal can be ... how notes react to each other and which notes.... control the movement, Have the Power...LOL

Maybe think of it as...modal nomenclature in functional harmony ...with different references for controlling Harmonic Movement.

I use both approaches all the time.... composing, arranging and playing. Like all the time.

Back in the late 60's and early 70's.... Berklee grads and their BS started spreading around the world... and we all have our understandings LOL... anyway we somewhat took over most non traditional Music programs... Generally because we actually played Jazz and developed the terminology after the fact.

Sorry if I didn't answer your ?'s.... Feel free to ask details
Reg

These three posts seem to agree and are describing Jazz Modal Harmony.

[Tal_175]

Again I will have to explain to you for the thousandth time.

Knowing that tonal harmony had already been established and theorized for many years, why use modal names when referring to each degree of the scale? What is the advantage? If for centuries it was not needed by thousands of great musicians, why do we need it now?

Again for the thousandth time, modal names provide a parallel view (oriented to the root of the chord). Again check out Advancing Guitarist among many other sources like Berkee Book of Harmony or Mark Levine's book.

It provides:
o An organization for construction of chord voicings.
o An organization for scale options over chords.
o An organization for playing the changes.

If you prefer the derivative view, you can dispense with the chord centric names but many jazz musicians intuitively discover a version of it and find it useful. Even musicians like Joe Pass or Barry Harris who don't use the modal names, clearly employed the parallel view lot of the time. Barry Harris called the Mixolydian mode the dominant scale for example. Why did he do that when discussing functional tunes? Isn't it the same as the tonic major scale? Well there is a point.

Also not every standard is Autumn Leaves, many use expanded diatonic harmony even though they stay within the key which makes the derivative view more difficult.

[rodolfoguitarra]

Again for the thousandth time, modal names provide a parallel view (oriented to the root of the chord). Again check out Advancing Guitarist among many other sources like Berkee Book of Harmony or Mark Levine's book.

I agree in parts, it is true that in the classical world the notes are analyzed based on the tone and not parallel from each the chord.
I know all this material and I have read it many times.I have also been taught this way.

It provides:
o An organization for construction of chord voicings.
o An organization for scale options over chords.
o An organization for playing the changes.

I understand that it is a way of organizing, however I do not see any advantage or need in reorganizing something that has already been taught a long time ago. If you pick up a book like Tonal Harmony: Kostka, Stefan, Payne, Dorothy you will understand tonal harmony perfectly, which notes would fit, etc without the need to use the modes. Tonal/functional harmony was already figured out long ago when Berklee invented this system. Nothing new.

[Tal_175]

I understand that it is a way of organizing, however I do not see any advantage or need in reorganizing something that has already been taught a long time ago. If you pick up a book like Tonal Harmony: Kostka, Stefan, Payne, Dorothy you will understand tonal harmony perfectly, which notes would fit, etc without the need to use the modes.

Those are descriptive sources of harmony where as the parallel view provides a more prescriptive view. One way is not objectively better than the other. Classical theory books help people develop a loosely matching mental model for music among other things. They are not specifically written for composers, performers, conductors etc. But jazz harmony systems are usually developed more pragmatically towards jazz musicians who are basically trained as arrangers. Comping, soloing, making variations, writing big band charts and expressing tunes within a stylistically defined setting.

I find the parallel view very useful. I don't care if people call them with their modal names or use any other nomenclature. That's not very interesting to me. The discussion is really the derivative view vs the parallel view in functional settings.

[ragman1]

Knowing that tonal harmony had already been established and theorized for many years, why use modal names when referring to each degree of the scale? What is the advantage? If for centuries it was not needed by thousands of great musicians, why do we need it now?

I don't know if we 'need' it now or not. What I do know is that people use it so it's as well to know what they're talking about. That simple, really.

[pamosmusic]

I agree in parts, it is true that in the classical world the notes are analyzed based on the tone and not parallel from each the chord.
I know all this material and I have read it many times.I have also been taught this way.




I understand that it is a way of organizing, however I do not see any advantage or need in reorganizing something that has already been taught a long time ago. If you pick up a book like Tonal Harmony: Kostka, Stefan, Payne, Dorothy you will understand tonal harmony perfectly, which notes would fit, etc without the need to use the modes. Tonal/functional harmony was already figured out long ago when Berklee invented this system. Nothing new.

I used Kostka Payne in my tonal harmony classes in college and that book most certainly does not teach everything you need to know to understand harmony in a jazz context. Why would it?

Chord scale theory is useful as a way of generating options that don’t really pop up organically in other systems.

Its not good at teaching you how to use them.

Tonal Harmony is good at teaching you how to use things but doesn’t really give you much in the way of options to use.

Again … you’re arguing with nothing here. Thinking in chord scales while you practice is very useful, but no one here has claimed that it is an accurate and complete description of what is happening in music. It’s a practice tool. Is that something you take issue with?

[pamosmusic]

Also cue Christian to tell you that Tonal Harmony a la Kostka Payne is a post facto description of organic voiceleading that really has nothing to do with Roman numeral analysis etc

[Christian Miller]

Also cue Christian to tell you that Tonal Harmony a la Kostka Payne is a post facto description of organic voiceleading that really has nothing to do with Roman numeral analysis etc

Kostka Payne's a new one on me?? Is it like Piston etc?

[Tal_175]

I agree in parts, it is true that in the classical world the notes are analyzed based on the tone and not parallel from each the chord.
I know all this material and I have read it many times.I have also been taught this way.

Even if you are playing a strictly diatonic tune (of which there aren't very many) wouldn't you employ the parallel view at times? So Suppose a tune is strictly diatonic and you're soloing using only the scale of the key (nothing chromatic), every note you play over every chord is then vertically gonna be a chord tone, an extension or a suspension. All good and wonderful. But even then, wouldn't you benefit from practicing with some awareness of these vertical relationships? Wouldn't practicing this way help you organize your ideas and train your ears in a more systematic way rather than throwing notes and see what comes out? Wouldn't it help you decompartmentalize chord voicings and linear ideas?

[Christian Miller]

As sidebar, when I did ATTYA with Barry I was quite surprised that he fit a chord scale to every chord. He called them different things but it was pretty much, F Aeolian, Bb Dorian, Eb Mixo etc

[pamosmusic]

Kostka Payne's a new one on me?? Is it like Piston etc?

It’s one of two or three standard issue harmony textbooks in the states.

Analyze chorales.

Chromatic mediants.

etc.

[Tal_175]

There are actually three ways to view a functional tune, not two. Parallel, derivative and the key signature view. In the third case (I made up the name but it intuitively exists), you view the diatonic expansion devices (like secondary dominants, modal interchange chords) with respect to the key as accidental notes. Suppose in the key of C, the secondary dominant E7b9b13 can be viewed as:

o E phrygian dominant: Parallel.
o A harmonic minor: Derivative
o Accidental G#: Key signature.

[Jimmy Smith]

Again I will have to explain to you for the thousandth time.

Knowing that tonal harmony had already been established and theorized for many years, why use modal names when referring to each degree of the scale? What is the advantage? If for centuries it was not needed by thousands of great musicians, why do we need it now?

I don't know, I don't do that. I go by the chord, then what scale you want to use is secondary. I guess it could be helpful in describing a tonality because there's a complete amount of notes.

I agree with you there. Unless you're saying it's unnecessary to associate scales with chords to help with the arrangement of notes per chord and the management of diatonic vs chromatic chromatic notes. You're not saying that right?

[pamosmusic]

I understand that it is a way of organizing, however I do not see any advantage or need in reorganizing something that has already been taught a long time ago. If you pick up a book like Tonal Harmony: Kostka, Stefan, Payne, Dorothy you will understand tonal harmony perfectly, which notes would fit, etc without the need to use the modes. Tonal/functional harmony was already figured out long ago when Berklee invented this system. Nothing new.

Im going to take Christian’s figured bass explanations and formulate it into a question:

If figured bass and species counterpoint and voiceleading had been figured out long ago when theorists invented Roman numeral analysis like we learn in Kostka/Payne, then what exactly was the point of that change? Why is it special? What does it give us that the old system didn’t?

Why is this change any more inherently complete than other ways of looking at harmony that came later?

[rodolfoguitarra]

Even if you are playing a strictly diatonic tune (of which there aren't very many) wouldn't you employ the parallel view at times? So Suppose a tune is strictly diatonic and you're soloing using only the scale of the key (nothing chromatic), every note you play over every chord is then vertically gonna be a chord tone, an extension or a suspension. All good and wonderful. But even then, wouldn't you benefit from practicing with some awareness of these vertical relationships? Wouldn't practicing this way help you organize your ideas and train your ears in a more systematic way rather than throwing notes and see what comes out? Wouldn't it help you decompartmentalize chord voicings and linear ideas?

Yes, of course, I use the parallel approach most of time. If I'm playing over the Vim7 (for instance) I will normally play 1,2,b3,4,5,b6,b7, where 1,b3,5,b7 are basic chord tones, 9 and 11 could be used to make the chord more colorful as tensions. b13 would obscure the chord function. I don't need to think aeolian (it's counterproductive). It's the same thing when people say that the C major and A minor scales are the same because they have the same notes. Same notes but different meaning.

[Tal_175]

Yes, of course, I use the parallel approach most of time. If I'm playing over the Vim7 (for instance) I will normally play 1,2,b3,4,5,b6,b7, where 1,b3,5,b7 are basic chord tones, 9 and 11 could be used to make the chord more colorful as tensions. b13 would obscure the chord function. I don't need to think aeolian (it's counterproductive). It's the same thing when people say that the C major and A minor scales are the same because they have the same notes. Same notes but different meaning.

Oh dude, turns out you are a chord-scale junkie like me. You just don't like the Greek names (but then who does?).

[pamosmusic]

Yes, of course, I use the parallel approach most of time. If I'm playing over the Vim7 (for instance) I will normally play 1,2,b3,4,5,b6,b7, where 1,b3,5,b7 are basic chord tones, 9 and 11 could be used to make the chord more colorful as tensions. b13 would obscure the chord function. I don't need to think aeolian (it's counterproductive). It's the same thing when people say that the C major and A minor scales are the same because they have the same notes. Same notes but different meaning.

Its not clear to me how this process is different than all the things you’re saying are wrong.

You just don’t like the Greek mode names?