Welcome!
Just a few a ground rules first...

Promotion, advertising and link building is not permitted.

If you are keen to learn, get to grips with something with the willing help of one of the net's original musician forums
or possess a genuine willingness to contribute knowledge - you've come to the right place!

Register >

- Close -
Page 3 of 33 FirstFirst 1234513 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 481

Thread: Modes. Why is it so hard?

  1. #31
    Modbod UKRuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Funky Munky World
    Posts
    3,904
    WHOOOOAAAAAA!

    Great thread!

    I'm no expert 40mi but I wonder if this might help a little. And I could be completely wrong but it's helped me get my head round it a little. Heh hehhh.

    The attached is a little 2 chord progression in Em...

    Em Gmaj. The key is Eminor, it has nothing to do with aeolian mode except that the little melody I play, which is more or less identical over both chords is E aeolian over the Em and G Ionian over the G.

    This is what was being described earlier in the greensleeves example, the scale remains the same but for the sake of interpretation each chord change implies a different mode when the harmony is played over the top of it.

    But frankly If this little progression is in Em then I'm using the scale of Eminor it could be part of a different longer progression in Gmajor and then I would be using the scale of Gmajor but either way over each chord it would Ionian over the G and Aeolian over the E.

    The underlying question is why is it important to know that or to write a phrygian mode song. Why not come up with a nice progression you like and then write a nice spanishy sounding harmony to go over the top of it? It doesn't really matter that it's phrygian as long as it sounds like you want it to sound does it?

    And so I add another little ditty in over Emaj Fmaj7#11 with a, to me anyway, a spanishy sounding lead over the top and you know what? Christ knows what mode it is!!
    Attached Files Attached Files

  2. #32
    Modbod UKRuss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Funky Munky World
    Posts
    3,904
    Los B If you listen to this, I hope you fixed your right speaker, I swear i didnt pan it on purpose it just seems to have done it auto in the wav to mp3 conversion.

  3. #33
    Latin Wedding Band Los Boleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by UKRuss
    Los B If you listen to this, I hope you fixed your right speaker, I swear i didnt pan it on purpose it just seems to have done it auto in the wav to mp3 conversion.
    Thanks, You prompted me to finaly fix it.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    *Check our Live Videos Page!

  4. #34
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Minnesota
    Posts
    473
    I'd, kinda like to know if fortymile got what he was looking for out of this.-?
    If I understand correctly, fortymile was hoping to gain some 'tools' for composition.

    I'd like to try a, brief summary - for my own sake.

    FR: Major scale -
    Progressions based on modes other than Ionian, do not offer the strong cadence that establishes a tonal / key center. These progressions tend to be ambiguous and may take on a variety of 'flavors', depending upon the melody that's used with them.--( speaking in terms of strict 'diatonic' use, all within the scale) -- ?

    References made to using harmony from outside the scale / mode, have been offered for the purpose of 'strengthening' the cadence, (progression) in order to establish the tonal / key center.

    ----How am I doing so far --

    You 'guys' tired of this yet ?

    Thanks !
    Mike

  5. #35
    Latin Wedding Band Los Boleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by mjo
    FR: Major scale -
    Progressions based on modes other than Ionian, do not offer the strong cadence that establishes a tonal / key center. These progressions tend to be ambiguous and may take on a variety of 'flavors', depending upon the melody that's used with them.--( speaking in terms of strict 'diatonic' use, all within the scale) -- ?
    I don't understant FR:
    If you are speaking totally Diatonic, then progressions come from the scale. Either major or minor. Modes will reffer to the chords that you chose in the progression.

    Quote Originally Posted by mjo
    References made to using harmony from outside the scale / mode, have been offered for the purpose of 'strengthening' the cadence, (progression) in order to establish the tonal / key center.
    So far i believe that this thread has been kept completely diotonic.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    *Check our Live Videos Page!

  6. #36
    Registered User fortymile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    orlando, florida, usa
    Posts
    490
    ukruss,

    thank you, that was interesting to listen to. i do believe that i already i understand this aspect of modes. this is fairly straightforward.

    very long post coming up, then i quit.

    i'll tell you what this all comes down to. ever since i learned diatonic theory i've been searching for a framework for understanding how to make intelligent choices for unique and non-diaonic chords to add to the bag, for songwriting purposes. there's a guy (pollack) who took apart the beatles catalogue and found out that--although the band apparently didnt know it--they were using a novel harmonic system based on minor thirds. they'd found a way, subconsciously, to use unheard of key signatures involving questionable chords by transitioning their way to the really odd chords by (i guess) charting pathways based on minor thirds. which i guess to the ear sounds like a natural thing to do. i don't understand it--maybe it's like easing into a cold pool instead of jumping--i might be wrong about this entirely because i never understood what the guy was talking about. i really wish i did. (by the way his full analysis is available online. google search: pollack "notes on" beatles.)

    but you hear a band like the beatles, and sometimes radiohead, and there are these great non-diatonic chords coming in. and i don't enjoy reaching at random for chords to try out and having 40 percent of them fail outright and another 50 percent just not sounding that good. playing around like that for too long kind of ruins the flow. and sometimes you just start to wonder whats wrong with you...do you suck for not being able to just know what would work and what would be unique here? in order to feel like a good composer, personally, i have kind of developed a need to be able to find the weird, good chords at will. i want to be able to create surprise on the level of the chords alone. (the way i write, this will lead to the possibility for overlaying cool melodies after the progressions have been born. i don't write the melody alongside the progressions.) there's NOTHING like a great, often non-diatonic, chord change. and i'm not succeeding at this deliebrately yet. only accidentally. i thought understanding what modal progressions were could only help me. so far it looks like modal interchange is the only thing this thread has confirmed as being a real phenomenon.

    unfortunately (i guess?), in my mind, this leads to a logical problem. the fact that modal interchange is a real phenomenon also implies that there's such a thing as modal keys and modal harmony, otherwise how can you really say that Louie Louie takes its minor V chord from the mixolydian mode?

    i have to express again that for the purposes of this thread, i don't care what sounds good, or about melodies over chords . i am searching for some factual answers about harmonized scales (modes) and the possible (not official) ways of thinking about them. the step after that is determining which are the useful ways to think of them. but i think you first need to know the possible ways. the matter of what sounds good or bad is a different problem entirely.

    why cant you call this set of chords:

    Cmaj7, D7, Em7, F#m7b5, Gmaj7, Am7, Bm7

    the C Lydian Key Signature?

    yes, i guess that's the G major key signature. the D7 clearly points to the Gmajor chord as the I chord, even when G doesnt appear in the song. but if you treat the Cmaj7 chord as I, and maybe even write a melody to reinforce that perception, and steadfastly avoid the G maj chord in your song, its gonna sound like C lydian, no?

    here...if you just look at modes as pure scales no different from other pure scales:

    if the harmonic minor scale is a scale and IT has its own unique harmonization which you can use to compose with, and if modes are ALSO scales with different whole/half step formulas than the major scale, then logic commands that the modes have thier own harmonization as well. it seems like the problem is that there's no REASON to say that they posess this, because you can just push the whole problem back into the major key. you can say 'yeah, but these chords belong to G major' or whatever. whereas that option is not open to you with harmonic minor because harmonizing it produces chords not found in the major key at all. but the major key is just a convention, right? the western harmonic system--our preference for major and minor keys--is just a consensus opinion, no? why always relate Lydian mode back to Ionian mode? what would it be like if, to our ears, the Lydian mode and NOT the ionian was what sounded most natural and pleasing, and from the lydian scale we derived the 7 modes and one of them turned out to be the Ionian mode? we would harmonize that mode and say, 'yeah but the chords that come out of C ionian, the 5th mode of F lydian, belong to the F lydian key signature, so forget it. just forget it. that harmonization is a re-organization of F lydian. "

    it just seems like a way of stripping the modes of the right to harmonize because we don't think those harmonizations resolve right or because they don't match our consensus of what sounds good. but if they're essentially just scales with unique spacings, how can they not have thier own harmonizations?

    but i'm looking at possible ways, not official ways of looking at this. and at the pure level of scales, if harmonic minor gets its own harmonization and it is a scale different from the major scale, then the modes must also get thier own harmonization because the modes are also scales that differ from the major scale. i think i'm hearing they can't. but that is a logical conundrum.
    "All bad poetry is sincere" -- Oscar Wilde

  7. #37
    Registered User fortymile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    orlando, florida, usa
    Posts
    490
    unless the V7 is the key. that chord, i know, is built up of a series of tensions on each note, and the sum of those tensions is to pull very strongly toward the I chord, which the ear them feels as restful.

    this fact suggests an unalterable chauvanism. that in any harmonization containing a V7, there is no real way to have a chord other than the "real" I chord act as the I chord.

    if this is generally true, then while those modes may all have harmonizations that are uniquely their own, many of them will be useless for composing, because the V7 commands us to hear the resolution at "the real" I.
    "All bad poetry is sincere" -- Oscar Wilde

  8. #38
    Latin Wedding Band Los Boleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by fortymile
    All that is in Red is added by Los Boleros ukruss,

    thank you, that was interesting to listen to. i do believe that i already i understand this aspect of modes. this is fairly straightforward.

    very long post coming up, then i quit. never say die

    i'll tell you what this all comes down to. ever since i learned diatonic theory i've been searching for a framework for understanding how to make intelligent choices for unique and non-diaonic chords to add to the bag, for songwriting purposes. there's a guy (pollack) who took apart the beatles catalogue and found out that--although the band apparently didnt know it--they were using a novel harmonic system based on minor thirds. they'd found a way, subconsciously, to use unheard of key signatures involving questionable chords by transitioning their way to the really odd chords by (i guess) charting pathways based on minor thirds. which i guess to the ear sounds like a natural thing to do. i don't understand it--maybe it's like easing into a cold pool instead of jumping--i might be wrong about this entirely because i never understood what the guy was talking about. i really wish i did. (by the way his full analysis is available online. google search: pollack "notes on" beatles.)

    but you hear a band like the beatles, and sometimes radiohead, and there are these great non-diatonic chords coming in. you can come up with kool music by just using diatonic progressions then altering some of the chords to fit a peculiar melody. Then throw in a key change here and there. There is no proff out there that the Beatles did anything different than that. On the subject of composition, the Beatles were just Damm good at itand i don't enjoy reaching at random for chords to try out and having 40 percent of them fail outright and another 50 percent just not sounding that good. playing around like that for too long kind of ruins the flow. and sometimes you just start to wonder whats wrong with you...do you suck for not being able to just know what would work and what would be unique here? in order to feel like a good composer, personally, i have kind of developed a need to be able to find the weird, good chords at will. i want to be able to create surprise on the level of the chords alone. (the way i write, this will lead to the possibility for overlaying cool melodies after the progressions have been born. i don't write the melody alongside the progressions.) there's NOTHING like a great, often non-diatonic, chord change. and i'm not succeeding at this deliebrately yet. only accidentally. i thought understanding what modal progressions were could only help me. so far it looks like modal interchange is the only thing this thread has confirmed as being a real phenomenon. Modal interchange would probably interest you I can see that

    unfortunately (i guess?), in my mind, this leads to a logical problem. the fact that modal interchange is a real phenomenon also implies that there's such a thing as modal keys and modal harmony, otherwise how can you really say that Louie Louie takes its minor V chord from the mixolydian mode? Or the endless number of songs in Dorian mode. Yes Modal interchange will probably be your next venture. But before jumping in you need to accept some of the basic theories explained here.

    i have to express again that for the purposes of this thread, i don't care what sounds good, or about melodies over chords .Tht's really a shame. Melody has been around alot longer than Chord progressions. Alot of songs that hae the kool non-diatonic chord progressions would really sound empty with-out the kool melody to tie them together i am searching for some factual answers about harmonized scales (modes) and the possible (not official) ways of thinking about them. the step after that is determining which are the useful ways to think of them. but i think you first need to know the possible ways. the matter of what sounds good or bad is a different problem entirely.

    why cant you call this set of chords:

    Cmaj7, D7, Em7, F#m7b5, Gmaj7, Am7, Bm7

    the C Lydian Key Signature? If you look up the definition of Key signature,"The sharps and flats placed at the begining of a musical staff, immediately after the clef sign, to indicate what KEY the music is in."

    yes, i guess that's the G major key signature. the D7 clearly points to the Gmajor chord as the I chord, even when G doesnt appear in the song. but if you treat the Cmaj7 chord as I, and maybe even write a melody to reinforce that perception, and steadfastly avoid the G maj chord in your song, its gonna sound like C lydian, no?

    here...if you just look at modes as pure scales no different from other pure scales:

    if the harmonic minor scale is a scale and IT has its own unique harmonization which you can use to compose with, and if modes are ALSO scales with different whole/half step formulas than the major scale, then logic commands that the modes have thier own harmonization as well. not really, Harmonic minor is for melodies that work over a few chord types but that is really it. it seems like the problem is that there's no REASON to say that they posess this, because you can just push the whole problem back into the major key. you can say 'yeah, but these chords belong to G major' or whatever. whereas that option is not open to you with harmonic minor because harmonizing it produces chords not found in the major key at all. but the major key is just a convention, right? the western harmonic system--our preference for major and minor keys--is just a consensus opinion, no? Actually the reason we have been using the Equal Temprament system since the 1800's is that by dividing the octave into 12 equal parts, you can have twelve different key signatures that can each be used equally. In other words Playing in A major is the same as playing in E major, only the pitch is different. In one of the earlier systems, the Mean Tone System, only keys with fewer than three sharps or flats could be used. Then there was the Pythagorean System which all the other intervals were based on a singe one, the perfect fifth. It did not work well with enharmonic tones. The Equal Tempered System has it's flaws though, All of its intervals, except for the octave are slightly imperfect.why always relate Lydian mode back to Ionian mode? We don't do that. We relate it to the major or minor scale in which Key it is in. We don't relate a mode back to another mode. Remember that modes are but just the subdivisions of a natural scale.what would it be like if, to our ears, the Lydian mode and NOT the ionian was what sounded most natural and pleasing, and from the lydian scale we derived the 7 modes and one of them turned out to be the Ionian mode? we would harmonize that mode and say, 'yeah but the chords that come out of C ionian, C Major the 5th mode of F lydian, belong to the F lydian key signature, so forget it. just forget it. that harmonization is a re-organization of F lydian. "

    it just seems like a way of stripping the modes of the right to harmonize because we don't think those harmonizations resolve right or because they don't match our consensus of what sounds good. but if they're essentially just scales with unique spacings, how can they not have thier own harmonizations?But they are not unique. All the chords found in Lydian are also found in Ionian, mixolidian, Locrian etc.. Ultimately the Major/minor scale.

    but i'm looking at possible ways, not official ways of looking at this. and at the pure level of scales, if harmonic minor gets its own harmonization and it is a scale different from the major scale, usually because of a modified chord in the progression and usually the Dominant Chord. then the modes must also get thier own harmonization because the modes are also scales that differ from the major scale. i think i'm hearing they can't. but that is a logical conundrum.It's definately not an efficient way to look at it. I mean why Learn the seven chords for seven modes (49 chords in seven sets of duplicate) when you can just learn the seven chords for one key
    ....
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    *Check our Live Videos Page!

  9. #39
    Latin Wedding Band Los Boleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by fortymile
    unless the V7 is the key. that chord, i know, is built up of a series of tensions on each note, and the sum of those tensions is to pull very strongly toward the I chord, which the ear them feels as restful.

    this fact suggests an unalterable chauvanism. that in any harmonization containing a V7, there is no real way to have a chord other than the "real" I chord act as the I chord.Actually there is a way and it happens all the time. This is the case with Secondary Dominants

    if this is generally true, then while those modes may all have harmonizations that are uniquely their own, many of them will be useless for composing, because the V7 commands us to hear the resolution at "the real" I.
    I suggest you read the first few posts in Secondary Dominants closely. If you want some real examples after that just PM me and I will show you some. This is unrelated to this thread.
    Last edited by Los Boleros; 12-07-2004 at 03:37 AM.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    *Check our Live Videos Page!

  10. #40
    Latin Wedding Band Los Boleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,762

    A quote from Auggie Doggie again to shed some light.

    Originally posted by Auggie Doggie


    The learning order of theory should be similar to that of language; you start speaking by imitation...first just sounds (words), then simple sentences, then you learn the alphabet, and how to read (which has a hierarchy of its own), parts of speech, sentence/paragraph construction, how to write, etc. The end result being you can understand what someone else is saying when they write and/or speak, and you are able to express yourself clearly in written and spoken form.

    A big roadblock for many self-taught guitarists is that they dive right into the syntax/parts of speech stuff from the start, treating them as though they exist in a vacuum. It has been my experience (as a musician, a student, and a teacher) that the vast majority of all things 'music' are learned by doing, and that the learning occurs primarily on a subconscious level. At some point, your ear just 'gets it'...when that happens, learning the terminology and reasoning behind it is often a piece of cake! The concepts themselves, although they seem to be concrete in written form, are completely abstract; they don't become 'real' until they come alive through the listening (not just hearing, but listening) and performance of music.

    When other instrumentalists study music, they always do so through music itself! Technique is developed through melodic etudes, not purely physical exercise. Melodic concepts are learned through melodies. Harmonic concepts are learned through music with a strong, clear-cut harmonic foundation. Music first...explanation later. If you ask a pianist to play you something, they usually can. Same goes for a flautist, or a cellist, etc. Their studies are based on repertoire...outside of playing the guitar part from their favorite songs, not many guitarists HAVE a repertoire. Therein lies the problem---guitarists are learning the elements of music in a veritable vacuum, and end up with a disjointed, incomplete, and un-holistic understanding of music.

    For someone to develop a sense of rhythm, they have to live it, breathe it, listen to it, feel it, and do it. If you want to develop a sense of 'melody', then listen to and play as many melodies as you can....learn them on an instrument or sing them...eventually you will 'get' it. Melody is the holy grail of soloing, not scales or licks. While 'melody' is a broad topic with many connotations and side issues, it is (in and of itself) vague and abstract. You can't draw a picture of it...you can't really describe it...all you can do is experience it, over and over, until your brain connects the dots, flips a switch, and says 'A-HA! Melody!!!! I get it now!!!!!'

    So, to more directly respond, a guitarist should learn:

    all 12 notes and their various names, and how to read them in (gasp!) standard notation (it's not that hard!!!).

    intervals up to the 13th

    how to construct a major scale from one of those notes, and how to number them (1-7, takes 2 seconds )

    how to derive harmonies (triads) from that scale | harmonic vs nonharmonic tones

    the functions of those chords & the concept of tension/resolution...and eventually 'chord progressions'

    how to derive the minor scale from the major scale...its harmonies (and thus its 3 scale forms)...etc


    At this point, the basic grammar and vocabulary of music should be understood. This is the foundation, nothing more, nothing less. Beyond this point, pretty much everything (aside from rhythm) relates back to that foundation, or is at least defined in terms relative to it. But it's important that ALL theory-related things are learned in a context of music, both listening AND playing. That's the key to making all the theoretical stuff actually mean something. It's hard to do that when teaching yourself, especially since few learning materials are able to provide an accessible means of listening to real-world examples of all the concepts. Poparad is currently studying music in school (unless he graduated already); he's the VERY helpful type, and will probably read all this and be kind enough (hint hint ) to explain how they bridge theory, listening, and playing into a cohesive whole there.

    It's difficult to approximate the sequence of a formal musical education, especially with so many conflicting resources and philosophies. And there's a LOT of information to be learned, and even that varies greatly depending upon style and preference. However, as with any other subject, a solid understanding of the fundamentals is the key that opens all the other doors, which each lead to bigger, better, newer, older, and different things.

    Wow, can I possibly be more verbose? (apologies for the length of the post)
    .... Well written.
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    *Check our Live Videos Page!

  11. #41
    Registered User fortymile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    orlando, florida, usa
    Posts
    490
    you can come up with kool music by just using diatonic progressions then altering some of the chords to fit a peculiar melody. Then throw in a key change here and there. There is no proff out there that the Beatles did anything different than that.

    --->i know. this might ultimately be the best way, too, even though i get frustrated with missteps. the thing pollack showed was that there was ultimately a system to thier fooling around--the beatles just probably didn't know it.

    i don't care what sounds good, or about melodies over chords .Tht's really a shame. Melody has been around alot longer than Chord progressions. Alot of songs that hae the kool non-diatonic chord progressions would really sound empty with-out the kool melody to tie them together

    --->to explain why i said i dont care if it sounds good: this is a focused thought exercise, and those are one way to come to understanding. i only meant that for the purposes of discussion i don't care what sounds good, because that will bring in tons of "exceptions" and exceptions to the rule are for later. THATS the part where you experiment, and while it can come first, i like it to come second. this discussion is about discovering the absolutes, then later finding the exceptions through experiment. it can be done backwards, in the opposite order, but i find the weakness in that method is that it involves a long fallow period where you noodle and only slowly stumble upon discoveries. working in that way is quite labor-intensive and is made for people with great practice regimens and willpower. i.e. people unlike myself. for me, the excitement of a logical discovery leads me to try things. it comes bundled with its own initiative. to explain why i think you can sometimes find kool progressions without tinkering with melody (i think you're mostly right, but...) there are several ways to write songs, and starting with chord progressions is just my current way, suitable for my level of development. it works just fine for me. for example, smells like teen spirit is a weird chord progression which sounds just as cool without the melody. but yeah, i am also aware that some beatles progressions, for instance, are actually held together by the melody notes, and in those cases, the melody is the literal glue that makes an 'impossible' progression work. but for the purpose of this discussion, melody needs to be disregarded.

    If you look up the definition of Key signature,"The sharps and flats placed at the begining of a musical staff, immediately after the clef sign, to indicate what KEY the music is in."

    ---->
    yes, and what is a key? a particular ionian harmonization. this is an example of what i'm talking about. aren't you mistaking the language convention for the mechanics of the music? what you say is true, but it's true within the system of communication. it's a way of talking, a common decision we have all agreed to.

    not really, Harmonic minor is for melodies that work over a few chord types but that is really it.

    --->this doesnt address the point i made about the fact that both modes and the harmonic minor scale are scales with unique sequences of whole/half steps. a scale--any scale--can be harmonized, and whatever functional use the harmonization has or doesn't have, the harmonization still exists. and even if the harmonization belongs to a major/minor key, the order of the chords makes it unique (if not useful). again i am theorizing that the reason the modal harmonizations are mostly useless (as ive been learning in this thread) must have to do with the fact that many of them resolve in ways that don't sound final or restive. due, probably, from what i can gather, to certain harmonic tensions in the V7 chord that take aural precedence over whatever "factual" point i myself am trying to make/understand. it seems like you are again shuttling the problem over to 'what works.' i think you have such vast theory knowlege that your musical mind has evolved to the point where you just edit out the things that for one reason or another don't work. but it doesnt change the fact that these facts exist, though they may not be useful for anything. right? (and if they're real, i need to know it, or else understand why theyre wrong). i don't like the feeling of having these unresolved issues. it makes you feel like no matter how good what you're doing sounds, you don't have the full story. you never really feel like you know anything for sure, and that is a sucky feeling that eats into musical self-confidence. so i'm a big believer in thinking about complicated stuff like music theory till you hit your personal wall and have to acknowlege that you're missing a piece of information you need to make sense of something. then you guess what at that information is, and then you go get it. i can't get it, with modes, until this point is resolved, which is why i'm pushing it. i don't care if i'm wrong, i just need to see why mechanically (not linguistically/conventionally) it is wrong.

    why always relate Lydian mode back to Ionian mode? We don't do that. We relate it to the major or minor scale in which Key it is in. We don't relate a mode back to another mode. Remember that modes are but just the subdivisions of a natural scale

    --->but the ionian mode is the major scale. i changed the name to make a point about what you seem to be doing when you refuse to grant that modes have harmonizations that are their own, (in sequence only) no matter how useless they may prove to be. if you invert it and imagine for a second (thought experiment) that Lydian is what we decided was 'the base scale' and what we call 'a key' (imagine: instead of our familiar major key (ionian harmonization), western music evolved to consider the 'major key' to be the lydian harmonization, which everyone walked around thinking as the default musical key--those chords in that order, starting with two major chords and proceeding through lydian harmonization) then you can see that any given ionian mode, or "major scale," is just a derivation of our alternate universe "conventional key"--the lydian mode. do you see what i mean? it's just a convention that comes about because we think of ionian mode (major scale) as the one that the other modes come out of, but it didnt have to be that way.

    But they are not unique. All the chords found in Lydian are also found in Ionian, mixolidian, Locrian etc.. Ultimately the Major/minor scale.

    ---->of course. i know. but again, using the thought experiment, it didnt have to work out that way. the chords may not be unique, but the sequence is particular to the mode in question. that harmonization SEQUENCE is what makes me say that you should be able to think of lydian harmonization or locrian or whatever. even if they are functionally useless, the sequences physically exist and are tied to the modes. Doug says there is such a thing as a "modal key" so once and for all, what ARE they? is it something different from just these disarranged major key chords which i am referring to as modal harmonizations?

    usually because of a modified chord in the progression and usually the Dominant Chord

    ---> ok, but the harmonic minor harmonization must get its modified chord as the result of the scale, not the chord.

    It's definately not an efficient way to look at it. I mean why Learn the seven chords for seven modes (49 chords in seven sets of duplicate) when you can just learn the seven chords for one key

    --->believe me, i agree it's not efficient. this is not knowledge i am going to "use" it's just something i have to understand first. i never memorize anything more than i have to.

    sometimes in this thread i dont even understand what i am talking about anymore. the problem seemed pretty clear to me. well, at the least, it is somewhat comical, makes me look bad, and is something to occupy time with,
    Last edited by fortymile; 12-07-2004 at 09:21 PM.
    "All bad poetry is sincere" -- Oscar Wilde

  12. #42
    Registered User fortymile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    orlando, florida, usa
    Posts
    490
    i will try to be more brief in the future.
    "All bad poetry is sincere" -- Oscar Wilde

  13. #43
    Latin Wedding Band Los Boleros's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    San Francisco Bay Area
    Posts
    1,762
    Quote Originally Posted by fortymile
    i will try to be more brief in the future.
    It's Ok Really it is.

    You know Fortymile,
    I've been thinking about you and your quest and I thought of something that might be good for you. What about opening up a thread called,
    "Beatlesque Chord Progressions and why they work"
    Encourage people to submit simple yet interesting progressions that are not totally diatonic and why they think it works.

    What do you think about that?
    Hidden Content
    Hidden Content
    *Check our Live Videos Page!

  14. #44
    Registered User fortymile's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    orlando, florida, usa
    Posts
    490
    that is a good idea. i will do that
    "All bad poetry is sincere" -- Oscar Wilde

  15. #45
    some guy Doug McMullen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Brooklyn
    Posts
    165
    Hi 40mi --

    Chapter 6 of William Russo's Jazz Composition and Orchestration is called Harmonic Use of The Modes, and it goes into "modal chord progression" in some detail. I confess I errrr ummm errr, never eerrrr ummm got to *cough* chapter 6 when I "read" this book the first time (okay okay so I only read the first three chapters) but this whacky thread has me interested in reading chapter 6 now. I think it's got the info you are looking for.

    I STILL wholehearted maintain you would benefit from studying regular chord progressing thoroughly before going to modal chord progressions.

    You quote me as saying that "there are modal" keys. Well if you reread what I wrote, you'll see that I'm trying to get you to at least revisit your notions of what exactly is a key.

    Your last post here makes perfect sense to me by the way on all points but one... I think you understand what you understand quite well (not at all a given on internet boards I might add) except whenever the Harmonic minor scale is mentioned I feel like we're suddenly in a foreign language -- wha he say?

    If I get the chance I'll type out some of Russo's remarks about modal progressing so you get a feel for what he's saying and how he says it.

    Doug.

Similar Threads

  1. Modes (And This Time its Personal)
    By Metalliska in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: 10-27-2004, 12:27 PM
  2. modes, stuck in my craw
    By fortymile in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 07-01-2004, 01:41 PM
  3. Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-12-2003, 04:23 PM
  4. modes in melody
    By peter_traj in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 08-21-2003, 10:27 AM
  5. Modes?
    By JEM555 in forum Music Theory
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 10-27-2002, 11:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •