A very basic question about modal transposition

[jancivil]

A lot of what is being said here relates to classical and church theory. Modes were more used in folk music and not used in classical music.

Indian classical music is, as far as the western musician is concerned to denote, modal. These modes fmr says are 'misconceptions' because they conflict with first of all ancient greek writings and second of all a particular concept of medieval terminology and practice, have corresponding objects for instance in ICM. The 'book' there for Hindustani music was actually formulated relatively recently and does not escape western influence; eg., the Bilaval Thaat corresponds with Ionian Mode. Qua :modal:, ie., absent certain connotations of and outside conventions of harmonic practice or *tonality*.

At a time during the 19th century, some musicians began to look to antiquity and to the East to escape conventionality and obtain some new effects. One of these involved taking a mode qua :modal:. Not necessarily per the Liturgical music.

Along comes Jazz and harmony, modern harmony, changes.

Jazz harmony is a certain treatment of and attitude towards pretty typical principles of harmony rather than anything very new (in the area of 'modern', cats were just catching up to Debussy in the 1960's. Satie was planing fourths 70 years before McCoy Tyner.).

Modern jazz was initially about obtaining new effects per Tin Pan Alley and/or Broadway Show Tunes. One played these tunes in order to gig. The lingo of modes rather entered the picture following modal jazz, which actually sought relief from this approach, of tonal harmony 'jazzed up'. ii-V-I was approaching a cul de sac. Miles et al did just what Debussy et al did the previous century, looked to the east and :modal:.

In Jazz modes relate to chords and chords relate to modes, for example,

C Major - C major 7
D Doruian - D Minor 7
E Phrygian - E minor 7 flat 9
F Lydian - F Major 7 augmented 4
G Mixolydian - G Dominant 7
A Aeolian - A Minor 7 flat 6
B Locrian - B half diminished 7

Look, if it helps someone starting out as a kind of mnemonic, to remember the correspondence of intervals, chord:scale, all well and good to take 'E Phrygian' out of its context to notice there is eg., a coloristic 'flat 9' in it, F per E (That's not a good example as that's going to be rare at best, m7-9.).

But if you're doing Dm7, G7 as ii V, there is a target implied. Basically C, or I. So when one gets further along with the thinking, one simplifies (or vacates) this verbalization of things. Calling something D dorian, now G mixolydian, when there is clearly C Major as the key at the time involves non-essential, unnecessary names for what really is nothing more than a C major scale to consider. I think that if you have all of this lingo in your head trying to improvise you're in your own way. We are most aware of where we're going - targets, plot points - and how to create momentum/drive, and be interesting/colorful doing that, in this harmonic type of action.

[chordprogression7]

As a very basic question :

- when you say about a scale "B Locrian" for instance, does it mean in fact "the Locrian mode or C major" ...or not ?

I suppose you mean -of-

Yes. Although it is more useful to forgo any relationship whatever with C major or whatever else, and simply refer the mind to a locrian scale with a B root.

The most important thing about a scale it's the root and the structure of the scale. All else is relative. The truth is that I could write a piece in B locrian and never musically refer to the key of C major. I might jump from B locrian to wherever else I want, and avoid C major entirely. Therefore it's useless to think of C major when what I am really playing is B locrian.

The relationship to C major might be helpful to understand the structure of B locrian, as a way to get acquainted with B locrian, since it has a stranger sound, due to the fact that it's fifth is diminished (the so-called diabulus in musica).

But soon you'll have to think of locrian as an entirely independent key in it's own right, although it could be related to C major or whatever else if you know how.

In other words, don't look at locrian as a 'subordinate' of major, look at locrian as locrian, a sound within it's own domain that is completely different to major. A good way to do that is to practice by choosing a random root and playing locrian. Then you will see that it's supposed relationship with C major is in fact as weak as you want it to be, because in reality this mode sounds completely different from major.

[fmr]

As a very basic question :

- when you say about a scale "B Locrian" for instance, does it mean in fact "the Locrian mode or C major" ...or not ?

I suppose you mean -of-

Yes. Although it is more useful to forgo any relationship whatever with C major or whatever else, and simply refer the mind to a locrian scale with a B root.

The most important thing about a scale it's the root and the structure of the scale. All else is relative. The truth is that I could write a piece in B locrian and never musically refer to the key of C major. I might jump from B locrian to wherever else I want, and avoid C major entirely. Therefore it's useless to think of C major when what I am really playing is B locrian.

The relationship to C major might be helpful to understand the structure of B locrian, as a way to get acquainted with B locrian, since it has a stranger sound, due to the fact that it's fifth is diminished (the so-called diabulus in musica).

But soon you'll have to think of locrian as an entirely independent key in it's own right, although it could be related to C major or whatever else if you know how.

In other words, don't look at locrian as a 'subordinate' of major, look at locrian as locrian, a sound within it's own domain that is completely different to major. A good way to do that is to practice by choosing a random root and playing locrian. Then you will see that it's supposed relationship with C major is in fact as weak as you want it to be, because in reality this mode sounds completely different from major.

chordprogression7 is right. If you think in terms of C Major, you'll never have B Locrian. If you think of it as a different entity (although not so different, as a matter of fact) you may have something different. What you have to do is think about the polar notes. In C Major, you have C, G, E, and maybe F (and B as a leading tone). In B Locrian, you have B, as the final or rest note, G as the recitative tone (you may think of it as the dominant note of the mode, if it helps you), and D as the mean note. And you have NO leading tone. Try, for example, to develop the melody going from B to G, floating around G, maybe evolving from there to D. You'll eventually feel like you are playing a G Major chord, which, as I said, don't take you so much apart from C Major.

However (and this is a BIG however) if you think of the same group of notes not as B Locrian, but as the Hypophrygian mode (which you can), then you'll be in a completely new universe, where the start note would be B, the final note would be E, abd the recitative note (the one that can be looked at as dominant note) would be A (above). This can modulate easily to the Phrygian mode (probably my favorite), which is a very peculiar and particularly melodic mode.

Just my 2 cents.