Commonly Used Modal Scales and Chords in Electronic Music

[ghettosynth]

Modes are MELODIC material, not harmonic material. The person interested really in modes is looking for the character and feel they avail us of. The interest is in melody, chords isn't it.

The thing is, triadic harmony is a feature of tonality, but it doesn't work the same way (if at all) with modality. Typically, modal music uses very few chords.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. You need to get off your high horses and start doing your homework. I suggest reading Jeppesen, especially page 80.

Here is a short quote for you:

Every ecclesiastical mode actually has at its disposal many more
chordal possibilities than the major and minor scales. If we compare,
for example, the Dorian with D minor (the two having almost the same
scale) we see that the Dorian has two triads (D major and D minor)
on the first degree, whereas the D minor scale has only one. On the
second degree there are two possibilities available for the ecclesiastical
mode, but only one for the D minor scale.
...
As may be seen, we have in the Dorian no less than six pure triads — the
most valuable tonal combinations — which deviate from D minor: D
major, E minor, F major, G major, A minor, and C major.

Your complete lack of understanding of modal music is immediately apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Palestrina style and you are totally out of line lecturing the OP the way you have been doing. The only thing you have achieved in this thread is making yourselves look like arrogant idiots. YOU are the ones spreading misunderstandings and you need to just STFU and stop pretending you are music theory experts.

This precisely exemplifies why it's incorrect to assert that those with less knowledge than you should refrain from sharing their knowledge. From a theoretical point of view, we can impose a total order on those with knowledge of a given subject and consequently, that implies that only one person should be sharing knowledge. That is, there's always someone who knows more about a subject than anyone else in the world, or, as is practical, the limited shared subset of the world, in this case KVR. Practically, we can partition the set into equivalence classes by those who agree with each other with respect to a particular assertion.

So we are left with a binary proposition. Since both JumpingJackFlash and jancivil have asserted their belief that only those who "know" should be sharing, then they are obligated to either A) refute jof's assertions and claim their rightful position as top, or, B) apologize to the OP for acting in an "extremely irresponsible" fashion for distributing incorrect information on the interwebs.

So what's it going to be folks? A debate, or an apology?

[MfLI]

"Major" and "Minor" are, and particularly they are to JJF, imbued with context and that context is harmonic. Modes do not comport in that world. You decided that this little exercise of compiling a chord for each of seven steps as you have noticed from some place, is valid for modes. Maybe you saw this very 'Modal chords in EDM' on the internet and went yeah, that's the ticket.

Yes. Actually I did it just like that. Here are two articles I paid attention to:
What are modes?
Understanding modes

I think the made a nice introduction to us less experiensed musicians. Naturally not to ones with you knowledge regarding modes

Modes are MELODIC material, not harmonic material. The person interested really in modes is looking for the character and feel they avail us of. The interest is in melody, chords isn't it. You just went off half-cocked to show off something you believed you understood well enough to share. You don't.

Really?
I get other impressions:
Wikipedia: Chord Progressions: Minor and modal progressions

As of me posting this here... Seriously, who are you to say? You know, after reading these comments from you I have indeed come to be glad that I posted this opening.

The modes are pretty much obviated by treating them like this. You don't need a chord at all, the mode avails us of a whole rich thing through itself. By the character tones which we will identify them through. Aeolian is a minor quality, ie., third is minor, mode, with the seventh and sixth both minor. The term 'minor scale' brings a connotation of harmony. "Natural" minor historically has been one of three minor scales, the others being melodic (6 and 7 are raised in ascension, same as natural coming back down) and harmonic, where the 7 is raised mainly following the fact of the V chord of major quality as 'dominant' (6 remaining 'minor'). Now, that harmonic minor can be done as modal, so there is a sort of Venn overlap in terms; the usage is where we sort this out. "Minor" and "Major" demarcate an area where we expect harmonic practice to govern.

In EDM music, 'natural minor' in many cases is not going to be essentially different than 'Aeolian'; but should there be, vis a vis A Aeolian, an E major {V} chord, then we're in harmonic territory and 'Aeolian' has been vacated. As per 'Ionian' vs 'major', that major is wrapped up in 'V-I' essentially, so this B in C major is a leading tone and part of a dominant harmony, 'G B D F' for instance. Ionian as a mode isn't. EG: In Indian Classical Music the Bilaval thaat is the same intervallically as 'Ionian mode', and a raga might very well take that ^7 as a plateau or 'subdominant' and dwell there, and the prescribed move is to P5 and not 8.

Two or three chords which enhance the mode's character can be quite suitable. Again, chords with the tritone tension - in C, B/F - which we are entrained by tonal music to expect a resolution, are dodgy here. But again, I cannot overemphasize this, the notion of treating modes like tonal music is a mistake, there's no real call for it.

It's outright funny how much text with so little actually useful substance your kinds of besserwissers are capable of producing.

So, again, I challenge specifically (and don't continue with that "I owe you nothin" bull, but give some simple answers) you to straight out tell here what is wrong with the following chords to be used in an Aeolian A mode composition:

My understanding is that natural minor in A plays like:
A,B,C,D,E,F,G
and the chords are
The triads
i - Am (A,C,E)
ii* - Bdim (B,D,F)
III - Cmaj (C,E,G)
iv - Dm (D,F,A)
v - Em (E,G,B)
VI - FMaj (F,A,C)
VII - GMaj (G,B,D)
... ...
to respective sevenths, secondary dominants etc. all the way to suspended ones like
G7sus4 (G,C,D,F)

Now, if you had browsed this forum for your topic, which crops up with a certain frequency, you would have encountered this information, and a lot of discussion. But NOOOOOO. Now there is a problem we have to address, what you have is misleading and the opposite of helpful to the newb.
You compounded the faux pas in etiquette by assuming this dynamic with me, where I'm sure it can't have looked like I was looking to you for help, and I reacted. I stand by every word however.

Actually I think it was good for me NOT to read your kind of stuff here. I would have probably gotten the whole wrong idea about modal music making as some rigid method based process dictated by "I know it all" type of assholes.

Lucky me, now I still can think of it as a fun and intellectually liberal pastime. Further, coming from a Jazz -background (percussion, not melodic instruments) I like improvisation and am open to the occasional odd chord or methods used.

For you: Get some medication. It really looks to me you've got some pretty serious troubles inside your head.

[MfLI]

Modes are MELODIC material, not harmonic material. The person interested really in modes is looking for the character and feel they avail us of. The interest is in melody, chords isn't it.

The thing is, triadic harmony is a feature of tonality, but it doesn't work the same way (if at all) with modality. Typically, modal music uses very few chords.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. You need to get off your high horses and start doing your homework. I suggest reading Jeppesen, especially page 80.

Here is a short quote for you:

Every ecclesiastical mode actually has at its disposal many more
chordal possibilities than the major and minor scales. If we compare,
for example, the Dorian with D minor (the two having almost the same
scale) we see that the Dorian has two triads (D major and D minor)
on the first degree, whereas the D minor scale has only one. On the
second degree there are two possibilities available for the ecclesiastical
mode, but only one for the D minor scale.
...
As may be seen, we have in the Dorian no less than six pure triads — the
most valuable tonal combinations — which deviate from D minor: D
major, E minor, F major, G major, A minor, and C major.

Your complete lack of understanding of modal music is immediately apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Palestrina style and you are totally out of line lecturing the OP the way you have been doing. The only thing you have achieved in this thread is making yourselves look like arrogant idiots. YOU are the ones spreading misunderstandings and you need to just STFU and stop pretending you are music theory experts.

This precisely exemplifies why it's incorrect to assert that those with less knowledge than you should refrain from sharing their knowledge. From a theoretical point of view, we can impose a total order on those with knowledge of a given subject and consequently, that implies that only one person should be sharing knowledge. That is, there's always someone who knows more about a subject than anyone else in the world, or, as is practical, the limited shared subset of the world, in this case KVR. Practically, we can partition the set into equivalence classes by those who agree with each other with respect to a particular assertion.

So we are left with a binary proposition. Since both JumpingJackFlash and jancivil have asserted their belief that only those who "know" should be sharing, then they are obligated to either A) refute jof's assertions and claim their rightful position as top, or, B) apologize to the OP for acting in an "extremely irresponsible" fashion for distributing incorrect information on the interwebs.

So what's it going to be folks? A debate, or an apology?

Thank you so much. No apologies needed by "the guys" from my side Got all the answers I needed.

[JumpingJackFlash]

Your complete lack of understanding of modal music is immediately apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Palestrina style and you are totally out of line lecturing the OP the way you have been doing. The only thing you have achieved in this thread is making yourselves look like arrogant idiots. YOU are the ones spreading misunderstandings and you need to just STFU and stop pretending you are music theory experts.

I'll post some specific refutations later, but I had to respond to this first since it really made me laugh!

The ecclesiastical modes existed many centuries before Palestrina; people at the time did not think in terms of harmony; they did not "add chords" to a melody in the way that the OP describes, the idea was completely foreign to them. "Harmony" (in itself) only started to be introduced during the very end of the "modal era" at which point Tonality had already began to assert itself. As I said, it is possible to have harmony and modality, but you really need to know what you're doing.

You seem to have mistaken me for some kind of novice. I am not. By no means do I profess to know everything, but I have been doing this (as a professional) for many years. I am a fully qualified music teacher and author of music theory textbooks. I won't list all my achievements here, but it just happens that I'm starting a PhD in musicology in this very area! - So you see, I do know what I'm talking about in a way that the OP clearly does not.

It should also be noted that this is a "music theory" forum, not a production site for teenaged wannabe-DJs. Even if it was the latter however, it would not excuse the distribution of incorrect information.

[MfLI]

JJF, If so pro, why not start acting like one instead of this imho totally pointless shit stirring.

[stimresp]

What a disgusting and unnecessary baiting of a poster who was trying to be helpful.

What has happened to KVR? Some people here ought to be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

[ghettosynth]

So we are left with a binary proposition. Since both JumpingJackFlash and jancivil have asserted their belief that only those who "know" should be sharing, then they are obligated to either A) refute jof's assertions and claim their rightful position as top, or, B) apologize to the OP for acting in an "extremely irresponsible" fashion for distributing incorrect information on the interwebs.

So what's it going to be folks? A debate, or an apology?

Thank you so much. No apologies needed by "the guys" from my side Got all the answers I needed.

Sure mate, I didn't think that you actually cared about an apology, it's more about their arrogant assertions to others; if you wish, they owe the forum an apology for their "extremely irresponsible" actions.

The bottom line is that their intellectual integrity demands that they respond. I don't expect them to. I was serious, you'll get a better response in other forums on KVR. This particular forum has a particularly unfriendly character.

BTW: This guy has a series of videos that I'm quite sure some people here will object to the detail, but, I'd also bet money that this series of videos would be far more useful for many would be EDM producers than the kinds of responses that are common here.

https://www.youtube.com/user/Konnekta

[ghettosynth]

It should also be noted that this is a "music theory" forum, not a production site for teenaged wannabe-DJs. Even if it was the latter however, it would not excuse the distribution of incorrect information.

Indeed, but, the last I checked it isn't "your" music theory forum. Moreover, it doesn't make the kinds of responses that are so common here appropriate. Nor does it make your pejorative characterizations of people with different music backgrounds than you appropriate. People distribute incorrect information all the time, lighten up, it's not as important as you would hope for.

If dance music producers want to talk about how they use modes to produce music, they have every right to do so and they have every right to do so here. You don't have to respond to every thread with your heavy handed attitude.

There are many mailing lists for academics which are far more restrictive in their content if you're looking for a challenge and a place where moderation is more content focused.

[ariston]

What's getting lost in this funny shit storm of music theory and personal attacks is a very important point (that Jan also made):

people who get into music (especially computer music) with no formal training often underestimate the amount of practice needed to get anywhere. There are tons of products, sample packs, blogs, tutorials and what-have-yous out there that seem to suggest it's all a piece of cake. It's one thing to master a host, midi routing and editing, mixing and all that other stuff (you can actually do that by your lonesome, with the aid of tutorials and trial and error), but it's quite another to actually make music.

I would suggest something wildly unpopular here: get a RL teacher. You can read all there is to know about music theory, watch tons of videos, and all of that will amount to jack shit, because you're going about it the wrong way. Music theory is a book of descriptions, not "rules". Theory by itself doesn't make much sense, you need to experience it in action. Getting into modal scales makes absolutely no sense if you don't have a feel for scales and chords to begin with. You get a modicum of this "feel" by listening to music, but the majority is achieved by PLAYING. Oh, you don't play an instrument? Then get a teacher and learn the basics at least.

This is not to say that it's all black and white. Experienced musicians can in fact be hampered by their knowledge, in that they tend to overthink and underfeel. Inexperienced musicians have the advantage of the initial enthusiasm and a productive naivete, which enables them to come up with original things. In the end, though, the trick is to accumulate knowledge and then let it drift into the background, allowing you to be creative while using your beginner's mind.

Anything else is trying to run before you can walk.

As to modes and chords: of COURSE chords are "used" in modes. That's totally missing the point. You need to understand what chords are in the first place (and I don't mean citing the Wikipedia definition) - melodies and chords are not mutually exclusive things. Imagine three saxophones improvising melodies in Dorian mode - you'll get tons of "chords" here. The character of modes is not established by the use of chords, however, but by melodies. It's all about the weight (or lack thereof) given to certain notes. And, again, this doesn't mean shit, because it's not a question of "is it okay to use this chord here?", but a question of musical experience.

[ghettosynth]

What's getting lost in this funny shit storm of music theory and personal attacks is a very important point (that Jan also made):

people who get into music (especially computer music) with no formal training often underestimate the amount of practice needed to get anywhere. There are tons of products, sample packs, blogs, tutorials and what-have-yous out there that seem to suggest it's all a piece of cake. It's one thing to master a host, midi routing and editing, mixing and all that other stuff (you can actually do that by your lonesome, with the aid of tutorials and trial and error), but it's quite another to actually make music.

Yes, tell that to Porter Robinson who took himself from typing "DJ Software" into google at the age of 13 to touring with Tiesto about the time he was finishing high school. His entire studio was, and perhaps still is, two speakers and a laptop.

In reality, the opposite is far more true than the folks in this forum can either admit, or simply don't realize. The amount of practice needed to get somewhere is vastly overestimated. The issue is defining what you mean by "anywhere." Is it your anywhere, or their's?

Getting into modal scales makes absolutely no sense if you don't have a feel for scales and chords to begin with. You get a modicum of this "feel" by listening to music, but the majority is achieved by PLAYING. Oh, you don't play an instrument? Then get a teacher and learn the basics at least.

Ask Madeon who's 19 , entirely self taught, and more commercially successful than any of you, what he thinks about musicianship?

“As a music producer, I never valued musicianship as a skill. Anything that I could remove from the process of production or performance that would make it easier for me to get to the idea without relying too much on dexterity was appealing,” Leclercq explains. “It wasn’t a big ethical question. It was really natural.”

Look, I hate most of these kid's music, but you're not going to reach anyone by sitting in your own basements telling kids who have sold more records than you will in your lifetime that your point of view is the only way. Sorry, you're just wrong.

Nobody who's posting a midi chord file or asking about how to use modes in Electro is interested in modes as you understand them. They just want to make their track sound less happy, or more egyptian. Or really, they don't even care about that, they've just heard that they need to use mode X to create style Y and want to know how they do that. You don't have to help them, but don't get all bent out of shape, ranting about church modes, working your fingers to the bone, and get off of my lawn, when someone else comes along with a midi file that will get the job done.

This is not to say that it's all black and white. Experienced musicians can in fact be hampered by their knowledge, in that they tend to overthink and underfeel. Inexperienced musicians have the advantage of the initial enthusiasm and a productive naivete, which enables them to come up with original things. In the end, though, the trick is to accumulate knowledge and then let it drift into the background, allowing you to be creative while using your beginner's mind.

Anything else is trying to run before you can walk.

And that is possible today, at least for some, and it's not clear that it was ever any different in terms of the numbers, kids aren't looking up to Benny Goodman, Paul McCartney, or even Hendrix, their heros don't even own a real instrument.

[ariston]

Sorry, you're just wrong.

Oh, wow, guess you told me. I stand properly chastened. Love the "sorry", though.

I feel that the lack of musicianship is a bad thing. I also feel that encouraging people to feel good about their lack of ability is a bad thing. You're equating success with quality, don't you think that there's something "wrong" with that line of argumentation? Or why are you citing people who produce inconsequential fluff but are successful with it? What's your point?

You're celebrating mediocrity, that's basically all you're saying.

If even one "producer" reads this and takes music lessons as a result of having been exposed to these opinions, wouldn't that be worth it?

Now feel free to write another text avalanche with plenty of citation in between, I've said what I have to say.

[fmr]

Yes, tell that to Porter Robinson who took himself from typing "DJ Software" into google at the age of 13 to touring with Tiesto about the time he was finishing high school. His entire studio was, and perhaps still is, two speakers and a laptop.

In reality, the opposite is far more true than the folks in this forum can either admit, or simply don't realize. The amount of practice needed to get somewhere is vastly overestimated. The issue is defining what you mean by "anywhere." Is it your anywhere, or their's?

Ask Madeon who's 19 , entirely self taught, and more commercially successful than any of you, what he thinks about musicianship?

This reminds me of a story told about George Gershwin (maybe you know him, he used to write some songs ), that once decided to go to France to complte his musical education (funny enough he was already a very successful composer and a rich man). He addressed Maurice Ravel asking him for lessons. Ravel asked him how much he did earn last year. When Gershwin told him how much it did, Ravel answered him: "It's me who should have lessons from you". Of course, he was being ironic. Gershwin ended studying with Nadia Boulanger, who also taught Igor Stravinsky and Quincy Jones (another guy who also valued music education).

This is all to say that your examples prove nothing except that anybody can have success in any field, in spite of being knowldgeable or not. But ignorance will always be ignorance, no matter how successful it is.

[fmr]

Yes. Actually I did it just like that. Here are two articles I paid attention to:
What are modes?
Understanding modes

I think the made a nice introduction to us less experiensed musicians. Naturally not to ones with you knowledge regarding modes

A quote from your second link: "What is a mode?
Firstly, let’s define modes. Modes can be seen as scales derived from the notes of the major scale, but starting at different intervals in that scale. If that sounds confusing, don’t worry – most musicians find modes a little tricky to get their head round at first. Keep reading and things should begin to make more sense."

After such an introduction, there's nothing more to be said - there's no point to keep reading. No wonder he thinks it's confusing. It's plain WRONG approach, therefore, it has to be confusing.

What if I say: "Scales can be seen as modes derived from the ancient modes, when they were reduced to just two. With that reduction, you lost many others, in favour of chord progressions and cadences."?

[fmr]

Modes are MELODIC material, not harmonic material. The person interested really in modes is looking for the character and feel they avail us of. The interest is in melody, chords isn't it.

The thing is, triadic harmony is a feature of tonality, but it doesn't work the same way (if at all) with modality. Typically, modal music uses very few chords.

Actually, you couldn't be more wrong. You need to get off your high horses and start doing your homework. I suggest reading Jeppesen, especially page 80.

Here is a short quote for you:

Every ecclesiastical mode actually has at its disposal many more
chordal possibilities than the major and minor scales. If we compare,
for example, the Dorian with D minor (the two having almost the same
scale) we see that the Dorian has two triads (D major and D minor)
on the first degree, whereas the D minor scale has only one. On the
second degree there are two possibilities available for the ecclesiastical
mode, but only one for the D minor scale.
...
As may be seen, we have in the Dorian no less than six pure triads — the
most valuable tonal combinations — which deviate from D minor: D
major, E minor, F major, G major, A minor, and C major.

Your complete lack of understanding of modal music is immediately apparent to anyone with the slightest knowledge of the Palestrina style and you are totally out of line lecturing the OP the way you have been doing. The only thing you have achieved in this thread is making yourselves look like arrogant idiots. YOU are the ones spreading misunderstandings and you need to just STFU and stop pretending you are music theory experts.

Have you EVER listening to Palestrina? READ Palestrina? Actually STUDIED how he wrote, and what are the backgrounds on which he built his own work? Because, based on what you wrote, you are just repeating words, very much like a parrot.

BTW - Palestrina was no longer modal - he was in the transition period from modality to tonality. You should study more and know more, before claiming other people "complete lack of understanding of modal music" and calling them "arrogant idiots".

[ghettosynth]

This is all to say that your examples prove nothing except that anybody can have success in any field, in spite of being knowldgeable or not.

That's too general though, isn't it? You can't have success as a jazz musician without knowing something about music, right? What about being a classical pianist, no, gotta know music there, right? What about as a rock musician, a guitarist say, how much music do you need to know? A bit more than the EDM producer I think. You at least need to form chords, well, unless you're BB-King, amiright?

BB: I know some chords. I'm not shall we say fluent as alot of musicians are. But the chords that I know I can't play them behind myself. If I'm singing and trying to play something I cannot play properly behind myself, the chords that should be there. That's what I meant, but if you come in and catch the show tonight you'll hear me play chords.

So, really, the statement is not true about music, in general, and is only less true for some pop styles. So what my post proves, is exactly what it states. That is, music theory is much less a factor in EDM success than it is in other styles.

But ignorance will always be ignorance, no matter how successful it is.

Did you read that off of a halmark card? Is BB-King a part of this "ignorant success" that you're talking about? Why don't you send him and email and tell him how ignorant he is and how he should buckle down and study church modes some more so that he can be a real musician like you guys?

How do you know that these kids are still ignorant? How do you know that they aren't learning what they need to learn to be successful in their craft and grow as artists? You don't. Moreover, how ignorant is too ignorant for a 19 year old? Should they halt their career to meet this forum's vision of musical success?

Let's talk about that vision and how successful people are here who are following this path. Should people strive to be like jancivil, is that a measure of success as a musician? How many people here actually live off of selling records and performing? From my vantage point the overwhelming majority, like most of my musician friends/acquaintances, earn their living from 1) Teaching, 2) Retail sales, or 3) Commercial work, e.g. jingles, music on hold, etc. Oh, but they have knowledge. The happiest and most successful friends/acquaintances, with one relatively famous exception, work in EDM where DJing is still in demand.

Then of course we have academics, a couple in here. That's not even interesting to someone into EDM. Not in music at any rate. Someone who's into EDM is not interested in "starting their Ph.D. in church modes."

So, tell me again why this path of "nose to the theory grindstone" is the only true way to music bliss, especially for someone who's primarily interested in EDM?