Modal Harmony vid series

[topaz]

Thanks for taking the time to post these, ignore the usual forum lynch mob / muso snob thread hijackers.

Here is a series of videos I made of modal harmony and how to use it. I find that there is a lot of talk about modes(especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically. That's why I made this series. Check it out and I hope it helps you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1eh_PQ ... bm0ykrL_M3

[zethus909]

No they are not.

what are they? can u explain to me my errors in what i am talking about...in like a paragraph or something? (without the insults would be nice too)

So, modes ara "jazzy"? Or what?

what? i dont understand what you are implying

That's why you shouldn't even try.

encouraging the people around you to give up on learning things, thats your style i see.

it's pathetic

you are coming across as someone who is hurting inside. every instance of communication is either a loving response or a cry for help, so, I accept your insults, as a hand reaching out to me, asking for love/compassion. you have mine. pm me if yhou need someone to talk to. (i know u probably wont, because you think you are above me)(but never hurts to try)

[zethus909]

ok i watched the first couple vids, not in totality, i think that it can help some people, i dont really like the language youre using, ie. ionian=happy etc...but the actual info is fine. its not innaccurate. not the actual substance of it...i mean, you are showing the notes on the staff, and they are the righ tnotes, and you are giving examples of how to use inversions to create a sense of being in a certain mode.....i mean, i wouldnt say its MIS info, it's just not really the type of language and execution i would use...

again this is the definition on wiki

Let's say that modal harmony is that which uses chords that are built from only the tones available in one of the modes: Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian.

so exactly what i am saying. that basically the jist of it.
https://www.ars-nova.com/Theory%20Q&A/Q144.html
theres another explanation....same as what i am saying.

VII major (C, E, G). Which is as it would be in "natural minor (Aeolian)," but in tonal harmony using harmonic minor could be a diminished chord on C#.

as soon as you deviate from the tones available in the classic modes(intervals) you are now using tonal harmony.

The major difference is in function. In traditional (common practice) harmony, chords function in relation to each other, as part of keys, or as parts of sequences. Em7-A7, for example, is a ii-V in relation to D (although the A7 can resolve a number of ways, like to Ab7, B7, and Ebmaj, to name a few). You can use different modes and scales over these chords depending on the color you're going for. Phrygian Dominant, for example, will have a 'darker' sound than Lydian Dominant because it uses more notes from the natural minor.

In modal harmony, you aren't playing 'chords,' and there is no chord function. You are playing with the tone colors of specific modes, as opposed to playing with chords. In 'So What,' you aren't playing Dm7-Ebm7, which has many options for interpretation (Dorian b2, Aeolian, Melodic Minor, etc.), you are playing with D Dorian and Eb Dorian, and any chords that occur are just representations of those modes. This idea wasn't new with Miles Davis and his work in the late 50s and early 60s, it goes back to impressionist composers, like Debussy for example, at the turn of the 20th century, and came from a rejection of the idea of chord function, as well as cadences and other 'Common Practice' techniques and tropes

In the end (at least as far as jazz is concerned), it is up to the performer how to interpret and perform these works as they like, these are simply the ideas of the composers

Good luck, and a damn good question too.

theres another good explanation...

[fmr]

No they are not.

what are they? can u explain to me my errors in what i am talking about...in like a paragraph or something? (without the insults would be nice too)

The Wikipedia definition in the artcile introduction is good: "In the theory of Western music, mode (from Latin modus, "measure, standard, manner, way, size, limit of quantity, method") (Powers 2001, Introduction; OED) generally refers to a type of scale, coupled with a set of characteristic melodic behaviours. This use, still the most common in recent years, reflects a tradition dating to the Middle Ages, itself inspired by the theory of ancient Greek music."

That's it, in a simplified manner. You can read the article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_(music)
Ignoe the part about "modern" until the section "Use". It was obviously written by other people, is wrong, full of the common "mambo-jambo" we are used to see around here, without references, and even contradicts what is stated in the previous sections.

The "Use" section starts with a paragraph that clearly states the differences and dichotomy betwen modes and tonality: "Use and conception of modes or modality today is different from that in early music. As Jim Samson explains, "Clearly any comparison of medieval and modern modality would recognize that the latter takes place against a background of some three centuries of harmonic tonality, permitting, and in the nineteenth century requiring, a dialogue between modal and diatonic procedure" (Samson 1977, 148). Indeed, when 19th-century composers revived the modes, they rendered them more strictly than Renaissance composers had, to make their qualities distinct from the prevailing major-minor system. Renaissance composers routinely sharped leading tones at cadences and lowered the fourth in the Lydian mode (Carver 2005, 74n4)."

I also advise those that fill the mouth with "jazz" to read this artcile too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modal_jazz

IMO, It explains what is "modal jazz" and why this "modal harmony" is absurd. I call you attention to the following:

1. slow-moving harmonic rhythm, where single chords may last four to sixteen or more measures
2. pedal points[3] and drones
3. absent or suppressed standard functional chord progressions
4. quartal harmonies or melodies
5. polytonality

I have nothing more to say, nor to answer to your posts, except: Study more, and listen to more music, especially outside you regular boundaries.

[jancivil]

This'll be the one post I'll actually direct at you, Chandler yourself. The event of your 'vid series' held no interest for me at all, and all I wanted to do was clarify muddied waters in my post today.

So I did finally see the video in the original post.
'bout what I'd imagined.

Ok. Such as yer 'Holdsworth chords... also evoke modes': No. Chords in themselves do not, cannot evoke modes. For any mode to be itself, as a mode, its 'tonic' as it were or HOME must_be established beyond all doubt. You tossed some non-tertial form out there, then quartal forms both of which could have anything be I, and these especially just kinda float, who knows what's happening. But NB., they could describe a scale or maybe even a mode, and decorate it via these planed stacks, but that scale form is OBVIOUSLY first, primary and not secondary to some vertical objects. But still we haven't seen, we hear no mode.

That vid was just a lot of word salad. Yer just winging it trying to float some crap like no one will ever be the wiser.

Yer tryina float A GIMMICK, son. So transparent, & an insult to all our intelligence. Try this game elsewhere, ya dig?

You obviously don't understand modal harmony or even what I said in the video but that is "'bout what I'd imagined" I would have thought most people would understand that a bass would be playing the tonic note, which I stated in the videos. I already said "HOME must_be established beyond all doubt. ", but of course your listening comprehension along with your reading comprehension seems to be lacking. I would try to enlighten you about quartal vocings and their role in modern modal harmony, but you obviously don't care or can't understand. You seem intent on arguing a straw man or just can't understand what I'm saying so you make it up instead. I don't think there is a need to argue about things I agree with and have stated before, and there is no need to try to explain something to someone who doesn't want to learn, so let's leave it at that.

I watched only the one video. It's some bullshit and my description of it is not a lot more than that. I've understood everything you need me to fail to understand, for many yrs now; it seems I'm about 2 generations older than you (IE: I'm encountering all of this in the '70s). There is nothing you're going to poot forth that I'll fail to understand, or am likely to have missed in my travels thus far. Your arrogance is really something.

Based on the video in the OP, I wasn't moved to check you out further, to say the least. You're kind of annoying, maybe that's just me but that video was lameosity defined IME. So, it's good (and I am glad) you actually know what a mode is, but I still find the whole thing a gimmick like it will set you apart from the thousands of other people making such videos. (Actually "Holdsworth chords evoke modes" tends to bely that you really get modal music. For one thing, you know, Holdsworth, who's about as far as we get from a modal musician) So we can construct tertial, quartal, you-name-it on a scalar set you enjoy calling a mode. BIG FUGGIN DEAL. Bite me.

[fmr]

So we can construct tertial, quartal, you-name-it on a scalar set you enjoy calling a mode. BIG FUGGIN DEAL. Bite me.

Don't forget that, by doing that, we have "modal harmony"

[stillshaded]

I find that there is a lot of talk about modes (especially with guitarists) and how they work melodically, but there doesn't seem to be much info about using them harmonically.

Maybe because harmony belongs to tonality, and modes are a different thing, and when you start to "harmonize" modes, you end eventually destroying them.

It seems people like destroying them then. It's been done for well over 100 years now and it's in some of the most popular songs in every genre. Also harmony doesn't belong to tonality, which is why terms like modal harmony, quartal harmony, etc exist.

No, they are not destroying them. The people you are referring to are calling modes to something that's not modes at all, but simply note sequences in a certain key that start and end in another note that's not the tonic. Regarding your "modal harmony" it's not harmony at all, as well as there isn't "quartal harmony". There are quartal aggregates, but the composers who used them (the first ones were Schoenberg and Bartok) were not writing tonal music anymore, therefore, it wasn't harmony. Although it may be a little ambiguous, the term harmony appeared with the development of the twelve tone system and the tonal system.

Jazz people and pop people started to confuse and mix concepts, and that's where terms like "modal harmony" and "quartal harmony" were born. In fact, to have harmony, you need to have functions, therefore, you need to have a hierarchy of tonal degrees, and that's tonality. Having just sound aggregates cannot be described as "harmony" since you don't have any hierarchy defined, nor do you have any polar chords around which the other chords gravitate. You had sound aggregates since polyphony was born, in the XII century, but you see nowhere that classified as "harmony" (actually, many times you see contrapuntal writing and polyphony writing as opposed to harmonic writing.

Modes are by definition melodic, and if you want to preserve modes and their spirit, you will have to preserve that characteristic. If you want to see how "harmony" is treated in modal universe, listen to Debussy or Messiaen (I know, I know, they didn't play guitar, nor jazz).

this is pretty much bs. The most widely used college music theory text goes pretty in depth on harmonizing modes. Haven't you heard of "modal mixture"?

Saying they are primarily melodic is ridiculous IMO. They are exactly the same thing whether you are looking at them as harmony or melody. What makes a scalar mode more legitimate than a harmonized mode? Do you also think that it's wrong to analyze arpeggios as chords?? sheesh.

EDIT: also keep in mind that all of our naming conventions are just arbitrary stuff. Are you german?

EDIT #2:

OK I remembered wrong. I checked the text book (Tonal Harmony - Kostka, Payne)

My professor actually made up a lesson that wasn't in the text. We mainly analyzed a bunch of folk songs and also some romantic period stuff.

Still, I think looking at harmonizing modes can be useful.

[stillshaded]

disclaimer.. i didn't actually watch the video. no comment on its quality. sorry lol

[fmr]

this is pretty much bs. The most widely used college music theory text goes pretty in depth on harmonizing modes. Haven't you heard of "modal mixture"?

Saying they are primarily melodic is ridiculous IMO. They are exactly the same thing whether you are looking at them as harmony or melody. What makes a scalar mode more legitimate than a harmonized mode? Do you also think that it's wrong to analyze arpeggios as chords?? sheesh.

Modes are what they are. What they are NOT is what I have been discussing here, primarily. And they are not "scales that move inside C Major, or A minor, or whatever you get, nor do they come from C Major or any other tonality. Again, read the definition that's in Wikipedia. I think that, in it's simplicity, pretty much nails it.

OK I remembered wrong. I checked the text book (Tonal Harmony - Kostka, Payne)

So, now you confused me. Is it tonal harmony, after all?

My professor actually made up a lesson that wasn't in the text. We mainly analyzed a bunch of folk songs and also some romantic period stuff.

And here we are Where is the bs again?

[fmr]

Look at this quotation:

In modal harmony, you aren't playing 'chords,' and there is no chord function. You are playing with the tone colors of specific modes, as opposed to playing with chords. In 'So What,' you aren't playing Dm7-Ebm7, which has many options for interpretation (Dorian b2, Aeolian, Melodic Minor, etc.), you are playing with D Dorian and Eb Dorian, and any chords that occur are just representations of those modes. This idea wasn't new with Miles Davis and his work in the late 50s and early 60s, it goes back to impressionist composers, like Debussy for example, at the turn of the 20th century, and came from a rejection of the idea of chord function, as well as cadences and other 'Common Practice' techniques and tropes."

This is what I've been saying, except that I, for matter of coherence, don't call "harmony" to something that even the author of these lines recognizes that "there is no chord function" and that "you are playing with the tone colors of specific modes". So, you can call the triads chords, but they aren't treated as chords, rather "any chords that occur are just representations of those modes". If you listen to Debussy, even in his more "chordal" pieces, like "Cathedrale Engloutie", you'll see that the "chords" aren't treated as that AT ALL. They are treated as "sounds", or "sound colors". It's a different way of thinking music, that was also followed by other composers, like Satie or Poulenc, and reached a pinnacle in the work of Messiaen.

And the choose of Dorian (the first church mode) was not by chance, IMO. This mode was perhaps the most important in modal system, and the one where our current minor mode comes from.

[jancivil]

this is pretty much bs. The most widely used college music theory text goes pretty in depth on harmonizing modes. Haven't you heard of "modal mixture"?

Saying they are primarily melodic is ridiculous IMO.

Modal mixture is a term that does belong to major/minor paradigm and merely refers to mixing major and minor. And modal music is totally primarily melodic in its thrust, if you don't know it you're simply ignorant. See Indian Classical Music for starters. Such whopping blunders, & presented so boldly.

[jancivil]

Look at this quotation:

In modal harmony, you aren't playing 'chords,' and there is no chord function. You are playing with the tone colors of specific modes, as opposed to playing with chords. In 'So What,' you aren't playing Dm7-Ebm7, which has many options for interpretation (Dorian b2, Aeolian, Melodic Minor, etc.), you are playing with D Dorian and Eb Dorian, and any chords that occur are just representations of those modes. This idea wasn't new with Miles Davis and his work in the late 50s and early 60s, it goes back to impressionist composers, like Debussy for example, at the turn of the 20th century, and came from a rejection of the idea of chord function, as well as cadences and other 'Common Practice' techniques and tropes."

This is what I've been saying, except that I, for matter of coherence, don't call "harmony" to something that even the author of these lines recognizes that "there is no chord function" and that "you are playing with the tone colors of specific modes". So, you can call the triads chords, but they aren't treated as chords, rather "any chords that occur are just representations of those modes". If you listen to Debussy, even in his more "chordal" pieces, like "Cathedrale Engloutie", you'll see that the "chords" aren't treated as that AT ALL. They are treated as "sounds", or "sound colors". It's a different way of thinking music, that was also followed by other composers, like Satie or Poulenc, and reached a pinnacle in the work of Messiaen.

And the choose of Dorian (the first church mode) was not by chance, IMO. This mode was perhaps the most important in modal system, and the one where our current minor mode comes from.

[stillshaded]

checked back fully expected to be railed on, was not disappointed.

Ok yes, of course modal mixture refers to the major and minor modes, but it's still the same concept. You are temporarily looking at a parallel key. You can do this with other modes. And yes I know that it's probably less useful, but it is still useful.

There are without a doubt songs you could call dorian. IV-v-VII-i, and no V-i. So, looking at it from this perspective can help you label a particular sound, which is IMO the primary reason music theory exists.

There's no benefit to being OCD about this.


and fyi I watched the video and it's pretty bad :/

[jancivil]

checked back fully expected to be railed on, was not disappointed.

Ok yes, of course modal mixture refers to the major and minor modes, but it's still the same concept.

It simply is two different things. That "mixed modes" remark refers to such as Schubert, music that solidly belongs to the major/minor TONAL paradigm. Your entire concept adheres to this, you don't really get it and it's time to shut up and heed those who do. (Nothing personal, you know, there are many who love to do just as you done here, so this is for all of yous.)

Do at least give the last fmr post I thumbs up'd some time here. You want to glom a concept that is not compatible w. the other thing onto it. NG: Don't Work.

[jancivil]

There's no benefit to being OCD about this.

There's naught to be gained by being a total Dunning-Kruger Effect proof on top of which being inappropriately familiar with a person (ad hominem a bad sign as to how you're actually faring).