Modal Harmony vid series

Chords, scales, harmony, melody, etc.
Locked New Topic
RELATED
PRODUCTS

Post

zethus909 wrote:the classical modes are based on C major. Why are you disputing that?
Because it's not true. The so-called classical modes predate the major/minor paradigm by centuries. NB: JJF and fmr are both scholars in this area of modes theory. Just stop talking and listen. Stop assuming you know before you even take this business seriously and embark on some kind of cogent path and STUDY FFS. Don't be foolish.
Last edited by jancivil on Sat Oct 22, 2016 1:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post

MadBrain wrote:Modes, as seen by fmr:.../...
Modes, as seen by zethus909 (and jazz/pop/non-classical musicians):
.../...
Except that "my" vision (not just mine, but anyway) is supported in more than 1000 years of history and musical practice, and zethus909/pop/jazz vision is supported in ... what exactly?

And here is your contribution to the debate a few months ago:
MadBrain wrote: So I propose a translation grid, from "common lazy pop musician terms" to "actually accurate but somewhat wordy formulation":

pop: "lydian scale/mode"
accurate: major (with lots of #4 accidentals)

pop: "mixolydian scale/mode"
accurate: major (with lots of b7 accidentals)

pop: "dorian scale/mode"
accurate: minor (with lots of #6 accidentals)

pop: "phrygian scale/mode"
accurate: minor (with lots of b2 accidentals)

pop: "locrian scale/mode"
accurate: "that weird synthetic scale that I like to play over m7b5 chords"
Of course, you could simply say it is in X minor, and follow the score, since the alterations add nothing to the main picture. :shrug:
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:Unfortunately, I see the jazz field filled with this kind of people. They should talk less and play more, maybe, and when asked they should simply say: "I play like THIS", and keep the "theories" to themselves.
Shouldn't worry too much about that, there's a lot of them actually just doing it.

Post

nordickvr wrote:
fmr wrote:Unfortunately, I see the jazz field filled with this kind of people. They should talk less and play more, maybe, and when asked they should simply say: "I play like THIS", and keep the "theories" to themselves.
Shouldn't worry too much about that, there's a lot of them actually just doing it.
Good to know :)
Fernando (FMR)

Post

hey I got an idea! lets ban all jazz musicians and muslims from posting in the music theory forum!

probably should be more specific in the forum description about which schools of music theory are permitted for discussion, as well.

Post

it is strictly forbidden that anyone voice a personal perspective on music theory that they have found useful. Each concept should be able to have it's legitimacy verified, preferably in the text of a deceased white man.

Post

stillshaded wrote:it is strictly forbidden that anyone voice a personal perspective on music theory that they have found useful. Each concept should be able to have it's legitimacy verified, preferably in the text of a deceased white man.
Hey, I got an idea. Let's anyone talk about anything. Next time you get ill, instead of going to the doctor, just go to the next bar, and ask people there. If in doubt, just consult the Internet. The first site that comes upon certainly has an answer. And if you get some problems with the law, don't go to a lawyer. Nah... Just chat with your "bros" and they will tell you what to do. :roll:
Fernando (FMR)

Post

fmr wrote:
MadBrain wrote:Modes, as seen by fmr:.../...
Modes, as seen by zethus909 (and jazz/pop/non-classical musicians):
.../...
Except that "my" vision (not just mine, but anyway) is supported in more than 1000 years of history and musical practice,
Exactly! I'm not at all contesting this. Your vision is the real historical modal system, used throughout the middle ages and renaissance, and in later music that brings back parts of this pre-tonal music.
fmr wrote:and zethus909/pop/jazz vision is supported in ... what exactly?
[...]
Of course, you could simply say it is in X minor, and follow the score, since the alterations add nothing to the main picture. :shrug:
It tends to show up in jazz and pop theory books because it helps explain some parts of harmony. For instance, "The Jazz Theory Book" (Mark Levine) explains the base chords used in Jazz by drawing parallels to:
- The "modes" of the major scale ("lydian"->maj7#11, major->maj7, "mixolydian"->7 and sus, "dorian"->min7, "phrygian"->sus b9, "locrian"->m7b5)
- The "modes" of the minor melodic ascending scale (minor melodic->minmaj7, "lydian b7"->7#11, "lydian #5"->maj#5, "phrygian #6"->sus b9, "locrian #2"->m7b5 voicings that have a 9th, "locrian b4"->alt7)
- The half-step/step diminished scale (7b9 and dim7)
- The whole tone scale (7#5)

It's not a real modal system: it's just a way of explaining the complex extended chords used by jazz musicians by starting with a scale as a model, and there are many other ways to explain the same chords. In fact, you could just as well explain it in reverse: for instance, the so called D "dorian" "scale" is basically a list of all the notes you can put together in the voicing of a fully extended Dmin13 chord.

Post

fmr wrote:
stillshaded wrote:it is strictly forbidden that anyone voice a personal perspective on music theory that they have found useful. Each concept should be able to have it's legitimacy verified, preferably in the text of a deceased white man.
Hey, I got an idea. Let's anyone talk about anything. Next time you get ill, instead of going to the doctor, just go to the next bar, and ask people there. If in doubt, just consult the Internet. The first site that comes upon certainly has an answer. And if you get some problems with the law, don't go to a lawyer. Nah... Just chat with your "bros" and they will tell you what to do. :roll:
yes comparing music theory to medicine. Such an apt comparison.

Maybe this wasn't directed to me as you have put "bros" in quotes and I haven't used that term.

If its truly not pedantry that is the reason for you and your pal Jan to feel it necessary to go on passive aggressive disparaging sprees, then I don't think it would be too much to ask why the concept of harmonizing "modes" is such a terrible mistake. The only answer I've heard so far is that.. umm it's.. uhh. indian music something something..

Is it really so difficult to understand the concept of modality in regards to indian music that it is somehow threatening to harmonize a mode?

Ah yes, but i'm sure it's something about mongrel jazz musicians and how they should just play their instruments a little. Westerners just can't quit with the ethnocentrism. No longer PC to hate on brown people so now we just have to find some one else that's doing things "wrong." :roll:

Post

zethus909 wrote:
But Dunning-Kruger Effect
yea but if you are also disputing the fact that you can create harmony from using modes then this is also DK effect.
First, see if you can be arsed to read what a person has written before you jump to (or fabricate) a conclusion. I f**king well know what creating chords on top of members of a scale set is and by the time you shat this at me I'd concluded with my genuine opinion of ChandlerHimself's work as summed up thusly.

Dunning-Kruger is, again, people that fail to recognize their level of (in-) competence which leads them to believe they know better than everybody else. It's a failure of self-awareness, an utter lack of self-critique. So, no, I actually do the work that I need to do as a matter of course and when I say something I've checked my work or I won't have spoken on the matter.

Look something up (in a reliable source)! Not being able to recognize the good source (there are I think 3 here) vs bullshit is def. a feature of D-K Effect. CHECK YOURSELF, you tryina ding me is a joke.

Post

I was always a modal player, at 15 yrs old I found drop D tuning and tried to sound like Indian music, having had my mind blown by Ravi Shankar in the film Monterey Pop. That is, no doubt, straight-up modal music. It is totally about melody and there is no harmony involved whatsoever.

There is all sorts of confusion coming out of jazz music theory gurus, who are received as authority by, like everybody. Some of these masters of space and time are confused, though. So we get someone up in here that thinks Robben Ford or somebody doing 'E Mixolydian for the E7 chord {in key of A}' is perfectly good even as it's entirely superfluous and mistakes the meaning of the term completely. So the Appeal to Authority is next, when this stuff is countered. (Robben is more of a guitarist than I, but that doesn't change the fact.)

I saw this thread a while back and chuckled. 'Here we go again!'. For me the remark, <modes as primarily melodic is "ridiculous"> is as bad as it gets. It's weird how a certain sort here really needs chords as the be all and refuses to accept that here is a musical modus operandi that totally works without 'em by design.

Post

jancivil wrote:
zethus909 wrote:the classical modes are based on C major. Why are you disputing that?
Because it's not true. The so-called classical modes predate the major/minor paradigm by centuries. NB: JJF and fmr are both scholars in this area of modes theory. Just stop talking and listen. Stop assuming you know before you even take this business seriously and embark on some kind of cogent path and STUDY FFS. Don't be foolish.
i take music seriously. music theory and music history is not music. it's anti music.

music theory is a "body count", an autopsy, an attempt at explanation, it's all AFTER the fact. after the blood, and tears and sweat. after life. music is theory is a crime scene. music theory is death, music is life.

never, EVER, any of you who are reading this, (not those who are uninitiated) NEVER, ever USE music theory to MAKE music. NEVER. never feel imprisoned by THEORY in your quest to make music. USE it, use the theory, but NEVER RELY on it. for that is like relying on a pocketbook guide on "how to breathe" for BREATHING.
the classical modes are based on C major
the Cmajor scale is based on the Ionian mode. the Ionian Mode, is the Mother Mode of all the other modes. our piano is based around C major, the white keys are the notes of the Cmajor scale...the Cmajor scale is the same thing, interval-wise as the Ionian mode, the Ionian mode is the Cmajor scale, the Cmajor scale is what all the other classic modes are based off of. it's the root, or the Mother Tonic. these intervals are the same today as they were with the Greeks. and denying that "the classical modes are based on C major" is a most suspect act of denial. it is an act of denial that puts forward the notion of histrionics ABOVE geometric accuracy.

as mentioned i put the accuracy of PRINCIPLES at highest rank, in the ongoing dialogue of human history. and to deny that the "modes are based on the Cmajor scale" is, on the surface, a chide remark...in and of itself. for it places abstraction ABOVE that which IS. the act of denying this means to deny the very underlying principles that the Greeks realized.

and it fosters an environment that holds taxononomic accuracy ABOVE the geometric REALITY that said taxonomy is employed to describe in FIRST PLACE.

and it is for this most VICIOUS of errors that I cannot remain silent. and will NOT "shutup and just listen" as has been carelessly suggested.

we can keep going in circles. or you can just stop being obstinate. music theory is an afterthought, a complex afterthought, that serves no purpose other than to describe.
Sincerely,
Zethus, twin son of Zeus

Post

jancivil wrote:
I saw this thread a while back and chuckled. 'Here we go again!'. For me the remark, <modes as primarily melodic is "ridiculous"> is as bad as it gets. It's weird how a certain sort here really needs chords as the be all and refuses to accept that here is a musical modus operandi that totally works without 'em by design.
I don't even understand what you're on about with the Robin Ford bit. I don't think mixolydian when I play over an A7, but I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with it.

Look the fact of the matter is that, for better or worse, the term "modal" has a few meanings. You're just belittling everyone who is familiar with one perspective. It does serve a particular purpose that would not be easily reproduced otherwise. I don't know what your level of skill as an improvisor is, but learning the "wrong" version of modes is very helpful to beginners who need to be able to hear certain patterns of alterations to the major and minor mode. I think it makes it easier for beginners to learn what a #11 sounds like when they can relate it lydian. IMO the more perspectives the better. the other option would be to only learn major and minor scales and practice altering the scale degrees. Useful also, but why limit yourself?

Likewise, calling F the I chord in a key signature with no sharps or flats can be helpful for people to categorize a certain pattern of 'modal mixture' which could (and should) be learned in the traditional way.

So, how can this possibly take away from understanding of the other definition of modality? So far everyone has totally sidestepped my question, choosing instead to go on and on and on about how many magnitudes more theoretical knowledge they have, and how everyone else needs to watch and learn.

Let's not forget that music theory is, at best, a tool. Saying you can't use modes for harmony is like saying I can't use a knife to spread jam on my toast because it's made for cutting.

Post

stillshaded wrote: yes comparing music theory to medicine. Such an apt comparison.

Maybe this wasn't directed to me as you have put "bros" in quotes and I haven't used that term.
It was you who called the "muslims" to the discussion (I wonder why) and talked about the books of "deceased WHITE men" (again, I failed to see the logic - the problem is them being white or deceased? Or both?). To me, this sounds as RACIST as it can get.
stillshaded wrote: Ah yes, but i'm sure it's something about mongrel jazz musicians and how they should just play their instruments a little. Westerners just can't quit with the ethnocentrism. No longer PC to hate on brown people so now we just have to find some one else that's doing things "wrong." :roll:
And here we go again. "Westerners" and "ethnocentrism". So, exactly what are you? An eastern? A "worldcentric"? :borg: :phones:
Last edited by fmr on Sat Oct 22, 2016 10:13 am, edited 2 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)

Post

stillshaded wrote: Look the fact of the matter is that, for better or worse, the term "modal" has a few meanings. You're just belittling everyone who is familiar with one perspective. It does serve a particular purpose that would not be easily reproduced otherwise. I don't know what your level of skill as an improvisor is, but learning the "wrong" version of modes is very helpful to beginners who need to be able to hear certain patterns of alterations to the major and minor mode. I think it makes it easier for beginners to learn what a #11 sounds like when they can relate it lydian. IMO the more perspectives the better. The other option would be to only learn major and minor scales and practice altering the scale degrees. Useful also, but why limit yourself?
Because this way they would be learning the right way. And it may look a little more difficult at first, but it isn't, IMO. And improvisation isn't something that only jazz musicians do. This is another myth. Improvisation always existed in music, and it still exists nowadays. Soloists, for example, used to improvise in certain sections of the musical pieces. And for example the harpsichordist in the baroque improvised (and many still do, nowadays - tradition is back) an accompaniment to the pieces based on the figured bass. And all of them did and do this without re-learning music. They use the plain old tonality system. Sure, there aren't 11th chords in baroque.
stillshaded wrote: Likewise, calling F the I chord in a key signature with no sharps or flats can be helpful for people to categorize a certain pattern of 'modal mixture' which could (and should) be learned in the traditional way.

So, how can this possibly take away from understanding of the other definition of modality? So far everyone has totally sidestepped my question, choosing instead to go on and on and on about how many magnitudes more theoretical knowledge they have, and how everyone else needs to watch and learn.

Let's not forget that music theory is, at best, a tool. Saying you can't use modes for harmony is like saying I can't use a knife to spread jam on my toast because it's made for cutting.
I kind of agree with you (although the knife example is not correct, IMO - it would be if you changed the name of the knife when you use it to spread jam).

If you said: "Here, I am using a spoon to spread jam in my bread", and you were using a knife. I would be naturally confused, therefore I would say to you: "No, you are using a knife", and then you'd reply: "No, a knife is just when I am cutting, so, I call it a spoon when I am spreading jam in my bread." I would then say. "No, that's a knife, no matter how you use it. THIS is a spoon. You can also use it to spread jam in your bread, if you wish, but when you use a knife, you should call it a knife, and only call it a spoon when you use, effectively a spoon".

This little parable illustrates well what's the problem, and is more accurate, IMO.

I have nothing against using whatever tools you like and have at your disposal, to achieve an aimed result. If the people using this terminology know and are aware about what really modes and modal music are, it's OK that they use these "terms", although being aware that they aren't what they are calling them.

But then, I think we all agree that what's being called "modal harmony" is, in fact, "tonal harmony", and doesn't need to be learned, because it's the same thing. And saying that the modes all come from the "Ionian" and this one is the first mode. is plainly wrong. Not only this concept doesn't serve anymore any practical purpose, it is simply confusing concepts, and creating a delusional universe of pseudo knowledge.

Worst: There is people announcing, with pomp and pride, they are playing "modal music" and showing how these "modes" work, pretending to be some kind of "intelectual" and "savvy" musicians, when clearly neither the music is modal, nor what they are showing has any relation with modes at all. This is the perverse result of what was, in the beginning, an apparently innocent "shortcut".

Besides, modes and modal music have a "plasticity" that is inherent to their spirit, and that was lost with the transition to modality. There is also more variety, since you have eight modes, and in tonal music you just have two, even if one of them has three variants. Composers like Debussy and Satie realized this "charm" and potential, and recovered that tradition. Composers like Bartok and Messiaen went further in the modal universe, and Messiaen even created a whole theoretical building around new modes, starting with the "whole tone mode" of Debussy (a really new universe, not changing names to what already existed - the whole tone mode is the first of his "modes of limited transpositions"). Miles Davis also realized it, and he also entered in this universe, as it is. It's no longer about "chords" or "harmony", it's all about "melodies" and "colours" and sounds. It's different, yet its wonderful. But to enter there, you need to "forget" chords and harmony, and simply concentrate on the "sound" of each note, and each melodic cell, and treat the "chords" as a sound of their own. Not a chord, more like a note that's made of several notes. And the "chord progressions" become a "melody of chords". You no longer have tonic, or dominant. Any chord can follow any chord, because they are no longer treated as such. It's the melody and the melodic sense that leads.
Last edited by fmr on Sat Oct 22, 2016 2:09 pm, edited 5 times in total.
Fernando (FMR)

Locked

Return to “Music Theory”