The success of this move will depend on your melodic prowess. The move from C Major to G Mixolydian is not impossible but if you don't know how to effect both things convincingly it's not likely. If all you know from is 'G Mixolydian scale is the notes of C Major starting on G' (not actually a true statement) it won't happen.
It's not impossible to make true C Mixolydian suddenly following the effective C major, but it's the same quality of problem. If you're really working <in C Major>, you're working w. tonality and if that's effectively that thing, putting Bb on a C chord is likely to come off as C7, V7 of F {V7/IV}.
So, a beginner needs to learn one foot in front of the other before running and jumping hurdles.
Using modes with major/minor scales
-
- KVRist
- 70 posts since 3 Mar, 2004 from Camarillo, CA
That book has many discrepancies that effectively discredit the theory. Visit http://jeff-brent.com and go the the Lessons link and you'll find his essay on the Lydian Chromatic Concept.jancivil wrote:all that said, I find the "Lydian Chromatic Concept" no problem because Russell has not so much confounded modal thinking with tonality by it. Unlike some other book(s). He just stated something essential by it, that the scale with that #4 is a better basis (because harmonics, basically) than major.
-
- KVRist
- 70 posts since 3 Mar, 2004 from Camarillo, CA
Russell's overtone math was incorrect. The 11th overtone is neither a perfect 4th or a raised 4th, (disproving the "lydian" part of the theory). The 13th overtone is neither a perfect 6th or a flatted 6th. It isn't until you reach the 23rd overtone until one encounters the raised 4th.jancivil wrote:it might be interesting to see _your_ thoughts on this but following a link to see that, naw
-
- KVRAF
- 25052 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
you're relying on 12-tone equal temperament to tell you what the overtone series is for that "math", then.
If you hear the series, whether from a filter opening up or from distortion, eventually '11' occurs (most of us go with this). 23 (while somewhat closer) still doesn't match equal temperament 'sharp 4 or 11' so if Russell's "math" is a fallacy so is that.
to base the whole argument on that will just be a sophistry. Lydian works as more to nature than major afaic.
If you hear the series, whether from a filter opening up or from distortion, eventually '11' occurs (most of us go with this). 23 (while somewhat closer) still doesn't match equal temperament 'sharp 4 or 11' so if Russell's "math" is a fallacy so is that.
to base the whole argument on that will just be a sophistry. Lydian works as more to nature than major afaic.
-
- KVRist
- 70 posts since 3 Mar, 2004 from Camarillo, CA
The only practical issue with the natural 11 in the major scale is that it forms an outside octave dissonance (aka a b9 interval) with the major 3rd. If one eliminates the major third in the structure, such as 5-7-9-11, that issue is eliminated and it is a perfectly "legal" vertical tonal sonority. There's nothing inherently more magical about the lydian scale than the other seven-note scales that do not have three tones in a row. They all present equal possibilities for exploration and composition.jancivil wrote: Lydian works as more to nature than major afaic.
-
- KVRian
- 1000 posts since 1 Dec, 2004
Is this guy saying that the lydian chromatic concept is, when applied, more or less the same thing as the common jazz-pop chord-scale theory, except with more emphasis on lydian/#4 and different names for chords and scales? Do you agree with him?jsaras wrote:
That book has many discrepancies that effectively discredit the theory. Visit http://jeff-brent.com and go the the Lessons link and you'll find his essay on the Lydian Chromatic Concept.
-
- KVRist
- 70 posts since 3 Mar, 2004 from Camarillo, CA
Well, it is and it isn't the same as common theory. For jazz standards and 50s through early 60s bebop, the songs were mostly in two or three major or minor key centers. Applying modal thinking to that context is usually an impediment for the purposes of improvisation. If you know the parent scale of the key the progression and you are able to convincingly play things that sound like the tonic (handling the 4th degree with care on the I, iii and vi chords) as well as using the same parent scale to convincingly play melodies that do NOT sound like the tonic when negotiating the V7 chord (playing the heck out of the 4th degree of the parent major scale and avoiding emphasizing the root), you are in business.You can effectively navigate all the chords in the progression without the additional "modal" mental processing. One can make an intelligent argument to use "modes" to play key-centered jazz because overtones are generated from the ROOT of the chord, so it does make logical sense to learn a scale/mode whose root coincides with that.MadBrain wrote:Is this guy saying that the lydian chromatic concept is, when applied, more or less the same thing as the common jazz-pop chord-scale theory, except with more emphasis on lydian/#4 and different names for chords and scales? Do you agree with him?jsaras wrote:
That book has many discrepancies that effectively discredit the theory. Visit http://jeff-brent.com and go the the Lessons link and you'll find his essay on the Lydian Chromatic Concept.
The Lydian Chromatic Concept adds another layer of unnecessary complication for playing key-centered songs because it forces you to learn the use of yet another inversion of the SAME scale/mode, so it's two-degrees removed from simplicity.
The thinking for "modern" jazz in which the chord progressions do not fit into key centers and V7-I cadences are absent is different in nature. It is a world in which one must play a different scale over each chord because of the endlessly modulating harmony. If I had to choose between the LCC and the "regular" modal approach for this type of music I would choose the latter because it does not ignore the fact that overtones are generated from the ROOT of the chord. It is simpler to learn a scale whose root coincides with that.
-
- KVRAF
- 25052 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
You seem confused as to what the Lydian Tonal Organization actually sets out to do.
NB:
"one must" - you like that sort of thing, don't you.
And let's say it moves as much as Giant Steps at an appropriate tempo; well, we may want a whole other way of thinking to connect the chords than scales anyway. Coltrane favored arpeggiation.
I'd look for common tones first.
NB:
There is no “goal pressure” within the tonal gravity field
of a Lydian Scale.
Only if the scale you like for a chord disagrees to that extent with the next chord.["modern" jazz] is a world in which one must play a different scale over each chord because of the endlessly modulating harmony.
"one must" - you like that sort of thing, don't you.
And let's say it moves as much as Giant Steps at an appropriate tempo; well, we may want a whole other way of thinking to connect the chords than scales anyway. Coltrane favored arpeggiation.
I'd look for common tones first.
-
- KVRAF
- 25052 posts since 20 Oct, 2007 from gonesville
Here's one chief feature of the Concept you may have missed:
When we extend a I chord, we never do a natural 11th according to major. It doesn't work.
It's a #11. This is what we call a normative principle.
So, the principle that got Russell started is located here; the parenting of chords in a scale formation, he felt the need for a new examination of that.
Hence the CHORDMODE. (NB: this is not necessarily how I think, but as food for thought I find it definitely more compelling than the other chord=scale theories such as Mark Levine. Actually I find his ideas anathema. There is no real necessity to consider one scale/one key seven scales.) NB: Levine actually says to ignore the 'suspended 4' on I. To me, that indicates major as suspect as a basis for the sorts of extensions in 'modern' jazz. There is no 11th on C Major = I chord in C Major.
And to say it adds an unneeded layer to what really is harmony out of Broadway Show Tunes, or Tea for Two, or classical tonic dominant tonality, you-name-it misses the whole point. It supplants the "layer" that we find in say Levine. I understand that POV, I mean I agree with Sonny Rollins "You can't think and play at the same time."
But the derivations of chords and 'artificial scales' we do find in jazz make sense in the concept and you can't out of Levine's notion make 'jazz minor' and so forth.
After Russell we find Miles Davis so-called modal jazz and the impetus was to move forward away from the triviality of that kind of basis.
When we extend a I chord, we never do a natural 11th according to major. It doesn't work.
It's a #11. This is what we call a normative principle.
So, the principle that got Russell started is located here; the parenting of chords in a scale formation, he felt the need for a new examination of that.
Hence the CHORDMODE. (NB: this is not necessarily how I think, but as food for thought I find it definitely more compelling than the other chord=scale theories such as Mark Levine. Actually I find his ideas anathema. There is no real necessity to consider one scale/one key seven scales.) NB: Levine actually says to ignore the 'suspended 4' on I. To me, that indicates major as suspect as a basis for the sorts of extensions in 'modern' jazz. There is no 11th on C Major = I chord in C Major.
And to say it adds an unneeded layer to what really is harmony out of Broadway Show Tunes, or Tea for Two, or classical tonic dominant tonality, you-name-it misses the whole point. It supplants the "layer" that we find in say Levine. I understand that POV, I mean I agree with Sonny Rollins "You can't think and play at the same time."
But the derivations of chords and 'artificial scales' we do find in jazz make sense in the concept and you can't out of Levine's notion make 'jazz minor' and so forth.
After Russell we find Miles Davis so-called modal jazz and the impetus was to move forward away from the triviality of that kind of basis.
-
- KVRist
- 70 posts since 3 Mar, 2004 from Camarillo, CA
The natural 11 extension on a Major chord is absolutely viable IF the third is not in the structure and/or the third temporary is substituted with the 2nd. The use of the 4th/11th on major chords has been around for centuries and has been used in every style of music, including jazz. Russell, Aebersold and Levine's theories can't change that.
-
- KVRist
- 149 posts since 28 Sep, 2006
Best intro to modal theory I ever read was by no else but great Satriani:
http://www.desktopmetronome.com/c5/inde ... or-guitar/
http://www.desktopmetronome.com/c5/inde ... or-guitar/
