Chord Progressions for Aeolian mode

[nuffink]

My point is that whether it's a mode or a scale, it's just a root and a pitch pattern. You can play a "C lydian" just as easily as you can play a "C major". Your point was that scales are just pitch patterns without roots, whereas I think that in general speaking, a D major scale implies a D root.

The individual notes might be the same for C major and F Lydian, but the guiding harmonic principles are totally different.

The guiding harmonic principles is what I want to know for modes.

Modes can be played over chords. This is what you do when playing diatonically anyway - C Ionian is played over a C Major chord, D Dorian over a D minor chord, E Phrygian is played over an E minor chord etc (all assuming you're playing in C Major).

What modes give you is a much larger palette. Even in the very simple example above it should be obvious that if D Dorian can be played over a D minor chord then E Dorian (rather than E Phrygian) can be played over the E minor chord. This is called Modal Interchange and it's the basis of jaaaath theory. It allows you to play "outside" the diatonic key of the piece whilst still sounding good.

Here's a list chord/mode groupings normalised to parallel C chords... http://www.outsideshore.com/primer/prim ... r-4-7.html

[Nystul]

If abcdefga is a C major scale, why do natural minor scales exist? Seems like one could get caught up in this notion of each chord implying a mode in the scale above it and forget that the piece itself is in a specific key (implying the root of the scale) and mode (implying the type of scale). Or are all music just random chords thrown together with a nicely chosen mode over each chord?

[nuffink]

If abcdefga is a C major scale, why do natural minor scales exist? Seems like one could get caught up in this notion of each chord implying a mode in the scale above it and forget that the piece itself is in a specific key (implying the root of the scale) and mode (implying the type of scale). Or are all music just random chords thrown together with a nicely chosen mode over each chord?

Any mode can theoretically be used as a scalar resource. The best known example being the Aeolian mode which when used a scale gets its own name. How functionally effective this is can best be shown by the fact that two other common minor scales grew out of the natural minor's limitations.

[jopy]

If abcdefga is a C major scale, why do natural minor scales exist? Seems like one could get caught up in this notion of each chord implying a mode in the scale above it and forget that the piece itself is in a specific key (implying the root of the scale) and mode (implying the type of scale). Or are all music just random chords thrown together with a nicely chosen mode over each chord?

Because the scales are used in this case to describe the harmonic structure they imply, and aren't really just for playing or creating melodies in a normal tune. A natural minor scale in functional harmony is more like a theoretical principle that isn't used diatonically, because if you don't throw that raised 7th degree (which would be either your melodic or harmonic minor scale notes), it's a modal sound (i.e. no diatonic tension/release feeling).

Does that make any sense to anyone else? It mostly makes sense in my head, but I might be explaining that wrong.

[nuffink]

Classical harmonic theory - Scales determine chords, their (ex)tensions, and the melody played over those chords.

Jaath harmonic theory - Scales determine chords. Modes determine the (ex)tensions to those chords and the melody played over them.

[visa tapani]

Or do the terms major/minor have connotations of functionality/tonality?

Yes they do, that was exactly the point.

I haven't read the thread carefully but by skimming it, I don't quite get nuffink's point about playing all the white keys starting from f being c major. Clearly if you play all the white keys starting from f and ending on f (and we have no further context to consider) you're playing f lydian.

[Melkor]

I think nuffinks point was that if you play f-f "white keys only" over Cmaj, it will sound like Cmaj, not F lydian.

[Melkor]

.... Although I'm not quite sure what you mean with C present - are you saying that the III is an ultimately necessary chord to define harmonic minor?)

Im talking about the note C or m3, not the diatonic Cmaj or III chord.
It cant be Aeolian, or indeed any form of minor, without this note/degree.

However, my point was that your progression is not very characteristically aeolian either, as it doesn't contain the most distinct tone of that mode - g. Your progression could just as easily be phrygian for instance. Hence your progression does not give a "distinctly A Aeolian sound".

I would contend that the m7, or G in this instance, is not the "characteristic aeolian note" .... i would contend that they are the m3 and m6, or C and F, which my progression highlights to the exclusion of almost all other notes in the scale/mode, hence my term "quasi-modal".
I would contend that the m7 is distinctly Dominant or Mixolydian, but i completely understand your line of thinking on that

[nuffink]

Or do the terms major/minor have connotations of functionality/tonality?

Yes they do, that was exactly the point.

I haven't read the thread carefully but by skimming it, I don't quite get nuffink's point about playing all the white keys starting from f being c major. Clearly if you play all the white keys starting from f and ending on f (and we have no further context to consider) you're playing f lydian.

If you play all the white keys from C to C you're playing the C Ionian mode of the C major scale.
If you play all the white keys from D to D you're playing the D Dorian mode of the C major scale.
If you play all the white keys from E to E you're playing the E Phrygian mode of the C major scale.
If you play all the white keys from F to F you're playing the F Lydian mode of the C major scale.
If you play all the white keys from G to G you're playing the G Mixolydian mode of the C major scale.
If you play all the white keys from A to A you're playing the A Aeolian mode of the C major scale.
If you play all the white keys from B to B you're playing the B Locrian mode of the C major scale.

It's still the C major scale in each case. What's so hard to understand?

[visa tapani]

It's only "C major" in a tonal context.

I've never come across anyone using the term "Major" referring to scale or key or anything when analyzing or talking about the music of, say, Palestrina. It's not C major. The modes precede C major.

The terminology might differ in jazz theory, though.

[nuffink]

It's only "C major" in a tonal context.

I've never come across anyone using the term "Major" referring to scale or key or anything when analyzing or talking about the music of, say, Palestrina. It's not C major. The modes precede C major.

The terminology might differ in jazz theory, though.

The historical (church) modes share very little other than their names with the modern idea of modes, since they pre-date 12tet. The Ionian and Dorian (for instance) as used by Palestrina don't contain the exact same tones so can't be considered as part of an overarching scale.

[jopy]

In my experience, in jazz theory the terms are used very flexibly, depending on whose book you're reading from. Russell's LCTO lays out the major and minor system as specific "horizontal" cases of the more general concept of modes, whereas I think most classical theory and a fair amount of jazz theory talks about it the way that nuffink does. In my mind, I tend to have the perspective that visa tapani has; I always think of modes first and foremost as being the element that generalizes across time and cultures, whereas the concepts of major and minor require a harmonic structure and refer to ideas from the common practice period in European music.

Either way, I think the notes hanging out there by themselves can't be clearly differentiated as to whether they're modes or scales unless you can hear the whole context of the piece. If it keeps driving down to resolving on the first note of a mode, and there isn't a consistent harmonic structure that leads you to a dominant-tonic relationship, it's modal; if the piece has points of harmonic tension and release based on chords that resolve in that dominant-tonic feeling, it's diatonic (i.e. major or minor).

[karacha]

If you are playing white keys from F to F (an octave higher, obviously), you are playing F Lydian scale. Not "F Lydian mode of the C major scale". At least not in classical theory. You could see it like that, of course, it's not a mistake... but church modes are older then Major and Minor concept, so in classical music we don't generally use the term "Dorian mode of the C major scale". Ie. we don't see church modes as the "modification" of the major or minor scale. We simply say X Dorian, where X is the starting pitch class of the Dorian scale we need. In our case "Dorian mode of the C major scale" can be simplified as D Dorian. Unlike, say, "Dorian mode of the D major scale", which is E Dorian.

So, in classical theory modes = scales. Sometimes when people say "modes" they mean "Church Modes" but other then that, scale and mode is the same thing.

You also have a whole bunch of folk scales (modes), some of them are called "exotic", we have octatonic scales (sometimes called diminished, especially in jazz), Messian's modes of limited transposition etc. But we still use both terms, for example: Messian's modes = Messiaen's scales of limited transposition.

To sum up -- if you are talking about jazz theory, there are different interpretations of the same "set of rules", but really, the final result is the same. In classical theory, the use of scales/modes is very precise and you will see it's pretty much the same in every textbook. Kostka/Payne, Aldwell/Schachter, Turek, Gauldin etc. If they want F Lydian, they will write exactly that -- F Lydian. They will not use the word "mode" in this sense: "Fourth/Lydian mode of the X Major scale". The reason being mostly historical.

I am saying this as a professional composer/theorist who happens to be a college professor. So, when I am asking my students to play... say, a D Mixolydian scale, I want them to know how Mixolydian scale is constructed (in terms of half steps and whole steps), in the same way they know how a major scale is constructed. They know how many flats there are in Eb major scale, and are able to play it without any trouble -- and they should know a D Mixolydian scale has 1#: F#. Therefore D Mixolydian = DEF#GABCD.

Jazz textbooks are less standardized, and they are mostly giving you "shortcuts" to facilitate improvisation. Which is nice, of course. I certainly have nothing against that. In the example above, you could see D Mixolydian as the "fifth mode of the G major scale", and that way you use a familiar scale (G major) as a basis for your improvisation, but you actually play it from D to D -- and this is an excellent shortcut. And in that sense -- scale (G major) and mode (5th) are two different things. But that's not how classical theory sees it In classical theory we want you to know all these common scales without using any shortcuts.

[nuffink]

If you are playing white keys from F to F (an octave higher, obviously), you are playing F Lydian scale. Not "F Lydian mode of the C major scale". At least not in classical theory. You could see it like that, of course, it's not a mistake... but church modes are older then Major and Minor concept, so in classical music we don't generally use the term "Dorian mode of the C major scale". Ie. we don't see church modes as the "modification" of the major or minor scale. We simply say X Dorian, where X is the starting pitch class of the Dorian scale we need. In our case "Dorian mode of the C major scale" can be simplified as D Dorian. Unlike, say, "Dorian mode of the D major scale", which is E Dorian.

So, in classical theory modes = scales. Sometimes when people say "modes" they mean "Church Modes" but other then that, scale and mode is the same thing.

You also have a whole bunch of folk scales (modes), some of them are called "exotic", we have octatonic scales (sometimes called diminished, especially in jazz), Messian's modes of limited transposition etc. But we still use both terms, for example: Messian's modes = Messiaen's scales of limited transposition.

To sum up -- if you are talking about jazz theory, there are different interpretations of the same "set of rules", but really, the final result is the same. In classical theory, the use of scales/modes is very precise and you will see it's pretty much the same in every textbook. Kostka/Payne, Aldwell/Schachter, Turek, Gauldin etc. If they want F Lydian, they will write exactly that -- F Lydian. They will not use the word "mode" in this sense: "Fourth/Lydian mode of the X Major scale". The reason being mostly historical.

I am saying this as a professional composer/theorist who happens to be a college professor. So, when I am asking my students to play... say, a D Mixolydian scale, I want them to know how Mixolydian scale is constructed (in terms of half steps and whole steps), in the same way they know how a major scale is constructed. They know how many flats there are in Eb major scale, and are able to play it without any trouble -- and they should know a D Mixolydian scale has 1#: F#. Therefore D Mixolydian = DEF#GABCD.

Jazz textbooks are less standardized, and they are mostly giving you "shortcuts" to facilitate improvisation. Which is nice, of course. I certainly have nothing against that. In the example above, you could see D Mixolydian as the "fifth mode of the G major scale", and that way you use a familiar scale (G major) as a basis for your improvisation, but you actually play it from D to D -- and this is an excellent shortcut. And in that sense -- scale (G major) and mode (5th) are two different things. But that's not how classical theory sees it In classical theory we want you to know all these common scales without using any shortcuts.

First off let's get something out of the way...

I am saying this as a professional composer/theorist who happens to be a college professor.

Whilst I'm sure you are, this is the internet. People claim to be all sorts of things. This forum alone is home to many people claiming to be professional musicians, producers, mastering engineers, you name it. Some of them can even back it up. For instance if you click my sig you'll see that I sell software based entirely upon harmonic theory. This makes me a professional theoretician in the truest sense - I get paid for it. It doesn't necessarily make me right. In this forum your ability to make a reasoned argument counts, not what you claim as your job.

Having disposed of that, Let's get to the nub of it...

Your basic argument appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that in classical theory modes = scales. I would argue that in classical theory modes are used as scales. A subtle difference but an important one.
Classical theory uses modes and scales in a horizontal manner. Large sections of a piece use the same mode or scale as both a chordal and a melodic resource. Anything outside the mode or scale is considered an Accidental. I would argue that this is consistent with the use of modes as scales.
In jazz theory scales are used as a chordal resource. The scale implies the chords in the piece. It doesn't determine the melody played over those chords. The melodic "scale" used over the chords is independent of the overarching scale of the piece. These chord "scales" have to come from somewhere and that somewhere is modes.
In jazz theory (which lets face it is the whole of modern harmonic theory) the modes used as a melodic resource are not just those of the Major scale. Jazz draws frequently from the modes of the Melodic Minor scale, the Harmonic Minor Scale, the Harmonic Major scale, the common Octatonic, a hexatonic scale without a common name usually called the Hexatonic and the Whole Tone scale. There are others but most have only Forte numbers which I'm happy to bang on about but it'd probably be just the two of us who'd get it.

In Classical theory these modes don't even have names. Even in Jazz theory they're far from standardized. Here's what I use...

Melodic Minor
1 Melodic Minor ascending
2 Mela Natakapriya
3 Lydian Augmented
4 Lydian Dominant
5 Mischung 6
6 Minor Locrian
7 Super Locrian

Harmonic Minor
1 Harmonic Minor
2 Locrian natural 6
3 Ionian sharp 5
4 Mela Hemavati
5 Mela Vakulabharanam
6 Mela Kosalam
7 Ultra Locrian

Harmonic Major
1 Harmonic Major
2 Makam Karcigar
3 Makam Huzzam
4 Lydian Diminished
5 Harmonic Minor inverse
6 Aeolian flat 1
7 Locrian double-flat 7

Whole-tone
1 Whole-tone

Hexatonic
1 Messiaen truncated mode 3
2 Messiaen truncated mode 3 inverse

Octatonic
1 Half-Whole Diminished
2 Whole-Half Diminished

I've gathered dozens of alternative names for these modes if those don't suit.

The point is that in modern harmonic theory modes have a very specific use - as a melodic resource which can be played over chords. You emphatically can not say that modes = scales.

[karacha]

Whilst I'm sure you are, this is the internet. People claim to be all sorts of things.

Nothing I can do about that, friend. It is what it is. I do believe you are a professional musician and software developer as well and I respect that. I could obviously provide links to our homepage, but then -- it could be someone else and not really me. There is absolutely no way I can prove it, but then... it is not really important.

Your basic argument appears to be (correct me if I'm wrong) that in classical theory modes = scales. I would argue that in classical theory modes are used as scales. A subtle difference but an important one.

Well, I am simply saying that for classical theorist, modes represent these scales: Ionian (major), Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian (natural minor) and Locrian. Ionian, Lydian and Mixolydian are sometimes referred to "major-like modes", while others are "Minor-like modes". Most people, however, use the word scale most of the the time to refer to major and minor (with it's three modes -- there's that word again, but in a different context, meaning "type" or "flavor" now), while mode is reserved for church modes and scales like Messiaen's modes that were originally referred to as "modes".

As I mentioned, the word mode can also mean three different modes ("flavors", if you will) of minor scale (natural, harmonic and melodic) but this is really an issue with English language (which is not my primary language). You could use the word "mode" the way you use it, the Latin word "modus" to refer to a church mode etc. It's more semantics then anything else, because as we can see the same word can imply different things. I am simply saying what kind of terminology is used in classical music theory most of the time.

Classical theory uses modes and scales in a horizontal manner. Large sections of a piece use the same mode or scale as both a chordal and a melodic resource. Anything outside the mode or scale is considered an Accidental. I would argue that this is consistent with the use of modes as scales..."

Basically, everything you said here is correct, so I shortened it a little. I'd just argue that anything outside the scale is considered to be a chromatic note, not an accidental -- again this is exactly what you mean, but a bit more precise. Notes that are in a certain scale, let's say eb minor, still have accidentals, they are in the key signature (6 flats). They are simply "hidden" for the ease of reading. But again, everything you said is 100% valid.

The point is that in modern harmonic theory modes have a very specific use - as a melodic resource which can be played over chords. You emphatically can not say that modes = scales.

I think there was simply a misunderstanding here. But hopefully we both clarified what we meant in the discussion. The word "mode" can have different meanings depending on a context, and we were using it in a different (but correct) way:

• 1. mode as scale
  2. mode as church mode
  3. mode as "flavor", type of minor scale
  4. mode in jazz theory as a "flavor" of traditional major/minor scales, to facilitate improvisation -- or as a "shortcut" for using church modes in improvisation by simply remembering which major scale degree they start on, and then using that major scale key signature, but using different note as a tonic note.

I'm sure people could find more uses for the word mode, all of them correct -- but we have to understand the concept first. But in classical theory, when you give someone an assignment as a part of their keyboard lab: "would you, please, play a C major scale", you really want them to play white keys from C to C, not a Locrian scale from B to B arguing those are the same exact notes, but you're playing "Locrian mode of the C major scale." If we want to hear B Locrian, we will say: "please play B Locrian scale".

But I now understand where you are coming from, and I have enjoyed reading your post. I will look at the link in your signature later today. There is a concert I have to attend first. Thank you for the productive discussion.