How to now what chords to play in a specific scale?

[Sascha Franck]

Seriously (and I may get into that a bit more later, in case anyone's interested): I don't know of *any* (!) more or less functional chord progression that'd sound like lydian.

Lydian in itself (and for very good reasons) has a really "open" or "weak" character. As a result, most chord progressions that you may want to try out will sound like something else. Err, well... so, as an example:

Let's take the good old C major scale and the lydian mode to be found in it, namely F lydian. Now let's take the resulting I chord (for lydian that is), namely an F (or an Fmaj7, probably even enhanced with the "make this lydian" #11 note, namely the B). Now, what other chord would you play to really "ensure" F is the tonic? Say, a G7?
Ok, play these two chords after each other. I'm almost 100% sure that almost no person will think of it as F being the tonic of that progression. Almost everybody will rather tell you it's a IV-V progression in C. Or even a bVI-bVII progression in A minor. Or even a bIII-IV progression in D dorian. Whatever.
Really, lydian is quite unstable and usually only shows up in a pretty much modal fashion - such as in having a constant F drone (or vamp) in the bass and various chords played over that, such as F/F and G/F.

Apart from all that, if you really want to know all chords related to whatever scale, the usual procedure is to take each note of the scale as a root, then add up thirds and then analyse the outcome. To stick with F lydian, the chord building up on the F would be an F triad (F-A-C) or an Fmaj7 7th chord (F-A-C-E) or, once we add the socalled "option notes" an Fmaj7/9/#11/13 (F-A-C-E-G-B-D), the latter usually not being played in all it's glory but with varying option notes (there's even certain "rules" about which notes would replace which other notes). The same goes for any other of the possible scalar root notes.

And there's absolutely no "100%" rule about which chords should be played when. In a more functional context (something that lydian doesn't fit, really - see above...) there's some sort of "rules" such as it being a "plausible" idea that the dominant chord may resolve into the tonic. Sticking to C major, that'd be a G(7) chord more or less nicely (well, "plausibly") resolving into a C(maj7). More or less all root movements a fifth down (or a fourth up, depending how you look at it) seem to be more or less plausible. But they are in no way a must by any means. There's also a "method" to kinda define chords by their tonic, subdominant or dominant character - as a simple example: While being in C major, an A minor will still sound somewhat "tonic-ish". Fmaj and Dmin will sound "subdominant-ish", G7 will sound dominant-ish (pretty much the only "rule" of which there are little exceptions), Emin will often sound like a tonic substitute and Bmin/b5 will either sound as some dominant substitute (a G7 with an added 9th but no root) or subdominant-ish once you will go to Amin.

So much for now.

- Sascha

[jancivil]

I find lydian a very strong mode. but I approach it from the vantage point of observing the character of the thing through itself, not taking harmony as primary to determine how strong a line is, not at all.

This scale [a 'synthetic scale'], I hope to imply is... a thing unto itself, the interest is there in the scale; there is more complexity owing to its construction than with a major scale. that opinion 'waaker' appears to derive from a premise: the major [or minor] scale is strong because of its application in functional tonal harmony. That I find false. The cart is before the horse logically.

it's in the way of knowing what the line is capable of. What's weak per se about a tritone, which is the obvious feature of this scale? To apply functional harmony does produce so much ambiguity that this other ideation is problematic, but 'weak' is a term I would advise avoidance of.

Fitting chords to it are really only going to be useful to the degree you respect its particular character as revealed horizontally.

It's going to present problema looking at it harmonically, as I've implied.

[Sascha Franck]

I find lydian a very strong mode. but I approach it from the vantage point of observing the character of the thing through itself, not taking harmony as primary to determine how strong a line is, not at all.

Maybe I worded it wrong in my last post. I do perfectly agree that lydian is a very strong mode. But I have never seen (err well, heard...) it work in anything "functional". Really never. A while ago, on some german guitar player forum, there's been a kind of a contest to construct whatever lydian progressions. I failed to hear any lydian in any of these progressions, unless they were strictly modal. However, once things do indeed go modal, lydian pretty often is a very nice (and strong) choice for major chords.

- Sascha

[jancivil]

I should clarify, I just don't buy weak for 'lydian mode'... I was tempted to reduce that to 'so you can't have V7, therefore it isn't strong' and I may as well have. But as a line? What's missing? Rising fourth to tonic? It's there...

OTOH, this particular construction is most ambiguous. as far as it being suitable for glomming chords onto, it isn't happening. the whole tone-ness of it really could be thought of as weak in that there isn't even going to be a real compelling center. I suspected that strongly and made little arguments to myself in theory... playing with it *modally* it's a fvcken weird set of tones.

in Indian raga, there is a general idea that, eg, a pentatonic raga, that really sticks to five notes (with ornaments and bends, and there might be a sixth tone that isn't a full or authentic entity but always tied to a neighbor, ie., a grace note) is a masculine raga, connotation - strong; and let's say an eight, a nine-note raga is feminine, indecisive, changes her mind according to mood...

this is that feminine raga.

I've been playing with something: E F# G A# B C D#, with D natural as a not-as-essential ninth tone for a couple of days. It has the C B A# B in the middle, which is strong and lends weight to E by its satellite function around B. So I recognize some of the possibiities for color that you could call a chord, I'm going B D# F# A# D in a line, but the whole thing has E as a tonic and there isn't any 'there' there beyond that, the set of tones is the compelling thing at the moment. In a composition, who knows, there could be a lot of movement you might want to call 'harmony' but it's really lines colliding in ways, sonorous colorful ways.

People in the western tradition like their chords to be the meaningful thing per se. It isn't going to fit every conception in the world of music.

http://soundcloud.com/tigress00/outbrea ... -in-inside is some music rather than some talk... that uses scalar material that is hard to talk about in terms of harmony.

EDITED, typos

[Sascha Franck]

People in the western tradition like their chords to be the meaningful thing per se. It isn't going to fit every conception in the world of music.

I highly second that statement.
But then, once it comes to "rules" (of whatever kind), we should be able to communicate or so. And the "western" approach towards the scale/chord-theory as it's used in jazz/rock/pop (and wherelse) is a pretty well working "role model". It certainly doesn't capture all music styles, and even for the styles it seems to capture it's far from being perfect - but it's a good place to start with, at least as long as you are mainly familiar with whatever "western" music styles.

http://soundcloud.com/tigress00/outbrea ... -in-inside is some music rather than some talk... that uses scalar material that is hard to talk about in terms of harmony.

Just listened to it. I seem to like it quite a bit (sometimes that's hard to tell, especially at 9AM in the morning - I mean, I just brought my 17 months old son to the "Kindergarden"...). And yes, this kind of music doesn't exactly (sometimes not even remotely) follow our typical western music theory "standards". But then, honestly, I don't think the OP asked for whatever "world music" or esoteric solutions. Really, no offense meant at all, but once we try to explain things on a music theory level, there should be a more or less common model we should stick to (and again, seriously, I'm all for leaving/breaking these models).

- Sascha

[Harry_HH]

The last few posts here are from my point "wanking", i.e.
very few people, not to mention the guy who made the original question
and seems to be a freshman in the theory of music, will get anything about
these. Purpose to my interpretation is more the writers ego lifter - not to help anyone. This is just a comment - no bad intentions but you may learn something from these words if you have heart to take it. H.

[Sascha Franck]

The last few posts here are from my point "wanking", i.e.
very few people, not to mention the guy who made the original question
and seems to be a freshman in the theory of music, will get anything about
these. Purpose to my interpretation is more the writers ego lifter - not to help anyone. This is just a comment - no bad intentions but you may learn something from these words if you have heart to take it. H.

Well, the OP asked for something that simply can't be answered in a truly simple manner.
If you want to know whatever chords work for whatever modes you need to learn some chord/scale theory. Otherwise it's trial and error.
Sure, in case someone asks which chords would suit a lydian scale, you could just tell them. But the result will be highly questionable as I'm 100% sure that whatever progression he/she will end up using, it won't sound lydian to 99% of any listeners.
So you need to have quite some information about modes in general before you start with whatever things. And once you gathered that information, you wouldn't ask about which chords would suit a lydian scale anymore, either.
As easy as that.

- Sascha

[jopy]

i happened to find the discussion between sascha and jancivil quite informative and interesting in terms of when a scale does or does not lend itself to functional harmonic treatment. one person's "wanking" is another person's "informed exchange of information."

as always, ymmv.

[qa2pir]

yeah I agree with jopy

[Sascha Franck]

Back to the original post:

For example: Lydian Minor Scale: C,D,E,F#,G,Ab,Bb

Just wanted to mention that this is no lydian minor scale. Not that I'd happen to know what lydian minor is supposed to be like (I never exactly heard of it), but the scale above certainly isn't minor as it contains an E, which is the major third of C - so it's clearly major.
I also wouldn't exactly happen to know how to call this scale (it's pretty rare to find 2 halftone steps next to each other, in your example F#, G and Ab), but as it has a major 3rd, natural 5th and a minor 7th, some obvious call would be some variation of mixolydian, you could perhaps call it mixolydian #11 b13.

Someone already posted the basic method of how to build up chords on whatever given scale. You simply take the root note and go up in thirds (skipping every other note that is). Then you may want to analyze the resulting chords. In most popular music it's pretty common to see them as a basic 7th chord (root, third, fifth and seventh) that you could then probably "enhance" with the socalled "option notes" (ninth, eleventh, thirteenth).
So, let's quickly do that for the scale above:

I)
C E G Bb - C7
D F# Ab - 9 #11 b13
With all options played the chord would hence be a C7/9/#11/b13

II)
D F# Ab C - D7/b5
E G Bb - 9 11 b13

III)
E G Bb D - Emin7/b5
F# Ab C - 9 b11 b13
This is one of the chords that you sometimes stumble upon. The approach of just stacking thirds won't work anymore. The reason: There's that Ab. Our ears (well, at least almost all our western ears...) will not accept something like a flatted 11th but "re-interprete" it as a major third. So, what to do with that G then? This is usually interpreted as a sharped 9th.
So in this case, the resulting chord would be an E7/b5 with no 11th as an option but two ninths (9 and #9) and a b13. Note: Having two ninths might be common knowledge to those that know the socalled "altered" chord, but in that case it's b9 and #9.
Anyway, you will have some, well... "problems" dealing with this chord.

IV)
F# Ab C E - ouch!
Yet another chord that won't work with the common "stacking thirds" method. From F# to Ab it's simply just a wholetone, no third in sight. But hold on for a second - there's our Bb. Enharmonically correct it's a b11 again, but our ears will hear it as a major third again. The result would then be:
F# Bb (or A#, re-interpreted) C E - F#7/b5
Yet again we're losing an option note (the b11) in favour of two ninths again - Ab, re-interpreted as G#, hence a 9 and G, the b9. The D would be the b13.

V)
G Bb D F# - Gmin/maj7
Ab C E - b9 11 13

VI)
Ab C E G - Abmaj7/#5
Bb D F# - 9 #11 #13
OUCH again. There's a maj7 and a natural 7 here. I defenitely wouldn't happen to know what to make of that. No idea what our ears would do with it, either. Perhaps one could just use either 7th (depending on the context). You'll "lose" the 13th anyway.

VII)
Bb D F# Ab - B7/#5
C E G - 9 #11 13

Ok, that's the chords based on the scale.
There's quite a lot of unusual chords to be found, and if you really want to come up with a house track only using chords of that scale, it'll certainly sound quite "not too familiar" for most people.
IMHO, scales such as this one only work "temporarily". They don't exactly fit the bill of any "functional context". You could compare that to something that might be more familiar: When you have a song in natural minor (let's say Amin), you'd usually use chords out of the natural minor (or aeolian) scale. But very often, when it comes to the dominant chord (for Amin that'd be an E), the third is raised, so instead of an Emin7 (which is the chord building upon the E in A natural minor) you'd get an E7, just to get a more clear dominant character. As a result, while the E7 is kicking in, the scale needs to be modified, too. In that very example, instead of still using A natural minor, we'd raise the G to a G#, the result would be an A harmonic minor scale. And as said, that's somewhat a "temporary" scale as it's not of that much use for all the other chords you may use in an A minor context.

- Sascha

[Harry_HH]

yeah I agree with jopy

I don't agree.
For some reason for me it's hard respect very much following conversation.
Very soon you don't know what the person really means or if
he/she knows/means anything:

S.Franck:
"Lydian in itself (and for very good reasons) has a really "open" or "weak" character. As a result, most chord progressions
that you may want to try out will sound like something else. Err, well... so, as an example:"

jancivil:
"I find lydian a very strong mode. but I approach it from the vantage point of observing the character of
the thing through itself, not taking harmony as primary to determine how strong a line is, not at all."

S.Franck:
"I do perfectly agree that lydian is a very strong mode. But I have never seen (err well, heard...)
it work in anything "functional"."

[Aroused by JarJar]

Congratulations to the original poster- you've hit upon a puzzle of music that never really has been solved since the time it was a big deal about 100-200 years ago.

At the time our modern concepts of "nation" and "folk" were being formed, in the Western world, there was a big effort to put local folk musics into "high" (ie, Western orchestral) forms. But the authentic folk musics simply would not fit- they were modal, like the scales Jan and Sascha are discussing, the rhythms were odd, the phrasing nothing like Mozart, the timbres often most un-orchestral. And many folk still used drones, as they had since the middle ages or earlier (the drone folk instrument where I live died out less than a hundred years ago).

Anyway, without getting into how much "historical revisionism" went into this process, and how sad it is how much of the real deal got lost, your scale is a good example of the kind of non-major/minor scale that composers would find in folk music and not be able to put into Western music without changing either one or the other.

In fact I recognize your scale, you can call it "lydian-phrygian" because it is a lydian pentachord with a conjunct phrygian tetrachord. This is the nomenclature for this scale in one of my old textbooks.

But there is nothing that is forcing you to fit your scale into Western harmony, is there? If you got the scale by feeling it out, I think you should stick with it and screw adhering to Western functional harmony. And the scale contains the basics of a soft (modal) but definite tonality, as far as chords:
I-v.

By I we mean the tonic major chord (C-E-G). By v, we mean the dominant chord, built on the fifth degree of a diatonic (7-note, basically) scale.

In C major the V is G-B-D, a major chord. In your scale your dominant is a minor chord, G-Bb-D. It still works as a dominant. In fact I-v-I is one of those things from folk music that composers were able to use- iirc there is even a folk melody quote in a Beethoven piece that does this.

So my advice would be at first to simply play I-v-I over and over, and play your melody on top, and see what happens. That is C-E-G, G-Bb-D, repeat.

These are the keystones, so to speak. A huge amount of Western classical music is essentially going I-V-I, with decoration, over and over.

If you can get I-v-I to work with your melody, then you should be able to both use your scale and keep it tonal, and functional-sounding enough for audiences that listen to music from around the world. I've heard cool modal things in disco music, too.

[Aroused by JarJar]

yeah I agree with jopy

I don't agree.
For some reason for me it's hard respect very much following conversation.
Very soon you don't know what the person really means or if
he/she knows/means anything:

S.Franck:
"Lydian in itself (and for very good reasons) has a really "open" or "weak" character. As a result, most chord progressions
that you may want to try out will sound like something else. Err, well... so, as an example:"

jancivil:
"I find lydian a very strong mode. but I approach it from the vantage point of observing the character of
the thing through itself, not taking harmony as primary to determine how strong a line is, not at all."

S.Franck:
"I do perfectly agree that lydian is a very strong mode. But I have never seen (err well, heard...)
it work in anything "functional"."

Both Civil and Franck are both civil and frank. And they most certainly do know what they are talking about. What's more they obviously understand what they are talking about, which in music theory is very rare, mostly people are quoting stuff from books.

[Sascha Franck]

S.Franck:
"Lydian in itself (and for very good reasons) has a really "open" or "weak" character.

S.Franck:
"I do perfectly agree that lydian is a very strong mode. But I have never seen (err well, heard...)
it work in anything "functional"."

I'm sure you meant that this is some sort of contradiction. But it isn't.
Lydian, in a "modal concept/context/arrangement" has a very strong character.
However, lydian in a "functional" context (read: "surrounded" by chords building up from the same scale) for me almost doesn't exist. I could tell numerous examples for "functional" songs in ionian, aeolian, dorian and mixolydian. I could perhaps even think of one or two that are in phrygian (with chances that you could as well just "re-interprete" them), but I don't know of *any* lydian song, unless it's indeed strictly modal (fwiw, the same goes for locrian, but with that I don't even know working modal concepts, others than practising excersizes).
And that's the weak side of lydian.

But as said already, I probably should've used better words.

- Sascha

[Sascha Franck]

And fwiw, had I read the original post a bit better (my apologies), we wouldn't be talking about lydian anyway, simply because the scale posted has little to do with lydian.

- Sascha