I finally understood modes

[shawshawraw]

As a side note, a guitar book I'm practicing these days uses an approach starting from the pentatonic 1 b3 4 5 b7 and gradually introducing the bends 6->b7, 5->b6, 1->b2 etc. I find it a cool way grasping how those notes relate to 1.

[jancivil]

Well, that's cool. But while we can bend 4 to b5, we're still not anything really related to Lydian. The modes are what they are. They may be related to a "minor pentatonic" any way we can think of it but as a pedagogical point it's nonsense as a source or a basis, I'm sorry to be the wet blanket but let's try and keep things from running amok, be coherent.

This reminds of the Sloot v Clement fight, Sloot calls all kind of blues solos Dorian in order to compete with Clement's Lydian Theory* as to most prevalent in FZ (in linear solos as well as how Lydian is the major mode while Dorian is the minor mode in eg., the Chord Bible (a real thing by FZ). I mean I LOVED me some ^6 to 7 bends in my blues-inflected thing. Blues is its own thing, tho.
(As well as the confounding ofmajor/minor regular harmony with Ionian and Aeolian by Sloots in order to vaunt those in trying to refute the papers.)

[gaggle of hermits]

as i understand it, the chord bible was built around monster chords with little reference to any existing scale or mode and I guess largely driven by overtone matching/overlap in terms of how things were space out. so attempting to shoehorn that into any existing mode just seems destined to fail.

and being zappa being zappa, i can't help wondering if the bible itself wasn't an elaborate practical joke to surround compositions with an aura of mystery and the likes of steve vai were in on the joke (though the chord structures used were real enough).

[shawshawraw]

Well, that's cool. But while we can bend 4 to b5, we're still not anything really related to Lydian. The modes are what they are. They may be related to a "minor pentatonic" any way we can think of it but as a pedagogical point it's nonsense as a source or a basis, I'm sorry to be the wet blanket but let's try and keep things from running amok, be coherent.

Agreed, and you can see I worded it carefully :p

[jancivil]

as i understand it, the chord bible was built around monster chords with little reference to any existing scale or mode and I guess largely driven by overtone matching/overlap in terms of how things were space out. so attempting to shoehorn that into any existing mode just seems destined to fail.

Oh dear. I wouldn't recommend you follow in Sloot's footsteps and demand a reply.
(NB: the ‘Lydian Theory of’ nowhere near applies to all of the CB, Sloot's big mistake is this kind of strawman.)
You've leapt to a conclusion that doesn't apply, this is not about simple modal single-line.
"with little reference to any existing scale or mode" - you based that in what evidence? BZZZT.

I live to see some rando posturing how Frank Zappa’s statement regarding his own music makes no sense. First rule of the Dunning-Kruger Club is you don’t know you’re in it. Just leap to a mindless gainsaying & show your understanding is superior.

Clement's thesis in fact regards the vertical*.
What the theory does at heart is offer an alternative to the whole major/minor paradigm; in which Lydian is the major mode and Dorian is the minor mode. So you have in the CB constructs Zappa has gone into like "Lydian minor":

The stuff that I’m working with now is seven-part harmony with no notes doubled. And most of the orchestra stuff is based on that. In other words, if you take any kind of diatonic scale, it contains seven notes, and there are ways of spacing those seven notes so that at all times you’re playing the entire scale. But you can make it sound like chords instead of blurs. Want to hear an example? I’ll play you a beautiful seven-note chord. If you take a C-major scale, it sounds like this . . . . That’s spread out over an octave and a fifth. See, it’s spelled E-F-A-C-D-G-B . . . . The other thing I worked out is chords built in fifths. You build fifths plus one third, and that will also give you seven notes. Here’s an example. That’s C-E-B-F#-G-D-A.

So that last sentence shows FZ at early stages of his theory, and forms the basis for 'Lydian Theory of the Instrumental Music of FZ', and ultimately supports "Introduction to the Chord Bible of Frank Zappa"
Much like Russell's Lydian Chromatic Concept, we begin (as music theory itself does in antiquity) looking at stacks of P5, a harmonic idea. Like Russell, Clement for simplicity's sake states the basis on F on paper.

Chapter 5 - Non-diatonic music
1. Diatonic chords.
The reader may understandably be confused to see the term “diatonic” appear in this chapter. As musical examples are presented, the logic of the inclusion of diatonic chords in a chapter on “non-diatonic music” will become apparent. In fact, it is quite likely that the construction of the Chord Bible began with diatonic chords. The methods of construction forthese chords, then, served as a model for subsequently added non-diatonic chords. Foremost, the diatonic scale provides a pitch collection tailor-made for seven-note chords.

I first heard it mentioned here:
Tommy Mars: Frank and I both, before I joined the band, were great fans of the
Minor Lydian. This is a polytonal concept. If you have a C-minor on the bottom and a D-major on the top, that’s a Lydian chord [sic], with the tritone in it…
The pedant in me reacted to that, but once considered for itself it makes perfect sense.
[40]Mars cites jazz-pianist Erroll Garner with introducing him to the chord. [...] The term “Minor Lydian” may originate with Mars.
Minor Lydian 1 is Dorian with #4; ML 2 is Lydian with b3.

CF: Tyler Bartram, Youtube "Breaking Down Alien Orifice". There's one that brings in Clement.
*: The concept begins w. the horizontal scale = the vertical construct. The chronology of FZ in journalism (as well as the obvious progression diatonic->chromatic) suggest a theory that starts with this, two diatonic scales that more or less represent modes.
Both forms of LM there may be noted as diatonic with one chromatic alteration. So already we've transgressed such a border. Beyond this, again this is a vertical concept, it can apply to anything.


edit mainly to clean up style issues

[gaggle of hermits]

the final sentence kinda makes my point: why go to the trouble of trying to shoehorn modes into a system that doesn't need it or explicitly call for it (though we shall never know because it's never been published and isn't likely to be)?

i didn't miss that clement describes both "minor lydian" and octatonic constructs in his paper. but the mode-centric approach is like the geocentric universe, it all goes great until you have to start listing all the exceptions when a different perspective would make things far simpler and more explicative.

[Pashkuli]

Chords or rather harmonies with more than 5 (different) notes are prone to lead to severe freq. interference... Physics is a b¡tch.

Thus from pure aesthetic and we could say arrangement (maybe even compositional) stand point of view, such chords must be either:
1. used in fairly wide inversion form
2. spread out in much renova ("octave") registers
3. assigned to different instruments (timbres)

The Chord Bible is pure intellectual juggling. You can look at it in the same way people look at High fashion clothing reviews, where pros in that field look at what is possible in terms of fabrics, colours, stitches, etc. and overall aesthetics, but not necessarily form a mass consumer perspective: how can we wear such thing on casual evening out!?

Such things exist in Music as well, various so called "negative" harmonies, certain microtonal (western) attempts, dodecaphony, polytonality, also with rhythm and measurements... till you get to simply a sound design, which is not Music anymore, rather what composers and musicians could do.
With the involvement of electricity and recently with digital tools and methods, those endeavours exploded like supernova, so now we can call permutations of glitchy pitched\timbre sounds Music, together with a lullaby nursery song\rhymes.

Here is an example:


Modes are much more "traditional" and quite ancient way of composing music.
Pentatonic scales with no prime intervals (old school semi-tone) and their modes are much more universal among vast amount of peoples around the world.
If understood correctly, they are the best way to start with regards to understanding Modes. All the rest is just styles, methods, genres and other quite unnecessary thought frames... of the mind.

[jancivil]

[jancivil]

[redundant]

[Jafo]

You won't go terribly wrong if you consider modes to be moods (there's no etymological connection, alas); each mode is good for -- a recipe for? -- evoking certain feelings. Plato and other blowhards had a whole philosophy about the modes and their proper use (similar to ragas in India), but we can pick and choose what we like.

[gaggle of hermits]

another full proof of the Dunning-Kruger Effect
frankly you're perfectly suited for this degraded board. FTR I always felt this way, from day one of your posing. I am out.

well, bye then.

however, i can't leave without pointing out that even in your supposedly clear example of minor lydian in use the entire final sections is various transpositions of what could be notes on a modal scale, some of which is almost straight chord planing of the debussy kind (not that there is anything wrong with that). I believe Clement classes that set of pitch classes as dorian btw.

maybe it's the old dunning-kruger but that doesn't correspond to any modal use that was discussed in this thread up to your, frankly odd, introduction of zappa's work. that passage is all about intervals not a fixed mode. there are a bunch of interval-focused theories that looks as though they would do a far better job of handling this kind of material than, as i say, shoehorning it into a modal framework unless you're taking the view that it really is at its heart the old soloing-over-chords approach to modal usage you decried only a page or two ago. it seems to have more commonality with the kind of thing the MITA people use (and probably the spud murphy EIS as well but, as that's all locked up unless you spend north of a few grand, it's hard to tell), where they do employ modal scales but on a short-term basis, where the mode shifts effectively with each chord change or shift in sonority.

i get you love zappa's work. however, taking any criticism of the criticism of his work as an insult to your lord and saviour is just plain daft, especially when there is no good way of confirming whether clement actually matched zappa's thinking or has simply gone down a very deep rabbit hole. i think sloots overeggs the argument but i'm far more in agreement that zappa was not using some overarching scheme for his work or if he was he wasn't applying it for much of the time but just as seed material for improvisation/composition or it was approaching music from an entirely different viewpoint of note or interval relationships. clement strikes me as akin to the schenkerians who feel the need to reduce everything to v-i no matter how daft it is.

[shawshawraw]

Woah. Should we talk about suspensions in modes now? LOL

[Pashkuli]

"and change\transpose them as same pentatonic,"

What's the point?
If this means moving the same 5 notes in the same relationship (can't tell because of the shite way you write, are we changing or transposing? Transposing in no way affects the construction.)

Yes, it does mean exactly the same. So, it is comprehensible enough from what I wrote using my tonal reference (the chromatic, where there is no such nonsense as "semi-tone", because all tones and intervals are whole entities\numbers).

Change is to move it, to change position a. k. a. transposing.
The chord underneath is kept the same in this case Cmaj
in PMN: B4·7 or 8B7 or 5B4 or 8·5B
As you can see by using PMN, we can write precise inversions at any point.
More about PMN: PMN system (Plain Music Notation system)

[fmr]

"and change\transpose them as same pentatonic,"

What's the point?
If this means moving the same 5 notes in the same relationship (can't tell because of the shite way you write, are we changing or transposing? Transposing in no way affects the construction.)

Yes, it does mean exactly the same. So, it is comprehensible enough from what I wrote using my tonal reference (the chromatic, where there is no such nonsense as "semi-tone", because all tones and intervals are whole entities\numbers).

Change is to move it, to change position a. k. a. transposing.
The chord underneath is kept the same in this case Cmaj

Change is NOT transposing. Transposing changes nothing. If you use a different diapason (for example the old baroque fiapason) you even hear the VERY SAME notes transposed a half-tone down.

Changing is CHANGING - alter some notes, different voicing, etc. Transposing simply shifts the tones up or down, it changes NOTHING. That's something your silly system (and you) fails to understand.

[Pashkuli]

Transposing is a change. A shift. You change the position in this case, not the intervals of the scale (pentatonic in that case above).
But with regards to the mode, the mode will change... although the pentatonic scale has only changed\shifted its position and the chord has not been changed\moved.
Yet, the mode will change (referred to the same chord used).