Theory & Impro Modes - do you think about them derived from a base scale

[mrblackbat]

Modes are often described as a ‘type of musical scale coupled with a set of characteristic melodic and harmonic behaviors’ (source: wikipedia).

They’re also often introduced using a major scale as a base: I = Ionian, II = Dorian, III = Phrygian, IV = Lydian, V = Myxolydian, VI = Aeolian, VII = Locrian.

It came up in another thread when discussing various aspects of harmony that some people don’t like this approach (and have valid reasons for this) but also that thinking of mode as scale isn’t something they would do:

Side note - I have an objection to terms like “the 7th mode of the melodic minor scale”. Mostly because I think that it’s a bad idea to conflate the idea of a “mode” with that of a “scale”.

My initial response: “Genuinely curious how do you go about thinking of modes then? I don’t think I’ve ever come across anything that would describe them as anything other than scales derived from some other scale. E.g. the seven modes of the major scale, Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Myxolydian, Aeolian, Locrian.

Same then applies to other scales to derive other modes etc.”

I definitely think of modes as scales, but I also think of them as derived from a base scale: I.e. the modes of the major scale, the modes of the melodic minor scale, the modes of the harmonic minor scale and so on.

For me this approach reduces material that must be learnt: learning the major scale also equates to learning the six other modes (we can practise scales from any starting note). On top of that then just learning the characteristic sound of the mode works for me.

Curious as to who this approach works for and who it doesn’t work for?

 

[Pete Thomas]

Although I was taught about modes as related to the major scale, I think it’s better to think about each mode as a series of intervals in its own right, and I encourage anyone to do that sooner rather than later.

Of course it may seem easier (at first anyway) to think of them as relative to the major scale but I believe it’s good to think related to their own tonic.

This is the difference between relative and parallel modes which I mentioned in my Taming the Saxophone article.

So in answer to

Genuinely curious how do you go about thinking of modes then?

e.g. Dorian is TSTTTST, Phrygian STTTSTT etc.

Also think of the associated harmony, for which relation to major scale is irrelevant

 

[mrblackbat]

So whilst I think it’s important to hear the sound differences, and so I’d play modes from the same root when learning them, again I’m going to fall back to less is more when learning this stuff.

12 major scales versus 84 major deriven modes. It’s a lot less to learn and think about.

And historically, modes were in pairs with a unifying finishing note. What we call a natural minor mode extended up to finish as a Dorian mode, thus cementing the derivation from that scale.

 

[mrblackbat]

Also the title of the split thread is wrong (and I’ll repeat again that I hate split threads. I’d rather you just ask me to start a new one than do this because I’ll write the initial post diffeeently instead of looking a bit stupid).

Whilst the example was given using major scales, the same approach will apply to any scale, melodic minor, harmonic minor, Hungarian minor etc.

 

[Pete Thomas]

There are of course shortcuts but I have found that very often less is not more. It’s less.

Also the title of the split thread is wrong (and I’ll repeat again that I hate split threads. I’d rather you just ask me to start a new one than do this because I’ll write the initial post diffeeently instead of looking a bit stupid).

You don’t look stupid to me, but please feel free to edit the thread and title.

Edit:
I created the new thread because it really did bring up a new and useful topic and if I hadn’t split it, it would have turned into a complete hijack of a thread specifically about C#7 b13 and searchable as such.

We do this because the Cafe relies on good SEO. It’s always good to relate a discussion to a thread title and I got a feeling this opened up a new discussion.

 

[mrblackbat]

Amended the original post.

 

[skeller047]

The word “mode” comes from the same root that the word “mood” comes from. The original Greek modes, which were adopted (and perhaps modified) by the Christian church, were each meant to express a particular feeling.

When playing “modal jazz”, which can be a whole tune or a section of a tune that also has functional harmony, I think it’s important to explore each of the tones in the mode in question as it relates to the root of the mode. Additionally, modal harmony is not really functional (this chord leads into that chord), and is instead textural (this chord provides a particular color vs that chord).

Put another way, when I think modally, I am exploring the relationship of notes and harmonies of the mode in relation to its root. Direction, and sequence, of tones and chords is thus arbitrary and I choose which ones to play based on melodic and textural considerations, rather than thinking about their resolution tendencies.

On the other hand, if I play an “altered scale” over a dominant 7th chord, in a functional harmony situation, I do so because of the directional tendencies of the notes in the scale, and I will expect to resolve them melodically and harmonically on a following chord. I am thinking of where those notes will go, rather than thinking of how they relate to the root of the dominant 7th chord.

I get that it is easier to think of 12 major scales than 84 modes, but I view that as a mechanical process relating to fingering patterns rather than a musical process. I do not think of the Dorian mode as “the same as a major scale but starting on the 2nd degree”. I made a concious effort over many years to hear each mode as its own thing. Since I had been trained on classical literature it was an effort, my over-trained ear kept pulling me back to the major scale root, but I eventually succeeded in developing a true sense of each mode on its own.

I admit this is a very fine distinction, certainly pedantic in the extreme. But I hold onto it because I enjoy thinking modally, and also enjoy thinking functionally. Again, this is all just my opinion, and I am a quirky grizzled old codger, set in his ways, and yet still trying to grow.

 

[Pete Thomas]

and so I’d play modes from the same root when learning them,

I understand obviously that when thinking about relative modes of a specific major scale they all have the same notes, but the word root here is confusing for me as I think of it applying to chords, not to scales.

 

[Pete Thomas]

When playing “modal jazz”, which can be a whole tune or a section of a tune that also has functional harmony, I think it’s important to explore each of the tones in the mode in question as it relates to the root of the mode. Additionally, modal harmony is not really functional (this chord leads into that chord), and is instead textural (this chord provides a particular color vs that chord).

I agree in regard to modal jazz, which is the context you mentioned this, but there are many modal tunes in other genres, eg folk, that do have functional harmony. In D Dorian C major chord often functions as leading to Dm

Put another way, when I think modally, I am exploring the relationship of notes and harmonies of the mode in relation to its root.

As above, is the word root ? (as opposed to tonic or probably more pedantically correct: final)

I do not think of the Dorian mode as “the same as a major scale but starting on the 2nd degree”. I made a concious effort over many years to hear each mode as its own thing

Me too, although I personally prefer to think that way, I don’t say there is a right or wrong approach when thinking about modes either relative to major scale or (as I think) parallel.

 

[skeller047]

but the word root here is confusing for me as I think of it applying to chords, not to scales.

I think it’s proper to use the term root to apply to a mode. Chords in modal music can certainly have roots other than the base of the mode, but I think of this motion in terms of their relation to the mode, and not in terms of their direction.

This whole discussion is pretty abstract and it’s sometimes useful to remember that what we call functional harmony today derived from explorations done by composers who were trained on modes. I don’t remember exactly when we started to see common “progressions” in music, bit I think it was somewhere around the 13th or 14th century AD. And then a few hundred years later we had Bach, the G.O.A.T of functional harmony.

I look at modal jazz (and other modern modal music) as a return to the aesthetic of Gregorian times, but perhaps incorporating influences from other sources, including functional harmony.

Perhaps the archetype of modal jazz is So What on Kind of Blue. Compare Trane’s solo to Cannonball’s. I feel Trane had fully adopted the modal mindset, where Cannonball was still a little uncomfortable with it, because he kept putting in melodic devices derived from his work on playing changes. (Not saying Cannonball’s solo was inadequate in any way, mind you!)

 

[Pete Thomas]

Cannonball was still a little uncomfortable with it, because he kept putting in melodic devices derived from his work on playing changes.

This may be the way I approach modal jazz or rock, I try to be melodic but without the constraints of fitting to melody to a constant (and unforgiving) set of changes.

An example of this is something I have often done, e.g. in D Dorian playing a phrase which has an emphatic C# and so implying a harmony that isn’t there. A wrong note unless used carefully and with intent.

I think in some instance even with freeform I was greatly influenced by Ornette Coleman who often prayed melodically (with sometimes implied harmony) over an apparently free and structureless background.

 

[Pete Thomas]

I don’t think I’ve ever come across anything that would describe them as anything other than scales derived from some other scale.

In many contexts they can be thought of being derived from a major scale, but many contexts where they aren’t. I doubt anyone back in the old days getting their crew to sing a sea shanty would be like “now then me hearties let’s base this one off of the second degree of the major, or else you’ll all be scrubbin’ the decks.”

 

[mizmar]

I think it’s proper to use the term root to apply to a mode

Finalis, apparently!

View: https://youtu.be/lyq48eybjZw

 

[mrblackbat]

So just because I think of the modes as a degree of the major scale, I don’t hear them as such. If I’m playing Dorian I hear Dorian. Even to the point that if I establish that sound and then play a C major chord I’m still hearing Dorian.

That’s why I say when learning the modes it’s important to keep the root constant (or tonic if that makes more sense for you, but for tonic has no place when talking about modes because it’s a term that corresponds to functional harmony). So I’d play D Dorian, D Phyrgian, D Lydian, D Mixolydian etc when learning the sounds. Same again with modes that I would say are derived from the melodic minor or harmonic minor etc.

I do get your point about the altered scale having a place in functional harmony, Steve, and I completely agree that I’m really talking about simplification from a mechanical point of view; getting the muscle memory and technical facility down. And I really do think there that simplification helps.

 

[mrblackbat]

In many contexts they can be thought of being derived from a major scale, but many contexts where they aren’t. I doubt anyone back in the old days getting their crew to sing a sea shanty would be like “now then me hearties let’s base this one off of the second degree of the major, or else you’ll all be scrubbin’ the decks.”

But I also bet they didn’t talk about modes, or probably even notes either. Or time signatures, crotchets, minims or any of that stuff. They just sang, right?

Music theory is a description of sound, not the other way round. And it’s also an abstraction of frequencies. Perhaps we should do away with scales, notes and just refer to frequencies. “Right we’re going to play this piece starting with a 2.734 second long 587.33Hz note”

 

[Pete Thomas]

But I also bet they didn’t talk about modes, or probably even notes either. Or time signatures, crotchets, minims or any of that stuff. They just sang, right?

Exactly.

 

[Pete Thomas]

Finalis, apparently!

Yes that would be the terminology back in the day (see my post above - final in English.), however it is now a bit archaic I think and although maybe tonic isn’t exactly correct in regard to modal music, I think it’s better than root for me, as I think of roots being about chords and so any one key center may contain several roots (diatonically, as many roots as there are notes in the scale)

 

[mizmar]

Yes that would be the terminology back in the day

Sure - and the subtext of that video is that it's pointless and confusing to look to history for clarity.
Modes - as sequences of notes intrinsically based on a degree was a thing, still is in Indian and Middle Eastern traditions; but isn't really in the modern western, harmony focused, ET tradition. The meaning of words change.

 

[Pete Thomas]

but for tonic has no place when talking about modes because it’s a term that corresponds to functional harmony)

I understand why you say that, however it is less confusing for me than using the word root. Many modal melodies do contain functional harmony but maybe key center is better. For example tunes such as What Shall we do With the Drunken Sailor, Donald Where’s yer Troosers start off with two different roots but only one key (center).

Dm | C | Dm | C

The chord C (and also Am) does function in D Dorian as a sort of dominant that can imply a resolution to Dm. Well it does for me anyway.

 

[mrblackbat]

I don’t find it confusing at all though.