Help with the 7 modes

Discussion in 'Music Theory, Lessons & Techniques' started by WhoThenNow7, May 11, 2013.

  1. Dani2901

    Dani2901 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    This is a good point for beginning to explain!!!

    fantom is 80% right with what he said. But there is no C-Lydian at all!
    I think Paul Gilbert is changing the key from C-minor to E-minor.
    The Lydian mode is always based on a major chord. And this is the point!!!

    So lets stay in the key G-major:

    You don't need any other notes for all 7 modes as the major scale.

    7 notes --> 7 Chords --> 7 Modes

    Here it is:

    At first you have to build the chord of this scale!

    1.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    ---l_____l______l______l
    =Gmaj7

    2.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    ------l______l_____l______l
    =Amin7

    3.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    ----------l_____l_____l______l
    =Bmin7

    4.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    -------------l_____l______l_____l
    =Cmaj7

    5.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    ----------------l_____l______l_____l
    =Dmaj7

    6.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    -------------------l______l_____l______l
    =Emin7

    7.-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#-G--A--B--C--D--E--F#
    -----------------------l_____l______l_____l
    =F#dim5/7

    This is what you have to understand first!

    So...

    G-major scale played over G-major chord --> G Ionian Mode
    G-major scale played over A-minor chord --> A Dorian Mode
    G-major scale played over B-minor chord --> B Phrygian Mode
    G-major scale played over C-major chord --> C Lydian Mode
    G-major scale played over D-major chord --> D Mixolydian Mode
    G-major scale played over E-minor chord --> E Aeolian Mode
    G-major scale played over F#dim chord --> F# Locrian Mode

    You can use maj7 chords aswell!

    now you think: "soloing over just one chord all the time?!":scratch:
    At first: YES

    Chord progressions without changing the mode are possible, too! I can do this for you later, if you request.

    :idea:The trick:

    In every Mode you have two kinds of notes

    1. Arppegio notes (single notes of the chord for example B-D-F#-A =Bmin7 -->Phrygian Mode)

    2. tension notes [(colour notes) every other of the G-maj scale. In this case: G-C-E]

    The trick is to pull the tension notes to the Arppegio notes.

    This is one way you can do it!

    There is another way but this is the best way to start it!

    I hope i could help you
     
  2. Osorio

    Osorio SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Remembering my time with Berklee, I had major problems with my ear training professor in this particular part of the subject of modes. She had a very rigid interpretation of "tension release". I used to argue that waiting for the song to finish to understand it was absurd. Our brains can interpret something as it happens... The final chord can be a B Diminished all day, if the harmony and melody tell me G Mixolydian, that is what it is saying to me. I had a very hard time with some assignments because of this...

    (Also, mad props for videogame music).
     
  3. Mr. Big Noodles

    Mr. Big Noodles Theory God

    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes Received:
    902
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    fantom's not arguing for C lydian.

    Where do you get C minor?

    For all you guys that keep bringing this up, let's see some proof of concept. This "I = ionian ii = dorian" approach is complete crap because it does not explain modal music, and it is a factually incorrect interpretation of tonal music. There is no discussion on pitch centricity, and you need pitch centricity for this kind of music (that's the definition of tonality, after all). I am sure that you are not talking about atonal music (and please don't try to), so let's get real.

    We know how the diatonic modes are constructed a million times over, but how are you going to make music with them? For someone who is starting at zero, no chords or anything, how are they going to create phrases, sections, actual pieces? When you say ii = dorian, fine, if you play D dorian while somebody else is playing a Dm chord, then the notes will fit most of the time and you can rely on your ear to make decisions for you. But where do you go from there? Do you know how to construct a chord progression? How to make harmony have actual direction?

    For the G mixolydian = C ionian crowd, you would not believe that approach if you ever did ear training. There is a simple reason for that: it is not how the ear works. G mixolydian is not C D E F G A B starting on G, it's 1 2 3 4 5 6 ♭7 where G is 1. Our ear hears intervallic relationships, not notes. When you isolate one chord and say that it is a representative of its own individual scale, you instantly discard the essential relationship of one chord to another and to all other chords to a tonal center.

    Why don't you do this now? This is, after all, how it works 99.9999% of the time, and one chord = one scale is .0001%. Not only is it possible to have harmonic progression without changing the scale, it's the norm.
     
  4. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    Correct. I'm arguing the entire thing is in Em (Aoelian). There is no change to a minor or other mode. It's a progression in Em. For evidence, just listen to the next lick, it's just Em pentatonic... (A-G-E-A-G-E played as 5-3-0-0-5-3-0-0 on the E string).

    Also, even though that first chord contains C-F#-G a bunch, it is heavily implied by context to be a C Major, not C minor. That is why I said C Lydian is a possibly valid interpretation. But it would be wrong for this piece.

    ^^^ Yes. That summarizes my thoughts. Most modern "rock" style music picks a key / mode and just does a progression within the mode. Thinking of chord changes as mode changes makes absolutely no sense to me. Yes, you want to articulate the backing harmony during melody, but there's no reason to think of it so "vertically".

    One of the things I remember being told several times... guitar players think vertically all the time. "Vertically" can mean "harmonically", but I tend to view this comment as "short-sighted" in the sense that guitar players think of what the can play over the current chord and no further. This type of thinking makes it hard to create a fluid, "lyric", melody. In contrast, "horizontal" thinking implies how to make a line fluid throughout a section. I was told this by someone who played a wind instrument (which can only play one note at a time, so it makes sense). I bring this up because it is exactly what I see as the 2 different arguments in this post:

    1) "chord = mode" arguments, which imply vertical thinking.
    2) "mode dictated by sound within a section of music" arguments, which imply horizontal thinking.
     
  5. Dani2901

    Dani2901 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    Hey SchecterWhore,

    You have one big problem! You throw out all your knowings, what is for beginner like you are speaking chineese!! :wallbash:
    What I wrote down is a very good working basic for beginners. this stuff i learnd from a guitarplayer who has finished jazzguitar academy called "Bernd Kiltz".
    Best way of learning is always step by step!
    And this is the reason why i don't write down chord progressions, yet. This would be to much input!
    Trying out with one chord is enough to get the feeling and sound of every single mode!

    Not every one can be such a "superbrain" like you!! :nuts: Have you learnd this all in one day or one lesson???? You are just one of these guys who wants to show the world his "endless knowledge"!

    because of people like you there are so many questions about easy things like the 7 modes...

    You call yourself "Theory God" here! may be you are! But you are very bad and terrible teacher! :)
     
  6. trickae

    trickae Ibanez Enthusiast

    Messages:
    610
    Likes Received:
    145
    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2008
    Location:
    sydney
    Sorry for the mistake guys, i got caught up at work. I wanted to sit down with my guitar and break down a bunch of songs which is how i think modes should be looked at.
     
  7. Dani2901

    Dani2901 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    John Petrucci soloing over just one note!!! LISTEN TO THE BASSPLAYER!


     
  8. Mr. Big Noodles

    Mr. Big Noodles Theory God

    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes Received:
    902
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Before launching into this, I want to share an article that I dug out of an old Guitar World magazine for anybody who wants more perspective:
    here

    I don't agree with everything in the article, but the basic idea is good enough to take away.

    And now...

    I am thorough, but I certainly do not throw everything out at once. In my time in this thread, I've discussed breaking modes up into four-note chunks, analyzed some simple music in the dorian mode, and prodded the "C ionian D dorian E phrygian" crowd for not offering any substantial information.

    I'm sorry that this is too much for you to stomach. I write lengthy posts, no doubt, but I try to create as many visual landmarks as I can within them in order to keep them from becoming a wall of text. In my defense, my teaching is directed and I tackle one item at a time, and you cannot say that I do not offer depth in my responses.

    Step by step is great, no argument there. It's the "by step" part that your camp seems to be having trouble with.

    :rolleyes:

    I am going to make an accusation that I have made before: saying that ii represents the dorian mode is factually incorrect. Likewise, iii = phrygian, IV = lydian, V = mixolydian, etc., are all fallacies. You have demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of tonal music. Go find Bernd Kiltz and get your money back, because he failed to teach you what a tonic is.

    It took me a long time to learn what I know. It took an even longer time to wrap my head around it and turn that information into music. I have learned to approach music critically and have opinions that are the result of observation. When I teach, it is from experience and with the hope that I can help the student learn to be similarly critical, perhaps even bypassing the roadblocks that I have encountered along the way. You, on the other hand, could easily have learned your approach in one day.

    Modes are not easy. For that exact reason, I teach my private students functional harmony long before even mentioning modes. I think it is appalling that we have gotten to a place where musicians have no concept of what used to be considered fundamental knowledge, and take some vague idea of "modes" as a substitute.

    I'll point out that you have so far restated the exact content of post #3 from the first page, and have gone no further. What more, this is something the OP already knows.

    Check the website and tell me if you've expanded upon the explanations given there. Including your own explanation (and excluding the link in the OP), we have had four posts in this thread that detail how the diatonic modes may be related to a major scale, information that the OP is already aware of. I think we've stopped writing for the OP a long time ago, but still, gonna come up with anything new yet?

    The bassist is playing a pedal tone. This does not mean that the harmony is static; John's solo has functional harmony (i.e. chord progression) in it. J.S. Bach does the same thing in the first four bars of the first cello suite:



    [​IMG]

    That's a simple I IV viiĀ° I progression, but with G in the bass the entire time. The pedal tone helps to reinforce the tonic chord, and the pedal tone is a non-chord tone in one of those chords. As soon as he finishes the exposition, the pedal moves around and gradually disappears, and he does some neat stuff with that idea, but I'm sure that this analysis would be lost on you. Petrucci and Bach know how to handle harmony, big surprise.

    Your example does not demonstrate John Petrucci playing a differently named scale for every chord he comes across. And you have also missed the point of my criticism. I am not saying that music does not exist where there is one chord and one chord only for the entire duration; I am saying that when you play D dorian over Dm7, G mixolydian over G7, and C ionian over C∆, you can forget the D dorian/G mixolydian part and call the whole thing C major.

    By the way, here's a piece of, er, music that stays on one chord the entire time:



    Playing one scale over one chord is not a method of composition, nor should it ever be. You dismiss the facts when you say that, because functional harmony happens whether you like it or not.

    We have an idiom in English: "Tongue in cheek."

    As for my teaching, I will let the world be the judge. I may not be your cup of tea, but I get enough PM's here and elsewhere (and I have a lot of emails and a few letters, too) that suggest that I'm doing something right for somebody else.
     
  9. wespaul

    wespaul Octaves of Manhattan

    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Location:
    Lawton, OK.
    I don't understand the complaints directed toward SchecterWhore. He gives insanely detailed explanations, and welcomes discussion. I'm a music major, and I feel grateful that I can read discussions outside the classroom of the very stuff I'm studying . Music theory is something that requires a lot of reinforcing.

    If somebody thinks he's speaking Chinese, they're more than welcome to ask a question. I've never seen SW eschew a question, no matter how trivial. Let's be realistic, though: we're talking about modes, and the theory relating behind them. Not just how to play a major scale in different positions. If you really want to get a better understanding of something, you'll put in the time required. Understanding modes takes time with both theory and application. You can't have knowledge force-fed to you. Put in the work, and read a long post if you have to (and don't be surprised that you'll still need to learn more).
     
  10. Mr. Big Noodles

    Mr. Big Noodles Theory God

    Messages:
    5,082
    Likes Received:
    902
    Joined:
    May 29, 2008
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    Well, since my first post, I've been attacking the relative mode folks. Retaliation is expected, though I'd rather they respond by trying to support their arguments than resorting to personal attacks.

    Thanks for the backup and feedback. It's true, I do like to have some semblance of discussion, and despite my detailed answers, I'm not trying to push out other contributors. If you can show us all a way of thinking and bring up examples of your observations in action, then everybody learns, me included.

    This is the point. Modes are always relative to a tonic, not relative to each other.
     
  11. wespaul

    wespaul Octaves of Manhattan

    Messages:
    680
    Likes Received:
    81
    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2011
    Location:
    Lawton, OK.
    I agree. I was actually introduced to the modes as a major or minor scale with changes. I think of the mixolydian mode as a major scale with a flat 7th. Or the dorian mode as a minor scale with a raised 6th. That's always worked for me.
     
  12. ferret

    ferret Not worthy

    Messages:
    1,574
    Likes Received:
    384
    Joined:
    Apr 5, 2013
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    I haven't really understood the direction or tone of this thread. SW and a couple of others seem to directly respond to what the OP is looking for. Others seem to be against a deeper understanding of modes and theory and just want to go with the most basic on-paper method, the whole "play C major starting on X over chord Y" relation.... The OP seems to indicate in the first post that he already understands how the modes relate back to the major scale pattern though, and asked for a better understanding.

    If playing C Major on "root" X over chord Y is enough for you to be happy in your playing, great. I don't understand why people seem against a fuller and deeper understanding of whats really going on, or why they seem to be offended that someone takes the time to explain it.

    I'm throwing an outright thanks to SW, because I've found each post enlightening.
     
  13. Dani2901

    Dani2901 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
  14. Hollowway

    Hollowway Extended Ranger

    Messages:
    11,741
    Likes Received:
    2,224
    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2008
    Location:
    California
    Ok, so whenever I read these threads I feel like I'm learning a bunch right up until I have to apply them, and then I get confused. So here are my questions:

    1) For that Paul Gilbert piece, why could it not be in G major, with a IV-vi-IV-vi progression (if we're only considering the notes shown in the excerpt)? Is it because you need that I tonic chord in there somewhere?
    2) How can you determine what modes all those measures are in Greensleeves? And how do you know it's D Dorian for the whole piece if there are no chords to direct you?

    If SW, CelticK, or one of you others could specifically tell me (especially that second one) by listing the step by step notes, rather than just saying "the harmony" that would be a huuuuge help!
     
  15. Dani2901

    Dani2901 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    OK! let's switch on our brains! Make the countercheck! Like you have done in Mathematics at school.

    write down any major scale INCLUDING its changes for any mode you want.

    write it down in two octaves! If you have done you will always find another usual major scale in it.
    And this way you will always get back to the model I showed you.


    Try it. this works!
     
  16. Osorio

    Osorio SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    I don't see where you are aiming to get at with this. Music makes a lot of mathematical sense, so, yeah, sequences repeat themselves. You are abstracting the notion of TONIC that SW and others have tried to reinforce, and this is why people misunderstand this topic so damn much.
    Thinking modes are all "equal" to a Major relative can only get you so far. I seriously can't understand why people think that playing C Ionian and D Dorian (etc) is a good practice routine. It does a piss poor job at showcasing what modes are about.

    I remember back in the day, when I was learning modes for the first time, I could only make practical sense of it once the notion of "altered scales" settled in. I stopped seeing Dorian as a variant of the Major scale and started seeing it as a Minor Scale with a M6 and a b7 (as wespaul said). I wrote multiple pieces with varying modes of a same tonic to teach myself the different nuances. If you are playing D Dorian, G Mixolydian and C Ionian you might as well just be playing in C Major. It makes no difference (as it was already said). If, however, you are playing in C Dorian, C Mixolydian and C Ionian you will hear the difference IMMEDIATELY.

    You cannot "abstract" the tonic. C Ionian is NOT the same thing as D Dorian. Not in any MUSICAL sense, at least. Sure, it makes a lot of mathematical sense, but that's just not how music works. It's not how the brain works in perceiving music. If you want to just stick to the basic shape-focused approach, that is all fine and good. A LOT of musicians get by without proper understanding of this stuff (I imagine a lot with above-par understanding don't get anywhere as well). If, however, you want to truly understand this stuff, there are people here trying to help.

    I'm going to take a stab at this. Apologize in advance if I miss the mark.

    What is most important about modes is that they have specific interval relationships with the tonic. So, if you hear a Minor scale with a b7, but a M6, you are likely hearing dorian, even if there are no CHORDS, underlying harmony still exists. But like SW said, the piece is not stricly Dorian and I guess that was the whole point of the example. Dorian passages can coexist with other "variants" of the Key.
    On the other hand, we had Scarborough Fair, which is an example of a straight through Dorian piece.
     
  17. fantom

    fantom Misses his 6 strings

    Messages:
    200
    Likes Received:
    10
    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2009
    Location:
    Bay Area, CA
    I'll try to explain it and butcher terminology in the process!

    So as it's been pointed out several times in this thread already. It is all about the tonic, or the resolution. If the piece wants to "pull" to a GMaj, than by all means it is a GMaj piece. But this song doesn't pull that way. Play the riff and some of the endings, then end on a G5. Sounds a bit... weird... do you hear it? Now do the same thing and play an E5 at the end. Ya, that sounds better, right? It's because the tonic is E. The notes being chosen up to the pentatonic riff are all E Aeolian. That is why I pointed out that the next section hammers the E as a pedal in an Em pentatonic lick.

    The general rule of thumb, if you would "end" a section (or the song) on a given chord, that is the tonic. Most rock/metal stays in one key. Once you have the tonic, you can start trying to figure out the mode.

    Pen and paper style, why E and not G? Let's rewind to function of chords... if this is confusing, please ask. I typically remember these as I-IV-V progressions with substitutions.

    Tonic chords: I/iii/vi (major key) and i/III/VI (minor key)
    Subdominant chords: IV/ii/vi (major key) and iv/ii*/VI (minor key, * is the half diminished)
    Dominant chords: V,vii (major key) and V, VII (minor key)

    Let's look at this in Em first, VI-i-VI-i. Notice that this is really the tonic and a substitution of the tonic. The use as a subdominant is possible, but I don't see reason to view it that way because it isn't pulling towards a dominant.

    Let's look at this in G now, IV-vi-IV-vi. This would be subdominant and a subdominant substitution. It should pull to a D or F# diminished at some point to resolve to the G (or just try to resolve to G without the dominant), but it doesn't do either.

    So what was the other option I mentioned? C Major using Lydian, aka I-iii-I-iii. In this case, it's the tonic and a tonic substitution. Ok, so why is the less valid than the Em case? In just this section, it could really go either way. The fact that the 3rds are left out of both chords makes it more ambiguous. But the resolution of the next section is a strong E. Hence my conclusion it is Em.


    I want to bring up a better example (using almost the exact same riff). Dark Tranquillity's "Feast of Burden". (quick tabbing from memory... probably slightly off, and the guitar is detuned 1/2 step to Eb, but let's talk about it in standard tuning for simplicity).



    Code:
    "Part 1"
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    -------------------------------------------------------------(2-4)
    -----5-----4-------5-----4------------5-----4-------5-----4---4-5-
    -3-3---3-3---3-3-3---3-3---3-3-3--2-2---2-2---2-2-2---2-2---2-----
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----5-----4-------5-----4------------7-----5-------7-----5---5-7-
    -3-3---3-3---3-3-3---3-3---3-3-3--5-5---5-5---5-5-5---5-5---5-----
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    
    
    "Part 2"
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    -----9---10-------9---10---9---10--------9---10-------10---9---7---9---
    -7-7---7----7-7-7---7----7---7----7--7-7---7----7-7-7----7---7---7---7-
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    -----------------------------------
    -----------------------------------
    -----------------------------------
    -----7-------7---------------------
    -5-5-5---5-5-5-......--------------
    -----------------------------------
    Before considering the part 1, look at how many Es are played in the part 2. Ok... good, now let's rewind.

    Looking at the part 1, the progression is essentially C-B-C-D. Given context (notes played are B, C, F#, G, D, A), it's pretty safe to assume we have ABCDEF#G as our notes (the E is natural or we have a nonstandard mode... even if it wasn't in the part 2). Given just part 1, key of Em (E Aoelian) seems like a wild guess. I mean, they didn't even play an E note, right? Well it is in Em. Huh?

    First let's address the big question: Why is part 1 not C Lydian!? It's a decent guess. 2 of the measures are pivoting on C. It seems natural. Does the riff pull to the C, yes! But why is this bad? Because context of the song! The whole progression is pulling to part 2! In C Lydian, this would be the progression: I-vii-I-ii (tonic, dominant, tonic subdominant). This is a bit strange. Possible? Yes, typical? No. Does C Lydian explain part 2, NOT AT ALL! Part 2 would hammer away at iii,II,iii,II.

    Ok, so what about B Phrygian, I mean, part 1 spells B-C-D in the progression. Under B Phrygian, this would be the progression: II-i-II-III (subdominant, tonic, subdominant, tonic). Ok, this seems possible. Given just part 1, I could accept this if the song stayed on other B progressions. But notice part 2 again, it hammers on the E. And B is the dominant of E... so calling part 1 B Phrygian makes the E of part 2 awkward. Part 2 would be a subdominant in B Phrygian. It makes much more sense for the main chord of part 2 to be the tonic (in this case... due to context of the entire section of the song).

    Which brings me to... when you hear hoofs, don't assume zebras... In other words, let's think horses, part 2 of the song is hammering away at an E5 chord for 2 bars straight. So let's consider E Aeolian! The part 1 progression would be VI, v, VI, VII in Em. That is subdominant, dominant, subdominant, dominant... Oh wow, that seems to want to resolve into a tonic, doesn't it? Well what is the next part? Huge huge huge huge emphasis on E, aka, the tonic. Ya at the end of the riff it hits a VII chord (D5) a bunch, but that riff screams, "I'm in Em".

    Now similarly, it could be in G Major right? Well part 1 would be IV, iii, IV, V (subdominant, tonic, subdominant, dominant). Ok, this could easily resolve to G5. The Em explanation is "stronger" since the tonic doesn't appear in the middle of the subdominants, but G Major is a pretty good looking result if you don't consider part 2 of the song... When you consider part 2 strongly hammering the E, G Major is a poor choice.

    This is where "horizontal thinking" really takes off. You stop thinking about one measure at a time and you start looking at how chords, parts, and even sections play a role in the song. In this case, part 1 is a typical iv, V lead into a tonic. It is blatantly forced in your face due to part 2 that the E5 is the tonic. And once you "see" this piece of the puzzle, the rest becomes clear:

    Even though there is not a single E played in part 1, the entire part 1+2 section of this song is Em. There's no key change, no mode shift, no complex theory happening. It is VI,v,VI,VII,i,i,VII,i,i,VII in Em, broken into two parts of the song.
     
  18. Dani2901

    Dani2901 SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    332
    Likes Received:
    48
    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2013
    Location:
    Germany
    Don't you recognize how often you contradicted yourself???:lol:


    :lol:

    C Ionian and D dorian are same notes!!!

    The chords make the difference.

    of course you do! I've never said anything different

    C Dorian is minor based

    C Mixolydian and C Ionian are major based!!!
     
  19. stuglue

    stuglue SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    1,564
    Likes Received:
    95
    Joined:
    Nov 27, 2010
    Location:
    W Yorkshire
    May I offer some advice. If you have a keyboard then try soloing over some changes with that rather than the guitar. You'll find that you can't rely on patterns like with a guitar and you'll rely on your ear to tell you what fits and what sounds weak. I've been trying that approach and, whilst its been a bit of a train wreck its helped. That's the problem with the guitar in that the fingerings are the same, you just move them about for different keys. With the piano each key has a different fingering.

    I think we need the OP to post what he's playing over so we can hear the track.
     
  20. Osorio

    Osorio SS.org Regular

    Messages:
    555
    Likes Received:
    33
    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2011
    Location:
    Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
    Both scales share the same pitch collection, sure, but they are hardly of the same quality.

    I, personally, find the idea of thinking "D Dorian, G Mixolydian, C Ionian" to play over C Major COMPLETELY counter-intuitive, since you are attaching qualities where they don't belong. It's not like "that part over Dm" is going to sound slightly darker than the rest of the solo. You are not really using D Dorian in any capacity. You are merely displacing the notes of C Major and calling it a day.
    In technical terms, there is nothing wrong with that, but it creates a fantastic clusterf*ck when people actually try to understand how modes work (as this thread has, no doubt, proved).

    Music doesn't need chords to imply harmonic content. If you play a C, followed by a E, melodically, you are stating a Major 3rd relationship. Which implies a C Major quality. You don't have to like it, it's just how it goes.

    You continued to describe and defend what SW very aptly called "paper music". If you think that C Ionian is the same thing as D Dorian, try it. Compose a song using C Ionian and one using D Dorian. I very much doubt they will sound the same, even thought they will be spelled with the exact same pitch collections.
     

Share This Page