# Scales and chord progressions



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 23, 2013)

Hello again, SS.org!

So I've been fiddling about with scales and chord progressions (as the title vaguely indicates) and I've hit a spot of confusion.

As far as I know, if you were to play, for example, D Dorian over a C major chord, you wouldn't be playing dorian at all, because the tonality of the chord would pull your ear to the C, thus making the scale sound far more like C Ionian (as you are using the same notes). Stop me right here if I'm wrong.

If I'm right, however, how would that relate to chord progressions, rather than just single chords? If, for example, you played C major over a simple C/F/G/C progression, would it sound like C Ionian all the way through, or would it move between C Ionian, F Lydian and G Mixolydian, then back to C Ionian?

Basically, in a nutshell, what I'm asking is if you were to play a single scale over a chord progression, would the tonality/musical feel of the scale move between modes as the chords change, or would it constantly pull towards the I chord, in this case C?

If I've made a rat's arse of explaining this let me know and I'll try and word it better. Thanks in advance!


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

chord dictates the sound

scale is just a "spice" over it.. 

so the answer to your question is "the tonality/musical feel of the scale move between modes as the chords change"


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 23, 2013)

That makes more sense now. So if, for example, I played a G major scale over a C chord, it would actually be C Lydian?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 23, 2013)

It's not that volatile. If that were the case, substitutions would be a complete mess. IV ii V I in G major is IV ii V I in G major, as simple as that. #iv° II V I in G lydian is #iv° II V I in G lydian. See what I'm getting at?


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 23, 2013)

I was talking about scales, not chords, but I do understand, thank you. 

One thing I don't understand however is how chords work with modes in the numerical sense, I ii iii etc.

If I ii iii etc. goes to M/m/m/M/M/m/d in Ionian, how for example does that work for Lydian?


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

jarvncaredoc said:


> That makes more sense now. So if, for example, I played a G major scale over a C chord, it would actually be C Lydian?


yes


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

jarvncaredoc said:


> I was talking about scales, not chords, but I do understand, thank you.
> 
> One thing I don't understand however is how chords work with modes in the numerical sense, I ii iii etc.
> 
> If I ii iii etc. goes to M/m/m/M/M/m/d in Ionian, how for example does that work for Lydian?



i dont get what you are saying..

but.. one thing is harmonic analysis.. it will only take in consideration the chords/progressions..

other is scales... 

yes, every scale can generate its own harmonic field, but for analysis its usually only only used major or minor scales.. and functions of the chord, like dominant etc..

so theres no number for lydian.. theres a number for the chord ex.: Fmaj7(#11) = IV which relates to lydian.. but its the chord, not the scale.. 
take in consideration the numbering depends on the tonality.. so many chords could recieve different numberings

im sorry if its confusing, english its not my main language


----------



## ramses (Dec 23, 2013)

jarvncaredoc said:


> That makes more sense now. So if, for example, I played a G major scale over a C chord, it would actually be C Lydian?



Exactly! You would actually be playing the C lydian scale. This is because the notes G, B and D are not the 1st, 3rd, and 5th degrees anymore, thanks to the C major chord. Instead, they are now the 5th, 7th, and 9th.

Now you are realizing something very important: the pattern under your fingers is not a scale. Instead, the scale is the combination of the harmony (chords) and the melody (your lead guitar).


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 23, 2013)

Fantastic, thank you. This is all making a hell of a lot more sense to me now.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 23, 2013)

Er, no. You need a reference point. That reference point is the tonic. When you talk about scales, the note that the scale is named for is the tonic. So, G major's tonic is G. F lydian's tonic is F. E&#9837; Dorian's tonic is E&#9837;. The tonic is always indicated in analysis as "1", and when it is the root of a triad, that chord's designation is "I", "i", "i°", or "I+", depending on that triad's quality.

The rest follows logically. Here's a G major scale: G A B C D E F#
If G is the tonic of that scale, and if G is 1, then A is 2, B is 3, etc.
G A B C D E F# = 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

All major scales are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, whether their tonic is G, F, E, B&#9837;, or E#.

All other scale will compare to the major scale, in analysis. Let's take G lydian.
G lydian = G A B C# D E F# = 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7

All lydian scales are 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7, no matter what their tonic.
Note that the analysis indicates how the lydian scale is different from the major scale. This follows for every other scale. I'll just do it for the diatonic modes for now.

Lydian - 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7
Major - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Mixolydian - 1 2 3 4 5 6 &#9837;7
Dorian - 1 2 &#9837;3 4 5 6 &#9837;7
Minor - 1 2 &#9837;3 4 5 &#9837;6 &#9837;7
Phrygian - 1 &#9837;2 &#9837;3 4 5 &#9837;6 &#9837;7

When you harmonize a diatonic scale, you make chords from the pitch material of that scale. These notes in the chords are traditionally constructed of stacked thirds, by including every other note from the scale. So, G major harmonized:

G A B C D E F#
I - G - G B D
ii - Am - A C E
iii - Bm - B D F#
IV - C - C E G
V - D - D F# A
vi - Em - E G B
vii° - F#dim - F# A C

So if you see the chord progression C Am D G, you can bet your buns that it is IV ii V I in G major. "What about scales?," you say. It's all G major. It doesn't go "C lydian A dorian D mixolydian G ionian", because the name of the scale is the tonic, the tonic is 1, and the tonic triad is I, i, i°, or I+. C Am D G is NOT I i I I, and is most certainly not 1 1 1 1. Don't do that. You have the scale already, and it's G major. Nothing changes when the chord changes except for the chord itself. Tonic remains the same until you modulate, and you are not yet knowledgable enough to modulate. End of story.

This is the same with any other scale. Let's do something in G lydian now.

G A B C# D E F# - 1 2 3 #4 5 6 7

I - G - G B D
II - A - A C# E
iii - Bm - B D F#
#iv° - C#dim - C# E G
V - D - D F# A
vi - Em - E G B
vii - F#m - F# A C#

Anyway, you now see this chord progression: C#dim A D G
Since you're so smart, you put together that this is #iv° II V I in G lydian.

Now check this out, because this is beautiful: this means you can have a chord progression that is two chords or a million chords long, and as long as they're diatonic, you don't have to worry about any of this "what scale do I use" nonsense. If the chord progression is G mjaor, you noodle in G major and you're done with the thinking part. If the chord progression is in D# phrygian, you play D# phrygian and never worry about it again.

Trust me. I have a degree in this.


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> So if you see the chord progression C Am D G, you can bet your buns that it is IV ii V I in G major. "What about scales?," you say. It's all G major. It doesn't go "C lydian A dorian D mixolydian G ionian", because the name of the scale is the tonic, the tonic is 1, and the tonic triad is I, i, i°, or I+. C Am D G is NOT I i I I, and is most certainly not 1 1 1 1. Don't do that. You have the scale already, and it's G major. Nothing changes when the chord changes except for the chord itself. Tonic remains the same until you modulate, and you are not yet knowledgable enough to modulate. End of story.



theres something wrong about this.. i know theory varies from place to place.. 

but scale is one thing.. tonality of the song is another..

scales will vary yes from chord to chord.. like a G dominant chord depending on the situation you can use G mixolydian, G lydian dominant, G half-whole, G mixolydian b6, G Phrygian major.. etc

its not because the tonic is C you are locked in using C major scale.. you dont need to create a modulation to use another scale


----------



## ghost_of_karelia (Dec 23, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> Er, no. You need a reference point. That reference point is the tonic. When you talk about scales, the note that the scale is named for is the tonic. So, G major's tonic is G. F lydian's tonic is F. E&#9837; Dorian's tonic is E&#9837;. The tonic is always indicated in analysis as "1", and when it is the root of a triad, that chord's designation is "I", "i", "i°", or "I+", depending on that triad's quality.
> 
> The rest follows logically. Here's a G major scale: G A B C D E F#
> If G is the tonic of that scale, and if G is 1, then A is 2, B is 3, etc.
> ...



Not all of us have the opportunity to study degrees in this. I'm genuinely sorry if I attempted to sound "smart" or have caused offence in any way, you are a fantastic teacher and undoubtedly experienced and intelligent when it comes to theory questions. I didn't mean to dispute that in any way, but I am trying my best to put together a vague knowledge of aspects of theory piece by piece via the internet and books, and sometimes can get carried away with no-one there to tell me I'm wrong.

OT, you've quite literally cleared up my question and all subsequent ones... I can't begin to express how helpful that explanation was. Thanks a fvcking ton!


----------



## DarksomeOrigin (Dec 23, 2013)

Schecterwhore is right in regards to the tonic of the key not changing regardless of the chord in a diatonic progression. However, if you play an F# on the C chord in a G major progression, you are targeting the #11 of the C major chord. So technically, it is the 7th of the G major scale, but on the C chord it is functioning as the #11 of the C. Over the D it is functioning as the 3rd of the D chord, etc. So this is important information to be aware of if you want to be able to target certain notes as they pertain to the chords in the key, as opposed to just saying "well the progression is in G major so I'm just gonna go on autopilot in my G major scale and hope for the best."

As a side note, I have definitely heard notable Jazz bass players refer to playing over a II V I progression as saying you are playing Dorian, Mixo, Ionian over each chord. I have been of the impression that Jazz players tend to think chord by chord when improvising. Food for thought.


----------



## celticelk (Dec 23, 2013)

> Trust me. I have a degree in this.



You've just been waiting for the opportunity to say that, haven't you? =) Congrats!


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

the thing is.. you should think every chord with its own scale, otherwise you will easily get lost

for example how one would play over a progression like this (the chicken - famous by pastorius)
Bb7 - Eb7 - D7 - G7 - C7 - F7 (not sure about this F7.. i think after c its that pentatonic thing)


----------



## celticelk (Dec 23, 2013)

mjbg said:


> the thing is.. you should think every chord with its own scale, otherwise you will easily get lost
> 
> for example how one would play over a progression like this (the chicken - famous by pastorius)
> Bb7 - E7 - D7 - G7 - C7 - F7 (not sure about this F7.. i think after c its that pentatonic thing)



This is a non-diatonic progression, which explicitly puts it outside of the boundaries of SchecterWhore's explanation. If you put a gun to my head and told me to play something over this RIGHT NOW, I'd probably play some combination of the chord tones inherent to each 7th chord, the Mixolydian scale rooted on the chord-of-the-moment, and the symmetrical diminished scale rooted on the chord-of-the-moment.

Thinking of every chord with its own scale, as jazz players often do, is a means of organizing pitch material to work against the harmony-of-the-moment. If you want to play over a min7 chord, it may be helpful to remember that the Dorian scale that starts with the root of that chord is a harmonious collection of pitches for that situation. You may have a stock of Dorian licks or scale fingerings that you can pull out in order to play over that chord. But if that min7 chord is the ii in a ii-V7-I progression, the mode *of the progression* is still major. You could play another scale to which that min7 chord is diatonic, such as Aeolian or Phrygian, and achieve some different melodic colors, but you haven't changed the mode of the progression - it's still ii-V7-I in a particular major key.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 23, 2013)

celticelk said:


> You've just been waiting for the opportunity to say that, haven't you? =) Congrats!



Thank you. I'm kind of surprised that I typed that, actually. Do I sound like an elitist dick now? Good. 



mjbg said:


> theres something wrong about this.. i know theory varies from place to place..
> 
> but scale is one thing.. tonality of the song is another..
> 
> ...



This is what I consider a grey area. I understand the practice, but I don't agree with the pedagogy or terminology. What you're doing with this is making a list of all available extensions for a given chord. G13(#11, #9, &#9837;9) works out to this: G B D F A&#9837; B&#9837; C# E

Or, rearranged as a scale: G A&#9837; B&#9837; B C# D E F, which is the half-whole diminished scale (or whatever name you want to call it).

I'm cool with this, because it's a really convenient way of communicating what is otherwise a complex set of instructions for a single chord. What I'm not cool with is how this information supplants more fundamental and, in my opinion, more important and universal information on tonal music, putting the focus on a single chord rather than the whole phrase. The chord will be over in seconds - the music will go on for minutes. It also distracts from the functional quality of chord tones. The root, third, seventh, ninth, eleventh, thirteenth, and fifth all have different roles in a single chord. Chord-scales attempt to give a novice improvisor all of the information at once, and then let them out of the pen with no idea as to the function of the notes they're playing. And then, their concept of modes is conpletely screwed up. Major is a mode. Things don't go all lydian because you have a IV chord.

The other thing is that it puts a huge emphasis on harmony while melody goes by the wayside, when melody deserves much greater attention. If I give you a melody and tell you to harmonize it, can you do it? Will it sound good? If I ask you to substitute some chords from your harmonization, can you do that? Do you know where you can fit some chromaticism in? Can you write a countermelody to the melody I gave you (if, for instance, you're writing for unaccompanied sax duo)? The answer to all of these may be "yes", but I'd ask you to really look at the chord-scale method and decide how much it contributes to any of that. Then, evaluate how much it actually distracts.

I'm critical of chord scales, because those who teach them and those to whom they are taught scarcely have an understanding of harmony and voice leading.




jarvncaredoc said:


> Not all of us have the opportunity to study degrees in this. I'm genuinely sorry if I attempted to sound "smart" or have caused offence in any way,



No need to be apologetic. Also, nothing was meant by the word "smart". I'm only pointing out the fact that I'm educated to show that I've spent a good deal of time considering harmony. I believe my methods and thinking to be practical, flexible, and well-rounded. However, others might have a different process, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. There must be substantiation of one's argument in anything polemical, though.

Modes are a weird thing because almost nobody learns them in a musicological context. Count how many times someone on the theory forum here (I can't speak for the General Music forum or otherwise: I don't monitor it very intently.) has discussed the diatonic modes in Medieval and Renaissance music, and I think you won't find much beyond my contributions. That's where this stuff all started, supposedly, so don't you think it's odd that the majority of internet discussions on the Church modes start with late 20th century jazz? It might not be so bad if jazz pedagogy wasn't so screwed up. In my experience, the jazz world is a poor place to learn composition and analysis. Arranging could go either way; there was a great jazz cat who was a professor at my school, very inventive conposer, arranger, and improvisor, but he was better at making you feel good and talking about the feel than he was at teaching strategies and methods. I learned much more from a lesser composer who had his process down practically to list form. Not only could he tell you that a note sucked, but he could tell you why it sucked and how you could make it better. I'm getting a bit off topic, but my point is that you need to have a bunch of methods at your disposal that are very clear and will work 100% of the time. You have your entire life to figure out all the wishy-washy philosophy stuff, but harmony is something you want to learn correctly the first time so that you don't have to go back and fix a bunch of screwed up misconceptions.



> OT, you've quite literally cleared up my question and all subsequent ones... I can't begin to express how helpful that explanation was. Thanks a fvcking ton!



Thanks for the praise. I'm glad to help where I can.


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> The other thing is that it puts a huge emphasis on harmony while melody goes by the wayside, when melody deserves much greater attention. If I give you a melody and tell you to harmonize it, can you do it? Will it sound good? If I ask you to substitute some chords from your harmonization, can you do that? Do you know where you can fit some chromaticism in? Can you write a countermelody to the melody I gave you (if, for instance, you're writing for unaccompanied sax duo)? The answer to all of these may be "yes", but I'd ask you to really look at the chord-scale method and decide how much it contributes to any of that. Then, evaluate how much it actually distracts.



its 2 different things harmonize a given melody or create a melody over a given chord.. 

you can approach music any way you want and get great results.. how much each method contribute its up to the habilities of the musician

anyway, the only point is: the answer to the original question is.. as the chords change, the scales change
you cant separete them


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 23, 2013)

mjbg said:


> the thing is.. you should think every chord with its own scale, otherwise you will easily get lost
> 
> for example how one would play over a progression like this (the chicken - famous by pastorius)
> Bb7 - Eb7 - D7 - G7 - C7 - F7 (not sure about this F7.. i think after c its that pentatonic thing)



Dominant chords, sweet. Looks like a blues in B&#9837; (B&#9837;7 E&#9837;7 F7, with a bit of backcycling before the dominant). Might not be, depending on the accuracy of the transcription, but it looks feasible enough. I'd do whatever sounds right to me, based on the song itself ("Let the melody be your guide."), the style, the phrasing, and other factors. At any rate, I can see the lines in this progression: there is a chromatic line going D-D&#9837;-C-B-B&#9837;-A, and another going A&#9837;-G-F#-F-E-E&#9837;. That's just sevenths and thirds. Tons to work with - if you can make a little melody during one of those chords that hits a third or a seventh, you can chromatic that sucker on down. Maybe make one that hits both the seventh and third of each chord, then you can double the fun. Notice the parallel tritones. Scales? Meh. An ascending line that uses (mostly) fifths and thirds: F-G-A-B-B&#9837;-A (I have to change on C7, because C would be a lame note). Build something around that, and the line actually has a shape and direction.

Edit: I should point it out. This is a circle of fifths, an extremely common progression in Western music. The nature of the progression is chromatic, so I would reason against thinking of scales. Pay attention to the chord tones, use them in a melody that also has some non-chord tones (based on what sounds good to you), and you're set. How long do you have on these chords? One measure? Half a measure? Maybe four on that F7 or B&#9837;7? It's pointless to think "I can play B&#9837; mixolydian, lydian dominant, altered, half-whole, phrygian dominant, whole tone&#8230;" By the time you've decided, the chord has come and gone. Worry about the chord tones - they are much less numerous and you have to do it anyway.

Edit 2: Another thing. Chord scales encourage you to solo from the root. Roots suck. If you see "E7", think "E mixolydian", and then move over to the position you memorized for E mixolydian, the chances that your first note is going to be E are greatly magnified. After all, your brain just got three signals that all say "E". Not good for melodic writing.



mjbg said:


> its 2 different things harmonize a given melody or create a melody over a given chord..



Why? They're both composition. Melody and harmony are intertwined. No separation at all.



> you can approach music any way you want and get great results.. how much each method contribute its up to the habilities of the musician



Perhaps. You can practice composition and get better at it, though. Provided you're doing it correctly.



> anyway, the only point is: the answer to the original question is.. as the chords change, the scales change



I have yet to see evidence of this in actual music.



> you cant separete them



Exactly.


----------



## wespaul (Dec 23, 2013)

SchecterWhore said:


> Worry about the chord tones - they are much less numerous and you have to do it anyway.



+1000

That aside, grats on your degree! I'm working on mine and your posts are great for reinforcing material and offering different ways to apply it.


----------



## tyler_faith_08 (Dec 23, 2013)

Just because a progression has a dim chord for a moment doesn't mean that the scale changes to Locrian during that time. I V IV = the first chord is the tonic and the scale is major. Now a IV I progression (which would sound horrible to my ears) has the option of a modulation because neither chord identifies whether the leading tone is major or minor. At that point, you can look at it as Ionian or Mixolydian, but you should be looking at it as "I have these 2 notes to choose from while all the others are defined." However, as soon as one of those changes to a 7 or m7 chord, you no longer have that option. 

In another instance, if you just have a i chord throughout, you have many more options. You can play in Dorian, Phrygian, or Aeolian. However, you shouldn't look at that i chord as a Dorian chord or an Aeolian chord (largely because there is no such thing) but rather just 3 notes within the piece of music that aren't going to deviate. When you play over it, you can play the notes, play higher than them, below them, or hell even play another chord with it, just don't treat the chord as something that it isn't (like a mode).




mjbg said:


> anyway, the only point is: the answer to the original question is.. as the chords change, the scales change
> you cant separete them



I have an E5, Em, Esus2, E9, and an Eadd4, so what scale would each of these be?


----------



## mjbg (Dec 23, 2013)

tyler_faith_08 said:


> I have an E5, Em, Esus2, E9, and an Eadd4, so what scale would each of these be?


could be a lot of scales.. depends 1: function of the chord 2:your intention/sound desired

i think most is confusing scale with key.. while the key may or not change, scales will change over every chord..


ShecterWhore.. the evidence..

i dont know how i can demonstrate it.. but ill will try with this example i was working on an arrangement.. the song is called "batida diferente" by Mauricio Einhorn.. here is the first 8 measures

Key: G major

measure1: Gmaj7 [Imaj7] - G6 [I6] - scale used G ionian over both chords
measure2: Dm7 [IIm7] - G7(13) [V7(13)] - scales D dorian and G mixolydian
measure3: Cmaj7 [IVmaj7] - C6/9 [IV6] - scale C lydian
measure4: Cm7 [IVm7] - F7(9) [bVII(9)] - scales C dorian and F mixolydian
measure5: Bm7 [IIIm7=IIm7] - Bb7(13) [subV7(13)/IIm7] - scales B Phrigian and Bb Lydian b7
measure6: Am7 [IIm7] - Ab7(13) [subV7(13)] - scales A dorian and Ab altered
measure7: same as measure 5
measure8: same as measure 6

many of the scales the composer himself used on the song.. just google it and listen..

thats my only point: scales change doesnt matter the key.. no modulation was used.. 

if this isnt evidence enough
ok.. ill not say anything more about this..


----------



## DarksomeOrigin (Dec 24, 2013)

tyler_faith_08 said:


> I have an E5, Em, Esus2, E9, and an Eadd4, so what scale would each of these be?



E minor Pentatonic. And I might add the major 3rd in the E9 chord. I know that's not a fancy answer, but there's a reason that scale is so damn useful .


----------



## tyler_faith_08 (Dec 24, 2013)

tyler_faith_08 said:


> I have an E5, Em, Esus2, E9, and an Eadd4, so what scale would each of these be?



That was a facetious question, guys. Either way, it was aimed at saying that as a chord changes, the mode doesn't change unless otherwise influenced. If the tonal center or tonic changes in relation to the remaining notes, then a modulation has taken place. From how you're describing this, mjbg, each chord would be a I, i, i°, or I+.

If the 1 in a progression is G, the song is a G whatever, no matter what other chords are used in the progression. If the song changes to where it has another 1, then the mode would identified by whatever the 1 changed to. 

If I have the chords F G Am C in a song and treat the C as the tonic, the mode will be identified as C Ionian or C whatever (in the case of modulation) so long as the C is tonic. If I play just the C major scale ascending and descending the whole time, it's still a C Ionian. Now if on the next bar I play the same chords and the same ascending and descending notes and treat the F as the tonic, I would effectively be in F lydian throughout.

I think that your definition of a progression may also need to be identified. If you're calling numerous progressions "a single progression", that may pinpoint the disconnect here.


----------



## mjbg (Dec 24, 2013)

tyler_faith_08 said:


> That was a facetious question, guys. Either way, it was aimed at saying that as a chord changes, the mode doesn't change unless otherwise influenced. If the tonal center or tonic changes in relation to the remaining notes, then a modulation has taken place. From how you're describing this, mjbg, each chord would be a I, i, i°, or I+.
> 
> If the 1 in a progression is G, the song is a G whatever, no matter what other chords are used in the progression. If the song changes to where it has another 1, then the mode would identified by whatever the 1 changed to.
> 
> ...




being english not my first language im probably expressing myself right..

the point is its not because in a progression for example C F G you can play all C ionian its C ionian.. you should threat it as C ionian, F Lydian and G mixolydian, even though its the same notes...

why? there are many reasons.. but its mainly the function of the chord so you will know which notes to avoid...
for example C ionian you should avoid sustaining the 4th (F) because it disturbs the function of the chord (tonic) [search for "avoid note" or "avoided note" or whatever you call it]

but theres isnt wrong/right.. if you preffer to stay on C, its all good.. but in various situations, like the one i posted before, make more sense to consider a different scale for each chord (even if they have the same notes but different names)


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Dec 24, 2013)

I UNDERSTAND THEORY NOW! O.O 

Woah, breakthrough thanks to SchecterWhore!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 24, 2013)

mjbg said:


> could be a lot of scales.. depends 1: function of the chord 2:your intention/sound desired
> 
> i think most is confusing scale with key.. while the key may or not change, scales will change over every chord..
> 
> ...





mjbg said:


> being english not my first language im probably expressing myself right..
> 
> the point is its not because in a progression for example C F G you can play all C ionian its C ionian.. you should threat it as C ionian, F Lydian and G mixolydian, even though its the same notes...
> 
> ...



mjbg, I don't doubt that this method works for getting the notes in the chord, or that it could technically work when you isolate every chord, but I don't hear it. When you write it down, I see it. When I listen to the music, it's not there. Ideally, what we say and see should reflect what we hear, no? And where does "G mixolydian" say "Oh, by the way, don't play any C's"?

As for the song, why don't you give us something to go on? I'm looking around for a leadsheet and a recording, but I don't know if what I'm looking for is even correct. I've found three versions of "Batida Diferente", all in different keys.

While we're at it, I'm curious to see what you come up with if I ask you to do an analysis. This song has some moments that I think are relevant to the content of this thread. Ever done a harmonic analysis before? Want to try it? Doesn't have to be extremely detailed or anything, just get the important stuff.

Jean Berger - The Eyes of All Wait Upon Thee


Piano reduction is attached.


----------



## Wings of Obsidian (Dec 24, 2013)

My eyes are waiting upon thee, SchecterGod....I mean Whore....I mean...ooohhh....got myself in a pickle here by calling you a whore.  Mine eyes await thine answers!


----------



## mjbg (Dec 25, 2013)

about the "batida diferente" song just ignore the intro and transpose the key if its different.. i think even real book has this song with pretty much the same chords
http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1404/3615/1600/204680/BatidaDiferen.jpg



SchecterWhore said:


> Ever done a harmonic analysis before? Want to try it? Doesn't have to be extremely detailed or anything, just get the important stuff.




sorry to be rude.. but i dont know if you are dumb or just a dick by asking such question... since you even quoted a post where i showed a harmonic analysis

and when you say "When you write it down, I see it. When I listen to the music, it's not there." 
i just say.. if its there writen, you can listen.. just work on training your ears

and by the way.. why dont you prove me wrong instead of trying to show how many degrees you have or how good you are at analysis or anything.. all you posted is pretty much basic stuff that proves no point...

sounds more like AttentionWhore than ShecterWhore to me.. 
but dont post the way you are posting, making challenges and acting like you know it all.. it doesnt do any good
but if its this way.. why dont you take the batida diferente sheet and show me how would you work on a big band (at least 5 parts) arrangement of the song without planning the scale usage


sorry, not really in good mood


----------



## CD1221 (Dec 26, 2013)

What Schecterwhore is doing is common in scientific discussion. Someone (you) states their case, another (SW) probes that statement looking for faults or flaws. The first person responds with more information, or clarification and the second replies again. This continues until both parties have fully explored the statement from both their viewpoints. The pair may not agree at the end, but hopefully the exploration and elaboration enables greater understanding and promotes learning, not just for the participants but also for onlookers/bystanders etc.

Of course in certain fields there are defined sets of knowledge as to our understanding of how the world works at that particular point in time and so there is often a "right" answer, however true understanding relies on the release of ego and open dialogue between enthusiastic humans.

For the sake of the bounty of musical learning to be had from this discussion, I hope that in the spirit of education we can dispense with personal attacks and return to critiques of concept and ideas, for that impact of opposing ideas is where interesting things are found.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Dec 27, 2013)

mjbg said:


> about the "batida diferente" song just ignore the intro and transpose the key if its different.. i think even real book has this song with pretty much the same chords
> http://photos1.blogger.com/x/blogger/1404/3615/1600/204680/BatidaDiferen.jpg



Good god, that hurts my eyes. I wonder where people make such awful engravings. Regardless of how much space there is between the stems and the beams (there should be none), thanks for providing a reference. Now, a question: how do you justify the presence of both the C# and the C in the first measure? I know that when you improvise over those chords, you're not necessarily worrying about what would be happening in the head, but keep in mind that this melody was an improvisation by the composer at some point.

My answer: The important thing is the chord tones. The chord is G&#8710;, D is the fifth, B is the third. C# and C are non-chord tones. C# is a chromatic neighbor tone to D. C is an appoggiatura, leading to B. C is part of V7, so C-B is really representative of a mini V7-I progression. I'm not saying that those chords are implied at this point in time, but know that there is a harmonic basis for that C. It would not be the same if both were C#, nor if both were plain old C.



> sorry to be rude.. but i dont know if you are dumb or just a dick by asking such question... since you even quoted a post where i showed a harmonic analysis


Harmonic analysis is not speculation. I cannot point to the mere possibility of something happening and say it has happened; analysis reflects specifically what has occurred in an extant work of music. Whenever I post an example or analysis, I try to give my audience as much [accurate] material as I can: a recording, a score (if available, or if I have the time to transcribe it), and time code in conjunction with my comments. I don't think that's going above and beyond, it's just common sense: if you want people to know what you're talking about, particularly in a persuasive argument, it looks much more professional to present everything in one place and not expect the reader to go seeking a passable copy of the work in question from some godforsaken place on the internet.

It is not uncommon on guitar forums, this one included, for some n00b to post a thread asking for tabs on some song for which they've only provided the title, no artist name, no recording, and then expect results within the hour. There are approximately 7 billion living people in the world today. Many more are dead. The likelihood that several humans have written different songs with the same title is high. Thus, any such request requires specificity. Likewise, if you're bringing up a song to demonstrate a principle, we need to at least hear the music, and preferably see it as well.



> and when you say "When you write it down, I see it. When I listen to the music, it's not there."
> i just say.. if its there writen, you can listen.. just work on training your ears


I'll take the fault for this one. I was goading you based on something that is up to subjective interpretation. After all, everybody hears differently to an extent. Still, there was a point in my statement; I am not trying to attack you personally, and I was hoping that I could segue into something else. Forgive me if my words came across as hostile and unfounded.

You've brought up a lot of words about chord-scale relationships, which is not uncommon during the course of an internet discussion on modes. In my observation, that's the side that is represented 99% of the time. That percentage is slightly lower at Sevenstring.org because people like me are here to say otherwise, but it is an uphill battle. In the face of such an overwhelming majority, why do I think I am correct? Because I make an observation that the 99% neglect: mode as compared to tonic and functional harmony.

I brought up that Jean Berger hymn because it is all in one key, but it changes mode a couple of times. This makes it easy to hear the difference between one mode and another. It's also nice that it is a short song, discrete in its use of voices, and everything can be clearly notated on two pages - I'm not going to make you go sifting through a Dvo&#345;ák symphony to find two bars of mixolydian mode.

Anyway, what I was getting at, referring to post 27:

0:00/m1 - E minor. There is a chromatic line in the bass at the beginning, but this does not change either the tonality or modality. Every now and then, there is a major tonic chord (such as the chord on the downbeat of 12), but this hardly changes the minor feel of the section. Borrowed chords belong to a different modality, they don't change the one they are currently being borrowed to, but you hear a bit of the major color when they do show up here.

1:03/m16 - E major. Opens up with a vi ii V I. There is no way those chords could give the impression of C# aeolian, F# dorian, B mixolydian, and then E ionian to me, especially considering the short amount of time conferred to each. The entire thing sounds like E major. Please let me know if you have a different interpretation - that's why I asked you in the first place.

1:15/m21 - Chromatic sequence. The tonality in this area is unstable, but I interpret it as a series of deceptive cadences in the following keys: C minor (21-22), D minor (23-24), E minor (25-26). Notice the chord in measure 26 is vi in E major. It sounds as though we're in E major again for that chord, thanks to the G# in the alto, but the soprano melody brings us back to E minor in the next measure with a G.

1:34/m27 - E minor. This is the reprise of the A section. Nothing new.

2:39/m43 - E phrygian. That motion from F (&#9837;2) to E (1) is what makes the phrygian mode to my ear. This is why I can't accept iii as somehow representing the phrygian mode by itself: one needs harmonic motion to establish both tonality and modality. I might have labeled the mode as "phrygian dominant" here, seeing as there is a lot of G#, but I am generally wary to go outside of diatonic systems without first looking around for a bit. In measure 45, there is a G in the tenor line that is part of the melody F G F E, which is a cadential figure in the phrygian mode; the E major triads are merely borrowed chords. F G# F E would be more indicative of the phrygian dominant mode, as the augmented second thing is usually what people try to outline in the rotations of the harmonic minor scale.

2:58/m47 - I am also cautious when somebody claims that a key or mode is changing for a very short amount of time, or right at the end of a work. F# has returned on this D(add9)/A, so we could be in E minor again. The chord that follows is clearly E major, so these last few measures could be interpreted either as E minor with a picardy third, or some last minute excursion into E mixolydian. Doesn't sound like E mixolydian to me, but maybe you have a different view.

You can hear when the mode changes in this song. It doesn't only happen for one chord, but it pervades the entire section. That atmosphere of minor, of major, of phrygian, is the product of the relationship between the chords.



> and by the way.. why dont you prove me wrong instead of trying to show how many degrees you have or how good you are at analysis or anything..


I intend to. 



> all you posted is pretty much basic stuff that proves no point...


I'll admit that most of what I've said is basic. It should be basic. Most forumgoers are at a basic level when it comes to music theory, composition, and analysis. They need basic instruction, and instruction that hopefully isn't marred by ineffective and harmful information. One cannot go off into the deep end of harmony and expect everyone to follow unless a firm path has been established.

As to not proving a point, I disagree. My message is that tonality and modality are determined by relationships of other chords to the tonic, not by isolating a chord and saying it receives scales x, y, or z. I haven't had much chance to put that out there, but I have written as such in this thread. Unfortunately, I am also tasked with keeping the chord-scale monster at bay, which requires a lot of energy.



> sounds more like AttentionWhore than ShecterWhore to me..


Ouch. Sometimes, I regret making it so easy for people.



> but dont post the way you are posting, making challenges and acting like you know it all.. it doesnt do any good


I wouldn't ask you to do anything that I couldn't do, or vice versa.



> but if its this way.. why dont you take the batida diferente sheet and show me how would you work on a big band (at least 5 parts) arrangement of the song without planning the scale usage


Working on it. I have an arrangement going for 5 saxes, 4 trumpets, 3+1 trombones, and rhythm section. Might be a little while before I can really dedicate the time, since I have a visitor to take care of until Sunday afternoon. My approach to arranging is thus:

1. Plan a form. Big band charts are easy. Intro, head, solos, sax soli, shout chorus, tutti, head, coda.
2. Do a few stock harmonizations of the head. Three voice, four voice (closed, drop 2, drop 2&4 if needed). This is my laboratory - I can take from these harmonizations later if I need something to fill in empty space.

(For harmonization, you're probably thinking scales. I don't know why you would do that. I think chords resolving to chords. The trick is to know when to treat a note as a chord tone and when to treat it as a non-chord tone and use an approach chord. Sometimes, it's easy. Sometimes, it's not so clear.)

3. Go through, orchestrating and writing countermelodies as needed.
4. Write whatever needs writing.

Also, I transposed this sucker up a fourth, for the sake of the trumpets.

Generally, I don't spend much time with notes. I look at the chord and write according to what it says. It will be easier to explain my pitches when I can show you the chart.



> sorry, not really in good mood


That's okay, these things get heated sometimes. I don't mean any disrespect. Let's have a productive discussion. 



CD1221 said:


> This continues until both parties have fully explored the statement from both their viewpoints. The pair may not agree at the end, but hopefully the exploration and elaboration enables greater understanding and promotes learning, not just for the participants but also for onlookers/bystanders etc.



Bingo.



> Of course in certain fields there are defined sets of knowledge as to our understanding of how the world works at that particular point in time and so there is often a "right" answer, however true understanding relies on the release of ego and open dialogue between enthusiastic humans.
> 
> For the sake of the bounty of musical learning to be had from this discussion, I hope that in the spirit of education we can dispense with personal attacks and return to critiques of concept and ideas, for that impact of opposing ideas is where interesting things are found.


And again.


----------

