# Learning modes via shapes vs scale degrees



## andre09 (Mar 23, 2012)

Hi there,

I am in the process of learning modes and have watched/read a lot of different of sources on how to approach the task. I've found that almost all the teachers recommend first learning the all the shapes of each mode by pure muscle memory (via shape diagrams), but I can't help but feel that this is almost "cheating" the music theory side of it.

Part of me wants to master the shapes by thinking out each note in terms of scale degree sequence for the theory benefits, but because so many teachers are recommending to learn the shapes first, I am unsure on which approach to take.

Are they recommending shapes purely for efficiency/practicality (so people can get improvising asap), or is this really the best initiation into fretboard theory (as in learn the shapes by heart, and then analyze the theory behind it)?

I wondering if exercising my brain to figure out the proper notes by scale degrees is a rite of passage, and would lead to quicker holistic understanding of the fretboard. Or is this thinking naive, and will cause me to take forever to master the fretboard?

I've found a wealth of knowledge in this forum's music theory section (a couple of threads are what actually inspired me to begin my education) so I look forward to what you all have to say!

Thanks


----------



## stuglue (Mar 23, 2012)

Actually the best way to do it is to learn the patterns like you mentioned, this gets the fingering in your muscle memory. The next is to get the unique sound of each mode into your head.
Best way to do that is to let your low E string drone out and them play each mode on the D string stating at the second fret and play up the D string until you get to an octave higher, the 14 th fret.
Do this for each mode:
E Ionian
E Dorian
E Phrygian
E Lydian
E mixolydian
E aeolian
E locrian
All those modes are all from different keys, the exercise is to get the sounds of each in your head


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 23, 2012)

You are correct in your initial thinking. Keep learning your scales by their degree numbers - it's the stronger foundation for your education. However, I'm not going to totally lambast those that advocate muscle memory and shapes. In fact, when I teach guitar, I print out diagrams of little fretboard boxes with ready-made scale fingerings to give to my students. Why? Because it's easy. Those shapes are a quick way to get a student to play something and make them feel good about their self. It's an incredibly cheap way to learn, and I always feel a little part of me die inside when I hand the printout over to my student. However, I justify this by really picking their brain: make them play intervals up and down the neck, randomly ask them what note they're playing, tell them to find that note on a different string, ask for the inversion of the interval, change the quality of the scale degree, and transpose everywhere.

No two people learn the exact same way, so it's important for a teacher to expose a student to many models, and each model has its merits and weaknesses: learning note names, intervals, and scale construction is slow, but it will take you further; scale boxes are fast, but they don't require you to think and they won't take you as far. The good thing is that you can learn from both at the same time - play the scale shapes, but take the time to analyze what's going on intervallically within them. If you can notate those scales on a staff, or read a staff, then that's all the better. It sounds like you have a natural tendency to want to do things right the first time, so my general advice is to focus most of your attention on learning the theory and going in-depth into harmony. Grab a good harmony text, learn your scales and modes on the side, and go through this website's materials: Ricci Adams' Musictheory.net

Some good books:

Amazon.com: Harmony in Context 2002 publication: Books
Amazon.com: Tonal Harmony (9780073401355): Stefan Kostka, Dorothy Payne: Books

Edit: I don't agree with stuglue. Droning a pedal tone and playing a scale over it doesn't reinforce tonality. Scales get their characteristics as a function of their harmony. A modal chord progression sounds much less ambiguous to me. You have all of the time in the world to figure out what each mode sounds like, and it will happen if you learn about chord progressions and cadences instead of just playing scales up and down over a drone.


----------



## stuglue (Mar 23, 2012)

That is true schecter, but I think that trying to get the OP to understand modal harmony from the get go will confuse him. 
I use the drone example as its a simple exercise that can be done without the need for finding backing tracks, or having to create then yourself when you don't have the theory grasp in the first place. I endorse your m
ethod, but that's for a little later down the development path.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 23, 2012)

I agree with SW. If you want a start on learning these things the right way but simply then give the free sample chapters of my book a try. You can download them from the link in my sig. Let me know if you have any questions or difficulty.


----------



## Maniacal (Mar 23, 2012)

I would say shapes first, understanding and application later. Trying to learn all 3 aspects at the same time can be too confusing.


----------



## Overtone (Mar 23, 2012)

The shapes can be counterproductive, IMO. Box patterns don't really convey what the mode is all about. I remember when I was getting into modes that would kind of throw me off. For example the box pattern for Phyrgian was the same as what I knew as the box pattern for natural minor starting on the A string and it wouldn't be obvious what the difference was. If you already know major and minor in a few positions that covers many of the mode shapes as well. 

A good way to get into any mode or scale is to learn it on one string first. That really gets you to anticipate what the notes are, and _hear_ them as you are playing. The real milestone is getting your mind to recognize the sound of the modes. You start to hear what is different about each mode vs. the major or minor scale. Otherwise it's easy to learn the shapes but miss the point entirely.


----------



## stuglue (Mar 23, 2012)

Overtone said:


> The shapes can be counterproductive, IMO. Box patterns don't really convey what the mode is all about. I remember when I was getting into modes that would kind of throw me off. For example the box pattern for Phyrgian was the same as what I knew as the box pattern for natural minor starting on the A string and it wouldn't be obvious what the difference was. If you already know major and minor in a few positions that covers many of the mode shapes as well.
> 
> A good way to get into any mode or scale is to learn it on one string first. That really gets you to anticipate what the notes are, and _hear_ them as you are playing. The real milestone is getting your mind to recognize the sound of the modes. You start to hear what is different about each mode vs. the major or minor scale. Otherwise it's easy to learn the shapes but miss the point entirely.


Yes, that's the approach I was advocating, and then learn the theory after, although its whatever the student feels comfiest learning. I think fingering, theory and trying to apply it is too much. I'd say spend plenty of time on just one mode first, get the sound in your head, then learn the theory and then take a very basic chord progression and just try the scale. maybe have a look at Frank gambale dvd modes no more mystery


----------



## Winspear (Mar 23, 2012)

I also agree with SW. I've been experimenting with real wacky tunings recently and having a stronger grasp on the notes would be real beneficial. However, those little box diagrams are very helpful too!


----------



## Overtone (Mar 23, 2012)

A little off topic, but Mattias Eklundh's vol iii can be fun even for someone with a lot of mode experience because he has a section with dozens of exotic scales, and a short backing track for each one. It's a great workout to pick a few of those and work on them. Even the ones that are just modifications of scales we know (e.g. some of them are similar to minor just missing one or two notes) get you to think a bit more.


----------



## Grimbold (Mar 23, 2012)

solodinis book does teach you the right way, but boxes get you shredding quickly

so i would recommend reading solodinis book then trying to apply that knowledge to the box shapes


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 23, 2012)

stuglue said:


> That is true schecter, but I think that trying to get the OP to understand modal harmony from the get go will confuse him.
> I use the drone example as its a simple exercise that can be done without the need for finding backing tracks, or having to create then yourself when you don't have the theory grasp in the first place. I endorse your m
> ethod, but that's for a little later down the development path.


Perhaps I misspoke. I'm saying learn major/minor harmony, kinda have an idea of what the modes are, then apply what you know from major/minor harmony to the other modes later. I teach modal harmony later on, after chromatic functional harmony.



Overtone said:


> The shapes can be counterproductive, IMO. Box patterns don't really convey what the mode is all about. I remember when I was getting into modes that would kind of throw me off. For example the box pattern for Phyrgian was the same as what I knew as the box pattern for natural minor starting on the A string and it wouldn't be obvious what the difference was. If you already know major and minor in a few positions that covers many of the mode shapes as well.


I still don't buy it. I think we can all agree that scale boxes are the easiest thing in the world. They don't require any thought unless you're doing some herculean task like memorizing a box for every scale and its modes (a method I do not recommend). If, however, you learn a shape for the major scale, the minor scale, phrygian and lydian, only worry about those, then do some real theory study, one is not going to impede the other. 



> A good way to get into any mode or scale is to learn it on one string first. That really gets you to anticipate what the notes are, and _hear_ them as you are playing. The real milestone is getting your mind to recognize the sound of the modes. You start to hear what is different about each mode vs. the major or minor scale. Otherwise it's easy to learn the shapes but miss the point entirely.


A significant portion of someone's learning time should be spent on ear training, and I don't know that combining theory and ear training is the best way to go. There are plenty of aids to help in the process of ear training, so it doesn't make sense to cut corners there.

Ultimately, your goal is to communicate with music, so you want to have a wide vocabulary with which to do that. Scale boxes take no time at all to learn and they give you a lot of words. All the real theory is syntax and grammar, so you can't neglect it, but learning a shape or two isn't going to kill you.


----------



## Solodini (Mar 23, 2012)

Grimbold said:


> solodinis book does teach you the right way, but boxes get you shredding quickly
> 
> so i would recommend reading solodinis book then trying to apply that knowledge to the box shapes



Agreed. The point of my book is to teach you to know and understand what is going on so you can take that in and apply it however you like, to whatever you want to play.


----------



## troyguitar (Mar 23, 2012)

You're going to need to spend the thousands of hours mindlessly running through the shapes at some point anyway, IMO it's better to start on that sooner than later and work on the theory once you have the mechanics down a little better.


----------



## Maniacal (Mar 23, 2012)

Exactly. Until you have the technique, technique will always hold you back.


----------



## andre09 (Mar 23, 2012)

Thank you for everyone's input; I've read through all your comments thoroughly and they are much appreciated.

That being said, there are some obvious conflict between opinions here, which is still leaving me swaying back and forth. In hindsight, I think I should of made clear my current level of theory knowledge and the direction I want to go.

I have a fairly solid basic understanding of music theory, as in I understand _most_ everything listed in the lesson section of the site SW posted. I definitely wouldn't know all the modes/chords by heart, but given some time I would able to construct them relative to the intervals and scale degrees of the major scale. After having memorized the 1, 3, 5, and 7th degrees for all keys due to chords, understanding theory has become farrr easier.

Perhaps I should have explained that my main trouble is not understanding the theory behind any mode, but simply drilling it into my head relative to the guitar. But at the same time I am trying my best to start thinking about the fretboard as a musician rather than a guitarist, and as I explained in my first post, my progress feels very slow. 

Just to be 100% clear of my perspective while practicing a mode, here is an example. Say I am playing E aeolian on the 2nd fret D string, my chain of thought would be:

"Ok, so root note is E. (Frets 2nd fret.) Next is second degree, okay, so same as major second, so a whole step here. (Frets 4th fret.) Next up is a flat third degree, okay so a half step here. (Frets 5th fret.)" 

And then to get more familiar with the notes on the fretboard I try running two octave modes with 5 notes per string, then 4 notes, 3, etc, starting on various root positions on the neck. I assume, that I would eventually see the shapes naturally, but I wonder if this is too inefficient to be practical. This approach feels like it lacks structure, but it does allow me to exercise my theory knowledge.

When people improvise on modes without thinking, is it because they become so familiar with the degrees/steps in the mode it becomes second nature, or is it because of the memory of the shapes? I'd like to think that is due to mastery of the degrees, but it is hard for me to imagine a jazz player improvising with super wide intervals _not_ using memorized shapes. I predict a resounding "both" will be the answer here, but in that case which should I spend more time learning? 

I am also wondering if thinking in terms of steps is a bad habit as well. Should the degrees be so ingrained in my head that they are synonymous to steps? Also, by thinking in terms of degrees I feel like I am completely ignoring the notes themselves on the fretboard aside from the roots. During an E major scale, I see F# purely as a second degree, rather than an F#. Is this okay? Would thinking of it in terms of intervals (as in a major second, then major third, etc) be better? I am thinking to much about this? My end goal is just to think how a real musician would, instead of a just a hobby guitarist. 

I would also like to note that I am starting the first of a three quarter music theory course this upcoming quarter (electives credits of course), which weights into my intention when learning the fretboard.



Okay, now to actually address your comments 

@stuglue, I usually do this a few times before playing a scale/mode, but I had never considered starting on the D-string E before, so I will be incorporating this into my practice (and I used it in my example above  ). Thanks for the ear training advice.

@SW, I do have some bias towards your opinion because I have read many of your posts on this forum the past few weeks, and my inability to understand what the hell you were saying was what prompted me to research the subject. That being said, I was glad (and relieved) to read that you advocate learning scales by degrees, but is my chain of thought in approaching the scale degrees correct? Also, do you think my understanding on the modes is sufficient enough to now focus on shapes for accelerated fretboard mastery? Is harmony really pertinent to me at this stage, and by harmony are you referring to chord progressions/intervals? I actually thoroughly read through your posts in a thread about simple intervallic harmony before (I believe the initial discussion was about tritones and avoidance of minor seconds), which fueled my interest in intervals. Can you give me a brief idea of what would be going through your head when doing a mode run? Thanks 


@Solodini, your book is solid, and would have been very nice to have when I first learned on a nylon string guitar a few years ago. Regarding scale exercises, I already do what you outlined in the book, but I still feel it lacks structure in terms of efficiently mastering the entire fretboard.

@Maniacal, I assume that with the context of the thread that by technique you are referring to shapes (?), but if you are referring to technical ability, I feel pretty comfortable with technique as I've spend loadssss of time researching proper technique (it used to be my quick fix for in-bed reading before all this theory jazz) and have put in many hours of metronome/alt picking/shred exercises.

I actually bought this book Modes in Motion a few days ago, but to my dismay it focuses on memorization of shapes, though it does a pretty damn good job at that.



Thanks to all, and sorry for my grammatical mistakes!


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 23, 2012)

I was working on this post right before you posted yours, so I'll draft a proper response in a bit.

------

It's not as if you have to make such a black and white separation of technique and theory, though. I think it's good to take a day to learn the a major scale shape, then work on committing that shape to memory, work on proper posture and hold the next day while reviewing the scale shape that you learned, then start learning the major and perfect intervals on the third day. You can take half an hour to get the theory down, then another half an hour to see how they work out in the scale, since a major scale, from its tonic, is all perfect and major intervals. The next day, you can learn a minor scale shape, and the next day you can learn minor, diminished and augmented intervals.

I'm totally not convinced that doing something like that is going to confuse someone to the point that they're not functional. If we understood everything at its outset, then we would never learn anything more; learning comes in two phases - "Wait a minute," and "Ooooh!". You _need_ to be a little confused, you _need_ to do some probing to find the answer to your confusion. Of course, you don't want to overload yourself, but you don't want to oversimplify either.

The trick is to find the balance between how much information you are exposed to and how much you can quantify. That's hard to do when you're self-teaching, because you really need a plan. If your technique and theory progress at roughly the same pace, they will help each other out. We're lucky that the process of learning music can be codified so easily, like how I pointed out the major scale's correlation to major and perfect intervals. But there's also a lot to learn, so it's easy to go down one path and ignore the other, and then you're lost. I know musicians that know their technique way better than they should, but freeze the second I give them... well, anything. Likewise, I know musicians that can talk theory all day but can't play their way out of a paper bag. The latter is a little more rare, but it happens. It's like kayaking: if you keep paddling to one side, you're going to end up going in circles.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Mar 23, 2012)

Do what works. The end. Learning by shape doesn't mean you can't make other associations later. That's called continued learning. It doesn't stop. Ever...


----------



## Overtone (Mar 23, 2012)

I think it really is a bit of everything. When you really get to the bottom of it, a lot of it comes down to simply knowing the diatonic scale pattern very fluidly across the whole neck. What note you are starting with on the E string is almost trivial because hopefully you are not going to just play the whole box, but be playing the notes you want. Boxes help, but you need to be able to change positions as well, which means seeing beyond the box. Once that pattern is second nature to you that helps a lot to change positions seamlessly. After all, part of the jazz/fusion players' success is that they can handle changes without making it sound like there even is a change. If the listener can tell that the player has shifted from pattern A to pattern B then it ruins the mystique. So the muscle memory is very important, but it is important as well not to fall into the trap of playing patterns in a non musical way, and being locked into a vertical way of seeing things instead of being able to see horizontally as well. Ultimately anything you do is going to be productive, the important thing is to just spend the time playing!

Edit: The thing I want to emphasize is I think it is good to learn the box pattern for each mode, but also to remember that you don't have to play that particular mode if you are using that box pattern. An easy example is you could play E minor in the B phrygian box pattern. That way you have many possible ways to play each mode, and also you can sort of "connect the boxes" so that the whole neck is available.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 23, 2012)

Intervals are king. If you're playing an E major scale, and you think, "E, F#, Major second, minor second, Major second, M2, M2, uh... E!", that's alright. Thinking "E, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1" is also good. Or, there's "E, M2, M3, P4, P5, M6, M7, P8". And then there's plain old E F# G# A B C# D# E, which is what you're not doing. My opinion? Do all of them. Train your brain in a lot of different ways. Since you can't tell the note name right off the bat, stop on a note every now and then and see if you can tell what it is. "Okay, this is the sixth degree of the scale, the tonic is E, so a major sixth above E is C#." That sort of thing. And train the hell out of your ear! I don't have to think about the notes that I'm playing most of the time, because I can hear where the note sits in the key; my ear tells me whether something is tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant, submediant, leading tone, or anything in between those. I also hear the chord functions. That's kind of a theory meets ear training thing that I use to help my technique. Interconnectivity is the name of the game.


----------



## andre09 (Mar 23, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Intervals are king. If you're playing an E major scale, and you think, "E, F#, Major second, minor second, Major second, M2, M2, uh... E!", that's alright. Thinking "E, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 1" is also good. Or, there's "E, M2, M3, P4, P5, M6, M7, P8". And then there's plain old E F# G# A B C# D# E, which is what you're not doing. My opinion? Do all of them. Train your brain in a lot of different ways. Since you can't tell the note name right off the bat, stop on a note every now and then and see if you can tell what it is. "Okay, this is the sixth degree of the scale, the tonic is E, so a major sixth above E is C#." That sort of thing. And train the hell out of your ear! I don't have to think about the notes that I'm playing most of the time, because I can hear where the note sits in the key; my ear tells me whether something is tonic, supertonic, mediant, subdominant, dominant, submediant, leading tone, or anything in between those. I also hear the chord functions. That's kind of a theory meets ear training thing that I use to help my technique. Interconnectivity is the name of the game.



Hmm, I see; very interesting. I guess the jist of what you are saying is learn and practice all approaches, which I think most will agree with me is the most dreaded answer of all.  That being said, your application of ear training in regards to theory is really cool. Maybe it's common knowledge to most folks, but in all the theory sites I've frequented the past couple weeks, I haven't seen that explanation. Up to this point I thought ear training as more visceral in nature (at least in regards to finding the "right" note).

And to your earlier post regarding probing for answers, I whole heartily agree. It was due to reading a book emphasizing Socratic and deeply interactive learning that I am now pursuing a holistic understanding of the guitar.

So thanks a lot for your advice; I always appreciate how much effort you put into your posts.


@Overtone, After reading your post I realize I should have been saying pattern shapes, as I was referring to the connective shapes on the fretboard, rather than a single box shape. That being said, I agree with what you saying, and after reading what you are SW have said, I intend to start implementing pattern shapes into my practice as well.


Damn, I feel like I should be paying this kind of stuff. All hail public forums!

Also, I just realized I've been using root instead of tonic when referring to scales. 

And how in the world do I thank people? I see how to add rep and like a post, but I don't see a thank button like other forums? I guess there is a minimum post count needed to do so?


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 23, 2012)

Only the first post in a thread can be thanked. Otherwise, it's rep or 'likes'. 

There are a lot of ways to think about things in music, so as a musician, you should start thinking of things in a lot of different ways. There are about a billion different ways to call a note, for example. Here are six of them:







The staff, obviously, is staff notation. The first line under it is scale degrees, the second line is movable Do solfege, the third is fixed Do solfege, the fourth is Hindustani swaras (similar to Western movable Do solfege), and the last one is pitch class. I didn't include letter names here, since it's a little redundant with the staff being there, although not everybody in the world says ABCDEFG. In a number of countries in Europe, ABCDEFG becomes La Si Do Re Mi Fa Sol. Then, there's that weird German thing where B&#9837; is B and B is H.  Letters and numbers tend to be analytical tools, whereas syllables tend to be used for singing and musical training. So, if all you're going by is tablature or diagrams, everybody else in the world is way ahead of you. I think that it's a good idea to know a thing or two about different nomenclature systems, because you might say, "I call it this way, but these people say something different," and that will prompt you to find out why, enriching your musicianship. (The German H is just retarded, though.) The materials of music are pretty finite, but the way that they are approached and the way that they are conceived makes musical expression nearly infinite. In other words, there's only so much music theory you need to or can know, and limitless ways to interpret it. Therefore, you shouldn't neglect alternative modes of interpretation, since that is the great majority of the spectrum.


----------



## Grimbold (Mar 24, 2012)

SchecterWhore said:


> Only the first post in a thread can be thanked. Otherwise, it's rep or 'likes'.
> 
> There are a lot of ways to think about things in music, so as a musician, you should start thinking of things in a lot of different ways. There are about a billion different ways to call a note, for example. Here are six of them:
> 
> ...


and this is one of the reasons that i hate living in europe... its hard to talk to the native musicians about theory.... D=


----------



## Overtone (Mar 24, 2012)

Haha whenever I am in Greece jamming with my buddies there I have a hard time with that. It'll always be something like "then G minor... ehm.... Sol minore" I am really bad at remembering the solfege names and my buddies are really bad at remembering the letter names.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Mar 24, 2012)

"C minor!" "What did he say?" "Si minore, dude." "Oh, cool." "One... Two... Three.."


----------



## Ryan-ZenGtr- (Mar 24, 2012)

I liked the OP's first post, having skimmed the thread, despite the generous and considerate amount of time everyone has contributed to a solution to understanding musical foundations.

Learn a major scale in 3 not per string form, play it through, starting on the next note in the scale every time you finish. C major, C major starting from D, C Major starting from E etc. You've just played all the modes of C Major. 

Once you can physically perform this comfortably and efficiently, say out loud or privately I, II, III, IV, V, VI, VII in a Roman or Greek accent as you play each scale tone. Strive for accuracy. Take your time.

Basically like the OP said at the beginning. Just takes a little dedication. EZ PZ. 

Go buy Frank Gambale's No More Modes, some ear plugs and paracetomol for more...


----------



## Guitarchitect (Mar 24, 2012)

I'm a little biased here - as I have an entire methodology centered around visualization - but depending on what you're trying to do with modes, I think the most important thing is to be able to associate modes with sounds. While I work a lot with students on visualizing the fingerboard, the important thing about that process ultimately is to equate fingerings with sounds so that you know what's going to come out when you go to play .

Having said that, I don't want to discount the value of theory. Understanding things on multiple levels will help you access them more readily and ultimately more deeply. And looking at a piece of music and understanding the harmonic implications and the melodic implications without actually playing it has real value - particularly when your on a session and someone put a chart in front of you and you see 16 bars of changes that just say "solo".

So whichever way you decide to initially approach them, I'd say you should really work on getting the sound of the mode in your head. In addition to scale sequences, intervals and drone/harmonic backdrops - the quickest and deepest way to internalize something is to sing it.

Try singing along with whatever you're practicing. Don't worry about quality of tone - just worry about intonation. The goal is to be able to play what you sing and vice versa. This step is the one that many guitarists I know is the most reluctant one for them to take. But if you want to play something more than strung together licks as a solo - it's a good way to start to get there.

Just my $.02. Good Luck!


----------



## Osorio (Mar 25, 2012)

I've become a stronger advocate of the following: The worst thing you can do for yourself is practice music in a linear fashion. Approach it from all sides, in as many ways as you can. 
Everyone has already stated the advantage of using either method, what you should do is use both. Get a shape: practice it, understand it, know it. 

Also remember to practice stuff on a context... Get a backtrack and jam over it, record yourself.


----------

