A stupid chord theory question here...

[FirstBassman]

Originally Posted by blacklinefish

Is it just me, or do the chords in the Eagles "Already Gone" sound like G-D-C? That song is written in G-Major (but I think it changes keys to C-Major at the end).

Yeah, I was gonna mention that too but didn't want to get that mixed up in the general question.

Yes, the song is just G-D-C. (I-V-IV).
Not sure where the O/P was hearing F.
And, yes, near the end it changes key to "C" in the chorus.

[klasaine]

Originally Posted by Leon Grizzard

Why are you hypenating mixo-lydian? Is there some aspect of lydianness to mixo, that I have missed? My fiddle tunes and your Celtic tunes are from the same fount; the same as Tennessee Stud, and Sweet Home Alabama, but is that the same fount as Gloria and You Really Got Me?

Lol! I don't know. I learned it hyphenated a long time ago and even though I know it's wrong, I still spell it that way out of habit. And, I sort of think that Rock, country, bluegrass and celtic all comes from the same fount(?)

Someone mentioned something about writing in a mixolydian key.
No, of course not. But we do 'talk' in modal keys. A lot of Rock and Jazz is 'modal' music, like it or not. I wouldn't write the prog G - F - C with the key sig of one # (key of G) and then put a bunch of F natural 'accidentals' in. I'll write it in C and if somebody asks tell them G mixo. I 'think' that's the most common way to do it(?).

[stinkymommasboy]

All this theory talk has got me thinking. Where do I look to start learning this stuff?

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by FirstBassman

Yeah, I was gonna mention that too but didn't want to get that mixed up in the general question.

Yes, the song is just G-D-C. (I-V-IV).
Not sure where the O/P was hearing F.
And, yes, near the end it changes key to "C" in the chorus.

Well, it sounds like it is in C then. It is not unusual for a song to emphasize a chord and treat it like a tonic, only to move to the real tonic in the chorus, or at the end. In classical music, this is called tonicization. Funny word if you are not used to it, but very common in music analysis since it happens very, very frequently in classical music. It sounds very clumsy to say that the song is in G mixo for the verse and C major for the chorus. Why not say it is in C and acknowledge that the G chord is emphasized?

But to go back to the question of key signature. If the piece really were in G mixo, I would expect to see no sharps or flats in the key signature. By training, I do not rely strictly on the key signature to tell me the key. I look and listen for other things, too: melodic contour, metrical placement of primary tones, and chord succession. If you are well versed in chord and scale knowledge, you can figure this out on the fly. If not, then it is a good exercise.

As blacklinefish says, modes do not play a very big role in classical music theory. There is not a lot of repertoire that uses them in classical music after 1680 or so. For earlier music, the theory of modes is taught in music history courses, instead of theory courses. The study of the modes also emphasizes the melodic contour, of high notes and low notes, as well as the "final." Significantly, this kind of music doesn't use chords in the way we have become used to them after 1680. (This date is an estimate; in the history of music there is all kinds of historical bleeding across boundaries.)

Now, when ken and leon talk about the celtic origin of modes, then I sit up and pay attention. That is because this music is fundamentally different than that which is derived from the classical language. And when ken talks about Miles and McCoy Tyner, then, too, I know that he knows what he is talking about. However, like blacklinefish, I find it very odd that modes are discussed so often on the internet. It seems very burdensome to me to look at a series of chords and say, "mixo," or "lydian." For the life of me, I cannot understand why one doesn't just think of the major scale that applies. That's what I do. I see a series of chords and I immediately see/hear which notes are sharp, flat, or natural in my pitch choices.

It is my understanding, and someone please correct me if I am mistaken, that this kind of modal thinking has been used as a basis for instruction in improv at Berklee. I believe that John LaPorta and Jack Peterson there constructed a curriculum based on modes. I met them when I was younger, and I had know more at the time, I certainly would have questioned them about that. I do remember that after one concert, Jack Peterson complemented a flute player on using the dorian mode in her solo, when, to my recollection, it was just over some diatonic chords. I am sure I am missing something here.

On the other hand, just the other day, I read/heard/saw on the internet someone mentioning the major scale and referring to it also as the ionian mode. Of course, they are the same thing. It appeared as is the person was trying to sound like he knew more by being able to recognize that the major scale and ionian mode were the same thing. To me, that it is a very trivial use of modes. I can't criticize that kind of thinking strongly enough, since it adds a layer of terminology and abstract structure where it is not needed. Learning how to use theory is difficult enough with major scales and chords without having to tack on the terminology of modes where it is not needed. Again, ken and leon have often pointed out times where it is appropriate to use mode terminology. It is just the double-speak that I hear from others that makes me fear for people who are trying to get started with diatonic theory.

[drewsblues]

Originally Posted by boneyguy

All I'm saying is the ear is the final judge because music is, after all, an auditory experience. To determine musical qualities ie tonality etc. by refering only to sharps or flats negates the most basic interface with music which is throught the ears/emotions. Your emotions will tell you the tonic chord more reliably than sharps or flats will.

Someone once famously said "Talking about music is like dancing about architecture".

You guys are all a hooluvalot smarter than I am, but I'd sum it up with a couple of rhetorical questions:

1. If all of the ears in the world went away, would we still make music?

2. If all of the theory and notation in the world went away, would we still make music?

Okay... so rhetorical questions aren't supposed to be answered (especially ones where everyone loses their ears), but I'd say that the answer to #1 is "no" and the answer to #2 is "yes."

I believe that theory is extremely important -- and both arguments are good ones -- but I would more strongly support the argument that that the listener is the most important element, and that the listener dictates the listening experience. I have to weigh in with Boney on this one.

Great topic of conversation, though. I love this kind of stuff.

[klasaine]

Discussing a tune in the key of a mode is, at least for me, purely for simplicity's sake.
Ex; progression [ C - Db - Eb - Db - C ] the 'C' can be major or minor.
What key as far as a key signature is concerned? Ab right?
Absolutely.
But in this case "HOME" is a C note. Or the 'tonic' chord is some type of C. In this case it's a very spanish/jewish C phrygian mode. I believe it just makes it easier to convey the overall harmonic sense to say C phrygian.
Imagine your at a jam and you say, "here's this progression I'm working on, it's really easy, it's in Ab major ... ", but it's the above mentioned C Db Eb Db C prog? Chances are excellent that the first few notes from the rest of the band are going to be Ab's (not a terrible choice, but far from a good one, especially from a bass player and any other chordal instrument).
Even more obvious are tunes like Impressions and So What. They're D dorian (and they modulate for 8 bars to Eb dorian). Written C major sure, but you never get to C (even at the end) and focusing melodic lines around a tonic C would be potentially disasterous; unless you "really know that ultimately you're gonna get to D minor but are just playing with the ears of the audience". That's a very specialized skill executed by players who have a thorough understanding of both traditional and modal harmony .... and the art of improvisation.
Ultimately, thinking 'modally' is just another method of tonal organization. It's not right or wrong. Some love it, some don't. Whatever gets you through the tune ay - ?

Also, for the record. I don't feel that the 'origins' of modes evolved from anything celtic. I just mean't that celtic music, especially Scottish bag pipe tunes utilize a very clear modal way of thinking. A lot of it has to do with the limitations of the intrument itself. Other than using "special" fingering tricks and techniques, it's NOT a chromatic instrument. The Scottish Highland pipe is a (albeit very sharp) Bb mixolydian instrument. Ab major, maybe but the drones are all Bb's and F's.

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by drewsblues

You guys are all a hooluvalot smarter than I am, but I'd sum it up with a couple of rhetorical questions:

1. If all of the ears in the world went away, would we still make music?

2. If all of the theory and notation in the world went away, would we still make music?

Okay... so rhetorical questions aren't supposed to be answered (especially ones where everyone loses their ears), but I'd say that the answer to #1 is "no" and the answer to #2 is "yes."

If I don't know it, it is not worth knowing is my motto.

[Chris S.]

Originally Posted by Larry F

It is my understanding, and someone please correct me if I am mistaken, that this kind of modal thinking has been used as a basis for instruction in improv at Berklee. I believe that John LaPorta and Jack Peterson there constructed a curriculum based on modes.

Not when I was there ('73-'76). There was certainly some discussion of modes as they related to specific modal tunes like "So What," but improvisation involved using all the tools in the musical arsenal, not just modes. In fact, I never heard modes being widely discussed until I got on the Internet. Just FWIW. -- CS

[JayFreddy]

Seems to me that there is more than one way to skin this cat.

If the original tune (GFCG) was played fast and didn't have any other chord changes, I'd probably use the C major key siggie.

If the original song was a slow ballad, and/or had other parts that further developed it's G-tonality (e.g., Bm, D, B7, etc.), I'd probably use a G key signature and use naturals for the F-natural in the melody when needed.

In other words, the choice of how to notate it won't change how it sounds, but makes it easier to understand, based on the context...

I'm not a very good sight reader, but I still think reading is essential for musical development. I'm jealous of people who can read an orchestral score and actually hear the music in their head just by looking at it. On good days, I can do that with simple melodies and block chords, but that's my limit.

While I appreciate Drews' perspective, I don't find his example compelling. If music was akin to storytelling, you could rephrase his questions as:

1. If all of the ears in the world went away, would we still tell stories?

2. If all of the grammar and books in the world went away, would we still tell stories?

Of course we would still tell stories, but chances are they wouldn't be as good as the ones we have today. Certainly they woudn't be as consistent.

It was the written word that delivered Europe from the Dark Ages.

I admit that as a musician I'm biased, but I firmly believe that written music (i.e., notated music) holds the same level of promise for the future as the written word did a thousand years ago.

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by Chris S.

Not when I was there ('73-'76). There was certainly some discussion of modes as they related to specific modal tunes like "So What," but improvisation involved using all the tools in the musical arsenal, not just modes. In fact, I never heard modes being widely discussed until I got on the Internet. Just FWIW. -- CS

I was hoping you'd chime in about your experience. I got that info about LaPorta and modes from, where else, the internet. However, I recall Jack Peterson talking about them in 1971, at a National Stage Band Camp I attended.

[Larry F]

Here's a blurb from a wiki page on LaPorta: "Along with guitarist Jack Peterson, LaPorta helped fashion the Berklee curriculum. Specifically, the pair pioneered the use of Greek modes for teaching chord-scales, a technique which has become the standard for teaching music theory worldwide."

I see that this doesn't necessarily imply that modes can be used to teach improve over chords, but maybe this helped introduce modes into the jazz curriculum.

Also, I have a colleague who is a music theorist with an interest in "vernacular music" (that is what academics call jazz, blues, pop, rock, etc.). She told me that she was surprised to read all the talk about modes on internet forums. It is like a whole other world to her (and me). When I hear people talk about using a G mixo mode over a G7 chord, that really takes me aback. I just think of C major, the scale that contains G7 as a diatonic chord. Over course, G mixo is correct, but it represents another level of abstraction to me.

[klasaine]

OK, if you have a "vernacular" chord progression, say | G7 | C7 | that repeats ad infinitum, which is more abstract? Thinking C major to F major? Or thinking something that's based on the roots of the chords - G mixo to C mixo?

It's of course great to be able understand and preferably be able to apply BOTH methods.

[Leon Grizzard]

I think it is useful to have terms to talk about the various segments of the major scale. I realize that saying d dorian over the dm in the key of C really means for inprovisational purposes something like giving the d minor chord tones prominence, with the other notes of the C major scale to eke them out; a chord scale approach rather than a mode approach. Larry has often said he just thinks in terms of the major scale, and I don't know where he finds the limits of that thinking. The dominant scale is used so much as an entity, such as in cycle of dominant progressions in Swing, that it merits its own term, apart from the major scale. It seems like the modal names are commonly used, and other terms, like minor seventh scale instead of dorian, and dominant instead of mixo, which I learned from Ted Greene books, have not caught on. We are back to what is useful for understanding and communicating. I think most publications call them scales rather than modes. It is not really that big a deal to understand the terms' different meanings when talking about Celtic fiddle tunes as opposed to playing the changes. (This from someone who still thinks "hopefully" is an adverb.)

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by klasaine

OK, if you have a "vernacular" chord progression, say | G7 | C7 | that repeats ad infinitum, which is more abstract? Thinking C major to F major? Or thinking something that's based on the roots of the chords - G mixo to C mixo?

It's of course great to be able understand and preferably be able to apply BOTH methods.

I see/hear a chord, or a sequence of chords, and I see/hear the major or minor scale that they reside in. So, if I have G7 to C7, I think C major to F major. In particular, I think about using all natural notes, except changing the B natural to Bb when the chord changes from G7 to C7. From that, I think about the chord tones and the ways that they are stable, and then the passing notes, both diatonic and chromatic. I also think altered notes and their resolutions or non-resolutions. So, I am thinking about a major scale and its components and alterations. The concept of mode seems like a side-track, unless I am playing a modal tune.

In my world, to look at a Beethoven symphony and assert that any portion of it is in a mode would be very bizarre. In that music, when you come across a G7 chord, you need to be hearing in the key of C. That is because the dominant chords are the ones that mark key changes, especially returns to the tonic key after a previous section in the dominant key. Because of this way of thinking, when I hear a piece of classical music, I hear the keys go by. Not modes, because there are more modes than keys. I'm interesting in following the big picture, harmonically speaking. Modes are too local. In hearing for keys, I have a choice of 12. In listening for modes, I have of choice of 12 x 7.

I wonder if we are talking about the difference between using theory for analysis (which is my approach) or as a prescription of what to play in a given harmonic situation.

By the way, it does not matter to me that in the abstract the C major scale is written C D E F G A B and the G mixo is G A B C D E F. When I realize a scale in a solo or composition, I attend to the notes of the chord. If if I am playing against a G7, I don't start my scale on the note C, since it is the 4th of that chord and very dissonant. But just because I might start on the note G instead does not mean I am thinking of the G mixo mode. You have to be aware of the chord tones, since those will determine consonance and dissonance which in turn will be manifested in melodic contour. In other words, I think of a scale as a set, the ordering of which is determined by the harmony and my melodic sense.

[Larry F]

Originally Posted by klasaine

OK, if you have a "vernacular" chord progression, say | G7 | C7 | that repeats ad infinitum, which is more abstract? Thinking C major to F major? Or thinking something that's based on the roots of the chords - G mixo to C mixo?

It's of course great to be able understand and preferably be able to apply BOTH methods.

What about | Dm7 G7 | Gm7 C7 | ? D dorian to G mixo to G dorian to C mixo?

Also, Leon said something about a dominant scale or mixo being used enough in music to justify its own label or something to that effect. In response, I ask how one would hear the difference between a major scale in which the chord is a dominant or the mixo mode starting on the root of the chord? If the soloist has free will in determining contour and rhythm, then how would a listener know if it is a major scale or mixo, since the collection of notes is the same. If the answer is that the listener can't hear the difference, then why would a player practice something that cannot be heard?

[klasaine]

Personally, in a specific case isolated like that ... "I" would think and play most likely D dorian for a bar and G dorian for a bar. I stressed isolated for a reason. Since I'm a big believer, and practicer of gestalt theory, I may approach it from a purely mixolydian POV - G mixo to C mixo (a bar each). And, I would say that 'if' I'm approaching it from a mixo POV I'd probably emphasize G's, F's and E's over the D- to G7, and C's, Bb's and D's over the G- to C7. In essence, that's "the jazz thing" ... bringing out the different colors in chords.

As to the above example, sure, I know also that it's just a couple of ii-V's in the keys of C and F. If my rhythm section is playing very traditionally, that's probably how I'd approach it(?).
It's all about using whatever gets you through it.
Sometimes exploring a different approach can open up a lot of melodic possibilities. Including thinking the 'home' or major key.

Try this ...
Over the D- to G7 use A minor pentatonic ( A C D E G )
Over the G- to C7 use D minor pentatonic ( D F G A C )

** Extra-credit ... over the G7 and C7 chords, raise those pentatonics by 1/2 steps to Bb and Eb penta
That'll give you a nice modern 'Coltranesque' way to approach it.

There's a least 12 ways to skin every musical cat.

[Leon Grizzard]

Originally Posted by Larry F

Also, Leon said something about a dominant scale or mixo being used enough in music to justify its own label or something to that effect. In response, I ask how one would hear the difference between a major scale in which the chord is a dominant or the mixo mode starting on the root of the chord? If the soloist has free will in determining contour and rhythm, then how would a listener know if it is a major scale or mixo, since the collection of notes is the same. If the answer is that the listener can't hear the difference, then why would a player practice something that cannot be heard?

If you just listen to that one chord change worth of music, then maybe you cannot. But certainly hearing a G mixo tune, where the root of the mixo scale is the tonic, you hear a very different sound than the G mixo over a G7 chord resolving to a C tonic. And if you play Sweet Georgia Brown, in F, with the chords D7 G7 C7 F, it is very practical to to know the D dominant scale and the G dominant scale, instead of translating back to G and C major, respectively, when you play over those chords. And built in to what I am saying is knowing the chord tones to hang the other notes on.

The same is true with the ii7 V7 I progression. Even though all the notes you might play are all contained within the major scale, it is a practical way to orient your playing by thinking "emphasize notes of the ii chord, plus the other notes of the parent major scale, emphasize notes of V7 chord, plus the other notes of the parent major scale, and emphasize notes of the tonic chord, plus the other notes of the parent major scale."

Like a lot of players, I think mostly in terms of major, dominant, and minor scales (with a few variations), and not always; sometimes just melody in the major scale, and sometimes a chord scale approach. I don't think phrygian over the iii chord, or lydian over the IV chord.

[Larry F]

This is great. It really is an honor to find out how accomplished, practicing musicians think about and hear these things.

[Leon Grizzard]

Originally Posted by Larry F

This is great. It really is an honor to find out how accomplished, practicing musicians think about and hear these things.

I like hearing from those guys, too.

[jazztele]

that's why i've been sitting this one out!

but seriously, to get at larry's question, "why would someone practice something the audience cannot hear," i think it comes down to navigation. what helps you personally thru the changes best...i practice arpeggios because it's how i see best. no one can hear the difference between a G9 arpegio with some chromatic passing tones and a G mixolydian mode with some chromatic passing tones, but i can see it the first way faster.

looking at the example of the two ii V's, context is important, or rather--tempo in this case. if they're flyng by, i'm thinking one of two things--minor over the whole ii V, or dominant if i want that sound...

am i thinking mode? i don't know really...i look at the fretboard as a pool of notes at any given time--so over that D minor, I'm thinking Dm7 chord tones--which is essentially thinking D dorian. But even if those changes are moving quick, my brain is seeing the colorful notes i can pop over that dominant chord...so i might play notes that come from the altered scale, or melodic minor, or whatever you want to call it, but i'm thinking Galt. chord.

i guess most importantly, in a jazz context, it's where you land...and again, this comes back to chord tones for me...i know the third and seventh are my leading tones, strong notes, and seeing the chords i can see where they are...it's almost like i'm seeing "tonal colors" when a chord appears...3rd and 7ths are strong, like reds, or something...a root is blander...white,or grey...certain notes seem to draw more attention to themselves...they pulsate or something...jeez, where is this going? all this talk about "seeing" the music is a little hippy-dippy, i know...