Page 1 of 2
#1
I've studied the Music Theory FAQ Guide, studied the modes and all the good advice posted by people here on matching chord progressions with each of them (except Locrian, which doesn't seem to be very useful for anything I'm interested in), and now I'm investigating the songs which I used to hack without really knowing anything about them. What I found with my favorite songs so far is that they don't really stick to one mode. Del Shannon's "The Runaway" moves from Aolian in the verse, to Ionian for the chorus (both A, if played open against the nut). Orbison's "Pretty Woman" is clearly E Mixolydian in the verse, where that unforgettable E riff is played in the open A box (per CAGED nomenclature, where each box is named for the root when it's played with open notes, and imaginarily extended over the nut). This gives way to the open "C" box in the chorus, which (I think) takes the song into D Dorian. "Norwegian Wood" seems to cover three modes of D (without the capo). Some songs seem to change in mid-verse, or even mid-line. Even the most basic three-chord songs can be a surprise - I was trying to reconcile the notes I heard played by George Michael Montgomery's band over "Beer and Bones" - I thought this would be basic major pentatonic, but the riffs which were played don't seem to stick to the same scale or mode over the three major chords, or there's some bit of creative playing off the scale which I can't reconcile to any theory which I know. Right now, it seems important to be able to rationalize how successful music would be derived.

I can't seem to google up any discussions on how specific songs use modal changes. I find it fascinating how they make some music more interesting (seems that the Beatles did this a lot), and sure would appreciate any thoughts or theory which deals with modes changing throughout a song.

Thanks.
Last edited by Finger What? at Dec 13, 2008,
#3
Modes arent really that practical to use in actual song writing. Which is why I always wonder why all MT topics off topic to modes...

But yea, youll have to look hard to find music that is strictly modal. That goes 100x for non-classical/jazz music
#4
But yea, youll have to look hard to find music that is strictly modal. That goes 100x for non-classical/jazz music


Classical music isn't modal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a modal jazz piece.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#5
So, real music isn't really modal, or at least not the most interesting music - unless, I suppose, you really like improv rock. I'm about ready to start looking for jam partners, and I know that I could play for hours over three or more chords in the same mode, but it won't sound like the songs which I've been trying to play if the mode never changes. Well, technically, I know that my soloing habits cause a change of modes each time I make a chord change, otherwise it wouldn't sound right for the chord of the moment - but if it's against the same set of tones (if that's what defines the word "scale"), and the progression resolves back to the tonic chord, then I don't think of it as a mode change. And, if a scale is defined by it's tones, then I guess any song with a modal change which retains the same tonal center has a switch between scales, and therefore the song is not scalar?

Is there any theory at all to guide decisions in using mode changes when writing music (if it were COMPLETELY amodal, then it probably wouldn't sound like music)?
#6
So, real music isn't really modal


I was about to say "wrong", but instead I'll just say "bull****". Western tonal harmony is a very recent invention in musical history. Start looking outside of your pop culture microcosm.

if it were COMPLETELY amodal, then it probably wouldn't sound like music


Plenty of music is amodal.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
Last edited by Archeo Avis at Dec 14, 2008,
#7

Classical music isn't modal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a modal jazz piece.


What about the sub-genre of modal jazz? What about striclty diatonic music? What about the music of the impressionists?
I know for a fact Ravel and Debussy both loved the sound of modal music, and there is a large amount of jazz that is modal. Check out the album kind of blue by Miles Davis (particularly so what, all blues, blue in green, and the tune Flameco Sketches-which has no set melody and is just a series of modes that the performer improvises through until he has finished) which is predominantly modal. John Coltrane also had a cool modal period, as have many others.
#8
What about the sub-genre of modal jazz?


It comes close in a few cases. Even modal jazz is rarely modal; it just subverts the traditional harmonic complexity of the genre in favor of creating interest through melody. This is often accomplished though the use of "modal tones" (for lack of a better term), but even in these cases, the conventions are still distinctly jazz inspired.

What about striclty diatonic music?


What does this have to do with modal music? The "strictly diatonic music" you're referring to is almost certainly tonal.

What about the music of the impressionists?


What about it?

Modal music has been near nonexistent since before the Baroque era. It's only very recently that composers have started to rediscover modes, and they've done so largely by cramming them into a tonal framework.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#9
Quote by Archeo Avis
Classical music isn't modal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a modal jazz piece.
To expand on what arch has said

Only some baroque (maybe about a quarter of it) is modal. Most music before hand is also modal.

The only guys to explore modal writing to a acknowledgable extent in jazz are Duke Ellington, Miles Davis and John Coltrane.
#10
Quote by Archeo Avis
Classical music isn't modal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a modal jazz piece.


Quote by Archeo Avis
I was about to say "wrong", but instead I'll just say "bull****". Western tonal harmony is a very recent invention in musical history. Start looking outside of your pop culture microcosm.

Plenty of music is amodal.


Just trying to reflect back what you had already said, if not accurately enough for one of those irritable, belligerent Classical music fans By "real" music, I meant anything which is popular, and contains something more advanced than three major chords (not that I don't like the old twelve-bar Blues, but right now I'm studying modes) - and no offense to those of more refined tastes! By the way, does the term "amodal" mean that the piece is not bimodal, trimodal, nor does it cover any number of modes up to as many that would give us one for every two notes (yipe)?

Actually, I love Classical too, in fact I studied it's history as an elective (no theory) in college. Even after so many dull lectures on the subject, I still loved the music, but was sad to learn there were no guitars involved in any symphonic music, which hardly would seem particularly modal, just thinking of it in general. They were, of course, a more recent invention, with a classical history, mostly all their own, and then I can't play the Phrygian mode without thinking of what Spanish classical music I've heard (I never really aquired a taste for Segovia, amazing as he was, but I could become a big fan of the live Flamenco guitarist who plays locally) - so I wasn't sure if you were referring specifically to guitar music when you said that Classical isn't modal.
Last edited by Finger What? at Dec 14, 2008,
#11
Quote by Finger What?
Just trying to reflect back what you had already said, if not accurately enough for one of those irritable, belligerent Classical music fans By "real" music, I meant anything which is popular, and contains something more advanced than three major chords (not that I don't like the old twelve-bar Blues, but right now I'm studying modes) - and no offense to those of more refined tastes! By the way, does the term "amodal" mean that the piece is not bimodal, trimodal, nor does it cover any number of modes up to as many that would give us one for every two notes (yipe)?

Actually, I love Classical too, in fact I studied it's history as an elective (no theory) in college. Even after so many dull lectures on the subject, I still loved the music, but was sad to learn there were no guitars involved in any symphonic music, which hardly would seem particularly modal, just thinking of it in general. They were, of course, a more recent invention, with a classical history, mostly all their own, and then I can't play the Phrygian mode without thinking of what Spanish classical music I've heard (I never really aquired a taste for Segovia, amazing as he was, but I could become a big fan of the live Flamenco guitarist who plays locally) - so I wasn't sure if you were referring specifically to guitar music when you said that Classical isn't modal.


amodal has no logical connection with bi- or trimodal. It's not a summ.

amodal is just the opposite of modal.

just like absent and present, not absent bisent trisent lol.

And modes are used in alot of things. From game music (zelda - spiritit templ tune) = phrygian. To alot of movie music (don't know example, but some definately make use of modes).

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#12
Quote by yingyangthang
Modes arent really that practical to use in actual song writing.
Hilarious!! You think there is a right and wrong way to go about "actual song writing"? Modes are impractical? It depends what you do with them. One could say the same thing about any piece of theory.

As Walter Piston says, "...we must realize that musical theory is not a set of directions for composing music. It is rather the collected and systematized deductions gathered by observing the practice of composers over a long time, and it attempts to set forth waht is or has been their common practice. It tells not how music will be written in the future, but how music has been written in the past."

Modes have been used in music - even in the last fifty years - quite a bit. It all depends on what you're trying to achieve.

TS: I can't say what the right method of "changing modes" mid song would be. It's basically just a kind of modulation. Usually when you change parts you might want to set a different mood for each part. You might achieve this with a modulation to a new relative or parallel mode.

I know that the The Beatles were writing songs pretty much as soon as they travelled a few miles to find out how to play a B7 chord on the guitar. John Lennon at least had an infamous disdain for theory "it's like fukcing" he would say "who wants to talk about it [when you could be doing it]." When discussing modes someone asked him about the Aeolian Cadence mentioned by a music analyst looking at one of his songs - "What's that it sounds like some exotic bird?" - He didn't know what mode were - but he was using them.

I'm not sure how much theory Paul had but they definitely started getting heavily into pedal tones and modes after hearing some of the "trance-like" qualities in their experience of foreign cultural music during their trip to India.

They could hear what they wanted and what they were doing - which in my book is what makes a great composer.

Back to changes during songs. I think just the placement of a single note can alter the mood and create interest in a passage of music. At what point we start analysing a piece as modal or simply containing accidentals is debatable. There's no rules and no how to's - except use your ear and listen and play and listen and play.

Sorry for the lame answer but best of luck. If you do come upon anything or make observations in your own experimentation with switching between modes be sure to post it here. I'll do the same.
Si
#13
By "real" music, I meant anything which is popular, and contains something more advanced than three major chords


How in the hell is anyone supposed to derive "popular, and contains something more advanced than three major chords" from "real"? This is why words have definitions.

By the way, does the term "amodal" mean


a = without
modal = mode

Music that does not make use of modes. You know...Western tonal music.

but was sad to learn there were no guitars involved in any symphonic music, which hardly would seem particularly modal, just thinking of it in general. They were, of course, a more recent invention, with a classical history, mostly all their own, and then I can't play the Phrygian mode without thinking of what Spanish classical music I've heard (I never really aquired a taste for Segovia, amazing as he was, but I could become a big fan of the live Flamenco guitarist who plays locally) - so I wasn't sure if you were referring specifically to guitar music when you said that Classical isn't modal.


I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about here. The guitar (or any other instrument) has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not a piece is modal.
Someones knowledge of guitar companies spelling determines what amps you can own. Really smart people can own things like Framus because they sound like they might be spelled with a "y" but they aren't.
#14
Quote by xxdarrenxx
amodal has no logical connection with bi- or trimodal. It's not a summ.

amodal is just the opposite of modal.

just like absent and present, not absent bisent trisent lol.


So then, this would mean that a modal piece sticks strictly to one mode - it's either modal, or not modal at all, even when one half of it (say, the verse) represents one mode, and the other half (say, the chorus) represents another? If it's important at all to be able to discuss different styles of songwriting, and how they relate to the modes, then why shouldn't there be words like "bimodal"? Maybe it's not quite as important as I think it could be, that's the notion I'm starting to sense. I only know that some people actually do study songwriting methods, and that it's made what they do easier.

Quote by 20Tigers
Hilarious!! You think there is a right and wrong way to go about "actual song writing"? Modes are impractical? It depends what you do with them. One could say the same thing about any piece of theory.

As Walter Piston says, "...we must realize that musical theory is not a set of directions for composing music. It is rather the collected and systematized deductions gathered by observing the practice of composers over a long time, and it attempts to set forth waht is or has been their common practice. It tells not how music will be written in the future, but how music has been written in the past."


Quote by 20Tigers
]Modes have been used in music - even in the last fifty years - quite a bit. It all depends on what you're trying to achieve.

I believe you're right - I can solo the Aeolian (if you could refer to the minor pentatonic in this way) to the three chords of Wild Thing easily enough, and there has been no shortage of basic diddies which followed!

Quote by 20Tigers
TS: I can't say what the right method of "changing modes" mid song would be. It's basically just a kind of modulation. Usually when you change parts you might want to set a different mood for each part. You might achieve this with a modulation to a new relative or parallel mode.


Quote by 20Tigers
I know that the The Beatles were writing songs pretty much as soon as they travelled a few miles to find out how to play a B7 chord on the guitar. John Lennon at least had an infamous disdain for theory "it's like fukcing" he would say "who wants to talk about it [when you could be doing it]." When discussing modes someone asked him about the Aeolian Cadence mentioned by a music analyst looking at one of his songs - "What's that it sounds like some exotic bird?" - He didn't know what mode were - but he was using them.

From their songs which I've looked at so far, I began to suspect this (and I thought they were geniouses). But then, if you don't have pre-conceived parameters, you can write without restrictions - if you can figure out how to write (they probably didn't read and write it, either) music which doesn't sound like s**t. In order to achieve this, you must have some kind of system, or be unusually brilliant - they were, but can you be that brilliant? You don't think John Lennon may have been jerking us?

Quote by 20Tigers
I'm not sure how much theory Paul had but they definitely started getting heavily into pedal tones and modes after hearing some of the "trance-like" qualities in their experience of foreign cultural music during their trip to India.

They could hear what they wanted and what they were doing - which in my book is what makes a great composer.

Back to changes during songs. I think just the placement of a single note can alter the mood and create interest in a passage of music. At what point we start analysing a piece as modal or simply containing accidentals is debatable. There's no rules and no how to's - except use your ear and listen and play and listen and play.


Quote by 20Tigers
Sorry for the lame answer but best of luck. If you do come upon anything or make observations in your own experimentation with switching between modes be sure to post it here. I'll do the same.

Not lame, it's pretty much the verification I needed. Maybe their's more to it than this, but I see how it's as much as we'll get from the rock legends. I'm a little disappointed that modal transitions don't get the same treatment as, say, chord progressions among professionals - you can't easily launch into a solo for your favorite song without first knowing where the patterns are no longer connected. I suppose this is what they need to protect most, and then it's a great way to embellish the legend when a great rock star plays dumb, but brilliant!

After hearing about the qualifications of some guitarists (an example is the lead guitarist for the popular Irish folk band Hair of the Dog (local, the lead guitarist is Berkeley School educated, and he does add a wonderful and unique edge to traditional music - but then "What Do You Do With A Drunken Sailor" sure as hell ain't jazz), as well as so many of the shred rockers (whose music almost never hits the Top 10), it's kinda hard to believe the great rockers when they claim to know so little. But then, I could believe that some have more of a "groove bone" (sheesh, that didn't sound right) then me.

Anyway, if the Beatles never studied theory, then it sort of implies that musical complexity may be driven by ignorance, and that overly-complex thinking sometimes complicates things! But then, I understand that you can't really accomplish anything by focusing too narrowly on the nuts and bolts - but I think you've gotta know them first, if you don't have a savant brain.
Last edited by Finger What? at Dec 14, 2008,
#15
^^
To TS


"on Bimodal"

A modal song has 1 mode, cause this is the term somebody gave 100's of years ago to a song containing 1 mode. You can use more modes in a song, but this is often used tru modulation (search up parallel modes).

Yes you could name a song with 2 modes Bimodal, but this is not acknowledged by the musicworld, so it isn't used. Music terms are just used for communication and definition. If I'd use my own musical language it might sound cooler, but this would be completely useless though. I don't see any benefit into renaming it, simply because it's accepted that you can say the song has 2 modes and most if not all musicians can live with that.

"On beatles; Genius"

First of all, understand that the word genius (in music) is quite misleading to most people. Genius is someone who breaks new grounds in any area. When you say someone is "more Genius" is opinion. Unless someone broke new grounds on 2 subjects, then compared to someone who broke new ground on 1 subject could be called slightly more genius, but this is subjective and isn't what the word Genius really means.

It's also misleading, cause new grounds on music are broken everyday, and it's "genius" is often measured by popularity, which is wrong, but nobody will listen to it because there are simply put more dumb people then smart people in the world (and MTV)

Maybe The Beatles did know what they were doing, or maybe not. I "invented" some stuff in my own music, which already exists so it's not considered genius. Take the riff of Smoke on the water. It's considered genius by a lot of people, but I'm willing to bet that there are some people who "came up" with that riff when playing guitar, without ever hearing it. It's all a game from who came first, and a modern example is "The plagiarism between Coldplay and Satch" which is going on atm, but that aside.

"on the last paragraph of ur post^"
There are many unknown musicians, who do groundbreaking stuff and are very good. But subconciously a lot of people use popularity to measure quality, because they watched to much MTV or because they watched to much MTV.

About rockstars playing dumb. It's all part of the act. People rather wanna hear that they play "from the soul" or that they are "inspired by god" then that they say I got it from a book. If you however choose to define soul by choices based on what u like, then that's perfectly acceptable. This doesn't mean they learned how to play such a thing from theory or books, but it also doesn't mean that they didn't learn it from a book.

It's not inspiring, but I don't mind, cause if it's a tune I like, then I don't care what they say.

In my opinion Genius is in the music business. They can fool so many people, because they worked out how everything should be produced, and to manipulate (or inspire) that many people is astonishing.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Dec 14, 2008,
#16
Quote by xxdarrenxx
^^
To TS


"on Bimodal"

A modal song has 1 mode, cause this is the term somebody gave 100's of years ago to a song containing 1 mode. You can use more modes in a song, but this is often used tru modulation (search up parallel modes).

Yes you could name a song with 2 modes Bimodal, but this is not acknowledged by the musicworld, so it isn't used. Music terms are just used for communication and definition. If I'd use my own musical language it might sound cooler, but this would be completely useless though. I don't see any benefit into renaming it, simply because it's accepted that you can say the song has 2 modes and most if not all musicians can live with that.

Guess I can, too.

"On beatles; Genius"
First of all, understand that the word genius (in music) is quite misleading to most people. Genius is someone who breaks new grounds in any area. When you say someone is "more Genius" is opinion. Unless someone broke new grounds on 2 subjects, then compared to someone who broke new ground on 1 subject could be called slightly more genius, but this is subjective and isn't what the word Genius really means.

It's also misleading, cause new grounds on music are broken everyday, and it's "genius" is often measured by popularity, which is wrong, but nobody will listen to it because there are simply put more dumb people then smart people in the world (and MTV)

Maybe The Beatles did know what they were doing, or maybe not. I "invented" some stuff in my own music, which already exists so it's not considered genius. Take the riff of Smoke on the water. It's considered genius by a lot of people, but I'm willing to bet that there are some people who "came up" with that riff when playing guitar, without ever hearing it. It's all a game from who came first, and a modern example is "The plagiarism between Coldplay and Satch" which is going on atm, but that aside.

"on the last paragraph of ur post^"
There are many unknown musicians, who do groundbreaking stuff and are very good. But subconciously a lot of people use popularity to measure quality, because they watched to much MTV or because they watched to much MTV.

About rockstars playing dumb. It's all part of the act. People rather wanna hear that they play "from the soul" or that they are "inspired by god" then that they say I got it from a book. If you however choose to define soul by choices based on what u like, then that's perfectly acceptable. This doesn't mean they learned how to play such a thing from theory or books, but it also doesn't mean that they didn't learn it from a book.

It's not inspiring, but I don't mind, cause if it's a tune I like, then I don't care what they say.

In my opinion Genius is in the music business. They can fool so many people, because they worked out how everything should be produced, and to manipulate (or inspire) that many people is astonishing.
Yep.
#17
I personally wouldn't write a song out a mode (Ionian and Aeolian are common, but they're basic major/minor scales). Modes are more like flavors, particularly in solos. A song can be in G major but if a Gmaj7sharp11 chord comes round than the soloist could choose to switch to G lydian for part of the solo.
#18
I don't think it is necessary to know what you're doing in a theoretical context in order to make something work. You just get the feeling the song needs something and you seem to know what it needs instinctively.

I recently wrote a song that was in Mixolydian for a fair portion and then went into Aeolian. I didn't think about it until after it was written and I was looking at it and analysing what I had done. It came out the way it did because it sounded right as I was writing it. I started with just the melody I could hear clearly in my head and sounded it out. Theory had nothing to do with it.

When I later learnt Norwegian Wood I found it interesting to see them move from Mixolydian to Dorian ( a major to minor mode). Of course there's no comparison between the two pieces the Beatles did it far better than I did and the pieces don't sound much like each other at all.

Looking at Norwegian Wood as a case study though is nice. The opening Mixolydian melody is beautiful and bright while at the same time unusual and almost foreign sounding.

The shift into the Dorian mode sees us just jump right into it by prominantly introducing the b3. Initially the end of the melodic phrase the second time around sounds the same as it did the first time around. We are still basking in that D major sound with the three note bass lick that this time includes an A on the G string. This A seems to help anchor us as we are plunged into min3rd territory with the pulsing rhythm. We just jump straight in to it. The shift is unexpected and so creates interest and a real feeling of movement. The bass notes show a lot more movement in this part of the song also.

The shift back to the bright Mixolydian melody is a little more interesting. The freedom in the bass during the second section of the song has already been mentioned. So it is no surprise to us to find ourselves on an A bass note after a repitition of the gloomy pulsating passage in the Dorian mode.

To shift back we seem once again to use this A as an important note. This time as the bass though and we see the introduction of a C# as a full A major chord is arpeggiated. This is a more indirect move back to the Dorian mode as the C# is introduced once in the A major chord arpeggio but achieves our shift back to a bright (major) Mixolydian sound as the bass makes use of the leading tone as it climbs A B C# before landing on our D to begin our Mixolydian melody once more.

One could view this brief linking section as being in the Ionian Mode. However one could also just as simply call it a "borrowed" leading tone to achieve a subtle break out of the Dorian Mode before returning to Mixolydian. Personally I prefer the latter analysis as the other two modal aspects of this song are so clearly established and contrasted against each other whereas the use of the C# does not create a new Ionian Mood. It is far to fleeting and only really accomplishes a successful shift back to our original Mixolydian territory which sees us through the remainder of the song.

Anyway, for what it's worth, that's my analysis of them shifting between modes.

EDIT:I never set out to write with the idea in mind that I will be using such and such a mode or to use such and such a technique. I simply hear it in my head and try to work it out. How it comes out is how it comes out. If I get stuck I might analyse what I've got and see if I can work on some theory based strategies to get me to where I want to be, but usually I'll listen and see what comes next in my head then take it from there.
Si
Last edited by 20Tigers at Dec 14, 2008,
#19
Quote by Archeo Avis
Classical music isn't modal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a modal jazz piece.


Thats what Im trying to say. How rare modal music actually is, just because theres so many rules and such that makes it hard to write a truly modal piece that still sounds good

Maybe you should read the posts you attack?
#20
Quote by yingyangthang
Thats what Im trying to say. How rare modal music actually is, just because theres so many rules and such that makes it hard to write a truly modal piece that still sounds good

Maybe you should read the posts you attack?


But this is totally irrelevant. It's implied that music is only worth something if it's used frequently.

Modes have their own place and functioning in music While it could be hard to write a modal piece, it's mixing modes that can really create interest, and it's used in many songs.

In pop music, film scores, soundtrack of games, rock music, shred, fusion. Modes are used in so many music. Just because they are hardly used in classical/traditional/jazz music, doesn't make them bad or obsolete.

It's hard to write species counterpoint that sounds very good and interesting, but it still has it's place in music.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Dec 14, 2008,
#21
Modes are not a method of songwriting. Theory is not a method of songwriting. They are just tools for understanding musical concepts and ideas found in songs already written. In some circumstances modes are a useful method of analysis and in others circumstances they are less so.

Why, when someone asks about a modal analysis of some songs he has listed that use modes, do people feel the need to give opinions on the value of modes as songwriting tools and show how brilliant they aren't by stating how rare modes are?

Si
#22
Quote by xxdarrenxx
But this is totally irrelevant. It's implied that music is only worth something if it's used frequently.

Modes have their own place and functioning in music While it could be hard to write a modal piece, it's mixing modes that can really create interest, and it's used in many songs.

In pop music, film scores, soundtrack of games, rock music, shred, fusion. Modes are used in so many music. Just because they are hardly used in classical/traditional/jazz music, doesn't make them bad.

It's hard to write species counterpoint that sounds very good and interesting, but it still has it's place in music.


Youd be 100% right if ts was asking about how he can apply modes to his music, but hes asking about songs that have them. To which Im saying, he will have to look pretty hard to find


Its funny that you mention species counter point. I was about to say that modes are similar to species counter point in that they both have many rules, and strictly writing modally or in species counter point is often impractical and actually makes it harder to write songs


^To tiger

TS is asking for songs that are strictly modal, to which I am telling him that strictly modal songs are very rare
#23
Well, Tigers, what do you expect? He's Canadian.

As long as we're talking about President Bush (as that will obviously be Arch's comeback), did anyone see that guy throw his shoes at him? It's like the henchman in the first Austin Powers!
#24
Quote by yingyangthang
Youd be 100% right if ts was asking about how he can apply modes to his music, but hes asking about songs that have them. To which Im saying, he will have to look pretty hard to find


He was asking how to understand modal changes in a composition, which I assume is for his own songwriting, since he's talking about "stuff he plays" Already answered that earlier in this thread.


Quote by yingyangthang

Its funny that you mention species counter point. I was about to say that modes are similar to species counter point in that they both have many rules, and strictly writing modally or in species counter point is often impractical and actually makes it harder to write songs


I still can't find in the OP where he says he wants strictly modal songs. I do agree it's harder, that's common sense/logical. But that's exactly it's beauty.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#25
Quote by xxdarrenxx
I still can't find in the OP where he says he wants strictly modal songs.
He doesn't ask that. He's asking about modes changing in songs, which is pitch axis theory and that can easily be found on Google.
#26
Quote by yingyangthang
^To tiger

TS is asking for songs that are strictly modal, to which I am telling him that strictly modal songs are very rare

Actually he's not. He's already mentioned songs that he feels use modes and switch between modes during the song. He's looking for :

Quote by Finger What?

discussions on how specific songs use modal changes. I find it fascinating how they make some music more interesting (seems that the Beatles did this a lot), and sure would appreciate any thoughts or theory which deals with modes changing throughout a song.
He's looking for analysis and theoretical discussion - not a list of songs, and not opinions about how useful modes are in writing songs.

EDIT: oops too slow it's already been pointed out.
Si
#27
Quote by Archeo Avis
Classical music isn't modal, and you'd be hard pressed to find a modal jazz piece.


There are plenty of modal jazz pieces, and there are plenty of modal classical pieces as well (unless you are using the term "classical" in the strictest sense meaning the "Classical period" which was from 1750 to 1820). if you use the term "classical music" to include artists like Bartok or Chopin, you will definitely find works that utilize modes.

Quote by demonofthenight


The only guys to explore modal writing to a acknowledgable extent in jazz are Duke Ellington, Miles Davis and John Coltrane.


I don't think they were the only guys, but they were possibly the most well-known.
shred is gaudy music
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Dec 14, 2008,
#28
Quote by bangoodcharlote
He doesn't ask that. He's asking about modes changing in songs, which is pitch axis theory and that can easily be found on Google.



Yup Yup I know, but ying-yang thought he did. I understand the concept of pitch axis. Although the difference between pitch axis and modulation share a very thin line.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#29
I was backing you up. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

On modulation vs. Pitch-axis Theory, I'd say that modulation is going from Em to Gm while pitch-axis would be switching between E Phrygian and E Dorian.
#30
I thought going from E minor to G minor doesn't constitute as "modulation", but a key change. Modulation is a "subtle" key change, which spans only one move on the circle of fifths, clockwise or counterclockwise. G minor is 3 away from E minor. Unless you meant G Major.

E Minor possible moduations: A minor, B minor, D major, C major, G major.

amirite?
#32
Quote by one vision
I thought going from E minor to G minor doesn't constitute as "modulation", but a key change. Modulation is a "subtle" key change, which spans only one move on the circle of fifths, clockwise or counterclockwise. G minor is 3 away from E minor. Unless you meant G Major.

E Minor possible moduations: A minor, B minor, D major, C major, G major.

amirite?


No... modulation = key change (subtle or not)


"In music, modulation is most commonly the act or process of changing from one key (tonic, or tonal center) to another. This may or may not be accompanied by a change in key signature. Modulations articulate or create the structure or form of many pieces, as well as add interest. Treatment of a chord as the tonic for less than a phrase is considered tonicization.
Contents
1 Types
1.1 Common chord modulation
1.2 Enharmonic modulation
1.3 Common-tone modulation
1.4 Chromatic modulation
1.5 Phrase modulation
1.6 Sequential modulation
2 Common modulations
3 Significance
4 Other types
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
[edit]Types

There are several different types of modulation -- (these) modulations may be prepared or unprepared, smooth or abrupt. It is smoother to modulate to more closely related keys than to keys further away. Closeness is determined by the number of notes in common between keys, which provides more possible pivot chords, easily determined by their closeness on the circle of fifths. A modulation is often completed by a cadence in the new key, which helps to establish it. Brief modulations are often considered tonicizations."

- WIki
shred is gaudy music
#33
Quote by bangoodcharlote
I was backing you up. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

On modulation vs. Pitch-axis Theory, I'd say that modulation is going from Em to Gm while pitch-axis would be switching between E Phrygian and E Dorian.


Oh no no problemo.

Yes I see that also, but I found that sometimes it's vague.

If u play G7 - Gm , that could be seen as a modulation, but also be seen as G Mixolydian - G Aeolian; or is that not true?

Edit: Modulation can't take place on the same root? As if you change key not from tonic to tonic, but from let's say V chord in 1 key to a Tonic in the next?

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Last edited by xxdarrenxx at Dec 14, 2008,
#34
Quote by xxdarrenxx
Oh no no problemo.

Yes I see that also, but I found that sometimes it's vague.

If u play G7 - Gm , that could be seen as a modulation, but also be seen as G Mixolydian - G Aeolian; or is that not true?



Pitch axis is a particular procedure for achieving modulation. There is no "VS" about it.
shred is gaudy music
#35
I would consider a G7-Gm vamp to be pitch-axis.

Edit: You could kind of look at Gm as something like G7#9. It's obviously not, but it's sort of like it in this context.
Last edited by bangoodcharlote at Dec 14, 2008,
#36
Quote by bangoodcharlote
I would consider a G7-Gm vamp to be pitch-axis.


Ah yes, wtf I must be tired or something lol (00:24 am). That IS the concept of pitch axis. Axis being the root staying the same. soz

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#37
Oh. I thought it was specifically a key change between closely related keys on the circle of fifths, for example the ones I listed.

Modulation being that ^, and key change being a change of key further away on the circle of fifths or an abrupt key change.

I just read up on it, and apparently the terms are used interchangeably.
#38
Yes. The names confuse me. Pitch axis would be more logical imo if called Root modulation. But ye I guess fancy words ftw.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
#39
There's a lot of goofy nomenclature, and that's not restricted to music, but it's not changing. Sorry.

Pitch-axis makes some sense, though. You're using one pitch as an axis around which you swing to different modes.
#40
Quote by bangoodcharlote
There's a lot of goofy nomenclature, and that's not restricted to music, but it's not changing. Sorry.

Pitch-axis makes some sense, though. You're using one pitch as an axis around which you swing to different modes.


Yer It does make sense, but I learned; Enharmonic modulation, Common-tone modulation, Chromatic modulation, Phrase modulation, Sequential modulation first.

That's why I "forgot" the link that Pitch Axis is also modulation., because it's not called "pitch axis modulation". Although in it's modal concept it makes sense, but in the bigger picture meh

Imo it's really a stylistic error, which can't be changed due too billions of people already accepted the former.

The "Re-incarnation of Plato" Award 2009
(most intelligent)
The "Good Samaritan" Award 2009 (most helpful)

[font="Palatino Linotype
Who's Andy Timmons??
Page 1 of 2