Page 1 of 4
#1
Hello.

I just had some questions regarding the diatonic chords within different scales.

If I have a i IV v progression. Does that mean the key would be in the key of i dorian? Because the 6th scale degree is a major sixth, which characterizes the dorian minor scale.

This is following a conversation on here I saw about harmonic minor, when the i iv V7 progression someone brought up how it is harmonic minor progression.

Similar, I guess a a i IV V7 progression would make it melodic minor? But then I've heard melodic minor only acts as an ascending scale...

A I II V progression would be a lydian scale?

Thanks.
#2
Quote by tyle12
Hello.

I just had some questions regarding the diatonic chords within different scales.

If I have a i IV v progression. Does that mean the key would be in the key of i dorian? Because the 6th scale degree is a major sixth, which characterizes the dorian minor scale.

No, it means the key is some minor key and that we're using the i IV v chords in said minor key.

This is following a conversation on here I saw about harmonic minor, when the i iv V7 progression someone brought up how it is harmonic minor progression.

Yes, I did say that. I also emphasized the fact that it's still minor. To quote myself from the other thread:
Quote by me
The key is determined by one thing (and one thing only), which is where the song/piece resolves. What chord/note sounds like home?
So, play the song "You Know I'm No Good". Which chord sounds like home, in that song? If a chord doesn't sound like home (meaning it doesn't resolve), then it's not chord that defines the key signature.

Note: Remember the other thread's TS was trying to figure out the key to "You Know I'm No Good" and was confused because some of the chords were not diatonic (read: were not chords built out of the notes of the key signature).


Quote by tyle12
Similar, I guess a a i IV V7 progression would make it melodic minor? But then I've heard melodic minor only acts as an ascending scale...

This is a false assumption. Melodic minor works as both ascending and descending.

A I II V progression would be a lydian scale?

No. That would be a progression in a major key, and we are using the I II V chords in said major key.



I want you to do something for me. STOP WORRYING ABOUT SCALES. Why? Because what key you are in is infinitely more important than what scale is being used.
#3
I see the dorian as a minor with a major 6th. A phrygian as a minor with minor 2nd. Lydian as major with sharp 4th and mixo as major with flat 7. So yes I consider them to be either major or minor at the start. However Those examples I gave were progressions which if taken into account the notes used, would be the notes made up of said particular scale. So a i IV v would be in the key of A: A, B,C,D,E,F#,G. Which are the notes of A dorian (minor). If it resolves to A, why would it simply be A minor? I'm not trying to provoke anything, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff.
#4
Quote by tyle12
I see the dorian as a minor with a major 6th. A phrygian as a minor with minor 2nd. Lydian as major with sharp 4th and mixo as major with flat 7. So yes I consider them to be either major or minor at the start.

This is fine. But a mode cannot be a key.

Therefore, a i IV v is NEVER the key of i dorian. There are 2 issues with the idea of treating a progression as "key of i (insert mode here)" or "key of I (insert mode here)".
1) As I said, a mode cannot be a key. This means, the statement "the key of i dorian" is wrong. Modes are modes. Keys are part of tonal music.
2) If we are in Dorian mode, we are probably never going to see a chord progression such as i IV v. In fact, we probably won't see chord progressions at all in a modal setting. Rather, we will see melodies and harmonies that aren't really chord progressions, OR we will see a modal vamp. (Don't worry about that.)

However Those examples I gave were progressions which if taken into account the notes used, would be the notes made up of said particular scale.

Yes, but the key is NOT determined by the notes used. See where I quoted myself above.

So a i IV v would be in the key of A: A, B,C,D,E,F#,G. Which are the notes of A dorian (minor). If it resolves to A, why would it simply be A minor? I'm not trying to provoke anything, I'm genuinely trying to understand this stuff.

If you are genuinely trying to understand, then I recommend you set modes aside and learn some more of the basics. Start with keys and diatonic chords. Then, move onto non-diatonic chords.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Aug 15, 2014,
#5
I know my keys and diatonic chords for each key. non-diatonic chords I understand as borrowing chords from other scales. i.e bIII, bVII, etc. and I know modes are just different notes you can play over chords that are not found in that key's signature. AKA the minor scale has a minor sixth and major second, but if you play a Gb note over an F minor chord, you are using a phyrgian mode over that chord, this I understand.

I guess the issue I was having was giving a name to non-diatonic notes played in a progression. I.E the i IV v progression which has a sixth scale degree not found in the key of i. And if I understand you we just say that it is a minor scale with a major 4 chord...adjust you sound accordingly to your preference.
#6
Quote by tyle12
I know my keys and diatonic chords for each key. non-diatonic chords I understand as borrowing chords from other scales. i.e bIII, bVII, etc. and I know modes are just different notes you can play over chords that are not found in that key's signature. AKA the minor scale has a minor sixth and major second, but if you play a Gb note over an F minor chord, you are using a phyrgian mode over that chord, this I understand.

But you're not. Not really. If you play a Gb over the Fminor chord, you're playing a b2 over an F minor chord. (The previous sentence is only true if the key is Fminor.)

For some reason, you're treating scales as more important than keys. You're also acting like we can treat modes as keys.

I guess the issue I was having was giving a name to non-diatonic notes played in a progression. I.E the i IV v progression which has a sixth scale degree not found in the key of i.

Why do we need to name non-diatonic notes? What does that really do for us? And technically, we already have a name for diatonic chords/notes. IV is a non-diatonic chord in any minor key; it's still a valid chord.

Its name is "IV". Why should we rename the entire key because we now have a non-diatonic major 6th note in our IV chord?

And if I understand you we just say that it is a minor scale with a major 4 chord...adjust you sound accordingly to your preference.
Well, you're not understanding quite yet. We would be in a minor key and would be using a (non-diatonic) IV chord.


Always, always consider the key. The rest of it (scales, notes, chords) is just fluff that makes it more interesting.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Aug 15, 2014,
#7
Quote by tyle12
Hello.

I just had some questions regarding the diatonic chords within different scales.

If I have a i IV v progression. Does that mean the key would be in the key of i dorian? Because the 6th scale degree is a major sixth, which characterizes the dorian minor scale.

This is following a conversation on here I saw about harmonic minor, when the i iv V7 progression someone brought up how it is harmonic minor progression.

A I II V progression would be a lydian scale?

Thanks.


i IV v is Dorian all day every day. So is i VII IV. So is i ii but be careful because if u play a v it might end up resolved there lol

I wouldnt call it the "key" of i dorian though. Personally id say "hey dude, lets jam in d dorian." If the players understand modes then they will understand u instantly.

yes, I II V would technically be Lydian....but again, when u throw in that V chord you are going to tend to resolve there. for instance if we play I(C) II(D) V(G) then obviously that can function as the IV(C) V(D) I(G) in the key of G. Thats a hard one to play without it simply resolving to G. U might get away with C D/C G/C


i iv V7 (or just V) is a textbook harmonic minor progression. You can play harmonic minor over the whole thing or you can play harmonic minor only on the V7 chord.

------------------------

1) write out the notes in a major scale. CDEFGAB

2) write out the triads (or 7th chords if u want) from that scale.

C-CEG
d minor -DFA
e minor-EGB
F-FAC
G-GBD
a minor-ACE
b minor flat5-BDF

3) mode order. If Donnie Plays Like Me, Alls Lost. IDPLMAL

Ionian
Dorian
Phrygian
Lydian
Mixolydian
Aeolian
Locrian

Pick what mode you want to play in. Mixolydian? Making sure you are staying in the key of G, use chords from the list you made. Ive got an instrumental right here on my comp with the chords G, dm, C, G. Stays in the key of G all day long with harmony leads etc

Locrian? not really gonna work because it simply wont resolve to that flat 5 chord...then again, there are probably some locrian songs out there somewhere lol
#8
Quote by JohnProphet
i IV v is Dorian all day every day. So is i VII IV. So is i ii but be careful because if u play a v it might end up resolved there lol

I wouldnt call it the "key" of i dorian though. Personally id say "hey dude, lets jam in d dorian." If the players understand modes then they will understand u instantly.

yes, I II V would technically be Lydian....but again, when u throw in that V chord you are going to tend to resolve there. for instance if we play I(C) II(D) V(G) then obviously that can function as the IV(C) V(D) I(G) in the key of G. Thats a hard one to play without it simply resolving to G. U might get away with C D/C G/C


i iv V7 (or just V) is a textbook harmonic minor progression. You can play harmonic minor over the whole thing or you can play harmonic minor only on the V7 chord.

------------------------

1) write out the notes in a major scale. CDEFGAB

2) write out the triads (or 7th chords if u want) from that scale.

C-CEG
d minor -DFA
e minor-EGB
F-FAC
G-GBD
a minor-ACE
b minor flat5-BDF

3) mode order. If Donnie Plays Like Me, Alls Lost. IDPLMAL

Ionian
Dorian
Phrygian
Lydian
Mixolydian
Aeolian
Locrian

Pick what mode you want to play in. Mixolydian? Making sure you are staying in the key of G, use chords from the list you made. Ive got an instrumental right here on my comp with the chords G, dm, C, G. Stays in the key of G all day long with harmony leads etc

Locrian? not really gonna work because it simply wont resolve to that flat 5 chord...then again, there are probably some locrian songs out there somewhere lol
STOP. No. We already had this discussion.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Aug 15, 2014,
#9
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
STOP. No. We already had this discussion.


you were wrong then and probably wrong now if I bothered to read your post.

According to you there are no modal songs etc nowadays...correct? or maybe you can name some?
#10
Quote by JohnProphet
you were wrong then and probably wrong now if I bothered to read your post.

According to you there are no modal songs etc nowadays...correct? or maybe you can name some?


We've had this discussion before, specifically with you here https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1651522&page=2&pp=20. You stated in that thread:

Quote by John
pretty much totally disagree with u. As stated by someone else in the thread on the backing track, not every1 uses the modal names to specifically refer to "modal" music. If Im in the key of G and im using a mixolydian scale shape and the chords are derived from that mixo scale shape....then for me its G mixolydian.


So what you mean here when you say that the progression is in lydian is thst you would use lydian shapes over the I II V progression, but would otherwise say it is in a major key.

I'd agree with your approach as a valid way of improvising over the progression. The only real issue is simply that you are saying, perhaps unintentionally, that the progression is in the mode of lydian when it is not.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#11
Quote by AlanHB
We've had this discussion before, specifically with you here https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1651522&page=2&pp=20. You stated in that thread:

So what you mean here when you say that the progression is in lydian is thst you would use lydian shapes over the I II V progression, but would otherwise say it is in a major key.

I'd agree with your approach as a valid way of improvising over the progression. The only real issue is simply that you are saying, perhaps unintentionally, that the progression is in the mode of lydian when it is not.


you guys are SO hung up on the word "say"....so hung up on what to CALL things.

Seriously, give 3 musicians the word "major" and they will give 5 different definitions.

I generally use the meaning of the word "mode" the way I have heard it used by world class musicians, magazines, instructional vids etc for the last 20+ years that I have played guitar.

If I google right now for, say, "dorian mode songs"....I will get dozens and dozens of popular songs with chord changes. I am not going to go and try to correct that usage of the word "mode"

I am assuming that is your beef with my usage of the word. You wouldnt use the word "mode" to refer to songs with chord changes? Maybe I misunderstand you. So you would say, for example, that generally Vai or Satriani dont use lydian mode?

Just to remember correctly, you are the same guy who said that G-dm (I-vm) COULD NOT resolve back to G?
#12
Quote by AlanHB
The only real issue is simply that you are saying, perhaps unintentionally, that the progression is in the mode of lydian when it is not.

Bingo! That was my problem then and still is now.

Furthermore, I really dislike that you (JohnProphet) are muddying the waters here. I'm trying to explain these concepts to the TS. And then you come in and say all that stuff in post #7. Way to add confusion.
You'd think you would have learned, after the thread Alan linked, that you didn't know as much as you think you did. Apparently you learned nothing.

Edit:
Unlike you, TS clearly wants to understand. (You just keep spouting off how "this is how I've always heard it", as if that validates your position.) So, kindly butt out.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Aug 15, 2014,
#13
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Bingo! That was my problem then and still is now.

Furthermore, I really dislike that you (JohnProphet) are muddying the waters here. I'm trying to explain these concepts to the TS. And then you come in and say all that stuff in post #7. Way to add confusion.
You'd think you would have learned, after the thread Alan linked, that you didn't know as much as you think you did. Apparently you learned nothing.

Edit:
Unlike you, TS clearly wants to understand. (You just keep spouting off how "this is how I've always heard it", as if that validates your position.) So, kindly butt out.


I feel the same about you. In the other thread that you pretty much ruined after I posted, you then more or less recanted when GuitarMonkey pointed out that you were dead wrong. You have a short memory huh?

Trust me, its you who dont know as much as you think. How many different keys did you try to say G-dm resolved to?? Made up your mind yet? Didnt it help that I posted a nice easy song for you to reference?


By the way, you and Alan can go and correct the stickies before you try to correct me since they show essentially the same modal PROGRESSIONS that I refer to.
#14
Quote by crazysam23_Atax

2) If we are in Dorian mode, we are probably never going to see a chord progression such as i IV v. In fact, we probably won't see chord progressions at all in a modal setting.


help me out here o wise one. What does the word "probably" mean?

You will either see chord progressions or you wont. You either know what you are talking about or you dont.
#15
Quote by JohnProphet
I feel the same about you. In the other thread that you pretty much ruined after I posted, you then more or less recanted when GuitarMonkey pointed out that you were dead wrong. You have a short memory huh?

Were we reading the same thread? Because I don't remember that. I specifically remember just finally saying (to paraphrase) "whatever", due to the fact that GuitarMonkey and I were not going to agree.

Trust me, its you who dont know as much as you think. How many different keys did you try to say G-dm resolved to?? Made up your mind yet? Didnt it help that I posted a nice easy song for you to reference?

I only ever said 1 key. But whatever.


By the way, you and Alan can go and correct the stickies before you try to correct me since they show essentially the same modal PROGRESSIONS that I refer to.

Are you sure you even understand the stickies?
#16
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Were we reading the same thread? Because I don't remember that. I specifically remember just finally saying (to paraphrase) "whatever", due to the fact that GuitarMonkey and I were not going to agree.


I only ever said 1 key. But whatever.


Are you sure you even understand the stickies?


3 non answers. You are in over your head, let it go.
#17
Quote by JohnProphet
3 non answers. You are in over your head, let it go.

Ah, I see. You don't like my answers, so they are "non answers".

Anyway...have a good life. I'm just gonna put you on ignore. I hope you pull your head out of your ass sometime soon and realize you've a lot to learn. I know I have a lot to learn too, but (as my history in MT indicates) I can admit when I'm wrong.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Aug 15, 2014,
#18
Quote by tyle12
Hello.

I just had some questions regarding the diatonic chords within different scales.

If I have a i IV v progression. Does that mean the key would be in the key of i dorian? Because the 6th scale degree is a major sixth, which characterizes the dorian minor scale.


well, if you play the progression you should hear that it actually resolves on the chord you've labeled v. So its actually a iv VII i progression.


Quote by tyle12

This is following a conversation on here I saw about harmonic minor, when the i iv V7 progression someone brought up how it is harmonic minor progression.


it's just a minor progression. It's common practice to raise the 3rd of the v chord, for a stronger resolution to the tonic. The 3rd of the v chord is the 7th of the minor scale, and when raised it becomes the leading tone. It can be said to be derived from the harmonic minor scale, but that is a little bit misleading in that the note is generally used over the V chord only. So you're not likely to hear someone play over that entire progression with Harmonic minor. (notice though, that I didn't say you never will…. just that it's not common practice).


Quote by tyle12

Similar, I guess a a i IV V7 progression would make it melodic minor? But then I've heard melodic minor only acts as an ascending scale...


No, it doesn't work that way. Melodic minor is used as a way to avoid the huge leap you get when raising the 3rd of the v to the leading tone.

That progression could be described as minor, with the IV being a borrowed chord. It's not a typical progression though. Personally I wouldn't bother with analyzing things like that.

Try studying some existing songs/pieces. Learn to play them, and study them. No need to focus on hypothesized progressions when you can study the real deal. Especially at the beginner stage. Later on experimentation and creativity will be more appropriate.
Quote by tyle12

A I II V progression would be a lydian scale?

Thanks.


Na, that's IV V I (what you called V is actually I)
Last edited by GuitarMunky at Aug 15, 2014,
#19
Quote by crazysam23_Atax
Ah, I see. You don't like my answers, so they are "non answers".

Anyway...have a good life. I'm just gonna put you on ignore. I hope you pull your head out of your ass sometime soon and realize you've a lot to learn. I know I have a lot to learn too, but (as my history in MT indicates) I can admit when I'm wrong.


Challenge a bully and they run
#20
Quote by JohnProphet
you guys are SO hung up on the word "say"....so hung up on what to CALL things.


Cool - it's good that we agree that when you say that a song is "in a mode" that it means something different from the rest of us.

Unfortunately as a result people on this forum will usually disagree with what you say as you are using different definitions for the same words. You may say "cow" but we call it a "turkey". It's not a good basis for any form of debate.

Quote by JohnProphet
By the way, you and Alan can go and correct the stickies before you try to correct me since they show essentially the same modal PROGRESSIONS that I refer to.


You have a good point - could you please show me where the stickies have these progressions?
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#21
Quote by AlanHB
Cool - it's good that we agree that when you say that a song is "in a mode" that it means something different from the rest of us.

Unfortunately as a result people on this forum will usually disagree with what you say as you are using different definitions for the same words. You may say "cow" but we call it a "turkey". It's not a good basis for any form of debate.



Like I mentioned before (and tried to hash out in PMs)....why are you trying to "correct" me when all I am doing is agreeing with what is detailed in several stickied threads??

for example:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=187159

Quote by Corwinoid


More importantly, if we want to choose backing chords, so we can improve in a particular setting, what chords do we use?

Since I happen to have a handy little guide for this laying around, I'll give you those answers. These are the progressions that define what mode you're in, for the major modes (The degrees of the progression are relative to the root of the mode, ie 'i' in D dorian would be Dm):
I - Major -- I-IV-V7; V7-I; ii-V7-I
ii - Dorian -- i-ii; i-IV7
iii - Phrygian -- i-II
IV - Lydian -- I-II7
V - Mixolydian -- VII-I7; vi-VII-I7
vi - Aeolian (nat minor) -- i-iv-v; VI-VII7-i
vii - locrian -- i(dim)


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

wow, what a coinkydink, some of the exact progressions I posted. Its a little hard to see why I am being called out here.


or here https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=999592 another sticky showing the same type of modal progressions I refer to


Im not the one thats confused

Peace, JP
#22
^^^ Thanks.

Would you say that the example for lydian in your quote:

I II7

is the same as the progression being discussed in this thread:

I II V

?

Same goes for your dorian example. Is that the same progression that's in the sticky?
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#23
Quote by AlanHB
^^^ Thanks.

Would you say that the example for lydian in your quote:

I II7

is the same as the progression being discussed in this thread:

I II V

?

Same goes for your dorian example. Is that the same progression that's in the sticky?


Well I personally wouldnt have listed I II V for Lydian...I was just directly responding to what the original poster had asked. I would have listed the standard cliched I II..or I II7. Thats why I explained to him that I II V is essentially the I IV V of another key and that when he hit his V chord he was going to resolve to the wrong key.

I do believe I listed i ii as a Dorian progression. Again, I also referenced the Dorian progression that the original poster asked about which was i-IV-v if I remember correctly


But thats not my point Alan, I am being called out aggressively for stating that modes have chord progressions AT ALL. Im trying to understand where u guys are coming from. I am assuming you are using the strict definition as it was used in modal church music in the middle ages???? You are basing your definition on the fact that they werent playing "chords" because they were strictly singing?

If this were the case we wouldnt be having this discussion at all because none of us play music like that. We generally play music with chord progressions....though we can also play droning type stuff as I also referenced when I wrote C, D/C G/C as a possibility.

----------

it gets redundant, here is another sticky/FAQ https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503032

Quote by Elvenkindje


Mixolydian Mode

Description
The Mixolydian Mode is the scale you get when you play one octave up from the fifth note of a major scale. G Mixolydian starts on the fifth note of the C major scale. The Mixolydian is also known as the dominant 7th scale because it is suited to dominant 7th chords. Blues guitarists like the great B.B. King, Stevie Ray Vaughan, Santana and Eric Clapton have often used this mode in their songs. Norwegian Wood by the Beatles is based on this mode. The Mixolydian Mode differs from the major scale because it has a flat 7th note (b7). This is why it sounds Bluesy and Mellow.

Quality
Bluesy, Mellow

Music Styles
Blues, Country, Rock, Rockabilly

Tonic Chords
Unaltered dominant chords; i.e. G7, G7sus4, G9, G11, G13

Improvising
Try the G Mixolydian over this chord progression: G7, Cmaj7, Dm7, Am7



lo and behold, there is pretty much our exact chord progression that I took so much abuse over in the other thread. Yeah, the one I said was Mixolydian. (I, v, IV etc. I, IV, v...makes no big difference) Imagine finding that same basic progression in a sticky being listed as Mixolydian


So again, exactly why am I being called out again? Its not me who is confused and its not me who is confusing the thread starters. I gotta admit its the first time Ive ever been called out for agreeing with multiple stickies
#25
Hi John,

Have a quick read of this, it's a short article.

http://profile.ultimate-guitar.com/AlanHB/blog/100719/

Does it help clear up some issues?


If you want specific answers re: the second sticky:

The piece as you said suggests the chord progression G7, Cmaj7, Dm7, Am7 as something you can play G mixo over. Although a little confusing, I think that this piece was more about using modes as a method of visualising accidentals to the major and minor scale rather than building "modal progressions". There is zero discussion about why certain chords are used or not used, and no discussion about modal harmony.

There is however a lot of discussion about the sound of the modes when used as scales.

For this reason I do not think that the piece intends for the chord progression to be modal.

Furthermore I do not think that this is a G mixolydian chord progression, and I do not think that this chord progression resolves to G7. I reckon it would likely resolve to C.

You are otherwise correct that there are discrepancies between the articles in the sticky, both with each other and how the forum thinks.
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#26
Quote by AlanHB
Hi John,

Have a quick read of this, it's a short article.

http://profile.ultimate-guitar.com/AlanHB/blog/100719/

Does it help clear up some issues?


Read it. Im not seeing how that adds anything new to what has been discussed. Its basically just restating your opinion on how, or if, modes resolve strongly back to their root chord. Of course thats a totally subjective thing. Many people listen to i-ii and to them it resolves just fine on the i. Naturally its not going to sound like a V-i resolution or a perfect cadence. It doesnt have to. Its a MODE...its SUPPOSED to sound different.

You guys were crying the blues about the G-dm, or G-dm-C progression I posted. I was perfectly clear that it was in the key of G. You are saying it CANT resolve to G. Thats totally ridiculous. Does it have a V7 to I type of resolution??? OF COURSE not. So what? Its doesnt have to sound like a major scale or an Ionian mode because it isnt trying to be a major scale or an Ionian mode....its a mixolydian mode. its SUPPOSED to sound different. It has its own feel and thats the whole point.

Take a stone stock i-iv-v progression. I guess THAT doesnt resolve back to the i just because it has a v instead of a V?? of course it does. Changing the i to a I changes absolutely nothing, the v still resolves back to the I all day every day.

Quote by AlanHB
Although a little confusing, I think that this piece was more about using modes as a method of visualising accidentals to the major and minor scale rather than building "modal progressions". There is zero discussion about why certain chords are used or not used, and no discussion about modal harmony.


huh?? Did you even read any of the linked threads?? The one thread is TITLED "How to make Modal Chord Progressions"


Quote by AlanHB


Furthermore I do not think that this is a G mixolydian chord progression, and I do not think that this chord progression resolves to G7. I reckon it would likely resolve to C.



again, thats YOUR ear telling you that. I have no clue why you dont hear that it is rock solid in G. Dont know what to tell you there. From what I gather, you have a preconceived idea about theory and how things are "supposed" to sound or supposed to be and you are letting that override what your ear should be telling you. If you can only state that you "think", you do not "think", and you "reckon" it resolves this way or that, is that enough reason to try to shout down others and also continue to contradict several stickies?

I stand by every word I have posted in this thread and the other thread. My usage of the word "modal" is in accordance with widespread modern usage.

I have tried to understand where your definition comes from and all I can figure is that you are hung up on the church modes from the middle ages and the fact that at that point they didnt use accompanying chords. Its either that or you are really hung up on how things are supposed to resolve and that everything needs a perfect cadence or something. They are MODES Alan, they arent trying to perfectly mimic the rules and sounds that apply to a pure major or pure minor setting.

Cheers, JP
#30
and some wonder why there is such confusion when someone says.." im playing in Key of D dorian.."
#31
Quote by JohnProphet
welcome to the real world...where you have to learn to teach yourself and learn to cipher thru peoples bs

the info u need is in the stickies (go figure)

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503032

https://www.ultimate-guitar.com/forum/showthread.php?t=503032


Except there's no consensus.

Even you said it's subjective. I hold to the idea that the tonal centre doesn't change. In your examples the tonal centre does change, or at the very least does not specifically resolve.

I don't care what people say, or how ignorant they are, tonal centre is a central holding to what is "mode" plain and simple, and that's why there are vamps, and there are marked ideas that no one argues with, such as a drone.

When you exit that, and call x progression, "Dorian" I'll challenge you all day long.

But if you say this can only work over this scale and end on the tonal centre, I'll have your back, because you're correct in that instance. i.e. (C, D/C G/C)

In that instance the tonal centre is C and only C. try to end it on G and it wont sound resolved.

It's not subjective at all. It either maintains tonal centre, or it doesn't.

If that's what you hold to, then it's not subjective. It's simply that you do not agree. But if you presume to teach and we correct it based on what we teach, we are coming at it from our point of view, not because a scale "works" over the progression.

ala:

Pick what mode you want to play in. Mixolydian? Making sure you are staying in the key of G, use chords from the list you made. Ive got an instrumental right here on my comp with the chords G, dm, C, G. Stays in the key of G all day long with harmony leads etc.

That's using a scale over a progression that's given a MODE because of it's relationship in half and whole steps from the tonal center. You cant "use chords" from the list they make AND maintain tonal centre, modally unless you know what you are doing. I'll challenge you on that point all day as well.

You can call the scale Charlie, or Jane, and say "use the Jane scale over this". But when it's implied that a scale being referred to with or by a Modal name IS playing modally, or let's that person walk away thinking they understand modes now, because of your answer, if I see it I'll be there to challenge and correct that.

CST isn't playing modally either.

This is Phrygian, Tonal, Intentionally written in Phrygian.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EFcTdBvgJco

So in short, you're not stupid, clearly you know some theory and have some experience, and that's a lot more than the average player has, so.. respect there.

But, at times you're way off base and at other times closer.

I don't care what the FAQ says, its outdated. Just as Alan said.

And tyle, from what I can tell, you're confused because you're in subjects in which you lack foundation to understand the answers, and evidenced in my personal observations, most times in the questions themselves, which are usually including premises that aren't even correct to start with, making the rest of the question as flawed.

You're in a word, piecemealing/shorthanding theory together, without establishing a knowledgeable foundation first to understand anything, and like many that have come before you, as a result, you apparently know next to nothing.

I don't fault you for wanting to know, but to establish a solid basis of knowledge and a foundation first before trying to dig in over your head (by a long ways) is within your means to choose. It's just a matter of whether or not you will.

Look at Unreal T for example. I recall the early days when he didn't know much but, he did go out and get the foundation established (rather well) and now when he asks a question, its an intelligent one, and one he has the foundation to understand the answers to.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Aug 17, 2014,
#32
Quote by tyle12
ok im confused...



And JohnProphet wonders why I was annoyed when he spouted off his stuff.


Look, just keep it simple. I think GuitarMunky and myself covered it fairly well. Sean did a good explanation of what a tonal centre is in a modal context. Anything else is probably outside the scope of this thread.
Last edited by crazysam23_Atax at Aug 17, 2014,
#33
Quote by Sean0913
I hold to the idea that the tonal centre doesn't change. In your examples the tonal centre does change, or at the very least does not specifically resolve.

...tonal centre is a central holding to what is "mode" plain and simple, and that's why there are vamps, and there are marked ideas that no one argues with, such as a drone.

When you exit that, and call x progression, "Dorian" I'll challenge you all day long.

But if you say this can only work over this scale and end on the tonal centre, I'll have your back, because you're correct in that instance. i.e. (C, D/C G/C)

In that instance the tonal centre is C and only C. try to end it on G and it wont sound resolved.


That's using a scale over a progression that's given a MODE because of it's relationship in half and whole steps from the tonal center. You cant "use chords" from the list they make AND maintain tonal centre, modally unless you know what you are doing. I'll challenge you on that point all day as well.

hey Sean, I agree that the tonal centre is a fundamental concept regarding modes but I found your explanation a little unclear in regard to what you mean by tonal centre changing using pedal notes and vamps and not being able to use chord "pogressions" easily.

Did you mean that the tonal centre shouldn't change or that the harmony shouldn't move to far from the tonal centre.

You can have a complex chord progression with a lot of harmonic movement that never leaves a tonal centre and then you can have a chord vamp or pedal note that never leaves the tonal centre.

I'm just not clear on whether you meant you can't have harmonic movement or that you can't go changing the tonal centre.
Si
#34
Quote by Sean0913
Except there's no consensus.


yeah....thats sort of why I dont understand you guys having all the angst. Its hard to fathom. Why do you have to call others "totally musically ignorant" because they dont agree with your extremely rigid definition of a term. Then you turn around and say there is no consensus. Just, wow.

When I try to understand your definition its a little hard because its hard to find it referenced anywhere except in your posts. Where are you getting that narrow definition?

Imagine for a brief second that I havent played gtr and studied theory for over 20 years. Okay, say I wanted to know what a mode was. So I start poking around, wikipedia, this music site, that music site, this instructional DVD, this or that instructional book, this or that magazine article.

I cant find your narrow definition ANYWHERE. Seriously, no exaggeration. Any definition I find states that the word "modal" has several different meanings and the meanings have changed over time etc.

So again I ask, where exactly are you getting your definition that you so strongly abide by?

Then I have grammy winning Berklee type guys like Vai and Satriani explaining their usage of modes and lo and behold the songs have chord PROGRESSIONS. They both had music theory and advanced music theory in high school. Satch studied with Lennie Tristano. Dont you think they have some sort of idea about what a mode is or do you think they are also idiots? Maybe Berklee School as a whole doesnt know how to teach modes?

I just simply cant find people describing modes as ONLY being applicable to droning type music or single chord vamps. As I stated a couple times earlier, if THAT were the case, then we wouldnt be having these discussions because those types of songs are few and far between. Not many guitar players list Ravi Shankar as an influence, you know?


This song here...modal or not?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=okLDkcexiVg

pretty much 100% of articles and references to this song that I have seen since it came out 24 years ago refer to it as a modal song. But it clearly has chord changes etc. So you say that all those magazines, DVDs, interviews etc are wrong and you are right?

To me its textbook modal. Its clearly minor yet its not aeolian...so what is it?

At what point does it get silly to consistently say "No, this isnt a mode!!! Its a minor scale with a flat 2nd. It has a strong phyrgian sound but its just minor with an accidental thats played everytime thru!! It doesnt sound ANYTHING like Aeolian but it is, it just uses chords derived from phyrgian and has a phyrgian melody!! Its aeolian because it had a chord change!!! Its TONAL U IDIOT"

You know, looks like a duck, walks like a duck, has a bill and quacks. I call it a duck but you would say "no, its a pheasant with a duck bill and duck feet and duck feathers and a quack....but its a pheasant!!!"


The whole point about a strict chord resolution back to the root. Again, it seems like you are starting with some textbook somewhere and forcing everything to fit into its narrow scope.

IMO part of the whole point of a mode is for it to SOUND DIFFERENT. If the person wanted a nice tight perfect cadence then they would just play a major scale. Capisce? For instance one of the things that make a mixolydian mode a mixolydian mode is that it DOESNT have that strict major 7th type of resolution. But to then say it doesnt resolve at all is just foolish.

I have a rhythm track posted now in my profile. I labeled it G mixolydian. I know you will beg to differ. It features pretty solid use of the F chord and there isnt a major 7th to be found. It has an 8 bar section where it goes to an A aeolian feel. Im assuming you would look at the chords and say "youre an idiot, its in C!!!!!!" The main "riff" has the chords G, C, F played in different orders but it doesnt resolve to C. (comes close though if u dont hear the bass on a laptop lol)

After the A minor section it clearly resolves back to G. If you cant hear that then no one can help u lol. Like I said in the G-dm thread...it depends on the skill of the composer/improvisor. When you only look at the chords on paper you are leaving out a huge part of the picture. They got this new thing they just came out with called "rhythm"...it largely determines how people hear resolutions and "home base"

So I gotta persist and call it "G Mixolydian." It has chords derived from the G Mixolydian mode. To play lead over it a person would use G Mixolydian.

Why on Earth would I call it anything else?

If I overdub lead guitars over it, the mixolydian flavor would only be twice as strong...REGARDLESS of it having chord changes

--------

Think about it this way. You say "modes dont use chord changes." Then you post up a video of some guys endlessly playing a vamp and that is your example of a mode. Thats all fine and dandy I guess. But what if they played that vamp for 20 minutes...but in the middle they threw in 16 bars of chord changes. Is it all of a sudden not modal anymore?? Is it part modal and part "tonal?"

What if the gtrs and keys vamped all night but the bass player was "totally musically ignorant" and he played some changes...is it all of a sudden not modal?

What if it was 32 bars D Dorian vamp with droning bass and monks chanting and then
it went eminor, amin7th, G for 16 bars and then managed to resolve back to the D dorian with full on drones etc....are you really going to say its not modal??

See how silly it is to try to have some strict definition based on "chord changes or no chord changes?"


Anyway, im not seeing how anything I post is off base at all. No offense but I feel you are the one coming from left field. Again, post me up some links backing up your strict definition so I can at least understand where you are coming from.

No hard feelings, JP
#35
The fact that you haven't seen this, or read it or heard it anywhere else, does not really surprise me.

Your opinion that I have an extremely narrow view, is just that.

Modes are one of the most liberally interpreted and misunderstood musical concepts I've ever seen, there's not even a close second. Its been fodder for music magazines as far as I can recall. Modes and "Mastering them" makes money, because its seen as this mystical thing, since time immortal.

That, unfortunately makes no argument in your favor. I don't know if you like to simply form your facts based upon popular consensus.

Some people go figure out, what they've missed, and they learn. The whole world is open to you.

In my view, there's no consensus because there's so much misinformation. I don't even know what you "know", or your musical pedigree, even.

People have been playing fast and loose with "modal" terms. Music butchery in guitar is common. Just like some books call something an A2, or a G4. Whatever. So that's why I get some dude trying o tell me how he loves his G Mixolydian shape when it's played over A minor, and the dude thinks he's really in Mixolydian.

You're not going to find people describing modes as you said, because there's so much confusion, and misinformation.

I do this for a living, and when I do something here, its from that specific imperative. If it's wrong, I'll say something. It makes total sense to me that you'd see what I have to say as "coming from left field". I have zero reason to take offense at you, or what you say. You can think what you like.

Your "what if's" aren't things that actually happen. So, I'm not seeing where you're making any strong points. Maybe someone else will better understand these points and engage you.

Your Mixo Jam, is not going to C It's on F and G, and the riff is still a tonal vamp. Then it breaks to Minor. The closest thing to C is a doublestop played - during the riff. Theres no tonality change.

Find me something that's got a G7 C and F, and doesn't resolve on C. Make it G Mixolydian. This jam track is in G and goes to Am.

Call it "G Blues thing (I bVII) to an Am (ii) interlude" and you'd be accurate.

I really dislike correcting peoples quotes about me. But you are incorrect about what I said, and hopefully the second time around, you'll better make the distinction.

I said you can't use progressions modally, unless you know what you're doing. I didn't say you couldn't use them.

Had I seen you represent yourself as anything other than argumentative and bombastic, with the many people in how you've responded within these topics, I'd happily oblige you with links, as you've requested.

Maybe someone else can come to your aid.

Best,

Sean
Last edited by Sean0913 at Aug 19, 2014,
#36
so wolf wonders when this "modal" war will end ... and who will win.....lets see...this is August..
#37
Quote by Sean0913
The fact that you haven't seen this, or read it or heard it anywhere else, does not really surprise me...


...Had I seen you represent yourself as anything other than argumentative and bombastic, with the many people in how you've responded within these topics, I'd happily oblige you with links, as you've requested.

Maybe someone else can come to your aid.

Best,

Sean
Wow.

Quote by Sean0913
Modes are one of the most liberally interpreted and misunderstood musical concepts I've ever seen

Agreed.

Having agreed on that point it would not only be reasonable but wise that a person asks for references when someone says something about modes that doesn't gel with their own understanding or any references they have come across on the topic.

If the person being asked to support their claims with references comes back and says something like...
"I'm not surprised you haven't heard this anywhere else and if only you didn't present yourself as argumentative and bombastic I would actually show you some references supporting my opinion, but I'm not going to...maybe someone else will."

...well, I'm sure any decent educator would know exactly what to advise a student to do should they ever come across someone like that - especially if that person is making claims to be a teacher.

Oh wait, you're a teacher aren't you, go figure.

Modes are really pretty simple concepts that many people needlessly overcomplicate, which just fuels the confusion surrounding them.
Si
#38
Quote by Sean0913
The fact that you haven't seen this, or read it or heard it anywhere else, does not really surprise me.

Your opinion that I have an extremely narrow view, is just that.

Modes are one of the most liberally interpreted and misunderstood musical concepts I've ever seen, there's not even a close second. Its been fodder for music magazines as far as I can recall. Modes and "Mastering them" makes money, because its seen as this mystical thing, since time immortal.

That, unfortunately makes no argument in your favor. I don't know if you like to simply form your facts based upon popular consensus.

Some people go figure out, what they've missed, and they learn. The whole world is open to you.

In my view, there's no consensus because there's so much misinformation. I don't even know what you "know", or your musical pedigree, even.

People have been playing fast and loose with "modal" terms. Music butchery in guitar is common. Just like some books call something an A2, or a G4. Whatever. So that's why I get some dude trying o tell me how he loves his G Mixolydian shape when it's played over A minor, and the dude thinks he's really in Mixolydian.

You're not going to find people describing modes as you said, because there's so much confusion, and misinformation.

I do this for a living, and when I do something here, its from that specific imperative. If it's wrong, I'll say something. It makes total sense to me that you'd see what I have to say as "coming from left field". I have zero reason to take offense at you, or what you say. You can think what you like.

Your "what if's" aren't things that actually happen. So, I'm not seeing where you're making any strong points. Maybe someone else will better understand these points and engage you.

Your Mixo Jam, is not going to C It's on F and G, and the riff is still a tonal vamp. Then it breaks to Minor. The closest thing to C is a doublestop played - during the riff. Theres no tonality change.

Find me something that's got a G7 C and F, and doesn't resolve on C. Make it G Mixolydian. This jam track is in G and goes to Am.

Call it "G Blues thing (I bVII) to an Am (ii) interlude" and you'd be accurate.

I really dislike correcting peoples quotes about me. But you are incorrect about what I said, and hopefully the second time around, you'll better make the distinction.

I said you can't use progressions modally, unless you know what you're doing. I didn't say you couldn't use them.

Had I seen you represent yourself as anything other than argumentative and bombastic, with the many people in how you've responded within these topics, I'd happily oblige you with links, as you've requested.

Maybe someone else can come to your aid.

Best,

Sean


I dont really know what to say to you anymore. Im guessing that you see yourself in some kind of exalted teacher position so you try to put everyone else in the position of being your student. I dunno. Im guessing that makes it difficult for you to deal with someone else who actually has some musical knowledge and ability.

Like I said, no hard feelings but I do feel you are doing a real disservice to the thread starters by more or less forcing these long winded arguments. I am just posting basic scale and chord info for people to use and you want to argue endlessly that its not a mode. Then for your example of something that IS a mode you post some really stupid vid that very few people guitar players would want to emulate? uhmm, ok.



Your Mixo Jam, is not going to C It's on F and G, and the riff is still a tonal vamp. Then it breaks to Minor. The closest thing to C is a doublestop played - during the riff. Theres no tonality change.

Find me something that's got a G7 C and F, and doesn't resolve on C. Make it G Mixolydian. This jam track is in G and goes to Am.

[/Sean]

Statements like that make me think that you dont even play the instrument. Its childs play to play G7, C, F and have it resolve on the G. How much of my time would you like me to devote to showing you these basic things? I can riff those chords all day and go up on C with guitar and bass all I want and still not come close to resolving on the C. If I thought it would convince you Id play it folk style with pretty little clean chords etc. Im guessing you would still find some way to find fault since you seem to feel that chords on paper are all that determine key. In this case you show yourself to NEED lessons, not give them

What if I make a song that is in D with these chords...D, am, C, G but its not in G? It steadfastly stays in D and never hints at resolving in G. Eric Clapton already made the song and its called "Let it Rain" and I already mentioned it in another thread. There are many such songs just the same as I could go write you many more examples.

I feel like I am trying to convince someone that walking is possible.

Again, no hard feelings, JP


(edited for spelling)
Last edited by JohnProphet at Aug 19, 2014,
#39
Quote by JohnProphet
What if I make a song that is in D with these chords...D, am, C, G but its not in G? It steadfastly stays in D and never hints at resolving in G. Eric Clapton already made the song and its called "Let it Rain" and I already mentioned it in another thread. There are many such songs just the same as I could go write you many more examples.


This is how your question will go:

Someone will say "well sure it can resolve to D quite easily, the C borrowed from the parallel minor".

And then you will say "no actually D mixolydian you idiot. it's textbook modal".

Right? Nobody worth their salt would disagree that you cannot make it resolve to D.

The issue is that you think that this would make it modal when others may not. Perhaps the issue is not that your definition of modes is too wide, but that your definition of keys is too narrow?
And no, Guitar Hero will not help. Even on expert. Really.
Soundcloud
#40
Why do modes and keys have to be mutually exclusive? (I don't see them that way but it seems others do.)

My progression is
Dm Dm G G
Dm Dm F C

Resolves to Dm. The melody rarely if ever even touches the B natural, it never touches the Bb.

It's in the key of D minor and the G is a borrowed IV chord.

It's Dorian.

I accept either one or both of those descriptions as accurate. If anyone reading this doesn't, then please explain the distinction as you understand it as precisely as possible. I really would like to know.
Si
Page 1 of 4