#1
Would i be correct in assuming that the theory of modes applies more practically to chord progressions?

like if im in the key of C but my root chord is Dm, then im playing modally?
#2
Yes. That's the first time I've ever been able to say that. Of course, if you're playing in D dorian, you are not in C major though. Just know that and you're good.
#3
Quote by dispreferred
Would i be correct in assuming that the theory of modes applies more practically to chord progressions?

like if im in the key of C but my root chord is Dm, then im playing modally?

Yeah, basically. It would depend on whether the Dm is in a C major progression or if the D has been established as a tonal center, though.
#4
I may be slowly getting a handle on this mode BS...its been a long time coming.

Tonal centres? this may be way wrong. but wouldn't ur tonal centre pretty much be ur I chord/root? since thats where ur guna resolve to?
#5
Quote by dispreferred
I may be slowly getting a handle on this mode BS...its been a long time coming.

Tonal centres? this may be way wrong. but wouldn't ur tonal centre pretty much be ur I chord/root? since thats where ur guna resolve to?
Yes. He's just saying that if your chord progression is something like C G Dm F, even though there's a Dm in there, it's clearly not your root/tonal center.
#6
Quote by dispreferred
Would i be correct in assuming that the theory of modes applies more practically to chord progressions?

like if im in the key of C but my root chord is Dm, then im playing modally?
Yes, thats one way of looking at modes. Leave it at that if your easily confused.

But the hard part is making the peice resolve to Dm and not C. And you must outline the dorian mode.
Bang oodcharlotte reckons that the best way to go about doing this is finding chords that have D dorians modal note in them, which would be a G chord (which is a possibility), Bm7b5 (not a good idea, as it would resolve to well to the C major chord ruining your modal effect), Cmaj7 (definantly not a good idea) or some other chords.

Than theres also the other way of looking at modes. Which is that its a way of describing how a group of intervals will sound over a said chord. Thinking in this way also means that the mode changes with each chord change.
So if your chord progression is: C, G7, Dm, Am, C. You could play either ionian or lydian over the first chord, mixolydian or lydian dominant over the G7 chord, dorian or aeolian or phrygian over the next chord and so on. Alot of improvising jazz musicians look at it this way.
#7
What i've never understood about that second line of thought is that yes the modes correspond to the chords BUT

1. modes are different from eachother because of their intervals, right?
(this all seems fine and dandy....BUT)

2. I've never known anyone to solo purely by playing up and down scales/modes note for note - hence voiding the structured intervals of the mode/scale.

know what i mean?
#8
Quote by dispreferred
What i've never understood about that second line of thought is that yes the modes correspond to the chords BUT

1. modes are different from eachother because of their intervals, right?
(this all seems fine and dandy....BUT)

2. I've never known anyone to solo purely by playing up and down scales/modes note for note - hence voiding the structured intervals of the mode/scale.

know what i mean?
When you use a mode, you emphasize the notes that make the mode what it is in the first place. Personally I disagree with the idea of the mode changing for each chord.
#9
Quote by grampastumpy
When you use a mode, you emphasize the notes that make the mode what it is in the first place. Personally I disagree with the idea of the mode changing for each chord.

As do I, but you'll get various viewpoints on this forum, many of which are backed up well.
#10
Quote by dispreferred
2. I've never known anyone to solo purely by playing up and down scales/modes note for note - hence voiding the structured intervals of the mode/scale.
No one does. Someone who's thinking in this train of thought would still solo normally, but instead of playing just one mode over a whole progression, they might play a different mode over each chord. Your still improvisin/solo'ing as you normally would, but its more difficult and if mastered, you can get more control.
#11
Quote by demonofthenight
No one does. Someone who's thinking in this train of thought would still solo normally, but instead of playing just one mode over a whole progression, they might play a different mode over each chord. Your still improvisin/solo'ing as you normally would, but its more difficult and if mastered, you can get more control.
You can think of it as changing by the chord, but it doesn't actually do that. I don't see how you'd get more control that way though. I can see it maybe being helpful for substitutions, and that I actually do quite a bit as a jazz player(diminished scales over dominants, harmonic minor over ii chords) but IMO it doesn't make sense to think that way for modes. I'm interested in hearing about how you can get more control though.
#12
Quote by grampastumpy
You can think of it as changing by the chord, but it doesn't actually do that. I don't see how you'd get more control that way though. I can see it maybe being helpful for substitutions, and that I actually do quite a bit as a jazz player(diminished scales over dominants, harmonic minor over ii chords) but IMO it doesn't make sense to think that way for modes. I'm interested in hearing about how you can get more control though.
Over different chords, the same note will sound completely different. A B over a D minor chord sounds nicely dissonant to me, over the C major chord it sounds consonant and wants to move to the C note, and is very consonant over the G chord.

If you just play the one shape with no regards to how each individual note will sound over each new chord, you wont be able to exploit what I was talking about in my first paragraph.

So some musicians (some not all) will play something different over each chord. This something, for me, will usually be a mode. So over that D minor chord, I could play say the dorian mode, which will use that B and sound (to me) dorian. Or I could play D aeolian over that D minor chord, which will give me a Bb, which moves awesomly to the A note. Or I could play D phrygian over that D minor chord, which gives me both an Eb and a Bb, which moves great to the root and fifth respectively (and sounds very phrygian to me).

See how much choice it opens up? As opposed to picking one single scale and playing mindlessly over the whole chord progression. But thinking about modes in this way will only work if your improvising over VERY slow ballads (and if your al di meola or something).

Now a question for you, why harmonic minor over ii chords and why diminished scales over dominant chords? I've heard about using superlocrian over X7add#9 chords, but apart from that...

BTW, I cant edit this post (its too long), so corrections will go unedited
#13
Quote by demonofthenight
Over different chords, the same note will sound completely different. A B over a D minor chord sounds nicely dissonant to me, over the C major chord it sounds consonant and wants to move to the C note, and is very consonant over the G chord.

If you just play the one shape with no regards to how each individual note will sound over each new chord, you wont be able to exploit what I was talking about in my first paragraph.

So some musicians (some not all) will play something different over each chord. This something, for me, will usually be a mode. So over that D minor chord, I could play say the dorian mode, which will use that B and sound (to me) dorian. Or I could play D aeolian over that D minor chord, which will give me a Bb, which moves awesomly to the A note. Or I could play D phrygian over that D minor chord, which gives me both an Eb and a Bb, which moves great to the root and fifth respectively (and sounds very phrygian to me).

See how much choice it opens up? As opposed to picking one single scale and playing mindlessly over the whole chord progression. But thinking about modes in this way will only work if your improvising over VERY slow ballads (and if your al di meola or something).

Now a question for you, why harmonic minor over ii chords and why diminished scales over dominant chords? I've heard about using superlocrian over X7add#9 chords, but apart from that...

BTW, I cant edit this post (its too long), so corrections will go unedited
OH okay, but you're not just sticking to the same notes right? I thought you meant V = mixolydian, set in stone kinda thing. I agree with you now.

Harmonic minor over ii I picked up from the end(ish) of the head of Donna Lee. It also works over a VI7 in a major key as it implies the ii. It actually seems to follow your theory a lot. But more specifically, the raised root as well as the lowered leading tone both create a pseudomodulation type thing that is great for creating motion. I love it over ii V I's. And as for diminished over dominants, I always thought that was a pretty common thing. If you take the notes of the dominant and line up the parallel half-whole diminished next to it, all the chord tones are in that scale, and the symmetry gives you a convenient, low-thought(hey, we all have our tight spots) way to play out and the small steps have a very distinct sound. I use whole tones over altered dominants for the same reason(symmetry, chord tones in scale).
#14
Quote by grampastumpy
OH okay, but you're not just sticking to the same notes right? I thought you meant V = mixolydian, set in stone kinda thing. I agree with you now.

Harmonic minor over ii I picked up from the end(ish) of the head of Donna Lee. It also works over a VI7 in a major key as it implies the ii. It actually seems to follow your theory a lot. But more specifically, the raised root as well as the lowered leading tone both create a pseudomodulation type thing that is great for creating motion. I love it over ii V I's. And as for diminished over dominants, I always thought that was a pretty common thing. If you take the notes of the dominant and line up the parallel half-whole diminished next to it, all the chord tones are in that scale, and the symmetry gives you a convenient, low-thought(hey, we all have our tight spots) way to play out and the small steps have a very distinct sound. I use whole tones over altered dominants for the same reason(symmetry, chord tones in scale).
A Bb C Db Eb Fb Gb Abb
A------C#------E---G
Yeah, I guess. Except for that fifth. But that scales hideously dissonant. Even Charlie Parker would frown.
#15
Quote by demonofthenight
A Bb C Db Eb Fb Gb Abb
A------C#------E---G
Yeah, I guess. Except for that fifth. But that scales hideously dissonant. Even Charlie Parker would frown.
Check Donna Lee, it's in there. The fifth isn't that disonnant because the Eb will often pass to the Fb anyway. Plus, when you use the diminished scale, you generally don't run all the way up it through an octave, more like stay around a small area of maybe half an octave. Or at least that's what I do with it.