How important are modes when playing piano?

[bandcoach]

Dvyce, you're spot on. But you have convinced me that I should drop a shipload of [jazz] theory here

Scale Forms used in Jazz​

There are various scales and modes used in the composition and performance of Jazz.
The hallmark of Jazz as opposed to Pop or Rock or “Classical” is that the composition of the performed work is spontaneous; it is the only form to rely on improvisation since the organ works of the Baroque period and is certainly the only jointly improvised musical form outside of certain improvisation groups in contemporary Art music and some of the more advanced forms of Rock.
The use of scales and modes provides a starting point for the creation of melodic ideas. Indeed, one theory of improvisation goes so far as to rely upon a so-called chord-scale intersection, wherein the chord currently being played provides certain alternative choices of scale and modes to use over it. Limiting oneself to a single scale or and mode when improvising is likened to limiting oneself to the same meal for breakfast, lunch and dinner; OK for a day or two, but eventually it becomes boring and you yearn for something different if only to remind yourself that there are different types of flavours.
Beginning improvisers are usually encourage to choose two or three scales and modes and apply them to all situations, gradually expanding their melodic palette by adding more and more scales and modes.
The scales first used include the basic major and minor scales, as well as a range of modes and constructed scales. The following list introduces a subset of the scales and modes used in Jazz:

Chord/Scale Chart​

The accompanying chart lists the most commonly occurring chords in jazz harmony along with the scales and modes normally associated with each. The chords are grouped into the four basic categories of major, minor, dominant, and half diminished. In a pinch, any scale or mode from any chord in any one of these categories can be used for any other chord in that category. There is an additional category for miscellaneous chords at the end. There are many more possible scales, modes and chords. However, these are the most important ones in traditional jazz harmony.

 

[bandcoach]

I agree.

I also forgot to mention in my last post that it is part of a larger handout I give to students in year 11 (2nd last year of high school) when we do one of several course topics on Jazz, Improvisation, Rock, Pop, etc. i.e. this is what my students get as normal fodder in my classroom and I get no complaints about it because they have all elected to study the courses with me, knowing what I expect of them as students: work hard, ask questions about things you want to know and don't dispute why you are learning something because the links become clear as we move forward. Imagine a class of 20 students all taking solos over various chord progressions using more than one scale or mode - it is beautiful to listen to and beautiful to participate in - I usually just comp the progression but will drop a solo now and again simply to point the way or to compliment individual efforts (I will play back what someone has just improvised when I'm happy with what they played).

Theory enables, it does not disable.

• Learn (understand) what there is to know before you break new ground.
• As learners of our craft we need to acquire a thorough grasp of our materials, thus becoming better musicians and composers.
• This should not be confused with slavish adherence to outmoded practice.
• Rather, it means engaging in the genuine study and understanding of principles of composition and the supporting theory.
• In this way, we ensure our own efforts in composition become effortless rather than forced.

From an associate:

ghytwembpang "Um, I don't write using theory either... but after I make something I use theory to help me figure out where I can go from there if I don't already know. It's a tool for analyzing and explaining sounds in a musical context. If you write using it as rules you're a tool, if you refuse to use it at all you're a fool."

 

[Rapper's Friend]

I stand by my statement. Modes are scales. Or you can think of them as starting on non-tonic notes. Modes are a set of semi/full tones; the same as any other scale.

At Dvyce, eliminating un-needed complication is not refusing to spell. Refusing to spell would be to refuse learning scales. The convulsion of bandcoach's theory on modes is like saying "after every word you spell, add aj;oifjepoau99p3ur9;lkm to the end of it." That's the language of many "in the past" musicians. I'm simply removing that convulsion.

 

[dvyce]

I stand by my statement. Modes are scales. Or you can think of them as starting on non-tonic notes. Modes are a set of semi/full tones; the same as any other scale.

At Dvyce, eliminating un-needed complication is not refusing to spell. Refusing to spell would be to refuse learning scales. The convulsion of bandcoach's theory on modes is like saying "after every word you spell, add aj;oifjepoau99p3ur9;lkm to the end of it." That's the language of many "in the past" musicians. I'm simply removing that convulsion.

You can feel free to say modes are scales... That part of the discussion is not the important issue... But the fact is, the modes are more than simply starting a scale on a different note. The important thing about them is that they are a way to describe using scales from a different key than you are in (i.e., playing an F major scale while you are in the key of C major) and the starting note just puts it into the context if the key you want to play this other key in.. When you actually play the scale, you don't have to start on any particular note. On fact, if anything, when in the key of C for example, you would start playing all your modes on the note "C"... You are playing scales other than "C", but playing them starting on "C"...

This is very different than starting your "C" scale on different notes.


And it is like not knowing how to spell.

The point is that modes are relevant... That modes are not obsolete...

Nobody is telling you to add anything...

Everything you play is a "scale"... Whether you have "learned" it or not, you are playing scales.

Just like you are still speaking and using words regardless of whether you know the grammatical rules or the spelling that make up the words you speak.

Whether you choose to "describe" what you play, does nit change the fact that you are playing it.

You can play "C Lydian" and someone may say to you "hey, that is C Lydian you are playing", and you can respond "I don't care what it is called, I'm just playing something on my piano."

...well, that does not change the fact that you are playing "C Lydian", regardless of whether you want to know the theory behind it or not.

Everything you play can be described and analyzed by "music theory"... That is what it is for... It DESCRIBES music... It is not TELLING you what to do.

 

[Rapper's Friend]

I'm just stating something for what it is. I'm putting it in simple terms so that the non-theorist can understand. Do you have something against that?

 

[bandcoach]

when you engage in disinformation, yes.

Let's hear some of YOUR music!!!

 

[Rapper's Friend]

Oh well in that case you shouldn't have had any problems. XD

Let's hear YOUR music.

 

[bandcoach]

Oh well in that case you shouldn't have had any problems. XD

Given that you post disinformation, I will continue to have problems with what you post - get used to it.

Let's hear some of your music!

Let's hear YOUR music.

are you blind?

check my signature to hear

 

[dvyce]

I'm just stating something for what it is. I'm putting it in simple terms so that the non-theorist can understand. Do you have something against that?

The only problem is this:

1. You didn't actually explain it correctly either way.

2. I explained it very simply in my last post not using any "complicated theory" (i.e., modes explain how you can play one scale over another key... That is a pretty simple explanation). I not a "student of music theory" myself, but I was able to understand that you were not explaining it correctly... And I understood te concept and explained it in laymans terms very simply.

3. You said "modes are obsolete" which is just silly. Even if you meant "using actual terms for musical concepts is obsolete, just play stuff and don't worry about what anything is called", that is still just silly, though it is fine if YOU don't care about definitions.

 

[Rapper's Friend]

Yeah I never really took a good look at your Sig. When I first replied to you, I really thought your name was bandwagon. You're stuff seems mostly experimental, ironically. Like I said in another post, I'll make something just for you and put it up for you to hear.

 

[dvyce]

You're stuff seems mostly experimental, ironically.

FYI, having a strong knowledge of "music theory does not, in any way, imply that your music would be "traditional"...

In fact, having a strong understanding of music theory would open up many new doors for a person to be more experimental.

Once again, "music theory" is not a "rule book".

So, not "ironic" at all, really.

 

[Rapper's Friend 2]

It's just that "experimental" at it's core strays away from rules, or I guess I should say "words". A highly trained music theorist making extremely experimental music would be like a linguist making random sounds. It doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, it's just ironic. Of course, his level of "experimental" isn't really over the edge in that category; it seems only slightly experimental. But that contrast of theory to experimental is what gives it its irony.

 

[dvyce]

It's just that "experimental" at it's core strays away from rules, or I guess I should say "words". A highly trained music theorist making extremely experimental music would be like a linguist making random sounds. It doesn't mean it wouldn't happen, it's just ironic. Of course, his level of "experimental" isn't really over the edge in that category; it seems only slightly experimental. But that contrast of theory to experimental is what gives it its irony.

OK... now seriously... just listen to what I am saying before you respond...

Here is the issue I have with what you are saying:

"Music theory" is NOT about "rules"

There are NO "rules" to "stray away from".


It is very common for an experimental artist to be very knowledgeable in music theory.



This is where you are not understanding the role of "Music theory" or what "music theory" is...

...It is not a "rule book"... it is not telling you what to do or what not to do...

"Music theory" is a language to EXPLAIN what you DID... whether it be very experimental... whether it be common... whether it be pretty or dissonant... whether it be simple or complicated... whether it be straight or syncopated... etc


There is no "contrast" between "theory" and "experimental".

Knowledge of theory only helps an experimental artist to EXPLAIN what he just played.

Every piece of music in every style can be analyzed and explained using "music theory" knowledge.



(and regarding a linguist making weird sounds... a linguist is trained in all the weird sounds the human mouth is capable of making... he is trained in all the sounds of all the various languages of all the various cultures around the world... you don't think that knowledge opens up the mind of a trained linguist to think of all sorts of crazy sounds he could make? Do you think a "linguist" sits and sips his tea while reciting 18th century poetry all day?)

 

[Rapper's Friend]

I think it would be a fair assessment to say that we are both merely skimming through each others' posts.

 

[dvyce]

I think it would be a fair assessment to say that we are both merely skimming through each others' posts.

Not true. I am reading your posts with great attention to detail.

No offense, but I am going to give you another opportunity to do the same and read (not skim) over what I am explaining here.

Please read my post below explaining what "modes" actually are. I think it is in your own best interest to understand what they actually are if you ate going to be arguing about them.

Modes are not simply scales... they are based on scales, though...

Playing with a particular mode does not mean you are starting on a different note in the scale of the key you are in.

You can play a "C Major" scale over a "C major" chord.

But you can also play the "Lydian" and "Mixolydian" modes over the C major chord.

This does NOT mean that, with the "Lydian", you just play your "C major" scale starting on the "F" note...

What it means is that you can play a "G Major" scale (on top of your "C Major" chord) starting on the "C" note. This is because the "C Lydian", which is made from the "G Major" scale, contains the notes of the "C Major" chord (C, E and G notes)...

It is similar to playing the "C Major" scale, but you raise the 4th one half step...

So instead of playing:
C D E F G A B

You play:
C D E F# G A B


Similarly, you can play the "C Mixolydian", which is based on the "F Major" scale, over your C Major chord because it also contains the C, E and G notes.

So, you would be playing an "F Major" scale over your "C Major" chord.

So instead of playing:
C D E F G A B C

You would play:
C D E F G A Bb C



...and, you do not actually have to start (or end) on "C"... you can start and end your melodies on whatever note you want. Nothing about this is telling you what note you have to start or end on... nor is it telling you what order of notes you have to play in between.

 

[Rapper's Friend]

Actually, modes of one scale stay in the same scale. Modes don't change the notes of the scale, they change the tonic; thus, they are just meant to say "I am emphasizing this note". However, I would argue that musicians naturally would experiment with emphasizing notes other than the tonic, and when they do so, they can just say "I emphasized this note".

C Lydian is all the white notes from F to F. C Mixolydian is all the white notes from G to G. They are note based on G major and F major. You don't play the G major or F major scale when playing C Mixolydian or C Lydian.

If you want to play the C Major chord in the G Major scale, go ahead. I think you are confusing what modes are, however. Playing C Major in the G Major scale is simply known as playing the IV Chord (because C is the fourth scale degree in the G Major scale). The triad at C is major because a third up from C and a fifth up from C in the G Major scale produce a Major 3rd and a Perfect 5th (AKA a Major chord).



There are two ways to think about modes. The first would be to think of them as starting/ending/emphasizing on a scale degree other than the tonic.

The second would be to think of them as scales. Here are the intervals for all the different modes:

Mode Intervals (#semi-tones)
Ionian 2,2,1,2,2,2,1
Dorian 2,1,2,2,2,1,2
Phrygian 1,2,2,2,1,2,2
Lydian 2,2,2,1,2,2,1
Mixolydian 2,2,1,2,2,1,2
Aeolian 2,1,2,2,1,2,2
Locrian 1,2,2,1,2,2,2

As you you go down the list, notice that the first number on the list gets put at the end. That's the only difference between going from one mode to the next. If you were to continue this pattern infinitely, it would be impossible to tell them apart; hence why it's just a way of saying where you start/end.


C D E F G A Bb C

These notes make up the F major scale. However, normally you start on the note F. This is an example of a mode. In this case, you are playing the mixolydian mode (2,2,1,2,2,1,2) relative to F major (AKA F Mixolydian). You have NOT changed whether or not you can play C Major in the F Major scale. I'll play a C Major triad for you in F Major without any mode (or you can think of it in Ionian since that's AKA the major scale), and I'll even play it in root position like you did, watch:

F G A Bb C D E F G A Bb C D E F

Tada! I bolded the notes of the C Major chord for you. Like I said, modes just say what scale degree you start/end on. Watch this:

C D E F G A Bb C D E F G A Bb C

This is the same chord. Now the scale starts and ends on C. We're still in the F Major scale as before. This is the F Mixolydian mode.


I tried to give you enough examples. Now read it closely because I don't think you understand modes. You said so when you first started posting on the subject.

---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

I know what modes ARE. We SHOULD be arguing over whether or not musicians would NATURALLY start and end on notes other than the tonic, and whether or not just saying what note they started on would be more efficient than naming the mode.

 

[dvyce]

Actually, modes of one scale stay in the same scale. Modes don't change the notes of the scale, they change the tonic; thus, they are just meant to say "I am emphasizing this note". However, I would argue that musicians naturally would experiment with emphasizing notes other than the tonic, and when they do so, they can just say "I emphasized this note".

C Lydian is all the white notes from F to F. C Mixolydian is all the white notes from G to G. They are note based on G major and F major. You don't play the G major or F major scale when playing C Mixolydian or C Lydian.

This is incorrect.

Bandcoach made a nice little chart for this (the notes is parenthesis are added by me):

Parent ~~ Mode ~ Notes
C Major ~~ C Ionian ~ C-D-E-F-G-A-B-C
Bb Major ~~ C Dorian ~ C-D-Eb-F-G-A-Bb-C (play the Bb Major scale starting on "C" to get this mode)
Ab Major ~~ C Phrygian ~ C-Db-Eb-F-G-Ab-Bb-C (play the Ab Major scale starting on "C" to get this mode)
G Major ~~ C Lydian ~ C-D-E-F#-G-A-B-C (play the G Major scale starting on "C" to get this mode)
F Major ~~ C Mixolydian ~ C-D-E-F-G-A-Bb-C (play the F Major scale starting on "C" to get this mode)
Eb Major ~~ C Aeolian ~ C-D-Eb-F-G-Ab-Bb-C (play the Eb Major scale starting on "C" to get this mode)
Db Major ~~ C Locrian ~ C-Db-Eb-F-Gb-Ab-Bb-C (play the Db Major scale starting on "C" to get this mode)


So, you see, "C Mixolydian" is not "all the white notes from G to G"...

"C Mixolydian" is playing the "F Major" scale from C to C... "C Mixolydian" contains a "Bb" (which is not in the C Major scale... this "Bb" is what gives it it's different "feel" or "mood".

(and, FYI, "G Mixolydian" is playing "all the white notes from G to G")


Do you see the distinction?


This is why the modes each have different "feels" and "moods"... if you were just playing the C Major scale while in the key of C Major but just starting on different notes, the mood would essentially be the same every time...



Here is something taken from this link: Scale Modes

C Ionian -- Major Scale w/o alterations; major scale 1-1

​

D Dorian -- flat 3 and 7; major scale 2 -2;

​

E Phrygian -- flat 2, 3, 6, and 7; major scale 3 -3;

​

F Lydian -- augmented or raised 4; major scale 4 -4;

​

G Mixolydian -- flat 7; major scale 5 -5 (dominate 7)

​

A Aeolian (A Natural Minor) -- flat 3, 6, and 7; major scale 6 -6

​

B Locrian -- flat 2, 3, 5, 6, and 7; major scale 7 -7

​

This is the math of the modes. Each mode can define it's own feel, color, or mood. Each could become a I in a harmonic system and thus define its own harmonic system. That's advanced stuff. Which could be explored at another time.

Listen to the modes from brightest to darkest to get the idea of the mood.

Play each scale in the following order to hear the differences:

PLAYED FROM~~~~~~~~NAME~~~~~~~~~~INTERVAL ALTERATION

G Maj 4 - 4~~~~~~~~~~C Lydian~~~~~~~~#4

C Major 1 - 1~~~~~~~~C Ionian~~~~~~~~None - all major

F Major 5 - 5~~~~~~~~C Mixolydian~~~~~~b7 (dom7)

Bb Major 2 - 2~~~~~~~C Dorian~~~~~~~~~b3 - b7

Eb Major 6 - 6~~~~~~~C Aeolian~~~~~~~~~b3 - b6 - b7

Ab Major 3 - 3~~~~~~~C Phrygian~~~~~~~~b2 - b3 - b6 - b7

Db Major 7 - 7~~~~~~~C Locrian~~~~~~~~~b2 - b3 - b5 - b6 - b7

You can play these if you know your major scales down cold. If not you may have to write them out. Just remember that each one starts on C.

Scale modes are used extensive to improvize in jazz solos. knowning which mode applies to which chord type is where that comes into play. That is an advanced concept that we will explore in a future workbook.

relative to F major

...that is not what is meant by the term "relative major"

Relative Major and Relative Minor - Understanding Key Signatures

tried to give you enough examples. Now read it closely because I don't think you understand modes. You said so when you first started posting on the subject.

Your examples are inaccurate.

I do understand modes... You should read what I said (as well as the link i posted).

And I absolutely never said I do not understand modes.

I specifically said:

specific theory is not my strong suit... though I understand music and have studied music both on a college and graduate level, and am a professional musician/composer, I really work on an intuitive level... I learned and internalized, though do not think in "names" at this point in my life.

I have understood "modes" since at least 1984 or 1985... and, like I said, I am quite highly educated in music through both college and graduate level... as well as the additional study I have done and continue to do on my own... plus, I am a composer by profession.

Just because I have not given much thought to a "term" in 20 years does not mean I am not fully aware of the concept.

We SHOULD be arguing over whether or not musicians would NATURALLY start and end on notes other than the tonic, and whether or not just saying what note they started on would be more efficient than naming the mode.

Of course musicians naturally start and end on notes other than the tonic... only the most beginner level musician would think they could only start on the tonic... that is not even a discussion I would bother getting involved in... I can't even think of any reason to SAY what note you are starting on?...

What musician even sits there and plays straight scales throughout a song in the first place? A musician creates melodies that move through a variety of notes starting and ending anywhere they desire.

...and THAT is NOT what modes are, anyway.


I really can't say any more on the topic... everything is already here in this thread. (and everywhere else)

I can understand WHY you think "Modes" are what you think they are... but you are missing a huge part of it and you are refusing to look deeper into the topic.

---------- Post added at 02:57 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:52 PM ----------

...and here is one more thing to think about to help you understand modes:

As you know, "Ionian" is another name for the "Major" scale...

So, "C Ionian" is the same as a "C Major" scale.


OK?




And you may or may not know that "Aeolian" is another name for the "minor" scale.

OK?




So, if you play your "C Major" scale starting on "A", you have the "A Aeoleian" scale...

and the "A Aeolian" scale is also known as the "A minor" scale.

OK?




"C Major" and "A minor" are "relative" to eachother... they are the relative major/minor of eachother... because they both have the same exact notes as eachother.

OK?




and when you talk about "A minor", I am guessing you don't refer to it as "a C Major scale starting and ending on A"... that would be a very strange thing to do... and it is definitely MORE confusing than just saying "A minor"



...do you see how this applies to all the other modes?

 

[Rapper's Friend]

Okay, here's how we spell modes.

You say

X Mode relative to the Y scale. or you can simply say (like you were doing) Mode on the X.

Y = key
X = starting note
Mode = interval pattern following X


Do you disagree with this?

 

[dvyce]

As I said:

I really can't say any more on the topic... everything is already here in this thread. (and everywhere else)

...at this point, any question one could possibly think to ask on this topic has already been addressed by me (or Bandcoach, who has a very strong knowledge of music theory) in this thread. I am sure if you read back through what I have written, you will find my answers to everything. If I happen to come back to look at this thread and see something that is somehow new, I may get back into the thread.

 

[Rapper's Friend]

No, we are about to go somewhere with this. About my last method I posted on naming modes; it can be applied to any mode, anywhere, anytime, any number of times. Do you agree or disagree? If you disagree, can you give me an example of a mode that doesn't fit with it?

---------- Post added at 10:20 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:10 AM ----------

I WOULD like to say that I was wrong in my reply two posts ago. I improperly named the mode. I confused X with Y. So I'm sorry about that. However, this way of naming modes in my last post; is it true of false?

---------- Post added at 10:28 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:20 AM ----------

Actually, modes of one scale stay in the same scale. Modes don't change the notes of the scale, they change the tonic; thus, they are just meant to say "I am emphasizing this note". However, I would argue that musicians naturally would experiment with emphasizing notes other than the tonic, and when they do so, they can just say "I emphasized this note".

C Lydian is all the white notes from F to F. C Mixolydian is all the white notes from G to G. They are note based on G major and F major. You don't play the G major or F major scale when playing C Mixolydian or C Lydian.

If you want to play the C Major chord in the G Major scale, go ahead. I think you are confusing what modes are, however. Playing C Major in the G Major scale is simply known as playing the IV Chord (because C is the fourth scale degree in the G Major scale). The triad at C is major because a third up from C and a fifth up from C in the G Major scale produce a Major 3rd and a Perfect 5th (AKA a Major chord).



There are two ways to think about modes. The first would be to think of them as starting/ending/emphasizing on a scale degree other than the tonic.

The second would be to think of them as scales. Here are the intervals for all the different modes:

Mode Intervals (#semi-tones)
Ionian 2,2,1,2,2,2,1
Dorian 2,1,2,2,2,1,2
Phrygian 1,2,2,2,1,2,2
Lydian 2,2,2,1,2,2,1
Mixolydian 2,2,1,2,2,1,2
Aeolian 2,1,2,2,1,2,2
Locrian 1,2,2,1,2,2,2

As you you go down the list, notice that the first number on the list gets put at the end. That's the only difference between going from one mode to the next. If you were to continue this pattern infinitely, it would be impossible to tell them apart; hence why it's just a way of saying where you start/end.


C D E F G A Bb C

These notes make up the F major scale. However, normally you start on the note F. This is an example of a mode. In this case, you are playing the mixolydian mode (2,2,1,2,2,1,2) relative to F major (AKA F Mixolydian). You have NOT changed whether or not you can play C Major in the F Major scale. I'll play a C Major triad for you in F Major without any mode (or you can think of it in Ionian since that's AKA the major scale), and I'll even play it in root position like you did, watch:

F G A Bb C D E F G A Bb C D E F

Tada! I bolded the notes of the C Major chord for you. Like I said, modes just say what scale degree you start/end on. Watch this:

C D E F G A Bb C D E F G A Bb C

This is the same chord. Now the scale starts and ends on C. We're still in the F Major scale as before. This is the F Mixolydian mode.


---------- Post added at 09:05 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ----------

I know what modes ARE. We SHOULD be arguing over whether or not musicians would NATURALLY start and end on notes other than the tonic, and whether or not just saying what note they started on would be more efficient than naming the mode.

Like I said, I haven't used modes in a while. I switched up the naming system for them, which is why you are saying I'm wrong. When I said F Mixolydian, I meant C Mixolydian relative to F Major (so you were right). I did that with all the modes on my last few posts. Again, really sorry about that; but now I cleared that up. After so much talking about modes, I'm remembering. So, do you agree with my method of naming modes???