Out of nowhere, Locrian?

[GreenAsJade]

Just a little experience to share with you on Christmas day, maybe of interest for people like me still getting their head around modal music and modes.

 

I came up on this out of left field.

 

I was trying to work out why two chords in a song I'm learning are both marked (and sound like) G major, yet sound really different. So I cut each instance out of the song and looped them together to compare them. They are appended.

 

[ATTACH]329768[/ATTACH]

 

(you will need to loop them yourself to hear the effect, I think)

 

Once I had this looping I could hear that one is just an inversion, reemphasis of the notes.

 

While it was playing, without really thinking, I started noodling over it. Pretty quickly I discovered two things: 1) It sounded neat and 2) it was resolving to B, not G.

 

"WTF?" I thought to myself

 

I had a look and found that my fingers had settled into "the diatonic pattern", but at a wierd spot. Looking harder, I was playing as if pattern 1 was at A, but I was resolving to B the whole time.

 

Whoa, spooky! Aminor, that's C major, and root at B .... that makes it B Locrian.

 

Well I'll be darned, I'm playing something that sounds good ... in Locrian!

 

As soon as I thought "but why is this sounding good?" the answer was obvious: in these two chords, the bass B note is strong and constant while the other notes from the G major chord shift around. So it's easy to persuade the ear to hear the B as the root.

 

Then things got more interesting (I think). I asked myself "but why Locrian?". I experimented with playing an F# instead of an F to try to find out. I chose this because I was wonder WTF why not B Phrygian, which is what would happen if I just went with the obvious "play the G Major pattern, but emphasise the B". The answer (to my ear) seemed to be that when you play F# it pulls really strongly to the G. I couldn't play "B Phrygian" over this G chord sequence no matter how hard I tried, it sounded like G major. BUT when you emphasis the B _and_ throw in the F, it sounds cool, and (like one of those optical illusions that are a witch or a girl) suddenly your (or should I say "my") ear is willing to accept that the repeating B in the chords is the centre.

 

And ... since F is the b5 of B, it can only be Locrian, since that is the only diatonic mode with b5.

 

So ... that was all pretty interesting

 

GaJ

 

(some sort of weird bonus point to anyone who can pick where these two chords come from, a recent pop hit chosen by our singer to sing.).

[JonR]

I hear two G chords, with B and D melody notes on top.

Playing "B locrian" over that is not actually a B locrian modal sound. It's playing phrases resolving to the 3rd of the chord. A normal G mixolydian sound, because the F in the scale turns it into a G7 chord. (B is not the tonal centre of those chords, although it has a strong role as the top note of the first chord.)

[GreenAsJade]

LOL, I'll have to think about that to understand it

 

It does make sense though, because I have associated Locrian with a very harsh discordant sort of sound, which I wasn't making.

 

I think the question that isn't immediately resolved for me by your answer is "why?"

 

It is definitely the case (to my ear) that the B in the bass of the chord stands out strongest.

 

It is as much of a constant factor as G. So why is it that although there's this strong basis to call me to resolve to B (which I experienced) nonethless the sound is "G Mixolydian" ?

 

GaJ

[JonR]

LOL, I'll have to think about that to understand it It does make sense though, because I have associated Locrian with a very harsh discordant sort of sound, which I wasn't making. I think the question that isn't immediately resolved for me by your answer is "why?" It is definitely the case (to my ear) that the B in the bass of the chord stands out strongest. It is as much of a constant factor as G. So why is it that although there's this strong basis to call me to resolve to B (which I experienced) nonethless the sound is "G Mixolydian" ? GaJ

B may be the "strongest note", but it's not the root note of the harmony. The chord has G in the bass, that's what counts. B is a strong chord tone, or melody note. You can certainly end phrases well on B - so it sounds "resolved" - but it's the 3rd of the G chord, not the root.

(IMO it sounds strong - as I said - because it's the opening melody note, at least in that MP3 you posted. If you loop that MP3, you'll be hearing a B-D-B-D alternating m3 interval, which may sound like a "resolution" back to B all the time.)

 

Try setting up a Bdim or Bm7b5 backing chord (no G anywhere in it). That will be a B locrian sound.

However, although B is then the root of the chord (technically), it's still not a stable harmony. To say B is "tonal centre" is debatable, because locrian can't have a "keynote". A locrian chord is always tense, not "resolved".

Locrian isn't "harsh" or "discordant", btw - just a mild tension (at least to modern ears - it would have been nasty to 19th century ears and earlier). It's unstable as a tonality (or rather modality) because of the b5. In classical theory, locrian was only ever a theoretical mode, not used in practice.

You can (of course) use it to make music if you want, but it remains tonally unresolved.

 

In jazz, the use of locrian mode is not really modal at all. IOW, you can say "use B locrian mode on Bm7b5", but that chord is normally a ii in A minor, so in effect it's just the A natural minor scale (the overall mode is A aeolian). It will resolve to C major too (as vii in C ionian), but that's a lot rarer.

[GreenAsJade]

Fascinating as usual

 

A cool thing that's happened here for me is that prior to a month ago I simply would not have been equipped to understand this:

 

However, although B is then the root of the chord (technically), it's still not a stable harmony. [...] It's unstable as a tonality (or rather modality) because of the b5 ".

 

 

I'd have read it and understood the words, but not have had any experience trying things to see what it _really_ means. Wheras having mucked around with this thing, written down my experience and thoughts, and had your analysis I can really relate to what this means now.

 

Here's something I don't really understand yet though.

 

In jazz, the use of locrian mode is not really modal at all.

 

What I do understand would be if this sentence were saying "The typical use in jazz of

the Locrian mode is that it's played passingly over the occurence of a m7b5 chord in a progression,

in which case it's not 'Locrian Modal music' (it's just effectively playing the 'right notes' from the key and

chord)".

 

Is that what it means?

 

That would fit with what I've learned so far...

 

It starts me wondering "what is a m7b5 chord doing in a chord progression,

other than being part of a Locrian modal progression?

 

I'm getting way out of my musical experience range here though, not being a jazz afficionado

 

GaJ

[JonR]

It starts me wondering "what is a m7b5 chord doing in a chord progression, other than being part of a Locrian modal progression?

It's not part of a locrian modal progression, that much is certain. (There's no such thing as a "locrian modal progression".)

 

A m7b5 chord (aka half-diminished) is used - in jazz at least - as a ii chord in a minor key.

Eg: Bm7b5 - E7(b9) - Am.

IOW, a normal minor key sequence (ii-V-i), nothing to do with modes at all.

You could think of Bm7b5 as Dm/B if you like (in pop and rock, Dm-E7-Am would be more common).

Saying "Bm7b5 means B locrian" is just an over-fancy (and slightly misleading) way of saying "A minor scale". IOW, if you want a modal term it should be "ii chord in A aeolian".

Thinking of separate scales (or modes) on each chord is not seeing the wood for the trees. (Not "wrong"; just unnecessary and beside the point.)

 

It's true (or at least the theory books will tell you) that sometimes in a minor key ii-V-i, jazz musicians WILL employ 3 different scales: locrian (or locrian natural 2) on the ii; altered scale (or HW dim) on the V; melodic minor on the i. But even that is being a little too prescriptive, over-analytical. Too "vertical"; looking at the chords as 3 separate entities rather than as cogs in a single machine (the progression). Notes implying such scales may be used, but only in order to construct interesting melodic phrases linking the chords.

[GreenAsJade]

OK, so you have confirmed my dim understanding of the basics of jazz

 

There's no such thing as a "locrian modal progression".

 

Can you elaborate on this?

 

Is it just that I am using not-technically-correct terms, but the thing I am describing is a legitimate concept, or have I simply got totally the wrong idea about modal music and modal chord progressions?

 

This page:

 

http://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=6023

 

(which of course could be wrong!)

 

tells me that

 

Am, Bb/A, Am, Bb/A

 

is a "Phrygian Chord Progression". So why is there no such thing as a Locrian Chord Progression?

 

GaJ

[JonR]

OK, so you have confirmed my dim understanding of the basics of jazz Can you elaborate on this? Is it just that I am using not-technically-correct terms, but the thing I am describing is a legitimate concept, or have I simply got totally the wrong idea about modal music and modal chord progressions? This page: http://www.guitarmasterclass.net/guitar_forum/index.php?showtopic=6023 (which of course could be wrong!) tells me that Am, Bb/A, Am, Bb/A is a "Phrygian Chord Progression". So why is there no such thing as a Locrian Chord Progression? GaJ

Because locrian doesn't resolve; its root chord is unstable. Any other chord you can harmonise from the mode will be more stable than the locrian chord, so any "locrian progression" will resolve away from locrian, not to it. Therefore it isn't a "locrian progression"

You can just vamp on a dim or half-dim for a locrian mode sound, but one chord isn't a progression!

 

I think it might be possible to argue that (say) Bm7b5 can have it's own dominant chord - F#7 - but then you are introducing 2 chromatic notes (F#, A#). And Bm7b5 will still not sound like a final tonal centre.

[GreenAsJade]

Are you saying that as soon as you have more than one chord in a sequence, where the two chords have notes ostensibly from a Locrian mode, actually the relationship of the two (or more) chords will pull to a different tonal centre than the Locrian "root"? So fundamentally this is why you can't have a Locrian chord sequence: as soon as you have more than one chord, your ear will be pulled to a different key?

 

GaJ

[JonR]

 

Are you saying that as soon as you have more than one chord in a sequence, where the two chords have notes ostensibly from a Locrian mode, actually the relationship of the two (or more) chords will pull to a different tonal centre than the Locrian "root"? So fundamentally this is why you can't have a Locrian chord sequence: as soon as you have more than one chord, your ear will be pulled to a different key? GaJ

Precisely. But you should test it and see - or rather listen.

 

Remember that resolving to chord tones is not the same as resolving to a root or tonal centre (keynote). We're quite accustomed to hearing jazz singers (eg) end a tune on a non-root note (eg, 3rd, maj7 or 9th) - but it will always be on the tonic chord. The bass is on the keynote.

But also, it's quite possible to end a song on a non-tonic chord. It won't sound "finished", but the ends of songs don't have to sound finished - it can often sound cool to leave them hanging.

IOW, our perception of what a "keynote" or "final" note is can be coloured by all kinds of expectation. So it's important to bear that in mind, and to know what it is you're hearing and listening for. Sometimes this is just a matter of defining the sounds with the right terms, taking care that we don't regard a term like "resolution" as a value judgment. As I think I said before, to classically trained ears, a maj7 chord sounds "unfinished"; to a jazz musician it doesn't.

 

We certainly need to distinguish between "chord tone", "root" and "tonic". When these are all the same note, it's pretty certain it will sound final! But they can be 3 different notes. Even if only 2 of them are the same note, it might sound satisfyingly "resolved".

[GreenAsJade]

Thanks for coming back to this.

 

Precisely. But you should test it and see - or rather listen.

 

You are absolutely and utterly right.

 

In fact, I am really pleased that this was your first response

 

Just a few days ago, I was thinking about this thread and one of the things that I re-learned during it: which is that a musician reading about theory is like a surgeon reading text (no diagrams or drawings) about surgery.

 

No surgeon would do that (you hope!).

 

It was only through the initial playing around that started this thread that I came to appreciate what

 

It's unstable as a tonality (or rather modality) because of the b5

 

meant.

 

And yet it is so easy to read that and think you can understand it "theoretically".

 

Similarly, I can see now, before I even go to try it, that I need to actually play some chord sequences that I _think_ will create a Locrian sound and find out for myself whether they can be played "stably" as a locrian sound, or whether they pull away to some other sound.

 

GaJ