Modes (again, I know): question on use, not theory

[blumonk]

There is no doubt that the discussion of modes brings out the best in us. Is there any cold beer left?

new castle brown ale

$2 a bottle for you virg.

[gennation]

No, actually it can be explained and demonstrated without writing down a bunch of patterns. The only pattern you need is the major scale. If you want to study modes/modal music, yes you have to study. But to understand modes and learn how to use them effectively, it can be taught rather quickly.

 

Again, you are equating Modes as patterns.

 

To understand Modes, the Major scale, the patterns along the fretboard, the cryptic names, etc...ARE NOT needed.

 

Go back through those examples I gave.

 

Modal Music was around a LOT longer than the "idea" of a Major scale of any sorts.

 

Modes has NOTHING to do with patterns or the Major Scale, except for memorization through derivatives and relations. It has nothing to do with using them. The Intervals just happen to form patterns on fretted instruments, but they mean nothing. It's the music that draws out the Mode.

 

The Major scale is used to understand Key's and the functions within (which is huge), but with Modes, your function is always a "I chord". Once you come to grips with the "I chord" idea the clouds will open and you will understand.

 

Diatonic Theory does not equal Modal Music.

 

Molson Canadian here!

[blumonk]

a mode is a sound, not a pattern.

[gennation]

a mode is a sound , not a pattern.

 

 

Exactly

[GreenAsJade]

So - just keeping my understanding in check: is it true to say that a the _sound_ (which is a mode, as you say) is the sound of the notes from the modal scale against the chord of _that_ scale.

 

IE locrian "sound" is the sound of C maj chord against notes from C locrian scale (and all the disonances that that implies)

 

?

 

And specifically, the sound a guitarist makes when they place B locrian against C maj is _not_ a locrian sound at all, it's just C maj scale maybe hanging around the B chord more than usual, since that's what the pattern of B locrian dots encourages.

 

GaJ

[gennation]

And specifically, the sound a guitarist makes when they place B locrian against C maj is _not_ a locrian sound at all, it's just C maj scale maybe hanging around the B chord more than usual, since that's what the pattern of B locrian dots encourages. GaJ

 

 

Actually starting on B in a C Major scale while playing a C major chord gives to the harmony of a M7. It has NOTHING to do with Locrian.

 

IOW it's not "B" anything, it's still a C chord, so B is the M7. Any note you play will be harmonizing against the C chord.

 

Don't buy into the "this mode sounds dark, this mode sounds spanish, this mode sounds bright, etc, etc...". Because they going to sound the way they does against the song.

 

The E Lydian piece I posted is a great example, Norwegian Wood is a great example, they sound they way they do because of the composition, not some text book explanation or cliche. Once you get into Modal Music you'll find the same scale can sound many ways.

 

Listen to this Ionian Mode, dark as crap: http://lessons.mikedodge.com/lessons/IndSlide2/indslidehome_frames.htm

 

I explain how to get some new sounds out the scale, but this is PURELY Modal.

[Virgman]

Men have been driven mad by modes.

 

[nylon rock]

Although GreenAsJade seems to have done the happy dance around the room upon reading Gennation's post about the confusion of mode names being associated with the five (or seven) CAGED positions in the Internet literature, for me this was not the key "kernal of wisdom" on this thread.

The key posts, IMHO, were made by Jed this time around.

He made comments about learn the major scale inside and out, and how the chords of the key of the major scale harmonize the scale.

He was also right in steering GreenAsJade away from delving futher into modes since the answers he is trying to find will not be found with modes.

Then everyone and their brother piled on about modes to the enth degree, completely obliterating the thread, and we're where we are now.

For the amatuer guitarist, myself for example, we don't want to know a lot of theory, we want to know how to apply theory, and the simpler it is the better. The confusion over modes, and the splattering of mis-information about them, has lead many amatuer guitarists to pursue them to unlock effortless improvisation on the fingerboard. The truth is, however, that we don't need modes to improvise effortlessly. Instead, all we need to know is what "basic" chords go with a major scale, and that's all.

From there we then go back into our own worlds again, woodshed the major scale against the harmonizing chords, and in no time AND with very little prodigy-like skills, we can play the guitar really, really well.

Why is this all we're after? It is because our solos have too many clams. When we watch pros play, unless they actually flubb something, we notice that they don't have any clams, and they do it so easily. So, we reason, what is it that they are doing that we don't know? What is the secret?

It is simply play the major scale within its framework of harmonizing chords.

In terms of the basics, for the key of D major as an example, and this means the D Ionian scale so that there is no confusion:

The harmonizing chords.

D major
E minor
F# minor
G major
A major
B minor
C# diminished

You can make them more complicated, for example they could have sevenths stacked on them, but that gets away from the KISS approach.

Explore the major scale with those chord fundamentals, taking two chords together at a time, as a background loop played over and over, and you will be able to work your way into incredible counterpoint, beautiful, melodies.

I struggled with all this stuff three years ago and now it is GreenAsJade who has brought it up anew, and it is interesting to see it all rehashed again. Glad I'm not the one asking the questions this time around.

It is good to see new threads like this on modes because you don't have to wade through page after page of sticky that gets you nowhere.

One last observation, Jonfinn brought up a really good point:

2) A Mode is a major scale with altered notes (ex: D Phrygian is a D major scale with b2,b3,b6 and b7)

This is one of the mysteries that needs explaining.

My take on this is that a lot of us amatuer guitarists believe that if we are playing "in key," meaning diatonic, that we can make our leads sound a little "far out" by shifting "outside of the key," and so these variations of "D," like Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, etc. are the direction for the next step of learning. In some of these cases, only one note is different, and we believe that we can add that different note to our overall scale to add tension against the harmonizing chords. I don't know if this is correct, but it is my current path of learning.

Also, I'm thinking that the circle of fifths has something to do with this since every time you move a fifth around the circle, maybe you are picking up one more outside the key note. Is this correct?

[gennation]

Although GreenAsJade seems to have done the happy dance around the room upon reading Gennation's post about the confusion of mode names being associated with the five (or seven) CAGED positions in the Internet literature, for me this was not the key "kernal of wisdom" on this thread. The key posts, IMHO, were made by Jed this time around. He made comments about learn the major scale inside and out, and how the chords of the key of the major scale harmonize the scale. He was also right in steering GreenAsJade away from delving futher into modes since the answers he is trying to find will not be found with modes. Then everyone and their brother piled on about modes to the enth degree, completely obliterating the thread, and we're where we are now. For the amatuer guitarist, myself for example, we don't want to know a lot of theory, we want to know how to apply theory, and the simpler it is the better. The confusion over modes, and the splattering of mis-information about them, has lead many amatuer guitarists to pursue them to unlock effortless improvisation on the fingerboard. The truth is, however, that we don't need modes to improvise effortlessly. Instead, all we need to know is what "basic" chords go with a major scale, and that's all. From there we then go back into our own worlds again, woodshed the major scale against the harmonizing chords, and in no time AND with very little prodigy-like skills, we can play the guitar really, really well. Why is this all we're after? It is because our solos have too many clams. When we watch pros play, unless they actually flubb something, we notice that they don't have any clams, and they do it so easily. So, we reason, what is it that they are doing that we don't know? What is the secret? It is simply play the major scale within its framework of harmonizing chords. In terms of the basics, for the key of D major as an example, and this means the D Ionian scale so that there is no confusion: The harmonizing chords. D major E minor F# minor G major A major B minor C# diminished You can make them more complicated, for example they could have sevenths stacked on them, but that gets away from the KISS approach. Explore the major scale with those chord fundamentals, taking two chords together at a time, as a background loop played over and over, and you will be able to work your way into incredible counterpoint, beautiful, melodies. I struggled with all this stuff three years ago and now it is GreenAsJade who has brought it up anew, and it is interesting to see it all rehashed again. Glad I'm not the one asking the questions this time around. It is good to see new threads like this on modes because you don't have to wade through page after page of sticky that gets you nowhere. One last observation, Jonfinn brought up a really good point: 2) A Mode is a major scale with altered notes (ex: D Phrygian is a D major scale with b2,b3,b6 and b7) This is one of the mysteries that needs explaining. My take on this is that a lot of us amatuer guitarists believe that if we are playing "in key," meaning diatonic, that we can make our leads sound a little "far out" by shifting "outside of the key," and so these variations of "D," like Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, etc. are the direction for the next step of learning. In some of these cases, only one note is different, and we believe that we can add that different note to our overall scale to add tension against the harmonizing chords. I don't know if this is correct, but it is my current path of learning. Also, I'm thinking that the circle of fifths has something to do with this since every time you move a fifth around the circle, maybe you are picking up one more outside the key note. Is this correct?

 

 

You are explaining Diatonic Theory, not Modal playing.

 

Read post #35 for applications.

 

Let's step out of Modes a second...

 

If you tell people to just learn the Major scale they never learn a VERY important part of music, tension. When you use the Chord Scale method you play on/with the chord and never against it or never in a perdetermined fashsion anticipating the next chord. This creates Tension and Release.

 

This is it a very important piece in music that all the "greats" use. That's why it sounds like they are "better" than most other players.

 

This brings up a WHOLE other aspect/topic that is "next level" Diatonic Theory, because you are not going to get using Chord Scales. This is where all the Augmented and Diminished stuff comes from, the half stepping, etc...all the Tension and Resolution. And it deals with going beyond the basic mindset of "the major scale has seven scales, and these scales make these 7 chords, etc...". It deals with Keys and chord functions...not some roman numerals telling you what chord from the Key to play, but real "chords function".

 

For this tension and release info, read through my Playing the Changes sticky at the top of the page. I will show you where there is more to playing Chord Scales and playing "this scale for the chord, and that scale for this chord".

 

Remember this is a thread about Modes, so let's get pass the basic Diatonic Theory stuff, he's already learned his scales.

[Mark Wein]

Men have been driven mad by modes.

 

How did you get my drivers license picture?

[Virgman]

How did you get my drivers license picture?

[Mark Wein]

 

As you can tell, I don't have too much to offer in this conversation (I've been lurking for a few days) that hasn't already been said...

 

I guess that my VERY basic approach to the idea of modes is that each mode to me is a sound or "tonal color" that I can use over a static chord...

 

For example, if I have a minor chord to play over by itself for any length of time I can consider any of the minor modes a possibilities depending on the sound I would like to play with. I have a palette that includes Dorian, Aeolian and Phrygian as well as scales such as Minor Pentatonic, the minor blues scale, Harmonic Minor. I might also throw the ideal of scales out the door and just play chord tones, superimposing triads to get extensions or just play "randomly", listening for tension versus resolution to make my line go someplace...

 

If there is a second chord in the progression (say Dm - G7) then my options become a little more limited. I guess that we get into the "Functional vs. modal"...the second chord dictates to me that I can not play Aeolian, Phyrgian or Harmonic minor since the G7 has a B natural in it (Major 6th in D) and those other scale choice have Bb (minor 6th in D). I might play the Bb as a passing tone but I wouldn't sit on it for any length of time....the minor pentatonic and Blues scales (once again, not modes but still useful colors on the palette) don't have a 6th in it so the problem is gone...my first thought would be to play a D Dorian mode to get as many chord tones as possible. I might also play a D Melodic Minor to pick up the #4 of the G7 chord.

 

 

As you can probably tell by now I am not much of a Jazz musician. I tend to play more blues and rock than anything else, so my use of modes is not quite as refined as the other guys....

[nylon rock]

Hi Gennation,

Remember, I'm just an amatuer, and as such it doesn't take much before I start rolling my eyes looking for the crib sheet. Wes seems to have offered a crib sheet around post #17. Jed offered one somewhere, too.

Yes, the thread is about modes, but after I gave it a read from GreenAsJade's initial outlook, it seemed to me that his problem was that he wasn't noticing much of an advantage in applying modes to his playing. For myself, this is true too.

Then he found out that modes have nothing to do with learning the scale positions up the fingerboard. And the posts went still for a while because the confusion was solved.

From what I can tell both he and I are similar in our abilities. It seems that we actually are not that interested in modes, as yet, because we are at the application of Diatonic Theory development phase, really. But we both want our music to sound a little further out than just staying in key.

We probably play songs that are mostly diatonic, but there are a few chords or choruses, whatever, that shift the frame of reference ouside of being in just one key. Situations where a similar key, like a D mixolydian shift from D Ionian frame of reference, occurs just briefly, and that difference in sound makes the tension, and makes the song memorable for us.

From what Wes posted, it seems that you then change your fingering patterns by the sharp, or flat, or a couple of flats, of the major scale order, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, and you get the flavor of the odd chord relative to the initial diatonic makeup. And by applying things this way, we will be playing right alongside the "pros."

I am hoping that this is all that it takes to make the jump to the next level of playing.

GreenAsJade really needs to step in here, because I'm taking liberties speaking for someone else.

[Jed]

 

From what I can tell both he and I are similar in our abilities. It seems that we actually are not that interested in modes, as yet, because we are at the application of Diatonic Theory development phase, really. But we both want our music to sound a little further out than just staying in key. We probably play songs that are mostly diatonic, but there are a few chords or choruses, whatever, that shift the frame of reference ouside of being in just one key. Situations where a similar key, like a D mixolydian shift from D Ionian frame of reference, occurs just briefly, and that difference in sound makes the tension, and makes the song memorable for us. From what Wes posted, it seems that you then change your fingering patterns by the sharp, or flat, or a couple of flats, of the major scale order, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7, and you get the flavor of the odd chord relative to the initial diatonic makeup. And by applying things this way, we will be playing right alongside the "pros."

 

 

The fact that you realize there is an "application of Diatonic Theory development phase" puts you well ahead of many people. Most people think of theory as a game of mental gymnastics, a bunch of things to memorize so they can "talk the talk". Once they can "talk the talk" they think it's time to move onto the next more-complicated construct. Taking the time and considerable effort required to learn to apply theory is the key to understanding theory and being able to "walk the walk". Then each new concept builds on a solid foundation.

 

Understanding how D7 behaves and sounds in a D major tonality means understanding how the D7 acts in it's diatonic "home-court" (G major) and how D7 differs (in terms of notes and function) from the 7th chord built on the D root in D major. It is this mixing of tonalities that is the effect people describe as "Inside vs Outside" sounds.

 

Most of the pros understand basic theory to a degree that few hobbyists can imagine. Even those music greats that no nothing of theory (in classic terms) know how to get the same sounds, which of course is the ultimate goal. Theory is just a tool that some of us use to understand music better and to help us find, name, categorize, remember and re-create those sounds.

 

cheers,

[Mark Wein]

Theory is just a tool that some of us use to understand music better and to help us find, name, categorize, remember and re-create those sounds.

 

[Virgman]

This discussion got way too complicated.

 

We're all going to hell.

[Jed]

Regarding "Tension & Release"

 

"Tension and Release" is an example of a yin / yang complimentary pairing. Dissonance exists only in comparison to consonance. One fails to exist as a separate entity without the other. The full spectrum of musical tension / musical expression is available and founded on the aural concepts of basic theory and it's various applications.

 

Regarding " Next Level Diatonic Theory"

 

I reject the premise of some kind of "Next Level Diatonic Theory", as if there were a distinction between "basic theory" and "advanced theory". Most popular music is heard / understood / perceived relative to the frame of reference that is basic (diatonic) theory and the major scale. There is no next level / advanced level, it's all basic theory just applied in new and interesting ways.

 

What some call "next level", I call "diatonic theory applied across multiple key centers". You may think of this as a distinction without a difference. I see this as the core difference between our two approaches to music / theory / life.

 

Some people see basic and advanced applications as different and unique entities. I see them as a continuum of one thing just as the different colors of visible light, infra-red, ultra-violet, radio waves and gamma rays are all just Electro Magnetic Radiation. Each of these aspects of "light" exist along one continuum, in this case they are just different frequencies of the EMR spectrum.

 

If people really want to work towards playing at a more advanced level, they would do well to look at internalizing the major scales, keys and chords to such a degree that they are able to think in terms of notes and chords in multiple keys at the same time. Then the concept of playing "inside" versus "outside" predictably and with intent becomes a simple process of overlaying one tonality over another.

 

Regarding "Remember this is a thread about Modes, so let's get pass the basic Diatonic Theory stuff, he's already learned his scales."

 

Has he learned his scales? Or do we assume that "being able to calculate or recite a scale" is the same thing as having "learned that scale"? How can someone claim to have learned their scales and not have memorized all of the diatonic chords, their chord spellings, the function of those chords (and their component chord tones) in various keys, the chord scales associated with each unique application? How can someone claim to have learned their major scales and still not understand the nature of modes, or how the harmonic and melodic minors are effectively a "major-ization of the minor scale"?

 

I have yet to see any discussion on modes that didn't have at it's core a lack of understanding of basic theory (the major scale) across all keys. A difficulty understanding modes is symptomatic of a problem. The problem is not understanding the major scale in all keys. Why go on and on, month after month, treating symptoms (trying to explain modes) when we might be able to help people learn how to cure the disease?

 

You and I see these things from very different perspectives, and yet we are both looking as the same thing and describing what each of us "see" as the truth. The truth for most people lies somewhere between our two perspectives or rather in a place that is the union of our two perspectives.

 

cheers,

 

. . on the other hand maybe I've been drinking too much of the Kool-Aid . . .

[gennation]

Mark, I'm not harping on your statements, but they bring up some good point regarding Diatonic, Functional, and Modal concepts...

 

I guess that my VERY basic approach to the idea of modes is that each mode to me is a sound or "tonal color" that I can use over a static chord...

 

Tonal color, mood, etc...are terms used a lot. But most find them hard to really get a sense of what it means. People who delve into the Diatonic Theory learn that each "Mode" builds a particular triad and extended set of chords. These chords make up the characteristics of the Key...

 

And, these are the scale you use when that particular chord is the tonal center, functioning as a I chord.

 

Other wise they are derivatives of the Major or Minor Key.

 

So, what the terms "color and mood" really mean is "implying a specific chord", or "implying a specific harmony". When you play one triad/chord and play one corresponding Mode over it you are implying an extended chord/harmony OVER the chord (Ioina=maj13, Dorian=m13, Phrygian=mb13b9 (or susb9 many times), etc...).

 

The "harmonies" are exactly what the terms "color and mood" mean, and the harmonies are implying a bigger chord than you might be playing. The "mood" thing can be blown out of the water pretty quickly in Modal Music, but the "harmonies" can't. And, we really only have Major and Minor "moods", or happy sad, I'm not familiar with any melancholy scales or chords out there

 

Using the term "over a static chord" works fine for Pure Modal music and early Modal Jazz. But as years went on people started dropping in single chords in songs that were "out of Key". So you had a song that's playing along in a diatonic Key for a while and BANG theres' this one chord (for 1 beat, 2 beats, 1 measure, 2 or more measures, etc...) that isn't in the Key anymore and you have to change scales...not really Keys, because it's one chord one related to ANYTHING else in the song...but scales/harmonies.

 

So, "static" doesn't completely describe every time when you might want to consider Modes.

 

Since static means "something that doesn't change" it makes sense to deal with this chord as a stand alone chord instead so you can form one way of understanding Modes that works EVERYTIME. This will help you'll be able to determine that you need to think Modally over this one chord, not the rest of the progression.

 

It's easiest to just think of this chord as a I chord, think of it as a chord that's standing alone in the progression

 

Modally (as in Modal Music) a m7 (Im7) chord "usually" gets Dorian applied, and a 7th (I7) "usually" gets Mixolydian. The only time this really differs is in Pure Modal music where the scale is all the music. Again, I'm speaking for Modal Music, not functional music. To bring these thoughts into the "functional" realm, again, the "Modal Chord" will always be a I chord.

 

In standard jazz you also have "non-functioning" 7th chords a lot, these are handled a bit differently in Jazz where you would apply a Lydian Dominant scale to them, that could be considered Modal I guess but isn't really considered as Modal. In jazz the stand alone Dominant chord would use the Lydian Dominant.

 

With a lot of the Modern Modal stuff where you find 7sus4 or 13sus4 chords, Mixolydian is your scale of choice. IOW, they are treated as a I chord while they exist in the song.

 

So if there's ONE chord in you're progression that isn't tied to the Key, treat it as a I chord, showing you the scale needs to change. Then see what scale it is. Again, 9 out of 10 times if it's Im or Im7 you'll use Dorian, if it's a dom7 of some sort you'll use Mixolydian.

 

For a maj7 that isn't in Key, use Lydian.

 

If there is a second chord in the progression (say Dm - G7) then my options become a little more limited.

 

The whole progression will tell you how "limited" you are.

 

If you're progression is ||: Dm | G7 :|| D Dorian will handle it. If those are two chords leading to the Cmaj7 (the Key they come from), you're options have actually expanded into tension and release. In both cases the Dm and G7 can be considered one sound or one chord, G7.

 

Dm7 and G7 are pretty interchangeable chords since Dm7 over G7 creates nothing more than a G11 (or G7sus11). Try this, record a Dm7 vamp, play G7 arps over it. Then record a G7 vamp and play Dm7 arps over it. Pretty much the same thing.

 

So the Dm7->G7 progression is really just D Dorian. Why D Dorian and Not G Mixolydian? Because you would end on Dm7, the progression resolves to Dm7.

 

Now when you have a Cmaj7 following the Dm->G7 (Dm7-G7-Cmaj7) your options open up extensively. This is due to the "function" of G7, the function is V7. A V7 is handle COMPLETELY different than a I7. There's no reason listing ALL the "scales" you can use over the G7 because there are so many. You can pretty much play any note. But a couple of common organizations of certain note groups against the G7 would be: Ab Mel Min and Ab W-H. Try those two, just remember to resolve to a chord tone of Cmaj7. This V->I (G7->Cmaj7) equates to Tension->Release.

 

Now this is a VERY interesting point. While so many people are worried about using Modes, and think they hold the key to playing "inside and outside" they completely lose sight of understanding functional theory...this is one of the MOST common spots where the "inside and outside" playing lies. If there was more talk about Cadences and I chords all this stuff would be a piece of cake.

 

There in NOTHING outside where is comes to Modes. Because you always play on the chord. There is nothing "outside" in Diatonic Theory, because you are always looking at playing on the chord. The outside stuff happens in Functional Theory, because you are ALWAYS moving towards the I chord, and you can take almost any path to get there, as long as you get there.

 

I have more but I'll post it in a new post since it think it's detrimental to understanding this stuff.

[gennation]

As many of you know I like to organize things from the ground up. Let's breakdown a good (simple) growth path for learning this stuff...

 

Basic Theory - Intervals, simple to advanced chord construction

 

Diatonic Theory - Creating chords contained in a Key, viewing each note as being a tonic for a new chord. (no mention of Modes)

 

Functional Theory - Learning common cadences, progression, anticipations, for playing in Key based on tensions and resolution.

 

Modal Theory - Learning the origins and examples of Modal Music.

 

I think what guitarist probably have the most lack of is the Functional Theory part. I get this sense because of the terms "tension and outside and color" being one of the main reasons people think they need to learn Modes. There's is NO tension what so ever in a Mode, the Mode lays perfectly over the given chord.

 

The tension lies in the Function of the chord. There's no tension over a "I chord".

 

Many guitarist are introduced to "music theory" by way of Modes. There's so many other things that need to be in place first. Many aren't even 50% up on Interval and simple Chord Theory, but seem to want to jump to Modes, well they want Modes but really get into Diatonic Theory instead.

 

Fundamentals people, that's where most answers lie.

 

I threw out a whole bunch of Modal examples, but maybe people need to see more "Functional" information. Not Diatonic scales and chords, but what really going on in progression, where the tension and resolution exist and why. The chords function is the #1 key to learning how to play outside. Modes shows you how to play inside, because they are played over I chords.

[Mark Wein]

 

Mark, I'm not harping on your statements, but they bring up some good point regarding Diatonic, Functional, and Modal concepts...

 

 

I'm not taking it that way...some of this stuff I know already and some of it I'm trying to digest...when I was in college there wasn't really too much instruction on modes in this sense...we learned about the early church music and whatnot, but in how it applied to modern music it was pretty much taught "Chord A gets Mode A"....I'm probably going to print out this thread and re read everyones "arguments" away from the computer...

 

It's actually kind of nice to be challenged on this stuff. I've had my concepts on how modes work, but it's cool to hear this and have to rethink things....

[gennation]

I'm not taking it that way...some of this stuff I know already and some of it I'm trying to digest...when I was in college there wasn't really too much instruction on modes in this sense...we learned about the early church music and whatnot, but in how it applied to modern music it was pretty much taught "Chord A gets Mode A"....I'm probably going to print out this thread and re read everyones "arguments" away from the computer... It's actually kind of nice to be challenged on this stuff. I've had my concepts on how modes work, but it's cool to hear this and have to rethink things....

Yeah, my comments were to a broader audience, not so much you or really anyone in particular.

I still drill holes in my skull working on better understandings and applications

[jonfinn]

Reading these and thinking about all the different points of view you can take makes me think a lot about my own point of view (which may or may not work for anyone else, but I know it works pretty well for me), and many of the lessons I've taught on the topic of modes and improvisation.

The ideal I strive for is "Sound good. Play what you hear in your head."

That's a very difficult task to remain focused on if all these rules are rattling around in your head. But I also think the process of learning all that is necessary in the path of true mastery. Watch any great basketball game and you immediately recognize that the action is happening so fast that you can't think about it while doing it. They train so much that it just "comes out." Music is the same I think.

One thing I see a lot is players who put the cart before the horse. They ask "What mode do I use in this song?" Rather, then answer, I ask them to play the melody and they often can't. I ask them to play the chord progression and they often can't. I've found that (for me) the theory stuff only makes sense and offers useful information if I really know the tune I'm trying to apply it to. That means being able to play it.

Theory can be pretty "heady" stuff. Focus too much on it and you go right out of your heart. With my students, I hammer in the the idea of striking a balance between head, hands and heart.

Lastly, someone made a comment about theory being a device for keeping guitar teachers working. I can't speak for anyone else, but if money were my primary motivator, I would be organizing my efforts VERY differently! I probably wouldn't teach at all!

[Mark Wein]

Lastly, someone made a comment about theory being a device for keeping guitar teachers working. I can't speak for anyone else, but if money were my primary motivator, I would be organizing my efforts VERY differently! I probably wouldn't teach at all!

 

 

Didn't you get the memo? It's an international conspiracy of only guitar teachers that keep the big music theory mythology going....

 

To be honest, I don't shove theory down anyones throat when I teach...I just try to make it obvious that if you want to get from point A to point B you really need to understand how to get there yourself...the majority of my students realize this and and have no problem spending the time working on the material....

[Mark Wein]

Yeah, my comments were to a broader audience, not so much you or really anyone in particular. I still drill holes in my skull working on better understandings and applications

 

Now that I am not gigging constantly I've been having the time to revisit the basics..stuff like this is great to get the mental juices going...participating in these discussions also helps me improve as a teacher, as well....

[gennation]

 

Now that I am not gigging constantly I've been having the time to revisit the basics..stuff like this is great to get the mental juices going...participating in these discussions also helps me improve as a teacher, as well....

 

 

Yeah. Try some of those examples I gave earlier in post #35. Very cool stuff to try and play over.