Modes, Why so much conflict?

[LosBoleros]

Why are there so many questions and so many heated discussions regarding this topic if most of the information is well documented? There are great sites online as well as some well written Threads right here on H.C. Yet time after time so much friction and so much misunderstanding.

 

Here is what I think.

 

 

[Poparad]

I agree with you, and I think the source of conflict is two things that you mentioned:

1. People tend to think it's some vitally important thing to learn so they jump in before they are ready, when modes are really more advanced in some regards and not as commonplace as it seems. If people would learn the basics and the intermediate theory really well, modes tend to take care of themselves and you don't have to think about them so much.

2. So many people who don't have a solid grasp (or any grasp) on modes try to give advice about it, and what they say is generally totally off. This frustrates those who really do know about modes because it will potentially confuse and stunt the musical understanding of a lot of players.


Since these two situations are found so much more when dealing with modes than any other topic, they are often a source of conflict.

[Auggie Doggie]

What I have noticed over many years is that 'modes' have become some bizarre rite of passage for guitarists. They feel that by having some knowledge of the modes, they have passed some kind of milestone. Oddly, this 'milestone' is often reached before the player has any concept of tonality or functional harmony.

Adding fuel to the fire is that 'modes' are taught (and I condemn every text and teacher who repeatedly enforces this myth) as a series of fingering patterns on the fretboard. Fingering patterns are easy to memorize (often mistaken for knowledge), and they have names. People LOVE to name things; if we have a name to call it, we own it, or we know it. Legions of guitarists memorized a bunch of scale patterns, called them 'modes', and feel they have reached some major evolutionary step. Even worse, the modes have Greek names...and when someone starts speaking of things that have foreign names, they feel especially important, even if they're blowing smoke out their posterior.

Guitar books, magazines, teachers, and especially message board users always seem to give the advice "learn your scales and modes and you will become a better soloist". Then they perpetuate that myth by feeding a bunch of dot diagrams to the player, teaching them the fingerboard by completely misusing a theory concept...and even worse, they also perpetuate the idea of 'use this pattern over this chord and you will be a soloing genius', with no mention of things like melody, harmony, or rhythm. Is it any wonder so many players think of a solo as a time to run their scales?

I've heard a lot of players stake a claim to 'modes' as a basis for bragging rights. I've seen entire books about modes for guitarists, written by authors who honestly have NO F'ING CLUE what modes really are (or ever were). I've read analyses of music that mention a change of 'mode' every time a chord change occurs, while the same analyses never actually mention harmony! I've actually heard people speak of modes as if they are the pinnacle of music theory, and if you know the modes, you know all there is to know. All of these things are a damn shame.

In reality, modes are a small (and in MANY cases, a completely nonexistent) issue. In modern practice, modes are merely a subset of the tonal system; in their original form (I even wrote a thread about it) they were MUCH different from how we view them now (as was music in general). Guitarists are obsessed with modes (as is clear by the number of threads about them), but somehow it doesn't occur to them that a working knowledge of the tonal system pretty much explains all there is to know about them. Modes are touted as some sort of musical holy grail, usually by the people who know the least about them.

So, to summarize, modes are given WAY too much importance and emphasis...they are generally taught in a completely incorrect and horribly incomplete manner...and they are damned by virtue of their having names. One cannot just say 'I know harmony' or 'I know voice leading' or 'I know counterpoint' or 'I know melody'...those are broad yet abstract topics. However, one can say "I know the modes" (even when they usually don't know them), and back it up with a modicum of tangible evidence ("Lookie...I can play the Phrygian mode on my guitar if I play on these dots!"). That ties modes into ego, and there is your smoking gun.

[LosBoleros]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie Adding fuel to the fire is that 'modes' are taught (and I condemn every text and teacher who repeatedly enforces this myth) as a series of fingering patterns on the fretboard.

Exactly! The modes are not a set of finger patterns. You can use any finger pattern and find all seven modes within it. Look at the piano. There is only one finger pattern for any given key yet they have access to all the modes.

[TubeAddict]

1) Fux is a good place to start understanding modes.
2) In Harmonic Experience, Mathieu considers 32 modes rather than the usual modes based on the major and melodic minor scales.

[LosBoleros]

Originally posted by TubeAddict 1) Fux is a good place to start understanding modes. 2) In Harmonic Experience , Mathieu considers 32 modes rather than the usual modes based on the major and melodic minor scales.

The study of counterpoint by J.J. Fux. I loved that book! Read it almost 20 years ago!

[bobthemerciful]

Originally posted by LosBoleros Exactly! The modes are not a set of finger patterns. You can use any finger pattern and find all seven modes within it. Look at the piano. There is only one finger pattern for any given key yet they have access to all the modes.

Couldn't agree more

[exit sandman]

Originally posted by LosBoleros The study of counterpoint by J.J. Fux. I loved that book! Read it almost 20 years ago!

I hate to be the one to lower the tone of this good thread, but....
what a hilarious name!

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by exit sandman I hate to be the one to lower the tone of this good thread, but.... what a hilarious name!

Hehe...I remember the first time I saw the name (I was about 13)...I laughed my ass off! Of course, I found out a couple years later that it rhymes with 'books'. But...the fun didn't end then...

As many of the guys here know, I write guitar books based on classical music. What nobody knows is that my sister (an extremely gifted writer) is my proofreader, not for content-editing but just to make sure I haven't committed any terrible grammatical sins (she's got a command of the written word that makes me feel illiterate!). Anyway...

The book I most recently finished up has a chapter on counterpoint, with an overview of the species method as made famous by Fux. When I sent my sister the text files, I didn't warn her about the name in any way. She actually thought I made it up and was playing a joke on her!!!!!! :D She 'fixed' my mistakes...and sent back my file, complete with a chapter dealing largely with the species counterpoint method of:

Johann Joseph FOX. :D

[LosBoleros]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie Hehe...I remember the first time I saw the name (I was about 13)...I laughed my ass off! Of course, I found out a couple years later that it rhymes with 'books'. But...the fun didn't end then...

If that was my name, I would tell you it rhymed with books too.

[Janglin_Jack]

I think some of us that are trying to learn theory without the guidance of a proper instructor, (or written material) try and tackle the modes to unlock the mystery of music and guitar. I have to say that in my pursuit, it forced me to go back and learn the major scale, the circle of fifths, triadic and seventh chord harmony.

Maybe some of us have given the "modes" more weight then the subject may warrant, but I think it is one of the first major obsticles I came across as a self taught player. It has finally helped me understand keys and their construction and the proper scale choices to play over chords and progressions.

Again, I am a self taught player, and I am now looking toward the diminished and whole tone scales, (while I am sure I am missing some other very important information). I am not sure of the proper order to learn material. Most books seem to cover things very spotty at best.

AuggieDoggie, maybe you can shed some light on the "proper" order of theory for the guitarist. Maybe that will help others from thinking the modes are the holy grail to soloing.

Jack

[LosBoleros]

I know you didn't ask me but this is my take on what the entry level to modes are.

Although it involves dexterity, it is more of a mental practice. You start off with just one fingering.

Let's talk the Key of C Major. Even though they are all in the same key and all the notes are the same, treat each mode like a separate scale and think of the notes as 1 through 8. 1 being your tonic and 8 is the octave.

There are more octaves and many more fingerings obviously but you should take each fingering and analyze it as I have illustrated above. Learn where the numbers go. 1-8. Your arpegios are gonna naturally be the 1,3,5,7 of each mode. The other numbers 2,4,6 will be your tension notes.



This is basic theory at the first level. There is much more you can do with this before progressing.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Janglin_Jack I think some of us that are trying to learn theory without the guidance of a proper instructor, (or written material) try and tackle the modes to unlock the mystery of music and guitar. I have to say that in my pursuit, it forced me to go back and learn the major scale, the circle of fifths, triadic and seventh chord harmony . The major scale and the triadic harmony derived therefrom are the foundations of theory; they are the essential building blocks upon which most everything else is built, and they are also the standard of reference by which other things are defined. Maybe some of us have given the "modes" more weight then the subject may warrant, but I think it is one of the first major obsticles I came across as a self taught player. It has finally helped me understand keys and their construction and the proper scale choices to play over chords and progressions . The part I underlined is a big concern, and is one of those areas that also causes a lot of disagreement. In my view, music is much more than just playing the right scale over the right chord; I am aware that that knowledge is necessary, but it is essentially grammatical in nature. When misinformed (although well-meaning) players, writers, and teachers approach the subject, they often do so in a 'paint by numbers' fashion. In and of itself, that's fine, but it should be made clear that it's nothing more than that! Many players, while learning that stuff, have gotten the impression that they've completely mastered the material, which is a shame, because their learning often ceases at that level. It's a necessary step, and thus important, but it is one of things that you just have to learn inside and out so that it's second nature. As I have mentioned before, I have a rather extensive and, well, eggheaded music theory/composition library, covering all sorts of topics at great depth. Many of these texts were written by pillars of musical academia (Schoenberg, Fux, Rameau, Marpurg, Albrechtsberger, Goetschius, Jeppesen, Salzer, Berry, etc), and through the course of thousands of pages of text and musical examples, modes are an incredibly small topic. (it was the same way in my music courses in college) When modes are discussed, it's in one of two ways: 1) in pre-tonal music terms, and 2) as tiny subsets of the tonal system. Once the musical world became a tonal one, the older styles and principles fell to the wayside. Concepts like melodic/thematic development, modulation, harmony/voice leading, and the general principle of unity are of prime importance...these are the very things that the 'scales/modes over chords' approach neglects. However, in studying the tonal system, the workings of the modal system just fall into place automatically. With a thorough working knowledge of the major/minor system, a musician can easily adapt that knowledge (if need be) to the modal system. However, the reverse is not true! The major scale is our reference point for everything else, and thus is THE most important thing to learn (and that means the intervals, the notes, the keys, the harmonies and their functions, etc). Again, I am a self taught player, and I am now looking toward the diminished and whole tone scales, (while I am sure I am missing some other very important information). I am not sure of the proper order to learn material. Most books seem to cover things very spotty at best. The main reason that those topics get spotty coverage is that they're not particularly *big* topics to begin with. Harmony (or at the very least the nomenclature of harmony) derives from tonality, which has as its alphabet the major (or minor) scale. Things that deviate from that are 'special cases' that have their applications, but are not foundational in nature. In the language of music, they are at the least slang, at the most a dialect. And the better you understand the fundamental stuff about harmony, etc, the more exotic scales are MUCH easier to apply. AuggieDoggie, maybe you can shed some light on the "proper" order of theory for the guitarist. Maybe that will help others from thinking the modes are the holy grail to soloing. Jack

The learning order of theory should be similar to that of language; you start speaking by imitation...first just sounds (words), then simple sentences, then you learn the alphabet, and how to read (which has a hierarchy of its own), parts of speech, sentence/paragraph construction, how to write, etc. The end result being you can understand what someone else is saying when they write and/or speak, and you are able to express yourself clearly in written and spoken form.

A big roadblock for many self-taught guitarists is that they dive right into the syntax/parts of speech stuff from the start, treating them as though they exist in a vacuum. It has been my experience (as a musician, a student, and a teacher) that the vast majority of all things 'music' are learned by doing, and that the learning occurs primarily on a subconscious level. At some point, your ear just 'gets it'...when that happens, learning the terminology and reasoning behind it is often a piece of cake! The concepts themselves, although they seem to be concrete in written form, are completely abstract; they don't become 'real' until they come alive through the listening (not just hearing, but listening) and performance of music.

When other instrumentalists study music, they always do so through music itself! Technique is developed through melodic etudes, not purely physical exercise. Melodic concepts are learned through melodies. Harmonic concepts are learned through music with a strong, clear-cut harmonic foundation. Music first...explanation later. If you ask a pianist to play you something, they usually can. Same goes for a flautist, or a cellist, etc. Their studies are based on repertoire...outside of playing the guitar part from their favorite songs, not many guitarists HAVE a repertoire. Therein lies the problem---guitarists are learning the elements of music in a veritable vacuum, and end up with a disjointed, incomplete, and un-holistic understanding of music.

For someone to develop a sense of rhythm, they have to live it, breathe it, listen to it, feel it, and do it. If you want to develop a sense of 'melody', then listen to and play as many melodies as you can....learn them on an instrument or sing them...eventually you will 'get' it. Melody is the holy grail of soloing, not scales or licks. While 'melody' is a broad topic with many connotations and side issues, it is (in and of itself) vague and abstract. You can't draw a picture of it...you can't really describe it...all you can do is experience it, over and over, until your brain connects the dots, flips a switch, and says 'A-HA! Melody!!!! I get it now!!!!!'

So, to more directly respond, a guitarist should learn:

all 12 notes and their various names, and how to read them in (gasp!) standard notation (it's not that hard!!!).

intervals up to the 13th

how to construct a major scale from one of those notes, and how to number them (1-7, takes 2 seconds )

how to derive harmonies (triads) from that scale | harmonic vs nonharmonic tones

the functions of those chords & the concept of tension/resolution...and eventually 'chord progressions'

how to derive the minor scale from the major scale...its harmonies (and thus its 3 scale forms)...etc

At this point, the basic grammar and vocabulary of music should be understood. This is the foundation, nothing more, nothing less. Beyond this point, pretty much everything (aside from rhythm) relates back to that foundation, or is at least defined in terms relative to it. But it's important that ALL theory-related things are learned in a context of music, both listening AND playing. That's the key to making all the theoretical stuff actually mean something. It's hard to do that when teaching yourself, especially since few learning materials are able to provide an accessible means of listening to real-world examples of all the concepts. Poparad is currently studying music in school (unless he graduated already); he's the VERY helpful type, and will probably read all this and be kind enough (hint hint;) ) to explain how they bridge theory, listening, and playing into a cohesive whole there.

It's difficult to approximate the sequence of a formal musical education, especially with so many conflicting resources and philosophies. And there's a LOT of information to be learned, and even that varies greatly depending upon style and preference. However, as with any other subject, a solid understanding of the fundamentals is the key that opens all the other doors, which each lead to bigger, better, newer, older, and different things.

Wow, can I possibly be more verbose? (apologies for the length of the post)

[LightningFast]

Great information and a great summary of the music learning process.

In defense of the so to say lesser guitarists who may or may not be modal heads, NOT all have the luxury of schooling, teachers, books, etc... or for that matter, time. Like me for example. Modes were a step for me that could be reached through practice. They were'nt very difficult, a matter of 1,2,3 so to say.

So, as I bow my head in shame as a "lesser guitarist", I leave these simple thoughts: How much do I need to know to enjoy playing the guitar? How much do I need to know to compose music? How much do I need to know to play a melody? How much do I need to know to play a solo that makes the hair on your neck stand up?

The bottom line is that if lemons is all I got, then I'm going to make the best lemonaide I can possibly make. And, my lemonaide may even taste better than your mixed fruit/vegetable milk shake, mostly because of the shear simplicity. Last words,

Heart and Soul, play what you know with everything you've got.

[Singingax]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie So a guitarist should learn: all 12 notes and their various names

 

All 12 notes?

[Singingax]

Originally posted by Auggie Doggie So a guitarist should learn: all 12 notes and their various names

 

All 12 notes?

 

Their various names?

[MorePaul]

yup "all 12 notes" in one sense, in another sense there are more than "all 12 notes" and in yet another sense there are less than "all 12 notes"

It really comes back to Augie's original point about understanding the tonal system.

Now, there are sysems like Nashville Numbering (sort of solfege Jr.) and even guitar tab that assign different names to the same note, but are other systems that don't

So it's really a matter of understanding and usng a system correctly

[Singingax]

Originally posted by MorePaul yup "all 12 notes" in one sense, in another sense there are more than "all 12 notes" and in yet another sense there are less than "all 12 notes"

 

In what 'sense' are there 'all 12 notes'?

 

In what 'sense' are 'there more than all 12 notes'?

 

In what 'sense' are there 'less than all 12 notes'?

 

 

{more sophist 'nonsense', and not much chance of a direct answer, from MorePaul to follow}

[Dobbs]

I really don't see what the problem is here guys. What exactly should the instructor call the fingering patterns he teaches? Should he not teach them?

In my view, you have to know the modes as fingering patterns on the fretboard if you want any kind of understanding concerning their finer points (speaking as a guitarist). I personally think it's rather healthy for a guitarist to learn the patterns, go through a "what's the point of this" phase, then come back later to pick up on modal harmony. If he doesn't, it's his fault, not the instructor.

I've had nothing but good instructors myself, and most of the people around here seem to have very good explanations. Who are these modal morons anyway? I'm really not seeing it.

[Poparad]

Originally posted by Dobbs I really don't see what the problem is here guys. What exactly should the instructor call the fingering patterns he teaches? Should he not teach them? In my view, you have to know the modes as fingering patterns on the fretboard if you want any kind of understanding concerning their finer points (speaking as a guitarist). I personally think it's rather healthy for a guitarist to learn the patterns, go through a "what's the point of this" phase, then come back later to pick up on modal harmony. If he doesn't, it's his fault, not the instructor. I've had nothing but good instructors myself, and most of the people around here seem to have very good explanations. Who are these modal morons anyway? I'm really not seeing it.

 

 

The point is that people begin to asscociate only a single position with a mode, and whenever they are playing in that position, they think they are playing in that mode, no matter what the chord is they are playing over.

 

They could be soloing over a Cmaj7 vamp, but if they're playing in the 10th position they believe it's D dorian. Likewise, if they had to play over a Dm7 vamp, they would be stuck in the 10th position as the only 'dorian' fingering they know.

 

 

Knowing all 7 of the fingering patterns is necessary in order to play the major scale and it's modes, but modes should be named by how they relate to chords, and not what position you're playing the major scale in. For example, playing the C major scale over a Dm7 chord in any position is D dorian, and it should be taught that way because that's how it is used in real application.

[Dobbs]

Originally posted by Poparad The point is that people begin to asscociate only a single position with a mode, and whenever they are playing in that position, they think they are playing in that mode, no matter what the chord is they are playing over. They could be soloing over a Cmaj7 vamp, but if they're playing in the 10th position they believe it's D dorian. Likewise, if they had to play over a Dm7 vamp, they would be stuck in the 10th position as the only 'dorian' fingering they know. Knowing all 7 of the fingering patterns is necessary in order to play the major scale and it's modes, but modes should be named by how they relate to chords, and not what position you're playing the major scale in. For example, playing the C major scale over a Dm7 chord in any position is D dorian, and it should be taught that way because that's how it is used in real application.

 

 

Well, the message I get from this thread is that modes are being taught incorrectly on a mass scale. I have to disagree, and say they are being misunderstood by students on a mass scale. If there is an easier way to teach them without all the pattern stuff at the beginning I'm all ears.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Dobbs Well, the message I get from this thread is that modes are being taught incorrectly on a mass scale. I have to disagree, and say they are being misunderstood by students on a mass scale. If there is an easier way to teach them without all the pattern stuff at the beginning I'm all ears.

 

 

 

They are being taught incorrectly on a mass scale. Countless teachers and books teach modes as fingering patterns, completely removed from a harmonic setting; it's the harmony that makes something a 'mode' in the first place. Fingering patterns have NOTHING to do with modes, and anyone trying to 'teach' modes by using them is doing their students a great disservice.

 

If the harmony is tonal, then the melody is tonal. If the harmony is modal, then the melody is modal. If someone does not have a solid understanding of tonal harmony and how it derives from and relates to the major (or minor) scale, they are not ready for the modes. Unfortunately, most guitarists try to get into modes long before they've gotten a handle on the tonal system, which only causes them further confusion; at that point, they are forced to cling to something tangible--fingering patterns in most cases. The majority of teachers and books actually promote this, which indicates that they are simply trying to teach a topic that they themselves do not understand. Those 'learning' from those books and teachers have no choice but to learn incorrectly...and when they pass on what they know to others, the problems get worse.

[Janglin_Jack]

I was quite lost for a while, but I finally made a breakthrough when I realized that the "mode" is how a scale relates to the chord.

It seems easy when D Dorian is simply the Cmajor scale over a Dm chord. Not the pattern it forms at a certain fret.

These are the type of threads that finally pulled it all together for me.

Thanks Auggie Doggie and Poparad.

Jack

[Dobbs]

Auggie, I have yet to see a published book describe modes as nothing more then 7 positions to play the same scale in. I have never seen a book that teaches modal theory or patterns right out of the blue, with no other suggested prerequisites.

Of course, I've only had the experience of my own teachers and the several books I have bought myself. Of course, I tend to avoid the cheap $5 instructional books in the back of the book bin.

I disagree that fingering patterns have nothing to do with modes. How else are you supposed to apply this stuff to the fretboard itself? For someone who can't site read at a brisk pace, what's the problem with learning patterns? Do you think that patterns should be removed from everyone's study and replaced with staff paper? I like using both, personally.

[Auggie Doggie]

Originally posted by Dobbs Auggie, I have yet to see a published book describe modes as nothing more then 7 positions to play the same scale in. Almost EVERY guitar-oriented book on scales and 'modes' runs through a list of scales and modes as if they were equally-weighted concepts, and presents them as distinct fingering patterns, usually with the goal of memorizing them. You can pick up a guitar and play a major or minor scale; it's a simple thing to do. You CANNOT, however, just pick up a guitar a 'play a mode'. I have never seen a book that teaches modal theory or patterns right out of the blue, with no other suggested prerequisites. As i said above, most books teach 'modes' as patterns, and do so with zero mention of harmony. First Ionian, then Dorian, etc...lots of dot diagrams and/or tablature. You can't play a mode, and you can't draw a picture of one. Of course, I've only had the experience of my own teachers and the several books I have bought myself. Of course, I tend to avoid the cheap $5 instructional books in the back of the book bin. I'm not referring to the cheapo books! I've seen these trangressions get the ultimate stamp of approval by the major publishers (Mel Bay, MI, Hal Leonard, Cherry Lane, etc)! I've also seen it in many instructional videos published by well-respected firms. Many big-name players are misinformed, and unfortunately they are granted a level of credibility that simply do not deserve when it comes to teaching. They do these videos, contribute lessons to guitar magazines, etc., and perpetuate fallacies left and right. Their reputations and fame are their 'credibility'. When someone like myself (a complete nobody without the credentials of record sales, a master's degree in music, or a publishing contract) dares to say 'look, these guys are simply WRONG', we are at a great disadvantage-we don't get the benefit of the doubt, we don't have documentation from some authority that indicates that we know what we're talking about, and we're not famous. In many players' eyes, that makes us 'wrong' from the outset. I disagree that fingering patterns have nothing to do with modes. Modes and fingering patterns have NOTHING to do with each other. Nothing. Sax players don't use fingering patterns to play modal music...pianists don't either...trombones use a slide...vocalists don't need their fingers at all! Modality for guitar is no different than modality for any other instrument...it's conceptual---abstract, not concrete. How else are you supposed to apply this stuff to the fretboard itself? By playing modal music. It's about the harmony and the notes, not what string/fret they're played on. For someone who can't site read at a brisk pace, what's the problem with learning patterns? Do you think that patterns should be removed from everyone's study and replaced with staff paper? I like using both, personally.

 

 

 

Patterns are inevitable, and will arise logically no matter what. They are also easily abused, misused, and over-applied. Books and teachers that explain modes as fingering patterns produce players who fall into the habit of 'apply THIS fingering pattern at this time', with little to no regard for things like melodic/motivic structure and development. The fingering patterns end up governing what a guitarist plays; at best, it's a way to avoid mistakes. At worst, it's an easy 'paint-by-numbers' copout and a crutch.

 

If you believe that patterns are 'modes', then please take a C-Am-F-G7 progression and try to play D Dorian over it. It can't be done, because a pattern is not a mode. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply misinformed.