This simple set of chords, thus their arpeggios, work in any Key, Major or minor... it's about how you complete/close the augmented triad - diminished triads we add the 6th (bb7), just for the sake of comparison.

 

Last edited by a moderator: Sep 9, 2021

Some nice voicings indeed..

Specially the C(b6)(b5) on the second line,
and Emaj7#5, G#7#5 on the third..

I'm not a frequent user of augmented chords, just used them very puntually,
but it doesn't look too strange to me, and it would be a matter of the context to see if it's right/not..

So what's your point, whats the conundrum?
How doesn't this fit the Orthodox view?

Or whats the overall correlation you're seeing?

Some of it reminds me of wholetone, or harmonic major,
and some of it of more regular jazz or classical resources.. but I guess that's to be expected..

(And it's also interesting that you're including Minor chords in the mix,
I personally distinguish between aug/#5=major chords, b6=minor chords)

 

Last edited: Sep 9, 2021

I'm particularly fond of the augmented sound quality. It is dramatic, almost like a wail, begging to be appeased. In comparison to diminisheds, to me, it enhances and resolves the minor quality in a less obvious way.

They are hard to tame indeed.

Key of E / C#m:

B relative minor = G#m
E relative minor = C#m
A relative minor = F#m
D#° relative minor = Caug - That's a gateway on itself, alone working in 6 different keys straight away, and also all keys if properly worked.

Why? because the II (F#m) boasts a symmetrical minor mode in 5ths (not in 3rds like aug or b3s like dim), resulting to have a relative minor, which is a dim triad (D#°), which in turn has an aug triad as relative in order to balance the intervalic distances, as you hear-see in the examples.

Eaug = G#aug = Caug , so, Eaug receives the M7, G#aug receives b7 and Caug receives the M6 chromatically. They are paralell in b6s and oblique in their extensions.

Messiaen's modes of Limited Transposition brought me to this finding.

Yep. I avoid that as much as I can, once we're led to think minor because they absorb dissonances better given the intervalic structure, but I prefer sticking to Major most of the time and be more truthful to the origins. To me, music has always been Major, but midway we fell in love with its inversions once they're as useful as.

E-G#-C = E aug / E-G#-B-C = E(b6) inv CM7(#5)

E-G#-B-D# = EM7 / C#-E-G#-A = C#m(b6) inv AM7


Cheers

 

Information is like bricks. The more information you collect, the more it's like you've made a lot of bricks every day. This information you give is necessary, but you've forgot something.

• Is your goal in "1- storing bricks" or "2- building houses with these bricks"?
• When are you going to unveil one of those houses you've built with these bricks? Have you ever built a house?

I beg you not to dodge my question and give a reasonable answer or send one of those things with this build-up information to see how you used this information.

 

That's not appealing. Let's backtrack a little.
A caricature summary...
[1] You first mentioned an (alleged) difference between Dorian-ish and Dorian
[2] I expressed 'that sounds interesting' - more please?
[3] You provided a 'coded' example
[4] I accused your coded example of being too opaque - more explanation please
[5] You're offering a PhD thesis in another thread
[6] I am running for the exit - no thank you

[7] I propose the following...
Just a few paragraphs titled "The difference between Dorian-ish and Dorian is..."

1st paragraph
"In order for a piece of music to be regarded as Dorian-ish the following criteria apply
(or following rules need to be followed)"
- A few rules (in plain wordy English)
- (optional extra - would be nice) a few SIMPLE examples

2nd paragraph
"In order for a piece of music to be regarded as more than just Dorian-ish and actually as Dorian,
the following additional criteria apply (or following additional rules need to be followed)"
- A few rules (in plain wordy English)
- (optional extra - would be nice) a few SIMPLE examples

Note I emphasised SIMPLE. This bit of discussion is squarely in the 'building maps' part of the game.
It's not in the 'making music' part of the game.
Making really interesting music examples would just muddy our appreciation of what the simple rules are claiming to offer.

Also - this is NOT a challenge.
I'm just genuinely interested in whether there's a meaningful difference between Dorian-ish and Dorian that I can use.
And if so - what do you think it is?

p.s. Happy to see this digression de-prioritised below your current exchange with @Ŧยχøя
about parallel and oblique augmentation - that's more interesting.

How long's your 'to do' list now - I assume us bastards at AudioSex aren't paying you enough

 

i bet socrates had better analogies.

i am so happy for you, and your phony self-effacement. very heroic.

 

[QUOTE="Freetobestolen, post: 581046, member: 65855"

PS: I haven't forgotten about presenting "logical" cadences for other than I and vi.[/QUOTE]

and deceptive, false cadences, or interruptions. these extensions are of almost equal importance in the modern idiom -- just like chordal extensions. the 'usual' cadence is boring, or at least can/has become boring. a very important musical axiom: don't be boring.

 

Let's clear something up first. When you say degrees, you are contradicting this when you present them as roman numerals. Roman numerals refer specifically to chords built out of these degrees. The degrees are represented like this: 1, b2, 2, b3, 3, 4, #4, 5, b6, 6, b7, 7. I mean I guess you can represent degrees specifically in roman numerals too, but it's such a convoluted thing to do compared to arabic numerals which is how usually scales are described.

None of these degrees are unnatural what-so-ever.

Let's take b2 as an example. What is it used for? Here's a couple easy ones. First of all, it's a great thing to use in melodically when you want to descent specifically to tonic. Tritone substitutions are built on this degree, but you can use the logic elsewhere too (for instance, one of the three fully diminished chords will always have it as an option). It can also function as a non-specific CAT (chromatic approach tone). Basslines can commonly use it without necessarily implying any subV-I thing. For example, when going from IV to I, you can go 4-3-2-b2-1 melodically in the bass.

Lastly, this is a bit of a classical thing, but b2 is part of N6 chords. b2 has a natural pull towards 1 and previously all I said was about that specifically. N6 is interesting because it subverts that pull into a distinct sound by not doing it: instead of going to 1, it goes to 7. It can go it through 1 by going to Ger+6 first and then going to 7 during V - but nevertheless the voice isn't resolving during Ger+6. N6's however are usually a minor tonality thing.

This will generally give you an idea of how to use any tones as simple CAT's already. Each one of them has a pull to something based on the current tonal center (which means they are very much not unnatural).

If we're talking about the chords, most of these are pretty simple too. bVII is basically your dominant in rock music. And because they like fifth up motion, a fifth below bVII is bIII. And a fifth below bIII is bVI. So boom, bVI - bIII - bVII - I is pretty standard rock stuff. But you can also omit that bIII and go directly bVI - bVII - I because bVI is actually bVII/bVII. Cool, huh?

#IV is probably the rarest and most complicated chord to use, because arriving to it is pretty hard. You need to be in jazz/radiohead territory to really pull it off properly and it's almost definitively going to resolve to ii7b5/vi or IV. But #4 itself is easy to use because of its relative consonance; in idioms where dominant seventh chords are too spicy for tonic chords, typically #11 is your spiciest extension to use over tonic major chords. Some songs even end into maj9#11 chords (and some people really, really hate that).

So what's the point of all this? It's to say that I think modes are most boring thing ever - people seem to find so much intrigue about them but never actually describe what you can do besides describing some seemingly unrelated chords. I just get headache when people talk about "dorian" or whatever, when really, all of this stuff is just standard minor/major theory.

 

Agree totally with "don't be boring" axiom (in making actual music) - it trumps almost everything.

But I'll be totally fine with the building block illustrative examples being boring.
As I said in the other subtopic "Dorian-ish versus Dorian" ...

I prefer to see what the plain vanilla map building examples can illustrate without getting distracted by wonderful 'real musical embellishments' - those interesting embellishments can come later.

So, for example, if we were discussing a plain old fashioned cadence, then an explanation using just a straight [G7 -> C Major] example would do just fine. I think the gazillion musically interesting variations on that are not especially helpful in the first steps of a discussion.

But we're discussing what we've accidentally badly named as 'Modal Functional Harmony' - where straight V->I are the least interesting examples.

and @refix would like to see included in that...

As this will inevitably become more subtle, I already pushed harder for striving for simplicity in the discussions.
Hence my previous 'ultra-informal' earlier comment about modal functional harmony, the comment that earned me my precious throne and bog roll award. (which incidentally still hasn't been delivered! - where is it?).
Obviously too simple and too vague, but for a valid reason...

So, in real music - yes - @refix's important musical axiom "don't be boring" is perfect.
In explaining music theory basics - an equally important axiom - KISS - Keep It Simple Stupid" is a good idea (where viable).
I want to wear my dummy hat and find the theory that tries to teach my inner dummy.

 

Alright then, up to you...

However, fuck the script... I'm an improviser.

Check the attachs. Purist authentic Dorian. Self explanatory.

It may not seem as such but, there are lots of possibilities within these examples, all locked onto Dorian's qualitative sound.

Don't limit yourself playing the pentatonic arpeggio on Root position only. Use all the inversions throughout the fretboard/keyboard, therefore playing as of each tone/note.

Regarding the Triads, they were arranged in a way that you're able to play the sequence from each bar, but also vertically, meaning, the first from bar 1 up to the first from bar 5, and so on and so forth.

Regarding Dorian(ish)

Middle-ground: A beautiful usage of F# Dorian and B Dorian on top - as so would be Pink Floyd's "Shine on you crazy diamond" with some extras.

Typical: you may resort to the dead-beaten "Dorian cadence" i - IV (F#m -B), using the D#°7(b13) [D#-F#-A-C#-B] penta-arpeggio, its split voicings and derived triads over them - you have the template now.

Or go for Unison content... or should I say from Mak's FlushValve?

Everything I post is for free (to be stolen), but I'm no educator, as well as goodwill has its limits.


Cheers

 

Let's clear something up first. (just borrowing your erudite phrase)
If you looked a bit more carefully you will see that...
- no-one mentioned the word 'degree' anywhere
- we were discussing very specifically chords (not degrees)
- and even more explicitly 'fully diatonic only' chords.

I won't bother to rant about all the pros, cons and foibles of notational systems, especially the well out-of-date notation system that obsesses with describing everything as deviations from the intervals in a Major scale. I could picture Bartok vomitting at the anachronism of flats, naturals, and sharps getting in the way of describing his polymodal tonality.
So, suffice to say every Roman numeral used above in the discussion of diatonic cycle of fifths has referred explicitly to a chord
and (even more restricted) to fully diatonic chords only.

And no-one ever said they were.
So, while correct, that comment is not 'correcting' in any sense what-so-ever.
Again we are/were being very explicit about the core set of seven notes generally regarded as 'diatonic'
and other notes generally regarded as being used chromatically
- no one thinks "oh wow those chromatics are not natural".

---

Lots of other points in your comment much appreciated - like!

---

And now just pulling your leg...
You said...

As a Martian visiting this planet I have found the following few things especially interesting...
1) Music and Music Theory
2) The fable of the Emperor's new clothes
3) Gambling

I have seen that...
a) The classical world finds something interesting in Modes
b) The jazz world finds something interesting in Modes
c) The rock-pop world finds something interesting in Modes.
d) Many musicians in a music forum find something interesting in Modes.
e) Person X thinks modes are a waste of brain space.

So with my new found gambling skills.... I have to make a bet...
Are a), b), c), d) all deluded - and seeing the Emperor wearing imaginary new clothes?
whilst e) Person X is the only boy that can see the reality of the naked emperor?
OR
You know what - I think I'll just bet on the opposite.

and if I was person X - I hope I would hit myself on the head a few times to make sure I wasn't the one missing something.

 

One cannot make a Blind man appreciate Color..

 

@Freetobestolen
That's wonderful. You're definitely a great musician.

• What do you think of a little bit of work on the structure of music?
• Do you totally believe in the structure of music?
• What structure do you think can be suggested for your music with your extraordinary ability to play?

 

Huh, I was almost certain that the very first sentence in OP uses the word "degrees". Should I go to an optometrist?

There's some chords in that list that cannot even appear diatonically (such as #IV) so I'm kind of confused here? Like, #IV doesn't appear even in any of the seven modes - the degree appears in Lydian but the chord would require b2 and b7, neither of which exist in lydian?

Before that we had systems where you had to specify whenever something was in minor or major and you were expected to understand all that entailed. In Schenkerian analysis, even i and I are both just "I". No lowercase for minor. And both, vii diminished and bVII, would be just "VII". Imagine how confusing that is for people who aren't formally trained? The current convention, where major is seen as a pivot, is the modern system - exact opposite of "outdated".

I mean, I don't know if there's a system that exists to describe "polymodal tonality" but I can guarantee to you that if there is, it won't be applicable for most other kinds of music. Just like for example we don't generally describe chords in standard music as "pitch class sets" - which is what they do in atonal music. That has nothing to do with something being outdated though, unless you really think we can just create a single language that covers everything. I don't personally think that's possible.

Now I really need to go to an optometrist because I could almost swear that the very first sentence in OP says "unnatural" in quotation marks, right before the word "degrees" which apparently nobody also ever spoke of. I am concerned, indeed.

They generally don't. The only exception to this is if you're specifically studying early music, i.e. eras before Bach. For example, it's crucial to understand modes in the context of Gregorian chants if you want to understand how they work - because modes dictated some specific things about them. However, modern modes are very different in a few ways. These modes were constructed from hexachords, there were 6 of them alongside with their plagal counterparts. For example, modern "Aeolian" mode corresponds to what used to be "Dorian". And modern "Dorian" corresponds with what used to be "hypodorian".

But if you study classical harmony, modes are of no interest because it's all minor and major tonality. Both of which, by the way, mean little else than "your tonic is either minor or major". There's a concept called "modal interchange", except it means nothing else than "borrow from parallel minor/major". In classical world, you cannot "borrow from mixolydian" or whatever, it's meaningless.

Here you would be correct. In the 60's, when hardbop was starting to run on fumes, some of the jazzers wanted to explore new territory for musical expression. And they started to make new kind of tunes, these were known as "modal jazz", although they themselves called them as "modal studies". They were very different from jazz before that; they didn't really have any kind of chord progressions (well, compared to any other jazz idiom before that). A famous album in this category would be "Kind of Blue" by Miles Davis. It's a cool album - definitively genre defining even - but it's very different from vast majority of jazz.

So a framework was built to analyze this specific kind of jazz, called "chord-scale theory". Now I won't go into the details of this - but the point is that this particular framework has little to do with any kind of bebop jazz nor swing jazz. Most of jazz outside of bona fide modal jazz has nothing to do with modes.

Nope, not really. Rockers used chords like bIII, bVI and bVII a lot. How they came to these chords? Mostly by jamming on their guitars - modes unlikely were on their mind because they had no clue about music theory in the first place. After that, theorists reigned in to apply modal analysis onto rock, with the term "mixolydian" and "parallel minor" often being applied. However, the functional relationships are quite clear and you don't really need anything but minor/major to understand most of rock harmony. Exceptions would be for example Jimi Hendrix. Modes ain't gonna help you with concepts like "neutral third", though, that Ethan Hein for instance would argue for.

This is a great observation and quite correct. Sadly though, this interest in modes has more to do with just lack of understanding standard tonal harmony than it has to do with modes being useful. Things like bVII, the v-chord (as opposed to V) are all part of standard tonal harmony.

What happens often is that a person acquired somewhat an introductionary level of understanding about functional harmony and thinks that they now understand all of that. But because they really just have a beginner level of understanding, they're stuck with scales and don't understand at all how to get chromaticism or do something other than, like, Axis of Awesome progression.

So then they hear about these mysterious modes that most people have no idea about and think that they are a solution to all of their problems. And they either never get past their problems or eventually they might, but only because they practice enough tunes to learn a thing or two outside of modes.

My personal favorite is when freshman jazzers go crazy about chord-scale theory and really buy into the "ii = dorian, V = mixolydian, I = ionian" stuff. Once they graduate, if they ever want to get into jazz scenes, they'll have a lot of unlearning ahead of them because they won't be able to form phrases thanks to that funny framework.

But hey, what would I know - apparently I can't even read anymore since I see words where they allegedly are not used!

 

Four very simple questions:

1. How do you make music?
2. What things and what principles do you use?
3. Do you adhere to principles at all?
4. How do these principles help you?

Please describe in full detail. In the most detailed detail.

 

Well, I will unreservedly eat humble pie for the huge errors in my comment that you have rebutted completely.
ALL of my comments were based on where the conversation had been for the last several pages in which no-one (especially me) had even remotely transgressed into referring to unnatural degrees or labelling the degrees with roman numerals. It really did not occur to me to revisit the original post (which for me contributing to this thread is ancient history) and find those flaws posted from the outset.
So let me emphasise - MY ERROR - I APOLOGISE - and will eat any flavour of humble pie that's on offer.

---

Moving on...
My pulling your leg about the relevance of modes in various contexts classical, jazz, rock-pop, music forums, turned out to be very fruitful.
I really liked your micro essays about each of them and each of those micro-essays could trigger further discussion.
I don't propose to push any of that further myself but am very happy to acknowledge that your opening comments in each area are a really nice blend of facts, observations, and provocations - good stuff.
The area that I personally find most interesting is the rock-pop category. I accept your quickie historical account of rock musicians (me included) stumbling into the territory in a theory-clueless manner (but sometimes musically inspired), and your comment about how much of the trendy modal-flavoured analysis 'can be' accommodated using traditional major/minor harmony (often effortlessly).
But that doesn't mean that it 'should be' accommodated using traditional major/minor harmony. I think there are (increasingly) benefits to be had from migrating our analyses towards modal thinking for 'some' areas of rock-pop.

---

The mini topic of notational systems is truly a dog's breakfast.
You said...

Very regrettably - I agree. But that doesn't mean I just capitulate to the anachronistic mess we all find ourselves having to work with. I constantly see how our useful notation systems come at a price, a price that can be detrimental to our thinking and our communication.
As a very poor analogy...
I imagine an American scientist who visits her hardware store and buys items using feet, inches, pounds, ounces; then drives to work at NASA using miles per hour and finally gets to work where sanity prevails and she works with the metric system using grams, kilograms, meters, kilometers, etc.
As I said that's only a very poor analogy (and far too simple). But a very complex equivalent mess (or several messes) prevails in music. We're stuck with it and of course need to understand it, and know how to communicate using it.
But I absolutely don't need to "think with it" when engaging with music - because it's simply too restrictive.

...

Not my place to say this - but welcome to the thread!

Cheers

 

Last edited: Sep 11, 2021

It seems I lied about 'not pushing any of that further myself'.
There's a rant here that I couldn't resist (far too long - but hopefully informative)

I will not be claiming that anything you said there is incorrect - but I will be accusing it of being a misleading bias.

My rant is NOT addressed to @Fourier. I have just borrowed his comment as an excuse for a rant against any theorising which insists on keeping Major/minor harmony on an exclusive pedestal. I will accept that Major/minor theorising is brilliant, and traditional, and likely to remain more influential than its neglected modal cousin - and for good reason. But I totally reject being shoehorned into Major/minor analyses when modal equivalents are sometimes better suited - as is the case (for example) with lots of modern rock.

[1] "Modal interchange" - that's OK - a very valid idea

[2] Equivalent to "borrow from parallel minor/major"
That's OK - I agree it's just another way of saying the same thing as 'modal interchange'.

Apologies to anyone for whom this is unfamiliar jargon - just go look it up.
(there are some links in my first comment at the very beginning of this thread)

Let's use an explicit example to keep things clear.
Someone working in C Major can usefully borrow chords from C minor (or vice versa)

Let's not forget (for later) that this is just as accurately stated if I say
Someone working in C Ionian mode can borrow chords from C Aeolian mode (or vice versa)
So that's just chipping away a little from this Major/minor labelling hegemony
and starting to allow our modal perspective to get a fairer hearing.

[3] @Fourier said..

That's the bias creeping in - and I claim it is borderline 'simply wrong'.
I'll rephrase it first...
"In classical world (i.e., from an already biased perspective of major/minor) then the only valid borrowing is between major/minor."
Maybe that's true - but it's now starting to be revealed as a pointless tautology.

Now let's really unpack it, expose the bias, and see that, for example...
[4] Someone working in G Mixolydian mode can usefully borrow chords from G Phrygian mode (or vice versa)
[5] Someone working in F Lydian mode can usefully borrow chords from F Dorian mode (or vice versa)

And why do they work? (should be bleedingly obvious)
Look at the four examples below and see that all four are essentially just 4 different perspectives on the exact same diatonic game.
1) C Major can borrow chords from C minor
2) C Ionian can borrow chords from C Aeolian. Exactly same as 1) (just different words!)
3) G Mixolydian can borrow chords from G Phrygian
4) F Lydian can borrow chords from F Dorian
They are all essentially THE EXACT SAME DIATONIC TRICK - but viewed from different modal perspectives.

Explaining the same (in rant mode) in even more detail...
Let's pick (as I already have) just one diatonic space from the 12 available pitches.
I choose the seven white notes on a piano.
That's a real object - a diatonic space - Let's call this [Diatonic-Space-1]
Classical bias wants to call this C Major or A minor (fair enough)
But I can also describe it accurately from 7 different (less biased) perspectives
C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, B Locian
(each of these perspectives might be appropriate and useful in different contexts)

Now let's pick another diatonic space
Let's deliberately choose the diatonic space that is 3 semitones higher than all the white notes
Let's call this [Diatonic-Space-2]
Classical bias wants to call this Eb Major or C minor (fair enough)
But I can also describe it accurately from 7 different (less biased) perspectives
Eb Ionian, F Dorian, G Phrygian, Ab Lydian, Bb Mixolydian, C Aeolian, D Locian

It should be obvious why I chose the second diatonic space as 3 semitones higher than the white notes.
This allowed me to fit in with the classic bias
and have [Diatonic-Space-1 as C Major] and [Diatonic-Space-2 as C minor]

The main point here is this...
Modal interchange is useful between [Diatonic-Space-1] and [Diatonic-Space-2]
It is NOT something special about classic Major borrowing from classic parallel minor
That Major/minor borrowing is just ONE perspective - and definitely NOT the only valid perspective.

To really push the point to its limits I could say this...
ANY one of these 7 modes...
from [Diatonic-Space-1] C Ionian, D Dorian, E Phrygian, F Lydian, G Mixolydian, A Aeolian, B Locian
can borrow chords from ANY one of these 7 modes...
from [Diatonic-Space-2] Eb Ionian, F Dorian, G Phrygian, Ab Lydian, Bb Mixolydian, C Aeolian, D Locian
It works because in EVERY CASE it is always just [Diatonic-Space-1] borrowing chords from [Diatonic-Space-2].

So where would it be sensible to use this chord borrowing?
The classical bias context is probably the BEST example
C Major (Ionian) borrowing from C minor (Aeolian) - it's superb - no wonder we're biased!
But just because it's the most traditional example does NOT make it unique - or even fundamental.

Imagine I'm in a rock band playing a song that is absolutely anchored to G7 as its HOME
then here's why I want that classic Major/minor bias to just f*#k off!

Firstly, the classic major/minor bias is probably going to screw up trying to tell me what key I'm in.
What might it say?

Option 1) "Hey that G7 is in the key of C Major so you're playing in C Major"
A suitable reply to that is "Bollox - I'm playing in G. G is my obvious tonal home"
(Rock has no loyalty to resolving to traditional tonics. A G7 chord is a comfortable place to live - it's already home!)

Option 2) "Well then you're playing in G Major but your G Major chord is altered to a G7" (I've heard crazier!)
"Bollox again - I'm playing in G - and it just so happens that I'm playing in G Mixolydian mode"

Finally back to the original complaint...
The major/minor biased view says...
"But if you're playing in Mixolydian mode you can't do modal interchange because that only works with Major/minor"

"Well Bollox for a 3rd (and final) time - if I want to borrow chords from the minor that is parallel to my G Mixolydian mode I'll borrow them from G Phrygian mode."
And that's really no big deal at all. To a modern rock guitarist, these tricks are all just bloody obvious (even if the theory is ignored!)
Because it's just the exact same damn trick as classical borrowing between Major/ minor.

I rest my case

=============

On a separate point...
@Fourier said...

An interesting opinion. I'd need a separate rant to discuss that. At first glance I think those comments are far too cynical about chord-scale theory. I would agree that if someone has been taught this as their only entry point into improvisation then that would be a deficit, but that's only a criticism of 'missing out' on other things they should have also learned, voice leading, and just building a vocabulary, etc.
Ignoring any contributions or harms that chord-scale theory might make for teaching improvising, I think chord-scale theory can be a really invaluable part of the map building game.
Metaphorically - It can tell you where you are irrespective of whether it contributes anything about how or where to go.
Disclaimer: I have never actually studied chord-scale theory so I have no idea what the culture is like where it's taught. I peeked at it ages ago, and just thought it seemed to align well with what I already thought about how modal perspectives are useful.

 

To answer most of these questions in "most detailed detail" would take far more time than its worth for me, and to read it all would take you far more time than its worth either. Especially the first question.

1. I work with a songwriter and the actual process can be... a whole lot of things. All might start from a silly idea that I'll try to execute, or just messing around loosely and shaping something (perhaps a chord progression, a bassline, a particular melody, drums, a synth sound). Or it might be goal-oriented from the get-go, where I have a plan and try to execute it. Nevertheless, the songwriter is big part of it, as she does her parts mostly and at most I would just adjust them slightly.

2. A DAW and a keyboard. I don't really know what "principles" means in this context. All I can think of is that I think parts of a song should flow well from one to another well. So, to this end, I might use a lot of modulation, secondary dominants and what have you. But even that depends on the tune.

The other 2 questions, I honestly have no idea how to answer them. I don't find creative process in music as something that is very "principled" beyond some trivial things like... you want your songs to make some kind of sense. But people do that subconsciously anyway; most of us use repetition, form melodic phrases that act as actual phrases and so forth. There are some genres of music that don't necessarily do that, but that's their business really.

 

Not really, because "C ionian" isn't the same as "C major". The reason you're thinking like this is because you're mixing up C major scale (that is identical to C ionian scale) with the C major tonality. Tonality however means something else. In classical sense, tonality is something strictly established through a V-I / V-i cadence. Major scale just happens to contain all the primary chords of C major tonality (I - IV - V). But when it comes to minor, minor does not contain the primary chords because it lacks the leading tone and as such, there is no V without chromatic alteration. Despite the fact, minor scale exists as it is - because it's not the same as minor tonality.

Sometimes three different scales are used to try and explain common conventions in minor tonality. Harmonic minor to explain V, melodic minor to avoid the augmented second leap between the flat sixth and the seventh degrees. But these just make things mostly more confusing for people.

When you borrow something from parallel minor / major, the point is that whatever you borrow also functions the way it normally would. bVI functions as a predominant, bVII functions as a weak dominant and... well, bIII doesn't really have that kind of clear function to it, to be honest. It doesn't really come into play usually in major tunes except in rock. Even in minor tonality, bIII tends to cause a lot of controversy now to think of it, because some people hear it as modulation rather than tonicization.

Your whole post from this point on just becomes rather... weird. Sure, you can look at things through "different modal spaces". Hell, you could define the whole chromatic scale as a simple cyclical group with mod 12 and start describing musical structures purely in mathematical terms. It's not about whenever you can or can not do that. The question is: what benefit is there in doing so?

And that's sadly what your post does not answer. I see a lot of unheard terminology like "diatonic space" that induces a headache. I'm sure all of that means something to you, but... you're not really showing me where exactly does the minor/major paradigm fail supposedly. What exactly is not possible within it, that somehow becomes possible with these "diatonic spaces"?

Only thing you seem to note is that "you're playing in G7 so you're playing in G mixolydian". But uh... your tonic is a major chord, is it not? So would that then not mean that you're playing in major? Sure, you can call it mixolydian as much as you like, but if a G major chord specifically is the tonal center, then that is your tonality. If you wish to decorate it with a b7, then by all means.

By the way, have you ever wondered why they use 7 rather than maj7 in some of rock and a whole lot of blues? It has to do with the fact that the minor seventh is less dissonant than major seventh. Not only is the maj7 a leading tone in context of tonic chords, it also has a very awful interaction with the root note when heavy amount of distortion becomes involved.

If the basic premise of it teaches that ionian is great for a tonic chord, you know just how bad it is. Ionian is so much worse than lydian because of the dissonance between perfect fourth and the major third - it's not even funny. In some rock, the fourth is actually used alongside with the third. But in jazz? Boy, you're gonna get probably vibed for doing that unless the perfect fourth is a passing tone moving down to the third. If moving to fifth, #4 is always a nicer option anyway.

To be fair, 4 is considered "avoid note" in that framework in the context of ionian. But this just goes to show the inconsistency from the very beginning; you have lydian which clearly supports tonic sonority much better than ionian, and yet ionian is used because... I don't honestly even know.

It doesn't actually have anything to do with modality though. The point of it is to just give you some scales to play with in various different chords to get different kind of flavors supposedly over those chords. It's mostly there because such theory is aimed at performers specifically and lot of the theory oriented towards performers is kind of half-baked "music hacks" theory. "Here's your notes to play, these two are the guide tones and this / these are the avoid notes that you should handle with care. Good luck in the big apple!"

It's similar thing to guitar theory. "Modes" in guitar theory refer specifically to shapes on the fretboard but have nothing to do with actual modes. But it's useful because it makes the fretboard more accessible sadly - since trying to visualize fretboard purely in intervals is just really hard (or at least is for me - it's super easy in keyboard). However, as a byproduct, there's now endless amount of guitarists who think modes are now some holy grail of music and start seeing them everywhere, especially in places where there is none.

 

Last edited: Sep 11, 2021