G Dorian
Thomas
G represent? Is that the key or tonal center? If someone asked me what the
notes are in a G dorian scale the only way I could show them would be to
think of what major scale has a G note as it's second degree and that would
be F major. Seems everyone has a different opinion on modes but I was just
curious as too what exactly would the G represent in the term G dorian?
Thomas
Master Betty
"Thomas" <what...@whatever.com> wrote in message
news:hfojoj$b8o$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
"The resulting scale is, however, minor (or has a minor "feel" or character)
because as the "G" becomes the new tonal centre the minor third between the
G and the Bb make us "hear minor". If we build a chord on the tonic, third
and fifth, it is a minor chord."
Jim
Mr. Green
The G is the first note of the scale so G dorian is built from the F
major scale.
I like your approach of relating modes back to a major scale. I also
do this 'cause I don't see the point of learning seperate patterns
when, you all ready know fingerings and chords that relate to a major
scale. Just bear in mind what Master Betty touched on. Playing in G
dorian over a G minor chord makes the important chord tones G, Bb and
D. This means licks that work for F major may emphasis the wrong notes
to work well in G dorian.
green
David Raleigh Arnold
> If someone says to you, "I need you to play G Dorian", what exactly does
> the G represent? Is that the key or tonal center?
"G Dorian" is *not* a key. Keys are tonality and exclusively major or
minor mode.
G is the tonality.
Dorian is the mode.
It should be written in G minor, using one accidental, unless you want
to show off and confuse your reader. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Lumpy
> G is the tonality.
>
> Dorian is the mode.
>
> It should be written in G minor, using one accidental, unless you want
> to show off and confuse your reader. Regards, daveA
G dorian is very traditionally notated in the key of one flat (F).
Not in the key of two flats (Gm) and then using a natural E
as an accidental.
Talk about confusing your reader!
Modes (the 7 Greek or church modes) are
"Modes of the diatonic scale". G dorian is
the 2nd mode of the F diatonic scale.
All seven modes of the F diatonic scale are
notated within that same F diatonic scale key, one flat.
Just as we notate the A aeolean mode in the key of C,
and the C ionian mode in the key of C, the other five
modes of the C diatonic scale are also notated in the key of C,
no sharps or flats.
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Something Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
David Raleigh Arnold
I would never do it that way now, although I did it in the past
before I knew any better. The reason is that the use of one accidental,
preserving the major/minor modal system, is better because you have the
right tonality according to the key signature, which is less
confusing for sure. daveA
Mr. Green
> better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I find there's nothing confusing about modes. G dorian is the second
mode of the F major scale. So I find a tune that has a key signature
of one flat, it sound minor and resolves to G, I would have no trouble
recognising that as G dorian.
A key signature of two flats and an accidental on every E sounds like
a lot of unnecessary reading. A beginner would probably not appreciate
the subtleties of your case.
Green
Lumpy
> > > > It should be written in G minor,
> > > > using one accidental, unless
> > > > you want to show off and confuse your reader.
Lump:
> > > G dorian is very traditionally notated in the key of one flat
> > > (F). Not in the key of two flats (Gm) and then using a natural
> > > E as an accidental.
> > > Talk about confusing your reader!
DRA:
> > I would never do it that way now, although I did it in the past
> > before I knew any better. The reason is that the use of one
> > accidental, preserving the major/minor modal system, is better
> > because you have the right tonality according to the key
> > signature, which is less confusing for sure.
Mr Green:
> I find there's nothing confusing about modes. G dorian is the second
> mode of the F major scale. So I find a tune that has a key signature
> of one flat, it sound minor and resolves to G, I would have no trouble
> recognising that as G dorian.
>
> A key signature of two flats and an accidental on every E sounds like
> a lot of unnecessary reading.
I certainly agree with Green. Seeing any key signature does not
imply any kind of Major or minor tonalilty. We certainly have no
problem seeing one flat and embracing the Dm tonality. There
should be no problem thinking of G dorian as being in the
obvious key signature of one flat.
Again, always keep in mind that the seven church modes are
"Modes of the diatonic scale". So they belong to that diatonic
scale. G dorian is not related to the diatonic scale of Bb.
It's related to the diatonic scale of F. The diatonic scale
of F (and of G dorian) should logically be notated in the
key signature of F Maj (one flat).
It would make no more sense to do that than it would be to
write something in the key of F but notate it in the key
of Bb, and including a natural accidental on every Eb that
appears in the score.
As Green suggests, writing in one key and then adding natural
accidentals at every occurrance of one of the key sig'd flats
is certainly a very confusing practice.
"This piece is in the Tonality of C Maj but to avoid confusion,
I notated it in the key of C# (seven sharps). You'll
see an accidental flat on every note to help sort out
the confusion. Be careful on the E#b in measure seven."
David Raleigh Arnold
A cogent reason for the major/minor system in the first place was
that any usable transposed mode could be acquired with the use of *one*
accidental. Because of that, the old usage was to consider that
there were three major and three minor modes. Minor keys are
well larded with raised 7ths, and even sixths, anyway, so the
imposition of a single accidental is a small price to pay for
not having to f* with a completely bogus and obsolete modal
system. Realistically, even with a six mode system, the raised
7th degree would often be used in most of the modes, to provide
dom7 harmony, as in the harmonic minor. For all of these reasons,
the medieval modal system *was discarded*. The reasons are still
good and the logic and practicality of the major/minor system
are still unassailable.
If you must use a six mode system, at least use the numbers
of Glarean, as Bach and his immediate predecessors did, rather
than the historically dubious Greek names. People who spout
Greek names must enjoy their sticks too much to remove them.
Glarean invented the 7th mode, the "Locrian". It was never
Greek, never used, and it is unusable without an accidental.
Lose the Greek names! Remove your sticks! Send them to
the boys of Berklee! Regards, daveA
Derek
..."I need you to play G Dorian"... Simply play a G natural minor
scale with a natural 6.
Natural minor is spelled 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, b6, b7.
Dorian is the "brightest" of minors, and is spelled 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6,
b7.
You can see the modes by their formulae as above, or you can relate
them back to their parent scale, in this case, F major.
I find it easier to get aquainted with each mode's character by
knowing how it is spelled rather than doing the headwork of figuring
out what major scale it belongs to.
YMMV
Tony Done
"David Raleigh Arnold" <d...@openguitar.com> wrote in message
news:44VTm.62593$de6....@newsfe21.iad...
And Lumpy. What about chords? If it was G Dorian, would I be looking first
for chords that use the notes of the F major scale - Gm, Dm, Am, F, Bb, C?
If that is true, then thinking of it as a "version" of the Fmaj scale makes
sense to me.
Tony D
RichL
The classic (rock) example of a song written in Dorian mode is Cream's
"Badge". It's A Dorian in this case, and you can see precisely how the
chords you mention (properly transposed to Am, Em, Bm, G, C, D) are
worked in.
Here's a YouTube video of Eric Clapton playing the song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qeNTZzf_BKI
The chorus reverts back to the G major tonality (chords: C, G, D) as
does the extended lead break, which isn't in the recorded Cream version
(but I couldn't find that). But the chords in the verses perfectly
reflect what's going on in Dorian mode:
(Am D Em) x 2
C Am Bm Am9
Tony Done
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cMmdnfF8XOTk9bzW...@supernews.com...
From that it looks as if my surmise is right - that I'm (not necessarily DRA
and his disciples) better off thinking of it as a "shifted" version of the
major scale - A Dorian = G major in your example.
Tony D
Master Betty
"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:uZdUm.61619$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Since we're on the subject:
http://cafesaxophone.com/jazz-dorian.html
Badge: What a great tune!
Jim
David Raleigh Arnold
The "headwork" consists in knowing whether the third degree or median
is a major or minor third from the tonic. The three minor modes
had a minor third. The three major modes had a major third.
Oooh, it's sooo hard...
Lumpy
> And Lumpy. What about chords? If it was G Dorian, would I be looking
> first for chords that use the notes of the F major scale - Gm, Dm,
> Am, F, Bb, C? If that is true, then thinking of it as a "version" of
> the Fmaj scale makes sense to me.
Every other note of the scale that you're working in.
Just like you'd do in a traditional key/scale/tonal center.
I think it's always helpful, when trying to understand modes,
to think of the simple relative minor. In the key of C, Am
is the relative minor. Same key sig, same notes, same chords.
Disregard for a moment that we often deliberately break the
rule and come out of the diatonic scale (use the V Maj etc).
If we stay theoretical, the notes of the Am scale are
A B C D E F G (A) same notes as the C Maj scale.
So the chords are formed the same way.
The i chord is A C E the iv is D F A the V is E G B etc.
So I'd say "yes" to your way of thinking. The G dorian
mode uses the same chords as it's parent diatonic
scale, F Maj.
David Raleigh Arnold
> On 9 Dec, 16:37, "Thomas" <whate...@whatever.com> wrote:
>> If someone says to you, "I need you to play G Dorian", what exactly
>> does the G represent? Is that the key or tonal center? If someone
>> asked me what the notes are in a G dorian scale the only way I could
>> show them would be to think of what major scale has a G note as it's
>> second degree and that would be F major. Seems everyone has a
>> different opinion on modes but I was just curious as too what exactly
>> would the G represent in the term G dorian?
>>
>> Thomas
>
> The G is the first note of the scale so G dorian is built from the F
> major scale.
The first mode was the only one that had the intervals above and below in
symmetry. IMO that note was the "middle" note in the Greek system.
wwhwwwhwIwhwwwhwwhwwwhww
Later this diapason defgabcd or mode I was equated with the Greek
"Dorian" mode.
IMO the Church modes and the Greek modes were the same, because notes
within the tetrachord ascended the way they do now, but the tetrachords
themselves were numbered like strings, as if on a guitar, with the
highest tetrachord having the lowest pitch. IMO that caused the
false belief that the Church modes were upside down, the Dorian being the
Greek Phrygian for example. Regards, daveA
RichL
Yes, that's the simplest interpretation, and it's the conventional one
(Dave A. notwithstanding).
Derek
>The "headwork" consists in knowing whether the third degree or median
>is a major or minor third from the tonic. The three minor modes
>had a minor third. The three major modes had a major third.
>Oooh, it's sooo hard...
>Regards, daveA
Didn't say it was hard, just would rather not make that mental step.
I prefer to view all the minors (except melodic) as versions of
natural minor.
I see the b2, b5, natural or b6, natural and b7 as different colors.
Or you can go Martino and minorize everything.
It all comes out about the same either way.
Tony Done
Heh, I had very useful insight while listening to Eric play the lead, and
noodling about with him. - You can build a lead break from the Am Bm and Em
pentatonics. No off-notes as far as I can figure out.
Tony D
Mr. Green
> "RichL" <rpleav...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Yep, as those are the three minor chords built from the G major scale,
put all the notes together and all you have is the G major scale or A
dorian in this case. If you drop the third note from your pentatonic
minor patterns (e.g. drop the D from the Am pent) you are left with
minor seven arppegios. What do you think?
Green
RichL
Nope, there shouldn't be. Keep in mind that if you rearrange the notes
in a minor pent you get a major pent, Bm -> D, Am -> C, Em -> G, so
another way to look at it is that you're playing major pent runs along
with the corresponding D, C, and G chords in the lead break.
No matter how you slice it, it's a manifestation that the "key" is G.
RichL
I think you should add a 9th in there once in a while for a bit of
*flash*.
Mr. Green
>
> - Show quoted text -
Seconded
Green
Charmed Snark
> DRA:
>> > > > It should be written in G minor,
>> > > > using one accidental, unless
>> > > > you want to show off and confuse your reader.
>
> Lump:
>> > > G dorian is very traditionally notated in the key of one flat
>> > > (F). Not in the key of two flats (Gm) and then using a natural
>> > > E as an accidental.
>
>> > > Talk about confusing your reader!
>
..
> Mr Green:
>> I find there's nothing confusing about modes. G dorian is the second
>> mode of the F major scale. So I find a tune that has a key signature
>> of one flat, it sound minor and resolves to G, I would have no trouble
>> recognising that as G dorian.
>>
>> A key signature of two flats and an accidental on every E sounds like
>> a lot of unnecessary reading.
>
> I certainly agree with Green. Seeing any key signature does not
> imply any kind of Major or minor tonalilty. We certainly have no
> problem seeing one flat and embracing the Dm tonality. There
> should be no problem thinking of G dorian as being in the
> obvious key signature of one flat.
> Lumpy
Even a Dm song (written with just the Bb), is going to
have additional accidentals through it.
The melodic minor scale being frequently used will
raise (natural) the 6th and 7th ascending and
flatten the 6th and 7th when descending.
No key signature is going to eliminate accidentals
for the 6th and 7ths, unless the melodic minor is
purposely avoided.
A song in Dorian perhaps paints a different picture.
But since the G Dorian scale uses the Fmaj
"tones", it would seem most appropriate to start
there, me thinks, for the key signature. Add the
accidentals as necessary to bend the rules as
appropriate for the modal piece.
Snark.
one_riff_brian
My short answer would be that "Dorian" means notes 0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12
of the chromatic scale, and "G" sets the pitch of notes 0 and 12. I've
never understood the rush to explain it in terms of a tweaked major
scale. I'm more interested in what it sounds like- Wikipaedia lists
"Drunken Sailor" and "Scarborough Fair" on the strength of one note,
and a fragment of "Eleanor Rigby". Are there any better showpieces for
the Dorian Scale?
Tony Done
"one_riff_brian" <brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:da63fc7e-1a18-4563...@c34g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
I remember reading somewhere that Duane Allman used Dorian mode a lot. Maybe
that could lead you to some modern stuff.
I can't play either Drunken sailor or Scarborough Fair, but I'll have a go
using the knowledge the chords should be from the F major/Dm scale. (15
minutes later) It works, the chords for SC are from the F/Dm scale. So, I
still like the scalar approach rather than thinking about the intervals.
Each to his own.
Tony D
David Raleigh Arnold
So now the key signature denotes six modes instead of two, and
you haven't saved that much trouble with accidentals.
Sounds like a dumb idea to me. That's why *everyone* stopped
doing it that way almost 300 years ago. Regards, daveA
Lumpy
> My short answer would be that "Dorian" means notes 0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12
Note 0?
Lumpy
> So now the key signature denotes six modes instead of two...
Seven
Ion
Dori
Phryg
Lyd
Myxolyd
Aeol
Locr
Those are the seven Greek modes of the diatonic scale.
David Raleigh Arnold
You should know that the "Locrian" mode was never Greek, and
is completely bogus. Before Glarean invented it, it was
never used, and it could not be used afterward without a Bb.
The Greeks had no flat, and only six modes. Regards, daveA
Lumpy
> You should know that the "Locrian" mode was never Greek, and
> is completely bogus. Before Glarean invented it, it was
> never used, and it could not be used afterward without a Bb.
> The Greeks had no flat, and only six modes. Regards, daveA
The 7 modes of the diatonic scale are called
"the Greek Modes" and/or "the Church modes"
even as they came into being under different
names.
7 string Lyres had the notes A B C D E F G.
Not necessarily the same frequencies we call
them today, but the relative intervals were
of valance.
Who was the Greek guy, Athenius? Didn't he
call it hyperaeolean? Weren't several of
the modes referred to as hypo something
or hyper something? Seems everything was
related to the aeolean at first.
I'm not sure what you mean by "before Glarean
it was never used" and I really don't understand
what you mean by "could not be used afterward
without a Bb"
Maybe I just never wanted to be that good in modes.
I just want to be a garage moder.
Mr. Green
He's a version of Scarborough Fair. A great dorian tune. There is a
lot of flok music which is based on modes. Dorian and mixolydian seem
to be the most popular.
The common use of mixolydian in folk music, seems to support the idea
that, the origins of the blues is closely related to the folk must
sung by sailors.
http://harpisticpublications.com/Samples/scarboroughfair.html
Green
Derek
> I'm more interested in what it sounds like- Wikipaedia lists
>"Drunken Sailor" and "Scarborough Fair" on the strength of one note,
>and a fragment of "Eleanor Rigby". Are there any better showpieces for
>the Dorian Scale?
Listen to Carlos Santana. He mixes Dorian and Pent Minor
constantly.
He is always the person I think of when someone mentions Dorian.
Charmed Snark
news:%5AVm.50784$cX4....@newsfe10.iad:
But you can't win on the 6th and 7th anyway, which was
my point. They will almost always be flippin' between
natural and flattened.
Using a different key signature buys you no further
advantage because you'll be using accidentals for
the 6th and 7th in any key signature.
If they stayed constant, which it might in some
tunes, then I can see your point.
Snark.
Charmed Snark
> one_riff_brian wrote:
>> My short answer would be that "Dorian" means notes 0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12
>> of the chromatic scale...
>
> Note 0?
> Lumpy
Note 0 is the only note for which there
is no harmonic for.
0 x 2 => 0.
It also plays clean thru the fuzz box.
Snark.
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> You should know that the "Locrian" mode was never Greek, and is
>> completely bogus. Before Glarean invented it, it was never used, and
>> it could not be used afterward without a Bb. The Greeks had no flat,
>> and only six modes. Regards, daveA
>
> The 7 modes of the diatonic scale are called "the Greek Modes" and/or
> "the Church modes" even as they came into being under different names.
Not different names, IMO. I already explained how that happened.
The tetrachords went down, but the notes went up.
>
> 7 string Lyres had the notes A B C D E F G.
That's a kithara.
The lyre was originally apparently a kind of guitar (four strings). At
some point during their "dark age" the Greeks mixed the names of the lyra
and kithara up. A tetrachord was a string with four notes on it. The
notes went up, but the strings were numbered upside down, the way
beginners occasionally want to number them now. Of course the
keyboardists who write the textbooks can't understand that, so they
mistakenly believe that the Greek modes and Church modes were
different. They were, but not in the names, not insofar as they
were scales. IMO.
> Not necessarily the same
> frequencies we call them today, but the relative intervals were of
> valance.
They didn't use letters either.
>
> Who was the Greek guy, Athenius? Didn't he call it hyperaeolean? Weren't
> several of the modes referred to as hypo something or hyper something?
> Seems everything was related to the aeolean at first.
Hyperaeolean mode would refer to bcdefgab? But Glarean called it
Locrean, and he *had the Bb* to play with. Therefore it's not
equivalent, and it's bogus. He just made it up.
Notice that if the Greek modes and Church modes had different names,
then the hyperaeolean is not what you are saying. I never heard of
hyperaeolean.
Hypo was the note below, hyper above. Hyper and hypo could refer to the
tetrachord above or below instead of the first note in referencing
modes. See? Nothing helps.
There are *very* few Greek historical sources, all fragmentary. Three, I
believe. I *do not* believe that the Greeks were so inept that they could
not find the middle note, (mese). That would make mese equivalent
to a D, just like now.
>
> I'm not sure what you mean by "before Glarean it was never used"
How could it have been used before it was invented? There were six
modes, not considering the implications for tonality, which should
not be ignored historically but is totally ignored by the Berklee
"garage moders".
"Garage moders". I like that a lot.
> and I
> really don't understand what you mean by "could not be used afterward
> without a Bb"
You can't write anything using all of the notes of the mode bcdefgab and
ending on B. Improvise, try it. It always needs to end on c, becoming
major. With a Bb, it becomes equivalent to old mode III. You can play
"I'm Looking Over" in that transposed mode, melody only, not the chords.
What good that would do in a jazz rendition I can't imagine. Of course
ILOAFLC was actually written in a *major* key with the necessary
accidental, not in "Lydian mode", because the guy that wrote it was
not an idiot.
> Maybe I just never wanted to be that good in modes. I just want to be a
> garage moder.
There is no "there" there. There is some benefit IMO in
understanding the historical modal system if you play old music, but that
Berklee modal stuff is just 100 pct BS. Just use major and minor, a
sharp or flat if you like, and all that Greek name crap can be sent down
the tube where it belongs.
The best musicians in historical times, maybe all of them before the
invention of major and minor keys, used Glarean's numbers instead
of the Greek names. The numbers are really more important than the
names.
I've decided to add the pre-Glarean medieval modal system with the
old numbers (defg=1234) in addition to the later defg=1357 to my
unfinished (but useful) theory pages. Don't ask when.
The reason for Glarean's change in the numbering system is speculation,
but there is no question that Glarean's version of the system was
transitional from the medieval system to the modern system of major
and minor. dae[b bb]fcg=1234567. I was unduly concerned with the why,
and since I had no answer, I made a choice and worked with the more
popular system. Now I think that was a mistake. It's much clearer
tracking the changes than the reasons for them. Regards, daveA
Lumpy
> You can't write anything using all of the notes of the mode bcdefgab
"Can't write anything" seems a bit rigid.
The bumpers I used to play between cop shows like
MacMillan and Wife or Columbo were typically something
like -
"Play a little locrian something that lasts 4 beats
and keep looping it. About this fast..."
Still not getting your comment about the Bb.
David Raleigh Arnold
Like I said.
>
> Using a different key signature buys you no further advantage because
> you'll be using accidentals for the 6th and 7th in any key signature.
Like I said.
*Therefore* it makes the most sense to stick with major and minor,
corresponding to the key signature. Regards, daveA
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> You can't write anything using all of the notes of the mode bcdefgab
>> and ending on B...
>
> "Can't write anything" seems a bit rigid.
Not rigid enough. Can't play anything that ends on B. Try it.
>
> The bumpers I used to play between cop shows like MacMillan and Wife or
> Columbo were typically something like -
> "Play a little locrian something that lasts 4 beats and keep looping it.
> About this fast..."
Precisely. Your director didn't want an ending. Without an ending,
there is no /tonus/. Without a /tonus/ the mode is not defined.
>
> Still not getting your comment about the Bb.
bcdefgab="locrian", useless, not used.
bb cdefga bb="locrian" but transposes to "lydian". You must have
the flat to use it, and since transposition was just starting the
modes were beginning to resemble keys.
If you only had six notes in a chant, you could make it higher
or lower to accommodate the voices' range by choosing the other mode
having those steps, just as you can play a hexatonic tune in
either of two keys on a diatonic harmonica. Those were the
only choices of key that you had. The mode *was* the tonality
as well. With a sharp and flat, you can do any of three keys with any
diatonic seven note tune.
Tony Done
"Lumpy" <lu...@digitalcartography.com> wrote in message
news:7oq7puF...@mid.individual.net...
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> You can't write anything using all of the notes of the mode bcdefgab
>> and ending on B...
>
that starts on E?
Tony D
Sean
A way to get some of that Carlosity: Move up two frets from the pent
minor "box" that guys get stuck in. Say you're playing Evil Ways (Gm D
over and over except where it does something different). Move up a
couple of frets from your pent box. Whether you start playing on the D
note or the E note or whatever, just play notes from the F major scale.
Play them them with your eyes sort of squinty and the rest of you
looking like you're in the middle of taking a good dump, and you will be
on your way to Carlosity.
I think this might well be the Dorian mode you hear tell of round these
parts.
Periodically go back to the pent box to remind everyone that you're
playing rock music.
Note: The way to figure out what the notes of the F major scale are:
Find the F note. It's the one right after E. Starting there, play Do Re
Mi etc. That's the F major scale.
Sean
Maybe I should have played more 0 notes in Don't Tell Me What to Do and
people would have liked it more.
Lumpy
> How useful is the mode (which
> is?) that starts on E?
You can use it to make a career potted
plant gig in a Mexi restaurant.
El Lumpo
In Your Ears for 40 Something Anos
www.LumpyMusic.com
Tony Done
Mexi? I'll have to think about that, or are you having me on? Did a bit of
checking, big hair and spandex might be the go.
Tony D
RichL
Did a quick YouTube search....the metal guys seem to use it a lot.
This example's a little more on the jazzy side:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgpLzDX_ZFU
Lumpy
> Mexi? I'll have to think about that,
> or are you having me on? Did a
> bit of checking, big hair and spandex might be the go.
I'm guessing that "having me on" means "kidding".
No, Phryg mode does a great "flamingo music"
at the local mexican place. Learn to play
(or fake) a trill on the 1st string and
you can play a 3 hr version of "Mellogainya".
Lumpy
In Your Ears for 40 Something Years
www.LumpyMusic.com
Tony Done
I use Malagena as the intro for Hotel California, but I can't see the mode,
or even the key in it, because it includes eg F#, G and A major chords with
Hotel California starting on Bm.. The other chords in HC are Em, E, A, F#
and D.
Tony D
Lumpy
> I use Malagena as the intro for Hotel California, but I can't see the
> mode, or even the key in it, because it includes eg F#, G and A major
> chords with Hotel California starting on Bm.. The other chords in HC
> are Em, E, A, F# and D.
The real one isn't Phryg.
I'm talking about playing "flamingo" music.
Something that sounds flashy-latin while
people with little kids eat burritos.
As Tommy used to say "You're not playing for
the Argentinian consulate".
Tony Done
As I remember TT's articles in Guitar Player (?), he was a great
believer in practicalities and playing chords on the middle four
strings. But putting flamingos aside for the moment , what key, mode,
planet etc would you put my Malagena/HC in?
Tony D
one_riff_brian
> He's a version of Scarborough Fair. A great dorian tune.
Sage, Rosema-RY- and Thyme")
Eleanor Rigby puts on a face THAT she KEEPS in a jar by the door.
After that, she drops back into Aeolian.
Derek- I'll check out some Santana... but isn't pentatonic minor
(0,3,5,7,10,12) a subset of the notes in Dorian(0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12).
Does he shift keys when he shifts scales?
BTW, if note 0 is the root note, note 12 is the octave above it, notes
1-11 are the equally spaced notes in between, Locrian mode, AIUI is
0,1,3,5,6,8,10,12. No note 7, or perfect fifth, sounds disorientated
and outside our comfort zone.
Lumpy
> ...what key, mode,
> planet etc would you put my Malagena/HC in?
Enchiladian.
one_riff_brian
> I use Malagena as the intro for Hotel California, but I can't see the mode,
> or even the key in it, because it includes eg F#, G and A major chords with
> Hotel California starting on Bm.. The other chords in HC are Em, E, A, F#
> and D.
>
> Tony D
If it's the Malaguena With The Wiggly Thing Above The N that I'm
thinking about, it uses notes 0,1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12, which this site:
http://www.ushimitsudoki.com/scalculator/scalculator.html
tags as the flamenco scale, or according to this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamenco#Harmony
the Phrygian mode, with the addition of note 4 to bend it into shape
My guess is that if your first chord in HC is Bminor, the Malaguena
intro is in the key of F#.
Derek
>Derek- I'll check out some Santana... but isn't pentatonic minor
>(0,3,5,7,10,12) a subset of the notes in Dorian(0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12).
>Does he shift keys when he shifts scales?
Sure it is, but then the same is true of aeolian. However, minor pent
doesn't sound like aeolian either.
As you point out above, the addition or subtraction of a note or two
can make a big difference.
Minor pent = R, b3, 4, 5, b7 Dorian = 1, 2, b3, 4, 5, 6, b7
The addition of the 2nd and 6th give you additional color over the
minor pent.
Sean
> On Dec 15, 9:26 am, "Mr. Green"
>> He's a version of Scarborough Fair. A great dorian tune.
> ... but, like Drunken Sailor, on the strength of one note ("Parsley,
> Sage, Rosema-RY- and Thyme")
>
> Eleanor Rigby puts on a face THAT she KEEPS in a jar by the door.
> After that, she drops back into Aeolian.
>
> Derek- I'll check out some Santana... but isn't pentatonic minor
> (0,3,5,7,10,12) a subset of the notes in Dorian(0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12).
> Does he shift keys when he shifts scales?
I'll answer. No. (Aren't you going to get in trouble calling a mode a
scale? I can't keep track of what you're allowed to say or not.)
Again, take Evil Ways as the exemplar. Chord progression: Gm D Gm D etc.
He's playing some rock stuff in Gm pent. And he's playing stuff that
uses the notes that are the same as the notes of the F major scale. But
he hasn't changed the key of the song. Somewhere in there, it's the mode
thing.
Try this. Record yourself playing the Gm D chord progression of Evil
Ways. Set it to infinite loop. Play along. Play the notes that sound
Santana-ish. Job done.
But you could back check and see how those notes fit the theory. I play
the notes, and I guess I trust all those folks who say it's Dorian. I'll
go out on a limb and suggest that it's G Dorian which, according to the
always trustworthy Wikipedia, "contains all notes the same as the F
major scale." Wiki adds "starting on G," but you don't have to.
Personally, I'm prejudiced against starting melodies or lead solos on
the I. It seems to me that starting on the VI has more Carlosity.
Mr. Green
OK you drove me to look around a bit ;-) Here's a link with quite a
few dorian tunes:
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003072534AAqWzOe
Green
Lumpy
> If it's the Malaguena With The Wiggly Thing Above The N that I'm
> thinking about, it uses notes 0,1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12,
Again I ask, "0"?
one_riff_brian
> OK you drove me to look around a bit ;-) Here's a link with quite a
> few dorian tunes:
>
> http://au.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071003072534AAqWzOe
>
> Green
best examples- although the defining notes seem to be "Blink and
You'll Miss Them" in a lot of cases. I'm listening to "So What?- it'll
be a while before I can whistle it though.:-)
Re: Scales and modes? A scale is a bunch of notes. Seven scales are
called modes just because they fulfill a mathematical criterion. Why?
I dunno.
Charmed Snark
8ba863...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com:
..
> Re: Scales and modes? A scale is a bunch of notes. Seven scales are
> called modes just because they fulfill a mathematical criterion. Why?
> I dunno.
One competing view is that you start with one
major scale (say C) and then you have 7 "modes"
of it, where:
1) Any given mode uses the same scale notes
as above, except
2) that you start and end at different points
within that major scale.
For example, A natural minor (Aeolian mode)
starts on the 6th major scale degree (or 3
down from C).
Another view is to memorize where the accidentals
go for each (at least for the commonly used ones).
For example, the Aeolian mode has a flatted 3rd
(natural minor).
Both POV have their practical uses.
Snark.
WorkHard
> one_riff_brian wrote:
>> On Dec 15, 9:26 am, "Mr. Green"
>>> He's a version of Scarborough Fair. A great dorian tune.
>> ... but, like Drunken Sailor, on the strength of one note
>> ("Parsley,
>> Sage, Rosema-RY- and Thyme")
>>
>> Eleanor Rigby puts on a face THAT she KEEPS in a jar by the
>> door.
>> After that, she drops back into Aeolian.
>>
>> Derek- I'll check out some Santana... but isn't pentatonic
>> minor
>> (0,3,5,7,10,12) a subset of the notes in
>> Dorian(0,2,3,5,7,9,10,12).
>> Does he shift keys when he shifts scales?
>
> I'll answer. No. (Aren't you going to get in trouble calling a
> mode a
> scale? I can't keep track of what you're allowed to say or
> not.)
>
> Again, take Evil Ways as the exemplar. Chord progression: Gm D
> Gm D
> etc.
It's Gm to C.
Where do you get the 'D' from?
Sean
Brain cramp. You're right.
Master Betty
> one_riff_brian wrote:
>
>> If it's the Malaguena With The Wiggly Thing Above The N that I'm
>> thinking about, it uses notes 0,1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12,
>
> Again I ask, "0"?
Zero fret? Maybe nut?
WorkHard
:) Tell me about it. Seems to get worse the older you get.
RichL
> one_riff_brian wrote:
>
>> If it's the Malaguena With The Wiggly Thing Above The N that I'm
>> thinking about, it uses notes 0,1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12,
>
> Again I ask, "0"?
I presume "0" means the root, and everything else indicates the number
of half-steps above the root.
A major scale would then be 0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 (the octave of the
root included).
Phrygian mode would be 0, 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 12.
RichL
> Thanks for the link- "Mad World" and "Light My Fire" seem like the
> best examples- although the defining notes seem to be "Blink and
> You'll Miss Them" in a lot of cases.
Yeah, I'm wondering what's "Dorian" about Light My Fire.
The verse is Am, F#m. None of the modes includes those two chords in
the same key.
The chorus is G, A, D...G, A, D, B7, G, A, E7. That doesn't fit one of
the modes either, I'd write it as D maj with accidentals.
Most of the instrumentals are played to repeated sequences of Am, Bm,
which I suppose can be *interpreted* as Dorian. Then there's the chord
run in the intro and at the end of the instrumental before the verse
comes back in: G D F Bb Eb Ab A. Again, no fit to any of the modes.
Nil
alt.guitar.beginner:
> Most of the instrumentals are played to repeated sequences of Am,
> Bm, which I suppose can be *interpreted* as Dorian.
I'd call that a 100% classic Dorian vamp.
I'm listening to the song right now, but my MP3 is in Ab!? I checked a
few clips on youtube, and some of them are in A, some are in Ab. I
wonder which is correct? I have to check it against my LP one of these
days.
Lumpy
one_riff_brian wrote:
> > > If it's the Malaguena With The Wiggly Thing Above The N that I'm
> > > thinking about, it uses notes 0,1,3,4,5,7,8,10,12,
Lump:
> > Again I ask, "0"?
RichL:
> I presume "0" means the root, and everything else indicates the number
> of half-steps above the root.
>
> A major scale would then be 0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 (the octave of
> the root included).
I presume that as well. I was hoping that Brian would
address his numbering system. Sounds like Roger's
"degrees of the Chromatic scale" stuff.
I'd like to see the first note of a scale
called "one" rather than zero.
RichL
I dunno...if I toss out preconceptions and look at it objectively, it
makes some sense to me. 12 as the octave, particularly. 13? Not so
much. It's basically saying, "how many half steps I have to go from the
root to find the note".
RichL
> On 16 Dec 2009, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> alt.guitar.beginner:
>
>> Most of the instrumentals are played to repeated sequences of Am,
>> Bm, which I suppose can be *interpreted* as Dorian.
>
> I'd call that a 100% classic Dorian vamp.
OK, but it's a small part of the song overall.
> I'm listening to the song right now, but my MP3 is in Ab!? I checked a
> few clips on youtube, and some of them are in A, some are in Ab. I
> wonder which is correct? I have to check it against my LP one of these
> days.
I may not be remembering this right, but I've got a gut feeling that the
original's not precisely in either (given A = 440 Hz tuning) but
somewhere in between. I vaguely recall having to re-tune my guitar when
I wanted to play along with it.
Nil
alt.guitar.beginner:
> OK, but it's a small part of the song overall.
Well... it takes up 4 1/2 minutes out of 7-minute song...
> I may not be remembering this right, but I've got a gut feeling
> that the original's not precisely in either (given A = 440 Hz
> tuning) but somewhere in between. I vaguely recall having to
> re-tune my guitar when I wanted to play along with it.
Wikipedia sez:
"The 40th Anniversary Mix presents the first album in speed-corrected
form for the first time. The speed discrepancy was brought to Bruce
Botnick's attention by a Brigham Young University professor who stated
that all the video and audio live performances of The Doors performing
"Light My Fire", as well as the sheet music show the song being in a
key almost a full half step higher than the LP release. Only the 45 RPM
single of Light My Fire, issued in 1967, was produced at the correct
speed."
I can't quite tell if they mean that the proper key is A or Ab. Seems
to me A would be more likely. I actually still have my 45 of "Light My
Fire" that I bought back in the day, so if they say that one is at the
correct pitch, I have something to compare the rest to.
RichL
> On 16 Dec 2009, "RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in
> alt.guitar.beginner:
>
>> OK, but it's a small part of the song overall.
>
> Well... it takes up 4 1/2 minutes out of 7-minute song...
Depends on whether you're talking about the album version or the single
:-)
>> I may not be remembering this right, but I've got a gut feeling
>> that the original's not precisely in either (given A = 440 Hz
>> tuning) but somewhere in between. I vaguely recall having to
>> re-tune my guitar when I wanted to play along with it.
>
> Wikipedia sez:
>
> "The 40th Anniversary Mix presents the first album in speed-corrected
> form for the first time. The speed discrepancy was brought to Bruce
> Botnick's attention by a Brigham Young University professor who stated
> that all the video and audio live performances of The Doors performing
> "Light My Fire", as well as the sheet music show the song being in a
> key almost a full half step higher than the LP release. Only the 45
> RPM single of Light My Fire, issued in 1967, was produced at the
> correct speed."
>
> I can't quite tell if they mean that the proper key is A or Ab. Seems
> to me A would be more likely. I actually still have my 45 of "Light My
> Fire" that I bought back in the day, so if they say that one is at the
> correct pitch, I have something to compare the rest to.
I've got the CD of the album, apparently that doesn't help.
Tony Done
"Tony Done" <tony...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:APaWm.62709$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> "one_riff_brian" <brianh...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
> news:ad263028-417b-461c...@v7g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> calls Am, F, G and E the chords for E Phrygian - That would be Em,
> shouldn't the added major 3rd make it E something-else?
>
> Now I just need to get my head around the way that relates to the Bm Hotel
> California. Maybe it is all part of that same scale, but I need to work it
> out.
>
> Tony D
I did some juggling with scales and chords in MS Excel. The Hotel California
chords are the same as the flamenco chords - Phrygian with a major instead
of a minor as in the Wiki article F# major instead of F#m in F# (flamenco)
Phrygian in my version. I also found while noodling about with Scarborough
Fair that the major can be substituted for the minor ie E major instead of
Em if doing it in E Dorian. Ain't musical harmony wonderful.
Tony D
Tony Done
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:MIqdncm7zbe4jbXW...@supernews.com...>> news:7oq7puF...@mid.individual.net...
>>> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>>>> You can't write anything using all of the notes of the mode bcdefgab
>>>> and ending on B...
>>>
>> That starts with a semitone interval. How useful is the mode (which
>> is?) that starts on E?
>
> Did a quick YouTube search....the metal guys seem to use it a lot.
That's what I meant about big hair and spandex somewhere else in this
thread. I was thinking of Yngwie Malmsteen in particular.
Tony D
David Raleigh Arnold
When people actually used modes in part writing, each voice was in
its own mode. The *melody* is in a mode. Just consider the harmony to
be in whatever the key signature says. To say that the whole thing is
*really* in some mode or other is essentially meaningless. Regards, daveA
--
For beginners: very easy guitar music, solos, duets, exercises. Early
intermediate guitar solos. One best scale set for all guitarists.
http://www.openguitar.com/scalescomparison.html ::: plus new and
better chord and arpeggio exercises. http://www.openguitar.com
Music theory should be clues you can use,
not blues you can't lose.
one_riff_brian
> > Again, take Evil Ways as the exemplar. Chord progression: Gm D
> > Gm D
> > etc.
>
> It's Gm to C.
>
> Where do you get the 'D' from?
I wondered about that... but eventually spotted a few "Dorian Notes"-
what I'd call note 9, what *I think* others would call the sharpened
6th that change Aeolian to Dorian... in the organ solo. The impression
is that the occasional note makes a big difference.
RichL...
<quote>
I presume "0" means the root, and everything else indicates the
number
of half-steps above the root.
A major scale would then be 0, 2, 4, 5, 7, 9, 11, 12 (the octave of
the
root included).
</quote>
That's it. Zero is the origin- the root note. Assign it to any
frequency between 20 Hz and 10 kHz. 12 is the octave- double the root
note frequency. 1-11 are the notes in between at frequency ratios of
(2^(1/12))- the twelfth root of 2, or approximately 1.05946......
You've got yourself an equal tempered western chromatic scale. Just
tempering and stretch tuning can come later. Pick some of them and
make some music.
You can call the notes whatever symbols you like, but
0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 makes more sense to me than
1,b2,2,b3,3,4,b5,5,b6,6,b7,7,8
<quote>
I dunno...if I toss out preconceptions and look at it objectively, it
makes some sense to me. 12 as the octave, particularly. 13? Not so
much. It's basically saying, "how many half steps I have to go from
the
root to find the note".
</quote>
Hopefully that'll promote me from crackpot to visionary. Although
"making sense" and "music theory" don't sit well in the same sentence.
<quote>
Yeah, I'm wondering what's "Dorian" about Light My Fire.
</quote>
"Come on baby *LIGHT MY* fire"
"Try to set the *NIGHT ON* fire"
Re. the pitch issue on "Light my Fire"- I'm surprised that this isn't
more widely recognised- pre-digital music would have been through a
chain of analogue/mechanical recording processes, including vinyl
turntables, each with a potential for speed and pitch shifting. It's a
source of debate with the Robert Johnson recordings. What else?
Hollywood scores were recorded at 24fps and transmitted at 25fps on UK
TV. Guitars were tuned up or down so that wound strings would sound
better. I read somewhere on the internet- so it must be true- that Don
Henley had to transpose "Boys of Summer" down as he got older. I'd
always take information like "It's in G" as guidance.
Lumpy
> You can call the notes whatever symbols you like, but
> 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12 makes more sense to me than
> 1,b2,2,b3,3,4,b5,5,b6,6,b7,7,8
You and Roger are the only ones.
The other several million musicians over
the past few centuries view it in the
commonly accepted manner.
> Hopefully that'll promote me from crackpot to visionary. Although
> "making sense" and "music theory" don't sit well in the same sentence.
Not in my book. You're either Roger in drag
or you've been on his site trying to find
excuses for why you can't assimilate simple
music theory as passed down throughout history.
Nope. Still crackpot.
Tony Done
"David Raleigh Arnold" <d...@openguitar.com> wrote in message
news:wmtWm.77429$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
This, and most of the other "professional" comments in this and similar
thread leave me confused. I'll try again. The mode tells you how the melody
resolves. The key signature should tell you the chords for the mode, eg E
Phrygian should have C major chords. Yet the flamenco mode called E Phrygian
has an E major chord rather than an Em - I don't understand that unless it
is outright wrong or reflects the ambiguity of the naming system. At least
in one instance I tried the Dorian mode will also work like this - eg the D
major chord harmonises with D Dorian - I think I am missing something
potentially useful here.
Tony D
David Raleigh Arnold
That's as far as I get. A dissonance or "tension" can resolve, but that
requires more than a melody.
The key signature should tell you the chords for the
> mode, eg E Phrygian should have C major chords. Yet the flamenco mode
> called E Phrygian has an E major chord rather than an Em - I don't
> understand that unless it is outright wrong or reflects the ambiguity of
> the naming system. At least in one instance I tried the Dorian mode will
> also work like this - eg the D major chord harmonises with D Dorian - I
> think I am missing something potentially useful here.
>
> Tony D
What would be useful is to consider it to be in A minor but ending
on the dominant. daveA
Charmed Snark
news:7nwWm.62885$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> ... I'll try again. The mode tells you
> how the melody resolves.
The mode tells you which note is "doh" (tonic, root
or 1).
For simplicity, assume a "key signature" of C major,
where you use only white notes on a piano (no sharps
and flats).
Now back to the mode. If your melody is Dorian, then
its doh/root/tonic/1 note is D. It consists of C maj
notes from D to D, with no sharps or flats.
If the melody is Aeolian (natural minor), then doh/
root/tonic/1 is A. It's scale goes from A to A in
C major scale notes (white keys on the piano with
no sharps/flats).
So to summarize:
The key signature chooses your "palette" of notes
that you will work with. The mode will dictate
which one of those 7 notes are to be considered
the root note.
The same thing can be applied to other non-C major
key signatures, but it is best to start simple
at first.
As discussed before, there is another way this
can be understood. It is good to know both
eventually.
> The key signature should tell you the chords
> for the mode, eg E Phrygian should have C major chords. Yet the
> flamenco mode called E Phrygian has an E major chord rather than an Em
> - I don't understand that unless it is outright wrong or reflects the
> ambiguity of the naming system.
Tony, establish your mode's root first within the key
signature being used. For example, we know that D is
your (dorian) root in a C major key signature.
Once you know where your #1 (root) is, it becomes
easier to figure out where 3 and 5 is (for a non-inverted
chord).
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
D E F G A B C D
Now your Dorian 135 chord is made up of DFA,
which is going to sound minor (D to F is
a minor 3rd interval).
If you're working in a different key signature,
then write out all your notes first. I'll do it
here for C major: (use fixed font to view this)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1..
C D E F G A B C D E F G A B C C-major
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Dorian
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 Aeolian (natural minor)
Root chord: 135 => DFA For Dorian
135 => ACE For Aeolian
Your homework:
1) Write out your palette of notes, based upon the
key signature used. Do two octaves.
2) Number them starting from 1, start over at
one when you get to 8.
3) Dorian starts at the 2nd note in the major key
signature -- find it. That is your Dorian root.
4) Write out starting from 1, all of your dorian
notes. you now have a chart.
5) Write out your I chord (based upon root,3rd and 5th).
Bonus questions:
6) Write out your IV chord notes.
7) Write out your V chord notes.
Report back or detention!
Snark.
Lumpy
> Report back or detention!
I just dropped and gave you twenty.
Mr. Green
> "David Raleigh Arnold" <d...@openguitar.com> wrote in messagenews:wmtWm.77429$Zu5....@newsfe24.iad...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 07:26:06 +0000, Tony Done wrote:
>
> >>news:APaWm.62709$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
> >>> "one_riff_brian" <brianhughe...@googlemail.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Hi Tony,
I think you may be confusing the E Phrygian with the E Dominant
Phrygian. There is certainly at least one youtube vid that does that.
The E Phrygian built on from the C major scale has a minor third (G
nat) while, the E Dominant Phrygian has major third (G sharp) and, I
believe, is built from the harmonic minor scale.
Another thing to look out for in music written in minor keys. Extra
sharps or flats are very common. Minor music often borrows the raised
seventh tone to give you a dominant seven chord on the V. Also,
slotting in notes from both the harmonic and melodic minor is pretty
common.
Hope that helps, Green
Charmed Snark
> Charmed Snark wrote:
>> Report back or detention!
>
> I just dropped and gave you twenty.
>
> Lumpy
You're exampt from detention then. Have
a candy cane on your way out.
Snark.
Tony Done
"Mr. Green" <cl...@wheatleymetalfabrications.co.uk> wrote in message
news:4d2704ef-543a-4c08...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Hi Tony,
Hope that helps, Green
Thanks everyone for the helpful comments on this post. Green's explanation,
also mentioned by Lumpy in a different thread, makes sense - Dominant
Phrygian. What was getting my knickers in a twist was the name used for the
scale in the Wiki flamenco article - nothing about Dominant.
Dave A, the comment on harmony as opposed to melody scale provided another
useful insight, but in the flamenco example the major interval is a
component of the melody rather than a harmony. Because of the way I play, I
find it more useful to think in terms of patterns and intervals rather than
scales with flattened 3rds and the like.
Snark, I understand the relationship between a key signature and its modes,
though the jargon sometimes defeats me. I do what you suggest re intervals
for both scales and slide/lap steel guitar tunings in Excel where you can
shuffle the intervals about relative to each other. It was the major 3rd
interval that was bothering me, as noted above.
Tony D
Charmed Snark
news:6vTWm.63138$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au:
> Snark, I understand the relationship between a key signature and its
> modes, though the jargon sometimes defeats me. I do what you suggest
> re intervals for both scales and slide/lap steel guitar tunings in
> Excel where you can shuffle the intervals about relative to each
> other. It was the major 3rd interval that was bothering me, as noted
> above.
>
> Tony D
Re the 3rd:
I tend to think of things in keyboard terms, but
you can work that out on guitar also. Note where
your 1st and 3rd is for that chord (perhaps on
one string). From that you'll know wether the
3rd is major or not (though the sound will
give it away also).
Maybe I still don't understand the issue.
In terms of going from sheet music to the
answer to that, I must confess that I look
at the keyboard in my head.
Snark.
Tony Done
"Charmed Snark" <sn...@cogeco.ca> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE882B44398S...@188.40.43.245...
Thanks, the issue is whether the 3rd interval is minor (3 semitones) or
major (4 semitones). E Phrygian has a key signature of C, no sharps or
flats. The flamenco article suggests that the style is commonly played in E
Phrygian, and names the chords as Am, E, F and G. No problem with the Am, F
and G, it is the E major chord, which has a G#, not a G natural. The chords
are obviously correct for a tune like Malaguena, which seems to me to be
archetypical flamenco (E, F and G), but I don't see how they are E
Phrygian. - Which would be Em, F and G.
Tony D
Lumpy
> Thanks, the issue is whether the 3rd interval is minor (3 semitones)
> or major (4 semitones). E Phrygian has a key signature of C, no
> sharps or flats. The flamenco article suggests that the style is
> commonly played in E Phrygian, and names the chords as Am, E, F and
> G. No problem with the Am, F and G, it is the E major chord, which
> has a G#, not a G natural. The chords are obviously correct for a
> tune like Malaguena, which seems to me to be archetypical flamenco
> (E, F and G), but I don't see how they are E Phrygian. - Which would
> be Em, F and G.
The interval is, apparently, both.
Just as in a melodic minor scale,
we have a m7 and a M7 interval,
as well as a m6 and M6 interval,
this "Phrygian Dominant" appears
to have both a m3 and M3 interval.
Consider the signature bass counterpoint during
the tremolo portion -
Ascending it's E G# B E G# B
then
Descending it's A C B D G F
The G is sharp on the way up and natural on
the way down.
In the bigger picture, note that SHA and "Saw Her
Standing There" are not the only pieces of music
that causes confusion when we try and force them
into a theoretical box.
Also note that Malaguena is a piano piece by a
20th century Cuban composer. I don't know enough about the
structure of Flamenco music to know, but it might
very well have been that Lecuona wrote the piece
so that it "Sounds like that Flamingo music".
And it might not be true to Flamenco form.
He also wrote some stuff that was quite a bit
different than Malaguena. Perhaps he was simply
a guy playing stuff that people liked. He may
not have had the slightest idea what a Phryg Dom
scale was. Perhaps only when "the monks" came along and
analyzed it did it reveal itself as "wrong" or
"not true to form".
But I simply don't know. Still, I can play it
and get pantos chicas.
Tony Done
Yeah, good points about both the oddities of scales and the origins of
Malaguena I'm interested in the theory because I'm always looking for
useable patterns. I like to do my own biometry, even though we have
statisticians to do the job, it's basically that same interest in finding
patterns.
Tony D
Tim C.
<news:hOZXm.63916$ze1....@news-server.bigpond.net.au> :
> ... Perhaps only when "the monks" came along and analyzed it ...
What?
This lot? http://www.the-monks.com/
or these? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Monks_(UK_band)
--
Tim C.
Learnwell
> 20th century Cuban composer.
Which has almost nothing to do with the orgin of the melody, there are
other treatments before this.
Your research skills are showing again. . .
Lumpy
> > Also note that Malaguena is a piano piece by a
> > 20th century Cuban composer.
Learnwell:
> Which has almost nothing to do with
> the orgin of the melody, there are
> other treatments before this.
>
> Your research skills are showing again. . .
For a guy that prides himself on being an educator
of classical guitar, I would have expected a genuine
answer. Particularly after my statement "I just don't know".
You have an answer about the Phryg mode in Flamenco that will
help the topic?
oasysco
> If someone says to you, "I need you to play G Dorian", what exactly does the
> G represent? Is that the key or tonal center? If someone asked me what the
> notes are in a G dorian scale the only way I could show them would be to
> think of what major scale has a G note as it's second degree and that would
> be F major. Seems everyone has a different opinion on modes but I was just
> curious as too what exactly would the G represent in the term G dorian?
>
> Thomas
Granted, I'm weeks late, but thought I'd jump in anyway :)-
Scales, modes and explanations are for us lesser players. If we were
to do this correctly, we would make music first and worry about how we
made it and the steps we took later on.
I'm not knocking scales and modes, but good players have music in
their soul and it comes out in their playing.
For the record, I'm not a good player!
It's like the difference between a dancer for whom the dance is an
expression of thier innerself vs the dancer who counts as they dance
and is aware of having to put the right foot there on a certain count
and the foot elsewhere on a certain count.
Both might look like what they know what they're doing, but to the
trained eye the natural dancer who just feels it will move
effortlessly, interpreting the music while the mechanical dancer will
get lost on the first misstep.
t's the same with musicians. Sadly, I'm in the mechanical arean more
than the natural musician arena.
Greg
Lumpy
> Scales, modes and explanations are for us lesser players. If we were
> to do this correctly, we would make music first and worry about how we
> made it and the steps we took later on.
>
> I'm not knocking scales and modes, but good players have music in
> their soul and it comes out in their playing.
Good players don't "worry about" the steps they
took to make the music
BUT -
they have to be aware of them.
Good carpenters don't build good houses because they are
simply "expressing their soul". They are aware of where
to put the studs, how many nails to put in the headers etc.
Good cooks are aware of how much salt to add to a cake recipe.
Good painters are aware of how much red to add to blue to
achieve the right shade of purple.
Poor players "worry about" it. Instead of figuring out
how to play it, they use it as an excuse "There's just
so much to learn, I'm not there yet".
Good players don't worry. But they have to be aware of it.
The only thing that music theory does is to try and create
a language so that we can all communicate about it.
It's only called a G7 chord
so that we can all discuss it. It would sound the same if
you called it a G7 enchilada or a dick slurp. But the problem
with two of those terms is that if you played with others
and said "At measure 13 give me an enchilada" or "at the
bridge, give me a dick slurp" you probably wouldn't get
the four notes G B D F.
oasysco
> oasysco wrote:
> > Scales, modes and explanations are for us lesser players. If we were
> > to do this correctly, we would make music first and worry about how we
> > made it and the steps we took later on.
>
> > I'm not knocking scales and modes, but good players have music in
> > their soul and it comes out in their playing.
>
> Good players don't "worry about" the steps they
> took to make the music
>
> BUT -
>
> they have to be aware of them.
Well, perhaps it's more that at some point in their past, they had to
be "aware" of the rules, but now they are just part of their inner
musical being and they know enouhg to break them at will to make the
music they hear in their heads.
Good players don't think about what they're playing anymore than good
race car drivers think about their next move; they just do it and move
on. It's the rest of us who dissect it later and attempt to make
unexpressable feelings somehow understandable by talking about music.
Not that that is bad as long as we understand it's what we do.
> Good carpenters don't build good houses because they are
> simply "expressing their soul". They are aware of where
> to put the studs, how many nails to put in the headers etc.
And the better ones may go with double headers in areas where code
doesn't even call for it or come up with a particularly clever way to
doing something that the plans didn't call for.
>
> Good cooks are aware of how much salt to add to a cake recipe.
Ah, but better cooks know how to mix beyond what a recipe calls for to
make true culinary delights. Same for better musicians.
> Good painters are aware of how much red to add to blue to
> achieve the right shade of purple.
>
> Poor players "worry about" it. Instead of figuring out
> how to play it, they use it as an excuse "There's just
> so much to learn, I'm not there yet".
Yup; I know this only too well, though I don't blame music theory - at
least not in the last 10 years :)-
>
> Good players don't worry. But they have to be aware of it.
> The only thing that music theory does is to try and create
> a language so that we can all communicate about it.
Which is sorta like dancing about literature, talking about singing,
reading about music, or singing about swimming. It can be done, but
certain critical elements are left unaddressed.
The actual communication was the music itself, which is something a
lot of us miss. For the gifted, music is a language to communicate
feelings that cannot be exrpressed in any other way; for those folks,
making music is not a burden, an obstacle to overcome, or a set of
rules to follow.
> It's only called a G7 chord
> so that we can all discuss it. It would sound the same if
> you called it a G7 enchilada or a dick slurp. But the problem
> with two of those terms is that if you played with others
> and said "At measure 13 give me an enchilada" or "at the
> bridge, give me a dick slurp" you probably wouldn't get
> the four notes G B D F.
>
> Lumpy
>
> In Your Ears for 40 Something Yearswww.LumpyMusic.com
Greg
Lumpy
> ...sorta like dancing about literature, talking about singing,
> reading about music, or singing about swimming. It can be done, but
> certain critical elements are left unaddressed.
Primarily, the critical element of playing, I'd say.
And that's exactly what I suggest a lot of the
intellectualizing about jazz is all about. A lot
of those guys need to "Shut up and play yur geetar".
Example, a typical type of question -
"What scale should I play over an F#mBagel-flat-tire chord?"
One set of answers goes something like -
"The locarian dornamint adujent general scale"
And sometimes, not always, some lone soul suggests -
"The one that sounds good to you"
Then the former group chastizes the latter by saying
"But he has to have some framework to start in"
And the latter retorts "The framework is 12 chromatic
notes. You play them all and figure out which ones,
in which order, and with which rhythmic values, sounds
good to YOU".
To suggest that you simply play any scale over a chord
is pretty darn wide open. Play an Em pent "scale" over an Em chord
and it sounds pretty lame. But do what BB or Carlos or Eric or
SRV does with that scale and it sounds quite a bit different.
So back to the example question "What scale over this chord...".
The person asking is focusing on only ONE aspect of the solo,
the pitches. You could play just three or two or even one note
and goof with it rhythmically and get it to sound good. Just
wanking up and down on a scale doesn't sound good. Time better
spent would be to play all 12 possibilities of notes over the
chord in question and feel/hear what each one sounds like.
THEN use those as you see fit in your solo.
So the over-intellectual types seem to want to deal with
all the mathematical physics and even more importantly
(to them) the terminology (I can name six dozen different
modes and what chords to play them over) and they do that
at the EXPENSE of not playing enough.
Perhaps there's kind of an "opposite end" musician at or near
the beginning of learning to be a rocker. We hear, right here,
new players saying "I'm trying to learn all my scales and modes"
or "I want to learn all my scales and chords before taking lessons".
Which is where I typically enter and say "Learn songs and learn those
scales and chords that are necessary for you to play the song well".
Listen to what you play. If you care to, analyze what sounds good and
what sounds not so good. Then take the obvious steps to include or
reduce those good/bad sounding "things" in your future playing. If
you want to, find out what they're called so that you can either
communicate them to other muso's or so that you can remember what
you did and play it again later.
oasysco
> oasysco wrote:
> > ...sorta like dancing about literature, talking about singing,
> > reading about music, or singing about swimming. It can be done, but
> > certain critical elements are left unaddressed.
>
> Primarily, the critical element of playing, I'd say.
>
> And that's exactly what I suggest a lot of the
> intellectualizing about jazz is all about. A lot
> of those guys need to "Shut up and play yur geetar".
>
> Example, a typical type of question -
> "What scale should I play over an F#mBagel-flat-tire chord?"
Agreed - even though I might ask thta question :)-
>
> One set of answers goes something like -
> "The locarian dornamint adujent general scale"
>
> And sometimes, not always, some lone soul suggests -
> "The one that sounds good to you"
Which is the BEST answer!
>
> Then the former group chastizes the latter by saying
> "But he has to have some framework to start in"
>
> And the latter retorts "The framework is 12 chromatic
> notes. You play them all and figure out which ones,
> in which order, and with which rhythmic values, sounds
> good to YOU".
>
> To suggest that you simply play any scale over a chord
> is pretty darn wide open. Play an Em pent "scale" over an Em chord
> and it sounds pretty lame. But do what BB or Carlos or Eric or
> SRV does with that scale and it sounds quite a bit different.
Agreed.
Exactly! Wich is why most of us should record ourselves. Billy Crystal
used to hone his craft by tape recording his live stand-up routines
and then listening to them with a critical ear on his way home after a
gig.
Greg
Learnwell
> help the topic?
>
> Lumpy
Now THAT is irony.
David Raleigh Arnold
> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 08:37:43 -0800, Thomas wrote:
>
>> If someone says to you, "I need you to play G Dorian", what exactly
>> does the G represent? Is that the key or tonal center?
>
> "G Dorian" is *not* a key. Keys are tonality and exclusively major or
> minor mode.
>
> G is the tonality.
>
> Dorian is the mode.
>
> It should be written in G minor, using one accidental, unless you want
> to show off and confuse your reader. Regards, daveA
Also, a little reminder that associating modern music with the
ancient modes, whether Greek named or medieval numbered, has
many pitfalls. The first is that mode is a description which
applies to a voice, not a many-voiced composition. Another is
that in early polyphony, every voice had its own mode, tonus, and
dominant.
To describe AmGFE flamenco as being Phrygian is doubly deceptive because
flamenco is often devoid of melody and features chords and rhythm pretty
much alone. It makes more sense to describe such flamenco as being in a
minor key, so that conventional CPP theory
can account very well for everything in it, even the ending on the
dominant.
Why not apply theory instead of making stuff up?
Lumpy
> Why not apply theory instead of making stuff up?
What is music theory but made up stuff,
attempting to describe sounds?
Mr. Green
>snip
>
> Also, a little reminder that associating modern music with the
> ancient modes, whether Greek named or medieval numbered, has
> many pitfalls. The first is that mode is a description which
> applies to a voice, not a many-voiced composition. Another is
> that in early polyphony, every voice had its own mode, tonus, and
> dominant.
>
>
> Regards, daveA
>
With all respect, and your obvious knowledge of music history deserves
respect. You are constantly refering to the origins and history of
modes and the names used to describe them. As with many things, the
use of the term mode has evolved. The names used to label the modes
are now nothing but names. In terms of understanding the current use
of the term mode, it makes no difference if there ever was a Greek
trible named Locrian or Dorian neither, does it matter if ancient
modes were originally only sung. Berklee and others may have modified
the meaning of the term mode but, it is thier new meaning which is now
more relevent in any discussion of post 1950's music.
Green
David Raleigh Arnold
> David Raleigh Arnold wrote:
>> Why not apply theory instead of making stuff up?
>
> What is music theory but made up stuff, attempting to describe sounds?
Precisely. It is explanations, /sui generis/, often with several
alternatives, used to describe music already written. Theory is thin
stuff when describing music not yet written, or music not intended to be
written, for the ultimate purpose of making more of it. Nevertheless,
one should demand some internal consistency and rationality, which cannot
come from overwriting history with ignorance. Regards, daveA