Text recommendation on modal progression theory
shawroom_1...@hotmail.com
know basic interval, chord construction, definitions of different modes
that kind of stuff. We are now working on progressions for different
modes, for example, last lesson he talked about how in the key of D,
the progression
D/C is a I / bVII progression in D mixolydian mode,
D/C/G can be viewed as a I / bVII / VI in D mixo mode, rather than a V
/ IV / I progression in Key of G maj. ( I still don't understand the
difference, seems identical to me ).
I wonder if anyone can recommended and text or material on the net for
me to go further in that direction ( progression in different modes) ,
possibly with elaborated sessions on theory, examples and appliation.
I've checked out some book in amazon and google, but either they are
too basic, or written for another area which has only 10 pages or so on
written this subject ( which I have already read ).
Thank you.
Al
_you know what to remove to reply!
Adam Golding
try Vincent Persichetti's "20th Century Harmony"
mark h
em out clearly, and gets a little into the chordal relationships, but i
believe he has advanced books which , from your post, sounds like where you
are.
with what you know already, i think ya might find some really usefull info
in a jazz book; say, the old Mickey Baker Jazz Guitar series.
good luck,
mark
<shawroom_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1141682710....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Steve Latham
> know basic interval, chord construction, definitions of different modes
> that kind of stuff. We are now working on progressions for different
> modes, for example, last lesson he talked about how in the key of D,
> the progression
>
> D/C is a I / bVII progression in D mixolydian mode,
> D/C/G can be viewed as a I / bVII / VI in D mixo mode, rather than a V
> / IV / I progression in Key of G maj. ( I still don't understand the
> difference, seems identical to me ).
The difference is in the focus - or what seems to be the goal or "home"
chord of the progress.
Yes, the very common D - C - G progression you mentioned is considered "in D
mixolydian" when the D chord sounds like it's being presented as the focus
or goal (i.e., each passage begins, ends, or begins and ends on it).
>
> I wonder if anyone can recommended and text or material on the net for
> me to go further in that direction ( progression in different modes) ,
I'll make it easier for you:
All you have to do is figure out what quality all of the chords are in each
mode, and then try different chord porgressions in each!
Mix: I v I
Dor: i v i
etc. Typically, people use the chords that make a particular mode unique
from major or minor - therefore in Dorian mode, you'd want to include a IV
chord in your progression (if you used only i and v, it could be Dorian or
Aeolian).
Then look at chord progressions form a bunch of songs.
Mixolydian songs often use I, IV, and VII (bVII)
Dorian often is: i, VII (bVII), IV
These are the two most often encountered in pop tunes, but you see more
Phyrgian in heavy metal "goth" type tunes (think Metallica and beyond), and
Lydian often appears in "new-agey" type tunes.
Of course you can get modal ideas interpseresed with regular major and minor
too - Cream's White Room starts off (as many tunes like this do) dm, C, G/B,
Bb - so it's partly D dorian, and partly d minor.
In jazz, there's a lot more interchange between modes and a much more
complex usage, so if you and your teacher are heading that way, you may need
some more jazz specific materials.
Best,
Steve
Tom K.
"Steve Latham" <lla...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:LNEPf.5735$sp4.5077@trnddc01...
>
> <shawroom_1...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1141682710....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>I am recently taking music lesson from my guitar teacher. I already
>> know basic interval, chord construction, definitions of different modes
>> that kind of stuff. We are now working on progressions for different
>> modes, for example, last lesson he talked about how in the key of D,
>> the progression
>>
>> D/C is a I / bVII progression in D mixolydian mode,
>> D/C/G can be viewed as a I / bVII / VI in D mixo mode, rather than a V
>> / IV / I progression in Key of G maj. ( I still don't understand the
>> difference, seems identical to me ).
>
> The difference is in the focus - or what seems to be the goal or "home"
> chord of the progress.
>
> Yes, the very common D - C - G progression you mentioned is considered "in
> D mixolydian" when the D chord sounds like it's being presented as the
> focus or goal (i.e., each passage begins, ends, or begins and ends on it).
>
And a slightly different way of hearing it (rather than I - bVII - IV) is to
consider the C chord as a IV/IV, that is a subdominant of the subdominant.
The "mixolydian" scale step 7 resolves down to scale step 6 in the IV chord,
rather than as a leading tone up to the tonic. This is especially
appliccable when the IV chord continues directly back to I as in
[D: D, C, G, D] (Example: the Beatles' "I Get By With A Little Help From My
Friends")
I can't recall who it was, but someone on this NG presented the particularly
appropriate terminology of "Double Plagal" for this progression.
Tom K.
Tom K.
> news:1141682710....@z34g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>>I am recently taking music lesson from my guitar teacher. I already
>> know basic interval, chord construction, definitions of different modes
>> that kind of stuff. We are now working on progressions for different
>> modes, for example, last lesson he talked about how in the key of D,
>> the progression
>>
>> D/C is a I / bVII progression in D mixolydian mode,
>> D/C/G can be viewed as a I / bVII / VI in D mixo mode, rather than a V
>> / IV / I progression in Key of G maj. ( I still don't understand the
>> difference, seems identical to me ).
>
> The difference is in the focus - or what seems to be the goal or "home"
> chord of the progress.
>
> Yes, the very common D - C - G progression you mentioned is considered "in
> D mixolydian" when the D chord sounds like it's being presented as the
> focus or goal (i.e., each passage begins, ends, or begins and ends on it).
>
And a slightly different way of hearing it (rather than I - bVII - IV) is to
consider the C chord as a IV/IV, that is a subdominant of the subdominant.
This is especially appliccable when the IV chord continues directly back to
I as in
[D: D, C, G, D]. (Example: the Beatles' "I Get By With A Little Help From
Tom K.
Tom K.
Steve Latham
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:HMCdnW9jCcZ1gpLZnZ2dnUVZ_v
[snip]
>
> And a slightly different way of hearing it (rather than I - bVII - IV) is
> to consider the C chord as a IV/IV, that is a subdominant of the
> subdominant. This is especially appliccable when the IV chord continues
> directly back to I as in
> [D: D, C, G, D]. (Example: the Beatles' "I Get By With A Little Help From
> My Friends")
Only if the song is already in D Major though. It's either a mode mixture
(which obviates the need for IV of IV) from D minor (VII = bVII), or a modal
borrowing (from Mixolydian, no distinction in this case though), or a "true"
IV/IV when, IMHO, it's functioning from a secondary key. Problem is of
course, with D-C-G, if C is IV of IV, then D is V of IV, and we're basically
in G anyways (like Sweet Home Alabama). I prefer the IV/IV in situations
like: C-Bb-F-G - I - bVII - IV - V in C - Bb "feels" more like a IV/IV (and
in IGBWALHFMF it may have established D already).
Steve
Steve Latham
Steve
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:uqWdnYiBYr3...@comcast.com...
Steve Latham
Steve
"Tom K." <tko...@spamspamcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:uqWdnYiBYr3...@comcast.com...
> Sorry for the double post. Outlook Express sure gets ornery sometimes.
>
> Tom K.
>
:-)
Tom K.
LOL OL OL OL
Tom K.
Tom K.
followed by the secondary dominant, and I would agree. But the point here
was that IV/IV is progressing directly to IV as a plagal progression, thus
the term "Double Plagal" for a plagal VII-IV followed by a second plagal
IV-I. So the IV/IV is not a dominant prep in this case, just as a IV going
to I doesn't have it's usual pre-dominant function..
I haven't found any CPP instances of same and can't think of any pop/jazz
examples prior to the 1960's (the coda to "Hey Jude" being another Beatles
example).
Tom K.
paramucho
It seems to have been a natural term for the progression. At least
Greg Panfile, Walt Everett and I all seem to have come up with it
independently.
Steve Latham
>
[snip]
> I gather you're saying that a secondary dominant prep function needs to be
> followed by the secondary dominant, and I would agree.
No. You certainly could have a ii6/5 of III to V of III progression in X
minor, but I would have no problem with an isolated pre-dominant chord as a
secondary function given an obvious situation (such as a plagal motion).
But the point here
> was that IV/IV is progressing directly to IV as a plagal progression, thus
> the term "Double Plagal" for a plagal VII-IV followed by a second plagal
> IV-I.
Oh, I see where the term double plagal comes from now - I though it meant
"plagal of the plagal" in that context!
So the IV/IV is not a dominant prep in this case, just as a IV going
> to I doesn't have it's usual pre-dominant function.
Makes good sense. Basically IV-I in X key, then IV-I in Y key.
Best,
Steve
Joey Goldstein
rather than in a key it needs, generally, to keep the extent of any
harmonic progression to a minimum.
When harmonic progression becomes more elaborate, categorizing the music
as being "modal" becomes less and less tenable.
Modal chord progressions generally come under the heading of "vamps"
which are repetitive sequences of chords, with usually only 2 or 3
chords involved, that circle about the tonic (for want of a better word)
of the mode and the tonic chord associated with the mode.
Here is a typical modal vamp that sets up a modal feeling of C ionian:
Cmaj7 / / / | / / G7sus4 / |repeat ad infinitum
Here's another:
Cmaj7 / / / | / / Dm7 / |repeat
Notice how the 2nd chord of the vamp contains 2 or 3 of the scalar notes
that the tonic chord does not contain. I.e. If you added up the notes of
Cmaj7 (C E G B) with the notes of Dm7 (D F A C) you'd have the entire C
ionian (aka C major) scale.
Notice also how the harmonic rhythms of these "progressions" is such
that the C chord is in a stronger metrical position emphasizing it as
the home chord rather than the 2nd chord of the progression.
Here is a typical modal vamp that sets up a modal feeling of D dorian:
Dm7 / / / | / / Em7 / |repeat
Here's another one:
Dm7 / / / | / / G7 / |repeat
Here is a typical modal vamp that sets up a modal feeling of E phrygian:
Em7 / / / | / / Fmaj7 / |repeat
Here's another one:
Em7 / / / | / / Dm7 / |repeat
Here is a typical modal vamp that sets up a modal feeling of F lydian:
F / G / | F / G / |repeat
Here is a typical modal vamp that sets up a modal feeling of G mixolydian:
G / F / | G / F / |repeat
Here's another one:
G7 / / / | / / Dm7 / | repeat
Here is a typical modal vamp that sets up a modal feeling of A aeolian:
Am7 / / / | / / Dm7 / | repeat
or
Am7 / / / | / / Fmaj7 / | repeat
Vamping on B locrian doesn't really work the same way. This is because
the tonic chord in locrian is a dim triad or a m7b5 chord. These chords
do not feel like a home chord because they have a dim 5th rather than a
perf 5th. The acoustical root of Bdim and of Bm7b5 is actually G.
But here's a locrian vamp anyway:
Bm7b5 / / / | / / Am / |repeat
[Notice how even with the emphasis on the Bm7b5 chord the music feels
like the tonal center is on the Am chord, not the chord with B as its root.
We can set up modal vamps for the modal scales derived from mel min,
harm min, and harm maj too:
C mel min:
Cm6 / / / | / / Dm6 / | repeat
D dor b2
Dm7 / / / | / / Cm6 / / |repeat
or
Dm7 / / / | / / Ebmaj7#5 / | repeat
Eb lyd aug
Ebmaj7#5 / / / | / / Dm7 / | repeat
F lyd b7
F7 / / / | / / G7 / | repeat
G mix b6
G7 / / / | / / F7 / |
A loc #2 (Again...m7b5 chords don't really feel like "home".)
Am7b5 / / / | / / G7 / |
B super loc
This scale is not normally used on Bm7b5 and trying to set up a
superlocrian modal vamp has lots of problems.
The 7th mode of mel min is usually used as what is called the "altered
dominant" scale. It is used as in a chord-scale relationship on Dom7#5
chords or Dom7b5 chords.
The following vamp is in the key of E minor, but it is a harmonic
setting in which the 7th mode of C mel minor is a cool sound.
(C mel min fr B)
B alt dom E mel min
B7#5(#9) / / / |Em6 / / / |repeat
etc.
shawroom_1...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> I am recently taking music lesson from my guitar teacher. I already
> know basic interval, chord construction, definitions of different modes
> that kind of stuff. We are now working on progressions for different
> modes, for example, last lesson he talked about how in the key of D,
> the progression
>
> D/C is a I / bVII progression in D mixolydian mode,
> D/C/G can be viewed as a I / bVII / VI in D mixo mode, rather than a V
> / IV / I progression in Key of G maj. ( I still don't understand the
> difference, seems identical to me ).
Those 3 chords can be manipulated to sound like they are in several
keys, some of them with a modal flavor. The harmonic rhythm will often
be the deciding factor. Sometimes it's the melody though. Sometimes it's
due to obvious familiar Tonal cadences.
Blues tonality involves mixing major and minor key material especially
within a primarily major piece.
In the key of D major, a C chord can often be seen as being derived from
the parallel minor key via means of the D nat min scale. This is often
done for a bluesy effect.
> I wonder if anyone can recommended and text or material on the net for
> me to go further in that direction ( progression in different modes) ,
> possibly with elaborated sessions on theory, examples and appliation.
> I've checked out some book in amazon and google, but either they are
> too basic, or written for another area which has only 10 pages or so on
> written this subject ( which I have already read ).
>
> Thank you.
>
> Al
>
> _you know what to remove to reply!
--
Joey Goldstein
http://www.joeygoldstein.com
joegold AT sympatico DOT ca
Joey Goldstein
Check out the free excerpts form my book from Chapters 11 and 13.
<http://members.tripod.com/joey_goldstein/JGM/jgm.htm>
Also check out Mick Goodrick's book: The Advancing Guitarist.
Orlando Enrique Fiol
>Well, the thing is, that in order for music to sound like it's in a mode
>rather than in a key it needs, generally, to keep the extent of any
>harmonic progression to a minimum.
>When harmonic progression becomes more elaborate, categorizing the music
>as being "modal" becomes less and less tenable.
I'm sure that four centuries of polyphonic composers would have been
dismayed to read this. Of course, modal music can be quite modally
active. Machaut, Dufay, Binchois, Okeghem, Bunois, Landini and even
Olivier Messiaen bear this out.
>Modal chord progressions generally come under the heading of "vamps"
>which are repetitive sequences of chords, with usually only 2 or 3
>chords involved, that circle about the tonic (for want of a better word)
> of the mode and the tonic chord associated with the mode.
This thinking is what has killed modern jazz. Have fun!
Orlando
Charlton Wilbur
JG> Well, the thing is, that in order for music to sound like it's
JG> in a mode rather than in a key it needs, generally, to keep
JG> the extent of any harmonic progression to a minimum. When
JG> harmonic progression becomes more elaborate, categorizing the
JG> music as being "modal" becomes less and less tenable.
Oh really?
I refer you to the works of one Carlo Gesualdo as a stunning
counterexample -- highly chromatic, full of harmonic progressions to
all sorts of bizarre places, and yet irrefutably modal. Further
counterexamples can be found in all sorts of music between about 1200
and about 1600; you can't swing a cat in a music library without
hitting several.
It sounds like you're looking at modality as a weird flavor of
tonality, rather than a thing all its own, which leads you to make
absurd statements like that one; or, alternately, you're looking at
modality as a subset/"primitive" form of major-minor tonality, when in
actuality both modality and major-minor tonality are ways of
addressing large-scale pitch organization.
Charlton
--
cwilbur at chromatico dot net
cwilbur at mac dot com
Joey Goldstein
Orlando Enrique Fiol wrote:
>
> nos...@nowhere.net wrote:
> >Well, the thing is, that in order for music to sound like it's in a mode
> >rather than in a key it needs, generally, to keep the extent of any
> >harmonic progression to a minimum.
> >When harmonic progression becomes more elaborate, categorizing the music
> >as being "modal" becomes less and less tenable.
>
> I'm sure that four centuries of polyphonic composers would have been
> dismayed to read this. Of course, modal music can be quite modally
> active. Machaut, Dufay, Binchois, Okeghem, Bunois, Landini and even
> Olivier Messiaen bear this out.
I did not realize that these composers where involved with progressions
of chords. My understanding is that they were dealing with counterpoint
and that any chords that occured were simply artifacts of the individual
lines. Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong about this. I don't claim to
know anything about this era of European music.
> >Modal chord progressions generally come under the heading of "vamps"
> >which are repetitive sequences of chords, with usually only 2 or 3
> >chords involved, that circle about the tonic (for want of a better word)
> > of the mode and the tonic chord associated with the mode.
>
> This thinking is what has killed modern jazz. Have fun!
Bullshit. Modern jazz is alive and well and thriving. When and if it
does involve extended modal vamps it can be quite interesting, in the
right hands. In the wrong hands, not so interesting. But that's true of
all techniques in music.
And I'm not trying to make a case here that people should be playing
modal vamps all the time anyways. All I'm doing is stating what they
are. Sheesh. You're a real trip man.
Joey Goldstein
Charlton Wilbur wrote:
>
> >>>>> "JG" == Joey Goldstein <nos...@nowhere.net> writes:
>
> JG> Well, the thing is, that in order for music to sound like it's
> JG> in a mode rather than in a key it needs, generally, to keep
> JG> the extent of any harmonic progression to a minimum. When
> JG> harmonic progression becomes more elaborate, categorizing the
> JG> music as being "modal" becomes less and less tenable.
>
> Oh really?
Yes, really.
> I refer you to the works of one Carlo Gesualdo as a stunning
> counterexample -- highly chromatic, full of harmonic progressions to
> all sorts of bizarre places, and yet irrefutably modal.
Really? As I said to Orlando:
I did not realize that these composers where involved with progressions
of chords. My understanding is that they were dealing with counterpoint
and that any chords that occured were simply artifacts of the individual
lines. Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong about this. I don't claim to
know anything about this era of European music.
So, can you point me to some harmonic analyses (in typical Roman numeral
notation) of some Medieval modal pieces?
Isn't this type of Roman numeral analysis predicated on the concept of
"key" where there is a tonic as well as a major or minor triad
associated with that tonic?
If we can apply Roman numeral style Tonal analysis techniques on modal
music then what is the actual distinction between modal music and Tonal music?
> Further
> counterexamples can be found in all sorts of music between about 1200
> and about 1600; you can't swing a cat in a music library without
> hitting several.
>
> It sounds like you're looking at modality as a weird flavor of
> tonality,
In today's music that's pretty much what it amounts to.
I have not studied any Medieval music so I could not really say what
techniques were involved in defining the modal character of that music.
> rather than a thing all its own,
It's both, actually, depending on what era you're talking about and/or
which piece(s).
> which leads you to make
> absurd statements like that one; or, alternately, you're looking at
> modality as a subset/"primitive" form of major-minor tonality,
That's not a subset of a "weird flavor of tonality", it's another way of
saying the same thing. And, it's only "weird" if you're unfamiliar with it.
> when in
> actuality both modality and major-minor tonality are ways of
> addressing large-scale pitch organization.
Yes, they can both be "ways of addressing large-scale pitch
organization" but not of addressing large scale *harmonic* organization.
If I'm wrong about the role of chords in modal music music then please
convince me by writing me out a 16 bar chord progression in dorian mode
(or any other mode) that uses at least 5 or 6 distinct, recognisable and
*nameable* chords. Chord symbols or Roman numeral analysis, with textual
notation of the voicings if you like, would be fine.
Charlton Wilbur
>> I refer you to the works of one Carlo Gesualdo as a stunning
>> counterexample -- highly chromatic, full of harmonic
>> progressions to all sorts of bizarre places, and yet
>> irrefutably modal.
JG> Really? As I said to Orlando: I did not realize that these
JG> composers where involved with progressions of chords. My
JG> understanding is that they were dealing with counterpoint and
JG> that any chords that occured were simply artifacts of the
JG> individual lines. Forgive my ignorance if I'm wrong about
JG> this. I don't claim to know anything about this era of
JG> European music.
Hell, *BACH* deals with counterpoint, and any chords that occur are
artifacts of the individual lines. Or at least you can analyze it
that way; it's anybody's guess how Bach was really thinking.
Harmony is what you see when you look at the vertical dimension.
Counterpoint is what you see when you look at the horizontal
dimension. Most music worth bothering with is interesting in both
dimensions.
JG> So, can you point me to some harmonic analyses (in typical
JG> Roman numeral notation) of some Medieval modal pieces? Isn't
JG> this type of Roman numeral analysis predicated on the concept
JG> of "key" where there is a tonic as well as a major or minor
JG> triad associated with that tonic? If we can apply Roman
JG> numeral style Tonal analysis techniques on modal music then
JG> what is the actual distinction between modal music and Tonal
JG> music?
Roman-numeral harmonic analysis isn't that useful in pre-1600 music,
but you can find some attempts in _The Music Forum_; there are a
number of Schenkerians who have tried to wrangle pre-tonal music into
a tonal form. There are also some interesting attempts in _Tonal
Structures in Early Music_, although they use "tonal" in a broader
meaning than major-minor tonality. In particular, the concepts of
hierarchy are different, and so trying to force modal structures into
the sort of orthodoxy that Roman numeral analysis requires doesn't
work too well.
>> It sounds like you're looking at modality as a weird flavor of
>> tonality,
JG> In today's music that's pretty much what it amounts to. I
JG> have not studied any Medieval music so I could not really say
JG> what techniques were involved in defining the modal character
JG> of that music.
Then for @#$% sake PLEASE refrain from talking about modality as if
major and minor scales with occasional wrong notes was all it amounted to!
JG> If I'm wrong about the role of chords in modal music music
JG> then please convince me by writing me out a 16 bar chord
JG> progression in dorian mode (or any other mode) that uses at
JG> least 5 or 6 distinct, recognisable and *nameable*
JG> chords. Chord symbols or Roman numeral analysis, with textual
JG> notation of the voicings if you like, would be fine.
Go look up some Gesualdo. You'll learn a *lot* more about modal music
that way than by trying to force it into a 16-bar straightjacket.
Or hell, Lori Burns wrote a fantastic analysis of the modal roots of
Bach chorales as her doctoral dissertation. If anything can open your
eyes, that will.
Joey Goldstein
Look people....
I was responding to someone who was obviously more interested in modern
notions of the way modal scales are used in jazz and popular music as
opposed to Medieval modal compositional practices.
I am well aware that these modern notions have little, if anything, to
do with music written with true modal techniques and customs. I readily
admit to being completely ignorant of these techniques and customs. If,
and when, I feel that *I* want to know more about that stuff then I will
go and study it.
"Then for @#$% sake PLEASE refrain from talking about modality as if
major and minor scales with occasional wrong notes was all it amounted to!"
I suppose that from your perspective that's the way that modern jazz
players using the modal concepts that I tend to discuss here, and the
associated terminology, must seem like we're doing. I tend to think it
goes, or can go, a bit deeper than that. Just be aware that most of the
time when I'm talking about modal scales or modal tonal centers, as
conceived of by contemporay jazz musicians and educators, I'm *not*
talking about the classical modal tradition.
And as soon as I see a classical Tonal analysis book that has ways of
describing, in terms that don't mention the word "mode", the things that
go on in a blues or in a tune like So What, then I'll probably adopt
that terminology... because arguing with you guys all the time about
this crap is really tired.