Why Does This Smell like BS?

[AROIOS]

Just came across this video about modal interchange and it sounded like BS.
 

At 1:09, the author "borrowed a iim7b5 from C Aeolian" and inserted it in front of Imaj7. I'm like "by that logic, why didn't you pick II7 from C Lydian? It'll surely sound like shit."
 

To me, it's obvious that iim7b5 worked in that context simply because of voice leading, not some random "borrowing from parallel modes".
 

Similarly, at 1:40 he "borrowed bVII from C Aeolian" and put it before IVmaj7. But that's just plagal cadence and has nothing to do with the sound of C Aerolian.
 

It appears to me that this theory only seemed to work occasionally because it sometimes results in voice leading or functional harmony. But that's purely by coincidence, and has nothing to do with modes themselves.
 

Do you know of any chord progressions that truly depend on modal interchange, and can't be simply explained by the usual suspects like functional harmony, voice leading or chromatic motion?
 

 

[Docbop]

I just listened the the first bit and it sound right to me.  Basically borrowing a chord from a Parallel Key.   So if you're writing a tune in C major and you use some chords from C minor.   So Parallel Keys is just a theoretical way to explain using non-diatonic chords. 

 

 

 

[analogika]

Well that’s the point: modal interchange gives you options and ideas to come up with leading notes that wouldn’t exist in plain diatonic harmony. 
 

Two songs that absolutely depend upon modal interchange: 

 

Pop context: “American Boy” by Estelle. 
(ionic I, bVI of the aeolian, IV of the mixo, bII of the phrygian scale)

 

Jazz context: “Beatrice” by Sam Rivers. 
(interchanges mostly chords from the phrygian and mixolydian with ionic scale chords, and throws in a single “traditional” IIm-V7-I progression at one point.)

 

I LOVE the harmonies in “Beatrice”. 

[KuruPrionz]

Rules are made to be broken. What if Miles or Coltrane had simply stuck to all previous classical rules of music?

What are we to do with music from India, where there are 16+ variations on the correct notes in an octave "scale"?

Blues? If one listens carefully there are lots of blues inflections that simply cannot be played on a piano. Vocals, guitar etc. can cover these. 

 

European classical traditions are fine for European classical traditionalists. They don't always work for music. 

[confidence]

I think you're basically right. A Dm7b5 chord in C major is just a chromatic alteration of II7. That could be inspired by a voice leading process involving the Ab or an expressive desire for the sound of the chromaticism. Apart from anything else, the Ab doesn't in itself put the mode into C aeolian. It could equally be C harmonic minor, since no B or Bb is present to tell you which.

 

It's not that the modal explanation is wrong as such, just that it's unnecessary and doesn't add anything of value. The point of technical explanations of musical processes should always be to explain as much as possible as succinctly as possible, so your brain isn't crowded with unnecessary technicalities but has a firm grasp of basic structure around which to think about rhythm, expression, improvising etc.

[AROIOS]

3 hours ago, analogika said:

Well that’s the point: modal interchange gives you options and ideas to come up with leading notes that wouldn’t exist in plain diatonic harmony. 
 

Two songs that absolutely depend upon modal interchange: 

 

Pop context: “American Boy” by Estelle. 
(ionic I, bVI of the aeolian, IV of the mixo, bII of the phrygian scale)...

Assuming we are talking about the Imaj7-bVImaj7-ivm7-bVII9sus4 (or Emaj7-Cmaj7-Am7-D9sus4) progression in "American Boy"; instead of seeing it as borrowing chords from a parallel Aeolian, I hear it simply as using a common tone (B, or 5th of E) to modulate from Imaj7 in E to IVmaj7-iim7-V9sus4 in G.
 

This view of common tone and modulation gives me a lot more freedom. For example, I can apply it to the progression above with a different common tone (G#, or 3rd of E) , and immediately get a new progression that modulates from Imaj7 in E to IVmaj7-iim7-V9sus4 in G# (see chart below).

Good luck finding a mode of E to explain why this new progression works.

[AROIOS]

18 minutes ago, confidence said:

...

It's not that the modal explanation is wrong as such, just that it's unnecessary and doesn't add anything of value. The point of technical explanations of musical processes should always be to explain as much as possible as succinctly as possible, so your brain isn't crowded with unnecessary technicalities but has a firm grasp of basic structure around which to think about rhythm, expression, improvising etc.

You spoke my mind. It seemed much more "descriptive" than "prescriptive". In other words, it offers an angle to look at connections, but doesn't provide much utility in generating good-sounding new connections beyond the few cliché.

[Al Quinn]

8 hours ago, AROIOS said:

At 1:09, the author "borrowed a iim7b5 from C Aeolian" and inserted it in front of Imaj7. I'm like "by that logic, why didn't you pick II7 from C Lydian? It'll surely sound like shit."

 

That's an interesting perspective. I think it suggests that theory is useful for creating music. In other words, that theory leads to the music. Please correct me if my understanding is off.

 

For what it's worth, my perspective is the exact opposite. I see theory as an academic exercise to explain music that already exists. It's fun and interesting but of limited use when creating music. For creating music I prefer to not consider theory at all and, rather, just rely on my ears to guide me. This approach opens up a world of free exploration where we'll all find different things we like based on our preferences. As I learned somewhere along the line, using theory to create music puts the composer or improvisor at a disadvantage because it can put them in a box and limit their creativity. When I attended Chick Corea's online workshop he really drove this point home. He made it very clear that he was an explorer and not an academic. I don't know for sure but I suspect the Beatles used their ears rather than theory to create their incredible body of work. 

 

From my perspective the video you posted makes sense.

[Reezekeys]

I'm in complete agreement with Al.

 

I learned the basic scale-tone chords and modes as a teen and never went much further. I can't miss what I don't know, so maybe I'd be a better player if I understood all of the terminology that, to me, sounds more like buzzwords made up by academics to give them employment opportunities.

 

I remember a course in college where we were studying the Bach chorales. We were taught the "rules": e.g., "no parallel fifths", etc. Then the teacher proceeded to showcase chorales where Bach "broke" these rules, explaining that this was the reason why these pieces of music are considered to be among the greatest in the western music canon! However, when we turned in our assignments – composing our own four part chorales – we were not allowed to "break the rules."

[ProfD]

31 minutes ago, Reezekeys said:

I can't miss what I don't know, so maybe I'd be a better player if I understood all of the terminology that, to me, sounds more like buzzwords made up by academics to give them employment opportunities.

Your ears have insured that you will always be able to find a gig.😉 

 

If you retire from gigging, you may need to dust off the books and  brush up on the buzzwords if there is a desire to enter academia and teach the BS.🤣😎

[Jon E]

53 minutes ago, Reezekeys said:

 sounds more like buzzwords made up by academics to give them employment opportunities.

Some of us never had any training or theoretical insight at all. Those who have spent efforts in college or unversities to get a formal foundation have planned and hope to get be a professional. No blame to them.

[KuruPrionz]

9 minutes ago, Jon E said:

Some of us never had any training or theoretical insight at all. Those who have spent efforts in college or unversities to get a formal foundation have planned and hope to get be a professional. No blame to them.

If your goal is to teach the "correct" way to play traditional European classical music, then yes a formal education is an essential process to get there. 

If your goal is to play modern music you might be better off listening to John Coltrane and John Lee Hooker and learning "the notes that are wrong." 

[ProfD]

1 minute ago, KuruPrionz said:

If your goal is to play modern music you might be better off listening to John Coltrane and John Lee Hooker and learning "the notes that are wrong." 

Even better would be listening to modern music and playing with the *right* musicians.😉😎

[jerrythek]

I am a college-graduated musician, with a BA in Jazz Studies. But back when I went to school (1973-1977) so many of these terms for analysis weren't codified yet. So I (like Reeze and Al) know a lot of these things from sound, and exploration, but not these IMHO overly-technical and theoretical presentations. I generally hate "rules"... practices, or approaches are OK, but I don't like to use formulas to come up with ideas.

 

Not to change the topic (too much), but for example, often when I watch Barry Harris teaching videos I am bothered by how rigid the concepts are... teaching lines to play over chord changes, and watching him call out numbered examples to use grates on my psyche... I get that you want to start somewhere, but any method that gets too rigid just bugs me.

 

Back on topic: So these analysis lessons are OK to try to "justify" why a choice was made, but I don't think the original artist approached it by a rule. I think they tried ideas and colors and chose something they liked.

[jerrythek]

6 minutes ago, ProfD said:

8 minutes ago, KuruPrionz said:

If your goal is to play modern music you might be better off listening to John Coltrane and John Lee Hooker and learning "the notes that are wrong." 

Even better would be listening to modern music and playing with the *right* musicians.😉😎

+1 

 

For modern music I would be listening and learning from modern musicians. I don't hear a lot of Coltrane and Hooker in the playing/writing of Snarky Puppy, Jesus Molina, or Hiromi, to pick just three examples. But I do think any player SHOULD check out and learn from Coltrane, Hooker and others. It just won't get you to sound modern...

[Docbop]

When it comes to chords I always remind myself of Kenny Werner talk on chords and his "any chord can go to any other chord.   if you voice lead it right".        I've seen a number of videos of Kenny giving this talk and the crazy chord progression asking random people for a root, or type, and colors.    People catch on and try to give him insane looking root movements, but Kenny always make them work.      So theory wise the random progression make no theoretical sense, but they sound good.   So theory is just some label made up after someone else created the sound. 

 

This is one of those videos I could find on YT.   

 

 

[jerrythek]

1 minute ago, Docbop said:

When it comes to chords I always remind myself of Kenny Werner talk on chords and his "any chord can go to any other chord.   if you voice lead it right".        I've seen a number of videos of Kenny giving this talk and the crazy chord progression asking random people for a root, or type, and colors.    People catch on and try to give him insane looking root movements, but Kenny always make them work.      So theory wise the random progression make no theoretical sense, but they sound good.   So theory is just some label made up after someone else created the sound. 

 

This is one of those videos I could find on YT.   

 

 

Exactly! Thank you for this.

[ProfD]

When listening to modern music, by extension one is hearing a consolidation of the musicians that came before them. 

 

At some point, musicians have to get their heads out of the books and get that azz to the nearest woodshed, jam session or bandstand. 

 

There could be some ego-bruising  and/or humbling in the learning process especially when playing with *better* musicians. 

 

But, hopefully, after enough musical azz whuppings, a musician will emerge with a better understanding of how notes, chords and rhythm all ties together.😎

[Reezekeys]

What I wish I had studied in college was arranging and orchestration. These are practical skills that can help a musician earn money. College is a great environment for this kind of work. I went to City College of New York for a few semesters and got to do some big band writing - and we had a damn good big band with some folks that already had serious real-world experience.

 

As for Barry Harris - at the risk of exposing my ignorance, well... love his playing, but couldn't get through a few minutes of his teachings. Nothing bad about it, it's just over my head - and I got the sense it was geared towards playing bebop piano. Those influences will always be with me as I listened to Barry, Bud, Red Garland, Wynton Kelly, etc. - but in the 21st century, studying how to play like that? I don't get it - but I'll admit there's a lot of stuff I don't get!

[MathOfInsects]

I didn't watch the video, modal interchange is a pretty common topic. I can't say I think about theory that way, but I know lots of guitar players who do. I think it's more native to guitar than piano. (I first encountered it from a guitarist who I was teaching piano to.)

 

I think it's more often used to go a little "outside" while soloing, but he was using it to get new ideas for writing basic harmony to. It let him think of some chords he wouldn't normally have thought to put in a tune. My gut response was resting-WTF brain, but when he made his chart and lined the chords up, I had to admit it resulted in some cool ideas.

I would never write that way or even think of it that way, but you never know what people's way in is going to be. Plus it is always helpful to hear how other people think about music/harmony/sound. I don't consider it BS, it's just a different way of describing or conceiving harmony. 

[ProfD]

12 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

Plus it is always helpful to hear how other people think about music/harmony/sound.

Yep.  It's a great discussion to have over an instrument and/or listening to a recording instead of in the abstract. 

 

The Kama Sutra could be a great book.  Since the beginning of time, folks have found a partner and gotten straight to the good part.🤣😎

[Docbop]

9 minutes ago, ProfD said:

Yep.  It's a great discussion to have over an instrument and/or listening to a recording instead of in the abstract. 

 

The Kama Sutra could be a great book.  Since the beginning of time, folks have found a partner and gotten straight to the good part.🤣😎

LOL

 

Reminds me of my Improv teacher in music school kind of one of those "Whiplash" type teachers, but he was alway real funny doing it.    So there was this one student in my improv class that no matter what the topic he would have to make some comment along the lines of....  I was reading in <magazine du jour>  all about this or that.   The student was very good, but seem to read every article on improv.    One day the teacher final had with this guy and tore into him....   You know improv is kinda like "f&ckin" you can read all the books you want to about it, but you don't know what its like until you actually do it!!!!   Now quit reading and start playing!!!!

 

 

Same teacher another student a trumpet player who thought he was the hot shit, but obviously did a lot of noodling and not a lot of practicing.    Teacher final had it with him and says.....    You know there ain't no MF fairy godmother that's going to come beat the shit out of you with a magic wand and poof you sound like Miles Davis, you have to practice!!!

 

[KuruPrionz]

30 minutes ago, ProfD said:

When listening to modern music, by extension one is hearing a consolidation of the musicians that came before them. 

 

At some point, musicians have to get their heads out of the books and get that azz to the nearest woodshed, jam session or bandstand. 

 

There could be some ego-bruising  and/or humbling in the learning process especially when playing with *better* musicians. 

 

But, hopefully, after enough musical azz whuppings, a musician will emerge with a better understanding of how notes, chords and rhythm all ties together.😎

True, but modern music does not mean "currently current music" to me, it means an evolutionary process of change - essentially enlarging the palette of tones to include sounds that the European composers were not using. A properly tuned piano will play only the notes of the European tempered scale, nothing more. Modern electronic keyboards can play any and all incremental pitch shifts in between the notes of the tempered scale. The violin family of instruments has always been able to play any pitch but traditional teaching has guided it to traditional musics. I would include Billie Holiday as an important proponent of "modern" styles. Those "flat" notes she sang were absolutely intentional and correct for the melodies she was creating. To be honest, I've never heard Snarky Puppy but I would assume that they've continued to evolve and develop modern music (as opposed to adhering to traditional European classical standards). American music is a "melting pot" similar to American society in that the influences are world-wide. Regarding getting out and playing, we are all influenced by music we've heard since our childhood, prior to taking up music as our chosen art form and starting to learn an instrument. By the time I stared playing guitar, I'd heard a huge variety of different American musics and my brother began bringing home records that were as far off the beaten path as he could find - Turkish village music, musics from various parts of Africa, Tibetan monks chanting, Pharaoh Sanders and John Coltrane live in Seattle, Bitches Brew, etc. I didn't want to write a book so I kept my thoughts simple. Snarky Puppy and others are standing on the shoulders of giants. Not dissing them in any way, that's how humans evolve in their creativity. Finally, I've done my time in the trenches. LOTS of gigging in a wide variety of popular American genres. I'm not a jazz musician, I love to listen to jazz but I don't play it. One can declare that the music forms that I play and love are essentially simple but the Devil is in the details. In a "simple" blues scale on a guitar, the third and seventh are important expressions, there is a range of micro-tones in both of those notes that can be subtle or not but without them expression is lost. We are all different, we all hear music differently, I can only stand on my own ground and appreciate the other approaches. Cheers, Kuru

[MathOfInsects]

1 hour ago, ProfD said:

Yep.  It's a great discussion to have over an instrument and/or listening to a recording instead of in the abstract. 

 

The Kama Sutra could be a great book.  Since the beginning of time, folks have found a partner and gotten straight to the good part.🤣😎

The original "modal interchange."

[analogika]

7 hours ago, AROIOS said:

Assuming we are talking about the Imaj7-bVImaj7-ivm7-bVII9sus4 (or Emaj7-Cmaj7-Am7-D9sus4) progression in "American Boy"; instead of seeing it as borrowing chords from a parallel Aeolian, I hear it simply as using a common tone (B, or 5th of E) to modulate from Imaj7 in E to IVmaj7-iim7-V9sus4 in G.

 

Hang on. 

 

The fourth chord is not a D9 sus 4. The synth bassline does pass through the D, but the chord played by the guitar is a plain Fmaj7 - F E A C E.  There's definitely no G in there. 

 

7 hours ago, AROIOS said:

This view of common tone and modulation gives me a lot more freedom. For example, I can apply it to the progression above with a different common tone (G#, or 3rd of E) , and immediately get a new progression that modulates from Imaj7 in E to IVmaj7-iim7-V9sus4 in G# (see chart below).

Good luck finding a mode of E to explain why this new progression works.

 

My point was not that it isn't possible to come up with interesting progressions without modal interchange. 

My point was also not that modal interchange is a necessary tool to explain why weird non-diatonic shit works. 

 

What I literally said in my first paragraph was "modal interchange gives you options and ideas to come up with leading notes that wouldn’t exist in plain diatonic harmony." 

It's a CREATIVE tool, not so much an analysis tool. 

And there are examples where it was clearly used to come up with a structure, such as Sam Rivers' "Beatrice". If you're not familiar, here it is in its Real Book incarnation: 

 

Oddly, the Dmaj7 in the fourth bar of the third line is noted as "D-7" in some other fake books. Which is it? 
Well, when I was prepping a general overview of modal interchange options for a handout, it hit me that "Beatrice" sticks exclusively to options from that chart. And in that chart, the Dmaj7 actually isn't available in any of the modes — only the Dm7 is (and in addition, the minor is also implied by the E half-diminished relative II of that II—>V—>I).

 

Here is the chart of "Beatrice" in terms of modal interchange chords:
 

 

So it seems obvious that Sam Rivers actually used modal interchange to come up with the chord structure. 

 

Of course, this realisation really isn't new — it's the origin story of modal jazz. 

[analogika]

8 hours ago, confidence said:

I think you're basically right. A Dm7b5 chord in C major is just a chromatic alteration of II7.

 

Disagree here. I mean, it CAN be, but I'm one of those guys who's really unhappy calling half-dimished chord a "m7b5", which implies a simple alteration, and would always write it as "∅" — because the chords actually have completely different implications, to my ear: 

A minor 7 is either a IIm7 to a major tonic, or a VIm7, or a IIIm7.

The half-dimished chord is a II that implies a minor tonic. Resolving that to a major tonic is an unexpected release not dissimilar to a Picardy third, where a piece written in a minor tonic unexpectedly resolves to a major chord. 

But this gets into using theory to explain why something works and feels the way it does, an approach to music that is apparently frowned upon, here. 😜

[stoken6]

32 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

The original "modal interchange."

Tonight, I want to try "Congress of the jazz-fusion musician".

 

Cheers, Mike

[AROIOS]

2 hours ago, Reezekeys said:

What I wish I had studied in college was arranging and orchestration. These are practical skills that can help a musician earn money...

Arranging has always been my top interest. But it seems to be the one area in music where academics and book publishing are seriously lagging behind (besides the well established styles in Classical and Jazz).
 

I understand that popular music (e.g. AOR, Urban, Westcoast etc) was, is, and will continue to be on the cutting edge of the business and none of the top cats had the time or incentives to educate future arrangers. But some of the stuff are almost 40 years old by now and transcription still seems to be the only option if you wanna learn their techniques.
 

ASMAC hosts regular events and seminars where some of the best arrangers share their tricks and ideas. Outside of that, transcription and self-learning still seems to be our best friend.

[MathOfInsects]

Arranging is pretty down-the-middle for most music programs.

[ProfD]

8 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

Arranging is pretty down-the-middle for most music programs.

Hopefully, it won't go down the drain as the younger generation of musicians are learning how to arrange using DAWs and watching YouTube tutorials.😎