Rhythm, Harmony, and Melody part 6 (Tonal vs. Modal)

Everybody is interested in modes. Why? Because everybody thinks they're the answer to being a great guitarist and to expressing the right feelings in songs, they think "mood=mode." But that's not the case. Why all the misinformation? I'll try to explain that here.

Centuries ago...That is not an exaggeration...Music was "modal." Pieces of music were typically written to conform to a certain "mode" or scale. That was simply the way they did it, it was a primitive version of music theory. The definition of "tonal" music is debatable. Some say tonal music started after modal music, and that modal music is in no way tonal. Another definition is that any piece of music that resolves to a note or chord, or implies that it could resolve to a note or chord, is tonal. "Resolution" is where the song feels "at home," where it feels like a strong chord that could end it sounding very nice. This resolution is named the "I" or "i." Even if the song doesn't end resolved, if it ends in a way where you can imagine a resolution, it is tonal. By that definition, modal music is only a type of tonal music. Music that does not resolve or imply any possibility of resolution is "atonal." Atonal music sounds horribly dissonant, its not meant to sound good to anybody who is not a musician. Common pop fans who hear atonal music would think it doesn't count as music. But then again, rock wouldn't have been considered music at all to common people in the middle ages, so maybe atonal music is the way of the future?

Classical composers eventually threw away most modes, they kept the major and minor scales (Ionian and Aeolian. See last lesson). They realized that by not always staying entirely diatonic, you didn't need different modes or scales, you could always change keys, add in a few "out-tones" (notes outside the scale for flavor), chromaticism (out-tones and non-diatonic chords), ect. and do whatever they've been doing for years plus much less limitation. Modal theory is very limitting because you have to conform perfectly to a scale. In modern tonal theory, you don't need to conform perfectly to a scale, you're free to do whatever you want. Remember music theory is for studying music, not for creating it...So you can imagine how frustrating it could be to hear a song that is more advanced than the music theory that exists at that time, you would have no way to study or understand how it works, no way to write a similar song because you just don't understand it.

In the late 50s and early 60s, jazz musicians began experimenting with modes. The Miles Davis album "Kind of Blue" was released in 1959, a perfect example of "modal jazz." But "modal" jazz, isn't really modal that often. Most of the time, modal jazz is just tonal music obsessed with scales. When somebody considers themself a "modal player," they are most likely a musician obsessed with scales.

Jazz eventually gave birth to "Chord-Scale Theory" or "CST." CST is especially useful to beginners who even though they understand music theory, they couldn't think about the more complex concepts of theory fast enough to use in the middle of improvisation. Unfortunately, CST would eventually start to be taught to musicians (particularly guitarists) who didn't have a great foundation in music theory yet. It is debatable whether CST is part of "music theory" or just a soloing technique for some jazz musicians. Unfortunately, many who have learned CST consider it to be all there is to music theory, they think that's how music works and that its as simple as that, scales are used to create melody over chords and that's the end of it. But they're wrong. The very, very simple basics of CST, the very vague simple understanding of it that beginners learn and often consider "enough" before learning the rest, involves learning the 7 diatonic modes I taught you in the last lesson. After learning those, CST students should go on to learn more interesting scales and more interesting ways to apply them to improvisation, until eventually they can move on to true music theory and probably eventually forget all about CST. But some musicians, particularly guitarists, didn't have this attention span, or maybe didn't have the opportunity to continue their musical education.

Guitarists who are AMAZING at their instruments...Gifted song-writers, talented composers, skilled soloists and shredders...Began spreading misinformation because they just didn't know a lot about theory. Learning theory from a pianist or a saxaphonist would be much more beneficial than learning from a guitarist. Even some extremely famous shredful guitarists, who pull off amazingly intense solos, often have very poor understandings of music theory. Books were written, and unfortunately published, often by Hal Leonard, giving horrible misinformation on modes, often based in CST or in a poor undestanding of Modal Jazz. Rumors were spreacd that guitarists like Steve Vai were "addicted to Mixolydian," and that the answer to being as good as them were to use modes.

I was once poorly informed on modes. I was complaining on a web forum when a smart fellow decided to give me an important talk. He first explained that modal theory is "nice to know." And it is. There are some very interesting songs you can write with modal theory, but you must remember: the exact same songs could be written without modal theory, it just might be a bit more difficult. Not using modal theory means you're free, you have no limits. Here is the explanation he gave me for writing modal songs:

"you want me to teach you modal theory? i'll do it right here, right now.

1) first and foremost, the resolution must be preserved. if you have the notes A B C D E F# G and the resolution is on A, then the A dorian mode is implied.

2) modal progressions are difficult to construct. this is primarily because progressions imply harmonic movement, which is so deeply rooted in tonal music, diatonic or otherwise. vamps are ideal for modes, since the harmonic movement is limited and key modal tones can be emphasized.

2.1) the more a tonic is present, the easier it will be. Amaj - Bmaj - Emaj - Amaj is decidedly tonal (in A major, rather than thinking diatonically in E major). Amaj - B7(4/2) - Emaj7/A - Amaj is far more lydian. the tonic is present in all chords (if you use the B7 chord in third inversion as indicated, you've got yourself a drone -- very difficult to break that if you're doinitrite), and the key tone of lydian, the #4 (in this case D#) is present in both B7 and Emaj7.

3) accidentals are, more or less, forbidden. in A dorian, if you flatten that F just once, it'll sound like A minor, and it'll stick in the listener's ear -- he'll no longer perceive it as dorian, even if the F# returns. he will simply perceive it as being in a minor key and treat the F# as an accidental. in traditional plainsong melodies that used modes, the dorian and aeolian required the use of leading tones (i.e. natural 7th degree) at cadences. (note that phrygian and locrian* do not -- the b2 serves as the leading tone in those modes) i would discourage this, since the practice is now so widely associated with minor keys that modality would be destroyed.

*if it were to be used

it's nice for a bit of an outside flavor. i myself am very fond of dorian. but keep in mind that anything that can be done in a modal composition can be done in tonal music, and with more freedom. and keep in mind that the modal jazz movement about a half-century ago was not theoretically modal - it simply used CST to encourage further exploration of the chord. though i urge you to remember that, aside from the modal scales/CST aspect of it, it is absolutely theoretically valid. all music is."

I'll explain each of his points in detail now. Let's look at D Dorian (see the last lesson). D Dorian is D-E-F-G-A-B-C, the same notes as the Cmajor scale or Aminor scale. What makes a difference between Cmajor and Aminor is that Cmajor resolves to the Cmajor chord, and Aminor resolves to the Aminor chord. D Dorian resolves to the Dminor chord. Let's look at what chords work in the Dorian scale:

(i)Dminor

(ii)Eminor

(III)Fmajor

(IV)Gmajor

(v)Aminor

(vi0)Bdiminished

(VII)Cmajor

They're the chords of the Cmajor scale put into a different order. In the Cmajor scale, in tonal theory, you can use whatever chord you want as long as the piece resolves to Cmajor, but in strict modal theory, you are restricted to the chords listed above. The song also MUST resolve to Dminor, no key changes, no scale or mode changes, no non-diatonic chords.

Modal music usually uses simple triads, not big chords or many extensions. So it'll be tricky to get this B in. If we use Bdiminished, the triad diatonic to this scale with the root B, it wants to lead to Cmajor, so let's not use it. If we used Gmajor, the triad with B as its 3rd, the progression will want to resolve at Gmajor, especially since the Dminor is the v of G, so let's not use that. B is the 5th of Eminor...the "ii" of Dminor...Which leads pretty well into Aminor (the v of D), because E is the v of A, so let's use Eminor. Actually, let's use Eminor7, because that puts a D in the chord. So our progression/vamp is Eminor7, Aminor/D, Dminor, or a ii-v-i in D Dorian. I don't have an instrument with me right now, so you try it out and tell me...Does it resolve to Dminor? If so, you just played your first modal vamp.

For the melody, we're going to stay entirely inside the scale (using only the notes D-E-F-G-A-B-C) with 1 exception: to make it resolve very strongly on D, at the very end of the song we'll play C# once, and then end the song on the note D. The half step movement to C# to D, of a major 7th to the octave 8, creates a strong resolution. Other than this, accidentals (notes outside of the scale) are almost forbidden.

The explanation I quoted above explains that these days, our ears woud focus too much on that 7 and the mode would no longer be percieved as that mode. Modality would be destroyed and it would not be a modal song. So you know what? I take back that last paragraph. We'll use the C (b7) instead of the C# (7), because these days our ears can percieve resolution just fine without the half step resolution. But if we use other modes/scales that have major 7ths or minor 2nds already, we should use them to create a super-strong resolution.

My friend's final paragraph explains that all music is theoretically valid. Just because the person who wrote it didn't write it using poper theory, doesn't mean we can't analyze it and understand it with proper theory. For example, let's take a song written by someone who had a very poor understanding of CST and thought you use a different mode for each chord in a song. He wrote a song with the progression Cmajor-Dmajor-Gmajor, a IV-V-I in the key of Gmajor. He thought that you're supposed to use the modes Clydian, Dmixolydian, and Gionian, which are all the same notes as the Gmajor scale. So he wrote a melody that went C, G, B, C over the Cmajor chord, D, A, F# over the Dmajor chord, and then B, D, F#, G over the Gmajor chord. We can analyze this with tonal theory. C, G, B, C is simply a Cmajor7 arpeggio. D, A, F# are also all chord tones of the Dminor chord, and the F# leads niceley into the G chord. B, D, F#, G are notes in a Gmajor7 arpeggio, and the F# leads nicely into the final, resolved note, G. So even though the composer wrote it thinking it was modal, and it isn't, we can still analyze it with tonal theory and it still works, because there's no such thing as music that "just doesn't work." If a sound is possible, you can analyze it with music theory.

Now, the 7 diatonic modes: Ionian, Dorian, Phrygian, Lydian, Mixolydian, Aeolian, and Locrian, are not the only modes. Any intervallic structure you can think of is a mode. The way people usually think of modes these days are as coming from a "parent scale." So the diatonic modes would be "the modes of the major scale." Even if this isn't entirely accurate, its helpful. So we can use scales like harmonic minor and melodic minor to create more modes.

These are the harmonic minor modes:

Here are the melodic minor modes:

I am not a modal player. Only an extremely small amount of songs I've written are strictly modal. Only an extremely small amount of songs written in modern music are modal. Much, much less than 1% in fact. But, its good to understand these concepts. Why? Well a better question is, why not? Why would you rather NOT know something? Knowledge is always good.

More on rhythm, harmony, and melody next week.